text:
Array programming

In computer science, array programming refers to solutions that allow the application of operations to an entire set of values at once. Such solutions are commonly used in scientific and engineering settings.

Modern programming languages that support array programming (also known as vector or multidimensional languages) have been engineered specifically to generalize operations on scalars to apply transparently to vectors, matrices, and higher-dimensional arrays. These include APL, J, Fortran, MATLAB, Analytica, Octave, R, Cilk Plus, Julia, Perl Data Language (PDL). In these languages, an operation that operates on entire arrays can be called a vectorized operation, regardless of whether it is executed on a vector processor, which implements vector instructions. Array programming primitives concisely express broad ideas about data manipulation. The level of concision can be dramatic in certain cases: it is not uncommon to find array programming language one-liners that require several pages of object-oriented code.

Concepts of array
The fundamental idea behind array programming is that operations apply at once to an entire set of values. This makes it a high-level programming model as it allows the programmer to think and operate on whole aggregates of data, without having to resort to explicit loops of individual scalar operations.

Kenneth E. Iverson described the rationale behind array programming (actually referring to APL) as follows: "most programming languages are decidedly inferior to mathematical notation and are little used as tools of thought in ways that would be considered significant by, say, an applied mathematician. The thesis is that the advantages of executability and universality found in programming languages can be effectively combined, in a single coherent language, with the advantages offered by mathematical notation. it is important to distinguish the difficulty of describing and of learning a piece of notation from the difficulty of mastering its implications. For example, learning the rules for computing a matrix product is easy, but a mastery of its implications (such as its associativity, its distributivity over addition, and its ability to represent linear functions and geometric operations) is a different and much more difficult matter.

Indeed, the very suggestiveness of a notation may make it seem harder to learn because of the many properties it suggests for explorations.

[...] Users of computers and programming languages are often concerned primarily with the efficiency of execution of algorithms, and might, therefore, summarily dismiss many of the algorithms presented here. Such dismissal would be short-sighted since a clear statement of an algorithm can usually be used as a basis from which one may easily derive a more efficient algorithm."

The basis behind array programming and thinking is to find and exploit the properties of data where individual elements are similar or adjacent. Unlike object orientation which implicitly breaks down data to its constituent parts (or scalar quantities), array orientation looks to group data and apply a uniform handling.

Function rank is an important concept to array programming languages in general, by analogy to tensor rank in mathematics: functions that operate on data may be classified by the number of dimensions they act on. Ordinary multiplication, for example, is a scalar ranked function because it operates on zero-dimensional data (individual numbers). The cross product operation is an example of a vector rank function because it operates on vectors, not scalars. Matrix multiplication is an example of a 2-rank function, because it operates on 2-dimensional objects (matrices). Collapse operators reduce the dimensionality of an input data array by one or more dimensions. For example, summing over elements collapses the input array by 1 dimension.

Uses
Array programming is very well suited to implicit parallelization; a topic of much research nowadays. Further, Intel and compatible CPUs developed and produced after 1997 contained various instruction set extensions, starting from MMX and continuing through SSSE3 and 3DNow!, which include rudimentary SIMD array capabilities. This has continued into the 2020s with instruction sets such as AVX-512, making modern CPUs sophisticated vector processors. Array processing is distinct from parallel processing in that one physical processor performs operations on a group of items simultaneously while parallel processing aims to split a larger problem into smaller ones (MIMD) to be solved piecemeal by numerous processors. Processors with multiple cores and GPUs with thousands of general computing cores are common as of 2023.

Languages
The canonical examples of array programming languages are Fortran, APL, and J. Others include: A+, Analytica, Chapel, IDL, Julia, K, Klong, Q, MATLAB, GNU Octave, Scilab, FreeMat, Perl Data Language (PDL), R, Raku, S-Lang, SAC, Nial, ZPL, Futhark, and TI-BASIC.

Scalar languages
In scalar languages such as C and Pascal, operations apply only to single values, so a+b expresses the addition of two numbers. In such languages, adding one array to another requires indexing and looping, the coding of which is tedious.

In array-based languages, for example in Fortran, the nested for-loop above can be written in array-format in one line, or alternatively, to emphasize the array nature of the objects,

While scalar languages like C do not have native array programming elements as part of the language proper, this does not mean programs written in these languages never take advantage of the underlying techniques of vectorization (i.e., utilizing a CPU's vector-based instructions if it has them or by using multiple CPU cores). Some C compilers like GCC at some optimization levels detect and vectorize sections of code that its heuristics determine would benefit from it. Another approach is given by the OpenMP API, which allows one to parallelize applicable sections of code by taking advantage of multiple CPU cores.

Array languages
In array languages, operations are generalized to apply to both scalars and arrays. Thus, a+b expresses the sum of two scalars if a and b are scalars, or the sum of two arrays if they are arrays.

An array language simplifies programming but possibly at a cost known as the abstraction penalty. Because the additions are performed in isolation from the rest of the coding, they may not produce the optimally most efficient code. (For example, additions of other elements of the same array may be subsequently encountered during the same execution, causing unnecessary repeated lookups.) Even the most sophisticated optimizing compiler would have an extremely hard time amalgamating two or more apparently disparate functions which might appear in different program sections or sub-routines, even though a programmer could do this easily, aggregating sums on the same pass over the array to minimize overhead).

Ada
The previous C code would become the following in the Ada language, which supports array-programming syntax.

APL
APL uses single character Unicode symbols with no syntactic sugar. This operation works on arrays of any rank (including rank 0), and on a scalar and an array. Dyalog APL extends the original language with augmented assignments:

Analytica
Analytica provides the same economy of expression as Ada. A := A + B;

BASIC
Dartmouth BASIC had MAT statements for matrix and array manipulation in its third edition (1966).

Mata
Stata's matrix programming language Mata supports array programming. Below, we illustrate addition, multiplication, addition of a matrix and a scalar, element by element multiplication, subscripting, and one of Mata's many inverse matrix functions.

MATLAB
The implementation in MATLAB allows the same economy allowed by using the Fortran language.

A variant of the MATLAB language is the GNU Octave language, which extends the original language with augmented assignments:

Both MATLAB and GNU Octave natively support linear algebra operations such as matrix multiplication, matrix inversion, and the numerical solution of system of linear equations, even using the Moore–Penrose pseudoinverse.

The Nial example of the inner product of two arrays can be implemented using the native matrix multiplication operator. If  is a row vector of size [1 n] and   is a corresponding column vector of size [n 1].

a * b;

By contrast, the entrywise product is implemented as:

a .* b;

The inner product between two matrices having the same number of elements can be implemented with the auxiliary operator, which reshapes a given matrix into a column vector, and the transpose operator  :

A' * B;

rasql
The rasdaman query language is a database-oriented array-programming language. For example, two arrays could be added with the following query:

R
The R language supports array paradigm by default. The following example illustrates a process of multiplication of two matrices followed by an addition of a scalar (which is, in fact, a one-element vector) and a vector:

Raku
Raku supports the array paradigm via its Metaoperators. The following example demonstrates the addition of arrays @a and @b using the Hyper-operator in conjunction with the plus operator.

Mathematical reasoning and language notation
The matrix left-division operator concisely expresses some semantic properties of matrices. As in the scalar equivalent, if the (determinant of the) coefficient (matrix)  is not null then it is possible to solve the (vectorial) equation   by left-multiplying both sides by the inverse of  :   (in both MATLAB and GNU Octave languages:  ). The following mathematical statements hold when  is a full rank square matrix:
 * (matrix-multiplication associativity)
 * (matrix-multiplication associativity)

where  is the equivalence relational operator. The previous statements are also valid MATLAB expressions if the third one is executed before the others (numerical comparisons may be false because of round-off errors).

