Talk:Operation Earnest Voice

Split article from Web brigades

I split this article from Web brigades, as it appears to be a separate topic under the general category of state-sponsored web astroturfing. See the discussion there.(17jan13)--Wikimedes (talk)

Edited for grammar

I edited the page for grammar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnorwood1972 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

CENTCOM position uncited

In the intro, there is a sentence "According to CENTCOM, the US-based Facebook and Twitter networks are not targeted by the program because US laws prohibit US state agencies from spreading propaganda among US citizens as according to the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012."

There is a citation after the sentence, but it links to a full text of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, and contains no mention of a statement by CENTCOM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.200.248 (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Some news outlets have also claimed the bill actually did the opposite of what that sentence implies? https://www.businessinsider.com/us-domestic-propaganda-officially-aired-2013-7?r=DE&IR=T 46.5.17.4 (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

SYNTH and POV editing

I removed this paragraph with the POV that "Operation Earnest Voice" is somehow involved in editing Wikipedia, a SYNTH view that is not supported by the source. Normchou ^💬 23:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

It was not my intention to imply that "Operation Earnest Voice" is involved in editing Wikipedia. I meant to state the fact that a similar operation has been done in the past, which is supported by the source. Looking back I realize that it does sound like I am implying those two things are the same, for which I apologize. I feel A similar astroturfing campaign has targeted Wikipedia in the past, where CIA and FBI computers were used to edit Iraq war and Guantanamo Bay detention camp articles. These edits included lowering the estimated casualty count and the removing aerial and satellite images. would be a neutral yet descriptive take on the Reuters article. Do you have any objections? CPCEnjoyer (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The following article-section would be the right place for the above materials: State-sponsored Internet propaganda#Americas. Meanwhile, given the current sources, I see no specific link between "Operation Earnest Voice" and the alleged U.S. government campaign in editing Wikipedia. Normchou ^💬 00:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll have a look and maybe try to include it at the State-sponsored Internet propaganda then. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oh yes, the article in Reuters [1] does not mention the "Operation Earnest Voice" anywhere. My very best wishes (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

most offending information that made the US government look bad has been removed- including information about how the US government has been caught editing wikipedia.

this has apparently been done by a user who claims to care about 'human rights' but obviously has a pro-US agenda to push judging by a cursory view of their edits, considering a majority of information that made the US government look bad has either been removed or lobotomized of context. and- it has been replaced with.... whataboutism about china and russia at the bottom of the article? weird and bizarre. wikipedia should not be used for pushing US propaganda. the article was fine how it was before, and it's very clear the article was edited because it was recently trending in relation to how the US government astroturfs on social media and websites such as reddit.

people can just link the prior accurate article at https://archive.is/dcvNJ as a source so i'm unsure of what this user thought they accomplished by this. i do not use wikipedia really but this is pretty gross and imo stains the already poor reputation wikipedia has as being a source of bad information / agenda pushing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:7BA0:9E80:FD29:C949:DC60:366E (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)