Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Voice of America article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Voice of America. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Voice of America at the Reference desk. |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 1, 2012, February 1, 2022, and February 1, 2023. |
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Georgetown University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.
Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
on 14:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
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.
Why do some users have a hard time accepting VOA as a propaganda outlet for the American government while easily labeling say RT America as a propaganda outlet for the Russian government. Oh I get it, Wikipedia is a biased online encyclopedia! Case closed. 91.146.137.194 ( talk)
This section's factual accuracy is
disputed. |
I'd like to raise several concerns regarding the section Voice of America#Trump presidency politicization efforts. It seems to me that this section more properly belongs in the article U.S. Agency for Global Media. Much of the information discussed there deals with broader issues than just what happened at VOA, and concerns other networks managed by the USAGM, the overall USAGM management issues, the board appointments, etc. It makes more sense to move over this section to U.S. Agency for Global Media and leave a relatively short paragraph with a redirect in the VOA article. However, the other issue I see here is the length of the section. Even in the VOA article, the section appears to be overly long and exessively detailed, probably in the need of compression. If moved over to U.S. Agency for Global Media, in its current form the section would overwhelm that article and create significant WP:BALANCE problems there. So I am not sure what exactly should be done here and in which order, and extra opinions would be welcome. Nsk92 ( talk) 16:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
This section's factual accuracy is
disputed. |
The claim that Ted Lipien's "official" blog supported turning VOA into Trump propaganda outlet is false and not supported by any citations. BBGWatch.com and USAGMWatch.com are not official blogs of any person but are managed by unpaid volunteer citizen journalists, some of them former VOA reporters, all of whom express their support for the VOA Charter and have repeatedly criticized all violations of the VOA Charter, both on the left and on the right, and have called for accurate, balanced and comprehensive factual reporting by the Voice of America. BBGWatch.com and USAGMWatch.com do not support Trump propaganda or propaganda of any kind and state it on their websites. [1] and [2] Ted Lipien is also not a former political VOA "official" but an independent journalist and a media freedom advocate who has been registered as an independent voter for some years and is not a supporter of former President Trump. He was promoted from within the Voice of America after he was VOA Polish Service chief during Poland's struggle for democracy and later VOA Eurasia Division director. [3] Coldwarbroadcasting ( talk) 20:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
References
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
What is the meaning of the superscript "R"s and "T"s in the "Current languages" section? Normally I'd expect them to be hyperlinked to some sort of explanation at the bottom of the section or article. -- Beland ( talk) 20:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
The members of the Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light whom were seeking safety in the EU are detained by the Turkish border police.
https://sofiaglobe.com/2023/05/24/members-of-religious-minority-seeking-asylum-pushed-back-at-turkish-bulgarian-border/ 197.40.194.112 ( talk) 22:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
In early 2008 there was a quite solid Ethiopia section. There is some old talk page discussion (just two comments) that seems to have one person arguing that the sources are mostly pro-ET-govt, and the other talking about a VOA/Ethiopia crisis and restoring the material. The sources would have to be checked - probably many may be only on Wayback; the WP:RELTIME violations would have to be fixed; and the general NPOV would have to be checked. The material was deleted on 9 January 2010 by an IP editor who only did one other edit a year earlier, and nobody seemed to notice the deletion. Boud ( talk) 23:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
References
VOA has been described multiple times as propaganda. This was reflected in the opening sentence of the article until just the other day. When I pointed out on another article that VOA is not a great source for objective analysis of the Ukraine war due to an inherent COI, someone came over here and removed the word propaganda. The reason for removal is apparently that it's on our list of "contentious labels". It is not. Given the strong appetite for value-laden labels on Wikipedia that I've seen elsewhere, I don't understand why we would whitewash this article by removing the description of VOA as "propaganda".
The article is still categorized under "United States Government Propaganda Organizations". And here's another RS describing VOA as propaganda. Here's a relevant passage:
I also anticipate objections from those who might cringe at the VOA and its sister institutions being called purveyors of propaganda. The people will bend over backward as they explain how the VOA “firewall” and charter preserve the service’s independence and journalistic credibility. This, of course, is a crock. With one swift swing of his leather-soled shoe, Trump has breached the firewall and smashed its alleged independence, although a lawsuit to block Pack is in the works. As Ralph A. Uttaro wrote in a law journal in 1982, “The Voice of America, no less than Radio Moscow or Radio Prague, endeavors to change the attitudes of its listeners.” Yes, it informs, but the main idea is frame the news to the U.S. government’s benefit. If the only goal was to inform, the government could save everybody a lot of money and bother by rebroadcasting The Associated Press.
VOA was also prohibited from broadcasting to American citizens until 2013, under the Smith-Mundt Act, which was intended to "protect the American public from propaganda actions by their own government". There's no evidence that VOA's content changed after 2013 such that it no longer qualified as propaganda - on the contrary, the 2013 amendment is a recognition that American citizens cannot and are not shielded from American propaganda in the internet age.
