Talk:Sean Hannity/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Purging

I say we will just purge the whole article of all criticisms if there is any left. (Isnt he one of the least controversial, lesser so than Campbell Brown?) Docku:“what up?” 02:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Silly rabbit's points, I think the Hannity article needs a couple of things: A section that summarizes Hannity's basic political positions, as well as a section, per Silly rabbit's suggestion, that presents criticisms of his ideas and/or of the way he conducts his various programs. The problem with the Obama & Friends -- Andy Martin section was that it abruptly popped up in the article as if it were a singularly significant occasion in his career. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Sillyrabbit has somewhat of a point, but the wholesale removal of the section after a lengthy debate to get the section in place was wrong. Asher196 (talk) 03:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Badmintonhist makes a good observation about my reaction to this section. How about we move this section to a later section? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I see this has already been done. Nice work. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been saying Hannity needs his own criticism section for some time. Someone must have been working diligently to keep it criticism free until now. Docku, you made an excellent point vis a vis Campbell Brown, assuming I correctly perceived sarcasm.FuriousJorge (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You got it right. There has been persistent effort to purge the article of any criticism of Hannity including Hal Turner controversy, while the information is is still sitting in another page in wikipedia. Having said that, I will not be surprised if there will be a crusade to remove that information from that article. WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG are the weapons used by the purgers. Wise arguments by a gang of people using those two nuances of wikipedia policies can keep pretty much keep any criticism out. Docku:“what up?” 20:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• I find it odd that you call wp:undue and wp:redflag "weapons". I thought they were supposed to be policy. You forgot to mention wp:recentism too. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

We all are smart people and we all know policies can be misunderstood and misinterpreted inadvertently and sometimes purposely. Isnt that why they removed DO NO HARM caluse from WP:BLP. Docku:“what up?” 21:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Sure they can be interpreted differently. The problem is, some aren't even being addressed. At least 2 of us have brought up wp:recentism and I don't recall anyone even attempting to dispute that. Again, the man has won numeerous awards that are being ignored but we want paragraphs on the showing of a documentary he didn't have any hand in producing. That smells like wp:undue to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to criticism, but I do rather object to having a huge swatch of criticism dumped into the middle of the professional bio. Maybe I'm the only one who actually bothered to read the article when there was this giant screed on the Andrew Martin controversy right between "Television" and "Radio". It obviously didn't belong there, and having a lengthy criticism in the midst of a discussion of the banal details of his professional career is a clear violation of WP:WEIGHT, regardless of whatever paranoid fantasies you have about "gangs of people" attempting to censor articles by wielding two Wikipedia policies. (I think you left out WP:BLP as well.) siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree that it does not to be dumped in the middle of the section, as you put it, and I don't think it was any of the people currently having this discussion that put it there. I don't think anyone objects to the move, either. I'm a little confused about who said there were 'gangs of people' attempting to censor.FuriousJorge (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Docku said "Wise arguments by a gang of people using those two nuances of wikipedia policies can keep pretty much keep any criticism out." Niteshift36 (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Nobody has opposed criticism. What has been opposed is making a huge deal over minor things. I had no issue with the inclusion of the consensus version about the Martin piece. It was well-written and neutral. It managed to stay up there a while until some editors decided they wanted to make is less balanced. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• • I continue to take issue with you saying this was a 'minor thing'. As I've already said: When two of the most circulated newspapers write stories about your program, using terms like 'new low', 'plumbing the depths', 'next step in the evolution of cable news', and, of course, 'was notable'; if that does not merit a mention in a criticism section in Wikipedia, ```then I would like to know what does.```FuriousJorge (talk) 21:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• However, when I look at Google, the LAT and NYT were really the only ones that made an issue of it. 2 papers that have endorsed the subject of the documentary come out against it and most of the rest of the media is mute. Why didn't other large papers like the Wall Street Journal or USA today (both of whom have larger circulations) make it an issue? NY Daily News? Chicago Tribune? Washington Post? Boston Globe? Why aren't we seeing it from them? If we heard those same arguements, it might carry a lot more weight. But this is really limited to the opinions of 2 individuals, both of which work for papers with a documented history of bias. If this were truly an issue with as much weight as you are claiming it should have, there should be a number of people claiming it. After all, you said it's groundbreaking. Did they all just miss it? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Since you brought it up, Hannity's use of Martin is also criticized in the CBC . In a story called "Obama 'Muslim' rumour: Ugly, false and out in the open". And here it is again referenced by a Canadian group called 'Media With Conscience'. And in the Miami Herald it says: "He provided the gravitas for Sean Hannity's hour-long substance-free pseudo-documentary exposing how Obama has long been bent on the 'radical overthrow of the government.'" in an article entitled 'For Fox News, local nut case a good source'. Finally, we have Divbision Street, which is NBC's chicago weblog outlet. The author says that upon finding out who Martin was 'you’re reaction cannot be anything other than, What?!' Mind you, there are many other sources which I would not consider impartial that also 'made an issue of it', and for all you know there are a dozen others like these that you weren't able to find in Google. So now we have a total of 7 sources criticizing Hannity and Fox, three of which called it precedent setting. Respectfully, ou seem to be helping my case more than your own. As such I know contend the change should be made as follows:

• Currently reads: "The broadcast was criticized for presenting a one-sided and partisan perspective in documentary format."

• Should read: "Fox News and the show drew criticism from multiple media outlets. The [New York Times] described the it as 'the latest step in the evolution of opinion journalism on cable news', and it went on to say the broadcast was 'notable in presenting partisan accusations against Mr. Obama in a journalistic, documentary format in prime time [31][32].' The Miami Herald wrote an article entitled For Fox News, local nut case a good source'[33]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.209.140 (talk) 23:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• • • Apparently you missed what I said. I never said nobody else criticized it. Nobody else made this claim that is was "a first" or "the next step" or anything so dramatic. They simply reported on it and criticised it. None of those sources made it some industry altering step of unusual note. And that is the point. Of the thousands of newspapers in the US, it seems only 2 found it to be such an earth shattering event. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oh I see. We may have 8 sources now, but since only three describe it as a 'first' of some type, it cannot be considered a first, and therefore should not be included at all (not that you will provide a counterexample). Well, I answered your questions, so would you please address mine: If this doesn't constitute noteable criticism, and shouldn't make it into wikipedia, then what does? Your assertion is that the NYT and LAT are biassed, and as such shouldn't be referenced. Can you prvide just one example of the New York Times being rejected as a Wikipedia source? Of course not. This is now bordering on the absurd. The Huffington Post is cited in Wikipedia, and I haven't even tried to go there. What's wrong with citing the information and let the people judge the source for themselvs. Unlike Mr. Hannity, I don't try to hide my sources.FuriousJorge (talk) 00:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Also, its just false that no other outlet called it a first, since scores of them cited the New York Times and LAT articles, specifically the parts about 'new low' and 'next step'.FuriousJorge (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Will you be realisitic. Quoting or citing those 2 articles is not calling it "new low" or "next step" themselves. If they wanted to call it that, they could have said so instead of citing other people. It still comes back to two writers giving an opinion. So it's not "false" as you accuse, it's common sense. There is a huge difference in saying it and reporting that someone else said it. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm the one being unrealistic? I'm not the one contending criticism from the LAT and NYT should not be included in the man's criticism section. Much to your chagrin, there is now a section about criticism in this article. Two major media outlets, which are ALWAYS considered reliable sources for wikipedia called it a 'new low' and the 'next step' etc. That is a criticism, and as such it bears mentioning. Sorry to disappoint you. You, apparently, want to set your own precedent by only including the NYT and LAT in the category of 'reliable sources' when they say something you like. Your position is clear. Let's see if anyone agrees. Until then, I say we stick with the existing precedent, which invloves noting criticisms in the Criticism Section, and citing our source. Let's let people decide for themselves if the LAT and NYT can be trusted as sources in wikipedia. I say "You don't get to decide for them." What a crazy concept.FuriousJorge (talk) 00:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Also, you complain that this is just the 'opinion' of a couiple of preople, and all the people that cited them. Since when is 99% of criticism not opinion?FuriousJorge (talk) 00:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the incident as it is may be a case of WP:Recentism. But, the precedent-setting nature of this incident is not. Docku:“what up?” 21:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Just for laughs, I found another source for criticism of the Hannity documentary. An article in Variety.com cites an a poem written by John Cleese, of Monty Python fame, inspired by the documentary: Ode to Sean Hannity: Aping urbanity / oozing with vanity / plump as a manatee / faking humanity / Journalistic calamity / intellectual inanity / Fox Noise insanity / You're a profanity, Hannity. FuriousJorge (talk) 01:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I reverted this back to a version that describes the precedent set by Hannity as per two MSM sources, otherwise it misses the point and makes it sound like Hannity merely had someone controversial on his show. The next step is someone coming along and saying it is not notable. Then this entire article will go back to having no criticism of hannity at all, like when I found it. The NYT explains the significance quite cogently by saying the show was: 'the latest step in the evolution of opinion journalism on cable news [and] was notable in presenting partisan accusations against Mr. Obama in a journalistic, documentary format in prime time.' That's the point here, and merely mentioning that Martin was on misses it. Everyone agreed to the version that went in, and it shouldn't have been whitewashed. I did leave the 'mea culpa' by the fox vp in however, since there was no defense of Hannity in the original version. FuriousJorge (talk) 09:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Honorary Titles should not be listed as "Education"

Thank you Niteshift36 for your comment regarding the honorary degree on my user page. I agree with you that an honorary title is significant and should be listed in the article. The problem is that is incorrectly listed in the "education" section. The education section allows the reader to get an idea of how much schooling a person had. An honorary doctorate degree is not "education" but is an honorary "title" (it is a custumary award for commencement speakers). For this reason, I am reverting your edit. However, Mr Hannity has won several awards over the years; perhaps you could start an new section- and include his honorary title in that section. Richprentice (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Richprentice

Hal Turner....again

Lest you think I'm a Hannity staffer, please note that I put the Andrew Martin section back in the article in a new criticism section after it was removed. The Hal Turner information has to stay out unless a new source is found. The The Nation reference discussion has been talked to death. Being a BLP, we need multiple quality reliable sources for such contentious material. If it's that hard to find a better source, then the information doesn't belong in a BLP. Asher196 (talk) 01:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I put the Hal Turner info back. Docku reminded me that I need to step back. Have fun! Asher196 (talk) 02:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't put that stuff in there. I'm waiting for some sort of conclusion on the matters above. However, I've nothing better to do, here's something from an official NewsVine contributor. http://coryperry.newsvine.com/_news/2008/03/29/1398872-hal-turner-offers-to-release-sean-hannity-tapes-for-100000 In it, the author says, "Hal Turner is a known (and self-admitted) neo-nazi racist who used to frequently call into the Sean Hannity show. Sean and Hal supposedly became pretty good friends over that period of time and spoke a lot off air, where Hal Turner says that Sean agreed with many of his same views." Also, in The Record of North Jersey, dated 02/23/2003, by staff writer Brian Kladko, in an article entitled 'A voice filled with hatred, intolerance', Turner describes the fallout with Hannity: 'Turner, however, says Limbaugh and Hannity became too timid'. Finally, we have a story about a lawsuit by Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, entitled 'Experts: McKinney libel claims face a tough road', there's a line that reads "Comments urging McKinney's lynching [were] attributed to Hal Turner, described as an associate of radio and television commentator Sean Hannity."