If the system is overdetermined – so that  has more rows than columns – the pseudoinverse   (in MATLAB and GNU Octave languages:  ) can replace the inverse , as follows:
 * pinv(A) *(A * x)==pinv(A) * (b)
 * (pinv(A) * A)* x ==pinv(A) * b      (matrix-multiplication associativity)
 * x = pinv(A) * b

However, these solutions are neither the most concise ones (e.g. still remains the need to notationally differentiate overdetermined systems) nor the most computationally efficient. The latter point is easy to understand when considering again the scalar equivalent, for which the solution   would require two operations instead of the more efficient. The problem is that generally matrix multiplications are not commutative as the extension of the scalar solution to the matrix case would require:
 * (commutativity does not hold for matrices!)
 * (associativity also holds for matrices)
 * (associativity also holds for matrices)

The MATLAB language introduces the left-division operator  to maintain the essential part of the analogy with the scalar case, therefore simplifying the mathematical reasoning and preserving the conciseness:
 * (associativity also holds for matrices, commutativity is no more required)
 * (associativity also holds for matrices, commutativity is no more required)

This is not only an example of terse array programming from the coding point of view but also from the computational efficiency perspective, which in several array programming languages benefits from quite efficient linear algebra libraries such as ATLAS or LAPACK.

Returning to the previous quotation of Iverson, the rationale behind it should now be evident: "it is important to distinguish the difficulty of describing and of learning a piece of notation from the difficulty of mastering its implications. For example, learning the rules for computing a matrix product is easy, but a mastery of its implications (such as its associativity, its distributivity over addition, and its ability to represent linear functions and geometric operations) is a different and much more difficult matter.

Indeed, the very suggestiveness of a notation may make it seem harder to learn because of the many properties it suggests for explorations."

Third-party libraries
The use of specialized and efficient libraries to provide more terse abstractions is also common in other programming languages. In C++ several linear algebra libraries exploit the language's ability to overload operators. In some cases a very terse abstraction in those languages is explicitly influenced by the array programming paradigm, as the NumPy extension library to Python, Armadillo and Blitz++ libraries do.

title: Array programming


text:
Kyle of Lochalsh

Kyle of Lochalsh (Caol Loch Aillse, "strait of the foaming loch") is a village in the historic county of Ross & Cromarty on the northwest coast of Scotland, located around 55 mi west-southwest of Inverness. It is located on the Lochalsh peninsula, at the entrance to Loch Alsh, opposite the village of Kyleakin on the Isle of Skye. A ferry used to connect the two villages until it was replaced by the Skye Bridge, about to the west, in 1995.

Geography
The village is the transport and shopping centre for the area as well as having a harbour and marina with pontoons for maritime visitors. The Plock offers a local woodland hike and viewpoint over the peninsula. The Plock was formerly home to a golf course. It is owned by the Kyle of Lochalsh Community Trust, who also own the adjacent building which was formerly the toll building for the Skye Bridge. The surrounding scenery and wildlife are regarded as attractions of the village, as is the slow pace of life. Crofting as well as more recent crofting pursuits like salmon farming are some of the activities taking place in Kyle of Lochalsh.

A land-based control centre of the Royal Naval BUTEC submarine range is based in Kyle of Lochalsh.

Kyle of Lochalsh lies almost precisely 500 mi due north of Land's End in Cornwall.

Kyle of Lochalsh is the mainland connecting point of the Skye Bridge, with Kyleakin on the Isle of Skye being at the opposite side of the bridge.

History
A public hall in the centre of the village was completed in 1932.

Kyle of Lochalsh was the departure point, on New Year's Eve 1918, of the HMY Iolaire, which was bringing home soldiers returning from World War I to the Outer Hebrides. It sank close to its destination of Stornoway and the soldiers tragically drowned.

In 1973, the ferry service which operated from Kyle of Lochalsh to Stornoway was discontinued, with services transferred to Ullapool instead.

During the 1990s, residents and workers in the area of Kyle of Lochalsh joined together with residents and workers on the Isle of Skye to form the SKAT (Skye and Kyle Against Tolls) anti-toll group movement, to protest against the Skye bridge tolls, which at the time were the highest in the country (£5 per crossing). The protestors were successful in having tolls abolished on the Skye Bridge.

Transport
Kyle of Lochalsh railway station is connected to Inverness by the Kyle of Lochalsh railway line, built in 1897 to improve public transport to the north-west of Scotland. The line ends on the water's edge, near where the ferry connection used to run.

Kyle of Lochalsh is a calling point for the Royal Scotsman service.

Scottish Citylink coaches also call at Kyle of Lochalsh, at the bus stop by the old ferry slipway - current routes are the 917 between Inverness and Skye and the 915 and 916 between Glasgow, Fort William and Skye (915 via Glasgow Airport). Both run at least twice a day, depending on the time of year. There are irregular local buses to Broadford and Elgol on Skye, school buses to Plockton and a taxibus service to Glenelg, Highland via Shiel Bridge (this only runs three days a week and in winter needs to be booked). Skye has additional buses in the high summer season, some of which run to Kyle.

The A87 road runs through Kyle to and from the Skye Bridge.

In popular culture

 * In 1980, the BBC did a series of documentaries, entitled Great Railway Journeys of the World. Kyle of Lochalsh appeared in an episode entitled "Confessions of a Trainspotter", presented by Michael Palin. In the segment, Palin travelled by various trains from London to Kyle of Lochalsh.  Upon reaching Kyle of Lochalsh, he purchased a large piece of railway memorabilia—the Kyle of Lochalsh railway platform sign. The ending credits showed Palin taking the oversized sign with him back to London; he then hung it on his garden wall at home.
 * Along with nearby village Plockton, the town became the backdrop to the BBC drama series Hamish Macbeth.
 * Kyle of Lochalsh was visited by the characters in Mark Chadbourn's trilogy, Age of Misrule.
 * It is the birth place of the character Roger Wakefield Mackenzie from the series of books and tv series Outlander.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Kyle of Lochalsh


text:
Zero–one law

In probability theory, a zero–one law is a result that states that an event must have probability 0 or 1 and no intermediate value. Sometimes, the statement is that the limit of certain probabilities must be 0 or 1.

It may refer to:
 * Borel–Cantelli lemma
 * Blumenthal's zero–one law for Markov processes,
 * Engelbert–Schmidt zero–one law for continuous, nondecreasing additive functionals of Brownian motion,
 * Hewitt–Savage zero–one law for exchangeable sequences,
 * Kolmogorov's zero–one law for the tail σ-algebra,
 * Lévy's zero–one law, related to martingale convergence.
 * Topological zero–one law, related to meager sets,
 * Zero-one law (logic) for sentences valid in finite structures.
 * Zero-one law (logic) for sentences valid in finite structures.

title: Zero–one law


text:
KJR (AM)

KJR (950 kHz) is an all-sports AM radio station owned by iHeartMedia in Seattle, Washington. KJR is the Puget Sound region's home of Fox Sports Radio and Infinity Sports Network, mostly carrying their national programming, while co-owned KJR-FM has local sports talk shows during the day and evening. KJR-AM-FM are the flagship stations for Seattle Kraken hockey. During the Seattle Seahawks season, the stations use the slogan "Home of the 12th Man". The studios are in Seattle's Belltown neighborhood northwest of downtown.

KJR is among the oldest radio stations in the United States, tracing its lineage back to an experimental station in 1920. It is powered at 50,000 watts, the maximum for commercial AM stations. It uses a directional antenna with a three-tower array to protect other stations on 950 AM from interference. The transmitter is on 105th Avenue SW on Vashon Island.

7AC/7XC
KJR's first formal broadcasting license was issued on March 9, 1922. However, the station's origin dates back to earlier broadcasts conducted by the station's first owner, Vincent I. Kraft.

