Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome to the reliable sources noticeboard. This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context.
Before posting, please check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions of the source. If after reviewing, you feel a new post is warranted, please be sure to include the following information, if available:
  • Links to past discussion of the source on this board.
  • Source. The book or web page being used as the source. For a book, include the author, title, publisher, page number, etc. For an online source, please include links. For example: [].
  • Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which the source is being used. For example: [[Article name]].
  • Content. The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports. Please supply a diff, or put the content inside block quotes. For example: <blockquote>text</blockquote>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X", but unreliable for statement "Y".

In some cases, it can also be appropriate to start a general discussion about the likelihood that statements from a particular source are reliable or unreliable. If the discussion takes the form of a request for comment, a common format for writing the RfC question can be found here. Please be sure to include examples of editing disputes that show why you are seeking comment on the source.

While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy.
Please focus your attention on the reliability of a source. This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct. Please see dispute resolution for issues other than reliability.
If you are looking for a copy of a specific source, please ask at the resource exchange board.
Additional notes:
Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240
241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250
251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260
261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270
271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280
281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290
291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300
301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310
311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320
321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330
331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340
341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350
351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360
361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370
371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380
381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390
391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400
401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410
411, 412, 413, 414, 415

RfC: Reliability of La Patilla[edit]

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.

  • This RFC has been reopened per community consensus here. --qedk (t c) 23:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is the reliability of La Patilla?

RfC relisted at 23:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC) by Cunard (talk) after reopening of RfC per community consensus. WMrapids (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment: A previous discussion was raised regarding the reliability of La Patilla. In the discussion, concerns about the reliability of La Patilla included its reposting of deprecated and blacklisted sources (including Stop the Steal, anti-immigrant articles and frequent opinion articles from WP:BREITBART, WP:EPOCHTIMES, WP:ZEROHEDGE, WP:IBTIMES and others), its heavy bias and its leadership working directly on behalf of Juan Guaidó (one user describing the outlet as "propaganda"). Those defending La Patilla said that it is one of the most popular websites in Venezuela and that though it reposts questionable sources, it does not do it often.

@NoonIcarus, Visviva, and Burrobert: Pinging users previously involved. --WMrapids (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Option 1: La Patilla is currently one of the main outlets in Venezuela, with 13 years of experience mostly as a news aggregator, and as such, a valuable resource for references in Venezuela related topics. While concerns with editorial independence have been brought up, examples of how it has been affected have not been given. Per WP:SOURCECOUNTING, examples of unreliability were uncommon, and links provided before were not representative of La Patilla's overall performance.
I really don't want to go over the details again and the previous discussion can be consulted, and I would like new editors to participate and give their feedback, but I can invite them to look after its use in articles about Venezuela, and see that in those cases there have not been concerns regarding reliability. Pinging @Kingsif, JML1148, Red-tailed hawk, and SandyGeorgia:, who also participated in the last discussion. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I have the chance, I'll put out to WP:BLUDGEON concerns pointed out in the previous RfC, as well as related ones. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please don't attempt to canvass as it seems that you have attempted to notify a user noted above in a dubious manner.--WMrapids (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[1] --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 2 Concerns have been raised over the quality of reporting decreasing since 2019 or 2020; before some cut-off date in that period, La Patilla can be considered generally reliable. After this, it is typically accurate but may present bias - sticking to the facts rather than using it as a gauge of sentiment would be wise, and editors could include in-line attributions. Obviously any of the reposts from other sources should be judged based on the reliability of the original source. There was a mention that alleged recent unreliability for coverage of politics; I don't find much credence to this, and think the allegation mistakes partisanship in a fact-checking source for "propaganda" (I won't speculate as to why). Kingsif (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The issue with placing a date on this is that La Patilla has reposted WP:RT[.]COM since at least 2013, WP:EPOCHTIMES since 2014, WP:BREITBART since 2015, WP:ZEROHEDGE since 2016 and PanAm Post since early 2018. WMrapids (talk) 05:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 3 I know I previously said I didn't want to be involved in this dispute anymore, but I feel quite strongly about this one. La Patilla has reposted articles from unreliable right-wing sources Breitbart and Epoch Times, among others. There has also been links made between La Patilla and right-wing politicians. Considering the Western sources that have been deprecated, I don't see why this shouldn't be considered unreliable. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 02:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 3 or 4: Per the previous discussion, La Patilla republishes WP:BREITBART, WP:EPOCHTIMES, WP:ZEROHEDGE, WP:IBTIMES articles, so obviously that is the audience they are catering for. NoonIcarus previously stated "Breitbart's unreliability is not as known is the Spanish speaking sphere also has to be considered", but if La Patilla were a quality source and had decent editorial staff, they would obviously not be republishing such articles like they have been doing for years. The argument that they are "one of the main outlets in Venezuela" is also a red herring since it has nothing to do with La Patilla's reliability. We can look at WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS as an example; Fox News may be "the most-watched cable network in the U.S.", but that does not make it reliable. Visviva also stated in the previous discussion "I don't really have an objection to option 3 either. I went with the more cautious choice mostly just out of concern that there might be some valuable use of this source that hasn't come to light". Looking at what this user said, there are really no examples of La Patilla being cited by reliable sources except for discussing court proceedings against the outlet. BBC News did however describe La Patilla as a "satirical website" while BBC Monitoring wrote in an article discussing Venezuelan outlets that La Patilla "churns out a barrage of pro-opposition and anti-government news items", that the outlet "has a penchant for dramatic headlines, such as 'Venezuela in its third day of paralysis and anguish due to the red blackout, with no solution in sight'" and described La Patilla as "rabidly anti-government" . Overall, much of La Patilla's content has a pretty heavy bias and it republishes articles from unreliable sources.--WMrapids (talk) 03:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC) (Edit: Adding "or 4" after content farm concerns were raised)1 -- WMrapids (talk) 04:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC) Edit: Striking in support of Option 4, after finding fact-checking article about Breitbart article reposted by La Patilla (which is still uploaded).[2] --WMrapids (talk) 06:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An edit breaking down how La Patilla is a questionable source, how it is not used by other sources and how the outlet has used fake news to promote its POV, providing the conclusion that La Patilla is an unreliable source.--WMrapids (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 3 There is quite strong evidence here of publishing content which is unusable for us, if it were a UK website, I have no doubt it would already be deprecated. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As commented in the previous discussion, the examples provided for this is either content originally posted by reliable sources or statements by foreign politicians or entities. WP:ABOUTSELF applies specially in the case of RT; hence why WP:SOURCECOUNTING was cited: a large list of links was offered, only having in common word matches, without examining reliability in depth, and the few exceptions did not prove this was systematic for the WP:GUNREL qualification. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 2 some important examples of unreliable behaviour have been brought here but a few examples are not sufficient to make it a perennial or deprecated source per WP:SOURCECOUNTING. As far as I can see from the previous conversation (uninvolved) the notability of the source has been demonstrated but few articles, if any, really investigate the topic of La Patilla unreliability and it is more about government pressure on the news site. I think the best compromise would be to add general considerations as to not be used "to substantiate exceptional claims or unsourced investigations" due to sensationalistic titles and rapid coverage. I think its mistakes are not really topic related. Accusations of partisanship have been brought forward but it is clear that La Patilla is independent and has published many articles about government and opposition scandals. Also let us remind that opinion articles are never to be used without attribution independently of the source.--ReyHahn (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How does listing examples of La Patilla reposting deprecated and blacklisted sources equate to WP:SOURCECOUNTING? Someone made the backhanded request of "Continue the discussion until it is pages long just like Fox News (23, last time I checked WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS), providing repeated instances of factual errors, and perhaps I'll concede." So, I was obliged to answer with many instances of La Patilla reposting articles from poor sources. Are we not here to review La Patilla's editorial behavior? It doesn't matter that La Patilla removes some words or phrases from the poor sources when they repost articles, La Patilla is still citing poor sources. Why would La Patilla's editorial team repost articles from poor sources for over ten years?
Here is just one example. In late-2022, La Patilla reposted the article "Maduro's regime empties prisons and sends violent criminals to the US border" from WP:BREITBART through their own editorial voice. In the article, La Patilla is asserting that the Maduro government is sending criminals to the US and that a "source, who is not authorized to talk to the media, told Breitbart Texas that the measure recalls a similar action taken by Cuban dictator Fidel Castro during the Mariel boatlift in the 1980s." However, looking at the facts surrounding the Mariel boatlift, only about 2% of the 125,000 migrants sent were estimated to be criminals, while other individuals were involved in small crimes or were formerly imprisoned political opponents. Just from this one example, we can see La Patilla pushing a false narrative, with the help of WP:BREITBART, to demonize the Maduro and Castro governments. WMrapids (talk) 05:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quick note that La Patilla withdrew a related article and that Castro did release criminals during the Mariel boatlift, offering the option between emigration and jail time.[1] Also, when I mentioned that discussions should be as long as Fox News', I did not mean they had to be artificially prolonged with a list of links, only that there such be enough community participation for that amount of time to reach the same conclusions. --NoonIcarus (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please stop the continuation of the false narrative. If you read the source, the Cuban government wanted to release “undesirables”, such as political opponents and homosexuals, not specifically criminals. As the other sources state, the majority were not “criminals” as they are normally defined. WMrapids (talk) 13:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That doesn't seem to be a reliability problem, since convicts were released regardless. The same can be said for many of the other point brought up, including calling Fidel Castro a dictator: describing the leader of a one-party state that ruled for almost 50 years is only normal. That it might be a debatable term and other sources won't use it is another matter, but it is unrelated to reliability. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You should stop using an inaccurate persuasive definition; you are "more concerned about swaying people to one side or another than expressing the unbiased facts" in an effort to avoid the truth. The truth is that the information provided by Breitbart and in turn La Patilla an extremely biased narrative that was created to push disinformation. Please stop. WMrapids (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, here is an edit showing that had said that such reports made by Breitbart and in turn La Patilla were false. WMrapids (talk) 06:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See response below. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One must differentiate between quantity and quality of instances. Citing WP:SOURCECOUNTING is not merely a count of errors or mistakes made by La Patilla but gauging the weightage and consequences of those errors. A source can make numerous minor mistakes or a few critical ones; both have implications on its reliability. But we need to determine if these mistakes form a pattern indicative of editorial negligence or if they're random anomalies. And yes WMrapids's diligence in bringing forward instances of La Patilla reposting articles from dubious sources is commendable, it doesn't automatically brand La Patilla as perennially unreliable. Every reputable news source has made editorial mistakes over the years; it's a part of journalism. What matters is how these mistakes are addressed, whether there's acknowledgment, and corrective measures taken. The fact that La Patilla withdrew a related article indicates an acknowledgment of their error. Furthermore, the characterization of Castro as a dictator or the nuances surrounding the Mariel boatlift can be considered an interpretation rather than a hard fact. Different sources have different takes on such matters. Hold journalistic outlets accountable for blatant misinformation, it's equally important to allow room for perspectives, as long as they are backed by substantial evidence. On the accusation of "swaying people," please remember that editorializing and having a point of view is a facet of many journalistic outlets. It's the readers' duty to cross-check and corroborate facts from multiple outlets. If La Patilla has indeed leaned on other sources like Breitbart without due diligence, that's concerning. But it should be seen in the larger context of their overall editorial behavior. One should not be hasty in labelling an entire organization based on isolated incidents. Regarding the note from, it indeed raises a flag against the information provided by Breitbart and subsequently La Patilla. Fact-checking organizations play a role in today's digital information age. However, relying on a singular fact-checking organization might not be enough. It would be wise to see if other fact-checking bodies or authoritative sources have reached the same conclusion. This will offer a more holistic view and ensure we aren't relying too heavily on a single source for validation. Keep journalistic outlets accountable, we must also approach such discussions with a degree of nuance, understanding the larger context and giving room for different perspectives Wilfredor (talk) 11:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 2: For La Patilla to be considered "generally unreliable" as a source, there has to be sufficient amount of evidence proving that it has been routinely publishing misinformations and asserting them as facts. Like the newspapers of records that have been deemed generally reliable by the community, a news source that has been active for over a decade like La Patilla is bound to have published some mistakes from time to time. So cherrypicking a few examples of false or misleading statements is not going to be enough and the other participants of this discussion supporting Option 3 have not provided any example whatsoever.
Also, republishing translated articles from unreliable and deprecated sources does not automatically or necessarily mean that any of the informations in those republished articles is false. Claiming that an info that happens to be in a source has to be false because that source routinely publishes misinformation is association fallacy. You are going to have to check the republished articles one by one to see if most of them actually contain misinformation to actually support this assertion. If the primary concern is over these republished articles, then we could include in the summary on WP:RSPSOURCES that "republished articles from unreliable or deprecated sources should not be used to support exceptional claims or statements of fact" especially since La Patilla always clearly indicates the respective original news source and author either near the start or at the end of those republished articles. That is why I support Option 2 for "additional considerations apply".
Furthermore, as NoonIcarus said in the previous discussion on Talk:La Patilla, this source has retracted articles and removed questionable statements before indicating at least a degree of editorial oversight.
Lastly, being biased or opinionated for politics is not really significant or relevant for assessing reliability. Most of the generally reliable newspapers of records and other sources whose editorial stances and biases have always been clear to everyone do not even have their summaries on WP:RSPSOURCES indicate that they are biased. Jacobin is much less subtle about its political bias compared to La Patilla and yet it is still considered "generally reliable" (so far anyway).
--StellarHalo (talk) 11:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Bad RfC. The OP says complaints are about reposting "anti-immigrant" or "opinion articles" or "bias". That means it's not about "Reliability of La Patilla", it's about politics of La Patilla. That's an improper basis for starting a WP:RSN RfC with banning options. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    La Patilla’s use of blacklisted and deprecated sources, in addition to its spread of false narratives (example above), is directly related to its reliability in addition to its extreme bias. WMrapids (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This brings up another important issue from the last discussion: many of the links cited as examples of unreliability were actually opinion articles. These are clearly distinguished from news articles, and as such should not be considered to weight unreliability. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Your opinion seems dubious as you are someone who wanted to remove Breitbart from being blacklisted. WMrapids (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 4. I read a dozen or so articles and a few dozen headlines, and I'm not seeing much that I'd consider trustworthy. Most of the articles were reposts, which suggests that they're a "content farm" more than a "news outlet". That they readily repost Breitbart, Epoch Times, RT, etc. should be an instant fail as far as reliability goes. If they do repost news from an otherwise reliable source, then we should use the original article, not La Patilla. Few reliable sites repost LP articles and (as mentioned above) several consider them biased or satirical, which points to their lack of a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. And, to be clear, it's not that their bias makes them unreliable, but that their bias leads to them repost fake news, rush content (and then retract it), write misleading headlines, etc.—which is what makes them unreliable. Woodroar (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC) Changed !vote to 4. Woodroar (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree with this assessment. La Patilla appears to be content farm since there is little original content provided across its articles. And yes, search through the list of WP:GREL sources and their use of La Patilla; you will find little to nothing. After reviewing "Healthline: deprecate or blacklist?", La Patilla seems to be similar to Red Ventures websites in the way that it may participate in churnalism. WMrapids (talk) 04:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where did check for these headlines again? A quick browse through its website ( will easily show plenty of articles that are original content. Here are some examples, just from today's headlines:
La Patilla is far from being a content farm at all. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Repost of EFE
  2. Repost of press release
  3. Original to LP
  4. Original to LP
  1. Original to LP
  2. Repost of a journalist's post
  3. Repost of Daily Star (United Kingdom) tabloid
  4. Repost of Agence France-Presse
As for opposition primaries, of course La Patilla will cover the process themselves as they are the opposition outlet. So yeah, the majority of what you shared that is not directly related to the opposition is just reposts from other sources. WMrapids (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Translations are not reposts, specially when original content is added. It's also interesting to see how the goalposts are moved in face of the examples. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 3. La Patilla acts as a propaganda outfit for the opposition against the Venezuelan government. Its extreme bias means we can't rely on it to provide accurate reporting. WMrapids has provided extensive documentation of its many editorial failings. As pointed out by Woodroar, its bias affects the type of content it publishes. It regularly refers to Venezuelan president Nicholas Maduro as a dictator. It published articles that supported, and sometimes encouraged, the attempted regime-change operation to install Juan Guaidó as President. One of its articles exhorted its readers to "Follow the example that Caracas gave: They confirm nightly protests against Maduro in 30 capital communities". Another is titled "Support for Maduro's departure continues to grow: 85.4% of Venezuelans want the Chavista nightmare to end now". It is currently running a campaign called #NoEsNormal against the Venezuela government, in which it tells its readers to "avoid getting used to the vices of Chavismo".
Regarding the connection between bias and reliability, there is a point at which bias does affect reliability. Even when biased sources are not found to be generally unreliable, editors have decided that the use of such sites should be attributed (see entries for the Cato Institute, CEPR, Common Sense Media etc.) There are a number of examples on the Perennial list of sources found to be unreliable, with a note that the sources' bias contributed to the rating. Some examples:
- California Globe: Editors also note the highly opinionated nature of the site as evidence against its reliability.
- The Canary: “There is consensus that The Canary is generally unreliable. Its reporting is sensationalist at times; selective reporting, a left-wing bias, and a poor distinction between editorial and news content were also noted”.
- CESNUR: “CESNUR is an apologia site for new religious movements, and thus is inherently unreliable in its core area due to conflicts of interest ".
- Epoch Times: “Most editors classify The Epoch Times as an advocacy group for the Falun Gong, and consider the publication a biased or opinionated source that frequently publishes conspiracy theories as fact”.
- The Federalist: “The Federalist is generally unreliable for facts due to its partisan nature and its promotion of conspiracy theories”.
- Heat Street: “many editors note that Heat Street does not clearly differentiate between its news articles and opinion. There is consensus that Heat Street is a partisan source ".
Burrobert (talk) 12:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yet again it is claimed that the editorial line affects the reliability, but no examples of this are given. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Burrobert's response was provided after examples were provided below which shows that La Patilla manipulates news coverage in favor of their bias (i.e. La Patilla a questionable source that has limited use by others and has promoted manipulated content). WMrapids (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not to dismiss your concerns in general, but to encourage a more nuanced perspective of bias:
If your choice of propaganda model is similar to something like Chomsky & Herman -- very popular with the young 'uns for decades don'cha know -- then you'll note from the article that such a model is dependent on a political-economic structure that is at least marginally comparable to that of the U.S.. It seems, from metrics noted at WP:VENRS, that Venezuela is currently among the least comparable countries. The point I'm making is that even if you're like me trying to resist exploding in a side rant on how overrated Chomsky is, if you're coming from the perspective of a country that has even a modicum of stability, you might consider that your paradigm of how propaganda works (like, considering the roles of power and money) may not apply neatly in this case. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
La Patilla has been a significant news source for many Venezuelans and followers of the political situation in the country. And yes some argue that the site is biased, however, is basal to remember that the media landscape in Venezuela is dominated by pro-government outlets, limiting the diversity of voices and opinions. In this context, outlets like La Patilla offer an alternative perspective not found elsewhere. Labeling La Patilla as a "propaganda outlet" is an oversimplification and doesn't take into account the wide range of articles and opinions the site presents. Like other media outlets worldwide, it has its perspective, but that doesn't necessarily discredit the validity of its reporting. Also referring to President Nicolás Maduro as a "dictator", one should consider the context. Accusations of electoral fraud, the repression of protesters, and the limitation of civil liberties have led many, not just La Patilla, to use such terminology. BTW the sources mentioned in the original comment and please remember that reliability is not a binary concept. All sources can have biases, but that doesn't inherently make them unreliable. It's the reader's responsibility to discern and contrast various sources to get a comprehensive view of any situation. But, IMHO, comparing La Patilla to other international media outlets isn't a fair comparison, as the media and political context in Venezuela is unique. Wilfredor (talk) 13:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ Peña, Susana (2013). Oye Loca: From the Mariel Boatlift to Gay Cuban Miami. University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 978-0-8166-6554-9. Archived from the original on 2 February 2021. Retrieved 13 July 2019.
  2. ^ "CPI autorizó reanudar investigación por crímenes de lesa humanidad en Venezuela (Comunicado) -". Retrieved 2023-06-28.
  3. ^ "Amnistía Internacional: Situación del espacio cívico en Venezuela ante el aumento de la represión -". Retrieved 2023-06-28.
  4. ^ "Alacrán José Brito atacó la candidatura de María Corina Machado: la primaria "está condenada al fracaso"". Retrieved 2023-06-28.
  5. ^ "Alacrán Luis Ratti pedirá a la CPI investigar a María Corina Machado, Juan Guaidó, Leopoldo López "y otros"". Retrieved 2023-06-28.
  6. ^ "Panel de Expertos de la OEA celebra reanudación de la investigación por parte de la CPI en Venezuela -". Retrieved 2023-06-28.
  7. ^ "El dramático relato de Sergio Jaramillo y Héctor Abad tras resultar heridos durante bombardeo ruso en Ucrania". Retrieved 2023-06-28.
  8. ^ "¡Impactante! Salen a la luz las primeras imágenes del submarino Titán implosionado". Retrieved 2023-06-28.
  9. ^ "Un hombre quema páginas del Corán ante mezquita en Estocolmo (Fotos) -". Retrieved 2023-06-28.
  10. ^ "Alacrán José Brito atacó la candidatura de María Corina Machado: la primaria "está condenada al fracaso"". Retrieved 2023-06-28.
  11. ^ "Freddy Superlano envía emotivo mensaje a la diáspora venezolana -". Retrieved 2023-06-28.
  12. ^ "En el comando de campaña de "Er Conde" hay más dudas que certezas (VIDEO)". Retrieved 2023-06-28.
  13. ^ "Carlos Prosperi: Queremos despolitizar las Fuerzas Armadas y reinstitucionalizar los poderes públicos en Venezuela -". Retrieved 2023-06-28.
  14. ^ "Nueva jugada: Alacranes visitan la Contraloría para desenterrar inhabilitaciones de candidatos a primaria". Retrieved 2023-06-28.
  15. ^ "Consejo Superior de la Democracia Cristiana para Venezuela emite comunicado ante elección primaria -". Retrieved 2023-06-28.
  16. ^ "Vente Venezuela en Sucre recibe el respaldo de Alianza Bravo Pueblo". Retrieved 2023-06-28.

