Talk:Greta Van Susteren

akward

Van Susteren has been cited before Congress by CEO of Fox News Channel's Parent Company Rupert Murdoch as an example of a left-leaning voice on the network.

either needs rewording or punctuation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.192.8.204 (talk) 02:08:34, August 18, 2007 (UTC)

physically, not ideologically riffic (talk) 03:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What is Scientology connection?

Why is this part of the Scientology project? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Presumably because she is a scientologist, at least as of 1998 ([1]). Antandrus (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting. I did not know that. I guess that's what an encyclopedia is for! I missed it when I skimmed the article. Thank you for taking the time to explain. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome -- I had no idea either. My first thought on seeing that was -- what?? -- but it's present in at least two reliable sources, including that Saint Petersburg newspaper article. Interesting. (This article isn't on my watchlist -- I saw your question on 'recent changes'.) Antandrus (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Undergrad History

Apparently she is a graduate of University of Wisconsin Madison. (70.171.25.208 (talk) 04:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC))

1996 misconduct addition

I have removed this as non notable for now. How widely was this covered and what is the context of this "material". --Tom (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The context is that disciplinary charges were brought against her and that the Disciplinary Board upheld the charges. The case then went to the Supreme Court of Appeals, which "reluctantly" dismissed the charges on jurisdictional grounds. I don't know how widely it was covered -- Van Susteren was not then a media personality -- but I don't think that's important. For an attorney in private practice to be found to have committed professional misconduct is certainly a significant part of his or her bio, regardless of whether the newspapers picked it up.

The specifics of the charges concerned improper solicitation of clients. My inclination is to think that we don't need to go into great detail about the circumstances (i.e., the details of her transgression), but the fact of the finding should be included. JamesMLane t c 00:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

So this is notable according to you? Tom (talk) 02:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

We cant expect the kind of coverage we find in recent time to have happened during mid 90s when the incident really came about. I would check if the incident is verifiable in reliable sources and dont think relevance is the issue here at all. Desciplinary charges to be brought against a lawyer and upheld by Disciplinary Board and later dismissed by Supreme court of appeals only on jurisdiction grounds is no small deal. It would be important to see what happened afterwards.. --Docku: What's up? 02:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

How big a deal is this? Seriously, I don't know. Is this like a DUI or more like an assault or something else? How ofter does this happen to an attorney? I admitt I have no idea, but I am trying to get a sense in order to evaluate whether it rises to the level worthy of inclusion. I am not sure if this is relateable, but there was a bio, I have to dig it up, but the guy is a now somewhat high level coach who had a DUI before he became notable, and it was decided that the DUI should not be included since it happened before he became notable ect. This might be a bad example because it was not related to his field of work. Again, I understand that she was not "famous" when this happened, but I would always preffer to see what 3rd party relaible sources have written about the matter to avoid original research and the like. Anyways, Tom (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no original research including primary sources. Primary sources can be included as long as it is descriptive. See WP:PRIMARY. --Docku: What's up? 03:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

In response to Tom: It's a fairly big deal. The filing of a complaint is unusual, but not unheard of, because an attorney can be the subject of a frivolous disciplinary complaint, usually brought by a disgruntled client. I'm in my 30th year of private practice and I've been the subject of exactly one such complaint (which went nowhere). For a complaint to be upheld by the Disciplinary Board, or its equivalent in other states (in New York, the Departmental Disciplinary Committee), is, however, comparatively rare. In my entire circle of attorney friends, I've known only one person to receive any kind of discipline during those 30 years. I'll hazard a wild guess that the percentage of attorneys who are the subject of complaints found meritorious is below the percentage of drivers who are convicted of DUI. It's certainly not at the level of an assault conviction for seriousness. Nevertheless, as you point out, it does relate to her area of notability. If Howard Cosell had run into similar trouble during his years as a practicing lawyer, the case for inclusion would be weaker.

