Talk:Voice of America

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:

You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Voice of America article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 12 months

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Voice of America. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Voice of America at the Reference desk.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

International relations Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Media Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Mackay Radio
Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

Journalism Top‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television Mid‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Radio Stations High‑importance

	Radio portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio Stations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of radio stations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Radio StationsWikipedia:WikiProject Radio StationsTemplate:WikiProject Radio StationsRadio station
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 1, 2012, February 1, 2022, and February 1, 2023.

'Trump presidency politicization efforts' section

^{[citation needed]}

I'd like to raise several concerns regarding the section Voice of America#Trump presidency politicization efforts. It seems to me that this section more properly belongs in the article U.S. Agency for Global Media. Much of the information discussed there deals with broader issues than just what happened at VOA, and concerns other networks managed by the USAGM, the overall USAGM management issues, the board appointments, etc. It makes more sense to move over this section to U.S. Agency for Global Media and leave a relatively short paragraph with a redirect in the VOA article. However, the other issue I see here is the length of the section. Even in the VOA article, the section appears to be overly long and exessively detailed, probably in the need of compression. If moved over to U.S. Agency for Global Media, in its current form the section would overwhelm that article and create significant WP:BALANCE problems there. So I am not sure what exactly should be done here and in which order, and extra opinions would be welcome. Nsk92 (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that Ted Lipien's "official" blog supported turning VOA into Trump propaganda outlet is false and not supported by any citations. BBGWatch.com and USAGMWatch.com are not official blogs of any person but are managed by unpaid volunteer citizen journalists, some of them former VOA reporters, all of whom express their support for the VOA Charter and have repeatedly criticized all violations of the VOA Charter, both on the left and on the right, and have called for accurate, balanced and comprehensive factual reporting by the Voice of America. BBGWatch.com and USAGMWatch.com do not support Trump propaganda or propaganda of any kind and state it on their websites.^[1] and ^[2] Ted Lipien is also not a former political VOA "official" but an independent journalist and a media freedom advocate who has been registered as an independent voter for some years and is not a supporter of former President Trump. He was promoted from within the Voice of America after he was VOA Polish Service chief during Poland's struggle for democracy and later VOA Eurasia Division director.^[3]Coldwarbroadcasting (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence in the article that you object to is directly supported by the source cited, the Washington Post article[1] (see the citation tag ref number [118] at the end of the sentence in question in the article), and in addition by the NPR source you cite yourself here [2]. The WaPo sources directly says: "Lipien is a former VOA official." Note that the current text does not say that Lipien's blogs are "official" blogs, or that Lipien is a Trump voter or a Trump supporter. Instead the sentence says: "Pack named Ted Lipien, a former VOA official whose blog praised his efforts to change VOA into a pro-Trump propaganda outlet, as head of RFE/RL ..." That characterization is essentially supported by the WaPo source cited: "Lipien is a former VOA official who has run a blog titled BBG-USAGM Watch that is a forum for critical former VOA employees (BBG refers to USAGM’s former name). The blog has repeatedly asserted that VOA’s programming favors liberal views. It has also reported and commented favorably on Pack’s efforts to restructure the operation since he assumed the top job in June." However, since the source indeed does not mention Trump at all, I'll reword the relevant sentence in the article to correspond more closely to what the source actually says. Nsk92 (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an exceptionally well written section. This story seems to be more about the U.S. Agency for Global Media, rather than about VOA. But VOA played the central role. So belongs here. My very best wishes (talk) 03:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

I won't weigh in on the factual accuracy of the section, but it is WAY too long. The organization is over 70 years old, but this 4 year period dominates the history section. If an editors wants to maintain the text, please consider making a separate article. I will soon pare it down to a summary. Ashmoo (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CIA black op site

I added this context to the rumor. It was immediately reverted by a brand new IP editor with the edit summary "the ref does not refer to the rumor, denied, by unnamed persons, as saying this was a cia site, so this is irrelevant". I don't see the justification for this deletion. Since it was reverted, instead I added the material and the sourcing for it. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Tornheim, "See also" links go into a dedicated section at the end of the article. Such links should not be inserted into the body of the article. Please see MOS:SEEALSO. Cullen328 (talk) 08:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The new editor acting under various IP addresses, keeps trying to force in their preferred version. I have reverted back to the long-standing status quo and am happy to discuss how to make the section WP:NPOV. My edit summary was:

Restore back to the long-standing status quo of 2/6/24 before new IP editor started changing this section to make it less WP:NPOV that the original. IPs version does not reflect the articles accurately and instead focuses too heavily on official denials rather than the cause of the rumor (see CIA_black_sites), past suspicions of the site, and reporters flocking to the site. Discuss: Talk:Voice_of_America#CIA_black_op_site

I suggest we work on a compromise agreeable to all. I think we might agree that the original title "Relay station used as a CIA black site" makes it sound too much like the rumor was true. (Based on the WP:RS I have read, I do not believe that to be the case. But my research would be considered WP:OR.) The IP's far-too wordy version ("Unconfirmed and denied rumor that Thai relay station was used to interrogate terrorists") over-emphasizes the denials. There must be some middle-ground, which I tried to establish in my previous edit ("Rumor that Thai relay station was used as CIA black op site"). Other than the title, I had copied and pasted the material (and WP:RS) directly from the first paragraph of CIA_black_sites#Asia. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basic concepts

@JArthur1984: your recent edit demonstrates that you misunderstood a basic fact.

Would you please pin point to me where you got that the Voice of America is "an agency"?

It is financed by an agency called the U.S. Agency for Global Media. There's a big difference here!

Everything was already referenced in the lead.

The version before your edit had the following: Voice of America (VOA or VoA) is the international radio broadcaster of the United States of America. [...] It is financed by the U.S. Agency for Global Media after the approval of the Congress.

Currently is it as follows: Voice of America (VOA or VoA) is an international radio broadcasting state media agency funded by the United States of America. [...] It is financed by the U.S. Agency for Global Media after the approval of the Congress.

To label it "state media" in the first sentence is misleading. It is governed by an independent state agency after the approval of the congress. Is it too hard to distinguish between this democratic process and the direct influence of the state media as a mouthpiece of the government? An example of the latter is

where such sources are mouthpieces of their own governments, aren't critical of them, whereas the Voice of America reports about everything, whether it's critical or not. These are simply basics.

--Esperfulmo (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of the of the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM). But there are plenty of words other than agency -- "network," "broadcaster," or "institution" could all work instead of "agency" without losing any meaning.

VOA is state-media. There are no efforts made to compare it to your other examples, so I'm not clear why you bring these up. There are numerous kinds of state-media, with more or less government editorial control, depending. State-media is not the same as "mouthpiece," and it's not necessarily a pejorative term (this depends on the reader's perspective). You can familiarize yourself with wikilinked state media article to develop a sense of the different state media approaches that exist. JArthur1984 (talk) 01:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special English

Needs a section about Special English, which started in 1959. The VOA's use of Special English has helped millions of people learn English. TDKehoe (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://usagmwatch.com

[2] ttps://bbgwatch.com

[3] ttps://www.npr.org/2021/01/22/959848852/usagm-chief-fires-trump-allies-over-radio-free-europe-and-other-networks

[1]

[2]

[3]