Talk:Sean Hannity/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Human hand

Does anyone have any citation for the human hand thing?

Sean Hannity is a danger to conservative politics. His inept propaganda type show turns people away from conservative points of view. He will routinely play a sound byte out of context and then have an artificial debate with a prominent socialist politician. I often think of Nazi style propaganda artist when I listen to Mr. Hannity. He is worse than Tokyo Rose was during WWII. In this new war we need jounalist who use the truth correctly to prove that we are right politically. We don't need chicken hawk arm chair propaganda low lifes like Sean Hannity to lie to us.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.24.169.205 (talk • contribs).

Violates Wiki Standards

I have removed the first graph of the criticism section as it violates Wiki standards. Assuming Hannity is reluctant to give an opinion in opposition to Republican talking points, this criticism should only be cited with a source, preferably a reputable source with examples to support the claim, though it should be noted that it is impossible to reliably claim that Hannity is 'incapable' of doing this, 'agonizingly' so or otherwise.

tsmcbride 14:38, 07 Nov 2006

Neutrality

I understand some people have absolutely no tolerance for an opposing point of view, but that doesn't justify the constant NPOV editing to this article. I seriously doubt Sean Hannity is married to Richard Simmons. I believe this article needs to be locked to prevent this abuse.

Um, why is there a quotes section? Isn't this what Wikiquote was made for? Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia agrees with me in a post he made to the Talk:DrinkOrDie page. Here's his quote:

• What is the purpose of the "quotations" section?

--Larry Sanger

Therefore I'm going to move the quotes to Wikiquote. --Hoovernj 19:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just look at the external links for the Hannity page - basically his homepage, some biographical information and a bunch of pages that bash him. Take this article at face value.

Calmypal: it's a hoax. it's an April Fool's joke. -- Nunh-huh 22:01, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sean Hannity apologising to Bill Clinton? Definitely not a joke. - Woodrow 22:02, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• You should have listened to the whole program. It was a joke. It was a Bill Clinton impersonator, by the way. - Nunh-huh 22:03, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Even if he ought to, it's still a joke. April Fool's is well and good, but in articles it's going too far. Meelar 22:04, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

However did they find an Al Gore impersonator? How is it that the one time I walk away from the radio, he says it's a joke? Oh well, my apologies. - Woodrow 22:10, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Al Gore & Bill Clinton were done by the same guy. He's pretty good. I can never remember impersonator's names though. -Nunh-huh 22:18, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Link to WSB

Is the WSB link about WSB-FM, WSB-AM, or WSB-TV?? 66.245.66.197 14:10, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'd have to make a total guess and say AM, because those are usually the talk stations (FM being music, dunno bout TV). Ilyanep 15:40, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Speaking of WSB, it is very misleading to say that "Hannity replaced Boortz and Savage on their flagship stations". It gives the implication that Boortz was replaced after his syndication. It is true that Savage was replaced by Hannity recently. Hannity did a local show in Atlanta like 10 years ago and Boortz has been on WSB since like 95. Whoever wrote this article is either an idiot or willfully lying.

Boortz is a friend of Hannity and they appear on each other's shows all the time.

Hold on one second (wait*100)

Are these quotes absolutely neccesary...there are no quotes on Michael Savage or many other radio hosts...(plus, see argument on Talk:FOX News). Ilyanep

Of course the quotes are necesary

Duh. He's a paid speaker, so of course it's necesary to know some of the things he says. I'm sorry if they make him look bad but unfortunately he said them. If you want to add quotes where he says something you feel makes him look good then feel free and add them. And by the way there are indeed quotes for Michael Savage, I should know, I added them myself.

Please dePoliticize this

We don't post pictures of historical figures in the bathroom. Neither do we need to post all quotes taken out of context with intent to defame. Though these quotes, and these photos, exist, it is unnecessary to post them.

Please, someone depoliticize this.

Wait. It is unnecesary to post them? What the hell is this? This man speaks for a fucking living, it's his job to say things. Of course it's important to know what he says, I'm sorry if they make him look bad. If you don't like it find some other quotes you do like, go for it, I won't stop you. What the fuck are you so interested in protecting Hannity for? Especially when on his show he feels free to attack people all the time. I'm sorry if you can't deal with these quotes, but as a man whose job it is to babble its extremely important for people to know what he says. And use your handle next time, it gives you at least a shred of credibility. StoptheBus18 14:41, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The quotes are too much

One or two quotes might be good for this article, but the excessive amount of quotations here (especially as they're one-liners, almost certainly out of context) really ought to be removed, maybe to Wikiquote. Especially with the article as brief as it is, the list of quotations just isn't appropriate. That's my opinion. Jwrosenzweig 21:36, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A number of people here said the quotes are out of place, and I agree, so am removing them. Only supporter of keeping them here on this talk page swears at people and gleefully says they make the guy look like an idiot, so I think it's safe to say they aren;t hear as encyclopedic content. Add encyclopeia-style information on controversy and things he said and responses and so forth if you like, but not a bunch of random uninteresting quotes. DreamGuy 02:19, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

I'm restoring the quotes section. Many biographical articles contain quotes sections, some longer than this one. If the article is brief in comparison, the solution to that particular issue is to expand the article, not to delete the section. If anyone has problems with particular quotes we can discuss candidates for removal, but I object to removing the entire section on such a flimsy basis. I apologize for not chiming in on this debate sooner, as I've been busy (see Sollog, for example) and this didn't pop up onto my radar until now, otherwise I would have objected sooner. Gamaliel 02:37, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I haven't seen any biographical articles yet with quotes section, but of course that doesn't necessarily mean anything. I would hope that any that do exist would have quotes that are much more interesting and notable than these. Do you have a recommended article with good quotes that I can take a look at to see one where their inclusion still looks like an encyclopedia entry? I am having a difficult time imagining how that would work... As far as the revert goes, so far on the comments page the people thinking the quotes should stay are outnumbered by people how think they should go, which should count for something. DreamGuy

I wouldn't say far outnumbered as I'm not counting unsigned drive-by anon comments; without those it seems to be 3-2, roughly even. Regardless, you're right, it should count for something, but what should also count is what goes on in other articles on Wikipedia - after all, we don't have seperate rules for each article.

Some examples: Arnold Schwarzenegger has a good (if a little too hagiographic) quotes section. Ann Coulter has a good quotes section that is the product of a talk page debate where we achived consensus about which ones should stay and which ones should be dumped. I don't like the section on Bill Clinton because it doesn't have sources for any of the quotes, but I'm not going to chop it out because of that. Gamaliel 06:41, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I note that those other quote sections are also somewhat controversial on the page discussions (and I personally think they are a bad idea even if some people thought they were good), but at least there some of them try for famous quotes or interesting ones, this article just has a bunch of random yawners. If Hannity hasn't said anything particularly notable for the exact quote, then it seems rather pointless to list random things he said just for the sake of having a quote section. DreamGuy 18:49, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that the quotes should be deleted from Wiki - but they should be moved to Wikiquotes, which is specifically designed to hold them. One or two quotes are fine, but this is a long list of them. -Willmcw 20:16, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is hardly that long, there are only seven quotes. If one or two are fine, why delete the whole list? I have no problem reducing the list, but I strongly object to its wholesale removal. Gamaliel 21:56, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, so I've cut it down to two quotes, which are two more than the article on William Shakespeare has. -Willmcw 22:17, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What's the relevance of the number of quotes in Shakespeare's article? If there are only 2 quotes there, perhaps we should collaborate on a mini-project to expand that section. There is no arbitrary cap on quotes. Gamaliel 22:31, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The relevence is that Hannity is probably considered to be less quotable than Shakespeare. We already have a collaboration - it's called wikiquote. Regarding the quotes on the Hannity page, how do they expand or improve a reader's knowledge of Hannity? They are not provided in any context or as support for any particular point. They are just a list of random, outrageous, or witty things he's said. Why have them at all in this article, as opposed to the (now) existing content on Wikiquote? If they are important, let's work them into the text. Such as, "Hannity has called for his listeners to pray for the reelection of Bush" or "Hannity criticizes advocates of the separation of church and state, ..." Are these his big issues? How does the Cohen quote fit into anything? -Cheers, -Willmcw 22:45, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The quotes are pretty pointless and not unique enough to really merit their presence. I'm going to pare them down. --Holdek 08:11, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cutting them down to one is just silly. They've already been cut down from seven. Four is a perfectly acceptable amount. Gamaliel 17:49, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Though I have complained about seven quotes, I do not have a problem with five or fewer. Even if the number were cut to one, the one that Holdek chose was more of a promotional catchphrase than a proper quotation. -Willmcw 00:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, I disagree. I feel these quotes belong in Wikiquote, unless they are unique to the person. There really isn't any reason to have these in Hannity's main page, as they don't really convey any identifying information about the topic (Hannity as an individual). The only quote that seems like a unique Hannity quote is the "All we ask..." one. --Holdek 21:39, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Unique to the person?" What does that mean? Are you saying that these quotes were made by others and Hannity just repeated them? If fo, then I think you're wrong. Whereas the "all we ask..." is not a quote but a catchphrase, repeated several times a day, and possibly written by someone else. (Who is the "we" anyway?) While the quotes may not illuminate the Hannity the man, they do help characterize Hannity the commentator. Please don't just revert. -Willmcw 22:28, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What I mean is, the "All we ask" quote is at least something particular to Sean Hannity. I really don't find anything spectacular about the other quotes. They don't really tell us anything about who Sean Hannity is (unique views), as they are pretty much generalized conservative quotes. --Holdek 01:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you have some non-"generalized" quotes to replace the ones we have, feel free to insert them, but we'd like to keep the ones we have until then. Gamaliel 07:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Real name

I can't find a source for it now, but I could've sworn I read somewhere once that his birth name is David and that he's only used Sean since he got involved with radio. I also think that came up once when he had some woman on his television show who was arguing with him, and she called him "David" in order to tick him off, after which he said that people only use his real name to cheap shot him when they can't think of anything else to say. Granted, I am in no way a fan of this guy, so I don't know a whole lot about him, but I'm almost certain I've heard that before. Anyone know anything about that? Beginning 14:05, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know, his son is named Sean, but it doesn't say he's Jr. Everyking 15:58, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I heard Hannity himself say he's half German on his radio show a couple years ago.

I agree, this page needs to be re-written

This is quite obviously a case of selective quoting with an intent to defame. Can we just stick to the facts of the history of his life? Now, if there are quotes that he has made that he's been criticized over (similar to Dan Rather's "Courage"), it might be valid to bring them up as such. Of course, one would still have to be careful in that regard, since his entire job is to incite comments. He's not a "journalist" in the Dan Rather sense. However, I notice I don't see any quotes on the Al Franken page.

Anyway, this entire page needs to be scrapped and re-done.

It's in no way neutral

This article is crap. Look, Boortz and Hannity are good friends; that is a fact. Whoever deleted my changes can go to hell. Also, what the hell is your problem deleting my references to the awards he has won and my reference to his support for the troops. Seriously whoever wrote this is an idiot.

There is really only one quote on here that characterizes Sean Hannity; the rest are simply presented as swipes at his character. It's not at all neutral.

I think the best thing to do is to either add context to the more controversial quotes, or remove them and simply add a section to the article making note that he is a highly controversial figure much like Rush Limbaugh. Personally, I think Sean Hannity is out of his mind, and I categorize him with the likes of Ann Coulter; however, an encyclopedia article is no place to discuss that. That's what the external links are for. Superking 18:27, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

They don't swipe at his character, they make him look like a fool by quoting his words - there's a difference. Saying foolish things is Hannity's responsibility, not the editors of this article. That said, the number should be kept to a minimum.

also regarding the quotes: Why is each quote introduced? Why do we need to be told we are getting a quote about Bush, when Bush is mentioned in the quote? The introductions don't add any context, they just repeat what is already there (The exception being the Cohen quote, which requires some introduction to give the reference.) -Willmcw 23:59, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to pull the extraneous introductions unless someone leaps to their defense. If nothing else, the quotes would be less prominent (and bothersome) if reduced in size and verbiage. -Willmcw 09:21, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I pulled out this SLIME ATTACK:

" For example, the documentary This Divided State shows at least one instance where he has taunted the few liberals in the crowd, and singled out a liberal audience member to speak on stage so that the mostly conservative audience could jeer the liberal."

Divided State is a LEFT WING PROPAGANDA piece. I've seen bits and pieces (there are clips on their site) and basically its message is as follows:

Republicans like Sean Hannity: EVIL. Leftys like Michael Moore: WONDERFUL.

They cherry pick the most praiseworthy clips of Moore saying nice things about Republicans (did they forget that the day after 911, in his letter to the terrorists, he suggested they should have bombed the red states where people who voted for Bush lived rather than New York?)

and find one clip where a liberal is booed at a "Hannitization Tour' stop. But even the reference to that piece is dishonest, they edited out the liberal's more provocational comments that stirred up the crowd and claimed the Sean singled him out when he himself volunteered a question.

Big Daddy 14:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'm one of the "This Divided State" filmmakers and we took no editorial liberties with Hannity's (or Moore's) statements. In fact, a number of reviewers called our film one of the most succesfully balanced political documentaries of all time. And the above statement is true. This Divided State did show at least one instance where he taunted liberals in the crowd and singled out a liberal audience member so he could be jeered.

Bryan Young

Hannity is a scumbag phony. there needs to be more criticism of him in the article. Manic Hispanic 17:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Devout Catholic

On what basis are we calling Hannity a devout Catholic? To my mind, that would mean weekly attendance at Mass, at a minimum. Unless there is a similarly objective standard, perhaps our entry should read that he "claims/purports/etc" to be a devout Catholic. -Willmcw 01:22, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Further, I see some Catholics criticize his acceptance of contraception, which is at odds with the Church's own teachings. [1][2]. We shouldn't simply endorse his claim to devoutness if there is a controversy over the matter. -Willmcw 01:27, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Having heard no objections, I have edited it to read, ...he is a member of the Roman Catholic faith. I think that captures the truth. If someone else wants to get into his disagreements with the teachings of the church they are welcome to it. But I think it is now more accurate. Cheers, -Willmcw 02:23, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

If you read 'Deliver Us From Evil: Defeating [..]' he makes numerous (30+) refrences to god and the important roll in american and his own life. He also mentions within the first 40 pages his catholic roots and growing up as an Irish american in New York. Since he uses his religion (he extricates 'evil' from biblical teachings) and uses it as his thesis to content repediatly that there is no such thing as 'moral relativism' or otherwise a psychological disorder. As far as i'm concerned anyone who justifies their views with a doctrine is a devote. When Howard Zinn makes socialistic remarks in 'A People's History of the United States' we label him as a marxist, socialistic-anarchist, this is no different.

