Talk:Radio Free Asia

message: The header is misleading. The two subsections are oppression and persecution of the agency and its journalists by china govt. I 'demoted' the sectioning but was reverted. Please reconsider.- Altenmann >talk 22:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  international response section header 

message: Should the lead section of this page state that some commentators consider Radio Free Asia to be propaganda?
*Option 1: Yes, say in the lead that some commentators consider Radio Free Asia to be "propaganda".
*Option 2: No, do not say in the lead that some commentators consider Radio Free Asia to be "propaganda".
— Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. We may not need an RfC for the body. What about if we lay out all we have from previous edits? We then will know what we are talking about and can decide how to treat the various comments. Burrobert (talk) 06:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

text: While the RfC is fine as it stands, it really is premature. A lot of content has been removed with claims of no consensus, so we should establish the consensus. I would suggest a question regarding the restoration of the old history subsection found here. Regarding the reception section, I think we could adopt an approach like François Robere at Talk:Jan_Żaryn#Resolving_disputes; we make a rough draft of the reception section on the page here, editors make their comments/criticisms below and we hash it out & finally include it when ready. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  <u>'''''DRAFT'''''</u> RfC regarding lead section 

message: Hello all! This is a draft RfC regarding the question of how to handle the lead, and I've pinged you because you have either participated in the procedurally closed RfC in the section below, or because you've commented in the section above. Are there any objections to using the question and options above for an RfC that would pertain to the lead? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. We may not need an RfC for the body. What about if we lay out all we have from previous edits? We then will know what we are talking about and can decide how to treat the various comments. Burrobert (talk) 06:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

text: While the RfC is fine as it stands, it really is premature. A lot of content has been removed with claims of no consensus, so we should establish the consensus. I would suggest a question regarding the restoration of the old history subsection found here. Regarding the reception section, I think we could adopt an approach like François Robere at Talk:Jan_Żaryn#Resolving_disputes; we make a rough draft of the reception section on the page here, editors make their comments/criticisms below and we hash it out & finally include it when ready. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback: are these options representative of the proposals we've seen thus far and/or that we'd like feedback on as it pertains to the lead? 

