Talk:Dave Ramsey/Archive 1

Archive 1

Removal of Copyrighted Material

All of the information about Dave Ramsey, from personal to his financial advice, and everything else, is also included as part of his radio show (he states several times that the book has the same information as he gives out to callers). He also has most of this info on his website, and allows all of his podcasts for free download on ITunes and other places. Therefore, none of this information should be considered breaking copyright, since he is actively encouraging people to share his teachings.

I agree, this article does seem to be selling his teachings, but that's a much different argument, not a copyright infringement. ~Saint Dmitri

This article is a biography of an individual, not a sales point for his merchandise. Nor is wikipedia allowed, under copyright laws, to post comprehensive details of his literature. (The man deserves to make his living by selling his books, not having it posted here illegally.) The posting of Ramsey's money guidelines, either in whole, or in part, or in summary format, is no different from posting a pirated copy of the movie "Titanic" on wikipedia. This is plainly wrong per WP:COPY and must be removed immediately. 170.252.11.11 15:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That is stupid. You should put his baby-steps and his financial peace university information on the site. If you paraphrase the information from his writings or radio program then it is not considered copyright infringement. Kevin 07:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem was that it wasn't paraphrased. If someone (like yourself) did paraphrase it than it could be added. Personally i think it goes into too much detail about his teaching and pushes a article that is already very promotional sounding over the edge. People can find out about 'the plan' on their own if they want (we have links to it).harlock_jds 10:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of Article

Comments removed per WP:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_controversial_material--Arkcana 03:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but why the label "controversial fundamentalist christian", the label "constroversial" is POV and stating his religion in this manner sounds bigoted. I don't think Suze Orman's article should begin with "secular Jew" for example66.72.215.225 17:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

Arckana, before you go deleting everything you disagree with again, I challenge you to add a link to this article with any evidence of Ramsey's financials or the evidence requested. If you can't find it (and you won't be able to,) then you need to stop vandalizing this article and leave the criticism about Ramsey's lack of documentation in place. Just because *YOU* disagree with something doesn't mean you have the right to delete it, unless you can validate that it's a factual error. Also, you shold read Wiki's policy on "weasel words"; then you'll see that weasel words are totally unrelated to the criticism you're making.

Well we have no idea who *you* are, considering you refuse to sign any of your comments. Second, I encourage you to read the warning at the top of the page. This is a biography of a living person, and should be treated as such. I have repeatedly deleted these comments, especially the one you made, because they cannot be verified either way. Therefor, they should not be there. On the other hand, there are a number of comments that have been made on this page that have been repeatedly deleted for the same reason (they cannot be sourced to an "internet" source), however anyone who has read "The Total Money Makeover" or listened to his show on the radio has heard these comments made repeatedly. Some of them CAN be verified online, such as MSNBC news. The overall problem with this article is that it isn't even WRITTEN from the perspective of a biography of a living person. Granted the only written and verifiable material is from his books, but I don't believe that the way to make this article balanced is by adding criticsms that can't be verified. I mean obviously a lot of people think he's an overly-simplistic financial blowhard who pushes everyone to sell their new cars and eliminate debt at whatever cost. And maybe thats true. But from the perspect of the people he has created this material for, people who have gone so far into the hole that they don't see any hope what-so-ever, maybe a simple plan is what some people need. NOT EVERYONE. Some. But that is neither here nor there. You would like to add criticisms to this article for whatever reason, whether it be you hate Dave Ramsey (Which I could honestly care less) or because you think that criticism will make the article more balanced. Fine, I understand that either way. However, the point is this article is a biography of a person, and Wikipedia standards have stated "Controversial material (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." Therefor, I'd like to offer a compromise. Either we can go back and forth, me deleting your stupid comments and you re-adding them and messing with the rest of the article, which at some point I'm just going to report to the WK:BLP Noticeboard, or we can try to work out some sort of compromise. My initial suggestion would be to re-write this article from the standpoint of a biography of Dave Ramsey himself, leaving out his whole Financial Peace gag, and do possible one or more articles pertaining to his ideas and program, at which point we can work out an acceptable "Public Reaction/Criticism" section that everyone can agree with. Or, if you have a better suggestion, please present it. I am willing to work with you and anyone else on this point. Let me know.--Arkcana 19:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

comments removed per WP:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_controversial_material.--Arkcana 03:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Has anyone read the money answer book? Is it any good?

