Talk:Jack Cafferty

message: While I was wikify/npov'ing the addition of the "Criticism" section, the following stuck out:
Following the death of Yassir Arafat, Cafferty said in his November 12, 2004 on-air editorial: “Plans call currently for Yasser Arafat to be buried in his compound in Ramallah, which will eventually be turned into some kind of shrine. Maybe they'll put a sign out front for the Palestinian people, that read "here lies the body of the thief who robbed you blind,” [end; comma as written]
This wasn't germane to any criticism of Cafferty for potentially racist remarks, or really to much of anything. All it shows is that he didn't think well of Arafat, a common enough position among U.S. editorialists. And nothing was expressed racially here. So I removed it from the main article and left it here. Samaritan 05:14, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a comment absolutely belongs in the criticism section. It is not the "Racism" section, but rather a section of absurd and extremely offensive quotes. This is one quote that is extremely offensive to a great number of people. It should be restored. --24.200.35.253 00:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cafferty and Arafat

message: The bio talks about a "short-lived" military career, but provides no detail.  Did he wash out of basic training?  What?  What is his education beyond high school?  For a guy who makes his living sounding authoritative on TV, these are very relevant questions.  
He once mentioned in one of his Situation Room segments that he was a "college dropout."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.84.207.205 (talk) 01:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What is Cafferty's Education, if Any, and Military Experience, if Any?

message: please find an up-to-date photo of Cafferty. the old photo can remain, but it should be placed deeper in the article. Kingturtle 02:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  photo 

message: This ought to be mentioned.  He has laid into the Bush administration for many reasons.  Does this make him leftist, probably not, but he has definitely veered from the right.  I made some changes, introducing his shift.  But not to the left or from the left.  His shift is evident enough, please don't edit it.
:By "veer to the left", do you mean he's gone from conservative to centrist, or that he's become a liberal? Because wouldn't a "veer to the left" in the latter sense be signaled by an embrace of Democrats and their ideals? He has been vocally critical of them as well. The only difference is that the Republicans have been in power so it's only natural for Cafferty to criticize them since they're the ones in positions to do damage. Now that the Democrats have control of the House and the Senate, Cafferty will most likely be just as vocal in his disapproval of their actions as well. The notion that somehow criticizing the Bush administration makes you a liberal has become quite a tired notion. Tom Tancredo, Chuck Hagel, Pat Buchanan, Joe Scarborough and Lou Dobbs, all conservatives, have voiced their displeasure with the Bush admininstration on certain policies, but that doesn't make them liberals. Ericster08 04:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The hell? He's always been this way. I'm sure you CNN-hating libtards would like to think Jack's recent outspokenness is some sort of departure for the network, but the truth is, CNN's never been as uncritically fawning of this administration as you find so convenient to believe. 72.225.243.93 03:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know for a fact that you can bash the Bush administration and move farther Right!  Bashing Bush is not a Left-wing only pastime, there are plenty of right-wingers that feel Bush is not enough to the Right. In order to see if he stands left or right depends on the argument (ie. against the war: because it is costing too much money, maybe going right; because it is unethical, maybe going left).  As for Left-wing=Liberal=Democrat, that is also false. Where liberals usually tend toward the left-wing you can still be in the center (remember the term liberal is usually used incorrectly), but in no way does that mean you embrace the Democrats and their ideals.  In fact this is why the Democrats have a hard time getting anywhere, the Republican party represents what MOST right-wingers feel, where the Democrat party does not represent the left, it is just not the Republican party, so liberals will vote for that party's candidate as the alternative not because they agree with them.Billy Nair 15:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a Ron Paul supporter, I affirm what the above poster says. I came to this article because some of the things Cafferty says resounds with me as a conservative republican and I've come to appreciate what the man has to say.--Jeff 05:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cafferty's recent turn to the left 

message: This article is almost entirely made up of discussion regarding controversial statements. The discussion page seems to reflect this focus. Please give this article a neutral point of view. --Fearfulsymmetry 18:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, a number of the "controversial remarks" only cite CNN transcripts, and don't actually point to any criticism of what he's said.  I'm going to remove the ones that only link to CNN.com.  --Son 14:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: This article states that Cafferty began his career in 1960.  I've known of some radio/television people getting an early start on their careers, but at 17? Doubtful! - Rock15 talk/sign 21:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1st job 

message: This guy works for CNN. The references in this article shouldn't use CNN sources. It's self referencing. -munford (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: references

message: I significantly trimmed the China quote to a sentence. It's simply unnecessary to include a paragraph-long quote here. While highly relevant to the backlash, providing a link to the full comment seems sufficient. Thompsontough (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My apology, that was entirely my fault. I didn't check carefully before I made my changes before. I've tweaked it accordingly now. Thompsontough (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I think I see where the tag came from, actually. Thompsontough (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  China comments 

message: I placed  on this article due to its undue weight placed on "Controversial remarks" (in fact, this is nearly the entire article, including most of the lead) and complete lack of information about the man himself or his career as a semi-public figure. Wikipedia articles, especially Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons are not tabloids to document drama and controversies, and therefore the content of this article is unacceptable. ⟳ausa کui × 04:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the article could be improved (and apparently it has been, since the lead has been pared down to a simple identification) but I don't see significant neutrality or undue weight issues. The focus of the article is on his stated opinions on controversial matters because his notability is almost entirely based on his involvement with, and remarks on, politics and public policy issues as a political commentator. So long as they are balanced and well sourced, I don't see a problem here. Additional biographical details (family, education, etc.) are certainly welcome, if reliably sourced, but the article is not unacceptable due to the lack of them. The only questionable inclusion, I think, might be inclusion of the relatively minor criminal conviction, unrelated to his public career, but it does not seem to warrant removal. --MCB (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When I originally placed this notice, there was no biographical information: the article was literally nothing but controversies about his one-line sound bytes. Since I put up the template, an anon user came by and noticed that someone had removed all the biographical stuff, and put it back. I still think that large chunks of the article read mostly like a tabloid, but the situation is much improved. ⟳ausa کui × 18:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense. Thanks, Ryan. --MCB (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Removed a couple of the more flippant one line responses from inconsequential sources. ie, Harvey Kushner and "A Fox spokesperson". Furrybarry --Furrybarry  —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Jack Cafferty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110719031213/http://www.mitbbs.com/article/Georgia/31165510_3.html to http://www.mitbbs.com/article/Georgia/31165510_3.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified