Talk:Ken Jennings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ken Jennings article.
Article policies
TV
Television Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-Importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
This article is part of WikiProject Television Game Shows, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to game shows on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Ken Jennings has a significant affiliation with Brigham Young University and is therefore a part of WikiProject Brigham Young University. If you would like to participate in this project, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary on the talk page to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] Table formatting

I wasn't too pleased to see that someone had changed the formatting of the Game summaries table. The old format was PERFECTLY FINE. Why f' it up? Now it's so long that it takes a lot of scrolling; besides, the old format didn't even stretch the page. Revert it. 67.161.57.4

Well, that was me. I thought this looked better--breaking the lines at the beginning of the second challenger's name etc. I don't see why it's longer; there are the same number of entries, and the regular entries still take two lines. It isn't wider either (on my browser), but the only way I can see to shrink a column is to abbreviate the long months in the Air Dates: September-->Sept., etc.
—wwoods 05:04, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It's incorrect to say "the regular entries still take two lines," because they did not necessarily take two lines before. They did not in my case. I was not the person who complained originally, but I see their point. Jwolfe 08:20, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Aesthetically, the table is more consistent now, at least for users with lower resolutions. However, I think this table should be as compact as possible so as to reduce clutter of the page. At some point we may even consider moving it to a separate page. Things like reducing the width of the third column (it's much wider than most of the dates right now because of long phrases such as "Monday, July 26 to Friday, September 3") and not forcing the entries to be two lines each would be nice. Aerion 16:24, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Length and repetition

This article has really gotten bloated, and it's repeating information: his final episode is described twice. Mightn't one want to have an article on Game show records or something for some of this? At the very least the article should be organized better so there isn't so much repetition. -R. fiend 16:51, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was kind of waiting for the excitement to die down before starting cleanup. There were over 100 edits on the day he lost, and about half that the next day. It certainly needs some work after all of that hodge-podge of updates. My pet peeve is that included among his "winnings" is the consolation prize he got for losing (and the other people listed aren't handled similarly). Jwolfe 18:13, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Probably a good idea. Give it a couple days. Hopefully by then people will also stop trying to get in on the ground floor of documenting "the next Ken Jennings", which they all assume the person who beat him, or the person who beat the person who beat him, ad nauseam will be, when actually there's a huge turnover in the next few weeks. It's amazing how many Jeopardy contestant articles are being written, just to end up on VfD. -R. fiend 19:40, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Should be cleaned up soon. I assume the enormous tables should be the things to go first. Is there somewhere else where these might be salvaged, or are they not of much use? Euphoria 19:43, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, if you want to get rid of all the tables I think you'll find you're in for quite a fight. I think they're a bit on the granular side, but obviously many think not. I suggest putting the information on the records he broke in a separate article on Game show records or something, which can have information on all sorts of stuff like this (though I can fully see how such an aticl emight get out of hand). Some all around pruning needs to be done. -R. fiend 20:51, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the repetition and length. Also, how many hyperlinks do you really need in the Biography?? akghetto 03:25, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Real Versus Perceived Loss Date

Anyone care to include the actual timeline in the story? Jeopardy records several games per day and airs them one day at a time. Ken Jennings lost on about Sept. 9th. Jeopardy had aired 41 of Kens games and was currently airing reruns of a previous season when the loss occured. The general public had to wait several months and 37 Jennings games to finally see him lose on November 30th.

Is this story about the Jeopardy fantasy time line or about Ken Jennings actual life and times? Any Opinions?

Ken lost on the 2nd game of the September 7th taping, which aired November 30th. At the exact point of the loss in the studio, Jeopardy! had aired 39 Jennings games and were in the first week of the 21st season. Game #40 aired that night. The article, though, should use the November 30th as his date of defeat - as that's when it was originally aired. --OntarioQuizzer 19:55, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Tournament of Champions

The article says: "Four game show records remained that Jennings did not tie or break, only one of which he could possibly break in the future should he be invited to a Tournament of Champions". As far as I can tell, he could break the records for "Most wins on a single game show" and "Most opponents defeated on a game show". What is wrong here? --timc | Talk 15:58, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ken's Middle Name

Where is the source that says Ken's middle name is Wayne? It's been changed back and forth at least two or three times now. Is it William or Wayne? Super-Magician 17:27, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

