Talk:Rebecca Quick

This thing comes across like a vanity piece/resume..--Hooperbloob 05:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe just a little but I think the piece is basically OK.--Mantanmoreland 12:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Becky is attractive, but this entry is on the hairy edge of non-notable. If she wasn't co-anchoring Sqwak Box, there's really not much else in Becky's bio that calls for an encyclopedia entry. That's probably a good thing as she has not been involved in any Bartiromoesque scandals. Also she hasn't written any books like Maria or Liz, so it's quite difficult to fill out this entry with anything substantial. Still a fan, but this does raise the question does every other so-far otherwise non-notable news talking head on TV deserve a wikipedia entry? It's a catch-22 that journalists and reporters should be reporting the story, not being a part of it. Wikipedia's not supposed to be a fan site. But Becky will probably succeed Katie Couric as CBS anchor in 2030 or something, so let's watch this entry grow perhaps. This is borderline biography stuff right now. Piperdown 03:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are a few things that aren't well documented here. Becky Quick has had unprecedented access to Warren Buffett. Furthermore, she hosts high caliber financial heavy weights on her show, and what they say on Squawk Box has been open to debate because the financial markets may or may not have been affected by it. Since Squawk Box is the first business show that goes live on US television every weekday morning, you bet what Becky and her co-hosts say is history in the making. Whether it's the fact that AMBAC was in trouble or that Wachovia's CEO resigned amid turmoil in the U.S. housing market, these major financial news bits of 2008 broke on Squawk Box. On the contrary, although a pioneer, Maria Bartiromo just recaps the day's events now. Let's not focus on gossip but what is important in terms of long term impact. Repkow (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

copyright violation

The text is lifted word for word from the CNBC external link.--80.6.163.58 12:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

And I flagged it here, but do not have time to fix it myself. Someone must. The template cannot be simply removed, not even by an admin. It's a flagrant copyvio. rootology (T) 13:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Evidence that CNBC anchor Rebecca “Becky” Quick was previously married.

Undisputed in Quick’s Wikipedia entry is that she is “currently married to a Squawk producer.” The source is Gawker.com, dated Jan. 19, 2009, which mentions Quick “recently married” the producer. Gawker.com’s likely source for this information is Richard Johnson’s column of the same date in The New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/seven/01192009/gossip/pagesix/squawking_season_at_cnbc_150882.htm). Johnson writes that Quick married the producer a few months ago. AND that Quick was previously married to a computer programmer.

The Wikipedia entry also cites a 2006 profile on Quick in The New York Times. In that report, the Times writes that she was married at that time to a computer programmer.

There is also visual published evidence available (http://www.cedarrun.org/newsletter/Spring03.pdf) identifying Quick with her previous husband. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.6.97.3 (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I've semi'd the page again. Please stop the edit warring William M. Connolley (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to use an apparent gossip page as a source, likewise a local pamphlet, but the NY Times article in particular seems significant, as does to repeated mention. I'm a bit dubious as the particular way this is being presented, with a small parenthetical that "Quick was previously married", but some rephrasing might help. On a bit of a tangent, I am curious as to exactly why those sources seem so reluctant to mention this "computer programmer" by name, but the point is probably moot. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that one user has expressed in edit summaries their opposition to inclusion of this information:

"The source provided is inadaquate. Does not mention anything past marriages." (KeltieMartinFan). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I should probably make clear my previous comments relating to this, both here and here... not exactly directly related to the matter at hand, but I've looked at and commented on it before, a bit. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Coppertwig- Only User:KeltieMartinFan has adamantly opposed the inclusion.

Here's the actual gist of comments today by User:Syrthiss: " You have my blessing to reintroduce the previous marriage information, though you will likely still have to convince others. You might open a section on the talk page and make the step by step explanation (without the gossip column as a reliable source, tho you can use that as a basis for your argument that the current marriage is to the producer)." User:Syrthiss (talk) 12:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)