Talk:Nancy Grace/Archive 1

Header for TOC

This article needs cleaning up. Nancy Grace was born 10-23-1958. 13:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's neutral

Nancy Grace was actually artifically inseminated,which is how she got pregnant in 2007.I recall that there was in fact a controversy over Nancy Grace and Richard Ricci in the Smart kidnapping case. It ultimately went away when Ricci died suddenly while in custody I put the crticisms of Grace into their own section. With her high profile and her attitude - which could almost be called arrogant - anything that is said raises NPOV concerns, especially if an unknown person goes out of his or her way to say that this article is netural.
JesseG 19:02, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

When will she apologize to the three Duke lacrosse members?

Does she know something the North Carolina Attorney General does not? Horsemen4life 05:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Horsemen4life She was M.I.A. during the Mike Nifong disbarrment trial. In July of 2007 her friend Dan Abrams from "MSNBC" (Who acted like he didn’t believe the accuser from the get go) called Nancy out as well as other legal T.V. analyst’s (i.e. "Wendy Murphy" etc..) to admit they were wrong about their harsh accusatory opinons about the rape allegations (favoring the accuser as well as hammering the innocent young men for no reason) and to apologize, but the only one that did was his Co-host "Susan Filand".. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.198.27.93 ([[User talk:140.198.27.93 |talk]]) 20:29, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

NPOV stands for Neutral Point Of View. Outside visitor, August 8, 2005

I agree with the statement: "This article needs cleaningg up." It has a publicity overtone. First thing first, please remove the producer's contact phone number.

I have issue with the section that claims a FOX news reporter is more "professional". Unsourced, this comment smells more like a combination attack and endorsement of these two individuals. Ifnord 20:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have quotes of Nancy Grace slinging venomous vile words at the Ramsey's over the years? Nows a great time to update the artical. As time goes on its more clear the victoms rights people are no such thing, they are victom creators! A group interested in Justice and not a witch hunt would have nothing to do with Grace as a spokes person.

"A group interested in Justice and not a witch hunt would have nothing to do with Grace as a spokes person." This may be true. It seems that these supposed "victims' rights" groups, at least those who get media coverage, do not want justice in an objective form but rather they want justice in that they do not care who pays for the alleged crime(s) committed against them, or someone else, so long as somebody does. Who, or what, do these groups actually represent? People like Nancy Grace are not uncommon among many of these victims' rights groups. Mark Klaas comes to mind, for example. These people and groups are exemplary of what "justice" is these days: guilty until proven innocent and trials by emotion rather than evidence and facts. People may complain about the neutrality of the wiki Grace article because it supposedly portrays her in a negative light. Perhaps it is not the neutrality of the article that is the problem but rather how Nancy Grace actually is once you lay everything out and actually look at her with your eyes opened. Are we to ignore that she thinks the accused are guilty? Are we to ignore her quotes regarding the accused? Are we to ignore her unethical and illegal tactics as a prosecutor?

Defense of Nancy Grace

The last part needs some help. It doesnt sound objective at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2005 68.4.210.242 (talk • contribs) .

Well, that's because it's been written by her producer —This user has left wikipedia 04:32 2006-01-25

I highly agree that this article on Ms. Grace is way too personal. As far as the Melinda Duckett thing; the woman would have done what she did regardless. Suicide is unpredictable, period. There is no way of knowing who it will haunt. I will still maintian, until proven otherwise, that Ms. Duckett's suicide does piece some clues together. As far as Nancy Grace, she is a passionate woman (without a doubt), has a sharp and brass tounge, has earned her law degree well, and is someone that I highly admire. She has a vested interest in the case just because she is so passionate about what she practices. How can someone loathe a woman so much that they don't know, just on the basis of her apparent passion for justice? Oh, wait, we're in a society that would rather deny the truth because, frankly, the truth is just a little hard to bare.

How is it personal? Nancy Grace may be passionate or she may simply be after ratings. Regardless, this is a woman who, as a lawyer, used illegal tactics simply to try and win cases rather than seek justice and now, as a media personality, is going all out to prosecute cases on the air, convict suspects on air, make suspects appear guilty so perhaps they will be found guilty in life, and now going so far as to chastize an obviously emotional, distraught mother whose child is missing. One may not be able to prove that Grace's antics caused Ms. Duckett's suicide though it probably was the last "push." Ms. Ducket was basically made into not only a suspect but the guilty party, if not directly then certainly by association for "not telling us where she was." Nancy Grace has even implied that John Mark Karr is a pedophile despite no evidence to support this. Yes, he may have married a 14 year old but there is no evidence that he had sex with her and he was granted permission by her parents and went through the legal process to marry and nobodt objected; the same thing happened when he married his 16 year old wife after the previous marriage was annulled. Both times, Karr was 19, hardly a significant age difference. Nancy Grace is unprofessional and manipulative. She does nothing to add to people's understanding of law in general or a said issue in particular. One would have to be among the most irrational, blind, and bias people to take anything Grace at face value. However, many people obviously do. Then again, many people still think Saddam Hussein was involved with 9/11 and that Iraq had WMDs

