Talk:Radio Free Asia/Archive 1

Archive 1

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927001620/http://opencrs.cdt.org/rpts/97-52_19971024.pdf to http://opencrs.cdt.org/rpts/97-52_19971024.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Initial comments

Should it really be categorized as "propaganda"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.210.107.101 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 18 November 2006.

I think so, just looking at its history and main listeners are all the socialist countries.--Ksyrie 02:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is. If the Chinese Government (or Russian Government) constantly broadcasted their condescending rants over to the American population ("communism rocks! democracy is flawed" etc.), or focused on Americans who were not happy with America (laws, freedom, conflict etc.) the US Government will shut the stations down immediately. As it is, the only thing foreign governments are producing are "Life in (whatever country)" and language and music shows. Maybe America should stick to the same? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.120.73 (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposing new page

Without objection, I am going to create a separate entry for the current, modern, Radio Free Asia. This Radio Free Asia was created in the mid-90s originally as the Asia Pacific Network. It was renamed Radio Free Asia as part of the congressional approval and funding process and has no connection whatsoever with the CIA operation mentioned by a Wiki editor. The current RFA and the operation from the 50s share nothing but a name. Hartwh 19:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)hartwh, March 27

I object. It is clearly in the tradition of the earlier RFA. Why else would they have continued to use the same name? —Babelfisch 07:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I object to you, Babelfisch. I am related to one of the top administrators at RFA, I know the history pretty well. The station referenced in this article as the precursor to the modern RFA was known as Radio For Asia; funding was cut off and the project was scrapped before 1957. RFA's only mission is to broadcast democratic radio to oppressed countries, including Myanmar and China. The US government started up Radio Free Asia after Radio Free Europe (RFE) met with considerable success; administrators at RFE were thanked by the president after the Cold War ended for their contribution to ending communism in Russia. Please do not tarnish the reputation this outstanding broadcast station with incorrect, nonsensical and conspiracy theorist-like statements that lack a figment of credit. Many employees of RFA put themselves in danger travel to unstable parts of Asia in hopes of opening the minds of the oppressed. Some employees have suffered inhuman conditions while imprisonmed by intolerant anti-democratic governments RFA broadcasts to. RFA has also created hundreds of race- and class-blind jobs throughout Asia, offering competetive pay. The notion that RFA is affiliated with the CIA is beyond foolish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.244.42.188 (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Babelfisch, a very small amount of research on this topic reveals that one of the very sources already referenced on this page disproves the alleged CIA link. A source linked in the references does, however, state that "editorials in major Chinese newspapers claiming that the CIA is behind the broadcast operation." These accusations sound familiar. Hartwh 13:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)hartwh, May 9

Three sources are given for the paragraph in question and I have re-inserted it.

Anonymous "relations to top administrators" are not relevant sources.

What Susan B. Epstein wrote was commissioned by the US government, and she doesn't quote any sources. In another report, by the way, she writes that "Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) began broadcasting in 1950 under the clandestine auspices of the Central Intelligence Agency. [...] The purpose of BIB was to provide a firewall between the U.S. government (the CIA) and RFE/RL’s surrogate broadcasting to Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. The idea was that by keeping RFE/RL separate from the U.S. government, its credibility would be increased." That sounds familiar, too. —Babelfisch 08:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

More on difference

Additionally, one of the very sources cited (the 2nd footnote) in this article currently makes reference to startup funding:

"In 1994 legislation, Congress rebuffed moves to pull the plug on RFE/RL but resolved that it should look for private sources of funding. The law also provided start up funds for RFA. To coordinate operations and avoid overlap, all of the radios - including the VOA - were brought under the direction of the BBG, which at that point was to operate as a USIA sub-unit."

Hartwh 19:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)hartwh March 27

"private, nonprofit corporation"

Just a collection of American citizens eager to share their gift of freedom with the world. Really. 68.145.210.83 (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Can I take out the word "private" ? Doesn't it get the funding from the US government ? Money talks. JW19335762743 (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
The boss is the US Federal Government, when I deleted the word "private", an editor called Dodi8238 took out my modification and asked me for "reliable source". ... But actually RFA's web page does claim it to be "private, nonprofit corporation ". Oh well, so maybe I should not blame this Mr. Dodi8238. RFA got its funding from the US government, it is clearly stated on their web site, I just do not agree on the word "private". The exact words are "Radio Free Asia is a private, nonprofit corporation that is funded by the U.S. Government through an annual grant from the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), an independent federal agency charged with overseeing all U.S. civilian international broadcasting". English is not my first language so I will not waste my time arguing about the definition of "private corporation". I do think it's ridiculous to describe RFA as "private" JW19335762743 (talk) 09:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Being a private corporation and being publicly funded are clearly not mutually exclusive. Please provide a reliable source that describes the legal status of RFA as something other than a private corporation. Otherwise, you are just using this talk page as a forum for discussing the topic: Wikipedia talk pages are meant to be used for discussing how to improve articles, not for venting one's feelings about them. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 05:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The following web site http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/ provides definitions of "public corporation" and "private corporation", RFA fits the definition of private corporation because its stock is not publicly traded, but it also fits the definition of public corporation because it essentially is government owned. I say just call it a non-profit corporation, take out the word "private" to improve this article JW19335762743 (talk) 06:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Firstly: Saying that RFA is government owned based solely on the fact that it receives public funding is not good enough, because we are building an encyclopedia and require reliable sources, not personal opinions. If you want this article to say that RFA is owned by the U.S. Government, you must be able to provide a reliable source that directly, and without need for analysis or interpretation, supports that claim. Secondly: It appears like you are trying to synthesize your opinions about the subject with other facts in order to reach or imply the conclusion that RFA is not a private corporation. It is against Wikipedia's policy on original research to combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. So far, you have not provided a single reliable source that directly contradicts the statement that Radio Free Asia is a private corporation. Until you do, I see no reason for this article to omit that information because it is directly supported by a reliable source.[1] If you want to discuss the reliability of that specific source for that particular statement, you are welcome to consult the reliable sources noticeboard. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 10:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Additional information, from the English Wikipedia article about United States Information Agency : "From the beginning, Dwight Eisenhower said, “audiences would be more receptive to the American message if they were kept from identifying it as propaganda. Avowedly propagandistic materials from the United States might convince few, but the same viewpoints presented by the seemingly independent voices would be more persuasive". The phrases "the same viewpoints" and "seemingly independent" are quite interesting. JW19335762743 (talk) 00:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

