Talk:Clark Howard

Needs a portrait-photo

For some reason, I expected him to be bald. I dont know why, but when I saw his picture on the book I was quite shocked.Defy You 02:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That's nice. And seven years later, there is still no picture of Clark Howard in the Lede. A portrait-photo or an action photo in the article (or both) would be very nice. They always add to an article. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a nice portrait-photo at Patriot Radio L.A. K-EIB: http://www.Patriot.LA/onair/ — FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion moved from article

The following was added to the article by User:Aquaswim47 (and 68.118.253.192 before that). It belongs here instead. --Spiffy sperry 15:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Clark is a financial guru when it comes to giving advice to people. While his advice doesn't work for everyone, it is certainly informative and makes you think. One thing that Clark lacks is his ability to get people to read on their own, such as Investors Business Daily. I think Clark needs to transition into a reference librarian such that when he is no longer on the air, people remember his legacy and his dedication to the public for people to be in charge of their personal finances. While in his message boards, he is very quick to boot people off it, he has a very sweet disposition and really is sincere in what he does. I think his staff must depend on people that are too aggressive and are not able to read it post by post. It doesn't surprise me; it just means he's human! I got obsessed with the healthcare issue and did not know why a consumer advocate "liked" the mandatory health insurance plan, since he always talks about retirement savings and $200 per month could easily contributee $400K to one's retirement (a 6% return rate over 40 years).

It is so weird, since we disagreed on the health insurance issue. I believe that society pays for the low reimbursement rates if they are uninsured, since I draw the conclusion (maybe false) that rich people should not be insured if they are in good health. My premise is based on the timing of illness, not the number of times one gets ill as opposed to the general population. I think on the basis solely of return on investment (ROI) and affordable healthcare. We both believe that international surgery is good because those hospitals run a far more efficient practice. Clark, however puts the blame on the uninsured poor as do a lot of people, not exposed to the healthcare arena. I don't since I feel they are only part of the problem due to the fact that the majority of claimants are insured parties, thus while I support Maine's proposal or no nationalized healthcare system at all, he supports Massachusetts plan. I have listened to his radio program since 2002 and called in July of 2004. I think he is a brilliant man who has always carefully constructed his good fortune. I think the Massachusetts plan would be most effective if it had a long-term care component that eliminated the Medicaid system altogether. I think this would provide true equality such that just because you got ill or had a disability wouldn't necessarily deem you poor. I also support mandatory savings accounts that required a person save between 4-15% of their income and only 50-80% of that money could be invested in stocks. We both could agree on mandatory savings accounts as long as the individual had complete control of the account.

The above 'rant' is nice but TALK is for improving this article. How does this help WP? — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC) — I'll read it again.

Oh. Back in 2006, this info was removed from the Article. It lives on here at TALK. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Vandal Edits

There seems to be a lot of seemingly vandal edits to Clarks article. 71.110.177.35, 4.238.8.150, 68.154.42.50, and 64.25.4.29 are the main culprits. I'm not sure why this is a hot topic, but it's quite frustrating. Anyone have any suggestions? Maniwar 12:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I am one of the persons who made the recent edit. One person keeps changing the wording to his own bias. He stats that the person who was the victim did not read the Craigslist terms and conditions which is not relevant. Obviously this person has a bias on the matter. The below wording I posted is documented and has no slant. This is very relavent for the bio of Clark Howard. I'd be happy to moderate this page if I may. Brandon

Brandon, rather than removing "everything" you feel (which is POV), make the article better. Do not delete. Like your edits, many have added to it. Rather than removing everything, and even though I don't feel the T's&C's of Craig's List is relevant, I left it in there. You are openly defacing this article by removing everything you feel has no value. Help make the article better, don't deface it. The article is relatively NPOV, but your edits absolutely make it POV because you do not want something in there. Maniwar 13:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand, but the points made about his message board are not a major complaint. The person has an obvious bias. There needs to be some kind of selection. I mean, your not going to put the shoe size of the man. The Bank of America article is a big deal. If you read my version you'll see it is unbiased. It is obious that the other version is biased towards Bank of America. It is not relevant what the craigslist terms and cond. say. Bank of America did not take the man's check and then PRESSED CHARGES. They did not follow protocol. However, I kept that out because then I would have been biased. ALSO, TO HAVE A PARAGRAPH SAYING THAT "SOME" PEOPLE THINK HE VACATIONS TOO MUCH IS RIDICULOUS. WHO AND HOW MANY SAY HE VACATIONS TOO MUCH? WHERE IS THIS DOCUMENTED. THIS IS HEARSAY. OBVIOUSLY THIS SHOULD NOT BE ON THERE.