Speaking only on what the Catholic church says, Sean Hannity is not a Catholic. He has said numerous times that he is against abortion except in cases of medical need or rape. The Catholic church does not allow its members to support abortion in cases of rape, so Sean Hannity would not be considered Catholic in that sense. However, I doubt it comes up at your average church meeting and I doubt a priest would bar him from entering a church so I guess it stands alright. - 24.7.186.18 17:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I submit that Big Daddy get his own wikipedia article, which details his life and focuses on how, now, he his paranoid of a phantom "liberal media" and how he gets famously mad at things he reads on the internet. And his infamous deviant and downright dangerous homosexual tendancies. - Patrick Rose

Death Penalty

I once heard sean speak favorably of capital punishment. How has he reconciled this with his catholic faith that does not support the death penalty. Muntuwandi 17:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Relevant external links

Could the editor who deletes these links:

• MediaMatters.org articles on Hannity
• Sean Hannity, Evildoer

please explain why they are irrelevant? They seem to be directly related to the subject of this article. Thanks, -Willmcw 20:48, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Having been warned of the 3 revision rule by Gamaliel (Who was in fact doing the reverting), I will hold off for a moment. The subject of the article is Sean Hannity. If the article were about why person x dislikes Sean Hannity, they would be relevant. If web-sites from detractors are considered necessary, then please place them on the pages of other personalities such as Al Franken. Surely a strict adherance to honourable provision of information would require this.

plain_regular_ham 21:02, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you feel you have relevant links to add to the Al Franken article, feel free to add them yourself. Gamaliel 21:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Very well then. I look forward to your rushing to defend my links in case anyone finds them to be inappropriate, ad hominem garbage.

I'm not familiar with the "Sean Hannity, Evildoer" link, but Media Matters is not just some detractor - their articles on him are always backed up with plenty of proof. Furthermore, while there are a plethora of critics who may call him an evildoer, etc., Media Matters is usually a great repository of those critical views in a well-written, factual manner. I can't think of any link that would better represent criticism of Hannity, and I think removing criticism certainly detracts from the article. Of course we want it to be balanced and neutrally worded, but we also want to represent all views; that's what NPOV is all about, and I can't see it not applying to links. TIMBO (T A L K) 21:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why any of the complainers keep bringing up Al Franken since according to the edit history, none of them had attempted to insert links or make edits of any sort to that article. Gamaliel 01:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is hysterical - "Media Matters is usually a great repository of those critical views in a well-written, factual manner."????

Media Matters is a church-lady run nitpicking FAR left organization that's dedicated to slime and spooge conservatives (but completely ignore democrat missteps) as some sort of bizzare repentance ritual by it's founder David Brock to expunge himself of the sin of once being a Republican.

It does appear to back up most of it's points with factual arguments. But they are almost always poisoned with a liberal spin. So the dishonesty inherent in their writing is they confuse liberal spin with reality.

You know sometimes there ARE two sides of a story and the liberal side isn't always the right one.

The mission of Media Matters is to DAMAGE Republicans. Period.

Ps The reason we don't go to Al Franken and garbage-collect a bunch of sleazy quotes about him is that sliming people is not what conservatives do. That's more the stock and trade of liberals.

And this page, the Coulter, O'Reilly and probably countless others in here, prove it.

"sliming people is not what conservatives do"

that's the funniest thing I've read in weeks :-).

I wish I had your sense of humor. This whole talkpage has been astroturfed by Hannity fans.

So very strange that a page about Sean Hannity would be full of Hannity fans, ^douchebag above me^, that's really a mystery. The amount of lunacy on here is a bit much, perhaps a hobby would be healthy for you people.

Added back some external critical links, as similar links are found on Al Franken's page, no one should complain.66.168.28.42 15:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Jeering

What's wrong with the jeering part? It's factually accurate, and is descriptive. It's part of the "Hannitizing" process, so I don't see why it should be removed. --Holdek ^(talk) 02:08, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a reference that mentions the jeering? When I did a quick search I couldn't find any description of "Hannitizing". Cheers, -Willmcw 03:10, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

The documentary film "This Divided State" shows the whole ordeal. Hannity frequently mentions "Hannitizing" on his radio and television programs. --Holdek ^(talk) 03:19, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

If that is exactly what the documentary shows, then I think you could use that as the reference. I found references to "Hannitizing", but in some cases it seems to refer to the general spread of his poltical message. -03:28, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

The right way to attribute it might be something like, "The documentary "This Divided State" depicts "Hannitizing" as including..." -Willmcw 03:31, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

I've now edited it to that effect. --Holdek ^(talk) 04:23, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Look, the line on "Jeering for several minutes" is unfair to Mr. Hannity, and if your going to continue to insist on this line I want the following items. 1) evidence from the doccumentry 2) a article written on the doccumentry that is linked into this article. if these are not provided, this line is in my opinion unsuported POV. --Brandon Warzybok 19:17, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

The evidence is in the trailer. The "several minutes" part is unsubstantiated and should perhaps be taken out, but the audience is clearly jeering the person who is speaking. The clip also shows Hannity mockingly saying, "here liberal liberal liberal", as if he were calling a dog. I consider that taunting. So I suggest instead of changing the word to "claims", we keep it as "shows", but remove the words "several minutes" from the sentence. Everything else is clearly shown in the trailer. Superking 19:39, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

At least find a link for the trailer, let the people decide. im saying that this claim is currently unsubstanitated, thats my point. --Brandon Warzybok 21:29, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

The clip can be found at www.thisdividedstate.com. The full movie includes a scene of Hannity inviting a guy up on stage, and he goes, "Okay, now you can explain to everyone why you are voting for John Kerry." And then Hannity steps offstage, and the guy stands up there and starts giving his reasons and is drowned out by a cacaphony of boos.

Just the same, while "several minutes" may or may not be unsubstantiated (it appeared to be several minutes), I think its kind of a POV detail and I'm going to remove it. The description of Hannity rallies is enough, I think, and going further into detail does seem POV. --Holdek ^(talk) 22:05, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

I just finished researching the second to last sentance of the article regarding This Divided State. First, regardless of anything else the sentence is very out of place and comes out of no where. Add more cited information to make it a paragraph or remove it. That being said, I looked at the movie clips on the website and found that he calls on a "liberal" in the audience and acts respectful towards him. The audience boos and jeers, but how is that Hannity's fault? Hannity even tries to quiet the audience saying "let him finish." Now two posts up from mine someone explains that the full video shows him inviting a liberal on stage who is then drowned out by the audience. My point is, unless Hannity verbally expresses his specific intent, we can't assume why he did it. The way the sentence is currently phrased makes it seem that the reason he calls the person on stage is so the person can be booed by the audience. How do you know this? Show me inarguable proof that that's what his intentions were and only then should that sentence be kept. Personally I think the sentance should just be removed but mostly have a problem starting with the word "so". If the sentence is kept then my previous "let him finish" example should be added.

Hannity & ADL

• In 2004 Sean Hannity was sued by the Anti Defamation League for libel. During the trial Hannity said that he is “just like any other entertainer with a specific paying audience to appeal to. Nobody sued Eminem for his comments against homosexuals, because he’s just trying to make some money. I’m just trying to do the same thing,” said Hannity. The court ultimately ruled in Hannity’s favor.

I can't find any reference to this. Given the propensity of both parties to seek publicity, I can't understand how a lawsuit like this could have no trace. I'm removing it until we can find a source for the suit aqnd a description of what it was about. -Willmcw 04:48, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms

First, the initial sentence after the title "criticisms" makes it seem that Hannity being a conservative is a criticism. Needs to be reworded. Secondly, if there's going to be a criticism section there needs to be a section detailing points of support.

Triva and Criticisms

Check the triva and Criticisms sections. The Triva violates the NPOV "Sean Hannity appears as a character in an explicitly conservative comic book". The reason why I believe that the criticisms violates the npov is the fact that the page only has a Criticisms section and not any points from the other side.

That does not violate NPOV. The comic book in question was billed specifically as conservative comic book by its creators and by a wide range of the conservative movement. I believe it was even plugged by Hannity himself. Furthermore, I do not believe this statement is biased or defamatory in any fashion. TheDeadlyShoe 22:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Links and npov

The Links in my opinion needs work to solve another NPOV issue I am not sure what Wikipedia rules are on external links but putting someone’s personal hate page about Sean Hannity is not what I think is becoming to a neutral point of view. I do not like Sean Hannity but agree strongly with keeping things with in the NPOV. "Sean Hannity's Democratic Fascist Party" and "SeanHannityEvildoer.com" have to go before this article comes out of dispute.

The links don't have to be NPOV. And there are several of them, both pro and con, giving different perspectives on Hannity. Holdek ^(talk) 18:57, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Apparent vandalism by 66.55.229.151; apologies for mistitling subject line when cleaning it up to "Repeat vandalism", I believe this is the first incident by that IP on this article. My mistake. Lesson: don't edit after staying up all night. :P Ipso-De-Facto 13:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I changed "he is well known for being rude to guests"

I changed it back to "His critics accuse him of"--Soliscjw 18:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like it was a POV vandalism anyway. --The Amazing Superking 20:12, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Hannity fans

I agree that since there is a criticism section, there needs to be at least a short section about the opinions of those who support Hannity's views. I tried to write a section supporting Hannity but when I read it, it seemed to be sarcastic, mocking conservatives. A liberal like me can't solve the problem. If you are capable, you should do your best to improve this article's faults.Onionhound 09:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I made some considerable word changes and added some more information to make the criticism section flow a lot better, especially with the "This Divided State" bit, while pushing the POV a tick back to the right. Perhaps a little too much so, but it is more neutral than it originally was. BTW, I am a Republican searching for a party with values. Please help me...--MatthewMitchell 00:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Hannidate Is it really needed to have the following sentence end the way it does? "Since 2005, Hannity has run a dating service on his website, called "Hannidate", matching right-leaning singles, although there have been only a few handfuls of users by the year's end." Obviously I'm talking about "although there have been only a few handfuls of users by the years's end." What year? Obviously its 2005, though I think Hannidate started much earlier than that, 2003 or 2004, maybe it wasn't until 2005 where it became a regular, permanent program. But the "few handfuls of users..." Seems like information that is not needed or perhaps gives a POV. I don't know how many people are in Hannidate, but I'm sure its more than a few "handfuls" --65.83.137.137 18:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

sorry about the npov tag

I put it up for about a minute but then relized some one had already removed the item that i was disputing.--Soliscjw 04:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

This needs to be fixed

"Hannity claims that he is for reducing the size of the Federal Government yet he is all for the Government legislating morality. Hannity claims that progress is being made in Iraq yet he has not set foot in Iraq to document that "progress". He has, however, criticized the Bush administration over its immigration policy and its fiscal spending, as well as its handling of judicial nominations, and, as of this writing, has stepped up his criticisms on the Republican Party on these issues on his radio program." --Soliscjw 21:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Clean Up

I've cleaned up the article a little. IMHO, here's what we need to work on:

• More info on early career/work. At the moment it's not that cohesive.
• Some brief info about Hannity & Colmes, as well as his Radio Show. Can probably poach the former from the H&C article. The current info is all over the place.
• Elimination of Weasel words. Critics need to be shown.

I am a left libertarian who votes Democratic and in the current climate feel that, as a libertarian, I'm much more of a liberal than a social conservative. BUT.... i love wikipedia and understand the importance of NPOV. IMHO the best way to get to NPOV is to replace normative crap. Just so you know where I stand. Cheers. Jackk 06:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

What is up with KCSB? Seems like a lot of information on his earlier career. I don't understand why his advocating for actors/actresses to wear blue ribbons... is needed. Do we need every single statement he's made to be pointed out in Wiki? Looks like more information on his KCSB days then his more recent years. Not saying get rid of the KCSB, but clean it up, and add more to his current status. Kind of comical to actually read this. His top rated radio show, and highly viewed TV show, seem to be barely a blip on this entry. The controversies should be its own entry, with a paragraph or two in this entry "briefly" discussing them. And on the new entry for controversies, get into all the quotes and specifics...--65.83.137.137 17:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Further Clean Up

Honestly, as a fan of the concept of WIKI I think these articles should be limited to professional aspects and EMPIRICAL / SOURCED criticism. These sources should be credible and documented, not the political throwes of political hacks. As I'm sure some of you will glean, I am a conservative. However I only look for proper debate and progress, not to stifle political opposition. --Hackett83 19:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality/Factual Issues

First paragraph

Hannity is 'controversial' - Who says? This is meant to be an encyclopedia article not someone's opinion.

Who says? People say. I say. My mailman says. Many people say Sean Hannity is divisive and offensive, and hurts America, doing so -- that's a fact. Many people say Sean Hannity is just a staunch conservative, sticking to his guns in the face of "the liberal media" -- that's a fact too. This is controversy, no matter which side you're on. People, aside from us ivory-tower encyclopedia contributors, do sometimes tend to influence the world we are writing about. It is not an opinion that Sean Hannity is controversial, it is a fact. It is an opinion that Sean Hannity is a dick, but that's not in the article, as it should not be. He IS controversial. That's perhaps the main part of his gig. That's why so many people know about him. - Patrick Rose

Sean Hannity is not even slightly controversial. Have you ever even listened to the man? He is a repetitive dork. I'm more conservative than he is and I can't listen to him anymore and his nonsensical stances on things. He is not Libertarian, which he tries to claim once and awhile. I don't know how many times he has to tell everyone he's a "Reagan conservative". I think he's trying to convince himself. This "so and so hurts America by being so divisive" is such bullshit, Pat. That's just a way to shut people up. I haven't heard Hannity quoted by Osama Bin Laden. Now, Michael Moore and the DNC talking points are repeated by Osama over and over again. You're in good company.

Second paragraph

Hannity 'claims' that he dropped out because of financial difficulties. Is 'said' or 'says' a bit too even-handed for a left-wing smear job?

Oh geez. Someone caught on to the vast, left-wing semantic conspiracy. Quick, let's all hide! Sean Hannity does too good a job smearing himself for the left-wing to need to help. I don't see what's wrong with "claims".--The Amazing Superking 02:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Third paragraph

'indignance' - not a word I'm familiar with - factual error at least.

Shall I keep going for a fourth paragraph? Perhaps later. There's a start and certainly sufficient cause for a discussion on the neutrality and factual accuracy of the article. Fluterst 03:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Arguments don't warrant totallydisputed tag

• Controversial is not a perjorative. Ghandi was controversial. Hitler was also controversial. Pretty much any public figure you want to pick is controversial in one way or another. Does the word need to appear next to Hannity's name. No, probably not. Is there reason to remove it? No, probably not.

• "Claims" is also not a perjorative. states, asserts, claims.... are all synonyms.

• Because the contributor doesn't understand the word indignance, and doesn't want to look it up in a dictionary doesn't mean that a "factual error" exists! I seriously cannot see how that passage could be construed to be NPOV.

None of these would warrant a totallydisputed tag, so I've removed it. Jackk 01:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms section

The "Criticisms" section desperately needs sources. I was starting to clean up the "Support for Iran-Contra" section until I realized there was no evidence given for Hannity's support for any part of it. The Franken quote is entirely inappropriate for this purpose.

I also don't see why "Conduct at UVSC" is notable. It sounds pretty much like any report about any semi-controversial campus speaker.

Hannity is a controversial figure, so I'm quite disappointed that the unsourced Louima section is the only one that even looks like it might belong here.

--Ajdz 02:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is the Franken quote inappropriate?

Why isn't jeering rudely at political opponents is notable"

Louima Sources: [3] [4] --unsigned comment by Jackk 04:22, January 13, 2006

The Franken quote is inappropriate because all it does is insult Hannity for an unsourced allegation and does nothing to actually support the allegation. An appropriate quote would be one from Hannity saying "My interest in politics was inspired by the illegal funding of terrorists" - but it's not there. If jeering is notable, why isn't Franken's entire book in his article? The Hannity quote isn't even there. Thanks for the Louima sources, I will add one to the section. The problem continues for the other two sections. --Ajdz 17:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

THREE POINTS TO CLARIFY OR THINK ABOUT

The referencing for his 'controversial' positions is woeful. At least some sense of WHAT he said about these issues - not just general statements that he thought this/argued that/may or may not have implied the other - should be given. Or else it sounds like biased Hannity-hate. I actually find him way too extreme and much prefer Alan Colmes, but this is an encyclopedia, not an Al Franken rant.

Under criticisms, what on earth is this "world court" which found the US to have committed terrorist acts? The International Criminal Court which did not exist at this time AND of which the US is not a member?

What has Hannity's recent focus on Eminent Domain to do with philanthropy? The other associations are just about charitable (rather than political, especially the first freedom concert association) but what has eminent domain to do with his philanthropic activities?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.15.73 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Dichotomy of External links

Is it really necessary? — Ilyanep (Talk) 04:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Neoconservative note

I reverted an anon getting rid of neoconservative and replaceing it with conservative. Neoconservative is not an attack, it's simply a statement of fact. Does he advocate liberal policies to enforce social conservative ideals? Yes. A conservative would say that the government has no right to say what someone can and can't do in their home. Does he advocate liberal economic policies to spend money on conservative issues? Yes. This means one is a neoconservative, not that one is satan (although I do have my views on that...) -M^ask 21:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Sean Hannity is not a neocon. I agree that neoconservative is not an attack, but Sean Hannity, as much as you despise him, does not adhere to a neocon ideology. He has repeatedly criticized the neoconservative agenda in government size and spending. Furthermore, many traditional conservatives advocate for a role of gov't to uphold "moral standards". Such advocavy is certainly not limited to neocons. Do not confuse a conservative with a libertarian. -Albrock

Our Creator

Hannity has said on many occasions that we are endowed by "our Creator" which is factually incorrect. Why should that fact be removed? I am returning it.

How is that "factually incorrect"? Can you prove that it is "factually incorrect"? --WilliamThweatt 15:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely! The Preamble of the Declaration of Independance (of which he claims to quote) states "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." I figure that is proof enough that his statement of "endowed by our creator" is factually incorrect. DanielZimmerman 16:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I added a link to the article where Hannity states that the Declaration of Independence stats that we are endowed by "our" creator. I am adding this link here to show you how frequently he makes that error. Here is a direct quote from Hannity; "We go back to the Declaration of Independence and say, "Endowed by our creator," out, too?". There is no "POV" about this, it is a factually correct statement about Hannity.DanielZimmerman 16:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Besides being a minor, petty issue, does Hannity claim to be quoting the Declaration verbatim, or is he just paraphrasing for the sake of grammar and expediency? Their being the pronoun referencing "all Men" (mankind, humankind), and you and I both presumably being a member of humankind, "our Creator" is an acceptable and highly accurate paraphrase. --WilliamThweatt 16:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

He questions whether we should "go back to the Declaration of Independence and say, "Endowed by our creator," out, too?" How could he be paraphrasing for the same of grammar or expediency? Their is grammatically correct and also is the most expedient term to use since it is the actual word in the Declaration. Their and our are NOT interchangable as it changes the meaning of the Preamble. To state "our" implies that the Creator of the Founders is the one that granted those rights. To state "their" implies that each individual persons Creator is the one that granted that person those rigths. "Their" acknoledges that individuals has different beliefs as to who or what created them. "Our" restricts the Creator that gave the rights to the Creator of the Founders and that no other Creator can be correct. "Their" embraces the freedom of religion that this nation was founded on. "Our" implies that only the founders belief is correct. Words have meaning. If our founders wanted to use the term "our" they would have written the word "our". They didnt. They chose "their". The difference is NOT minor or petty and its use is NOT accurate. DanielZimmerman 18:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems your whole argument is based on the shaky premise that the "their" in the declaration is the third-person singular possesive. But this is far from evident. It is also possible that the "their" in question is the third-person plural possesive (a common usage) in which case it would indeed have the second meaning you mention and would be accurate to use "our" in paraphrase. It is a matter of interpretation and, thus, any attempt to advance your preference of interpretation (or for that matter, any argument based on your preference of interpretaion) is inherently POV.

Words do indeed have meaning. In their writings, the Founders were very often both precise and purposefully ambiguous (as politicians are wont to be). To blatantly use "our" would have been too precise. This is why our Founding Documents are considered so flexible and open to extremes in interpretation. Again, for you to ascribe motive to the Founders' choice of words and then determine factual correctness (or incorrectness) based on this ascribed motive is POV.--WilliamThweatt 18:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Sean Hannity quotes, not paraphrases, the Declaration of Independece as using the word "our". You claim that it is a paraphrase but there are clear examples where he is making a direct quote. For example, he questions whether we should remove "our" creator from the Constitution. That can hardly be said to be a paraphrase. My wording in the Sean Hannity article is NOT a POV.DanielZimmerman 19:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You haven't answered my argument and now you're going on to another point. This doesn't bode well for your potential performance in mediation. Anyway, in this new instance, again, that's how you interpret his meaning. Is he questioning whether we should remove "our" Creator, or our "Creator". If I said "Should we take our God out of the Pledge of Allegiance", would you accuse me of misquoting the Pledge? Of course not! I'd be referencing the fact that I believe the Almighty is our collective God, not that "our" is specifically the wording of the Pledge. Again it falls to interpretation which is inherently POV. --WilliamThweatt 20:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I absolutley did answer your argument. You are making the argument that Sean Hannity is paraphrasing the Preamble and I am arguing that he is incorrectly quoting it. And it is not my interpretation at all. It is the "interpretation" of [Fox News] that he is directly quoting the Preamble when he says "our creator". The transcript states (emphasis mine)

Take "In God We Trust" off U.S. coins, right? "One nation under God" out of the Pledge. We go back to the Declaration of Independence and say, "Endowed by our creator," out, too?

Later in the same article, Hannity says it again.

Our founding document says "endowed by our creator."

He is clearly attempting to quote the Preamble here and is not attempting to paraprhase at all. What you would be doing if you questioned if we should take "our God" out of the pledge has no bearing on this discussion. What Sean Hannity does is important and he clearly represents the phrase from the Preamble as being "endowed by our Creator" in this instance and in others. Clearly the transcript has it being a quote, not a paraprhase, just as "one nation under God" is a quote and "In God We Trust" is a quote. DanielZimmerman 23:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

In any case, it's an interpretation. Sean Hannity didn't prepare the transcript you cited above, a copyeditor at FOXNews.com did. That copyeditor decided where to put the quotes based on his particular interpretation of what Hannity said. Further more, the intro to the transcript states it's a partial trancript that's been "edited for clarity". It is inapropriate to draw the conclusions you state based on that alone. It is an interpretation. The fact that you believe your interpretation so strongly doesn't make it the only interpretation (or necessarily the correct interpretation). You are letting your partisan politics blind your logic.--WilliamThweatt 00:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

What partisan politics? If a "left wing" pundit was saying "our Creator" or some other factually incorrect representation of our founding documents on a regular basis I would insert it on that persons wikipedia page in a criticism section. And if I was playing partisan politics I would not have pointed out the Opie and Anthony interview and how fairly he treated them when he interviewd them on the radio. Hannity clearly pointed out three things that could be removed that make a reference to a Creator/Deity/God. The other two where not paraphrased. There is no reason to believe that the third one was. He frequently states "our creator". He states it as fact that the document contains the words "our creator". I will repeat again what he stated on Hannity and Colmes. "Our founding document says "endowed by our creator."" Regardless of the editor placing quotes, the statement would still read "Our founding document says endowed by our creator." That is not a paraphrase. It is a quote. If you want mediation on it then I welcome it. I am confident that a consensus will be reached that my statement on Hannity and his statement has a NPOV and follows WP:V. DanielZimmerman 02:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It is also a factually correct statement that Hannity greets his listeners at the beginning of every show, but is that notable just because it's factually correct?--WilliamThweatt 16:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a section for critisisms of Sean Hannity in his wikipedia page. This is a valid criticism of his presentation of our founding document. DanielZimmerman 18:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Mediation request has been made over this issue. I will keep the "our Creator" topic off of the Hannity page for the meanwhile even though it is not a POV issue and is verifiable. DanielZimmerman 20:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This is embarassingly stupid drama. Why don't you guys just mention what HAnnity says and leave it at that, without commenting about it? DUH. 68.59.61.191 16:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Reagan Conservative or Libertarian? Both? Neither?

I wanted to create a discussion about this topic before adding something to the article about Sean Hannity and his claim to be both a Reagan Conservative and a Libertarian.

| Describes himself as a Reagan Conservative"My only role is to be intellectually honest and truthful to my audience. I barely consider myself a Republican. I am a Reagan conservative. "

I have also heard him describe himself as a libertarian, though I have not been able to find a verifiable source on this (one reason I didnt just throw this in the article)

Can one be both a Libertarian and a Reagan Conservative? Is Sean Hannity either of these that he claims to be? DanielZimmerman 06:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms and sourcing

The section "Fred Phelps Protests" does not seem to be a criticism of Hannity, but rather a criticism that Hannity has made of others. I moved this to "Political positions" to make this clear. But I'm not sure why this particular opinon is notable, considering that he probably has a lot of them.

Despite Hannity's previous claim that Fox News is "fair and balanced" and having defended it from accusations of being Republican propaganda, Hannity appeared to slip on air in 2005 when he asked William F. Buckley Jr. if he was proud that conservatives had become dominant and created a "conservative media", including talk radio and Fox News.[5]

Without a reference to a source being critical of Hannity over this question, this would be original research. Moreover, it seems like a bad example of non-neutrality; I could easily see a liberal-leaning journalist asking the same question, given Buckley's position as a prominent conversative. -- Beland 16:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Beland here. This section has always struck me as not belonging in an encyclopedia but I've never had the time to reason why. I think Beland has hit on it. It's being critical of something Hannity said, giving as a source only a transcript of what he said. This is, indeed, original research. The editor is commentating on what Hannity said. It would only be proper to mention this if the point was made by a notable source which could then be recounted here and cited. Unless somebody can provide a logical refutation as to why this is encyclopedic and not editorializing, commentary & OR, I am going to delete this section. Thanks, Beland. Good catch.--WilliamThweatt 19:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

With no objections, I was going to remove the section, but I see Beland has already done so!--WilliamThweatt 23:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that criticisms CAN be a valid section in an encyclopedic entry. In order for an entry to be placed in a criticisms section, that criticism has to be verifiable and not the POV of the author. For example, I had read several websites earlier that criticized hannity and his use of "our creator". Unfortunately, since then I have not been able to track those sites down in our discussions about the "under god" issue. If I would be unable to come up with those sites, then I would agree that the under god criticism would not be allowed since it would then, by definition, fall under "original research". Ill have to take a look at the criticisms section closer to see the other issues. DanielZimmerman 05:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I edited the Kosovo section to make it "Kosovo vs. Iraq", linked to a criticism (making that a verifiable criticism) and took out the actual quotes (leaving the section to be expanded by those who can verifiy the statements about those quotes). DanielZimmerman 05:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Edited the Fred Phelps section, linked to sources ot make it verifiable, and removed some statements that may be factually correct but could be argued as pov. DanielZimmerman 05:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed the Iran Contra section for not being verifiable DanielZimmerman 05:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

mediation offer

Hi. I'm a mediator from the mediation cabal. No has taken the Hannity case Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-29 Sean Hannity, under God sorry for the long delay. figure I'll take it. Here my facts so that biases are disclosed

1. I am American
2. I know who Sean Hannity is
3. I have seen his show
4. I don't have a strong opinion about the show over any of the other rant/debate news shows
5. I have no knowledge of the point in dispute.

BTW if the issue is dead let me know.

OK reading the case. Daniel Zimmerman since you are the one who brought this case. I read your excellent analysis of how using "our creator" is incorrect and "their creator" has a different meaning. Do we have a reputable 3rd party source that agrees with you on this? Do we have a reputable 3rd party source that has raised this criticism? I'm looking for something in line with WP:NOR jbolden1517^Talk 20:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this up. I linked to a third party source that raised the criticism (a link to a forum on hannity.com where a user there started a thread of discussion criticizing). I am unsure if you feel this is reputable or not. If a criticism is made of someone, does that criticism have to be from a notable person? If so, what makes someone a notable critic? Or is it enough that someone made the criticism for it to be included in a criticism section?

On our creator and their creator, I had found some sources when tracking down the link to the forum where the original criticism had been made. I shall seek them out and put them in the evidence section of the Hannity case. DanielZimmerman 00:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

In and of itself a link to forum doesn't really prove this is a criticism since that's not an institutional source. That is anyone can say anything and if it hasn't been repeated it hasn't gotten enough notice basically all you are proving is one guy at one time said X. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards_and_posts_to_Usenet Assuming that is the only source, here is how I would recommend you handle this situation.

# Take your argument here expand it and create a web page with that argument (about our creator vs. their creator)

# In that article mention the connection with Hannity.

1. Hopefully at least one other website then sites the page you made in connection with Hannity
2. Then you can go ahead and link in to wikipedia

Sorry I know that's not what you wanted to hear but there isn't much for me to mediate. Like I said your argument is excellent but excellent arguments from obscure sources are original research. Now if we have several sources things change. jbolden1517^Talk 00:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Fred Phelps Protest Goes Back In

I still don't understand why people are so thick. Sean Hannity deliberately lied and claimed that Fred Phelps and his cache of nutjobs were "liberals" protesting the funerals of dead soldiers and heckling their families. He selectively quoted newspaper clipping to support his story. Someone came into the article and mentioned that he argued with one of them on Hannity & Colmes several months later, and then everyone became confused and removed it. Hannity's misrepresentation of Phelps as a "liberal" is going back in.

Sean's Doctorate

Recently on his show Sean mentioned that he recieved an honorary doctorate from Liberty University. In the trivia section another university is credited with this degree. Did he recieve doctorates from both universities, did I simply hear wrong or is there an inacuracy on the page?

He has two honorary degrees. He does not have any earned degrees from places of higher learning. Arbusto 22:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

"Hannity is a vigorous debater who relies on tactics like offering out of context quotations, stifling alternate viewpoints, attacking the messenger of opposing views, dismissing facts, and presenting straight-up factual errors as truth."

Can we please support this or remove it? To someone who disagrees with him this is true but what "straight up factual errors" were presented, what "alternative viewpoints" were stifled and what "facts" were dismissed. Loucards 19:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, this statement is Original Research. It needs to be removed unless a notable, verifiable source is provided.--WilliamThweatt 23:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Such a quote as that does not seem to be encyclopedic and should be removed. However, he has done many of those things stated. If someone could present examples of those things in an encyclopedic way then it could be added. This is why I believe a "criticisms" section is warranted because there are many verifiable examples where Sean Hannity has been criticized for what he has said or done. DanielZimmerman 01:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

That statement is factual and should be put back in. If you work with Hannity you shoud not be editing this page. (Anonymous User) May 30, 2006

I believe that this statement is true, but not encyclopedic. It's simply unfair to make vague, negative, uncited judgments of subjects' debating tactics. If someone wants to produce a section entitled "Controversies on Sean Hannity's Program", documenting instances where he has used these tactics or has been accused of using these tactics, that's fine. There has been solid verified research on Hannity's tricks and alleged tricks. This article mainly contains unsubstantiated assertions. --Jjohn413 18:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Phelps = Far right?

I cut out the statement calling Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church part of the "far-right," inasmuch as Phelps supported Al Gore, opposes the Iraq War, supports Cuba and Castro, supports Saddam Hussein (a socialist), etc. I don't think it's accurate to call him either far-right or far-left. LaszloWalrus 10:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

College?

Did this guy go to college? On 9/15/06 during his radio broadcast he claimed to have been on the deans list of an unnamed college. He did not specify which college and the lack of citing one in his bio leads one to believe he was less than truthful

Remove tag

The discussion on this articles neutrality seems to have halted, so after making some POV-snipping edits myself (already did, please review), I'm going to remove the tag. If it goes back up, can someone do me a favor and drop me a line so I can come back to discuss? Thanks, Karwynn 21:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

npov again

I put the tag up for this statement "The protesters were members of the Westboro Baptist Church, a conservative religious hate group led by Fred Phelps." They may be a hate group but saying that is a pov. There is a better way of saying it but I can not think of it right now please change it--Soliscjw 23:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't put a dispute tag over the entire article just for a single word about a group entirely unrelated to Hannity. Try the {{sectNPOV}} tag instead. Gamaliel 23:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry thanks for letting me know --Soliscjw 00:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

When I put the section npov tag up it changed the format of the page what did I do wrong?--Soliscjw 00:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This is so blatantly agianst Wikipedia policy that it doesn't even merit discussion! Wikipedia can't start labelling various groups as "hate" groups. If a source can be cited that accusses them of being a "hate group" we can word it that way as long as the source is properly cited, but this is not acceptable. (For the record, I think these guys are nut-jobs, but this is not an issue of what we think of them...it's a matter of WP policy)--WilliamThweatt 02:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hannity guest celebrates terrorism?

Binyamin Netanyahu is a recent guest on the Sean Hannity radio show. Condemning terrorists. However, recently, right-wing Israelis including Binyamin Netanyahu attended a 60th anniversary celebration of the bombing of the King David Hotel, which was organized by the Menachem Begin Centre. The British Ambassador in Tel Aviv and the Consul-General in Jerusalem complained, saying "We do not think that it is right for an act of terrorism, which led to the loss of many lives, to be commemorated.".

Dean1970 22 July, 2006. (60th anniversary of the act of terrorism which clamed over 90 lives)

Media Matters

You can't use Media Matters as a source. They're not credible anymore. I'm not trying to hook this left or right, I'm just saying that it is generally accepted that MM carries a political agenda.

It's generally accepted that George W. Bush has a political agenda. Can we not use him as a source, either? Nareek 20:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

MM is defeinitely not an acceptable external link, unless the page is about Media Matters directly. EmmSeeMusic 02:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Sean Hannity has to be one of the stupidest men in the United States of America. And that is saying something. Matthew A.J.י.B. 09:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)This comment might be thought of as uncivil by some users if you could reword or remove it, if you will I would be thankfull--Soliscjw 20:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutraility of article

First of all, there is no mention in the article of his education. Then henever dropped out of college according to his biography on the foxnews.com website. Matthew lol. What a coincedence. Did you just check this page out today. Also There is bad grammar in this article and I will be fixing that. This article is bad people, and it needs to be fixed and cleaned up. --Zonerocks 23:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Coaching Allegations

During the Terri Schiavo controversy, two of Schiavo's nurses appeared on Hannity and Colmes to argue that Schiavo was not brain dead. Comedian Harry Shearer obtained a video tape[1] where Hannity can be heard coaching the nurses on how to respond to Alan Colmes's questions. He told them to respond "I'm just here to tell you what I saw", no matter what Colmes asked. After the segment, Hannity can be heard saying "We got the points out...But you did great, both of you." First of all this was an allegation. This is one of the things on the article that makes this POV. This should be cleaned up from the article. There is no actual video tape of this or audio tape for that matter. For all we know, the COMEDIAN made it up. --Zonerocks 00:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"There is no actual video tape of this or audio tape for that matter."? Really it took me two seconds to find the video.[6] Arbusto 07:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Fred Phelps

What's the point of this section, looks like this section needs to be cleaned up. It has false facts. We could put his education in this section. --Zonerocks 00:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Info

If no one objects to me adding some new info about sean hannity, then I will add it. --Zonerocks 00:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's a very open ended question. What's the info? Squiggyfm 02:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That is a very open-ended question, I hope it's not a foreshadowing of the quality of your edits. :-) But, seriously, all contributions that add notable, encyclopedic info are welcome and encouraged as long as they're verifiable and backed up with citations. And remember the rule that most people seem to forget in bios of controversial political figures: "The more outraguous the claim, the more solid the source has to be".--WilliamThweatt 02:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sean Hannity joined the FOX News Channel (FNC) in September 1996 as co-host of Hannity & Colmes (Monday-Friday, 9-10PM ET), a primetime one-hour debate driven talk show focusing on the controversial issues and newsmakers of the day. He serves as the program’s conservative counterpart to liberal Alan Colmes. He also currently serves as the host of WABC-AM’s highly rated afternoon talk program, The Sean Hannity Show.

Known for his provocative style, Hannity has become one of the most popular radio personalities in New York and has appeared on a number of talk shows to offer his free-wheeling, passionate commentary on politics and the American agenda. He has interviewed many key political figures ranging from President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Reverend Jesse Jackson, Steve Forbes, New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, Ralph Nader and Ken Starr.

Prior to his post at Fox News Channel, Hannity hosted a radio talk show in Atlanta on WGST-AM. He also frequently substitutes for fellow talk show host, Rush Limbaugh on WABC in New York.

Sean Hannity has been named "Talk Show Host of the Year" and one of the "Top 100 Talk Hosts in America." by Talkers Magazine. He is originally from Long Island, New York. http://premierespeakers.com/560/index.cfm http://wabcradio.com/programming.asp --Zonerocks 02:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Roger! Squiggyfm 03:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

So is that alright? --Zonerocks 03:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments removed because they violate Living Person rules of Wikipedia.--Getaway 20:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Changes

I hope yall liked the changes in the early life and career section. I think now we need to get to the other issues in this article. This article has alot more criticism then talking up the positives. This is a very biased article. let's clean this up yall. --Zonerocks 05:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Any Ideas?

Doesn't anyone have any ideas for anything on the todo list. --Zonerocks 05:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Fred Phelps

This is a very irrelevant part of the article. It's part of one the biased things in this article. I would like to get rid of it an instead replace it with education. --Zonerocks 18:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point, but it keeps coming back.--Getaway 20:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Getting rid of trivia

1. Sean Hannity received an honorary doctorate in Republican Propaganda from Southeastern University in 2006.
2. Alec Baldwin in a recent exchange with Hannity referred to him as a "No talent whore" and "a former construction-worker hack" resulting in Hannity referring to Baldwin as a third rate actor. The feud between the two continues with Hannity frequently playing an actual clip of Baldwin hosting his own talk radio show. The clip contains some rather unflattering moments from Baldwin.
3. Hannity interviewed Opie and Anthony during their hiatus from radio. The radio duo call their friendship with Hannity unlikely and are appreciative of how fairly he treated them in the interview. Hannity regularly calls their current show.
4. On his IFC Network television show, Henry Rollins stated he wanted Hillary Clinton to be elected president specifically for the hilarity Hannity's reaction to it would bring.
5. Hannity appeared in an episode of the 2003 ABC drama Threat Matrix.

ok, Biased Republican Propanaganda. Come on. The second one what the hell is that, the third qutoe Sean hannity doesn't call the show on a regular basis. You can decide on the rest. My point is that we should get rid of this pointless and very biased, and vandalistic section. --Zonerocks 00:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC) P.S hmmm no one wants to deal with this page besides me. So I guess it's up to me to get this page correct.

Criticisms Section

I will be adding a criticisms section to talk about sean's criticism.

Wow this is better than it looked yesterday. Good job. Very Unbiased, but I think you need to add more to the page. --Proudzionist2347 03:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• The final paragraph in the criticisms section... It basically states he was incorrect on one issue. Why is it substantial enough to be in an encyclopedic entry? Where are the sources for the hype that one would presume notable criticism would cause?

Hal Turner connection

The friendship between Hannity and well-known New Jersey white supremacist radio host Hal Turner is worth mentioning. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050620/blumenthal --Baltech22 02:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't put that. The Link doesn't work, and plus it is biased. --Zonerocks 16:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

How would you know it's biased if the link didn't work? I fixed the link. If you can dispute the info within, be my guest. Bias in an article does not imply factual inaccuracy. --Baltech22 17:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

it;s pov. You just want to ruin the article, that People have worked hard on. I recieved a barnstar for this article. --Zonerocks 18:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Please conduct talk page discussions in a civil manner and do not make accusations. Thank you. Gamaliel 18:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If you consider it POV, why not include it in the 'criticisms' section? It's not isolated to just that one article. Refer to http://www.newshounds.us/2006/08/18/sean_hannity_phony_friend_to_jews.php http://www.sanderhicks.com/hannitymania.html http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=04BA10C53820685A59536F41E333485F?diaryId=2788 [among others] --Baltech22 21:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What your trying to say is not true. The side chat was to offer support for his cocaine habit and homosexual leanings. You totally twisted the words. Fix it or it goes away.--Zonerocks 21:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Read the article, buddy. The charge is that Hannity offered Turner a venue to air his views. That is a documented criticism. There is absolutely no reason to remove it from that section. The question isn't whether the criticism is correct, but whether the criticisms section accurately reflects how Hannity is criticized, and it definitely does that. --Baltech22 23:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms Section

I removed it again. Media Matters is far from an acceptable source, but that isn't even the point. Keep it official in the external links. There is already a criticism section, put specific entries of criticism there (with references). EmmSeeMusic 16:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV...again

The criticism section is seriously distorted. I can't stand this man, but the section makes him out to be Satan. I also put up a Cleanup tag; I think it's best for this article. Ohyeahmormons 19:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it would be best if you guys take out the entire criticism section. Perhaps rewrite it to, instead of going into the details of his "scandals," simply list the basic information. There's no need to go into the details because you can find that "dirt" anywhere. Let's be realistic: Some people hate Hannity. Hell, you could even PUT THAT INTO THE ARTICLE - you can link to this discussion page as an absolutely viable source! Just my two cents, I was bored and I decided to take a peak into this article. Soul in Ether 07:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Less makeup?

Is there a photo we can use with Hannity wearing less makeup? 23:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Catholic or Baptist?

A good friend claims that He see's Sean Sunday at the baptist church he attends in Long Island, yet the article states he's a practicing Catholic. Is his wife bapsist? Does he attend two church services a weekend. A practicing Catholic would regularly attend a Catholic church on Sunday. Perhaps the verbiage should be changed to claims to be a practicing Catholic. --Zippy1981 00:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. That is based upon mere speculation. It is based upon what your friend might have OR might not have seen. It is based upon horse hockey and if it is added it will be removed.--Getaway 01:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, which is why I posted it on the talk page. I keep it on the talk page in hopes that someone can confirm or deny this. I consider this friend reliable enough to ask it on the talk page. As to the issue of changing the verbiage, I would only be in favor of doing it if more evidence of him being a baptist is brought forth.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zippy1981 (talk • contribs)

Fred Phelps

Your removal of the critique in regards to Hannity's incorrect statement that the picketers at a soldier's funeral were "anti-war leftists", as opposed to radical homophobes, is flawed. You claim, correctly, that Phelps calls himself a Democrat, at least in name. However, Hannity never mentions anything about the picketers being "democrats", but rather he claims that they are "the anti-war left". Phelps may call himself a "democrat" based on some strange tradition he has, but to therefore consider him "left-wing", despite his clearly non-liberal stance, is severe spin at work. How do his actions give any indication of a left-wing lean? His stance on gay rights? Religious tolerance? He may dislike George Bush, but he hates Clinton just as much. There is nothing factually innacurate in the criticism. Get your spin straight. --Jackbirdsong 23:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC) (This comment was originally placed on my talk page and not here on the Sean Hannity talk page as it should have been.--Getaway 14:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC))

The editor Jackbirdsong keeps putting in the article his own personal rant. There are several problems with his rant: (1) it violates the principal Wikipedia:No original research (it is the personal opinions of Jackbirdsong and for that reason alone it needs to be removed), (2) it violates the principal of Wikipedia:Verifiability (there is just one citation for the information and zero citations given for the opinions expressed and this is another reason that should and will be removed), (3) it violates the principal of Wikipedia:Copyrights (many, many parts of Jackbirdsong's extended rant quotes another article from a TV website in Indianapolis, Indiana word for word (also, for this reason alone the whole rant must be removed). I am going to remove the rant. Also, it is way, way too long for the article and it violates the Wikipedia idea of balance. Its size and detail and ranting style are also completely inapproprate for an encylopedia. It was be removed over and over again.--Getaway 01:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, not that it is important, but I almost forgot to respond to jackbirdsong's political rant. Fred Phelps used to love Clinton and Fred Phelps, Jr, his son, was Al Gore's state of Kansas Presidential campaign manager. Clinton and Gore invited Fred Phelps to his Clinton's inaugural. Fred Phelps ran for offic in Kansas five times as a Democrat. He has never been registered as a Republican. Fred Phelps, earlier in his life, was an attorney and he did civil rights work, a clearly left-wing cause. Five of Fred Phelps's children attended Washuburn Law School and they have been personal injury attorneys, all of them taking after their father, one of the most obnoxious personal injury attorneys in the nation, much less Kansas. Think of it: six Fred Phelps running around suing people, not just one. The only reason Fred Phelps has the time to picket soliders's graves now is because he got disbarred as an attorney. He took his left-wing courtroom work just a bit too far and got himself disbarred. Every single Supreme Court justice in Kansas signed the petition to have his left-wing attorney butt thrown out of court. He was later disbarred from Federal court too. He just has one of his crazy daughter's do his crazy left-wing legal work now. Yes, Sean Hannity was right, Fred Phelps is a Democrat and a left-wing nutjob. Sorry, but your evaluation of the Fred Phelps's background is completely off base.--Getaway 04:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Gamaliel has reverted my removal of jackbirdsong's personal commentary twice today. You can review those reverts here: [7] and here: [8]. I want to remind Gamaliel that there is no citation for the commentary placed in the Hannity article by jackbirdsong. Wikipedia is not a place for Wikipedia:No original research. Also, jackbirdsong's commentary, which Gamaliel keeps putting back in the article, has claims in its commentary that cannot be verified. Please review this Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability. Thanks,--Getaway 14:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

PoV: Criticisms

It seems not everyone can maintain a high enough level of maturity to handle this biographical article... I can't say I support the guy, but I can say what is going on with this page only goes to show how passionate people can become over such matters of "great significance".