If it is owned by the USG, it is not private regardless of its articles of incorporation. It is like the TVA ... a public arm of the USG. "Private" it is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.203.138 (talk) 13:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

There seems to be some dispute on the accuracy of article content and whether subject was/is independent. Contributors such as Mark and jez have raised such concerns. There is also disagreement on foundation or CIA associations.

The organization appears to have been independently founded in the 1950s as an anti-communist outlet. However, hundreds of declassified CIA documents from 1950s indicate close connections between RFA, CIA, State Dept and so forth. There is a great wealth of information in these documents; which I have included on a scratchpad here: User:Dsprc/0. Quite a bit of history is completely absent; mayhaps review of these documents could provide a source for expansion and clarification. I have only conducted a cursory review of them, but this limited review turned up documents which challenge the notion RFA was founded by CIA (although no objection to claim of them driving content), and the date would appear to be 1951, not 1950.

I have not yet reviewed the previously included --and (oddly) subsequently removed-- references to Mr. Engelhardt's publication and the others listed in Further Reading. The now Further Reading section appears to have been previously used as a pseudo-reference section; as such I dug those older edits out and reintroduced the refs. These need to be mined by individuals with access to them for additional information (such as those with access provided by university or a well stocked public library or library network).

As for current independence, this is debatable. As the current organization is chartered by law to advance U.S. foreign policy interests, viewpoints and so on; RFA's continued operation depend upon it. This can hardly be viewed as independent... BBG is not an wholly "independent" agency, anymore than the CIA is "independent" (such official nomenclature is quite Orwellian in nature). RFA is managed and funded by the BBG; BBG is managed and funded by State; State is an agency of the Executive branch and overseen by the Congress -- former Sect. of State Hillary Clinton has testified before Congressional Committee on numerous occasions and spoke to their external propaganda initiatives, including those involving BBG, VOA, RFE/RL etc.

RFA would appear to be very close in nature to RFE/RL, in that they've present-day operations but deep connection to "Cold War" era propaganda. In any-event, the article is severely lacking of information and in need of expansion. Expansion could probably alleviate such dispute, as limited coverage would seem to be a source of contention.

P.S. Since Mark and jez has expressed interest in making sure subject is accurately portrayed, I would like to extend the offer to collaborate going through the documents to flush out the history of the pre-1994 RFA... assuming you can put that bias of yours aside, anyway. ;-) And let any other debates not interfere with that collaboration (agree to disagree sort of thing). -- dsprc ^[talk] 01:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Dsprc: Any analyses or interpretation of the declassified CIA documents should be left to reliable secondary sources, as required by Wikipedia's policies on original research: "Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." --Dodi 8238 (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

 Dodi 8238: Indeed. A lead is helpful in finding other sources, however. Reviewing primary documents is sometimes a good place to start in locating secondary coverage. Need to be mindful of confirmation biases though, or parroting CIA talking points, and stuff like Operation Mockingbird. -- dsprc ^[talk] 00:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Consider Semi-Protecting to prevent pervasive anti-RFA edits

Many anonymous editors continually cleanse the article to make it anti-rfa.— Preceding unsigned comment added by A Tree In A Box (talk • contribs) 14:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Recent back and forth editing

We are having quite some back and forth editing in the opening paragraph now. Can we agree on the following three things: a) there is no need to say twice that the USAGM is an "independent agency", b) There is no need to mention the previous name of the USAGM and the link to the USAGM should be updated and c) it is relevant to say what the mission of the USAGM is, namely to "inform in accordance with the broad foreign policy objectives of the USA" (that is a neutral way to state what they aim for and avoids the bias of "propaganda")? Let's please discuss here before making more back and forth changes Jaeljojo (talk) 04:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

It makes sense to reduce repetition regarding the USAGM, but given the name change is very recent, I don't see the benefit of removing the older name at the moment. Not sure what you mean by the link needing to be updated, it appears to direct to the current title. As for c, its addition was unsourced, and is inappropriate on this article unless a source links the quote to RFA. Without a few sources, it would be undue for the lead. CMD (talk) 04:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I doubt many people know the BBG but happy to leave that in. The reference 6 is dead though and there should be a reference to the USAGM as well. As for c), it stems from the Wikipedia page of the USAGM, but of course we can add that same reference in the RFA article as well. Jaeljojo (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

