Talk:Alex Trebek

Alex Trebek's nationality, eh?

Since Mr. Trebek is a naturalized American citizen (and no longer a Canadian one), it is correct to begin the article with "George Alexander Trebek (birth name Giorgi Suka-Alex Trebek, born July 22, 1940), is an American television personality," and so forth. His Canadian birth is noted in the intro paragraph. There have been some anonymous attempts to eradicate Mr. Trebek's American nationality, whilst also converting the entire article into British English. Honestly, he's a game show host. This is a really petty topic over which to raise any nationalistic dander. Leave the article as it is and (thanking you kindly) let our two nations co-exist in peace. StarryEyes 22:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Why should he revoke his Canadian citizenship? NorthernThunder 21:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Trebek has dual citizenship, even though he is an American Citizen, he is still a Canadian Citizen as well. 134.153.36.69 13:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a reference providing evidence of his US naturalisation; references for important facts on biographical articles are particularly important. Complaining that unsourced information gets removed from biographical articles is a waste of time, time better spent providing references. I can't find evidence (either way) as to whether he has retained Canadian citizenship. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

His real birth name?

The word "suka" means "bitch," and this doesn't look like a Ukrainian name at all. I think it was a joke played by whoever edited it. Does anyone have confirmation of his real name? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.44.225.162 (talk • contribs).

Yes it is true, it means "bitch", but here's the link that says that [V Giorgi Suka-Alex Trebek] his real name. I don't know what is true... —dima/s-ko/ 22:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

With the old "Giorgi Suka-Alex Trebek" bit in mind (an anonymous contribution which stood unchallenged on Wikipedia for years—[1] – [2]), I asked Alex what his birth name was at a Jeopardy! taping this past Tuesday, March 23, 2010, during one of the commercial breaks when he takes Q&A from the audience. He stared at me for a while, blankly. So I said, "Or is that too personal a question?" (They do warn not to ask him anything too personal, like how much money he makes.) He finally said, flatly, "George Alexander Trebek. What did you think it was?" I said, "It was something Ukrainian on Wikipedia for awhile." He looked down at one of the producers sitting at the production table to see if he knew what I was talking about, and apparently he did, because he nodded and Alex asked him something I couldn't hear, and the producer said "Giorgi" (pronouncing it "Georgie"). "'Georgie'?", Alex said. "That's just stupid... Yay for Wikipedia." Then Alex took the next question. Robert K S (talk) 06:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The published name of Mr. Trebek as Suka is incorrect. In both Ukrainian and English it is pronounced as sookaw but in Ukrainian Cyrillic it is spelled сүка. Its meaning for the female dog is bitch while used as an insult applicable to a woman it is slut. p. 1019 Ukrainian-English Dictionary, Compiled by C.H. Andrusyshen, Head of the Department of Slavic Studies, University of Saskatchewan and published for the University of Saskatchewan, University of Toronto Press, 1955.

The mustache

Since the mustache rumor is unfounded, why not just remove it from the article? --TrustTruth 20:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the mustache thing was intended as a joke, but the fact that it made me laugh out loud seems like a plenty good reason to keep it! Kansas Sam 03:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Trebekkies

Not sure if this qualifies as a parody, but I always thought it was funny, and very illustrative of Trebek's friendly, gracious nature. Darguz Parsilvan 12:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Rumor of Death in 90s

I remember a string of rumors back in the 90s that Alex had died of cancer or something like that. Now obviously they weren't true but they are interesting nonetheless. It got so serious that I remember him appearing in some TV show where he sat in an audience or something and other people in the audience noticed him and I think mentioned something about thinking that he was dead. Is there any more information about these rumors and how they started? -- Suso 04:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Rocket Robin Hood

The article says that he was was the narrator of Rocket Robin Hood. I suppose he could have subbed for Bernard Cowan a couple of days, but I doubt it. The only sources I can find for this are on Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors -Dhodges 16:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Alextrebek86.jpg

Image:Alextrebek86.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Taken care of. Robert K S 06:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Reach for the Top hosting years

Today the IP user 75.72.183.149 edited this article to claim that Trebek started hosting Reach for the Top in 1964 instead of 1966. 1964 was the date given by Trebek during the third contestant interview in tonight's game (2007 Teen Tournament Summer Games semifinal 3). Can anyone provide a source or confirm Trebek's Reach for the Top dates? Trebek's memory isn't always spot-on and probably shouldn't be considered a "verifiable source" for dates. It wouldn't surprise me if the 1966 date was the correct one. Robert K S 00:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Xela Kebert

While the Family Guy sketch was humorous,I doubt the contestant actually thought that Trebek would vanish. Nominate this part to be deleted.

"Events" Section

This section reads pretty much as a random hodgepodge of trivia and other matters. Important points should be integrated and unimportant ones should be removed. VincentValentine29 (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

LEAVE ALEX TREBEK ALONE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.136.150.161 (talk) 08:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly retiring from Jeopardy! at the end of Season 25?

Rumors are now swirling at both the official Sony Pictures messageboards for Jeopardy! as well as making the rounds in the media, (namely this, a crosspost from tvguide.ca at the Sudbury Star newspaper website [3] )

According to that, it's likely possible we'll no longer see Trebek walk the Jeopardy! set after season 25 is over. Srosenow 98 (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

TV appearances

This article neglects probably one of the most popular "non-Jeopardy!" appearances of Trebek, namely a 1990 episode of Cheers where Cliff plays in a special Jeopardy! match. He was also featured in a 1992 episode of "The Golden Girls"; that episode also features Merv Griffin and a "subordinate" Trebek. [[User:]]17:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.191.130 (talk)

Another side of Alex Trebek

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU2w72KAkQQ

I don't see the video as necessarily "funny", I saw it as revealing. I think it's quite notable that a public personality who's known for a staid, stiff on-camera appearance is seen swearing like a sailor and generally conducting himself in a manner utterly different than his typical public presentation. I found it notable and I'll bet a number of others would as well. Almost a million hits on the video backs me up. The complaint about and rationale I've seen in other articles for removing references to celebrity incidents is that it's hearsay. Nothing hearsay about this. It's absolutely factual - you see the evidence before your eyes and ears.Docsavage20 (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of notability, you can't link to YouTube because YouTube has too much potential for copyright violation. That's policy. Ward3001 (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't say you can't link to YouTube, what the policy says is not to link to pages that are known to violate copyright. Do you have proof that it's in violation of copyright? That it doesn't fall under Fair Use? No, you don't, you're making an assumption. Given your sloppy citiation of Wikipedia policy, I'm not going to take your legal opinion at face value. Apparently no one has filed a DMCA takedown of the video. It's also linked by AOL news.Docsavage20 (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It's the other way around. "Due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright". What is your "due care"? Do you have proof that whoever uploaded that video has the consent from the copyright holder (Sony)? It's not a personal video. It's video owned by a corporation. Ward3001 (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Just like your assertion that "you can't link to YouTube, policy says so", right? You assert it's in violation of copyright, it's incumbent upon you to prove it. It's not incumbent upon me to prove a negative. Under Fair Use, you don't have to have permission. That same video is linked on multiple sites on the 'net - including as I previously mentioned AOL News. Do you think Trebek or the lawyers of the company it originated with aren't aware of it? You think you know better than they do? The video is clearly a parody given the way it's edited. It also factually and irrefutably demonstrates the material in the section I added.Docsavage20 (talk) 01:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Take it up here. If an admin says you can do it, fine. Otherwise, leave it out. Ward3001 (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

How about...gross violation of the neutral point of view. While the video may be fair use, assembling own observations from primary sources is original research. The ability to post original research on youtube (or cite someone else's posting) does not sidestep the spirit of that policy, and indeed, that is why we have the following policy: undue weight. If a point of view has not been expressed or discussed by a reliable source, it should never be included on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter if you can point to a pile of video clips. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with a point of view. It's a factual statement that he can be seen and heard swearing on camera - backed up by the fact that you can *see and hear him swearing on camera* and that this is different than the way he's normally seen on the show.Docsavage20 (talk) 04:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems completely WP:UNDUE. Dayewalker (talk) 04:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and agreed with comments above. Beyond that, this is simply trivial and not notable. I mean holy crap! A TV personality swore as part of an outtake!! That NEVER happens!. Keep it out, it adds nothing. And, of course, we have the most relevant policy of all for keeping it out: WP:CONSENSUS. Resolute 05:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, what does a "point of view" have to do with it? No "point of view" has been expressed. An incident was referenced and documented. Your objections simply don't hold water. What makes it any more "trivial" than references to parodies about him? Or falling asleep at the wheel. Or his horses. Holy crap! Lots of people have horses, so what? What does any of it "add" to the article other than they're things about him. That's what the article IS about - "things about Alex Trebek". Did he perfect cold fusion? No, he's known for appearing on TV. His swearing repeatedly on camera was something actually involving him personally and clearly of interest to a large number of people. It's of interest for the exact same reason his falling asleep at the wheel is and is far more clearly documented.Docsavage20 (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is clearly against this item as being trivial. Dayewalker (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

