Talk:Ken Jennings

Final results should be posted today

Reason: It doesn't f'ing matter. 20 hours or now, it makes no difference. Wikipedia's policy is to update results as soon as they're known, so this is it. We're now revising the article accordingly.

They are not *known* until the show has *aired on broadcast*. Please let us not get into canonicity arguments, ok? There was no discussion, and I *will* keep reverting it and go chase an admin down if I have to. Baylink 02:41, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I will not buy any edit on the final results until about noon or so eastern time, when I can actually feasibly believe the episode would air. Mike H 02:42, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

I totally agree. Please find an admin if required. --OntarioQuizzer 06:23, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On the other hand, it is perfectly appropriate to post said rumors in the "rumors" section UNTIL the actual airing which I have done so.

OntarioQuizzer, I am an admin. I see the results bit has been taken down from the main body and placed in rumors, which I totally agree with. Mike H 12:37, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm bummed that someone took down the spoiler warning before the final episode aired in Pacific time... Aion 05:08, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please stop making unhelpful and unnecessary changes

Editing of the $566,400 maximum winnings figure. It's CONFIRMED. No need to edit something already verified by Jeopardy officials.

Miscellaneous

What's with this table? Why is it appearing below the External Links instead of above it? Why didn't my footnote appear when I placed it between the bottom of the table and the external links? How can I get the footnote to appear below the table? RickK 05:00, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

The order is fixed, though the formatting could be cleaner. Salasks

I like the new setup of the table, it looks a lot better than the old one did.

I don't particularly like it. I think the border could stand to be thinner, but I'm fine with leaving it how it is. Aerion 00:28, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Any reason the dates in the table aren't wiki-linked? - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 13:27, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

I love this guy. Think of the contributions he could make to wikipedia! ; ) We should try to track down his e-mail—I'm sure an intellectual renaissance man like him would love this site if he doesn't already. Postdlf 13:18, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The article gives two different figures for the ratings jump. Can someone confirm, preferable w/ citation? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 14:52, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's 28%; it says so in the NYTimes article listed on the bottom of the page. Salasks 15:09, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- My bad. It was the blind guy who caused a 15% jump in ratings. Sorry bout that. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:14, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
  - Mine too, for not checking the linked article. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:15, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How were the Daily Doubles factored into the theoretical maximum? Does it assume they were the last things picked on the board or does it discount them entirely? Salasks 15:28, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User:Nunh-huh is the one who posted that, but I'd assume that the theoretical maximum means that the Daily Doubles were concealed underneath 200 and 400 squares, were the last squares selected, and were true Daily Doubles. Also, the user would have to wager everything in Final Jeopardy. The Jeopardy! article lists the maximum as $566,400. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:41, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

Using that logic I did:

1000*6=6000 800*6 =4800 600*6 =3600 400*6 =2400 200*4 =800 17600*2*2 =70400

2000*6=12000 1600*6=9600 1200*6=7200 800*6 =4800 400*4 =1600 105600*2*2 = 422400

Final Jeopardy = 844800 Salasks 16:34, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My bad, there's only one Daily Double in the first round. So then I agree with the 566,400 figure. I'm changing Salasks 16:45, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In order for Final Jeopardy to be reached, one other player must have money. Assume the other player answered the lowest possible value question ($200). The theoretical maximum is actually $563,200.

No. Final Jeopardy still takes place even if only one player has money. --OntarioQuizzer 23:28, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This discussion should really be conducted on Talk:Jeopardy!, so I've moved this anonymous comment to that page.

Clearly, the tinfoil-hat brigade is out in force, now. :-) Baylink 04:08, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Year of birth?

Two edits: one says 1973 the other says 1974. Do either of you have a source for this information? Pleas post. Jewbacca 03:00, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

My guess is that they're basing it off of his age (30), which is widely published in newspaper articles and the like. If he's 30, he could've been born in 1973 or 1974 - it's currently impossible to tell, so we should probably take that out. RADICALBENDER ★ 04:04, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I noticed it changed to 1974. Is there any verification of this to make sure this is correct? Quazywabbit 05:23, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My GF said she heard May 23, '74 somewhere, but I didn't see it on Google when I searched quickly - can anyone verify? cheater 15:33, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK, I verified myself thanks to a post on <http://www.livejournal.com/community/kenjennings/> - according to <http://rain.prohosting.com/kenjen/> Ken's birthday IS May 23, 1974. cheater 13:50, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ken Jennings...Gates? Larson?

A computer programmer, racking up lots of money, in what could (Figuratively) be described as a reign of terror? Seems to be a little bit too much Bill Gates influence there.

If not Bill Gates, it definitely reminds me of Michael Larson back when he was on Press Your Luck.

Ratings increase

What's the source for the new stat of a 41% audience increase? The NY Times said 28% just a couple days ago (see link to story in article). Postdlf 19:37, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

CNN lists a bunch of ratings numbers Salasks

I got the 62% from tvgameshows.net on 28July04 cheater 7:43, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Too many external links

Is that really Ken Jennings's website (the movie one)?

Yes, that is really Ken Jennings's website. --65.95.11.127 23:26, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is anyone watching Jennings on Jeoprady!?