And I think it is very relevant to add c) as it is important for the mission of the RFA and the USAGM and clearly differentiates RFA from independent news channels Jaeljojo (talk) 04:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Adding c would be WP:SYNTH unless a source links it directly to RFA. It is OR to state it is the mission of RFA. There is already clear differentiation, given there are already two quoted aims (which are different) in different paragraphs of the lead. CMD (talk) 05:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Can we then agree on the following: "It is funded and supervised by the U.S. Agency for Global Media (formerly Broadcasting Board of Governors), an independent agency of the United States government", which also supervises other media outlets such as Voice of America"? Jaeljojo (talk) 05:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

That seems good, although the second sentence on the 2017 change should be moved to the History section rather than deleted. CMD (talk) 05:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jaeljojo saying that usage of the word "propaganda" is "biased" is simply wrong. Propaganda is defined as: information or ideas that are spread by an organized group or government to influence people’s opinions, esp. by not giving all the facts or by secretly emphasizing only one way of looking at the facts as per Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary. Ever since its conception as an anti-communist propaganda broadcasting operation, its goal has stayed the same: to broadcast anti-communist propaganda, to counter the narrative of the Chinese Communist Party and to promoting "democratic values" and "human rights". To say that this does not fall under the definition of Propaganda would be to show your "bias" and a disregard of WP:NPOV. Therefore, to deny Radio Free Asia being a propaganda broadcasting service would be not holding a WP:NPOV. Additionally, Wikipedia does not consider the usage of the word "propaganda" to imply any kind of bias, as evidenced by its use in many wiki pages to date. Next time please try to reach a WP:CON before engaging in an WP:WAR. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 10:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@CPCEnjoyer not sure why you address this to me as I am not the one who introduced or deleted the word "propaganda" in the article and I am the one who started to have a reasonable discussion after quite some back and forth editing. Next time, please read the history of the article before writing such comments. Thanks Jaeljojo (talk) 10:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jaeljojo I have read this discussion, in your original contribution to this talk page you said that usage of the word propaganda somehow implies bias, which I have explained to you is a false notion. I was assuming you were arguing in good faith, but after your reply where you display hostility for me simply quoting sources and challenging your opinion, I am not quite sure if that is the case. Also, I am sorry if you got the impression that this was some personal attack on you, that was not my intention. My intention was to make it clear to the users of Wikipedia that Radio Free Asia was, and still is, an US service used to broadcast propaganda. However, I still want to reach a consensus with both you and CMD, so please, dicuss. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 10:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Do reliable sources commonly describe it as a propaganda outfit? CMD (talk) 10:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The BBC [2] and the New York Times [3] have both referred to it as propaganda (NY Times however referring to its early incarnation). I don't see it being used in a biased manner. It's a fairly matter of fact descriptor. I'm for including it in the lead sentence. ToeSchmoker (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

That BBC article actually doesn't refer to it as propaganda, instead describing it as a "US government-funded news service". The lead here should be similar. CMD (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Why, exactly? There is no precedent for using journalistic phrasing as-is to fill for Wikipedia lead descriptors nor is it regular that any label must be expressis verbis repeated in multiple journalistic sources to be used. Materially, Radio Free Asia, as a government sponsored news source, historically with its course determined covertly by the CIA and currently focusing its programming nearly solely on issues meant to cause civil dissatisfaction with the governments of various Asian countries - Vietnam, China etc. and otherwise not reporting any other news to a significant capacity (selective reporting) - bears all the hallmarks of a propaganda outlet regardless if the issues it does report on are factually reported correctly. Compare the BBC - which is also publicly funded, yet compared to the RFA has a much broader topical reach, has different target audience selection criteria (does not specially target citizens of nations outside its funding source's sphere of political influence), and a broad catalogue of topical reporting (compare to specifically picked issues that RFA deals in) - all of those things differentiate a "government-funded news service" (BBC) from what certainly is, materially, a propaganda outlet. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Because of Wikipedia policy. Pulling sources on different issues together to draw novel conclusions is contrary to WP:SYNTH. The interpretation of primary sources is expressly warned against in WP:PRIMARY. WP:DUE opens with "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." CMD (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The interpretation of primary source reference number four by EuanHolewicz432 falls under the first policy primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. An implication that U.S. government printing office does not reputably publish senate hearings seems quite preposterous. There is no pulling sources on different issues together to draw novel conclusions either, because just from the reference number three or four by themselves, you can see that Radio Free Asia is considered a tool for propaganda. Therefore there is no need to draw novel conclusions from multiple separate sources. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, what you stated is Wikipedia policy - yet it still does not support what you are putting forward. The sources I and other users have presented are single issue, and (casting a wide net over the US government) single origin - it is not interpretation to use words that describe at short what is described at length in a primary source. The primary-secondary source interplay in Wikipedia does not restrict editors to use only terms, as I have stated already, used expressis verbis by publishers/sources as this would result in Wikipedia being simply a collection of source quotes and not an encyclopedia. It is contrary to the very concept of language itself. I am not extrapolating facts beyond what is given within those sources - I am simply presenting the facts given and displaying that, materially, these facts together form what one would refer to as "propaganda" or a "propaganda outlet" - this is not research, this is simply using language. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Putting facts together is a clear example interpretation and synth. If the issue is so clear, there should be a variety of reliable secondary sources that cover the topic similarly with similar language. CMD (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Seeing as you completely ignored everything I just said, let me use an example so you may better comprehend it:

Imagine the following headline from the BBC: "Islamist attack in Kabul kills 23, wounds 16". The BBC news article describes at length how a bomb was detonated in Kabul, and an Islamist group claimed responsibility, citing recent military activity by the United States as the instigating factor behind their attack. You decide to create an article about the attack. For the sake of argument, the BBC source is the only one you got and the only one that exists. You decide to title the page "2021 Kabul terror attack". Let's stop right here. You have, in your interpretation of the aforementioned policy, just done original research. How? At no point during this description was the word "terrorist" or "terror" used. Let's say it's not used in the news article body either. Does this mean you cannot use the descriptor? Obviously, this attack bears all the hallmarks of terrorism - both in the popular consciousness and by the dictionary definition of what terrorism is. Yet, by the incredibly broad (yet, on the editors' part, restrictive) definition of what is synth/interpretation you have managed to get yourself into a frankly ridiculous situation - you cannot, as the saying goes, call a spade a spade.

With that out of the way I think it is far more obvious what problems I have with your approach to the "original research" policy. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

That is a good example, Wikipedia editors should not be describing events as terror or terrorist attacks without secondary sources supporting this, and not be generating novel titles when existing ones can be created from the sources available. CMD (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

That is a good example of how absolutely ridiculous this interpretation of WP policy is, rather. But if it is your wish to policy-war instead of making material improvements to the article, let me point out that SYNTH is not important per se, anyway - and to boot, the "thesis I have derived" from my "research" is laughably obvious, as it constitutes nothing more than looking at a set of facts and describing them with a word that fits them - also known, as I mentioned before, as language. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

It's an example there is literally a guideline for, at MOS:TERRORIST, so if you wish to change the interpretation the correct venue is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch. CMD (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Please do stay on topic as per WP:TALK#TOPIC, I believe EuanHolewicz432 has established that your claim of the suggested edit being a SYNTH is wrong and even if it were correct, it would not be against the Wikipedia's policy WP:POL. Do you have any other remarks towards the edit or has consensus been established for this issue? CPCEnjoyer (talk) 06:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The guidelines and policy are on topic, if you also disagree with them I also ask you direct your questions to the appropriate talk pages rather than here. CMD (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Again you omit any mention of why you disagree with the edit, even after your claims of it breaking community policy are disproven. Remember to communicate your problems with the edit and be objective. But to indulge you, no, the word propaganda is not considered a Value-laden label. Looking at your contribution history, I see you have long stopped assuming good faith of me, EuanHolewicz432 or ToeSchmoker, even going as far as to claim that Euan is a "sockpuppet". I, again, ask: What are your remarks about the suggested edit, what community policy does it breach? CPCEnjoyer (talk) 10:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

You are making it incredibly hard to assume good faith, considering you retreat to unrelated policy in ignorance of the actual meaning of the example I provided - I could construct another, but I will simply assume you would dismiss it with unrelated criticism again instead of addressing the crux of the argument. To avoid this misdirection perhaps I should be more direct and blunt - in light of the evidence presented here, do you, the editor disputing the change, deny that the word "propaganda" - in the neutral, non-loaded sense - accurately describes the output of the agency in question ie. Radio Free Asia? It's a yes or no question. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 10:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Evaluating primary evidence is specifically mentioned as something not to do in WP:PRIMARY. The crux of the matter is that articles need to reflect the WP:NOR policy, as well as WP:WEIGHT. Good sourcing is the first step to these. CMD (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't read correctly. Re-read what I said and answer the question. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 10:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I suspect you have been ignoring my messages, I have already corrected your (perhaps intentional) misinterpretation of policy that primary evidence can not be used. The interpretation of primary source reference number four by EuanHolewicz432 falls under the first policy: primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. An implication that U.S. government printing office does not reputably publish senate hearings seems quite preposterous. Furthermore, your claim that this is WP:SYNTH or WP:NOR has already been disproven as well. If you do not believe me please do take a read through WP:SYNTHNOT. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 11:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I would like to chime in that RFA is undeniably a propaganda outfit and has been since inception, and that it's personally quite baffling to me that it's even considered a reliable source for citation across Wikipedia considering its stated intent, source of funding, and the numerous times it has been proven to obfuscate information or make extraordinary claims with little to no evidence Deku link (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

To come in at a top level, there have been numerous reports from reliable sources (including books published by respectable publishers and other news agencies) that refer to RFA as a news agency and stress its independence. To call the modern version of RFA "propaganda" is a violation of WP:NPOV. A 2001 book on media refers to RFA as "independent" and notes its use in Cambodia.The Atlantic notes that Radio Free Asia, while it receives US funding, is journalistically independent from U.S. government influence and provides independent news in Cambodia. The Guardian refers to Radio Free Asia as a "news group", and the New York Times calls it a "news service". Coda Story (republication in Rappler linked) has also included Radio Free Asia as independent media, Rappler has referred to Radio Free Asia as "uncensored news". These sources refer to the modern service, not to the 1950s agency. Calling the modern service "propaganda" despite its total discontinuity with the an agency that ceased broadcasting activities in the 1950s does not seem to be supported by reliable sources, and looks like it relies on an OR/SYNTH argument that appears to be contradicted by multiple reliable sources.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