C'mon champ - just for grins instead of hiding behind some "policy citation" let's hear you explain why him ranting and swearing on camera is more "trivial" than the fact that he has horses.Docsavage20 (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(OD)It's been done above by multiple editors, including myself. There's no point in arguing this here unless you can come up with something that satisfies the requirements for notability. Someone swears, and a disgruntled employee posts it to YouTube. It's not a big deal. Dayewalker (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Other crap exists is not a good argument in a debate. Really, it comes down to consensus. You want to add this bit of triviality in. It would appear that everybody else says it is trivia that does not belong. Policy says that this debate is pretty much moot as a result. But, to address one of your arguments - Trebek falling asleep at the wheel was reported in several reliable sources. This you tube clip was not. Resolute 22:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Another one who can't come up with something better than "everybody else says so". Deferring to the great collective, that's the spirit.Docsavage20 (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Deferring to consensus is precisely the spirit of Wikipedia. Ward3001 (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

And as cute and quick as it is to say, "other crap exists" isn't what I said. I said other information about the subject of the article that's of interest exists. As is becoming more apparent, the so-called "Spirit of Wikipedia" is consensus of some small number of folks whose primary qualification is having lots and lots of time to spend on Wikipedia and then decide what pattern of thought is acceptable and who gets into the Star Chamber. I'm seeing exactly why it has so many detractors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Docsavage20 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if you would edit other articles on wikipedia, you would understand more about what constitutes notability. There's a difference between actual relevant information, and...whatever this is. It's a non-notable blooper. Dayewalker (talk) 23:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this supposed to spawn a guilt trip? WP:CONSENSUS is policy. Out of everybody who's weighed in on this topic, both here and at WP:ANI, only you want it included. Reasons to exclude listed by the various people who have weighed in are WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:CONSENSUS. So far, I haven't seen an single one of these arguments refuted. Hey, it sucks when you end up on the wrong end of a consensus issue. It's happened to me too. I chose to accept it and move onto other topics rather than complain ineffectively about how much Wikipedia sucks because my viewpoint wasn't supported. Resolute 23:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

As I'm seeing proven as per allegations I've seen elsewhere, "policy", including incorrectly quoted policy means whatever those who spend lots of time here and have melded into this odd follow-the-leader clique decide it means. Though not to ignore that the policies themselves are a study in vagueness, ambiguity and general weasel-wording that lend themselves to just such capriciousness. No doubt part of why it's not accepted as a resource in many university classes and apparently generally not given much credibility. I thought maybe it was because of some kind of professional jealousy, but no, I see why. It's this odd, socialist-flavored exercise and works about as well. The difference between you and me is I'm coming to the realization that it isn't a worthwhile pursuit to be with the "in crowd" here. While certainly not an indictment of everyone on Wikipedia, it's somewhat darkly humorous that the one person I know of who's an identified (former) Wiki administrator and apparently made quite a Wiki career of pissing people off is now doing time for child molestation. It does give one pause.Docsavage20 (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you're saying that there is a relationship between being a being a child molester and being a Wikipedia admin, or between being a child molester and being "rejected" by the "in crowd" (as you and this other editor have been). I think perhaps it would be better to leave that question unanswered. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 03:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Bitter words and ultimately powerless. Wikipedia itself warns against using it as a resource, not that any of this is relevant. Your non sequitur regarding your child molesting acquaintance simply shows that you are lashing out for having not gotten your way. Ultimately, I believe you have missed the point of this project. The question before you now is whether you try to embrace the concept, whether you move on, or whether you choose to become disruptive. As the latter course is ultimately self-defeating, I wish you well in which of the first two paths you choose to take. As far as this present debate goes, it would seem that it has reached its conclusion. Resolute 04:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It obviously hit you where you live. So, if something's not relevant why say it? You demonstrate *exactly* the kind of compensating "sysop" mentality I'm quickly realizing is rampant in here. The original point related to Trebek is relatively minor - fact is millions are already aware of it with or without Wiki, but this has certainly been an eye-opener. Rant on, now I am in fact done with this topic.Docsavage20 (talk) 01:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