We should either re-insert the description, or step back and have a broader conversation about contentious labels.
I would be open to significantly increasing the scope of the "contentious labels" list, and have advocated this in the past. But that's a separate discussion. Currently, propaganda is not on the list. Philomathes2357 ( talk) 20:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Voice of America is seen by some listeners who? as having a positive impact while others like whom? see it as American propaganda; it also serves US diplomacy. [1] [2] [3]
propagandabeing in the first sentence here [3] and that you were warned about WP:EDITWARRING on that page [4]
The reason for removal is apparently that it's on our list of "contentious labels". It is not.
Given the strong appetite for value-laden labels on Wikipedia that I've seen elsewhere, I don't understand why we would whitewash this article
In this page, it's pretty clear that the term "a propaganda outlet" appears in the very first sentence so I think it's a common practice to add this term to all other similar platform.No
In this case, I would suggest to remove "propaganda outlet" in China Central Television's wiki page to avoid double standard and follow WP:NPOV.Theres no
double standard, you tried to add something to the lead that was already there. Following NPOV means not saying it again and again in the lead, not removing it from other pages where its sources Softlem ( talk) 11:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
References
I added this context to the rumor. It was immediately reverted by a brand new IP editor with the edit summary "the ref does not refer to the rumor, denied, by unnamed persons, as saying this was a cia site, so this is irrelevant". I don't see the justification for this deletion. Since it was reverted, instead I added the material and the sourcing for it. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 07:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
The new editor acting under various IP addresses, keeps trying to force in their preferred version. I have reverted back to the long-standing status quo and am happy to discuss how to make the section WP:NPOV. My edit summary was:
I suggest we work on a compromise agreeable to all. I think we might agree that the original title "Relay station used as a CIA black site" makes it sound too much like the rumor was true. (Based on the WP:RS I have read, I do not believe that to be the case. But my research would be considered WP:OR.) The IP's far-too wordy version ("Unconfirmed and denied rumor that Thai relay station was used to interrogate terrorists") over-emphasizes the denials. There must be some middle-ground, which I tried to establish in my previous edit ("Rumor that Thai relay station was used as CIA black op site"). Other than the title, I had copied and pasted the material (and WP:RS) directly from the first paragraph of CIA_black_sites#Asia. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 09:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Voice of America article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Voice of America. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Voice of America at the Reference desk. |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 1, 2012, February 1, 2022, and February 1, 2023. |
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Georgetown University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.
Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
on 14:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
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.
Why do some users have a hard time accepting VOA as a propaganda outlet for the American government while easily labeling say RT America as a propaganda outlet for the Russian government. Oh I get it, Wikipedia is a biased online encyclopedia! Case closed. 91.146.137.194 ( talk)
This section's factual accuracy is
disputed. |
I'd like to raise several concerns regarding the section Voice of America#Trump presidency politicization efforts. It seems to me that this section more properly belongs in the article U.S. Agency for Global Media. Much of the information discussed there deals with broader issues than just what happened at VOA, and concerns other networks managed by the USAGM, the overall USAGM management issues, the board appointments, etc. It makes more sense to move over this section to U.S. Agency for Global Media and leave a relatively short paragraph with a redirect in the VOA article. However, the other issue I see here is the length of the section. Even in the VOA article, the section appears to be overly long and exessively detailed, probably in the need of compression. If moved over to U.S. Agency for Global Media, in its current form the section would overwhelm that article and create significant WP:BALANCE problems there. So I am not sure what exactly should be done here and in which order, and extra opinions would be welcome. Nsk92 ( talk) 16:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
This section's factual accuracy is
disputed. |
The claim that Ted Lipien's "official" blog supported turning VOA into Trump propaganda outlet is false and not supported by any citations. BBGWatch.com and USAGMWatch.com are not official blogs of any person but are managed by unpaid volunteer citizen journalists, some of them former VOA reporters, all of whom express their support for the VOA Charter and have repeatedly criticized all violations of the VOA Charter, both on the left and on the right, and have called for accurate, balanced and comprehensive factual reporting by the Voice of America. BBGWatch.com and USAGMWatch.com do not support Trump propaganda or propaganda of any kind and state it on their websites. [1] and [2] Ted Lipien is also not a former political VOA "official" but an independent journalist and a media freedom advocate who has been registered as an independent voter for some years and is not a supporter of former President Trump. He was promoted from within the Voice of America after he was VOA Polish Service chief during Poland's struggle for democracy and later VOA Eurasia Division director. [3] Coldwarbroadcasting ( talk) 20:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
References
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
What is the meaning of the superscript "R"s and "T"s in the "Current languages" section? Normally I'd expect them to be hyperlinked to some sort of explanation at the bottom of the section or article. -- Beland ( talk) 20:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
The members of the Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light whom were seeking safety in the EU are detained by the Turkish border police.