FuriousJorge (talk) 02:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• So a guy you think is a scumbag (Turner), makes the claim that they are friends and you want to go with it? Do I have this correct? He has offered no evidence besides his say so, right? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I had forgotten that I was threatened with blocking a few months ago by an admin if I continued this fight. I'm not stepping back because I think I'm wrong. Asher196 (talk) 03:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Niteshift36: You're right. I'm gonna go with the line from the 'The Record of North Jersey' Which criticizes Hal from North Bergen and the hosts that put him on the air. It's a non-biased source, the event is more significant now that we all agree the Andy Martin controversy is fit to print, Silly Rabbit recommended a criticism sandbox, DockU has no problem with it if it's properly cited (right, Doc?); it seems like I am the only one not involved in the previous discussion, and as such I am the one settling this matter. Personally, I don't think you should be the final word on determining what gets into the article, and what doesn't.

• You know what Jorge, you need to calm down. I actually have no objection to the way you have proposed phrasing it. I do object to your snotty attitude telling me that I think I am the final word. I think it is uncalled for and pretty presumptious of you. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Sincere apologies, if my interpretation of events offended you. It sounded to me like you were continuing to argue its general inclusion in light of the new source.No hard feelings.FuriousJorge (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• No, my opposition was based on making the source solely the word of a guy who you essentially have labelled as a kook in the first place. Did you witness the big blow-up about the John Edwards affair? An actual publication (the Enquirer) was making the claim, but was deemed unreliable, despite their claim of evidence. Admins and noticeboards were involved. The info was excluded. It turned out later to be true. But since WP:BLP holds a higher standard to contentious material, it wasn't allowed until multiple sources confirmed it. Simply going on the word of Turner that it was true probably wouldn't meet the reliability standard. See what I'm talking about? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• • As such I'm gonna put it in another criticism section as follows: "In 2003, Hannity was criticized for providing a forum on his radio program to self-described neo-nazi Hal Tuerner.

FuriousJorge (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, my contraints revolve around the Nation source. If you are going to use a different source, then I'll jump back in. What exactly is that source you are citing? Asher196 (talk) 03:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The Record of North Jersey criticized Hannity for giving Hal from North Bergen a forum. See my comment above. FuriousJorge (talk) 03:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Did The Record of North Jersey actually criticize Hannity for allowing Turner to sound-off on Hannity's program or did it merely objectively note that Hannity had let Turner use his frequency frequently? There's a difference, even if this sounds like nit-picking. If it was an actual criticism it would normally be expressed in an editorial not a news story. Assuming it was a clear cut criticism of Hannity, the source should be credited right in the text of the Wikipedia article; something like "In 2003 The Record of North Jersey castigated Hannity for providing a forum for neo-Nazi Hal Turner" (per WP:Weasel ). Also, your mention that Hannity has since repudiated Turner is sourced by what appears to me to be an opinion blog. You might need a more reliable source per WP:RS. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I need to correct myself. It was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Record_(Bergen_County). I just realized and had an editing conflict with you.FuriousJorge (talk) 05:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think we need to keep in mind that 'Hal from North Bergen' incidents took place well before Hannity was nationally syndicated, so I think we are holding it to an almost impossibly high standard (Few other papers would have been speaking to Hannity's media market at the time). That doesn't make it less controversial, however. Hannity has been confronted on the show about Turner, and renounced him. This will continue to be an issue, and people will continue to visit this page wanting to put it in. Also, I need to correct myself. Its the The Record that has the article I cited. FuriousJorge (talk) 05:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it's a little ironic that with all the the time people have spent here and on other sites documenting this, that there is a question as to whether there is a controversy. This discussion page may be the answer to that question, in and of itself.FuriousJorge (talk) 07:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Badmintonhist, while the article is a criticism of Turner and his racist views, technically it only implicitly criticizes Limbaugh and Hannity for having him on on. It's not nit-picking; you're right. As such, I'll edit the section accordingly.FuriousJorge (talk) 07:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Just as a point of clarity, I believe you are misreading the article. Turner may criticize Limbaugh but he has never been a guest on Limbaugh's show. You can count the times Limbaugh has had a guest on his show on your fingers. He doesn't do the guest thing. It is very rare and when he does, they are usually very heavy hitters, not some low end guy like Turner. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I continue to advocate that edit warriors on this *extremely* stale topic should be blocked without further warning, but I don't work on Wikipedia often enough these days that I feel I could enforce this measure equitably. I'd encourage you all to seek out other methods of dispute resolution, up to and including asking for input from other uninvolved administrators. (ESkog)^(Talk) 11:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm good with this proposed entry as Jorge wrote it. But I suspect it will end up like the Andy Martin entry. Someone writes something that everyone agrees on, it stays up for a few days and then someone comes along, changes it around and it makes it look like an edit war again. All the "warring" can be avoided if we simply talk it out FIRST, then put it up. Both times, a neutral version that was acceptable to most everyone was found. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I support inclusion as proposed by Jorge. Esp in light of the Andy Martin incident. The Turner material is noteworthy, well-sourced and adds historical context. Jimintheatl (talk) 12:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks again, for all the input. I took it upon myself to make a small changes that I think both sides will accept. I changed the word Relationship to Association, because I feel the former carries a connotation of 'friendship', which is a matter of dispute in this case. The word 'Association' on the other hand sounds more neutral, is not disputed by any party, and seems fitting in 'historical context' (as the note requests). I also prettied up the language and syntax a bit, and put the two events in chronological order.FuriousJorge (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Citizenship question

What is the basis of Hannity's Irish citizenship? The usual rules are

1. born in this country, parents any nationality
2. born in another country, parents American citizens
3. married in another country to a foreign citizen

According to the article, he's 2nd generation, born in NYC, which doesn't appear to support non-US citizenship. What's missing from our information?

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 03:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the specifics in this case, but the Irish citizenship article says that it is fairly easy to acquire if at least one grandparent was born there. (The grandparent would be a natural-born citizen, the parent would be a citizen for being the child of a natural-born citizen, and the grandchild could claim it as being the child of an Irish citizen.) It would appear that Irish citizenship can be, in theory, passed on generation through generation, so long as the next generation takes the time to claim it, whereas American citizenship can't be. AlexiusHoratius 04:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting! Thanks for taking the time to determine an answer.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 04:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• I was kind of wondering that myself and was going to ask about a source of it for the article. I do know that since the US doesn't prohibit dual citizenship, it's not an issue, I just wondered where that factoid was found. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The article does not reference a source for the statement that Hannity has dual citizenship. Does anyone know where this comes from? Newguy34 (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently it's a matter of public record obtainable through FoA. What I questioned was the how and why. Obtaining multiple citizenship is not illegal nor improper, but it must have an established basis. To be clear, there's no implication of impropriety.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 01:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• So without a source, should we keep it? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

First, I am not sure how it would be in the public domain unless someone put it there through an interview or biography. Really, only he knows if he is a dual citizen. Dual citizenship is not diffucult to obtain. I know this because I have dual citizenship with the US (by birth in the US to an American father) and Canada (by birth to a Canadian mother). Most countries do not prohibit it. As to the text in the BLP, I say, no source, no text on this point. Newguy34 (talk) 04:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's relevant, it's part of his background, and let's not go through The Purge again. I mean, how could it not be relevant?

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 05:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Do I think it is relevant to a biography? Absolutely. The question, again, is should it be included without a source? I ask this because we have an editor who keeps deleting that Hannity dropped out of college for finincial reasons. He said this in interviews, but it's not in a written source I can find. That would also be relevant (as would Hannity's characterization of himself as an "indifferent student" in college), but without a source...... Niteshift36 (talk) 12:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If something is not properly sourced, it can not be included in a BLP, especially if it involves a bit of controversy. Wiki's thoughts on this matter are clear. Newguy34 (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

(dryly) Can we prove Hannity is an American? Do we have a source for it?

As far as I know, it's not controversial, merely interesting.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

(with a look of dismay) If we don't have a source for something, be it citizenship, favorite color, or religious preference, we ought not include it in the BLP. I don't know if it is controversial or not, but we sure have spent a lot of band-width talking about this "non-controversial" point... Newguy34 (talk) 22:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, it's interesting. No, I don't see it as particularly controversial. Yes, we can prove Hannity is an American. I hear you Newguy34, it's more of a debate to me of whether we should just fact tag it or delete it. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Tag it. Move on. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 02:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with the tag, since I think I am the one that added it. Let's move on. Newguy34 (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Absurd

this section....

Hannity is frequently criticized by media outlets, and by a one-time guest on his show, for providing a forum on his late 1990s WABC radio program to self-described neo-nazi Hal Turner. Phil Boyce, program director at WABC-AM, told The Record of Bergen County, New Jersey that Turner's views were "inappropriate," and that they stopped taking his calls when "basically, the shows didn't feel he was of value anymore." For his part, Turner said that Hannity had become too "timid" and "politically correct".

This is baffling. This article has sources such as The Huffington Post to describe a conservative. This is a violation of WP:BLP and I'm removing this section lest someone comes up with a much more neutral way to describing this controversy, say it even exists (which mainstream sources say Hannity outright denies. You can't use this rubbish as sources for BLP articles which must use only the best, most main stream, and unbiased sources avaliable. Digital^Ninja 17:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

What about 39th ref? Docku:“what up?” 17:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean what about 39th ref? That question doesn't really have context. The article has been improved by adding information from an unecessary section into the main body as per WP:STYLE. "Criticism sections should be avoided". Additionally, I removed blatantly BLP violating sources and removed redundant POV information. This is much better... Digital^Ninja 17:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I noted the critics of Hannity vis-a-vis Hal Turner were liberal, which should bring it back into compliance with WP:BLP. This is how it read before, and it shouldn't have been changed. Also, if we are going to say the show drew criticism from 'multiple' liberal media outlets we should have more than one citation, right?FuriousJorge (talk) 07:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I think that's much more neutral and in line with BLP, not to mention informative. Cheers, Digital^Ninja 16:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

References

Why do some of the references in the article include the tag <nowiki> in them? I was just replacing some of the dead links with forms from the Internet Archive, and came accross them. It looks sort of odd to have a really long URL as the only thing listed for them. Refs numbered 9 and 29 for example, seems out of place. Just my opinion, and wondering why this was there. Killiondude (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that as well, and I thought perhaps they had something to do with the reftag or layout? I'm not real sure, and I'm glad you removed them because I wanted to as well. Additionally, the refs need to be tagged properly because there is a lot of just bare links. I'll work on it some this evening. Digital^Ninja 18:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz

Malik Shabazz shouldn't link to Malcolm X's page. Although Malcolm X was known as Malik Shabazz, the Malik Shabazz who was on Hannity's show was not Malcolm X but was instead named after him. It was not Malcolm X himself, as Malcolm X was murdered in 1965, when Hannity was only 4 years old. I doubt he was hosting a radio show, much less one that interviewed radical civil rights activists at that age.

• It shouldn't be there anyway. That reference wasn't from a NPOV source and why ae we including him anyway? The article already contains sufficient criticism about the topic. I deleted it. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• • I have to interject here. There is nothing requiring sources to be of NPOV. Opinion, even strong opinion is perfectly acceptable so long as it's properly attributed to the person who holds that opinion. --69.176.60.175 (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• You misunderstand. The opinion doesn't have to be neutral, but the source does. Alternet isn't neutral. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• I think the correct version was as I left it, citing the outlets as either left-leaning or 'Liberal' and linking back to the American Liberalism article. That said, I will leave it as is until someone comes along and removes it for being biased. At which point I will put it back, with the correct reference to the political stances of the media outlets, and all 5-8 sources.FuriousJorge (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Why is the opinion of a single person so important to put in this article? The article contains criticism. Why does it have to contain something from Shabazz in particular? Niteshift36 (talk) 10:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

reference

removed a reference because it linked to Huffington Post and did not present an article.Mbr1983 (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Three Revert Rule

Greetings everyone. In the past 24 hours I've noticed this article has become somewhat of a reverting hot-spot. Some editors have made three reverts. I urge all to cease reverting for the time being; and, please come here to the talk page before making any further reverts. Note: the Three Revert Rule is taken seriously. Any further violations will result in a block.