Beginning in 1917, Kraft was the director of the local Y.M.C.A. School of Radio Telegraphy. In early 1920, he and O. A. Dodson organized the Northwest Radio Service Company. Details on Kraft's earliest broadcasting efforts are limited. However, in August of that year he began an irregular series of broadcasts originating from his Cowen Park home at 5503 14th Avenue, N.E. His amateur station had the call sign 7AC. Later that year Kraft was issued a license for an Experimental station, with the call sign 7XC. In early September 1921 he began transmitting programs on a regular schedule, three evenings a week from 7:45-8:30 p.m.

In early February 1922, Kraft built a radio transmitter used by a temporary station, KDP, to broadcast a week-long series of programs from Saint James' Cathedral. Following these broadcasts he began using the KDP transmitter at 7XC. On February 28, 1922, he resigned his Y.M.C.A. post in order to assume active management of Northwest Radio.

KJR
Initially there were no specific standards for stations making broadcasts intended for the general public, and radio stations holding a variety of license classes, most commonly Experimental and Amateur, began adopting regular broadcasting schedules. On December 1, 1921, the U.S. Department of Commerce, which regulated radio at this time, adopted a regulation formally establishing a broadcasting station category, which set aside the wavelength of 360 meters (833 kHz) for entertainment broadcasts, and 485 meters (619 kHz) for market and weather reports.

A few months later Kraft applied for one of the new broadcasting licenses, which was issued on March 9, 1922, with the randomly assigned call letters KJR, for operation on both 360 and 485 meters. It had been initially reported that the station's new call sign was "KAJR", however this turned out to be an error in a telegram sent by the Commerce Department, and shortly thereafter it was correctly reported that the assignment was actually "KJR". Later in 1922 KJR's licensee was changed to "Northwest Radio Service Co. (Vincent I. Kraft)".

KJR was the third license issued for a Seattle broadcasting station, preceded by KFC (Northern Radio & Electric, licensed December 8, 1921, and deleted January 23, 1923) and KHQ (Louis Wasmer, licensed February 28, 1922, moved to Spokane in 1927–now KQNT). Despite this, KJR claims to have the oldest broadcasting lineage in Seattle by claiming 7XC as part of its history.

Because there was only the single entertainment wavelength of 360 meters available for use by multiple stations, each region had to set up a timesharing agreement to allocate timeslots. On June 23, 1922, three Seattle stations took turns operating from noon to 10:30 p.m., with KJR allocated 8:15 to 9:15 p.m. In May 1923 the Department of Commerce set aside an additional band of transmitting frequencies, and KJR was assigned to one of the lower power "Class A" frequencies, 1110 kHz, which was modified a short time later to 1060 kHz. In early 1925 the station transferred to one of the high power "Class B" frequencies, 780 kHz, and in 1927 the station was shifted again, to 860 kHz. On November 11, 1928, under the provisions of a major reallocation resulting from the Federal Radio Commission's (FRC) General Order 40, KJR was reassigned to a high-powered "clear channel" frequency of 970 kHz.

New studios and transmitter
KJR was originally located at the Times Square Building in downtown Seattle. In 1925, it moved to the Terminal Sales Building, where Kraft had erected a 50-foot (15 meter) mast to serve as the station's antenna, which was soon superseded by a new, T-wire antenna built in North City near Lake Forest Park completed in 1927 (later the site of Saint Mark's Catholic Church), at which point the studios were moved to the Home Savings Building at 1520 Westlake Ave.

Kraft sold the station to businessman Adolph Linden in 1928. KJR was planned to be the key station for a new radio network, the American Broadcasting Company (unrelated to the current ABC radio network), with plans for a nationwide expansion. However, the effort failed and Linden and a subsequent owner, Ahira Pierce, were jailed for illegal financing, using money from financial institutions which went bankrupt. KJR was then acquired by NBC, which in 1933 leased the station to the Fisher family-owned Fisher's Blend Station, Inc., owners of KOMO radio, who moved the KJR studios to the Skinner Building.

NBC Blue Network
In 1936, KJR became an affiliate of the NBC Blue Network. It aired its dramas, comedies, sports and newscasts. This affiliation continued after the Blue Network became ABC in the 1940s. In 1937, a new transmitter was erected on Seattle's West Waterway, which operated until 1996.

On March 29, 1941, KJR, along with the other stations on 970 kHz, moved to 1000 kHz, as part of the implementation of the North American Regional Broadcasting Agreement (NARBA). That same day the Fisher family, after leasing the station for eight years, purchased it outright.

At that time, KJR was powered at 5,000 watts but it had submitted a construction permit to go up to 50,000 watts. The studios were in the Skinner Building in Seattle.

Call letter swap between KJR and KOMO
The August 1941 adoption of the Federal Communications Commission's "duopoly" rule restricted licensees from operating more than one radio station in a given market. At this time the Fisher family owned two Seattle stations – KJR on 1000 kHz and KOMO on 950 kHz – and their efforts to be granted an exemption were unsuccessful. The Fishers decided to keep the superior frequency of 1000 kHz, but also keep the KOMO call letters that they had held since the 1920s. Thus, on May 6, 1944, KOMO and KJR swapped call letters, with the KJR call sign moving from 1000 kHz to the less desirable 950 kHz. The next year KJR was sold to Birt F. Fisher, who was unrelated to the KOMO owners.

In 1946, KJR was purchased by Marshall Field's Department Store chain. It continued its affiliation with ABC until 1953, when ABC affliliation switched to 1090 KING. In July 1952, Marshall Field sold the station to a group headed by Chicago businessman Ralph E. Stolkin, which sold it seven months later to two Portland businessmen, Theodore Gamble and Howard Lane.

Frank Sinatra ownership
KJR changed hands again, this time bought by Lester Smith in 1954. KJR became a pioneer Top 40 music station, continuing with this format until 1982. Smith moved the studios to the transmitter site on West Waterway in 1955. In 1957, the station was sold to entertainers Danny Kaye and Frank Sinatra, and Smith stayed on as general manager.

Sinatra sold his interest in the station to Smith in 1964, and the resulting partnership became known as "Kaye-Smith Enterprises". In the 1960s, under the programming guidance of Pat O'Day, the station was top rated in Seattle and well known for introducing the Pacific Northwest to many recording stars such as Jimi Hendrix, the Beatles, Merrilee Rush and the Ventures.

Competitors against KJR's top 40 format in the 1960s and 1970s included KOL 1300, KING 1090, and KIRO 710.

Metromedia ownership
KJR was sold to Metromedia in 1980. Metromedia was a New York-based media company with radio and television stations in many large cities in the U.S.

As youthful music moved to FM radio, KJR evolved its sound to adult contemporary in 1982, following in KING's footsteps. In 1984, Metromedia sold the station to Ackerley Communications for $6 million in cash. In June 1988, the station shifted to oldies, playing the music that had made the station famous throughout the 1960s and 1970s.

Sports radio
KJR's shift to sports programming was a gradual evolution starting in 1989, when the station added some sports-themed shows in middays and afternoons. The rest of the music programming was phased out in September 1991, making KJR a full-fledged sports radio station. The co-owned FM station at 95.7 MHz, which Ackerley had acquired (as KLTX) in December 1987, eventually switched its call sign to KJR-FM (now KJEB). KJR-FM broadcast a format that includes many of the songs and shows (including original American Top 40 shows from the 1970s) from KJR AM's heyday as a Top 40 powerhouse.

In July 1994, KJR and KJR-FM were sold to a partnership with New Century Management and Ackerley titled "New Century Media" (Ackerley would re-acquire full control of the two stations in February 1998). Clear Channel Communications (now iHeartMedia) bought the stations in May 2002.

FM simulcasts
On November 4, 2011, at 7 a.m., KJR began simulcasting on 102.9 FM, replacing country-formatted KNBQ. This ended on June 13, 2013, when KNBQ reverted to an adult top 40 music format as KYNW. During this time, Clear Channel did not transfer the KJR-FM call letters from 95.7 to 102.9, instead co-branding the station as "Sports Radio 950 AM and 102.9 FM KJR".

KJR's programming returned to FM on March 8, 2022, when KUBE (93.3 FM) began simulcasting the station. The simulcast lasted until April 11, at which point KJR shifted to all-syndicated programming from Fox Sports Radio and CBS Sports Radio, which was moved from KFNQ (1090 AM) as a result of that station's flip to all-conservative talk programming as "The Patriot".

Notable DJs
KJR's listeners were entertained by some of the country's greatest radio personalities: Larry Lujack, Scotty Brink, Norm Gregory, Magic Matt Alan, Burl Barer, Pat O'Day, Eric Chase, Bob Shannon, Dick Curtis, "World Famous" Tom Murphy, Ric Hansen, Bobby Simon, Jerry Kaye, Gary Shannon, Ichabod Caine, "Emperor" Lee Smith, Lan Roberts, Kevin O'Brien (Kevin Metheny), Robert O. Smith, Charlie Brown, Bwana Johnny, Matt Riedy, Marion Seymour, Marty Riemer, Sky Walker, Tracy Mitchell, Bob Brooks and sports commentator Chuck Bolland, plus Bolland's much younger brother Mark "Jeffries" Bolland. Gary "Lockjock" Lockwood, a.k.a. L.J., was the disk jockey who had the longest tenure on the "Mighty Channel 95", from 1976 to 1991.

Sports teams
KJR served as the home of the Seattle SuperSonics from 1987 to 2006.

Since the 2006-2007 season, ISP Sports was the media rights holder for Husky athletics until IMG College took over. KJR was the Washington IMG College Network's flagship station from 2002 to 2014. (KJR has since lost the broadcast rights back to KOMO.)

KJR carried some play-by-play from ESPN Radio, and some of the regular talk shows at night and during weekends.

In 2002, Seattle Mariners relief pitcher Jeff Nelson had surgery to remove bone chips from his pitching elbow. During his weekly show with Dave "Softy" Mahler, Nelson announced he would attempt to sell his bone chips on eBay. After earning bids as high as $23,600, eBay pulled the chips from auction for violating the site's policy of not selling body parts.

In 2003, Seattle Storm point guard Sue Bird made a bet with morning host Mitch Levy that gained national publicity. The bet was over Bird's season assist/turnover ratio. If the ratio finished higher that 3:1, Bird agreed to be spanked by Levy on the air. If Bird won the bet, Levy agreed to purchase Storm season tickets. The bet was later amended to include Bird yelling "Harder, Daddy, Harder". The bet was ultimately called off by Bird. When asked at a later date, Tyler Orsborn (morning show producer at the time) suggested that Storm management were the real reason the bet was called off and not Bird.

During a 2006 radio interview with Dave "Softy" Mahler and former University of Washington quarterback Hugh Millen, then-Atlanta Falcons head coach Jim L. Mora said he'd be in the "friggin' head of the line" for the Washington Huskies football head coaching position, if it became available. Mora, who played for the University of Washington, later said he was only kidding during the interview, but was still fired by the Falcons at the end of the season. He would later coach the Seattle Seahawks for one season in 2009.

Host "Softy" began a feud with another sports show host in Salt Lake City, Utah after they argued about their predicted outcomes of the Washington vs. BYU game on September 5, 2008. After arguing with Hans Olsen of Sports Radio 1280 The Zone, Softy had an on-air meltdown where he claimed that he was going to choke Hans and repeatedly called him an idiot.

On August 26, 2017, KJR morning host Mitch Levy was arrested in connection with a prostitution sting. iHeartMedia has not issued a public statement on the matter. On October 6, Levy announced he would exit from the station after 23 years.

As of the 2018 Major League Soccer season, KJR is the English-speaking broadcast partner for Seattle Sounders FC with Matt Johnson on the call.

On March 3, 2021, the National Hockey League expansion team, the Seattle Kraken, announced a multi-year broadcast agreement with iHeart; as part of the deal, KJR serves as the broadcast home of the team, with some games simulcast on KJAQ. The deal also includes a promotional partnership with the entire iHeart Seattle cluster and the 80+ concerts and events to be held annually at Climate Pledge Arena.

title: KJR (AM)


text:
User talk:Lawnchair

Humboldt Bay nuclear power plant
You are CORRECT, sir! Thanks for your comment on the talk page, and for placing the template on the article page. That helped determine the notability sufficiently for me. Cheers and happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Lawnchair


text: User talk:195.92.198.74

title: User talk:195.92.198.74


text:
User:Elykyllek

Had to put something here.

I'm currently planning on uploading pictures for Bedford_Basin and Uromastyx, just have to decide what license to put them under. Either Public_domain or more likely the Creative Commons Share Alike. Its just a matter now of getting the time to read the Image_use_policy and the Copyright_FAQ to be able to decide.

title: User:Elykyllek


text:
User:Slav~enwiki

As my username says I am of slavic descent. My dad is a serb from Bosnia, my mom a bunjevac from Vojvodina. I was born in Sarajevo. I am 23 years old, went to Moscow State University, and currently live in Novi Banovci in Vojvodina.

title: User:Slav~enwiki


text:
Talk:Michael Portillo

New infobox proposal
I stumbled across the page today and was surprised at the changes to the infobox (I was not active on political wikis back in 2017). I looked at the page history and I thought I'd chime in with a proposal to, as the outcome of the original talk page determined, have his political offices offset by his primary notability of being a television host and historian. And I think a collapsed module, per Winston Churchill's page, appearing beneath personal details, per Justin Welby's page, would look very neat and very much to the taste of my politically inclined friends on the wiki as well as you and your friends too. This was not an option discussed in the original forum and I think it might be ideal. Thoughts? Alex (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

 * This is my proposed infobox layout. Due to technical restrictions, I had to remove the website since for some reason it appeared beneath the collapsed offices but this can be moved to the External links section of the article. Alex (talk) 01:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Thank you for this sensible proposal. It's OK by me; what do others think?--Smerus (talk) 06:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I like it, thank you, Alex. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I like it except for having the shadow chancellor post expanded: can that be collapsed into another box (Shadow offices?). Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Absolutely, I hope you like this new version (I also shortened Conservative Party (UK) to Conservative per the lead) and I'll upload that one to the page and if anyone else has any comments, we can go back to to the talk page. Alex (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I would put "shadow cabinet" between "ministerial" and "parliamentary", but otherwise looks good to me. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Done, since there was no objection. Alex (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * His primary notable is as a politician. That is just absurd.--86.144.191.234 (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure why the politics had to be removed from infobox. He may have been out of politics for years, but his political career is probably what he's most well known for.73.110.217.186 (talk) 05:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The political offices are still there in the collapsed infobox tabs. Please familiarise yourself with the consensus before making a new proposal and stop your disruptive editing or you risk being blocked. Alex (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The Rt. Hon.
Given that all other Privy Councilors have the Rt. Hon. in their infobox (see for examples Richard Aikens, Tony Baldry, and Wyatt Creech, to name a few), is there much of a reason why this article should be singled out as not having it? 73.110.217.186 (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There was extensive debate about the present infobox before it reached its present format, and that format represents a consensus. What happens in other articles is not a reason for changing this one. See WP:WHATABOUT. Nor do I (or you) have any evidence in any case that "all other Privy Councillors have Rt. Hon. in their infobox." As there have been many thousands of PCs over the centuries, you might find that checking this claim is rather burdensome. The article is not 'singled out' by not having it; what you should seek to demonstrate (if you could) is in what way it would improve the article for WP users if it were present. As MP's membership of the Privy Council is not a major part of his life or raison d'etre these days, a stronger case imo could be made for omitting it - as you may not have considered that users of WP on (e.g.) mobile phones may find the infobox taking up their entire screen, and the largely irrelevant fact that MP is a PC will then occupy an inordinately disproportionate amonut of the information presented. Have a look at MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE - "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves [its] purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts [my emphasis] at a glance." --Smerus (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking at the old debate, someone pointed out that its absence could potentially be misleading, as it might imply that he resigned his privy council membership, which is not true. Furthermore, if such styling is not appropriate in the infobox, then a lot of articles would need to be changed, so it doesn’t make such sense just to leave it at one being changed and leaving all the rest. Perhaps this would require a something to be decided among what the standard format for such figures is. 4.71.249.245 (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * While I have been supportive of the general move towards a simpler infobox I tend to agree with this proposed addition. Portillo remains a member of the Privy Council, and this is not simply irrelevant. As a small sample I have checked the first 27 names at List of current members of the British Privy Council (all those starting with "A") and 25 have The Right Honourable in their infobox, the sole exceptions being Sarah Asplin, who does not have an infobox, and Michael Ancram, who gained the superior title of The Most Honourable when he succeeded as the Marquess of Lothian. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