ALSO WHO SAYS WHAT THE 2 MAJOR COMPLAINTS ABOUT HIS MESSAGE BOARD ARE???? WHERE IS THIS DOCUMENTED. OBVIOUSLY, I WOULD NOT WANT THIS ON MY BIOGRAPHY IF IT WERE NOT BACKED UP. BACK IT UP!!!!!!!!!!

I again agree with you, but you are not following the Wikipedia protocols. Even though I totally agree, I am not going to use my POV and remove it. In that instance, add an { { NPOV-section } } tag or a { { fact } } tag and discuss it on this board. Before you delete, read what the requirements are. If only you will stop the editing war and open up the discussion, people can give input and unnecessary items could be removed. Again, I side with you on the Craig's List item as well as the criticisms, but I am trying to follow protocol. You have been reverted by several Wiki users and if you don't watch it, you may be banned from the board. Do it properly and I'll back you. By the way...no need to shout! Maniwar 14:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

O.k., I understand that protocol needs to be followed. Let's discuss. Please see above about the critizims. They are all hearsay. However, the above paragraphy for Clark Takes on Bank of America is biased.

Craig's List Sentence

There is a dispute over whether the "At this point it is unclear why Matthew may have disregarded the prominent scam warning on Craig's List" statement adds to this article. I for one don't see a relevance to the entry, however I wanted to get feedback before removing it. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Maniwar 14:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason to include this sentence. It seemed odd when I read it. It is immaterial to the discussion.

Removed sentence

I have removed the sentence

"At this point it is unclear if Matthew read the prominent scam warning on Craig's List" 

from the article because it does not seem to lend anything to the article and there were no objections. Maniwar 13:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

_____________
I have a problem with the craigslist line removal and with the vandal edits. Brandon Kirk's original entry was factually incorrect according to the SF Gate article that started the whole controversy. Furthermore, it was presented in a way that was slanted heavily against BoA (by means of false information, omitted information, and insinuating that BoA instigated the entire event).

The craigslist line and Matthew's question to the teller are both very relevant to the situation for two reasons: 1. If Matthew had read or not ignored the warning, he would have instantly realized that the check was a scam and the incident most likely would not have taken place. 2. If Matthew had worded his question to the teller differently, then Matthew would most likely have been viewed as a victim of a fake check scam, rather than a potential check forger and BoA would not have pressed charges. 3. This whole reason this is a controversy is because there are people who feel that Clark Howard's attack on BoA is unreasonable given the facts (I cite his message board for #3).

PS: Brandon Kirk again continues with his biased and factually incorrect wording. The link to the craigslist page is not the "terms and conditions" page. It is a very relevant scam warning from the site (which he used to sell his bicycles) indicating that people would very likely contact him in an attempt to give him a fake check for a significantly higher amount than agreed upon. It also details how cashing such a check would cause harm.--66.156.60.136 21:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I see your arguement, however it is POV. For example, it's your opinion that had Matthew read the warning it would not have happened. It is also your opinion that had he worded it differently to the teller things would have been done differently...that is absolutely POV. I could then say that had BofA acted differently and questioned Matthew, then things would have ended up differently as well, but that is my point of view and my opinion. Obviously, there are a lot of "ifs" in this situation. I too, absolutely, have issues with the vandal edits and thus have reported every single one of them and Brandon's edits were reverted back as to remove his POV entries. Yes the article could be cleaned up a bit more, but no matter how it is written, a reader will assign fault to some party. This article is after all about Clark Howard and his take on the situation; it's not about Matthew S. or BofA. Thus it will take on his side of the story more than the BofA entry will.

As for people who oppose Clark, there are as many who support him...or more. As for the error calling the 'warning page' of Craig's List the 'Ts&Cs page,' that was my error and I acknowledge it...thanks for pointing out the correction. Maniwar 22:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

________
Just out of curiosity, why does the article not reflect what's in the edits (at least on my computer?) For example, Towards the bottom there is a sentence that says "...close their Bank of America accounts because of the unfair treatment of Matthew." but the edit page says "close their Bank of America accounts because of what he feels is unfair treatment of Matthew?" I have cleared my cache and refreshed the page.

