Talk:Judge Judy/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive. Please do not modifiy it. Current discussion is on Talk:Judge Judy

[edit] Accusations of the show being "staged"

Has anyone seen this website? It's made by a Michael John Nevettie, who has appeared as a plaintiff on Judge Judy. He claims that Judge Judy pays both the plaintiff and the defendant $100 just for appearing on the show and that before his case was even heard he was awarded $1400, the amount he was suing the defendant for. He also claims that Judge Judy's production company, Big Ticket Productions, pays the winners of the cases and that Judge Judy isn't even a judge, only an arbitrator. He's also got a video uploaded of his case being heard on TV [1].

There is ample material to cite this, so should it have a mention in the article? These are serious accusations from someone who has apparently appeared on the show. Clinevol98 06:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Lying under oath? It's my understanding that Judge Judy's show isn't a real court, and the participants sign an agreement beforehand to abide by her judgement. As such, they're not actually under oath.

Futhermore, assuming my understanding is correct, this should be noted in the article, along with the fact that the TV show producers pay any settlements, not the people appearing on the show! ShaneKing 02:46, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Do they place their hands on the Bible? The bailiff always says, "defendants have been sworn in", so if they have placed their hands on the Bible, they are under oath, and it would be a mortal sin for them to lie (hence the practice of swearing on the Bible at all).

"Judge Judy acts in an inquisitorial manner unheard of in Western justice...": it's not that unheard of as the French legal system, based on the Napoleonic code, is more inquisitorial and that's considered part of the Western World! Maybe this should be simpler and refer to either 'common law' or US legal systems? rlongstaff (10 May 2005)

That's probably best. Can you reword it? Mike H 20:25, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Is done. rlongstaff 21:25, May 15 2005 (UTC)

I think it's important to realize that pretty much all Small Claims Court in the US is like this. Having appeared in SCC twice, the judges act like this. Also, traffic court in the US runs this way in many jurisdictions, but a little less in-your-face. It's kind of entertaining to attend. Aep 23:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Most court shows aren't real, anyway. The closest thing to a real courtroom is Judge Alex, AFAIK. Danny Lilithborne 06:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] aressted?

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)

[edit] Real trivia?

"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)

[edit] Newer Clearer Capture

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)

[edit] Producers Pay?

"Additionally, the producers of the show pay any judgments awarded." That sounds very interesting. There isn't anything at risk for the defendants? Two people could just make up a story in order to try to get the $5,000. Captain Jackson 17:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems an incredible statement. Why are the defendants so determinded to fight there case.

Yes and why are you so 'determinded' to ruin your mother tongue?

They could just accept it cos there are no consquences. Hmm. I do find it very unlikely. I personally would take it off until there is official proof. coolmark18 22:44 14 February 2006 (GMT)

No less unbelievable than some of the edit wars here, I'd say (no money ther either). Losing there would be kind of like having one's edits reverted in front of a few hundred thousand people; the money doesn't really matter. Mithridates 01:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and here's proof: Afterward, the defendant weighed in for the camera. "I was made to look like a fool" and a deadbeat, he wailed - while the show picked up the tab for the roughly $2,000 US judgment, as it always does. Mithridates 01:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

"Two people could just make up a case..."

I'd be surprised if more then 1/4 of the cases on the show were "real"...Habsfannova 02:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't remember which of the court shows I was watching, but one of them said they were paid an appearance fee and the loser has the winner's payment deducted first.

Is this true? If someone has a source for this then this would be a good thing to include in the article meshach

Actually when I looked in the attached website I discovered it is true. I clarified that section of the article

A few years back, my ex roomate sued me in a small-claims court. Once I filed a countersuit, I got a letter from the producers of Judge Judy asking if we'd drop our case and let them take it. That is how they contact you, the use public records from small claims courts in most major cities and "fish" from there. --128.193.161.139 23:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The explanation for how payment is made is not worded well at the moment. Its very unclear and needs to be changed. 13:11, 31 August 2006

Follow some of the links at the end of the article for confirmation. The producers pay, as they do on all the court shows. Exploding Boy 19:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New episodes?

