Jump to content

Talk:Broadcast of Jeopardy!

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ownership status

[edit]

I guess I'm the firt. I just want to say I think this page was badly written. There are many stylistic mistakes, which I don't usally find bothersome but in this page they are glaring. I also came to this page hoping to gain clearer insight to the Sony purchase of Jeopardy. This is not answered; the reader learns that King World bought the current sydicate and then later King World and Sony are mentioned together as joint owners of the show. When did Sony get involved? Otherwise I found the article very informative. But this qestion of the shows current ownership status being unresolved left a bad taste in my mouth and I wonder what else could be missing from earlier sections of the article that my be of critical interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.153.192.194 (talk • contribs) 2007-10-24T22:43:30

Renewal Contract

[edit]

I am removing the part where it talks about the renewal of the show through it's 28th season and it's source as the source is a dead link.--70.240.215.204 (talk) 05:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Chris[reply]

Dead source link information removal should generally be avoided unless the information or the validity of the source's existence is contested. Not only is it needelessly destructive of information, it's lazy, too, if the source still exists somewhere on the Internet (as is the case here--the press release was cached by the Internet Archive). Robert K S (talk) 06:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tags

[edit]

I (at a different IP address) placed the tags on the article yesterday - sorry for the drive-by, and sorry if they should have been directed to the talk page instead. Without reopening the AfD debate, a substantial portion of this article is POV and either OR or unsourced. For example, there's a great deal of discussion about NBC's daytime programming strategies in the '60's and '70's. Even giving that information the benefit of the doubt and assuming that it's relevant 30-40 years later to an encyclopedia article, how does the editor who contributed this material know these things? Thanks. 32.179.7.172 (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which editor was it? (It might be tough to tell at this point, since the information may have been split off from the Jeopardy! article... you might need to go into that article's history to figure it out...) Robert K S (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced Info

[edit]

After removing a large amount of cruft, trivia and info unrelated to broadcast history, the article still lacks a multitude of resources. Below is the information which has been tagged as needing a citation:

Can anyone provide sources for these statements? Sottolacqua (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've judiciously restored a lot of the material you deleted. You call it "cruft", but it is actually context. By stripping the article to bare facts such as dates, the reader no longer is no longer provided setting and significance. It's not important that Jeopardy! was canceled on such-and-such date and replaced with such-and-such show unless some understanding is given to the internal political motivations and the consequences. It's not immaterial that Lin Bolen killed the show, and that NBC never recovered; see the extensive discussion, complete with ratings graph, in Fabe, to which much of your above bulleted points can be cited, along with the Master Books. Sensibly, of course, I've left out the POV material and some of the narrative commentary, which has been rightfully excluded. The article had previously been written in essay style and, naturally, this is something to be moved away from. But labeling the substance of the article "cruft" and decimating it on that basis is not an acceptable editing choice, IMHO. As well, your edits to the 1978–1979 section made it confused, making it read as if the pilot had been produced for NBC. Edits like this are to be watched out for because in time they can turn a largely factually correct article into one in which accuracy is a casualty of brevity. Just the same, thanks for helping with the article. Robert K S (talk) 08:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I see you're back to edit warring rather than discussing. You've again excised the significant portions of the article, with the glib edit summary, "not an op ed or book report about Lin Bolen". (As an aside, you might want to look up op-ed. You're misusing the term.) You're missing what's key here. The article needs to address the key questions in the reader's mind. Jeopardy! was a long-running and popular show in the 1960s; it was dominant in the ratings; its creator, host, and crew desired the show to continue; and the network was contractually obligated to keep airing it. So the natural question for the reader is, in light of all these factors, how could such a show be taken off the air? Your edits remove the answer because, I think, they fail to understand the question, a question that is central to the broadcast history of the show, which is the subject of the article. BTW, if I may offer, I think you stopped operating in good faith a long, long time ago. Robert K S (talk) 11:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it's not exactly a good faith measure to slap cite tags on facts when you can easily add them yourself from related articles. That's not constructive editing. Robert K S (talk) 11:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must agree with Robert (and JTRH, who I know has left comments on both your talk pages) on this one, Sotto – you have seemingly been after me since January 26 (and ESPECIALLY in July), reverting my edits most often even though all I tried to do since I signed up is help articles. I may not know all the rules of this site, but I know better than to willingly vandalize an article – which you have done to the Jeopardy! history.
Further, even though I removed what are currently sections 17-21 on the nighttime Wheel talk page (ALMOST-EXACT DUPLICATES of sections 11-15), you reverted my helpful edit and damaged the page's credibility.
Now granted, you're not as bad as an editor who added "human" to TV show articles, or one who put an animated-series "category" to game-show articles – but that doesn't excuse how you've treated me in the past, and how you're acting toward the important facts that you have removed time and again from this article without discussing the matter first. Is it any wonder? Really? Daniel Benfield (talk) 23:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continued edit war