The Money Answer Book is just kind of a short reference book that summarizes a lot of what he teaches in his other books. I'm not really sure theres a huge use for it in a sense of trying to understand his ideas or program... It's more of something you'd keep on the coffee table for friends to read. Its not to say the information in it isn't valid or useful, it's just not one of his more critical materials.--Arkcana 17:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Dave's strategies are popular because they are simple. Many financial gurus will disagree with him or mock him and his philosophy, but for most ordinary people that lack financial savy his ideas are well suited for them(i. e. Budget, build an emergency fund, avoid credit cards, etc.)

---

Dave's strategies are popular with me because they work! They focus on the root cause of overspending which is behavior. For years I studied and attempted the "sophisticated" financial strategies portrayed in money literature, but I was still broke. That is because most financial guidance ignores the fact that money management cannot work without considering the feelings and behavior of your spouse. I have yet to see any other financial guru that addresses family relationships in a practical way that yields results.

Two years ago when my family was using plastic at the checkout without a budget, my wife and I would often BOTH spend the last $100 in the account at the same time. And we were both wasting it on junk. Since going through financial peace, we budget a reasonable amount of cash for our stuff($15 a week each!) and neither of us usually spend it all! If the transmission dies, we've got money for that. If the lawnmower won't cut another blade, we have a fund for that. If the kids get sick, got that covered too! Money is waiting for us to spend on vacation this summer. I've got enough saved to buy my next car when my current car finally dies. And on top of all of this, we have a whole 3 months of living expenses in case I lose my job. We actually had to buy a safe to keep all of our extra cash at home. We are debt-free except for our house. We have Christmas and birthday gifts and insurance covered year-round. Even when energy prices went out of control late last year, our budget easily adapted. And our savings keeps increasing step-by-step.

As for the assault on Dave's character above and speaking as a Christian, you don't "turn Christian" to target a market. Being an overt Christian tends to lock you out of most markets instead. Many people will bypass your advice because you are "goody-two-shoes" or "just trying to get me to go to church or tithe." And a big part of Dave's advice is to GIVE large sums of money to the needy. And he gives things to several people on the air each hour on his daily radio show.

I question both the source of this objection and its NPOV. I understand the defense of Christianity and agree that any objection on that basis alone is more or less invalid but the testimonial here reeks of a self promotion or a corporate testimonial. The lack of signature brings it into deeper question.--Matt 06:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that the "Dave's Story" is full of glurge and sounds like a commercial. It needs to be edited to sound more like reference material. Steeltoe 18:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it sounds too promotional. A couple criticisms wouldn't hurt either. Wesley 13:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

too many links to the dave ramsey web site. The article looks like a commercial site promoting products and services. We don't need so many links to his commercial site. I'm deleting some of them Caffeine USA 14:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Very well done. Mushroom (Talk) 14:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Citing Sources from Radio?

Is there precident for citing something that was said on air? I'm curious if we should use a particular method, or if we need a sound clip. (which may introduce copyright issues... but who knows) I think most of Dave's teachings are cleared up at seemingly random times, like the other day he got fairly specific on the details of his bankruptcy. (Something about 90 day mortgages and multiple flip crews)

People who clearly dislike Ramsey here on Wikipedia

Are probably deep in debt and in denial about it! :-)

Funny, but doesn't help our case any. To these guys, we're a bunch of "Pro-Ramsey Fascists out to promote the Ramsey Agenda." I've been trying to be fair about the whole thing, this is after all an encyclopedia... It seems like the only fair criticism of the guy I've found out there has more to do with his Republican affiliation, which is more or less moot after the whole Bankruptcy bill thing. Personally, I think he charges an awful lot for some of his products... On the other hand, I have at times seen him take huge cuts periodically. And I guess when you compare it to how much they charge for those "Zero-down Foreclosure listing" programs they sell on TV, its not that bad. But I think a lot of the resentment from these guys stems more from Ramsey's bolder statements, having to do with getting out of debt at all costs, living on less than you make, not using debt to invest, yada yada... And especially his pushing mutual funds and being against day trading and such. In that case, at least myself personally, I have two sources with which to form an opinion. There is Jim Cramer, who insists that Mutual funds are underperformers and you can't make money off of them, and then there is my grandfather who retired at 65 four years ago with a broad profile of investments, many of them in growth stock mutual funds, and has a net worth of like three million dollars. So as you can imagine, I'm having a hard time deciding who to believe on this issue. ;)--Arkcana 20:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Certainty series?

