Talk:Judge Judy/Archive 1

message: In all these court shows the bailiffs have handcuffs.  I know some people have been kick out of the courtroom for yelling, but has anyoneone on any of these show ever been aressed for doing somthing "bad" in the court room?  or would they not show this on tv?
:Yes, I have watched this show for years and Judge Judy has dismissed people from the courtroom for bad behavior, mostly just when people try to talk over her.  This can't be cited of course because I have no proof of it, but it has happened on at least one occasion.  Clinevol98 06:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: aressted?

message: "Judge Judy, with her show now in syndication, has supassed Oprah Winfrey and become the highest paid woman in television history."
I find the above trivia from the article hard to believe. There could be some kind of reference; or, if not, remove it altogether.
:I added a link to an article in the Guardian backing up that claim (http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,867889,00.html) User:Meshach 07:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real trivia? 

message: It was on for me this afternoon, and I thought I'd grab a capture after seeing the poor quality one on here previously. Comments are Welcome. - Boochan 11:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newer Clearer Capture 

message: "So do retards!" . . . are you really sure? I certainly never heard her say "retards". ExRat 07:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judge Judy Quotes 

message: Judge Judy's court isn't a real court, is it?  This edit removed a reference to other courts as "real" and to my mind obfuscated the issue considerably.  (This has recently come up on the Reference Desk.) --Bth 10:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The People's Court is a small-claims arbitration show. Likewise, a web source mentions a "Judge Judy Arbitration Agreement", and other web sites indexed by Google seem to agree. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 02:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's not a real court, right? 

message: The catchphrases section is rediculously long. Seriously. Two and a half pages long, with my small font size. It looks like people who watch the show hear something funny and put it in this article right away. It's not like these are things she says all the time. It needs to be trimmed down. I recently saw the same done on another article, however I can't recall what it was. Search4Lancer 07:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catchphrases section 

message: "...as opposed to the non-interventionist manner of judges in U.S. and most Anglo-Saxon trial courts."
What, exactly, is an 'Anglo-Saxon trial court'?  Courts in Britain are British.  Courts in Europe (which may include Britain) are European.  Courts in Australia are Australian.  And so on.  'Anglo-Saxon' is a race, and I'm not aware of any race-specific courts.
However, I'm no expert, so I'm going to wait if someone can explain this phrasing to me before I change it. 207.195.240.53 01:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anglo-Saxon Courts?

message: After reading this article on Judge Judy I was surpised at the point of view.  The whole article seems to be making fun of the show and viewing in an unserious light.  It goes as far as puting quotation marks around the words, court and cross-examination.  It acts as if Judge Judy does neither of these.  It mocks the show.  I have watched the show many, many times and this article needs to be rewritten to meet a neutral pov.
8.04 03:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the quotes as, yes, they're unnecessary. As for the quotes, I've transwikied them to wikiquote:Judith Sheindlin since that's where they belong. However, I had trouble choosing suitable titles but I invite you to change them. Hyenaste (tell) 15:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  I just removed another example of pov...this article should not be subject to mindless, opionated criticism. 8.04 19:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No one is attacking others. user:8.04 did not go to others' pages and accuse them of being mindless, only that the article was POV. Judy's quotes were not removed, but transwikied as is policy and then prominently linked to. Unfortunately, those who accused Judy of being sexist did not provide any references. That is POV. To counteract that, 8.04 and I removed some of these unsourced examples. No one is trying to suppress negative information; anyone is welcome to add any accusations of sexism as long as they are consistent with WP:V. Hyenaste (tell) 01:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that Judge Judy's court's legitimacy is questionable perhaps the quotations around certain terms discussing legal matters are appropriate.
Any problem removing the POV tag?  The issue of the article being written in a tone that viewed the show in an "unserious light" seems to have been remedied and the quotes have been moved over to wikiquote -Pnkrockr 19:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Issues

message: I've removed this remark. I'm sure most British TV viewers are familiar with this show, but I don't think you could call it hugely popular by any stretch of the imagination. I mean how many people watch ITV2 in the daytime anyway? If it was hugely popular ITV1 would add it to their daytime schedule. User:Paul26uk 14:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hugely Popular in Great Britain

message: Some people are blowing off my formula and deleting it. My formula is factual though. It is simple-
The female litigant always wins the case over the male litigant. The white litigant always wins the case over the black litigant. If they are the same gender and race, she dismisses the case with no prejudice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.7.73 (talk • contribs) 
:As soon as you have any sort of reference for your edits, they will not get reverted. --Alex (talk here) 22:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To you it might not, but you cannot add "facts" without a source. See WP:CITE. Thanks. --Alex (talk here) 22:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: formula

