Talk:Jim Cramer/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jon Stewart

I also fixed an incorrect description of what he said on the Jon Stewart show. The same error had appeared in Jon Stewart's 2009 controversy with CNBC and I fixed it there a few weeks ago, but didn't look here. Yes he's talked negatively about shorting on his show, but not in the Stewart broadcast. (His exact words were that he has worked to "reign in" shorting, which I quoted.) Really important to get facts straight in a BLP, and misquoting what the guy said on Stewart and adding ten years to his age, which probably is an every thing on Wikipedia, just is not a good idea on a high visibility article like this one. JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I also went back and listened to the Stewart interview with Cramer, and substituted what Cramer actually said at the interview in place of the original research that was there previously, that he "admitted defeat." I'm surprised, this being a BLP, that that kind of language was in the article for so long and that nobody put in that he denied that he engaged in that trading tactic. JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Quality

This article needs a major overhaul.

Example: In 1996 Cramer co-founded TheStreet.com with The New Republic editor Martin Peretz, one of his hedge fund's original clients. Cramer later had a falling out with Peretz over business matters. Cramer is currently a market commentator and adviser to the TheStreet.com, as well as its largest shareholder. Cramer also manages a charitable trust stock portfolio which is tied to TheStreet.com through a subscription service called the Action Alerts PLUS Portfolio. Cramer currently works on a new project, MainStreet.com, in an effort to bring stock savviness to Main Street. An earlier similar project, TheRoad.com, did not yield the success Cramer had anticipated.

Ever hear of the personal pronoun "he"? Many more examples in the article - it needs to be completely rewritten. Also needs much more sourcing, especially for claims such as He ended up homeless, and for nine months slept with a .22-caliber pistol and a camping hatchet in his beat-up Ford Fairmont. Don't say oh yeah, it's true - give sources.

Some of the headings are also not in conformance with normal Wikipedia standards, like Setting the Record Straight on Bear Stearns, and not just because of the incorrect initial caps. And why do we have so many one-paragraph sections?

What I find more interesting is the fact that the conspiracy theorists "criticizing" Jim Cramer on Bear Stearns have been rebuked as false claims. It's more widely acceptable to criticize Cramer's Wachovia call than Bear Stearns. There's a big difference between suggesting a stock and telling a caller to keep his money in an account at Bear Stearns. It confuses me to think there's actually still a "controversy" over Bear Stearns. Wikipedia is really the only place this controversy still exists, and should probably be deleted. But I guess sometimes non-factual information is allowable in Wikipedia biographies of living persons. Tycoon24 (talk) 22:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Investor and Stock Pick Performance Sections

The former section needs additional disclaimers after the statement about only having one down year during his tenure and only being down 2-3% in 1998. In general I'm puzzled by the lack of attribution about his investing results both by Cramer and by his detractors. Certainly if he has inflated his returns there must be one ex-client who would come forward. On the other hand he could easily dispel criticism with additional disclosure.Houndsong (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

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 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)

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)

Actually if you read Mark Penn's book Microtrends in the section about people who sleep less than six hours a night, he specifically cites Jim Cramer and mentions that he was a friend of his in college. Mark Penn was born in 1954. It does not mean Cramer did not attend college ten years later than most people, it just makes it much more likely that he was born in the mid-1950s if he was a friend of Penn's at such a young age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.72.171.220 (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

Birthday, once again

His MySpace and this blog post (there are a few others) firmly indicate that his birth year is 1955. At this point, as far as I see it, anything stating that he was born in 1945 is is an exceptional claim and requires far better backing than just "oh he said it on his show." hbdragon88 (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a WikiAnswers post about this. I have verified that the quote is accurate through the Amazon.com Look Inside feature. it's on page eleven: he says "although to look youthful I often claim I am sixty-two years on air". His statement about being in his sixties is a JOKE. IT'S A JOKE. It is not gospel, it is not fact, it is a JOKE. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Jim has stated, in the first person, on recorded television, numerous times over several years, that he is in his 60s. The sources to the contrary are poor and easily manipulated. Further, one defense of him bein in his 50s is that he's making a joke which as an acknowledgment of his statements about being in his 60s along with a failure by the posters to offer any citation that it is indeed a joke. It seems as if the wrong "facts" are being taken without question when obvious facts are being denied. Previously, some posters seemed to be ok with a dual date for his birthday providing sources for both. Since that has been taken down, it seems as if the one verified numerous times by the individual in question, on recorded television for millions to watch, should be the one that stands over a citation from Benzinga as if anyone has ever heard of Benzinga. Or a Myspace page which can be changed at will. Or a single citation to a secondary source that could also be easily manipulated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.75.220 (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources:
45 in 2001
50 in 2005
CBS and Business Week are grade A reliable sources. Beach drifter (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

