This article needs cleaning up. Nancy Grace was born 10-23-1958. 13:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)[reply]
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.
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.
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) .
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.
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
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)
Hey, the truth hurts sometimes. Her past is an anti-Nancy Grace nightmare; the problem is not the rendering here.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Should there be a page regarding bloodsport squawk hosts?
Janina_Stranski Jenny_Jones_(presenter)
hopiakuta 03:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
She belongs in the category "Prosecutors".
She was on Jeopardy. Is that worth noting here?--Marhawkman 17:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I was wondering what happened to the Criticism page. It seems kinda werid that there is no criticism page.
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
EXACTLY!!!!!!!!
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
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)[reply]
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
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)
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Done and Done. Chaztheweird 02:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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
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).[reply]
df
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)
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)[reply]