What on earth does this have to do with Dave Ramsey? I'm confused.--Arkcana 04:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

So am I, and apparently nobody has stepped forward to explain it. Template removed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I agreed with Arkcana's 14 November post, and I took the bold initiative of removing it.Signof4 18:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)SignOf4

Proposal of Article Cleanup

In respect to the verify tag, I think its been up there for quite a while and I haven't seen anyone do anything about it. I'd like to take the opportunity to go through and verify as much as I can, but I'd also like to go through and do something of a re-write. Information has just kind of been added at a "bird fed" rate and the article seems really disjointed. The "Dave's Basic Teachings" section in particular needs a good re-write from a encyclopedic point of view. And I would think Trivia should pop up at the bottom of the article. I'm a little bit hesitant on the "Lampo Group" section. I'm not against having the information, but more or less the way the section is layed out. It kind of puts the importance on his company, when really its sort of this background thing. I think I'd like to see a more prominant section on his radio program, which seems more the core of his world. I'd also like to see more information on his authorship, what he's written etc.

I'm going to try and verify as much info as I can, and I'd like to re-write the "Dave's Teachings" section. I think it might work better if we called it "Financial Advice" and gave a basic overview of some of the things he teaches from a more NPOV. If anyone has any ideas or objections, please let me know. --Arkcana 06:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Upon further research, the "Dave's Basic Teachings" section appears to be a word for word copy of the Juicy News Daily blog site here [[1]]. At this point a re-write sounds less like a good idea and more like an immediate necessity.--Arkcana 06:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have just gone through and done a complete re-write of the article. Bear in mine that I've been working on this for the last 16 hours or so, I'm fairly sleep deprived at this point (which is good, supposed to have an eeg in like six hours...) so there may be some mispellings, but hopefully I got the NPOV right. Found a couple more criticsms worth adding, and a butt load of interesting information. Basically my goal was to completely re-write the previously plagairized sections and improve upon neutrality... I actually thought I was going to delete a lot of info. But upon researching I was surprised to find I could verify quite a bit. Anyway, I'm going to go take the two hours of sleep I'm allowed and wake up a drooling vegitable for the hospital like they asked.--Arkcana 09:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Advertisement tone

This article is a biography of Dave Ramsey. It doesn't need an exhaustive listing of all his books, seminars, etc. and it certainly doesn't need a summary of all his main points. The vast majority of links on the page are to Ramsey websites, which I think is borderline advertisement. Jaysbro 15:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea, the focus of this page is way too much on the plan. If anything plan/show infomshould be a separate article in order to separate cirt of the plan from the person. Harlock jds 21:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the warning box under publications because looking at other wikipedia biographies of writers a bibliography of his or her works seems standard and not considered an advertisement.. Harlock jds 13:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Just dropped by, read the article and wondered about those Advertising tone warnings. The page seems like a good summary of Dave's teaching and while it is very positive I don't think it's POV or a solicitation as the nature of Dave's material. I would remove them but settled for a couple of very minor edits.