A citation from a book he wrote, saying in an unsteady manner ("often claim I am," not "I AM 62 PERIOD"), isn't good enough to disprove that his Mad Money statements are jokes? hbdragon88 (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
you're also setting an unreasonably high standard for your alleged 1945 birth year: you're discounting his MySpace, a blog, a reliable source, and two other sources, CBS and BusinessWeek, that otherwise indicate that his birth year is 1955. Please find something else corroborating your 1945 DOB other than what he says on his TV show, because the book source I provided casts significant doubt that he's telling the full truth when he says that. hbdragon88 (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Look, Cramer is joking about his age, just like he says he will clean up an on-camera mistake for you tube or for the second airing. He is just kidding as the broadcast includes these comments.Bull Market 05:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Seriously - myspace and Benzinga are valid references? Statements on TV are references? Or they are not? But not a single person who follow Cramer who tries to educate investors knows how to look at an easily found SEC filing to find the truth? So there's 2 years of back and forth war over this? Says a lot about the editors of Wikipedia. The mob knows nothing more than a lot of people said something so it must be right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.6.202.208 (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Bull Market's rebuttal of PROD

moved by Draeco (talk) 04:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
User:Bull Market on 3 April 2010 provided the following additional refutation of the article's PROD:

An "infotainer" is of notoriety for being both 1) an informative provider of information and 2) an entertainer, while 3) a celebrity. To be clear, Jim Cramer, author of several New York Times Best Sellers, is watched by millions of viewers over the last five years on CNBC, hosts an hour long television show where he answers all questions of live callers about equity investment; Jim is credited with advising non-professional investors (regular folks) to sell when the market (DJIA) had hit 10,000 (before precipitously dropping to 6500) [even though he was supporting such companies as Bear Stearns just days before their collapse, and other companies such as Wachovia]]. Cramer calls for enhanced regulation of markets including bring back the uptick rule for short sellers. Cramer is an advocate for natural gas as the US bridge fuel. Cramer managed a hedge fund with market capitalization over $499,999,999.[very precise non-round number, thank you] Cramer has, at times blamed leadership and praised leadership related to economic policy including Barack Obama, Hank Paulson, and Tim Geithner. Obama publicizes criticism of company managers who act contrary to fidiciary obligations and criticizes company management when they make decisions contrary to the best interest of investors. Cramer warns investors about suspect IPO's such as Vonage (which went into free fall and never recovered over the next 5 years (from $13-16 range right to the ($.50 -1.5 range). Cramer also runs a charitable trust that donates real money to charity each year; of import, Cramer allows the public [no, he allows Paying Subscribers off of which his company makes a profit] to view how the trust invests (total transparency) [do you have details of where the charitable funds have gone? Does he donate profits from his books that he promotes on air to charity?]. Now let's examine what "infotainer" means: Cramer provides information-- well, who else is of notoriety on Wikipedia merely for disseminating information: Dan Rather, Ted Koppel, Matt Lauer, Bert Sugar, and Larry Wachtel. (They all would be notable merely for disseminating information alone; so too is and should be Jim Cramer). Next, who is an entertainer and has an article on Wikipedia: Bill Cosby, Jackie Mason, Billy Joel, Phil Ochs, and Vince McMahon. No one is proposing that these entertainers are not of notoriety simply because they entertained. Here, Cramer is both an entertainer and a provider of information-- to millions. Sounds like Cramer is double-qualified to remain on Wikipedia and that his being a celebrity and an infotainer is, by definition, of notoriety. In closing, the suggestion to eliminate the article on Jim Cramer appears rooted in either a) non-familiarity with the objective facts related to Jim Cramer, or b) willful blindness to the truth of Mr. Cramer's credentials and accomplishments. The very suggestion that the article be stricken on putative grounds of non-notoriety should, itself, be stricken.Bull Market 03:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Mcvfloyd, 15 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Here's a simple correction request: Harvard College's (Cramer's alma mater) degree is NOT a BA like at most other schools, but is actually an AB.