Offhand, I could think of only two members of the bar who are notable enough to have Wikipedia bios and who were found to have engaged in professional misconduct. The examples of Bill Clinton and Scooter Libby aren't directly analogous, though, because in each case the ultimate disposition was to take some action against the attorney (suspension and disbarment, respectively). Therefore, it's not surprising that the episodes are mentioned in their bios. On the other hand, I can't think of an example of an attorney found to have committed misconduct where that information is omitted from his or her bio. In Van Susteren's case, the information is clearly relevant and significant. JamesMLane t c 08:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Thanks for the response(s). If this "material" is going to be introduced into the article, how can it be written in a NPOV way and also so that it "flows" well in the bio and is just not crammed in for its own sake? Also, does this go against undue weight as far as how much space is given to her career vs this "material"? Again, I don't know. Anyways, Tom (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I tried to meet those criteria with this edit. It flows by being included where it belongs chronologically. I don't think there's any fat in it; there are two governmental bodies' decisions to be reported. JamesMLane t c 04:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I have read the citation over and over, and yes, your copy appears to cover the "facts" in a NPOV. I still have concerns as far as undue weight. How long and much lawyering has she done in the past compared to this one "incident". Has it reached the level of notarity to warrant inclusion in her bio. Does it factor in that this occurred before she became notable for her current occupation as a TV personality. Of those concerns, undue weight to this perticular event, especially since it was ultimately dismissed, would be the main one. Anyways, I am not as adamantly opposed to this at this point but maybe others could add their comments or concerns as well and push me further towards inclusion :) Anyways, thank you, --Tom (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

An ideal article on Van Susteren would of course emphasize her broadcasting career, but would also summarize her earlier work as a lawyer in private practice. That would include the disciplinary proceeding and any notable cases in which she was involved. Nevertheless, we shouldn't omit one part of the eventual ideal article just because other parts haven't been written yet. The nature of Wikipedia's editorial process is that articles grow by fits and starts, depending on where volunteers choose to work, rather than being guided by a central editorial board. We should include the information we have, given that it's properly substantiated.

I appreciate your willingness to consider this question. I don't know if many others will chime in, but we can always hope! JamesMLane t c 04:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to add it back in, I won't revert it for now. It looks like 2 against 1 :) I hate those types of consensus, but at least this "issue" is on the record now, pardon the pun. Did I get here from the BLP board? That is usually well watched and not a bad place to get other eyes involved. Again, I would argue against this per undue weight, but this sure isn't "Palin rape kit" stuff since it is factual, sourced, and written in a NPOV. Cheers,--Tom (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that this is a pretty limited "consensus" and the subject can certainly be revisited in the future. The best way to revisit it, though, would be to alleviate any concerns about undue weight by adding more information, not by removing information. I added this bit because I happened upon it. Someone who doesn't rely on happenstance but who devotes time to the project can probably add more information about Van Susteren's career in private practice. From what I've read about the disciplinary action, I infer that at least some of her work was for plaintiffs in personal injury cases, but that inference isn't clear enough to add to the article. Some readers would surely be interested in getting more detail than just "lawyer" about what she did before hitting it big. JamesMLane t c 16:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

After looking at the source, there is no evidence that she was actually found guilty of anything, only that they presumed that she would have been found guilty if the case had moved forward. The case was thrown out because of lack of jurisdiction, but no ruling was made. There is simply no way to present this information without an implication that she was guilty of some wrong doing. Arzel (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are you worried about the implication. that is called Original research. I know you are going to spin it WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. I am done here. --Docku: What's up? 21:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Arzel, she wasn't technically "found guilty" because it wasn't a criminal proceeding. I assume you mean your phrase informally and your argument is that there was no finding of misconduct. That's not consistent with the source. It reads in part, "the Court held that while the evidence clearly supported the Disciplinary Board's finding that the respondents' conduct violated the Rules 7.1(c), 7.3(a), 7.3(b)(1), and 8.4(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct...." Thus, the first action was by the Lawyer Disciplinary Board, which did indeed make a formal finding of misconduct on her part. Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Appeals ruled that the evidence supported the finding. There was no presumption about what would happen; the finding actually did happen. JamesMLane t c 03:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

