Talk:Judge Judy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archives

Talk:Judge Judy/Archive 1

Judge Judy Parodies

• To be an inclusive article, I have repeatedly added reference to a Judge Judge parody from Comedy Centrals' series The Man Show. Yet, each and everytime I post it User by the name of Meshach keeps deleting it. As a parody of the show, this should be included along with all other parodies, Meshach's reverts constitute vandalism as I am able to cite my sources and provide references (via the form of video links). I would like the opinion's of other editors before I move forward in a dispute resolution with an administrator. Many thanks!--XLR8TION 16:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

YouTube really isn't a reliable source, and considering the lengths some YT users go in order to attract pageviews added:a link to one might be considered spam. But otherwise you make a good argument: If those other parodies are listed, then this one should be too. Since I absolutely hate these pointless "In popular culture" sections, I therefore cut the whole thing. She's often parodied. Yes, we get it. There's no need to list as many as anyone can think of. It's of no interest to anyone but the people who add them. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If you said that all parodies should be included then why are you deleting the entire list. That doesn't make a lot of sense?--XLR8TION 02:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to have shifted your post, but this is going to be impossible to follow if we don't put each new post below the one we're replying to, which is what's normally done on talk pages. We also usually indent one level for each reply until it gets indented so far there's not enough room for text.

I didn't say that all parodies should be included. I said that if several are included, then there's no good reason to exclude the one you wanted to add. A much better alternative is to avoid the whole question by including none at all. As I said, these "In popular culture" sections are totally useless. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have been removing the YouTube video references. YouTube is not a reliable source (see WP:YOUTUBE. I would rather see all parodies removed, they really do not add anything to the article. meshach 19:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The site allows YouTube links. What are you talking about that they are not reliable? YouTube is one of the most visited websites in the world and many of its' video show visual proof.--XLR8TION 19:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:EL#Restrictions on linking. The link target here is a copyright violation. And a list of parodies adds nothing to the article regardless. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing but actual content. Let's keep that down! 208.111.233.208 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.111.233.208 (talk) 07:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Revert

My edit comment linked to the wrong policy. It should have been WP:BLP. Not all of it was actually unsourced, but there was an awful lot of it, and it seemed to dwell disproportionately on certain incidents. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Csernica, don't revert all that information because a couple things weren't sourced. The majority of it was. It was obviously an outrageous revert and your edit summary was uncivil. I hope you re-examine your borderline disrespectful behavior and I'm sure I'm not the only one that feels this way. I see up above where someone else, who had a similar problem with you, wrotes this: If you said that all parodies should be included then why are you deleting the entire list. That doesn't make a lot of sense? Tratare 06:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

He didn't have a similar "problem". He didn't write most of the text I deleted at that time. There's a large problem in general at Wikipedia with bloated sections like that, and you'll find I'm not the only one getting rid of them. They're usually nothing more than insertions of mentions of a particular show or band by a fan, into articles where they would otherwise be irrelevant.

You really do need to fix the tone, and much of this material doesn't add more in the way of information than was already there. We don't put people's ages in article bodies since those change and we can't expect it will be kept accurate. (This can be done automatically in infoboxes.) Her height is immaterial to an article about her show -- in fact, most of this stuff really belongs at Judith Sheindlin to the extent it belongs here at all. We need to keep articles properly focused or they become unreadable, disorganized rambles. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to Csernica on his talk page where I think the rest of this discussion should be anyway Tratare 08:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

ebay scammer

remember the eBay scammer from 2/6/07? that should be added to the moments list. 64.91.201.195 22:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. That case got so popular. I don't see that you've added it, so I will. Tratare 00:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Massive grammatical problems

The proliferation of commas in this article is out of hand. It reads like it's written by an illiterate. Please, stop putting, so many comma,s, all, over. Learn to write. 153.104.14.64 16:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I tried to correct the article. If you notice more corrections needed, feel free to correct them yourself! Kat, Queen of Typos 00:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

general tone of the article

The tone of this article isn't very... Wikipediaish.

