Talk:Mad Money

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TV
Television Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Assessment comments
Cleanup Taskforce article This article is being improved by the Cleanup Taskforce to conform with a higher standard of article quality. It is likely to change frequently until completed. Please see its Cleanup Taskforce page for more details.

Cleanup Taskforce page → Edit | Purge

==Mad Money== Still has trivial or extraneous material and very few citations.

Contents

[edit] Howard Stern

Has no reason to be mentioned in this article, i've edited out the egregious plug. 24.247.219.140 19:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC) C.M.


[edit] Lightning Round

I'm pretty sure the Lightning Round is not a whole show every week. Maybe I'm just crazy, but I can not recall any show that was 100% Lightning Round. This would probably burn out the idea of a Lightning Round if done every week. -- Zoop 05:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Niether can I, and I've watch the thing several times a week --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, actually there WAS indeed an episode that aired during the summer where CNBC stitched together past lightning rounds from previous episodes while Cramer was away on vacation -- vikramsidhu

In the summer of 2005 there were at least two Lightning Round compilation shows (but probably four, I can't remember if he was taking Friday's off that August or if that was only in 2006), and there was one Lightning Round compilation that aired during the last week of December, 2005.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.188.69 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 17 January 2007

[edit] Throwing chair

You know what would be GREAT - you know at the beginning of like every lightning round cramer throws the chair - it would be awesome if we could get an image of that :). Hmmm, I have a el-cheapo camera around I might be able to do it.... Ryan Norton T | @ | C 06:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Your wish has been granted. --Subterfugest 04:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Agh! My eyes! Must it be moving? Wouldn't a still suffice? -Joshuapaquin 00:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm surprised you're not blind by now.

[edit] Time Changes?!

I tune into Mad Money at the regular time on CNBC (6pm) on Tuesday 3/28/06, only to see it is no longer airing in this time slot. It appears the Michael Eisner Conversations program has taken over. I check my local listings, only to see that Mad Money will only air at 3-4pm PST for this entire day, instead of my usual viewing time of 6pm PST. There is no replay at 9pm PST either (again, Eisner). Anybody have any further clarification? Is this permanent? - Bsharkey 15:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It'll be occurring every time Conversations w/ ME airs (which will probably be about once a month) Vikramsidhu

[edit] Sources?

I was browsing through this article tonight and I came across the "Cramer's catch phrases" section. There are 38 such phrases listed. I could not find any sources cited for these 38 phrases. I believe that it may be Original Research which by Wikipedia policy is not allowed. Please note that the obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. JohnM4402 06:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catch Phrases

Has anyone been able to find a reputable, verifiable source for the 38 catch phrases listed in the article? If not, I plan on removing that section. If a good source can be found then we can add it back in once it is cited. JohnM4402 04:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merger?

There is no need for a merger. That article is nothing but linkspam and should not even exist. Lord Bodak 16:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point. As you may have noticed, I had placed a notability tag on the other article, and it was removed. Deletion is probably the better route. This article is too long as it is. I will remove the merger tags. ---Charles 02:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Looks good to me. If the blog in question actually ends up being maintained, it might be worth as an external link here, but the article doesn't need to exist. Lord Bodak 04:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Blog Links

I noticed [1] this link on the Mad Money page, and it was given it's own section...I didn't think it was really appropriate so I deleted the section. Even in the external links it was labelled as "Mad Money Official Blog", so that was deleted as well Vikramsidhu 18:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Sites

Someone is constantaly removing my site, The Cramer Report from the External Links. Its is NOT a spam site nor soley for advertising. I resent the accusation. I am respectful. Look at others who constantly remove other links and replace them with their own. My site is a valid, informational page pertaining to Mr. Cramer's TV show.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.100.6 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 30 June 2006

Call it a fan site then. Unfortunately it does not conform to the Wikipedia:External links policy. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 17:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ahh cramer

mr cramer has discovered a new way to take money from stupid young people for that, he should be saluted—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.5.249 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 6 October 2006

[edit] "hot-rolled"

When difficulties arise, the show is occasionally hot-rolled.