If the edits make it to that section, I think the neutrality warning can be removed. With the exception of the line above, there appear to be no slanted sentences one way or the other.

Oh, and I never tried to vandalize the page. I simply tried to reinsert sections that were deleted. Sorry if I messed up. --64.25.4.29 04:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

try holding down "shift" or is it "control" when you hit reload/refresh. I've looked at it on three different computers on three different ISP's and it looks fine. Maniwar (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

I also have a question on the criticism section. A user, and I've lost track because all the reverts that had to be done, added this and I did not want to remove it without feedback. I cleaned it up a bit and added the section, but there are no facts backing this up. Do you all think it's relevant, or is it ok to be removed? Maniwar 14:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Remove it. Nothing is backing it up. Kirk

Not really relevant to this question, but I find it interesting you say your name is Brandon, and now you're saying it's Kirk...interesting. Maniwar 14:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is that interested? My name is Brandon Kirk. People call me by my last name too. How is not relevant to the question? NOTHING BACKS UP WHO "THESE PEOPLE" are that says he shouldn't be on vacation, complaints on the message board, etc. etc. If this page stands the way it is, I will not ever trust Wikipedia as a reliable source as an encyclopedia. Sorry, but this is pure biasness.(posted by 70.119.192.164)

So what? Truth is truth. Clark is a public figure. If he can't handle honest listener criticism than he needs to takes his millions of dollars and quietly retire to some remote island. He sticks listeners with re-runs anyway with all his vacations.(posted by 68.158.13.188)

Your statement is not realevant whether he can handle criticism or not. This is suppose to be an online ENCLYCLOPEDIA that states facts and does not discuss "listener emotions". Polls of "many listerers" need to be backed up by hard facts dummy. (posted by 70.119.192.164)

Your statement is not "realevant" whether he can handle criticism or not. This is suppose to be an online "ENCLYCLOPEDIA" that states facts and does not discuss "listener emotions". Polls of "many listerers" need to be backed up by hard facts "dummy". Learn to spell before questioning my intelligence pal!(posted by 68.158.13.188)

I agree with 70.119.192.164 that I don't see the relevance. If this is an issue with many, a source needs to be cited. If not, it does not add value to the article. By the way, both of you need to stop removing other people's post. Add your rebuttal to it, but do not edit someone else post on a talk page. Maniwar 22:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

removed and cleaned up this section

I removed:

Clark Howard's website has a message board which over the years has faced critism. Two common  
complaints are: 1. The use of slow, outdated PERL software which users find painfully slow to load  
especially on dial-up internet 2. Moderators who abuse their power and censor posts or threads to 
their liking thus hampering free speech and exchange of ideas on the message boards. Another 
criticism of Clark's website is the fact Clark won't provide listeners with an e-mail address to 
send messages to Clark. Many website users see this issue as "Customer No-service." Users of Clark 
Howard's website hope that Clark will wisely spend some of his fortune to improve and upgrade his 
website and make it more user friendly.

===Clark vacations too much===
Apparently, there are a few people whos dislike the fact that Clark Howard takes frequent vacations  
leaving his listeners with re-runs (mainly on WSB, 750 AM, which is Clark's flagship station in 
Atlanta). Many times substitute hosts such as Illyce Glink and Michelle Singletary will guest host 
his program. 

This is one person's POV and they could not cite sources to back up the statements. Also, these POV statements do not lend accuracy or value to the article. Maniwar 13:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: I'm a long-time listener of the Clark Howard show, and...in the interest of fairness...Clark does take a lot of vacations. He even jokes about this on his radio show sometimes, having stated before that he vacations "French-style", taking at least six weeks a year. Neal Boortz, host of another Cox radio show and a good friend of Clark's, regularly teases Clark about his absences, and insists that in his next contract he's going to insist that he (Boortz) gets the same vacation time that Clark does. As pointed out, Clark is a self-made millionaire who has invested wisely and lives frugally, and seems to enjoy the freedom that gives him. So the statement that Clark takes a lot of vacation time and listeners either hear guest hosts or re-runs is accurate. Whether it adds to the article or not is certainly a judgment call. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.220.195.172 (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

References

Clark Howard's Birthday

Brandon 70.119.192.164, You edited the main article posting:

COULD A MODERATOR CHANGE CLARK HOWARD'S BIRTHDAY TO THE CORRECT YEAR? HE WAS BORN IN 1955 NOT 
1945.  i KNOW THIS BECAUSE I WENT TO HIS 50TH BIRTHDAY PARTY LAST YEAR. SITED AT 
http://www.controlscaddy.com/A55A69/bccaddyblog.nsf/plinks/CBYE-6CXVN7 posted by 70.119.192.164)

which should have been posted on this talk page. In order to make that change, there needs to be some confirmation. Although the article states 50th, it does not give a date. Do you have another reliable source? --Maniwar (talk) 13:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

____________
Don't you guys have Google? Clark's 50th Party --64.25.4.29 22:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, Clark's birthday appears to be June 20th according to his own site. Clarchives

Neutrality Disputed

Is the neutrality of the article still disputed? I don't see any really slanted sentences, although the word "fake" describing the check should probably be removed. --64.25.4.29 22:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Craigslist

Why is the kid who was vandalizing the page in the beginning taking so much time to tell us about Craigslist disclaimer about checks. It is not realevant. When the victim went into the Bank of America, Craigslist went out of the picture. This was between him and the bank. Craigslist does not write Bank of America's policy. Bank of America did not know he got it through craigslist and BOA DID NOT know it was over the amount he was asking for the bikes. This is a consumer issue. Clark's point was to say what would "anyone" do if they were not sure about a check. I mean, if you sold a big screen t.v. for a 1,000 bucks and the check was bad from someone who you found in the newspaper would it make it any different? Why should you have to pay over 14 grand to clear your name? Why did the BOA manager press charges?

By your own logic, BoA is not relevant. When BoA was the victim of someone attempting to cash a fake check they simply reported a crime-in-progress to the police (reference SF Gate Article). When the police were called, BoA went out of the picture. The fact that Matthew was not read his rights, handcuffed and left in the lobby instead of placed in a cop car, forced into an overcrowded jail cell and unable to call his parents for four hours is between him and the cops. Quite frankly, the original SF Gate article is very slanted against BoA. This article could easily have been written as a warning about 419 scams and how they can affect unsuspecting consumers, considering that this event could easily take place in ANY BANK. BoA should not have been specifically singled out in this article. They should have simply been generically referred to as "the bank." (NO THEY SHOULDN"T HAVE BEEN KNOWN AS "THE BANK" BECAUSE HE WAS CASHING A BOA CHECK AT BOA.)

The craigslist warning is relevant. The article that drew Clark Howard's attention devotes several paragraphs to craigslist, 419 scams, how the likelihood of this type of scam is increasing and even has a quote from the craigslist founder. Not to mention the fact that Matthew is quoted in the article as being suspicious that the check was a fake. Had he read the warning and realized his buyer was following a textbook case scam line by line, it is very likely this incident never would have happened.

If Clark's point is to say that what would anyone do if they were unsure about a check, then his advice should be to read the warnings about 419 scams, tell the bank teller the suspicious history behind the check rather than just simply try to cash it, have the money wired TO you, or use PayPal. It's not BoA's fault that Clark gives out bad advice from time to time.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think "press charges" means? Because if it means "report a crime" then I would expect a financial institution to report a crime taking place in its lobby. Wouldn't you? If you think "press charges" means some sort of agressive act beyond simply calling police and reporting the crime, please cite a reference stating that that is what happened (such as convincing the DA to bring the case to trial, sueing Matthew directly, etc.).

Why are you so anti-BoA? You seem to be taking this rather personally. --66.156.60.136 05:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, all of you please follow the guidelines and sign your posts. Thanks! Maniwar 21:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

No, "pressing charges" is what makes this such a big deal. Pressing charges is not just calling the police. You sign papers that state you want to prosecute a person. This is why Matthew had to spend 14k defending himself in court and to clear his name. BOA (the branch manager) "assumed" that Matthew was committing a crime. There was no crime in progress. The cops couldn't arrest him because no crime had been done. Pressing charges is when you tell the police that they someone is doing something wrong and then it has to be faught out in court. BOA did not know the check was written for over the amount asked and they didn't know he ignored a warning on a site called Craigslist. He cashed the check because the teller said "the funds were available". Why could she give him the money now and not wait until the check clearned? BECAUSE IT WAS A BANK OF AMERICA CHECK. He took the BOA check directly to the BOA. This is what he should have done. The check was stolen. He would have taken the cash and mailed the "refund" to the crook. So please don't tell me that BOA was out of the picture and it was between Matthew and the police. Also, he is not going to deposit the check with BOA probably because he doesn't have an account set up with him. Also, if Matthew is the honest person isn't he going to cash the checks so he can go ahead and send the bikes and not wait 2 or 3 weeks. The crook probably told him to cash the check so he could get the bikes and excess money quickly before the other victim found out her checks were stolen. You may think that Matthew is naive or stupid, but keep in mind a lot of honest people usually don't think in such a twisted way that someone could do this. Maybe he is not as educated. Who cares. It is not relevant. BOA was not aware of this third party transaction. Keep in mind, people still fall for this Nigerian scam every day. Why do you think they keep doing it? Brandon

I suggest you read the SF Gate article so that you can contribute to an intelligent debate.