Whether the man is a jerk, fraud, or a saint should be the product of a person's individual research and observations. I've seen people get offensive over this article, putting in considerably negative and biased opinions. Many negative inputs were not biased opinions, of course, and most likely the ones that have survived the page would be the ones. I've also seen people get defensive, quickly removing anything that deems him less-than-saintly. Whatever.. he's human.

And, well, yeah; that's it. This guy's a public figure, it can be especially difficult for us to maintain a neutral viewpoint, and I am not a big-time contributor here, and maybe it's not my place, but I have read my share of wikipedia articles for leisure or for research, and I have seen how they sound, look, and feel, and I think the best direction for this topic would be to pretty much cut out all the specific criticisms because, for one, there are too many for it to be practical, and because... is it really our job to dig up the "dirt" on him? How specific is too specific?

Or maybe the better question is.... is controversial bad? 8 ) My last input on this piece (quite possibly the last time I ever view this article as well). Take it or leave it. --Soul in Ether 06:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms

This is in the criticism section but doesn't say who criticized it:

During the Terri Schiavo controversy, two of Schiavo's nurses appeared on Hannity and Colmes to argue that Schiavo was not brain dead. Talk show host and actor Harry Shearer obtained a video tape[2] where Hannity can be heard coaching the nurses on how to respond to Alan Colmes's questions. He told them to respond "I'm just here to tell you what I saw", no matter what Colmes asked. After the segment, Hannity can be heard saying "We got the points out...But you did great, both of you"Video on Youtube.--PTR 12:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Abner Louima

This section states: Hannity was an outspoken critic of police brutality victim, Abner Louima. Louima, a black Haitian Immigrant was beaten severely by Brooklyn police officers in 1997. During the attack, Louima was forcefully sodomized with a plunger causing severe internal injuries as well as being beaten, threatened with death and racially abused. Hannity was one of Louima's biggest critics, charging that he had fabricated the rape — calling him "lying Louima" ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  and using interviews with people alleging Louima had past sexual relationships with men to bolster the claim that he had sustained his injuries during a "gay sex act." During, the trial of officer Justin Volpe, Volpe admitted to sodomizing Louima and was sentenced to 30 years in prison without the possibility of parole.

There is NOT one piece of support for this basic commentary of a Wikipedian. There is no citation that Hannity said what the section states that he said. How do we know that Hannity stated such a thing?? How? I don't see a citation. Also, how do we know that Hannity was "one of Louima's biggest critics"? That's sounds like the commentary of a Wikipedian that does not particularly like Hannity and wants to use Wikipedia to make comments about Hannity. There is no support of any kind for this assertion. Where is the citation? Also, how do we know that Hannity "using interviews with people alleging Louima had past sexual relationships with men"?? May be Hannity did, but I don't see a citation for this allegation and the premise of the sentence is that Hannity was "bolster[ing] the claim" of Hannity. How do I know this is true?? Is this commentary of a Wikipedian? It sure looks like it. It is not encyclopedic, just more of the use Wikipedia to attack living persons that you don't like for whatever reason. This whole section needs a good editing because right now it is merely editorializing.--Getaway 16:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

A quick google confirms that accusations of Louima lying about his claims were indeed made. However, transcripts of copyrighted material are difficult to come by- on the other hand, there's some measure of discussion on hannity.com's forums that shows up near the top of the search regarding if Hannity should apologize for the accusation. I will see what I can turn up regarding the content and allegations made on the show. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 17:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Got it. here. Please in the future assume good faith in the actions of other Wikipedians, Getaway. It took 10 seconds to find the article on Google to properly source that paragraph. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 17:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Information duplicated/misplaced

It seems a lot of this information is included on or belongs on the Sean Hannity Radio show page. Wouldn't criticisms of the Hannity and Colmes show and the Sean Hannity Radio show be better placed there? --PTR 21:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Weasel Words and this article

It would do the editors of this article to remember Wikipedia's policies on weasel words, and be reminded that according to WP:NPOV, the purpose of Wikipedia in the cases of political and other conflicts is to describe the debate, not to advocate either side. I have noticed that in the Criticism section of this article, steps have been taken to discredit people the article's subject disagrees with by the use of Weasel Words to slyly imply that Hannity is correct, or to give his opinions extra weight. Note that both of these uses of these words are ruled as unacceptable in the relevent policies. Neutral point of view is what editors must attempt to strive for. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, per Getaway's edit summary on an edit on the 15th, saying that Code Pink IS a far-left organization: I can only encourage some research here- according to Code Pink's mission statement, they are strictly an anti-war organization, and do not have anything regarding a progressive or liberal agenda listed anywhere that I could find on their website. So, to say that they are is disingenuous. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep it short, could we Kuzaar? Media Matters is a left-wing organization with an axe to grind. We cannot take their version of the events without question. Media Matters so called quoting of Hannity is not a Reliable Source on which to quote Hannity. At best we need a transcript of the radio broadcast, but taking the word of Media Matters is biased. Period. Whether you want to believe it or not.--Getaway 15:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Media Matters is a political reporting organization, exactly like your Log Cabin Republicans link. That does not make it an unreliable source, regardless of what you say. Period. If you can find a transcript of the show, then I agree, it is better to use that. However, in the lack of that one is forced to rely on what other reliable sources can be found. In this case, I have seen nothing that questions the reliability of Media Matters as a reporting org, only that what they report regards progressive politics. Some of my other concerns are in the "Media Matters- Reliable?" section below. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"Criticism"

One issue I have noticed on this page, particularly in dealing with the above problems with weasel words, attempts to give undue weight to the article's subject, and attempts to discredit people and organizations the article's subject disagrees with, is the removal of and material critical to him. Specifically, I refer to the above issues in which Hannity has been criticized (criticized, literally, as in organizations have found fault and error with what he has said or done) for his actions. Criticism is not, as some editors appear to think, any idea that the article's subject's political views are objectively right or wrong, but, by definition, showing that something he said was incorrect, at least according to Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com. I have reinserted the "Criticism" subheading for the time being. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad we've taken this here because I have a lot of questions and this section seems to be getting a lot of action lately. Questions:

The criticism section is pretty large, the article, doesn’t have a corresponding “Good Things” section and the criticisms section does not weave in good with bad so it seems the article is not well balanced.

The KCSB Incident:

If this is in criticism don't we need a citation for it? I found a citation for the UCSB Daily Nexus campus newspaper 5/27/89 but it's not on line. And, does it belong in the criticisms or in a section on Employment? I think it might be better if the KCBS part was moved to employment or under radio programs, e.g., He got his start as a broadcaster on KCSB, was dismissed, went on to the next job.

Terri Schiavo

If this is in criticism, who criticized it and what was the criticism? We don't have any citation that he was criticized for anything here.

Abner Louima

I rewrote part of this so that it read better. I wasn't trying to tone anything but trying to change it from Wikipedia saying he said Abner Louima had fabricated the rape to showing he’d been criticized for it. We don’t have a citation for him saying it only one for the criticism.

My rewrite (which I rewrote after review)

Hannity was a critic of police brutality victim, Abner Louima, a black Haitian immigrant beaten severely by Brooklyn police officers in 1997. During the beating, Louima was forcefully sodomized with a plunger causing severe internal injuries. Hannity was criticized for charging that he had fabricated the rape, calling him "lying Louima" and using interviews with people alleging Louima had past sexual relationships with men to bolster the claim that he had sustained his injuries during a "gay sex act." During the trial of officer Justin Volpe, Volpe admitted to sodomizing Louima and was sentenced to 30 years in prison without the possibility of parole. --PTR 14:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a single problem with it. I'm behind you if you want to replace the current section with that one. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I do still agree with you that the criticism section is disproportionately large compared to, say, what a normal article should have. I would like to see his political views section expanded, and if there are appropriate sections to add regarding philanthropy, or awards he's won, they should, at a minimum, be fleshed out to make sure that the presentation of this article is itself NPOV. This afternoon I'll look into good stuff from Mr. Hannity's background and see what I can add. In the meantime, I can only encourage you all to go out and find notable things about this fellow to balance out the article. Additionally, at present (as I've observed above), I think that many of these criticism sections are pretty long and can be condensed down to the essence of what the conflicts are about. PTR has done a good job regarding the Abner Louima one above. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just popping in here -- I've posed a question on BLP's talk page about criticism sections and I thought you should be aware of the response. --plange 16:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the input, Plange. :) --Kuzaar^-T-C- 16:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I deleted this entire section: "* In 2003, shortly after the fall of Baghdad, Sean Hannity interviewed Ex-Marine and Chief Weapons Inspector in Iraq, Scott Ritter on the validity of the invasion and his involvement in the Weapons Inspection program. Hannity outright claimed Ritter was biased and paid off by the Iraqi government (without evidence)to endorse the idea of WMD no longer existing in Iraq, the conversation finally turned to the future of the occupation where Sean believed the occupation would be very short and successful, Ritter said we'd be there years from now and in the same state as the occupation of South Vietnam.Hannity has never apologized for this character assasination."

Why? Well, the first sentence is fine. We've been waiting for a citation for the rest of it through the next-to-last sentence for 3 months - apparently none is forthcoming. And the last sentence is pure argumentation: "character assasination" is a clearly POV phrase and the statement that he "has never apologized" presupposes that he should.Pinkvolkswagen 02:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Media Matters - Reliable?

Today Getaway brought up some questions regarding the reliability of the reporting organization "Media Matters" in edit summaries on the main article. Personally, I think that while it is a niche reporting organization (just like the LogCabinRepublicans link, which Getaway added), that does not make it an unreliable source. In honesty, I am more concerned that Getaway does not think it is a reliable source because it is critical of the article's subject. If any other editors would like to express an opinion, I encourage them to. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Horse hockey. How do you know what is going through my head?? You don't and stop that BS. You don't need to comment on me and my thinking process. Focus your comments on the article and stop speculating on me. It is inappropriate under Wikipedia rules and it will stop now. I have been ignoring your comments about me, but now it will end. Discuss the article or I will have bring in someone and we will have a discussion about your obsessive speculations about what I'm truly thinking, which of course, is in contradiction to Wikipedian policy. Discuss the article. Don't talk about me. Gotta it???--Getaway 15:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that you have said that MM is not a reliable source because they are an political reporting organization. Policy (specifically, WP:RS strictly disagrees with you here- it does not disqualify it from reliability. The reason I commented on your motivation is because of how your edits appear to be to me- you have gone through and advocated a specific point of view, which I have mentioned in the above paragraph. If you think it is unfair to mention problem edits made by a specific editor in the article's talk page, then please show me what policy my views contradict. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Just for reference, with regards to the reliability of the two sources stated above, both Log Cabin Republicans (a politically conservative reporting site) and Media Matters (a politically liberal reporting site), I refer to the WP:RS page, in the section regarding Partisan sites, wherein it states that political motivation does not necessarily disqualify a source from being reliable- it is the reliability of the organization, which is to say, if it is fact-checked, has an editing team, etc. Both of these organizations appear to have reporting standards in place. The fact that they reported a story critical of someone on the other side does not diminish the reliability of their claims, which appears to be what policy states in this case. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

As I have pointed out in the past, there is a tendency for editors, who have an axe to grind, to just create a "Criticism" section and then make a long list of things they do not like about the person. That is not balanced. You and I have been through this before with the Sam Brownback article. In reference to Brownback someone did not like Brownback's position on stem cell research and the snowflake babies thing. So the editor wrote about the White House meeting in the Brownback section under "Criticism" when actuality it should have been mentioned in the section of Brownback's article called "Views." There is a distinct difference between what someone believes and whether is it "Criticism." Under Brownback and now Hannity standard it is possible to list anything you don't agree with under "Criticism", branding the opinion of the editor on the debate. It is biased and it is not NPOV. There is absolutely nothing that Hannity needs or should apologize for in the Fred/Pink discussion. Nothing. The statement, if it is the correct wording (we don't know for sure because we are relying on an unreliable source of Media Matters), does not really state anything that is all that contrversial. It is not similar to Ward Churchill calling the people in the World Trade Center "little Eichmanns" or Mel Gibson making anti-semitic remarks. Yes, left-wing groups have protested the war and yes they some of them get carried away and protest and personally verbally attack the soliders. This is not news. It happened in Vietnam, the First Gulf war and now in Iraq. Fred is a old-time liberal and Pink is an anti-war organization. Let have rights to their opinions, but we need to present the information fairly in the article. Hannity referred to both of them and both of them have ties and relationships with left-wing groups, whether we want to admit it or not. If Pink calls it a vigil and Hannity calls it a protest then Wikipedia should call it something neutral and calling it a vigil is not neutral. But the bigger issue is that it should not even be in the "Criticism" section, but in a section called "Views" just like the Brownback article.

Well, the beginning of your response I agree with- the criticism section of this article is disproportionately large, and it does look like editors in the past have used it to talk about "how bad such and such is and look blah blah". I think it can be refined down into points that people have objected to in the past- like PTR's writeup of the Abner Louima article above is a pretty good example for how each should read, I think.

As to another point you raise, as to whether the Walter Reed incident should be called a vigil, or a protest, or what; I hold the belief that it's always better to list both points of view on any dispute nad let the reader be the one who judges, as NPOV should dictate. Since both sides disagree on what it was, and its purpose, exactly, the claims of both should be listed in the article to avoid giving either undue weight and make sure NPOV stays. If you have a wording you think would be better, just list it here. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Kuzaar added a fact tag to the Code Pink section as if the Hannity did not refer to Pink in the same radio segment as Fred. That is wrong it will be removed. Kuzaar needs to check facts BEFORE he adds fact tags. Once again, if we are going to rely on an unreliable source, Media Matters, then we are going to be able to use ALL information from the source. So on the Media Matter website there is what claims to be a transcript of the Hannity broadcast and it clearly shows that Hannity referred to both Fred and Pink in the same segment. End of that discussion: "From the August 30 broadcast of ABC Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show: HANNITY: Let me read to you from Indianapolis. Headline: "Funeral for fallen Hoosier soldier brought some unwanted guests." Let me read this. Now, put this in the context of the story we did for you last week about Code Pink and about how Code Pink was protesting in front of Walter Reed Medical Center. Remember, they had their "Maimed for Lies" signs and "Enlist Here and Die for Halliburton" signs? And this is where these soldiers come back to try and get their lives together after receiving these awful, often life-threatening wounds. And yet, these people with political agendas are outside Walter Reed Medical Center protesting. And my point to them was, "Hey, look, if you want to protest, let's leave the injured soldiers alone, they need time to recuperate. Take it to the White House. Take it to some other area." There needs to be a transcript source other than a left-wing axe to grind source.--Getaway 15:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The two pieces on the Fred Phelps and Code Pink were not aired on the same date as the current text implies, they were different episodes aired a week apart. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I changed the wording of the article to show how close together the two broadcasts were (within a week of one another), and to reflect the dispute over the nature of the gathering (specifically, saying that the gathering was what Code Pink itself called a vigil). Hopefully the current revision gives neither side undue weight. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

No, not a reliable source: according to the info on Jossi's talk page, they definitely aren't neutral, and have a slant; hence, are likely presenting slanted information.