The changes are being made anonymously by Ken's father. Somehow I trust Ken's father when he says his middle name is Wayne. --OntarioQuizzer 06:28, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Batting Average

Someone's posted Ken's final batting average at the page. Now I would like to say, a Jeopardy! batting average is a different thing than say a baseball batting average, or a cricket batting average. Therefore, an explanation should be put as to what constitutes a batting average in Jeopardy!. Also, it's a stat that hasn't been sourced, as per the request posted at the source pages. --OntarioQuizzer 18:38, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Tournament of Champions estimates

Based on past history and estimates, it should take a contestant six wins to guarantee himself a seat at the Tournament of Champions. Four wins would put a contestant "on the bubble," meaning he could make or fail in their chance to qualify for the Tournament of Champions.

The last tournament had a pair of 3-time winners in it; 5 generally guarantees a spot. Before this goes back on the main page we should probably discuss the merits of it here on the Talk page. --OntarioQuizzer 15:07, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would say that TOC discussion should be extremely limited here, as it's largely speculation and doesn't relate all that strongly to Ken. We know that HE is in the TOC, so the exact criteria for getting in aren't particularly relevant here. Aerion 18:30, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Aerion. This isn't all too relevant in the article, although Ken's future opponents are. --Super-Magician 18:44, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Game summaries section

I have created a new article with the table of Ken Jennings's game summaries. However, I left the original table in the Ken Jennings article in case someone would like to delete the new page. Please remove the table if and when you'd like. --Super-Magician 18:58, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] lawsuit

"As of Thursday, December 2, 2004, Kottke is facing a potential lawsuit from Sony due to his posting of the recording and may have to remove his weblog." Why would he have to remove his whole weblog? (He has already removed the offending recording.) If you lose a suit you lose money, but you don't lose your right to talk. Clarification? 64.168.29.217 16:47, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaning

I just started cleaning this article, and am about to continue. This will involve organization, removal of repeated information, and removal of utterly trivial details (e.g. where is in-laws live). If anyone has any comments or suggestions please psot them here. -R. fiend 19:46, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, I cleaned it up a bit. I still think someone should write an article on game show records, and put some of the information there. I also changed the opening a bit, rephrasing the "and other game show records" because it made it sound like he had appeared on other game shows and broke records there, which isn't ture. Also prepared the article for some Zerg-merging, moving mention of her up to the first paragraph. The whole article could still use some reorganization, I think, but I don't have the patience to do it now. I also think the extrernal links could be trimmed, specifically removal of the ones that just relate to Jeopardy rather than Jennings specifically. People can find those on the Jeopardy article if they need them. I'm sure there are others that offer nothing new, and now that he's no longer on I wouldn't be surprised if some of these links go dead soon. -R. fiend 20:32, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think links to sites such as JEOParchive! and the new J! Archive should stay, as they are historical records of Ken's games. But the throng of fan sites is likely to contract swiftly now, and so that list ought to be seriously trimmed. News articles are rather unnecessary as they will contain little additional information. Forums? Goodbye. I'm not sure about that video of Ken's loss - while it's certainly a nice resource, it may not be available on that website for very long. A long-term solution might be to replace it with a screencap of that episode (which I can probably provide if needed). I'll hold off on making any of those changes (1) to allow time for discussion and (2) because it's finals week, and I've got to cut down on Wikipedia. (Obviously that's not working so far.) Aerion//talk 20:54, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] only one [record] he could possibly break in the future

Why only one? Obviously the 2 about consecutiveness are out, but are you suggesting 'Most wins on a single game show' doesn't apply? --DanielNuyu 19:26, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] More Biographical Info on Ken? / Suggested change

Could anyone in the know beef up the bio section here? Does Ken speak Korean, for example, based on his time spent living there during childhood? ALSO...the link to the Quiz Show scandal seems slanted toward suggesting that the same think occurred here? I think that link ought to be removed, though I haven't gone ahead and done it.

Agreed. I was actually wondering if he speaks Korean. Another question. Can he speak Malaysian?--Hanfei 22:48, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think this section needs some clarification. For example, it states he earned honors at the University of Washington, yet it doesn't state anywhere that he actually attended school there, and what he earned honors in. Also, if he was on a mission in Spain for two years, how could he also be living in Singapore? The dates don't match up in my opinion. It just needs clarification.

[edit] Incorrect quote?

