Talk:Jack Cafferty

Cafferty and Arafat

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)

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)

Ah, I'm still not convinced the statement that Arafat was a thief is anything exceptional from a American commentator. (I'm not saying he was a thief. I'm saying so many American commentators would say he is that that isn't remotely exceptional on its own.) And including it might tend to dull the apparent offensiveness of the 2004 remarks about "those countries" and "the Arab world..." Samaritan 11:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

EXCUSE THE EFF OUTTA ME, but "(...) which will be eventually 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.'" How does that NOT denote offensive and extreme comments?! Whether I support Palestine or Israel isn't to the point, but this quote is! If you won't mention it, then I will! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.152.2.107 (talk) 04:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

What is Cafferty's Education, if Any, and Military Experience, if Any?

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)

His book "It's Getting Ugly Out There: The Frauds, Bunglers, Liars, and Losers Who Are Hurting America" is on Google Books, and in it, he states that he joined the Air National Guard in 1963 in order to avoid the draft, and refers to himself as a "draft dodger". Just as he starts to describe how he "told off" a drill sergeant during basic training, the book's preview ended. Don't know if he was kicked out, or what... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.227.147 (talk) 08:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

photo

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)

General NPOV Violations

Insufficient Citations His comments on Arabs and Muslims have since become the main focus of criticism. On September 23, 2004, while discussing terrorist demands to release two female scientists from Iraqi prison, Cafferty emphatically stated “Given the way these mutants treat women in their societies, the women are probably better off in U.S. custody.” He later added, “They treat women like furniture in those countries. If I was a woman, I think I’d rather be in an American jail cell than I would be living with one of those-whatever they are over there.”

From what transcripts?

Cafferty's recent turn to the left

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)

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)

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)

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)

Neutrality

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)

Yes, it does seem quite silly that more then half the page is dedicated to "controversial statements", this page defiantly needs a good rewrite. Jacknife737 07:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

1st job

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)

Sometime in the 60s he work in a Kansas City station. He even mentioned it on CNN when reading a email from Kansas City, Kansas. Said he lived in the suburb of Overland Park, Kansas. -Alan

references

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)

China comments

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)

Please help to correct the following statement (in the main article)if you're "established registered users". Thanks in advance!

 The suit was concurrently filed by the PRC's Foreign Ministry in Beijing.[17][18]

The previous version is more correct ( 05:28, 25 April 2008 Mr.Z-man )

 Further, amid China's Foreign Ministry demand for an apology, 14 lawyers filed A similar suit in Beijing

The suit filed in Beijing asked for RMB$100 (US$14) for damage. Xyz71 (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

Also, does the current POV tag relate to this section or is it a vestige of the above sections? Thompsontough (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

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

University Educated

• Does anyone know if Jack even holds a University degree? If so, from which University and when did he graduate?

Neutrality

I placed {{Neutrality}} 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)

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)

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)

That makes sense. Thanks, Ryan. --MCB (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

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).

"Bought the whole song and dance about WMD's" needs to be rewritten. Kind of like weasel words. I'm not saying it is wrong or right. It can be written better though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.86 (talk) 18:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jack Cafferty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)