Questionable and WP:FRINGE information examples[edit]

Here is a list of examples showing some questionable information presented by La Patilla:

This is what I've had time to place. May add more later if necessary, but this should provide a picture of La Patilla's editorial quality which promotes quantity over quality.--WMrapids (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's go through your claims of questionable info and WP:FRINGE one by one:
Also, all this focus on reposted articles from unreliable or deprecated sources is nothing more than red herring. How many of the articles from this source currently being used as citations on 313 pages HTTPS links HTTP links are actually reposted from any of the aforementioned unreliable or deprecated sources? How many of those are actually reposted from somewhere else for that matter? There are several pages of subjects related to Latin American topics currently using original articles written by La Patilla itself as citations. If anyone here wants to erase all those citations, then you will have to prove that they contain misinformations.
StellarHalo (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is astounding what you are attempting to ignore.
  • The Breitbart/La Patilla articles comparing Venezuela and Cuba are directly implying that both countries were attempting to send criminals to the United States (similar to the "weaponizing migration" charges below). For the former, the "source" was "not authorized to speak to the media" while only speaking with Breitbart (fishy) and for the latter, research has already determined that a very small percentage of Mariel boatlift migrants were criminals.
  • The fact that La Patilla published "the disease caused by the CCP virus (Chinese Communist Party)" obviously pushes the fringe theory that the CCP were involved with the creation of the virus. If we were reading a good source, we wouldn't have to worry about WP:UNDUE terms, let alone WP:FRINGE terms, but this is not the case with La Patilla as their editors republish questionable material through a poor review process.
  • Regarding the COVID-19 end date article, La Patilla is citing the Epoch Times on COVID-19 information. What reputable source would do that?
  • Humire is a dubious source of such information and often participates in fear mongering. He is an Epoch Times contributor. He was a panel host at CPAC where he pushed conspiracy theories, calling COVID-19 the "china virus" (2:55), implied that the US-Mexico border is "heading into" the condition of the Colombia-Venezuela where he says China, Iran and Russia are present (10:15) and said that "Venezuela is weaponizing migration" (18:15). The Washington Office on Latin America has said that the SFS has made claims from "unspecified" sources in the past. Much of the information appears to be hearsay or conspiracies. Whether he is an Atlantic Council commentator or not, we have to pick apart each source and he is obviously not a good one.
  • Your "red herring" charges are in fact a red herring itself, with your distraction tactic sounding like "You're showing that La Patilla is reposting questionable content from unreliable sources, but this is not related to reliability. La Patilla has previously been spread throughout Wikipedia, so we can't remove it do to its widespread use". Even if La Patilla were on every article in the project, it does not take away from the fact that it is unreliable and reposts material from other unreliable sources.
As perfectly explained above by Woodroar, La Patilla seems to be a content farm that does not fear (or have the capability to prevent) reposting unreliable content. WMrapids (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is blatantly false and can be easily proven by taken a quick look through its main page, as I explained above. There is plenty of original content, and most of its reposted content are translations from reliable sources such as AFP and Reuters (something that I also mentioned at the original discussion), while including some original text, which is common practice among newspapers. Jumping to this conclusion demonstrates carelessness in assessing the outlet's reliability. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First, please read Wikipedia:No original research. Your personal analysis of what conclusion or narrative those articles imply has no relevance to the source's reliability as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Only what the sources clearly and explicitly state themselves is relevant. The same goes for your interpretation of "CCP Virus". Second, as I mentioned in the main discussion above, you are using guilt by association to push and jump to unwarranted conclusions that info in a reposted article must be wrong, questionable, or WP:FRINGE solely based on the reputation of the original news site the article was taken from and more importantly that La Patilla routinely publishes misinformation just because some of the reposted articles originated from unreliable sources. Third, quoted speculative analyses on near future events or courses of actions by subject matter experts are used all the time by RS in articles and news broadcasts especially when those experts also happen to be specialists in the specific relevant topics of the breaking news in question. You calling those analyses "conspiracies" and "fear mongering" does not make them WP:FRINGE. Again, you are using guilt by association to dismiss the views of an academic who has a long history of being used as subject matter expert by RS rather than engaging with the substance of the speculative argument itself.
Most importantly, as I already said above, you have to prove that La Patilla routinely publishes misinformation if you want your claim of it being generally unreliable to hold any water and you have not done so. Also, and just as important, I have not gone through all the 313 pages using this source as citations but from what I have seen, vast majority of those are original articles of La Patilla rather than reposted and none of the few reposted articles being used are actually from any of the aforementioned unreliable sources. For reposted articles, it is easy to just assess the original sources they were taken from individually to determine if they should be used or simply just not use reposted articles at all like I suggested. It is quite clear that you are trying to use questionable origins of a minority of contents to dismiss the rest of the content of La Patilla wholesale. You keep focusing on the notion that reposting articles from unreliable sources affect the reliability of La Patilla's original contents without any evidence. StellarHalo (talk) 04:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The RfC process is based on users interpreting which sources should or shouldn't be used based on reliability concerns and determining a consensus on the source in question. It's not difficult to see that "the disease caused by the CCP virus" is disinformation phrasing that was either promoted or ignored by La Patilla editors, which would show unreliability in both instances. The whole purpose of WP:RS is that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources". Why would Wikipedia users find a source that uses unreliable sources reliable? This is not guilt by association if La Patilla is directly reposting articles from unreliable sources, La Patilla then becomes the unreliable source as it is not just association. Further, per WP:QUESTIONABLE, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. ... The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited."
Now we can visit WP:USEBYOTHERS, which states "How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. ... For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, whereas widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it." Already recognizing that La Patilla is a questionable source, we can visit the concerns by other users (such as @Visviva and Woodroar:) who note that La Patilla is not used by WP:GREL sources.
Lastly, let's focus on fake news promoted by La Patilla. Not only does La Patilla post questionable content from deprecated and blacklisted sources, it does so itself. For instance, during the 2014 Venezuelan protests, La Patilla published the article "Unacceptable: Repressive forces beat and arrest a special young man (Photos)" (it still hasn't been fixed after nearly 10 years), though the photographer later explained the photos saying "I'm going to be very clear about this image, I took it, and it's a GN official helping a protester to breathe" and the Associated Press stated "A Bolivarian National Guard officer holds a demonstrator’s head up to help him breathe". The conservative Spanish newspaper La Vanguardia would also write "The violinist was the latest victim of the disproportionate violence of 'the paramilitary forces of the Chavista dictatorship,' as repeated in digital opposition media such as La Patilla ... However, as at other times in this crisis, the narrative of a heroic youth massacred by the Bolivarian dictatorship does not stick to the facts", with the article further explaining that La Patilla said a tear gas canister was the cause of death while further investigation showed that a ball bearing, possibly fired by protesters, was the deadly projectile and that Reuters had photos of protesters with makeshift firearms. In another instance, El Mundo analyzed a photograph from Hurricane Irene in 2011 that was used by La Patilla show shortages in Venezuela, writing "Whether for laziness and lack of diligence when it comes to verifying the origin of the image or because of a desire for manipulation, ... the Venezuelan opposition decided to systematically use this image."
With these concerns identified, one can see that La Patilla is unreliable. WMrapids (talk) 08:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
☒N No. Three "examples" are provided to argue "fake news" promotion by La Patilla. Since I have already commented on use by others below, I'll comment on these here:
  • The article on the 2014 detention of Carlos Requena includes further evidence to demonstrate that he was beaten when arrested, including by his pro-bono lawyer defense organization director, Alfredo Romero. Requena would need to be admitted to Caracas' Military Hospital due to this reason so, not really a fake news? Besides, your link of Associated Press does not redirect to AP, but rather to an obscure local radio News Radio Kman? What the hell?
  • La Patilla does not say with an editorial voice that Armando Cañizales was killed by a tear gas canister (2017). Quite the opposite, it states that: The 17-year-old was hit [...] and caused a penetrating trauma to the neck, Cañizales went into shock and then into cardio-respiratory arrest.. The article cites witnesses regarding the tear gas canister version, which was one of the earlier versions of the death: just the week before, Juan Pablo Pernalete was killed with a tear gas cannister.
  • You neglect to mention that El Mundo's article says that the photograph from Hurricane Irene was used by dozens of Latin American outlets and even Google: A hoax that even Google itself has come to consider true. Using the image search option offered by the search engine, Google matches the image with the search terms "shortage Venezuela". While it can be cited as an example of an editorial mistake shared with a lot of other outlets, La Patilla is far from being solely responsible for its promotion, and the article would go on to be corrected: "El gobierno es el único culpable del desabastecimiento y la escasez", yet another example of editorial oversight.
If after all this time these are the best examples that can be provided on unreliable content by La Patilla, it is very telling on why it would be far from the best description for the source. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Great job on using Twitter as a source. However, Romero is not his lawyer. With the photo, KMAN is pulling the content directly from the Associated Press with the photo and caption. The fact that the reporter didn't mention abuse by authorities and reported that the National Guard was instead helping Requena proves the contrary to La Patilla's claims.
  2. La Vanguardia is much more reputable than a content farm like La Patilla. They explicitly write about La Patilla making such allegations. I'll take their word for it.
  3. If a newspaper of record source like El Mundo calls you out, of course you are going to perform a correction ASAP. Whether or not "dozens" of other sites perform poor reporting does not take away from the fact that La Patilla participated in manipulated content. Regarding the Google algorithm, it will use that image due to relevance, which El Mundo said is "thanks to the fact that the snapshot has been indexed hundreds of times erroneously in the search engine". The sites that were mentioned beside La Patilla are blogs, dubious websites and opposition platforms, with La Patilla seemingly belonging to the two latter categories.
Overall, La Patilla is WP:QUESTIONABLE due to their extreme bias, the WP:USEBYOTHERS is extremely limited to opposition-related sources and the manipulation by the website is documented. WMrapids (talk) 06:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If you look closer at the article, you'd notice that I cited Twitter because it is the same link mentioned in the article, just like it happens with the article you have provided. Both lawyers are members of Foro Penal, Requena's pro-bono legal defense organization, where Romero is the director. So yeah, potayto potahto, it still shows that the information provided by La Patilla isn't false. On the other hand, the photographer has since deleted his tweets, probably retracting from his original statement. Hence the question, why wasn't the Associated Press first cited?
  • La Vanguardia's article focuses more on the side responsible for Cañizales' death, rather than the manner, and cites Néstor Reverol for the other side of the story, Maduro's interior affairs ministry. You probably don't want to take the word from the same officials who lied about the deaths of Juan Pablo Pernalete and Fernando Albán. An independent panel of experts of the Organization of American States found the Bolivarian National Guard responsible for Cañizales' death. Again, La Patilla is not publishing false information.
  • Don't move the goalposts: several other reliable outlets committed the same mistake and La Patilla corrected it afterwards, showing editorial oversight, because even reliable sources are fallible. The Fake News Awards, created by Donald Trump, share this reasoning, seeking to discredit reliable sources for specific mistakes that would later be corrected.
Along with further proof of WP:USEBYOTHERS below, your case for deprecating La Patilla is very weak. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 4: La Patilla has republished stories taken directly from the white-supremacist website Breitbart, an already depreciated source infamous for its hiring of Neo-Nazis and its promotion of conspiracy theories. This along should be enough to have La Patilla blocked entirely from Wikipedia. I am genuinely confused how some of the editors above can see republished Neo-Nazi propaganda and choose Options 1 & 2, unless they were motivated by blind support of the Venezuelan opposition. Very embarrassing. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: I tried to include links as evidence but I could not save my changes, with a note telling me it was because wiki had blacklisted one of the URLs. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 23:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@The History Wizard of Cambridge: Dear: I kindly invite you take a look at the original discussion on the issue (Talk:La Patilla#RfC: Reliability of La Patilla). It shows that a vast majority of the examples provided for republishment are uncontroversial statements made by foreign leaders or politicians, and some of the linked examples were cited for things as small as just using a photo also used by Breitbart.. Sure, we can agree that it's preferrable for the original article to come from a reliable source, but this is not representative among tens of thousands (and maybe more) published in the span of over 13 years. There are actually several La Patilla articles where Breitbart is described as right-wing, far-right wing or partisan, as well as associated people such as Steve Bannon, and in other cases La Patilla actually offers a more impartial wording of the news. There simply hasn't been evidence in this discussion that La Patilla is republishing "Neo-Nazi propaganda"
That is the reason why it has been commented that the argument is simply a fallacy by association. If you re-examine this situation, I would really appreciate if you reconsidered your position. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The only correct number of articles republished from white supremacist and Neo Nazi propaganda outlets is zero. No ifs, no buts. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 05:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, which are the white supremacist articles and Neo Nazi propaganda published by La Patilla again? --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We can start with the anti-immigrant articles La Patilla reposted from Breitbart. This includes La Patilla's "Maduro's regime empties prisons and sends violent criminals to the US border", which reposted from Breitbart's "EXCLUSIVE: Venezuela Empties Prisons, Sends Violent Criminals to U.S. Border, Says DHS Report" (see: *breitbart*.com/border/2022/09/18/exclusive-venezuela-empties-prisons-sends-violent-criminals-to-u-s-says-dhs-report/ , hope posting this URL is ok?). This specific article was fact-checked by, which says about the reports from Breitbart and La Patilla about Venezuela sending criminals is false, concluding that "immigration experts tell us there is no evidence of that happening". So you can add that to the list of fake news spread by La Patilla... WMrapids (talk) 06:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Response regarding this can be found at the original RfC, which includes a retraction by La Patilla, and again: not "white supremacist" or "Neo Nazi" articles. This ignores the aforementioned fact that La Patilla has been critical of Breitbart, describing the outlet and related people as such. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mackensen: No, although entries and discussions can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources. WMrapids has been very insistent on labelling them as "opposition" after they were cited in a move discussion, even though they're among the main outlets in Venezuela.
Use by reliable sources outside Venezuela include but is not limited to Reuters ([3][4]), France24 ([5][6]), AFP ([7] [8]), The New York Times and the The Washington Post. --NoonIcarus (talk) 08:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, a reach. Many of the WP:GREL sources only discuss La Patilla when reporting on censorship and getting their take. You also cite some usage of tweets by sources (which were in turn La Patilla reposting from more reliable sources, not original reporting) and a blog from the NYT. WMrapids (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most of the linked sources cite La Patilla on topics unrelated to censorship, but I can provide further examples: the BBC ([9][10][11][12]), Wall Street Journal, The Guardian and The Economist. In the case of the rest of the region, we also have Semana ([13][14][15][16][17], Clarín ([18][19][20][21][22]) and La República ([23][24][25][26][27]), to mention a few. Withdrawing the argument about a "extremely limited" WP:USEBYOTHERS is always an option. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, as @Woodroar: mentioned below, the sources you provide use the "grain of salt" approach (WSJ: "La Patilla, which is critical of the government"), the majority of these are sources of quotations and not analysis (BBC 9, 12 and The Guardian, The Economist, Semana 16, Clarin 20, 21, La República 26) and some are blatant rumors from "anonymous" sources (Clarin 18, 19). A lot of these articles you list are about the same Franklin Nieves quotation from a video (BBC 12, The Guardian, Semana 16, Clarin 20). Others caution with wording like "claim" (Semana 15). The Semana article (14) citing La Patilla on medical advice is just strange and makes me question the reliability of Semana itself... Overall, this doesn't prove any valuable USEBYOTHERS. WMrapids (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We could go on for some time with this: I can keep providing examples of use by reliable sources, since you'll find they're not hard to come by, and you can continue looking for flaws, but WP:UBO is clear when saying that widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, and this is the case for most of the examples I have provided. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree. The "without comment" part of USEBYOTHERS is incredibly important and, in my opinion, is not being met here. All of the reliable sources linked above are careful to attribute claims to La Patilla—at times even mentioning that it's an opposition source. In the same way that we attribute opinions, those sources are saying "La Patilla said this, not us". That's not "without comment". Woodroar (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll offer a reply here, as the discussion was first closed before I could offer one. From what I understand, "without comment" in USEBYOTHERS refers to descriptions or labels provided to the outlet in question, such as "opposition media" or "which has been questioned for publishing false information", for example. The majority of sources quote La Patilla uncritically. I could look for articles that repost La Patilla's content, if that's what is sought, but it understandably would take me even more time to find. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The USEBYOTHERS section (including "without comment") was added after this discussion 15 years ago. There was concern that reliable sources will cite something because they consider it reliable but also because it's "extreme" or "loony tunes"—their words, not mine—so "without comment" was added to emphasize that editors need to differentiate one from the other. Yes, "descriptions or labels" can help us do that, but it was pointed out that reliable sources often don't come out and say that a quoted source is good or bad. Attribution is a giant red flag. In fact, the editor who wrote most of USEBYOTHERS specifically mentions "use with attribution, not uncommented use for facts" in that discussion. They're saying that attribution is not "without comment".
For what it's worth, attribution is also written into our policy for "biased statements" at WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Yes, that's about how Wikipedia uses attribution, not reliable sources, but it's fairly standard in most English journalism that I'm familiar with.
I hadn't noticed this before, but USEBYOTHERS focuses on "a given source". From the discussion, it seems that they're using "given source" to mean one article or even one "assertion". The editors seem to agree that reliable sources positively citing one thing doesn't mean we can use everything from that source or book or publisher. I feel like the consensus may be shifting away from that viewpoint, but I could be wrong. In any case, I found it interesting. Woodroar (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For USEBYOTHERS claims, we need to consider the context in which those sources are used. Most appear to be embedded tweets, sources of quotations, sources of images, and so on—essentially, reputable media crediting their primary sources. What's more important for USEBYOTHERS claims is when media cites facts and analysis, especially when doing so without comment. If La Patilla makes a case for something and the WaPo repeats and links to that analysis, that's positive. If the WaPo attributes that analysis to a "rebel media" outlet, that's at best neutral—they're essentially saying "take this with a grain of salt".
I mention "rebel media" because that's what the WaPo called La Patilla (and El Pitazo) in your own linked source. Two of your other linked sources labelled La Patilla as an "opposition website" (translated by Google) and "close to the opposition" (translated by Google). It's not difficult to believe that opposition sources would uncritically cite other opposition sources. Woodroar (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Woodroar: Thank you kindly for your feedback. I have put further examples above. Please let me know if I can help more with this. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC reopened and relisted[edit]

