Talk:KPFA

	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.

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as High-importance).

Archives

1

"Labor Dispute" section is entirely political

I do not feel it's appropriate for me to do the editing as I work at KPFA, but I can say that the entire "Labor Dispute" section is misinformation. This is my take on it: some people who are on the weaker side of a power struggle at the station are trying to frame three different events into a unified whole. The 1999 struggle (before my time) was not led by Dennis Bernstein and has nothing to do with Nadra Foster's arrest. Which in turn is not related to the unpaid staff dispute. Putting all three under one umbrella is an attempt to tar current management with a broad brush that is not based in fact.

I'd be happy to say more if anyone has any questions.

It's also important to note that there will be A LOT MORE controversy at the station (KPFA) and the network (Pacifica) in the coming months, and wikipedia entries are going to suffer. Op-eep (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Op-eep[reply]

There is a conflict of interest guideline. Can you point out any specific lines at are false? Having the paragraphs under one section was trimming a few editors did when the article was mainly about labor disputes throughout its history. I disagree with your assessment that it leads the reader one way or the other but if you have any suggestions on how to clean it up that would be great. Maybe your fresh eyes on the article will improve it.Cptnono (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article should be renamed and MOVED to a NEW category

Occasionally, I listen to KPFA. It's not a "favorite," and from my experience (having heard numerous public radio stations throughout the USA), it is NOT top notch, either in programming or operations. Quite frankly, it sucks!

That opinion aside, the reason I read this article was that I had hoped to find some interesting history, fascinating tidbit or something of value about KPFA which I could share with others. I found only one, and it is so insignificant that were I to share it with the "average" person, they wouldn't care. (There's more history about the station at other places.)

I found this article to be an outlet to "bitch, moan and whine." It is NOT about the radio station. It is about a petty labor dispute among some folks that has escalated because they think they have "rights" to something where they VOLUNTEER their time!

This article should be MOVED to a "Labor Dispute" category.

And on a personal note, if I didn't like what went on somewhere, I'd go somewhere else. I wouldn't hang around where I wasn't wanted, and certainly wouldn't be so stupid as to jeopardize the life of my unborn child by behaving so foolishly!

LORD have mercy... don't be stupid like that poor woman, who now has a criminal record, amassed enormous bills associated with her stupid actions and who knows where this'll end?

Sounds to me like it's time for those folks to MOVE ON!

Chances are, some KPFA "freak" will come in here and obliterate this message. If they do... oh well. It would only serve to further demonstrate a piss-poor attitude, which is probably the reason they were kicked out anyway. Folks don't get the axe 'cause they're doing excellent jobs, you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.114.16 (talk) 2009-01-03T00:22:30

The more contentious sections are overly weighted. These sections should be reduced. If appropriate, a new article for these issues could be used. Any thoughts.Cptnono (talk) 05:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: KPFA sections regarding Nadra Foster and labor disputes

Comment from RFC: this material is not encyclopedic - certainly not in anything like this detail. A sentence or two might pass muster, but anything else is grossly disproportionate to the importance of the incident. It belongs on wikinews if anywhere. Rd232 ^talk 19:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like at least three editors (if you include me) believe this article needs to be trimmed and edited for neutrality. I want to go through and blow out the extra fluff and unecylopedic detail. The editors who originally worked on this will obviously have concerns so please speak up now or edit as appropriate.Cptnono (talk) 03:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not debating with you like the BART Shooting page, Chris. Reverting the edit is silly. Fix the article per Wiki standards if it is that important to you. Editors had a week to chime in with comments.Cptnono (talk) 06:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC) http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:KPFA&action=submit[reply]

What's wrong with a debate or discussion of appropriate edits here? Isn't that what the collaborative editing process is about here on wikipedia? I've been editing this article for a while; how did you end up making your way over here? Are you implying you were unhappy with the editing process on the BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant? CriticalChris 06:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that the section, and other parts of the article could use better sourcing...to that extent, I'm working on that tonight and tomorrow.CriticalChris 06:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to come across harsh but I have a hard time trusting your edits when you are passionate about a topic. You did an exceptional job with the BART article by adding a view point that was lacking. However, I will not bicker back and forth like you and THF did over this article since is in such need of immediate editing.

Per your edit description:

paired down a few details Not nearly enough
kept sourced material You addressed this above
court case continues, incident is not 'out of date' OK
lede is appropriately weighted) I disagree. Is this article about a radio station or labor practices?

I have flagged the article to be checked for neutrality. Terminology, weight, and length of sections all point to this article not being neutral. I'm not going to attack you like THF or start listing links to Wikipedia policies you should know since it is inappropriate. Hopefully this article will get fixed ASAP since it is so bad right now.Cptnono (talk) 06:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up: how did you end up making your way over here? We both are interested in similar things but I disagree with you on most of them. I didn't mean to come across like I am hounding you but some articles you have worked on have been skewed towards only one view point with a forced agenda which leads the reader while being more editorial than encyclopedic. Don't take offense to it.Cptnono (talk) 07:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One should note that labor strife at the station is a huge part of its recent history. That's not to say there's not also plenty of room for other material concerning the station's recent history, such as programming, and financial info, listener demographic, etc. The labor stuff and the arrest is all relevant and notable and merits inclusion, along with other things ; I can't edit everything in 'by my bad self.' CriticalChris 07:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the labor disputes are a concern that need to be in the article. We can add plenty of info but it will still not be balanced against the over explanation of conflicts. For example: The girl getting tackled section is ridiculously long and can be easily summarized and made more neutral. Other editors could have shown interest but they didn't. it doesn't mean it should only be about conflicts.Cptnono (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quickly glanced over Pacifica Radio and the article is a little more concise while still containing contentious content.Cptnono (talk) 12:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, Pacifica article shows how this should be handled. I've tried cutting KPFA down now, as a start; more detail is needed on the 1999 (possibly pre-1999) background, explaining what Bernstein's grievances were. Rd232 ^talk 15:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. It ties the incidents together, references the harsh tackle on a pregnant woman, and explains the history well while not killing the article. Agreed that the '99 event was incredibly notable.Cptnono (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to the RFC, and surprised to see my name being invoked. The section seems to violate WP:COATRACK and WP:WEIGHT; the labor dispute is not the most important thing that's ever happened to the station, yet it's the largest section in the article (other than the mess of a "See also" section). The citations in the section are a mess. It's poorly written, with the passive voice everywhere. I'd cut it entirely; it's not encyclopedic. If Dennis Bernstein is sufficiently notable, include some of the material in his article; if he's not, then that's all the more reason not to have the section. THF (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bad form on my part with the second statement. The article was a mess and I had some concerns with the POV not getting immediately addressed. rd232 came and really worked the article.Cptnono (talk) 05:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to call everyone's attention to the fact that this article has a loooong and contentious history, with edit warring and uncivil behavior all over the place. Now that somebody has used the word "freaks" again, here we go again. I'm surprised there wasn't an ARBCOM case about it. Should have been. --Lexein (talk) 10:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please start the "it STILL SUCKS" category...

It's PAINFULLY obvious that few - if any - give a shit about KPFA and their "liberal" agenda.

This article, in stark contrast to the information available online, is still woefully inadequate... which only demonstrates that the liberal "FREAKS" that hang their greasy hats there have absolutely NO CLUE as to what radio, or the mission of the radio station is, or what to say in this, ahem... "encyclopedic" article.

KPFA... a "has-been" and "wanna-be" in a "you're shit out of luck" world.

If they're TRULY "listener supported" then they're in for a shocking surprise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.234.112.223 (talk) 2009-01-30T00:21:41‎

LOL. I'm sure someone can add that info without those exact words. I'll try to add some stuff on the actual station.Cptnono (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missing History

I remember being there the day Lou Schwitzer, who owned WBAI in New York, called to tell the then manager Harold Winkler that WBAI was to be given to KPFA. Winkler, not a particularly friendly fellow to a teen volunteer, was dancing in the corridors of what seemed to me at the time to be the spacious studios above Edy's Ice Cream shop. This thing about management and controversy within the station seems from what I know to be endemic. There was a strike, some people did not like Elsa Knight Thompson (I did not especially) and I remember being a strikebreaker. Maybe I just liked being on the air, or should I say being an announcer and control board operator. I don't think I cared too much about that controversy of the day. There were, of course many others, before I was there, during the time I was around, and since. Only the big not so recent one is covered. Maybe I can fill in some day with what little I know, but I seem to recall reading about how the effect of the marijuana broadcast was hotly debated within the station. As time went on, each controversy, one after another, was divisive.

I might come back here ... or maybe not. Just to note that a lot of history, much of which is important to the station, the community, the nation and the world is lacking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akemwave (talk • contribs) 10:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KPFA Logp

...looks nothing like the real, red and black logo at https://kpfa.org/wp-content/themes/kpfa-v2/dist/images/KPFA70thLogo.png or https://kpfa.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:4EE:A8F6:B9AF:67BE (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First air date?

Their FCC license here states 24th August 1946 was their original incorporation date, but this article says 1949? Would it really have taken 3 years to get broadcasting? Anyone know any more details? https://files.fcc.gov/download/a9d368a3-87a5-4df9-969c-43773d36e25d.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apeholder (talk • contribs) 04:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]