Please I need to know if any Wikipedia member have been watching Jeporady! lately. Just poll here. WikiPediaAid

Yep, I've been Tivoing it every day. It's pretty quick cause you can skip through the boring bios of the inevitiably defeated competitors, and through all of the trebek schlock. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:10, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

I watch it on regular TV. I enjoy learning about the lives of the "competitors" before Ken and his dry wit rip their guts out. Salasks 16:39, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Regular TV here. Enjoying it every day. --OntarioQuizzer 23:29, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

5-day record (non-consecutive) - relevant?

Why is this record of any significance? I can understand that the consecutive 5-day is significant as that helps to compare to contestants from previous years. "Highest 5-game total on Jeopardy!, best 5 games: US $254,000 (games 7, 10, 28, 29, and 33)" Jewbacca 20:03, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

With the long-standing nature of the five-time undefeated champion rule, "five" has become something of a magic number in Jeopardy!. I was interested in seeing how his best 5 games stacked up in comparison, and I thought others would be as well. Jwolfe 05:01, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why is the comparison being made between old and new dollar values? The Daily Doubles and Final Jeopardy make the comparison impossible as I don't think there's any way a player would wager twice as much under the new system than they would the old. --OntarioQuizzer 23:33, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. Contestants that are leading going into Final Jeopardy! still usually wager enough to win by $1, even though the amounts are higher. Perhaps people were more conservative at first, but I suspect that difference has largely disappeared by now. If you adjust for inflation, the amount the contestants are winning is not really any higher than it was back when the question values were lower. And with shows like Millionaire, the amounts may seem much lower.

I still disagree here. Even though that is the case, people will wager to win by $1, in the record-breaking scenarios, you have players with huge leads going into Final Jeopardy. Also, if you look at Frank Spangenberg's 5th game, the one where he scored $30,600 on January 15, 1990. Frank made Daily Double wagers of $4,000 and $7,000, and a Final Jeopardy! wager of $10,100. Nobody in their right mind is going to make Daily Double wagers of $8,000 and $14,000 under the new system when leading -- you might see one of Ken's opponents try it, but that's a desperation Hail Mary. Also, you're not going to see many people wager over $20,000 in Final Jeopardy unless they have to to guarantee a victory. Therefore, you simply can not make any sort of true comparison between old and new dollar values. --OntarioQuizzer 14:41, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Spangenberg holds the all-time record for the pre-doubling era, so his wagering can hardly be considered typical. He wagered aggressively and it worked out for him. Jennings, on the other hand, has been remarkably conservative in his betting, considering how well he has been doing. He has gone on record as saying he has been avoiding breaking the one-day record. He said that he thought it would cheapen the record to just break it by a small amount like $1. Still, he had a wide enough margin earlier this week to bet $7,200 on a Daily Double.

If you look at Jennings' best 5 consecutive games (26-30), he won $216,000 which "adjusts" to $108,000, or more than Spangenberg won in his run. So it's certainly possible for someone to break Spangenberg's record using an adjusted scale, because Jennings has done it. He just didn't do it in the first five games, like Spangenberg had to, so he shows up lower in my comparison.

Oops, forgot to sign it. Jwolfe 06:47, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC) (time stamp should be 09:41, 21 Jul 2004)

I think the comparison provides a good perspective on the game over its long run. How would Spangenberg have done with an unlimited run? We'll never know, of course, but remember he lost at least three tournaments (his ToC, Super Jeopardy!, and the Masters Tournament). Jwolfe 05:01, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Tournament of Champions

Does it specifically say in the rules that if Ken is undefeated by the end of the 2004 season he can't be in the tournament until the next season? Obviously it wasn't an issue before the removed the 5 day limit, but it seems to me that if he wins enough in each of two consecutive seasons he could qualify to be in both tournaments. I'm not sure if they ever took this into consideration when they changed the rules last year. Also there is a statement on the Jeopardy! talk page that they abolished the ToC entirely, though I have been unable to get confirmation of this. Anyone else heard this? -R. fiend 22:15, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Tournament of Champions for fall 2004 has already been taped. Whether Ken is in the field or not, nobody's talking. --OntarioQuizzer 23:31, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Also, what if he continues to be a contestant through 2004 and 2005? The mention of the year at all seems unnecessary and possibly incorrect. anthony (see warning)

I have a vague recollection that a contestant was once a five time undefeated champion in a period spanning seasons. Perhaps my memory is faulty, but it makes sense that a contestant wouldn't "return" for the ToC until after that contestant had actually "left". Jwolfe 04:37, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This case is clearly different from Jennings'; obviously that player couldn't be in the tournament the first year because he hadn't won five games at the close of the season, and they certainly couldn't assume he would be a five time champion until he actually won his fifth game. Therefore he clearly had to wait for the following year's tournament. Jennings is a five time champion (to say the least) this season, which, by the old rules, would qualify him for the tournament this year, and if he has five victories next year he may well qualify for that tournament too. I'm not sure if that's the way it works now with the no-limit rule, but unless they specify otherwise it well could be. Anyone know for sure? Also, this begs the question what if he's champion for the entire next season (which is highly unlikely, I'd like to add)? I suppose they wouldn't have a tournament at all, which would mean he'd lose out on another chance to grab $250,000. Not that I'd feel sorry for him. -R. fiend 03:47, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I believe the rule for populating the ToC is all 5-time champions, then the best of the 4-time champions, then 3-time champions etc. until a roster of 15 players is reached. I guess if you don't even have 15 players that won a game in a season, you'd probably just cancel the ToC and do it next year. Or, bring back the best "losers" of the games to fill the roster. - Grum0613