[edit]

WP:BRD calls for discussion of an issue when changes are disputed, but Sottolacqua doesn't seem interested in discussion, having not responded to my message above ("Jeopardy! was a long-running and popular show in the 1960s; it was dominant in the ratings; its creator, host, and crew desired the show to continue; and the network was contractually obligated to keep airing it. So the natural question for the reader is, in light of all these factors, how could such a show be taken off the air? Your edits remove the answer because, I think, they fail to understand the question, a question that is central to the broadcast history of the show, which is the subject of the article"). Robert K S (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tons of cleanup needed

[edit]

Trivia not necessary for this article

[edit]
  • A housewife from Candor, North Carolina, Mary Eubanks, won the first game with $345. See Master Books.
  • Price spent most of its years on the NBC daytime lineup; its NBC announcer was Pardo.
  • Cosmetic touches included the addition of flashing lights and a larger logo to the set. Host Fleming was attired in a tuxedo with check-patterned jackets instead of his customary business suit.
  • In 1998, CBS purchased the syndicator of the current version, King World.

Lin Bolen

[edit]

If this section is going to be included it needs a large-scale overhaul. Unsourced assumptions are being made such as "Bolen and NBC executives expected Jeopardy! to falter against Dick Clark's The $10,000 Pyramid on CBS" and "Yet, Bolen was still not pleased with Jeopardy! and lost her patience with Griffin's continued intransigence about the decade-old game."

Unsourced

[edit]
  • CBS relocated Gambit there on April 1, and the two shows would divide the audience equally during the remainder of the Spring.

Sottolacqua (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response

[edit]

Let me start by stating what I think should be the uncontroversial and undisputed purpose of this article: to chronicle--and, where possible, explain--the wax and wane of popularity of one of the longest-lived and most profitable television game shows in the United States. Any change made to the article should be predicated upon whether it serves that purpose.

Regarding trivia, any fact can be alleged to be trivial: the very existence of the show can be called trivial (certainly it is in the scheme of human history); the fact that the show was created by Merv Griffin can be called trivial; Art Fleming as the original host can be said to be trivial. The status of something as "trivial" is subject to disagreement by reasonable minds. Would it be unreasonable for an article on baseball to state where and when and by whom the first game of baseball was played, if such a fact was known? I do not think so. Can such a fact be branded "trivial"? Perhaps, but such a fact would certainly still merit inclusion in an article on the history of the game. Any article is substantially comprised of selected facts and any fact excluded as trivial must be shown to be irrelevant to the point of the article subject. I do not think it is absurd to ask for the inclusion of the original Jeopardy! champion in an article about the broadcast history of Jeopardy!, since such a fact is known. That Fleming was bedight in a gimmicky wardrobe and the set was made flashier in a style typical of other, more ephemeral game shows, among other format changes made to that short-lived version of Jeopardy!, may be important to understanding why it did not survive on the schedule, and for Sotto to make the judgement call that it is "trivial" and should be deleted deprives any future reader of reference to that fact. A change in ownership of the syndicator is certainly relevant to the show's broadcast history. I won't defend the bit about Pardo being the announcer of TPIR, except to say it is representative of the casting of the shows of the era, when a personality might work on multiple shows at once, which is now much less common. Very few regular game shows share announcers or hosts. I'll also note that the disputed facts are presented as footnotes and are out of the way of the main article. It is standard practice in academic and reference writing to present relevant related material in this manner. The obstinacy against their inclusion this way has not been justified.

Regarding Lin Bolen, as I mentioned before, this subject is covered in Fabe, and I believe it is central to the article. As stated before, given all the factors that were guaranteeing the show's survival, how could it have been canceled? The answer boils down to one name. Sotto's changes seek to strike this name from the article without adequate reason.

Regarding the unsourced statement about Gambit, it would be helpful to have time to locate a source for the statement, if it is being challenged.

Regarding the "shift in the American television landscape", Sotto's response is non-sequitur. The paragraph says nothing about a "relocation from NYC to CA", nor is such a thing true--all three major network nightly news broadcasts are still produced live in New York. The "shift" referred to is a shift in the evening news broadcast from 7:00 to 6:30. However, it is noted that User:JTRH disputes the details in the evidence, though apparently not the conclusion. He believes that some markets were able to choose between 6:30 slots and 7:00 PM slots even before Jeopardy!--it is noted, though, that the evidence he provides comes in 1985, after Jeopardy! was established, and may not be relevant.

