Talk:Pacifica Foundation

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.

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: 60 days

Radio Stations Low‑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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

They are so stereotypically Leftist, it is hard to call them anything else. I mean, there is lot of different things that can be _called_ Left. There are few things so stereotypically Left that they define the word instead of being defined by it. I guess that is the proper formulation. Pacifica is not Leftist. Leftism is defined by Pacifica. 76.168.4.212 (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pacifica's long history of internal f(r)actionism is itself "stereotypically L(l)eftist", unfortunately. Acwilson9 (talk) 19:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minor reordering/restructuring of article

Unfortunately, almost nothing in this article has an accompanying citation, so I myself have no idea what is or is not factual. (However, if I were to assume that it IS all factual, I would then be amazed that such a fractious organization has not yet destroyed itself from within...)

Nonetheless, so as to make this article easier to read, I have just now done some minor reordering/restructuring of this article's history and programming sections, subsections, and paragraphs. (Until today, the article's text was rather chaotic.) I have also corrected grammar of several incomplete sentences. To the best of my ability, I have made NO CHANGES TO THE MEANING of the pre-existing text, although one ungrammatical sentence was so unclear that it was hard for me to determine precisely what its writer(s) had meant to say. I hope that, someday, some other neutral person(s) will track down citations for what is verifiably true, and eliminate unverifiable assertions.

I have no involvement with Pacifica; nor any of its stations or affiliates; nor any knowledege of Pacifica's circa 25 years of internal conflicts (except for what I've just read in this article). However, in Chicago where we live, my wife and I do listen to WZRD (FM), nominally a Pacifca affiliate (per List of Pacifica Radio stations and affiliates, which also lacks citations). On WZRD, I listen to "free-form" music and she listens to Democracy Now, which has been independent from Pacifica since 2002 - more than 10 years before she started listening to it. Acwilson9 (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"when" tag in 2nd para.

Looks like it is present tense. They still operate that network: https://pacificanetwork.org/about-pacifica-foundation/ I'm removing the "when" tag. Thanks. --MaxineJP (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]