It being a "news service" or "independent" (even though this so called 'journalistic independence' you seem keen on is heavily questionable materially as the funding that RFA receives is not unconditional - no matter) does not preclude the propaganda label in it of itself; neither is "propaganda" a loaded term - it is used by historians and analysts extensively, including by Herbert Romerstein, who is quite avowedly pro-American and anti-Communist and so his views would skewer away from the "propaganda" label were it, as you seem to presuppose, a loaded term used to negatively brand outlets. The purpose of RFA is political agitation, currently mainly in China - it is not its reporting accuracy nor any other purely journalistic aspect that is under consideration in this discussion. --EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The use of the term "propaganda" is a loaded term. Many sources, including The Atlantic, the Reader's Editor of The Hindu, and Vox indicate that there are differences between "journalism" and "propaganda". It's certainly a term that implies non-reliability and, in the news context, you can either be a propaganda outlet or a reliable, journalistic outlet. The two are generally reported as being exclusive.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I would be careful with that first source, considering the VoA's ties to RFA (incidentally, VoA's fellow propagandist nature is iterated upon in its own article), with the second source being an opinion piece (by someone without expertise in the subject), let's take a cursory glance at the third source, excerpt:

"I think that because of the way Trump has begun to interact with certain programs and because of the way Fox has allowed some of its personnel to interact with the administration, there are parts of Fox News that are now a propaganda arm of the government."

Emphasis added. The issue Vox takes with the state of Fox is its interaction with the government, and later on we read that journalism and propaganda (as understood in this article) both share some similarities but mainly that propaganda is persuasive in nature. Considering that the then BBG's (and by extension the RFA's) function is quite literally stated in one of the sources here to be a tool for foreign policy ("The language service review effort by the Broadcasting Board of Governors was an effort to focus our limited resources on areas of the world where we need to have impact, to meet foreign policy challenges.") - from this we can ascertain that there is a direct link between RFA's reporting and US foreign policy goals, from which we can conclude that the US government makes use of the RFA (by funding it) - regardless of its supposed integrity or accuracy in reporting - to achieve policy goals in Asia, especially China - if any other agency was used for this purpose by a state power there would be absolutely no discussion whether such an act or agency is "propagandist". --EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

You know what's different than a propaganda arm of a government? A publicly funded news broadcaster with journalistic independence. My point is the same, notably that propaganda is a value-laden term that casts doubt upon the quality of the article topic's journalism. The notion that "propaganda" is not a value-laden term is in contradiction to its common use in reliable sources. If you believe that it is commonly reported in reliable sources that the current form of RFA is a propaganda organization, then please provide those sources. Otherwise, there is no reason to include it as such, especially in the lead section, and it would be an egregious WP:NPOV violation to do so.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

These two things you describe so vividly and with emphasis can simply be two ways to put the same agency. You keep coming back to the journalistic aspect of things, speaking of "quality journalism" (which I would consider questionable considering RFA's extensive reporting on the alleged Uyghur "genocide" - an aside) - yet I have multiple times ascertained that this is not what is being discussed in this instance, only the material effects of RFA's broadcasting. Yet again, being "a news agency" or "journalistic independence", or any other platitudes that the sources you provide readily repeat do not preclude the propagandist character of this organization - which I do not "believe", by the by, as this is a matter of facts - sources are above and below for you to peruse whenever you decide it necessary. Again, none of the sources provided readily contradict - as you seem to think they do - the propagandist nature of RFA - one can by a news agency, independent (even though funding reveals this cannot materially be the reality of the situation), even report truthfully, yet still work as state propaganda in pursuit of foreign policy agenda. This discussion is pointless reiteration until you internalize this. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@EuanHolewicz432: you raise a number of interesting points, do you have any WP:RS from the modern era which cover the "propagandist character of this organization.” I looked "above and below” and I’m not seeing anything. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps look more closely? This has already been iterated upon above and seems to restate the other user's demands, please keep discussion focused. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Thats not in those two sources. I’ve looked extremely closely and now I feel misled by you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mikehawk10, I have to question why you decided to come to this article and significantly change the intro without consensus when there was a clearly telegraphed pause in edit warring until this talk page concluded. Doing so because the article was brought up in a separate discussion while neglecting the halt of the edit war hardly seems appropriate or civil. Deku link (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I see the desire of the recent edits by @Mikehawk10 to find a neutral common ground. But I think two further edits are needed: a) we should show that the mission of RFA stated in the first paragraph is a quote. b) when talking about propaganda, I suggest to explain why some people may see it as propaganda and for me the clearest indicator for this is that that the USAGM states as its prorioties to "prioritizing resources to ensure that its activities advance the broad foreign policy priorities of the United States". Is this agreed?

sorry, did not sign this post above. Jaeljojo (talk) 05:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

any views? 218.253.211.184 (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Just read Jaeljojo's edit which I have missed up until now, for which I apologize, and I think that is a pretty good idea, however the discussion here has pretty much concluded and we have reached an agreement on the WP:NPOVN#"Propaganda" as the introductory description for Radio Free Asia, did you have anything else in mind? CPCEnjoyer (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Please stop unexplained removal of content

@My very best wishes: Please do stop your unexplained removal of content, "shorter" is not an argument, nor is removing a criticism saying "it's not a criticism". CPCEnjoyer (talk) 10:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