Just took my first look at this page, which is giving undue weight to criticism, and needs a rewrite. Try to get some distance: when Sean Hannity's obituary is written, will a single one of those Criticism headline sections occupy an entire paragraph in any bios or obits? Does this *look like* an encyclopedic entry in any reputable encyclopedia? Does it look like a bio in any hard print source? If not, there's likely some POV-pushing going on in this article. Criticism sections are to be avoided, per Jimbo, anyway. Criticism is the bulk of this article: looks like POV at work. Sandy 16:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Youtube isn't a reliable source either: needs to be removed from the article, content sourced to reliable sources. Sandy 16:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

it is, but only in very specific instances, and with caution, per this discussion-- in cases where it's uploaded by a reputable source-- A CNN excerpt that says it was uploaded by CNN. However, in this case, we can't even know since it was removed by Youtube for copyvio so whatever it was sourcing now has to go. --plange 19:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely that the criticism sections in this article are bloated, and do not know what editor inserted the majority of them. A couple days ago I came to this article and tried to work on moving the description of the events within them toward NPOV, not even considering that they could almost certainly be reorganized to be presented in a more neutral manner. However, on the other hand, Hannity's career does involve a significant amount of controversy, and it would be doing the reader a disservice not to mention any of it. Additionally, the criticism sections do not criticize, but really recount controversies he has been involved with in the past. With all that considered, though, the article almost certainly does need a major overhaul, as I was talking about with PTR a few sections up. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 16:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time to read through it all, but some of what is mentioned in Criticism is just trivial and unencyclopedic. Get out the red marker :-) Keep in mind, what will this man's obit look like the day it's written, and what would a neutral biography look like in any reputable print source? Yes, he's controversial, but this ain't it. Sandy 16:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you- unfortunately I've never been much given to bold change but perhaps I'll have to do just that today. I'm going to copy the page over to a subpage and tear out a whole bunch from the criticism sections. I'd appreciate if you could take a peek later and let me know what you think. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 17:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

House guests due any minute: not sure when I'll be able to check back in. Sandy 17:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I moved the changed section from my user subpage over to the main article. Any editors, please have a look at it and see if everything is sufficiently neutrally worded. Like I told Sandy above, this is a pretty big overhaul. I removed the first section entirely, as it did not seem verifiable due to the age of the source, removed the second (Terri Schiavo) section as I had not heard of it and did not think it was controversial enough to merit inclusion. I kept the rewrite of the Abner Louima section that PTR did, and scrunched the last section down into a very small paragraph that just gives an idea of the nature of the dispute without allowing for any biased words to get in. If anyone has any opinions, please speak up. :) --Kuzaar^-T-C- 19:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Since these are controversies involving his shows and not him personally, I'd prefer to put in a statement that his shows are considered politically controversial and put the information on the shows' page. --PTR 19:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not gonna move them over there personally this evening but wouldn't object to the remaining controversies being mentioned with a link to the show in question. I trust your judgement if you wanted to move the stuff around. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 20:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The Nation

According to Sandy (see User:jossi talk page "Hannity") The Nation is not a reliable source for Hannity either. --PTR 20:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

And neither is the Log Cabin Republicans or National Review for the same reasons --plange 20:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The controversies in question above might be better handled by PTR's situation- that is, moving them to the pages for the individual shows, in which more marginal sources would not be ruled out because of WP:BLP. That way the political opinions on both sides would be served and the debate framed in an NPOV fashion, without stepping on the toes of the BLP guidelines. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 20:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the criticism to this discussion page.

Hal Turner

According The Nation, on Hannity's WABC show, Hannity took phone calls from racist and anti-Semitic talk show host Hal Turner on his WABC show.

Abner Louima

Hannity was a critic of police brutality victim, Abner Louima, a black Haitian immigrant beaten severely by Brooklyn police officers in 1997. During the beating, Louima was forcefully sodomized with a plunger causing severe internal injuries. Hannity was criticized for charging that he had fabricated the rape, calling him "lying Louima" and using interviews with people alleging Louima had past sexual relationships with men to bolster the claim that he had sustained his injuries during a "gay sex act." During the trial of officer Justin Volpe, Volpe admitted to sodomizing Louima and was sentenced to 30 years in prison without the possibility of parole.

Fred Phelps and Code Pink

In August, 2005, Hannity was involved in a controversial dispute concerning the church of Fred Phelps protesting at the funeral of Jeremy Doyle.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› . Around the same time, Hannity also reported on a gathering by the activist group Code Pink in front of Walter Reed medical center.

--PTR 21:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work PTR! I would point out though that Hannity was not involved with Fred Phelps in any way. He was just commenting on the horrible actions of Phelps, who is rabidly anti-gay. Hannity did NOT condone Phelps comments. He actually is opposed to what Phelps stands for. All Hannity was trying to do is point out that Phelps has a history in and ties to the Democratic Party, specifically the 1998 Al Gore for President campaign and Phelps has run for office in Kansas five times as a Democrat--winning the Democratic nomination at least a couple of times. Hannity was attempting to make the point that there are ant-war Democrats who cross the line in their demonstrations against the war and personally attack and belittle soliders. He used Phelps and Code Pink to demonstrate this viewpoint. So I would change your wording "Hannity was involved in a controversial dispute concerning the church of Fred Phelps" to reflect that attempt by Hannity because as you currently have it worded it sounds like you are making the point that Hannity knows and is involved with Phelps, which is far from the truth of the matter. Hannity dislikes Phelps, as most people (both Democrats and Republicans) do, tremendously. Also, Media Matters, who criticized Hannity, was attempting to make the argument that Phelps is not "left-wing" only "anti-gay." But Media Matters leaves out the fact that Phelps may not be "left-wing" (because he is against gay marriage and abortion, etc.) but Phelps and his church members are against the Iraq War ("anti-war") and they ARE Democrats that have been long-time civil rights supporters (Phelps, as an attorney, filed numerous civil rights lawsuits against the City of Topeka, Kansas, Santa Fe railroad, etc.) and personal injury attorneys, traditional Democratic areas. It is a complex issue and I don't know if one or two sentences are going to do justice to the topic without offending either side of the debate. AND I'm not all that sure that the topic is even notable for an encyclopedia. These are bigger issues that need to be settled.--Getaway 15:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the criticism of the show should be included on the show's page or reliably referenced criticisms be weaved in here under the radio and television sections. Those sections need more info. It would also be good to include any extracurricular activities, awards etc. I haven't included the Phelps part on the Hannity & Colmes page because it seems they are having a POV dispute and I didn't want to jump in.--PTR 16:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyedit

I moved a lot of information around. I think we can flesh out the Radio and Television sections with more detail (maybe weave some of the controversial stuff in) and add awards and his off TV/Radio life. --PTR 21:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

After moving the sections around and removing the criticism section to the talk page, there is only one reference left. Seems we need some citations. --PTR 21:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair.org

Fair.org says their information came from OnePeoplesProject.com and this is the only item on Hannity I could find on their site. (I searched in google for OnePeoplesProject and hannity.) They don't seem unbiased according to this piece and I couldn't find the lying Louima reference here.

http://www.onepeoplesproject.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=90&Itemid=27--PTR 14:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you find a link for me to the page you saw where Fair.org sourced that article to onepeoplesproject? The article that I saw sourced it to their senior editor. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, it's right in the article you linked to -

The father of chief defendant Justin Volpe, an NYPD police officer, regularly appeared on show during the 1999 trial. And Hannity and various guests repeated rumors that Louima's injuries resulted from a "gay sex act" and not from police brutality. Playing on the homosexual rumor and inconsistencies in Louima's story, Hannity and his producer sang a parody of Lionel Richie's song "Three Times a Lady," changing the words to "you're once, twice, three times a liar." Hannity stopped referring to the victim as "Lying Louima" only after Volpe confessed to sodomizing Louima with the help of another officer (OnePeoplesProject.com). --PTR 15:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I had some trouble finding it, but thanks to the wayback machine internet archive, I think I found the original source in which the assertion surfaced. It was the Philadelphia Inquirer: [9] - copy and paste the link if it doesn't work. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to be a pain but is an editorial a reliable source for a BLP? I guess I'll ask Sandy. --PTR 15:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sandy's quick answer posted to my talk page -

No, editorials are, by nature, biased opinion, rather than unbiased fact. I'll catch up next week; in the meantime, do let me know if you have any quick questions. Another person you check with is Crockspot (talk • contribs). Sandy 15:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC) --PTR 15:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm fully aware that an editorial is not a reliable source. However, I'm doing some digging and contacting the editorial guy at the Philadelphia Inquirer to see if he can put me in contact with the writers of the editorial in question. Ideally they should have a better idea where the claim originated or what incident exactly it was that led to the use of that epithet. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 16:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms

This should be a limited section. There is almost more criticism on this page then actual good info. It is pathetic. Wow should this section exist. It should be limited if anything. Most of the info in that section is POV. and most of the criticisms are lies. --Zonerocks 22:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Limited? By what criteria? Arbusto 07:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

I noticed today that the editor SandyGeorgia removed the "controversy" section entirely- is this appropriate? There's consensus, at the very minimum, that Hannity is a controversial figure, and I do not think that WP:BLP gives any editor free reign to delete sections stating that there has been controversy surrounding any person on their article, even if BLP *does* state that it is inappropriate to make potentially defamatory claims without a reliable source. My solution to this would be to say that there have been controversies Hannity has been involved in concerning topics X, Y, and Z, citing the sources previously used but not going into detail on them, and bring up the specific assertions on a seperate page, as per the Wikipedia article on Bill O'Reilly. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 18:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, disregard the above comment. I am not confident that the other editors on this page are willing to or interested in working toward a consensus or NPOV version of this article that accurately reflects any conflicts or controversial statements in the subject's career. The BLP guidelines are an effort to remove defamatory material, not whitewash and provide a singularly positive view of any article's subject. That being said, I am done editing this page for now. I can be reached on my talk page for any questions. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 19:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the only reason SandyGeorgia removed the "controversy" section at this time is that there was no information in it right now. There is no reason not to add any well resourced controversies into the article. I've noticed, however, that wikipedia is pretty powerful, whatever we put here is picked up all over the internet. If there are biased sources in this article and we quote what they say, those quotes are repeated in a multitude of places. --PTR 19:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The section said nothing; it was a heading, with a place-holder sentence. When building a neutral article, please keep in mind that Criticism sections (controversy sections are close) are discouraged by Jimbo: try to build a neutral, balanced article, rather than a minimum bio which a large bunch of criticism from unreliable sources. Sandy 21:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Im glad the section was removed. There is no verifiable links for that section. Also there has never been concensus over that section. So cut the bull crap. That section was a very clear violation of POV. This article is a piece of crap now. I have no clue what happened to it. It is way to short. Also Sean Hannity never dropped out of college. He was never a construction worker. Let's get most of the info of sean from his bio on foxnews website. That is probably the only fair link we will ever have about the life and career of Sean Hannity. Bill O'Reilly (commentator) This is a good reference about an american commentator, also it is a very example of what this page should exemplify. --Zonerocks 21:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

A bio straight from his website would not be NPOV. Well-sourced criticisms are not forbidden per BLP, it's only that they need to be well-sourced and woven into the overall prose of the bio, has context, and is part of an overall reflection of the man that is neutral. That means not sympathetic and not opposing. Jimbo frowns on a criticism section... This is extremely hard to do well and correctly so don't give up.... --plange 02:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Having done some research into a variety of other BLP articles and seeing either a criticism or controversy section in many of them, it would seem POV, IMHO, to start admonishing anybody who sought to create a well referenced controversy sec. on the page of such a highly opinionated figure who places himself in the political limelight (see: Al Franken). Of course there will always be some amount of POV to deal with in any article on such a figure, but to have an exclusively positive interpretation of somebody rendered in an encyclopedia article is just as biased. It is my intention to seek out some objective refs and restore some, if not all, of the controversy section in a multilateral and unbiased fashion. If this does not seem reasonable to anybody, remember that we can work together on this.--Jackbirdsong 04:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) -- hmm, didn't mean to imply the article had to be positive, just neutral, meaning we don't advocate one side or the other with either tone or undue weight, but it doesn't mean negative stuff can't be in here. Surely there's objective material out there on Sean Hannity commenting on his actions?! What about transcripts of his program? I just took a gander at Al Franken and it has some problems too! Glad you brought it up-- it has some criticisms in there too that are from blogs, yikes! --plange 04:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The only reason the criticism section was removed is because of the sources. Some of them were opinion pieces, some broken links, some to biased sources. As we find good sources the material should go back in. The other problem was, the article is deemed too short now but the only difference is the criticism section has been removed. Wouldn't it be a good idea to put in some information on the guy as well as adding in the criticisms? I'll be out of town on business for about a week or so. --PTR 12:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Certainly! I understand why it was taken out, I was originally responding to the guy who thought we should just copy the official bio from FOX, and then to Jackbirdsong... I know you guys are working hard on it, but it worries me that Kuzaar has dropped out... --plange 14:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Media matters for america

Once again SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) has removed something he does not like on conservative political voice.[10] This user has been threatened to be blocked for another article for this garbage.

No, I have not. And the issue that MediaMatters is a biased source was well discussed on this talk page, and many user talk pages. Please take care with false statements about other editors. Sandy (Talk) 01:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I have seen you do this to other political articles, such as the Farrell and Shays articles. Arbusto 01:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Please explain why Media Matters is not a WP:RS for a Media Matters analysis. Also WP:V says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."

MM has video and audio of Hannity's comments. Arbusto 19:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS is in the process of being scrapped and replaced by Wikipedia:Attribution. As I am doing now, I suggest we all familiarize ourselves with WP:ATT. - Crockspot 20:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

If Sandy is truly concerned about keeping watch sites off wikipedia he should visit Michael Moore controversies and remove all the conservative blogs (DaveKopel.com, Moorewatch.com, SpinSanity.com, Nationalreview.com, HardyLaw.net) from that article. If those sources are removed from the Moore article there whould be no criticism in it. Arbusto 20:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I added the proper category to Michael Moore controversies, so that the BLP monitors can watch it. Crockspot 20:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

In all my spare time, Arbustoo, why don't I just unilaterally clean up thousands of bios on Wikipedia? If Michael Moore is based on biased sources, fix it. 01:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

My point is something larger than you cleaning up bios. You are selectively removing material. Why do you believe Media Matters is not acceptable? Basically, MM just hosts clips of Hannity's own words. Do you believe Media Matters is providing material that isn't really Hannity's?