I further urge participants to continue their discussion here, and perhaps engage in the dispute resolution process. At this point, I can recommend Third Opinion or a Request for Comment. Kindest regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I have protected this page until disputes can be solved on the talk page. It has been the result of at least TWO unrelated edit wars in less than 24 hours; please solve the disputes on the talk page from now on! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

MediaMatters "award"

Several editors keep trying to add this faux award into the article. This "award" is given by a writer who rights a blog for a partisan organization, Media Matters. It's not like there is some vote by the organization or something, this is strictly this writers opinion. The organization is partisan and has an on-going feud with Hannity. I strongly suspect that the same editors would find neutrality and relevence problems if a blog writer at someplace like the Swift Boat vets site gave a fake "award" to Hannity, calling it "media hero of the year" and that got included in the article. Yesterday, just after the "award", Hannity "awarded" Media Matter the "Left-Wing Obamamania Media Propaganda Sleaze Award". Will those same editors make the same effort to include that "award" in the article on Media Matters? To sum it up: This is the opinion of a blog writer for a partisan site. It's not real and doesn't bleong in a biography article. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Please deal in facts. It's not a blog; it's clearly identified as a progressive organization, so neutrality is not an issue. Inclusion is warranted.Jimintheatl (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• It is an opinion column from an individual working for a partisan organization. Neutrality is an issue, as is relevance. Please do not add it back in until the matter has been discussed. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

This is an award given by the organization not just one blogger. Yes, Hannity has an on-going feud with this organization, so notability and inclusion is warranted. --Jmundo (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• It's not an organization award. It is that columnist who decided and puts it in his column. It is as "legitimate" as the one Hannity made to them. Will you support the inclusion of the Hannity award in the Media Matter article? If you would, then I might re-consider my opposition. In any case, I'd like to see more discussion before it gets put back in. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, you're not dealing in facts. Media Matters issues this award annually (Chris Matthews, ABC and Bill O'Reilly are past winners).Jimintheatl (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have never said this was a first. The fact that you are missing is that it is the sole determination of the columnist (ie just his opinion) and it "awarded" in the form of just expressing his opinion in his column. This is no more an "award" than Hannity expressing his opinion with his so-called "award" on his show. Unlike the other awards mentioned in the bio, this "award" isn't really covered my the mainstream media. It is "covered" by partisan sites like MM and Huffington Post. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The important policy here is WP:BLP, which says that we can't put negative information into a biography of a living person unless it's solidly sourced. If the only source is the site that's presenting the award, I'd say that that's not enough to warrant inclusion. If other mainstream sources start talking about it though, then maybe. --Elonka 15:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

seems like a regular every year award. Chris Matthews' 2005 award is mentioned in his page. Docku: What up? 15:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it needs to come out of that article, too. I think you all are missing a point here. This fake "award" is strictly one guy's opinion of Hannity, and as such adds no value to the article. What would make more sense is to list reliably-sourced information that would support why this so-called "award" was given. Without that, it's nothing but a pot-shot and doesn't belong. And in case you're wondering, I personally cannot stand Sean Hannity. But that fact doesn't belong in the article either. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed from Matthews' page as well. But, it is interesting that Media matters, a supposedly liberal media has awarded this award to Matthews, a supposedly liberal commentator. BTW, it is little intriguing when people get themselves involved in article discussion and claim they personally "dislike" the subject. is not necessary. Docku: What up? 16:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I only bring that up to fend off any possible accusations that I'm a Hannity kiss-up. Actually he's OK as long as he's not talking politics. I don't know if I would classify Matthews as a liberal, as such. He's more of a moderate, and more of a devil's advocate. Of course, he looks moderate anyway, when he's followed up by Olbermann and Maddows. I would make the same argument about the Matthews article as about this one. The "award", by itself, is meaningless - it just says "we don't like this guy". If it were backed up with some substance, from a source other than just Media Matters, then it might be fair to bring it up as an oh-by-the-way. "This organization 'awarded' so-and-so this 'award' because of the following issues..." But then it gets to be a question whether it's about the guy, or about the TV show. That's where the BLP concerns come into play. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'd still like to hear someone who supports the inclusion tell me if the "Left-Wing Obamamania Media Propaganda Sleaze Award" that Hannity awarded them (which is mentioned on their own website BTW) should be included in the MM article. If not, what makes his award any less legitimate, particularly since they recognized it on their own website? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Ironically, the policies would suggest it's more fitting to mention that fake award on the MediaMatters page, because that's an organization rather than a person. Or is it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• This award is mention by third party sources like The New Mexico Independent and The Examiner, etc. We judge this article on its merits alone, not how well it compares to whatever other subject you might choose to compare it to. Being Hannity such a controversial person, it's interesting that we lack a section on criticism.--Jmundo (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• • • Have you even read the article? There is criticism under both the Radio and Television sections. Just because there isn't a section labelled "criticism" doesn't mean the article is devoid of criticism. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• • It doesn't matter who else "mentions" this so-called "award". To place it in the article with no context is inappropriate. If you want to propose a criticisms section, as with Bill O'Reilly for example, then that's another story. But even at that, there is no place for this "award" without some kind of elaboration on why. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Describing Media Matters as a "liberal" organization, provides no context? This is a short and concise description of criticism abiding by WP:LIVE, WP:NPOV and WP:V. --Jmundo (talk) 18:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• MM states, as part of its own description, that their mission is "monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.". They have no intention of doing the same to non-conservative sources. They describe themselves as "progressive", which is simply a prettied up version of liberal. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Leave it out for now. If "this" becomes some kind of big deal and is widely covered, then maybe include it. --Tom 18:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• • Ironically, describing it as a liberal organization automatically negates any point in putting it in the article - because any semi-extremist person or organization might make such an "award" to any opposite-semi-extremist person or organization. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• How notable is the honorary degree given to Hannity by Jerry Falwell, when the source is the University's website? I argue that we should apply the same standard to all "awards". I'm deleting this award until we can find a reliable third-party source.--Jmundo (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• • Honorary degrees are frequently mentioned in WP:BLP articles. I can list you a lot of non-controversial bio's that routinely list these, ranging from Billy Graham to Maya Angelou to Stephen Colbert. The mention was originally in his personal info section, until another editor objected to it being there, arguing that it should be listed under awards and honors. See the talk page entry above. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is about Hannity: WP:OSE--Jmundo (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'm quite aware of the topic. I am pointing out what is a commonly accepted practice in WP:BLP articles. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Be wary of making pointy edits. Make sure you're deletion is in good faith and isn't retaliation for the resistance you are getting on the edit you want. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I assure you that my edits are in good faith. Per the discussion, please provide third-party references to verify notability of the "honorary" degree. --Jmundo (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• No need for a third party reference. The reference of the MM award isn't the issue, it is the so-called award itself, which is the opinion of the blogger, not an actual award. A university website is considered a NPOV source in this case. It is not promoting its viewpoint or pushing an agenda. It is simply imparting information about an event.Niteshift36 (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

An honorary degree is an actual award, not just an editorial comment. If I may make a trivial comparison, consider an MLB award for MVP. That's a notable honor, and would typically have some context, such as statistical superiority, and it may also come with some controversy. On the other hand, some editorial writer might invent an "award" that so-and-so was the "Least Valuable Player". If that player's article carried that so-called "award", but with no context, it should be stricken as being POV-pushing and meaningless. If it's backed up with some stats, such as a low level of performance vs. a high salary, then it's got some context. Ya follow? 20:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Excellent analogy.I wish I'd thought of it. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Specific to this question, I don't necessarily have a problem with mentioning this so-called "award" as such. It needs a proper context, such as "MediaMatters gave this 'award' to Hannity based on the following issues.... Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Even more specific, I'd find it less controversial if it was included, in context, with other criticisms about his radio or tv show. It most definately doesn't belong under awards and honors. To balance the entry, mention might be made than Hannity responded to the so-called "award" with his own award of the "Left-Wing Obamamania Media Propaganda Sleaze Award" to MM. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. It's not an "award or honor" except in a satirical way... such as the "least valuable player". Its proper place, if any, is in a criticism section with appropriate detail as to what the complaints are, beyond "we don't like this guy." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• • I'm glad that we can find consensus. I'm including the Media Matter criticism in the TV section providing a proper context. I leave to another editor the task of including Hannity's response. --Jmundo (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

See, everyone is happy. All I asked for was discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Done....?Jimintheatl (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed this. Non notable award from smear site isn't needed. --Tom 15:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a controversial topic and any change should be discussed.--Jmundo (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It has, it looks like most NPOV editor don't think it belongs. Now for the agenda pushing editors, that is a different matter. Why is it SO important to incluide this "material" in the bio? No need to answer, its pretty clear. --Tom 16:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• We are discussing the merits of this edit. Refrain from personal attacks. --Jmundo (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I am just commenting about agenda pushing editors, nothing wrong with that. Again, WHY is it SO important to include this non notable material? Even Baseball Bugs seemed to be scratching his head on this one and we know what a fan of Hannity he is :) --Tom 17:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

What's that saying about glass houses....I don't know what "agendas" may or may not exist, but the very idea of pure objectivity is silly. The MM award is notable because MM is probably the premiere progressive media watchdog org in the US (they are a regular source in the media whenever issues of "conservative bias/misinformation" is an issue. This award is not a random "blogger comment" as was suggested earlier, but an annual award which does receive media attention, and attention from the subject himself. I have no problem including Hannity's response.Jimintheatl (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'd like to take issue with what you just blamed on me. He writes a regular blog for MM. But it is still a blog (which is clearly stated right at the top of his page) and one who writes a blog is called a blogger, aren't they? I never called it random. I never said it wasn't something that he never awarded before or doesn't do each of the past couple years. What I have said is that it is solely based on his opinion. Do you have evidence that it is based on more than that, like a vote or poll or something? To recap: Is it improper to call someone who writes a blog a blogger? Do you have evidence that this "award" is based on anything other than the bloggers opinion? If the answer to either of these is yes, please explain. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the unfortunate placement of an "ad banner(?)" for "County Fair" created the confusion. The award is clearly designated as coming from the organization, not a person. County Fair is written by two people, neither of whom wrote the award column. If you click on the ad banner or go to County Fair, the award is not mentioned.Jimintheatl (talk) 14:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• That may be. Can either of you tell me this: How is the award actually determined? Is this an editorial board decision? O board of Directors? Member vote? Did they even consider anyone else this year? I really like Bugs' example of someone calling a player the "least valuable player". I think it's spot on. The other thing is the partisan battle between MM and Hannity. They focus solely on "conservatives", which excludes other facets. Yet they call the award "Misinformer of the Year", without disclosing in talking about the award that it is limited only to conservatives. While you feel it adds to relevence, I feel it takes away from it. Let's just look at this as a common sense issue. An "award" in common usage is something you want, earn or even seek, like an Academy Award or Grammy. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Media Matters focus is not solely on conservatives. The website has a piece about Blitzer (CNN), Wash. Times and NBC. The 2006 award when to ABC for the "Path to 9/11" miniseries.--Jmundo (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• You say they don't, but they say that is their focus. From their website: "Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time." Do you have some inside information that refutes what they claim in their own website? And again, I will ask, does anyone know how the "award" is picked? BTW, the 2006 award to ABC was because they felt they were advancing a conservative viewpoint. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