https://sofiaglobe.com/2023/05/24/members-of-religious-minority-seeking-asylum-pushed-back-at-turkish-bulgarian-border/ 197.40.194.112 ( talk) 22:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
In early 2008 there was a quite solid Ethiopia section. There is some old talk page discussion (just two comments) that seems to have one person arguing that the sources are mostly pro-ET-govt, and the other talking about a VOA/Ethiopia crisis and restoring the material. The sources would have to be checked - probably many may be only on Wayback; the WP:RELTIME violations would have to be fixed; and the general NPOV would have to be checked. The material was deleted on 9 January 2010 by an IP editor who only did one other edit a year earlier, and nobody seemed to notice the deletion. Boud ( talk) 23:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
References
VOA has been described multiple times as propaganda. This was reflected in the opening sentence of the article until just the other day. When I pointed out on another article that VOA is not a great source for objective analysis of the Ukraine war due to an inherent COI, someone came over here and removed the word propaganda. The reason for removal is apparently that it's on our list of "contentious labels". It is not. Given the strong appetite for value-laden labels on Wikipedia that I've seen elsewhere, I don't understand why we would whitewash this article by removing the description of VOA as "propaganda".
The article is still categorized under "United States Government Propaganda Organizations". And here's another RS describing VOA as propaganda. Here's a relevant passage:
I also anticipate objections from those who might cringe at the VOA and its sister institutions being called purveyors of propaganda. The people will bend over backward as they explain how the VOA “firewall” and charter preserve the service’s independence and journalistic credibility. This, of course, is a crock. With one swift swing of his leather-soled shoe, Trump has breached the firewall and smashed its alleged independence, although a lawsuit to block Pack is in the works. As Ralph A. Uttaro wrote in a law journal in 1982, “The Voice of America, no less than Radio Moscow or Radio Prague, endeavors to change the attitudes of its listeners.” Yes, it informs, but the main idea is frame the news to the U.S. government’s benefit. If the only goal was to inform, the government could save everybody a lot of money and bother by rebroadcasting The Associated Press.
VOA was also prohibited from broadcasting to American citizens until 2013, under the Smith-Mundt Act, which was intended to "protect the American public from propaganda actions by their own government". There's no evidence that VOA's content changed after 2013 such that it no longer qualified as propaganda - on the contrary, the 2013 amendment is a recognition that American citizens cannot and are not shielded from American propaganda in the internet age.
We should either re-insert the description, or step back and have a broader conversation about contentious labels.
I would be open to significantly increasing the scope of the "contentious labels" list, and have advocated this in the past. But that's a separate discussion. Currently, propaganda is not on the list. Philomathes2357 ( talk) 20:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Voice of America is seen by some listeners who? as having a positive impact while others like whom? see it as American propaganda; it also serves US diplomacy. [1] [2] [3]
propagandabeing in the first sentence here [3] and that you were warned about WP:EDITWARRING on that page [4]
The reason for removal is apparently that it's on our list of "contentious labels". It is not.
Given the strong appetite for value-laden labels on Wikipedia that I've seen elsewhere, I don't understand why we would whitewash this article
In this page, it's pretty clear that the term "a propaganda outlet" appears in the very first sentence so I think it's a common practice to add this term to all other similar platform.No
In this case, I would suggest to remove "propaganda outlet" in China Central Television's wiki page to avoid double standard and follow WP:NPOV.Theres no
double standard, you tried to add something to the lead that was already there. Following NPOV means not saying it again and again in the lead, not removing it from other pages where its sources Softlem ( talk) 11:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
References
I added this context to the rumor. It was immediately reverted by a brand new IP editor with the edit summary "the ref does not refer to the rumor, denied, by unnamed persons, as saying this was a cia site, so this is irrelevant". I don't see the justification for this deletion. Since it was reverted, instead I added the material and the sourcing for it. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 07:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
The new editor acting under various IP addresses, keeps trying to force in their preferred version. I have reverted back to the long-standing status quo and am happy to discuss how to make the section WP:NPOV. My edit summary was:
I suggest we work on a compromise agreeable to all. I think we might agree that the original title "Relay station used as a CIA black site" makes it sound too much like the rumor was true. (Based on the WP:RS I have read, I do not believe that to be the case. But my research would be considered WP:OR.) The IP's far-too wordy version ("Unconfirmed and denied rumor that Thai relay station was used to interrogate terrorists") over-emphasizes the denials. There must be some middle-ground, which I tried to establish in my previous edit ("Rumor that Thai relay station was used as CIA black op site"). Other than the title, I had copied and pasted the material (and WP:RS) directly from the first paragraph of CIA_black_sites#Asia. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 09:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)