Talk:Dave Ramsey

Untitled
Archives

/Criticism

/Archive 1

DEBT FREEEEE
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)
 * 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)

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)

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?

I mean, Ramsey himself is very solidly Evangelical Christian, and not progressive Christian. Just pointing that out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.188.108.28 (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Endorsed Local Providers (ELPs)
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)

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)

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)

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).


 * 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Way more than you or I will make in this lifetime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.157.245 (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

What does the original question have to do with what anyone else earns? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.188.108.28 (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

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 :) DumZiBoT (talk) 02:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "GRI" :

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)

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.

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


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

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)
 * 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), 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)

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

Critsource: http://www.garynorth.com/public/8447.cfm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.65.163.233 (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And yet, another source from a blog. It isn't that there's criticism of Dave Ramsey. There's criticism of everyone coming from somewhere, but the problem is a lack of reliable sources and, unless you want to get the rules changed, especially on something in a BLP, this blog source isn't it. Buffs (talk) 06:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

Why no mention of Tea Party ?
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)
 * such as? Buffs (talk) 06:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Because we're on Wikipedia.

In case you haven't noticed, there has been a long standing effort to minimize and delete all criticism for this page and to hide his very obvious right-wing bias, by obvious fans and/or Ramsey's own staff. .

--69.125.144.46 (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Well aren't you a special flower. This is wikipedia. I don't know about you, but I'd rather read about non-politicians without having the feeling that it oozes of bias against the person or the persons political bias. You put right wing in an article and you suddenly open the page up to bashing. A simple: He holds conservative views/right wing views (with a citation on the "right wing" to left/right politics) accomplishes what you want without creating this "Dave Ramsey is a hypocritical Christian right wing bashing tea bagger!" that I know you'd love to put in. If they aren't politicians or significant to a governmental role, they're political views should be minimalistic and neutral. 69.77.236.47 (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Cash is King
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)


 * 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)

Ownership of page.
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)
 * 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)

URGENT: Apparent malware attack on clicking (current) ref. [13] linking to site freeby50.com ("Suze Orman Smacks Down Dave Ramsey")
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&#39;t (talk) 07:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * 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&#39;t (talk) 07:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)

Added Photo for Dave Ramsey
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)

Biography
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)

Growth stock mutual funds
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)

Dave's House
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links 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)

External links modified
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)

Controversy section removed from article
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)


 * 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)

Lookover/cleanup
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&#38;highbeautyforever (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Link to pedo site
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)