"If Jennings had won his final game, he would have broken every single game show record in history except for two (most wins and most consecutive wins) which he would have tied." Isn't this somewhat untrue? Technically he can never beat the most winnings in a single day record, if one wants to count that as a separate record. (OK, he could if he were to ever go on "Super Millionaire" and win, which I doubt he would; most of the difficult questions are way too trivial. But come to think of it, he'd be great as one of the "3 Wise Men" that Super Millionaire introduced.) -R. fiend 22:54, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

Talk:Ken_Jennings/Archive

[edit] Middle Name and Single Day Record

Why is Ken Jenning's middle name change all the time? Also, he couldn't beat an all-time game show single day record because on Jeopardy you can only win $566,400 on one game while on Millionare, you can win $1,000,000.

Those aren't comparable records. That's like saying that on Wheel of Fortune, you can win more than Ken has in a day if you hit the $100,000 space. It's true, but you only can play once. In general, the only monetary records that can be compared to each other are total winnings. Also, from what I've heard, the article originally had an incorrect middle name, so when it was corrected, people thought it was vandalism, and reverted to the incorrect middle name. ral315 08:35, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed sentence

I removed this sentence: "He would regularly phrase his responses as if in doubt of himself, and express surprise when he gave the correct response, as if to signify that he had made a lucky guess" because it's completely unremarkable. It's called "guessing" and all contestants do it when they are unsure of an answer. It's natural, and Alex often points it out when it's done. He'll congratulate them on a good guess, and he'll know it's a guess because the contest expressed doubt which was discernable in the way he gave the answer. -R. fiend 05:08, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I put this sentence back in because although it probably could be reworded better, the intelligent guessing based on the other clues in the "answer" were frequently used and he did it more than most contenstants (well he guessed right more than most contenstents which allowed him to stay on the show and thus continue to make guesses - IMHO this also was his downfall in the final game in which he made three reasonable guesses on two double Jeapordy's and Final Jeaporday and all three were wrong). Alex commented about Ken when subsequent guests made such a guess on a double Jeapordy answer. Trödel|talk 16:49, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I still don't like it. All good contestants use the hints in the question to lead them towards a educated guess, and often still speak as if in doubt. If he did it more it was because he was on the show more than 10 times as much as any other contestant. I think this has little to do with his losing, however. The real reason he lost was that he missed 2 daily doubles, and its the DDs that usually put his out of reach of the other contestants by the final question. There were plenty of shows in which he missed Final Jeopardy and someone else got it right; Zerg was the first to do so when the game wasn't a runaway. -R. fiend 17:05, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(I fixed the indentation to make it easier to track who said what - sorry I started it out wrong). I rephrased because I don't think it is unique that he guessed - but I do think it is unique that he was open through his demeanor and tone so that you knew when he was obviously guessing and he was unabashed in expressing relief when he was correct, in contrast to the cool manner he took wrong guesses. Trödel|talk 17:48, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm still not really crazy about it. However you phrase it it really is not uncommon. I'll see if I can get the input of others, and yield to any consensus. -R. fiend 04:52, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
In my opinion, I think Ken's guesses were much more pronounced than those of other contestants -- in that you could really tell when Ken was either still pulling an answer out of his brain or was taking a guess -- normally I have trouble telling when a contestant is guessing or not -- Ken made it obvious. I think that's the point that Trödel's trying to make. --OntarioQuizzer 08:40, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ken's movies page

Does anyone (especially Ken) know if he is going to update his movies webpage to include 2004 movies? --QQQ (4-9-05)

Not sure, though I doubt Ken would look here to see this question. I'm sure that he might consider once everything settles down a little bit, though. --OntarioQuizzer 05:35, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(And now add "and 2005" to the question above) --QQQ (1-29-06)