Wrong, suicide follows causal factors, like a nationally televised abusive, accusatory, and humiliating interview by an aggressively exploitive interviewer with issues. Media people need to take some responsibility for the people they hurt as they are taking your paycheck from that. While unforseen bad things can happen and can be called accidents, that does not absolve one of responsibility. There are some sadistic people in this country who will always cheer on a sadistic interviewer like it was some unmatched school yard fight. That doesn't make it right. And then beating up yet further on the deceased in an equally vindictive aggressive self-serving manner says little about the person's class and character. Media stars are making a huge amount of money doing what they do as it is and adding to that out-of-control narcissistic arrogance will not buy them any grace with God. Law is a trade, not an ordainment.

I have removed the following since I dont see any proof, a search for site:gsu.edu Nancy Grace shows nothing

She was also a litigation instructor at Georgia State University School of Law and a Business Law Instructor at GSU's School of Business.

I truely do not have a clue what "White Women Syndrome" is?? Do you mean like a generation ago in a Woody Allen Movie like the actress Diane keaton portrayed? Or do you mean some of the female characters played on Saturday Night Live as I assume you are referring to some constellation of stereotyped traits. But would this mean June Cleaver had "white women syndrome" too because she lived in suburbia and she wore a dress while she cooked in the kitchen? Is that somehow derogatory behaviour then? Are we talking soccer moms? So called "white people" have very diverse tribal backgrounds, so diverse, that unless you are specifying a very specific group and social class within that group I just don't get the term. I don't think any women I have seen on tv is even near to the average women period as these are actors and show people, extraverted, often with carefully planned out careers and its akin to trying to classify a dancer as having "dancer syndrome" when they are simply out buying grocerys.

Personally, I can't stand Nancy Grace; I find her to be obnoxious, and I find her ability to jump to conclusions irresponsible, both as a jurist and as a talking head on television; that her last name is "Grace" is an irony that I find humorous to no end. Again, this is my opinion.

That said, I have big problem with the paragraph about Grace a prime media practitioners of "missing white woman syndrome,". This statement is not attributed to anyone person, or periodical of merit, therefore, who has called her this? Without attribution, this is not a responsible statement. Stude62 22:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Sullivan criticized the way she handled Elizabeth Smart when she had her on the show. [1] This is along the same lines. Should we put this in the missing white woman section? This section seems okay as far as content, but we need to find citations. Ace of Sevens 13:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The article should not be comprised of nothing more than criticism. Michael 14:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Explaination of Edit

I removed the quotes from enclosing the words National Center for Missing and Exploited Children under the Victim's Rights Advocate section because it is not the title of any kind of work that should be in quotes, and is not needed.

Political affiliation

Has Grace ever cited her political affiliation? Her views are strongly conservative, yet she donated $1000 to Hillary Clinton's senatorial campaign. Michael 06:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I heard her say on Michael Savage's show that she's a Democrat, but I can't link it, but I did hear Mike introduce her as a Democrat, and her say she was a Democrat on his show. Ruth E 19:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I don't like Nancy Grace either, but we must adhere to wikipedia's NPOV rules. A lot of those quotes are not required and they clearly portray her in a negative POV. Also her views on the Elizabeth Smart and Michael Jackson cases is unnecessary. I know she was wrong about Richard Ricci and should have apologized to his family for vilifying him, but in her defense Ricci was no angel either. He did admit to stealing from the Smart family and he did have a lengthy criminal record that included shooting a cop in the face. TripleH1976 13:20 p.m., 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is an anti-Grace nightmare. It does nothing but portray her in the worst light. I'll look into trying to eliminate some of the unnecessary info. Michael 06:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC) 20:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, the truth hurts sometimes. Her past is an anti-Nancy Grace nightmare; the problem is not the rendering here.

You didn't see the article before the last revision. Michael 06:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Her behavior in regards to Jackson, Smart and others IS of note, and definitely worth keeping. That said, there was quite a bit of POV in the article. I've corrected what i found. Porlob 19:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I have made attempts to get the article towards "good article" biographical standards with copyedits and template tagging. There is a lot of work to be done, I have left inline comments as necessary but removed little to not trigger an edit war. The article needs heavy citations, cleanup and wikifing. I have neutralized statements where possible. There are serious WP:NPOV#Undue weight issues but direct POV statements have been reduced. Electrawn 18:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The article should just state who Grace is, what she did, what she does, how she approaches what she does, criticisms of her and her approach, and support for her and her approach. Right now the article is a mess, contestation and controversy abounds for every segment of the article. The quotes are now gone but if you put in a criticism segment, those quotes can certainly form part of what the criticisms are based on since they demonstrate how she approaches issues and guests with whom she disagrees or perceives as guilty.

