Talk:Family Court with Judge Penny

Protection
I have protected this page for a week due to edit-warring: the cause seems to be editors for and against the inclusion of negative information about a living person. A reliable source was given, and thus inclusion of at least some of the information seems appropriate, but I would like to see some discussion and agreement here about what weight should be given to these accusations against a living person, as compared her denials, especially given the overall length of the article. In my view, there was much too much detail and negative innuendo. I also recommend finding other reliable sources for these allegations, and some discussion about a NPOV heading for any information you choose to include. I recommend that you discuss things here, and not on user talkpage. --Slp1 (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't like posting publicly but I will say the article I keep deleting is just a rumor meant to cause harm. It has just ONE source with a vendetta against the subject of the article. It has NOT been picked up by any other media sources simply because its NOT true. It's not even discussed publicly any more--its just the guy I edited that is trying to keep the story alive. There isn't any value to posting it here. Wiki is a encyclopedia as such should only allow factual information. Information that can be proven true. Thanks OhioRuthie (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I just read about the Living Person Biography I would think this would apply to that policy as well. I don't feel it would be fair to try to do a NPOV since for one its not true and two the editor posting it is just trying to cause harm. He's the only one still talking about it. OhioRuthie (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, OhioRuthie. Thanks for your comments. It is helpful to hear your concerns, and I certainly agree that our BLP policies are in effect here.  However, you seem to have a  misconception: WP's policies state that the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth WP:V, in part because in many subjects people dispute what the "Truth" is. For example, there are people out there who hold that is the absolute truth the earth is flat. As you can imagine, the decision has been made that we have to go with what reliable sources say about these matters (which include mainstream sources with editorial oversight, including TV news channels such as the one in this case). Like it or not, these are the rules, and it appears that there is a reliable source that suggests that these accusations have been made.  You seem very sure that the allegations are not true.  Do you know of any proof of this that you can point us too?  Unfortunately your opinion is not enough.  Has Judge Penny denied it somewhere or explained her side of things? Has there been any other investigation(judicial/in the media) which came out saying that these allegations were false or explaining things in more detail?  If so, please provide the links to the webpages. This will help to write the article fairly and accurately, which is the absolute priority here. Even if you can't provide other sources about this subject, I believe that if the information is included, it needs to be a very short statement of the allegations, with the rebuttal included from Judge Penny.--Slp1 (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

So to understand what you are saying. Wiki encyclopedia will add anything with just one source? So if I write an article for a very popular online magazine (Which I do by the way..we are quoted on CNN, GMC,etc) and just one article that would be enough to put something untrue and damaging on someone's page? I'm looking into the information you are requesting but I just need to understand where you are coming from. Are you the same person from email with wikimedia that has been addressing my concerns? Or are you at least in communication with them too? The only place you find this story is old and they never did any follow up to prove it..and its from a news spot that is like TMZ that reports on rumors without support or comparisons..for instance in this story they refused to share the records of any of the other judges. An untrue story meant to cause intentional harm. Since someone at wikimedia is addressing my concerns do I still need to post them here? OhioRuthie (talk) 23:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I am not from wikimedia. And yes, WP might add something with just one reliable source as long as it is not given undue weight ; though particular caution is taken in a biography of a living person of course. But just to reassure you, an online magazine is very unlikely to meet our criteria as a reliable source, unless the online magazine has "editorial control" with a reputation for fact checking of what contributors write. A mainstream TV news program has just the kind of editorial control required, for one thing because they fear being sued!!
 * Having said this, I am very sympathetic to your point of view and your desire not to have false information included in the article. However, finding the sources that are mentioned above, and listing them here, are going to be very important to make sure that this article is appropriately written sourced and balanced in the long-term. --Slp1 (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

First I appreciate you responding to my concerns...it helps to be heard. The source though a TV news show couldn't prove anything because it wasn't true...it was all just rumor that they reported on. That's my problem with it being cited as reputable source. A news show should report the news not rumors. But as you know most news programs are now reporting celebrity rumors as part of their program. Even the local news in my small town lets us know which celebrity is dating whom, if someone is in trouble--even though we later learn it isn't true. It seems to be something they can get away with these days. When records of other judges were requested they refused to discuss them. Judge Penny is the only one with her own TV show.

On a side note I still haven't gotten an email confirmation though I requested one several times. Which would help in communications with administrators on here.And yes the online magazine I am part of has "editorial control" CNN and other new outlets view us as reliable sources. I have concern with anything being cited without at least a few genuine/reliable sources(basic rules of journalism) If its important enough to include on someone's bio page it should at least have several reliable sources before its included. If wiki hopes to develop a reputation of being reliable its news sources should be several and strong. If as you say she can sue the station for what they said, will she then be able to sue wiki if they include it here? I am not educated on the law and I'm just curious. OhioRuthie (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

From Wiki: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should only include information verified by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." *I notice it says "sources" plural.

