Talk:Judge Judy/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title:  ebay scammer 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Massive grammatical problems 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  general tone of the article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  defamatory edits 

message: Please see WP:CITE for the guideline on how references should be formatted. --Bfigura (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reference Formatting 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cleanup needed 

message: 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:
#'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.
#Images. The article contains too many fair use images that are used inappropriately.  Two should be sufficient.  
#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.
#Minor MOS issues.
#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)
thread_title:  Cleanup needed 

message: 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)
replies: text: Do you have an issue with a more specific template then? Such as: . 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

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