Talk:Maria Bartiromo

message: Shouldn't it be mentioned that Punkicon Joey Ramone (RIP) dedicated a song to her on his solo album? To me it sounds real bizarre that he did a song about her. 92.201.104.158 (talk) 03:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, you are "agreeing" with yourself – the Discussion page history gives you away.  Second, I mostly rearranged existing material into a more coherent whole.  The only thing I took out was a lot of unnecessarily detailed speculation from unsourced "internet blogs" about her future career.  Please note that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I am reverting back.  Wasted Time R 18:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: In another instance of questionable ethics, in 2003 Bartiromo once interviewed Citigroup's CEO, Sanford I. Weill, and stammered that she owned 1,000 shares of Citigroup stock. A number of journalism boards consider it unethical for reporters to own shares in the companies on which they report, and CNBC was later required to redraft its admittedly loose reporting guidelines, which have been described as "boosterish, gossipy and more than a little starry-eyed."
I just removed the following from the article for now:
The Wall Street Journal and Financial Times reported on 2007-01-24 that the head of Citigroup's wealth management unit, Todd Thomson, was forced to resign in part because of spending company money on functions involving Bartiromo. Thomson was advised by Citigroup executives to reduce his contact with Bartiromo after the two were seen together around Manhattan, the Journal reported. But he spent $5 million to sponsor a Sundance Channel program co-hosted by Bartiromo, and the two flew back together from a business function in Asia on Citigroup's corporate jet. Bartiromo is no longer hosting the Sundance program, but it is rumored that she has flown on Thomson's jet several times, vacationed with him at his private Montana ski lodge, as well as dined with him behind the back of Citigroup's board. Thomson, after gifting $500,000 to the Wharton School in 2004, also had Bartiromo added to the advisory board for a special commission. She and Thomson were then suspiciously co-hosts of a later leadership conference at Wharton in 2005. Speculation continues to run rampant through Wall Street as to the nature of her and Thomson's relationship, but it is possible that her marriage has grown sour over her husband's recent financial hardship and business failure.    
We do need to cover this story, but this paragraph needs to be a lot tighter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jimbo Wales (talk • contribs) 03:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:BLP removal (Thomson story) 

message: "He currently is scheduling to release his book 'The Other Bartiromo' as soon as a publisher signs on."
If an author is still looking for a publisher, he can't really said to be "scheduling" the release date of the book. He's simply hoping there will be one! A different matter. (I know this too well.) --Christofurio 21:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've remoevd the entire paragraph. There's no source for their relationship.  ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 22:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Other Bartiromo 

message: Seriously, are we quoting just about anything these days?  If you are going to put the standards of quotes that low, you mine as well add her saying "Honey, do you like what I am wearing?" or "Pass the salt please" to this impressive collection.  The quotes presented are a waste of what could have been productive characters in another subtopic.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.247.212 (talk) 06:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with the removal. Her error made a sensation in the blogosphere, but I don't see any coverage in reliable sources, and in any event it is undue weight to include. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes Removal Request 

message: In the lead: "She was the first reporter to broadcast live from the floor of the New York Stock Exchange."
In the Career section: "Although Bartiromo was not the first person (she took over from analyst Roy Blumberg) to report regularly live from the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, she quickly became the most popular."
Which is it?  Or does the word "regularly" make all the difference?  And where are the sources?
TuckerResearch (talk) 07:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: She was indeed the first, I haven't seen anything to the contrary. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2006/jul/14/3 Frank0051 (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch, Tucker. We should amend the discrepancy per the source.-- — Keithbob • Talk •  18:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which is it? 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Maria Bartiromo on Times Square.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Maria Bartiromo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120327174659/http://www.thegracies.org/pdfs/2008_Gracies_Winners.pdf to http://www.thegracies.org/pdfs/2008_Gracies_Winners.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Maria Bartiromo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061017191216/http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2005/edition_04-17-2005/in_step_with_0 to http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2005/edition_04-17-2005/in_step_with_0
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121016034142/http://www.cnbc.com/id/15838255/Maria_Bartiromo_Profile to http://www.cnbc.com/id/15838255/Maria_Bartiromo_Profile
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101215161953/http://emmyonline.tv/news/archive/winners/news_30th_winners.pdf to http://www.emmyonline.tv/news/archive/winners/news_30th_winners.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Maria Bartiromo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714220334/http://testwww.nyse.com/events/1280829653574.html to http://testwww.nyse.com/events/1280829653574.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Maria Bartiromo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101122172910/http://emmyonline.org/mediacenter/_pdf/news_31st_winners_v03.pdf to http://www.emmyonline.org/mediacenter/_pdf/news_31st_winners_v03.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: E.G. “Bartiromo, who has morphed from respected business reporter to unapologetic Trump booster”
https://www.thedailybeast.com/maria-bartiromo-erupts-when-fox-colleague-wonders-why-trumps-still-talking-about-hillarys-emails  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.193.59 (talk) 08:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe keep the bias to yourself. Plus this article has too many interests clashing it's hard to take it seriously. Not to mention every left leaning news network was talking about dominion voting machine flaws up until the 2020 election. 2604:E8C0:7:0:0:0:0:B66E (talk) 08:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fox Business News or Fox Business Talk 

message: I disagree with the use of the word "infatuation" to describe Joey Ramones' feelings towards Bartiromo.  Infatuation is defined as, quote, "an intense but short-lived passion or admiration".  And the indicated source - a 2006 article in The Guardian - mentions nothing about an infatuation.  Bartiromo herself is quoted as calling it a "friendship".  I'm going to change it....if the source doesn't include it, "infatuation" doesn't belong.  Elsquared (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joey Ramone infatuation? 