Most consecutive appearances on a game show

I changed this record, there's proof at this page- [1]. BillyH 00:51, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think we should keep the "Tic Tac Dough" record, saying it's the biggest record by a major game show, or by an American game show. Salasks 03:25, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I put the record back with the qualification of "syndicated," since we already had a syndicated/overall split for total winnings. As I read the web page I found from the above link, 100% appears on Channel 5 in the UK, which is network, not syndicated. Jwolfe 10:07, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Syndicated Game Show

Is Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? classified as a syndicated game show as Jeopardy! would be? He has broke the Jeopardy! total but am unsure if he has broken the syndicated total if we include Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? as a syndicated game show.

There are two versions of millionaire. The syndicated one has a female host instead of Reeg. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 04:05, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

Trademarks?

Some of these "trademarks" are a bit of a stretch. He asks the question in a questioning tone when he's not sure of the answer, as most contestants do when basically making a guess. As for betting just $1 more than his nearest opponent's score doubled, well, if i had a dollar in my pocket for every contestant who did that I'd be about as rich as Ken. -R. fiend 01:04, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This trademark is also untrue for Ken. In the June 29th game, Ken did *not* follow this strategy - He wagered $10,800 when your strategy dictates $3,201. If you want I will get into why he did it, but it's a long discourse in Jeopardy wagering strategy. --OntarioQuizzer 15:30, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes please! Sounds interesting. I didn't catch that game, so I don't know the circumstances. By the way, Jeopardy! wagering strategies would make an interesting article or section in the Jeopardy! article. --Benc 00:39, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

The pre-Final Jeopardy! scores were: Ken at $29,200, Alan at $16,200 and Laura at $600. The reason for Ken's wagering of that particular number ($10,800) should be obvious to all of us at this point; he ended that day with a total of $40,000. Ken MUST bet at least $3,201 to seal the win if he answers correctly, and less than $13,000 in order to seal the win if Alan answers incorrectly. To wager outside this range would be stupid, which Jeopardy champions usually are not, especially this one. Alan, knowing this, can bet $13,000 - $3,200 = $9,800 at a minimum in order to ensure that he overtakes Ken if Ken is wrong and he is right. So if Ken bets between $3,201 and $12,999 (inclusive), and Alan bets at least $9,800, then no matter what the precise amount of their wagers, the four following scenarios apply: (1) both right => Ken wins; (2) both wrong => Ken wins; (3) Ken right, Alan wrong => Ken wins; (4) Ken wrong, Alan right => Alan wins. Neither player will dare to wager outside the prescribed ranges, because they then compromise their chances to win. And so it is more or less irrelevant what the exact number wagered is by either player; the wager changes only the amount of money won, not the actual winner. So the "traditional" bet of $3,201 is the lowest possible safe bet, usually made in order to minimize the risk of losing cash. And so Ken, possibly being comfortable with the subject of "Children's Lit," chose to wager as much as he could safely do while still satisfying that need for trailing zeros.

With all that said, Jeopardy! wagering strategy really isn't a terribly interesting subject when there are only two real competitors. There is a clear equilibrium strategy that both players will almost always follow in order to achieve a 3:1 advantage for the player who is leading before Final Jeopardy! (The 3:1 figure being valid only if the category is "Things That Nobody Knows But That Everybody Guesses Right Exactly Half The Time By Independent Blind Luck"). Once a third person becomes a contender, it does get a little more interesting. If all this interests you, perhaps you should explore game theory? Aerion 03:40, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Spoiler policy revision

First of all, let me state that I have made no edits to this page under my name or any other (including anonymously). However, I may wish to do so in the future, and, as an East Coast viewer, I'd like to get the spoiler policy clarified. I understand and respect the West Coast viewers' desire not to be spoiled, but at the same time I don't quite agree with the current .

East Coasters should not have to juggle time zones if they want to contribute to the article, and some West Coasters may want to know the results ahead of time. More importantly, when (and if :-)) Ken finally loses, you'd better believe that that information will make it to this page straight away. I foresee massive revert wars. And Ken Jenning's losing will be national news; there is absolutely no good reason why the Wikipedia should be forced to lag hours behind the news media.

My solution: add a {{spoiler}} or some other appropriate message in front of the winnings. West Coasters not wishing to be spoiled can simply not visit the Ken Jennings page. If they simply want the most recent page minus today's results, I propose creating a Ken Jennings/Spoiler-free page, to be maintained by spoiler-sensitive West Coasters. This page would simply be a mirror of the main page, but not updated for the current show until after it airs on the West Coast.
--Benc 05:10, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

If West Coasters don't want to have the results spoiled, they shouldn't visit the page during the time between East Coast and West Coast airings. Plenty of people want to know the results as soon as they're available. Anyone who doesn't want to know the result can simply read the page earlier in the day or after Jeopardy airs in their time zone.