[edit] Change $2522700 to $2520700

I think the amount of money Jennnings won should be listed as $2520700, since that is what is listed in the "Hall of Fame" section of Jeopardy!'s web site [1], as well as in news reports of his final episode. In addition, Tom Walsh's $184900 should be changed to $186900 if his 8th episode was included - so I think Jennings' final $2000 should not be included. --68.194.108.16 19:07, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jeopardy! regularly dismisses the amount won in a losing game on their website. This entry is trying to show how much money he won as a whole, not how much he won in wins. Therefore, we SHOULD include the $2k that he won on the final day- Jeopardy! just doesn't because it's not a distinction that they need to make. ral315 16:51, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. All monies won need to be included. I'm sure the IRS taxes that extra $2,000; therefore, it should be included. --OntarioQuizzer 23:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I am ok either way - as long as it there is some concensus and it can stay that way ;) I'd include the amount won in as a consolation in the final game if it was my decision alone. Trödel|talk 23:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I think to be NPOV, the $2000 should be broken out and reported separately so the reader can make up his/her own mind. As I see it, he didn't "win" that money because he lost the game. It could be said that he "received" it or even that he "earned" it, but I don't see how you can call it "winnings" since he didn't win. Plus, I haven't seen anyone elsewhere accounting for the cash value of the merchandise that was previously awarded as consolation prizes or the cash value of the automobiles awarded to 5-time undefeated champions. The fact that it's a cash consolation shouldn't matter. But that's just me. Include it, but break it out from the total of his 74-game winning streak that Jeopardy! and everyone else uses. Jwolfe 18:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Another quick problem here is that they don't give Spangenburg credit for previous 5-game dollar amount winner, he won $205K or whatever if you account for double dollar values, so he should be given credit for doing so.

[edit] Jennings not eligible for next TOC?

I recently added the following statement

Jennings' current total of US$3,022,700 could be increased to US$3,272,700 if he wins the next Tournament of Champions for the season in which his streak ended, thus retaking the title of highest total winnings on Jeopardy or any other game show.

When I originally put a similar statement in, it was reverted by Mwl on the grounds that Jennings is actually not eligible for the next TOC. I have asked Mwl if there any references for this, as I have been unable to find corroboration for that, but Mwl hasn't responded yet.

Opening it up to the wikicommunity, if anyone else has any hard evidence that Jennings is not eligible for the next TOC (which is inexplicable), then please link it here and delete my addition.

--Jeffrey O. Gustafson 07:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me the Ultimate Tournament replaced the ToC this year.
I thought the normal TOC usually happens in September.
Since Ken was the champ for most of the season I think very few people won 5 games,
I thought that as the rule change got rid of the five game limit, the TOC is slated with highest earners regardless of games played...
so to fill 15 slots they may have had to go down to 3 or even 2 time winners.
No, because, as the season starts in September, and Ken's final episode was in November, this leaves plenty of opportunity for significant enough winners, even counting the enormous amount of space the ultimate TOC took up (there is more than three months left in the season).
All those who won 5 or more games this season were in the Ultimate Tournament (some with byes to later rounds)
They were? The Ultimate TOC was just supposed to be for past TOC winners, exceptional money eraners, and Ken.
which guaranteed more money, so I don't think they have any grounds for complaint. Unless we hear something specific about a ToC I think it's best not to make predictions. -R. fiend 13:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it's a prediction per se to assume that something that has happened every year since its inception will happen again this year. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 08:28, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
I think the season's over and they're in reruns now, at least I'm quite sure I saw Thursday's game before. And Alex made no mention at the beginning of the show about the exciting tournament that just ended, or the champion's many month wait to defend his title. Certainly TV seasons are ending all over the place. Now Ken was the champion for every show except those in December and January, and the first week of February, and on top of that I think there was a teen tournament or a kid's week in there as well. I haven't counted but I'm not sure there were much more than 15 champions, much less 15 substantial winners there. I don't think there was a single five time winner in the lot (the 5 time + winners I was thinking of were from the previoous season with Ken). If they were to do a ToC next year it would be Ken and just about everyone else who won 2 games. I sincerely doubt they will do this. When you sign the Jeopardy contract there is a stipulation saying that regardless of winnings the show has no obligation to bring you back for special tournaments. Unless you hear reliable specifics about a ToC for the 2004-2005 season I wouldn't include it in the article. -R. fiend 16:26, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
To clarify, these are NOT repeats; however, they were filmed before the UToC was officially announced, and therefore Alex didn't make a mention of it (I doubt at the time of filming that it was even known when the tournament would start/end). Besides, it doesn't matter if Ken could overtake Brad; I'm sure Brad could come back and win the 25th/30th/100th Anniversary tournament and pull back ahead. It's a useless stat without something to back it up. ral315 07:07, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
Are you sure that Thursday's episode was not a rerun? If it wasn't then they're recycling Final Jeopardy questions, because I'm sure I saw that one earlier this season (or maybe last season). It's about time for the season to end; it's that time of year. I'll go check the archive. -R. fiend 16:58, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure. Archive confirms this. ral315 06:06, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
That's weird. I just checked the archive and the episode listed isn't what aired on my local station. I wonder why they showed a rerun. Anyway, if the season isn't over it soon will be, as summer is fast approaching. So far I count only about 3 3-time winners, a six time winner, Ken, and the teen and college champs. Unless they want to call up a bunch of 2-time winners they're going to have a hell of a time trying to fill the roster. Of those the only one it seems to me who could feel gypped for missing a ToC would be the 6 time winner (and maybe the teen tournament winner; I always thought putting the kids in with the adults was a bad idea), as the college champ was in the UToC. I guess we'll see what they do, but I would not be surprised at all if they do something very different this time. -R. fiend 15:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
By the way, the season should run for a while, I would think; last year, Ken's last game of the season was in the middle of July. ral315 19:34, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tournament of Champions