 * As mentioned above, what happens in other articles is not an argument for what should happen here, WP:WHATABOUT. Were I interested in the other articles and not in possession of a real life, I would raise objections there where appropriate. The point to be considered here is in what way this title could be considered a 'key fact' as per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. I invite editors to read this MOS guidance. The argument that "its absence could potentially be misleading, as it might imply that he resigned his privy council membership" is simply unfounded, as it assumes without any justification that those looking at the infobox would have been aware of it in the first place. His membership of the PC is mentioned in the article amongst 'honours', together with the fact that he is a Freeman of the City of London, an FRSGS, and has an honorary doctorate at American university; readers are apparently able to survive without this other info being in the infobox either. Being a member of the PC is simply not a 'key' element of MP's life. It's mentioned once in the article, and no event of his life in the article refers to it or is connected with it. --Smerus (talk) 12:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding the "its absence could potentially be misleading, as it might imply that he resigned his privy council membership", the poster who brought it up in the old discussion specifically compared it to Jonathan Aitken and Chris Huhne, both of whom resigned their privy council membership.73.110.217.186 (talk) 06:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

 * You have said that very clearly, and I understood your position perfectly well when I made my comment. Other editors might or might not not share your view. But there's no need to repeat it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I was in fact replying to 4.71.249.245 who apparently had not read my earlier contribution. Best, --Smerus (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, the other figures mentioned by the other post mostly have The Rt. Hon. listed in their infobox, with the noted exceptions having nothing to do with its notability. Once could argue that for people like Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, their membership in the privy council isn't key information, yet they still have the Rt. Hon. listed in their infobox. 73.110.217.186 (talk) 06:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I actually support inclusion on the basis that I, when looking at the infobox, thought that he might have resigned from the Privy Council like John Prescott had done. So I think it's relevant so as not to confuse people. Also, with what we've done previously to the infobox, the politics information is still less prevalent than before so this shouldn't violate MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Alex (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Consensus is to restore, so I will do so.--Smerus (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect reversion
I may be missing something obvious, but can I ask why you made this revert at Michael Portillo? The IP's edits just converted redirects to direct wikilinks, and I couldn't see anything wrong with them. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out; apologies, I was asleep at the wheel. I have re-reverted.--Smerus (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Annington Homes
Can I ask you to elaborate on your somewhat gnomic edit summary here? I'd argue that generally the parties in any transaction are relevant to a discussion of that transaction; that something is sold often doesn't mean much without specifying to whom it was sold. In this case the "to whom" is the focus of the extensive coverage in reliable sources that exists, and, as I argued in my own edit summary, linking to the Annington Homes article, which contains more extensive discussion of the matter, provides a useful service to the reader. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Arms & Hearts. There is no cited evidence that Portillo was "a party to this transaction". He was Sec of State at the time but we do not know what (if any) was his involvement in this matter. The event itself is arguably of encyclopedic interest, and as you say is covered in the article Annington Homes. But it would be WP:UNDUE to go into it in any detail in the present article unless you have cites that show Portillo was in some way involved in it.--Smerus (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the delay in getting back to you Smerus. I'm a bit puzzled by your reply – if I didn't think there was a clear connection to Portillo then I'd conclude that the content didn't belong in the article at all, rather than taking exception to that specific link. But to answer your question, there's a multitude of reliable sources making the connection clear:
 * The Guardian, 25 April 2017 (cited in the article) quotes notes to Portillo about the deal by civil servants
 * The Guardian, 27 January 2022 (also cited in the article) says "In 1996, under the defence secretary Michael Portillo, the Conservative government sold 57,400 houses used by military service men and women and their families to Annington Homes"
 * The Times, 30 January 2022 mentions "a portfolio of 57,400 military properties sold off by then-defence secretary Michael Portillo in 1996."
 * The Times, 11 February 2022 has "Michael Portillo, the defence secretary, pressed ahead, signing off a £1.6 billion sale and leaseback agreement with Annington"
 * FT, 27 January 2022 says "The deal was struck by the then defence secretary, Michael Portillo"; echoed in FT, 2 February 2022, which tells us "the 1996 agreement [was] struck by then defence secretary Michael Portillo"
 * This list could probably be a lot longer; there doesn't seem to be any reason to doubt that Portillo was directly involved. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Absence of 'reason to doubt' on the part of one editor is not quite the same as proof. (Indeed it is borderline WP:OR). The 2017 citation mentions that someone sent Portillo a note that an unnamed person wanted to have a conversation with him. I cannot see that this proves anything. The 2022 Guardian quote confirms that the deal was done while he was Defence Secretary. I don't have access to the other quotes. It is debatable whether the language they use means that he was personally motivated to advance the deal or whether he signed off on the advice he received. 'Direct involvement' has a suggestion of initiation or advancement, rather than passive signing of paperwork. There does not seem to be any suggestion that Portillo acted against advice at the time. You should bear WP:BLP in mind. In my opinion, to note this episode as part of Portillo's record is correct, but to go into it in detail in this article is WP:UNDUE. I should be interested in comments of other editors.--Smerus (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I take the view that either the link should be included to provide minimal context or the whole sentence should be removed.I really can't see any reason for including it in its current form. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Absence of doubt is indeed not proof; attestation in six reliable sources published over five years is pretty good going though. Whether doesn't strike me as at all relevant; nor does the possibility, which as far as I'm aware no one but you has raised. But this is getting away from my primary point above: why, if you have doubts about the relevance of the content to the article, does that lead you to conclude that the material belongs in the article but on the proviso three words and one link are removed? That's what I continue to be baffled by. (If you want I can send you the contents of the Times and FT articles, or could point you to a handy browser extension...) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It may not strike you as relevant whether or not Portillo was personally motivated, but you are up here against the rules of Wikipedia. WP is not your personal blog. You can't under WP:BLP use material that is unsourced. You also have to ensure that material is relevant and not WP:UNDUE for an article. The citations you present seem either ambiguous on the level of MP's personal involvment, or irrelevant. If you had concrete and citeable third-party evidence that MP was personally motivated, you might want to include such comment and citation in the article, although WP advises that potentially libellous material should not be included. If he was not motivated, then any detail is undoubtedly WP:UNDUE - not least because it carries superficially some implication that he was. --Smerus (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll give this one more go: why, if you have doubts about the relevance of the content to the article, does that lead you to conclude that the material belongs in the article but on the proviso three words and one link are removed? Having an RfC over those three words feels like overkill, but that's where we're heading if you continue to refuse to answer simple questions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Your allegation that "I refuse to answer simple questions" is extremely unpleasant to me and contrary to WP:AGF. I don't particularly feel this matter belongs in the article. It is about something which happened on Portillo's watch (as did countless other things during his tenure); but he does not seem to have been personally involved in proposing or driving it. None of the citations you mention suggest this; and, once again, I refer you to WP:BLP. My conclusion is that this affair is very tenuously part of Portillo's story and therefore it could be held to merit mention in the article. On those grounds I have not sought to remove it. The only other editor commenting in this thread appears to share my opinion. It is of course up to you whether you take this to RfC. There seems little point in continuing the present thread.--Smerus (talk) 08:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * My order of preference here is (1) complete removal followed by (2) inclusion with the link; the current (3) inclusion without the link strikes me as just silly. So I'm going to boldly remove the whole thing for now. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies again for the delay. I appreciate the clarification that you no longer think the material belongs in the article – a certain amount of confusion could, I think, have been avoided if you'd made that clear to begin with and/or edited to that effect, but that's by the by. I'll open the RfC in a moment. As I'm only able to edit intermittently at the moment, I'll add that if anyone has anyone issues with the wording of the statement they should feel free to make any changes themselves. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The RfC below has expired without any particularly clear consensus. I think it would be worth restarting it for another month. Does anyone have any objections or other thoughts? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It should be closed as no consensus - which means leave the article as it is. As it has been publicised on the aprpopriate project pages, it is clear that anyone who wants to say anything has done so.--Smerus (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You'll want to request a closure then. I suppose we could give it another 24 hours either way to see if anyone else weighs in here. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 24hrs is fine by me Smerus (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that means that we simply leave the article as-is. It means we continue with WP:BRD, which would then be to either continue discussion or cycle with another bold edit. Reliable sources mention this in the context of Portillo as a significant part of his tenure in office, so I think we would have to see a justifiable reason for going against what reliable sources say. BeReasonabl (talk) 05:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks BeReasonabl. What do you think about restarting the RfC for another month? Pinging participants Jonathan A Jones, Pincrete, Levelledout and Darwin Naz as well in the hopes they can help us arrive at a consensus on how to arrive at a consensus (!). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * My first take is that there is no consensus to be had here, and the question is how one proceeds in the absence of consensus. And my second take is that I don't think this question is as important as the amount of time so far devoted to it suggests. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a fine take to have, but if the question is so unimportant and it's included in reliable sources, then I'd think the preference would be to include the information, not to exclude it. BeReasonabl (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Ministry of Defence housing sale
Should this article discuss the 1996 sale of the Ministry of Defence's housing stock, and if so, in what form? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Option A: the article shouldn't mention the sale.
 * Option B: the article should mention the sale without specifying to whom the homes were sold, as in this edit.
 * Option C: the article should mention the sale and specify that the homes were sold to Annington Homes, as in this edit.

 * Option C (second choice B): The fact that Portillo was directly involved in the sale of MoD housing is supported by multiple reliable sources (linked above) published over the course of several years. The sources are clear that he oversaw, enacted and took responsibility for the policy. This is the principle of individual ministerial responsibility, but it’s also the common-sense conclusion that anyone would arrive at from a disinterested reading of the sources. The arguments made above for not including this material, which ask us to disregard these unimpeachably reliable sources as, are very far from convincing. The claims in the sources are, on the contrary, both entirely unambiguous and abundantly clear on Portillo’s involvement: the Financial Times, for example, bluntly tells us that "The deal was struck by the then defence secretary, Michael Portillo", and this is one of many making broadly the same assertion. That numerous high-quality reliable sources reported on that involvement 20+ years after the fact also attests very strongly to its relevance to this article. Finally, if the sale is discussed in the article it’s useful to the reader to include a link to Annington Homes, because describing a sale without specifying the buyer unnecessarily leaves out useful information, and the linked article contains more detail on the subject which may be of interest to the reader. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

 * Option A (second choice B). It is not at all evident to me that "the sources are clear that [Portillo] oversaw, enacted and took responsibility for the policy." Nor, for that matter, does it seem to me that the opinions or insinuations of journalists must be automatically be held to be "unimpeachable". Of course Portillo must take responsibility as the minister who signed off the decision, as he must for every decision he signed off during his tenure. In that sense, the "deal was struck by him" - but that does not mean that it was his idea or proposal, or that he took particular steps to drive it. We have no reason or evidence to suppose that he was not simply acting on the advice of his civil servants - which in Britain is the way in which most ministerial 'decisions' are taken; nor do we have any evidence that his civil servants were opposed to, or advised against, this decision, for that matter. The decision was certainly in retrospect a bad one - but we have no evidence to suggest that it was a consequence of Portillo himself. I am therefore not of the opinion that it serves any purpose to cover it in detail in the article. As regards the "numerous high-quality reliable sources report[ing] on that [imo supposed] involvement 20+ years after the fact" - the original Guardian article of 2017 which analyzes the deal in detail does not even mention Portillo's name. To give this topic prominence in the article on Portillo by covering it in detail is imo WP:UNDUE, has more than a suggestion WP:COATRACKing, and would be against the policies of WP:BLP, in suggesting or implying an action or initiative on the part of the subject which is not reliably (or even unreliably) evidenced. I edited Arms & Hearts's original edit as per his Option B above, leaving one of the newspaper references as a citation. Another editor subsequently removed the entire topic (Option A). I think there is a marginal argument for Option B, but I am not unhappy with Option A. I think option C is quite inappropriate for the reasons I give above.--Smerus (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

 * Option A (second choice C). I do not think the information belongs in the article, by the arguments of Smerus. But if we do incude it then it seems frankly bizarre not to enable the reader to gain relevant context by reading the slightly more detailed treatment at Annington Homes as suggested by Arms & Hearts. Either the information belongs here or it doesn't. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Option A (second choice C) I'm not overfond of either Portillo or of "selling off the family silver", in general … BUT sources don't seem to draw attention to Portillo's involvement, merely mention in passing, so I agree with Smerus that this is probably UNDUE and borderline COATRACK. I also agree with Jonathan A Jones, that if there is going to be mention at all, then include the link to the property company, but really this isn't sufficiently important to be on this 'biog' article. Pincrete (talk) 13:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Option B (second choice C) It would seem to me that the sale of such a large amount of public housing stock being overseen by his ministry, is relevant enough to him and his career, to be included. I don't see how the buyer is relevant to the subject of the article. At least not without some sort of non-commercial link between the buyer and seller, which there doesn't seem to be any suggestion of. Levelledout (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Option C (second choice B): I agree with the first point raised by Levelledout. However, the buyer is relevant in my opinion due to the impact of the sale. As the source cited, it made Annington the largest owner of residential property in England and Wales. It provides context to the adverse consequences of the sale to the military and taxpayers. Darwin Naz (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Option C per Darwin Naz. This seems to be a not-insignificant part of his career in the ministry, backed up by WP:RS, which say things such as, sold off by then-defence secretary Michael Portillo or the man who approved the sale-and-leaseback . The reliable sources seem to be of the view that whether or not he was acting on the advice of his civil servants seems to be irrelevant, because he was the one who is ultimately responsible. Further, to mention that it was sold without to whom it was sold seems both incongruous and unexplanatory. BeReasonabl (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Option C Although reasonably insignificant in Portillo's overall career, multiple RS specify Portillo's involvement in the sale   . I agree with others above that, if included, it's important that the full context is given. Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Infobox consensus (another discussion)
I've read the infobox proposal section that led to the current consensus for the infobox, however I'm still a little confused why this was proposed in the first place. He was an MP for 13 years, served on high profile cabinet positions such as Defence Sec. of State and Chief Treasury Sec. He is clearly a notable politician, much more than George Stephanopoulos, Joe Scarborough and Jerry Springer (who's political offices are noted in their infoboxes *not hidden*). If Springer's one year stint as Cincinnati mayor, Scarborough's six year tenure as U.S. Rep or Stephanopoulos 3 year tenured offices at the White House can be noted on their infoboxes, why can't Portillo's much longer MP tenure or other political posts be noted on the infobox (not hidden). TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no cause to be confused. MP's political offices are not 'hidden' as you suggest, you just have to click on the links in the infobox. Anyone who wants to see them can very simply do so. As regards your other examples: Jerry Springer's political offices in his infobox take up 4 lines; Joe Scarborough's take up 3; George Stephanopoulos lists only his political offices, not his other career(s): they don't seem very helpful or relevant in the circumstances. To list all the political offices of MP would make the infobox enormously long, clunky and confusing - exactly the things that proponents of infoboxes say they are intended to avoid. The present set-up has a consensus - you offer no reason to start again.--Smerus (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Michael Portillo


text:
Jack Rowe

John Charles Rowe (December 8, 1856 – April 25, 1911) was an American professional baseball player, manager and team owner from 1877 to 1898. He played 12 years in Major League Baseball, as a shortstop (657 games), catcher (298 games), and outfielder (103 games), for four major league clubs. His longest stretches were in the National League with the Buffalo Bisons (1879–1885) and Detroit Wolverines (1886–1888). He was also a player-manager and part owner of the Buffalo Bisons of the Players' League in 1890, and the manager of the Buffalo Bisons (Eastern League) from 1896 to 1898.