You say: "Pressing charges is not just calling the police. You sign papers that state you want to prosecute a person. This is why Matthew had to spend 14k defending himself in court and to clear his name."

The article states simply that BoA reported a crime to the police and that the DA dropped all charges within 24 hours. Matthew then spent $14,000 and several months perusing a "findings of fact" decision to erase all legal record of the case. If you can dig up proof that BoA did anything other than simply call the police and report the crime, I'd like to see it.

You say: "There was no crime in progress."

The article says, "What Shinnick didn't know is that he'd just become party to a crime."

You say: "Also, he is not going to deposit the check with BOA probably because he doesn't have an account set up with him."

and

"The crook probably told him to cash the check so he could get the bikes and excess money quickly before the other victim found out her checks were stolen."

The article says: "...But he was made suspicious by the unexpectedly large payment. 'That was kind of a red flag because it's a lot of money,' he said. 'I didn't want to deposit it into my account because I didn't want it to bounce.'"

You say, "BOA was not aware of this third party transaction."

I agree that BoA did not know about the overpayment, the third party or craigslist. But they also didn't know that Matthew wasn't trying to steal money. All they knew was that someone was trying to cash a bogus check after asking if there was enough money in the account. Seems pretty suspicious to me.

You say, Keep in mind, people still fall for this Nigerian scam every day. Why do you think they keep doing it?

Because people like you don't read the main article before spouting off...I mean, because people like Matthew don't bother to read the prominent, highlighted warnings at the top of their emails.--64.25.4.29 01:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I must point out that this is from Clark's perspective and not BofA's. It will slant a little in favor of Clark because of "his" view of things. Over the years Clark has told people to call the bank and ask if funds are available, however BofA no longer will do that. And since BofA lobbies Congress for the laws, and they provide no clear or good way for innocent people to verify accounts against fraud. Maniwar (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Part of the reason it's a "controversy" is because Clark is wrong and is handling the situation poorly. But regardless of who is right or wrong, Brandon Kirk needs to read the background article before posting factually incorrect and slanted entries.

BoA lobbying Congress is a red herring. The entire industry lobbys Congress. Are you going to take all of your money out of all banks forever? If not, you're a hypocrite. As for Clark Howard and the BoA officers’ inability to provide good advice, they are all just incompetent on this issue (which is pretty sad.) Here are four ideas: 1. Don't take checks for significantly more than agreed upon when conducting online transactions. 2. If you receive a suspicious check, take it to the bank and let the teller know about your suspicions. 3. Don't do business by check with people you don't know. 4. Write letters to your Congressmen supporting a change in banking practices... --66.156.60.136 18:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes BofA is only one bank out of all of them, but I tend to side with Clark in how BofA handeled it. I also agree that Matthew could have been more proactive. I received a similar letter when selling something on Craig's List and thought that whoever sent the email must think I'm an idiot. But then, I've heard about this warning and know it's out there. Believe it or not, there are people who have not. You and I can speculate all we want. In reality, BofA could have first found out the story before pressing chares. Yes they have to protect themselves and there is nothing wrong with that, but they also could be human and check on things. I'm also assuming that perhaps the thought of getting more than he asked for was appealing and a bit blinding to Matthew. But if you listen to the conversation, Clark is upset all the entire banking industry because they provide no clear directions for the party wronged (that would be Matthew). He's also upset that they've made no effort to try and figure out who the real guilty party is. He's also upset that they've refused to change banking practices for Money Orders or Casier Checks. The system they use is the same system used in the 1920's. Because it would cost money they do nothing. When you have an issue, you have to start somewhere and so Clark, possibly, sees this as the place to start. Regarding the POV statements, the obvious ones were removed. Maniwar (talk) 00:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

________________
Hey Maniwar, since you're reading this discussion, add the birthday to the biography. The birthday date is linked under the birthday section.--64.25.4.29 01:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Reference Needed

