text:
Talk:Lowell High School (San Francisco)

Lowell's lawsuits
I have reverted edits by a particular user three times in the past ten minutes. Now I understand WP:3RR, so you guys can skip the usual schpeal. As mentioned on the user's talk page, the current references cited on this article cannot support the revised statements this user has given to the interpretation of events involving the Consent Decree as well as the two other lawsuits. I have subsequently rolled back (AGF) an edit combo, in addition to undoing two edits on two other minor sections. I have asked the user to to provide additional references to support his/her statements regarding the issues before adding the material back in. I hope there will not be an edit war regarding this subject, but neutrality of these subsequent cases are crucial in order to achieve a stable article in general, and the ability to utilize a stable version of this article for a Spoken Wikipedia file.  - Jameson L. Tai  talk  ♦  contribs   05:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * True. I've saw an IP that he used today to promote NPOV, that guy got some serious issues. Should he come again, let me deal with him. — B o L 05:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. I didn't know if a weird admin was going to step in and randomly block me or something... haha! :D  - Jameson L. Tai   talk  ♦  contribs   05:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, I just read up on that little discussion on that IP. WOW... that's all I can say.  Whew, I thought I was being too harsh for a second there.  (PS: "stop imposing your own politically correct, liberal viewpoint" uh if being neutral is being liberal, then wouldn't republicans be considered liberal when compared to the "actual" full political spectrum?) (PPS: Whoops, uh oh, I've had a smooch too much of Slavicek's class. *vomits*)  - Jameson L. Tai   talk  ♦  contribs   05:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3RR is only if you revert past three times in 24 hours, and it does not apply to vandalism. — B o L 05:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm just awaiting for the "impending doom", like comments saying that I, being Asian, meant I have the upper hand blah blah blah blah blah. I'm just waiting for it so I can just bomb the response with factual data that I can support.  :)  Then again, it IS 1am, so I might just wait until I get back from work tomorrow before I unleash my long caged side I haven't revealed since my debate class back at Lowell.  I'll try to keep WP:CIVIL in mind, it'll be a very well educated and neutral tongue lashing, mainly geared towards a person's intelligence/ignorance rather than starting an edit war.  :)  - Jameson L. Tai   talk  ♦  contribs   06:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * All feelings set aside, apparently that user tried to post something on my user page rather than my talk page. It has been reverted without being read.  We'll see if the user will finally learn to post on talk pages before making radical changes to the viewpoints of this mostly stable article version.   - Jameson L. Tai   talk  ♦  contribs   17:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Jameson, it's taken me a few tries (and I'm still learning) about Wikipedia etiquette and how and where to post stuff--I couldn't figure out where to post comments and as you seemed to be the party responsible for taking down my comments, I was trying to reach out to you to engage you in dialogue. Still havng a bit of a hard time figuring out how to properly format this response...would welcome any guidance in this area. As I explained, I'm a member of the Lowell Class of '89 and a lawyer to boot, so this newfangled wiki stuff is a bit strange.  I consider the comments posted inaccurate and radical, and think the perspective I can offer about the litigation and the facts surrounding it quite valid, as I was actually there.  I am one of the founders of the Asian American Legal Foundation that helped to organize the litigation, and I think that I can thus speak from a position of authority about the motivations and thinking of opponents of the decree and racial preferences.  To the extent that the article has been "stable" with respect to the information and viewpoint that you seem to endorse, it is largely because people like myself have not posted our own version of events or the other viewpoint, or because every posting that attempts to challenge the currently posted perspective gets promptly removed.  I am happy to have both perspectives posted or viewpoints represented, but if you continue to insist that my first-person account of why the lawsuit was organized and relation of certain facts cannot be posted solely because it upsets the "stability" of the article and because it presents an opinion different than the opinion that is posted, I will escalate this to higher levels of Wikipedia administrators.  I also vehemently disagree with your characterization of my viewpoints as "radical," as it reveals your own bias toward a viewpoint I think is both radical and factually inaccurate.Lchcheng (talk) 06:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Lee Cheng

 * What references, BTW, would you like me to provide, and how do I post those? Does a first person account, accepted by the US Congress, Senate and UC Board of Regents, qualify as a reliable source?Lchcheng (talk) 06:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Lee Cheng

 * As for Blow of Light, I find your comments and threats completely inappropriate. I am not trying to hide anything, including either my identity or contact information. I welcome a chance to discuss with you my perspective and to work out language that is consistent with the neutrality policy, but if you continue to make personal threats and attacks, like "I know who you are," and to characterize people who disagree with you as people with "some serious issues...Should he come again, let me deal with him," I WILL take the time to figure out how to bring your attitude and comments to the right levels of Wikipedia administrators.  I helped organize the Ho litigation when I was 22, in the face of immense political opposition and with well-funded defendants, partially because I wanted to make sure that people who didn't have a voice could be heard.  I am not going to withhold my opinion because of someone thinks the anonymity of cyberspace allows him or her to be a bully without consequence.Lchcheng (talk) 06:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Lee Cheng

 * This semi-civil debate aside, Wikipedia is the greatest information source I've ever seen, and I (almost literally) grew up in a library. I don't have as much time as I used to, but it's incredibly easy to spend hours and hours reading stuff.  Incredibly powerful.Lchcheng (talk) 06:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Lee Cheng

 * I suggest you review WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CITE for info on what and how to cite. Also know that others are now watching this and incivil comments are not acceptable by anybody. WP:WQA is the place to report those. (Yeah, lots of alphabet soup but they get the job done.) Pairadox (talk) 06:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Lee Cheng: Much congratulations to your establishment of your legal organization. I'm not sure how much of the "alphabet soup" links you've clicked on, but here's a more direct response...
 * When responding to user discussions, respond to user talk pages
 * WP:OR: No, first-person account will not be sufficient. To keep WP:NPOV (neutral point of view), content of this article should be written by material obtained from WP:RS (reliable sources).  Biased opinions, analysis - which includes determination/definitions of a lawsuit, both sides of legal battles, etc., must be cited first, then analyzed and written with both sides in mind.
 * Your passion towards these lawsuits from first-hand experience may be genuine (and I'm not questioning that), but to keep neutral point of view, the current version is still the most "neutral" that I have seen after reviewing the sources that have been cited on the references section.

Before anything escalates: Read this.
 * Threatening to go to a Wikipedia administrator every time something does not go your way is not the way to settle an editing dispute. (Unless something very wrong is going wrong of course)  (With all seriousness, I find it very annoying and reminds me of the tattletales from kindergarten.)
 * If you are very passionate in putting your two cents in, I suggest you work on a draft of what you want to change in a WP:SANDBOX article in your namespace. It works like a test article that is inside your user account's space, so it is not necessarily an article that is evaluated right away.  This gives you time and a "sandbox" (hence its coined name) to play around with wording, formatting, coding, inserting references, tables, images, citations, etc.  A good name to put this (you don't have to follow it, but it's a good naming scheme in case you want to backtrack and list your work-in-progress: User:Lchcheng/Sandbox01
 * Lastly, indirect insinuations/implications have given me a sense the an underlying legal threat was made against BoL. Please review No legal threats.  In addition, know that I am not choosing anonymity in cyberspace either, you'll find that my contact information as well as information about myself in real life is posted on my user page.

With that said, I will extend my connections to the legal community as well on this issue to see if there are NPOV issues with the current description of the Ho litigation and related legal sections on this article.  - Jameson L. Tai  talk  ♦  contribs   07:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Jameson and others--thanks for the wikipedia tutorial. Holy cow.  Will spend some time this weekend to get up to speed.

I am happy to engage in dialogue, to not involve higher level administrators and certainly, not threaten or actually engage in legal action. Any halfway decent lawyer knows that legal action is both inefficient and wasteful, and should be avoided at all costs unless something fundamental, like the civil rights of a historically oppressed group, is at stake. Jameson, I would suggest that you examine your own casual and rather supportive responses to BoL, whose unexplained remarks I continue to find both threatening and uncivil. I note that you did not ask him/her to follow the rules of this community with regards to civility, presumably because he/she supported your actions and perspectives. I would urge some real neutrality on this article. Neutrality should also not mean stability around a contested viewpoint. For instance, I certainly don't see support for these concepts: (1) "create a more equal distribution of race at Lowell, which was predominantly Chinese-American" [fact: why was the racial distribution unequal if admissions was based on race-neutral academic achievement, and Lowell was not predominantly Chinese-American--the caps kept the numbers between 40-45%), or (2) I don't know why the viewpoint of critics of the race-neutral diversity index should be allowed to express their opinion/present their version of the effect of the end of race-conscious/determinant admission (i.e. decreased number of URM students admitted using dramatically lowered scores), while opponents of race-conscious admissions programs are not allowed to post theirs (i.e. kids being allowed to go to schools in San Francisco without being limited by their ethnicity due to Ho). I'm happy to concede the URM point but I was trying to post an equally well-supported fact as well. Same basic standards should apply to all, with higher standards for those with more authority, like administrators. If you want to make inquiries to the legal community, I'd recommend reaching out to lawyers on both sides of this issue--hopefully we can end up with both sides of the matter presented.75.140.128.210 (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Lee Cheng

 * Jameson, out of curiosity, how should I interpret comments like "I know who you are" and a characterization that I am someone with "some serious issues..." and a statement like "Should he come again, let me deal with him"? Again, if you are an administrator, I think you may want to consider a bit more neutrality than what you've demonstrated so far.

I can't wait for you to unleash your caged side, as I was also on the Lowell Forensics team. Any time you'd like to subject me to "a very well educated and neutral tongue lashing" about my "intelligence/ignorance," I'd be happy to dust off my credentials and facts to compare against yours. BTW, I'd expect nothing less than a "well-educated" tongue lashing from a Lowell grad (well, except for that guy who was apparently in the Symbionese Liberation Army--but for Wikipedia, I would never have known that!).75.140.128.210 (talk) 04:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Lee Cheng
 * Er, hi, Lchcheng. You may want to read this... — B o L 05:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And you, Blow of Light, may want to familiarize yourself with it also. Not signing in is not the same as using a sockpuppet, especially when the editor isn't attempting to use it for subversive reasons and is relatively upfront that it is the same person. A sock puppet is an alternative account used deceptively. Pairadox (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, but you're not allowed to use it to avoid scrutiny, right? — B o L 05:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What makes you think he was avoiding scrutiny? — Kurykh  05:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you review WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CITE for info on what and how to cite. Also know that others are now watching this and incivil comments are not acceptable by anybody. WP:WQA is the place to report those. (Yeah, lots of alphabet soup but they get the job done.) —Pairadox (talk) 06:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You know what, before this esclates further, I'm going to let Kurykh take over. I don't go to Lowell, nor do I know much about Lowell. — B o L 06:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I have this page on my watchlist, but I always don't see the changes made on this page until I click on my watchlist in the morning. I guess I have to clear my watchlist again... but I digress...

LchCheng, there was a sentence I wanted to just clear up first. I am not a Wikipedia Administrator. (Now that we're clear on that...)

Familiarity to neutrality means keeping oneself openminded. However, Please understand where we, BoL, Kurykh, and many editors such as myself, keep this article in check, have seen many, many instances where neutrality of the article from the disputed idea that Lowell really isn't a great high school (vandalism from random users from other SF high schools), to former students manipulating Wikipedia to deploy a twist on a vending machine issue which was not notable, totally disputed, and completely unencyclopedic.

With that said, LchCheng, I suggest that if you are really so passionate about making changes to the Ho litigation and other sections, to start a sandbox article as I have suggested in my last comment above and begin working on a draft where the editors may review the neutrality in addition to proper citations, etc. When we do reach consensus, we'll work on editing the Lowell article to reflect your proposed changes +/- any modifications during the review.

In a nutshell, I'd like for you to shift your attention from neutrality to objectivity. As you are working on the sandbox article, if you need help, please feel free to ask any of the editors around, but let's try to focus ourselves to improve this article, not just sit around with the stalemate debate over neutrality. We can resume those discussions when we begin review your proposed changes.  - Jameson L. Tai  talk  ♦  contribs   13:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Alumni Dynamic Listing
Do we have a need to use alum and dynamically list the alums that way they can be sorted by name/grad year?  - Jameson L. Tai   talk ♦  contribs  05:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:BOLD. — kur  ykh   06:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * On it.  - Jameson L. Tai   talk  ♦  contribs  07:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Margret Cho...
So... since she didn't graduate from Lowell - does she belong in our "Notable Alumni" section or should we change it to "Notable Attendees"? Better yet, if she's already mentioned in the SOTA article why not just remove her entry? If a reader is really that interested in Cho and Lowell's brief connection, a simple search of Cho's article would suffice, would it not?  - Jameson L. Tai   talk ♦  guestbook  ♦  contribs  05:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The section doesn't read "Notable graduates". Alumni can refer to any former student, even if Cho only attended for a day she could be called an alum. The WP:WPSCH/AG guideline supports this notion. There are a number of primary sources linking the two that makes the case for inclusion. – Zedla (talk) 08:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A more precise search came out with three sources on the first page or results. Does using her quotes tying herself with Lowell for a publicity stunt matter?  I'll just let this one go.  Of all the things I could be doing, I don't feel like getting into a discussion with this subject.   - Jameson L. Tai   talk  ♦  guestbook  ♦  contribs  08:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oldest west of the Mississippi
The claim of oldest west of the Mississippi (1858) is a claim that jumps off the page. I assume it comes from here: http://www.sfusd.edu/schwww/sch697/about/history/  However Central High School in St. Louis has a claim of 1853. http://oldkunnel.net/schooldaze.html   16:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Good point. I looked to see if perhaps Central High School was no longer operational, which would make Lowell at least the oldest one still operating, but it appears that Central is still operating as a magnet school called Central Visual and Performing Arts High School. However, their Wikipedia page makes no mention of age, and I don't know how reliable "Old Kunnel's" page is -- it looks pretty anecdotal. So I don't think we should modify the Lowell page until we can verify through a more reliable source that Central High really was founded in 1853. — CWesling (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Hmm, I noticed that the Lowell article belongs to Category:Educational institutions established in 1856. Clicking on that category showed me at least one other high school founded that year that is west of the Mississippi: Sacramento High School. So unless we can establish that Lowell was founded earlier in the year than Sacramento High, I'd say we probably should remove this claim from the Lowell article. — CWesling (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

 * There's also Lahainaluna High School on Maui. It was founded as a seminary in 1831. It claims to be the first high school west of the Rockies. http://lahainarestoration.org/hale-pai-museum/ 74.87.49.203 (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Spanish and Chinese names
WhisperToMe (talk) 05:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Spanish name: Escuela Secundaria Lowell: http://www.sfusd.edu/es/enroll-in-sfusd-schools/enroll-for-next-year/lowell-y-sota/lowell-high-school.html
 * Chinese name: 洛威爾高中 or Lowell高中 http://www.sfusd.edu/zh/enroll-in-sfusd-schools/enroll-for-next-year/lowell%E5%8F%8Asota%E9%AB%98%E4%B8%AD/2438.html

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Lowell High School (San Francisco). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://portal.sfusd.edu/forms/EPC/Lowell%209th%20Grade%20Admission%20Policy%20-%20English.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140630091138/http://www2.ed.gov/programs/nclbbrs/list-1982.pdf to http://www2.ed.gov/programs/nclbbrs/list-1982.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lowellalumni.org/list_famous.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719153310/http://www.lowellalumni.org/download/laa_winter08.pdf to http://www.lowellalumni.org/download/laa_winter08.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090405001624/http://scifiwire.com/2009/04/sorority-row-remake-scare.php to http://scifiwire.com/2009/04/sorority-row-remake-scare.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091211102043/http://www.cifsf.org/Sports/SoccerBoysAll-City2004-05.pdf to http://www.cifsf.org/Sports/SoccerBoysAll-City2004-05.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091211102038/http://www.cifsf.org/Sports/SoccerBoysAll-City2003-04.pdf to http://www.cifsf.org/Sports/SoccerBoysAll-City2003-04.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Lowell High School (San Francisco). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929160058/http://orb.sfusd.edu/profile/pf08/pf08-697.htm to http://orb.sfusd.edu/profile/pf08/pf08-697.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071213191732/http://www.lowellalumni.org/campus_wingspeech.shtml to http://www.lowellalumni.org/campus_wingspeech.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060223103531/http://www.lowellalumni.org/article_blueribbon.shtml to http://www.lowellalumni.org/article_blueribbon.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927020928/http://www.thelowell.org/content/view/1521/28/ to http://www.thelowell.org/content/view/1521/28/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060819221716/http://www.thelowell.org/content/view/1665/29/ to http://www.thelowell.org/content/view/1665/29/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927020935/http://www.thelowell.org/content/view/1562/29/ to http://www.thelowell.org/content/view/1562/29/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060510151753/http://cifsf.org/Sports/baseballchampions.pdf to http://www.cifsf.org/Sports/baseballchampions.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050529052529/http://cifsf.org/Sports/trackandfieldchampions.pdf to http://www.cifsf.org/Sports/trackandfieldchampions.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050529042258/http://cifsf.org/Sports/cross-countrychampions.pdf to http://www.cifsf.org/Sports/cross-countrychampions.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060830034526/http://cifsf.org/Sports/volleyball-girlschampions.pdf to http://www.cifsf.org/Sports/volleyball-girlschampions.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090719034548/http://www.sfhistoryencyclopedia.com/articles/l/lansburgGustave.html to http://www.sfhistoryencyclopedia.com/articles/l/lansburgGustave.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130614061424/http://www.lowellalumni.org/alumni_news.shtml to http://www.lowellalumni.org/alumni_news.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071030010931/http://www.lowellalumni.org/article_s07_socal_reunion.shtml to http://www.lowellalumni.org/article_s07_socal_reunion.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110526084707/http://www.asiaarts.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=110444 to http://www.asiaarts.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=110444
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060207121953/http://www.thelowell.org/content/view/185/ to http://www.thelowell.org/content/view/185/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050307201455/http://www2.lowellsbc.com/ to http://www.lowellsbc.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Boys High School
The article is not clear if Lowell is a continuation of the old Boys High School. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

24kGoldn (former Lowell High Alum)
This rapper has his own wiki bio. He has a national hit single (the only one from a Lowell alum that I can think of as compared to Washington High School or Mission High School who have more prominent musical alumni). He is very young, so he must've graduated a few years ago. Relative to the other musicians from Lowell, this guy is the first from your school to have a Top 40 hit. Please link and add to your notable alumni list. He's following through on his education however like most Lowell students, as he is a student at USC. 2600:1700:BB10:1610:FCC0:1916:B425:23B6 (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Added. OhNo itsJamie Talk 02:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Campus
It says that the campus includes "a two-story visual and performing arts building with the 1,500-seat Carol Channing auditorium." When I was a student there in the mid-90s, the visual and performing arts building was only one story (it looks tall because the auditorium itself is tall, but there is only one floor of classroom space, unless you count "room 5" which technically is "downstairs" because the building is built into a hill, but that is not a full floor), and the Carol Channing Theatre had a seating capacity of just under 1000. To my knowledge, there haven't been any construction projects to change that building, so I think the section must be in error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3024:100C:500:A44E:11B8:E402:64A2 (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

There is some seriously missing data here. I could not find the exact date in the early 1960's that the NEW Lowell opened on Eucalyptus, moving from its old brick location on Masonic Avenue. The new additions to the building in 2012 was the removal of the temporary classrooms adjacent to the faculty parking lot, and building a new permanent freestanding wing for foreign language instruction. The science wing which was an extension of the second floor classrooms, was torn down and rebuilt because so much technology had changed since that wing opened. For example, the electronics lab where Fred Stark taught was outdated, designed for bread boarding circuits with resistors, capacitors, and vacuum tubes. Now it is all microprocessors and computer aided design. Mr. Koening's Physics classroom (Room 255?? Don't remember) included a photo darkroom, which in the age of digital photography was just wasted space. The wing could not be remodeled to bring it into modern times, so it was torn down and rebuilt. Looks the same from the outside but the interior is all new.NormG1021 (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC) FogCityNative1021 Lowell Class of 1966

Black community demanding admissions change from Merit based system to Lottery based system
Hello, can anyone update the article about these new recent changes to admissions at Lowell High School. This is really big news and Lowell is well known for being one of the best public schools in the country; this would dramatically affect the school's performance. Stonksboi (talk) 09:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

 * Can you point to a particular news story? My understanding is that these are proposed changes and not yet a matter of policy. If that's the case, there should be a limit to how much space is given to what might not come to pass. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Recently, the San Francisco school board voted to remove merit based admissions, because the school was too Asian and not enough black. Here's an article https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-school-board-strips-Lowell-High-of-its-15938565.php Stonksboi (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like a done deal now. Preliminary suspension of admittance based on test scores must have taken place at October 20, 2020, board meeting, although this Oct. 11 article talks about a proposed vote. Vote to make it permanent happened yesterday (Feb. 9), according to ABC News and CBS News stories. This leaves in doubt calling Lowell, or whatever it will be renamed, a "selective ... magnet school". I'll try to craft a mention in the article. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding Stonksboi's 17:18, 19 November 2020 reference, which has similar information to references at article, but has some pointers to other online stories that might be helpful (additionally, the student newspaper has at least two comprehensive articles on the controversy (one of which gives the relatively recent date of 1966 for when Lowell started accepting students based on previous academic performance), and KQED tries to explain the lottery system in an article I found). Dhtwiki (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC) (edited 21:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC))
 * Still, the article should be changed, Lowell should no longer be considered a "selective" or "competitive" school to match the current situation. By implementing policy that discriminated against Asian American students, the overall student body will never be as talented or gifted as it used to be.Stonksboi (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The student body is still the result of previous selective admissions, and, so, the school can still be described as selective, etc. However, that promises to change and the lead description should eventually be changed if the present policy stands. I agree that it sounds like a bad idea, born of angry frustration that the previous political solutions aren't having their purported effect. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Updated page. Should be fine, and added the Equity Audit since everyone seems to forget THAT was also in the resolution that'll make a bigger difference. Third Tower (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lowell High School (San Francisco)


text:
User talk:Pitchka/Republican Celebrities Page

Brady
In interviews Brady has said he's and independent and has registered either no affiliation or independent everywhere he lived. Going to the SotU address because he was invited doesn't make him a republican, only a celebrity. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/04/60minutes/main1015331_page2.shtml Asked directly he says he's an independent. Does anyone have a cite that says different?Capeo 23:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Here We Go Again!
The liberals are at it again, get rid of anything that shows that all celebrities are not left-wing socialists. The lists of Pro-Life Celebrities was erased by these same people because they did not want this information available on the internet. It should be a secret that Jack Nicholson is pro-life or that Alice Cooper votes Republican.

If this list goes then the list of homosexuals and bi-sexuals should be erased as should many others!

It is funny that no proof is needed to be listed on the homosexual list but if a name is placed on this list good gravy, call out the FBI and start listing sources for each and every name and prove that this person voted as a Republican more than once and if they support a Republican candidate it has to be for this reason or that!

By erasing these relevent lists out for political reasons is pure censorship, but that after all is how Cuba and the Soviet Union worked! Pitchka 02:32, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

David Lynch
Despite what the anonymous user: 195.92.67.76 says, I think there is enough credible evidence to support filmmaker David Lynch's inclusion in a list of Republican supporters. During the 1980's he had dinner with President Reagan and the First Lady. He spoke openly of his admiration of Ronald Reagan even years later and he also chastized someone for making a joke about Nancy Reagan, cominger to her defence. Just because someone has begun supporting in 2000 another political party, does not mean that they never were a supporter in the 1980's of another one. Pitchka 17:25, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

 * But just because someone likes a Republican doesn't make them a supporter of that party. Lynch has been quite clear about this on his website and in interviews: he liked Regan personally, he liked the cowboy spirit, but politically he has never supported the Republican Party. He supports the Natural Law Party, raises funds for them and votes for them.

 * I haven't seen any proof that he never supported the Republican Party. I have only seen proof that since around the 2000 elections he has been supporting the Natural Law Party. Before that time going back to the 1980's the only politician he has been noted as hanging out with and talking about publically was Ronald Reagan! Pitchka 15:21, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Flawed?
This list is beyond flawed. There are people on this list who almost certainly do not have American citizenship, just about nothing is sourced, I don't know that many (if any) of them have released their voter registration info, and how exactly do we know who these people are voting for? You can't say they "generally" vote Republican unless you're in the booth with them, and since when do members of the Libertarian Party count as Republicans? This whole thing should be deleted and started again from scratch using legitimate sources. Beginning 03:08, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Let me guess what your political leanings are. First off, many celebrities are on the record as to how they are going to vote. If you believe the list is flawed or there are no sources cited, you can help fix this.

Why do you want it, "deleted and started again from scratch?" Fix the list as is. I've noticed that anytime there is some list that has to do with the politics that concerns republicans or conservative issues, the first thing someone seemingly from the other side wants to do is delete it! I don't go around suggesting that things be censored by deleting things!

Fix it or don't look at it. A lot of work has gone into this list, and I guess anything regarding republicans, conservative issues, or religious issues have citations up the whazoo as compaired to all the rest of the articles, half of which have things that appear to be blatantly made up.

Who are the people who don't have US citizenship? The last James Bond just became an American so he can vote for Kerry! Pitchka 19:42, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

 * This list is flawed for many reasons. Most importantly, there is a big difference between having supported a Republican candidate at one time and being an actual member of the Party or RNC. For instance, Arnold had the support of quite a few pretty liberal Hollywood actors because he was friends with him, and because he wasn't terribly conservative. Unless people have actively campaigned for the Republicans in general (not just one candidate), or have admitted officially joining the Republican Party, they really don't deserve to be on this list. And people with libertarian views certainly do not belong. They are generally far from the Republicans on many issues, which is precisely why they are not Republicans. This list really needs work. Now off to check the Dem's list (assuming there is one). -R. fiend 23:27, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why Libertarians?
Libertarians have their own political party in the United States, created on the premise that the Repubican Party no longer represents their interests. Why would one put Libertarians on this list then? Two Halves, making something resembling a political point

Name one Libertarian President? There are none. Libertarians have varying views just as Republicans do. However when it comes down to voting many of them support Republican candidates. Look at Tom Selleck, he says he has Libertarian views and yet he has been known in the past to support Republicans.

