Talk:Dave Ramsey

	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
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Archives

/Criticism

/Archive 1

Clearly a puff piece

Almost totally unuseable for someone looking for some facts on this guy. Ramsey is an unliscensed financial promoter with virtually no credentials. Can anyone provide some facts?

John Bob 23:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

feel free to add any facts you think are missing (assuming they are verifiable and cited not just personal opinion) and remove anything that you feel is not properly cited or does not belong on the page. harlock_jds 13:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He never says he is anything but a man who's screwed up in the past and knows how NOT to screw up in the future. Do you dislike him because he doesn't have his head in the clouds or is there an anti-christian bias in your sentiment?

Divide the Article?

It seems that there is much debate about the propriety of placing criticisms and/or his works and details about his programs in this article. I agree. Criticism and info about his show and books detracts from his biography

Why don't we just divide the article? Leave the bio stuff on this page (with maybe a brief description and a link to the other articles) and then put Criticisms, and his books and radio show on a different page.

That might help with the flow a little.

What do y'all think?

Cheers!!

Mwinslett 20:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not sure if that would help (and i thought that would help at one time but that was before we trimmed a lot of information about 'the plan' and steps from the article). the criticisms people want to add still violates verifiability and original research standards even for non biographical wiki pages so they would still end up deleted. harlock_jds 20:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think its a horrible idea to have 2 pages for Dave Ramsey. 1 page for the bio and one page for books,radio and criticisms on another. Who wants to read 2 different pages about Dave Ramsey when you can read one page and scroll down on it?--67.32.195.191 (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

at the time the radio show and tv show were still a part of the main article. It has since been devided. harlock_jds (talk) 01:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political Slant on Criticism

The criticism that Ramsey is "Overly right-wing" is not a factual representation of the article. The article says that Ramsey is criticized for being right-wing in general. I think the criticism was changed to overly-right-wing to comply with NPOV, but I don't think it accurate and I don't think criticizing someone for being "right-wing" fits with the NPOV. Eastshire 12:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the article make mention of this criticism and it is criticism he gets (wikipedia doesn't say the criticism had to be reasonable criticism or correct criticism, just that it's criticism from a verifiable source). I will remove the 'overly' part of the statement (and put back in the one you deleted without giving a reason). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harlock jds (talk • contribs) 13:29, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

I did give a reason, appropriatly enough I included the comment in the Criticism area of this talk page. To repeat it here: no where in the cited article does it say that he is criticised for unbiblical perspective on wealth. If I missed it, please point it out to me. I will refrain from removing it again until you have had a chance to read the article cited. My point is that calling someone right-wing isn't a criticism from a NPOV. It can only be a criticism if one assumes that being right-wing is a drawback. It is a statement of fact not a criticism. Eastshire 18:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

from the article

"Ramsey gets irritated when he gets emails and letters directing him to the scripture, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God” (Matthew 19:24). Ramsey believes in the inerrancy of the Bible but says such calls for poverty are “doctrinal nitpicking.” Ramsey contends that the Bible says the love of money (as opposed to money itself) is the root of all evil (1 Timothy 6:9-10), and that God asked rich men (Moses, Solomon) to work on his behalf. “The Bible does not say that you’re supposed to be poor,” he says. “Most of the patriarchs in the Bible were wealthy. You’re managing money for God.”

as for the right wing bit is doesn't matter if it is something reasonable or valid for him to be criticized about... it's just something he is criticized for and this criticism is mentioned in a verifiable source. The criticism doesn't have to be from a NPOV (and what criticism is) instead the article overall has to be done from a NPOV and that includes including everything that is verifiable according to wikipedia standards (wither we think it is correct or not). Honestly most people readingthearticle consider it 'a puff piece' and 'an add for the guy'... i'm trying to make it less so. harlock_jds 20:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I agree with describing people sending him e-mails of that particular scripture as criticizing him as holding an ubiblical position on wealth. I think this is rather an inference being made by the reader. At any rate, it is not a charge specifically leveled by the article or related by the article.

Having re-read that section of the article, it does state that his detractors ". . . note his generally right-wing views." So you are right, this is the actual criticism being leveled. So my concern has been addressed with the removal of the "overly."

Is the puff piece still a concern of any individual? I haven't read the pre-rewrite article, but at this point it's a pretty straight-forward description of who he is, what he's done, and what books he's written. Eastshire 21:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes that this article is nothing more than a puff piece is still a concern to some people (look at recent comments and edits i didn't say it was a valid concern just that it was a concern) as for the non biblical criticism think that's a logical inference to make (people aren't sending him that stuff because they agree with him) but you are right that is a inference and isn't spelled out. I'd kinda like to get a 3'rd POV on this before we delete it but I'm not going to fight over it... if you want it out take it out and i won't re add it (since i understand where you are coming from). One of the things i've tried to keep in mind is that many people comment on the lack of a criticism section in this article (which is seen as nessary for it to have a NPOV) so i have tried to add critisim that exists whenever i can find a source for it. Their is a lot of criticism about Ramsey's religious POV and his teaching (from former associates even but sadly the former assoc ate refuses to refer to him by name so it can't be cited) but it's rarely done in a citeable manner. That is why i added it from this article because it does touch on some of the conterversy between his teaching and how some people view the bibles teaching. Perhaps we can reward it somehow?harlock_jds 11:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about how to reword it last night. How about "Ramsey reports receiving e-mails containing the scripture [either the actual scripture, or ref. w/ link], which he sees as a rebuke of his wealth and a call for poverty." That will let the reader of this article draw the inference that the criticism is that his teaching is unbiblical while not making the leap itself and relating nothing that is not in the cited article.Eastshire 11:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that sounds good.the only thing i would change is that i would avoid saying that he says he 'reports' receiving the emails and just say he receives emails. the use of the phrase 'reports' can be seen as a weaselly way of saying that the person 'reporting' it is not being honest(i don't think that's your intention but it can be percieved that way). harlock_jds 19:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the edit with your recommended change and the addition of "and letters" which was also mentioned in the cited article. Eastshire 20:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Wikipedia even has criticism section where any nutcase can be quoted just reinforces the notion that nobody should ever take Wikipedia seriously.--Rotten (talk) 00:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if we went with 'every nutcase' on the web we'd have a section 10 times longer. harlock_jds (talk) 11:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone who criticized Mr. Ramsey because of their anti-Christian agenda needs to grow up and get a job that doesn't involve bloodsucking the tax money of the people they demonize (a.k.a. a leftist/"liberal"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.157.245 (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Radio-Host

A large part of Ramsey's show is that he is a Christian so it is appropriate to include it in describing him as a radio host. The only grammatical issue was that a comma should be added to show that Christian was describing "host" not "nationally-syndicated."Eastshire 12:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Fox Business Network TV show and old TV pilot

I added a short blurb about Ramsey's TV show on the new Fox Business Network. However I don't think we should create a new section for the show until we have more info (like a name, running time, format, etc)

On a related note i'm assuming the Dave Ramsey project that he taped a pilot and ep's for is dead. Anyone see any mention in the media about that? Anyone think we should just remove it (the lampo group edited it out at one point but i think we should talk about it before removing it) harlock_jds 22:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His television show appears to be gaining popularity - I suggest breaking it into a separate article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrclark (talk • contribs) 01:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i don't have a problem with thisharlock_jds (talk) 03:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Fox show is nothing more than calls from the radio show with a few videos thrown in. There's no reason to split this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.37.194 (talk) 03:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We already split it out. It's broadcast 5 hours a week and is quickly gaining an audience. Jrclark (talk) 13:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

of course the question becomes why not break out the radio show (which prob has a larger audience and is brodcast 15 hours a week)... I've wanted to separate it in the past but the notability was questioned. I'm also too lazy to do it myself :D harlock_jds (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd offer to help you out, but I've never listened to his radio show. Jrclark (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

compensation for fox show

Does anybody know of any reliable source that indicates the amount of his show's contract with fox? --Jkp212 (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure it hasn't and won't be announced Eastshire (talk) 11:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Way more than you or I will make in this lifetime.

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

"GRI" :
- {{cite book | title=Financial Peace Revisited| last=Ramsey| first=Dave| coauthors=Sharon Ramsey| date=2003| pages=325| publisher=Viking Penguin| location=Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England| id=0-670-03208-5}}
- {{cite book | title=Financial Peace Revisited| last=Ramsey| first=Dave| coauthors=Sharon Ramsey| date=2003| pages=1-4| publisher=Viking Penguin| location=Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England| id=0-670-03208-5}}
- {{cite book | title=Financial Peace Revisited| last=Ramsey| first=Dave| coauthors=Sharon Ramsey| date=2003| pages=About the Author, pg 325| publisher=Viking Penguin| location=Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England| id=0-670-03208-5}}
- {{cite book | title=Financial Peace Revisited| last=Ramsey| first=Dave| coauthors=Sharon Ramsey| date=2003| pages=Preface vii-xi| publisher=Viking Penguin| location=Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England| id=0-670-03208-5}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 02:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advert Tag

