Talk:Dave Ramsey

message: This woman makes 20,000 a year and paid off 31,000 debt in 2 years.
This was the best joke I have heard in looong time.
Dave Ramsey belongs to Comedy Central!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.76.12 (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Entirely possible depending on how the debt was structured. Say she owes $31,000 on her $150,000 house, sells it and moves into a $100,000 house. That debt vanishes rather rapidly. Buffs (talk) 06:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: DEBT FREEEEE

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Clearly a puff piece

message: I noticed there is a list of different things Ramsey supports or is a part of. Think it's appropriate to add ELPs and what they are to the list? Pcvjamaica (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Endorsed Local Providers (ELPs)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Divide the Article? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Christian Radio-Host

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  i don't have a problem with thisharlock_jds (talk) 03:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: I'd offer to help you out, but I've never listened to his radio show.  Jrclark (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Fox Business Network TV show and old TV pilot

message: 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)
replies: text: I'm fairly sure it hasn't and won't be announced Eastshire (talk) 11:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  compensation for fox show 

message: 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" :
** 
** 
** 
** 
DumZiBoT (talk) 02:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot report : Found duplicate references ! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Advert Tag 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tax Act of 1986 and bankruptcy 

message: Many pieces have been published by reliable sources on Ramsey's involvement in the genesis of the Tea Party Movement yet there is not even one word in this article. Is there some special reason why not ? 66.97.213.202 (talk) 07:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: such as? Buffs (talk) 06:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no mention of Tea Party ? 

message: While it's true that Ramsey starts his show by saying "Cash is king," to be included in the Criticism section there needs to be a reliable source showing he has been criticized for doing so. Please do not add this again without providing a source. Eastshire (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and it's also important to point out (if it comes back into the article) that the full quotation is "debt is dumb and cash is king." To just say that Dave Ramsey says "cash is king" is to take the phrase out of context. In any event, as Eastshire says it's important to source any criticisms. Contrary to what seems to be popular belief, Wikipedia is NOT a forum to air soapboxes. Hanxu9 (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cash is King 

message: It seems to meet that user Eastshire is acting like he own this page. Anything added or deleted is automatically looked over by user Eastshire and reverted. east shire,you DO NOT OWN This page.--98.87.95.230 (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I know I'm commenting late on this and you'll probably not see it. I find it hillarious that you accuse my of exercising ownership on this page a full 5 months after the last time I edited it. It's even more amusing that it took me another 4 months to see the criticism. I think it's safe to say I'm not exercising ownership. Eastshire (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ownership of page. 

message: Sorry to be raising an alarm, but someone will want to attend to this. I urge you to take it seriously.
Whenever I click on what is currently ref. [13], "Suze Orman Smacks Down Dave Ramsey" at freeby50.com, my Avast™ (Premium) antivirus software gives me one of its dread dark red alerts containing the following information:
  MALICIOUS URL BLOCKED
  avast! Network Shield has blocked a harmful site.
                //WARNING: DO NOT CLICK THIS LINK!
    Object:     http://quizbullsnet/d/p/v4e9n68504?r= //←DO NOT CLICK!
    Infection:  URL:Mal
As you can see, a third web site is involved, apparently somehow referenced from freeby50.com. This is not meant to impugn the latter site, as malware & its purveyors frequently prey upon perfectly legitimate sites as a means of propagating their demon spawn to unsuspecting surfers. I hesitate, either to remove the link altogether, or to place an explicit label on it associating malware with freeby50, as either course of action seems potentially harmful. Can someone with a more direct interest in this article (maybe the person who created this reference?) please provide an alternative link? We don't want to be directing people to sites where their machines can be infected, even if it is only a temporary problem there. IfYouDoIfYouDon't (talk) 07:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: I don't think the link above ("Object: ...") is complete, i.e., I think its display was truncated in the little Avast alert window I was shown. Nevertheless, if you click on the actual article in ref. [13], & you've got a good anti-malware package, chances are you'll get the same kind of block+warning that I am receiving there. IfYouDoIfYouDon't (talk) 07:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've removed the link. There's lots of talk about a disagreement between Orman and Ramsey on the debt snowball but a short search didn't reveal any that I would consider a reliable source. There's no question of the debt snowball being controversial and perhaps another editor could find a suitable source for the Orman reference or find someone else who has criticized him for it. Eastshire (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  URGENT: Apparent malware attack on clicking (current) ref. [13] linking to site freeby50.com ("Suze Orman Smacks Down Dave Ramsey") 

message: Hey Everyone.  Per the request at the top of the page I got a fair use photo from www.daveramsey.com to help fill out this page.  Hopefully I did that right.  If not, I'm sure someone will let me know, glad to be a part of the team here!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adameparker (talk • contribs) 13:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Photo for Dave Ramsey 

message: Just like the "ABOUT DAVE" section on his own website, this Wikipedia article, too, jumps from "bankruptcy" to "counseling couples."
Yet, he has stated on air that he was "back into 6 figures" of income "within 18 months" after filing bankruptcy.  (I have personally heard him say this.)
How?  Did he go back to his parent's real estate business and sell on commission for them, using direct family connections to survive?  
This relatively quick, if not remarkable or even unique, recovery period has never been explained, by a man who says he was unemployed and had no capital at the time of bankruptcy, at age 26, with a wife and two young children.  Yet, this period is THE most critical part of the "recovery" story, since 99% of working Americans would not be able to duplicate a "six figure" income in 18 months after a bankruptcy.
Starhistory22 (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biography 

