Talk:Neil Cavuto

message: Hey, I just came across the page with "Fox news is owned by a Democrat and donates to the party" pasted at the top of the article. To me it seems like obvious vandalism, so I undid the edit from 10 November 2020. I only really fix small mistakes when I come across them randomly, so I don't have any idea what to do in such a case; should I report it to a moderator, and if yes then how?--TheHiggsField (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: What to do about vandalism

message: Your quote for 'controversy' is not in the news, there are no sources where this controversy spawned from his comments on the bailouts. I have seen time and time again editors on wikipedia pages who choose not to add recent quotes or comments because it is not covered sufficiently to be put on the page. Take for instance Michael Reagan's radio show where he said some 911 truther nutjob should be killed, all these truthers went after wikipedia's article on him because it wasn't inclouded but the moderators maintained because there was no coverage of it in MSM it was not justifiable to be added. Anyway, Cavuto's minorities quote is taken out of context he's referencing the Community Reinvestment Act requiring banks to make loans to previously underserved segments of their communities, thus forcing banks to lend to people who normally would be rejected as bad credit risks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.105.163 (talk • contribs) 
:Agreed.  Media Matters potshots don't constitute a controversy.  Some reference by nonpartisan media outlets would convince me.  Until then I've taken out that stuff yet again. — Hiddekel (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: The quotes given in the article are wildly out of context. For example, it is simply not true that Neil Cavuto ever said that "all antiwar protestors" "made him sick". What is being done is to take a few words from one place (without context) and then take a few words from another place in the show (again without context) and then pretend that one set of words relate to the other set of words. This is a classic smear tactic.
Paul Marks.
It's a gray area, but the article overdoes the term 'controversial'. I personally am a moderate Liberal but I still think this article is a bit biased against Cavuto. Cavuto is a conservative and not unique in his concerns that Democratic criticism of the war effort may be encouraging the insurgency in Iraq. Ditto for the war on terror. Liberals or Democrats might not like to hear such comments but are they really unusually controversial? Millions of conservatives feel the same way Cavuto does (certainly not a majority of the country at this point-- but 38 percent of the country still support the war effort, which is an awful lot of people). 
Wikipedia quotation rules or not, Cavutos ideas are less 'controversial' than just traditionally conservative. Some people may not like them, or agree with them, but the standard of controversy shouldn't fall to just being on one of two opposing sides in a divided country,  (America), on the issues of Iraq and the war on terror. Sure a majority don't see things the way Cavuto does, but a very large minority of Americans do see things exactly the way he sees them. I would say he is an outspoken conservative, but not really controversial.   
Phil
Sean7phil 01:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The threshhold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. If you can cite reputable and reliable sources (see WP:V and WP:RS) that indicate what Mr. Cavuto really believes, you can add the information to the article. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 10:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Quoting a question that a person asks is not a fair way of presenting their opinions and beliefs.  Also, taking one sentence out of an entire speech and presenting it out of context is not a fair way to depict a person's belief.--Cjackson27 18:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: the style of quoting these kind of word in his show itself is a fact, and need to be addressed, nobody says he hold these view, we just pose the fact that he kept quoting these word in his program which misleads reasonable people to make wrong conclusions.--129.119.223.165 19:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Making a statement and adding a question mark doesn't make it into an innocent question either. Example (honestly not aimed at anyone): You are a douchebag?
Actually, Cavuto stated what he believed quite frankly and that's why he was quoted for it.  Those quotes are not taken out of context.  The man did call every single person in the United States and abroad "sickening" after they opposed the invasion.
I watch his show when I can, and he says those kind of questions right before a break between segments to keep viewers watching. It's only to keep people tuned to FNC, not a political bias against Democrats. (Dace48 00:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes Highly Biased 

message: The "Crazy Like a Fox" quote was just anonymously edited. Thinking it was vandalism, I tried to find the article, but it doesn't seem to exist. Not even the Extra page for the May/June 2003 issue shows that article. I'm thinking it should probably be removed entirely, unless someone can show that it was actually in that issue. Wyatt Riot 01:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Crazy Like a Fox" quote 

message: Someone either needs to say or suggest or do something regarding it, so I don't just go ahead and remove it momentarily. I'll leave this for a couple of days to invite discussion. russ. 03:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, March 12th, it appears fairly npov, so I removed the tag. --Ali'i 14:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: disputed neutrality tag

message: WebMD has a recent article, "Neil Cavuto Deals With MS", with some interesting info. Just one example: he "memorizes scripts for [his program] in case he can't read the teleprompter during taping."
You folks who edit here might want to use some of this in the article, or add the WebMD article as an external link. Cheers, CWC 09:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WebMD article 

message: First time editor here.  This article recently read that Cavuto authored the book "Your Money Or Your Life".   I just read this book, and Mr. Cavuto is mentioned nowhere, not as an author, co author, or contributor.  I also looked on the book's official site, and he is not listed there.  I don't think the authors of this book would like their work being attributed to someone unfairly, and have removed this for now. Here's the book's site: http://yourmoneyoryourlife.info/about/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.33.93 (talk) 03:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: a proponent of supply-side economics and
Almost certainly true, but definitely not the first thing to say about him. If there was a section on his economic outlook/political views this would be worth including but it doesn't fit into the page as it is now. --21st Century Fox (talk) 14:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Thank you. I was getting ready to do the same. I think it could be added somewhere else, but not as the first point in the lede. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed this info for now 

message: With other news commentators, Cavuto has abandoned politeness and courtesy and is now perfecting the art of the interrupt. This art was developed by Chris Matthews and is now common throughout the media. It is now so common, thanks to Matthews' efforts, that three and sometimes four people will talk at one time, resulting in unintelligible noise. In addition, due to the influence of television, conversational interruption is now considered to be normal in society and, like teenage, unmarried pregnancy, is today a badge of pride and distinction.Lestrade (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Influences

message: I do not know very much about Mr Cavuto but it is written here that his mother was italian-american and his father irish-american, it "sounds" much the opposite: "Cavuto" seems an italian surname  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.145.139.13 (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Family

message: if so, consider the matter closed, if not, i will make the change in one week.  Darkstar1st (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  any one object to me collapsing the isbn# but leaving the link intact? 

message: Does anybody think that maybe with the Trump investigation going on that the gatekeeper at the archives might be checking everyone who had classified documents out is where this came up? 2603:800C:25F0:1B0:A17A:3F76:1839:3CC6 (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biden Classified docs