Talk:The Sports Junkies

Untitled

Lurch has died of Aids? Where is Lurch?-— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.189.90 (talk) 11:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Where did the Lingo Go?

WTF? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.32.192.33 (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, they would talk more lingo if the were HUMANITARIANS! donkeys.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.213.24 (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Poker Open Update Request

Could someone please update the poker open table for Last week's Junkies Poker Open 3? Players: 365 First Prize: $28,000 Winner: Andrew Phillips

I sure would appreciate it.

-- User:Protoculture —Preceding comment was added at 04:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Junkies Lingo is Back!

Okay, so some donkey decided that the lingo dictionary didn't belong on this page, and instead he gave it a page of its own. Fine. But then the Wikipedia Gods came along and deleted it, so the options are either putting the definitions on this page, or not having it at all. So it's back. You obviously thought it should go somewhere, and apparently the only place it can go is on this page, so don't remove it again, ricky. -- User:Jeff Smoker

I agree with Jeff Smoker, let's see the lingo section back...it's at least helpful for those not familar with the show in understanding what they are saying half the time. --MMAJunkie250 (talk) 06:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Truth vs. Funny

While I can appreciate the humor as a local and loyal listener of the show, this article as it is written in the style of it is now, is not suitable for this environment. To the authors of this article, might I suggest copying the article as it currently read and keep the humor, and then move it to Encyclopedia Dramatica. However, might I commend you on your recent article clean up. It's a start. :) -- vi 23:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC) / Talk

I agree, I think it was funny while it lasted. But let's get real, this is an encyclopedia after all. But let's keep the ED plugs at a minimum. -- MMAJunkie250 (talk) 06:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality?

I would question the neutrality of this article, and would suggest it be cleaned up much more.

K-lit 11:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)K-lit

Who put up the tag? It has to be explained, otherwise it's erroneous and needs to be removed. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 19:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Potential libel

I removed all the material that was potential libel or blatant POV. More cleanup and/or citations still needed. If any of the potentially libellous material is added back it should be deleted on sight. Brian 15:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)btball

If the POV has been removed, then I'll go ahead and remove the tag. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Dilapidated Bowie?? That needs to be removed.-— Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.68.1.127 (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Seriously

Why did some donkey ruin such a a good thing? The Junkies themselves would come on and look at the page and laugh at what was written. Whoever decided to flag this article must have a small Jersey Number and has no idea what the Junkies are all about. A once great thing has now been ruined forever. Thanks, Ricky!

Betaboy78 17:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)betaboy78

Killjoy

Someone has taken it upon himself to arbitrarily toss out half the joning in this article, as if he were the Sultan of Wikipedia. This destructive editing should stop. The show is a four hour jone-fest, and that's what this article should be. The page as it is (or was) truly reflects the nature of the show better than any cold discussion could. If that's what you want, read the boring linked article at the bottom of the page, because that's all this entry will be. If this person persists in removing content, I will be putting it back. He can try to ban me, but he's as impotent as Bickel.-— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.23.188 (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Your version of what this article should be in no way reflects the spirit and guidelines of what wikipedia is. So you can be bitter if you want, but any day of the week you are wrong. Go read Howard Stern's wiki article. There is none of the nonsense that was is in this article, and he invented this style of radio. This article was a disgusting mess, and one of the worst I have seen yet. If you want, you can start your own fansite and jones all you want, instead of being a troll here. Oh and try signing your nonsense instead of vandalising anonymously. --Angrymansr 00:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Listen to their podcast, they refer to their Wikipedia article on air at least once per show. They applaud their listeners for what they see in the article, and encourage more additions in exactly the type of what you are removing. I think that this article, before its admin-administered lobotomy, is exactly in the spirit of what wikipedia is. If the people this article are about were complaining, that would be one thing- but they're not. --User:Neo991LB 03:44 AM, 29 April 2007

Stop Complaining

I'm sorry, but I was not aware that the Junkies ran wikipedia. Their show has nothing to do with this website, so there's no need for anyone to listen to their podcast.

What was written in this article has NOTHING in common with what wikipedia is about, and violated several of wikipedia's guidelines and policies. It was not written in NPOV, it was not factual, had racial epithets, and was full of libel, to name a few. Try and get familiar with the guidelines of wikipedia before assuming you know the Spirit of Wikipedia. Everything here was nothing more than a way to mark out and hope to be mentioned on the show. It was all vandalism.

Wikipedia's policy on vandalism

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.

The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities to pages, page blanking, or the insertion of bad (or good) jokes or other nonsense. Fortunately, these types of vandalism are usually easy to spot.

Wikipedia's policy on biographies on living persons

Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to our content policies:

• Verifiability
• Neutral point of view (NPOV)
• No original research

We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.