It does seem however that the article strays from being a biography. I glanced at the Wikipedia biographies of economists such as Adam Smith, Alan Greenspan, Milton Friedman, and John Keynes and note that their pages have much more on their lives like sections 1 - 3 with summaries of specific works being only tangential. I imagine Dave would laugh at being compared to significant economists but their teachings usually have their own pages. Perhaps the "Financial Advice" section and maybe others could be spun off. Davesian Economics anyone? Michael in WV 02:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Jaysbro, I spent 16 hours straight back in November re-writing and researching this article and doing my freaking best to make it was as neutral as possible, stressing that these were DAVE'S VIEWS, not those of Wikipedia. (Plenty of "Dave believes" and "Dave says" and not "you should" statements) I did this because the original article was a complete plaigarism from another website, and it was then and still is constantly under attack by an anonymous user who viciously edits in criticisms that he alone invents and we had come to consensus on that had no merit what-so-ever. When I first approached the re-write, I considered leaving out his "Total Money Makeover" information and leaving that for another section. I chose to include all the information in the biography because you cannot flesh out each section sufficiently enough to justify having multiple articles. (he's really not even that popular- to have multiple articles would be putting more attention on the man than he deserves) I also chose to include the information because this really has been his life for the past 20 years... Running these companies, coming up with this system. I detailed it out in an attempt to make it clear and avoid the constant "financial nitpickers" who think Wikipedia is the place to point out their point of view and how Dave Ramsey is wrong. As far as most of the references being from his own material, yes, this is true for one important reason. My sources where 1-his printed material, and 2-the internet. I strictly followed several of Wikipedia policies on verifiability, biography of living persons, etc. I was forced to eliminate about 90% of the material I found on him on the internet because 1) It was all ready stated in his own material or website, 2) It was a blog, and we do not use blogs as citations in BLP articles, 3)it was from a self-published author who was trying to push their own ideas over his, and 4)It was from a page that had copied a previous version of this Wikipedia page. Out of all of that, my choices were limited. What you guys who keep coming into this article and saying this is some kind of advertisement are failing to realize is that THIS GUY IS JUST NOT THAT POPULAR!! In other words, people just aren't reporting on him that much. And now that he's signed this deal with CBS, you're going to see less of him in the media unless it comes from CBS. So until his show comes out and some newspapers or other financial gurus directly comment on him, and I don't mean just mention him, DIRECTLY COMMENT on him AND HIS PROGRAM, THIS is the best you are going to see this article. I've been off this page for a while, and thank you Harlock for taking such good care of it, I've got way too much more important things to be doing than constantly policing this page. I'm glad it still maintains most of its value, but that last criticism, someone started changing words around and now its confusing and I'm pretty sure not completely true. (It's 12% after adjusted for inflation, not without adjusting...) Anyway, I'm willing to work with you guys, and thank you for bringing it to the discussion page before hacking away at the article. But I want to make my position very clear, and hopefully I have.--Arkcana 02:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

i am going to go ahead and remove the Financial advice section as it seems to be needlessly detailed in a biography and comes off as promotional. As others have said you don't see this kind of detailed information on other economists articles or even in other talk radio peoples articles. I am also going to move the FPU section to the Other Ramsey programs section (i have no idea why it's not already there) and remove some oft he more detailed 'trivia' from the FPU (like what is in each lesion if it needs that much detail it should go into it's own article). If someone wants to create a 'My Total Money Makeover' article or a FPU article page then go ahead, but i think it's too much for here. Harlock jds 20:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability of Paid Debt

I deleted the bit about how much debt was paid off by listeners of the show because i think it violates WP:V since the only source cited is Dave Ramsey's website. This seems to violate the Verifiability guidelines about Self-published sources since it is self serving and involves claims about third parties (aka the people calling into his show.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harlock jds (talk • contribs) 01:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

I would like to take a moment, if you don't mind, to challenge your thinking on this matter. I do agree with your analysis based on Wikipedia guidelines that the statement and statistic provided does not fit the standard set out by Wiki guidelines. (I would also like to applaud you for making the distinction and taking the appropriate action) However I would like to comment on this statement, and perhaps afterward challenge you to re-examine your feeling on the statement.