MM focuses on conservative misinformation, not conservative personalities. While they do much of their reporting on false or misleading claims by conservative outlets, they also monitor the "liberal" mainstream media for what is known as the "echo chamber" effect, i.e., when a conservative-developed meme gains foothold in the "liberal" media. As for the award, my understanding is that it is akin to Time's Man of the Year---staff/editorial decision.Jimintheatl (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Can you tell me where you got the understanding that it was a staff decision? I find it difficult to hold an old, mainstream print publication like Time in the same esteem as a partisan, internet based activist group. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

One clarification: I was not "blaming" you. At least one other editor mentioned, inaccurately, that this was just one guy's opinion. Apologies if it seemed that way. MM has given this "award" for about 5 years, so it isn't a "one blogger" thing, even if the "award" status is ironic. Further, like it or not, and I'm not sure I do, the net is soon to supersede old-time print media.Jimintheatl (talk) 03:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

As for whether they considered others, a companion article details other notable misinformation.Jimintheatl (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• This debate reminds me of the annual "Idiotarian of the Year" award given out by Little Green Footballs (you can probably guess at its purpose). As I recall, the eventual decision there was to not mention it in the biographies of recipients. "Awards" that are in reality little more than editorial insults toward the recipient are generally non-notable, and I'd say that one from some guy at Media Matters would fall into that category. --Hiddekel (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, unless it recieves a ton of coverage and becomes noteworthy which is not the case here. --Tom 19:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I want to further add, after reading the disputed edits, that this is obviously an attempt by some to reintroduce criticism into a biography article which by apparent consensus lacks a criticism section. I find that improper. If you want to include criticism, don't try sneaking it in through the back door, add it in an appropriate section or create a criticism fork and defend it from the inevitable deletion attempts. --Hiddekel (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think many of us can say we are being unbiased when we add such awards to articles on contraversial characters. We are talking aobut one of the most hated people on talk radio, and the argument has boiled down to a Media Matters award. If this were the obama article, would we be discussing whether or not to include an award given to him by the GOP, Rush Limbaugh, or the National Review? This article suffers from recentism to the highest degree. Mostly, that is because Hannity spends 3 hours of each day on the radio, but we have to come up with a real list of topics that span his entire time in the public spotlight, and this is a very, very small issue. There is much to be said about Hannity from his millions of critics, but it needs to be done in a fair and intellectually appropriate way. Mrathel (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

New show

Would someone with editing rights mind adding a link to his new show Hannity and possibly a disambiguation link if you think it's necessary? I wrote a very, very bare bones article when I found that Hannity simply redirected here - hopefully wikilinking to the new article will encourage others to elaborate. Thanks. Narco (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• This might sound dumb, but is it a new show? Or simply the same old show, without Colmes? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't sound dumb at all. I expressed a similar concern at Talk:Hannity. Like I said on that page, time will tell. Thompsontough (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

To answer the questions, yes and yes. Its a new show, and its the old show without Colmes. Hope that clears things up. Seriously, what do reliable sources say? Not sure if this is a good analogy, but a little like Meet the Press? Actually, bad analogy. Anyways, --Tom 19:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• To use an example, look at the article on CBS evening news. There aren't seperate articles for the evening news with Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather etc. Just one because it is the same program, same time, same network. Just who was sitting in the chair changed. That's how I see this. Hannity is on the same network, in the same time slot, just with one of the 2 hosts gone. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The Question of whether or not it is a new show was brought up by Colmes himself when he mocked the name of the new show back in December. But I would have to say that if Hannity and Colmes was a show set up to allow a conservative and liberal voice have equal time on prime time tv, then Hannity really is a new show because it lacks the very essence of what the old show was meant to provide Mrathel (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Negativity

This section is extremely negative:

"The October 5, 2008 broadcast of Hannity's America entitled Obama & Friends: The History of Radicalism presented Andy Martin as an expert on Barack Obama, without noting Martin's political stances and history of anti-Semitism. Fox News and the show drew criticism from multiple media outlets. The LA Times media columnist James Rainey described the piece as a "faux documentary" and a "new low".[18] The New York Times said the broadcast was "the latest step in the evolution of opinion journalism on cable news" and went on to say that the broadcast "was notable in presenting partisan accusations against Mr. Obama in a journalistic, documentary format in prime time."[19]. Fox Senior Vice President Bill Shine later stated that having Martin on was a mistake and added that it was a result of inadequate research."

Some parts of this are unnecessary. I'm editing it down.PokeHomsar (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The statement about Martin becomes virtually meaningless unless the reference to his anti-Semitism or, at the very least his alleged anti-Semitism, is included. Pretty good evidence has been presented that Martin has engaged in grossly anti-Semitic propaganda. Unless you can defend him convincingly the reference should be included. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Badminstohnist, except that I would call Martin's anti-Semitism a matter of public record, and not just 'good evidence'. He wrote it into his frivolous lawsuits.FuriousJorge (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I was just wondering, are there any other sources other than the L.A. and N.Y. Times for this section. Most would consider these two newspapers less than "neutral." This section just seems somewhat pointless altogether. I'm not really understanding its encyclopedic value. Jpk314 (talk) 09:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll on Media Matters award mention

Just a quick tally of where folks stand. Thanks,

Straw polling is not a means of achieving consensus. The current edit, which includes both the MM award and Hannity's response, seemed to have achieved consensus until some latecomers to the discussion started deleting the agreed upon edit.Jimintheatl (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

achieved consensus? By 3-4 editors and even then it seemed like there wasn't total agreement on how to treat this new material. The poll is just trying to see where folks currently stand and a start to reach a true and current consensus. Anyways, it doesn't look like too many folks are interested right now. Maybe after the Holidays :) Cheers! --Tom 22:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• It is worth noting that in the original discussion about it, I never actually supported it being there, but at least got it to be reasonably balanced. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • • Actually, in the original discussion, you said you were "happy" with the current edit.

        *
         o I'm glad that we can find consensus. I'm including the Media Matter criticism in the TV section providing a proper context. I leave to another editor the task of including Hannity's response. --Jmundo (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

See, everyone is happy. All I asked for was discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC) Jimintheatl (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• That is taken out of context. You forget where I said "I'd find it less controversial if it was included, in context, with other criticisms about his radio or tv show.". "Less controversialisn't a ringing endorsement. And now you want to take my attempt at being civil and conciliatory and use it as an endorsement? Sheesh, so much for trying to be a nice guy. Next time, I'll just stay adversarial if you plan to use attempts at civility as "proof" of something it wasn't intended to be. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Being civil and conciliatory, yes, but isn't that what reaching consensus involves? When you announced that "everyone is happy" it seems reasonable for everyone to conclude that "everyone" includes you, so your reversal to "unhappiness" was a surprise.Jimintheatl (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Happy is relative. I don't think it belongs there at all, but I am "happier" with balance and it being in a more appropriate location than in the awards section with real awards. I can be "happy" with a pizza, but I am happier when it has bacon and pepperoni. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Ok, I'm confused. It looks to me like far more editors are saying DO NOT include than saying include, yet it is still in the article and when an editor removed it, it was reverted. How long is this going to go on? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is a troll magnet. Fortunately, enough eyes are here, hopefully :) --Tom 21:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Include mention

• looks fair and balanced to me, as is.
• Mentioning the award is not, in my opinion, a matter of any great importance, but I do feel that mentioning it in the "Professional life" section in addition to the comments already made about criticism and Media Matters would be justified. TennysonXII (talk) 10:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Do not include mention

1. --Tom 14:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
2. I say do not include, but if it must be included, should be balanced with Hannity's response (his "award" to them), like the compromise we worked out before. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
3. No need to include.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 23:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
4. I think not, for reasons stated above. --Hiddekel (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Pass, for the reasons discussed above. Newguy34 (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Reciprocal routine insults are not especially encyclopedic. A few weeks ago the specific name of an "award" that Keith Olbermann received from the Media Research Council was deleted in favor of simply mentioning that the MRC had been critical of him. I think that this would the right approach in the case of Hannity and Media Matters. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
7. This is not a notable award, and is meant soley as a negative resonse to his work Mrathel (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Photo/FORMER VP Cheney

Under the photo, I corrected it to "former Vice President", but it was revised. Could someone just update the sentence, so it fits the truth? 78.54.179.239 (talk) 00:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It does fit the truth. The picture was taken October 24, 2006 and on that day Dick Cheney was Vice-President of the United States. If a picture is taken after January 20, 2009 then he is the former Vice-President and that would be the proper caption. A new name 2008 (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've seen this happening in many articles. Editors placing "former" in front of any reference to Bush or Cheney, despite the fact that other former officials are not labelled as "former" in the same article. I have yet to see a rash of "former"'s being placed in front of Kennedy, Lincoln or Washington references, even though they were all "formers" before wikipedia ever existed. Since I'm seeing it limited to Bush and Cheney, I have to wonder if there is something more than a desire for accuracy behind it. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right and I think it should be changed everywhere, because there only is 1 president and 1 VP at a time, every "former" is NOT the president or VP. I just corrected it here because I noticed it here, absolutely no offense, I just found it to be incorrect.

Would you agree that it should be changed with every former president and VP, or should Wikipedia stick to the way it is with Cheney in this article? -- Zoidberg1388 (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe it should be changed. Would you change the caption on this picture to read, President Obama sits and talks with former President Bush in the oval office? Should this picture's caption say that it is a picture of former President Clinton's cabinet? My answer to both questions is no, those captions do not give an accurate description of those pictures. Pictures are frozen in time. The first picture I referenced, will always be a picture of President Bush and President-elect Obama, the second picture is a picture of President Clinton and his cabinet and the picture in this article will always be a picture of VP Cheney. I think we should look at when the picture was taken and accurately describe the picture as it was taken, not decribe who the people in the picture are today. A new name 2008 (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's a good point. I agree. Thanks for the discussion. -- Zoidberg1388 (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Warning re edit warring

I come from WP:AN3. Both T and J at least are edit warring over this. All are cautioned to avoid getting close to 3R William M. Connolley (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Please remove from the "criticism of feminism" category

The article presents no sources on any "criticism of feminism", and so the category should be removed. 71.182.210.244 (talk) 07:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done, I concur, there is nothing in the article about feminism at all so I removed it. A new name 2008 (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticism Section

It is inevitable that this article will contain criticism, such as the media matters award, but we need to channel these into a criticism section to keep them from influencing the POV of the article. I propose that we add a criticism section at the bottom and allow the Media Matters piece and other criticisms to go in there. Otherwise, we are going to be back to where we started. Anyone else agree? Mrathel (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• WP:Criticism#Evaluations in a "Criticism" section is worth reading. From what I recall, we used to have such a section in this article and it was, indeed, a troll magnet. Kelly ^hi! 18:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Very Well, I can see how they would definitely be trolling magnets. However, in an article such as this, it would help us keep criticism centered. For instance, the Media Matters deal presents a problem if integrated because it is from a political organization whose ideology is diametrically opposed to that of the article's subject.It is not an "award" so much as a valid piece of criticism from a left-leaning group, but adding it into the text of the article without proper context allows it to unfairly modify the portrayal of Hannity. Removing it, on the other hand, takes away from the obvious fact that many people disagree with Hannity's views. If criticisms are integrated properly, it is possible that we can control the POV, but as this subject is constantly changing with everthing he says and drawing criticism from thousands of sources on a daily basis, it might be easier to keep the criticism ballanced by keeping it separate. The new section(s) would also allow editors to give proper attention to important criticism that have taken place over time and the less-important criticisms that happen to be more recent. Both need to be here to some degree, its just a matter of how we get them onto the page without starting a war.Mrathel (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