Do new episodes of this still air? In the UK, old repeats always seem to be aired (usually 1996-2002). - Wezzo 21:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, every day in the US, at least in Seattle... I'm watching one now with an incident that occured in late 2005 featured (lesson? don't let your ex-wife have your credit card).Aep 23:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

ITV2 buy the Judge Judy episodes in blocks. Recently a new series was bought with events occurring in 2000 while before it was 1998 or so. As far as ratings go for ITV2, I believe they will be buying new ones when they feel it’s necessary coolmark18 15:17, 1st April 2006 (GMT)

Thanks to both of you for the information. :-) - W e zzo (talk) (ubx) 19:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Judge Judy Quotes

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

Methinks a large portion of this should go to Wikiquote. 204.38.198.3 04:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It's not a real court, right?

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)

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)

[edit] Catchphrases section

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. Search 4 Lancer 07:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any particular catchphrases at all. None specific to this particular judge, anyway. "I'm speaking" is something any authority figure is likely to say if you try to talk over them: try teachers or parents, for starters. 207.195.240.53 01:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] real court

really, theres nothing to indicate that judge judy is in a fake court. Very real court cases are broadcast and dramatized on court tv all the time. I do not know how they could get away with referring to it as her courtroom so much on judge judy's website if it wasnt real, at least not without a disclaimer. I did read the terms of service to try and find a disclaimer of that sort, and couldnt find one.

And as far as the show paying the litigants, on the peoples court their disclaimer says something like "the appearance fees, if any, are paid at the producers discretion, and the losing party's fee is deducted from the judgement". I would imagine that judge judy's show works the same way, since all reality court shows came after the peoples court, but I cant be sure unless I record an episode.

[edit] Anglo-Saxon Courts?

"...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)

[edit] Female chauvinist

If you watch this program enough, you will quickly see how older men are often told that they are lucky to get off so easily when a younger girlfriend does not repay money, etc. But if an older woman is in a similar position with a younger man. Judge judy will yell at the boy and try to emasculate him on camera. She is one of the worst examples of female chauvinism on television. It is particularly offensive since in some very real way she represents the law. I believe that her view on these social issues is universal within the justice system. what is the best way to work this in to the article?

I found a review by the Library Journal of Judge Judies book, In it is the following:

"Although some readers may find Sheindlin's male bashing a little over the topAat one point she claims that "within the family structure, what men do best is breathe""

Wow this is all so exaggerated. If I had read this before watching Judge Judy, I would think of her as woman who sits on her bench and does nothing but badmouth men for most of the case even if only two woman were involved. I think you all need to cut it out and stop trying to portray Judge Judy as something she is not. She occassionally cracks a joke about men. Men are always implying that woman are less better than they are. In fact, there is even a word for it called macho. Something that many men on TV are, such as Martin, but you don't see woman whining about this. For many years, woman couldn't even vote. Wow, I am even a guy and I am apalled at how sensitive guys especially after how rude we've been to woman all these years. Get over it guys. Woman are entitled to crack a joke here and there about men after our treatment toward them all these years just like black people are entitled to a little bit more respect because of how white people treated them over the years.

24.206.125.213 10:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)BMIKESCI

Judy's show is not about the law or about arbitrating a case fairly or that justice is served, it is about getting ratings and this in itself will deny the law and justice when the former and latter come into conflict. Judy does seem to be a chauvinist and if she is she should be labeled as such and, provided this is an actual court, which is questionable, removed from her position as her biases clearly manifest themselves in her rulings. Even if she is not a chauvinist, her biases clearly are reflected in the way she judges and rules. So long as ratings are served I suppose that is all that matters.

[edit] POV Issues

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)

Also, let's not forget the headings on the quotes. They ridicule what she has said.

8.04 03:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Please read the wiki article on civility. It should never be neccessary to insult editors by calling their edits mindless or opinionated. It seems that some editors believe that Judge Judy's comments are sexist. Some of her quotes were included in the article. Other editors felt that Judge Judy's own quotes did not belong in this article. I think that those quotes should be put back into the article. Judge Judy said those things. She should take the heat for saying them. She said that what a man does best in a family is breath. That is a sexist remark. That is a fact. If a male judge said what women do best in a family is make babies, do you think it would be appropriate to call him sexist? Why is it ok for Judge Judy to say these things and not be judged a sexist. She has a brain, she knows what she is doing. When she does this on television, she says it's alright to act this way - that it is behavior that is completely appropriate. Male bashing is as wrong as demeaning women. Everyone should stand-up against sexism. If Judge Judy wants to say sexist things, then she should be prepared to be called on them. I think it is a shame that some editors have taken it upon themselves to vandelize other editor's work. Remember, people work hard on these articles, to simply remove any fact because you don't like what it does to a celebrity's image is unfair to the editor who took the time to research that fact. The NPOV tutorial says to add additional facts - not remove the ones you don't like.