Robert K S (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I disputed the conclusion. The details I added did not change the argument. WABC's shift did, in fact, start a trend in affiliates moving the network news from 7 to 6:30. My point was that it was on an affiliate-by-affiliate basis and not on the network as a whole. The WABC shift, by the way, happened in 1986, not immediately after the current version premiered, and I can source the date if you absolutely insist, but I never disputed your conclusion; in fact, I agree with it. JTRH (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The move was reported by Peter Boyer in The New York Times, Nov. 12 and 13, 1986, to take place the next month. It should be noted that, according to the article, WJLA-TV in Washington apparently made the same move before WABC did.JTRH (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ken Auletta, Three Blind Mice, Vintage Books ed., 1992, pp. 204-206, confirms the details of both WABC's move and the fact that the affiliates could choose between time slots for the network evening news.JTRH (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very grateful, JTRH, for your replies. Robert K S (talk) 06:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome.JTRH (talk) 12:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My removal

[edit]

There seems to be some dispute over my removals in this diff, so let me explain why I removed what I did:

  • "Griffin thought the "Jeopardy!" name sounded perfect, and immediately used it to generate puns, like naming the second round of the game Double Jeopardy! (after the legal concept)." Calling this a pun is original research.
  • In the broadcast section, does it really matter what shows it replaced? Perhaps the show it first replaced, but otherwise, eh.
  • Slang like "Jeopardy! breezed through the Nielsens" is inappropriate
  • "packager Merv Griffin remained obstinate in refusing to alter the format or consider a host other than Fleming." is unsourced OR.
  • "This final move proved fatal to the long-running game." is anthropomorphizing, ditto "Meanwhile, Jackpot! found the going increasingly rough."
  • Most of what I removed was unsourced and laden with original research. Everything else seemed only tangentially related at best.

What parts do you think should be kept from what I removed? After all, almost everything I removed was unsourced, and as we know, unsourced material should be sourced or cut. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using a genetics article to publish one's lab findings is original research. Correctly identifying a pun is not original research. Robert K S (talk) 03:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Origins section

[edit]

The parent article already contains a section which includes information about the origins of the program that I removed from this article. It is unnecessary to have this information listed in two separate articles, and since the purpose of this article is to discuss the broadcast history of Jeopardy!, it belongs in the parent article only. Sottolacqua (talk) 02:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, this article is about broadcast history. To my mind, that means it should answer the following questions: How did Jeopardy! get on the air? For the times that it was off the air, why was it off the air? What were the major milestones and changes in the show's broadcast history (e.g., its move from network to syndication airing, its change in hosts/announcers)? Your argument that "because the information appears in another article, it should be deleted from here" is not correct. The purpose of a full-treatment article is that it treats the topic more fully. A summary of this article might appear in the Jeopardy! article--that would be appropriate. But to say that anything in the summary should not appear here is simply not the way the encyclopedia works. Robert K S (talk) 04:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both articles contain a great deal of information that should be better organized. Wheel of Fortune (U.S. game show)#Broadcast_history contains information from four decades and multiple network runs concisely managed in three sections with host/hostess and other non-broadcast-related information included in other sections. Jeopardy! broadcast history#1978–1979, NBC contains information about the Super Jeopardy bonus round that should really be included in the main article since it's not a production/broadcast element. The Present syndicated version, 1984– section contains bits of trivia and other info (e.g., the Clue Crew) unrelated to actual broadcast history that is already included in the parent article. This article as it stands now contains a great deal of unsourced information and original research/opinion. The 1974-1975, weekly syndication and 1978–1979, NBC sections are both unreferenced. I think a great deal of cleanup can be done in this article to make it better. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Super Jeopardy!.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Super Jeopardy!.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 22 June 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Super Jeopardy!.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

I propose that the contents of the article on Rock & Roll Jeopardy! be merged into this article. I feel that it is a non-notable game show spin-off and has not been discussed in enough reliable sources to merit a separate article of its own. Also, there is no content in the R & R J! article that even appears to establish notability for the spin-off. As such, I propose that all relevant information about that program be merged into this article's entry on it, and the R & R J! article turned into a redirect. --Seth Allen (discussion/contributions), Thursday, August 1, 2013, 02:36 UTC.

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Jeopardy! broadcast information. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jeopardy! broadcast information. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jeopardy! broadcast information. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Broadcast_of_Jeopardy!&oldid=1200372370"