Please cite a reference for the line, "The bank manager of BofA then decided to press charges against Matthew" or remove it from the paragraph.--66.156.60.136 00:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

um...If you read, it says, Clark Howard spoke live on the Neal Boortz radio show at 11:45 a.m. on October 4, 2006 which gives the place and source. If you want to call WSB, I'm sure they'll confirm and/or get you a tape. --Maniwar (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Um...that looks like it's regarding BoA going after Clark, not about the bank manager "pressing charges" against Matthew.--66.156.60.136 05:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

oops! :) I totally misread your post; oh well, cheers and my apologies. --Maniwar (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I actually went ahead and added it in since whoever posted it may not. --Maniwar (talk) 12:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, nowhere in the article does it say that BoA pressed charges. All it says is that they called the police and the police took Matthew into custody for the safety of the employees and customers. The sentence should be removed unless a reference is found.--66.156.60.136 07:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

YEA, TAKE THAT YOU STUPID DUMMY. I TOLD YOU I WOULD GET THIS POST EDITED THE WAY I WANTED IT. SO STUFF IT. THE BANK MANAGER "PRESSED CHARGES"!!!!! LOL. TAKE THAT. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.33.88.238 (talk • contribs) .

You've been issued a {{npa2}} warning at your talk page. Please do not attack other editors and please sign all your posts. ----Maniwar (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous Edits

Maniwar, why in the world was the latest edit reverted from the fully referenced and factually correct:

When the police arrived they handcuffed Matthew "for the safety of the bank employees as well as the bank customers." After speaking to the bank manager they then arrested Matthew for check fraud.

to the factually and gramatically incorrect:

"The manager alerted the police and pressed charges. Matthew was then promptly handcuffed and arrested Matthew for check fraud.

 ????? This is just getting stupid.--64.25.4.29 00:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Calm down. We're looking at two things here. Clark Howard has repeatedly stated on his show that the Bank Manger pressed charges, that is why several editors keep putting that in there. I did read earlier this year, an article stating the same, but since I've been unable to find it, I did not made that entry. I also suspect that Because Clark keeps saying it on air, many editors will continue to make that edit. The second thing, after reading the article, it actually says something differently than what you posted. It reads, The police report for Shinnick's arrest says he was taken into custody "for the safety of the bank employees as well as the bank customers." So, that is what the report reads, but this is not what Schinnick says and this is not what Clark says. Both of them state that he was handcuffed and taken to the back immediately for no explained reason. Both of them state that the bank manager pressed charges. A little known fact, a person cannot be held or arrested unless charges are in fact pressed, so the edit that you opposed actually holds some weight. My problem was how you worded your entry. It was not totally factually or grammatically correct. I hope that makes sense. Anyway, this article will take a slightly Clark Howard spin over the BofA article. Although I do agree that the current entry is not exactly factual as well.

A good friend of mine is a 7 year police officer and he stated that handcuffs are not used unless they are asked to or an apparent danger is present. Obviously, in this situation, there was no apparent danger, so, and this is speculation, a request must have been made by the bank, according to my friend. --Maniwar (talk) 02:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Simpsons reference seems unlikely

The suggestion that Clark was being parodied (even indirectly) as "Chuck Garabedian" on an episode of the Simpsons seems quite weak. Contrary to the article, the character really doesn't look like Clark at all (see a screencap of "Chuck Garabedian" here or here), and the mere fact that the seminar has to do with living cheaply seems to be a weak connection at best. (It's further weakened by the fact that Clark is not a seminar speaker and doesn't give presentations like that at all.) Unless someone can suggest how the episode is parodying Clark Howard in a more obvious and intentional way, may I suggest the paragraph be deleted as inapplicable? --Motley Fool 04:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Clark Howard. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060810074513/http://coxradiosyndication.com/shows/boortz1.html to http://coxradiosyndication.com/shows/boortz1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070104064625/http://www.accessatlanta.com/entertainment/content/custom/blogs/radiotalk/index.html to http://www.accessatlanta.com/entertainment/content/custom/blogs/radiotalk/index.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 22:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clark Howard. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090301162351/http://www.wsbtv.com/health/18674893/detail.html to http://www.wsbtv.com/health/18674893/detail.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 21:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Clark Howard's radio show ended

Clark Howard's radio show ended 1-1-21 per 11-30-20, radioinsight.com/headlines/201989/clark-howard-to-end-syndicated-show/.99.7.207.171 (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)