1. The statistic was compiled based on people calling in their "debt free stories" on Fridays, and reporting the amount of money they paid off in given amounts of times. While the statistic compiled was in a given year, the amounts paid off were in varied lengths of time, more often than not years. One could also argue that the amount each caller reported was rounded off. By the time those thousands of callers were tallied, the overall number could be vastly misreported. Ramsey also stated on the radio when this article was written that this did not include the number of people trying to get on the show who could not get through on Debt Free Friday, saying that his lines are always loaded on that day and he misses out on potentially thousands of callers. So Dave himself pretty much said on the air how meaningless this number was... To him, he simply found it amusing. It's too bad we can't quote that, because Wikipedia still does not have a radio standard guideline for quotation.
2. Dave would argue that this statistic is not an endorsement of the Dave Ramsey show, any of his books or programs, but simply a report on the success of those who made the sacrifices necessary to succeed. (In fact, I'm sure he said something to that effect when he announced it on air) I'm certainly not going to stand up and say "Dave Ramsey is so self sacrificing and never claims anything for himself," quite the contrary, he's very entrepenurial(sp) and has targeted some pricy programs towards business leaders, he's been merciless in his real estate deals, and he has said on the air a number of times that people are so stupid with credit he knows he'll never be out of a job. (again, if we had a guideline on Radio references, we could have ourselves a field day) But my point is, when it comes to this debt free friday thing, he NEVER takes credit for what his callers have accomplished. And I mean, you could say "well his callers aren't real, you can't trust that..." And you know. What could I say to that. What could anyone say to that.
3. Forgive me, I'm still rolling on the "people on Wikipedia love to hate on people doing good" thing (see my comments on Duane Chapman and Extreme Home Makeover), but this thing Dave rants about, this program of his, it really does work, and it pretty much works the way he says it does. The thing is, there are some big obstacles to getting debt free, and then there are even more if you choose his lifestyle of "cash only." Seems like he gets a caller a week saying they can't do something without credit. (an institution that he will fight tooth and nail, blue in the face against) I think today was the first time I ever heard a caller report her wallet got stolen and lost $200. (there is certainly more to that story, but it would probably get lost on you guys anyway) My point is, you know most of this isn't even all his idea. It's not like he's some genius who invented this sure fire program to get people out of debt. He went around and interviewed a lot of grandmas and millionaires, and put together this program that took 20 years to get as popular as it has. (and while being on 300 stations nationwide listened to by more than a million people, by standards of other celebrities he's still rather mediocre) He didn't even invent the envelope system, some guy in Spokane Washington mailed him a set from back in the 30's, he thought it was so cool he put them back into production. So he's not some great innovator. What he is is a guy that gives people hope, in a time where the lending industry is exploding, the national debt is increasing, and people are just generally down about their lives. People with no hope of their futures. And you know, you can attack me for saying that if you want, saying that we live in dark times, but we really do. I've been so depressed for the last fifteen years its rediculous. Been diagnosed with three potentially fatal illnesses in the last year alone. What does that have to do with this comment? Not a lot. Except that guys like Dave Ramsey, Barack Obama, Dog Chapman, you know they're not perfect people. They may not even have the best of intentions every time. But at least they are trying to lift people up. Trying to shine a little light in a dark time when people don't even want to get out of bed in the morning.

So what am I saying? Do I want you to put the comment back? No, you were right, it doesn't fit via the Reliable Sources guideline. (tangentially, the Verifiability guideline you quoted) All I'm saying is that, with regards to my above statments that Ramsey is not as readily reported on in the media as others, Dave Ramsey's website is one of the few reliable sources on the internet. And use of self published material is not forbidden under Reliable Sources Guidelines. The problem becomes when to choose whether the comment is unduly self-serving, or relevant to the self-publisher's notability. I would argue that your argument of the third party rule is wrong, as the exact wording of the guideline states about the subject only and not about third parties or events not directly related to the subject, and the third party is most certainly related to the subject. That is to say if we were to attribute that Ramsey is responsible for those people paying off that amount of money, which Ramsey himself doesn't... Wow, what a conundrum. And all over such a little statement.