My rant against criticism sections: In my opinion, if Adolf Hitler doesn't need a dedicated "criticism" section in his biographical article, neither does anyone else. People may disagree with Hannity, or anyone else, but filling their article with those disagreements, inside or outside of a dedicated criticism section, is taking the article off-course in my opinion; a person's life history should be chronicled by the events of their life, which may include criticisms, but should not be defined by those criticisms, if that makes any sense. It's clear that Hannity is a controversial figure, that controversial nature is somewhat delineated in the section dealing with his professional career, and a laundry list of specific criticisms are best detailed in the articles dealing with his radio and television shows, depending on the criticism. — Hiddekel (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• That was a very good response. Kudos. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the trivia award stuff again. Also, I personally don't have a problem with a criticism section as long as it doesn't become 1/2 the article. Right now, there is a lone sentence about Media Matters in the Prof life section which seems to sort of stick out awkwardly. --Tom 17:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I will restore this until consensus is reached on compromise language.Jimintheatl (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Let me ask the obvious. If most people think it doesn't belong, why do you feel it needs "compromise language"? It appears that you are, in essence, saying that it will be there regardless of what most editors think. If the for/against was closer, then "compromise language" would seem like the ticket. But when it is this lop-sided, it starts to take on the appearence of POV pushing. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, this article is a troll magnet and yes, editors do push an agenda here. Per the above discussion, this "material" should be removed unless there is consensus for it's inclusion, not the other way around. --Tom 13:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I would again point out that you previously pronounced yourself "happy" with the compromise of including Hannity's response. Since that compromise was reached, editors supporting inclusion have left the discussion and new editors have tried to resurrect the issue.Jimintheatl (talk) 13:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• And I would point out again that "happy" is a relative term. You keep harping on that, yet ignoring the fact that I disputed the validity of the award from the start. My "hapiness" was that it was placed in a more appropriate spot and was allowed to include balance. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy is relative in the sense that you would prefer that no criticism of Hannity by MMatters appear, but then agreed to the compromise language. That's called reaching consensus. Your reversal after the fact is troubling.Jimintheatl (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Please refrain from putting words in my mouth. I didn't balk at other criticism by MM that was in the article. I think this "award" is nothing more than editorial opinion disguised as a faux award. I've said that from the start. I was even clear in calling the "award" Hannity gave MM bogus. I did agree to the compromise language. It was the only way to get it placed in an appropriate section and get some balance added to it. You and your gang, either by plan or by coincidence, were pushing hard and that was the best I could get done. Now you take my civility and try to make it something it never was. In any case, it is always my perogative to change my mind about anything I want. Maybe I read someone elses opinion and saw I was wrong in my compromise. Either way, I've stated how I feel. Done with you. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Quoting you is not "putting words in your mouth." Of course its a "fake" award in the sense that it's not laudatory, but it is notable. Civility=compromise("everyone's happy")=consensus. Suddenly having numbers on the side of your original position and then reversing course is unfortunate. The absence of any criticism of Hannity in this article is not worthy of an encyclopedia.Jimintheatl (talk) 02:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Um, no, quoting me is not putting words in my mouth. But saying "you would prefer that no criticism of Hannity by MMatters appear". I said no such thing. I haven't contested legitimate criticism from MM. For you to say that I'd prefer NO criticism from them appear is wrong and putting words in my mouth. There is plenty of criticism in this article. You act as if there isn't. There is no "reversing course" going on and it certainly isn't unfortunate. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Niteshift, this is the problem with trying to accomadate agenda pushers. They will twist and spin in order to push there agenda. --Tom 14:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Assume good faith. FYI: accommodate, their. Cheers.Jimintheatl (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

My spelling sucks :) --Tom 22:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

These arguments always get a bit confusing because there is too much back and forth between editors. My personal opinion is that the Adolf Hitler article doesn't need a criticism section because the history is firmly documented and does not change as rapidly as Hannity's. The liberal/conservative edit war on this article can be avoided if we can find a way to integrate notable criticism in a way that keeps a NPOV on non-contraversial sections such as his life and allows for dissent on issues such as his views of LGBT rights. If a "Criticism" section is not necessary, the least we can do is find a way to integrate valid criticism without giving MM or any other organization the ability to influence the tone and content of the article. Mrathel (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I would actually rather have a criticism section rather than the criticism sprinkled throughout the article as it currently is. --Tom 19:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a point. Or perhaps a "Controversies" section a la Roseanne Barr? That's at least a bit more NPOVish and would require some reliable sourcing to indicate that entries are notable enough to be worth mentioning in the article... — Hiddekel (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think a contraversies section would be less of a troll magnet, and might help get meaningful criticism on the page Mrathel (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this fight (so to speak); I do think Hannity and his like are bad for the political discourse. Regarding a criticism section, would it be appropriate to mention on his website a poll that can arguably be interpreted as advocating overthrow of the U.S. government--I have included the link herehttp://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1326121&page=20Tbolden (talk) 12:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• You start by saying that you don't hav a dog in the fight, then call him bad for political discourse. That sounds pretty opinionated and would indicate you do have a dog in the fight. The url you included doesn't work, but I doubt it matters. Since Hannity himself doesn't administer or really participate in the forum, what would it have to do with his bio. If anything, it would probably be more appropriate for the article about the show, which runs the forum. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• My 2 cents, and forgive me if you have already decided what to do. I was just reading the Rush Limbaugh page, and it would be a crime not to mention his critics in the article. For the purpose of organizing and managing NPOV, I vote for a criticism section. Note that over time, some of the criticism will turn out to be trivial and then removed. Eventually what everyone decides is the real criticism can be incorporated into the body of the article. While the critics are still screaming, please keep the criticism section.Jarhed (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Education in info box

Any reason for this to be listed this way at all? Anybody know what the convention is for this? Thank you, --Tom 15:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Tom. If you want to remove a longstanding edit the burden of proof is on your side. The entry in question should stay unless some consensus and understanding is reached that it has no relevance there and should be only mentioned in the main body of the article. So please be specific about why you think it is redundant (and meanwhile be so kind and revert yourself). Also don't try to put the burden of proof on other editors since it was you "blanking" that part w/o given a real valuable reason. I'll happily obey any new consensus but I'm definitely not going to engage in some kind of silly edit warring over this, besides you should've left the original default version until the final version (for now) is determined here on talk. You know the rules so there is no need to throw them at each other. We can "solve" this the nice way, don't you think so? Regards,

PS: You can find information on rules and guidelines at wp:mos and its sub pages like WP:IBT and you might want to compare the info box to other BLP's. That's why I mentioned consistency in my last edit summary.—Preceding unsigned comment added by The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk • contribs)

Where do you come up with this stuff?? "The burden of proof" is on the material that goes into the article, whether its been there a year or was added yesterday. There are a bizzillion articles that current have garbage in them. We don't wait around blathering, we fact tag it or remove it. The burden of proof is then on those that want to add material or change material. Look at the Palin article. The "rape kit" "material" was in there for a while, but the ultimate burden was on the folks that wanted to include that garbage and rightly so. I know you are into "sides" but I am more into MOS, NPOV and guidelines and less about adding content. --Tom 00:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

What the...(excuse my french)! We're not talking about the Palin or any other particular article. At least I don't. The "burden of proof" stuff is as I pointed it out! Only in cases of unreliable (or no) citations and especially if it might be a potential BLP vio it can and should be removed on sight. This is not the case here and please don't tell me now about that a certain link is broken and therefore it is not verifiable since you did this quite some time after your "blanking" (but left the paragraph standing). Don't play games with me, alright? So let's go back to the issue that you did not answer but rather evading: Please be specific why you think this fact which is included in most if not in all BLP's is redundant here (as I ask you before). Thanks.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're really not familiar with policies and guidelines on WP, (and I know it ain't so), see WP:BRD for starters.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Would putting in NYU or Adelphi in the info box for education work better for you? Also, <sarcasm>thanks for removing the fact tag I added</sarcasm> Tom 04:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not passing judgement on the specific information we're discussing, but for the record, WP:BLP requires that unsourced or poorly-sourced biographical material should be removed, immediately, and it makes no qualification as to how long that material has been in the article. On the other hand, properly-sourced biographical material should only be removed after reaching consensus in talk, whether it was introduced yesterday or three years ago; the issues there should involve questions such as undue weight or the compromise of privacy, not the length of time the information has persisted in the article. Regards to all. — Hiddekel (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hiddekel, are you taking that from a policy or guideline? I am always at a lost for why the ownous is not on what goes into our articles. I see "its a fact" used as a reason for so much "material" that really has no place in an encyclopediac article. By your reasoning, if 3 editors want to keep it and 3 think it doesn't belong, then it stays in the article? Anyways, thanks again, --Tom 18:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC) ps I see you use the term properly-sourced biographical material. I would agree with that, but how do we define what is biographical material? I think that is where we run into disagreements and people's POV, anyways, --Tom 18:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

For the most part, what I'm talking about here is a matter of official policy, which sort of blends into some well-established editing guidelines. The most relevant official policy as concerns this particular article is Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons, which dictates the necessity to remove poorly or unsourced contentious material from BLP articles immediately and without the need for discussion). WP:BOLD is another relevant issue here, which, while a guideline rather than official policy, still constitutes a central pillar of Wikipedia editing. This suggests that positive changes should be made sooner rather than later... If you see something that needs fixing, fix it. This is balanced by the need to achieve consensus. As to what material is sufficiently "biographical" to be worthy of inclusion, that's a question which doesn't usually have a definitive answer (hence all the editing disputes surrounding that question); the key again is to reach a consensus among interested editors, bearing in mind the aforementioned policies as well as issues such as undue weight and coatracking. If you haven't read the policies and guides I've linked to here, I strongly suggest you do so... It will serve you well. Regards! — Hiddekel (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I have read alot of the policies and guidelines and most have caveats, I guess the reason for all the wiki lawyering that goes on. Anyways, --Tom 14:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)ps, hopefully the editos involed in this will contribute here rather than just blindly reverting, but will see. --Tom 14:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I support it being removed. Almost every [notable] American has gone to a high school, that isn't really what "education" is referring to. I say unneeeded. TheAE talk/sign 16:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Global warming?

The article doesn't mention his global warming denialism, and his scorn and dissent on the "alarmists" (eg. Al Gore). --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 02:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't mention his denial of The Flying Spaghetti Monster either. This is a biography of his life, not a place to push your POV.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• No mention of his opinions on chocolate cake or Ruths Chris steak house either. You are clearly trying to POV push. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Hannity's opinions on chocolate cake aren't relevant because there is no widespread debate about the existence of chocolate cake, or its impact on our species. There is however, widespread (some would say fierce) debate on climate change and its impacts, and Hannity's position to effectively deny the debate is relevant. Regardless of whether you agree with his opinion, Hannity is in the position to influence the opinions of many because of his job as a talk radio host. That alone makes the discussion relevant. --Sabatino1977 (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• First, this isn't a debate forum. Second, he doesn't deny the planet is warming. He believes it is part of the cyclical nature of temperature changes and not a man made phenomenon. Third, if he says something about it on one of his shows, it's more relevant to the article about that show rather than his biography. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think his stance on Global Warming is completely relevent, because he is a talk show host & political commentator. The only reason people know of him is for his positions on the issues. And since it is one of the most contentious issues it should be included in this article. --Punkrocker27ka (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• Why is it one of the most contentious issues? Because the issue is important to you? How much of his average week is spent talking about GW versus govt. spending, Obama, or most other political happenings? If the guy was spending significant amounts of time on it, you might have a point. But when I happen to listen to the show, I hear about Obama, the senate and the media more than GW. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hannity is actively attacking one of the biggest issues of our time - global warming and its potential to cause massive damage to this planet. It would be ridiculous for an encyclopedia not to include this fact about such an important commentator. FYI I like Hannity I just think his denial of global warming is just incomprehensible given the obvious, widespread scientific consensus (he likes to cherry pick climate skeptics). It's killing me how every time he reports about a massive cold front, he has to throw in a jab about global warming. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