BMIKESCI 01:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

I think the tag should be removed now as well, as the POV issues have largely been addressed. Danny Lilithborne 23:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hugely Popular in Great Britain

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)

[edit] formula

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)

what you said makes zero sense —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.7.73 (talk • contribs)

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)

No offense, but Alex is absolutely right. Your vandalism might have been humorous, but it was still some straight-up vandalism dude. lol TareTone 03:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The site can not function properly with pointless racists remarks planted all ove rthe site. People use this site as a source of information and they do not need it to be currupted by such assinine remarks or formulas. Pcu3bct 11:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] use of notorious

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

[edit] Fraud?...

It seems to me like it would be pretty easy to use one of those court shows like Judge Judy to commit fraud. Two friends could pretend like they were fighting over something, then one of them would get paid a "judgement" from the show's fund, and then they could split it fifty-fifty between themselves. Of course as long as the show was making money from selling commerical time then they probably wouldn't care.

[edit] Erasing Oprah Winfrey info

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)

[edit] Adding link to Constance Harm

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)

She doesn't look like her or sound like her, and the only thing they really have in common is a harsh demeanor, which is hardly unique to Judge Judy. I removed it again. Danny Lilithborne 21:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Most Simpsons external sites do consider her to be a parady of Judge Judy [2] 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)

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)

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)

I also see Lonelyboy's edit. He's a good editor and it was wise edit because there is no proof of them looking alike. 64.149.204.158 21:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That's breath-takingly blind. It's an obvious parody. Holy crap, man. BonniePrinceCharlie 01:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Someone wanna go ahead and add it back in? I think the opposition, pathetic as it was, has spoken, and been weighed, and found wanting. Go to it. BonniePrinceCharlie 16:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dishonest edits

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)

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).

[edit] Request for comment

Please offer argument and evidence regarding whether Constance Harm is a parody of Judge Judy. 20:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Uh, no. That's not how it works around here. JuJube 02:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] One source?

I see one thing sourced. What's policy on citations? Remind me. 72.144.103.202 02:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

There's something called WP:POINT that you obviously need to be reminded of. JuJube 02:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

So sources aren't needed, or what? A straight answer might be more helpful than the attitude. 72.144.103.202 02:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Funny you talk about being straight, since this whole charade is just a bass-ackwards way to get the as-yet-still-unverified crap about Constance Harm back in the article. JuJube 02:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS. The whole article doesn't need to be cited... anything that is easily and reasonably verifiable doesn't need a cite, but something that is not (such as the Judge Harm claim) would need a cite. Blanking the whole article as uncited would seem to be a WP:POINT move and doesn't really help. Find a source for the information you want in the article. If there are claim in the article you feel are dubious, tag then for needing citations (though I would caution that tagging every sentence would be another WP:POINT violation).--Isotope23 15:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

...and I should add that sourcing the "Judge Harm parody claim" shouldn't be all that difficult. Googling should give you a source.--Isotope23 16:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Common sense also gives you a source, but, ironically enough, common sense is not a good enough source for wikipedia (!). When the DVD comes out for the first season with Judge Harm, I am sure the writers' commentary will be fun to watch. Do you want that dish of crow with a side salad? 72.144.103.202 04:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

If you think Wikipedia is a game with winners, you don't belong here. If the DVD has information from the writers about Harm being a reference to Judge Judy, I will put the information in myself. JuJube 11:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Promissory estoppel on you!

[edit] Still no Constance Harm reality check?

This is really funny. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.144.60.229 (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Fully gratuitous

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)

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)

[edit] Limit:

>>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)

An arbitration limit? And what jurisdiction? 72.144.198.53 07:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)