So I pointed you to a liberal person's article that has personal blog criticism, and yet you haven't removed any of the criticism. There is clearly a quality difference between Media Matters analysis and Moorewatch.com, but nonetheless you seem fixated on one. Why is that? Arbusto 01:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I am looking at an article that used to have criticism on it, but two user's pulled MM off and then removed the controversy section. Arbusto 01:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I quote from WP:RS, "The websites and publications of political parties and religious groups should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief is in itself a reason not to use a source." I'd like to point out Media Matters is not a political party nor religious organization.[11] Can anyone give a reason for the material they disagree with and want removed? Arbusto 01:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure I find lots of reasons. But one of the biggest is your comment that "Hannity is a moron." It proves that you are biased and incapable of putting together a NPOV article.--Getaway 04:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I asked for reasons why you consider it unreliable. Also I never insulted Hannity I added a link to well-traffic Hannity criticism site. Moreover, I told you this already and you still want to falsely claim I insulted Hannity. There is a discussion on Media Matters on WP:RS. Why you don't consider it reiable? Do you think those clips of Hannity speaking are fake? Arbusto 18:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Terri Schiavo

During the Terri Schiavo controversy, two of Schiavo's nurses appeared on Hannity and Colmes to argue that Schiavo was not brain dead. Talk show host and actor Harry Shearer obtained a video tapeHannity and Colmes video where Hannity can be heard coaching the nurses on how to respond to Alan Colmes's questions. He told them to respond "I'm just here to tell you what I saw", no matter what Colmes asked. After the segment, Hannity can be heard saying "We got the points out...But you did great, both of you".[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] Should this be included? Arbusto 03:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Lolreverting

Don't blindly revert things like fixing fair use images. I see no reason to discuss Fred Phelps on this page. He is more than adequately discuessed on his own page. In fact, I see no reason for most of this page to exist. Are the controvercies notable at all? JBKramer 18:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Moreover, if the reader wants to learn more they go to the footnote. All material Getaway added is on there. Arbusto 18:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, if the criticism of Media Matters is going to be on the page, which I don't agree many of these so-called controversies should even be there, but if it is going to be there then the Phelps's Democrat, liberal background needs to be pointed out because Media Matters is attempting to argue that Hannity was completely off base, which he wasn't. The information will be placed in the article in a NPOV way it will not be placed there at all. And the way that the Phelps information keeps getting removed is simply POV.--Getaway 21:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Phelps being or not being a Democrat has nothing at all to do with Sean Hannity. JBKramer 21:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That is a incorrect conclusionary statement. You did not provide an argument to back up your personal opinion. So thank you for your personal opinion, but it is not controlling. Media Matters, in its criticism, has attempted to argue, as unsuccessfully as you, that Hannity's comments were off the mark. But it has been pointed out time and time again that Phelps is an old-time Democrat who pickets solider's funerals and CODE PINK is a liberal organization that pickets hurt, wounded and dead soliders. Media Matters is a left-wing organization with an agenda to push. Now, the MM comments are going to stay in the article then an explanation of Phelps ties to the liberal Al Gore will remain. Have a good day!--Getaway 21:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm going to have to insist that you remain WP:CIVIL. I understand now that Hannity said that Fred Phelps was liberal. If you could please source this statement of Hannity, it would be very much appreciated. Also, please remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground - you can argue politics with liberals somewhere else. Thanks. JBKramer 21:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I have remained civil all day, every day, so I really don't know what you are talking about. Now, I would ask you to follow the 3RR rules. You haven't followed them today. Also, there is a cite for it. I will find it sometime today. I've only put it in the article at least six times and various liberal bend editors have removed it. You are just the latest version of the tactic. You're right Wikipedia is not a battleground, so you don't act like and revert others constantly. It makes your argument stronger to practice what you preach. Have a good day!--Getaway 21:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I have not violated WP:3rr here. JBKramer 21:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Could we get somes sources for that stuff? Can we get it cited to avoid WP:OR? If not it will be removed. Arbusto 00:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Review my recent edit to the controvercies section. I see no reason to play laundry list. JBKramer 20:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use Image dispute

Just an FYI as I don't see it posted here. JBKramer has disputed the Fair Use of the main Hannity pic Image:Hannity.jpg with the statement "This pictures is not acceptable in this article because it is a picture of a living person used only to show the appearance of that person." Further information may be available on the image's talk page. Please provide a rationale on the image page as to why this image qualifies as fair use. If no acceptable rationale can be provided, this image may be nominated for deletion in the future. Morphh ^(talk) 14:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• As I understand it, Wikipedia does not even allow "fair use". Only Gnu free licensed, and public domain images may be uploaded. If the image in question is not either of those, it is a candidate for speedy deletion. Crockspot 14:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This is incorrect - See Wikipedia:Fair_use#Images. Morphh ^(talk) 14:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I must have been thinking about the Wikisource rules. See Wikipedia:Publicity photos. Perhaps, rather than nicking a photo from Fox News, an actual "press kit" photo can be found from Hannity's website? Crockspot 14:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that would be better. Morphh ^(talk) 14:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Fred Phelps

It is written that Hannity defended his statements by saying Phelps was a democrat. Can we source this? JBKramer 20:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear JBKramer: It has been sourced on the Fred Phelps page for over a year. Mother Jones has documented it. You can find it here: ref name=Lauerman>Lauerman, Kerry. "The Man Who Loves To Hate". Mother Jones. March/April 1999. </ref> I'm going to put the citation in the article. You question has been definitively answered and rejected. Thanks for playing.--Getaway 20:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not a game. I'm looking for a citation that show Hannity saying this - did he say that Phelps was far left, or are you interpreting his statements? JBKramer 20:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you even read ANY of the articles??? Seriously, if you are not going to take the time to read the articles then you should not be editing the section. Even a cursory review of the articles points out that Phelps is a Democrat (something you wasted time questioning) that Hannity called Phelps a leftist (which you now claim that I, a wikipedian, came up with). Read the articles or stop editing the section. You can't even get the facts straight.--Getaway 20:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you show me where the articles discuss Hannity saying Phelps was a leftist? JBKramer 20:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Look, you are reverting all of the work that I do. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative effort. You are not collaborating, but reverting. Go find the information yourself. If the Media Matter BS is going to be in the section then there is going to be all of the information about Gore and his relationship with Phelps. If the section stays, then the Gore information stays. If the section goes, then fine--I'm not in love with it.--Getaway 21:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not how it works. You cannot insert information that is not verifiable, or that is origional research - and it is your responsibility to demonstrate such. I do not believe Hannity ever said Phelps' is a leftist, but out of deference to you, I did not press you hard on such. Now I am. Cite your sources. JBKramer 21:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As I have pointed out before that you need to read the articles or don't edit the section. The Media Matters page has a transcript of part of the Hannity discussion and in that partial transcipt there is a where Hannity calls Phelps a leftist. Also, the burden of proof is on you. Not me. There have been citations provided and you have not provided citations that contradict the original citation provided. You are simply stating, "Not true, show me something else." If the bs Media Matters comment stay then the balancing information will stay. If Media Matter goes then the Phelps/Gore connection goes. Simple as that. Now, once again, please provide sources that contradict the citations provided. The burden is on you.--Getaway 21:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No. The MMFA article does not have Hannity saying Phelps is a leftist. It has him saying the protesters are leftists - he didn't know the protestors were infact Phelpses. That was the gaffe - Phelps is not a leftist in the eyes of many. Thus, a gotya. Unless, of course, you have a transcript of Hannity saying Phelps is a leftist? JBKramer 21:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as Kramer pointed out; provide a source. Arbusto 00:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

A few suggestions

Remove all references to Media Matters in this article. As it is a biased, polemic enterprise with the sole admitted purpose of discrediting Hannity and all others who espouse who they deem to be spreading conservative misinformation. A separate Hannity controversies article should be created, remembering that it must also comply with WP:BLP. This article should be a vanilla neutral description of Hannity's life. Ramsquire 21:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

"Vanilla neutral"? There is an ongoing discussion about MM as a reliable source. Yes, it is bias and leans left, what makes it not acceptable? Do you think its clips of Hannity speaking are fake? Fox News leans right. Should we remove all of Fox News references from liberal biographies?

Please provide specifics. General claims get us nowhere. Also POV forks are not tolerated either. Arbusto 01:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of consensus about Media Matters is here, for anyone interested in following (for when PTR returns from his travel, I'll say that I'm no longer interested in helping out here, as the environment has turned too toxic for my taste). Questions have been raised about the reliability of the source, but also issues of undue weight, notability, and attack page concerns — do read the entire discussion. Sandy (Talk) 02:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Has there been an actual consensus on this matter, I plan on writing new wikipedia policy on the issue of having a criticism section in articles. Personally I think they should be no criticism in any article. Back to Consensus, I think we should ask for consensus on this issue pretty soon. --Zonerocks 01:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do you not consider its material to be a WP:RS? Arbusto 07:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Controversies - again

The Louima section cites Fair.org as the source, Fair.org cites OnePeoplesProject.com as their source and OnePeoplesProject.com cites an opinion piece which is not a reliable source for a BLP. Isn't there a reliable source for this?

The Hal Turner article by the Nation does not criticize Hannity. It says he called the show. It's guilt by association. Turner is a bad guy, Hannity let him call his show and spoke with him but it never criticizes him.

I think these items should be removed until we have sources that are reliable and say what we say they say. --PTR 23:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I posted a question about this on the BLP noticeboard. --PTR 15:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Media Matters

I don't have a problem with criticizing Hannity but using a site that is dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media strikes me as wrong for a BLP of a conservative. The site is presenting a certain view with their lead-in articles for the clips. No attack on them, that is their stated purpose.

Also, in the paragraph we say number of organizations which would be fine if we listed some of them ...number of organizations, such as; Blah, Blah and Blah... with citations.

If Hannity is such a controversial figure don't we have mainstream news articles or interviews that criticize him like there is for Rush Limbaugh? Diane Sawyer just interviewed Hannity for supporting Rush Limbaugh over the Michael J. Fox issue. That is recent, controversial and in the mainstream media. --PTR 00:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I posted a question about this on the BLP noticeboard. --PTR 16:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted Media Matters is cited in both the Michael J. Fox and the Limbaugh articles. Both include criticism. Arbusto 07:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed text from Controversy section to this page

Moved the following here pending discussion, creditable references and a response from the noticeboard.

Hannity was a critic of police brutality victim, Abner Louima, a black Haitian immigrant beaten severely by Brooklyn police officers in 1997. During the beating, Louima was forcefully sodomized with a plunger causing severe internal injuries. Hannity was criticized for charging that he had fabricated the rape, calling him "lying Louima", and using interviews with people alleging Louima had past sexual relationships with men to bolster the claim that he had sustained his injuries during a "gay sex act." During the trial of officer Justin Volpe, Volpe admitted to sodomizing Louima and was sentenced to 30 years in prison without the possibility of parole.

The above uses a citation from Fair.org which cites OnePeoplesProject as their source but OnePeoplesProject does not have the "lying Louima" reference and OnePeoplesProject might be a questionable source for this BLP. The only place we've found this information (Kuzaar tracked it down) was in an opinion piece in the Philadelphia Telegraph which also might be a questionable source for a BLP. --PTR 16:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to say this should stay out. I agree that OnePeoplesProject isn't likely to be a reliable source for this claim. If someone has a cite to (and has seen) the PA Telegraph article, maybe we can work with that. TheronJ 22:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is the cite that Kuzaar found. --PTR 23:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I had some trouble finding it, but thanks to the wayback machine internet archive, I think I found the original source in which the assertion surfaced. It was the Philadelphia Inquirer: [20] - copy and paste the link if it doesn't work. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. I guess the next question is whether the Philly Inquirer fact-checks its guest editorials to the same standard as its news pieces. If anyone wants to listen to it, I think that Terry Gross might ask the Inquirer about that in this interview. TheronJ 15:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The following was removed pending discussion and response from the BLP Noticeboard.

Hannity has been criticized for taking phone calls from racist and anti-Semitic talk show host Hal Turner on his WABC show.

The article referenced doesn't criticize Hannity, it says Turner calls in and he and Hannity have talked. To use the phrase criticized for taking phone calls is misleading and The Nation might be a questionable source for this BLP. --PTR 16:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

In response to this and above sections: While I am not interested in wading back into a BLP mess again, I also contacted the Editorial editor-chief at the Philadelphia paper, who said he didn't have up-to-date contact information for the writers who wrote the piece in question. I also contacted the people at WABC radio to see if any transcripts or copy could be had to verify some of the claims from the original source- unfortunately, they had absolutely no transcripts of their programs and so I turned up another blank there. I'm going to keep digging and see if I can find anything substantive at all- given Sean Hannity's polemic style of political commentary on some of his shows, I would not be surprised if they were true, but without any sources the claims obviously cannot be made. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone is fighting really hard to remove criticism

This continued POV campaign is not acceptable. I want to know why the NY Times was removed. No strange coincidence that Getaway (talk · contribs) is also in favor of removing various other criticisms on this article and other conservative articles. Arbusto 07:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Your comment could be construed as a personal attack on Getaway. - Crockspot 16:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That user has consistently been trying to get the material removed, as witnessed with his various pleading above. Hannity is a controversial figure and this article must be represented that way. Removing all the controversy from the article, as what has been happening, is very misleading. Arbusto 18:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Just try to keep the discussion focused on the merits of the content, and not the motivation of the editors. I know I've been guilty of it myself on occasion. Just a friendly nudge. - Crockspot 19:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not removing them but I think people will continue doing so since the first crisicism was said by a spokesman of a presidential candidate, during the presidential campaign and he said that conservative talk show hosts are criticizing John Kerry. If it was said by John Kerry and he had criticized Hannity only it might be relevant, but it wasn't.

The second criticism was an editorial writer expressing the opinion that putting a picture of the flag on the cover of your book is using it as a merchandizing tool and he doesn't criticize Hannity only.

I don't think it's a POV campaign. --PTR 15:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Did the second one name Hannity though? --plange 17:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to further clarify how I view criticism and what should or shouldn't be included, and it's an anecdote that was told to my uncle when he first took his job as Dean of Arts and Sciences at a major university: 40% of people are going to like you no matter what you do, and 40% of people are going to dislike you no matter what you do. It's the 20% in the middle that you have to worry about." My uncle said it was the best advice he ever received. How does this relate? I think it helps clarify what should be included. Criticism from the "40% who will dislike you no matter what you do" probably shouldn't be included, but if it comes from the 20% (mainstream media, and I count NYT as mainstream)... --plange 17:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It did name him and it is the NYT, however, it is also an editorial which is one person's opinion. That being said, I'm not the one who removed it the first time and I have no problem with it staying. I haven't been around long enought to know if NYT editorials are WP:RS for WP:BLP articles.--PTR 18:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, unless you plan on not having any criticisms, you have to rely on editorials, since news stories do not (are not supposed to) editorialize (give opinions). Also, the NYT editorial staff vets all their editorials so it's not only that one editor, but the opinion of the editorial staff of the NYT, pretty big heavy weight in the national mainstream news arena. --plange 18:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. I'm neutral on this staying in. --PTR 19:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I know that I have disputed a particular NYT editorial or two as BLP-unreliable in the particular circumstances they were used. NYT is not without fault, as has been documented in the past, and some of their reporters have written editorials that might not be suitable to source negative information in a BLP article. - Crockspot 19:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being ignorant here, but I just responded to the above without knowing specifically what the editorial even said. Can someone humor me and give me a link? No mainstream news outlet is infallible. I guess we might as well not have any criticism about anyone if we can't include some from the Times which is about as mainstream/middle of the road as you can get. Besides, opinions aren't necessarily about being wrong or right, but about whether a major newspaper has this opinion. We're talking about reporting an opinion, right? and not a fact? The latter of which would be a whole other matter. You would simply say, "The New York Times editorial staff thinks 'blah blah blah'", not that you'd just state "blah, blah, blah" as fact and cite an editorial (which is a whole other matter and shouldn't be done, since it's opinion) --plange 00:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, just took a look at the page and saw the Frank Rich piece, and that seems totally fine to me. It's not stating that it's true, but that Frank Rich of the NYT had this to say. The NYT is part of the 20% in the middle. If we were quoting someone from Mother Jones or another outlet that's part of the 40% that would never like him no matter what he did, that would be different. --plange 00:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The criticisms are well sourced, but seem trivial. My suggestion would be to write a fairly neutral sentence such as "Hannity has often been the subject of criticism for his role as a right wing commentator", and then have a footnote with the top 5 or 6 sources. TheronJ 15:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I have attempted to start the section off with a reasonable, NPOV heading similar to the above reccomendation: "Over the years, some individuals and organizations have taken a stance in direct opposition to some of Hannity's espoused political beliefs and activities." Even this modest heading was quickly reverted, apparently because of "weasel words", though I see no biased implications in it. I have therefore come to the same conclusion as other well-intentioned editors on this page - there is no way to reach a multilateral concensus on this section. I would much rather not have a controversy section at all, personally, if I thought that the controversial material therein could simply be included in other relevant sections of the article without being reverted. However you slice it, this article has become a tragically pertinent example of Wikipedia's flaws.--Jackbirdsong 04:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Jackbirdsong, I reverted the paragraph because I was under the impression that using "some individuals and organizations..." and "some of Hannity's espoused political beliefs..." was considered using weasel words. I thought we were supposed to name the individuals or organizations and the political beliefs they have taken a stance against. If you were in the process of providing a footnote with sources, I'm sorry I jumped the gun. --PTR 14:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