However valid your opinion on Hannity's approach to climate change may be, points made in the article are not supposed to be WP: Original Research. Find an outside WP: Reliable Source that has raised the issue of Hannity and global warming and maybe you'll be in business. Badmintonhist (talk) 07:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

There are quite a few sources regarding Hannity's views on global warming. I should think they would be notable, if not here, then in a daughter article such as the (as yet nonexistent) Political views of Sean Hannity. His views on other issues should also be covered here, rather than barricaded for dubious reasons. 71.182.210.244 (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• That you bold print "massive damage to the planet" makes it appear you have an agenda. Clearly, GW is important to you. Again, if this were something he spends a lot of time on or did something particularly noteworthy about, you might have a point. But I don't see it. From what I've seen, he mentions it when it comes up, but doesn't go out of his way to make it an issue, like he did with Obama issues. The fact that you can google and find mentions of it here and there doesn't make it significant, particularly for a biography. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Just because global warming is on the back burner right now does not mean that it is not relevant or noteworthy. He has run many segments denouncing global warming on his television show and criticized it at length on his radio show. Obviously he has been focusing most of his energy on Barack Obama lately but he has always been a staunch global warming denier and used his platform to promote his view. It is totally relevant to his philosophy as a conservative political commentator. --Punkrocker27ka (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Likewise, just because you find something noteworthy doesn't make it the "most contentious", "biggest issue of our time" either, as you and another editor have called it. His stock and trade is political issues. From what I've seen, he gets into GW only when there is a political issue involved. BTW, that bogus google search being linked to is evidence of nothing. A bunch of blogs and stuff where Hannity and GW are mentioned. Do any of you have a NPOV article that addresses Hannity's influence in the GW debate? Or is this mostly supposition about how relevent his opinions on it are? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Television Section Bias

The Television section reads:

The October 5, 2008 broadcast of Hannity's America entitled "Obama & Friends: The History of Radicalism" presented Andy Martin, among others, as an expert on Barack Obama, without noting Martin's record of anti-Semitism. The show drew criticism from multiple media outlets. The LA Times media columnist James Rainey described the piece as a "faux documentary" and a "new low".[16] The New York Times said the broadcast was "the latest step in the evolution of opinion journalism on cable news" and went on to say that the broadcast "was notable in presenting partisan accusations against Mr. Obama in a journalistic, documentary format in prime time."[17]. Fox Senior Vice President Bill Shine later stated that having Martin on was a mistake and added that it was a result of inadequate research.

That paragraph is written only to the left's point of view. That is clearly unacceptable and is there to make users less favorable of Mr. Hannity. That article should be written so it:

1) Shows both the opinions of the left and the right
or
2) Shows no possible bias
or
3) It contains no quotes opinions on the subject
or
4) Be removed from the article for possible controversy

JRH95 (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If you feel the section is unbalanced, it would probably be best to find some reliable sources that discuss Hannity or the right's perspective on this specific broadcast. As it stands it is a fairly major event in his career and drew comment from several major newspapers as well as FOX exectutives. --Leivick (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Daniel. The criticism is relevant and deserves to stand with specific examples. If there are corresponding sources from the other side, those should be added as well. If there aren't, that's certainly relevant and should not be used to strike the other side of the argument. Dayewalker (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Construction worker lied , his air died

Do you know that he lied all through that he found mass destruction, he lied all through that Obama is associated with terrorists, he lied all through that Americans will have nightmare if Obama is elected,... he lied everything to stop Obama express as well as Hillary express? Now he has become restless and he does not know what he talks about. (Source his radio show ). Glunnbuck (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Call Hannity. If he says no, then delete it. 23:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.113.71 (talk)

• Deleted. Try reading WP:OR and you'll understand why it is being deleted. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment pasted from my talk w/o marking it as such removed.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you the administrator? The consensus will advise.

What are the things that you do not agree? and I will get you the sources that I fetched these. It is the responsibility of the Wiki to advise the editors. Glunnbuck (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to be an administrator to recognize personal opinion and unsourced material. Nor do you need to be an admin to remove it. Before "fetching" your sources, be sure to read WP:RS and find out what a reliable source actually is. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• While you're at it, maybe you can explain why you insist on identifying Hannity as a construction worker? You act as if the guy doesn't have the second highest rated syndicated talk show in radio, hasn't written 2 NYT best sellers and hosts his own TV show. If we're going to identify people by a profession they held years ago, maybe we can start calling Rep. Ron Paul "the paperboy" Niteshift36 (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Hannity is always proud to be called as construction worker. What is your problem? Look at you and your language. You said you would help me to edit what I wrote and you are going away from that. (Source is his Radio program - baseless radio program).

Glunnbuck (talk) 01:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you finally read WP:RS? You need to come up with a citation that backs up what you are saying. We don't take your nor anyone elses editors word for granted.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you sir. I have given the source and updated. You wrote something above about our President Obama and erased it. Glunnbuck (talk) 02:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• First, I never offered to help you re-write anything. Second, I wrote something about Obama (based on an insinuation that was made by the Clinton campaign. Cleaner correctly decided that it was questionable to repeat the rumor and deleted it. Lastly, I know he is proud of his past occupation, but it makes you look like an agenda driven editor when you insist on doing it in the manner that you are. Please read wp:rs, wp:blp, wp:GRAPEVINE Niteshift36 (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Niteshift. It's just pointless to argue with this editor till s/he gets familiar with WP policies and guidelines. I hope s/he takes the advise given to him/her more than once and reconsiders and understands how it works here. Guess I call it a day (night) now or very soon.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not that I don’t want to listen to you. I will go and make corrections if I have violated the Wiki rules (and they will warn me). I will look forward to seeing some more editors jumping into this discussion. Mean while, I will explain what I meant in those I wrote (May be it needs to be reworded).

Remember I have respect for all humans and hence for Mr. Hannity too. Hannity what I am referring to is not that individual; it is about that radio host (it is not a single entity). I’m not comfortable with many of the reckless things he talks about without mercy. How is that he can criticize others; why we cannot?Glunnbuck (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Your statements are simply wrong on so many levels, so please let me try to explain. First, who are these "wiki" people that you think are going to warn you? There are no such people; you only have us. As many have told you, if you care to edit here, please take the effort to learn the purpose of this place and how it works. Second, be uncomfortable with this or that person all you want, but understand this: HIS BIO PAGE ON WIKIPEDIA IS NOT THE PLACE TO AIR YOUR DISAGREEMENT. Have a nice day.Jarhed (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You say he lied about multiple things, can you tell me what your definition of "Lie" is? A new name 2008 (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

'Lied', 'fabricated' are his favorite words on his radio show. I do not know how he defines a 'lie'. I'm trying to use his definition of 'lied' to make it consistent with what we are trying to say.

I don't understand why someone is deleting partly the stuff I wrote in here. Is this section for discussion enabling us ( consensus ) to understand and help each other? Glunnbuck (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• It looks like a difference of opinion is considered a lie in this instance. Obama is associated with Ayers. That is fact. What is open to discussion is to what extent that association is. As for the "will have a nightmare" part, we're 6 weeks into the presidency, so that's a little soon to call the prediction wrong. And again, we're talking about a difference of opinion. Some people believe that some of the actions already taken and the ones already proposed are a nightmare. That's why personal opinions don't get put in here. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Just a point of order. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. This is a page to discuss how to improve this article. Thank you, --Tom 16:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Gee, I thought showing how the "lies" are really matters of opinion, then using it as an example of why we don't let personal opinions into articles was educational in nature. Sorry for trying to help the editor understand. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Niteshift36 that I didn't direct my comment to the editor who was creaming "liar, liar, pants on fire". My point of order was not directed at you since you were assuming good faith with this editor and trying to help him with policy matters as we all should. Anyways, sorry again if you misunderstood my point of order. Anyways, --Tom 16:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• It's all good. I probably shouldn't have taken it as directed at me anyway. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Radicals have taken over !!!!

What does this mean? Who are radicals for Hannity ?(Source: Hannity talk show slogan).

• Maybe you should post that question here: [1]. That is where you go to discuss the show. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

radicals refer to the far left of the Democratic party, Ex. Barack Obama, as opposed to moderate democrats like Bill Clinton, so by definition, he is right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.158.111 (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Conservatism is in exile !!!!

Why conservatism is in exile? (Source: Hannity talk show slogan).

• Maybe you should post that question here: [2]. That is where you go to discuss the show. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Glunnbuck (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• You still obviously haven't read wp:RSr wp:OR. Don't use me as an excuse to edit how you see fit. Find sources, follow the rules or leave the article alone. And what are you talking about with this "updating the picture" thing? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is not for an individual

This article is not for an individual. It is about the so called Radio host business. The rules that apply to an individual cannot be applied here. I donot have time to fight with wikipedia or anybody about it.

• Editors are currently in dispute concerning points of view expressed in this article. Please help to discuss and resolve the dispute before removing this message and any part in the article.
• This article or section may be slanted towards recent events. Please try to keep recent events in historical perspective.

Keep all the things, not just the one sided story.

It is good not to involve in editing such articles. Let me shut my mouth. Thanks. Athos, Porthos (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this article is for an individual. The Sean Hannity Show is for his "Radio host business." TheAE talk/sign 21:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• • As AE pointed out, this is a BIOGRAHPY article. It is about Sean Hannity, the individual. There are seperate articles about his radio and TV shows. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Also just to note the policy, it doesn't make any difference what page the information is going on if the information is about a living person, it still must comply the requirements in the the Biographies of living persons policy. It applies to this article, the radio show article and all other pages including talk pages on wikipedia. From the first line of the policy:

Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page.

A new name 2008 (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Andy Martin "material"

I am not sure what the deal is here, but it seems that this "event" has gotten pretty significant coverage in the article as it currently stands. Anyways, Tom 03:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, that section mentions that "Martin was presented as an expert on Obama". Is that correct? TIA Tom 03:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"Approved by a sysop"