This is actually a fairly common thing for all TV shows -- even the Jeopardy! forums carry pretty much the same spoiler policy. It's only fair that the total be updated at 11:00 PM Eastern. Why do *you* have to be the one that puts the new total up anyway? Is it some sort of competition? --OntarioQuizzer 15:32, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This is an online collaborative encyclopedia; one of its main purposes is to have correct and up-to-date facts and figures. Wikipedia is not a message board, so the Jeopardy! forums' spoiler rules do not apply here. As for your question about competition, please read the first sentence in my original comment. I'm not interested in beating anyone to the punch; I just don't want to see a bunch of nitpicky revert wars when a simple solution (a Ken Jennings/Spoiler-free page) exists. --Benc 18:13, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

I think I agree with Benc. We should just put a {{spoiler}} tag at the top. However, these recent edits are obviously vandalism, as they are made before 7:30 EST. One thing that is dangerous is that there is a three hour period in which a lot of contributors will not want to look at the page for fear of spoilers, and we will potentially have less eyes guarding from vandalism during that period. It's a tough call, but in the end, this is an encyclopedia, not a fan page. The correct thing to do is post the information as soon as it is available. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:44, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

Please note that on my local Boston station, for example, Jeopardy comes on at 5:30 PM, so by 6:00 PM EDT the final results are known, and I see no reason why someone shouldn't post them at that time. And, having just caught the end of today's episode I can verify that the results posted by an anonymous contributer earlier are correct. I find it sort of odd that a person who doesn't want the results spoiled makes a habit of obessively checking the posted results here in order to revert them. As others have said, it's very easy not to read the Jennings article if you don't want to know the results. I'll watch this page for true vandalism in that 5 hour period when I can. -R. fiend 22:18, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oops, i didn't mean to assume about the time thing. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:38, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

I think we should have a vote on this, because it angers me to see that some people are trying to censor this page! This is an encyclopedia, not some sort of message board with restrictions. Who is with me? Earl Andrew 00:05, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Censor!?? We're talking about containing your need to update the page for a few hours. Censoring would be not allowing any results on the page at all. Leave your dramatics at the door. Jewbacca 00:09, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

How about just posting the spoiler information in the discussion group until 7:30PST ? Quazywabbit 00:10, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The problem is pretty much irrelevant for the next six weeks. However, I support the idea of a spoiler warning. It seems like a simpler, more elegant and more practical solution than what we currently have. Aerion 00:21, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've created a poll at the bottom of the page. Six weeks should be enough time to resolve this issue. Earl Andrew 00:26, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Records

I updated the items in the Records section to include both the current record Ken has and the previous record that Ken broke. That's unwieldy as a long term solution, because you have to update the daily totals in many places. I propose changing the records section to tables, such as the following:

Jennings has already broken or tied the following records:

Description	Current Record	Previous Record
Most consecutive appearances on Jeopardy!	37 episodes	7 episodes, by Tom Walsh in 2004
Highest total winnings on Jeopardy! in non-tournament play	US $1,246,660	US $184,900 by Tom Walsh in 2004
Highest total winnings on Jeopardy! including tournaments		US $1,155,102 by Brad Rutter in 2001-2002
Highest total winnings on a syndicated game show		US $1,155,102 by Brad Rutter on Jeopardy! in 2001-2002
Highest total winnings in one day on Jeopardy!	US $52,000	tied (three times) with Brian Weikle, April 14, 2003
Highest 5-game total on Jeopardy!, consecutive	US $216,000 (games 26-30)	US $154,200 by Tom Walsh (games 3-7) in 2004
Highest 5-game total on Jeopardy!, best 5 games	US $256,000 (games 7, 10, 28, 29, and 37)	US $154,200 by Tom Walsh (games 3-7) in 2004

Jeopardy! host Alex Trebek often mentions the other possible records that Jennings could break. Included in the records Jennings still has ahead of him (not all of which Trebek has mentioned):

Description	Current Record
Most consecutive appearances on a syndicated game show	46 days by Thom McKee on Tic Tac Dough in 1980
Most consecutive appearances on a game show	75 days by Ian Lygo on 100% in 1998
Highest total winnings on a game show	US $2,180,000 by Kevin Olmstead on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? in 2001

What does everyone think?