Due to Ken's loss, isn't he no longer the winningest jeopardy player?

If you'd read the article, you would have seen as much stated more than once. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 08:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
He's not the winningest as far as prize money goes. But he's 74-2-0 (1st-2nd-3rd), which has not been matched by anyone. ral315 07:08, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
Though if you count each game of the final round as a separate game (which there are cases for and against doing) he's 74-4-0. -R. fiend 17:01, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

In a recent edit, the following is stated:

In theory, if Jennings had remained undefeated through the 2004-2005 season, there would not have been a tournament of Champions for that season, because Jennings would be the sole champion.

If this were to occur, wouldn't they fill the Tournament of Champions with wildcards? That is, wouldn't they pick the highest scores of the non-winners? Does someone have a definite ruling from the Jeopardy rules? Val42 03:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Probably not. It's called the Tournament of Champions- the best losers are not Champions. It's a moot point now, though. Ral315 04:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Money Totals - who's really in front?

Everyone seems to be saying that Brad Rutter is now in first place.

Clearly, there's something I'm missing, because 2,522,whatever + 500,000 > 1,000,000 + 2,000,000. Was Rutter's first tournament *not* a flat million dollars?
--Baylink 00:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're forgetting that Rutter also won some original games, and the 2001 ToC. ral315 02:46, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Most consecutive opponants?

Lygo beat 2 opponents every appearance for 75 consecutive appearances making his totaly 150. Jennings however did so on only 74 days seeing as he lost to nancy zerg. Then if you add the third contestant from that day it brings his total to only 149. Therefore the suggestion that he broke the record for most defeated opponants is unfortunately false.

We don't say he broke the record. We say he tied it. You're forgetting that he beat Jerome Vered in the UToC. ral315 14:14, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
However, if he wins a game in a Tournament of Champions, he would *beat* Lygo's record, 152 to 150, assuming he even is eligible for a ToC. Bobman123 22:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Funny little clip...

Not sure if this an appropriate link to add, but it is rather amusing... Tool Time for 200 --AllyUnion (talk) 10:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I was about to mention that little incident. Does anybody think it's notable? (Not only is it a popular clip on the 'net, many 'net users think it was a better answer than the "right" one...) - furrykef (Talk at me) 05:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

That's pretty funny. There's another one that I think was Ken Jennings on a radio interview. They asked him two or three difficult questions. He answered each of them correctly. Then they asked him a question about Britney Spears' then-current hit ('Toxic', I think) which anyone would have known, and Ken couldn't get it. Tragic romance 01:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whoa!

On the Records table, some idiot (and if this is a registered user, I apologize) added, well, just look:

Description Current Record Previous Record
Most consecutive appearances on Jeopardy! 75 episodes (74 wins, 1 loss) 8 episodes (7 wins, 1 loss) by Tom Walsh, January 5–14, 2004
Most consecutive appearances on a syndicated game show 46 episodes (43 wins, 44 ties, 1 loss - more than one game could be played on an episode, and some games were part of two episodes) by Thom McKee on Tic Tac Dough, 1980
Most total appearances on Jeopardy!, including tournaments 78 episodes (including Ultimate Tournament of Champions) 16 episodes by Bob Verini, 1986–2002 (regular season-5x, Tournament of Champions-4x, Super Jeopardy!-3x, Masters Tournament-4x)
Highest total winnings on Jeopardy! in non-tournament play* US$2,520,700 US$184,900 by Tom Walsh, January 5–13, 2004