message: There is disagreement over whether or not a reception/criticism section should exist within the article to describe the characterization of Radio Free Asia by certain analysts as a propaganda outlet for the United States.
*Should a reception section akin to the one previously added that details descriptions of the outlet as propaganda (and potential refutions of this allegation) by media analysts be included
*Should the allegation of propaganda be mentioned in the lede of the page?
Paragon Deku (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Support as editor who reworded the previous criticism section (and opener of this RfC). Several media analysts have criticized the goals or funding of RFA, and I believe this is worth mentioning in the article, especially since organizers for RFA and Voice of America have refuted these criticisms. I'd consider them to be notable in the same way that criticisms of other state run media are notable to their pages. Paragon Deku (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Support However this question is very vague, conceptually a general reception section is good, but the devil is in the details, and it really matters what specifically would be in it. BSMRD (talk) 00:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I was trying to clarify that I would propose one akin to the one linked in the top of the RfC as opposed to the previous one that read like a laundry list of complaints from other countries. Paragon Deku (talk) 00:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Support, it was included previously, along with numerous other sections which were dubiously removed for claims of "undue weight". Editors new to this article are welcome to review how the article looked before the large content removal here.  The main reason I see for the removal of this section is "NPOV", yet the people reverting addition of this section made little to none effort to actually "balance" the section and seem keen to whitewash it of its criticisms. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 01:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Oppose 1) Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before seeking help from others per WP:RFCBEFORE. There is an ongoing discussion about the issue here - Talk:Radio Free Asia#Lead and instead of continuing to respond there, you created this RfC. I believe this is not a reasonable attempt. 2) You created RfC ⇒ People started to express their opinion ⇒ You changed RfC. This is not how you do it. About the question itself: Question wording is unclear and what's more unclear is the content in the link you gave us -   who?  why is it necessary to mention Voice of America? This article is about Radio Free Asia, not about Voice of America. Voice of America has its own article. --Renat 01:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, similar discussions have already happened several times and I was told an RfC may be in order by another editor, so I took their advice. Second off, I informed involved editors who replied already to the changes made on their talk pages because it had to do with organizing the discussion. Finally, the mention of Voice of America is due to the fact that they are both grouped under the U.S. Agency for Global Media and are often criticized together in the literature. Paragon Deku (talk) 02:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  just because someone told you to create RfC, doesn't mean that you need to do it. --Renat 02:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Taken together, I don't think that the inclusion of "propaganda" in the lead improves the article, especially when facts are viewed in light of policies and guidelines. In many ways, it amounts to a poorly substantiated smear against the news agency that other reputable news agencies tend to treat as reliable. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Opposed. This is a malformed RfC. What exactly text should be included? That was not suggested. Actually, there is no disagreement that some kind of reception section can be included in the body of the page. What exactly? That's a good question, and it needs to be discussed prior to filing the RfC. For example, that was not discussed, and I believe such section should not be based only on the single personal opinion expressed in 1999. Perhaps they have improved? Do not we have something more recent? My very best wishes (talk) 22:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The text to be included would be something akin to the reworked reception section I had added to the page previously. Discussion has already occurred regarding the subject matter (Which is why I nixed the statements by China and North Korea) and I was told to start an RfC due to there still not being consensus. It's also not a single personal opinion in 1999, it's several opinions expressed. Paragon Deku (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You have chenged your questions during standing RfC. Yet another reason why this RfC is invalid. My very best wishes (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Oppose. There is nothing in the body of the page about propaganda. How can we include it to the lead? The lead suppose to be a summary of content on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Oppose.  has thoroughly demonstrated why. Additionally, RFA has won a multitude of journalism awards. IMO, this shows that the propaganda characterization lacks grounds. Thomas Meng (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to reiterate that winning journalistic awards does not inherently make something not propaganda, but that's not even exactly what this RfC is about. Paragon Deku (talk) 00:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Support. State funded media has a long history in the United States and numerous commentators have described the content of RFA as propaganda. I'd like to also note that just because a source is "reliable" does not mean it is not propaganda, since the terms are not mutually exclusive. RFA can be a reliable source for the purpose of wikipedia and Western news outlets while also serving to further the aims of the US state department. Worth noting is that RFA and Voice of America was prevented from broadcasting in the United States for years due to laws in place that prevented domestic dissemination of propaganda, so it's clearly a part of the outlet's modern history, especially considering it is well documented its former iteration was tailored specifically as cold war propaganda. Not mentioning the fact that there has been significant historical criticism of the outlet and characterization as propaganda, including from elected US officials, seems ridiculous to me. Paragon Deku (talk) 00:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Support, this sentence in lead already was the subject of discussion on the NPOV noticeboard (read here) and it has been decided (seemingly, as it was not challenged until VM and MVBW's "random" edits) that this should be included in the lead. I was also going to address the laughable claim that winning awards makes you non-propagandistic but realized that the claim itself does not need further comment. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 01:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Oppose. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents per MOS:LEAD. It is unclear what exactly is proposed to be added to the lead section. Is the propaganda allegations are the most important contents in the article? I am not sure about that. --Renat 02:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Discussion of criticisms of RFA within the article and mentions of propaganda in lede 

message: :Support as editor who reworded the previous criticism section (and opener of this RfC). Several media analysts have criticized the goals or funding of RFA, and I believe this is worth mentioning in the article, especially since organizers for RFA and Voice of America have refuted these criticisms. I'd consider them to be notable in the same way that criticisms of other state run media are notable to their pages. Paragon Deku (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Support However this question is very vague, conceptually a general reception section is good, but the devil is in the details, and it really matters what specifically would be in it. BSMRD (talk) 00:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I was trying to clarify that I would propose one akin to the one linked in the top of the RfC as opposed to the previous one that read like a laundry list of complaints from other countries. Paragon Deku (talk) 00:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Support, it was included previously, along with numerous other sections which were dubiously removed for claims of "undue weight". Editors new to this article are welcome to review how the article looked before the large content removal here.  The main reason I see for the removal of this section is "NPOV", yet the people reverting addition of this section made little to none effort to actually "balance" the section and seem keen to whitewash it of its criticisms. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 01:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Oppose 1) Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before seeking help from others per WP:RFCBEFORE. There is an ongoing discussion about the issue here - Talk:Radio Free Asia#Lead and instead of continuing to respond there, you created this RfC. I believe this is not a reasonable attempt. 2) You created RfC ⇒ People started to express their opinion ⇒ You changed RfC. This is not how you do it. About the question itself: Question wording is unclear and what's more unclear is the content in the link you gave us -   who?  why is it necessary to mention Voice of America? This article is about Radio Free Asia, not about Voice of America. Voice of America has its own article. --Renat 01:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, similar discussions have already happened several times and I was told an RfC may be in order by another editor, so I took their advice. Second off, I informed involved editors who replied already to the changes made on their talk pages because it had to do with organizing the discussion. Finally, the mention of Voice of America is due to the fact that they are both grouped under the U.S. Agency for Global Media and are often criticized together in the literature. Paragon Deku (talk) 02:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  just because someone told you to create RfC, doesn't mean that you need to do it. --Renat 02:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Question 1