Jwolfe 07:27, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Much cleaner and easier to read, even if it does seem to take up a lot of space on the page. I vote in favor. A few minor things (which I'm sure you were planning on doing later anyway):

Omit the redundant "previously" and "currently" in the rightmost columns.
The ? should be something like "unknown; please edit this page if you find the answer".
Wikify links. :-)

--Benc 07:59, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

Looks cool, but i would remove the word "previously" from the "previous records" column, as it is redundant. Anything you can do to reduce the width of the table is good, because wide tables are kind of annoying. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:49, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed the "previously" and "currently" thing after I posted it. I also noticed that I managed to unwikify the text when I copied it over. Those two things will have to be fixed in the real version, but I didn't want to spend a lot of time fine-tuning something that might never exist on the real page. The "?" items we can probably determine from the Jeopardy! web site, but I didn't want to do the research until we decided to go with the tables. I'm not sure what we can do about the width issue. Right now your browser is using the cell contents to determine the width automatically, and because of the text it ends up being the full width. Forcing it to be otherwise could create problems with some browsers or screen dimensions. Jwolfe 16:41, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The wide tables aren't a deal breaker for me, I was just commenting that removing "previously" would help out there. I support the move to tables. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:49, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

I updated the tables with the proposed changes. I even did the research for the consecutive 5 day record. Let me know if I missed anything or if something else could be added. Jwolfe 17:23, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"The theoretical maximum win for a single day of Jeopardy! is $566,400, but this requires choosing all of the daily doubles last and that they're placed behind lowest-value clues, which the odds are 3,288,600 to 1 against." This sentence implies placement of the daily doubles is random, which I'm sure it isn't, as well as the order in which people uncover clues (again, clearly not random). Is there another way of asserting the improbability of this occurring? Though a salute the use of math needed to calculate this occurance.-R. fiend 04:44, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As mentioned at this location (http://www.tvgameshows.net/jep9-9-04.htm), Ken is one wrong Final Jeopardy question away from tying another record. If he blows his 5th consecutive Final Jeopardy question in a row (on Friday September 10th), he'll tie the record held by Faith Love (November 2002) for most consecutive failed Final Jeopardy questions. Considering how hard it is to actually appear in 5 consecutive Final Jeopardy rounds (you have to win 4 games in a row), this should be added to his record list (if it happens).

Teetotaler?

Mormons typically do not drink alcohol so I'd say that saying someone is a Mormon and a teetotaler is redundant and odd especially since the article seems ignorant of the connection between the two. Would you also call someone who is Islamic a teetotaler as if it were an independant characteristic?

I would say to leave it only because, when asked about his knowledge of alcoholic beverages by Alex Trebek one time, he did say that it was ironic because he was a "teetotaler". If it were only because of being mormon, he would have just supplied that as his rationale. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:53, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

I second the notion of leaving teetotaler and Mormon separate. While the LDS church (and many other churches) asks this behavior of their members, many members see non-use of alcohol as a seperate issue from religion, per say. After all, Jesus turned water into wine, so clearly a blanket condemnation of alcohol is not strictly correct. However, avoiding alcohol and other drugs can be seen as a reasonable act outside of religions - to avoid addiction, be more alert and able, etc. For the record, I am also a teetotaler (but not Mormon).--KBrown 15:09, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Poll

Notice: this poll ends at 23:59 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This poll is to decide what the spoiler policy should be for the Ken Jennings article. Additionally, the results of this poll may serve as a precedent for other articles' spoiler policies, if the subject of those articles is in a similar situation (i.e., new syndicated shows) as this one.

Background: Since Jeopardy! is a syndicated show, the most recent episode is aired at different times throughout the world. U.S. East Coast viewers get the results several hours before West Coast viewers. Viewers in other countries may have to wait even longer. The problem is that while some viewers don't want to be spoiled by knowing the results of the show before it airs in their areas, other viewers want to be able to add the latest results to Wikipedia without having their work reverted, only to be re-added in a few hours. See also: Talk:Ken_Jennings#Spoiler_policy_revision, Wikipedia:Spoiler_warning

The question to be answered by this poll is: What should the spoiler policy be for updating this article?

Option 1

No updates are to be made until 7:30pm Pacific Time (10:30pm Eastern Time)

--OntarioQuizzer 10:36, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Jwolfe 07:12, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Postdlf 13:40, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Salasks 14:18, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Option 2

Updates are to be made as soon as the information is known, with a spoiler notice at the top of the page

Earl Andrew 00:14, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
R. fiend 11:38, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Carrp 14:07, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Benc 04:46, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
Yath 21:33, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Aerion 04:47, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:31, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
cheater 11:51, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:52, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)
TomPreuss 13:17, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Option 3

Two pages should be created, one with updated information, one without

Option 4

This is a ridiculous thing to be arguing about

anthony (see warning) 14:05, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Smartass option. :) Neutrality 04:39, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:52, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)

Comments

I would vote for option 2. It seems silly to have two nearly identical pages (pages that will, in fact, be identical 19 hours of each day). However, I would prefer that the single condition be that the page is only changed sometime the same day that the games are broadcast. If some insider leaks information months in advance I would rather not stumble upon it here (I feel this is unlikely anyway). Nevertheless, I think people being asked not to view this page for 5 hours out of the day if they don't want results spoiled is not too much to ask. -R. fiend 01:34, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ken Jennings: Super Genius or Soviet Robot?

You decide!

