Talk:Radio Free Asia

Criticism section
The only part of the criticism section that was actually encyclopedic is the part sourced to the Brookings Institute, but even there that quote is cherry picked and presented out of context. That is also the only source that *may be* worth restoring if the text is rewritten to properly reflect the actual source.  Volunteer Marek  00:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Re restoring of the section because “it’s been here for many years”. Doesn’t matter how many years junk has been in an article, it’s still junk and it needs to be removed. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that is always changing and improving and removal of old policy-violating stuff is part of that process. WP:ONUS is on those wishing to include.  Volunteer Marek  00:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. For example, it tells:


 * Why on the Earth this should be included? And why the campaign/opinion by Myanmar junta should be included? My very best wishes (talk) 00:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:ONUS is about consensus, and I do in fact think it's safe to assume that material that has been here literally since 2010, on a heavily edited article, has consensus for inclusion, at the very least per WP:SILENCE. I don't see how Dalpino's comments were taken out of context, either. All she had to say about RFA (that was quoted) in that article was negative, though she had positive things to say about VoA. What are we saying by including that quote that the article isn't? &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 00:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No, that ridiculous criticism by North Korea and Myanmar junta does not belong to the page. Do you think it does belong to the page? My very best wishes (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Something about foreign government's criticisms of RFA would make sense here, though I do agree that quote from KCNA is quite silly and not really worth including. RFA has a reasonable presence in Burma, which would obviously rub some less-than-ideal governments the wrong way (e.g., anyone remember this: ?). I don't think stuff about Burma has no reason to go in the article, but there's probably something a bit more substantive to say in 2021 than there was in 2010, as the material about the Saffron Revolution included there is indeed a bit sparse in substance. All things considered it's really not that bad, but there is surely better material out there. It should probably go in the international response section anyway if there is something more substantive to say. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 00:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "less-than-ideal governments"? Actually, North Korea and that junta are probably the most famous oppressive regimes on the Earth right now. I do not think they have anything to say on the freedom of speech in other countries. Sure, you can include the fact that they banned the Radio, but it belong to another section. This is NOT criticism of RFA. That's a ban. My very best wishes (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies as irony can be hard to convey through text, but me calling the governments of North Korea and Myanmar "less than ideal" was very tongue-in-cheek. I also wasn't suggesting material about that article should go in the criticism section (I really wasn't suggesting it should go anywhere at all), as I said the response of governments like the ones we're talking about would probably be better suited in the international response section, where I don't think the removed material about Burma would really be that bad, but I do agree we can surely do better than we did in 2010. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 01:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "Reptile broadcasting services" is probably undue as a quote, and I think that WP:CSECTION articulates reasons against having a standalone criticism section well. If we're going to have a section on what people think about the station, I'd think it best to have a section that includes both positive and negative reception with weight reflective of the relative coverage in reliable sources. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed on both counts. The "reptile broadcasting services" thing is not really encyclopedic, but I do think other parts of the removed material, like the statement from Kim Chol-min, or things the Myanmar junta said in 2007 probably do have room to stay in the section on international responses to the RFA, though. Dalpino's criticisms could probably go in a section on reception of the RFA but there is certainly positive reception of RFA in reliable sources too; it's generally a good thing not to have an explicit WP:CSECTION, but a section summarising the aspects of RFA's reception in proportion to their treatment in RS should be fine. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 01:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am opposed to "Criticism" sections in principle, and do think the section as it exists should be removed, however the article without it is currently very favorable to RFA, and some criticism should be integrated throughout the article. I removed the "reptile" line as regardless of what we come up with here that should go. Agree with and  that a "Reception" section, with both positive and negative domestic and international reception may be an ideal solution. BSMRD (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on discussion above, I do not see consensus to include anything by North Korea and like. Hence reverted. Please get consensus for inclusion of specific version of "Criticism" first. Kim Chol-min of North Korea or things the Myanmar junta said in 2007? Not as a legitimate criticism of RFA please. My very best wishes (talk) 03:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I would argue that the UN statement is at the very least worth mentioning. A news outlet being specifically called out by name in front of the worlds highest political organ is noteworthy, regardless of who is saying it. BSMRD (talk) 04:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A statement by UN would be important, but a statement by North Korea submitted to UN is probably not. And even if it is included, this should not be framed as a legitimate criticism of RFA. My very best wishes (talk) 04:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

RFA transmits to North Korea but the opinions of North Korea about the broadcasting is not suitable for inclusion?? Burrobert (talk) 07:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course not. For example, info about Putin declaring RFE/RL a "foreign agent" can/should be included to the page about RFE/RL, but this is not a valid "Criticism" of the organization, this is the problem of the oppressive regime and it should be framed on the page as such. My very best wishes (talk) 12:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you mean not a "valid criticism"? You are saying that an entire state's opinion should be censored because it is an "oppressive regime" and thus it loses any right at opinions or criticisms. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, as a fringe view. Of course such view can belong to page Human rights in North Korea, but I would argue it still should be framed as a fact (i.e. forbidding the freedom of expression), rather than a view, i.e."reptile broadcasting services." My very best wishes (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about the "reptile broadcasting services.", I was talking about: Kim Chol-min, third secretary of North Korea, in statement submitted at the United Nations, accused the United States of engaging in "psychological warfare" with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea through RFA. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We don’t appear to have an independent source for that so not WP:DUE, is there any coverage besides the self sourced document? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you explain how it is not due? CPCEnjoyer (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It would need to be published by a reliable source, for instance if the SCMP or Al Jazeera reported on the North Korean statement. Theres nothing which establishes that this one random comment carries the necessary due weight for inclusion in this article. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Is UN's article posted specifically under the subfolders /News/Press, labeled For information media at the bottom considered not "published by reliable source"? I believe if the "one random comment" didn't carry necessary weight it wouldn't be included in the UN article either. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Its the meeting minutes for the "Sixty-fourth General Assembly, Fourth Committee, 10th Meeting (AM).” Its not an article nor is it an official record. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I assume it would be fine, considering these have been used previously. Can you give me some pointers as to how these are unreliable? CPCEnjoyer (talk) 16:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * They’re reasonably reliable (less so than the UN’s official publications) but the point is WP:DUEWEIGHT, not every mention of a topic in a UN meeting should be on wikipedia. Perusing those five uses I also don’t think any of them are kosher except for the one on United Nations Security Council Resolution 1835 as its internal but even then its borderline. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I found another source covering North Korea's accusations of "psychological warfare", it looks reliable. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. This is ITAR-TASS. My very best wishes (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your opinion, can you state why it is unreliable in this context, as in their covering of North Korean statements? Thank you, CPCEnjoyer (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "this is the problem of the oppressive regime and it should be framed on the page as such" - editorial opinion.
 * Criticism of the RFA by a nation which is subject to RFA propaganda broadcasts is a "fringe view"??
 * Burrobert (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as "criticism by nation". In the text, the opinion was attributed to "Kim Chol-min, third secretary of North Korea", with a link to a WP:PRIMARY source. He asserts that the United States waged “psychological war” against North Korea. Do you think this is not a fringe claim? And in any event, one needs some secondary RS to place this to proper context. My very best wishes (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to jump in and play the administrator for a moment. FYI, I just blocked that Greek IP for edit warring. , I appreciate you getting this going, though the discussion has meandered a bit. I'm a big fan of "small" RfCs that propose specific things, but I think I can distill a bit of consensus out of this already, a consensus that I think is in agreement with policy: But I want to add that some editors here are too trigger happy. , you made this revert on 11 June, 00:33, but 23 minutes later you agree, here on the talk page, that the reptilian quote was silly; 13 minutes later you agree that a criticism section is not the way to go, and 20 minutes later you confirm all this again. So the revert, from my perspective, was unnecessary (the argument from "SILENCE" is really always weak), and only raised the temperature, as did the earlier false claims of VANDALISM (and thank you for confirming that that was indeed incorrect on the part of CPCEnjoyer). Finally, CPCEnjoyer, it is clear from elements of this discussion that there are some finer points here that you simply were not familiar with, including things about due weight, and some more elementary things about secondary sourcing, and about which particular sources are secondary and which aren't. That's fine, we all had to learn this at some point, but it does not behoove one to either start or continue an edit war if, as was made clear, the arguments simply weren't there. And if one accuses other editors also of vandalism and makes other edits that veer into the personal, one invites scrutiny. I don't think all discussions on article content are done here, but I hope that a. someone will take up the "Response" section seriously, to cover the subject matter from the beginning and b. that editors will take each other a bit more seriously, and study the matter carefully before making blanket reverts of individual, well-explained edits. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) "Criticism" sections are indeed discouraged, and elements typically found in such sections can be placed in a "Reception" section;
 * 2) Commentary needs to be verified by reliable, secondary sources--if a North-Korean official has something to say but no secondary sources (outside of a state agency) pick up on it, it's the sound of one hand clapping.