US$102,597 (adjusted to $205,194) by Frank Spangenberg, January 9–15, 1990 (prior to increase in clue value)
Highest total winnings in one game of Jeopardy! US$75,000 (game 38) US$52,000 by Brian Weikle, April 14, 2003 (Jennings tied this record three times before he broke it)

US$34,000 (adjusted to $68,000) by Jerome Vered, May 21, 1992 (prior to 2001 increase in clue value)
Highest 5-game total on Jeopardy!, consecutive US$221,200 (games 34–38) US$154,200 by Tom Walsh (games 3–7), January 7–13, 2004

US$102,597 (adjusted to $205,194) by Frank Spangenberg, January 9–15, 1990 (prior to increase in clue value)
Highest 5-game total on Jeopardy!, best 5 games US$286,099 (games 28, 29, 37, 38, and 71)
*Not included in these totals is a $2,000 consolation prize, paid in brandy and rum, Jennings and Walsh each received for finishing in second place at the end of their respective runs. Spangenberg only received $75,000 of his winnings due to an earnings cap in effect at the time; the balance went to charity.

Anyone want to comment? Bobman123 23:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

No need, it's been changed. Bobman123 01:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zerg's formidability

I'm uncomfortable with the unsourced comments about how "threatening" Nancy Zerg "appeared to be" to Jennings' run. I'm not sure what changes to make--I would delete a lot of the section. For now, I'll add citation tags and see what more knowledgeable users can make of it. croctotheface 14 May 2006

[edit] Jennings and MADtv

On an episode of the FOX sketch comedy Mad TV, Jennings makes an appearance on Jeopardy! ... Jennings and Trebek are portrayed by cast members of Mad TV.

Surely everyone will take "Jennings makes an appearance" to mean he was actually on MADtv (which btw is prolly a more correct spelling). Maybe it should say "makes an appearance, played by Ron Pederson...". I know the last sentence in the paragraph makes it clear, but they are seperated by some text...

I dunno. Change it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.9.162 (talk • contribs)

I thought this was a useful suggestion so I made the change --Trödel 18:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Syndication/Records?

>>Most consecutive appearances on a syndicated game show

Is there a different record for network game shows? Anyone know what it is?

>>Four game show records remained that Jennings did not tie or break

Are these the only 4 other records that exist? With the multitude of crazy records that people could invent, I think this is misleading and might want to be looked at - does the article actually need to look at records he didn't beat? Perhaps ones that are tied or disputed, but not simply ones he didn't win like the most games played... Unless there's some list of official records I don't know about

>>Jennings' current total of US$3,022,700 could be increased to US$3,272,700 if he wins the next Tournament of Champions for the season in which his streak ended, or more if he wins a future special tournament. However, he was not eligible for the 2006 tournament.

Perhaps explaination for why he wasn't eligable? Is he therefore eligable for the 2007? or is his tournament of champion life over? If the latter, the inital comment of 'his total could be increased...' should be deleted.

The Loss on Jeopardy section mentions several things about records and Ian Lygo that is redundant from the record section. TheHYPO 14:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is he a lawyer?

Sez that he worked for a law firm. Chivista 16:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputes

I put quotations around the word "missed" so that it would be NPOV. There are conspiracy theories as to whether or not he deliberately guessed FedEx. Marcus 22:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Such as? And do you have links? Kolindigo 22:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Some things, my friend, are easily figured out using common sense. How could a 74-time champion try his best but then lose to an opponent who would then lose the very next day? And the answer he gave, "FedEx", is not even close to the correct answer, which is "H&R Block". They are two completely different industries. Don't you think after 74 games that Jennings would not have wanted a monopoly being the sole everyday champion of Jeopardy! and would have wanted others to try and become champions?? Marcus 22:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
In other words, you have no idea, and you personally think he threw it. No proof, no citation. The quotes don't belong. He missed lots of questions during the run, including several Final Jeopardy questions. Why would you think there was a conspiracy over one more miss?? -- ArglebargleIV 22:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Read his book or interviews that have his account of his last 4 or 5 games and you'll understand his thought process and why he didn't do so well those games. Also, most winners of games don't win more than one or two games total. That's just the nature of the game. --waffle iron talk 22:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
ArglebargleIV, I will allow your revert. But notice that the match between Jennings and Nancy Zerg was unbelievably close, and I know at least my grandmother believes it was fake. If you guys care so much about citations, why don't you, William Graham, show yours. Give me a couple of phrases or sentences from your source. Marcus 22:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Unless your grandmother is a Jeopardy expert, I don't see how her opinion is relevant to an encyclopedia article. Jennings lost, fair and square. Yo're going to need to cite more than "he lost to someone who lost the next day!" to prove that Jennings threw it. Kolindigo 22:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you even read the FAQs on his website or the part about the loss in his book? I believe he lost the game fairly. Anyway, even if he did throw it, the word missed shouldn't have quotes around it; it just looks really bad; they don't belong there. Perhaps you could add something about the theoretical conspiracy theory somewhere else in the alticle, but quotes do not belong around the word missed in that sense. Reywas92Talk 23:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)By the way, in reference to Marcus's recent edit summary, I believe that you are the psycho one to think that quotes do belong there.