Hmm. In either case, he's still fun to watch. :-) --Benc 09:39, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

Note: this poll lacked an ending date, so I set it to one week after its creation. I also took the liberty of rewrting the intro, and numbering the existing votes. And I added the poll to Wikipedia:Current_polls. --Benc 09:39, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

Old intro (by Earl Andrew, 00:14, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)):

I figure since this is a hot issue, and the subject of many reverts on the page, I will start a poll. The question is, should we allow updates to this page as soon as the information becomes known, or should we wait until every time zone in the world (let's not forget there are other countries out there than the US too) gets to watch it?

Article Update changes

Ok, following the results of the poll above, this article from now on will be updated as soon as results are known, and there will be a spoiler warning message added to the very top of the article text.

Can someone possibly explain to me how the results from *today's* Jeopardy! episode are *already* known at 8:00 AM Eastern? Please? --OntarioQuizzer 14:30, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Apparently there is a source in Germany that is able to update so early? cheater 16:49, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

News articles about Jennings' end

http://www.nynewsday.com/entertainment/ny-etjenn0909,0,1515441.story?coll=nyc-enthome-headlines New York Newsday is reporting when Ken Jennings will lose, and the amount of money he will have when he lost. Should we add that to the encyclopedia?

No. New York Newsday uses TV Week as a source, whose reporter used Jason Kottke's blog as a source. Jason Kottke has an informant whose story doesn't add up quite as properly as it should. Additionally, the taping dates are mixed up. Some stories are say Wednesday, others Tuesday. Plus, is it a good idea to post just based on rumour? --OntarioQuizzer 19:18, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Question: The article says two sources. Phillip, informing Jason Kottke is one. Who's the second? --OntarioQuizzer 13:53, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is being published in legitimate newspapers and is perfectly acceptable in Wikipedia so long as it is attributed. anthony (see warning) 14:16, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I can confirm that Jennings has lost as of early September, and had won more than $2.6 million. I cannot confirm exact days or totals, but I imagine the rumors are largely true, as they seem to be correct so far. I can also state that the person who beat him (evidently a woman) did not not continue any sort of streak that could in any way compare to Ken's. -R. fiend 17:46, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jennings denying rumor?

Ken Jennings actually didn't deny the rumor -- he can't confirm or deny it, since he's tethered to a hyper-strict confidentiality agreement with the show. I don't really know how to rephrase the relevant sentence, however, since I think we do need to show that there is some doubt about the rumor's authenticity... --zenohockey 19:11, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Opponents' names list

I assume that the parentheses and the explanation that the opponent was "unable to write Final Jeopardy" means that the player was eliminated at the end of Double Jeopardy for lack of money, am I correct? Unable to "write" sounds awkward and misleading. Could it be changed to "unable to compete in" or "ineligable to compete in"? Otherwise it sounds like they just drew a blank or their pen didn't work or something. -R. fiend 04:40, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ineligible it is. Thanks! cheater 18:12, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jennings vs Lygo?

I don't understand this sentence:

Regardless, Jennings would tie Ian Lygo on his 75th appearance if he lasts, and Lygo won and was retired by producers.

Several elements make this sentence unclear -- passive voice, compound architecture, jargon phrase "retired by producers," etc. As best I can tell, the author is saying that (1) both Jennings and Lygo appeared 75 times, (2) that Lygo won his 75th game, and (3) that Jennings lost his 75th game. Whether or not that interpretation is correct, the sentence needs a re-write from someone who knows what it's supposed to say. Cribcage 16:32, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What are Humorous Anecdotes

Funny Things During Ken's Reign on Jeopardy

Answer: "A 1997 court case made this term for African American English widely known" Ken: "What be Ebonics?" (From Brian)

Alex mentioned that "Lawyers" (like Ken's Dad) "make great Jeopardy contestents - they get a broad education and are trained to think quickly on their feet." Ken replied, "and they're good at separating people from their money."

Alex asked, "What are you going to do after Jeopardy?" Ken answered: "I can now be on TV shows with other 'C' list celebrities." and looked at Alex.

Alex "Tell us some deep, dark secret about yourself." Ken "I killed a man down South once."

Written as an answer to a Final Jeopardy Question by a Ken opponent "What is whatever Ken wrote."

I think that's actually "What is same as Ken's answer?" - see JEOPARCHIVE! June 16, 2004 Aerion 20:40, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Alex "Which two opponents from history would you think would make a good game?" Ken "Thomas Jefferson and Oscar Wilde" Alex "... Why ...?" Ken "They always say that Thomas Jefferson was the smartest President. 'How well would you do on Jeopardy, Declaration Boy?'"

--Contributed by User:65.126.6.238

I also remember him answering some question about a historical Spanish figure with "Quien es ..." They accepted that answer as well. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:50, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Maximum winnings in one day - adjustment needed again?

I'm beginning to think that the tidbit in the "Daily winnings" section regarding the maximum possible amount won in a single day may need to be revised yet again.

During my time watching Jeopardy! as Ken has been on there, I have NEVER seen a Daily Double hidden beneath the two lowest values in a category ($200 and $400 in first round, $400 and $800 in second round). In fact, whenever Ken goes on his characteristic hunt for a yet-to-be-found Daily Double, he always starts at the middle value in the category ($600 in first round, $1200 in second round) and works down the category towards the highest value, as he did today.