Verifiable..meaning to be proven true. And that isn't the case with this report. The story is untrue and when others tried to prove it by comparing other Judge's records they refused to disclose the identical info on them. So its not just untrue its biased. By including this article Wiki isn't an encyclopedia but rather and online version of the National Enquirer. Judge Penny makes a positive difference in the lives of so many and deserves better. OHIORUTHIE24.209.53.167 (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The difficulty here is OhioRuthie is less determined to edit the "truth" but rather intent on protecting "Judge Penny" from allegations based on fact. http://home.roadrunner.com/~ruthie818/judgepenny.html, http://www.freewebs.com/ruthiesfanpages/ and http://www.youtube.com/user/ohioruthie are just some of the webpages she controls or edits as a "groupie" of Judge Penny. Looking at the edit, it is a verfiable source from a top news agency from Judge Penny's home town. The source of the data if from Freedom of Information act electronic data DIRECTLY FROM FULTON COUNTY. The rest is simply noise and misdirection from the head of Judge Penny's online fanclub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.7.128.164 (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Kevin? I'm a fan of many celebrities as my pages indicate...but I'm the biggest fan of TRUTH. Refer to my post above his. His only motivation is to try to hurt an innocent person.He's the only one still talking about it. A bully shouldn't be rewarded. Notice he won't even reveal his real name. Why is he hiding. I gave my name yet this person insists on hiding. He is obsessed with this story why not make him reveal himself. That should be a wiki policy that a person has to provide their name to fight for editing rights. If they feel THIS strongly they shouldn't be allowed to be a coward and hide. Oh if "Judge Penny Groupie" means someone who is fighting for the truth and looking out to protect her reputation from an obsessed zealot then I will accept that title happily. OhioRuthie (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

People, people. In editing and commenting on WP, we are required to focus on the edits, not on the editors. Speculating about motivations, as both of you have done is against policy and must stop straight away. Note that pursuing this line of conversation may lead to you being blocked from editing again. I speak as a WP administrator, and one who is capable of doing this if need be.
 * Ruthie, you misunderstand our policies here. Verifiability does not mean proven true.  It means that a reliable source such as a newspaper, book, or TV news program, with a reputation for fact checking, has "published" the material in question, as has happened here. Please check the policy in question. You have several times stated that you believe that the accusation of the TV program is untrue, but you need to provide some other reliable sources that indicate that this is the case, as I requested above, e.g. an official denial from Judge Penny, a newspaper article that contradicts the TV programs claims etc etc. Note that websites (apart from Judge Penny's) do not count as reliable sources in this case. (And BTW, if this is  the website you write for, then rest assured it is very unlikely to be considered a reliable source for our purposes )  If you are still having trouble with your email, you might want to post here WP:HELPDESK.
 * 65.7.128.164; your post above is not accurate. The information from about JP's coming and going did not come from a freedom of information request or directly from Fulton County, but from a "whistle blower's" report.

So... Ruthie, please produce some reliable sources putting the other view. 65.., please produce some additional sources for this claim from newspapers or other tv programs to support this claim.--Slp1 (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Slp1 is it possible to require people to reveal their real names when in a situation like this one? I'm not sure what you are asking me to provide....the only thing is that whistle blower report..no other media source has ever reported on it...because its not true...so I'm not sure what you need from me. Thank you for requiring 65 (bellsouth) to provide additional sources. Please let me know exactly what it is I can provide.OhioRuthie (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it is not possible to require people to reveal their real names. If you have proof that "its not true", or that nothing additional has been published because of the untruth, then provide it. Otherwise, the untruth of these allegations appear to be just your opinion, which is not of use when making editorial decisions here.--Slp1 (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you requiring him to provide additional sources? I'm going to need time to research...since its hard to prove that other media has never discussed it other than the fact there isn't anything else available on it. It's such a non-issue since the airing of that piece...again only being kept alive by the bellsouth guy on here. In all sincerity it really does come down to motivation. This person though only providing a IP address has sites too only he trashes people he doesn't like...now he wants you to help him.(just as he researched me I researched him..but I won't post his links here since I can't PROVE its him nor do I want to give him anymore notice..there is only one person talking about it online so its not rocket science to figure out who he is)If it was a real article I could understand the need for a NPOV. But like you pointed out its nothing more than a "whistle blower" report that is merely a National Enquirer part of a news. I can even call my local news and ask for a report into your activities on Wiki claiming you are biased against women. My claim doesn't have to be true but if they have the time they'd investigate you. Not real news.OhioRuthie (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Threats of discrimination are simply, ridiculous and over the top. The facts are, only one person in the internet community disputes edits to the story on Wikipedia. That individual happens to be the same person who edits/owns MULTIPLE fan websites focusing on the referenced party. The story is clear. It has verifiable references. It even has a videotaped response from the Fulton County Commissioner, Robb Pitts, claiming that "he came to the same conclusion [WSBTV] did" further he added that "the undeniable truth was, she wasn't working". This is not heresay - but rather video evidence from County officials. This is secondary support of the referenced accusation by a county politician. Why does Wikipedia need to cowtow to the efforts of groupies and lackies when the facts are staring them straight in the face? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.7.128.164 (talk) 03:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Analysis of WSBTV (Atlanta) report in this context
I was recent changes patrolling the day the information and link was inserted (I rough ref'd the cite), and was at first swayed by the video. However, it is, upon reflection, less than it seems.