Incorrect summary in the lead
This revert:. What consensus are you talking about? That phrase was only recently included to the page, and without any actual consensus, as one can see from discussion you mentioned. More important, the lead suppose to summarize some content from the body of the page. What section of the article this phrase summarizes? I do not see any, not in the present version, nor in the version that existed when it was included first time to the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see how 2 months is exactly "recently". The discussion was had in the above space, but moved to the NPOV (I was incorrect in saying it was OR, my mistake) noticeboard, where it was marked as resolved by myself with no opposition with the involved parties here: . Obviously, multiple editors were quite involved in the debacle and acknowledged both the edit and my request for their input on it indirectly via continuing to edit the page and the relevant passage (obviously displaying they knew about the passage and did not oppose its inclusion further) and by remaining silent while continuing to otherwise actively contribute to WP when summoned to present any further objections, finally by not objecting when the discussion was closed during the period in which it waited to be archived. It is therefore quite obvious that, at the time, consensus was reached with the sourcing provided on the noticeboard, specifically for including this sentence in the lead. Therefore, it cannot be "incorrect"; as your section title points out - it was agreed upon that this should be the state of things. If you think there should be a criticism section this sentence refers to, you are welcome to write one yourself - but the sentence stays, as per status quo, unless you're willing to restart consensus building - but I am sure to oppose this change alongside all those who arrived at this consensus. --EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The discussion on the noticeboard (link above) was about sourcing the claim. Yes, it can be sourced, but this is simply not a valid summary of anything on the page. No, there was no consensus in this discussion to include this specifically to the lead, and no official closing. If you wish, you can open an RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as an "official closing" - not sure where that came from. The query is clearly titled ""Propaganda" as the introductory description for Radio Free Asia", with the dispute being described as follows: "There is currently a dispute on Radio Free Asia (RFA) about whether to describe the network as "propaganda" in the opening sentence ". The end result was the edit with the diff above, where the statement was inserted into the second paragraph after debilitation. One of the major opponents of the change, Mikehawk10, then contributed to this very statement in this diff: - obviously, they did not generally oppose this addition in this form, if they had improved it instead of removing it. Why state these falsehoods when the discussion in question is available above? If you disagree with this, you are welcome to start an RfC. The status quo is the status quo, it was reached by consensus that ran unopposed and quite prominently for nearly two months. --EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I believe you misread this discussion . Excluding contributors involved here (and one who asked the question), the following uninvolved contributors expressed their opinion: MASEM, Crossroads, Oranjelo100, MarkH21 and TFD. MarkH21 only made a point that such claim can be sourced (yes, it can). All others objected this inclusion specifically in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I was a participant in that discussion, I doubt I "misread" it, whatever that exactly means. You, however, clearly don't seem to have the full picture judging by the fact that, for instance, you are apparently unaware that User:Oranjelo100 is blocked indef. All objections were considered; no editors invoked any objections at the closure of the discussion and therefore consensus was reached. I don't understand how the contributors named are "uninvolved" as they are by definition "involved" by expressing their views there. I find it especially disingenuous that you invoke MASEM as being opposed when they clearly responded with the following: "The only thing with those scholarly sources is that if you do ID RFA as propaganda, you should also include mention of the other agents (like RFE) that are also considered propaganda by the same sources, as they appear to talk not specific to RFA but the class of stations. They aren't calling out RFA separately from those." - which is hardly "objection" to inclusion, rather a suggestion for wider application of the sources, which I agreed with - and this was inserted into the article (It is why the outlets being criticized are referred to as "United States international broadcasters" and not just RFA). Their input was therefore considered and included. Whether consensus was reached is absolutely crystal clear - there was ample time for objections following the post by MikeH with the sources, ample time for objection following the edit, ample time for objection following my statement invoking those with objections to raise them, ample time for objections after I closed the discussion, and ample time for objections in the short period that followed. That time is now over. This is now the status quo. --EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * FYI just because an editor is blocked that does not mean you can disregard their opinions given prior to that block, the notable exception to this is sockpuppets but unless I’m mistaken that was not at issue here. Also I think you need to review WP:CONSENSUS I don’t wan’t to wade into this discussion because I wasn’t involved at NPOV but you appear to be mistaken. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't I disregard their opinion if they are judged not fit for the project? Regardless, let's go through each user to see if it is the case that objections were ignored:
 * Mikehawk10 contributed to the passage after it was added, therefore it can be easily inferred that they approved of it.
 * CMD raised points of DUE and WTW, therefore we established that the claim was DUE as a minority viewpoint, which is acceptable when given with attribution and not Wikivoice (it was, as one can see). CMD was summoned to wage in on the edit, but did not. WP:SILENCE applies, but let's treat this as unresolved.
 * MASEM - we already outlined this above, but they clearly approved of the changes with some conditions that were taken into account with the edit; therefore it's hard to call this an objection - I agreed with them and the edit reflects their view.
 * Crossroads contributed once with much the same concerns as CMD, only added OR, which is of course sorted out since the sources used are scholarly and quoted; therefore the OR claim can be dismissed objectively. This objection is unresolved, as I did not summon Crossroads afterwards.
 * CPCEnjoyer concurred.
 * MikeH21 provided sources with no opinion inserted otherwise.
 * ToeSchmoker did not voice their general opinion outside of contesting the WTW claim.
 * TFD seemed to invoke a WTW-like argument, but we are attributing the claim here. Regardless, this objection is unresolved.
 * And let's not forget Volteer1, the author of the edit in question.
 * To surmise, 5 users, including myself, in some way expressed support for the changes, either implicitly through their edits or otherwise; 3 users had left their objections that we tried to resolve, but did not comment on whether they found the edit acceptable or if they changed their mind in face of the sources uncovered; 2 editors did not express support or opposition in a significant way. Zero users opposed the edit or the sources brought up at the time until the section was archived. I'm gonna give you a break and not invoke the users that have edited the page in the period between now and mid-April. Let me remind you that we went from Wikivoice "propaganda" in first sentence to attributed, sourced "propaganda" in the second paragraph of the lead. I find it hard to see how this was not a process of consensus building in which a common ground was reached among the interested parties. --EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You may do whatever you wish, I’m just letting you know how it works. When we ban/block an editor there is not an inherent indictment of the content they added to the wikipedia, the vast majority of edits made by many banned/blocked editors were made in good faith and helped improve the encyclopedia. Remember that an editor can make 999,999 good edits and one truly awful one and be indeffed, that wouldn't make the whole million edit stack bad. A lack of objections does not equal a consensus, I’m not interested in getting into the nitty gritty with you I’m just making sure you understand how to treat the edits of banned/blocked non-sockpuppet editors (with respect, see WP:GRAVEDANCING) and what constitutes a consensus. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A lack of objection does not equal a consensus, sure. But when the issue is posted on a noticeboard, every effort is made to address to some degree the objections raised, concessions are made from the original "plan", and then the thus-far major opponents are summoned to share their opinion on the matter, then silence must be interpreted as agreement, otherwise nothing would ever get done outside of extremely high-profile issues. I can see your point wrt. banned users in general, but with the block happening so close to the discussion I find it very hard to divorce it from that discussion, especially because MarkH21, who was a major contributor in the noticeboard post, was the proposer of that user's block - these two events were within days of one another. I didn't really know that user, so I can't say them being blocked gave me any sort of satisfaction or the like, so I apologize if it came off as GRAVEDANCING - it was simply a matter that I had not considered in depth, but having thought about it more I stand by my view that too much doubt it cast on their involvement there, and they do not have an opportunity to explain unlike the others here. I stand by my view that a consensus was reached, and while I admit it is not a very strong consensus I also stand by my view that it should not be overturned by a simple edit. Which is why I suggest we move onto the suggested changes to the article and their implementation, instead of thoroughly analyzing a noticeboard posting to determine whether consensus was reached or not; indeed, my singular opposition should be cause enough for discussion, prior consensus or not. --EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @EuanHolewicz432. Not only we disagree about views by participants, but even about the question itself. It was framed mostly as a matter of sourcing (the answer here is "yes"), but the actual issue was lead not summarizing the content of the page per WP:MOS. That's why we have an WP:RfC that are supposed to be officially closed by admins to resolve disagreements. My very best wishes (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The question was clear and I don't see how we can "disagree" - I already directly quoted it: "There is currently a dispute on Radio Free Asia (RFA) about whether to describe the network as "propaganda" in the opening sentence ", not "There is currently a dispute about whether such and such claim can be sourced.". RfCs aren't "officially closed by admins" in any different measure than any other discussion; see WP:RFCEND and the synonymous Closing_discussions. As I stated above, I now believe this to be wasting time; we should instead discuss your proposed changes rather than debate about a 2 months old noticeboard discussion. I suggest again that instead of moving content downwards from the lead (which is kind of circular justification, as you have now created content that has to be surmised in the lead, defeating your point) the criticism section is restored and built upon - the article will be expanded and better for it. --EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Another problem with this phrase is interpreting the sources. Only first source is freely available: . It tells about Smith-Mundt Act ("The law was first challenged in 1972 when J. William Fulbright, D-Ark., declared the U.S. was funding propaganda", etc.). Well, but it does NOT claim anywhere that RFA (which started in 1994) was a propaganda organization. I could access 3rd source ("A Babel of Broadcasts"), but the citation is not a proper summary of the source. For example, it say: Radio Free Asia programming, while factually accurate, gives special place to Chinese dissident news and internal strife in China. Dan Southerland, a former Washington Post Beijing correspondent who now heads RFA programming, says, "We feel our mandate is to give voice to people who have no voice." It also say: Brookings Institution Asian scholar Catharin Dalpino says, "I do think Radio Free Asia is propagandistic. It focuses on dissidents who articulate western values and democracy." OK, that could be included, but not in the lead section. My very best wishes (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You are puzzling me here, as you have stated just moments ago (and multiple times, with confidence) that the claim can be sourced, but now suddenly doubts about that crop up? What gives? Anyway, one could expand on the sources and their issues with RFA in the article body, but that still warrants leaving a sentence mentioning it in the lead, as it should be if - as you base your argument on - the lead should surmise the contents of the article. As for verification - I assume MikeH21 has done that work already, having posted the sources and the relevant passages in the noticeboard discussion. --EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There are sources, but what do they say exactly? BTW, I found a version of last ref online . This is an opinion that may or may not deserve inclusion, I am not sure. But again, not in the lead section. My very best wishes (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You can find what they say here. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No need because I checked these sources. If anything, this diff is an illustrations how sources can be misqouted out of context. One needs to read the whole source to understsnd what it says and make good summary. My very best wishes (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you then provide context for those statements you claim are misquoted? I think that would clear things up. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * First one (NBC) - the claim is simply not there. Third one - see my quotation above. 2nd one - I gave the link. My very best wishes (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've checked all of those, I believe the one Nancy Snow one, also found here, is a good fit, I do not see how it can be misinterpreted, it is said right there that and the whole paper talks about USIA propaganda and psychological warfare.
 * I do not see the issue you have with A babel of broadcasts though, can you elaborate further?
 * You're right about the NBC one, we should replace it with this source:
 * CPCEnjoyer (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is valid source, an article by ROSALEEN SMYTH, but again, one must make a proper summary of what this article say about RFA, instead of arbitrary citing whatever fits your POV.My very best wishes (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is an excerpt from a published book, and Nancy Snow is a scholar and an expert on the topic of propaganda; the work in question is among her most notable - it should definitely be included. I think the "criticism" or - name it however you want - a section for this kind of thing should be (re)created, with the sources elaborated on a bit, and the sentence kept in the lead as a summery of that section. I think that would satisfy everyone - the sentence stays and there is content in the article body to back it up. --EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, her views can be cited, but probably on another page, US Information Agency, because she criticizes that organization, not RFA specifically. And in any event, one can summarize in the lead only something that appear prominently on the page. This claim is not.  My very best wishes (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There's also the other sources; Rosaleen Smyth citing Catharin Dalpino, who is also an expert in the topics of international relations and Asian studies; Mark Hopkins (not the full article, but it lets you get the gist of it), who was VOA bureau chief in Beijing among others and a seasoned journalist (who refers to RFA as propaganda himself in addition to also citing Dalpino). We need a solution for putting elaborations on this in the article body; currently, no section seems quite suitable for this purpose. --EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

EuanHolewicz432, you were the one to point out that NPOV discussion. I just read it: there is NO WAY that you can say "This was reached by consensus". It was not, and it is quite clear that in that discussion all kinds of problems were raised, including the singling out of RFA. And you were dealing with some pretty seasoned editors there, including User:The Four Deuces and User:Masem. Now is not the time for me to go into detail on how RfCs can work, and how it is frequently administrators who close them especially when matters are contentious, but I will say that you are not correct, and I will reiterate that the NPOV discussion gives you no warrant whatsoever to claim there was consensus on this wording. And, speaking as an editor, it should be clear that the wording you reinstated is really vague and undue, and that the sourcing is pretty lame: that archived version of the NBC article, where the only rationale for the claim is "slew of recent news headlines" about the BBG, not even directly about RFA. Drmies (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The concern you have brought up re. the singling out of RFA was addressed in the edit? It is why the edit stated and other Voice of America broadcasters until very very recently; the user in question even concurred that suggested language is fine., so I can't consider that particular point of yours valid. If it proves this much of an issue I can withdraw this claim of consensus, even though I still strongly believe we found common ground in that discussion. Regardless of this consensus I do not agree to the edit herein, MarkH21 showed a good couple sources that backed up the claim and I'm not sure why some of them were left out in the final sourcing, which was quite enough for due weight in context of an attributed minority viewpoint. I stand by the views expressed above regarding the solution to the issue presented here. --EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Misrepresentation
Following the discussion above, I want to say that this edit by CPCEnjoyer is actually a misrepresentation of the source he used. According to this source,