Good luck finding any support for Nancy Grace. 153.106.4.94 09:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I'd like to add that there is no way that any discussion, let alone any article, could describe the subject in question in a completely unbiased way. When a person makes a career of universally biased commentary (i.e. Nancy Grace), there is no means of separating that bias from the bias of viewers. That being said, coupled with Grace's abject refusal to correct demonstrably erroneous statements, Wikipedia would be doing a grievous disservice to its readers by lacking a Grace article that is not at least 95% consumed with criticism, as Grace's commentary comprises of 100% criticism. If you want an unbiased report, find an unbiased subject. Asking of anything more is beyond the capacity of any creature capable of formulating its own opinion beyond what it has been instructed to believe. Again, for the record, it is erroneous to label Grace a "news personality," even if she appears on a network called "Headline News," as, last I checked, unbridled (and often unfounded) accusatory speculation DOES NOT constitute news. I know many Grace fans will not like this statement, but truth is truth; it cares not for human emotion, no matter how much Grace and her fanbase does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.189.32.56 (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Conservative?

I noticed that Grace is in the American conservative category, but she supported Hilary Clinton. Does she identify as conservative? Aside from her stance on the death penalty, what is there to indicate her political stance? Asarelah 02:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

See the above discussion. Michael 05:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed until proof she identifies herself as conservative from a reliable source or CNN transcript. Electrawn 18:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

For informational purposes, the only political donation on record for her at the FEC is a donation in 1999 to Hillary Clinton's senate campaign of $1000. That would seem to indicate she was not a strong conservative at that time. 12.96.162.45 00:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Permanent Semi-Protection?

Jimbo Wales has suggested that semi-protection may be used in the cases of "minor bios of slightly well known but controversial individuals" which are not widely watchlisted, if they are "subject to POV pushing, trolling [or] vandalism." In such cases, semi-protection "would at least eliminate the drive-by nonsense that we see so often."

This included statement from Semi-protection policy seems to hit this article on the mark. Electrawn 18:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I already had that done about a week ago. Michael 16:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Should there be a page regarding bloodsport squawk hosts?

Should there be a page regarding bloodsport squawk hosts?

Gerald Michael Rivera

Janina_Stranski Jenny_Jones_(presenter)

hopiakuta 03:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

No. That would be very subjective. Michael 03:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Would like to add an external link

A site that I help maintain has recently posted a commentary that I feel provides a relevant perspective on Nancy Grace. The article can be found Here of course, I cannot provide objectivity on this piece. However, I submit it to you, for consideration. It is my hope that it gets added to this article as I feel it is of merit.

I am sorry, but we only add WP:NPOV. This doesn't fall in accordance with that. Michael 19:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The font on your website is extremely teeny tiny, & requires several otherwise irrelevant steps to enlarge. A significant portion of my interests, messages, relate to disability-access. I do want the internet to have simplified use.

That's my p.-o.-v.

That's "legalnews",

"legal news". Is there "illegal news"?

An "illegal secretary"? An "illegal brief", "illegal advice"?

Please do sign your messages.

Npov versus pov is largely a subjective determination, therefore, it, itself, is pov!!

Thank You.

hopiakuta 20:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Our articles need to be objective. Michael 20:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I had made several points there, including the fact that that determinatiion is, itself, subjective.

What one perceives as subjectiive, another claims as objective, as well as the same two persons in a viceversa dispute.

Can you conceive that many of us have that perception?

Thank You.

hopiakuta 20:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

External links aren't supposed to include links to news articles orany site without reputable sources that provides a subjective POV. Michael 00:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussions of stupid relativism and incoherent ramblings are probably not the best for this article's talk page. BonniePrinceCharlie 23:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is lousy because...