  •  Comment: Thank you very much for the ping. As an editor involved in the previous discussions, I wish to avoid weighing in, and I think the RfC would really benefit from the input of uninvolved editors, but I would like to provide a summary and some thoughts:
The main argument against La Patilla in previous discussions has been its republication of content from Breitbart, summarized as: "Breitbart publishes unreliable and false content → La Patilla has republished content from Breitbart → Therefore, La Patilla publishes unreliable and false content". The issue is that this conclusion was hotly disputed, and it was pointed out that several of the examples offered consisted in uncontroversial content (at times with reliable sources being the original author). It was argued that any description offered for an outlet with so much use (both in Venezuela and in Wikipedia, used in 316 pages HTTPS links HTTP links in the case of the latter).
I also wanted to briefly address an elephant in the room: La Patilla has been attacked by the Venezuelan government several times. It has suffered from Internet blocks ([28][29][30]), it has had reporters attacked ([31]) and has been fined US $5 million just for publishing information from another newspaper (ABC (Spain), [32]), just to mention a few. All of this has been denounced repeatedly by freedom of the press groups in Venezuela, such as IPYS Venezuela ([33][34][35]) and Espacio Público: ([36][37][38][39][40][41]), as well as international human rights organizations, such as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights ([42][43][44]) and Human Rights Watch ([45][46][47]).
In no way I want to show this as a proof of reliability, but rather I want to bring the attention to the outlet's reputation. I want to bring the question: if there are so many issues with La Patilla's reliability, shouldn't these external sources reflect that? Wouldn't their description of the outlet confirm said concerns? Media groups and NGOs would probably already have commented on this, and I'd argue that all of these complaints are proof of La Patilla's impact in the Venezuelan society and media landscape, and not just an outlet that promotes disinformation or a content farm, as it was argued at some point.
La Patilla has many other issues that have been acknowledged, but the "Additional considerations" category should be enough to reflect this, and an use with attribution and carefulness but without discouraging it should suffice to address said issues. I merely wish to invite editors to bring an outsider perspective to the issue at hand. Many thanks in advance. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Generally unreliable. This is a terrible source, of extremely limited usefulness. But deprecation is an extraordinary measure that's only justified in the most extreme cases of disruption.—S Marshall T/C 00:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Generally unreliable'/Deprecate as it appears to republish material from unusable and deprecated sources. Andre🚐 00:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment: Was also involved, but given that a user who sees La Patilla as "generally reliable" has commented, I will do so as well. Despite being one of the most popular websites in Venezuela, La Patilla is highly partisan and was directly linked to Juan Guaidó's movement to assume the presidency of Venezuela (see Venezuelan presidential crisis and Alberto Federico Ravell). Of course La Patilla it is going to be attacked by the government for its actions. But popularity and sad stories of victimhood have nothing to do with reliability. You can see my rationale above, but in summary, La Patilla has parroted stories from deprecated sources that match their agenda (a reliable editorial staff wouldn't touch deprecated sources at all, but here's a Breitbart article they reposted that was fact-checked and proven to be false), it is hardly used by other reliable sources (in 2016, six years after its founding, BBC plainly described La Patilla as a "satirical website") and the site has reported dubious content itself. In summary, La Patilla is a pro-opposition content farm/tabloid. Describing La Patilla, BBC would simply say that the site in 2019 was disseminating "a barrage of pro-opposition and anti-government news items ... [with] a penchant for dramatic headlines" and that other sites were "[l]ess rabidly anti-government". We don't need anything "rabid" on Wikipedia.--WMrapids (talk) 01:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The attacks predates Ravell's involvement with Guaidó by many years, and as I mentioned, the complaints by NGOs were put as an example of the reputation by external sources. If the reliability was so dubious, there would be way more coverage regarding it, such as in the case of Últimas Noticias. As for use by others, my last comments in the previous RfC shows its vast use by other reliable sources. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's unpack this comment here:
"the complaints by NGOs were put as an example of the reputation by external sources"
  • This is an attempt to appeal to authority. NGOs are probably more concerned about protecting free speech than covering the reliability of sources.
" If the reliability was so dubious, there would be way more coverage regarding it, such as in the case of Últimas Noticias"
  • A false equivalence here. As I will mention below, La Patilla is hardly covered by reliable sources alone, so why would its reliability be analyzed? And in some of its few descriptions by a WP:GREL, it is described as being "satirical" and "rabid", so not really providing much hope for reliability from those descriptions.
"my last comments in the previous RfC shows its vast use by other reliable sources"
  • And your last comments were dismissed. Many of the examples were discussing a single news story (La Patilla was the source of a controversial video) or, as Woodroar accurately explained, were "careful to attribute claims to La Patilla—at times even mentioning that it's an opposition source", suggesting readers to "take this with a grain of salt".
In no way am I condoning the current media situation in Venezuela, but using La Patilla on the project will not help. WMrapids (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Citing concerns raised by non-governmental organizations regarding the reputation of certain outlets is valid, as these entities, particularly those focused on press freedom, often offer deep insights into the media landscape and can provide an impartial assessment of media reliability. Additionally, if a particular source's reliability were genuinely questionable, it would likely receive more negative attention. The fact that it's referenced by other trustworthy outlets suggests that, regardless of known biases, the information it offers has been deemed useful and credible for referencing by established media. Labeling sources as "satirical" without proper context can lead to misunderstandings about their true nature. Wilfredor (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 2: Just today I cited a green news source for its citation of a deprecated news source. Why? Because a suitably reputable news outlet has accountability for material that it cites. Reading this entire thread, I've seen that La Patilla has retracted articles when held to account, and I've seen nothing posted so far suggesting La Patilla has itself fabricated information, or else deceptively tried to blur news and opinion (and note that is a very different concept from writing news with an editorial POV, which has not been disqualifying for green sources). I don't know what the landscape of news outlets in Venezuela looks like currently, but I wouldn't have a high bar for neutrality and journalistic rigor in, among other depressing metrics, the third-most corrupt country in the world. Looking at the quality of news in articles I've edited on warzones and internationally neglected areas of the world, you often have to evaluate whatever local sources you can get with a critical eye on a case-by-case basis. Echoing User:StellarHalo and others, retractions and corrections shows "at least a degree of editorial oversight", which to me is encouraging enough in the context of the region, and for lacking truly damning evidence, for Option 2 over 3. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC) Edit: Oh duh me, WP:VENRS makes essentially the same points (and in more detail) and was mentioned repeatedly in the previous RfC. Surprised it hasn't been brought up here yet. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Query: Is there an "About us" page or a page at with indications of staffing (other than David Moran) or elements of journalistic credentials anywhere? If there is, I can't find it, and that would be a nice starting place for doing my homework. It appears that David Moran is an industrial engineer; whose journalistic credentials are we relying on here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: Reports on attacks on journalists offer some insight to La Patilla's staff:
Thanks, NoonIcarus; that isn't enough to alter my statement. Also, NoonIcarus, considering the assessments below, might you re-consider your earlier assessment? Best I can tell (it's a lot to read), you are the only editor at Option 1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's alright, I mostly want to leave staff with journalistic background in this disucssion. Jesús Medina Ezaine and Román Camacho are arguably the better known ones.
I stand by that La Patilla is generally reliable for facts, in the same way that Jacobin and other sources are described. I'm well aware of its flaws, and I actually was the first editor to acknowledge the outlet's use of Breitbart in the past ([52]). Without this mention, arguably all this mess would have been avoided. This position is based on all the points I have put forward, as well as my experience of using it for referencing content. It compasses over nine years, and most of the times La Patilla has served to either help verifiability for facts or to contribute original reporting.
However, I'm also well aware that consensus will opt for Option 2 at the very least, and that fine by me too as long as there is a detailed inclusion of its considerations (some of which were already mentioned at WP:VENRS a long time ago). --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment If you really want people to participate ceasing the relentless WP:BLUDGEONing from both sides might help. Although it's probably already too late. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 07:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 3 Not the greatest of sources, although I think this should have been a discussion rather than an RFC and going straight to deprecated seems a bit ott to me.Selfstudier (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 3 I was going to try and ignore this one, but as I've been pinged I'll comment. La Patilla is a proper news organisation, so I'll take it on faith that it has a proper editorial policy , editors, professional journalists, etc. These are the checks that would be carried out on less established sources. To start it can't be "option 1", it's published articles by sources that have been deprecated, and so it at least has to be "option 2". If a reliable source republishes a deprecated source, the article republished doesn't become reliable. That would have to be taken into account when assessing any article from the source. I don't see here weighty enough arguments for "option 4", for instance they have taken down articles that were proven dubious (and without having to be ordered to by a court, and then lying about ever publishing the lies). That leaves me between "option 2" and "option 3", and on the balance of the evidence I would say I think this is much closer to the latter than the former. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 21:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If a reliable source republishes a deprecated source, the article republished doesn't become reliable. Actually it does (for most RS). That's what independent verification is, which is what a reputable news organization or scholar does. And that's why one always includes both the secondary and primary citation -- because the secondary attests to the accuracy of the primary in its usage, and we editors (or anyone doing a citation) attests to the accuracy of the secondary. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There a difference between simply reposting something someone else has written, and writing something based on what someone else has written. If you simply republish the primary document that's not independent verification. You seem to be mixing up two very different situations. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 00:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I suppose I should have specified that there is a range depending on the wording, context, and source that an outlet is using for content in part or full, but the second part of my statement is more direct: "the secondary citation attests to the accuracy of the primary" for any good RS. That is why I (among others here) consider timely corrections and retractions to be a very positive indicator for a source's usability. (To pre-empt a possible objection, I'll also note that retraction policies can vary -- typically malice, deception, error, and recklessness are criteria, whereas falsehood is not -- not just for academic journals but also most newspapers.) SamuelRiv (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I noted their retraction of articles in my comment as a reason against deprecation, retraction is a good indicator of a source reliability. It is however not the only one. Also if that is the second part of you statement then that part has no relevancy to my comment as I made no statement in regard to such pratice. If a newspaper publishes an article about another newspapers article, that is completely different to republishing the other newspaper article. It the latter than La Patilla has been doing, not the former. As per my original words "If a reliable source republishes a deprecated source, the article republished doesn't become reliable". This is the same reason news aggregators can't be assessed for reliability, because they just uncritically repost other sources articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 01:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    To pre-empt a possible objection, my comment has absolutely nothing to do with "the secondary citation attests to the accuracy of the primary". You couldn't give this article by La Patilla to attest the reliability of the Breitpart article as they are the same article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 01:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    La Patilla is reprinting the article under its own masthead. It thus takes responsibility for the article's accuracy. If someone tells them the article has falsehoods and/or fabrications, the editor can't say "Take it up with Breitbart" -- it falls upon them to issue corrections and/or retractions on their own publication. So if in the context of whatever work one is doing, one considers La Patilla reliable (and is examining content critically as one always should regardless), and that they similarly demonstrate some commitment to the above responsibility, then one should also articles reprinted under their masthead reliable (again, examined critically; again, there are always exceptions, because real things are complicated). Anyway, this is just academic. I had to chime in because too many editors I see misunderstand and misuse primary+secondary citations in general. SamuelRiv (talk) 02:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I wrote my post while this dialogue between AD and SR was ongoing; I have not read it yet. Hasta mañana. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC) Reply[reply]
    No if a deprecated source is reposted somewhere else it's is still deprecated. If a new news source called Breitmart pops up and just reposts everything on Breitbart, those articles are still deprecated that was the communities decision. The idea of having to have a new discussion on whether they are deprecated is nonsense. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 10:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Also a secondary sources is one about a primary source, if a source reposts a primary source it is still a primary source. If that is not your understanding, you understanding is flawed. If I wrote a book and you wrote a book about that book, that book would be secondary source. If I wrote a book and you translated it into French and resold it, I would sue you for copyright infringement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 10:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And just one final thing, no this is not under La Patilla's masthead. Scroll down just the tiniest amount on the link I gave and you see "Por Randy Clark | Breitbart". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 11:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Primary and secondary citations (also called indirect and direct, or internal and external, and all of which terms are frequently confusing): "A, cited by B"; Primary vs. secondary sources: raw data/research vs. a systematic review. Masthead (American_publishing). SamuelRiv (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Good for you, still wrong in this case. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 18:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @ActivelyDisinterested: I don't really disagree but I wonder how consistent were are with this. I pointed out here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 350#Reliability of The New Zealand Herald that the NZ Herald used to directly republish Daily Mail articles. They seemed to have stopped, to be clear this means the older stories are still generally working FAIK but their new content doesn't seem to be like that. As I also pointed out they also used to? republish content under own byline which seemed to be minimal re-writes of tabloid stories including Daily Mail. Yet the result of that RFC was still that the NZ Herald is generally reliable. Daily Mail and possibly some of the other sources we deprecate are popular enough that I somewhat doubt NZ Herald is unique in this regard for sources we treat as generally reliable at least for stories republished with the Daily Mail byline. (The minimal re-write thing may be less common). Nil Einne (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I hadn't seen that, and I don't think it's good. The issue is less of reliability and more of sidestepping a community decision. It's akin to an article being deleted through AfD, and then being recreated with a different spelling. As with La Patilla the general reliability of the source should be separate from such articles, but it would have had some weight on my opinion if I had been part of that RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 10:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not a 3 (Generally unreliable) but not a 2 (Additional considerations) either; after reading through the above and adding my own research, I'm coming out around 2 1/2: Reliable in some instances with considerable additional considerations that must be applied case-by-case. Update: which I am told below is the same as 2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't fully agree with assessments by SamuelRiv (01:24, 14 August) or StellarHalo (11:46, 27 June) that 2 (Additional considerations) is met, but I believe their reasoning to be the most sound on this page, because they explain why 3 (generally unreliable) is not met or demonstrated. La Patilla is no Tal Cual or Runrunes (reliable with considerable own reporting and serious and respected journalists on board), but neither is it 3 and 4 (generally unreliable or deprecated) in its own content like Venezuelanalysis and Telesur with outright, demonstrably wrong, distortion lies and chavismo propoganda. Aside from the aggregation of deprecated sources, no one yet has pointed out an error in their reporting.
    My reasoning (with apologies for length, as I've translated where I hoped that would be helpful):
  1. About page. The absence of an "About us" page describing staffing, editorial oversight, or any information that helps assess fact-checking and accuracy is always a concern.
    In this case, I am willing to waive that concern because reporting the news in Venezuela post-2009 is a very dangerous business, and it's often necessary to not identify staff. For the few years that the formerly reliable sources were able to survive after chavismo initiated censorship in Venezuela (before chavismo forced owners of paper manufacturing companies into exile on bogus charges so they could take over paper production and allocate paper only to Chavez-friendly press like Correo del Orinoco (2009), as only partially explained by a somewhat dated BBC Monitoring post), news sources had to go to no bylines for the safety of their reporters. When Maduro can detain and show the country door to someone as well known as Jorge Ramos (news anchor) for simply asking an obvious question, it's easy to see how difficult reporting from Venezuela has become.
    But in doing my own homework, I'm not able to come up with anything satisfactory on journalistic credentials. While reliable sources don't seem to exist for improving the Alberto Federico Ravell article, what sources I can find agree with my own knowledge of Venezuela: Ravell is a more adept businessman rather than a highly respected journalist in the vein of Nelson Bocaranda or Leonardo Padrón [es], and I can find no indications of impressive journalist credentials for anyone else writing there. That doesn't mean they don't exist – it could be an artefact of censorship – but I can't find evidence of them.
    So the pros and cons here land me in between 2 and 3.
  2. Only an aggregator. See point 1; for the same reasons, many independent Venezuelan news sources (post 2009) have been forced to rely on external reports, so I discount somewhat the amount of aggregated content at La Patilla, which is somewhat misrepresented on this page, and again leading me to a middle point.
    In terms of its usefulness as a news aggregator, I offer an example of why we need Venezuelan uncensored sources on Wikipedia: see Note C at Juan Guaidó. Neither the Washington Post nor The Wall Street Journal got to the bottom of that, and left with confusion (it's a long ways from a pilot to a cab driver), the answer was found at La Patilla. If we take away the ability to use Venezuelan sources anywhere, considering the effects of censorship in Venezuela, we could be left with partially inaccurate reporting from highly reliable sources that don't have boots on the ground. And see also note B, just above Note C as another indication of where local sources might be more useful.
    On the other hand, some of what they do aggregate is problematic. See point 3 below. So again, I land between 2 and 3.
  3. Hosting deprecated sources and editorial oversight. Reading through the bludgeoning above about hosting of deprecated sources, I checked one instance to see which "side" of that bludgeoned argument is accurately presenting the use of these sources by La Patilla. This September 18 Breitbart report was gone from La Patilla by at least September 21, indicating editorial oversight.
    On the other hand, looking at their page on any given day, the aggregated portion of the website is ickey. Yet I note that the real news is at the top of the page and in the classic sections (National, Regional, International, Opinion, Sports, etc), while the ick is separated at the bottom of the page (Videos you must see, etc). I don't find those sections to be good journalism, but I also find them very different from the useful Venezuelan news sections, so again, coming out in between 2 and 3. I'm OK on this at generally reliable with an additional consideration about the aggregated deprecated sources-- that is, they are a reliable source of information about Venezuela, not re-published articles by deprecated sources.
  4. Unique reporting. There is an abundance of useful content uniquely generated by La Patilla in categories that may not be noticed by Wikipedians who frequent this thread, and claims that there is an absence of unique reporting and La Patilla is only an aggregator do not reflect the facts. I find very useful reporting in just a quick look on August 12–14: School feeding program for Venezuelan children, Proposed closure of Venezuelan Central Bank, Superlano on economic potential of Falcon State, Electrical outages in Guarico state, etc. The amount of useful Venezuelan information is significant enough that a global bias is reflected in some of the commentary lodged earlier on this page about issues that reflect real Venezuelans and with the kind of reporting we won't get from the major reliable English-language sources. Issues beyond the first world matter to most of the world, and we do aim for global coverage.
  5. What other reliable sources say. A more troubling aspect is what they don't say; there's not much to be found. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but what is found isn't wholly useful. The BBC report calling La Patilla a "satirical website" from 2016 (seven years ago) was an accurate description of the source in its earlier days (although the word sarcastic was probably better even then). It no longer is; please check the date when citing sources on media in Venezuela. Even the somewhat newer 2019 BBC Monitoring page is less than complete, and what it says isn't necessarily incriminating: being anti-chavismo is not an indication or not of reliability, the dramatic headlines have lessened over the years, and I suspect that the person who wrote that "Venezuela in its third day of paralysis and anguish due to the red blackout, with no solution in sight" is a "dramatic headline" has never lived through the consequences that the lower and middle classes in Venezuela do daily. So, I find nothing convincing in what other reliable sources say, including all of those I have saved on my hard drive, to sway me away from 2.
  6. Use by Others. Arguing against 2, use by other sources is not as significant in the English-language media as some of the other post-censorship sources of Venezuelan news. (I wouldn't expect it to be considering La Patilla's sarcasm in earlier days.) But arguing in favor, there is use by others, and it has to be viewed in the context that since it's very hard to get "boots on the ground" in Venezuela since about 2014, it's natural that major outlets will re-report and attribute that to other credible outlets, and a global context (what some readers of this page may find to be unimportant may actually be important in other regions or to other audiences-- it's not all about COVID).
    • Clarín (Argentine newspaper) 2018 military imprisonments The figures are confusing about how many soldiers are in jail. The La Patilla website assures that the military courts have detained eleven officers of the Venezuelan Armed Forces, while the former president of the National Assembly, Julio Borges, assures that there are 200 officers imprisoned and detained because they have simply rebelled.
    • Clarin 2015 PDVSA The object of the US investigation points to the heart of the Venezuelan economy, since the oil company contributes more than 90% of the country's income. PDVSA has also been the source of financing for Chavismo for 15 years and the fund for its social programs. The only Venezuelan media that reproduced the information from the WSJ were the newspaper El Nacional and the digital portal La Patilla. (Note, implying that the other news outlets didn't dare report that per censorship.)
    • La República (Peru): 2021 Woman electrocuted A 47-year-old woman was electrocuted on Tuesday afternoon, October 5, after receiving a strong electric shock from a high-voltage cable. The incident occurred when the affected woman entered a booth of the National Electric Corporation (Corpoelec) to urinate, located in Cabimas, belonging to the state of Zulia in northwestern Venezuela. The female, after completing her physiological activity, got up and stuck her head to a high voltage cable that was in the place. This generated a discharge of electricity causing the instantaneous death of the woman, says La Patilla, local media.
    • La Republica 2020 Musician dressed as a Nazi As detailed by La Patilla, a Venezuelan news portal, the rocker received the distinction for having composed a song dedicated to Carlos Meyer Baldó, an aviator who participated in the First World War.
    • Reuters Inflation, 2014 According to the BCV, the month-on-month increase in August shows a drop for the third consecutive month and is the lowest since March. The opposition website La Patilla had said earlier in the week that the central bank had changed its methodology to improve inflation figures, but the institution did not mention any changes. Calls to the bank went unanswered.
    • BBC News (UK): 2019 power blackouts (the same ones earlier downplayed as sensationalized by BBC Monitoring Venezuelans, meanwhile, are bracing themselves for a weekend of pro- and anti-government protests. Police were out in force on the road in Caracas where Saturday's opposition march was planned. Even before the rally began, some protesters were hit by pepper spray fired by officers, La Patilla news website said.
    • Semana (Colombia): 2023 Political accusations The others mentioned are... In addition, according to the Venezuelan newspaper La Patilla, the defendants may increase because it is not ruled out that some officials of the Interim Government are included.
    • Semana (Colombia) 2022 Leopoldo Lopes Meanwhile, the local newspaper La Patilla stated that the group of SEBIN uniformed men had been made up of 10 fully armed men.
Summarizing, the idea that La Patilla should be deprecated like Telesur, outright propoganda, or considered unreliable, like Venezuelanalysis with demonstrable false information and propoganda, because La Patilla aggregates some undesirables is unfounded. Call it a 3- or 2+ (some issues, unclear journalistic credentials, anti-chavismo bias, don't use for defamatory content in a BLP, don't use anything aggregated from a deprecated site), but reliable for Venezuelan reporting, where we have precious few reliable sources for Venezuelan news left after post-2009 censorship that has been aggravated under Maduro. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC) Copyedited for clarification of pronous, dates, etc the day after, here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you want the tldr on my post, I have many of the same thoughts as you but end up slight closer to 3 than to 2 (say 2.75 rather than 2.5). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 10:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We must put ourselves in the shoes of those living and working in a place where revealing the identity of journalists can be truly dangerous. Risks to journalists in Venezuela are real, and censorship has forced many sources to act from the shadows to keep their reporters safe. Though the lack of visible journalistic credentials for La Patilla could raise eyebrows, it's not fair to simply assume they don't exist because they're not in plain sight. La Patilla, although partly acting as a news aggregator, has been a critical source for unraveling certain events in Venezuela that international media couldn't fully decipher. Criticisms over La Patilla's aggregation of discredited sources must be tempered; there's evidence of editorial oversight that shows an earnest effort by the site to maintain content quality. We must also recognize, despite criticisms, that La Patilla has been generating unique and meaningful reporting on Venezuelan situations, showcasing its value in the country's news coverage. And yes, though there might be scant information about La Patilla in other trusted media, this shouldn't necessarily be read as a lack of reliability. Mentions and usage of La Patilla in respected outlets like Clarín, La República, Reuters, BBC News, and Semana signal a recognition of its utility as a news source. To dismiss La Patilla as an unreliable source based solely on aggregated content or polarized views would undermine our quest for accurate and contextualized information about Venezuela. It's not flawless, but in the present Venezuelan context, La Patilla provides a necessary insight. It's a complicated issue, yes, but we must think critically, seeing beyond the surface and considering the unique circumstances that shape journalism in Venezuela today. Wilfredor (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 2 or 3 - Reading the comments above, I am convinced that there are enough issues with this source that it can not be considered “generally reliable” (option 1). However, I am also convinced that it does not rise to the level of deprecation (option 4)… which leaves me with 2 or 3 by default. I find that Sandy’s analysis of the situation comes closest to my own - it falls between 2 and 3. Case by case. Blueboar (talk) 11:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Isn't Option 2, yellow, supposed to mean case-by-case? (Meaning as a default consideration -- everything except the blacklist is case-by-case of course.) SamuelRiv (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I am unsure on that; maybe someone can clarify. If that is the case, then I would be just a plain 2 with strong reminders. I don't want us to disallow using a source with the example I gave on figuring out the profession on Guaido's father-- that was info I could find nowhere else for resolving the discrepancy between the Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, which was a large discrepancy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    All sources are judged on a case by case basis, the top rating is generally reliable not reliable without question. Option 2 would be La Patilla is marginally reliable but other consideration apply. In this case that consideration would most likely be do not reference reposts of deprecated sources, any pronounced bias, shouldn't be used for BLP, etc. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 14:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Do not deprecate: Something that was clear from the previous discussions was that sources should not be deprecated unless they have previously gone through discussions that found them to be unreliable and editors continued to reference them. That is, there was a problem so we had to step up to deprecation. Absent a clear history of abuse and a RfC specifically on the question of deprecation no source should be deprecated. Springee (talk) 11:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: @Cunard: Is there any reason on why I was not ping-ed back? I did not know about the relist. --ReyHahn (talk) 14:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 2 for original content; case-by-case/option 3/4 for aggregated content. I don't see any convincing examples here of serious unreliability in its own reporting. Content aggregated from elsewhere should be judged on the basis of reliability of original source, and if reliable original should be cited rather than republished version anyway. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Express caution - is this the relisted RfC, because people are choosing "options" and I don't see them listed? It shouldn't be depreciated, because "Deprecated sources are highly questionable sources that editors are discouraged from citing in articles, because they fail the reliable sources guideline in nearly all circumstances." I haven't seen evidence that makes me willing to go that far with this one. Rather, people have concerns and we should list those. Mainly, that the source has a strong POV that should be carefully considered, and that it republishes content, and some of that content is translations from deprecated sources and shouldn't be used as a work around to include those sources. I work on m any articles mostly sourced from articles with a strong POV (they care, they go into more detail on the subjects) and you can work around it to hone in on the more factual news reporting. The biggest issue I see today with strong POV works is editors sometimes take hyperbole or exaggerated statements literally, but that's a growing reporting style problem, banning all strong POV sources won't fix it. Denaar (talk) 13:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The options are listed at the very top of this section (prior to the relist). They're the "standard" four RSN labels: generally reliable (1), circumstantially reliable (2), generally unreliable (3), and deprecated (4). Dylnuge (TalkEdits) 15:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For the content that it's actually used for on wikipedia, it's not disputed here that La Patilla is Generally reliable. But the record shows a small fraction of what it publishes (not what it cited here) is translated content from sites that aren't reliable. so I see Option 2: Additional considerations as the appropriate choice, to keep things that way. It's not logical to argue that is has posted translated content from sites that aren't reliable, as if that could be a complete justification for any decision here. It's not, without showing that that content is itself unreliable and has been used here on wikipedia, and I see no real evidence of either of those presented here -RudolfoMD (talk) 02:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As stated before, if La Patilla's editorial team is overlooking such issues while republishing blatant fake news, it calls into question the outlet's credibility entirely. Add in the pattern of La Patilla doing this with multiple deprecated sources and it becomes obvious that they are more focused on partisanship and not reliability. WMrapids (talk) 05:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You're not listening. Seems you didn't comprehend anything I wrote.
    Reply above claims to be repetitive, but "blatant fake news" (BFN) appears nowhere else on this page. I see a new claim, made without evidence, misrepresented as established fact, and an unsupported conclusion misrepresented as obvious, which are liable to mislead someone reading the comments to close the RFC. (If the evidence has been provided, provide diffs, ONLY, please, and only diffs wherein La Patilla articles, cited on wikipedia have been "stated before" (and shown) to be BFN. Otherwise, please don't reply. Don't want more spew.) Again, key terms required for relevance: diffs wherein articles, cited on wikipedia, shown to be BFN (not merely FRINGE or merely in problematic sources).
    As stated before, For the content that it's actually used for on wikipedia, it's not disputed here that La Patilla is Generally reliable. I see a set of false and tangential and highly repetitive claims that fail to challenge that statement. RudolfoMD (talk) 08:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @RudolfoMD: With you being a new user that has quickly jumped into contentious topics, I have to remind you to please remain civil and not question one's comprehension or make charges of "misrepresentation". Here is a previous explanation detailing how La Patilla republished fake news from Breitbart about criminal migrants allegedly being sent to the US. Whether this specific information is being used on Wikipedia or not still does not excuse the poor editorial quality of La Patilla and should definitely be considered when determining the overall reliability of source. As for determining the reliability of what is already placed on Wikipedia, unless you have reviewed the thousands of uses of La Patilla on Wikipedia, I doubt we can make such bold claim that it is generally reliable.
    However, I decided to to a quick dive into the use of La Patilla on Wikipedia and it raised questions about its reliability. One of La Patilla's first uses that appeared was discussing Monica Spear. In the 7 January 2014 La Patilla article, they literally copied the Spanish Wikipedia article as it appeared on the same day (links and all) to publish a biography of her. Deciding to look into La Patilla's use of Wikipedia further, it appears that they also promoted a blog for Venezuelan readers to edit Wikipedia to promote companies and other entities. These two examples show that La Patilla is not only partisan, but is also focused on churning out content, supporting the argument by some who describe it as a content farm.
    Overall, I could certainly go further with this, but at this point it may appear to be WP:BLUDGEON. La Patilla's reposting from deprecated sources and from Wikipedia itself shows that it should not be considered reliable. WMrapids (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
off-topic digression about behavior, nothing to do with source reliability
  • I wrote, ...ONLY, please, and only diffs wherein La Patilla articles, cited on wikipedia have been "stated before" (and shown) to be BFN. Otherwise, please don't reply. Total failure. Yes, (clarification inserted later) don't do what you think may appear to be' WP:BLUDGEON. STOP. Not cool. RudolfoMD (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If you can't help continuing to (clarification inserted later) do what you think may appear to be WP:BLUDGEON, at least don't do it under my !vote. RudolfoMD (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @RudolfoMD:, I don't see any bludgeoning. Falsely accusing people of bludgeoning can be considered incivil, and should be avoided. TarnishedPathtalk 05:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @TarnishedPath: This behavior is currently being addressed. WMrapids (talk) 05:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    WMrapids said their writing did (may) "appear to be WP:BLUDGEON". Just above. I am now called up on ANI for agreeing with WMrapids that their writing did "appear to be WP:BLUDGEON". I think I should give up on this circus. If I can't agree with their self-labeling, I quit; this is a circus. How many times has WMrapids commented on this RFC, @TarnishedPath? (later edit: WMrapids appears 75 times in the RFC! 75 times.) Did you look at that or how much of the content they wrote? I asked them not to reply and they replied anyway. And made false claims and can't back them up when asked to, and instead lays on a whole bunch more under my !vote. Why is that OK? Did I not correctly see a new claim, made without evidence, inaccurately represented as established fact, and an unsupported conclusion inaccurately represented as obvious, which are liable to mislead someone reading the comments to close the RFC? RudolfoMD (talk) 06:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I suggest you read WP:BLUDGEON and WP:HOUNDING in full if you survive this WP:AN/I. You're only bringing your own behaviour into focus with this behaviour. The second you accused others of bludgeoning I went and looked at your edit history, it's no surprise that WMrapids did the same. TarnishedPathtalk 06:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't understand. To the extent that it appears that I intended to to more than concur with WMrapids saying their writing did (may) "appear to be WP:BLUDGEON", I'm disclaiming any such statement. Who are you accusing me of hounding? RudolfoMD (talk) 06:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm going to disengage with you as you don't seem receptive. TarnishedPathtalk 06:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    All I asked was "Who are you accusing me of hounding?" As someone once told me, Falsely accusing people of hounding can be considered incivil, and should be avoided.
    Please at least either retract or answer, re. your accusation of hounding. RudolfoMD (talk) 06:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • WMrapids, re Monica Spear, you do realize that Wikipedia is open access and they gave credit to Wikipedia, as required, so what is the issue there? Re your second example, I am not finding the blog you say they are promoting; would you mind excerpting the specific part of the article you take issue with? Perhaps I've missed something there; I see an explanation of what a wiki is and how it works, and am not finding the promotional blog you mention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @SandyGeorgia: There are two issues; per WP:RSP, Wikipedia is not a reliable source due to WP:SPS and with WP:REFLOOP, which occurred with this edit on the Monica Spear article, someone essentially used the reposted Spanish Wikipedia article as a source. Now, yes, Wikipedia is open source, but this is just more evidence that La Patilla has a history of churning out content without thorough editorial oversight, especially when it appears that they rushed out the copy of a WP:BLP article on the day after Spear's death.
    Here are a few more examples of La Patilla directly copying from Wikipedia:
    There are many examples of La Patilla using Wikipedia as a source and then taking direct credit in some cases for the text placed by users on Spanish Wikipedia. Overall, not a good look for reliability. WMrapids (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    At Monica Spear, the problem is not with La Patilla, who correctly identified the content was from Wikipedia, but with User:Bradford, who inserted a citation to a source that was Wikipedia content. Wikipedia is not reliable for citing content on Wikipedia; nothing that La Patilla did there was wrong.
    Every other article you cite as copying from Wikipedia has the content clearly marked as coming from Wikipedia. If a Wikipedia editor uses that content to cite an article, that's on the editor, not La Patilla. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You’re using a straw man regarding that particular edit. Why would a reliable source be reposting content directly from Wikipedia? WMrapids (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @SandyGeorgia: PS: The blog noted is "Zona Tres Punto Cero", where it tells readers "we will give you a tip on how to use Wikipedia to leverage your businesses". WMrapids (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You are misrepresenting this article, which you say "promoted a blog for Venezuelan readers to edit Wikipedia to promote companies and other entities". I hope English readers will avail themselves of tools like this one to read the source themselves. The Zona Tres Punto Cero article explains why Wikipedia articles can't be written like advertisements and that wording must be unbiased and sourced. The article is nothing more than a description of what a wiki is and how to use it correctly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not sure if you are reading what I’m reading, but the article clearly states: Before finishing the article, and as is customary on our blog, we will give you a tip on how to use Wikipedia to leverage your businesses. … If there is information of interest from your company or brand, you can consider Wikipedia as an option to leave a record of that achievement. … We would very much like to know your opinion and suggestions on this topic or others related to web 2.0. We invite you to write to us. Yes, this random blog that La Patilla reposted is suggesting to readers that they can use Wikipedia to promote their company. They do touch on how to make things unbiased, but the promotional nature is still there. WMrapids (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Regarding your "straw man" allegation at 15:13, 31 August 2023, that's been explained at length above by more posters than me, so I won't repeat.. Yes, we are reading the same text (noting that you left out the relevant bits about legitimate editing)-- you seem to attach nefarious motive to explaining how a Wiki works for legitimate purposes. I don't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 2 And again, reliability of reports it reposts are judged based on the original publisher. The fact that La Patilla reposts is not, realistically, an endorsement - I agree largely with SandyGeorgia and the entire comment above. I will also repost my own !vote from before: Concerns have been raised over the quality of reporting decreasing since 2019 or 2020; before some cut-off date in that period, La Patilla can be considered generally reliable. After this, it is typically accurate but may present bias - sticking to the facts rather than using it as a gauge of sentiment would be wise, and editors could include in-line attributions. Obviously any of the reposts from other sources should be judged based on the reliability of the original source. There was a mention that alleged recent unreliability for coverage of politics; I don't find much credence to this, and think the allegation mistakes partisanship in a fact-checking source for "propaganda" (I won't speculate as to why). Kingsif (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Already 'bold voted' in original section. See discussion below.-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 20:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 4 The fact that La Patilla republishes WP:BREITBART, WP:EPOCHTIMES, WP:ZEROHEDGE and WP:IBTIMES articles speaks for itself. I don't believe any further analysis is required. TarnishedPathtalk 10:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 4, deprecate: My opinion has not changed. La Patilla has republished articles from the Neo-Nazi propaganda outlet Breitbart News, and this alone should be enough to completely discredit them as a source. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 07:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Already 'bold voted' in original section. See discussion below.-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 20:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Considering that The History Wizard of Cambridge has been topic banned from from the topics of autocratic governments or individuals, socialism, and communism, broadly construed (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#POV pushing to whitewash autocratic governments), I wonder if this will be considered at the closure of the RfC. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Pinging @ScottishFinnishRadish given that you were the closing admin in AN/I. Should THWoC's vote be excluded from this RfC given that this RfC is about the reliability of a publication from Venezuela, which is a socialist country? Note: the vote occurred on 24 July 2023, approx three weeks prior to discussions in AN/I starting. TarnishedPathtalk 12:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Generally contributions are not retroactively removed or disregarded after a topic ban. I can't speak for how the closer will weigh it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Info that emerged only after ScottishFinnishRadish's ANI close:
    There seems to be a POV agenda in play here, and the vociferous statements from The History Wizard in this discussion are odd considering their own very marginal sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Unless anyone objects I'm going to move this to the discussion section below. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 12:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @ActivelyDisinterested: Go ahead! Nothing wrong with organizing. WMrapids (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have restored my comment's original place, as I never consented for my message position to be modified. It is a reply to the given vote, and it should not be treated any differently from other responses in this section. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • On the basis of all the above, and that's truly an eyeful of "all", I cannot but choose Option 4.
The question is never only if the source creates unreliable information; it's always what is puts up. And this publication admittedly, blatantly reproduces untruths, numerous enough to qualify for a bad source. If not enoough people are convinced of La Patilla's low quality, I'd suggest Option 3, and we shall see the next 3-4 years how goes it, if we live that long. -The Gnome (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 1: Generally reliable. The critical factors here are that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and Human Rights Watch have both, multiple times, denounced the Venezuelan governments' censorship of La Patilla. The United Nations is not in the biz of staking its reputation to front content farms, is it? Consider that WP:VENRS, until this very RfC (which now notes La Patilla is under RfC), had included La Patilla as a quite usable source, with the proviso that «Care must be taken when information is attributed to other websites.» (duh!). And in fact that little note is all that, in any event, is needed here. In any event, when WP:RS such as Clarín, La República, Reuters, BBC News, and Semana all rely on content from La Patilla, you have to ask yourself: why is it that these reputable media can have enough discernment to use La Patilla, but en.Wikipedia wouldn't? XavierItzm (talk) 00:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion La Patilla[edit]