 * And so on. Summarizing this as "Some commentators have characterized Radio Free Asia as U.S. propaganda" is ... a propaganda in WP. misrepresenting the source. Just saying. My very best wishes (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Except... it clearly states a commentator - a scholar, in fact, Cathrin Dalpino - has characterized RFA as US propaganda? The source doesn't have to agree with the viewpoint presented, but it acknowledges it exists, which is fair enough for saying that such opinions exist in discourse; especially since we have other sources that clearly back this claim as well to give it even more legitimacy. Were you able to obtain the full article? I'm not quite sure if this section is supposed to be comparing two differing viewpoints or stating the author's beliefs; I find it difficult to believe that the article is uncritical of RFA while this passage was within the article, as per MarkH21's quote:
 * And what's that last part supposed to mean? Are you implying we are attempting to insert propaganda on Wikipedia? Please clarify. --EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That was said not specifically about RFA. I cited the segment of text directly used and quoted by CCP. He included as inline quotation only words by Dalpino, but omitted everything else to support the statement that "Some commentators have characterized Radio Free Asia as U.S. propaganda". This is an obvious misrepresentation by omission, because the source provides a balanced description and puts more emphasis on words by people who held an opposite position. Same with the ""A Babel of Broadcasts" source (see quotations above). As about Nancy Snow, she criticized US Information Agency (not specifically RFA), so this is something for another page. None of these sources (except maybe Nancy Snow) are great to support this statement, and especially in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * He included as inline quotation only words by Dalpino, but omitted everything else to support the statement that "Some commentators have characterized Radio Free Asia as U.S. propaganda". This is an obvious misrepresentation by omission, because the source provides a balanced description and puts more emphasis on words by people who held an opposite position. This is false, the reason I shortened it is because of stylistic issues, if I put in the whole thing proposed by MarkH21, the box that appears when hovered over would get even more stretched, (see here for example), however I do not object if you wish to add the whole thing in and can make it look good, my only issue was the box stretching anyway. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 10:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, now this is blatant misrepresentation. Let me expand the quote, because clearly this needs to be done:
 * This is from the Smyth source; it was said specifically, by name, about RFA (just because RFE/RL is mentioned as well doesn't mean the claim is not directed at RFA); this casts doubt on whether you actually read this source, all due respect, so I'd like a third party to verify this source in full as I am not able to access it. The quotations from MarkH21, and their posting on the noticeboard at all, are an indication that a) they were able to access it and b) they were able to verify this. But now you cast doubt on it again, after confidently claiming a total of three times that there is no problem with sourcing the claim.
 * Secondly, the Hopkins source, literally in big shiny letters, starts:
 * It then goes on:
 * RFA is mentioned by name twice on the first page.
 * And yes, I'd gladly have all of this added to each page: RFE/RL, VOA, USAGM (just checked and it already is on RFE - joy) - but it has to start somewhere, and this obviously reflects on Radio Free Asia, it is mentioned by name in each of the sources provided - even if the criticism is directed at the entire propaganda branch that is VOA, it must be mentioned there as well as here. You are still yet to suggest a plausible alternative to putting it in the lead, since no section is currently suitable for this purpose; either way the lead will stay as a summery of the contents below, as you yourself stated. --EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 11:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I already explained everything above, but speaking generally, you are welcome to include any proper, relevant and well sourced content in the body of the page per WP:NPOV, and then provide proper summary of it in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain to me why you are editing the article in midst of the dispute, while you clearly lack consensus to do so? Your explanation is clearly lacking as you still do not suggest an actual solution to the problem. You are being disruptive in claiming that "the talk page" is a valid reason for an edit as of now in your summery. Please return the passage to the lead. I'd like to know, in light of the above section on this talk page seemingly challenging the existence of a section dedicated to criticism of RFA, where such content might go if you think it is acceptable in the article body. --EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If the comments are of a historical nature (the ones cited so far appear to be) then we should put them in history, it would also be possible to add a Domestic response section along with the international response section. I actually think that second one is the best way to go, we should have a “Response” section with “domestic” and “International” as subsections. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, sure, such section can be created, but it should be informative and balanced, just as in best sources. For example, one could briefly summarize long quotation at the very top of this thread, instead of using selective quotes out of context to prove the point (most others). My very best wishes (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course, I’m not suggesting that we disregard policy or guidelines in any way. In a stand alone subsection there will be no excuse for cherrypicking so NPOV will be easier to achieve. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I replied more to EuanHolewicz432. Thanks, agree. Speaking of citations they provided in boxes, note that first of them is not about propaganda, but about all these agencies serving foreign policy of the US (I think this is true, but a very different claim), and two others were about VOA, not RFA. These programs are indeed rather different. As a reader/listener, I should say that VOA is significantly worse/inferior compare to RFE/RL which I think is great/outstanding (I did not listen/read RFA). Someone saying that VOA (specifically) is wasting taxpayers money has a valid point, but this is for another page. My very best wishes (talk) 22:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If the comments are of a historical nature (the ones cited so far appear to be) then we should put them in history, it would also be possible to add a Domestic response section along with the international response section. I actually think that second one is the best way to go, we should have a “Response” section with “domestic” and “International” as subsections. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, sure, such section can be created, but it should be informative and balanced, just as in best sources. For example, one could briefly summarize long quotation at the very top of this thread, instead of using selective quotes out of context to prove the point (most others). My very best wishes (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course, I’m not suggesting that we disregard policy or guidelines in any way. In a stand alone subsection there will be no excuse for cherrypicking so NPOV will be easier to achieve. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I replied more to EuanHolewicz432. Thanks, agree. Speaking of citations they provided in boxes, note that first of them is not about propaganda, but about all these agencies serving foreign policy of the US (I think this is true, but a very different claim), and two others were about VOA, not RFA. These programs are indeed rather different. As a reader/listener, I should say that VOA is significantly worse/inferior compare to RFE/RL which I think is great/outstanding (I did not listen/read RFA). Someone saying that VOA (specifically) is wasting taxpayers money has a valid point, but this is for another page. My very best wishes (talk) 22:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

international response section header
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)

Lead
, I've reverted your insertion of material into the lead. I don't think that the number of citations (3) over the entire span of the life of the organization is due there (more than a score of years), and the notion that it's good to include because reflects the body seems to be a bit off when there is an acknowledged need that the reception section needs to be expanded so as to not be slanted one way. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I very clearly included a response from one of the organizers refuting the characterization as propaganda. I don’t think the reception section is slanted when it’s followed by a massive list of awards granted to the organization and includes a refutation. If you consider the pov of the section slanted (on a page that largely only has good things to say about the organization), then I’d suggest you add some other examples of reception rather than take a stick to the entire section. Paragon Deku (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with your edit, as I am sure people who have discussed this addition before do. These claims of "needing consensus" and "discuss on talk page" to re-add content that has been removed for dubious claims of "undue weight" are simply a way to WP:STONEWALL this version of the article, the absurd request (which was "borderline" but still fulfilled) to include this article under WP:GS/UYGHUR further proves the point. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Enough references have been provided to justify mentioning that some people have said that RFA produces propaganda. I would start by including it in the Reception section and then discuss here whether a summary should appear in the lead. It is odd that the word propaganda makes no appearance in the current version of the page. This is despite the RFA being categorised as Anti-communist propaganda, US government propaganda organisations and Propaganda radio broadcasts. Another odd fact that is not mentioned on the page: apparently the RFA could not, by law, broadcast to the US public until a few years ago. Burrobert (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This isn't the first time material like this has been challenged, it may simply be time for a proper RfC to get lasting consensus. BSMRD (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