"Both the plaintiff and the defendant receive $100 for their appearance, as well as $35 a day, paid to them by the show as well. [18] [19] In addition to that, it's a free all expense paid vacation for litigants and any of their witnesses that tag along, as the show pays for their flight out to Los Angeles, California. The show also pays for their stay at a hotel. It's a no-lose situation for both litigants, with the exception of possible public humiliation administered by Judge Judy. [20]"

Is it really Wikipedia's job to decide what is win-win and no-lose? 64.191.189.254 04:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not - see wp:npov. Please feel free to make any edits you deem necessary - Be bold! I think it could use a lot more editing, beyond what I have time for. It's very repetitive. Kat, Queen of Typos 00:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It was according to the source that it was a no-lose situation. Repetitive?! :/ uhhh, I don't see anything repetitve and I don't really see mistakes with the article, other than the commas from before Lormos 01:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the unsourced claim that Judge Judy "operates according to the principles of the American legal system" which is laughably wrong. 71.237.183.136 08:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

defamatory edits

I reverted recent edits made on this page by user: Rainbow. This page is supposed to be about the article. Not a bunch of silly accusations made at editors because the Rainbow person (who doesn't do anything very useful as he goes around writing comments on anonymous user talk pages and that's his main contribution to wikipedia ) isn't getting his way today. Also, the info in the article about no-lose situation has been added back as it is not NPOV. Info before it made it obvious that it is a no-lose situation, as litigants never have to pay each other if they use the case, so anyone with a brain can tell it wasn't an opinion. Done Lormos 08:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

i've been reverting ridiculous edits made by Rainbow all day long. he's suggested merging the article with Judith Sheindlin which I quickly put out. Merging the two articles is WAY too much for one article. good luck dealing with him tho, he's hard to get through to and is the type that you'll get caught up in an edit war with. Please keep him from reverting my edits. thanx man ByeNow 09:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

My edits were not defamatory, and I'm a GIRL.

There are too many quotes in this article, which affects the tone - I added the appropriate template. Also, too many of the sections overlap. All the mentions of ratings should be under one section only, for example. I don't believe I added any errors to the article - could you please give specific examples? The comma usage was too much before and now is more correct... I was an English major, but I openly admit I'm not an expert. Kat, Queen of Typos 04:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC} If the merge isn't going to go through, then this page needs to be just about the TV show, and the other page Judith Sheindlin needs to be just about her, with the little section on the TV show. Kat, Queen of Typos 07:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

then add the corrections and stop whining about it. i don't see why a minor thing like putting a few ratings references in the rating section needs a huge template about the whole page needing to be cleaned up. I also don't see why getting rid of a few quotes needs a big template about a bunch of quotes needing to be out of the article. There aren't even a lot of quotes in this article. i could understand if the quotes were in excess and you were asking for help in getting rid of them, but you're obviously totally exaggerating the number of quotes in this article as their only a few in the first paragraph that you can deal with yourself. ByeNow 11:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference Formatting

Please see WP:CITE for the guideline on how references should be formatted. --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, I've noted that the cleanup section of this talk page has been deleted. I think the article is strongly in need of cleanup, at the very least to become WP:CITE compliant. I'm working on that now. However, if there are other issues, please feel free to re-add the tag, or comment below. Thanks. --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I've converted the references to the proper format per WP:CITE. However, upon inspection, some of the references have issues, which I'm going to mention in the next section. --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

There are a number of references, particularly in the Criticisms section (among others) that cite unreliable sources. As defined by WP:RS, Amazon customer reviews and geocities pages are not reliable sources that can been used to verify material. Due to this, I'm re-adding the cleanup tag to the article. --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

This article is clearly need of some cleanup, so I have re-added the template. The article at the moment is very spread out and not very encyclopedic in tone. It is currently dominated by some editors who have some ownership issues; let's step back and see how everyone can improve the article working together. Examples of things that should be addressed:

1. 'References. This 50k article has only three references? It must be full of original research Actually, in review, it looks like the references are embeded as external links. This is good---at least the references are there---but we should be using <ref> tags instead to cataloge the refs at the bottom of the article.
2. Images. The article contains too many fair use images that are used inappropriately. Two should be sufficient.
3. Tone. Some sections of the article read like advertising copy: "Sheindlin will often put guilty parties in their places", "Judge Judy tries to provide a lesson in every case and send a positive message to people, especially to take responsibility and do the right thing", and so on.
4. Minor MOS issues.
5. The wealthy women in entertainment list is out of place in an article about a television show.

