Talk:Efecto Cocuyo

Political stance
Regarding the newly created and tagged "Political stance and editorial opinion" section, in the discussion at WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources, it was demonstrated that only a minority of sources has referred to Efecto Cocuyo as an "opposition" and that many other reference avoid the term, effectively creating a WP:UNDUE problem. The point has been made that being "opposition" does not exclude being "independent", but this only keeps a false dilemma where the source necessarily has to have a specific label. The second part of the section consists in WP:SYNTH since the references used are Efecto Cocuyo articles, which in use were use to justify the shoehorning of an interview to Guaidó. Third party sources should be used to this description, but that leads to another problem of the interpretation, which is the assumption that the use of these terms are related to a political stance. NoonIcarus (talk) 10:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Journalistic independence is not related to to political bias or alignment. Your WP:VENRS (I refer it as yours as your article due to the WP:OWNERSHIP behavior) has no trouble defining and discounting sources that are labeled as "government" or "state-run", yet if a source is described as being aligned with the "opposition", you are suddenly up in arms. Your allegations of WP:UNDUE fit the WP:BADPOV edits you have been engaged in, especially when WP:RS are publishing these descriptions. So until a real consensus exists and it is not just your WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:ACTIVIST behavior gatekeeping the article, readers should be able to see descriptions provided by WP:RS in a neutral manner. And no, we shouldn't have to open up a RfC for every article when we have multiple WP:RS sources that are verifying that Efecto Cocuyo is described as being aligned with the "opposition". WMrapids (talk) 05:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)


 * You're not addressing the issues: most sources don't describe the outlet as "opposition", and you're using articles written by Efecto Cocuyo instead of using third parties to describe the newspaper, which amounts to personal interpretation. It's ironic that you continue to cite WP:OWN, when it has become apparent that you're blocking any change to your preferred version. If your change has been disputed, the article must remain in the last stable version. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)