message: Isn't the use of the word notorious in this article a bit insulting? Twentyboy 21:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  use of notorious 

message: The article talks about Judge Judy surpassing Oprah Winfrey as far as who is getting paid more. The source for that is very old and that information has probably changed. I'm considering erasing it. Any objections? Lonelyboy 00:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erasing Oprah Winfrey info 

message: Added a reference to the Constance Harm page as paradies of Judge Judy.  Constance Harm is a newer Simpsons character. meshach 21:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most Simpsons external sites do consider her to be a parady of Judge Judy  and even her own article on Wiki says she is a parady of Judge Judy.  I guess the real question is if that is appropriete for the Judge Judy article.  I felt like it was but I would be interested to hear why not.  meshach 00:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was removed in this edit by Lonelyboy and despite what it says in the Wikipedia article and the fanlisting on SNPP, I'd tend to agree.  She's not voiced in a way that resembles Judge Judy and her resemblance is somewhat superficial.  A citation would be needed. Danny Lilithborne 00:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess to me it is obvious that she is a parady of Judge Judy, I have never heard a suggestion that she is not.  All related websites and wiki articles say that she is, but I guess that none of these are "official proof".  What would qualify as proof for something like that? meshach 01:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That's breath-takingly blind. It's an obvious parody. Holy crap, man. BonniePrinceCharlie 01:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen the episodes and I disagree.  Make your point with sources and not with veiled insults, please. Danny Lilithborne 02:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's tough to explain common sense and the intuitively obvious, but I'll condescend to try. Judge Judy is a television icon representing the "tough judge." Constance Harm (note the name?) metes out tough punishment and commands her courtroom like a dictator - exactly like Judge Judy. Compare these quotes - Harm: "Don't spit on my cupcake and tell me it's frosting;" Judy: "Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining." That comparison between those two is enough to decide the issue, but if you need more than that and the fact that they represent precisely the same style of judging, look at the fact that they are identical in appearance. We have the balance of evidence practically breaking in its strain on the side of "obvious parody," so I'll quit while I'm well ahead. BonniePrinceCharlie 07:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding link to Constance Harm 

message: If you're not going to meet discussion points and still remove the Constance Harm link, you're being dishonest. The evidence is here in the talk thread, has been here for weeks, and no response has been made. It's going back in.
*You don't want to get into a content dispute, BonniePrinceCharlie.  You gave no proof and there were multiple people who didn't see the connection.  You've been reported as a sockpuppet. JuJube 20:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you read what is immediately above this? You're being a terrible editor. This is going on report. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.171.233.24 (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dishonest edits 

message: Please offer argument and evidence regarding whether Constance Harm is a parody of Judge Judy. 20:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please realize that if no one offers comment, the default will be restored. The parody will be recognized. 72.144.103.202 01:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, no.  That's not how it works around here. JuJube 02:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: And by the way, without sources that specify the creators intended Judge Harm to be a Judge Judy parody, that shouldn't even be in at all per WP:RS.  And no, "it's obvious" is not a source. JuJube 02:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: JuJube is correct; unless a reliable source is provided that shows the Simpsons writers intended Judge Harm as a parody of Judge Judy, it would be original research to state that in this article.  That needs to be verifiable to merit mention in the article.--Isotope23 02:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll remove everything without a source, then. Thank you for clarifying. (most of the article will go now) 72.144.103.202 23:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment 

message: This is really funny. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.144.60.229 (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still no Constance Harm reality check? 

message: Guys, please stop trying to add Constance Harm links here. The article for Judith Sheindlin already clearly indicates this very obvious parody. There's really no need to include it here. In fact, we might want to eliminate all parodies from this article that are repeated in the main article. We all know that Constance Harm is a parody, but there is certainly no need to mention it twice. 74.225.130.13 10:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh, I see someone else has added it. Guys, the parody is really obvious. Only an idiot would try to claim that Constance Harm is not a parody of Judgy Judy. But do we really need to link both articles to that? I don't think so. One is enough. Stop trying to vandalize this article with a link to what the other article acknowledges as true. 72.144.198.53 03:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fully gratuitous 

message: >>small claims cases with an award limit of US$5,000,
In a number of cases, people have sued for $3000, which has been mentioned as the limit in the jurisdiction the people involved are from. Is the $5000 statement above indicating that regardless, Judge Judy has a $5000 limit, or is it implying that there is usually a $5000 limit because most states have that as their limit? If the latter, it should be rephrased to imply that the limit of Judge Judy is based on the jurisdiction of the case (which should be mentioned either way) TheHYPO 04:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An arbitration limit? And what jurisdiction? 72.144.198.53 07:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limit: