Jump to content

Talk:Rebecca Quick

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

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]

[edit]

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.

[edit]

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:
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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.128.120 (talk) 04:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is weird. Don't know how I've wandered in here - I don't even know who this woman is - but why is there a problem recording that she has married twice? The NYT citation looks sound for her being married in 2006 to a man who was at the time a computer programmer. It's not unusual for people to divorce and remarry these days. If anything, I'd say there was more doubt about her current hubbie - all the info seems to come from one gossip column source, with other gossip sources over the past six months reporting all sorts of other rubbish about this lady (one alleged she had married Jordanian royalty!!!!!) Just the simple sentence "Rebecca Quick has been married twice. Her current husband is........." with a link to both sources. The first chap doesn't seem to be in any way Wikipedia notable, so guidelines indicate there's no need to say any more.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's my conclusion. Anon, you are inexperienced here and you mistook a conclusion that you were correct and should discuss it, with a conclusion that you -- or the other editor -- should re-assert the edit to the article. Wikipedia operates on consensus, and you can be blocked for pushing what is absolutely true. Inclusion is a more complex decision than "It's true." Elen, your conclusion matches that of Syrthiss and myself. The anon, and possibly a friend of the anon, or maybe someone independent, has been trying to insert exactly this: information that Quick was previously married, and she rather obviously was. We have a direct secondary source with the name, and given the rough confirmation from major media source, we can cite the direct source, thus anyone who wants to find out the name can find it. --Abd (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It looks to me that we can put the previous marriage info into the article. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As long as it's properly worded, and the most adequate source is in placed. That's the issue we have been dealing with from all of this. Unsourced information. The newsletter in questioned isn't adequate enough. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"That's the issue WE have been dealing with from all of this"?
Then WE all look forward to the day when the properly worded entry occurs!  : )
162.6.97.3 (talk) 22:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is the best source?
  • [4] "husband Peter Shay" (newsletter of a wildlife refuge)
  • [5] "previously married to a computer programmer" (New York Post)
  • [6] "recently married ... Matthew Quayle" (Gawker, January 2009)
  • [7] "with her husband, who is a computer programmer." (New York Times, January 2006)
  • [8] "once married to Peter Shay" (CNBCfix)
  • [9] Discussion of the editing of this article. (CNBCfix)
I suggest using both the New York Times and CNBCfix as refs to establish that she was previously married, and the Gawker to establish the recent marriage. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable to me. I don't think it need say anything about either husband, unless they suddenly develop notability. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe there was all this disruption over this. The source was already there, and being used for the claim that she "lives in Haworth, New Jersey." Forest for the trees. That was a 2006 source, and it has the "computer programmer" info, so, without any synthesis about this, except I specified "husband" as "then-husband," which is a qualification true about all reports of existing fact that might change, and here we have, don't we, some reason to believe that it *has* changed, polyandry being prohibited in most places, especially New Jersey. Because this is so effing obvious, and should have been from the beginning, I've made the change, as a previously uninvolved editor who has no axe to grind on this content, and I wish the best for Rebecca Quick, Peter Shay (my rather obvious guess), and Mquayle. And Keltie, WTF were you doing here? Edit warring to keep a quite simple fact out, claiming no source, when the source was there all along, through all this? Why were you so intensely concerned about this?

I also specified the living in Haworth thing so to restrict it to 2006, since, being married to a producer, who has accessed this article from New York IP belonging to NBC, there is a high probability she no longer lives in Haworth -- but perhaps her parents still live there.

I've added the additional source pointing to the wildlife refuge newsletter. I have no personal problem with the use of the Gawker article for what should be noncontroversial. I did not add the CNBCfix reference because it wasn't needed, but that reference -- tentatively, and I'm not intending to put more time into this -- was as good as the Gawker article. The Gawker information used to be an external link, and perhaps that will be restored.

I added the newsletter because it is as good a source as the gossip column, maybe even better, except as to notability, and because it mirrors that reference. The gossip column mentions the name of Quick's present husband, the newsletter the name of her former husband. With photos to boot. I hope we are done here. Be nice, do good work, and sign your contributions. --Abd (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I was not edit warring. Did you see me getting blocked over this for edit warring? No. 162.6.97.3 and any of his socks have gotten blocked many times over for edit warring and other violations. And it wasn't always me he dealt with. I have every right to be here, so don't give me that ridiculous attitude, Abd. You were not there at the start BTW, you supported the cause as to why this newsletter is NOT suppose to be there. It's "gossip" which is strictly prohibited on wikipedia. That is one of the most absolute (if not the most) unreliable source. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the newsletter isn't 'gossip'. The third sector is capable of producing accurate information - the only reason to assume that Cedar Run's newsletter was inaccurate would be if you had evidence that it had been hacked. It's the info about her new hubbie that's from the gossip columnist.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That still does not excuse the fact that this newsletter doesn't mention anything about divorce, which has been the whole topic of this petty discussion. Did you even read that newsletter? The information about Quick is so microscopic. And that small information that is listed just simply say that the guy standing next to her is her husband. People who do not know any better and see that newsletter will automically assume that. No mentionings about divorce in that thing. Not adaquate. Look for something else a lot more adaquate and acceptable if you're that adamant about mentioning Quick's marriage. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't understand your objection. If the sources don't mention divorce, there's no need for the Wikipedia article to mention it either; it can just say that she is recently married, and that she was previously married (which the sources do say), etc. Do you mean we shouldn't link to an old newsletter because people might read it and jump to the conclusion that she's still married to the person she's reported as married to there? I don't find that convincing. Old information is still good. The Wikipedia article makes it clear that that was a previous marriage. No need to burn old books because they don't contain all the latest updates. Are you suggesting that we not mention either of the marriages at all? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct the newsletter doesn't mention anything about divorce; however, the New York Times does mention the husband who is a computer programmer, and it is the source for her living in New Jersey with her husband. That was 2006. The newsletter is before that. The newsletter is not asserted as a necessary source for the former marriage, but only as an additional confirming reference, and for further information, i.e., the name of the former husband is there. There is other source for both, specifically the other gossip column. As Syrthiss pointed out, we have better sourcing for the former marriage than for the current one. Keltie, you have been removing all reference to the marriage many times; I just warned you for edit warring, I listed seven repetitive removals; you claimed there was no source, but, all along, the New York times mentioned the computer programmer husband, the newsletter source, and the other gossip column, were just confirmations, and they give the name. If someone wanted to do the research, it's possible other sources for the marriage can be found, but it doesn't seem to be worth it. The article with all three sources (NY Times, newsletter, Gawker, has a bare mention of both marriages, the occupation of both husbands, and neither name. With the newsletter, both husbands are named in the sources. It's balanced. Now, why, indeed, was this of such overriding importance to you that you would override prohibitions against edit warring and simply assert the same removal, over and over and over? Does this have anything to do with the prior removal by, apparently, the current husband from NBC IP and his single-edit account? Do you have any connection with NBC or the involved parties?
There is a general consensus here, do not oppose consensus with reversion, either short-term or long-term. If you will disclose your interest and real concern, it's possible something could be done, but your explanations, as it is, make no sense. "Microscopic." Okay. So? Small verifiable facts are still facts and verifiable. The first husband is notable because of the mention in the NY Times. Divorce has not been the topic of any discussion I've seen here. We may infer divorce, but we don't say divorce in the article. The topic is whether or not Quick was ever married before, and you have attempted to remove all reference to it, giving one weak reason after another. It seems your goal is not improving the project, but controlling it in this corner and, I think, others. --Abd (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I've put the Cedar Run source back in that Keltie took out with that strange edit summary, although I note that the New York Post ref that Bilby has replaced the Gawker with also makes reference to Quick having been married to a computer programmer before, so the matter may be moot by now.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You think that. But two people (Elen and Abd) out of slew of people is not a consensus. It's weak, and like a said many times over, small and inadequate. Other sources listed have already stated Quick's martial status. And FYI, NO...I do not work for NBC. And I'm NOT Matt Quayle either, nor to I have any association with Quick other than being a typical admirer of her work like millions of viewers. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
erm...pardon? Can't recall saying anything about you other than I found your edit summary strange. I'm not going to argue about the ref, it's pretty moot now. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, support keeping the wildlife ref because it gives the name of the former husband. I don't understand KeltiMartinFan's reason for removal. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So that's you, me, Abd, Syrthiss and the IP that kicked this off and found the source in the first place. Does anyone know what Keltie's issue with this is?

