Talk:Rebecca Quick

Indiana Unassessed

Rebecca Quick is within the scope of WikiProject Indiana, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for, and sustain comprehensive coverage of the U.S. state of Indiana and related subjects on Wikipedia.

IndianaWikipedia:WikiProject IndianaTemplate:WikiProject IndianaIndiana articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Things you can do:
WikiProject Indiana alerts Requested Reassessments Indiana articles needing assessed Indiana cleanup listing Articles needing infoboxes Articles needing attention To-do Lists Articles needing images

Oklahoma Unassessed

	Oklahoma portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography Stub‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Journalism Stub‑class

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

copyright violation

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Note that at least two users have expressed in edit summaries their opposition to inclusion of this information:

[1] "rv. source is not a reliable source. per BLP)" (Syrthiss) (Referring to WP:BLP policy) and
[2] "The source provided is inadaquate. Does not mention anything past marriages." (KeltieMartinFan). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.128.120 talk 00:06, 6 August 2009, note added by Abd (talk) 04:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the original for that comment by Syrthiss: [3]. The IP editor is naive and did not understand how to proceed, should not have made the edit to the article, but should have proceeded with the discussion only. --Abd (talk) 04:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abd - The IP editor should have proceeded with the discussion only? Based on...what?

Sources for correct data were offered, and the weighty opinions of previous participating editors were sought (and used). More procedural effort appears to have been made by the IP editor than with most edits that occur on Wikipedia.

Perhaps the IP editor was naive about past presumptions of an edit war, but that's not convincing to argue the edit should not have occurred.

And your response here is all the more odd considering the long message you left at the page of User talk:Coppertwig strongly supporting evidence for the edit.