Rowe appeared in 1,044 major league games, compiled a .286 batting average and .392 slugging percentage, and totaled 764 runs scored, 1,256 hits, 202 doubles, 88 triples, 28 home runs, and 644 RBIs. From 1881 to 1888, he was part of the "Big Four", a group of renowned batters (the others being Dan Brouthers, Hardy Richardson, and Deacon White) who played together in Buffalo and Detroit and led Detroit to the National League pennant and 1887 World Series championship.

Early years
Rowe was born in Cold Spring Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, in 1856. His older brother, Dave Rowe, also played and managed in the major leagues between 1877 and 1888.

Minor leagues
At age 19, Rowe began his career in organized baseball in 1876 with a club in Jacksonville, Illinois. In 1877, he played for the Milwaukee club in the League Alliance. He also played in 1877 and/or 1878 under Tom Loftus with the Peoria Reds. In 1879, Rowe and his brother, Dave Rowe, signed with the Rockford, Illinois team in the Northwestern League. At Rockford, Rowe earned a reputation as a hitter and "one of the best bare-handed catchers in the game."

Buffalo Bisons
After the Northwestern League folded in early July 1878, Rowe signed with the Buffalo Bisons of the National League. He made his major league debut on September 6, 1879, at age 22, and played in eight games for Buffalo that season, batting .353 in 38 plate appearances.

Rowe remained with Buffalo for seven years from 1879 to 1885. During the 1879 to 1884 seasons, Rowe was principally a catcher, appearing in 272 games at that position, 91 games as an outfielder, 55 as a shortstop and 20 at third base. In 1881, he compiled a .333 batting average and led the National League with 11 triples. His .480 slugging percentage in 1881 was the third highest in the league, and his 2.8 Wins Above Replacement (WAR) rating was the fifth highest among the league's position players. In 1882, he registered a 2.7 WAR rating and did not strike out even once in 329 plate appearances.

Rowe was one of four Buffalo players (with Dan Brouthers, Hardy Richardson, and Deacon White) who became known as the "Big Four." The "Big Four" were "regarded for many years as the greatest quartette (sic) in the history of the national pastime." During the 1884 season, the "Big Four" led Buffalo to a third place finish and a 64–47 (.577) record – the highest winning percentage in the club's history. Rowe registered a career high 4.6 WAR rating in 1884 and ranked among the league leaders with 14 triples (3rd), a .450 slugging percentage (9th) and a .352 on-base percentage (10th). He also led the National League's catchers in 1884 with a .943 fielding percentage.

In 1885, Rowe transitioned from a catcher to a shortstop, catching 23 games and playing shortstop in 65 games. Despite the strong bats of the "Big Four" (the "Big Four" combined for a .315 batting average in 1885), the Bisons had the worst pitching in the National League with a 4.28 earned run average (ERA), far above the league average of 2.82 ERA. The team finished in seventh place with a 38-74 record. The Bisons left the National League after the 1885 season.

Detroit Wolverines
In September 1885, the "Big Four" were sold by Buffalo to the Detroit Wolverines. All four remained with the Wolverines for three seasons, until the team disbanded after the 1888 season.

During the 1886 season, Rowe appeared in 111 games and was Detroit's starting shortstop. He also appeared in three games as a catcher. He compiled a 4.2 Wins Above Replacement (WAR) rating during the 1886 season, the eighth highest rating among all position players in the National League. As a batter, he hit for .303 average and ranked among the league leaders with a 4.0 Offensive WAR rating (10th), 97 runs scored (10th) and 199 total bases (10th). Defensively, he also ranked among the league leaders with a 1.0 Defensive WAR rating (7th) and 310 assists at shortstop (5th). With the addition of the "Big Four", the Wolverines improved substantially, finishing in second place with an 85-38 record.

The 1887 season was the pinnacle in the history of the Detroit Wolverines. The team won the National League pennant with a 79-45 record and then defeated the St. Louis Browns in the 1887 World Series. Rowe was the starting shortstop for the 1887 team, appearing in 124 games at the position, and continuing to rank among the best players in the National League. Rowe hit for a .318 average, and his 4.1 WAR rating ranked as the 10th highest among the league's position players. He further ranked among the league leaders with 135 runs scored (2nd), 30 doubles (7th) and 239 total bases (9th). He also had another solid year defensively, finishing with the fifth highest Defensive WAR rating (1.1) in the league, ranking second among the league's shortstops with a .907 fielding percentage, and ranking third with 378 assists at shortstop. Rowe also played well in the postseason, scoring 12 runs and stealing five bases in the 1887 World Series.

During the 1888 season, the Wolverines finished in fifth place with a 68–63 record. Rowe continued to play well with a 2.6 WAR rating in 105 games as the Wolverines' shortstop. However, he committed a career high 72 errors, the second highest total in the National League by any player at any position. With high salaries owed to the team's star players, and gate receipts declining markedly, the team folded in October 1888 with the players being sold to other teams. On October 16, 1888, the Wolverines sold Rowe and Pete Conway to the Pittsburgh Alleghenys.

Pittsburgh
Rowe initially refused to recognize the validity of his sale to the Pittsburgh Alleghenys. In December 1888, Rowe and Deacon White purchased interests in the Buffalo baseball club, deciding they would prefer to return to Buffalo as co-owners, managers, and players. William Nimick, the Alleghenys' owner, refused to release Rowe and White, reportedly saying, "If they don't want to play in Pittsburgh, they'll play nowhere." In July 1888, Rowe and White agreed to play for Pittsburgh. He appeared in 75 games as the Alleghenys' shortstop, but his batting average dropped to .259.

Players' League
In 1890, Rowe concluded his playing career as a player, manager, and owner of the Buffalo Bisons in the newly organized Players' League. Rowe and Deacon White owned the club. Rowe appeared in 125 games as the shortstop and saw his batting average drop to .250. Defensively, he led the Players' League shortstops with a .901 fielding percentage. He appeared in his last major league game on October 5, 1890. As the team's manager, he compiled a 27-72 (.273) record. The Players' League collapsed after the 1890 season, but Rowe and White sold the Buffalo club and grounds to "some Buffalo capitalists" for $2,500 in stock and $8,000 in cash. In 1891, The Sporting Life wrote that, having sold for a profit before the league's collapse, "Rowe and White are pretty slick, you bet."

Return to minors
Although Rowe did not return to the major leagues, he continued to play minor league baseball through the 1893 season. He played in 1891 for the Lincoln Rustlers of the Western Association. Rowe was reunited with his brother, Dave Rowe, who was manager of the Lincoln club.

Rowe concluded his playing career back in Buffalo, playing for the Buffalo Bisons of the Eastern League. In his last season of organized baseball, Rowe, at age 36, continued to hit well. In 110 games for the 1893 Bisons, Rowe compiled a .349 batting average and .456 slugging percentage with 113 runs scored, 22 doubles, nine triples, three home runs and 18 stolen bases.