I don't known what the problem is. Pitchka 21:13, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Jean-Claude Van Damme
Although I have found that Jean-Claude appears to live in California and does seem to have conservative leanings I have been unable to find that he became an American citizen allowing him to vote. Although he may support Republicans if he can't vote he should be removed from the list until it can proved he's a citizen. Pitchka 16:12, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

get rid of this page how do u know if half of these people vote anyway??? im sure jessica simpson wouldnt understand how to fill out the goddamn card.

Hey freak, what's your problem? Do you feel threatened by this page or something? I wouldn't be making fun of Simpson if I were you considering your writing abilities. Stop looking at this page if you are so scared by it. Wierdo. Pitchka 19:05, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

The Journalist List
This list seems the most flawed of all the lists. I do believe that Neil Cavuto is a Republican, but the other two are questionable at best. Anderson Cooper's CNN show hasn't been all that friendly to the Republicans, and Lou Dobbs has been outspoken on issues relating to the President's stance on free trade.

I have no doubt that Lou Dobbs might have a few conservative leanings, but I would have to say he is a liberal, AT LEAST on the issue of trade. As I said, I doubt he belongs on the list, because he quite critical of the President on this issue.

Who gives a shit?
If ever there was a page that an encyclopaedia did not need, this is it. Do you just not know that there is a whole world out there that doesn't care how celebrities vote? What would you guys think of a similar list for Indian celebrities? Among its many, many failings, it can never be exhaustive. You have, what, four journalists? There are thousands of journalists in the US. Are all the rest Democrats? Now, to even this parochial bollocks up, we should have a page titled List of people who don't give a shit about US politics or who votes for whom.Dr Zen 05:11, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Apparently, you do, for why else would you be showing such disdain for this list? Lists or articles I don't care about are not visited by or commented on by me! Pitchka 14:11, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

The debates going on both on the talk page and in the article itself underline the inherent problems with this article. Being a "Republican" is too loosely defined (see my comments above). Labelling someone a Republican because they support the "war on terror" is stupid. Do Republicans have a monopoly on anti-terrorism? Are Democrats pro-terrorist? The war on terror is too loosely defined to be of much use anyway. The war in Iraq is called part of the war on terrorism by Bush, but then again, he gets to define such things. He could invade Mexico and call it part of the war on terror, and when Mexicans rise up to resist the invasion of their country he could consider it justification. If this page is to have any sort of meaning it needs to be clearly defined. If some celebrity says it was right for Bush to go after bin Laden in Afghanistan does that make him "Republican" (keeping in mind there was hardly any resistance to that plan from any side). Yes, some of the people on this list clearly fit the bill, others do not. Let's define "Republican" on strict terms. -R. fiend 06:07, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I have a better idea, why don't you define what a Democrat is for a list of democrat celebrity supporters! I think that outspoken supporters of President Bush regardless of their party affiliations, or former party affiliations, deserve inclusion in this list. I know that people who are opposed to Republicans would rather give the impression that there aren't any or that they are all war mongers or religious nuts or what have you and don't want people like Ron Silver, who campaigned for Bush even though he had been a well known Democrat, on this list but he is a valid supporter and I would assume voter of George W.! Pitchka 18:06, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

 * I think that's the central problem -- encyclopedias don't assume to know someone's voting behavior. In any case, this is not a List of celebrities who support the re-election of Bush in the 2004 Presidental election.  If you want to make such a list, I won't stop you (though I would vote to delete it). Tuf-Kat 18:44, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

 * Tuf-Kat has it right. This list isn't called "Celebrities who support Bush", it's a list of "Republicans", which means they are registered as Republicans. If you can't confirm someone's status they have no reason being on this list. Just yesterday I saw Robert Kennedy Jr. speak highly of Governor Schwarzenegger, I guess he belongs on this list by your logic. What about Zell Miller? He's technically a Democrat (though he bears no resemblance to one) but a supporter of W. And yes, I could start a similar list of "Democrats" but it would be just as flawed as this. My point is a don't get to define what a Democrat is. It's been defined already! Likewise you don't get to define Republican. Your opinions and "assumptions" about how people vote or how they are registered are not facts that belong in an encyclopedia. So why not move this article to the title Tuf-Kat suggested? Or at least try getting a little less defensive about this stupid "article". -R. fiend 18:18, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Denzel Washington
The star of John Q and the new Manchurian Candidate, two films that promote ideas to the left of the Democrats, is a Republican?
 * He's indicated in interviews that he views some of his films as being more populist than left-oriented. MisfitToys 00:22, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

Trey Parker and Matt Stone
Parker and Stone have been removed from this list twice now. But they are, in fact, and unlike most of the names left untouched, declared Republicans.

"The audience at the liberal activist group People for the American Way's annual fund-raising and awards dinner in Beverly Hills on Tuesday night got a couple of surprises. One award went to the veteran rock singer Neil Young who proceeded to say he supported the tough measures the Justice Department has taken in its anti-terror campaign. Another award went to Matt Stone and Trey Parker, creators of the bawdy cartoon series South Park, who announced that they were Republicans. "It's true," said Parker, who was wearing a stars and stripes outfit." Fox News Report from Brit Hume.

Good enough?

 * Erm, no. They said that as a joke. They were at a left-wing awards show and they were winding people up. More seriously they announced that Norman Lear was their hero - not likely for Republicans. Parker is a registered Libertarian. They both hate conservatives and George W. Bush . Michael Moore also once claimed to be a Republican. Shall we had him to the list?

Response: You're absolutely right. Don't concede an inch on anything, and eventually I'll go just go away. Victory will be yours!
 * Read the criteria for the list: it can include Libertarians. As you've shown, Parker, at least, is a Libertarian, and can be included on this list for that reason alone. I think you'll agree that his creative partner is almost certainly of the same persuasion.
 * It says the list includes Libertarians who normally support Republicans and there is no sign these two ever support Republicans.
 * They consistently emphasise right-ended political positions in their work, and skewer left-ended ones. Now, here's your opportunity to keep it going in circles. Tell me how "Republican" doesn't necessarily mean "right wing", so those with "right wing" opinions may just as well be "Democrats" who might be "liberal Libertarians" but not "Republicans" because Libertarian doesn not = Republican...

 * Parker's and Stone's creations, South Park and Team America, have articulated a section of Republican opinion so well, that South Park Republican has become a political term, akin to "soccer mom" or "nascar dad". Clearly, many Republicans identify with their take on events.
 * Just as many Democrats like it. The point of the South Park Republicans thing is that there are now some young Republicans who do not fit the traditional model of the Republican Party and so like things which traditional Republicans would hate like South Park, not that South Park is somehow Republicans only. Going on personal experience every Dem I know loves South Park but most of the Republicans I know hate it.

 * Yeah, but you're trying to divorce the phenomenon of "South Park Republicans" entirely from the show itself. That's nonsense. The show clearly has an anti-PC/Liberal approach that is refreshing for Republicans that can stand the language and crudeness of the show. And as it skewers PC-liberalism the show also ends up articulating the opposite, Republican-right, point of view. Young, "non-tradtional" Republicans like the show, because in addition to it being extremely funny, it also often reflects the beliefs they hold as Republicans.

Trey: We avoid extremes but we hate liberals more than conservatives and we hate them. Matt: I hate conservatives but I really fucking hate liberals.

And in World Police they wipe out a whole cadre of the most outspoken Hollywood Liberals. Is the point of this list to list only registered, life-long Republicans, or is it to show that not all celebrities are whacked out ultra-liberals, more concerned about sounding hip, and being invited to the right PC parties, than actually using even plain common sense?
 * Parker and Stone are more left-wing on many issues than most Hollywood celebrities. In their interviews they have made it clear that Team America is not ciriticising those opinions but the arrogance of Hollywood celebrities who voice them. And how do you square That's My Bush? Usually if someone hates both Liberals and Cconservatives they are a Ssocialist.

Now your stretching it. So, Parker and Stone are now not even Libertarians, but Socialists?
 * The point is that if you hate both Conservatives and Liberals you could be a Libertarian or a Socialist or a Green but you are not likely to be a Republican or a Democrat.

As for "That's My Bush!", it was about as hateful towards George Bush as Darrell Hammond's impressions of Bill Clinton is toward Bill Clinton.

Geez, have you even seen the movie? The left wing celebrities are more than just arrogant blowhards, they outright join the forces of evil. Remember, the "moral" of that movie was the whole dick, pussy, asshole, bit... an sometimes the "pussies" (lefty actors) get so full of shit they become "assholes" (terrorists) themselves! Oh, but that's not a criticism, that's supportive of helping terrorists with your words!

 * The article does not imply they were joking. Neil Young, in the article, is not shown to be joking, when expressing a Republican type idea. They were given this award, by PFAW, not for being liberals but for being free speech advocates. The article states it was a surprising statement when they said they were Republicans. If they were making light of the situation, the joke is "you liberals just gave a free speech award to guys who you'd probably consider to be Republican-Nazi! How about that for irony?" etc.
 * The article is from Fox so it isn't likely to recognise irony and it certainly would not want to. That Fox found it surprising tells you that they don't seem like Republicans except to people who don't know what the Republicans really stand for. I'm going by how they said it. They were joking.

I suppose you were there, to hear "how they said it"? The plain English of the article reads that they stated that they were Republicans. I can't decipher your second sentence. Are you saying that someone from Fox isn't capable of detecting irony, or if someone is a Republican? You also ignored the Neil Young statement. So, was he also joking? Perhaps doing a skit mocking Republicans and the "War on Terror" with Trey and Matt?

I don't think it's right to wipe their names off completely when other, less qualified names are left up untouched, or are left up with a side note.
 * Parker and Stone meet the criteria for being on this list, by both being Libertarians and also for actually expressing Republican leaning ideas openly in their work. This is more than can be said for most of the names on this list, which includes life-long Democrats, "9/11" liberals, or those that have only said or done something that can be taken to be non-liberal.

 * If there are even less qualified names they should not be on here either. Take them off.

I consider the list, based on the stated qualifications at the top, to be pretty broadly defined. It's others who want to cull the list based on their own limited definitions. I'm following the criteria. If others want to play by their own rules, they should at least be consistent about it, and not "cherry pick" off certain pet names. The burden is on them to slash and burn the list, not on me.

 * Which is what I propose should be done. Put their names up but with an addendum stating Libertarian. I think this would be fair and accurate. How about it?
 * If they go in this page at all they would need to be in a seperate section maybe of celebrities who are "claimed" by some Republicans but are not themselves Republican supporters.
 * This just again illustrates the stupidity of this list. It is called "List of Republican celebrities", and only Republicans should be on it. It is not "List of Republican-leaning celebrities", or any such thing. Libertarians are NOT Republicans. Move the list to a more appropriate title if you want it to be more all encompassing. Republican has a definition; look it up. -R. fiend 19:12, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It does not matter who leans conservative in this way or that, or who they support for president or even whether they like conservatives or liberals more.  If this is to be a list of Republican celebrities, then it must be just that, not a list of Republicanoids.  As far as Libertarians being "Republican", I personally know three, all of whom have previously been loyally voting for the Libertarian candidate but voted for Kerry this time.  At least two would surely identify themself as more Democrat than Republican, though they would be insulted to find themselves on a list of either.  You can't just declare that Libertarians are the same as Republicans, or that Bush supporters or anyone else are Republicans.  Unless they actually self-identify as Republicans, they shouldn't be on this list. Tuf-Kat 02:05, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

TUF-KAT, R. fiend, etc.: Well, then your problem is with the whole damn list then, not with how Parker and Stone fit on a list you don't particularly like in the first place.

So, why bother putting up such a fight about these two particular names? Leave the list alone if you don't like it, or start another list that you do like, or change the criteria of this list so it states Republicans only! Whatever.

But as it stands, as written, both Parker and Stone clearly qualify for this list. The criteria for the list includes Libertarians. Parker and Stone are Libertarians. Nuff said. That should be enough, no matter if you personally feel Libertarian does not = Republican.

 * The cirteria for the list includes people who are Libertarians but generally support Republicans. It is clear that Parker and Stone do not generally support Republicans therefore they do not belong on the list.

I'm going to put their names back up, with a qualifier that they are probably Libertarians. Take them down if you wish. I no longer care. If this is typical of what goes on with "Wikipedia", then Wikipedia is unadulterated garbage. Nice going guys.

 * Yes, my problem IS with the whole damn list then, as I've said numerous times. I generally don't give a shit about the Parker and Stone controversy; it's one small aspect of a glaring problem with this list. Perhaps I should write a List of Democratic celebrities and then say "This list includes people who vote Democrat, as well as their friends and peers, and a few people on the Right-to-Life ticket, as well as Republicans who ever worked with any Democrat." Obviously that would not be a "List of Democratic celebrities" as the title suggests. Such a list would be as asinine as this one. Fortunately, I don't believe that one bad article deserves another to counter it. Why don't I just move the article to a title which might actually apply to this list. If you no longer care you won't have a problem with it. Inaccuracy like this makes Wikipedia unadulterated garbage. Nice going. -R. fiend 14:43, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

John Rhys-Davies
JRD does spend half his time in LA, but apparently is not a US citizen. But he is very strongly conservative and is definitely a Republican supporter.

''He also regularly heaps praise on President George W. Bush and his war on terror, including the invasion of Iraq. "There are at least four or five [officials in the Bush administration] who could hold their own against the Founding Fathers," he says. This is blasphemous speech in Europe and Hollywood alike.''