I can't find a policy that encourages adding things that you think are funny and libelous because the Junkies tell you to. On top of that, have you missed the talk page where at least 3 different people cited the issues with this article? The Junkies message board is moderated and is not a free-for-all, why should this be? Your arguments holds no water. Angrymansr 14:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

References

Junkies Lingo

I have moved the list of junkies lingo to it's own page. The list was much longer than the article itself. This was my first attempt at this, so if anyone knows how to improve this move please feel free to do so. Angrymansr 15:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Junkies Lingo

What happened to this page? I know it was separated theom the main article but now it looks like it was deleted enitrely. What was the reason? It was a great resource on the copious amount of in-jokes and terms the Junkies use and was likely the largest collection of these terms in one space. --12.156.195.3 17:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This is what happened

Angrymansr 19:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That's absurd. It's a huge component of the show. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 20:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Based on the AfD discussion, junkiesradio.com has a glossary. A link to the glossary is definitely appropriate. A few definitions with the link are debatable. A wholesale dump of the glossary is not. —C.Fred (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Why the hell not? Do you still have a 14.4 modem and the page takes too long to load? Honestly, who cares if the article is a little long, as long as the information is complete, accurate, and easily accessible all in one place? The Junkies' website(s) are tough to navigate and infrequently updated, and they can't keep pace with the new lingo. I'll say that again, very slowly: The lingo information on the website is inaccurate and out of date. The information here is far better, so leave it. And if posting a link to other sites is sufficient, why not just get rid of the whole article and just put links to the Junkies' bios on their other pages? Do you really want to know what this is about? It's about a bunch of nerds getting off on controlling Wikipedia and giving it "standards" that no one who doesn't live in his mom's basement gives a crap about. Let the fans edit this in peace, and stop ruining a good thing. --Jeff Smoker

Where did Rick.Felt go? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick.Felt (talk • contribs) 01:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Podcast as Source

If a quote from the show is used, I believe it's kosher, under WK rules, to cite to the podcast of the show. If you just report hearing it on the show, that's original research. But if you can direct the reader to a podcast, that seems the equivalent of directing them to a quotation on a reputable newspaper's internet site. Maybe more so.

I've been bold and added a such a cite to a snippet from the 9/4/07 where JP asked if slipping his dying dad 20 pills with intent to kill would have been murder. David in DC 05:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, Ricky, but the podcasts aren't archived forever. If someone tries to verify based on podcasts six months from now, it's not going to work. What then? I'll tell you what then: it's going to get deleted again. The lesson here: Wikipedia sucks. Jeff Smoker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.7.4 (talk) 01:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, if Wikipedia sucks, please either work to fix it from the inside, or please go away. To quote Ken Kesey, "You're either on the bus or off the bus". So please quit your trifling joning, you felted, hurting donkey. :) (For those looking for a translation of the previous sentence, please understand that it is a shibboleth). David in DC 04:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll stick around and continue to give Wikipedia the gas face. The easiest way to get a translation of that last sentence is to look up the words in the Junkies Lingo section. Whoops, can't do that, because the "Spirit of Wikipedia" douchebags come along and delete it every time. Jeff Smoker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.7.4 (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Angrymansr: You've done good work cleaning up this page. Thank you. But the "sleeping pills" quote is properly sourced and notable. If I say "I heard it on the radio" that's verboten original research. But if I put a footnote in, to a place the quote can be verified, I believe that's proper sourcing. That's what I did here. So I've boldly re-inserted it. Please do not delete my edit without our trying to reach consensus here. Thanks. David in DC 03:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't see how him asking if giving sleeping pills is murder is relevant to an encyclopedic entry. Angrymansr 16:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If the fact that he's admitted to the Maryland Bar is relevant (and I think it is), the fact that he doesn't know the answer to that question surely is too, in my opinion. We have an honest difference of opinion here.

I had thought it was deleted on the basis of my assertion that sourcing it to the podcast was a reliable source. Since that's the heading here, I'd value your opinion on that topic. I'll also open up a new topic on whether this particular fact is encyclopedic enough to keep. I'm much more willing to lose this particular fact than I am to lose the use of the podcast as a sufficiently reliable source for other direct quotes from the show. Even if this fact isn't sufficiently encyclopedic (tho I remain convinced it is), SOME thing one of the Junks says someday surely will be. I'd like to retain the notion that sourcing a quote to the podcast is wiki-kosher. David in DC 18:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Number of Junkettes?

Hyping their upcoming "Naughty Schoolgirl" Junkette search, the Junks have been saying they only have 4 active Junkettes, at the moment. So the page is definitely wrong. But I don't know which four. Can someone help out here? David in DC 03:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

J.P.'s knowledge of the law re: feeding his dying dad sleeping pills

Above, Angrymansr and I have disagreed about whether this fact is encyclopedic enough to appear in this WK article: "However he often defers on legal questions to listeners. For example, on September 4, 2007, J.P. asked callers to tell him if slipping his terminally ill father twenty sleeping pills with the intent to kill him was murder, because he didn't know."

We're also discussing the suitability of a footnote link to the Junks podcast as reliable sourcing. Others: please weigh in on the podcast issue up above and about the encylopediocity of this particular fact down here. I'd like to try to generate consensus on both topics. It might cut down on some of the edit-warring.David in DC 18:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

One issue with this is that it could be shtick. There's always a fine line between shtick and real life on these types of comedy shows. Just because something is presented as true, doesn't make it so and we just can't buy it wholesale. These types of bits can be planned in advance to turn up the heat in the studio. Because we are printing something that may be just shtick, we are teetering on libel. Honestly, do we really think that someone who passed the bar exam has no knowledge of and or never studied the Jack Kevorkian case?