This article stinks. I'd try to help but I'm certain that my version of a good Nancy Grace article would not get by mis-guided NPOV warriors; so the best way I can help is to start a discussion. This article is a perfect example of groupthink. Here the finished product does not capture the essence of its subject because some people are unwilling to admit the obvious, which to most people is how obnoxious Grace comes off on television. The article really should discuss her personality because that is the only reason she's famous (er, infamous) enough to have a Wiki article anyway. I see two problems with the NPOV warriors. Some think that interpretive statements don't belong in an encyclopedia but fail to realize that good encyclopedias are filled with them (and even this article as it currently is has many). Secondly, some can't recognize NPOV when they see it. If someone writes, "Some people accuse Nancy Grace of being a obnoxious", that is a fact and is not a NPOV violation because some people do accuse her of obnoxious. I think even a statement like "Nancy Grace has an obnoxious and abbrasive personality" may have a place in the article because while an opinion, few reasonable people would object in the same way that few reasonable people would object to an article that says "lasers can be used to put on a beautiful light show" or "Hulk Hogan is a beloved wrestler". I hope some people think more carefully about NPOV and the true intensions of that policy rather than making Wikipedia a repository of quantitative facts only. Jason Quinn 03:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

That's too subjective. You cannot sum up everyone's opinion with one statement, and that is unencyclopedic. Michael 04:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I just hope the irony of a POV battle as it relates to Nancy Grace isn't lost on anyone else. Wayman975 14:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Suicide of Melinda Duckett

I added that the police later revealed that Melinda Duckett was a suspect and that they were looking at her as a suspect from the begining, but I am having difficulty getting the news article refrence. Some people feel that it's ironic that she's not accusing attorney Howard K.Stern of killing Anna and her son daniel,when in fact she basically insenuated guilt against Melinda Duckett.Davidac18643 04:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Thanks for adding the refrence Davidac18643 01:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Categories

She belongs in the category "Prosecutors".

Jeopardy

She was on Jeopardy. Is that worth noting here?--Marhawkman 17:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

She also didn't seem to understand how the game was played... J21 00:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Parodies of Nancy Grace

Does anyone think that a section listing some of the parodies/caricatures of Nancy Grace might be a good addition? I know that Boston Legal, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip & SNL have all done something on her. I'm not sure where else, but I'm pretty sure there are more than a few editorial cartoonists who have had a go at her. I don't have too many spots to point to, but I'd write a paragraph or two if I knew it'd be included (or at least considered to be included), and then others might be able to add to it as they see more instances

She is also frequently parodied on Justice (TV series)… While this article as a whole draws controversy by proxy, she has become a bit of a cultural icon (like Larry King — though more specialized & notorious) as her parodying by nearly every crime & trial tv show attests, as such I think a "In popular culture" section deserves to be added simply to be accurate. --Invisifan 14:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

However, we should be careful not to classify just any character based on Grace as parody. A parody is usually a purposefully humorous or satirical view of a person, not a character simply based on or inspired by a real person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.163.14.186 (talk) 08:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism or Controversies section?

May I suggest, to make Ms. Grace's wiki entry more tidy, is to have a section named "Criticism" or "Controversies"? This might help in overhauling her wiki, which is in need of a category revision. Since she's a lightning rod of contention, due to her personality style, she rightfully needs a dedicated section for all the negative PR she has garnered. And due to the cases she highlights on her show, that section is best at the bottom of the wiki article, since no doubt, there will be more criticism/controversies in the future.

I'm no word/grammar ace, but some sections really do need to be revised. Blogs have better wordage: I mean one criticism is just quotes from an interview. :( FResearcher 15:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering what happened to the Criticism page. It seems kinda werid that there is no criticism page.

There is a section on criticism for each stage of her life/career. I makes more sense to me to discuss the appropriate criticisms in each pertinent section of her biography.--Kubigula (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems weird to me as well that there is not a section about criticism and controversies, I actually came to this article to look at a specific controversy. I support a movement to add this section to her article. Before anyone attacks me, I actually like nancy, so I'm not suggesting this to be rude. Redrok84 (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You call what Nancy Grace does unbiased reporting??? Not in the case of Britney Spears!!!

Britney Spears is being debated on Nancy's show right now. Ms Spears has done NOTHING to indicate she is a questionable parent, au contraire since she got married she has been a perfect wife and mother. No one has the right to step in and question her parenting skills, just because she is constantly hounded by the paparazzi does not mean it is okay to judge her custody level!!!!! Many many parents do much much worse daily but because they do not have paparazzi hounding them their mistakes are not plastered all over TV and news. So the poor girl, yes I say GIRL she is only 23!!!!! is having some fun party time to soothe her broken heart. So what!!!! We have all done that!!!! That doesn't make us bad parents! What does that have to do with anything, she loves her children quite clearly. Leave Britney alone!!!! I hope she gets full custody and enjoys her well deserved freedom. And I hope Nancy Grace learns how to be a journalist so she can add that to her other qualifications. I used to like her show until I saw the harassment tonight.