  • Both the original RFC and the listing have a lot of commentry amongst editors. Maybe that should be kept to a separate section, this is going to be a difficult close after the reflist without large comment threads. (This isn't aimed at anyone, I'm equal or worse then the next editors). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 14:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Maybe we can provide links below or beside decisions to a separate discussion section?
    Something like:
    • Option X: Insert some reasoning about your decision here. [discussion link]
    I agree that it's difficult for users discussing tricky topics, but the Wikipedia:BLUDGEON concerns raised above are valid as there have been some discussions dominating the process, which is not welcoming. But just like edit warring, it can be a two way street, so we just have to remind ourselves to control our behavior before responding. WMrapids (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Re this, Thanks, AD; also, I added BLP since we always add that on anything less than the top rating, but I'm not aware of any BLP problems with La Patilla. That is, the Note C, example I gave on Guaido is BLP info. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    SandyGeorgia Yes the list was meant as general things that can apply under "additional considerations", but I didn't make that very clear. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 14:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Since the source's use in article has been mentioned, I'll also point out to El Nacional (Venezuela) article (reference 20). The reference is an article reporting a declaration by Diosdado Cabello and was tagged after the RfC's first close. I looked for other main outlets reporting on the declaration, but there simply aren't any. However, La Patilla includes the video of the original declaration, and nothing suggests that the report is somehow unreliable. If this type of situations happens just a few days after its qualification as an unreliable source, it is further proof that said conclusion would only do more harm that good to the project. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Whether a source should be judged generally reliable, in the Wikipedia sense, is more than just whether certain articles are correct. There is nothing to say that sources thought unreliable might post truthful content. Also the difficulty in finding sources is separate from reliability, finding reliable independent Russian sources for the war in Ukraine for instance is nigh-on impossible. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 19:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm aware of it, but thank you for the distinction. My comment was more related to its current use in Wikipedia, rather than its reliability overall. My arguments regarding reliability can be found at the original discussions, and I want to avoid to repeat them as a WP:BLUDGEON. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Don't worry I read through everyone's prior comments before making my comment in the RFC, and if you have any guilt of bludgeoning then it's no more so than mine. It's why I created this section. My comment was more aimed at only do more harm that good to the project as it is an issue that is true in many areas with fraught reporting (per my example of Ukraine). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 21:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    💗 --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    NoonIcarus you are presumably referring to this Reference 20; please provide a permalink to help subsequent readers avoid spending unnecessary time tracking down what you are referring to, especially since reference numbers are dynamic on Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Many thanks. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There is also a lot of misunderstanding of "Generally unreliable", it doesn't mean unusable. Anyone wanting that has to have the source deprecate, and then black listed. Even deprecated sources can be used for "uncontroversial self-descriptions". Generally unreliable means you should very much consider using another sources, and shouldn't use it for controversial topics, but it is not forbidden.
    In the case you mention above you could maybe use it, depending on discussions on the talk page if someone objects, until another source reports on the same issue or reports on La Patilla reporting on the issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 19:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree. In this particular instance, it would fall within WP:ABOUTSELF. Whether or not the particular remark mentioned is encyclopedic material is a different question. WMrapids (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've also considered this. In this case, the problem would still be it is discouraged. I would be more relieved if we were talking about a small outlet (Caraota Digital could be a good example, see entry at WP:VENRS), were articles are most surely replaceable, but this is not the case with La Patilla. This is especially important regarding coverage between 2010 and 2014, when digital outlets were still limited and archives would later be lost in some cases. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Kingsif and The History Wizard of Cambridge the RFC has been re-opened, it's not a new RFC so there's no need to bold vote in both sections. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 19:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks, strike whatever needs to be. Kingsif (talk) 20:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Dito. I'm new to this. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I can't find where Kingsif 'bold voted'. What was their 'bold vote'? --RudolfoMD (talk) 08:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    They bolded an opinion '2' in the original section. The RFC was re-opened and a new section for new opinions was created, if you search Kingsif on this page it's currently the second from top instance. Also do you mind if I move this to the discussion section? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 11:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I see it now. I don't mind that you moved this. RudolfoMD (talk) 18:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There has been no new opinions in the last 10 days, I've made a close request at Wikipedia:Closure requests. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 17:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As far as I can tell the last vote cast was on the 18th and that was mine. TarnishedPathtalk 05:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually mine, on the 4th of this month. I have no objection to closing this down. -The Gnome (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yah, I think there was a long gap between your vote and mine. TarnishedPathtalk 13:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Request: Can we expedite this, please, everyone, before it needlessly and unnecessarily sprawls much further? After one month and a half, we have out of over twenty responses only 3 in support of keeping La Patilla as a fully reliable source. -The Gnome (talk) 12:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I made a request at Wikipedia:Closure requests back in August, but it's reliant on an uninvolved editor being will to wade through the mess and do the close. The messier the discussion the less likely it is that someone will have the spare time. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 13:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.

