Talk:Jack Cashill

Ayers wrote 'Dreams' Fringe theory

Has Cashill's analysis of the similarities between Ayers' works and Obama's Dreams from my Father been picked up by any reliable mainstream sources? I'm getting the idea that most publications won't touch this -- sounds about on par with the Bristol-Palin-is-really-Trig's-mother smear rumor. Cashill isn't a literary scholar, so what makes that particular column notable? Switzpaw (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

He has written about 10 articles on the subject. Some have appeared in places like WorldNetDaily.com and AmericanThinker.com. I don't see that it matters that the mainstream press considers it too speculative, if indeed that is correct. It has his analysis and opinion. If he wrote 10 articles on the moon being made of green cheese, then that would be worth mentioning in the Jack Cashill article (altho not the in the moon or cheese articles). Roger (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The theory is obviously retarded (sorry to be a bit pov-ish, but it is) and hence I wouldn't even dream of adding it to the Dreams from My Father page or to Barack Obama. However, it seems to have brought Cashill somewhat more into the public consciousness, because of the sheer audacity of presenting such a tinfoil-hat theory, so I think it's worth mention here.

However, I think it ought to be closer to the original form when I added it, making it clear that even staunch conservatives think the idea is "nutter". Wikipedia is WP:NPOV, but sometimes to truly be neutral, it is necessary to mention that everyone who is not crazy thinks that one side is wrong (Wikipedia doesn't have to say the theory is "nutter", but the article should make clear that everybody who had a functioning brain cell thinks it is). --Jaysweet (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Make sure you have reliable sources. At the very least, you should have someone who has actually read Cashill's articles and can explain why he thinks that they are nutty or whatever. Roger (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Would Bill Ayers be considered a "reliable source"? Because here he is on video claiming to have written "Dreams": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfIZDYm0a54 --Insley (talk) 02:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

If Cashill's piece was notable, then I don't think it matters if Adler read the articles or not. Adler's comment in the NRO was a significant criticism, by virtue of his reputation. That being said, I have rewritten the passage to reflect a neutral point of view. Switzpaw (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to track down the claim that Cashills' "The Royal Years" won a regional Emmy. The reference listed in the article clearly says that the program in question was nominated for a regional Emmy, not that it won. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.105.192 (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I read the article linked, it definitely does not state it won an emmy I removed it.

General Notability of Jack Cashill

I posit that Cashill should be regarded as notable at least among contemporary American writers. Furthermore, his works as a writer have been the subject of critical review by esteemed publications: The Los Angeles Daily News, San Francisco Chronicle, and National Review.

(sources: http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-California-Cultural-Rumbles/dp/1416531033/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234034404&sr=8-1, http://www.cashill.com/hoodwinked.htm and http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Forceful+frauds.-a0136648557, http://www.cashill.com/hoodwinked.htm)

If we are to take Wikipedia's dedication to unbiased objectivity seriously there should be no question as to Jack Cashill's "general notability" as an American writer.

Smblackwell82 (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe notable, not an emmy winner though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.6.20 (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

In the self-description on his website, he talks of teaching at three Kansas City institutions. None of their websites confirm this.

~~ David Harley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.14.152 (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I have serious doubts about his notability. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Smblackwell82. There's really no question about his notability. Cashill is pushing a theory that's wrong, he's rightwing, and he's a creationist - but this is essentially a test case for commitment to principle in building Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.185.198 (talk) 08:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Connecting Cashill with the murder of Dr. George Tiller?

Without something like evidence that accused murderer Scott Roeder was influenced by Cashill's article on Tiller's trial, the sentence I just deleted is pure innuendo and a violation of WP policy on biographies of living persons, as well as violating the WP ban on original research in any case. You would need to find a reliable source that specifically connects Cashill's statements to the murder of Dr. Tiller.

Incidentally, I support the legitimacy of late term abortions given compelling justifications.—Blanchette (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Is a book chapter and a biblography chapter both necessary

The book chapter just lists the books back to back the bilography lists the book with isbn number and publication year this looks must nicer. I would like to remove the book chapter as well as its context. but do i need permission from moderator to delete anothers work

Nerdypunkkid (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Lede descriptor

@Weazie We are given three sources for the current lede descriptor: a Daily Beast article , an article by The Washington Post , and an article by The Pitch . Of these, The Washington Post is clearly the most reliable. We don't consider the Daily Beast to be a reliable source per WP:RSP, and The Pitch is an alternative newspaper which may fall under WP:TABLOID for its sensationalized reporting style.

Neither The Washington Post nor the Daily Beast articles support the "conspiracy theorist" descriptor, which is only supported by the alt-news Pitch. WaPo describes JC thus:

Cashill, an author and blogger who has a doctorate in American Studies...

The Daily Beast describes JC thus:

Cashill, a Kansas City-based independent journalist...

"Conspiracy theorist" is certainly a contentious label that supposes the subject's occupation is just that. But only an alt-news uses that descriptor (the DB article addresses the claims separately further down and includes a quote by JC in which he rejects the conspiracy label), which certainly isn't enough to justify the descriptor. Our policy on the biographies of living persons requires the immediate removal without discussion of all contentious material about a living person that is (in this case) poorly sourced. So the descriptor by The Washington Post is the most accurate right now. Jay-GH 22:44, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

It turns out Mr. Cashill offered his own commentary in February on this question:

Weird thing just happened. I turned to my Wikipedia page to confirm my status as a certified conspiracy theorist. But instead of the decades-old "Jack Cashill is an American author, blogger and conspiracy theorist," I found, "John Rogers Cashill is an American author and blogger."

...and (would "ironically" be a contentious label here?) he offers his theories as to why:

One is that Grokipedia has pressured Wikipedia into tamping down its obvious left wing bias. The other is that [because Candace Owens exists] Wikipedia editors have come to see people like me as poseurs.

The main point of his post is to dunk on Owens, but still, his attitude towards the label seems to be less than outraged.

In any event, I still say that someone who has made a living publishing multiple works describing his theories of conspiracy can be legitimately described as a "conspiracy theorist". NapoliRoma (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Agreed: "Conspiracy" is literally in the title of his book about TWA Flight 800. (And Grokipedia has page titled "TWA Flight 800 conspiracy theories" that repeatedly refers to Cashill.

Weazie (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Also: Mother Jones, which I believe is a reliable source, published this listicle, Almost Every Obama Conspiracy Theory Ever, and Cashill is specifically listed. Weazie (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

NapoliRoma Using Jack Cashill as an authority on Jack Cashill is faulty reasoning — what JC says about his Wikipedia page is entirely irrelevant to us, per WP:OWN. What we are concerned here is what reliable sources say and to be wary of using contentious labels (MOS:LABEL), especially in light of our policy on biographies of living persons (WP:BLP), that are not explicitly supported by RS, as required by WP:NOR. Perhaps unfortunately, that means looking at what reputable publications describe JC as; and, thus far, the best descriptor that we have is the Washington Post source, which does not use the "conspiracy theorist" descriptor. And neither does the Mother Jones source (the proper link is , actually) use the descriptor either: it just says that JC has "a hot scoop on how Obama’s love letters to his college girlfriend were ghostwritten." It doesn't actually use the "conspiracy theorist" descriptor at all.

And Weazie, why are you using Grokipedia, which is literally a repository of conspiracy theories itself, as an authoritative source here? Jay-Wiki (talk) 04:36, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

The Mother Jones source ("Almost Every Obama Conspiracy Theory Ever") notes "a cottage industry of conservative conspiracy theorists," and specifically refers to Cashill. Meaning Cashill was part of that cottage industry of conspiracy theorists because he is one. And I wasn't using Grokipedia for anything, other than to note Cashill was wrong about it (while he incorrectly but ironically theorized about a conspiracy concerning edits here). Weazie (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Only that the Mother Jones article doesn't actually use the term to "specifically refer to Cashill." All it says is that he vaguely has a "hot scoop on Obama's love letters." Using the "cottage industry of conservative conspiracy theorists" quote to then extend the descriptor to all those listed is clearly a stretch. The article itself is a humor piece satirizing mainstream conservatives like Franklin Graham to verifiable nuts like James David Manning — using this satire piece alone is exceptionally weak. And the article does actually use the descriptor explicitly for others. For example: leading Obama conspiracy theorist Andy Martin.... For some reason, the authors strangely don't use that descriptor when talking about Cashill.

And the source shouldn't be in wikivoice anyways. We have a standing consensus on WP:RSP that Mother Jones is a biased source, so its statements (particularly on political topics) may need to be attributed. Jay-Wiki (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2026 (UTC)