NOTES (re 4 min/21 sec video):

1. Access to other judges key-card records is denied.
 * (So, no judgment can be made as to whether Penny's time records are atypical)

2. "Nothing can be done" (about it)
 * (Then apparently nothing illegal was done)

3. How many hours are elected judges required to spend in the court building?
 * (COMMENT/ASIDE: How many hours did Obama spend in the Capitol building in 2008?)

4. She says she often worked from home.
 * (A commissioner with a camera in his face says judging has to be done in the building. But where is that written? Surely the robe is worn in the building, but it would seem that judging is more than presiding. Includes "home work," one would think, etc).

BOTTOM LINE: The video alleges an elected judge has committed an outrage of some kind by not being in the court house X number of hours per week -- where no one specifies what X must be by law (but apparently presumes less than 40-hours/week is bad) ... and cannot make a comparison with other judges because those records are not released.


 * I.E., So what?
 * CONCLUSION: This tabloid noise has no place in the article.

ALSO LET US KEEP IN MIND: The article is about the syndicated TV program. Could we write that "during the year she was becoming a TV celebrity, she may have been shirking her day job?" Of course, but again, so what? -- Proofreader77 (talk) 05:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * A couple of comments in response to the last few posts. I take it that 65. is not able to produce any more reliable sources about this incident. It also seems that Ruthie is not able to quickly lay her hands on any more reliable sources about the allegations either, so we are left with this one and only source. It should be noted that the news report is relatively recent (March 9, 2009), so it is possible that more may emerge in the next few weeks/months.  Proofreader77 has done a helpful detailed analysis on the video and now concludes that the information has no place in the article.
 * As an editor, I agree that the one and only source, a short news video, is sensationalistic and generally unconvincing as a quality source. Given that this involves a living person and we have a requirement that we err on the side of caution when including negative information, it appears that there is a movement towards the view that the material should not be included. This situation may change if 65. (or others) are able to produce more reliable mainstream sources about these allegations and whether they have been take further by any of the parties. --Slp1 (talk) 13:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the argument that one of the largest and most respected news programs in the metro Atlanta market is "not mainstream" is a valid one. The article is referenced and has commentary from local officials. Surely WP does not want "fans" who run "worship" websites focusing on the referenced party with absolutely zero facts or reference steam rolling articles. There are thousands of cases on WP with much less or zero backup or reference. The cite clearly meets WP's threshold for verifiability in that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.7.128.164 (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Slp1...and ProofReader...its good to see that standards are upheld on here. I like your policy of erring on the side of caution for living persons. Also 65 has insulted me three times..twice since he was warned he would be blocked again. Am I able to assume he is now blocked? Or may I speak freely in response to him?OhioRuthie (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * edit conflict Where did anybody say that the program was "not mainstream"? And other stuff exists is not a valid argument around here. I will ask you for the last time to stop commenting on Ruthie's motives.Note, however, that neither I nor Proofreader are apparently Judge Penny fans, but both of us agree with Ruthie that though the allegations about Judge Penny are verifiable, since they are apparently cited to one somewhat sensationalistic TV piece which leaps to a conclusion, including this information about a living person would be giving undue weight to it in this article. If the allegations get taken up by other news sources, please feel free to come back, and we can look at the situation again.--Slp1 (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, Ruthie, 65 is not blocked, and I strongly suggest that if you respond "freely", you comment only on editing and edits and not on the editors involved. I am personally not sure what is left to be said, however. --Slp1 (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

"Cold and heartless"???
Where's the proof that she's as "cold and heartless" as whoever said it?...it's more like a personal vendetta against ALL judges in the Fulton County justice system--and to a certain degree, Judith Sheindlin(aka "Judge Judy")!...please investigate this...thanks...Michaela92399 (talk) 02:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)