The hell BonniePrinceCharlie 23:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The claim that Brittney has been a perfect mother is BS. If she is so perfect then she would not of had CPS at her house twice in under a year. I have not seen the episode in qeustion but I'm sure that Nacy has completly destroyed the fact that Brittney is perfect.ShadowWriter 17:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Many parents have CPS visit, accidents happen. Hello one of them wasn't even related to her actions. I know many people who are careless and luckily their children are never scrutinized. Being in the public eye makes a lot of things inflated and UNFAIR. Ever read rags like the Enquirer? I suppose you believe all of that is true also. Please. PS: A perfect mother is one who loves her children without question. I don't suppose you happen to be one?

Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing how to improve an article. They are not a forum for discussing the relative merits or flaws of the people in the article. Please refrain from posting irrelevant comments such as this in the future, it is not appropriate. Asarelah 03:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This is neutral

Nancy Grace simply thinks and portrays herself as justice itsself. I would rather call her interviews interogations because if interviewees don't talk what she wants to hear she shuts them up.

It is important to maintain NPOV but also important to reflect this fact. Otherwise it is unfair to both readers and Nancy Grace herself. Tian2006 04:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!

Bias allegations

It's impossible to make this page unbiased because every word that comes out of the lady's mouth is biased! → JARED ^(t)  16:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

This lady bitch is a hate monger - and guess what, it sells!, she alone brought up the cnn headline news ratings. So in a way we can approach this article the same way you would approach the article for an insult comedian. 65.13.3.52 03:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

One way to do it is to sympathetically explain her crazy world view without comment. She has written quite alot about how defense lawyers and judges are unnecessary in the legal process. How possession of ponography is proof of guilt with regard to other crimes. How psychics are a useful part of the legal process and so on. In many ways, she is like the film "network" come to life. She is insane. Everyone around her knows that she is insane, but as long as she draws ratings the top are happy to keep her on the air. She treats all her co-workers and CNN reporters like trash. The only people she seems to treat well are her quack psychiatrists who feed her whatever opinions make her happy.

It been fun to watch her with the Anna Nicole stuff going on because as much as she hates everyone else in the world, she seems to have found virtue in many of the people involved in that mess. The thing with the mother/son both being treated with methadone and both dying seems to really tug at her heart strings. And she is one of the few people who seems to be able to find redeeming qualities in Howard K. Stern. 12.96.162.45 21:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Potential issues related to Media Bias

I have removed this section under WP:BLP. It contains a lot of negative content that is uncited (and long has been), so it falls under what should be removed per BLP since Grace is a living person. I agree that a similar section should be re-instated in order to give the article neutrality, but it would need to be referenced. Mad Jack 02:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that media sources (like newspapers) in itself are not used in court as factual evidence. Which means any cites, short of lawsuits and what's in peer reviewed journals, can be considered suspect of proof. Suggest a disclaimer instead as the best option, considering all Wikipedians have as cites/references/sources will come from the very media that isn't taken seriously in court. FResearcher 16:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what's taken seriously in court or not. If a source passes the Wikipedia guidelne WP:RS, it can be used here. Mad Jack 17:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Her self-produced biographies are NOT trustworthy sources without external confirmation

Time and again, her unsourced accounts of her own life have turned out to be exaggerated or simply false. I'm going to list out the questionable claims that need another source besides her:

- Born to a working-class family

- intended to become an English professor

English teacher is what I've always heard.

- Her motivation to enter law school

- That she worked for a decade as a "Special Prosecutor"

I'm unaware that she ever was a special prosecutor.

- The statement (Her work focused on felony cases involving serial murder[citation needed], serial rape[citation needed], serial child molestation{{Fact|date=February 2007}) and arson.)

On this one, its absurd to suggest that every case she was involved in was "serial" something. I know what the arson case was, but on some of the others I'm at a loss to know when she ever tried some of those kinds of cases. Rape cases yes, murder cases yes, but "serial"....I can't find that.

- At trial, she won nearly one hundred felony convictions with no losses.

This claim should not be in the article because to a certain extent its a deliberate POV statement trying to say what a great prosecutor she was by her win-loss record.

- She has written articles and opinion pieces for legal periodicals

This is an exaggeration. So far, I've been able to find one article in the ABA journal.

- Grace worked as a clerk for a federal court judge and practiced antitrust and consumer protection law with the Federal Trade Commission.[2] She taught litigation at the Georgia State University College of Law and business law at GSU's School of Business.

If she did all these things, they need to be put into chronological order. Right now, the only source provided is her.

- adopted a section of the street surrounding the law school.

This hardly seems noteworthy.

12.96.162.45 21:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Is Neutrality still disputed?