I've removed an advert tag twice now I think. In both cases it was added by an IP editor with no remarks on this talk page. Whoever you are that is adding this tag, please give your reasoning for why you feel it reads like an ad. If you make no input, we can't make the article better. If you add the tag without any input, I will continue to consider it vandalism. Eastshire (talk) 14:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism from blog

I removed the following from the article

Wall Street Journal best-selling author and nationally syndicated columnist Eric Tyson criticizes Ramsey for referring listeners to endorsed, commission-based brokers (who pay fees back to Ramsey) instead of fee-based advisors; and for advocating portfolios containing only stocks instead of portfolios balanced with bonds. Tyson also cites Ramsey's exaggeration of expected stock market returns, his focus on high-risk growth funds instead of safer index and life-cycle funds, and his failure to state the importance of investment expenses.^[1]

as the reference is what amounts to a blog post and therefore is not a valid source per Wikipedia:SPS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastshire (talk • contribs) 18:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has been removed three times now by two different editors for the same reason. erictyson.com is a self-published source and as such is not an acceptable reference per WP:SPS. In addition, this is a WP:BLP and as such has even higher standards of documentation. If you want to add this material, you need to find a place where it has been published by a third party. Eric Tyson may or may not be a credible expert on finance, but his self-published work on the subject of Dave Ramsey is not credable, specifically because he offers the exact service that he is criticizing Dave Ramsey for not recommending. Mr. Tyson has a conflict of interest in the situation. Eastshire (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has been raised at BLP Noticeboard Eastshire (talk) 03:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eastshire is CLEARLY a shill for Ramsey. See his "Sandbox" which as of today has two mammoth advertorials on guess who - Dave Ramsey! One is about The Dave Ramsey Show (radio program) and the other is for The Dave Ramsey Show (TV program). Eastshire should be permanently disqualified from editing any future Ramsey article. Also Eastshire is a bonehead if he believes Tyson is self-published! He's a nationally best-selling author and syndicated columnist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.123.51 (talk) 03:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be somewhat new here, so let me explain a couple of things to you. erictyson.com is a source that is published by Eric Tyson. That makes it a self-published source. An article written by Eric Tyson published by someone else, say the Wall Street Journal would not be a self-published source. It's not that it's written by Eric Tyson that makes it an unacceptable source, it's that it's written by Eric Tyson and published by Eric Tyson. You were invited to find the same information from an acceptable source, but you refused to do so.

As for my Sandbox (dif he is refering to here[1]), You may have noticed that the Dave Ramsey page are ones I keep my eye on. I realized on Dec 17, 2009 that the link The Dave Ramsey Show goes to a disambiguation page. Since links in articles are not supposed to go to disambiguation pages, I wanted to add those direct links since I've never used the templates main or for before, I tried the code in my sandbox first to make sure I got it right. That's what sandboxes are for. I will thank you to WP:Assume Good Faith in the future. Eastshire (talk) 11:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eastshire- you are a dope who doesn't understand copyright and publishing. Mr. Tyson's Syndicated Newspaper column appears in PRINT publications. Online, it is on his website, only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.123.51 (talk) 14:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I will thank you to be civil. The fact remains that the given source is self published. If this has been actually printed by a third party, please provide a citation for that printing. Otherwise, it is unusable. Eastshire (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, self-published blogs are within policy of wikipedia. Please no personal attacks. Cablespy (talk) 11:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published blogs are generally not acceptable within Wikipedia. I concur with the assessment of a lack of civility though. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tax Act of 1986 and bankruptcy

To answer Brigby's question in his edit summary, yes, the Tax Act of 1986 is very relevant to the bankruptcy of any major real estate investor at that time. Prior to the Tax Act of 1986, real estate projects could be depreciated very quickly. This enable many projects to have both a significant positive cash flow and a tax loss simultaneously. This made the market value of these projects very high. The Tax Act of 1986 changed the depreciation of real estate projects to 39.5 years. This change made it very unlikely that a project would have a positive cash flow and a tax loss simultaneously. This caused the fair value of real estate projects to crash. It left many real estate investors underwater on their loans and unable to sell their projects (it also lead to the Savings and Loan Crisis of the late 80s).

This tax act, along with the change in owners of Ramesy's largest creditor are the proximate causes of Ramsey filing bankruptcy as cited in the source provided.

Also as a technical note, your edit was not a minor edit and should not have been marked as such. Eastshire (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.erictyson.com/articles/20090313

[1] ttp://www.erictyson.com/articles/20090313

[1]