Talk:Neil Cavuto

What to do about vandalism

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)

Misc. disc.

What's so controversial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.234.2.142 (talk) 04:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Why does the article on Neil Cavuto say "former Mary Fulling" ? Is his wife dead ?

Perhaps "former" refers to the fact that she may have changed her name when marrying Cavuto Jizz 16:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

--

How does he lean politically - Democratic or Republican ? I know he appears on Fox, but I am still curious.

-He is fairly conservative, at least on economic issues.

Cavuto, despite being a fiscal conservative, is still very anti-big business and he roots for the little guy. Zookman12 07:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Cavuto is a joke, pure and simple. He is openly conservative, but to a point that would make other conservatives be afraid of him for being a lunatic. Occasionally he does seem to stand up for the little guy, but...he's standing up for entertainment.J. M. 19:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

He's bizarre. But you can't say that on Wikipedia. You're not supposed to assess the truth here - you're supposed to always take the cowardly cautious uncontroversial stance. Which is why Wiki has turned into a yawn for so many and a forbidden website for school systems. It's not that NJ don't trust Wiki for accuracy - it's that they don't trust them for having organised opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.5.5.74 (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what "neo capitalist" is supposed to mean when it is used below (but this is not the place to debate the meaning of such words). As for President Lincoln, Neil Cavotu's support for free trade and (in general) opposition for subsidies for big business would seem to put him outside the camp of President Lincoln (although the writer may simply mean a shared opposition to slavery and support for national unity). Surely a more recent President had generally pro free enterprise views, but also supported a strong military - Ronald Reagan.

To say that Mr Cavotu gives the impression of having similar opinions to Ronald Reagan would be fair. And (of course) it would not imply that these opinions were right or wrong.

Paul Marks.

Just to clear things up, the "Party of Lincoln" reference was a nod to the politics of the Republican party when it began as a third-party alternative. This section of the GOP wikipedia article enumerates better than I can the issues I referenced below, as I attributed them to Cavuto. That dimension of my analysis intended to draw a comparison between Cavuto and the Republicans of Lincoln's day--not specifically to Lincoln himself. amAB^(Talk) 18:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Cavuto in his commentaries is anti-entitlement, but not uncomfortable with "big government" as long as oversight does not infringe on the freedom of the market. This may be evidenced by his support of governmental drug-enforcement, immigration, and military programs contrasted with his defense of oil companies and stated opinions on CEO salaries. Therefore, while his foreign policy affections are by definition strictly neo-conservative, his opinions on domestic affairs surprisingly have equal shares of liberal, conservative, libertarian, and socialistic characteristics. This odd combination of values could explain his courting obsession with a third-party political revolution, as seen in many of the questions he poses and guests he books on shows. Many of his leanings harken back to the first Republican era of the mid-1850s and including the early Civil War era (e.g. "party of Lincoln" and the neo-capitalist Union culture during the war). While he may not be aware of the historicity of his own virtues, many of his "common sense" commentaries are overwhelmingly sentimental and reflective upon "simpler times." As he often expresses distaste for the complexity of opinions and social gesturing he observes in others and himself, this could indicate he prefers a self-governing society that acts according to enlightened functionality rather than categorical opinion. amAB^(Talk) 22:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The recently added portion about Cavuto sparking controversy by referring to illegal immigrants as "terrorists" is also very biased. First of all, just because Media Matters posts about it on their blog, doesn't make it a controversy. Secondly, he doesn't directly refer to them as "terrorists," but instead asks the question "So is it freedom of expression, or economic terrorism?" --Cjackson27 18:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is, are you going to sit here and tell me that if a major politician or media figure posed the question, "Are Jewish people causing all of the world's problems?" or "Are black people born savage criminals?" that that wouldn't be considered a controversy?

If I may interject before the next commentary that agrees with me also: This isn't a fair comparison - he is speaking merely about the ACTIONS of walking out as a group to protest in an attempt to hurt the economy - terrorism is an ACTION - not a a race. People were interviewed the day of the walkout rejoicing that they were causing the stock market to crash. The statement wasn't about hispanics at all - only about illegal workers walking out in an attempt to harm the American economy in order to secure their position and show their value and show they have power. One might add, terrorists do the same by blowing themselves up in a market square and kill innocents - to incite fear of taking action against them. It's not a RACIST comment as the previous writer attempts to alledge - and in any issue in the world today - race is always present. Commenting on the issue or the actions does not make one racist or bigoted.

That's not a fair comparison. The quote comes from a lead-in to his next guest, who happened to disagree with the idea of illegal immigrants attempting to show their importance by showing us what it would be like without them. It can also be noted that the guest was Ed Hoch, who is a Democrat. Again, it's not necessarily Cavuto's opinion. I'm sure if you looked hard enough, you could find quotes that would make Cavuto sound like a hardcore lefty, but that wouldn't support your cause.--Cjackson27 08:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

you are welcome to find those evidence and post it, as long as you have reliable sources. --129.119.223.165 19:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with CJackson27 in regards to that quote not being publicly controversial just because it was posted on Media Matters. More importantly the entire "Controversy" section is sourced from Media Matters and other left leaning sources. Although I am new to the way editing works and how the Neutral Point of View is presented I think most people would feel that liberals or Democrats having a disagreement with a well known conservative is hardly controversial. If someone in the public eye did say something like "Are black people born savage criminals?" that would cause more controversy and probably warrant coverage in a more neutral or mainstream news publication, which you could then source without issue. The sourcing used in the "Controversy" section is merely political rhetoric and in my opinion does not constitute a legitimate media source. However I do support the "Controversy" section remaining intact if more neutral or mainstream sources can be found. Otherwise I would suggest that if you wish to keep the quotes from the "Controversy" section on the page that you merge them into the "Quotes" section.

Ed Koch is not a Democrat, neither is Alan Colmes or Zell Miller, and you know it. Cavuto only brings conservative Democrats onto his cable program. The only exceptions I've seen are Barney Franks and Kucinich. Other than that, it's pure anti-liberal Democrats: Zell Miller, Ed Koch, Joseph Liberman, Harold Ford Jr., Dick Morris, Susan Estrich, Bernard Goldberg, etc..

Those people are Democrats. There are 'D's next to their names. They just aren't the fringe, far-left Dems. (Dace48 20:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC))

yes, god forbid the fringe far-left radical who'd prefer our country not be run by neo-nazi war criminals 71.255.64.233 15:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

People, please quit adding "conservative" to the opening line without a verifiable citation, because I'm going to keep removing it otherwise. Accusing a living journalist of bias, be it "liberal" or "conservative" without either consensus here or a reliable source is a violation of Biographies of Living Persons policy. Thanks. --Hiddekel 16:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

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)

Quotes Highly Biased

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)

The quotes used on this page are incredibly biased and in no way represent what Cavuto thinks or believes. Many of the questions that he asks are what he thinks is a common belief of his viewers or is simply him playing devil's advocate. I think better quotes would be from the "Common Sense" section of his broadcast.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjackson27 (talk • contribs) --Cjackson27 08:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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))

"Crazy Like a Fox" quote

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)

disputed neutrality tag

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)

I don't think there's much of a dispute, except for the tone of some of the quotes. But he did say those things, they are sourced, I don't see much of a dispute here. --Valwen 18:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I figured; it seems there are a lot of articles regarding folks in the polarized public eye that have these disputed tags, and sometimes [in flagrant violation of AGF], I wonder if those labels aren't just spitefully motivated, seeing as discussion or actual change regarding the disputed section [if someone bothers to mention whatever rankles on the talk page] rarely follow. --r. 18:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I dispute the neutrality based on the sourcing of the "Controversy" section. For a bit more info read my comment above.-- KSchmitt 23:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Now, March 12th, it appears fairly npov, so I removed the tag. --Ali'i 14:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

WebMD article

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)

Removed this info for now

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)

Someone recently changed the first sentence to include this even before mentioning his role at Fox News:

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)

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)

Influences

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)Lestrade

Family

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)

any one object to me collapsing the isbn# but leaving the link intact?

if so, consider the matter closed, if not, i will make the change in one week. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Biden Classified docs

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)