message: A few days ago, this content was removed. A number of reliable sources are cited. A variation of the content should be in the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It should not. As was pointed out at the time.  The information is redundant. It is undue weight. And it turned the article into a coatrack. It is was POV editing at its worst.  --  CharlesShirley (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Now the article spends more space discussing her response to her critics than the actual criticism. How is that not undue weight? Right now there is nothing at all in the article about her shift in viewpoints, or the media coverage around it. Schnapps17 (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

text: I agree that more should be said about Bartiromo's advocacy or beliefs of conspiracy theories. I think it's important to mention considering that she's a media personality with a distinguished career. She shouldn't get a pass for advocating conspiracies or other baseless claims. The evolution of her views to being more controversial would be great to mention in the article. As long as it's NPOV and sticks to what the sources say it should be mentioned. --SlackingViceroy (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The current third graf and the entire Trump presidency section wildly violate NPOV and don't read as remotely encyclopedic. This needs a big overhaul. Yes, it should be noted that she went from the voice of reason to the voice of... less reason, but the way it's written now is frankly absurd. Jbbdude (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

text: Yes it goes way way overboard with undue weight, put on tag. 68.199.42.28 (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The section of her coverage of the Trump presidency is overlong (undue weight) and it is written in argumentative POV fashion. It needs to be edited down and calmed down. It is not neutral in any manner whatsoever. Yes, we should talk about her coverage, but right now it is a total unfair mess.  --  CharlesShirley (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a POV warning to the top of the article. On particular section is out of control and is written in a POV manner.  --  CharlesShirley (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Considering the massive coverage in RS (which tells us what weight to give the subject), it looks about right. -- Valjean (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. Not true. The section is overly long, repeats itself, and is written in a POV manner.  --  CharlesShirley (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  In scope of her long and successful career, this a meaningful but still minor point. Agree with flag on section. Rest of page is fair. 68.199.42.28 (talk)|  — Preceding undated comment added 19:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

text: I understand your concern about the page referencing allegations of "falsehoods and conspiracy theories" so I added an interal page link to List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump so readers can click and go to them P37307 (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Body should cover her Trump advocacy and conspiracy theories 

message: In the Introduction, the term "softball interview" is too informal and the blue link to it is for some academic thing. Replace with "interviews that declined to challenge his assertions".  Spell out Los Angeles Times, because "LA Times" is too informal. 68.199.42.28 (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "...some academic thing"? It's a standard questioning technique. The section in the "blue link" is about purposeful questioning--more than softballish questioning. Her actions are more than not challenging his assertions.  The community upgraded this from a starting point of an edit that said she was  being Donald Trump's cheerleader to be more fair to Bartiromo. I agree that some POV editing should be done but You can't edit out fact and say it is being done for neutrality purposes. The references in the page spells it out. These are references long held gospel by WIKIPEDIA standards. The edit request actually gives less weight by limiting the scope of the interview style. I added the internal page reference to the Question#By_purpose to further the explanation. P37307 (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no newspaper called LA Times. 68.199.42.28 (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Partly done: I changed it to the Los Angeles Times, but I'll probably need consensus for the other part of the request. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Clarified that it is not exclusively WAPO or Los Angeles Times that report this in this edit [] P37307 (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2020 

message: Doubt there would be a place on the page for this, but, while doing research I came across a couple rodeo sites and apparently there is a professional rodeo horse named after her that took 1st place in a couple strings. Not sure if that, if sourced better, would be something for popular culture or other another section. I normally add references and do clean ups on pages and rarely add content, per se, so I'll hang it out there for someone else to decide. Wrangler Network Country Magazine P37307 (talk) 03:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worthy of a mention? 

message: What specifically is being disputed? Sundayclose (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The editor "CharlesShirley" objects to the article covering Bartiromo's transformation from a journalist into a cheerleader for the Trump administration. The tag should be removed because all the article does is to cover how RS cover her. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality disputed? 

message: In relation to this, there are more than a few instances where opinion is being presented as fact. It certainly isn't neutral considering most of the refs are to left-leaning sources (CNN, CNBC, WP) and others that aren't reliable (Vox and Daily Beast). I tried making edits but was accused of not providing summaries (I did), violating NPOV and vandalism. There are a couple of statements in the article that could be considered libelous that I removed (and indicated so) but 'VANDALISM'. 173.56.190.28 (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Good to see that you have brought this to the talk page. Just saying, Vox and Daily Beast are reliable sources, they have been previously disputed but ended up being deemed "reliable". (See WP:RSPVOX and WP:DAILYBEAST.) —TypicalWikimedian (talk • contribs) 19:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please refer to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources when determining what sources are reliable and not. The community has determined such. You are always free to debate and challenge reliability.--P37307 (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  FYI: WP:RSPVOX and WP:DAILYBEAST link to sections of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. —TypicalWikimedian (talk • contribs) 19:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I really need to get in the habit of using the abbreviated links to the WP pages instead of the entire page name but I used the entire page instead of just pointing to WP:DAILYBEAST because it appears they have a problem with every source that differs from their point of view. ;) --P37307 (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

text:  Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says all we really need to know about the reliability of sources. If you have issues with these sources. I would suggest discussing those here. Philipnelson99 (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality of sources (June 2021) 

message: Delete "and far-right conspiracy theorist" from the opening sentence and revise the remaining sentence structure accordingly.  This phrase is an inflammatory, politicization of this webpage.  No substantial support is provided and it is pure opinion, intentionally placed there by leftists who wish to hijack Wikipedia for propaganda.  
Any such allegations should be made in the body of the article, be neutral in nature, provide adequate support and rebuttal, and be made within the broader context of the biography. Bromo99 (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: While I can't speak to the motivations of the person who added it, I agree that it's unsupported by the source material within the article and have removed it per WP:BLP. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 23:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2021