On RS/N somebody asked about a newsletter. Now I see the New York Post Page Six column is used as a source. That's not great. Also I see that a blog (Dealbreaker) is used as a source for something else. I've taken it out.-JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the New York Post Page Six column, but I see it as better than Gawker, which was the main alternative. That aside, I certainly agree with removing Dealbreaker - I had added a better source for the song, and reworded the Dealbreaker part to be clearly an opinion, but I was planning to raise it here anyway. :) - Bilby (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) I'm not sure why that there's all this fuss over an unnecessary reference. In the hope that this will clarify things:

  • According to WP:V, newsletters, of which this is one, are self published sources. Therefore they "should never be used as third-party sources about living persons".
  • Stepping aside from policy, it is reasonable to assume that a newsletter could make an error - in particular, the identity of someone in a photo, someone's name, or someone's marital status. Newsletters do not have a reputation for fact-checking - that's simply not what they're meant to do.
  • The newsletter itself only offers the supposed name of her first husband. There is nothing else of value in it. We don't have the name of her first husband in the article.
  • We already have a perfectly adequate source for the fact that she was, at some point, married to a computer programmer.

So, in the end, the newsletter is not a reliable source, offers nothing that the article currently needs, and we already have a reliable source covering the relevant material. Given that, there's no reason to include it, and good reasons not to. - Bilby (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per Bilby, I accept the deletion of the wildlife refuge newsletter. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A random thought from an outside editor (I read about this in RS/N): why is it so important to talk about her marital status? If solid sourcing is not available, the best thing is to leave it out. I'm not overjoyed about using a gossip column in a BLP, particularly a link to an article that raises ethical issues even if the text in the article doesn't. My vote would be to leave it out entirely. So she's married to X and was married to Y. Who cares? --JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm queasy about the Page Six item raising ethical issues. I've posted a note on this at the BLP Noticeboard. Seems questionable to me, but maybe it's OK. I'd like to get more opinions.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't oppose JohnnyB256 suggestion of excluding all of Quick's martial information on this article. I’m sure Miss Quick and those close to her would actually prefer it that way. At the same time, I don’t oppose having some acceptable information either. But if those close to Quick would rather not have this piece of information included, I would respect their decision and politely abide. Aside from that, as for the other part about my “issue” with this...to put it as very politely as I possibly can, my issue is that I was correct in my reasoning and those of you who oppose me were not, and are stubborn to think otherwise. I had my fair share of being at odds against editors such as this incident. My history log speaks for itself as to the type of edits I make on any article I touch. I am never one to stir controversy or put any defamatory edits in any article here on Wikipedia such as my primary opposition in all of this,162.6.97.3 (really it was 76.114.133.44, the real sockpuppeteer). That is my REAL issue, having to put with up with nonsense like this from irrational editors who no common sense and no decency. I know a lot of other editors, especiallly administrators, would concur with me on my last statement. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times is solid evidence of a marriage to a computer programmer. A Gawker.com mention and The New York Post gossip column have been questionable sources for a marriage to Squawk Box's executive producer. Let's resolve that now.
On its business pages, The New York Post reported the following [10] on Jan. 25, 2009:
WHAT CONFLICT?
"SQUAWK BOX" anchor Becky Quick and the show's executive producer, Matthew Quayle, recently took the walk down the aisle and while Quayle has supervisory duties over the show, neither will have to shift professional roles, CNBC said.
According to a network spokesman, both Quick and Quayle work for business news head Jonathan Wald. Though Quayle outranks Quick in title, they are technically equals in the sense that both report to Wald.
From that perspective, the spokesman said there is no conflict of interest in having the couple continue to work on the same show.
162.6.97.3 (talk) 13:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've subbed.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again? Really??

[edit]

User:KeltieMartinFan is up to his old tricks trying to strong-arm the content of this article. Sad, isn't it?