Ok, what the hell does "hot-rolled" mean? And why is slang being used in an encyclopedia?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.241.226.11 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 4 December 2006

"Hot-rolled" means that the show is not edited before it's broadcast. There's still a tape delay. I don't know why that's there, but the whole section reads like a production engineer wrote it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.188.69 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 17 January 2007

[edit] Criticism Section

Since I am not a regular contributor to Wikipedia, I decided to voice my opinion in the discussion section instead of editing the article directly. The last point in the criticism section concerning Jim's call for the federal reserve to cut interest rates is stated in a way that misrepresents his opinion. The article links his call for a fed rate cut to him asking for a bail out of hedge funds. This is a gross misinterpretation. He did call for a rate cut, but the statement concerning hedge funds is not correct, and has nothing to do with his opinion. You can check me on this by reading some of Jim's articles on www.thestreet.com and www.realmoney.com. Jim wanted a rate cut because the credit markets were stalled, not to bail out hedge funds. In addition, the notion that a rate cut would bail out the hedge funds at this point is incorrect to begin with. With a lower interest rate, the yen will become stronger against the dollar, causing more pain to hedge funds involved in the infamous yen carry trade. Also, a lot of hedge funds are short the market right now, and will lose money after the fed cut and equity prices jumped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.100.135 (talk) 00:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"However, according to YourMoneyWatch.com, Mr. Cramer's "portfolio" of stocks mentioned on the show outranks the S&P 500 index over the 2006 year."

This statement is incorrect. The site listed shows Cramer's portfolio behind all the major indexes for 2006, 2007 and since the show aired. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.113.117.40 (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

I am trying to add this passage to the criticism section but it keeps getting removed. I don't understand what if wrong with it since I am providing a plausible explanation as to why cramer's stock picks may underperform the market.


One possible explanation as to why Cramer's picks may underperform the market indexes is that Cramer frequently justifies his recommendations based on future growth prospects. However, if the Semi-strong or strong efficient market hypothesis is true this perceived knowledge Cramer has is already priced into the stock by the time he recommends it, thus limiting any further gains. Semi-strong form efficiency implies that Fundamental analysis techniques will not be able to reliably produce excess returns, and Cramer often bases his recommendations on fundamental analysis

. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stock trad3r (talk • contribs) 18:50, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

I would remove it - this passage seems to fit the Fundamental Analysis page much better. Also, if the semi-strong form efficiency principle applies, how do you explain the fact that many, many, many "fundamental" investors have beaten the bejeesus out of every other market index? And I'm not talking just about BRKA either - check out Longleaf Partners for example. Yes, the U.S. stock market - particularly the large cap segment of it - is very efficient, and it's hard to beat it, but it's by no means impossible... Agorboun 04:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The point of the passage is to give a possible explanation using economic theory as to why Cramer's picks may underperform. It isn't intended to be completely definitive. If eight paragraphs can be devoted to the 2006 back to school section why not devote just one paragraph to this? Many fundamental investors do beat the market but many also don't like Cramer. Stock_Trad3r
Because the "Back to School" section describes something while the semi-strong form efficiency bit speculates. Last time I checked, speculation wasn't encouraged in encyclopaedic articles. And yes, it's speculation - while the passage in question is somewhat applicable to fundamental investing in general (provided one believes the EMT holds true), one cannot extrapolate it to Cramer all that easily. BECAUSE of other fundamental investors who have, over time, beaten the "market". One can just as easily explain the underperformance of Cramer's picks by saying that Cramer is simply a sucky stock picker, fundamental or otherwise. And it will hold just as much, if not more, validity as the semi-strong form efficiency version.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but the section in question is entitled "Criticism", not "Criticism and Rebuttals". Agorboun 02:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

At this point it doesn't matter how I defend my contribution. The editors are hellbent on removing it. Maybe while I'm at it I'll add another four paragraphs to the 'back to school' section since heaven forbid we allow originality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stock trad3r (talk • contribs) 04:08, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is an encyclopedia, not an open forum. But by all means, be original. Write a separate, well-argued, expanded article on possible reasons why Cramer's stock picking skills seem to be sub-par, at best. Apply the EMT, if you want. Some behavioural finance can also be useful. Publish it. I'll can give you a list of publications that might be interested. Then link to it here. Otherwise, refer to this page. Agorboun 05:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations, attributions, references

I have added one citation, to "Mad Money: Watch TV, Get Rich", to back up the statement of what Jim Cramer feels mad money is. The previous statement was not quite clear, so I used a quote instead.

We could improve the article by whittling down the quantity of unattributed information! --SV Resolution(Talk) 19:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The first citation in the criticism section for the August 2007 article in Barron's uses this:

Thomas Kostigen, MarketWatch.com (March 23, 2007). Jim Cramer's big mouth: His revelations only confirm what dupes average investors are.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/jim-cramers-big-mouth-reveals/story.aspx?guid=%7BEFABFEB9%2D4FC7%2D45A8%2DA14A%2D6318372C33E2%7D

However this article doesn't have any relevance to the Barron's article. I have removed the citation but documented it here. If someone wants to summarize the criticism in this article and add it to the criticism section then by all means go ahead. I just wanted to remove the incorrect citation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kevinh456 (talk • contribs) 16:40, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Items that should move to James Cramer biography article?

I think the 60 minutes and "cameo appearance" sections contain information that is primarily about the person James Cramer, rather than about the television show "Mad Money", and so should be moved to the biography article.

Of course, he was probably invited to appear on all of these other shows because of his popularity on Mad Money. But this information is not primarily about the Mad Money television show.

I propose these sections get moved to the James Cramer article. Does anyone object to this proposal? --SV Resolution(Talk) 19:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Anything that's notable, reliably sourced, and isn't about Mad Money but about Jim Cramer should indeed be moved to Jim Cramer. Piperdown 01:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"Cameos" and "60 Minutes" don't belong here. The Arrested Development cameo is mentioned in Jim Cramer. Perhaps a section over there should be created called separately for his cameos, interviews, and other notable appearances such as 60 minutes. Please place into appropriate section(s) and annotate with reliable sources, the Cramer article is just now getting cleaned up after being a mess for a long time. Piperdown 02:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parodies

Should parodies of the show be included? It would help give some sense of the cultural impact of the show and perhaps the extent of its significance:

  • The Reconstructing Alice episode of the detective show Rains contained a facsimile of Mad Money, called Crazy Money, complete with red button soundboard and hyper-active host.
  • If I remember correctly, sometime in 2006, Mad Money showed a clip of a parody done by a third party (a radio show host or someone on YouTube?) which discussed sports scores instead of stocks.
  • An SNL skit (although cut from the final December 2, 2006 airing) was called Stock Market and featured a circa-1929 version of Mad Money with Darrell Hammond bullish on market right before the crash [2] --Georgeryp 17:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not create a section entitled "Cultural Impact". You can begin by discussing parodies. Other topics that would fit here would be: impact on CNBC programming (Fast Money, for example); impact on financial investment programming; impact on popular culture (popularization of terms used in the show); reaction to some of the "how the street really operates" talks Cramer has given on the show. --SV Resolution(Talk) 19:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sound effects list? You have to be kidding

This has to go. It appears to be vandalism. It scrolls the article down a page with nothing but absurdly obscure references about sound effects on the show. The show has sound effects, that is noted earlier in a sentence. This article isn't supposed to be a stomping ground for obsessive-compulsive original researchers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Piperdown (talk • contribs) 03:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC).


[edit] [citation needed] gone out of control

To the person who tacked [citation needed] beside pretty much EVERY line in the article...huh? 85% of the stuff you put [citation needed] to is absolutely impossible to provide a citation with...it is an everyday feature of the show. How exactly are you thinking we should provide citations? Tape the show, cut it into pieces, post it on Youtube and post each video as a link? Unless you're going to go to EVERY television show's page and put [citation needed] in front of any and all facts about the show, you're gonna have to cut the writers of this article some slack. I agree that things should be cited as much as possible, but you were clearly bored (or frustrated). Vikramsidhu 23:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

exactly my point. Look up WP:OR. This entire page is someone writing a diary of what they see when they watch the show. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on reliable sources, not first person accounts. I should have deleted the material instead of "fact"-ing it. "Good god", learn more about sourcing material on wikipedia. Piperdown 23:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Well...I guess you should go and take the initiative and do the same on literally the HUNDREDS of other Wikipedia articles on TV shows/movies that follow a similar format...feel free to contact me if you'd like a list you wanna get started on. Vikramsidhu 00:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I've got to second Piperdown on his comments. This article has way too much stuff that shouldn't even be here. He was being nice by putting up the tags, many would have just deleted the cruft. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 00:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
The "cruft" you're talking about has been up for many months (a lot for over a year), and to-date no one has found the need to delete any of the stuff...I don't know who these "many" are you're speaking on the behalf of....Vikramsidhu 00:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
He's probably speaking of behalf of the many who take the time to learn wikipedia policies, a major one of which is that WP:OR Original Research, stipulates that anonymous editors watching TV and recording here their summaries and flowery prose on what they see on the screen is not allowed on wikipedia. Feel free to find WP:RS (Reliable sources - you know, professional journalists, editors, authors, who publish material that is held accountable by their publishers) on Mad Money and add it here, as most of this crap on this article is original research and doesn't belong here. Piperdown 23:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Vikramsidhu, as much as I would like to agree with you, Piperdown is right. The information in this article needs to be cited properly even though some of it may seem painfully obvious to any viewer. The idea is that any person reading this article should easily be able to verify any of this information, but not by watching hours of television to do so. JohnM4402 has some links above under the "Sources?" heading of this talk page that explain it better. Jauerback 01:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Finding citable sources for "common knowledge" stuff can be really difficult. But if you limit the article to only what is verifiable you'll create a good encyclopedia article. Wikipedia articles can be as good as anything in the Funk and Wagnalls, Encyclopedia Americana, or Encyclopedia Brittanica. We can do this! --SV Resolution(Talk) 01:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I really have no objection to only including stuff that has citable sources...but so far, all you people have been doing is picking at ME and promoting the idea of citing stuff, while the article has sat in the same condition since this issue was first brought up (nearly 2 months ago). Either do something about it, or stop complaining. You cannot have it both ways -- don't expect ME or someone who disagrees with you to start looking for sources. Vikramsidhu 01:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Vikramsidhu, they're right: citations are needed and O.R. Rules must be adhered to. However, Vikramsidhu, you are right that all of you others should be following the guidlines yourselves: be bold and find the sources yourselves or make the desired changes yourselves. But, if they are willing to do this, Vikramsidhu, the least you can do is try to help them (the high road, ya know?). It was you (I believe) who left the sources out in the first place. ask123 04:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
No actually, I haven't contributed anything of significance to this page (except some ratings data, which was cited). Vikramsidhu —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 13:39, August 22, 2007 (UTC).
Ok. Well then instead of "citations needed" tags on everyline, one tag can go on top. That's a simple solution for the time-being. But removal of all "citations needed" tags entirely goes against WP:OR. Here's a novel idea: instead of sitting around complaining, why don't you all be bold and do something about it. All I see here is a lot of whining. ask123 14:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tidy Up Intro

I tidied up the intro a bit under a random IP. Well, it was me if there are any questions... ask123 17:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for Cramer's Underperforming -- Reverted for the Following Reasons

I removed the two paragraph explanation that the IP 24.6.164.191 put in to explain the criticism of Cramer because, first and foremost, it was written in an unencyclopedic manner and didn't explain itself properly. The first explanation needs to be made in a more detailed manner. It doesn't make sense as it was written. The second explanation says: if the efficient market theory holds (which many believe it does)... This is colloquial writing and inappropriate for Wikipedia. Also, how many people are included in "many"?? Here, "many" is a peacock word and also unappropriate for this site. Many people also do not believe efficient market theory works -- in fact, there's quite a bit of evidence to disprove it from being anywhere close to a fullproof explanation for the markets. And efficient market theory can be qualified by certian rules and regulations, so you must specify what level of effient market theory you're advocating.

By and large, if you write your reasons in a manner fit for an economic journal (or an encyclopedia), then inclusion is possible. But editors will have to revert your work if it's written in the manner it was. ask123 17:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


FYI: An unregistered user has been continually adding original research to the criticism section that is not verified by reliable sources. Up to this point, s/he has been using the following IPs:
75.62.5.23
69.244.147.111
70.18.59.100
If you are this person, you must understand that continually re-posting the same paragraph that has been deleted over and over again is not productive. That paragraph will keep on getting deleted if you make edits that ignore Wikipedia policy. Please abide by Wiki policy -- it's a simple set of rules aimed at keeping this site accurate and neutral. If you do, there should be no problem with your editing. Also, make use of talk pages. Notice that the deletion of your paragraph has been noted here for many days. Thanks.
Cheers, ask123 15:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)