Mcvfloyd (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Please supply a reliable source, and resubmit your request. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  17:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

Birthdate

I think that if the article is going to state that there has been considerbale debate over the birthdate, that there needs to be sources showing the debates. Arguments on here over his DOB do not mean that there has been 'considerable debate'. Beach drifter (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I have rewritten it. It did seem a bit funny when I first wrote it – I mean, this isn't like Stalin or anyone whose intentionally lied, like age fabrication. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


Seriously - myspace and Benzinga are valid references? Statements on TV are references? Or they are not? But not a single person who posts on Wikipedia and knows how to look at an easily found SEC filing to find the truth? We actually needed a "debate"? Each and every person who posted either 1945 or 1955 has truly disappointed the readers of Wikipedia because of the failure to find and cite the obvious, instead relying on falsities if wrong (1945), or if correct (1955), on lousy non-primary information. Beachdrifter, you are one of the biggest jokes- more concerned about showing if there has been enough debate to qualify as "considerable debate" than finding an authoritative source to get the facts right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.6.202.208 (talk) 02:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about. Its been completely obvious at all times what the correct date is, I've never sought any debate on the matter, in fact I have flat out reverted the 1945 date more than I should of without giving a crap about what anyone else thinks. I could care less about Cramer, I'm just trying to help out the project. If you look above, you can see that I simply pointed out very authoritative sources that where already a part of this article to back up the 1955 date. Whoever you are, you appear to be the same New York troll that frequents this article. Beach drifter (talk) 04:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
After reading your post again, I can see that you are confused. My "considerable debate" comment was about the sentence saying "considerable debate" being included in the article, in that I was against it. You might want to work on your reading comprehension before making any more personal attacks. Beach drifter (talk) 04:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yup, you figured it out, there's only one person in all of the New York area who knows anything about investing and Jim Cramer. You are a moron: you never seem to add anything factual to the article yourself. You might have reverted frequently but you never had any facts. Why couldn't you find an SEC document? Which authoritative source did you support? Benzinga? Myspace? You are basically one of the pathetic Wikipedia "editors" who believes that if simply a lot of people say something that it must be true but in the end have no clue one way or the other. People like you are dangerous because you create pseudo-fact by popular demand and because of your sense of pride. You drift along the beach all your life doing nothing, so here you can feel important. Good job. 108.6.202.208 (talk) 10:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.121.66 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.33.99.13 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.179.160 (talk)

Going to be banned from every good party in NY cite or reference sought

Mad Money runs a self-promoting commercial (often during the show itself) where they show clips of Cramer. One quote is the rant heard around the world-- the one with "they know nothing" that everyone with any interest can easily find on youtube. But then the commercial changes gears to a clip of Cramer on a different day giving a monologue where he appears to be about to make a gloomy prediction or profoundly serious and/or broad accusation, saying, "I'm about to get banned from every good party in the New York Metro area". In fact, the classical music in the background at this point in the commercial is slow and gloomy, whereas it was upbeat at the outset of the commercial. To what did the latter quote refer, i.e. what day was that monologue and what was Cramer about to say that would cause such consternation that he would be banned from NY metro area parties? Since Cramer's commercial notes this monologue in particular, it is likely to be particularly noteworthy. Thank you for your thoughts, video, or references on this.Bull Market 14:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is brilliant PR. He had a meltdown on television. So they've turned it around as an asset, as if this illustrates Cramer's independence and advocacy for the small investor. He's already made his $50-$100 million. And now he sells books. Do you ever hear that he donates profits from his books to charity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.6.202.208 (talk) 02:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Stock pick history

Comment below from User:173.77.18.3, moved from article to talk. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know how much money Cramer makes on the show? This is not charity work, neither is the sale of the books. The public should have the right to know because if his stock picks aren't relevant to his earnings but just the amount of time he is on television, then people ought to know and factor that in to listening to his advice. from User:173.77.18.3

Middle Name

The question of Cramer's middle name has come up once in a while. WP:RS show it simply as middle initial "J." and nothing more. If anyone can show "Joseph" and verify same, let them do it. Otherwise, please leave it as "J". --S. Rich (talk) 08:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Bear Stearns Debate

This stuff is not encyclopedic. So what if he made good or bad calls? Every stock picker has good ones and bad ones. In fact, any picker who gets above .500 is doing well. When they go beyond .500 into the .600 or .700 range, they are doing fantastic. With this in mind, giving us the debate as to Bear Stearns or any other pick is meaningless. And with Cramer, given the volume of picks that he produces in the Lightening Round, featured stories, or Charitable Trust picks, there is no end to the number of "selected controversies" to present. In doing so, we are WP:Cherry-picking whenever such-and-such stock pick is noted or not noted in the article. This stuff should be deleted. (After writing the above I noted we had an archive. In my quick review, the archive did not address the non-encyclopedic nature of the tagged sections. My comments stand.) --S. Rich (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The subject matter is encyclopedic. The section title of "Selected Controversies" is obviously not encyclopedic (it signals an agenda), and should be reduced to just "Controversies" 67.190.104.131 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC).

Material is encyclopedic if it is notable. The stock picking stuff, which is part of the Cramer article, is a sidelight to his history, work, media presentation. Again, every stockpicker has good and bad calls, so including some of Cramer's is a WP:INDISCRIMINATE problem. --S. Rich (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I completely disagree, this material is indeed very relevant. This has been a very notable event for Cramer and was highly publicized for both the controversy and the aftermath. This was not just a run of the mill bad call and to characterize it as that completely minimizes what actually occurred. 216.99.184.50 (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Charitable Trust Info

76.88.156.123 (talk) 08:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

the info for the charitable trust is incorrect. the time frame and interest calculations are incorrect. as far as i can tell the stock picks that he makes on his show are not exactly the same as the stocks that he buys and sells in his charitable trust. i don't know if anyone (even cramer himself) knows what the total annualized return on the trust is (if he does, i don't think he has published it). one of the sources is a dead link. here's the pdf (pictures may be missing): http://www.npr.org/blogs/globalpoolofmoney/images/2009/05/bolster.pdf

Performance of stock picks -- unencyclopedic

Cramer has been in the stock picking business for years and made hundreds, if not thousands, of stock picks. Certainly some of them are going to sour, as he well admits. For us to include this section simply allows disgruntled editors to find the bad picks and post them. This section should be deleted for several reasons: WP:OR, WP:POV, WP:WEIGHT, etc. Let's delete it.--S. Rich (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I would be in favor of this decision. This section in its current form is ridiculous. --SubSeven (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Cramer has 112 editors watching his article. Let's hear from some more of them.--S. Rich (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Silence is golden. I'm taking out the stock picking stuff.--S. Rich (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Bear Sterns deletion

This material was recently restored by an IP editor. (I've deleted it.) As stated in earlier talk, there is no justification for including article section about particular stock picks that went wrong. Such material can only result in WP:UNDUE because seeking to balance the bad picks with good ones can be accomplished only through WP:CHERRY.--S. Rich (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can delete it when there was never any consensus on the Talk page to delete it. 216.99.184.50 (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Also, this was not just a run of the mill bad call and to characterize it as that completely minimizes what actually occurred and the media circus that ensued over it. 216.99.184.50 (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Kind of a grey area. It was a not a 'call' at all, but some people misinterpreting it as a stock pick led to it becoming a news story. It probably warrants its own discussion about whether it should be included, apart from the general stock pick cherry picking that was agreed upon to be deleted from the article. --SubSeven (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure how this got removed as part of general stock picking section (which I agree should remain deleted) as this appeared to be an independent section. Yes, I do agree it merits it's own discussion. 216.99.184.50 (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
So let's discuss. The re-addition was the Bold, my deletion was the Revert, we should now Discuss before including the material.--S. Rich (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, let's discuss. I say it should stay in. Keep in mind, there was never any consensus to get this removed in the first place. I noticed that you removed this as part of the removal of the individual stock picks section however, this was always a separate section standing on its own so let me ask, why did you remove this in the first place? If anything, this should stay in the article unless a consensus to remove this is reached, not the other way around. PanGlory (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay -- just what is the justification for keeping? In the discussions of October and November, I saw two IPs' wanting to keep and one registered user saying take out. But the more fundamental question is how do any good picks (or calls), or any bad picks (or calls) become notable, much less encyclopedic? Do other articles about brokers, commentators, hedge fund managers have such material? And if they do, is such material balanced; e.g., good calls vs. bad calls? Cramer, as a show-biz personality, has his own noteworthiness in that the media and his audience like him. If he did not have noteworthiness in this regard, they would drop him. But no responsible person in stocks will say they are 100% right, or even right the majority of the time; and Cramer admits when he is wrong. So, again, how does this particular pick get justified for inclusion and how do we balance it with the good picks?--S. Rich (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