Do you get what I'm saying? It's a very fine line we have to walk in this article, and while I appreciate and support your decision, I enourage you to think critically on both sides of the field.--Arkcana 04:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean my edit to be a slam or hating on on Dame Ramsey, I enjoy the guy and think he does a lot of good BUT I often have a beef with his use of numbers and statistics (which he plays fast and loose with and tends to manipulate in his favor) therefor I do not think his web site is a reliable source for numbers relating to the success of his plan since they are used for promotion and haven't really been verified. If people want to find out more info they can go to his site, i just don't think that stuff belongs here unless it's reported by another source (and with his TV show possibly coming out next year i'd expect to see more creditable sources reporting this info).Harlock jds 13:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough my man. You are right, he does like to play the numbers, but considering he basically has to recite the stuff at random every day for the last 20 years... I dunno, I'd probably mess a few things up too. One could argue thats what his staff is for, but in a limited time environment, sometimes you just can't get around to correcting everything. But as I all ready indicated, you are right on this one, and I'm willing to defer to the point. People will look at that statistic differently, so its best left to his website and not here.--Arkcana 06:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

speedy delete

clearly this is someone using the speedy delete tag as a form of vandalism. It is debatable that the article is 'spam' and the anon user hasn't contributed to the current discussion we have on the subject of removing parts of the article that do sound more like an advertisement. At most we could remove the offending sections (something that would be perfectly acceptable to me in fact i may do it after this speedy delete tag is removed by an admin). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harlock jds (talk • contribs) 16:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Copyvio

Including large excerpts from published works is a copyright violation. I have removed them. Please do not add them back. Short, quoted excerpts are acceptable if used for critical commentary of the work, but otherwise they do not go in the article. Thanks --Spike Wilbury 14:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

looks good to me and removed a good chunk of stuff i thought was out of place hereHarlock jds 15:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Good call. I'm pretty much under the assumption that his office is beefing up his article (COI). I'll actually be at his building later today; I could tap on the glass during the show and tell him to knock it off, if needed. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

So is there anything else that should be removed?Harlock jds 10:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Copyrighted Material

All of the information about Dave Ramsey, from personal to his financial advice, and everything else, is also included as part of his radio show (he states several times that the book has the same information as he gives out to callers). He also has most of this info on his website, and allows all of his podcasts for free download on ITunes and other places. Therefore, none of this information should be considered breaking copyright, since he is actively encouraging people to share his teachings.

I agree, this article does seem to be selling his teachings, but that's a much different argument, not a copyright infringement. ~Saint Dmitri

It doesn't matter how he distributes his material; copyright automatically exists unless he explicitly releases his material into the public domain or licenses it under the GFDL, which he doesn't. Additionally, Wikipedia is not the correct venue for Ramsey to "share his teachings". --Spike Wilbury 19:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

i agree copyright is copyright and Ramsey's works are not public domain. However i am wondering if the problem still exists on the page or not so we can remove the ugly header we have on it now. Harlock jds 19:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

oops never mind it's gone. Thanks Spike.Harlock jds 19:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Advert tone revisited

There was no reason given for the advert tag, so I removed it. I'm not saying the article is FA quality -- the lack of a criticism section is glaring, since there are plenty who disagree with Ramsey's advice and methodology -- but putting up a tag without any explanation doesn't help anyone. Feel free to list specifics here on why it reads like an ad. 66.69.88.148 23:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

the problem with a criticism section is that while a lot of people disagree with him none have done so in a mainstream media outlet (or really any media outlet) so we are stuck with the occasional blog post, original research, and people just makeing up stuff (like that stupid jacked and tivo crit that makes it's way in from time to time). I wish more mainstream articles were written about him and his advice since a lot of it is iffy but oh well.

as for the advert tone it's not as bad as it used to be personally i'd like to cut out a few more sections but i've been overruled in the past.harlock_jds 00:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok so what do we add for to add a more neutral POV to this page. I know at least one anon user wants to add a whole slew of crit that violates various wikipedia standards (OR, poor sources or just simply misleading like that 'critisim' from Jacked that isn't even about Ramsey at all) and i am contently on the hunt for additional criticism to add (a lot is out these but rarely in media that is attributable, some guy venting on his blog or on Amazon isn't a source we can use). harlock_jds 20:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Better source for stuff

I'm not a big Wikipedia editor, but a recent article - http://www.nashvillescene.com/Stories/Cover_Story/2007/05/31/The_Gospel_According_to_Dave/index.shtml - might be a good source for more info for this article.

yep some good stuff in that including a few things to add to the criticism section (that people find him arrogant, have problems with his right wing views and that many people think his information is wrong as well as criticism from the religious community). I'll add stuff over the weekend (or someone else can) thanks for the link.18:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

_

Archive 1