I understand. Case closed. Marcus 23:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ken jennings name001.jpg

Image:Ken jennings name001.jpg - What's the purpose of this image? Is this a compilation of the ways in which he wrote his name during his run on the show? The caption doesn't make it clear. -Will Beback 21:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I modified the caption (some time ago). Robert K S 00:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, that's much clearer. -Will Beback 23:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Message board posts as sources of information

The most recent editor left a comment, "This article is in dire need of sources of information (Wikipedia is verifiability). Using forum posts, etc. isn't acceptable." I must disagree that using forum posts is necessarily an unacceptable source, especially given that much of what we know about Ken (and Jeopardy!) comes from blogs, contestants' posts to the official message board and, as of mid-2006, Ken's own message board. One is not likely to find any reference books about Ken at the local library. Robert K S 00:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, you've somewhat missed my point. It's an official Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is verifiability (not truth). Click the link, it should be insightful. Here is a snippet:
"Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The principles upon which these policies are based are negotiable only at the Foundation level. . . . If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. . . . Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons immediately and do not move it to the talk page. Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources. In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about themselves. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."
So as an example of that last sentence quoted, I could go to your forums and make a completely false claim, and by your standards it could be published on Wikipedia. Not so. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This article lacks sources, enough said. And please, do not think there are no reputable sources talking about Ken Jennings. This too is not so. ~ UBeR 03:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
In response to the "...by your standards it could be published on Wikipedia" bit: If your remark were logical and noteworthy, and you were verifiably an authority--say, a former contestant--I would have no problem with a Wikipedia article stating something along the lines of "According to [UBeR's real name], [remark]." Interestingly, Harry Eisenberg's book was published (initially) by a vanity press, but it is an essential source for a lot of what we know about Jeopardy!, and no one has ever disputed Eisenberg's authority on the subject as a former senior staff member on the show. Robert K S 04:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly, it's hardly cited. ~ UBeR 04:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on the article. I have tried to supply citations for the areas that you expressed concern about by tagging with {{fact}}. However, realize that some of your tags were redundant. I don't feel it's necessary or desirable for the article to require a reference for each individual sentence, when one citation covers several of the preceding or succeeding sentences. Robert K S 06:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The article has improved greatly (which was my intent of the tag in the first place). ~ UBeR 15:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ken's wins after j!

of course he won $714.29 on 1v100, but that may not be all. if he wins the 1v100 last man standing contest, he could surpass brad in CASH winnings (with the two camaros, brad is supreme). 24.206.74.247 21:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adjustments for winnings prior increase

The winnings of Frank Spangenberg can't really be adjusted, because logically, if he did play with current values, he wouldn't bet exactly double on every Daily Double and Final Jeopardy he answered. Socby19 06:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Socby19

Doubling scores would in turn double the wagers overall. It's close enough; don't make a big deal about it. Reywas92Talk 15:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Likely stems from"—not!

I've deleted the sentence "Jennings's unfamiliarity with the game of roulette likely stems from the Mormon religion's stance against gambling." This seems to contain four dubious presumptions all rolled together:

  1. That if only Jennings had not been a Mormon, he would have been a gambler;
  2. That if he did gamble, he would have gambled at roulette;
  3. That even a trivia master like Jennings would never have learned the colors of the roulette wheel except by playing the game; and
  4. That anyone "familiar" with the game would know the colors of each number (or at least that of the number 1).

I think the most that can properly be said is that as a Mormon he would be somewhat less likely to know that information, which is not encyclopedic enough to include. --207.176.159.90 04:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Ken jennings name001.jpg

Image:Ken jennings name001.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of. Robert K S (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)