message: I haven't listened to him for more than 5-10 hours, but I have heard him repeat several times his recommendation for growth stock mutual funds. Why does he recommend this when it has been proven that small cap value ETF index funds would provide the highest return over a long enough time horizon? Could someone add this to his criticism section with references?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.3.122 (talk) 23:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Growth stock mutual funds 

message: There is small section discussing criticism about Dave Ramsey's house under a section titled "Financial advice." I'm not clear as to what criticism about the size of Dave's house has to do with "financial advice." I'm also not sure what the criticism about Dave being a rich Christian (eye of the needle verse) also has to do with financial advice. In fact, the entire "financial advice" section reads like a "criticism" section since each piece of advice Dave has, has cited criticisms following it. Or, in the above two examples, there is simply no financial advice or position at all, and merely a criticism of Dave's choices, with his cited response. Maybe there should be a "financial advice" section that describes his overall philosophy, followed by a "criticism" section that features the primary criticisms against his advice, teachings, lifestyle, or whatever with the citations that are already present.
:About a month ago someone created a rather lengthy controversy-criticism section, which is discouraged by Wikipedia because it attracts excess additions as a WP:COATRACK. The guidelines suggest moving important criticism items into other parts of the article. I trimmed a large amount of the section and moved the remaining information into other parts of the article. The remaining information, in my opinion, is reasonable and well-sourced. The article isn't just about Ramsey's financial advice; it is about Ramsey in general. So the problem is, where should the information go? If it is moved to a separate section, that effectively is a controversy-criticism section regardless of what you call it. If you can come up with a better idea other than creating a separate criticism section, please make suggestions here. Sundayclose (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose if a "criticism" section is not allowed, my recommendation would be not to shoehorn "criticisms" into a "Financial advice" section. It defeats the purpose of not having a "criticism" section if you are going to circumvent that by including the criticisms throughout the article anyway. Furthermore, as noted above, several of the criticisms (house, biblical-based living) are not even addressing the supposed content of the section they are under, "Financial advice." While the criticisms listed may be "reasonable and well sourced" they are not "Financial advice" so they have no place in that section. So, I guess find a place in the article where they are relevant, or scrap them because they don't belong by all the policies you already cited. If you can't fit the information into the article based on the rules of what should and should be in the article, then don't include it. Kind of common sense right?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.36.224.42 (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This is Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. So feel free to try your hand at integrating the items into other places besides a "Criticism" section. But don't remove them because I object to that; I have already removed a substantial number of criticisms and I think the remaining ones are legitimate and balanced. In the mean time, I have changed "Financial advice" to "Financial philosophy" so that it can include broader content. Sundayclose (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think changing the topic from "Financial advice" to "Financial philosophy" addresses my primary complaint.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.36.224.42 (talk) 11:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dave's House 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Dave Ramsey. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.daveramsey.com/etc/cms/index.cfm?intContentID=2797
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.daveramsey.com/etc/cms/index.cfm?intContentID=6772
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070522141635/http://www.shareittoday.org:80/index.cfm?fuseaction=dspContent&intContentID=3153 to http://www.shareittoday.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=dspContent&intContentID=3153
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) 13:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dave Ramsey. 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/20070313071456/http://www.axiaaudio.com/interviews/features/ramsey.htm to http://www.axiaaudio.com/interviews/features/ramsey.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.daveramsey.com/etc/cms/dave_fox_business_network_7703.htmlc
*Added  tag to http://ftp.media.radcity.net/ZMST/daily/IS032405.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) 11:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Removed as a copyvio by an ip:
===Controversy ===
According to interviews with nearly two dozen current and former employees of his Nashville-based Ramsey Solutions, Mr. Ramsey has engaged in what they describe as an increasingly paranoid campaign to identify and silence several critics—mostly former employees—who have appeared on Facebook and Twitter. Bizarre episodes allegedly involving online spying, gag orders, random firings, and offers of large cash bounties for information have created a climate of fear inside the Lampo headquarters, intensifying a discomfort many employees have felt the past several years with Ramsey’s management.
Without far better references, I don't see anything that's salvageable. --Ronz (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The Daily Beast is a generally reliable source, though I agree that the deleted text had an inappropriate tone. I've tried to salvage the factual matter and present it in a neutral tone. Nixin06 (talk) 10:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy section removed from article

message: According to interviews with nearly two dozen current and former employees of his Nashville-based Ramsey Solutions, Mr. Ramsey has engaged in what they describe as an increasingly paranoid campaign to identify and silence several critics—mostly former employees—who have appeared on Facebook and Twitter. Bizarre episodes allegedly involving online spying, gag orders, random firings, and offers of large cash bounties for information have created a climate of fear inside the Lampo headquarters, intensifying a discomfort many employees have felt the past several years with Ramsey’s management.
Without far better references, I don't see anything that's salvageable. --Ronz (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The Daily Beast is a generally reliable source, though I agree that the deleted text had an inappropriate tone. I've tried to salvage the factual matter and present it in a neutral tone. Nixin06 (talk) 10:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy 

message: Hi all--I am going to look over the page, check/clean up sources, add recent news. I'll be working in my sandbox so please leave any feedback or suggestions as a response to this post. (I have read over this entire talk page). Cheers and thanks. Light&highbeautyforever (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lookover/cleanup 

message: Link to “the gospel of…” redirects to a pedopornographic site closed off by authorities. 2001:B07:645F:E14:A4FA:242E:2053:B657 (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to pedo site