If indeed this is how Daily Doubles are applied to the board, then the amounts quoted as being the maximum winnable in a single day are incorrect since they are calculated using the assumption the Daily Doubles are placed under the lowest value. 207.177.12.182 20:21, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think there's sufficient justification to make a change at this time -- the current numbers reflect the maximum theoretical limit based on what we know. If we knew for a fact that Daily Doubles were never placed on lowest-numbered clues, or that there were other limitations in place, then the figures could be adjusted accordingly, but not based merely on an observed pattern from a limited number of episodes. I'm fairly certain I've seen Daily Doubles on lowest-valued clues once or twice before. Even if all clue values aren't equally weighted in terms of Daily Double selection, that doesn't neccessarily mean that they'll never show up there - there could be some kind of distribution curve in which the lowest values are much less likely to be selected than the higher values. In that case, the theoretical maximum is unchanged, but it becomes even more astronomically unlikely that it'd actually happen. --63.190.112.66 20:16, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm quite sure there's nothing in the rules stating that daily doubles are never the lowest value clues. That being said, I have never seen them there, and wouldn't be surprised if they never have been. Nevertheless, as the above user stated, it doesn't matter because it's all theoretical. No one would ever risk all their money on final jeopardy when they already were guaranteed a quarter million and a chance to come back and earn that again. It's basically a meaningless figure, but it is a mathematical fact. The daily doubles are not placed randomly; they are specific clues written to be daily doubles, and written to be specific values in terms of their difficulty, usually being the somewhat more difficult ones. Therefore using math to calculate the probability of a "perfect game" is also meaningless, and probably doesn't even deserve mention. Anyway, the official jeopardy book lists the same value we list as the theoretical maximum, so I'm thinking we have it right. -R. fiend 05:49, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're right, the Daily Doubles can appear anywhere on the board, because the other day one was located under a $800 clue in Double Jeopardy!, which blows my theory out of the water. Torin Darkflight 05:14, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

Airdate of Ken's 'loss'

Unless someone is sure of the exact date Ken will lose it's best not to be too specific. My calculations (based on the tape date of his loss) put the air date in early December. If that contradicts other's calculations then one should keep in mind special themed weeks which may fall in between (such as last weeks "kid's week"), or other potential factors. In any case, I'm changing it back to "November or December". -R. fiend 02:36, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My calculations put the alleged loss earlier than that. However, because I'm against posting the exact date of the alleged loss, I'm not going to say which day it will be. --OntarioQuizzer 05:37, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Are there any special themed weeks coming up? If not then his 75th appearance should fall on November 17th. -- DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:28, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

It's certain to be in Dec because the College Tournament will take two weeks, according to Jeopardy! commercials. I doubt there will be another theme week between that and Ken's loss after that.

Game 67- Nov 5 Game 68- Nov 8 Game 69- Nov 9 Game 70- Nov 24? Game 71- Nov 25 Game 72- Nov 26 Game 73- Nov 29 Game 74- Nov 30 Game 75- Dec 1 at earliest

Game 68 aired on November 6th (the 7th in Canada). Yes, this was on a weekend. --OntarioQuizzer 11:20, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I think the college tournament was just taped a couple weeks ago, well after Ken's loss, and won't air until late December or January. -R. fiend 15:34, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Recent TV ads announce the college tournament beginning this Wednesday, November 10. Confirmed here. Aerion 05:40, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Guess I'm wrong then, though that does basically confirm what I said all along, in that Ken's loss wouldn't air until December. Still, I thought they taped the college tournament around Sept. 21. I wonder if they ever air these things non-chronolgically. Maybe it's the high school tournament that will be aired in Decemeber/January; there's something going on then. -R. fiend 05:47, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is no way to know right now if Ken will lose or not. Besides, I don't think rumors that were true would be allowed in the press. Marcus2 22:25, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

He WILL lose by early December; that is fact. As for the rumors, well, who's to stop them? And do you mean to imply that false rumors would be allowed? Jeopardy has a stake in having the date of his loss be approxiamtely known. The ratings for Ken's defeat should be about their best ever, but it doesn't do them any good if people don't know about it until after it airs. -R. fiend 22:58, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Concur: they need to fight as hard as possible to keep it from getting out... and lose. :-) I was told just tonight that someone had seen a rumor concerning *tonight* in the NYT, but since I don't see it here, I assume TiVo won't provide me with any surprises. Even though it isn't TiVo, it's MythTV

Detailed statistics

I have posted an external link to the source of my Ken Jennings detailed statistics data that was previously on the table. Please do not post the compiled statistics themselves to the article, just use the link. --OntarioQuizzer 18:36, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ken should lose on...

These are my calculations for when Ken should lose, based on the currently-known episode schedule:

Date	Episode #
Tuesday Nov 9	#70
Nov 10-23	College Tournaments
Wednesday Nov 24	#71
Thursday Nov 25	#72
Friday Nov 26	#73
Nov 27-28	Weekend
Monday Nov 29	#74
Tuesday Nov 30	#75

So, if this schedule holds up (Which means no more theme weeks, and no show-postponing events occur), and the rumors are true, then Ken will lose on November 30, exactly three weeks from today.