Rock Informer[edit]

Someone added a link to the website "Rock Informer" to the Heather Baron-Gracie article, and after reading it, I realized the source was garbage that included claims like this:

Heather Baron-Gracie has also collaborated with other artists on various projects. She co-wrote and sang on The 1975's song "TOOTIMETOOTIMETOOTIME", which was a top 40 hit in the UK. ... Furthermore, she has written songs for other artists, such as Olivia Rodrigo’s Deja Vu" and Billie Eilish's "Happier Than Ever".

All of this is nonsense. Given the mishmash of 'facts,' I scanned the text using an AI Content Detector, and it said that was a 52% chance that it was AI-generated. I don't exactly know what the protocol for this sort of thing is, but I feel like this nonsense cannot be tolerated and should be banned on sight.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 20:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This doesn't need an RFC, it's just AI glurge and can be removed as such. The site is obviously an AI spam site. Even as it would claim it was not, it claims "Rock Informer is a no-cost, online rock music wiki, lovingly curated by skilled editors worldwide, made just for passionate rock music enthusiasts" - which would make it UGC, and just as unusable - David Gerard (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Please consider withdrawal of this Rfc, as it doesn't meet WP:RFCBEFORE. That will only remove the Rfc header, it doesn't stop the discussion which may continue, as it is now. Agree with David's other points as well, and the link should not be included. (Summoned by bot) Mathglot (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @David Gerard and Mathglot: I removed the RfC bit. I included it to be safe, but recognize your points. Mathglot, when you say that "the link should not be included," do you mean it shouldn't be included on Wikipedia as a source? Just wanted to clarify.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 13:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I was just having a conversation with someone the other day about the new form of media literacy: detecting when something is AI written (my analogy was learning to recognize spam email, but probably harder than that). Google needs to learn this, too, since there are so many of these sites in the top results. For now, for some reason many sites use this exact style/format such that it's recognizable. Can probably just be added to the blacklist like any other spam site. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 11:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Rhododendrites: That's kind of what I was thinking. I've never submitted a site for blacklisting, though, so I'm in the dark in this regard.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 13:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just nominated the site for blacklisting as spam. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rising from The Hill TV[edit]

At Ben Collins (reporter) there's a dispute about whether to include "Journalist Robby Soave criticized Collins in 2023 for attacking conclusions simply because they were those of Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald." It's cited to

Rising is an online news and opinion show published by The Hill. Some discussion participants are arguing that this is unreliable, undue, or otherwise unsuitable for inclusion. Other participants are arguing that The Hill is a generally reliable source per RSP, and that attempts to remove the content are overriding prior consensus on The Hill. More input would be appreciated. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The only part that's questionable is the "Pulitzer Prize-winning" part. That's gratuitous and undue editorialization on the part of whichever editor wrote it. Other than that, Rising is certainly reliable enough to be cited, at least for attributed opinions. I can't think of a single good argument for labeling Rising as unreliable. Maybe someone here can present one? Pecopteris (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would say it's fine to use per WP:RSOPINION from a reliability perspective. There were objections on grounds unrelated to reliability. Would you say it's true that The Hill's listing at RSP means we must include the content? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My two cents? I would definitely not say that we must include it. On the contrary. As the saying goes, opinions are like assholes: everyone has one. Including every author at every RS publication. Too often, the opinions I see on Wikipedia are cherry-picked because they happen to align with the opinions of the cherry-picking editors. For this reason, I'm pretty skeptical of including opinions on Wikipedia. Perhaps the content should be included, but in principle, I'd have no objection to the above content being removed on the basis of being undue. I'd only object to it being removed on a reliability basis, because I do think Rising is a perfectly respectable source of political commentary. Pecopteris (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that's fair and well-reasoned, though it goes against half of my edit. On the other hand, when the opinion gets the journalist suspended, and other journalists report on it, I think we should at least cover that, no? What about the other half, which explained why he got fired: "He had crudely attacked Matt Taibbi for reporting The Twitter Files.[1]" The language was certainly crude, and "attacked" is straight out of a reliable source. RudolfoMD (talk) 09:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You make an interesting case for inclusion, I'll read the whole article when I get home and then I'll have a more informed opinion. Pecopteris (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A reliable source for an opinion, with the exception that it appears that "Pulitzer Prize-winning" was incorrectly attributed to Soave, not Briahna Joy Gray (who I think I'm unfamiliar with). Politrukki (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about whether one or both of my additions ( ) are DUE? (I know, this is RSN, but it's already being discussed.) --RudolfoMD (talk) 05:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my view, the Soave bit could be considered undue, because it starts a discussion about different topic.
As to "attacked Matt Taibbi", the source you added doesn't mention the suspension, but is related to Collins's comment about Musk. The specific reasons for Collins's suspension aren't clear. The Spectator Magazine cited in the bio says Collins was "suspended from the Twitter beat at NBC News after he accused Matt Taibbi of doing 'humiliating shit' by reporting on the Twitter Files", whereas other sources – cited or uncited – refer to other instances of Collins's behaviour. If the section is expanded with relevant viewpoints, perhaps the source you added could be used for an attributed opinion for criticism of Collins attacking the messenger and ignoring the subject. Politrukki (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed on Soave bit.
I re-propose this as an appropriate addition to the article :
Collins had crudely attacked Matt Taibbi for reporting The Twitter Files.<ref_name="WhoIsBen"/>(the "Who is NBC News's Ben Collins?" Spectator article)[2]
There is no shortage of news reporting connecting the tweets attacking Matt Taibbi to Ben Collins' suspension. [Ben Collins suspended "Taibbi" twitter] brings up 10 news stories. Which should I add? RudolfoMD (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ "Thoughts on the 'Twitter Files'". National Review. 3 December 2022.
  2. ^ "Thoughts on the 'Twitter Files'". National Review. 3 December 2022. attacking Taibbi"; <link to '...Humiliating shit.' tweet>