So where was the consensus to get this removed? You stated " I saw two IPs' wanting to keep and one registered user saying take out," which does not equate to a consensus to remove. If anything that equated to the complete opposite. Again, this was not just a good pick or bad pick scenario, but a highly publicized event in Cramer's career that made multiple headlines and generated a lot of media interest. I believe you are looking at this at the wrong way, you are looking at this like it was a stock call, when it is not and is actually much more than that. PanGlory (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
It was hardly a "highly publicized" event. Of the 8 notes (48-55) supporting the paragraph, 3 are from CNBC itself, 1 is from Cramer's website (thestreetdotcom) 1 is a dead link, 1 has nothing to do with the pick (other than blogger comments), 1 is Cramer's interview, and 1 (abcnews) does not mention Cramer. Please show us the multiple headlines.--S. Rich (talk) 00:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
OK -
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/PersonalFinance/story?id=4524010&page=1#.T44ZE9Ur4a4
http://2010.newsweek.com/top-10/worst-predictions/jim-cramer.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-51493229/8-dumbest-things-we-heard-this-decade-bear-stearns-is-fine/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/23/jim-cramer-kind-of-owns-u_n_92962.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/17/cramer-called-bear-stearn_n_91878.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSE8yLAyALNQ
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/23/business/23suits.html
http://seekingalpha.com/article/68961-in-defense-of-jim-cramer-on-bear-stearns
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2009-03-04/wall_street/30049605_1_bear-stearns-jim-cramer-collapse
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2008-03-18/tech/30019887_1_jim-cramer-casual-investor-armies
http://consumerist.com/2008/03/jim-cramer-told-viewers-dont-move-your-money-from-bear-thats-just-being-silly.html
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2009/03/jim-cramer-fire.html
http://dealbreaker.com/2009/11/jim-cramers-bear-call-was-second-worst-prediction-of-the-decade-says-fellow-cnbc-colleague-updated/
PanGlory (talk) 02:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Good for you!! (Sincerely.) Now incorporate into the article, keeping WP:DUE in mind. (We are all working on the WP:POLE.)--S. Rich (talk) 02:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks PanGlory (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

is jim cramer cnbc show gone for good ? =

cramer has been no where to be seen lately on his usual 6 pm time slot on CNBC ... has his show 'Mad Money' ended ??? midas madoff jr 68.195.88.82 (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC) pt 109

I'm watching it right now.. --SubSeven (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Jim Cramer's date of birth.

Stated as February 10, 1955. However, in the 2007 "Bear Stearns 'They know nothing' speech", Becky says, "You are 62," to Jim after he makes a statement about being an old man. Elsewhere online, his date of birth is given as February 10, 1944, which I believe is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.217.37 (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The WP:RS citation in the infobox has been tweaked so it gives a better view of Cramer's entry. We gotta go with the source provided. Cramer has made his age an on-going joke on his show, usually adding 5 or 10 years to his actual age. Thus other sources might come up with different numbers. Please provide the sources so that we can evaluate them. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Spartacist?

Cramer claims he was "a Spartacist" while in college which presumably refers to the trotskyist Spartacist League. Anyone with any more info on this that might be pertinent to the article? http://polizeros.com/2009/12/30/jim-cramer-was-a-spartacist-in-college-likens-bonus-outrage-to-lenin-in-1917-it%E2%80%99s-really-about-stringing-up-guys/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6045:E3:75BA:9594:8502:252B (talk) 21:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartacist_League_(US)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jim Cramer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jim Cramer. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jim_Cramer/Archive_2&oldid=1093177486"