Talk:Stuart Varney

American
When did this fine intelligent chap become one of us? And why.


 * That is what I looked him up to find out. I think he is just great.  --69.37.50.98 (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to him. He was laughed out the UK because anyone with a half decent education knows what he's full of!81.159.165.14 (talk) 10:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Varney's nationality, if it's specifically mentioned - which it is - shouldn't it also mention that he's a UK citizen, since he was born there? Indieshack (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Religion?
"... Varney, an Episcopalian ..." - Anglican surely. 87.194.131.188 (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

BLP Violation
A supposed "criticism" of Varney from the left-wing The Young Turks is the source of a dispute. The quote from Varney is at 9:04 in this video. Varney's words were "there is widespread mistrust of this report and these numbers because there are clear contradictions. 873 thousand people said they had found work but only 114 thousand new jobs were created.  That is a contradiction.  If you delve a little deeper, it seems a lot of these people who found work - that would be the 873 thousand - if you look deeply, it turns out that 600 thousand of those 873 thousand people were part time workers.  So they came back into the labor force and they pushed the unemployment rate down to 7.8%, but there's a contradiction here --". At that point, the video of Varney abruptly ends (in the middle of the sentence). There is NOTHING in here that alleges a "conspiracy" or that the method of counting part time workers had changed. You can't find it. It's nowhere. Now he does, and I'm going off of memory because I don't have video, later on joke about how convenient it is, but it was clearly a joke (dry British humor) and not a claim of a conspiracy theory. And even if it weren't a blatant lie about what Varney said, the characterization of it as "Varney's credibility was questioned" based on one far-left video blog does not remotely pass BLP standards. --B (talk) 02:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

More detail
There should be more detail about this person since he influences so many people. He has a wife and family but there is little detail on them. Please add more on this person. 101.51.236.216 (talk) 05:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Why do we need more on his family? I see no reason for that. 152.160.99.172 (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Pope Francis controversy
I'm not sure whether this statement needs elaboration, or whether it should be omitted. As it stands, it doesn't give useful information. "In 2013 Varney became controversial for his commentary on Pope Francis, who made what Varney considered anti-free market statements." What was Varney's commentary? How was it controversial? Aardvark92 (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Education
The article claims without sources that he's a graduate of LSE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:2163:2300:193D:3E91:C30C:53CF (talk) 10:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Notable Commentaries
This entire section seems highly opinionated and effectively focusing exclusively on Controversies as defined by organizations like Media Matters, Crooks and Liars and other expressly ideological outlets that oppose Varney's politics. Clearly some of his commentary has been political and thus controversial but this section has no mention of anything notable aside from that. This goes as far as including commentary that was not by Varney himself, and was expressly condemned by Varney after the fact, clearly not a "notable comment" by Varney himself. Someone should include other notable commentaries such as Varney's Peabody Award for coverage of the 1987 stock market crash to make this a section that legitimately focuses on his "Notable Commentaries"

This Wikipedia write up is biased
Totally biased write up and leaves out his travels around the world for years. 141.193.195.146 (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)