NYT and LGBT-related subjects (yet again)[edit]

Recently, The New York Times has been criticized for their transgender coverage. It's to a point where it's an entire section in List of controversies involving The New York Times (with a lot of sources to go around there). So, what about deprecating the NYT, but only for LGBT issues? (see my comment just below this one) LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 08:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps deprecating is too strong. I like LokiTheLiar's suggestion of "other considerations apply". LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 09:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In many ways I think our existing guidelines already cover this. NYT's inane viewpoints are WP:FRINGE among reliable sources, making them WP:undue for inclusion in most circumstances. And a lot of the issues are coming from WP:MEDRES claims, so NYT wouldn't be reliable in the first place. Ca talk to me! 12:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So short answer: de-facto not reliable for commentary on transgender issues. Ca talk to me! 12:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • We can't just deprecate the coverage of reliable sources like this because they disagree with the prevailing views of Wikipedia contributors. The 2022 RfC on The Telegraph, (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 392), in which many Wikipedia contributors argued that its coverage of transgender issues is biased (something which I'm inclined to agree with) found no consensus to consider The Telegraph unreliable for any topic, and that The Telegraph was broadly reliable. As always, if claims in the nytimes contradict the prevailing medical consensus, then they can just be omitted as undue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I would be inclined to say no. “Deprecation” should be reserved for situations where there is a history of fabrication and outright lying. That does not mean we need to accept everything printed in the paper. Individual reports can be deemed unreliable, even when the paper as a whole is considered “generally” reliable. Take it case by case. Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The entire notion of "deprecation" of any source is offensive to me. For example, the far right media might be full of crackpot conspiracy theories about this or that, but provide an absolute goldmine of reliable biographical information about participants in its movement. That the New York Times is being proposed for "deprecation" about any topic strikes me as either an example of politicized whinging or a case of attempting to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Carrite (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The criticism appears to be largely leveled at the editorial side of the paper with the criticism of the news side being much less serious. We already treat the editorial side as WP:RSEDITORIAL so I don't think any action needs to be taken here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Those criticisms have themselves been criticised by reliable sources ([53]), so it’s not exactly an open-and-shut case. The Washington Post opinion notes the many instances of LGBT-sympathetic coverage in the NYT, so deprecating them as a source for LGBT issues would cause significant collateral damage. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Washington Post, archive-url: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No, I completely reject this. The NYT is a reliable source, even if it publishes information that some editors dislike. I echo @Hemiauchenia - "We can't just deprecate the coverage of reliable sources like this because they disagree with the prevailing views of Wikipedia contributors". Wikipedia should NOT be merely a reflection of the opinions of its editors. Judging from OP's profile, this looks like a very blatant case of trying to deprecate a source in order to push a POV. Sorry, thumbs down from me. Pecopteris (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Generally, no, we should not change the status of the NYTimes. Broadly the American MSM do a poor job in reasonably fair transgender issues (not as bad as the British media, but enough to be worrisome). However, if there are no better sources covering material that is encyclopedic, we are required to summarize from those sources for factual content (such as the various laws and lawsuits around the country related to transgender issues). If we're talking their opinion pieces, then that becomes a matter of DUE/UNDUE for inclusion, and if the NYT is taking a more negative view that aligns with other opinions, then we cant help but to consider that DUE. That said, it is important that when it comes to opinions, NOT#NEWS also applies, and we are not required (nor should not) simply include opinion or commentary just because it exists, but instead wait for some significant time (like years) to determine how to best write about opinions of the topic at the time. --Masem (t) 20:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Whatever the solution for this is it shouldn't be deprecation. It's a tool that should be reserved for the most import situations. As to the specific issue, as others have already mentioned no news source should be used for MEDRS issues, articles which are opinions not news should be handled with care, as should organisations with obvious biases. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 21:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No. The NY Times is THE newspaper of record in the U.S.. It is absolutely reliable for its news coverage, including on LGBT issues. Banks Irk (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • S(no)w close. Per Horse's Eye Back, the criticisms of the NYT seem to be levelled at the editorial side of things, rather than their actual journalistic articles, and the WP:RSP entry for the NYT even states: WP:RSOPINION should be used to evaluate opinion columns. Even aside from this though, the idea of jumping right to deprecation, reserved on this site for tabloid rags which outright lie and other fake news sources, for a perennially reliable source is not a good move in the slightest. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 21:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Deprecating the NYT in any area is way too strong. I could see adding an "other considerations apply" note, but to be honest there are many sources I would like to add a similar note to ahead of the NYT. Basically any major British news source is worse about this than the NYT. The NYT is not consistently bad about this, instead they are less consistently good than they might be for some other subjects. But I'm honestly not even convinced yet that they are so much less good it's worth noting. Loki (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Is the controversial content in opinion pieces and editorials, or is there false reporting in news articles? If it is the former, we already have WP:RSOPINION. starship.paint (RUN) 10:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No While the NYTimes hasn't done a perfect job in writing on queer topics, it is still a far cry better than basically anything else out there. The NYTimes remains the paper of record for the United States. It is the winner of more Pulitzer prizes than anyone (132 currently, having won its last two this year, and otherwise having won nearly every year since 1930). Having been subject of a Times article just a couple months ago, I had to go through their very rigorous fact checking process, and found the resulting article quite accurate.
    I suspect this thread has been triggered by a recent investigate piece from the Times: [54], which was followed up by the short [55]. Note that most of the news coverage of the Times and trans issues came out in February, and was in part triggered by poor choices in the op-ed department (defending J.K. Rowling for being a transphobe). We've already established that what the op-ed side does is not relevant to this discussion. So this recent article is I think the main bone of contention. In short, it discussed the youth gender clinic at Washington University in St. Louis. Now, this article has been criticized in trans spaces recently, and from the perspective of trans activism, yes, that's fair, and I agree that it was hardly a soaring piece of trans activism. But as a piece of journalism, I find it pretty decent, and way more decent than any other organization has done. Compare with the NY Post's sensationalist reporting, or tabloid garbage. But even from the more reputable sources, AP, local paper, another local paper, the NYTimes piece is longer, better researched, and does a better job at trying to tackle the nuance of the issue. It corroborates its source at times while other times calling out her inaccuracies. It talks at considerable length to the parents and kids who would be negatively affected by the closure of the clinic. This was hardly a misinformation filled screed or some sensationalist right wing garbage. So while I don't the NYTimes got it perfect, I think they did a far sight better than anyone else did. I can't possibly justify downgrading or deprecating or even putting an asterisk on the NYTimes based on that. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 20:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    While I think my opinion on the piece in question is more negative than yours, I agree that it's not terrible. It's mostly guilty of a lot of WP:FALSEBALANCE, which while frustrating, we explicitly state in our own guidelines about it is par for the course. I don't think that there are any big factual errors in it, just that the tone and the facts they lay out don't really match. Loki (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes, LilianaUwU's original proposal was fair, and at a minimum the NYT's current WP:GREL entry should add "The New York Times should generally not be used to support LGBT content" to the already existing "The New York Times should generally not be used to support medical claims". Much of the discussion above this edit seems to assume a dichotomy between GREL and GUNREL, but LilianaUwU's call out to the entire section in List of controversies involving The New York Times is evidence sufficient and it should be a wake up call that the addition of "The New York Times should generally not be used to support LGBT content" has become indispensable at a very minimum, alas! XavierItzm (talk) 01:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @XavierItzm: - since you are evidently familiar with the controversy, what is the worst incident that NYT has been involved with regarding LGBT, that would warrant this proposed change? starship.paint (RUN) 01:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      While I say it's not that bad above, I do invite people to read this piece, which starts out with a very "both sides" introduction before laying out tons of evidence that the person who made the complaint appears to have told some pretty major lies, and that almost no patients of the clinic in questions have complaints other than that it's too hard to get an appointment at the clinic. Again, I don't think this article made major factual errors, but its tone and the actual facts it lays out are miles apart from each other.
      There's also this article which we have several sources in the NYT Controversies page criticizing, of which I think this piece in Science-Based Medicine is the clearest as to what the problems are. TL;DR presenting three outcomes of a treatment as if they are equally likely, when the desired outcome is in fact most likely by a gigantic margin, is pseudoscientific WP:FALSEBALANCE. So is quoting experts about the risks of a treatment but not that they still do recommend it as a treatment. Like the other article, no actual factual errors per se, but it's so misleading as to give a totally wrong impression.
      This is a pattern: the NYT consistently writes about trans issues and especially trans children with a WP:FALSEBALANCE lens, which is usually somewhere between somewhat misleading (when they lay out the actual facts in full) and very misleading (when they don't). I think that this can easily be corrected with a small note on RSP along the lines of On trans issues, the NYT has been accused of engaging in WP:FALSEBALANCE. Loki (talk) 03:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Does WP:FALSEBALANCE apply to sources? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Yeah, maybe linking the page false balance and not the policy WP:FALSEBALANCE would be better. The policy doesn't apply, obviously, but we can obviously criticize a source for the journalistic bias, especially when that bias causes them to obscure the facts in a misleading way, as the NYT has done multiple times. Loki (talk) 03:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Loki, I'm not seeing something egregiously wrong about the Azeen Ghorayshi NYT article, where the facts are not as one-sided as you're putting them out to be. starship.paint (RUN) 05:56, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Azeen Ghorayshi article in NYT. starship.paint (RUN)

The Azeen Ghorayshi article starts off with The small Midwestern gender clinic was buckling under an unrelenting surge in demand, later stating: as the number of these patients soared, the clinic became overwhelmed.

The Azeen Ghorayshi article elaborates that

But as demand rose, more patients arrived with complex mental health issues. The clinic’s staff often grappled with how best to help, documents show, bringing into sharp relief a tension in the field over whether some children’s gender distress is the root cause of their mental health problems, or possibly a transient consequence of them. With its psychologists overbooked, the clinic relied on external therapists, some with little experience in gender issues, to evaluate the young patients’ readiness for hormonal medications. Doctors prescribed hormones to patients who had obtained such approvals, even adolescents whose medical histories raised red flags. Some of these patients later stopped identifying as transgender, and received little to no support from the clinic after doing so.

The Azeen Ghorayshi article cites evidence:

The St. Louis center relied heavily on outside therapists to vet patients, emails show. Doctors there prescribed hormones to patients who had identified as transgender for at least six months, had received a letter of support from a therapist and had parental consent.

The Azeen Ghorayshi article cites more evidence:

One patient emailed the clinic, in January 2020, to say they had detransitioned and were seeking a voice coach for their masculinized voice. They also requested a referral for an autism screening, noting, “I have mentioned this before at appointments and over email, but it did not seem to go anywhere.” In another email thread, the center’s staff discussed a patient who regretted a recent mastectomy. The patient had messaged their surgeon at Washington University twice about wanting a breast reconstruction, but had not received a reply.

The Azeen Ghorayshi article found further evidence:

The Times independently found another St. Louis patient who detransitioned, Alex, who posted on Reddit last year to “give a warning” about the clinic. (Alex shared medical records with The Times to corroborate her account.) Alex arrived at the center in late 2017 at age 15, she said, after identifying as transgender for three years. She had been referred by a therapist who was treating her for bipolar disorder and anxiety. Alex was prescribed testosterone, she said, after one appointment with Dr. Lewis. “There was no actual speaking to a psychiatrist or another therapist or even a case worker,” she wrote on Reddit.After three years on the hormone, she realized she was nonbinary and told the clinic she was stopping her testosterone injections. The nurse was dismissive, she recalled, and said there was no need for any follow-ups. Alex, now 21, does not exactly regret taking testosterone, she told The Times, because it helped her sort out her identity. But “overall, there was a major lack of care and consideration for me,” she said.

I notice you don't quote any of their mentions of Reed, who is allegedly the impetus for the article. If you did, the problems with the article would become very clear. So for instance:

Some of Ms. Reed’s claims could not be confirmed, and at least one included factual inaccuracies. But others were corroborated

This is much weaker language than I'd use. At no point do they make clear which claims they think are "corroborated". But they outline in detail the cases where Reed was clearly wrong, and in at least one case (the bica one) it appears pretty clear that Reed lied intentionally.
Rather, they instead outline a different set of issues with the clinic than the ones Reed accused the clinic of, and seem to think that means that Reed's criticisms were confirmed.
Furthermore they say:

The reality was more complex than what was portrayed by either side of the political battle, according to interviews with dozens of patients, parents, former employees and local health providers, as well as more than 300 pages of documents shared by Ms. Reed.

But is it? It seems like the trans-friendly narrative is basically borne out by the facts they lay out, while Reed's narrative is basically disproven by the facts they lay out. It seems like the obvious political solution to the situation the article describes is to fund the clinic better, which is certainly the opposite of what Reed and her political allies want.
The basic issue here is that it treats Reed's claims, some of which are highly implausible and at least one of which the NYT knows to be false, as consistently reliable unless it can prove them false. If you want a more detailed breakdown of the issues with the article see here.
Loki (talk) 08:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wait, sorry, two of which the NYT knows to be false. I missed that the NYT also showed that Reed herself informed patients of the risks while she was working at the clinic, therefore proving her allegation that the clinic did not inform patients of the possible risks to be both definitely false and very likely a lie. And that's one of the core accusations Reed made, right? If they find that one is a lie why do they present the facts in such a both-sidesy way? Loki (talk) 09:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Loki, I disagree with your interpretation that the NYT treats Reed's claims as consistently reliable unless it can prove them false. In my reading, they simply treat her claims as allegations, and as you've pointed out, they've even refuted multiple allegations of hers. You also claim that the NYT are bringing out a different set of issues with the clinic than the ones Reed accused the clinic of. From reading the NYT's link to her allegations [56], and looking at what I've quoted above, they have corroborated the significant increase in young patients seeking transgender care which she alleged, as well as her allegation that young patients relied on external therapists to get approval for transgender care. Regarding her allegation of desisters/destransitioners, NYT corroborated her allegation of the girl who had a double mastectomy, and independently found detransitioner Alex. I think that is enough to satisfy the others were corroborated by NYT. starship.paint (RUN) 09:50, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree with their characterization of Alex, a nonbinary person who says they didn't regret taking testosterone, as a "detransitioner" too, for the record. Honestly, I feel like that is a factual error, albeit a minor one, unless they asked Alex and that is a term Alex used for themselves.
Also, I'll agree that they corroborated the significant increase in patients seeking transgender care, but it's odd that they consider that an allegation made by Reed against the clinic instead of just, y'know, a statistic. Putting "the clinic is receiving a lot more patients than before" on the same footing as "Reed definitely lied about her central claim of patients not being properly informed of the risks" and claiming that means both sides have a point is not journalistically sound. Loki (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The NYT article said For example, her affidavit claimed that the clinic’s doctors did not inform parents or children of the serious side effects of puberty blockers and hormones. But emails show that Ms. Reed herself provided parents with fliers outlining possible risks. But a flyer is not in itself sufficient for obtaining informed consent, particularly if the flyer was not written by a clinician and not provided by a doctor. So this isn’t a smoking gun for dishonesty, and it doesn’t prove the NYT erred significantly in continuing to report her allegations. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, Loki, I'm not sure if what you said about the Megan Twohey and Christina Jewett NYT article is accurate, you said presenting three outcomes of a treatment as if they are equally likely, when the desired outcome is in fact most likely by a gigantic margin, but the NYT article states most patients who take puberty blockers move on to hormones to transition, as many as 98 percent in British and Dutch studies, and you then said quoting experts about the risks of a treatment but not that they still do recommend it as a treatment, but I'm seeing in the article that it states Dr. Khosla and Dr. Gordon don’t believe the effects on bones are reason for medical providers to halt use of the drugs in adolescents. But they think the risks should be factored into patient decisions and that bones should be carefully monitored ... Like many physicians, Dr. Rosenthal believes the benefits of using blockers to alleviate gender dysphoria are much greater than any risks to bones. Were you referring to other doctors? starship.paint (RUN) 06:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you want a more detailed breakdown of the issues with that article just read the Science-Based Medicine piece I linked. We use it as a source in the article on NYT controversies, and SBM is also green at RSP. I'm just paraphrasing them, and they explain the scientific issues with the article at great length. Loki (talk) 08:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In specific:
Extended quotes from Science-Based Medicine

The authors begin with three anecdotes of patients who had all shared the experience of being treated with puberty blockers at one point. These anecdotes form the article’s frame around which discussion of the science and the ostensible “debate” over puberty blockers is structured. Yet, these anecdotes cannot be used responsibly to illustrate the full scope of the science. Here’s why.

One out of the three patients discussed has had a positive experience and is positioned in the article as evidence that puberty blockers can help trans youth, thus setting up the frame of benefit versus harm in a way that ends up emphasizing harm when the other anecdotes are discussed. For example, a second patient, an anonymous teen from New York is described as having gone off blockers after two years of an initially positive experience when it was discovered that the patient “had such a significant loss in bone density” and that during treatment, “the teen’s bone density plummeted — as much as 15 percent in some bones — from average levels to the range of osteoporosis.” The NYT notes that while the doctor recommended beginning testosterone, the parents had “lost faith” in the medical council and later quotes the parents as saying, “I don’t think we have the science behind them to be prescribing these drugs.” Yet, in describing this anecdote, the NYT fails to mention that, according to their own evidence that they hired Dr. Foroutan to review, such a reaction is nowhere near the typical response to puberty blockers. There is no evidence beyond the parents’ intuition that the puberty blockers caused bone density decline. Indeed, the available evidence is that they don’t normally do that according to the NYT’s own sources. “The change in bone density while adolescents were on blockers was observed to be zero,” according to the article.