To respond to a few things above:
 * 1) I don't think that 's decision to place this under WP:GS/UYGHUR is absurd. The disruption on this page was, in fact, explicitly mentioned as a possible concern by in the discussion that preceded the proposal that led to the creation of the general sanctions.
 * 2) As I said in the May discussion on this topic, the use of the term "propaganda" is a loaded term. If we're going to put it in the lead, even to represent a minority view, we need to ensure it isn't a fringe minority. As a counterexample to arguments made above, I can just as easily find citations for The New York Times that associate it with "Propaganda" in some substantial way, but that doesn't make it due in the lead for the New York Times article. Likewise, three sources over >20 years doesn't seem to establish that it's even worth mentioning in the case of Radio Free Asia.
 * 3) I don't think I'm stonewalling here; I don't believe that the prior discussion established consensus on this, and I think that the edits in the meantime are indicative of this. removed the material on June 12, an IP edit warred to re-insert it the following day and was reverted by, leading to a protection of the page by . Prior to this, the edit history shows an absolute mess of a dispute, with an IP popping in out of nowhere and speaking literal Greek in edit summaries, an editor baselessly accusing  of "vandalism" for removing the material, and other disruption associated with trying to ram the material into the page. When these sorts of things happen, it's good to be slow and deliberate with how we make changes, and I agree with  that a request for comment would be good to better discern a community consensus on this. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's cool and all, but the subject of the sanctions is Uyghur Genocide and related articles. At the time of the creation of the sanctions, all content in this article relating to Uyghur Genocide was a small subsection, so yes, it is absurd.
 * Except New York Times didn't have a predecessor operated by the CIA during the Cold War whose purpose was to spread anti-communist propaganda in Asia. Also, not sure why you included Duranty in there, which does a complete 180 and claims The New York Times is pro-stalin propaganda. (?)
 * You don't believe that prior discussion has established consensus yet the content hasn't been removed for two months after the NPOVN post, interesting. "An absolute mess of a dispute" meaning Volunteer Marek making 8 edits consisting of only content removal within 24 hours, with My Very Best Wishes making 5, both extended-confirmed? Seems the best way to "solve" this "mess of a dispute" was to disallow everyone who's (coincidentally) not extended-confirmed to participate in the article. Also, an IP edit warring is hardly a reason for extended-confirmed protection. I also can't help but laugh at your suggestion that we should be slow and deliberate with how we make changes while re-adding long-standing content, but somehow stand behind the removal of 4K bytes on a whim within 7 minutes. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If you're going totalk about me, please ping me. Anyway, my edits were fine. As is the protection level of this article.  Volunteer Marek   21:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe this page was semi-protected because of editing by a proxy hopper who used a number IPs, such as this . Please see this SPI report. This is not about any content disputes. My very best wishes (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It was semi protected because of that yes, however the extended-protection only came with the WP:GS/UYGHUR implementation, which feels rather excessive considering that semi-protection is enough to get rid of the IPs and there really wasnt any egregious level of dispute or edit warring, and the amount of content relatinf to Uyghurs on this page is fairly minimal. I'm still not really sure why this article is extended protected. BSMRD (talk) 00:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, quickly looking at edit history of this page, I do not see a single non-minor edit by IP that would not be reverted during this whole year (since January 2021). So admins made an excellent decision by protecting this page, as a matter of fact. I do not understand why you guys are raising this matter at all. My very best wishes (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with semi-protection, which solves the problem of vandal IPs just as well as extended-protection does. My (and other editors) issue is with the extended-protection which feels like it was applied for somewhat shoddy reasons and is unnecessarily excluding editors. BSMRD (talk) 03:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Please do read up on the differences between extended-confirmed and auto-confirmed protection, thank you, CPCEnjoyer (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

DRAFT RfC regarding lead section
Should the lead section of this page state that some commentators consider Radio Free Asia to be propaganda? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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".

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?
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)
 * No, I think that making such RfC would be premature and counterproductive because we need to decide first what should be in the body of the page, and only then summarize it in the lead. Do we need a "Reception" section? If the answer is "yes", I trust you to make a version. Then we should go from there. My very best wishes (talk) 01:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I would remove the quotes around propaganda, they add unnecessary MOS:DOUBT. BSMRD (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'd included them to emphasize that we would use the word propaganda, though I'm more than happy to change the punctuation. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps italics or bolding would be better? BSMRD (talk) 03:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * bolding should work. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with My very best wishes on this one. While I think an RfC for mention in the lead is important, I was more concerned about the removal of the reception section. It doesn't make sense to put it in the lead without hashing out the consensus on that first. Paragon Deku (talk) 04:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The RfC is well framed as it is clear and unambiguous. However, it seems to be putting the cart before the horse since we haven't yet discussed how to deal with this within the body. It makes more sense to work out what to do in the body first and then discuss whether a summary should be in the lead. Burrobert (talk) 04:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So it seems like a lot of people above would rather we write the reception section first, which is something that I think is reasonable. It makes sense to put the lead on pause until we get the body sorted out. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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; 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)

RfC: Discussion of criticisms of RFA within the article and mentions of propaganda in lede
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. Paragon Deku (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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?

Question 1

 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Oppose to specific version that appears in the diff by the filer  because this is an outdated (1999) opinion by a single person. Such section could be included if properly written and based on multiple more recent RS. My very best wishes (talk) 01:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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 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 - Some commentators have characterized United States international broadcasters such as Radio Free Asia and Voice of America as U.S. propaganda. Some commentators who? such as Radio Free Asia and Voice of America 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)
 * 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)
 * I was told an RfC may be in order by another editor just because someone told you to create RfC, doesn't mean that you need to do it. -- Renat 02:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Question 2

 * 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 forefront of newsgathering 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 news service. The Guardian reports that RFA is a news group whose journalists have produced some of the most detailed reporting on the heavily securitised region of Xinjiang. 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 some people say, which bears a resemblance in form and function to the use of Some commentators have characterized 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Discussion

 * 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)
 * Do you have a suggestion for how to format those sections? I'm not the best at using wikipedia formatting. Paragon Deku (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The RfC is mildly malformed, quite frankly I think that there is really only one question that needs to be asked, which is "should it be called propaganda in the lead y/n?", but if you would like to ask the question about the reception section you should clearly separate them in the request and make two voting sections like so:
 * ===Question 1===
 * ===Question 2===
 * That way people can vote one way on one question and another on the other. I might recommend you close this RfC, make a draft of one so it can be better formatted and get some other editors to help with that if you need them, then resubmit that better formatted RfC. You don't have to of course, just a possibility. BSMRD (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, the actual page for RfC guidelines is a bit... lacking. It mostly just stated to be brief and neutral. That being said, I think asking about the reception section is relevant because when I've tried to readd it, it's been reverted. If that's not a point of contention I would just add it back in. Paragon Deku (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Usually, if you add something and it's being reverted, you need to discuss it, not readd it. -- Renat 02:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you think this RfC is for? The topic of the section in question has already been discussed on this page. Paragon Deku (talk) 02:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

History subsection
Shouldn’t we have more information on the organization’s first iteration that began in the 50s? As is we’ve maintained the founding date as the initial org but haven’t explained much about its existence. Paragon Deku (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It appears it was removed quite unceremoniously without consensus earlier in June.Paragon Deku (talk)
 * I have no objection to adding it back in, but you should probably talk to seeing as he removed it. BSMRD (talk) 03:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * - that was not a history section and not a proper "reception" section. A history section must cover the entire period of time during which this organization existed, be informative and neutrally written. My very best wishes (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I completely fail to see what the reception section I wrote for this article has to do with the topic at hand (and for the record I believe it was neutrally written and shared the views of the parties in the sources cited). I’d consider your removal of the section bold, so I’ll be restoring it and suggesting we discuss it here. Paragon Deku (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Do we have any sources which track its history from the 1950s to the present? The problem I see with the current text is the use of FOId CIA and congressional documents, ideally we wouldn't use those at all due to the lack of objectivity, independence, etc (not to mention how dated they are). Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * When you’re dealing with a propaganda outlet from the 50s sometimes the well is a bit dry, so to speak. I’ll do what I can to find more recent sources but I don’t think decency is as big of a concern as trying to find more secondary sources Paragon Deku (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought we were dealing with a modern broadcaster which was originally a CIA sponsored propaganda outlet? If we’re dealing with two different outlets we should have two different pages. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We ARE dealing with a modern broadcaster which was originally a CIA sponsored outlet. My point being sources that specifically discuss the first active period of RFA are not that common considering its relative obscurity outside the realm of the geopolitically invested. It’s the same situation as a band reviving and new press covering their current iteration rather than their former iteration. If you think that information needs its own page, feel free to start a discussion. Paragon Deku (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Doesn’t really seem the same as a band changing its name... If what you’re saying is true this would be like two different bands from the same country with the same name but completely different members, music, era, etc... We would never put those two on the same page. On a lighter side note “Radio Free Asia” would make a great punk group name. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of situations in which an outlet or organization takes a hiatus or becomes inactive and then revives with new staff. That doesn’t make it a different outlet even if organization and membership has shifted. As far as sourcing, I’d also like to mention that English language sources for RFA before the 90s will naturally be a bit spotty considering it legally wasn’t allowed to be broadcast in the United States at the time. Regardless, there was never any consensus to remove that chunk of the article so let’s actually reach one before doing it again. Paragon Deku (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Our sources don’t appear to say anything about them taking a hiatus or becomes inactive and then reviving with new staff. Where are you getting this information? We would need consensus to cover a loosely related organization on this page, I don’t think you have that. Remember that the WP:ONUS to get a consensus is always on the person who wants to include information, you appear to be looking at the policy situation backwards. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue is that the information was already included. Its removal was opposed by two editors and no consensus was given to remove it. That’s not looking at the policy backwards, removing large established swathes of an article is bold and it’s bad form to do so without consensus and continue to revert others edits without consensus. Paragon Deku (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. Please review WP:ONUS again, "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.” Yes its bad form to edit war over it, but there appear to be two of you in such form. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * But the information in question was included ages ago and had precedent to be in the article. By this logic I could remove half the article on gelato and WP:STONEWALL people into a discussion where they’re required to prove consensus of inclusion. That’s ridiculous. The removal had no consensus, little to no objection was raised over the inclusion for ages, so consensus should be sought before removal. Paragon Deku (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We don’t use precedent in that way, what ever gave you that idea? If you didn’t have a policy based reason to challenge half the article on gelato then you would most likely face repercussions for such disruptive editing, maybe not the first time but certainly if it became a pattern... If on the other hand you had strong policy based reasons for challenging the article on gelato (for instance if half of the material was copyvivo, unsourced, or actually about sorbet) you would be well within your rights and responsibilities to do so. That the two groups appear to be different organizations is a strong policy based challenge to the inclusion of that material. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * For all the biblethumping about policy there’s practically no policy reason given to remove the information, and I highly doubt you’re citing WP:ONUS properly here. I don’t mean “precedent” in the judicial or policy sense. Again, make a formal discussion of this to reach consensus if you wish, I do not think the onus to prove consensus lies on me for maintaining long standing included information (not a new or bold inclusion) that as far as I can tell has informally been consented to by several editors on this talk page. Paragon Deku (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m citing the entirety of ONUS, thats the whole thing not a part. That is exactly how WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS (what you refer to as informal) works, it is consensus until the moment its challenged then poof no matter how long its been on the page there no longer is consensus and whoever wants to include it has to take to the talk page for the more formal WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS process. For more on this see Silence and consensus. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The informal consensus I’m referring to was the three editors questioning the removal or saying they were fine with it being added back, not the relative silence over its existence. Sorry if that was unclear. Paragon Deku (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You’re referring to the current discussion? I’m not seeing a consensus for inclusion, nor am I seeing a consensus or even any sources for Radio Free Asia (1951–1955) and Radio Free Asia (1994-present) being the same organization. Yes you have work to do, thats the point of WP:ONUS. If you don’t want to do the work then leave it to someone else to restore. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the discussion above subtitled “question” in which and  both question the removal’s justification. I was also referring to the comment above by  but I realize having no objection is not the same as supporting something and should avoid putting words in their mouth. Paragon Deku (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thats interesting, as far as I can see that section ends in an informal consensus that they are two distinct organizations (one founded in the 1950s and one founded in the 1990s), no sources were presented which said otherwise. Why again are you claiming that this is one organization with two active periods instead of two different organizations with the same name? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You’re being intentionally disingenuous at this point. No such consensus was reached and I highly doubt the other two editors involved agree with your assessment of that discussion. Paragon Deku (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that no such consensus was reached, thats why I said informal. Note that consensus is about the strength of arguments not the number of people on each side, there was no effective response to the issues raised by My very best wishes. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You’re essentially saying it was an informal consensus because you agree with the proposition at that point. That’s ridiculous. Paragon Deku (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that at the beginning of this conversation I did not agree with that proposition, I thought it was the same organization. Now I realize that none of our sources say that. I would also note that those arguing for inclusion in the “Question” discussion did not get a formal consensus for inclusion as they would have needed to, the onus to get consensus is on those who wants to include challenged information. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I’ve consulted with other editors off-wiki and asked them questions about onus (taking care to be vague and anonymize the conversation so as to not promote canvassing) and I’ve been assured this is not how onus works. 136.49.74.245 (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * (Above reply was by me, Wikipedia decided to log me out.) Paragon Deku (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Why would you need to go off-wiki to do that? Just do it on wiki and link. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ONUS, The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. So, what said is accurate. I think the other editors that you “consulted off-wiki” with are mistaken. OhKayeSierra (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I would note however that given the non-BLP and adequately nature of the content I think that should probably refrain from removing the info again until Paragon Deku has been given a reasonable opportunity to get consensus for the change. My apologies My very best wishes, I was not aware of the above “Questions” section. You are most certainly right that there is no consensus to include the content you challenged back at the beginning of June. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Do we have a single reliable source that links 1951 Radio Free Asia mentioned in a CIA report to 1996 Radio Free Asia which is the subject of this Wikipedia article? I mean, maybe some historian/journalist/researcher wrote about 1996 Radio Free Asia and said something like "Radio Free Asia claims that it was created in 1996, but in fact it was created in 1951" or "Radio Free Asia is an informal successor of Radio Free Asia which was created in 1951"? Or just someone wrote about Radio Free Asia history after this "new" Radio Free Asia was created? -- Renat 18:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please, give us a direct quote from the source for this text - diff. -- Renat 19:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC) Nevermind, this part doesn't support the connection anyway. -- Renat  19:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm currently trawling for more citations. This is, as you must understand, a very tedious process. For those still curious, the quote is "In 1951, the CIA funded the Manila-based Radio Free Asia, notable for its anti-communist stridency. It was later replaced by Radio of Free Asia, which continued until 1966 (Taylor, 1997: 43)." The Taylor source in question is from Global communications, international affairs and the media since 1945 Paragon Deku (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hence, according to the source you cite, they actually were two different organizations with the same name. I agree that one can and should notice that earlier and different organization on this page because this source does it. My very best wishes (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * At the time the cited source was published, the current iteration had only "existed" for 3 years and had been broadcasting for less than a year. Given that it's a survey of communications since World War II, I don't see it not mentioning the current iteration as some sort of smoking gun that they shouldn't share a page. Paragon Deku (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, this is simply a matter of sourcing. According to website of this organization and sources, such as this, the organization was created (not "recreated" or "reestablished") in 1996. Hence I just created new page for that another organization, Radio Free Asia (Committee for a Free Asia) and moved content there accordingly. My very best wishes (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This was a very bold action on your part, and also technically a WP:3RR violation. I would implore you to seek a more concrete consensus on this topic before doing something like this again on another page. In the meantime, I'll start a discussion on whether or not the pages should be split. Paragon Deku (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that has reverted more than three times within 24 hours? I can't identify what you're referring to here. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * and . Paragon Deku (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:3RR is for more than 3 reverts. 3 is the limit. BSMRD (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You are correct. I haven't been keen on many edit wars and I misread the policy. That being said, it was absolutely a drastic change done without consensus. Paragon Deku (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, this specific removal was discussed with certain outcome in that section; the edit was made on June 12, and since then no one really objected to it (the discussions were about something else, the lead, the propaganda, etc.). My very best wishes (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No consensus is required to make a new page for a notable subject, it seems like a very reasonable and non-drastic move. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Can someone suggest here any reasonable version of "Reception" section that does not read like an attack page, please? My very best wishes (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If you still feel the current version of the reception section reads like an "attack page" you will clearly never be satisfied. If you feel it is unbalanced, source some more positive coverage and add that. Note also the "Awards" section is a part of the "Reception" section, partly to balance it. BSMRD (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly still don’t see how you could possibly construe a page with nothing but glowing praise for RFA as attacking it just because it briefly mentions that, yes, its creation and inception were HEAVILY contested both domestically and abroad (which is completely glossed over in the history section, mind, there are lots of sources that discuss how RFA was stalled in the house and senate because it was seen as a waste of money, superfluous, and wouldn’t even reach Asian audiences due to jamming). When followed by a long contrived list of journalistic awards, I don’t know what to say besides that this feels like sanitizing the article. I’ve been combing scholarly journals and newspaper archives for days on this and the other “Radios of Free Asia” and I can assure you it has historically been a very hot topic. Paragon Deku (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Are separate pages truly needed?
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