← I've looked this over and I agree with James - this is presented in a neutral manner, with appropriate weight. I also hope that more information be added about her legal career to round out the article, and this is a good start. Tvoz/talk 05:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I have now actual read the Nov 1996 opinion of the West Viringia court, as distinct from a mere summary. The Washington firm of Allen, Coale, and Van Sustern had its hand slapped for soliciting tort business from a half dozen victims in West Va through a couple of overly aggressive "Rainmakers". The court decided that the firm was not (yet) regularly doing business in W Va, so that the Disciplinary Committee didn't have jurisdiction. They also asked for tightening of the rule under which the firm was cited because of other issues that the court held to be moot in this case because they had let the lawfirm off the hook. In my non-lawyerly judgement not at all equivalent to DUI, more like running a red light when the patrol car happened to be watching.Whillier (talk) 00:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Whillier

I also question the appearance of the McCarthy bit, which refers to an era in which both sisters must have been kids. Either it belongs in both bios (Greta and Lise) or in neither. Whillier (talk) 00:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Whillier

Well that sort of answers my question about how notable the W.Virgina thing was. I am going to remove that for now. The McCarthy "material" seems notable but I haven't looked at the cites. I also going to remove the business about the husband, since that could go in his bio, if at all since his exact "role" is not well reported by reliable sources. Anyways, thanks for the input.Tom (talk) 03:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Picture size?

Is there a standard for the picture size? Maybe my monitor is too small :) Tom (talk) 04:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

McCarthy Connection

The bio on Greta goes to some length to establish that the late Senator McCarthy lived in her father's homw while he was a Senator.

The bio on her sister Lise merely says that father eventually broke with McCarthy.

The implication of the former is that Greta is the product of McCarthyism. The implcation of the latter is that her sister is not.

Since the sisters were presumably children, I am not sure how much of the McCarthy bit belongs in either bio BUT IT SHOULD BE THE SAME IN BOTH BIOS Whillier (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Whillier

Ana Marie Cox incident is trivia

The story about Van Susteren's interaction on an Amtrak train with Ana Marie Cox and an epi-pen is an amusing anecdote, but it is trivia - not at all notable for Van Susteren's bio which this article is supposed to be. Maybe it is relevant to Cox - it was her health that was in danger - but I don't see how this can be considered notable for Van Susteren. Please remember that while sourcing is required for inclusion, just being sourced does not necessarily make something notable for any particular article. The IP who added and re-added has not posted edit summary or any comments about why he or she thinks this is notable - I am open to discuss this, but just reverting it is not ok. Tvoz/talk 01:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Objectivity?

I'm sorry to say this bio reads, to me, like a promotional biography, as if it were taken from Fox News. For instance, why does it need a long list of celebrated persons she has interviewed? Of course she has, she's a TV news person. There must be more substantial things to say about her and her career. Zaslav (talk) 05:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Why does she talk like that?

I know this is kinda weird, and it's possible (though unlikely, seeing as it's a result on google's autocomplete function) that people aren't interested, but I feel like there should be some discussion about the highly distinct manner in which Ms. Van Susteren speaks. You know what I'm talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osiriscorleone (talk • contribs) 05:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Elvis Presley also talked from the corner of his mouth, it is cool. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 03:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it might be because of "misuse" of forceps at her birth - my suspicion is based on similarity with Sylvester Stallone's way of talking, and the misuse of forceps are mentioned in his article. --Spec (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for your response! — Osiriscorleone (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

N Halloway murder

Clearly some mention of her extensive coverage of this case is needed. She is probably more known for this than anything else. 68.188.25.170 (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Dutch ancestry

Her surname literally means "of Susteren" — indicating that her Dutch ancestry hailed from Susteren. Does this merit mention in the article? -JohnAlbertRigali (talk) 04:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)