Why, then, is this not mentioned when discussing this teen? The parents may blame the blocker, and indeed, the blockers may have played a role, but what happened in this patient that was different from the first? What might have been done either before or after this unnamed teen went on blockers to identify and minimize the risk? Again: the parents disregarded the advice of a doctor and made their own causal attributions. That isn’t a scientific approach to understanding risk. The article is correct that bone density is important when assessing any patient’s potential risks of taking puberty blockers. The problem is that it advances an intensely skewed and selective perspective on these risks.


At this point, we must also unpack one quick sentence in the NYT that puts all of this into a more accurate perspective:

Dr. Khosla and Dr. Gordon don’t believe the effects on bones are reason for medical providers to halt use of the drugs in adolescents.

That’s putting it mildly. Dr. Gordon wrote an article advocating for trans youth in Texas and vehemently opposing the State’s efforts to ban gender-affirming care—including puberty blockers. Dr. Gordon explicitly implicates puberty blockers in lowering the high risk for depression and self-harm in trans youth while condemning the involvement of politics in health care. She resigned from her post as pediatrician-in-chief at Texas amid attempts by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to criminalize gender-affirming care for trans youth. As Dr. Gordon writes:

Understanding the effects of blocking sex steroid secretion on the growing skeleton will provide important information to both pediatric and adult clinicians who care for these patients. Concern about transient bone loss should not discourage this therapy. What is certain is that rates of anxiety, depression, and suicide are strikingly higher among transgender youth, and GnRHa therapy offers hope to these patients. In this patient group, providing a pause in pubertal development offers a life-changing and, for some, a life-saving intervention.

This is a pattern throughout the article: the NYT quotes legitimate medical experts in gender-affirming care but conveniently fails to quote them regarding their positions vis-à-vis the cultural controversy. They directly quote Dr. Stephen Rosenthal when he justifies his stance for not providing blockers as a stand-alone treatment to anyone over 14. However, they merely summarize his stance against attempts to ban puberty blockers—obliquely mentioning that he filed statements in a lawsuit aimed at overturning Alabama’s state-level ban on the medications.

And these are just two of many many scientific criticisms of that article. Like I said, the article portrays a false balance and to do so it downplays both the scientific evidence for the benefits of puberty blockers and the strong scientific consensus for their use by not giving it their equivalent of WP:DUEWEIGHT, while simultaneously significantly exaggerating the risk with scary-sounding anecdotes. In doing so about a scientific topic, it's not just being misleading, it's advocating pseudoscience the same way it would be if it was scaremongering and both-sidesing about vaccines. Loki (talk) 09:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you want to take three anecdotes as evidence that three outcomes are equally likely, that's on you. If you want to ignore the 98% blockers to hormones statistic that the NYT provided, that's on you. If you want to ignore that NYT wrote that many doctors believe that the benefits of using blockers to alleviate gender dysphoria are much greater than any risks to bones, that's on you. If you want to disregard that NYT's writing that Khosla, Gordon, and Rosenthal do not think bone risk should override usage of blockers, that's on you. Frankly, this seems like a whole lot of interpretation. I think that the relevant information is indeed there, if you read it properly. This simply does not rise to the level of being egregious. starship.paint (RUN) 10:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean, it's mostly the tone and presentation of the article that I'm objecting to. I agree that the NYT isn't making major factual errors, but I also think there are many claims that could theoretically be cited to this article that are in fact not true, because the NYT says many things in the article that even though technically true create such a misleading impression that they might as well be false. For instance:

When adolescents are using blockers, bone density growth flatlines, on average, according to an analysis commissioned by The Times of observational studies examining the effects

This is not false per se. (Well, they weren't all observational studies, as documented by SBM, but that's a quibble.) But it's not a peer-reviewed analysis, and the analyst (as documented by SBM) isn't even an expert in this area. So the conclusion isn't scientific. It's just one guy's expert opinion, and not even in the area of his expertise.
There's also a bunch of cases of small factual errors. For instance, the NYT says:

In explaining their study, the researchers pointed out that the United States had produced no data on the impact or safety of blockers, particularly among transgender patients under 12, leaving a “gap in evidence for this practice.”

But the actual study says (emphasis mine):

The most recent version of the guidelines, published in 2017, outline compelling considerations for earlier gender-affirming hormone initiation ... Since the introduction of these guidelines, no data have been reported in the United States on the physiologic and mental health impact, safety, or tolerability of puberty-suppressing medical interventions with GnRHa for transgender youth, particularly children younger than 12 years of age, leaving a gap in evidence for this practice.

or in other words, there has been data, and the study says there has been data, just not since 2017. Loki (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It must be noted that the authors of that SBM article are not neutral independent witnesses, but are in fact battleground participants themselves. Eckert in particular has been the subject of debunkings and has published counter-debunkings, and this latest article is very much on-form. Wikipedia is not here to pick sides by disqualifying the sources that we disagree with. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It *is* one of Wikipedia's fucking jobs to pick sides. This notion that Wikipedia should be unbiased ignores the fact that bias for truth, *for reality*, *for reliability* is still a fucking bias. "Oh no, a reliable source and an unreliable source! Well, we can't pick sides, better put them both in the article!" LightNightLights (talkcontribs) 11:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This isn't creationism or flat earth. The enemies of the NY Times don't hold a monopoly on truth. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the conclusion here remains obvious: No change should me made to the NYT's entry on the perennial sources noticeboard. I'm very unimpressed by all arguments to the contrary. Pecopteris (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean, you say that, but have you seen the list of WP:MEDORGs that support the use of puberty blockers for trans kids?
If it's not akin to creationism, it's at least akin to anti-vaccine crankery. It's certainly WP:FRINGE in the actual scientific literature, and it being much more politically mainstream doesn't change that. Loki (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
have you seen the list of WP:MEDORGs that support the use of puberty blockers for trans kids Depends what you mean by "support". Even the European medical organisations who have scaled back use of puberty blockers still typically support their use in exceptional cases. But if you mean something akin to "enthusiastic support", then that list is dwindling, following recent systematic reviews of the evidence. This is the rising professional disagreement that the NY Times has reported on. It's not happening in the backstreets of Twitter, it's happening in peer-reviewed medical journals and national health authorities. It's nothing like anti-vaxxers. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"The enemies of the NY Times don't hold a monopoly on truth" Good thing I didn't say that.
While we're here, what does it matter if people on a side are "battleground participants"? Does Wikipedia also do this song and dance when evolution and round Earth experts become (and plausibly even are) "battleground participants" and "pick sides" against creationism or flat Earth?
Also, can we get references for these claims like "if you mean something akin to 'enthusiastic support', that list is dwindling, following recent systematic reviews of the evidence" and "it's happening in peer-reviewed medical journals and national health authorities"? LightNightLights (talkcontribs) 04:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, start here: [57]. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 06:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll read that source. What about my other point? LightNightLights (talkcontribs) 07:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, the explanation of why evolving standards of care for gender dysphoria are unlike creationism and flat-earthism? Because the disagreement is occurring within the medical establishment, documented in peer-reviewed medical journals, with differing approaches endorsed by different medical organisations. It's not a bunch of scientists/doctors on one side and a bunch of non-scientists/non-doctors on the other. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean this point: "While we're here, what does it matter if people on a side are 'battleground participants'? Does Wikipedia also do this song and dance when evolution and round Earth experts become (and plausibly even are) 'battleground participants' and 'pick sides' against creationism or flat Earth?" LightNightLights (talkcontribs) 08:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Did You Know "... that a 1903 New York Times editorial predicted it would take one to ten million years to develop an operating flying machine?" Andrew🐉(talk) 20:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What does this have to do with anything? 2600:4040:475E:F600:4DC6:8197:263B:1A5 (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think that the intent is to say that of course the NYT makes mistakes, and that this doesn't by itself mean they're not a reliable source. Loki (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This was run on the main page yesterday and so seemed topical. The NYT now has extensive coverage of aviation in its various aspects. So it goes. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't think a specific callout is needed here. Referencing much of NYT's coverage of trans topics would almost certainly be UNDUE. —siroχo 23:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong No The NYT the US paper of record, and it's totally inappropriate to reduce its reliability rating based on the existence of criticism from advocacy organizations, whoever they are, especially on topics of current controversy. It's not reasonable or workable to deprecate a source based on the existence of criticism: it would either lead to deprecating/downgrading ALL sources or introduce POV by picking and choosing who to follow, and WP:RSP process should not be used as a backdoor way of violating WP:NPOV. The only basis for deprecation is serious problems with "fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction," and the NYT doesn't have them. GretLomborg (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The proposal is no longer for deprecation, it's just for adding an "other considerations apply" note. Loki (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I also strongly oppose an "other considerations apply" note for the same reasons. GretLomborg (talk) 05:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As do I. Pecopteris (talk) 05:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Νο. Τhe newspaper is a major source of information and reportage and remains, for all intents and purposes, reliable. Their coverage of transgender issues has indeed been criticized but not at a level that Wikipedia should deprecate the Times on this. We should not even demand "additional considerations". -The Gnome (talk) 09:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No to deprecation and "other considerations apply". If editors in this topic area feel the need to deprecate the NY Times and the Times of London for disagreeing with them, the problem is a refusal to acknowledge reliable sources, not a problem with the sources themselves. And I don't think WPATH is entirely reliable when their standards of care cited a eunuch forum featuring graphic fictional depictions of child castration and sexual abuse. [58] If we're applying the WP:FALSEBALANCE standard equally, WPATH based much of their eunuch section on this child erotica forum and I would call that the definition of WP:FRINGE. Assuming that eunuchs are a gender identity, I have trouble believing that forum is representative of them. Chess (talk) (please Reply to icon mention me on reply) 13:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC on Vanguard reliability[edit]

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.

The RfC is initiated following this informal discussion, in order to formally arrive at an implementable consensus.

Should the Vanguard newspaper be classified as

A: Generally reliable in its areas of expertise? or
B: Marginally reliable for which additional considerations apply?

-The Gnome (talk) 11:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ActivelyDisinterested, A. B., Random person no 362478479d, Wilson, Reading Beans, Vanderwaalforces, Watercheetah99, Ibjaja055, Sam Kuru, Oaktree b, HandsomeBoy.


  • B per discussion consensus at the link. -The Gnome (talk) 11:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm guessing this is in response to the other thread having no formal closure. But it didn't need one, as the general consensus of the thread was pretty obvious. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 21:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A: Generally reliable in its areas of expertise. If we are going to can media for publishing advertorials, can The Economist already, which publishes entire issues dedicated to advertorials. The New York Times is a tad bit less blatant but it also publishes advertorials. As usual, all articles from the NYT, The Economist, and Vanguard should be evaluated on their own merits, and it would be quite unfair to overall redline African-owned, African-published media while ignoring analogous shenanigans in London and in NY. XavierItzm (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As per the discussion here the problem wasn't advertorials, but that not all such articles are marked as advertorials. This isn't the case with The Economist or the NYT. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 19:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The discussion didn't try and impose a binary that's virtually a black/white yeah, this African publication is on par with the NYT / no, basically this Nigerian daily is almost unusable (marginal). On the contrary, the discussion proposed salutary solutions appropriate for a third-world country perspective, such as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. XavierItzm (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that all The Gnome is trying to do here is get a formal agreement of what you've just described, it's what option B would mean.
That it's marginally reliable but caution should be taken with potentially unmarked advertorials.
Option A would mean that it's generally reliable without any quarms.
Personally I don't think this RFC is necessary, the agreement at the end of the other discussion is fine. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 23:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excuse me, do you know what MREL entails, in practical terms? I want to WP:AGF, but let's not pretend A is anything like B. Observe, for example, that the NYT remains WP:GREL, even though it includes this tiny little disclaimer: "The New York Times should generally not be used to support medical claims." And Indian media as a whole generally gets a pass (i.e., is as much GREL as the NYT), with the proviso they must be considered under NEWSORGINDIA. Can you imagine if you were to MREL all of India's sources under the guise of "oh, we're just trying to get a tiny little formal agreement here, it really makes no difference." Sorry, not cool. The proportional outcome here remains GREL with a NYT-like disclaimer, or the extension of NEWSORGINDIA to include African sources such as Vanguard. XavierItzm (talk) 00:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I never, ever said A was the same as B. I stopped reading after that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 10:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The qualitative difference, XavierItzm, is that publications such as the Vanguard publish text written by newspaper employees as if they're genuinely independent articles, which is what they explicitly offer at a price. (The price list is always up and available.) Nothing like this happens to the publications you mentioned, i.e. NYT, Economist, etc. This is irrelevant to place of publication or country of origin. As we already do in Wikipedia, any and all media that covertly commingle advertising with reportage are not considered as top-tier reliable. Nigerian contributors have already agreed that this is typical Vanguard practice. Hence, all we're saying here is keep the paper as reliable but with the additional considerations prescribed by WP:MREL. -The Gnome (talk) 11:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The issue of unfair treatment raises its ugly head when you consider that WP:RSP doesn't have entries for hardly any of the thousands of Indian periodicals... which, by omission, remain automatically GREL. And yet, you know what we say about Indian media: "Even legitimate Indian news organizations (print, television, and web) intermingle regular news with sponsored content and press-release-based write-ups, often with inadequate or no disclosure" (from WP:RSNOI). Your proposed solution will explicitly discriminate against a major African medium because it will automatically make it MREL when in all proportion and fairness it should be GREL with a disclaimer (like the one we have for the NYT with regard to medical advice), or with an expansion of WP:RSNOI to also encompass African-run media. XavierItzm (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Applying the same criteria across the board is never "discrimination", XavierItzm. An infraction of the rules in a competitive sport, for example, is punishable exactly the same way no matter if the guilty party is the champion or the lowest rated one. Vanguard offers advertorials masquerading as genuine articles; this publications like NYT do not to. Its advertorials cover the gamut of subjects; publications like NYT are subject to scrutiny in specific fields, e.g. medicine. The Vanguard has no place among genuine fully reliable sources no matter which way we choose to cut it except one: To ignore the evidence. -The Gnome (talk) 09:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would be quite OK to apply NEWSORGINDIA or a NYT-like disclaimer to Vanguard. Singling out Vanguard for MREL for NEWSORGINDIA-like behaviour MRELs an African medium, something that is not done to its Indian peers. XavierItzm (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I refuse to abide by the maximalist principle implied in your position, XavierItzm. Fixing nothing before we fix everything simplifies ineluctably to fixing nothing. At long last, Wikipedia thankfully stands against "whataboutism", i.e. "what about that other stuff". -The Gnome (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I would consider all entries on NEWSORGINDIA MREL. It's a list of sources and the additional considerations that apply to their use, it is by definition a list of MREL sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 23:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Personally I would not rate any news source as A. I think B is reasonable, especially given concerns about native advertising. (t · c) buidhe 20:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • B It is clear that while this is National newspaper that is recognized, it has also become a place for advertorials where anyone can pay to play. We cannot rate it an A because considering the issues some reviewers like me have been facing reviewing articles from this region it has become a growing concern. It is still reliable but shouldn't be totally. Jamiebuba (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.

Dealing with machine-translated copyvio sites such as and[edit] and are two examples of websites that scrape content from non-English news sites and present their machine translations as their own original articles, without attributing the original source or noting that they are machine translations. As such, they should be regarded as bad-faith plagiarisers and copyright violators. While the original sites that they scraped from may or may not be reliable sources, these websites should be regarded as never reliable for anything on Wikipedia, and are actively harmful as sources of bad translations, especially of proper nouns. Unfortunately, editors who are unaware of this might make the mistake of citing them.

What can be done to prevent links to these websites (and others like them) from being inserted into articles? Would adding to the spam blacklist be appropriate? Is there an edit filter that deals with this? --Paul_012 (talk) 09:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If they are posting copyright violating content it's not a reliability issue, the sites should never be linked to per WP:ELNEVER. I suggest going to WT:BLIST and asking for them to be blacklisted. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 16:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. I'll see what the folks there say. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also adding that is another one. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC: Reliability of PanAm Post[edit]

What is the reliability of PanAm Post?