message: *Oppose previously proposed inclusion in lead, per WP:DUE and MOS:WEASEL There are two main reasons in my view for not including the repeatedly inserted addition that "some commentators have characterized" that Radio Free Asia is "propaganda" in the lead of the article: Wikipedia's policy on due and undue weight and our Manual of Style.
*:Regarding due weight, the vast majority of reliable sources that describe Radio Free Asia describe them as a reputable news agency, which would sharply cut against the claim that they are propaganda. The Atlantic has praised their reporting on Xinjiang and has even referred to the news service and seems to have recommended one of their extended documentary projects (1, 2). The Economist has similarly praised their reporting as an organization that is at the  in Xinjiang and comments positively on their reporting. The New York Times [repeatedly https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/01/world/asia/a-voice-from-chinas-uighur-homeland-reporting-from-the-united-states.html] refers to it as a . The Guardian reports that RFA is a .  None of these reputable sources refer to it as propaganda, and in fact they seem to indicate quite the opposite. To state that a reputable news agency is propaganda is, therefore, an extraordinary claim, and it requires extraordinary sourcing. We simply don't have that here. Mentioning this in the lead seems WP:UNDUE.
*:Regarding the manual of style, I would draw particular attention to the guideline to avoid weasel words. Among the example phrases given as "weasel words" is , which bears a resemblance in form and function to the use of  in the version that some editors prefer; these are exactly the sorts of phrasings that would ordinarily get tagged with a  template. 
:Taken together, I don't think that the inclusion of "propaganda" in the lead improves the article, especially when facts are viewed in light of policies and guidelines. In many ways, it amounts to a poorly substantiated smear against the news agency that other reputable news agencies tend to treat as reliable. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Opposed. This is a malformed RfC. What exactly text should be included? That was not suggested. Actually, there is no disagreement that some kind of reception section can be included in the body of the page. What exactly? That's a good question, and it needs to be discussed prior to filing the RfC. For example, that was not discussed, and I believe such section should not be based only on the single personal opinion expressed in 1999. Perhaps they have improved? Do not we have something more recent? My very best wishes (talk) 22:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The text to be included would be something akin to the reworked reception section I had added to the page previously. Discussion has already occurred regarding the subject matter (Which is why I nixed the statements by China and North Korea) and I was told to start an RfC due to there still not being consensus. It's also not a single personal opinion in 1999, it's several opinions expressed. Paragon Deku (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You have chenged your questions during standing RfC. Yet another reason why this RfC is invalid. My very best wishes (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Oppose. There is nothing in the body of the page about propaganda. How can we include it to the lead? The lead suppose to be a summary of content on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Oppose.  has thoroughly demonstrated why. Additionally, RFA has won a multitude of journalism awards. IMO, this shows that the propaganda characterization lacks grounds. Thomas Meng (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to reiterate that winning journalistic awards does not inherently make something not propaganda, but that's not even exactly what this RfC is about. Paragon Deku (talk) 00:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Support. State funded media has a long history in the United States and numerous commentators have described the content of RFA as propaganda. I'd like to also note that just because a source is "reliable" does not mean it is not propaganda, since the terms are not mutually exclusive. RFA can be a reliable source for the purpose of wikipedia and Western news outlets while also serving to further the aims of the US state department. Worth noting is that RFA and Voice of America was prevented from broadcasting in the United States for years due to laws in place that prevented domestic dissemination of propaganda, so it's clearly a part of the outlet's modern history, especially considering it is well documented its former iteration was tailored specifically as cold war propaganda. Not mentioning the fact that there has been significant historical criticism of the outlet and characterization as propaganda, including from elected US officials, seems ridiculous to me. Paragon Deku (talk) 00:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Support, this sentence in lead already was the subject of discussion on the NPOV noticeboard (read here) and it has been decided (seemingly, as it was not challenged until VM and MVBW's "random" edits) that this should be included in the lead. I was also going to address the laughable claim that winning awards makes you non-propagandistic but realized that the claim itself does not need further comment. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 01:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Oppose. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents per MOS:LEAD. It is unclear what exactly is proposed to be added to the lead section. Is the propaganda allegations are the most important contents in the article? I am not sure about that. --Renat 02:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Question 2