International responses
I feel like this article would benefit from more international responses to the outlet (although ones related to the legal passing of the are probably more suited for International Broadcasting Act). As it stands, the only information we can really glean about the countries broadcasted into is that some are arresting journalists and almost all are jamming the signal. Obviously foreign language sources tend to be tricky to find (especially when the flow of information is staunched due to geopolitics), but I feel that adding in information about responses from Vietnamese newspapers is a good start. Paragon Deku (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just FYI that now fails verification you wrote "Multiple Vietnamese newspapers, including Nhan Dan, have criticized the goals of RFA and broadcasts into the country, with a writer for Nhan Dan accusing the network of attempting to "interfere in other countries' internal affairs.”” but all the book says is "More recently the Washington-based Radio Free Asia has begun Vietnamese language broadcasts, provoking repeated tirades in Nhan Dan and other newspapers.” with the quote following, so you need to either break the sentence up or rewrite it to reflect the sources used. Maybe use WT for the first part and the book for the quote? Personally I wouldn’t use WT in this context but you seem hell bent on doing so. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I dont think that fails verification but I’ll ditch the WT source (even though I don’t consider it contentious) and change the wording. Paragon Deku (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We should mention that Australia rejected a request from RFA to use transmission facilities that had been abandoned by the Australian Government. The facilities were on the former Radio Australia site on the Cox Peninsula, near Darwin. The Australian government preferred that the facilities be leased to the BBC, a decision that was also more acceptable to China. It was thought that neither the Australian government, nor the Chinese government were happy for US propaganda to be streamed into South-East Asia and China from the facility. Burrobert (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there a citation for this? That's a pretty solid addition to the history section. I'd also like to expand it to elaborate on the congressional debates over inception (besides the name change one already mentioned). Paragon Deku (talk) 05:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is here.
 * Thank you, I've read the piece and added the information to the history section, although I feel we're lacking in information about where the organization set up shop after getting rejected. There are plenty of articles that discuss when broadcasts began, but most don't specify where the facilities were located. Paragon Deku (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Good question: Where are the broadcasting facilities located? Burrobert (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation
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)
 * 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)
 * I just updated all the hatnotes on the articles to direct there. BSMRD (talk) 06:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 February 2022
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)
 * ✅ Cannolis (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Greatder
@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 "The section contained only criticism and not any positive reception". 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 "The section contained only criticism and not any position reception"? 2) The last sentence of the section says: "Chinese citizens calling in to RFA have expressed a wide range of opinions on the network, both positive and negative, many calling from pay phones to hide their identities." So why are you saying that "The section contained only criticism and not any positive reception"? Renat 09:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2022
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)
 * ✅. 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)

A Suggestion To Remove the "Editorial Independence" Line
I was surprised to read that Radio Free Asia had editorial independence, as stated in the second line, "The service, which provides editorially independent reporting..." I read the three sources attached to the statement to learn more, and I now believe the line should be removed from the summary entirely, as none of its sources seem to support the claim of editorial independence. In the spirit of honesty and collaboration, I'd like to make a bias statement that I am predisposed to distrusting American media in general, and thus believe large portions of Wikipedia are in need of informational improvement. In spite of this, I believe the points I make here are factual and should be taken into consideration when adjusting the language of the article. Below is feedback regarding each source, followed by a criticism of whether or not describing RFA as "editorially independent" fits into Wikipedia's own guidelines on Independent Sources, along with a final summary paragraph for anyone who does not wish to read the entire contents of this suggestion.

Citation one, (WaPo) : This is an article about police in China arresting some relatives of people working for Radio Free Asia. The only sentence discussing independence is, "Their reporting for the U.S. government-funded news organization has offered one of the only independent sources of information about the crackdown in the province." However, this does seem to be claiming editorial independence, just independence from the Chinese state as it is an American outlet. Indeed, later on the article clarifies further, "RFA was set up by Congress in 1994 to [mission statement] and it continues to be funded by an annual grant from the U.S. government’s Broadcasting Board of Governors." Though it's possible the claim is being made that RFA is editorially independent as opposed to independent of the Chinese state, I I believe it's unclear as a source should be replaced with a clearer one or removed.

Citation two, (The Atlantic) : This is a biographical article about Bernie Krisher as a vehicle for discussing Freedom of Press. It makes only one mention of RFA, where it states that broadchasts were shut down by the Cambodian government along with two other US owned or funded outlets, Voice of America and the National Democratic Institute. Whereas the previous citation is ambiguous in meaning, this one is unrelated to claims of editorial independence of RFA, and the source should be removed or replaced.

Citation three, (The Hill) : This article is a news report regarding the statements of Antony Blinken on whether or not American-funded outlets are editorially independent. It mentions RFA once, as a subsidiary of USAGM, while stating that the Biden administration would be maintaining editorial independence. What's telling is the title itself: "In departure from Trump." The editorial independence of RFA, like other American-funded outlets, can change.

This is something that has happened in the past: USAGM is an Independent Agency of the United States Government, alongside organizations like the CIA, NASA, or the EPA, and even very recently we've seen American presidents fire members of these organizations, exert control over them, appoint new members, et cetera. So, what does "Independent" mean in regards to these types of organizations, if they can still be controlled by the executive office? As its Wikipedia article states, "... those independent agencies that, while considered part of the executive branch, have regulatory or rulemaking authority and are insulated from presidential control..." With each new administration, Independent Agencies can find themselves with more or less independence. Furthermore, the claim of independence is coming from the American state itself, which is a biased source. For example, if the Chinese state made a statement affirming the editorial independence of China Daily, I doubt it would be considered evidence of such. An alternative example of a good source would be something like an NGO or IGO making a ranking of various state-owned medias on how independent they truly are, and citing RFA's ranking there. (I know of no such thing, it's just an example.)

Finally, Wikipedia's own guidelines regarding Independent Sources definitionally excludes Radio Free Asia from the label. For a source to be independent, it must have no financial relationship to the topic. This definition aligns with how the Washington Post described RFA in the first citation: independent of the media it reports, but not independent as an organization itself. Its funding comes directly from the US government after it was established in 1994 under the International Broadcasting Act is to spread pro-American sentiments abroad, much like RT or China Daily as mentioned before. On one hand, the American state financially controls RFA, which is already enough to discount it from being considered editorially independent of the US state, and even previously stated it would rescind funding in 2009 if it couldn't carry out its mission statement. See citation 10 on the International Broadcasting Act page, referencing Executive Order 12, 850, 3 C.F.R. 606, 607 § 1(b). On the other hand, there has been no source provided which demonstrates RFA's editorial independence. from the guideline: "Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." If a third party claims an outlet is independent from its parent organization (as a reminder, none of the three citations even did claim this) and then attempts to prove that by citing the words of the parent organization, it's not making a unique claim. The guidelines clarifies this question, too: if a third party writes for the first party, it is still not independent, and RFA exists as a third party to the American state's first party. Please see the Conflicts of Interest section in the guidelines page for more information on it, as it explains it well and I've already made this topic longer than it should be.

In summary, the three citations in question do not claim RFA to be independent; RFA is owned by USAGM, a government organization with the same independence as the FCC or Amtrak; and Wikipedia's own guidelines on Independent Sources excludes Radio Free Asia from being considered editorially independent due to its funding alone, even if you ignore the other definitions and examples included within the page. At the very least, the citations should be replaced with ones which do actually verify the claim, and in the meantime the line should either be removed from the page or be given a citation-needed disclaimer for the sake of honesty. I expect personally that the most accurate thing to do is to remove the line, and have RFA's Wikipedia page follow suit with other state-owned or funded media outlets, American or otherwise, in not claiming it to be editorially independent. I won't be editing the page myself as I do not feel confident on my own knowledge regarding RFA's relationship to the US state; rather, I am posting the information I have gathered here as a sort of starting point for others who are better-suited to the topic to make the necessary and accurate changes. Thank you to anyone who is interested in the topic and took the time to read this. I've attempted (and failed, it seems) to keep this suggestion short, so there were some points here which I summarized or left out for the sake of brevity. Questions, criticisms, and requests for clarification are very very welcome! AquaticOnWiki (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Somehow it has been determined that if a news source has ANY connection whatsoever to Russia or China, it is propaganda, but if it's directly funded by the US government, it is not. Apparently if it's a western news source, we just take their word for it. 136.30.84.99 (talk) 00:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 03:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Shocker. Paragon Deku (talk) 07:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Reliable sourcing is pretty clear on this... — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 16:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @AquaticOnWiki very definitively described their objections to the "reliable sourcing" being unclear and not actually about editorial independence as defined by Wikipedia- which "there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication."
 * The reliable sources are therefore not "pretty clear" on this as one can pose a substantial argument that the independence they refer to merely means their independence to governments in Asia and not independence from the government of the United States. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 20:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. My primary point here is that correct sourcing for the independence claim should be used- arguing about whether or not RFA is fundamentally independent is secondary to the fact that the citations are unclear and should be replaced with other sources which state RFA's (editorial) independence (from the US State) more clearly. AquaticOnWiki (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is unfortunately a losing battle on Wikipedia. Precedence is always going to lie with reliable sourcing, which often has a western bias. Paragon Deku (talk) 06:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I added a dubious tag to the article, as no new sources have been added to substantiate the "editorially independent" claim despite very clear objections above that have been insufficiently addressed besides "I disagree" and "Reliable sourcing is pretty clear on this." HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 02:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

This is an article about police in China arresting some relatives of people working for Radio Free Asia. The only sentence discussing independence is, "Their reporting for the U.S. government-funded news organization has offered one of the only independent sources of information about the crackdown in the province."

I think it is pretty clear they are referring to the editorial independence of RFA. If they are talking about something else, then that would have been made more clear.

This is a biographical article about Bernie Krisher as a vehicle for discussing Freedom of Press. It makes only one mention of RFA, where it states that broadchasts were shut down by the Cambodian government along with two other US owned or funded outlets, Voice of America and the National Democratic Institute. Whereas the previous citation is ambiguous in meaning, this one is unrelated to claims of editorial independence of RFA, and the source should be removed or replaced.

The source clearly states: "Radio Free Asia and Voice of America, U.S.-backed services that provide independent news to many rural Cambodians". I'm not sure what else to say.

This article is a news report regarding the statements of Antony Blinken on whether or not American-funded outlets are editorially independent. It mentions RFA once, as a subsidiary of USAGM, while stating that the Biden administration would be maintaining editorial independence. What's telling is the title itself: "In departure from Trump." The editorial independence of RFA, like other American-funded outlets, can change

The Trump administration merely criticized US-funded outlets for being too critical of the administration. That doesn't mean they literally lost their editorial independence. The "departure" the article is referring to is Blinken just simply vocally supporting their right to say whatever they want. I think the fact that the U.S. government criticized its funded outlets for being too critical of it pretty much shows their editorial independence. Also note this statement in the source: "USAGM, which runs Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia, and other networks, is funded by the government but operates under an editorial “firewall” designed to block any interference in its coverage". Helioz9 (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I think you are reading too much in the word "independent." It's not specified in any of these articles that it means independent news from the United States rather than independence as in, not being Cambodian or Chinese. To put this in other terms, if they are "non-independent" in this context it merely means that its owned by those respective governments.
 * If it was referring to editorial independence in respects to the government of the United States, then they would have explicitly written "Radio Free Asia and Voice of America, U.S.-backed services that provide news independently from America or Cambodia to many rural Cambodians".
 * HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 20:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is what I meant in my criticism of the choice for the first citation. The wapo article only says independent, not independent of whom or what, and shortly after clarifies that RFA was created by and is funded by Congress, making the assertion that it means "independent of US influence" as opposed to "independent of the Chinese/Cambodian/ etc influence" poorly founded and relying on reader editorialism or assumptions. AquaticOnWiki (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

How is RFA "private"?
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)
 * 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)
 * It's a private corporation. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 03:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What source are we using for this description? Burrobert (talk) 06:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with Burrobert. Not even sure what "private" means in this context. Government-funded non-profit corporation seems to describe it well. Do you maybe mean independent? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)