The other issue, is that this one incident may not be enough to give this statement credibility. I think if we were going to paint him as unknowledgable in the field of law, two or three strong examples may be necessary.

On another note, thanks for fighting the good fight in my absence from editing. It's nice to have a helping hand. Angrymansr 21:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Glad to. How 'bout this? Listen to the podcast reference. Start about 5 minutes before I suggest in the footnote to get the context. If you think it's merely shtick, delete and I won't revert again. If you think he really doesn't know, especially in light of Kervorkian, leave it in and I'll put up cites to the next couple of times he demonstrates deferral to listeners on items of law he ought to know about. I listen to these guys on my morning commute. I'm confident J.P. will come through at least a couple more times in the next few weeks with demonstrations of the fact that he really doesn't know much about law, despite his license. He knows he doesn't. That's why he does a morning radio show instead of hanging out a shingle. He's better at it. David in DC 01:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If you firmly believe it, I'll leave it. I'm really not interested with edit warring someone who has the best interest in mind. Simple difference of opinions. Cheers. Angrymansr 16:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

"Hey JP", that is why you are not a Huamanitarian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.213.24 (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

JP has some hurting toes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.238.20.120 (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The Editors are Donkeys

Editors of the Junkies page,

Don't be huuurrrtings, why do you have to be such buzzkills? You guys act like those policemen from the movies who were butt trifling in high school and now you'll get back at everyone by being the Champ Bailey of Wikipedia entries. Just because you were dealt deuce-seven and are felted doesn't mean you have to take it out on the Junkies and their jone-ing. Its a lock you all went to Nubbinsville Prep or Felt State and are poo poo, so don't be bitter and take it out on the Junks. You all should be cised that people are excited about Wikipedia and are making it silly. Don't be bitter like EB was when Bret called him out for going after a foul ball and causing a guy to get on base. Peace Rickys.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.230.89 (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. But none of the edits I've made, nor those made by angrymansr, were aimed at the Junks. They were, and will continue to be, aimed at keeping Wikipedia true to its purpose as an encyclopedia. As many commenters above note, the Junks rely on Wikipedia almost daily to get quick facts about a plethora of things. They can do that because WK editors try to make sure the pages the Junks access are full of stuff that's accurate, notable, and reliably sourced.

Let's say J.P. hears the phrase Res ipsa loquitor. It's a lock he'd need Wikipedia to get a definition since he knows less law than most common ferrets or iguanas. If editors didn't keep the Res Ipsa page clean of edits like "I'd sure like to Res Ipsa her Loquitor", J.P. would be even more felted than he is now, and the show would suffer.

Or let's say EB can't remember the difference between Corey Feldman and Corey Haim. I sure can't. WK to the rescue of the Entertainment Page.

Sure it's tempting to vandalize either of these two hurting's pages. I never could figure out why all the jail-bait of my youth thought they were sillies, and it leaves me butt-P.O.'d to this very day. But without accurate, carefully edited and monitored Wikipedia pages, EB might end up in the Botch Book for broadcasting that the wrong Corey used to look at nudie pics with Michael Jackson.

Ya see, it's all good Ricky. David in DC 20:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you misspell Res ipsa loquitur on purpose? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.143 (talk) 16:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Jonesing vs. Joning

The Junks are using it correctly, according to Urban Dictionary. Compare http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=jones with http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=joneDavid in DC 18:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Opening

I'm considering adding something to the opening that identifies what this show is about. The show is essentially four men, rapping about sports, women, pop culture, early fatherhood, and friendship, oftentimes in a crass but harmless way. If I knew nothing about the show, I'm not sure I get that after reading this article. A good opening should deliver what this show is essentially about, because a reader expects (and deserves) to get a sense of this very early. Any thoughts?--Lindsay 01:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Be bold David in DC 06:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, save for the "rapping about sports" bit. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 08:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation req'd

I think this article could do with a sentence at the top which mentions the British comedy film The Junkies, written by Jane Bussmann and David Quantick. 86.130.137.106 (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that obscure British film is prominent enough to justify that... -- MMAJunkie250 (talk) 06:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Should this be adjusted?

Since the Junks are no longer broadcast in Baltimore, does the intro need to be changed from Baltimore Washington metro area to simply the Greater DC area? Thoughts? Angrymansr (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070811114553/http://www.junksweb.com/news/EEVkupZZVEUrBMqOug.shtml to http://www.junksweb.com/news/EEVkupZZVEUrBMqOug.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130205033451/http://www.csnwashington.com/show/table-manners-junkies to http://www.csnwashington.com/show/table-manners-junkies

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) 18:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Real start of the show

I listened to the Junkies when they first got on WJFK in the 90's. Their real first time slot was either weekends or doing the Redskins post-game show, but they did both before they got moved to the weeknight 7-11pm slot. 216.212.113.196 (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)