message: *Comment  It may be better to split this into two voting sections, since two questions are being asked. Just an organization concern. BSMRD (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: In my attempt to research the topic and find more sources, I’ve discovered that between the first iteration of RFA and the modern iteration of RFA, yet ANOTHER broadcasting service existed called “Radio of Free Asia” that specialized in broadcasts to Korea and Vietnam. It was a product of the Eisenhower administration in the same way that the modern iteration was formed under the Clinton administration. All three have had the same goal of broadcasting American reporting into Asian countries seen as having oppressive regimes. Ultimately, this seems to be an organizational issue. Do all three organizations (which have similar goals and similar relationships to the federal government) need their own pages, or should they be gathered under the same name? Maybe Radio Free Asia should lead to a disambiguation page for the three outlets. Paragon Deku (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: So that one had a slightly different name, Radio of Free Asia. But I am not sure it is notable to create an additional page. If you want, you can try to create it. My very best wishes (talk) 03:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously this requires more research, but an organization with the same source of funding and the same ideological goal as the 50s outlet whose name differs by a single word doesn't seem entirely distinct. That's why I wonder why it should be its own page or share a page. Paragon Deku (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

text: I would like to clarify that I was partially mistaken: Radio OF Free Asia was not a government agency, but was PRIVATELY funded by Eisenhower. It was created to be a private sector successor to Radio Free Asia, but had extensive backing from the Korean government. Paragon Deku (talk) 04:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

text: I really don't think that the older iteration of RFA should have been separated. The page on it is clearly a stub, and feels a lot like a WP:POVFORK intended to sanitize this article of the designation of propaganda and place any such designation onto the older iteration, while leaving the impression of the modern org as an independent news org that merely receives state funding like NPR or the BBC or CBC. It very much is not like those orgs however, with a much stronger direction from the state, and I fear that the existence of the separated article on the older iteration of this organization will be used to redirect negative criticisms. Notably, the new page has already been used to strip out this pages categorization as an anti-communist org and a propaganda org.BSMRD (talk) 05:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The catch-22 is despite explicitly being propaganda, we can't really say it's propaganda unless RS's say so. This is one of those ever present wikipedia issues because we rely heavily on western sources which will naturally not chuck something like RFA under the bus so to speak without years of hindsight (I would not be surprised if, 20 years from now, the modern RFA is revealed through a FOIA document to be far more government entwined than this article would lead you to believe). That being said, I agree that the fork was a pretty drastic move, and I disagree with the assessment that it was somehow a noncontroversial and nonbold action. Additionally, there seems to be a POV push on this page (sanitizing is a good word) when the reception section was also nuked. Paragon Deku (talk) 05:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Are separate pages truly needed?

message: Considering we now have this page, the page for the anti-communist CIA outlet, and the page for the similarly named (and often flat out called Radio Free Asia as well) KCIA outlet, I think we might want to make Radio Free Asia a disambiguation page and rename this page to something else. Perhaps Radio Free Asia (News Outlet)? Paragon Deku (talk) 06:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I just created Radio Free Asia (disambiguation) and welcome any edits or additions. As far as moving this article, my initial thought is that this is probably the primary topic, per WP:PTOPIC. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I just updated all the hatnotes on the articles to direct there. BSMRD (talk) 06:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

text: Ah, right. That makes more sense. I forgot disambigs have their own page names, since I've never made one before. Thanks. Paragon Deku (talk) 06:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: Hello - I submit a request to change the Executive Editor role in the information box from "Parameswaran Ponnundurai" to "Min Mitchell", as Min Mitchell was recently appointed as RFA's new Executive Editor
https://www.rfa.org/about/directors/min-mitchell-executive-editor Mundanepitch (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Cannolis (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 February 2022 

message: @Greatder in your Edit 1 you added the word "Criticism" to the name of the "Reception" section and provided no edit summary whatsoever. I gave you a link to WP:CRIT, hoping that you will read and understand what is written there. And then goes the funniest part - in your Edit 2 you removed the word "Reception" completely and replaced it with "Criticism", saying in your edit summary that "". So I have a few questions: 1) Content of the section did not change between Edit 1 and Edit 2. Why did not you remove the word "Reception" in your first edit if you think that ""? 2) The last sentence of the section says: "" So why are you saying that ""? Renat 09:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greatder 

message: The Onionsite address of Radio Free Asia () is now unavailable, and accessing it results in an "Invalid Onionsite Address" error message in Tor Browser. So I suggest that someone with extended confirmed permission may consider changing "" to "". Or remove the Onionsite address directly. Thank you! 稀神サグメ 08:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: . I checked for if it had simply been put under a new url, but yeah, seems its dead. Aidan9382 (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2022 

message: RFA is described in the first sentence as "an American government-funded private non-profit corporation". The "private" nature of RFA is not mentioned again in the article. None of the four sources used in the lead for this statement mention "private" when describing RFA. In what way is RFA "private" and what source are we using for this description? Burrobert (talk) 08:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is my proposal: Let's remove the word "private" until we can find a suitable source for it. Any objections? Burrobert (talk) 12:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is RFA "private"?