Talk:Dave Ramsey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Archives

/Criticism

/Archive 1

Contents

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Archive

Is there any standard on how long discussion is kept for a page? A lot of the discussion here does not relate to the page as significant rewrite has clearly taken place. Eastshire 18:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

some of these should be kept around because people keep on adding the same things time and time again to the article so we need to keep the reasion they should not be a part of the article (i'm mainly talking critisim here... a lot of the same bad critisim keeps on being again and again). harlock_jds 19:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I've been reading Help:Archiving a talk page and I think it is time to archive at least a portion of this talk page. I suggest that the archive be done with the subpage cut and paste method. I think any topics with no posts after 2007-06-30 could be moved to the archive.
The drawback to this would be that this has been a disbuted page and the archive might be vandalized. However, if a few concerned editors watched the archive that might be sufficient.Eastshire 20:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)
i don't have a problem with thisharlock_jds (talk) 03:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I'd offer to help you out, but I've never listened to his radio show. Jrclark (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)