76.114.197.43 (talk) 03:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If KeltieMartinFan attempts to remove the information again, I will report her for edit warring. In the meantime, IP, I recommend not continuing to revert. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious. Is there some talking head pounding this "issue" or blog, ect? This "material" seems to be here for some "reason", not sure since I am not involved. Wikipedia is not a platform or battleground. It seems this should not be included unless it has been widely reported and notable and also since it currently reads like crap, ie, doesn't mention if she is divorced or 2nd marriage or any timing of events, ect, ect. This looks like the usuall smear campaign. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is all old ground, debated ad nauseum (above), so no need to restate here. But the data's all documented, I.e. no scintilla of a smear.
User:Elen of the Roads -- Thanks for monitoring this, too. I don't want to get caught up in some 3-revert trap either! -- 76.114.197.43 (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And it looks hardly from settled/consensus. Wikipedia is not a collection of "data" especially when it comes to BLP issues, which is obviously the case here. --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, review the matter (above).This was settled. Data collection? No. Documented? Yes. -- 76.114.197.43 (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Threeafterthree, the consensus was that it was worth saying that Becky Quick has been married twice. This is documented and (one would think) uncontroversial - it's not as if she kept her first husband locked in the attic when she married her second. As her first husband is not himself notable in wikipedia terms, nothing more is said about him. However, for some reason KeltieMartinFan objects to the article containing any information that Becky Quick is a divorcee. If you read the section above, you'll see that KeltieMartinFan was part of the discussion. I'm not immovably attached to that particular set of words - indeed, where she lived in 2006 probably is irrelevant, but there's no reason that the article should not say that Becky Quick was married twice. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elen of the Roads, but how do we know she doesn't have her "first"? husband locked away?(j/k) Seriously, how do we know that was her "first" husband? We don't unless sources specifically say it was her first marriage. She could have been married multiple times for all we know. The current wording seems ok since we aren't mention the number of marriages or using the word divorce since that hasn't been sourced as well. Maybe she is a Mormon :), just kidding. Anyways, not trying to be a dick, just playing devils advocate, especially on BLPs. Thanks, --Threeafterthree (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Inhale, exhale). OK, here's the deal: Via her 15 hours (at the least) on television a week, Quick has freely stated innocuous information -- facts and opinions --about herself. Certainly items that would be interesting in her Wikipedia entry. She's not a MAJOR personality, but neither is Quick as relatively obscure as now seen.
One -- ONE! -- editor locked the article up for weeks (weeks!) over mention of a second marriage. That creates a climate where NO ONE is willing to add substance to the article. All because of ONE draconian (read: nonsensical) interpretation of BLP policy.
For example, Quick has repeated stated on SquawkBox her germ phobia. Essential information? Of course not. But interesting if you wanted to know more, which presumably one would be by visiting Wikipedia. But after the firefight to get (sort of) mention of a documented second marriage, why waste time in germ warfare? You add information and get branded as "having an agenda." It just makes for an incomplete record, and who needs that in any pedia? -- 76.114.197.43 (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless her "germ phobia" is covered by RS, just having seen her mention it on the tube is the essence of original research. IP, do you watch her 15 hours a week :) ? Seriously, my question is why does this seem so important to you? Why is it so important to include what seems like really non notable personal info on a bio this short and so poorly sourced due to the fact this person is barely notable enough to have a bio in the first place? If folks are coming here to "learn more" about the minutia of this person, they will and should be disappointed. Wikipedia does/should error on the side of draconian interpretation of policy when it comes to BLPs. --Threeafterthree (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguing for the sense of arguing, right? Because you're not even in the ballpark on original research. Or an understanding of this person's celebrity niche in her field. (Ask Warren Buffett if he knows her. Oh, right, that's original research, right?)
You're wrong. Pedias should err on the marketplace-of-information principle, not toward censorship. --76.114.197.43 (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not completely. I guess we agree to disagree on BLP policy then. Anyways, I don't have a horse in this race so carry on. --Threeafterthree (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding two of the links in the notes, they still work, but they are being forwarded to the actual URLs (which, of course, might stop working at some point in the future). Suggest that the article be edited so those links point to the actual pages.

Note 2 (and external link): http://www.cnbc.com/becky-quick/ Note 3: http://nypost.com/2009/01/25/fuld-hides-home/ 50.46.202.203 (talk) 03:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rebecca_Quick&oldid=1209929100"