You need to attach the date to old work. You’re presenting it as current. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? One of the reverts I did has a date (In 1999), do you mean the other one? CPCEnjoyer (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The report needs to be dated. "as was the case with the first Radio Free Asia.” is also just bad writing, is there supposed to be more after Asia? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I amended it, also put it first so it is in chronological order. I changed "first" to "original", I believe the readers should understand better now. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 14:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Thats definitely clearer, I added “(1951-1955)” after to drive the point home. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

My edit was explained in edit summary. But I would rather wait until the closing of my SPI report. My very best wishes (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

For the record. Let it be noted that named SPI report is, at this time and place, actively being used for unjust purposes. Thanks. MPSCL 15:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

What "unjust purposes"? Please explain. My very best wishes (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Leaving a misleading edit summary is the same thing as not providing an edit summary. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

It was not misleading. My very best wishes (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Now, here is my next edit, a removal from the lead, and again, the reason is explained in edit summary. The removed text implied that RFA is currently (rather than in 1950s) criticized as a propaganda organization. If that's the case, we need a section about it in the body of the page (to summarize it in the lead), but there is no such section. My very best wishes (talk) 03:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Not "Editorially independent"

RFA isn't exactly known for being critical of the US gov. It's been described as an American propaganda outlet for a reason - it is supported by a congressional mandate and remains dependent on state funding. The agency it is funded by can be "independent" in the sense it is not inside a nesting doll series of other US government agencies/departments/etc, but that doesn't make the content "editorially independent". The main sources claiming RFA to be editorially independent are US government that funds it and RFA itself - but that's hardly a slam dunk - those involved parties calling it editorially independent doesn't exactly help make the case for it being editorially independent, after all, the Russian government claims RT has editorial independence. An organization cannot be both "editorially independent" and tasked with "advancing the goals of U.S. foreign policy" (ie, RFA's main job).--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The sources that call it editorially independent are the Washington Post, the Hill, and the Atlantic -- which are all reliable sources. There are rightful accusations of it being propaganda, but this is already included in the article; I don't see this as a justification to remove a well-sourced claim to RFA's editorial independence. Remember, editorial independence simply means the freedom of editors to make decisions without interference from the owners of a publication, which RFA is able to do regardless of its funding. Ultimately, the claim is well sourced can I think interpretations that it should be removed based on funding would come down to WP:OR. — Czello 14:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I have taken a look at the sources which claim it is "editorially independent" and only The Hill has directly said that RFA has some sort of editorial "firewall", which they put into quotation marks. Other sources call it "independent" but I would assume they didn't mean editorial independence. I support your proposed change, unless better sources are found for RFA's "editorial independence" of course. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Other sources call it "independent" but I would assume they didn't mean editorial independence. Why would you assume that? What independence do you think they meant? — Czello 14:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Independent as in not state-affiliated, which is an attribution given to many if not all Chinese media, the area which Radio Free Asia covers. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that having a mission prevents a media organization from having editorial independence. More importantly, if we're going to avoid original research, are there reliable sources attesting to any editorial interference by the US government? Anyone describing RFA as state-controlled, for example? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

There are a few sources in the article that call Radio Free Asia a propaganda, this would imply that they do not have editorial independence. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Sources are allowed to disagree with one another. We just represent both sides (which the article is doing). Otherwise I could easily say, "there are a few sources which say RFA has editorial independence, this would imply they're not propaganda". — Czello 15:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say they weren't allowed to disagree. I merely answered the editor's question. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The problem is drawing a conclusion that they're not editorially independent because of something other sources say is WP:SYNTH. — Czello 15:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Please do take a read through what WP:SYNTH is not. Additionally, the burden of proof is on you when you claim they are editorially independent. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

This isn't a catch-all; if sources contradict one another we don't form a conclusion based on their view points, because that is snyth is. — Czello 15:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I never attempted to form a conclusion? I simply made the assertion that propaganda outlets do not have editorial independence. If you feel that is synthesis, I am sorry but you will have to explain how it qualifies as a synthesis. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, what I'm disputing is this: There are a few sources in the article that call Radio Free Asia a propaganda, this would imply that they do not have editorial independence. Unless I've misinterpreted your meaning, it sounds like that you're concluding they're lacking editorial independence because different sources call them propaganda, which would be synth. That said, as discussed below, propaganda and EI aren't mutually exclusive. — Czello 15:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Are the terms propaganda and editorially independent mutually exclusive? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a good point. Again, editorial independence simply means the freedom of editors to make decisions without interference from the owners of a publication. They can still promote a certain view ("propaganda") without interference. — Czello 15:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Do you think people in propaganda outlets are editorially independent? Do you think a writer for an anti-communist propaganda outlet would be able to publish a piece about how communism is actually great? CPCEnjoyer (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I think most propaganda outlets I can name are not editorially independent, because they are fully controlled by a national government. Whenever that is the case, it's usually trivial to find reliable sources describing the outlet as state-controlled. No, I don't think the writer in your example would be able to publish such a piece, mainly because the hypothetical editor of the publication would shoot them down. If the owner of the publication were to reject the piece despite editorial support, that would be show the outlet to be nonindependent. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I think most propaganda outlets I can name are not editorially independent, because they are fully controlled by a national government. I assume, "most" implies there are some that retain their editorial independence, can you list them? I have to admit I never heard of anything like that before. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Obviously there's some subjectivity here, but Breitbart was the first thing I thought of. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, we might agree to disagree then, since I do not believe Breitbart is a propaganda website nor that it has editorial independence. I personally view it as platform for lunatics to spread their misinformation.

Looking now I probably took this a bit too far for which I apologize, this is kind of turning into a WP:FORUM. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, and I have a part in that as well. To bring it back, my point is that the equation of a pro-government mission with editorial non-independence is not so absolutely true that we can say so without support from RS. Since sources do describe RFA as EI, I think the appropriate move for editors who disagree is to find sources that contradict such a statement. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, certainly. RS say it is editorially independent, hence it must be described as such. This is the case for the RFE/RL system in general, and even for VOA. This is not the case for RT Russia and some others. So whatever RS say. My very best wishes (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources seem to suggest that Michael Pack's appointment to the USAGM eroded editorial independence of RFA/VoA. The Atlantic: Over the course of his seven-month tenure, Pack undertook a near-complete overhaul of the agency: purging its senior leadership, undermining the editorial independence of its broadcasters, and entrenching its traditionally bipartisan governing boards with right-wing ideologues, in an apparent effort to assure a conservative hold on the agency well past Trump’s presidency.[4] From NPR: President Trump's appointee has sparked an internal outcry by taking bold steps to try to cement his control over at least two of the networks and shape the course of their journalism well into the Biden administration.[5] NBC: A senior U.S. official appointed by President Donald Trump has scrapped a federal regulation designed to protect the editorial independence of Voice of America and other U.S.-funded media outlets, amid accusations he is undermining the journalistic credibility of the broadcasters.[6] Also e.g. [7] Hell, even Kelu Chao/VoA itself seems to acknowledge the problems regarding editorial independence that Pack caused: Last year, Chao was among a group of whistleblowers who filed a legal complaint against the agency’s previous leader, filmmaker Michael Pack, arguing that the Trump administration appointee had taken unlawful actions and violated the statutory firewall set up to prevent outside interference with the news organizations overseen by USAGM.[8]

This NYT piece provides decent context regarding Pack's appointment:[9], and I would recommend reading that article from The Atlantic I linked above for a good explanation of the whole picture. The storm seems to be somewhat weathered after the election, but with such a tumultuous history with editorial independence criticised by RS, with even the current acting CEO of USAGM protesting against RFA/VoA exactly about erosions to their editorial independence, questions still to be raised from RS about the lasting effects of his appointment – I'm not sure if we can really state something like this in wikivoice. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Great finds. One thing I think we can all agree to is some mention of the appointment and its aftermath, probably in 1994-present. I have some thinking to do on how this affects the current statement in the lead. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, while I'm looking at it, some fairly on-topic quotes from Vox: Pack fired the heads of USAGM’s outlets because they were too soft on China and didn’t defend American values — as Trump would describe them — enough to the rest of the world... USAGM may have lost its leader, but the agency could continue to face more problems, even with Biden at the helm.[10] ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

IMHO, extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence. A state-funded media outlet that rarely if ever is critical of it's sponsor and only gets called "editorially independent" on rare occasions, mostly by said sponsor, isn't exactly a strong case for being "editorially independent". Such an assertion just isn't objective shouldn't be put in wikivoice.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

A discussion of its independence (editorial or otherwise) should appear in the body of the article. There is not enough agreement to include a statement in Wikivoice in the lead that it is "editorially independent". At the moment we don't even state what body it is "editorially independent" from. The three sources used to support the statement say:

• "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". (A statement specific to the Chinese province and not a general statement about editorial independence)
• it "provide[s] independent news to many rural Cambodians". (A statement specific to Cambodia and not a general statement about editorial independence)
• "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". (supports the use of the term "editorially independent")

Burrobert (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Well, there was an RfC, specifically about Radio Free Asia [11] as reflected in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. According to closing, this is a “reliable, independent, [and] published with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" source. Independent. Otherwise, it would not be an RS.My very best wishes (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Burrobert (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  Of course not, and I do not suggest to use it as a source. I am only saying there is WP:CONSENSUS this Radio is a reliable and independent source of information. Why? This is based on publications by RS (not WP), and you can find them in the discussion linked above (see comment by Mikehawk10 for example). My very best wishes (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  What sources are good enough to use on Wikipedia (in this case, [...] a reliable source, but particularly in geopolitically-charged areas, attribution of its point of view and funding by the U.S. government may be appropriate) is different from the content and specific wording we should put into articles about those sources. While there may be a degree of overlap in the arguments that guide us in one case and in the other, consensus for the wording of this article needs to be established here; it is not in the purview of that RfC. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  Sources that you provided above such as that one, do not support your assertion that the publications by RFA and RFE/RL are no longer an example of independent reliable journalism. The source tells about an attempt by Trump administration to establish some control, and about the resistance by the journalists and by a part of the administration (the open letter, etc.). The source does not say that the actual journalistic coverage of the events in publications was significantly worse even during the Trump administration. And even that is currently in the past. My very best wishes (talk) 01:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  According to closing, this is a “reliable, independent, [and] published with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" source. Wikipedia does not dictate whether that is the truth, this "closing" is simply the summary of the RfC consensus. Remember, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The reason that "firewall" is in quotes is likely because that is the phrase used in the relevant law itself to describe the arrangement. It appears that there's a lot less interest in reporting on RFA's editorial independence after the first week of Biden's administration. This appears to be because Pack was no longer in charge of the Board and because Biden sought to protect the independence of the Board and reinstated people who had been forced out in the Trump Administration's failed attempt to undermine the agency's editorial independence. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Based on the above it is clear we do not have the required strong consensus to make such a bold claim about having editorial independence.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I... don't think that's what the discussion above indicates. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

