| This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. If you are connected to the subject of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see this page. |
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: |
| This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. If you are connected to the subject of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see this page. |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | |  C | This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. | | ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. | | |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | | | C | This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. | | Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. | | |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | | | C | This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale. | | ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | | |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Business on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | | | C | This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. | | Low | This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale. | | | |
[edit] Criticism
We frown on "criticism" sections - would be better if this was integrated into the text.
External links are overkill.
These are just a few of the problems I noticed - I hope someone will have the time to put some serious work into this article to bring it up to standard. We have had almost 85,000 views so far in March - 45,000 just yesterday. People are reading it, and in my view it's an embarrassment. Sorry to be harsh, but we can do better than this Tvoz/talk 22:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Tvoz, I completely agree with you. It is an embarrassment that such a high-traffic article can have such poor quality material. There are so many people who would rather see this article display anti-Cramer material than relevant facts, it's difficult to keep the page clean. We can do better than this. Tycoon24 (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that there is a serious WP:UNDUE issue in that the controversy and criticsm sections are too long (notwithstanding that I just added to it). Suggestion: create an article entitled Criticism of CNBC and move the bulk of the criticism and controversies there. JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- I have a concern. A careful review of the edit history clearly shows that Tycoon24 has an axe to grind here. He has invested countless hours and dozens of edits to make Cramer's page as favorable as possible to Cramer. He should be banned from this page forever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.6.5 (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
-
- Is it less "fun" for you knowing it's more difficult to bash on Jim Cramer here on Wikipedia? Consider me an editor-to-balance the voice on Jim Cramer's Wikipedia biography. Before I started making edits, for two years this article has been repeatedly vandalized without correction. I decided to do something about it and offer more balance. If you disagree with accuracy and prefer anti-Cramer material over facts, you probably shouldn't be editing Wikipedia articles.
I think any and all criticisms of Cramer in his professional career at Mad Money should go there (such as his stock picks) and that anything unrelated to Mad Money can remain until it can be relocated to another page. Consider expanding the Mad Money criticism page and deleting the criticisms here (brevity will be needed, though, since that article is lengthy).75.97.22.44 (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Edit war on 'praise' section
Warned both parties involved in edit warring over this section. This should be discussed here on the talk page before further edits/reverts are made. DP76764 (Talk) 20:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I am concerned that the section is based on a Blogspot entry by a random user. I wouldn't mind if this was a legitimate news organization, news reporter, or a notable author in the financial world. I don't think this would classify as a reliable source. 69.251.135.219 (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
-
- I believe your concern is unwarranted because "Blogspot" is a generic term for "random blog" but without taking into account the specific blog or information within it. Wikipedia relies on articles (sources) being submitted as a quality source that provides relevant, quality material. If the source happens to come from a blog--including Blogspot--and provides factual and relevant information, then shouldn't it be acceptable as a source? Or are all "blogs" unacceptable? If this is the case, there are more edits to be made in order to cleanup this article. A blog is a blog, likewise, facts are facts. If a blog is the only source containing relevant links to factual information, then it seems it should be allowed.
-
- A concern I have is whether or not sources of information coming from direct competitors of CNBC (Bloomberg; CNN; BBC World News; Fox Business Network) should be allowed as "reliable" information - as corporations are typically going to downplay or attempt to harm the reputation of their competitors in attempt to boost their own ratings. In my opinion, this is a much bigger issue than a Blogspot article reviewing information in what can be considered with much less bias than competitors will review the same information. Tycoon24 (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Actually Wikipedia explicitly states it is not to be used as a source. As for your conspiracy theory regarding the competitors of CNBC - it is what it is; a conspiracy theory by you and it is not really relevant. 69.251.135.219 (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Birth date
The source footnoted in the infobox says 1955, which is logical as he graduated from college in 1977. Internet sources saying 1945 probably are duplicating this article, and the inaccurate birth date that was allowed to remain for too long. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree, seems strange that this keeps being reverted to 1945 every other day. Eros2250 (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- It is a serious error that needs to be corrected whenever made. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe his birth date is probably 1945. Jim has mentioned two or more times on his Mad Money show this year that he is a 64-year-old man. This was mentioned on one of his shows this past week - the week of April 7, 2009.TexasOne (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's a joke. Need WP:RS --SV Resolution(Talk) 18:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
: Cramer flip flops, attime claiming he is 54, other times 64 as if he doesnt know
-
- I have also heard him claim 64 though he doesn't look it. Do any of his books state his age? ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 04:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
He has in fact mentioned several times on his show he is 64, and in actuality has adressed this wikipedia article in a lightning round. A caller jokingly told Cramer he owes him a case of beer for the caller making a bet with his son, the man saying Cramer was 64 and the son picking 54. The caller stated he looked on Wikipedia and found Cramer's age to be listed at 54. To this Cramer replied, "It's changed again? I will have to to keep going back into wikipedia and changing it to 64". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.88.92.173 (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Memo to Jon Stewart
The one joking about Lenin, and with self serving stuff about how liberal he is: do this have to be here? The article is already much too long and every little fart in his life doesn't have to go in. I mean, really. I'm taking it out as excessive detail that seems to run afoul of WP:SUMM. Oh, and also I question the sourcing, which is a website of no particular notability. JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
-
- Hey JohnnyB - regarding your edit 283269918 taking out the quote "On this day the Dow was resting at 11,388. By February 24, 2009 the Dow was down to 7,351," when you deleted it you mention "if a third party source makes this point it is OK and can be put back in."
-
- Can you take a look at this 3rd party source (which I might add, is blogspot but it is the source I used when adding the line you deleted). I understand blogspot is typically frowned upon; however, in such cases as this where the information is there and the blog uses quality sources to reference its information, what else is needed to make the source more accurate? The reason I bring this up is because I believe the line you deleted is important to use for the context and overall quality of the section it was used in. It illuminates the very reason Cramer told everyone to get out of the stock market when he said it, and the result in the markets after he told everyone.
-
- I can do some more Internet searches and what-not to see if I can find other sources, but if a consensus agrees the blogspot source is OK to use, I will re-add it. I just think the information is too important not to use for the purposes of this section. Thanks for your input! Tycoon24 (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- I spoke too soon. I just noticed your self-revert after rereading WP:SYN; 283273791. Thank you. Tycoon24 (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- That blog would be considered "self published," and by my reading of the rules would not be allowed. It is certainly true that that rule is violated all around Wikipedia, but it is not allowed by my reading of the rule on that. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
-
- I agree with JohnnyB256 as Blogspot is never ok as a source in my opinion.69.251.135.219 (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm not making a general comment about Blogspot, but rather any self-published blog, except as indicated in WP:V. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Neutrality
Can I suggest the sentence 'He assisted Dershowitz's campaign to acquit alleged murderer Claus von Bülow despite the fact that Cramer admitted to himself that von Bülow was "supremely guilty"', should be adjusted to read 'despite the fact that Cramer himself thought that von Bulow was "supremely guilty"'. To 'admit to oneself' implies that it is known fact that von Bulow is guilty. He was found not guilty, and anything else is pure supposition. MjolnirOz (talk) 07:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree. I do not think that he had moral issues with the von Bülow case. Cramer played, according to his book only a minor role. It was only an intership and he mostly corrected spelling mistakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShinjukuHH (talk • contribs) 03:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