Previous discussion from May 2020 here. NoonIcarus (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Option 2/Cancel prior result: PanAm Post is currently under the third category at WP:RSP, based in a discussion from 2020, which has justified some removals that I wish to bring to the discussion:
As stated by some of edit summaries, many of these facts are published by reliable sources, and in some cases, reliable sources have cited PanAm Post too. It's also worth nothing that months after the last RfC was closed, between August and September 2020, the arguably most troublesome editors of the newspaper left and started their own outlet, "El American": Orlando Avendaño (editor in chief), Vanessa Vallejo (co-editor in chief) and Emmanuel Rincón. The last one actually was mentioned in the opening of the last RfC, regarding his credentials. Since then, PanAm Post's editorial line has improved.
It's been three years since the last discussion at the noticeboard and the changes in the editorial board, and its worth revisiting the outlet's reliability. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wasn't involved in the previous discussion, but I'll take a look and come back here based on what I've found. Deauthorized. (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As you have shown here, a lot of these topics are covered by more reliable sources. There is no reason to have a source like PanAm Post being used on the project. WMrapids (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Cancel prior result because I think the earlier RfC's 4-way template was inappropriate and the consensus (4 out of 7) small. I ping the prior participants: Hippeus ReyHahn Jamez42 Horse Eye Jack Devonian Wombat ZiaLater Buidhe Barkeep49. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm not convinced that the rating should be changed.
    Bottom line, for controversial topics the use of breaking news sources especially those whose reputation has been questioned should be avoided. The events happened years ago, there should be some retrospective sources available that would obviate the use of sources like Pan Am Post. If some details have not been covered in retrospective sources, are they really wp:due? We're an encyclopedia, and trying to provide blow by blow detail is not usually the best way to cover a topic. (t · c) buidhe 19:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Note that Hippeus was WP:CUBL'd. Bon courage (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I indeed found that previous decision was wrongly justified. It was based on majority and not on arguments. Barely any sources were casted by those that favored the final results. I tried to contest the decision but the user that closed it decided against it. - ReyHahn (talk) 12:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 3, as I stated in the prior RfC the PanAm Post has published unsubstantiated conspiracy theories accusing Bill Gates of attempting to control the world with vaccines, and publishes virulent opinion pieces under their "news" segment, several of which openly advocate for extreme levels of political violence against supporters of the Venezuelan government. If any fact within it is worth citing, there will be more reliable and reputable sources covering this fact. I note User:NoonIcarus's belief that PanAm's editorial standards have improved since several of its more problematic contributors left, but I do not believe this to be true. Literally within the past week they have published, under their "news" section (so these are not opinion pieces) Chilean government awards life pension to criminals of the outbreak which effectively slanders regular Chilean citizens as criminals for participating in the 2019–2022 Chilean protests and the resolutely silly With Petro, cocaine exports are aimed at replacing oil which provides information that as far as I can tell stands in total contrast to what every actually reliable source says on Colombia's cocaine market: see here for example. As such, the PanAm Post still publishes information that any reasonable editorial line would block as either potentially defamatory or just plain wrong, and it is clearly an unreliable source. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll note that the first two articles that you're referring to currently cannot be found at the website:[59][60], apparently being retracted. At any rate, these descriptions appear to be misleading: they don't appear to be "accusing Bill Gates of attempting to control the world with vaccines", nor "advocating for violence against Venezuelan government supporters". --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, just to quickly provide Bloomberg's original report on Colombia's cocaine: Cocaine Is Set to Overtake Oil to Become Colombia’s Main Export. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well there are still crazy pieces from the same author on the site [61] [62]. The latter is particularly funny now as it includes gems like

Today, while the industrial power of the major nations of the West is languishing and jobs are being destroyed every day, China’s industrial strength is flourishing, and even Wuhan will be back on its feet. On the other hand, the rest of the world seems to have no intention of lifting the quarantines any time soon. In countries like Spain, Italy, and the United States, there are hundreds and thousands of deaths counted every day.

And it seems they're not the only columnist there who publishes crazy stuff [63] That said, I'm reluctant to penalise a whole site just because they allow crazy columnists to publish on their site, at most it means we should exclude their columnists. The question is is the non-opinion part of their site reliable? I don't know, I'm not sure if it's worth looking into a great deal at least for the English part of the site consider it seems to be dead with all the content being from early 2021. The only recent thing seems to be this opinion piece which is slightly less crazy than the other stuff [64], but either way doesn't seem to suggest the English site is going to be useful going forward. I don't understand Spanish so cannot evaluate that portion of their site. Nil Einne (talk) 05:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NB, I see from your comments above that the person I'm referring to actually had a significant position in their news operation. That being the case, I would say there's no point even considering their English site, it had significant involvement from someone who doesn't seem trustworthy and seems to has died not that long after he and the others left. (Technically there might be a short time after, but it doesn't seem worth it for such a short period, and further it's unlikely everything immediately improved the moment they left.) I'll also go as far as to say although I cannot personal evaluate it that we shouldn't trust the Spanish portion from that time period either assuming he had the same level of involvement. So it's really only ~2020 to now that we should bother to consider. Nil Einne (talk) 05:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In those cases, opinion pieces are clearly distinguished from news articles. However, I want to clarify that I don't deny that issues remain with PanAm Post, which is the reason why I stand with Option 2, taking care of these specific cases while being able to use valuable content not found elsewhere else, such as interviews. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can use a translator to take a look at the active Spanish side of the site, from what I can see there's still a right wing bias to the reporting but there is a marked improvement over their older content. I've compared articles on the site to similar reports by AP News and didn't notice any significant differences ([65] and [66]), though said articles were written by the EFE Agency so it may not reflect on PanAm as a whole. As per the rest of the Spanish articles not written by EFE, they seem reliable to me. Articles like this one that I looked over didn't raise any significant red flags for me.
To address the English side of the website, that side seems to be mostly abandoned (no) and contains the typical borderline insane culture war stuff that was previously mentioned by User:Nil Einne. Some of the authors of said articles, such as Raul Tortolero, still publish articles on the Spanish side, but he seems to only post opinion articles now based on what I can tell. Deauthorized. (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To make a decision though, I'd say Option 2 for the Spanish side of PanAm Post, with extra consideration given towards opinion articles as that seems to be the only problematic part of the site I can see. Besides the English side of course, which I'll mark up to Option 4, as it seems to be mostly abandoned and contains problematic content as previously noticed by other editors. Deauthorized. (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Deauthorized: Please see what I found on the Spanish side of the website in this edit. WMrapids (talk) 11:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) I'm very reluctant to use a machine translator when assessing a source for reliability especially when I don't understand the language at all. While machine translations especially for a pairing like Spanish to English are generally good enough that most of the time, they should not significantly change basic factual accuracy, they will often still lose context, nuance and tone and in complex circumstances to risk changing the meaning of stuff in misleading ways. For example while it's partly overt, this opinion column I linked above has an extreme conspiratorial tone pointing to how China is going to use COVID-19, which it wink wink suggests may have been made in a Wuhan lab, to their great advantage. [67] The overt stuff may make it through machine translation but there's a fair chance the extreme conspiratorial tone won't make it through machine translation and even if it does it would be impossible to be sure it was actually present in the original text. But the other issue is that I'm also very unlikely to use a source which I don't understand and require machine translation to cite something. At most I might find something and ask someone who understands to confirm it says what I think it says. Even if I'm just checking an existing citation, if it's very simple perhaps I'll trust machine translation but anything more complicated and I'll again likely seek help from someone who does understand it. So it's better that these people who will be using the source assess the reliability than me who won't. Nil Einne (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do agree that the tone of writing can be lost in translation. Perhaps somebody with a better understanding of Spanish than me can take a look at it, and if it turns out that there was something drastic I was missing due to the translation, then I'll reconsider. But for now, I'm standing by my previous decision. Deauthorized. (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Deauthorized: ReyHahn and I are native Spanish speakers, in case advice is needed. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said earlier, that piece is particularly funny since with the benefit of hindsight, I don't think anyone will agree much of what it suggested actually happened. And indeed while many countries COVID-19 strategies are widely criticised, China's one is rarely seen as a success now in virtually any area including economically that the column is talking about. Since whatever initial success they may have had with their zero COVID-19, it did start to harm them economically and it also became clear they had no good plan on a way forward. So instead ended up rapidly changing direction in a panic when public pressure began scare the party/government. And notably this rapid and unplanned about face largely due to public demands rather than specifics of the medical situation likely significantly harmed the one benefit of what they did, avoiding lives loss from COVID-19. And this from a country who's ability to plan ahead better than even most successful democracies has generally been a key point of pride. Of course the fact China persisted with extreme lockdowns required by their zero CVOID-19 strategy for so long is another thing which makes that piece funny with hindsight, since it's talking about how they're ending in China but it's unclear when they'll end in other parts of the world. Of course being wrong does not in itself impeach a journalist but when you're coming at things from an extreme conspiratorial angle and your conspiratorial proposal on what's going to happen turns out to be wrong basically every way, well then yes I think it speaks strongly against trusting you. Nil Einne (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 2/Cancel prior result: as already stated in previous RfC. It has been cited by reliable sources like WaPo, Reuters, WSJ, AP and BBC. Repeating myself: Forbes The 2020 Ranking Of Free-Market Think Tanks Measured By Social Media Impact, that described it as popular and with "solid reporting" on topics related to free market. Associated Press called PanamPost "a conservative online publication run by mostly Venezuelan exiles from Miami" in a piece that confirms PanamPost original investigation. I tried to contest the previous result here and now the results reads Some editors showed its use by other reliable sources (e.g. the AP) and suggested that only its opinion section was troubling., however it still argues that by "consensus" it affects their news coverage (it is unclear to me if this action allies WP:NOTDEMOCRACY). While some concerns have been indicated, I really think that in previous discussion most concerns were based on opinion articles and not on how others news sites describe the sources. Editorial standards are not the best but it is still a source that does their own reporting and retracts articles when possible. There is just not enough secondary sources to assert clear unreliability, we have much worse in that category.--ReyHahn (talk) 09:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 3-4: The fact that the closer refused to revert the previous decision was a good and obvious choice. PanAm Post seems to be very similar to La Patilla in its extremist nature. Its efforts to baselessly attack left-wing governments is clear. And with the COVID-19 content disseminated by them, brought up by Devonian Wombat, it is clear that this source should remain generally unreliable at the very least.--WMrapids (talk) 10:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The articles that you're referring to were retracted. If anything, it demonstrates that PanAm Post has editorial oversight. The outlet should be judged by its current reliability, not the one in 2020. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PanAm Post is another La Patilla, a Venezuelan extreme opposition website. They have cited Breitbart[68][69][70] and The Epoch Times[71] on numerous occasions for controversial allegations. This article pushes George Soros conspiracy theories about him creating "anarchy" through the US judicial system. Similar to La Patilla, PanAm Post also reposts information from questionable individuals criticizing immigration to the US (see more on this individual here). The editor-in-chief also described climate change science as a "political weapon". And all of these were posted on the main page of the Spanish website, which is as equally damning as their English website. Throw away the key on this one. WMrapids (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, so much for my optimism. Option 3-4 as per the above. Deauthorized. (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Horrornews, other horror sites, other prolific niche fan sites[edit]

For some genres in some media there are a ton of fansites/blogs/niche sites which review basically everything applicable to the genre. They are often self-published, media are often reviewed by people who aren't professional reviewers/critics/journalists, and the authors don't often write outside of the particular niche. In my experience, one examples is horror movies. I nominated Where the Dead Go to Die for deletion because of a GNG fail. Others have argued that and the like qualify for NFILM (which only mentions reviews when talking about "full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics").

The review in question is self-published by the site's owner, Adrian Halen. I can find almost no information about Adrian Halen via Google, yet his name has been included as an authority in 26 Wikipedia articles. "Horrornews" likewise appears in 591 articles.

I see this discussion from 2020, in which the arguments that it's reliable include circular reasoning ("has been cited as a reliable source by senior members of WikiProject Film at AFDs"), that it's "an approved critic at Rotten Tomatoes" (some fun reading about that), that it was cited in a book published by McFarland (unless another use is hidden from my GBooks preview, it's only used to say that a script was available there), that it was cited in a book [published by a predatory publisher], and that it was cited in a symposium (again, not for any factual purpose and not for any review -- just as a script repository). None of this points to reliability.

Why are these kinds of sites not simply considered fansites rather than treated as serious film criticism and reliable sources for facts about films such that they should count towards WP:NFILM or carry any WP:WEIGHT in an article? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Make sure you get a review for your film or book by taking "out 1 month of ad space on promoting your release", see both here and here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 19:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Especially on the book reviews this is the only way to get a review. So for books it's worth absolutely zero for notability. For films they say they can do 30 to 60 reviews a month, so all films will be reviewed but expedited films come first. But the about us page says "We try and accommodate as many requests as we can by funneling our submissions thru our review staff", so reviews are no mark of notability as all films submitted will be reviewed without exception. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 19:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In general niche fan sites aren't reliable, these don't appear to be an exception. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your concern.@User:Rhododendrites
I participated in the Afd, initiated by you and where you have described the said site and another one as tiny niche horror websites.
If you're talking about "niche sites" in general or even horror niche sites in general, the topic seems at the same time too vague and too general for me to express any opinion. Still, I would comment that to say that "niche authors" don't write outside their niches, seems quite tautological and that merely calling certain experts "niche authors" is not really enough to dismiss their expertise, but that it rather seems to express a certain lack of interest or respect for the said field of expertise; on top of this, saying they review basically everything applicable to the genre is an unverifiable assertion, that could be described as an exaggeration.
If you're assessing Horrornews, in general, most reviews there seem rather acceptable as sources, specially as opinion pieces, as the former discussion, that you quote, had established. (also please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horror/Archive 5, a section initiated by User:ReaderofthePack in 2020).
If you are talking about the one particular review on Where the Dead Go to Die, I am sorry but to say that it was self-published by the site owner is an unclear assessment, I think. That is not what self-publish means, in my understanding of the word. It is not a personal website; it just was written by the site owner.
Final comment: Why are these kinds of sites not simply considered fansites? Possible answer: If these sites are not considered fansites, it may simply be because they simply are not fansites. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If aren't reviewing films indiscriminately then they are reviewing for payment. Either way that stands against the use of their reviews for notability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 20:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I was tagged to weigh in here. Before I get into HN.N, I want to discuss horror in general. Despite its enduring popularity, it's still a niche genre that gets a fraction of the coverage that other genres would. Consider Bruce Campbell and Emma Watson. Both are very well known and Campbell is arguably a household name in the horror and general nerd communities. Emma Watson hasn't acted since 2019, but still has 12,900 results in Google News compared to Campbell's 4,410 - and Campbell is still a prolific actor. This is part of the reason that horror websites pop up, because the non-horror sites are unlikely to cover horror news unless it relates to the mainstream somehow. All of them are going to be fansites to one degree or another because the people who maintain the site are going to be huge fans of the horror genre and some opened the sites specifically because they saw a need for specific coverage. It's just unfortunate that some tend to have a "fansite" aesthetic.
I tend to look at very specific things with sites when looking for reliability. They don't have to meet every criteria, but not meeting any of them is a sign that the site is almost certainly unreliable:
  1. Are they mentioned by sources (news, journal articles, scholarly/academic presses) that WP would consider reliable? (IE, are they often seen as a reliable source of information for these outlets?)
  2. Do they interview notable people or have them writeregular or guest posts? Notable people are limited as far as time goes, so they're going to avoid the small fry and dodgier sites. (Back in my book blogging days I had a small but decent following - but still couldn't land anyone notable for an interview.)
  3. Are they used as a source in any academic and scholarly works?
  4. Have they been nominated for any major awards? Won any of them?
  5. To a lesser degree it also pays to see if they've been granted press passes to any major film festivals or events. If they are allowed to get into say, SXSW or FrightFest for free then that's a good sign that they're seen as a major player. If they are denied any type of press pass (even ones they have to pay for) then that's not a good sign.
As far as HN.N goes, I don't think that they had the ad scheme going on at that point in time. It's kind of insulting that they don't think the average person would recognize this as a form of paid reviews. Even if the user is only paying for an expedited review and there's no guarantee of a positive one, it's still a paid review. That aside, the site is pretty frequently used as a source in academic and scholarly sources such as this book from Rutgers University Press written by Wheeler Winston Dixon, this one from McFarland, mentioned in this other one from McFarland (which also uses it as a general source), and otherwise used as a source in a number of other academic/scholarly books and peer-reviewed journals. With the review stuff in mind I'd say that the RS guide should be amended to say that it can be used for things like interviews and news updates, but not reviews.
With other sites, be careful with the term "fansite". Ultimately every niche/genre website is going to be a fansite to one degree or another since they're covering something they love. Even appearances isn't always a guarantee of quality, as in the case of the site Ginger Nuts of Horror. It looks like a fansite, which is why I had avoided using it for a long time. (Using Wayback because the site is super slow to come up for me.) However doing that did the site a disservice because it has a pretty solid reputation for reliability, has been referenced multiple times in academic and scholarly sources, and was nominated at least twice for the British Fantasy Award for Best Magazine and has also been used by many RS as a RS.
I'm kind of rambling, but my point is that these sites need to be taken on a case by case basis, even if they look like a fansite. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 17:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the especially thorough reply. Even as someone who participates in mainly film, books, and game related AfDs (including board games where sourcing from RS tends to be thin), I was frankly surprised that these horror sites are regarded as generally reliable. Overall for HorrorNews, I would contend that for plot recaps and the like this is fine, per some use by others you demonstrated, but the pay to review scheme and IMO in general the lack of editorial oversight should bar it being generally reliable for reviews. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Airline and flight-tracking websites[edit]

I confess that I recently had an edit war over the Airlines and destinations table in the Mehrabad International Airport article. I tried replacing it with a summary in prose, which is now in the separate Operations section. I do wonder if removing the table does more harm than good. So I'm trying to figure out how to cite the info in the table.

The best options that occur to me are citing airline or flight-tracking websites. The result of this RfC that I started in 2017 says such refs are OK, but I'm still unsure... This method of referencing seems quite different from what we do in other sections of the article, and in other articles generally. On airline websites, you typically have to pretend you're booking a flight from Mehrabad to a certain city to see if the airline flies that route. In terms of flight-tracking sites, FlightRadar24 has a map of routes from Mehrabad. You have to click on each destination and then on the individual flights. Would it be OK to cite the entire route map, or would I have to cite each flight's page? Then again, the status is often reported as "unknown" for these domestic Iranian flights, so I don't really know if the flight is running. Not sure what to do... Sunnya343 (talk) 03:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reliable for what they (narrowly) say, but probably unusable without secondary sources to make any such information WP:DUE. Heavy cutting of this stuff would improve things onto a more encyclopedic footing. Bon courage (talk) 04:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many members of WP:AIRPORTS want to keep the tables. The main argument appears to be that the key feature of an airport is the flights that it offers, so all should be mentioned in articles. Sunnya343 (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many members of WP:AIRPORTS want to keep the tables ← Sounds like a classic low-WP:CONLEVEL problem. You did well to raise it here.. Bon courage (talk) 05:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was an RFC on list of airline destinations that closed as no, and an AfD that backed it up. That's not the exact same issue as this, but I think the same WP:NOTDIRECTORY argument could apply. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 22:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are texts written by a journalist RS for his biography?[edit]

Graham Phillips (journalist)

Xx236 (talk) 11:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, but they're primary sources. – Joe (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In another words should be replaced by secondary sources, but they are preserved. Xx236 (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:ABOUTSELF applies if the details are about the subject and not overly self serving, but be careful that it does not involve claims about third parties. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 13:02, 20 September 20