Talk:VilaWeb

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on VilaWeb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101007111838/http://www.safecreative.org:80/work/1010037493231 to http://www.safecreative.org/work/1010037493231
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140102030303/http://partal.cat/ to http://www.partal.cat/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

NPOV

The article claims that "VilaWeb is regarded as a quality newspaper", while in fact its selection of news and its reporting is highly politicized and controversial, like a victimized Catalan version of Breitbart where "Islam" and "Muslims" are replaced by "Spain" and "Spaniards", breaking the principles of ethics for journalism. 83.209.153.38 (talk) 07:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

NPOW

Hi @Arcillaroja: I see that you have reverted my edits two times. I can't understand why such a strong statement as partisan editorial line can be referenced by just one source, being that one a blog entry made by somebody who was fired from that newspaper. It doesn't seems very neutral. When I've found out potentially controversial themes, like the Boogaloo movement, what I've found has always been people asking for more than just a source (and not a blog entry, for sure) when referencing descriptors. I can't imagine why a blog entry written by a journalist criticizing her dismissal from that media can be an acceptable source. On the other hand, I can't neither understand why this study about public funding on Catalan media published by a prominent University from Barcelona has been reverted twice. I'm sorry, but I don't see any justification for those reverts, taking into account that I've not refused any of the sources you used (even despite some are poorly formated).--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)