I keep seeing this mentioned. I've been told by more than one WP administrator (no sysops here guys) that the decision of a single administrator is not the word of God. They make mistakes too. Let's not keep acting like the interpretation of one admin is the final word and can be referenced as "it was decided" as a perpetual reason for reverts. These things can be taken to ANI's. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The "material" that keeps being reinserted could possibly be introduced at the article about the TV show since that is what this is about. Maybe take it to that talk page, but it probably is already covered there, I haven't checked yet but will try to see.--Tom 20:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be covered in the article about the old tv show. Anyways, --Tom 20:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• It was discussed here, at great length. The discussion has been archived. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw some threads about Hal Turner connection, but what was the thinking about this Andy Martin "material"? The multiple crticism quotes seem like undue weight for a bio and more appropriate for the tv show article. Tom 05:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• The Martin material discussion is archived in [3]. The section is titled: Reaction to 10/5 Airing of 'Obama & Friends: A History of Radicalism' on "Hannity's America". Niteshift36 (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that was alot to digest. Anyways, is this "material" really relevant to this bio? It seems more notable to the tv show if at all, especially since there is an article about the show. I will try again to rewrite this with the proper weigh given. Thank you, Tom 12:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• I wasn't kidding when I said "discussed at great length". My position is pretty much the same. 1) The article is a Hannity bio, not an article about the show. 2) It is a minor event in his life compared to everything else he has done. 3) For all the breast beating about the need to show "the truth", not one of the editors who feel this info is earth shattering has bothered to expand the article about Andy Martin. 4) WP:Recentism. 5) If we simply can't live without it, then it should be a sentence or two. Period. All the "this critic said this" stuff should go in the article about the show, not in the personal bio. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Even without the commentary/criticism, it is undue weight. How many episodes of the tv show were there? 100s? And this is what is going to get 1/3 of the section. Should we also include dates and shows that got alot of praise? The tv section should mention the general details about the show and leave the specific criticisms, praise, controversies, specific show details, ect for the sub article about the tv show.Tom 14:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I dont see any problem in including notable praise and criticism about his career (TV show in this case) in his Biography, unless what someone does in their job is not considered part of their Biography... --Docku: What's up? 14:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. He is a radio and TV commentator, so it's a bit disingenuous to say that discussion of his commentary doesn't belong here. It's notable and sourced.Jimintheatl (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be specific to a segement of a specific show. I agree that maybe some praise/criticism of his overall tv career ect could be worked into the section but this seems overally detailed agenda driven criticism and undue weight in relation to the current length of that section. Tom 14:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

and if this specific segment underlines and highlights the overall critcism of the show? By the way, how would you propose to include an overall criticism? wouldnt including an example be more informative to an uninformed reader? --Docku: What's up? 14:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, but who said NO criticism about anything in his career? I know I didn't (despite your false implication) and I've agreed on the inclusion of items critical of Hannity. The point (again) is that it should be a short inclusion, not an expansive one. The expansive one should be in the article about the show. Hannity didn't produce the documentary, he simply gave it exposure on his show, so his responsibility here is that he aired it. It shouldn't take 2 paragraphs to cover that. 2 sentences should suffice. The expanded stuff about what critics said should go in the article about the show and the article about the man who actually made the documentary, which none of you have seen fit to expand on. I guess it isn't as fun to complain about Martin in his own article or in the article about the show. Instead you are using the bio of Hannity, who didn't write, produce, direct or film the documentary. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hannity and Turner

I'm moving the information about Hannity and Hal Turner to the professional life section, because criticism sections are generally not recommended and I do not believe this to be an exception. Also, The Nation magazine does not really mention that various outlets have criticized him, it primarily mentions what The Record states, not to mention The Nation is a left-wing magazine. The MSNBC article does not even mention Hannity, so I will remove that. Showtime2009 (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Middle name

To those who say it is Patrick, could you please cite the source for it. I believe someone said it was in his book, but he has written two, and I don't know which one he meant or where in said book it occurs. Otherwise, I wish to revert back to the cited version, because I think in this case a citation, even one someone considers a joking comment, is better than none. Of course, I'm quite possibly wrong about the citation, and would welcome further input. --Gen. S.T. Shrink *^{Get to the bunker}* 03:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

[4] This is from Webster's book of quotations, which I would assume did their homework before printing his name. Seriously, when he says "If I did I wouldn't tell you" in the tv episode, he is clearly joking. 66.168.212.96 (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The article uses "Sean Patrick Hannity" on the bottom of p. 574. I believe Conserving: Webster’s Quotations, Facts and Phrases is a valid enough book to where they would have checked the status of Hannity's middle name. The iformation should be in the public domain, but such inquiries online often come at a small price, which is more than I am willing to spend to verify the middle name, which used to be on www.hannity.com but has been removed in recent edits. (sorry for the sockpupetry, i didn't realize that I wasn't signed in when i put the prvious edit:)Mrathel (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• I agree. Can this finally be done with? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Gladly, assuming you put in the reference to the book. I will gladly say no more, so long as it is cited. --Gen. S.T. Shrink *^{Get to the bunker}* 23:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Neoconservative

This is being added throughout the article. Can sources be provided here and discussed? TIA, --Tom (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, looks like this needs admin intervention, oh well. --Tom (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Isn't his stance on foreign policy source enough?--E tac (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

No it's not. That would be WP:OR.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll check it out, but what would be required is multiple reliable sources that "label" him as such, and even then, this would have to be reviewed by others here and some consensus reached. Please note, Wikipedia is not about the truth. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Neoconservative is more opinion than fact. I'm sure that we can dig up some writer calling him a neo-con, but there are far more references calling him a conservative. Trying to foist neoconservative on here stinks of agenda pushing. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(OD)This has come up several times before, the general consensus is that since Hannity identifies himself as a conservative, that's what he's referred to in the article. Since political terms can be sort of fluid, categorizing him as something else was always seen as original research. Dayewalker (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

A person can say they are Chinese but if they're not then what can you say? The guy is a flat out Neo-Con. He holds none of the values true Conservatives have. I'm changing it. Dumaka (talk) 17:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

As per the discussion above, there doesn't seem to be any consensus to change from what he self-identifies as. Please make your case here on the talk page, and show some examples of reliable sources showing him to be a neo-con. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That was a quick revert you did there buddy. Dumaka (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, no offense, but we've had this discussion before. Dayewalker (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

why was Sean Hannity's promise to be waterboarded taken out?

I documented with valid sources that Sean Hannity said he would be willing to submit to waterboading on April 22, 2009 for a charity supporting the troops, while interviewing Charles Grodin. Kieth Olbermann then promised to contribute $1000.00 for every second Sean Hannity could hold out under the procedure. These are the plain facts. I have trouble seeing the bias or neutrality of the facts. Facts are facts.

Why involve charity? If is not torture, he will do it for fun. I wanna see dick cheney and ronald dumbsfeld waterboarded too. And if there are no volunteers to strap them and poor the water, they can do it themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.34.134 (talk) 02:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• My job isn't torture, but I wouldn't just do it for fun either.......so where does that leave your logic? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this in an important story because here we have a famous personality promising to do something for charity, then reneging on the offer. If it had been Opera punlicly promising to do something for charity then refused to do so, it would be a huge story. When someone willingly enters public life, they should take responsibility for what they say. Sean Hannity should not get a pass just because some people in this forum are right wing.

During an interview with Charles Grodin on his TV show, Sean Hannity promised to be waterboarded for a charity to help the troops. Kieth Olbermann as taken up Sean Hannity's commitment by offering $1000.00 for each second Sean Hannity can hold out. As of April 28, 2009, Sean Hannity has not accepted to be waterboarded for any charity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serg36 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm going to let the other editors that reverted it take first stab at explaining wp:recentism and why it probably belongs more in the article about the show rather than in his biography. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of things wrong with rushing the story, and especially this (to be honest) poorly written version of the story, into the article. This isn't a daily or even a weekly blog of the doings of Sean Hannity. It is a biography. It requires a longer view of what is important in the subject's life than simply rushing in a now eight day old tempest in a teapot. Hannity made a (probably stupid) off-hand comment. Calling it a "promise" or a "commitment" is clearly biased phrasing, as is saying that Hannity is "reneging" because he hasn't responded To Keith ("e" before the "i") Olbermann's offer within a week (were Hannity to actually go through with the waterboarding, by the way, I doubt that he would make Olbermann's offer part of the deal). Perhaps as it plays out over the next few weeks (or months) the story will be worth mentioning. Right now its WP:Recentism and WP:UNDUE, and the version offered by Serge36 is a violation of WP:NPOV. Badmintonhist (talk) 07:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that Hannity is on the television for one hour every week day and on the radio for 3 hours every week day. Every "promise" or comment made on the shows can not be added to this article, which is supposed to be an overview of the person's notability. Mrathel (talk) 09:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Couple of thoughts:

1. I don't know about the verbiage "promised". Maybe "stated" or "committed to" -- with the qualification that it be done for the specific charity.
2. WP:RECENTISM concerns are valid. (so...)
3. Are there a diversity of independent, reliable secondary sources that indicate any sustained significance of this issue?

I'm not arguing for or against inclusion. I've seen this mentioned by at least two WP:RS-compliant sources, and it probably is worthy of inclusion if there is some evidence that the story has legs. I don't know if we're there yet. Can the advocate(s) for inclusion provide some diversity of sourcing? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 09:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• I think we can both agree that many things are covered by reliable sources that shouldn't be included in a biography. So I think your mention of "sustained significance" is a good point. As I said, if this should be included anywhere, I think the mention is more appropriate in the article about the show instead of the biography. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

More time is needed to assess encyclopedic value; it shouldn't be inserted until such time that significance is clear. However, I continue to assert that the sources to date have referenced Mr. Hannity directly, not a criticism of the show. The show didn't volunteer to be waterboarded for charity.  ;-) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• But it did happen on his show, during an interview conducted for the show. Were it not for the show, Hannity and Grodin probably wouldn't have even been speaking. And were it not for the show, probably none of us would have heard about it. It is an event on the show, not so much in his personal life. But, as I stated, this is wp:recentism and 6 months from now, people with an axe to grind with Hannity will have forgotten about it and have some other off the cuff thing he said on the show to get worked up over. The guy spends 15 hours a week on national radio and over 7 hours a week on national TV. He's going to say all sorts of things that get people riled up and we can't document every one of them in the context of a biography. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a disservice to Wikipedia readers not to include the waterboarding business. I'm very sure I'm not the only person who first looked the guy up on Wikipedia precisely because of it; the story is certainly notable. Surely, if he were actually to undergo waterboarding, that would be noted here, no? Then it follows that if it remains as an unfulfilled promise, it should also be noted. 72.229.59.24 (talk) 04:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• It is included in the article about his show. Notice the large drop in coverage about the topic in a mere two weeks. In 6 months, all the Hannity haters will have something new to complain about and try to pass off as notable. This is nothing more than a blip on the radar that will be quickly forgotten. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

What does "Hannity haters" (vs Hannity lovers?) have to do with it? Your response is revealing -- clearly the incident is avoided in this article because it's teeing of the haters of the "Hannity haters" -- under the assumption that, what, it's somehow unfair to Hannity to note something he actually said? A "blip on the radar" etc -- how could you possibly know that? You seem to assume that he won't actually go through with the procedure. I repeat, if he undergoes it, I doubt that it will still be left out. Your remark makes it clear that it's simply defensiveness toward Hannity that is suppressing discussion of the incident. That shouldn't have a bearing on things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.59.24 (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC) (Thank you for the tip about the other article, though. Inclusion there is good enough, I guess. Though personally I think that article should be merged with the biography anyway. Is there going to be a separate article for every eponymous show the man ever hosts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.59.24 (talk) 05:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• You can call it revealing if you want, but I can see what is in front of me. I see certain editors who never attempt to add anything positive or even neutral to the article. The only things they even attempt to add is negative information. They never try to find sources for neutral stuff or add anything that would put him in a positive light, only negative items. They try to minimize anything positive. You will find those same editors doing the same thing in other articles about people on the same end of the political spectrum as Hannity. It goes beyond coincidence. Personally, I listen to the guy maybe an hour a week total (out of 15 hours on the radio). I probably see him an hour a month on TV. So I don't really think I qualify as a fan. How do I know it will be nothing more than a blip on the radar? I already pointed out the drastic drop in coverage about it in 2 weeks, common sense tells us that it won't increase unless he revives it. As for your opinion about merging the show article, that would go against precendent. A great many show hosts, actors, authors etc. have seperate articles about their shows, books or movies. Why would Hannity be treated differently? This is a BIOGRAPHY article, not an article about his show. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• • To censor articles by REMOVING items that could be perceived as unflattering to the subject is more damaging to the goals of Wikipedia than ADDING "negative information" in the first place.Stargnoc (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• I'd suggest you read wp:BLP and see why that statement is wrong. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Notice the quotation marks around "negative information". Information an editor labels as "negative" is not necessarily inaccurate, biased, or lacking neutrality. I repeat: To censor articles by REMOVING items that could be perceived as unflattering to the subject is more damaging to the goals of Wikipedia than ADDING "negative," truthful information in the first place.Stargnoc (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Nobody said negative information never belongs in the article. My arguement is that THIS information doesn't belong. If you bothered to spend some time actually researching it, you'll find that I've participated in discussions regarding how things should be worded so they can be included instead of just always arguing for exclusion. But there is positive, negative and neutral information. These terms aren't ones I made up, they are actual Wikipedia policy. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• There are many, many secondary sources for Hannity's failure to be waterboarded. For example, over two dozen Google News hits for "Sean Hannity" waterboard charity. If Sean Hannity supporters think they are protecting this coward from his own words by keeping it off Wikipedia, I invite them to look at these 114,000 regular Google hits and weep. Joey the Mango (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Nobody has said that there wasn't coverage (although Goggle hits are a bogus standard. It includes MANY items that wouldn't qualify as a wp:RS or repeated returns of the same source). What IS in dispute is the relevence. Look at the dates on those Goggle returns that qualify as a wp:rs. The coverage dropped off after a week or so and for good reason, the event simply isn't notable. The media has essentially forgotten about it.Niteshift36 (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• • Not so. Article today discussing Mancow's waterboarding and Hannity's continued assertion that it is not torture. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/26/olbermann-mancow-intervie_n_207963.html Stargnoc (talk) 04:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
• Wow! One mention in what...3 weeks? And it was in an agenda driven source and not in an article about Hannity's "promise", but because someone else had it done and brought his name up. Yet somehow, you see a mention of it as continuing coverage. Face it, the media has forgotten about it. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I personally agree with Niteshift. This appears to be nothing more than just recentism. Showtime2009 (talk) 05:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, all these arguments against are just red herrings, things like "the media has forgotten" - so when did the media dictate an encyclopedia. It was a promise made and it's for the troops, you do support the troops, right? That's like saying the media has forgotten about the Sharon Tate murder and therefore should be excluded.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Niex05 (talk • contribs)

This is not a discussion about who supports the troops, this is a discussion about whether or not something is relevant in the grand scheme of a BLP. Consensus is this section isn't relevant due to recentism, what are your feelings on that? Dayewalker (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the logic in excluding this from the article, Sean Hannity made a pledge, yes? His pledge was made to clearly emphatically prove his point that waterboarding is not torture, yes? Why do we include promises from other biographies but not Hannity? Why is it that pages of politicians also include promises (usually in the form of 'Politican X has also promised to reform Y, Z, etc) - this is no different and should be included —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niex05 (talk • contribs)

Because this dosen't seem to be that notable if at all. Are the talking head muckrackers pushing this "story"?, just curious, thanks, --Tom (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If it was speculation then yes, I'd agree, but Hannity agreed to it on his show so we're absolutely sure we have a source. Just curious, if a politican made a pledge to donate $5,000,000 to charity would we exclude that, especially if it was a notable television network? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niex05 (talk • contribs)

• You're failing to see the basic issue user:Niex05. This issue IS covered in the article about his show. This article is a biography of Hannity, not a recap of what he did on his show. The "media has forgotten" issue isn't a red herring, it is evidence that this so-called "event" was not notable and doesn't belong in a biography about his life. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

What what if person X happened to "accidentally" slip and say "Oh, and yes, I am a thief" - is that also not notable to include either? The problem that you're not seeing is that this is how wikipedia is run, it's not a one-time biography, it is constantly updated with relevant information. Let me ask you, if Hannity does do the waterboarding and donates to the troops, would you have excluded that? You must be neutral, after all this is wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niex05 (talk • contribs)

• Want to know how else Wikipedia runs? "Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no neutral version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion." This also applies to content being put into a BLP article. Also, expect to see a notice on your page soon. Your pattern of editing and that of user:Kasper4000 seem to be extremely similar. BTW, I'm not concerned about your Arbcom threat. I'm not the one who has violated the 3R or possibly using a sock. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you just say unsourced? So if we find a source with Hannity's promise this is settled, yes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niex05 (talk • contribs)

• No. The source isn't the issue. The negative tone and relevence is. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Niex05, please sign your posts, your comments are really hard to follow without them. Simply because the material is sourced doesn't mean it belongs in the article. There's no doubt the pledge was made and not followed through, what's at issue here is the overall relevance of the material to the full article. That's what should be discussed here. Is the pledge still being discussed and is it notable right now? Dayewalker (talk) 02:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I shall sign my posts. Two things I want to note here, is relevance always equivalent to encyclopedic material? For instance, a slip of the tongue and an admission of murder is certainly "relevant" in an overall court case, similarly to that of an encyclopedia. Here is my compromise, instead of a section dedicated to the promise perhaps we could include it in the article alongside another section? I am trying to compromise here, I hope you all will too in good faith. - Niex05 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niex05 (talk • contribs)

• Please don't say you've been trying to compromise. You've continuously reverted the material. I also suspect you are using a sockpuppet. Neither of these indicate compromise or good faith. This story is included in the article about his show. Why are you this insistant that it be covered in a second location? Why isn't one entry in Wikipedia good enough for you? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Insulting me for adding (not reverting) material is not a compromise, I suggest you read the ToS and leave your ad hominems at home - Niex05 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niex05 (talk • contribs)

• You are reverting (even calling your first reversion "vandalism"). There is no ad hominem. I am stating my belief that I SUSPECT you are using a sockpuppet and I am doing the request for an investigation as we speak. I also filed a 3RR complaint about your 5 reverts (so far) of the same material. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not reverting or excluding material, that is what you're doing. You only want to discuss (but never compromise) and leave the article as you see fit, this is grossly unproductive and I hope we see some arbitrator action very soon, one who presumably does not launch insults. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niex05 (talk • contribs)

• I haven't insulted you at all. Your first edit EVER in this article is to REVERT my last edit. How can you possibly claim that you don't revert material? If you bothered to look at the history of this talk page, I have agreed to compromise wording, so your claim is without merit. And please.......sign your posts. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You have insulted me, that's #1. And #2, I reverted your edit which was a complete form of vandalism to ANOTHER user. - Niex05—Preceding unsigned comment added by Niex05 (talk • contribs)

Care to back that up with WP:DIFFs? If you cannot back up your accusations, I suggest to scratch them, lest they be taken as personal attacks, as defined by our personal attacks policy. Secondly, please sign your posts with four tildes, eg, ~~~~.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Then do me the courtesy of telling me exactly what the insult was. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

First you claimed I was a sockpuppet (ie: deceptive) and next you claim I was never for a compromise (thus accusing me of a being a liar). You don't have to call someone an idiot in order for X to be an insult, otherwise someone saying "I slept with your mother" is not an insult either. We are digressing here and the point is we should come up with a compromise, you can't just stomp your foot, get what you want and claimed it discussion. I am COMPLETELY OPEN to a compromise, so propose one and we shall discuss Niex05 (talk) 03:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Niex05

• Let's be accurate: I said you are POSSIBLY using a sock and that I SUSPECT you are using one. That is not an insult, partcularly when I went to the trouble of going through the tedious process of filing my first sockpuppet complaint, which can be found here: WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Niex05. Second, I did say you weren't here seeking compromise. You've had 5 reverts in less than 2 hours. Edit warring does not say "compromise" to me. Nor does it say it to anyone else. In fact, you never even spoke the word "compromise" until AFTER 2 editors filed a 3RR complaint against you for edit warring. Please don't play the victim. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh how fun we've got an edit war here! I'll just contribute by saying that Hannity's promise was notable for a little while on the political circuit of sites like Digg and with liberal bloggers. His waterboarding promise is about on the same level of relevance to most of Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coulter scandals. That means, not breaking news by any means, but pretty notable. It's a tough judgement call and that's probably why this edit war is happening (but don't doubt for one minute I don't see partisan bickering underlining this whole dispute). Personally, I am a fan of expanding information in articles, not detracting from them, so at the moment I favour including this.Spudst3r (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I have updated the article with the following since the question of waterboarding as torture continues to remain relevant. Hannity's comments are discussed in the Waterboarding article and are still quite relevant here.

===Waterboarding===

Main article: Waterboarding

Hannity declared on April 22, 2009 that he would subject himself to waterboarding to prove that it is not torture, but has not yet subjected himself to the technique. After conservative radio talk show host Erich "Mancow" Muller subjected himself to waterboarding to prove that it is not torture, but changed his mind because of the experience, Hannity phoned him to insist that "It's still not torture". Mancow stated on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, "First of all, Sean Hannity called me and said, 'It’s still not torture.' I said, 'Sean' — he is a friend of mine — 'it is torture.'"Stargnoc (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I have again updated the article after Niteshift36 reverted it. Hannity's opinion on a political topic is relevant to his bio and just because the Waterboarding article or the Hannity show articles mention it does not mean his opinion is not relevant. There appears to be a consensus that it should be included, please stop vandalizing. Stargnoc (talk) 04:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• It's not vandalism. Where is this consensus? There is an odor of socks in the air, but not a whiff of consensus. There is no consensus that it should be included. Half or your version is about Mancow, yet you claim it is about Hannity's opinion. If you want to include his political opinion, why can't you do it with any of the lengthy pieces he has done on it. And again, you fail to answer the basic question: Why, if it is already in the article about the show, does it need included in a biography? Again, this was WP:RECENTISM. I say was, because the press has forgotten abot it and there are only a few people who've contributed nothing but negative information to this article, pushing for its inclusion.

Again Niteshift36 has entirely reverted the information rather than updating it appropriately, in an apparent effort to hide the information. Will work on making appropriate changes to adhere to Niteshift36's request. Stargnoc (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Because again Stargnoc simply forced in the same exact material without attempt to revise at all. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I have added a "Views" section to reflect the page format of other political commentators and included "waterboarding" as the first subtopic. The text reflects Sean's continued public statements on the issue. Please do not remove and instead update the content if possible if you have some qualms with it. Stargnoc (talk) 05:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• The fluff about Mancow is irrelevent. I left the part that he states he doesn;t believe it is torture and that he said he'd do it and hasn't. That should suffice. It covers the facts. The rest is just spin. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not so sure. The description now makes it appear as if Hannity has made no further comments on the issue and I believe it's quite relevant that after another commentator who shares many views with Hannity underwent the procedure and concluded it was torture, Hannity maintained his position although he has yet to undergo it himself. If Hannity had not insisted that "it's still torture" I would not deem it relevant. The challenge would be to present it with neutrality.Stargnoc (talk) 05:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• His "further comment" was a phone conversation that we actually can't even verify. (Not saying it didn't happen or that it is being portrayed inaccurately by Mancow, just that it really can't be verified). Niteshift36 (talk) 05:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Are you conceding that if Hannity's statement was verifiable it would be appropriate to include? I feel there is something missing by not mentioning that either a) Sean continues to insist it is not torture or b) he has not responded to any requests to follow through. But I think it's probably too soon to try to provide closure on the issue. If nothing has come of it in a year from when he made the statement I think it would be worth mentioning, but one would have to be careful not to politicize it or leap to conclusions based on the fact that he has not undergone the procedure. Perhaps it would be best just to remove the "yet" which has the connotation that he will at some point be voluntarily waterboarded, something very unlikely.Stargnoc (talk) 06:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I settled on "as of yet" which doesn't imply that he will at some point be waterboarded nor does it imply that he will not.Stargnoc (talk) 06:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Why can't you just leave it alone for a little while and see what others have to say about it? You do realize that I'm not the only one who has reverted your inclusion of the materail, right? Niteshift36 (talk) 06:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
        • I am done with it for the time being.Stargnoc (talk) 06:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently not, given your recent addition of it, again, and your new section below. Removed, again, per the policies noted below. Stop adding it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I compromised in a way that meets BLP guidelines and does not violate Recentism. I didn't add the same material "again". Political views are part of a biography as you can plainly see in biographies of people such as Rush Limbaugh and Chris Matthews. Discussion has also shown that the material is relevant, so I'm not sure why you removed it again.Stargnoc (talk) 08:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)