Talk:Maria Bartiromo

Untitled
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)

it seems the last ip took out serious controversies of this person, stop being combative and blaming other —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122589423KM (talk • contribs) 04:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

This article needs work? [03:43, 30 April 2005 65.54.154.13]

not anymore. Clinevol98 22:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Woah...the last "editor" of this section took out a LOT of info...an unnecessary move.

-Agreed...reverted back to previous page vikramsidhu 13:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)

The article indicates that Maria was listed #81 on the FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World 2003 list. The link points to a Wikipedia article which has Catherine Bell (an actress who bears a resemblance to Ms. Bartiromo) at #81.

WP:BLP removal (Thomson story)
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).

WP:BLP removal (Citibank story)
I also removed this, but I am putting it in a different section here on the talk page, since it is a different issue:

''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 think it is not for Wikipedia to make a judgment about "questionable ethics" and this paragraph currently does. Additionally, CNBC was later "required" to redraft some guidelines? Required by whom? And would those guidelines have prevented her either before the redrafting, or even after the redrafting, from owning stocks? Is it really impossible for financial journalists to own any stock? 1,000 shares of Citibank stock would not be a very important asset for someone like Bartiromo, so is this "scandal" really worth of mention?--Jimbo Wales 03:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur that the "questionable ethics" part is a POV statement, but I don't see why the rest can't be included. What does everyoe else think? I'm in favor of just removing the first paragraph and keepig the rest. Just H 03:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Questionable or not, I would like to point out that in her 2001 book "Use the News", Bartiromo stated that she only owned some shares of some mutual funds, and not any individual stocks, as she considered it a "conflict of interest" to do so (I believe the statement was made in the introduction, or possibly the first chapter).


 * As far as CNBC's guidelines, it was my understanding that certain rules apply to all employees, but stock ownership isn't strictly against the rules. (Originally I was under the impression that Jim Cramer was restricted by either the SEC or CNBC in that he couldn't short a stock, and any stocks he owned had to be held for at least one month. But I read elsewhere, although it may have merely been a Cramer message board, that these rules are imposed on all CNBC employees.) -75.136.202.14 18:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The Other Bartiromo
"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)


 * I've remoevd the entire paragraph. There's no source for their relationship. ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 22:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Quotes Removal Request
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)

Add'l: Reference to a relatively obscure Weiner quote removed again. Financial reporters are right half the time and wrong half the time. The purpose of this entry is not to factcheck every statement Bartiromo has ever made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.229.108 (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)

Weiner anecdote and Controversies section
I've removed the Weiner anecdote and placed an NPOV tag on this article. The tag is warranted because, even with the Weiner anecdote removed, the "Controversies" section is too large for an article of this size. The Weiner anecdote was inadequately sourced. The sourcing consisted of blogs and blatant synthesis from this article in the Daily Telegraph that doesn't mention Bartiromo. For the Erbitux stuff to be used, one needs to cite an article specifically mentioning Bartiromo. Wikipedia editors are not allowed to conduct original research of this kind. The Weiner stuff is otherwise just not adequately sourced. Blogs are not reliable sources in general, and certainly not as sources for inflammatory material in BLPs. I've removed, and I'm taking this to BLP/N as I think editors need to review the Controversies section generally. I haven't had a chance to examine it, and it may well be that all of the Controversies section is this badly sourced. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 01:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was the person who added the reference to The Daily Telegraph article. I believe what I did was not an example of "synthesis" since I drew no original conclusions about what she said and drew no original conclusions about what the newspaper article said.  I simply juxtaposed what the two sources said so that the reader can make up their own mind.  I didn't write anything along the lines of that what she said was wrong because of what is written in the newspaper article; I simply wrote what she said and then wrote what the newspaper said.  That's not synthesis.  You read the information from the two sources and concluded yourself that what she said was ridiculous as anyone with any common sense would, but that doesn't mean there's anything subjective about my reportage.


