Talk:Marilyn Milian/Archives/2014

Untitled

http://www.keepbusy.net/play.php?id=judge-owns-law-student <- Where she claims to have taught at U.Miami 173.169.5.72 (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's written by herself

Citations are needed for several parts of her "personal life" Details about the fact that her van is "beat up" seems like something only she would write. She contributes to COUNTLESS charitable organizations ?? Why are they not countable ?? It's impossible for that number to be infinite. Literary devices should NOT be used in an encyclopedia! An encyclopedia is for FACTS.

It really seems like Marilyn Milian wrote a lot of this herself, or got her friends to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Universe (talk • contribs) 16:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The phrase in the article was: "Milian has served as emcee for countless charitable causes..."

I changed it to "a number of" charitable causes. 71.202.109.55 (talk) 09:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Stub/Photo

This message is directed to MiamiDolphins3: this article is most definitely a stub. There's no question about it. A little blurb about where she was born and where she got her degree is nothing more than a stub.

I believe the photo is fine without having to be resized. I don't see how 250px width is considered inappropriate since just about all thumbnail images on Wikipedia use that standard. sharpdust 03:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you understate the extent of the article. It includes all of her personal and educational background and information about her legal career. That's not to say that more cannot be potentially added, but it's a reasonable encyclopedic entry on her and her career. It is not a stub, which usually just includes a few factoids and is missing giant pieces of information. I'd encourage you to make the additions you find necessary as opposed to insisting on whether it is or isn't a stub. MiamiDolphins3 15:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't possibly summarize a 45-year bio in 10-12 sentences. sharpdust has a point, chief. Listen and learn. Drdr1989 01:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Missing nothing notable that can't be added, or requires special attention. Also, photo should be standard size. MiamiDolphins3 21:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't waste your time reverting my edits, I'll just keep reverting them back. Rather than go into excessive detail as to what is missing, just review this article carefully, as there is already more than enough evidence that you misunderstand what a stub is. Drdr1989 23:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't meet that definition and is missing nothing notable. MiamiDolphins3 07:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Not a stub

This article is not a stub, or anything close to one. Yet, User:Drdr1989 continually places the stub status on it, despite the fact that it is already a fairly well-developed article, including (in this case) an article that includes: 1.) her date of birth, 2.) her location of birth, 3.) her education (including dates and places of two degrees) and academic honors, 3.) her professional career summary, including appointments, 4.) her professional travel schedule (as if that's encyclopedic), 5.) her personal life details, including the name and professional occupation of her husband and the names of her minor children, 6.) a photo that he/she insists should be no smaller than 250px and cannot, he/she insists, mention in the caption the show for which she is known, 7.) her town of residence; 8.) a succession box for her court tv show; and 9.) nine relevant categories. Perhaps, as I stated on the talk page and in reverts (and is the case with most articles), more can be added to the article (and, if so, go ahead User:Drdr1989, but this page does come close at all to characterizing a stub and the User:Drdr1989 fails to explain what defines this article as a stub against the solid explanation that I have offered that it is clearly not one. With his/her standard for a stub widely applied, many thousands of existing additional articles would need to be relabeled stubs.

User:Drdr1989, in addition to continually inserting the stub status and then threatening me with a revert war on this discussion page, also continues to revert a more descriptive caption and inappropriately enlarges the photo beyond wikipedia photo guidelines. The stub status is inappropriate, the reverted caption and photo size I applied should stand, and I would welcome any affirmation or questioning of my view on any of this since my interpretation of these standards seem pretty broadly applied. MiamiDolphins3 14:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Why should I be the one that explains? MiamiDolphins3 is trying to invent his own incorrect definition of stub status. Yes it does describe the above, but it does so extremely briefly. For the 15th time, that's what a stub is. 67.181.166.76 02:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You have not offered 15 explanations, or even one. As I described above, this article is not missing anything terribly significant that would warrant it a stub. Please do not continue to revert, as you have been doing. Your energies would be better spent improving whatever missing encyclopedic information you find in the article, and I'd ask that you do that instead of engaging in revert wars and combative behavior. MiamiDolphins3 16:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Who said I offered 15 explanations?? And what "combative" behavior? Milian has reached status where you don't have to wait for someone to explain what is missing in order to warrant stub status. Look how many times The People's Court is on - twice per day?? There's only a certain level of tolerance I have for instituting common sense. With that, thanks for finally agreeing with the stub status even if delayed. Drdr1989 02:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Another stub/not stub opinion

I think the continual dispute over whether or not this article is a WP:stub points out the problems in classifying articles based on length. Yes, it's a short article, but it's quite densely packed with information. Lots of articles this short would not be stubs, if they were on topics which were notable enough for inclusion but on which very little information was readily available.

I'm still going to lean towards the "stub" side, though, because of the alternate definition of "stub":

Another way to define a stub is an article so incomplete that an editor who knows little or nothing about the topic could improve its content after a superficial Web search or a few minutes in a reference library. An article that can be improved by only a rather knowledgeable editor, or after significant research, may not be a stub.

I decided that this would be the most objective test, and since I didn't have a reference library handy, I did a Google search. I quickly came across the People's Court website, which includes a biography of the judge. Quite a bit of that biography is fluff that would probably be unsuitable for inclusion. But it does include some information that is clearly appropriate for inclusion, including her "Do I have a case?" column, her involvement with the Guatemalan legal system, and her time on the bench in the Miami County Court.

With a small amount of additional expansion, I think this article would clearly reach the "short, but not a stub" category. As it is, I think it falls under "particularly informative stubs". Kickaha Ota 17:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have readded the stub status, based on that. Her Florida court responsibilities seem to be in there, but nothing on her column or Guatemalan legal work. Thanks for reviewing it. MiamiDolphins3 17:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The Controversies Section

I'd hate to take away from the stub debate, but I suggest there's another issue needing attention, which is the "Controversies" section. This section mentions one instance in which the judge and a belligerent defendant clashed, to the point where the defendant was kicked out of the courtroom. The section goes on to proclaim without documentation that scholars and others had viewed such behavior as disrespectful and unprofessional, yet a recap of the episode from multiple sources does not mention this episode with any credentialed references from anyone who thought it was indeed unprofessional behavior. It appears to me as a sort of "hatchet job", without a citation, by someone without neutrality.

I realize that without such a section the article might conceivably be short enough to be put the article again back into the "stub/not a stub" debate. But without any controversies of which to speak that can be not just pointed to, but done so with an accredited source, the section doesn't seem appropriate. On any reality court show, there are usually a litany of unhappy defendants who may disagree with how they are treated, whether based in law or just persona, and since there wasn't anything of note that has ever made public record as being "unprofessional", I have removed the section. I just wanted to explain that it was removed not of malice but of fairness and due to the unsubstantiated nature of the claims made. I would recommend that if it is reverted, that a proper citation be added in its stead to explain just who thought her conduct over time has been outrageous or unprofessional.

I'm not looking to step on others' collective toes here. But the topic of "controversy" doesn't appear to be germane except in certain defendants' opinions.Cvbear (talk) 06:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

In addition to agreeing with the comments above by Cvbear, I would also point out that the text in the "Controversies" section inaccurately characterizes the incident by leaving out relevant parts of the dialogue between the judge and defendant. A review of this exchange (posted on YouTube [[1]]) shows that the judge's reaction was to the defendant asking for "respect," not to his request to be called "Doctor." Minerwerks (talk) 05:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the controversies section based on Wikipedia's citing sources section in addition to the comments above. Minerwerks (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone put that controversies section back. It really doesn't make any sense without a citation. Bobvila2 (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)