Andrew Leigh on John Rhys-Davies

Removal of names.
Since it is fashionable for people to remove names from this list and many are Anons, and many of the names removed should not have been, it is time for people to start giving sources for why these people are being removed.

If someone removes a name without solid sources, I am personally going to reinstate them. Have a nice day! Pitchka 16:59, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Emma Caulfield Source?
It's great seeing people add names and information to this list. I would like to know the source of Emma Caufield voting for John Kerry.

I'm npot saying she didn't say she did, I'd just like the source. Pitchka 18:59, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Costner, others
Kevin Costner was a registered Republican up until Clinton became President, then he switched to independent and has supported the Democrats at the last three Presidential elections, so I've removed him. (Perhaps we should have an "ex-Republicans" section?) See:,.

Also, could someone provide sources for the following, as they have all said or done things, or made career choices, that seem to me to make it unlikely that they are Republicans:

 * Joan Allen
 * James Earl Jones
 * Denzel Washington
 * Vincent Gallo

Also, I'm not sure about Gary Oldman. I know he criticised 'The Contender' for being pro-Democrat, but again he's a track-record of picking leftist films, and he dropped out of 'Star Wars' because it was using non-union actors (to be replaced by John Rhys-Davis). Also, is he a US citizen?

 * I'm quite sure Gallo is enough of a Republican to count as far is the slightly flawed criteria for this list goes, but I am unsure of the others. -R. fiend 20:54, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Oh yeah. Assuming it's not all post-modern ironic, Gallo's definitely a Republican. See this, this, [www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/694827/posts this] and this. I love that one of the Freepers has welcomed Gallo's Republicanism as a sign that the left is morally bankrupt.

James Earl Jones vocally supported the Iraq war, but he is also on record as saying his political beliefs are a private affair, so I don't know whether he would count as a Republican. After all, many Democrats like Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman supported the Iraq war too.

Page title
Shouldn't this page be called something like Celebrities who espouse views similar to the United States Replican Party, c. 2004? Would Abraham Lincoln fit in this list? Would José Giral? Gdr 22:15, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

Jennifer Love Hewitt
Hi there. I was wondering if you have a citable for source for Jennifer Love Hewitt being a republican. I need it for something I'm working on.--68.184.81.196 20:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I no longer have the sources that I used to create this list because I lost them when my computer crashed. Doing a recent search however shows that she aong with known Republican supporter the actress Bo Derek have visited the U.S. troops. This alone does not provide the proof, however, it's all I can now locate. Dwain 20:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Mike Judge
I'd like to have Mike Judge's name removed or some verification. If someone could supply a quote here, or just the source of the information it'd be great. I'd also like some verification for Adam Sandler and Norm MacDonald.

Tiger Woods
Do you have any proof that Woods is a republican?

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


text:
KKOB (AM)

KKOB (770 kHz) is a commercial AM radio station, licensed to Albuquerque, New Mexico and owned by Cumulus Media. Its news/talk format is branded as "96.3 Newsradio KKOB", reflecting a simulcast with co-owned KKOB-FM 96.3 MHz. Studios and offices are located in Downtown Albuquerque. KKOB is the oldest station in New Mexico and is the state's primary entry point for the Emergency Alert System.

KKOB's transmitter site is off Second Street NW in North Valley. It is a Class B facility, operating around the clock with 50,000 watts, the maximum allowed in the United States by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). During the daytime, it uses a non-directional signal that reaches most of New Mexico's populated areas, as well as parts of Colorado and Arizona. At night, it uses a directional antenna, primarily to limit its signal to the east in the direction of WABC in New York City, the primary Class A station on 770 AM. With a good radio KKOB can be heard at night across much of the western half of North America. To compensate for KKOB's loss of signal at night in Santa Fe, since 1986, it has been simulcast on 770 kHz by a 230 watt experimental synchronous transmitter located in that city.

News and Talk
KKOB-AM-FM provide local news and weather updates around the clock, traffic "on the 7's" and national news updates from ABC News Radio. On weekdays, the schedule features mostly local talk shows including Bob Clark in morning drive time, Brandon Vogt middays, TJ Trout afternoons and Eric Strauss in the evening. The rest of the schedule is nationally syndicated talk radio hosts Dan Bongino, Mark Levin, "Red Eye Radio" and "America in The Morning".

Weekends include shows on money, health, home repair, gardening, cars, travel and technology, some of which are paid brokered programming. Terry Travis hosts a local talk show on weekend mornings. Syndicated shows on weekends include Chris Plante, Rudy Maxa and Bill Cunningham.

Sports
KKOB broadcasts University of New Mexico Lobos basketball and football games. Some other Lobo sports can also be heard on co-owned sports radio station KNML.

Early years
The station began as KOB, first licensed by the federal government on April 5, 1922. However, the person most responsible for its founding, Ralph Willis Goddard, by this time already had extensive experience with radio. Goddard was the dean of the Engineering School at New Mexico College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts (now New Mexico State University). It was located in State College, New Mexico, near Las Cruces. Goddard headed the school's Radio Club, and in the spring of 1920, arranged for the university to be issued a license for an experimental radio station, which was issued the call sign 5XD. In addition to experimental work, this station was used for such things as reporting sport scores. Eventually the station expanded from its initial Morse code transmissions to audio programs, including entertainment broadcasts.

Initially, there were no formal standards for radio stations making broadcasts intended for the general public. However, effective December 1, 1921, the United States Department of Commerce, which supervised radio at this time, issued a regulation requiring that stations making broadcasts intended for the general public now had to operate under a "Limited Commercial" license. On April 5, 1922, the university was issued a broadcasting station license with the randomly assigned call letters KOB.

The 1928 passage of the Davis Amendment required an equitable assignment of radio facilities within five regions of the United States. Effective November 11, 1928, as part of a major reassignment of stations under the Federal Radio Commission's General Order 40, KOB was assigned to 1180 kHz, one of Region 5's high-powered "clear channel" frequencies. Although this allowed unlimited operation during daylight hours, nighttime hours were shared with KEX in Portland, Oregon, with KOB receiving 1/3rd of the after-sunset hours, and KEX assigned the rest.

On December 31, 1929, while preparing the transmitter for a New Year's Eve broadcast, Goddard was instantly killed when he came into contact with high voltage equipment. In 1932 the station reduced its power from 20 to 10 kilowatts because of transmitter issues.

Albuquerque Journal ownership
In 1932, the university arranged for KOB to be leased by the Albuquerque Journal, which later purchased the station. KOB's last State College broadcast was on April 24, and it resumed broadcasting that fall in Albuquerque. KOB was an NBC Red Network affiliate, carrying its schedule of dramas, comedies, news, sports, soap operas, game shows and big band broadcasts during the "Golden Age of Radio".