The article looks pretty balanced now. At first it seems a little bottom-heavy on criticism but when you consider how much more criticism ISN'T included, I believe the article is more than fair in that regard. I'd like to take the neutrailty tag off if we can get some sort of consensus. Please say yes or no to removing the tag and why. LiPollis 20:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the tag should stay. I knew virtually nothing about Nancy Grace before reading this article, and my reaction after reading it is to wonder why this raving lunatic is still on the air. The critical sections seem very pointed and one-sided.--Kubigula (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's what I was hoping for, some other opinions. it's even better that you don't know much about her. If anyone can find some counterpoint to the few criticisms included in the article, please do add them. LiPollis 22:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Coming away with a negative impression of a person after reading an article about them says nothing about whether the article is neutral. For example, a reasonable and generally unprejudiced person who has not heard much about, say, Martin Luther King Jr. will, upon reading any accurate and minimally extensive biographical article on him, come away from the article with a positive impression of the man. This isn't because the article is biased in King's favor; it's because King's life is one that reasonable people find admirable. That said, I also think that the tag should stay until someone makes a good-faith effort to find some examples of Nancy Grace being especially perceptive or prescient. If no such examples can be found, then the tag should go, and the article will be an accurate representation of the available evidence relating to Grace.

On a side note, people generally assume that someone who has an important or prominent job is reasonable and competent--otherwise, they wouldn't have the job. In a way, then, biographical articles, which select for important or prominent people, have some positive treatment of their subject built in. This is another reason not to treat unflattering evidence as making an article POV.--Atemperman 03:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I largely agree with what you say, and I do not assert that we are under any obligation to make this a flattering article or to provide a counterpoint to every criticism. However, about eighty percent of this article focuses on criticism of the subject and there's little doubt the contributing editors find her repugnant. It's one thing to come away with a negative impression based on a dispassionate presentation of the facts, it's another thing to feel yourself guided to that impression. The most controversial figures create the greatest challenge to upholding WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, and I simply don't think this article has met this challenge yet.--Kubigula (talk) 04:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Kubigula, I see that you have put the POV tag back on the article. I can respect that. However, I would encourage you, since you mentioned being unfamiliar with her, to spend some time (not a lot) googling her and reading the reliable sources you find. I believe you will eventually see that there are dozens of similarly egregious incidents that could have been mentioned but weren't due to the fact that it would be seen as piling on. Also, the major incidents mentioned are more recent. there are dozens more just liked them that at more than a year or two old and therefore really wouldn't be of interest to readers. if you find some sources you feel can add balance, by all means add them. However, the article does reflect the general opinion of Ms. Grace within the journalistic community. Her fans love everything she says and she quite understandably performs for her fan base. I would compare her to Omarosa from The Apprentice. They both cultivate an image of the tough talking, take no prisoners "ball-busting" professional woman through their actions, their outragious statements, their refusal to make apologies and even in their manner of dress. Clearly Ms. Grace has found her niche. Even so, that does not prevent others in her field and in the general public from finding her persona and actions appalling. I'll see if I can find anything else positive about her from reliable soruces to do my part to try and help and ecnourage others to do the same. We cannot , as editors, be expected to make very article about controversial people reflect a 50% positive and 50% negative composition. We can only reflect what is in print or available from reliable sources.LiPollis 16:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have done a bit of reading up, and I think you are correct that this lady thrives in the world of controversy. I don't think we are under any obligation to make this a 50% positive article or even go hunting for positive info. I would be satisfied if the critical sections were a bit more neutral in tone. I have begun to make some specific notes and I hope to find a block of time soon to do more. I propose to do a version in which I attempt a rewrite of the parts that seem excessively POV to me. You and Atemperman and anyone else who is interested can then discuss/challenge any changes you find objectionable.--Kubigula (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much Kubigula for participating in this conversation. Anything you find the time do will be appreciated. She's a tough subject to cover fairly so that makes it even more important to have more editors taking a look. I think your goal of removing some of the edge to the crticisms is a good one.LiPollis 21:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I might add, Kubigula, that there's no need to take on the whole task of rewriting the critical sections on your own. In fact, it would be better if you could list specific examples of non-neutral tone that you find in the article. That way, 1) other editors would understand better your reasons for maintaining the POV tag, and 2) they could assist you in finding more neutral phrasing. Thanks!--HughGRex 09:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. For starters, I removed what was left in the article from this edit. With that gone, the rest of the article is not so bad. I will try to provide more feedback later today.--Kubigula (talk) 17:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've taken a longer look at the article, and I would like to offer my thoughts about what still needs doing to make it a more balanced and generally better article:

• The "Mismatched statements regarding fiancé's murder trial" could use some reworking. It's not that clearly written and the list of differences seems excessively long and sometimes a bit nitpicking (e.g. is it really that big a deal whether it was in 1979 or 1980?). Also, the content and format of the list is a bit too close to the NYO source article for my comfort. I would like to consolidate the list and focus on a couple of the more significant inconsistencies. I also suggest trimming the quote of her response to Keith Olbermann's comment - we are currently directly quoting two full paragraphs from the source.
• I actually like the "Commentary from state and federal Appellate courts" section; it's unflattering, but well cited and fairly dispassionate. Since it is quite damning, I plan to review the sources to confirm the content, but I otherwise have no real issue with this section.
• The Nancy Grace#Broadcaster section really should start with some background on her broadcasting career before we launch into the criticism. There's nothing on how she got into broadcasting, what her show is about, ratings etc.
• The "Suicide of interviewee" section is also quite good and well cited. My only issue with this section is with the last sentence. It doesn't clarify who Susan Filan is, and the quote seems to blur her opinion with what's coming from the law suit.
• The Anna Nicole Smith section is fairly unobjectionable, other than needing secondary sources.
• The section on Elizabeth Smart needs some rewriting and sourcing - it currently looks a bit like WP:OR. I also believe saying she continued to "malign" Ricci is not NPOV.
• The Duke lacrosse part is OK; however, I don't think the Daily Show (though I am a fan) should be the primary source or provide the structure for the section.
• Finally, the article would really benefit from a uniform footnote structure.

It is presently my intention to try to address the above points. However, I absolutely welcome any suggestions, concerns, comments or assistance.--Kubigula (talk) 03:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no harm in citing the Daily SHow for the Duke Lacrosse case since it was the first and as far as I am ware only program to comment, accurately, that Nancy Grace has not owned up to her mis judgement. I believe the non-neutrality tag should be dropped. As has been mentioned above most of her career has been controversial and negative - the article shouldn`t be 50:50 if her life and career haven't been.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyatherton (talk • contribs) 06:38, 23 April 2007

I'm not opposed to citing the Daily Show; I am, however, opposed to the show being primary citation so that the section is basically a description of the bit. Also, note that the tag doesn't say the article is not neutral. It says that the neutrality is disputed. At this point, I still have to agree with whoever placed the tag and dispute the neutrality. However, I'm optimistic that we will get there soon.--Kubigula (talk) 02:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This article should be renamed "bashing Nancy Grace". It dwells only on the negatives. Fighting for Justice 03:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, then, as soon as they take your fingers out of the C-clamps, I invite you to put them to your keyboard and edit the article to reflect some positive info about Nancy Grace that you've found from reliable sources.--HughGRex 00:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are looking for other sources besides The Daily Show for the Duke Lacross situation, I remember quite a few germane articles being popular on Digg. ( added on 04:25, 27 April 2007 by 208.97.117.154)

Fighting for Justice , we ARE making a concerted effort here to get this article to a place where we can feel assured that there is as much balance as is reasonably possible. You should note that Kubigula has gone to considerable trouble to sift through the facts and statements and isolate those that seem non-encyclopedic or repetative. This has resulted in the trimming or rephrasing of a lot of material that could be perceived as negative. I believe that even those of us here who are repulsed by Ms. Grace want to see the article improved and kept free of insults and unfounded accusations. That said, Ms. Grace is a controversial figure who frequently makes outragious and factually suspect statements. That behavior is what fans the flames of controversy and it should be documented..to a point. We are trying to include only the most notable of such acts and statements. Give us some time. WE are trying.LiPollis 11:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I just read this article for the first time. I wasn't aware of the neutrality debate until after I read the article. I'm not a Nancy Grace fan at all, but the portions of this article which reference specific Nancy Grace shows are not neutral, and are not objective. The harsh, critical tone of the article is still evident. It has no place in Wikipedia. Thankfully, it seems like this is being slowly corrected. Specifically, the portions referencing the Benoit episodes on the show, the Duke case, and the Duckett case, need to be completely reworked.

Concerning Benoit, Grace obviously wanted to link the murder/suicide to Benoit's steroid use. On her show, Grace was, admittedly, shrill and unpleasant. While it was later found that Chris Benoit had significant brain damage which may have been unrelated to steroid use: it WAS, nevertheless, reasonable for Grace to speculate about whether or not steroids were the precipitating factor in the murder/suicide. She did not exhibit a "severe lack" of knowledge on the subject.

Grace serves a niche market on a cable TV channel. It's not news, per se, and her presentation is not meant to be objective. This article must have a considerably higher standard than any show Nancy Grace does.