And more. Let's work to get it cleaned up, rather than bickering about whether it needs it or not, as it clearly does. ➪HiDrNick! 14:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

template

the template at the top of the page will be removed because it just says the article needs clean up. What it's referring to so that can be disputed or worked on isn't even REMOTELY clarified in the template, which means there's a good chance that ugly-looking template could be there for ages like it is on many other articles. The article looks fine to me anyways and the ugly template is the only thing that needs to be cleaned up. throwing a template on this page that says clean up without telling why, and continually putting it there without explaining why, isn't what's going to go on here ByeNow 18:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have an issue with a more specific template then? Such as: {{Self-published|Source}}. Clearly Amazon and Geocitites are not reliable sources, and since they're web 2.0, they are technically self-published. --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I have an issue with the templates being thrown in the article without being explained why. You've only just explained one reason for clean up which is simple removing of those to items from the article. Now, we finally have one reason what we needed to work on that can't be explained by just throwing an ugly template at the top. Also, 2 small complaints over the article is not a reason for putting that big template at the top of the page that could be there for ages because no one knows what needs cleaning ByeNow 19:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Then you have no objection to removing the material related to amazon / geocities sourcing? --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, according to the verifiability policy, the following aren't reliable souces: Youtube ( see here), Amazon (customer reviews are a web forum), and geocities (since it's effectively a self-published website/blog). --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, I believe some of the issues that have been previously been mentioned were deleted from this page. They're located here. --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

None of the thing I saw there were mistakes, but opinions. For example, the article reads like an advertisement is not necessarily an error because it was her opinion and it was only based on 2 edits (better yet, 2 short sentences). I don't think it reads like an advertisement at all. There's even a criticisms section about Sheindlin in it. Anyway, as for the geocites and amazon problem, i don't really know what you're talking about. The info states some fans aren't happy with something about the show or something and that proved it. Enough people commented on those pages about it. Even the Judge Judy site uses it as a reference http://www.judgejudy.com/home/home.asp if you click the DVD on the page. ByeNow 19:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Basically, what I'm saying is that Wikipedia has rules about what we can cite as sources. Several of the sources currently cited fail those rules. So, according to policy, they should probably be removed. It's pretty cut-and-dry. Let me know if I need to clarify further. --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, I was thinking that the part about her salary might fit better on the page about her, rather than here. (Given that it's more related to her than it is the TV show). What do you think? --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I have restored my cleanup comments below. Do you understand that every edit you make is recorded in the edit history of the page? When you remove my explanation of addition of the cleanup template in this edit, and then complain and hour later that the reasons for its addition where not adequately explained on the talk page in this edit, you edits appears disingenuous. Byenow, please respect the talk page guidelines and do not remove my comments. ➪HiDrNick! 19:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

fair enough, Dr. Hick. i didn't really look at what you wrote and glanced at it. what you wrote looked like a bunch of personal attacks so I mistakenly erased them (Not that I agree with anything that was written in it however because I don't). I moved it to up above because it came before this discussion. As for the salary being on Judith Sheindlin's page, I actually think it has more to do with the show. her current salary and being one of the top woman in entertainment has to do with the show's paying her. the show has to do with entertainment. the salary she got when she was a family court judge before the show has to do more with her life, not concerned with the show. her current salary is has a lot to do with the show. If those sources can't be used because rules specifically say, 'no using websites that users create posts on, under any circumstances', then, and only then, I'd say those sources should be taken out. Please show me where it says that or something to the same effect ByeNow 20:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That is more or less what WP:RS says, only without the 'under any circumstances' (because there are notable exceptions, such as when the poster can be shown to be a qualified expert, or when the forum is widely regarded as being impartial and reputable). I don't think this qualifies for the exceptions (Amazon exists to sell things, which is somewhat the definition of non-impartion, etc.) So is there some reason why the sources should be kept in violation of policy? If not, since they're not reliable, they should go. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I have no objection then. ByeNow 21:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, cleaned up then. --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Memorable cases

Where's the whole section that was there about the memorable cases? Let me guess. The Rainbow guy or girl is at it again. Whoever removed it, didn't bother saying anything about it on the talk page since that's what everyone seems to be complaining about, why things aren't put on talk pages Lormos 04:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I follow. The section is still there, at least as of this post. --Bfigura ^(talk) 06:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)