Talk:Judith Sheindlin/Archive 1

Bad article
This is an example of a wiki article I really take issue with. The "criticism" section is extraordinarily tiny, for such a controversial figure. She's a tough-talking daytime TV judge, and the only criticism is a couple of lines from one source? I guarantee there's something better out there. Or at least more. Also, what's with the quotes? Some might be original (though most aren't), but regardless it's unnecessary. Put them on wikiquote. - Darkhawk

I think that the quotes are a good addition to the article. I thought that the quotes were actually the best part of the article because some of them were quite funny. If you take them off the article, it will be a bore to read. Most biographies on Wikipedia have quotes to show the person's character. Keep it where it is, it is fine.

Loghead1 17:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think the quotes are too lengthy. Perhaps, if they were culled down a bit? As it stands, that's a massive wall of quotes, many of which are not original or particularly memorable. I failed to log in the first time.

Cronoglenn 18:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Facts
Removed some of the following until sources are cited:


 * Her mother died of stomach cancer, which Judge Judy says was misdiagnosed as ovarian cancer.
 * Judy herself says that she saw it as a way to reach out to everyday people and share her opinions on life with a broader audience.
 * Her style is disighned as encouraging people to "take responsibility for...[themselves, their]... actions and the children... [they've] brought into the world." "Americans have the right to know how their interests are being represented," says Judy herself, and the site also credits her with pioneering an open court policy, which was not common at the time.
 * Finally, Sheindlin has appeared in Las Vegas commercials explaining how to play popular table gambling games for Harrah's Entertainment group, using her no nonsense approach to breakdown the key rules of games such as Poker.

Iola k ana |T 17:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Also add:

Sheindlin is a devoted fan of the TV series Law & Order. Attempts were made to secure her a guest role on the show, but the L&O producers declined, saying that she would be too recognizable as Judge Judy.

Iola k ana • T 12:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Home
Judge's Judys house is not in new york
 * Please cite and state why this is not so. Iola k ana • T  13:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
I noticed that someone completely removed the (wholly legitimate) criticisms section that I had added to the article. I will be reposting it when I get the time, and would greatly appreciate it if one of the users on this page could assist me.

SwedishConqueror 23:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)SwedishConqueror

Quotes
I take strong issue with the quotes section on this article. I edited a bit of the private life section, changing sentence structure for a more even flow. If it were my choice, I would remove the quote section all together. It does not seem appropriate for an encyclopedia article, and the list is becoming much too long. There have been several unregistered users simply adding humorous quotes to the already-ten-times-too-long list. While most of them are quotes used by Judy on her program, they are unnecessary, and contribute nothing to the article. If such quotes would like to be kept on Wikipedia, this article is not the place for them. Judge Judy is a television show, and Judy's stereotypical quotes are merely part of acting. An actor's quotes in a television program are not considered his/her own personal quotes. If, for some reason, we have a dire interest in keeping the extensive list of quotes, they should, at minimum, be moved to the Judge Judy article. Any opinions, concerns? Speak up, or I will feel free to transfer them. Tingalex 23:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I thought the quotes section was neat. Yes, it was a bit long.  Actors and actresses do have famous quotes and listing some of the most popular was appropriate, even for an encyclopedia.  Oh well. --Crxssi 02:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Controversy?
Sorry to intrude here folks, but I think removing what little criticism and controversial material from this article was a complete whitewash. Judge Judy is famous presicely because of here contoversial views and authoritarian personality. To remove her views on both serious social and legal problems of the day is like talking about Stalin and neglecting to mention the purges or the Gulag. For an article about one of the most popular judges in America, to not talk about her social let alone legal views, seems odd to me (albeit, that doesn't count for much :) ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.120.140 (talk • contribs)

Massive Edits Undone
It looks like this article was the subject of a massive amount of vandalism over the last month or so by the user User:Tratare(talk), who has now been blocked indefinitely. It also looks like the user fully reverted their changes to the point where there is no difference between the revision before their first edit and the current article. Please be aware of this and make sure the text in this article is still accurate. Should we request that this article have its Good Article status reviewed? --Thesilence 14:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Family court clerk?
The opening para describes her as a "family court clerk" -- is this correct, was she really a clerk rather than a judge? --ukexpat (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

GA Delisting
In order to uphold the quality of Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of January 8, 2008, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR. Significant problems with this article, one of which is the big clean up tag that has been there since November 2007 and is, as far as I can tell, warranted. The lead does not conform to WP:LEAD as it does not adequately summarize all the major points/headings in the article. There are several statements throughout the article that are uncited, most importantly some of her direct quotes in the controversy section, which absolutely need a direct citation. Some of the references used, such as NNDB, are questionable. In addition, the references are not properly formatted using citation templates or another similar format. Also worrisome is the size of the controversy section compared to the rest of the article. That's not to say that it should be shrank (though it might need to be), but if that one incident is so large, and certainly it's not what she's known for, then the rest of the article needs to be beefed up to place the incident in a relative context. Finally, the prose reads poorly, as it is very choppy, and reads like a series of facts in some places rather than an encyclopedic work of prose. Cheers, CP 04:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I also note that this article was never given a GA review before it was promoted in the first place, another reason to delist. Cheers, CP 04:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it is true.
A Google search for "no point talking about how best to approach the problem since the solution is simple. Give them dirty needles, and let them die. I don't understand why we think it's important to keep them alive." just leads to this page. I doubt it is true. --212.247.27.19 (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate Infobox (moved here from the Help Desk for June 18)
What would be an appropriate infobox for Judith Sheindlin? There seem to be more than one that apply. I'm torn between Infobox Officeholder, which is said to cover "Congressman, Governor, Judge, Mayor, Politician, President, Senator, Vice President, etc.", because she is/was a family court Judge, or the more broad Infobox Person infobox, because she's no longer a Judge and is considered a "television personality" now... or even any other infobox. Any advice? Thanks. Save-Me-Oprah (talk) 03:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would go with Person. I think Officeholder would be preferred in Judge Judy had an elected judicial seat, like a Superior Court judge or something like that. Paragon12321 (talk) 05:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If Infobox Celebrity were still its own template, I would argue for using it… but it redirects to Infobox Person anyway. So go ahead with that one. $$\sim$$ Lenoxus " * " 18:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Judge Judy is NOT a conservative
I have removed the information in the box at the bottom that says she is a conservative. If you watch clips on youtube of her on Larry King and the View she says she is Pro-Choice, Pro-Gay Mariage, Pro-Stem Cell Research and against teaching creasionism in school.

These issues alone say she is either moderate or liberal but certainly not a conservative. She also made it clear she supported Obama this election and is deeply concerned about Sarah Palin and the issues she stands for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.56.194.2 (talk) 06:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)