Manager at Buffalo
In November 1895, after two years out of the sport, Rowe was hired to manage the Buffalo Bisons (Eastern League) for the 1896 season. At the time, The Sporting Life wrote: "Rowe is a resident of Buffalo and has lived in this city with his family for many years. He is well known in local base ball circles, and, for that matter, his is a familiar name in connection with the history of the game all over the country." Rowe managed the Bisons from 1896 to 1898. As the Bisons' manager, he developed several major league players, including Claude Ritchey, Chick Stahl, Harry Smith and Jack Barry. In 1897, Rowe had an all red-headed outfield at Buffalo that inspired Zane Grey's 1922 story, "The Red-Headed Outfield".

Later years
After retiring from baseball, Rowe operated a cigar store in Buffalo. His store was reportedly "a popular gathering place for sporting figures of the city." In January 1899, The Sporting Life described him as "one of the most contented men in Buffalo these days", attending to his cigar business, and "ever ready to talk base ball."

Rowe became ill in 1910 and moved to St. Louis, Missouri, to live with his daughter, Helen. Rowe died in April 1911 at his daughter's residence in St. Louis at age 55. His cause of death has been reported as aortic regurgitation and nephritis. He was buried at Bellefontaine Cemetery in St. Louis.

title: Jack Rowe


text: File:Jack Rowe Baseball Card.jpg

title: File:Jack Rowe Baseball Card.jpg


text:
User:Cap'n Refsmmat

I am a graduate student in statistics who inexplicably occasionally has spare time.

title: User:Cap'n Refsmmat


text:
Talk:Sting operation

Solicitation of a minor
changed the word 'lure' to 'identify a potential' since no child sexual abuse actually occurred in this instance and the word 'lure' would be more appropriate if the situation was classified as entrapment.

Scam baiting
Isnt scam baiting a type of Sting Operation to catch 419 scammers?

 * Most scam baiters scam bait for the fun of it, whereas a sting operation is intended to capture the target. --cuiusquemodi 03:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Alcohol
The article gives this as an example.

police arranging someone under 21 to ask from an adult to buy alcoholic beverage for him or her; the adult is prosecuted if he or she complies ...

In Australia & New Zealand the legal drinking age is 18. In Japan it's 20. In some parts of Canada it's 18 & in others it's 19. This needs a rewrite so as not to be so US-centric. - Jim 13Apr05

Okay, I've fixed it. I've replaced 21 with the legal drinking age. Also I've deleted the from (see above): this was a grammatical error. I've also deleted

... the adult is prosecuted if he or she complies ...

Whether or not they are prosecuted is not important. It's still a sting op if they aren't. It's possible for a case not to come to trial. None of the other examples mentioned prosecution.

Of course other things like prostitution are legal in some places too but perhaps this is not so great a problem. - Jim 18May05

You might want to know
You might want to know that this type "agent provocateure" action is illegal for the police to conduct or arrange in most european states, but you might want to do some further research on that topic

On the page, Sweden is used as an example of not allowing sting operations, which is mostly true. Here, and in most European jurisdictions, police are only allowed to use this tactic to gather evidence or make arrests relating to ongoing or already committed crimes, like carrying out a delivery of seized contraband to catch the recipient, or posing as buyers to recover stolen goods. Any sting that can be construed as inciting a crime is prohibited. 155.4.138.239 (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Non-law enforcement example
Should this article be modified to mention that the term is used for non-law enforcement situations as well? The most notable example being perverted-justice.com, especially since someone there just linked to here throughout the article. I think what they do definitely qualifies, since unlike the scam baiters, they are doing it with the intention of catching the perpetrator (and frequently prosecute, and have to be careful to avoid entrapment, etc, etc, etc). The current definition here seems to limit the term to LE only. Fieari 18:52, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * Perverted-justice.com may not be the best example, as it could be argued that what they do amounts to vigilante action so could possibly be considered a form of law enforcement - though they aren't affiliated with any police department. However I agree that the article is a little slanted toward law enforcement; other examples could exist eg as a means to test the loyalty of a person in the context of organized crime. 216.36.186.2 (talk) 13:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"Sting"?
Does anybody know who coined the term "sting operation"? Is it simply a police jargon? -- Revth 00:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Why is Larry Craig "popular culture"?
Can anyone explain, or should I remove it? Marnanel (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ... Larry Craig?? Oh, him. --Jerzy•t 03:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Common techniques section
I'd like to remove the common techniques section. Its poorly written, not up to wiki standards and based of myths prostitutes have regarding what police may or may not do. All of the 'techniques' listed are untrue and would not protect one from a sting operation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.135.231 (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm inclined to agree - though it's debatable whether or not the techniques would or would not protect one from prosecution - the statement that they would not work is as unsourced and unreliable as the statement that they would - but we shouldn't make a statement either way on the article if it can't be backed up by verifiable secondary sources. 216.36.186.2 (talk) 13:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Just Wondering?
Why isn't the TV show "Cops" mentioned in pop culture? They do these things (stings) frequently on the show, some being "too hot for TV" and included in such labeled DVD's/VHS tapes

Also, although sting ops usually are law enforcement, could situations on the Maury show when they use the "Decoys" (attractive women) to catch a potential cheater count? Just wondering....--Mackdanny (talk) 08:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Popular culture?
Come on, give us a break; the popular culture section has more content than the meaningful content. --beaverfever (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 09:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC).

I suggest changing the name of the section to "Examples of Sting Operations." The term "popular culture" is not well defined and leads to questions such as the Larry Craig comment above. Most of the fictional examples were removed in October 2010, so what remain are better characterized as examples. Jaywilson (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I also suggest removing or better explaining the movie "The Sting" as an example, since the article is about stings in the law enforcement context and the movie is about a con game by one set of criminals against another. Jaywilson (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Different terms
Are sting operation and undercover investigation interchangeable terms? It seems to me that the first refers to an operation that is more limited in scope, like a one time event, while the second concerns an extended investigative effort that might last for several years. Either way, there is currently no article linked to "undercover investigation", unfortunately. Shoplifter (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Lottery Stings
I'm surprised that no mention has been made of 'lottery' type stings. e.g Where the police send out letters to scofflaws saying that they have won a prize and all they have to do is proceed to a particular location to collect it. When the target arrives they are arrested. A good (fictional) example appears at the start of the film 'Sea of Love'.Graham1973 (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

 * That's not a sting operation as the act of winning a lottery prize and coming in to claim it is not (usually) the illegal act the police have a warrant on them for. 199.20.117.176 (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

sting/entrapment
Short form is that entrapment means enticing a person with no propensity toward crime, while a string sting is used to get evidence on a person who has shown a propensity toward crime. Unethical law enforcement will use entrapment to pump up their statistics by luring people into committing crimes they otherwise would not have committed. The potential for abuse makes some jurisdictions avoid sting operations. Naaman Brown (talk) 10:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC) & --Jerzy•t 03:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Many failures like confusing fact and mere opinion are a big deal in articles but insignificant on talk pages. But i for one will not tolerate inviting non-native readers or editors, even in discussion, to confound "string" with the jargon "sting"! It is thus that i am altering the immediately preceding talk contrib!! --Jerzy•t 03:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Sting operations in the Netherlands
I removed the statement that sting operations would not be possible in the Netherlands. It is possible, although the Dutch police is limited. There are even TV series. "Wegmisbruikers" (lit. Road abusers) is about traffic stings. An undercover car is used for catching and fining people who sre speeding. "Undercover in Nederland" (lit. Undercover in the Netherlands) is more about general stings. The presentator Alberto Stegeman sets up a sting with help of the police, even in countries where stings are even more unusual, but not impossible, than in the Netherlands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hans Kamp (talk • contribs) 06:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Sting operation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140903150744/http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=1878103&nav=9qrxNETb to http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=1878103&nav=9qrxNETb

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sting operation