 * I also don't understand why you claim the entire summary of the Weiner incident was "inadequately sourced." There are videos of her making all the remarks the summary discusses, and they are cited by the summary.  What more do you want than that?  We shouldn't be interested in sugarcoating her career and romanticizing about how "[she] has accomplished so much"; though they may sometimes be unflattering to the subject of this article, the facts are the only things with which we should be concerned.  Batman Jr. (talk) 03:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the tag because an editor correctly removed the controversies section. But this is still a sad excuse for an article. This lady has accomplished so much, despite all her missteps, and yet there seems to be a constant struggle over controversies. If properly sourced they may have a place in a real article about this person, not the bare-bones stuff thrown together here. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 03:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm more interested in the controversial life of Maria than any of the other information in this article. Removing controversy sections altogether without creating an archive of the information in the talk section is unwarranted. 2600:1700:7A51:10B0:F8DD:360:63F2:C68 (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I also believe Ms. Bartiromo’s article does not reflect how her reputation has declined.

I listed some links below; they were left but the comments deleted. There is no doubt her move to Fox has harmed her reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.192.29 (talk) 06:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Which is it?
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)
 * 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)


 * Good catch, Tucker. We should amend the discrepancy per the source.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 18:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 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/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)

External links modified
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)

External links modified
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)

External links modified
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)

Fox Business News or Fox Business Talk
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)

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/29/media/bartiromo-trump-interview/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.193.59 (talk) 06:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/03/16/fox-dominion-bartiromo-covid-election (someone deleted my original post, not sure why, but here is another link with similar information. It should be addressed in the article.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.192.29 (talk) 07:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, Fox should not be considered a respectable news source, but Maria used to be considered an excellent financial reporter:

https://www.salon.com/2023/11/14/brian-stelter-fox-network-of-lies-tucker-carlson-maria-bartiromo/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:4300:EE90:1D23:D43D:D1F5:993D (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * 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)

Joey Ramone infatuation?
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)

Body should cover her Trump advocacy and conspiracy theories
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Yes it goes way way overboard with undue weight, put on tag. 68.199.42.28 (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

There are multiple reliable sources calling out Bartiromo's tacit support of Trump conspiracy theories. This is a key controversy in her career as she has been a respected journalist. The article "What ever happened to Maria Bartiromo?" in the LA Times is an example. -- Green  C  14:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Charles, wordsmithing can always correct needless repetition, so careful editing can solve that one. The more serious aspect would be "written in a POV manner". Precisely which words are you referring to? Please clarify. -- Valjean (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The "Trump" section is biased, it states as fact what are instead just basic pejorative comments, such as references to Trump "falsehoods and conspiracy theories" -- that's just garden variety anti-Trump nonsense that is spewed out on the degraded news media. Repeating it here undermines the goal of making Wiki a scholarly source and not simply a tabloid outlet. It's fine for the Huffington Post to put this kind of material on their website, but here it serves to confirm the criticism that Wiki is liberally biased. That section needs a substantial rewrite -- I would do it, but I'm reasonably sure the squirrels would revert it in a second.Sych (talk) 12:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)

While I'm not sure the contributions of "CharlesShirley" in this Talk section should be removed, I do think it's worth calling-out here that if you browse to CharlesShirley, you see the following "This account is a sockpuppet of NazariyKaminski, and has been blocked indefinitely.", and if you browse to NazariyKaminski, you see the following: "This account has been blocked indefinitely because its owner is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts." EricTN (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2020
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)


 * "...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 to further the explanation. P37307 (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * There is no newspaper called LA Times. 68.199.42.28 (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Yellow check.svg 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)


 * 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)

'These references long held gospel by WIKIPEDIA standards' - and their in lies one of many problems with Wikipedia. No wonder 20 years later Wikipedia still isn't considered to be a valid source. Shame as it had a lot of potential before the woke and lefties got a hold of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.190.28 (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Worthy of a mention?
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 |Cowboy Country Magazine P37307 (talk) 03:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed?
What specifically is being disputed? Sundayclose (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)

Pinging. Sundayclose (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

It should be covered but not unduly weighted. It should not be anywhere near as long as the coverage of her long pioneering career at CNBC. Keep it in historical perspective. 68.199.42.28 (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality of sources (June 2021)
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)
 * 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)
 * Please refer to 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)
 * FYI: WP:RSPVOX and WP:DAILYBEAST link to sections of Reliable sources/Perennial sources. —TypicalWikimedian (talk • contribs) 19:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2021
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)


 * 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. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 23:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)