|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pacifica Foundation article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 60 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
Leftist? which is?
Perhaps my concern is unfounded and inexperienced, but doesn't saying "left" seem lazy and superficial? Surely we can cite KPFK's more prominent issues and topics as opposed to just saying "it's left." I'm concerned more with the larger habit of labeling so many articles in this database with politically stereotyped names. Let the facts speak for themselves.
Ongoing conflicts: 2016
added update to very old prior "ongoing topics 2002" with 4+ citations for external information and reference to a recent summary of recent actions by attys & individuals to 'take over' bankrupt radio stations, umbrellaled by Pacifica. not sure if I'm doing "citations" correctly, so please just correct the process I may not be doing well enough. info is relevant and there is so much contradictory versions in various small media sites of all sides that is 'too much' to include anywhere. No prejudices or alliances are exploited here. Activistrep (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)activistrep
- Frankly, much of the material you added should not be on Wikipedia in its current form. It reads as if written by someone with an axe to grind. It says in Wikipedia's voice many disparaging things about the organization and many of the individuals involved. As such this material absolutely demands excellent references, per WP:V and WP:RS, references that show reliable sources expressing these judgments (WP editors are not allowed to make judgments, that is called original research or original synthesis). And this will be needed for every claim of fact.
- Note that it is ok to say e.g. "So-and-so concluded that the organization was in financial trouble", if so-and-so can be considered an authority, and if it is backed up by a reference to a direct quote in a WP:RS. It is not at all ok for Wikipedia to appear to draw such a conclusion on its own.
- Furthermore, and more urgently, everything on WP that mentions a living person—particularly if it puts them in a negative light—absolutely must comply with the more stringent referencing requirements of WP:BLP.
- And then there's WP:NPOV.
- Have you had some past connection with Pacifica? If so you must also comply with WP:COI.
- In sum, I am not quite ready to revert back to the version before any of your edits, but I'm certainly leaning that way. At the very minimum I am likely to lace the whole thing with "citation needed", "according to whom?", etc,. templates. The result of your edits reads like something that belongs as an article in a magazine where people expect to find strong opinions, like maybe Rolling Stone or Esquire. Not an encyclopedia article. This is not the place to "get the truth out about what is happening at Pacifica", and that's the impression you've given me. If that is in fact your purpose you need to find another outlet. Jeh (talk) 05:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Pacifica Foundation Radio Board of Directors
This is an already-set up section but contains names that are no longer PNB Pacifica Nat'l Board members and needs to be revised. I hesitate to incur wrath of those who want to continue to think they are important there. The elections of PNB just took place a few months ago with some contentions of who is legit and who is no longer eligible, being termed-out. Resolution and stability is not yet in sight. Just sayin' Activistrep (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)activistrep