Except that the 24th, 25th and 26th are the days around Thanksgiving and I bet Jeopardy! either broadcasts reruns or nothing at all rather than being preempted by local content. I don't know why else they would start a tournament in the middle of the week... If that's true, that would put the notorious episode 75 on Friday, December 3. RADICALBENDER ★ 22:00, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jeopardy's broadcast first-runs every other season over Thanksgiving. Why stop now? --OntarioQuizzer 22:04, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

According to the DirecTV programming guide listing our local channels for Thanksgiving day, a new episode of Jeopardy IS to be broadcast, it's just being pushed back to a later time. Although, I imagine the decision to preempt the Thanksgiving-day episode is up to the individual local broadcasters, so some may see a new episode that day, while others will either see it a day late, or might not see it at all. Perhaps a note regarding this should be added? Torin Darkflight 21:06, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

In Los Angeles, the 74th episode was shown on the 27th. Was that the case in other areas?

No, it wasn't the 74th, it was the 73rd—preemption due to Monday Night Football pushed all episodes in LA back a day this week. --DanielNuyu 05:31, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, it would have been the 72nd in that case. The 74th episode is scheduled to air 11/29. --OntarioQuizzer 08:20, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay, what I've meant to say is that in LA, instead of the 73rd airing on Friday (as it was in other markets), it aired on Saturday (all episodes of the week aired one day later—perhaps I should have said 'forward' instead of 'back'). --DanielNuyu 22:59, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's fine, just as a warning: KABC plans to air game 74 at 9:30pm on 11/29. --OntarioQuizzer 08:14, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, and given the fact that they haven't shown an episode on a Monday for weeks since this week is all the more indication for me that Ken will lose on Tuesday; they want to make sure LA can see the 75th on Tuesday with everyone else. --DanielNuyu 02:47, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Any allegations of cheating?

I hate to be the first person to ask, but are there any rumors on the game being rigged in any way? It is just entertainment, so the producers aren't obligated to be truthful. Survivors weren't all spontaneous, even when it advertized itself as reality TV...

I guess it's just in my nature to be skeptical. madoka 04:56, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the producers are obligated to be truthful -- thanks to the late '50s game show scandals, we can be sure of that. Also, there are no substantiated allegations of the game being rigged -- and there is no way a show that has been on for 20 years would risk such a thing...The game is honest and Ken is definitely THAT good. --OntarioQuizzer 20:00, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

50s game show scandal? Interesting. Do you have more information on that? madoka 18:20, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I think it might be mentioned in an online encyclopedia: Quiz show scandals -R. fiend 18:24, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As a former Jeopardy! participant, I can tell you from first-hand knowledge that they are very meticulous to avoid any hints of impropriety. Alex doesn't talk to the contestants except for what you see on camera. Only two people from the show have any dealings with the contestants, and they do not have any knowledge of the questions or answers. Contestants and those waiting to go on in later shows (they tape 5 a day) are sequestered, even at lunch. Rick K 21:49, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

College Championships

Any idea why the College Championships is starting on a Wednesday instead of a Monday? Rick K 21:49, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

They want to avoid the Finals of the tournament running into Thanksgiving. Also, the thought of a Monday-Tuesday final invites more suspense and build-up over a weekend. --OntarioQuizzer 01:55, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

They did the same for the Masters Tournament when they ran that - perhaps a Monday-Tuesday final allows more time for dramatic build-up ... or something like that. Aerion 21:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rumor

Removed:

"There was also a previous rumor that Jennings lost his 38th game, intentionally, due to his rivalry with Trebek, but this rumor has since proven unfounded."

Is there any source for this? And how if it was proven unfounded, why is it notable enough to be mentioned in the article? Angela . 12:15, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Archive?

Can someone archive the earlier Discussion? I'm not entirely sure with the process. --OntarioQuizzer 05:49, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ken's name

Ken's father definitely signs his correspondence as Kenneth Jennings. Thereby, I do feel it is safe to assume that Ken's full name is also Kenneth. I haven't updated the article with this though, as I feel that it would be best to use the Talk page to discuss this and reach some sort of consensus. --OntarioQuizzer 05:49, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Quote?

Shouldn't this last entry ( 27 Nov 216.126.237.153 (Talk) (Quotes) ) belong in Wikiquote? --DanielNuyu 05:02, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For that matter, should there even be a Quotes section, given the article includes a link to the Ken Jennings entry on Wikiquote? Torin Darkflight 05:24, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. The Quote section should be part of Wikiquote. --OntarioQuizzer 08:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay—I will move it to Wikiquote then. --DanielNuyu 02:46, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is true, he lost in the 75th game

Marketplace from American Public Radio reported the rumor was true, that he lost the game. So, a real estate dealer tried to beat Jennings.

Article cleanup

The most obvious thing that I don't think needs to be in this article is the listing of people who will be in the next Tournament of Champions. That should be put in its own article, if it should be put anywhere at all, especially since the list is incomplete and inconclusive. Other things that need to be cleaned up are the numerous occurences of the present tense and other phrases that imply that the streak is ongoing. Aerion 05:01, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)