(OD)You have now passed the point of making a case for your opinion, and are now skating the edge of trolling. Please drop this matter. Dayewalker (talk) 03:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was already done, your netkopping is superfluous.Docsavage20 (talk) 11:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I agree with Docsavage. The clip is as relevant as any other piece of trivia about Alex Trebek. Michael Richards has some trivia about his recorded outbursts that run counter to the behavior of Kramer on his Wikipedia page and it seems pretty similar. The user Resolute said that it is as much of a matter of concensus as any other policy, and claims that only Docsavage wants it included. Well, I am only one more moron on the web, but I agree with Docsavage that it is of some interest to those researching Alex Trebek and it is factual (although how to cite it I am not sure) and on those basis it should be included. Personally I would be slightly put off by something like this in a "reputable encyclapaedia", but c'mon, this is Wikipedia! Dictated but not read. 192.249.47.163 (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Year Trebek hosted Wheel of Fortune.

This article claims Alex trebek hosted Wheel of fortune as "a substitute host in 1981," but according to this website, "For a brief time in the fall of 1979, Alex Trebek served as substitute host when Woolery took a leave of absence." Which of these sources is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.230.56 (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

Perhaps everybody's wondering why (on some occasions) Alex Trebek wears a cast over his right arm. Well, (this should be mentioned in the article) he had Carpal Tunnel Syndrome and had to have his right arm surgicaly treated.--70.240.249.205 (talk) 02:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Chris

Source? Ward3001 (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, Alex asked a question about carpal tunnel syndrome on an episode of The Dr. Oz Show in early 2010 and showed off the scars on his wrists. Robert K S (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

sajak

I took out the part about trebek and sajak being good friends. I was at a taping of Jeopardy and during a break Trebek did some Q&A with the audience. I specifically asked him if he and Sajak hung out ever. Trebek replied that they did not, in part because Sajak lives most of the time in Maryland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.16.9 (talk) 01:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Just because they don't "hang out" doesn't imply they can't be good friends. I don't think they spend their spare time cleaning out belly button lint and chomping on doughnuts--They have busy lives, family commitments, etc. I especially believe in the case of celebrities that they have many buddies; do you sincerely think someone like Regis Philbin tries to hang out with each friend of his at least once a year? He would be out on the town 24/7/365 if he tried to keep that up--would that leave him time for his professional commitments and family? Certainly not. Alex's response that Pat lives in Maryland only reinforces the idea that they don't have time; not because they're bitter enemies or had some sort of argument that killed their friendship. I hope you're not suggesting that you have to live really close to someone in order to be considered 'good friends'. Using that logic, people who have beloved immediate family members who live hundreds or thousands of miles away would be considered mere acquaintances. Obviously that kind of thinking is missing the point. But you were probably OK to remove the statement since there wasn't a source. But, anyone who finds any sources that indicate their friendship (I personally think they are friends, but don't know where to find verification), don't feel reluctant to put a statement about their friendship in there, and if people don't think it is relevant to the article, it can be discussed further. 67.182.237.57 (talk) 04:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Parodies

Does anyone else have trouble reading and understanding this section? Parts of it are so convoluted I can't even parse them. I wanted to clean it up a bit, but I decided against it because I can't even figure it out well enough to do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

No response, so I cleaned it up as best as I could.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Picture

Current photograph

Akrabbim's choice

I don't think the main picture currently in the infobox is the best one available. I changed it from this one to this one, but that was quickly reverted. The first one doesn't show his face that well – half of his face is obscured in the shadows, and he is squinting in the sun. The one I prefer is much clearer, and I think he is more easily recognizable. —Akrabbim^talk 19:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The reason why it was quickly reverted was because a change like this needs to be taken to the talk page (since we already have a free-use image of Trebek). Anyway, regarding this, I just realized that the image you chose was the image in the infobox before it was changed to the current image. I'm not sure why this was done in the first place. Anyone else with thoughts? MegastarLV (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)