TurnMan 02:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Pop culture refrence

I was watching Law and Order: Special Vicitims Unit earlier this week, and there was a similar situation to with Melinda Duckett. Ill try to find a source and update the pop culutre section. Chaztheweird 02:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Done and Done. Chaztheweird 02:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Jay Leno said something really mean about her. "Speculation is the devil's workshop that is why you will find a swing set in Nancy Grace's head —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.8.188.205 (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Leaving CourtTv

I added a little more to the sentance on why she is leaving CourtTV. I don't know how to add a footnote though. Here is the article I got my information. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070509/ap_en_ot/people_nancy_grace;_ylt=Am1_JVjuruaoAyWTeISg5HFxFb8C

Win/loss record

It would be nice to get more information on her legal win/loss records. A strong win/loss record is not uncommon in a prosecutor. Most prosecutors win the overwhelming majority of their cases. Even a perfect win/loss record does not necessarily indicate that she was a good prosecutor. In fact, quite the contrary. The easiest way to ensure a perfect win/loss record is to never take any case to trial that you aren't sure of winning. I'm not suggesting this is what she did, but I think as an unembellished statistic, Grace's win/loss record is misleading to a layman. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.105.42.72 (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

There is already a lengthy section on the criticism of Grace's prosecutorial tactics by state and federal courts. If there was a concern that the article is too "pro-Grace", I might be inclind to agree. However, the article is pretty heavy on criticism, so I don't see a compelling need to parse this.--Kubigula (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

df

Recommend we change intro to..."

Nancy Ann Grace (born October 23, 1958) is an American talk show host known for her aimless and prolonged coverage of the Natalee Holloway case and her ability to never keep the public bored with news about the most recent of pedophiles.

Any takers? --oac (old american century) | Talk 23:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing POV tag

I'm going to go ahead and remove the POV tag. I was the one who opposed removing the tag earlier, but I think enough of my concerns have been addressed for me to withdraw my objection. There are still some undue weight issues and the article generally needs cleanup and more sourcing; however, I don't think the remaining issues are enough to justify the tag on the whole article. Obviously, other editors are free to disagree and make their case.--Kubigula (talk) 02:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Benoit Murders?

Should a section be added in under controversy for her show about the Benoit murders, and total lack of facts or knowledge about the sitaution, and repeated insistence that it was all about Steroids? MDowdal 15:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps in time if she continues to beat that drum and officials come out and say it played no role. It would be impossible to list every crass and unfeeling statement she makes since she makes them often. It's best to just pick the most egregious examples of her ignoring the facts of a case and let them stand for the rest. Otherwise the article would simply be a laundry list of her hurtful statements and there are anti-nancy websites that provide that info. No need to replicate that here.LiPollis 15:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody quote what she actually said. I tried posting "I know that he had gone from the elite, one of the Four Horsemen, down to RAW and that's a little bit of a demotion." but it got removed by somebody named "Jaysweet". I think it is because I did not have a source, just a video on you tube. I don't know how to source thing on this website. Could somebody else do it or at leat show me how? Diego 10:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I removed it by mistake when I was rolling back some vandalism... There had been like four vandal edits, and then your edit, and I just reverted to before the vandalism without spotting your edit. Sorry 'bout that!

If you tell me the YouTube link, I can re-add the quote with a reference for ya. Or you can do it. If you want, just put the YouTube link after the quotes in single brackets (e.g. like [http://www.yourlinkhere.com]) and that will make an external link. Probably later someone else will fix it and make it a footnote. (I suck at making footnotes myself ;D ) --Jaysweet 17:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that's an important piece of information to have here, that ridiculous Four Horsemen statement. It's a good example of her brand of journalism, passing that off as fact when, in reality, anybody with the slightest bit of knowledge of the topic can tell you that there are at least five things wrong with that statement alone. That and her constantly blaming it on roid rage, which, nobody ever tells you this, no such condition actually exists. So, LiPollis, I absolutely believe that this IS an "egregious example of her ignoring the facts." It's not just slandering her when it's all true; that's who she is and that's how this article should portray her. 75.179.3.77 (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ricky Holland case

I am not doubting for a moment that Nancy Grace ignored pleas for help until there was a nice juicy perpetrator to lay her claws into, but we need some sources here. The one source that is cited is a blog, which is usually not at all considered a reliable source. I have left it because it contains an alleged transcript of the show in question, but then again, what is to stop the blogger from making up the transcript? This source is not really valid... Also, the transcript does not at all demonstrate that there were pleas for help prior to the body being found.

Also, the criticism of Grace is only implied here, which is original research in a way. In order for this to be in the criticism section, you need to find a 3rd party reliable source (not a blog!) that criticizes Grace for this scenario.

Probably the whole section should be deleted until better sources are found, I'm afraid... --Jaysweet 21:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I would normally leave the info in and allow some time for sourcing. However, WP:BLP applies to this article, so the reliable sourcing must come with the content. I've gone ahead and removed it.--Kubigula (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)