It's clearly a disputed notion, not a consensus, ergo such a bold claim should not be included.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• Old (default) option was that it has editorial independence. "No consensus" (if that's the case) means this stays. My very best wishes (talk) 01:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  Old (default) option also had the history of RFA and its characterization by commentators, which you removed, so I do not see how this is an issue. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• Unless I’m missing something we don’t appear to have any sources which say that Radio Free Asia doesn’t have editorial independence but we have a number of source which say they do have editorial independence. Have I followed the argument accurately? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  Exactly. For example this source was cited above to suggest that it no longer has the editorial independence. However, the source does not claim it at all, but rather say an opposite: it has the editorial independence that was unsuccessfully threatened by a Trump appointee. The journalists and even the administration pushed back (leading to the resignation of Michael Pack), which is yet another proof of the editorial independence. This is an important story, and it was described here, but it is more about the Trump administration. My very best wishes (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Question

I am confused. It say that the RFA "was established by the International Broadcasting Act of 1994", which seem to be correct and sourced. Then why this page includes something from 1950s? The previous version explained it was a different organization with the same name in 1950s. If so, then why should we include anything about a different organization in 1950s? My very best wishes (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

In the body we say that "In 1971 ... responsibilities for the then-defunct radio operations ... were formally transferred to a presidentially appointed Board for International Broadcasting". "With the passage of International Broadcasting Act in 1994, RFA was brought under auspices of the United States Information Agency ... ". The text in the body indicates that RFA continued from 1971 to 1994 under a "presidentially appointed Board for International Broadcasting" and responsibility for the RFA moved to USIA in 1994. Burrobert (talk) 04:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

In 1970s. So there was nothing in 1950s. Good removal: [12]. My very best wishes (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that is correct either. The text from the body states

"In 1953, the Committee for Free Asia decided to terminate RFA, with it finally going off the air in 1955. In 1971 CIA involvement ended and all responsibilities for the then-defunct radio operations, which were formally transferred to a presidentially appointed Board for International Broadcasting (BIB)".

The implication is that RFA continued to exist in some form from 1955 to 1971 with CIA involvement. Otherwise, there would have been no responsibilities to transfer in 1971.

As a result of the edit you described as a "good removal", we now have the CIA abandoning its involvement in 1971, despite that involvement not having received prior mention. The sentence that was removed was:

"From 1951 to 1955, the Central Intelligence Agency, through the Committee for Free Asia, operated a news agency named Radio Free Asia (RFA) which broadcast anti-Communist propaganda."

Burrobert (talk) 07:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• According to stable version of this page [13], "The news agency [in 1950s], despite sharing the same name as the Radio Free Asia begun in 1994, is neither affiliated nor historically linked to it, with the latter being operated by the U.S. Agency for Global Media". This appear to be correct because according to multiple RS currently on the page, RFA was established only by the International Broadcasting Act of 1994. The information about another organization with the same name does not belong to this page, but should be a separate page (if it was notable enough). My very best wishes (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

  The news agency [in 1950s], despite sharing the same name as the Radio Free Asia begun in 1994, is neither affiliated nor historically linked to it, with the latter being operated by the U.S. Agency for Global Media This part is not present in the BBC article, can you provide sources for it? CPCEnjoyer (talk) 13:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

  • According to website of the organization [14], Radio Free Asia was founded on March 12, 1996, under the provisions of the 1994 International Broadcasting Act (P.L. 103-236), as a private non-profit corporation. This appear to be correct information according to RS you can find on page International Broadcasting Act and others. For example, this source say that Congress eventually authorized creation of Radio Free Asia (RFA) in 1994, and it began broadcasting in 1996. My very best wishes (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

  Also note sources 13,14 and 15 currently on the page (used to claim that it is a propaganda organization). All of them say it started in 1996. Nothing about 1950s and 1970s. My very best wishes (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

  (responding to both your comments)

  Isn't this synthesis? I don't think saying "Radio Free Asia was founded on March 12, 1996, under the provisions of the 1994 International Broadcasting Act (P.L. 103-236), as a private non-profit corporation." implies no affiliation.

  For example, this source say that Congress eventually authorized creation of Radio Free Asia (RFA) in 1994, and it began broadcasting in 1996. I am pretty sure actually interpreting and forming conclusions from WP:PRIMARY sources is considered WP:OR, so I am not sure if this is usable, even if the document somehow implied no affiliation.

  Also note sources 13,14 and 15 currently on the page (used to claim that it is a propaganda organization). All of them say it started in 1996. Nothing about 1950s and 1970s. Those sources are only talking about the current "version" of RFA, I believe that was specifically why they were chosen, to make sure that the sources are actually describing the proper "version" of RFA. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

  • No, all these sources, including ones critical of RFA, mention only one RFA and say that it started working in 1996. They do not say anything about other "versions". My very best wishes (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)