In 1940, KOB's timesharing partner, KEX, moved to 1160 kHz, which allowed KOB to expand its nighttime operating hours to unlimited. In March 1941, a nationwide frequency reassignment took place with the implementation of the North American Regional Broadcasting Agreement (NARBA). Initially, KOB was assigned to 1030 kHz. WBZ in Boston, Massachusetts was the primary station assigned to 1030 kHz; moreover, it employed a directional antenna that strengthened its signal toward the west. The resulting excessive nighttime interference between WBZ and KOB caused the FCC to reassign KOB to 770 kHz. However, WJZ (now WABC) in New York City was also assigned to 770 kHz, and this led to a series of legal battles between the two stations over nighttime coverage that would last for decades.

In 1948, Tom Pepperday, owner and publisher of the Journal, signed on KOB-TV, the first television station between the Mississippi River and the West Coast. The stations were acquired by Time Life in 1952. In 1957, they were sold to Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. On August 1, 1967, KOB-FM (now KOBQ) first signed on. At first, it simulcast KOB, but soon began its own format of beautiful music, and in the 1980s, switched to adult contemporary music.

Separation of KOB radio and KOB-TV

Hubbard Broadcasting sold KOB AM and FM to Southwest Radio in 1986. At the time, FCC regulations stated that stations could not share call signs if they were not co-owned, so with Hubbard keeping the TV station as KOB-TV, Southwest had to find new call letters for the radio stations. In order to trade on the well-known KOB identity, a leading "K" was appended, becoming KKOB and KKOB-FM on October 28. Despite their separate ownership, KKOB still has a news partnership with KOB-TV.

In 1994, KKOB AM and FM were sold to Citadel Broadcasting for $7.8 million. In 2011, Citadel was acquired by the station's current owner, Cumulus Media. Under Cumulus ownership, some shows syndicated by Premiere Networks were dropped, such as Coast-to-Coast AM and Sean Hannity, because Premiere is owned by Cumulus rival iHeartMedia. KKOB switched to mostly airing programs syndicated by Cumulus Media's Westwood One subsidiary, only retaining one Premiere Networks weekday show, Rush Limbaugh until his death in 2021. Dan Bongino took over the midday time slot previously held by Limbaugh on all Cumulus stations on May 24, 2021.

On September 1, 2016, KKOB began simulcasting its programming over translator station K233CG (94.5 FM) in Sandia, which Cumulus purchased for $425,000.

Legal dispute with WABC
Beginning in 1941, KOB was involved in a 38-year-long dispute over the use of the 770 kHz frequency with New York City station WABC (originally WJZ), a Class I-A clear-channel station. In 1978, the FCC noted that "No other station assignment among the thousands so far established has approached this one in the length, complexity, and thoroughness of the consideration that has been accorded in adjudicatory and rulemaking proceedings before the Commission, and in repeated judicial reviews."

In March 1941, with the implementation of the North American Regional Broadcasting Agreement (NARBA), most of the original "clear channel" stations were reassigned to comparable authorizations. The FCC attempted to give KOB an assignment that would allow it to use high power to serve a large area of the underserved southwestern United States. KOB's initial 1941 NARBA assignment was for operation on 1030 kHz. However, another high-powered station, WBZ in Boston, Massachusetts, was also assigned to this frequency; moreover, WBZ employed a directional antenna that strengthened its signal westward. The resulting nighttime interference between WBZ and KOB caused the FCC, beginning later in 1941, to reassign KOB to 770 kHz with the first of a series of temporary Special Service Authorizations.

The joint assignment of KOB and WABC to 770 kHz still resulted in interference over large areas of the middle of the country. The FCC later concluded that KOB and WABC should have equal status on 770 kHz as "Class I-B" stations, with both required to protect the nighttime coverage of the other station, and ordered that KOB and WJZ both install directional antennas. KOB constructed the required nighttime directional antenna, but WABC refused to comply, appealing the order in the courts. WABC's challenge was successful, primarily on the grounds that downgrading its coverage left its ABC network at a disadvantage compared to the other two national networks' New York City stations, CBS's WCBS and NBC's WNBC, which were non-directional operations. The FCC then reclassified KOB as a "Class II-A" station, and its directional antenna was modified to further reduce its signal toward WABC.

Hot air balloon accident
On October 9, 2004, a Smokey Bear imaged hot air balloon participating in the Albuquerque International Balloon Fiesta collided with and became entangled in one of KKOB's transmitter towers. The three passengers were able to climb out of the basket onto the tower. However, the tower was energized and could have led to electrocution once the passengers set foot on ground, so KKOB shut down its transmitter following the accident in order to enable them to climb down to safety. This accident was recorded by several local television stations, and the footage has become a standard story on a number of televised reality programs which deal with "caught on camera" incidents.

Awards
KKOB has been awarded four Marconi Awards from the National Association of Broadcasters – one in 1997, "Talk Station of the Year" in 2001, "Medium Market Station of the Year" in 2009 and "Legendary Station" in 2010. The station has received 13 nominations. KKOB was awarded "Station of the Year" honors from Radio & Records magazine in 2009. From the New Mexico Broadcasters Association the station has received numerous awards including "Station of the Year" 13 times since 2000.

Former personalities

 * Larry Ahrens, mornings 1980–2004
 * Jim 'Noochie' Villanucci, afternoons 1999 – February 28, 2013
 * Billy "Fatback" Cornelius, evenings 2013–2014
 * Terrie Q. Sayre, weekends 2007–2015, died on January 22, 2015
 * Mike Roberts, voice of University of New Mexico football and basketball games on KKOB from 1966 until 2007. Also did the morning sports news for many years, and broadcast Albuquerque Dukes games on KKOB for many years. Died in September 2016.
 * Pat Frisch, former program director who had done mornings and middays, left station in June 2019.
 * Scott Stiegler, afternoon host from 2013–2019 now works in the sales department.

title: KKOB (AM)


text:
Clement

Clement or Clément may refer to:

People

 * Clement (name), a given name and surname
 * Saint Clement (disambiguation)

Places

 * Clément, French Guiana, a town
 * Clement, Missouri, U.S.
 * Clement Township, Michigan, U.S.
 * Clement's Place, jazz club in Newark, New Jersey

Other uses

 * Adolphe Clément-Bayard French industrialist (1855–1928), founder of a number of companies which incorporate the name "Clément", including:
 * Clément Cycles, French bicycle and motorised cycle manufacturer
 * Clément Motor Company, British automobile manufacturer and importer
 * Clément Tyres, Franco-Italian cycle tyre manufacturer, licensed in America since 2010
 * First Epistle of Clement, of the New Testament apocrypha
 * Clément (film), a 2001 French drama

title: Clement