Talk:Judge Judy

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)

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)

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 ceartianly 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)