Talk:Mad Money/Archives/2012

Commercial with quotes from Cramer

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)

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.

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

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.

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

"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

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).

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)

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)

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).

‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  gone out of control

To the person who tacked ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  beside pretty much EVERY line in the article...huh? 85% of the stuff you put ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  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 ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  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)

I don't know if that's what you were talking about but there's a old (august 2007) video on youtube where Cramer gets mad and urges Ben Bernanke to consider cutting interest rates and goes off on everybody and that's a very interesting video because, it seems what he had predicted is happening right now. I wonder why it's not mentioned here. talkativiee 16:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC))

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)