Talk:Últimas Noticias

Stub classification

This article has been classed as a stub due to its level of organisation and detail. It also needs to be sourced. Capitalistroadster 01:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Tabloid

WMrapids in this edit, you seem to be misunderstanding the tabloid issue. Daily Mail is a tabloid; see the lead. National Enquirer is a tabloid; see the lead. Being a tabloid is not a "political stance" or "editorial opinion". Please restore tabloid to the lead, per both Time[1] and The Guardian.[2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

And New York Times (which I will add this afternoon when I have time):

• Romero, Simon (27 May 2007). "Chavez's move against critic highlights shift in media". New York Times. p. 1.6 – via ProQuest. ... Ultimas Noticias, the Caracas tabloid with the nation's highest circulation, recently helped sponsor a series of forums on 21st century socialism, Mr. Chavez's catch-all concept for the changes sweeping Venezuela.
• Romero, Simon (26 August 2007). "Moving clocks ahead, reaching back in time". New York Times. p. WK.3 – via ProQuest. ... Ultimas Noticias, the most widely circulated daily in Caracas. The tabloid, sympathetic to President Hugo Chavez, ...

That's three high-quality sources: attribution is not needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• "The press: dangerous liberty". Time. 17 February 1958. Retrieved 12 August 2023. La Esfera (The Sphere) and tabloid Ultimas Noticias (Latest News), earned a hazardous reputation as two of the few sheets that proved most staunch in defiance of Pérez Jiménez.

Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate it. The whole “tabloid” description wasn’t exactly clear in the previous versions and it seemed that the substance was focusing on reports that the paper turned “pro-government”. Thanks for the clarification. WMrapids (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

No problem, and you're welcome (I agree there is some mangling -- see the section below this), but I encourage you to be more careful and ask more questions when addressing text that is easily citeable. There has never been any doubt (and I'm going back to the 80s, although I was surprised to also find a source from the 50s) that it's a tabloid-- always has been. It would make for less work for all of us if you would do some searching for sources before editing, and if you can't find what you're looking for, lodge a query at talk. There are very few editors keeping up with these articles, so collaboration will make for less work for all. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

What is this mess?

What is going on here; the sources appear to be all jumbled.[3]. The content is verified, but the sources are all in the wrong place, best I can tell, but have not read them thoroughly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

And this? I started trying to sort it so the citations could be formatted, but gave up without finishing (several of the links never discussed Ultimas Noticias] and others are about different incidents). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

"Double standard"

While I have the time and before it is repeated further, I want to address the implication that describing outlets such as Runrunes as "opposition" is somehow similar to describing Últimas Noticias as pro-government. One of the first articles that I found in a Google search about the newspaper's purchase was "Robert Hanson - his dad was Thatcher’s favourite tycoon, but now he’s accused of selling out Venezuelan newspaper to socialists", by The Independent, and there are whole articles dedicated in addressing and explaining this new editorial position: [4][5] (the former includes ten examples of biased and misleading reporting). This is not only limited to neutrality, but to reliability as well, as it can be noticed in fact checking reports:[6][7][8] (although again, this brings back the editorial line issue, as in many of these cases the problem is the republication of unreliable government sources).

If anything, this should be an example of when there's truly enough coverage on an outlet to make an statement on its political stance per WP:WEIGHT NoonIcarus (talk) 00:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Global Voices

Why is Global Voices, "an international community of writers, bloggers and digital activists" being used to place information critical about the paper? Also, WP:SYNTH/WP:OR was removed as the sources included did not mention Últimas Noticias once, so they were obviously placed to support the claims made in the Global Voices article. WMrapids (talk) 01:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Referring to this removal of this addition first made in 2015, with a whole series of intervening edits that led to an undefined ref followed by #What is this mess? After which I gave up after finding WP:CWW all over the place in subsequent Zialater edits, which carried the uncited edits of the banned paid editor to other articles. It appears that this is partly sorted now at this article, but I'll have to face the CWW another day. (I don't believe the citation mess I mentioned above is sorted yet; I gave up after finding the CWW.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

PS, a reminder to keep WP:EXPERTSPS in mind when evaluating blog sources; best I can tell, the Jessica Carrillo of this Global Voices article is not the same Jessica Carrillo as the Telemundo journalist, but I could be wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I placed back some of the material with the Runrunes article. WMrapids (talk) 10:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Copying within

See WP:CWW

Starting in now on text that was carried to other articles from this article without attribution; this will take time. Saving the diff

• 537048296 as of 13:09, February 7, 2013

from now banned paid editor of largely cited text; I doubt any of that text is citeable, as it was likely told to the paid editor by an individual. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• Cadena Capriles 778446028 as of 04:49, May 3, 2017
  • Step 1: [9]
  • Step 2: [10]
  • Attribution in edit summary: [11]

And removed text there which is unlikely to be cited.

I thought I saw this content yesterday in two articles; still looking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)