PTR - no need to apologize - I have stopped editing this article due to a general frustration with the lack of cooperation, but in this case I think we just have a simple misunderstanding. The idea was to have an NPOV heading that would introduce the general tone of the category in a fair way, and to then cite the specifics, which were already included prior to my edit (i.e. MediaMatters, Barney Frank, etc.). Using the term "some" is acceptable, I believe, if we then elaborate upon who exactly "some" refers to in the remainder of the category. If that sounds OK, either way I leave it up to you.--Jackbirdsong 23:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Quintote (talk · contribs) removed all the criticism[21] with edit summary "I've attempted to address the Hannity criticism discussion" however there is policy or explanation cited on this talk. This is a controversial figure. He has many critics. I reverted the removal. Arbusto 03:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: I did not remove any criticism of Mr. Hannity. In fact, I restored an item of criticism deleted with no explanation by 70.153.162.18 (talk · contribs), and then moved all these items to the References section as I believe I clearly explained in my full edit summary (which you abbreviated and instead insinuated that I removed text). I read this talk page carefully and implemented the suggestion offered up by TheronJ (talk · contribs): write a neutral sentence and provide top sources as footnotes, a suggestion to which no disagreement and only clarifications were expressed. Trust me, I'll gladly leave this hot potato alone from now on. My only goal here is to improve Wikipedia. I came here--ironically--to restore the aforementioned blanking when I saw it on RC. Arbustoo, please go ahead and restore the blanked out criticism as you see fit.

Even though I don't even know why I dared jump into such a controversial topic in the first place, may I suggest that all criticism be called out into a separate section? It seems there's a fair amount listed under the radio program section on this page, yet none on the full article for his radio program. -Quintote 04:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Given the polarising nature of this issue, I do consider that the article has over compensated given the discussions in various sections above. The criticism section is very small and does not reflect the level of debate/discussion. ScMeGr 01:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The criticism is being woven into the article rather than set off in its own section.--PTR 14:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Houston Chronicle

I removed this mistatement of the article that makes it seem that the Houston Chronicle called Democrats dumb and shallow.

In 2004 the Houston Chronicle wrote Hannity is a "angry man" whose comments like Democrats are "dumb and shallow" draw "a smattering of applause" from conserative onlookers.

If this reference is used it should probably go into the Radio section and include some of the flattering quotes as well as critical ones. --PTR 16:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

The following was included in the Controversy and criticism section but doesn't explain what the controversy or criticism was or if it was controversy or criticism.

• Features in the book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them by Al Franken.

--PTR 19:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Radio show numbers

The following sentence regarding Hannity's radio show: "The program, heard by over 13 million listeners a week, has the second-largest radio audience in the country." was referenced by Talkers.com, yet I cannot seem to find the specific info regarding Hannity anywhere in this site. Perhaps somebody else can take a look? Otherwise, obviously this needs to be properly, and currently, ref'd.--Jackbirdsong 03:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps that figure should be changed to "more than 12.5 million as of Spring 2006..." based on this link from Talkers Magazine http://www.talkers.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=34

The specific link should also be used rather than the site link? Jeannedb 16:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Reagan Conservative

I reverted the link because he identifies himself as a Reagan Conservative.

"I identify myself as an independent compassionate Reagan conservative."

http://www.radioink.com/listingsEntry.asp?ID=88120&PT=industryqa

"I’m a Reagan conservative."

http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=407

--PTR 23:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

According to the article on Neoconservatism, neoconservative ideas had a significant presence in the Reagan administration. I would think, then that him identifying himself as a "Reagan conservative", whatever it implies, would be something in favor of including the link, not excluding it. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 16:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Need a better source for a neocon. claim. C56C 19:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Use of categories re: WP:BLP

WP:BLP#Use of categories states, among other things: Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for the category must be made clear in the article text. The article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag and these facts must be sourced. The insertion of the Neoconservative, or any other inappropriate category should be removed as a violation of WP:BLP, which is an exception to the 3RR rule. - Crockspot 23:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Dismissal

There are two sources that contradict each other. One says Antonio made the turkey baster remark the other says Hannity did. We can't just pick the one we like best so I removed the remark and left both sources in. That he was dismissed is a fact. The rest is impossible to cite with confidence. --PTR 14:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Grammatical Error Spotted

"Sean Patrick Hannity (born December 30, 1961, in New York City, New York) is a American conservative talk radio host..." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.139.152.64 (talk) 02:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Format of The Sean Hannity Show

Note that Sean's show is well-received because it is a debate show. Sean has guests, from diverse viewpoints (right, left, centrist, environmentalist, he's even interviewed ex-Muslim terrorists) usually at least one prominent guest per 3-hour show. This is a difference in format from other syndicated talkers. Rush Limbaugh does not have guests on his show as a general rule. Some of Sean's regular guests include Dick Morris, Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, Newt Gingrich, and Oliver North.

Jessemckay 10:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Page is run by fox news and hannity fan boys

Is this page locked? If so, why it doesn't have the lock icon or/and an explanation of why is locked for editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.136.200 (talk) 06:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Its sickening to think and outspoken controversial pundit like sean hannity has received NO criticism on his page, every time someone puts a critique up it is reverted instantly, this page needs to be moderated. its very sick what people will do to defend their savior Atheist1981 (talk) 05:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip mag. If you have properly sourced encyclopedic content, then by all means add it. Unsourced POV ranting will always be immediately removed from almost any article. Asher196 (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind the rules under WP:BLP are much more stringent than other types of articles. Relevance and weight are factors. It is a biography, not a debate or critique. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Children! This is no more a 'biography' than Spongebob is about oceanography. Why not put your 'cleansed and purfied' article on Conservapedia instead of trashing up Wikipedia? Oh, right, you already have.

When y'all are done sanitizing here, head on over to the White Aryan page… They'd love your revisionist treatment of the Holocaust.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 01:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Niteshift36, stop deleting comments and opinions you don't agree with. By doing so, you reveal authoritarian revisionist right-wing prejudices. Do not do this again.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 03:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Your comments are nothing more than a rant. Your diatribe amounts to personal attacks. But instead of just removing it, which is permissable, I'll let the rules deal with it. Niteshift36 (talk) 10:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There is some truth in what unicornTapestry says though he uses strong language. Otherwise these references 1 and 2 wouldnt have been washed out of the article outright. Docku^Hi 04:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Docku's right; I spoke intemperately. It's frustrating wanting to use Wikipedia as a source and finding Hal Turner info disappearing at a dismaying rate. People should never fear the truth.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 04:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If the Hal Turner info was credible, there would be better sources than left wing web sites. Asher196 (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You must be confused. The source is Hal Turner himself who is ultra right.

What I like to see is balance where neither left or right dominates and people are given all the evidence to make up their own minds, if that's possible. I don't approve of some of the tacky critical verbiage (that's been removed), but neither to I like the tendency to sanitize that seems de rigueur here. What's been accomplished is to make the article useless as a reference resource.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 01:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Calling people "children", "authoritarian" and suggesting that they belong on the Aryan nation page, denying the holocaust doesn't lead me to think that "fairness" and "usefulness" is your driving force. You've already made it clear that you have an axe to grind with Hannity and with anyone who you consider "right wing". So you have to excuse me if I am a little suspicious. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm compelled to point out I didn't call you right wing– you did. You brag about it on your user page. I said earlier I spoke intemperately because material that should be in the article has been stripped out or 'sanitized', as happens in authoritarian regimes, left and right. I said "children" (not referring to you or anyone specifically) because a glance at this page and the undo's, shows a lot of bickering. My intent was not to become embroiled in the petty arguments here, but to say it's hurting the legitimacy of the article. Shall we not personalize this?

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 03:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• You said "right-wing prejudices", naming me specifically. And yes, I have a tongue in cheek userbox about being part of the "vast right wing conspiracy". Since I don't even think it exists, I can't REALLY be a part of it, let alone "brag" about it. If you want to engage in legitimate debate, fine. But please, don't insult me by pretending you didn't attack me personally. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I would advise Niteshift36 to read up on assume good faith policy. Assuming bad faith is no substitute for answering his unbiased questions in his last posting. Docku^Hi 03:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your advice Docku, but it is not needed or desired. I was very specific in my reasoning for why I said what I said and having DOUBTS is not assuming bad faith. Maybe you just aren't used to people being that honest. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I know what is going to be the outcome of this discussion. Just thought I would voice my concern to the unfair dismissal of UT. Docku^Hi 04:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to add my voice that this article is unsuitable and unencyclopedic. I'm astonished that ANY critical source is dismissed as "left wing" out of hand, including former right-wing associates and even a former conservative maven. I also have to question if this article isn't being run not merely by "fan boys" as you put it, but by Hannity staffers as this sort of thing has happened before. I won't be surprised if my two cents gets deleted as I see that has happened here. What are you afraid of? I hope somebody shows gumption and get the article on the straight and level. --64.45.228.234 (talk) 12:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• No, stuff like you posted doesn't get deleted, just ignored. The very fact that there is information critical of Hannity in the article disproves your "theory". As for your Hannity staffer theory.......well, thanks for my laugh of the day. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

That's incredibly snarky and non-responsive. You delete the stuff you don't want aired and then trash anyone who dares speak up. This is nothing but revisionist fluff and I'm dismayed that no one has the guts to keep Hannity's history posted. --208.59.121.173 (talk) 23:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• So? As you can see in the following section, criticism is agreed on by both sides as long as it it relevent and written in a neutral manner. You spout catch phrases like "former conservative maven" (who cares what she USED to be. Now, she is a big liberal maven), "fan boys", "right wing" and make accusations of people being Hannity staffers, but still expect to get a straight answer? LOL. Try rationally participaring in the process instead of throwing brickbats and see if you get taken more seriously. I bet you will. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Only your revisionist POV seems important. No standard will satisfy you and your assertions about "left wing" are mere window dressing to get your own way. You simply want critical info kept out and you will do anything to get your own way. Period. --208.59.121.173 (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sorry you are having difficulty understanding this. I'll try to put this in a simpler form: Criticism here. You wrong. Get it? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

OMG, are you Sean Hannity himself? Low IQ 2-word sentences? Verbal bullying? Snide remarks instead of substance? Opposing truth? Ruining airwaves for everyone else?

We don't need your insults. I asked an earnest and honest question and I don't need crap from you. I've read the posts here and see that your most important contribution is the DELETE key.

Please, we're complaining reasonably that you and a couple of Hannity boys have taken over the topic and that NO STANDARD from ANY SOURCE will apparently satisfy you. It's time to stop browbeating the rest of us. Sources for the Turner and other issues have been cited and because you don't like them isn't sufficient reason to trash them. --208.59.121.173 (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Sarcasm because you can't see the obvious. There IS criticism in the article. You fail to realize that. Nobody is excluding ALL criticism. What does get challenged is poorly sourced or irrelevant items that are being placed solely for the purpose of trying to manufacture controversy. We discussed the Andy Martin incident. Agreed on neutral wording and it is in the article. The Turner thing is irrelevant. I'm done assuming good faith with you. You are here to try to push an agenda because you dislike Hannity. You have no interest in improving the article, only trying to make him look bad. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Gotta love that Hannity twist of making the opposite seem true. You push your pro-Hannity agenda and imply everyone else has bad faith when the least critical thing is mentioned. Looking at the now-archived material, you've gone out of your way to prevent anything critical being mentioned or letting anyone else include sourced critical material, then trash the viewpoints of others, and then blame the other person. Because Hannity quotes are on TV/radio and not printed media, you won't allow them. Because you claim all other critical sources are left wing, you won't accept them. What's really unwelcomed though are your personal attacks. --216.15.60.180 (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• I am well aware of what I have written. I have objected to material that has been given undue weight per wp:undue. I don't make up the standards for wp:rs, so complain to those who do. I also recognize that there is a higher standard for wp:BLP articles. And you have ZERO room to talk about personal attacks. If you make them, you get sarcasm in return. Stop making them yourself, discuss the issue rather then make baseless accusations and stop using your little buzz words and you'll be treated in kind. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems very odd that all criticisms of Hannity keep getting taken down, yet all criticisms by the people who run this page and others from the fox boards on notable left wing pundits cannot get taken off for good. Has wikipedia been taken over by fox? These people claim its not a gossip forum, then post gossip claims on other pages. Not very objective. - concernedwikster

• Perhaps you'd be interested in the article on conspiracy theory because you seem to subscribe to them. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• 'Strangely enough, I hear the same complaints from a different angle over at the Keith Olbermann page. Dayewalker (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no 'conspiracy theory'. Fox news has already made similar actions. Plus, this is not a government cover up, this is a bunch of guys limiting access to 'fair and balanced' information about individuals whom their employers, or they personally support the views/believes/mutual dislikings and prejudices of. This 'nightshade' individual, who, according to his own profile, is a right winger, should not be allowed to control this site. If the standard were that NO criticisms were allowed on any site, I would understand, but this individual (and a few others here) have a history of hopskipping to other articles and leaving criticism, or complaining about them. Nightshade, I ask you personally, what standard are you holding to critiques of Hannity on this public wiki that you oppose holding against other non-right-winger wiki pages? You dont see a double standard? I am sure you, as well as everyone else here, is very aware of the changes made to many fox news related wikis by fox staffers a while back. Though they are no longer doing the obvious and changing sans proxy or from work rather than home, the taint is in the air, and your policy on moderation seems to be reflecting similar mentalities. What say you do this?--consernedwikster

• Who is Nightshade? I haven't seen that editor on here at all. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

After dozens upon dozens of people make the same complaint about Hannity sanitization, you might think someone would pay attention. I wonder if the commenter above doesn't have a point that given Niteshift36's nasty edge, if he IS Hannity.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Going to go back to personal attacks Unicorn? That's ok, play your silly game. If you can't counter something with fact and policy, try inflating figures (dozens) and just use persnal attacks. LOL, what a farce. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is getting nowhere. Well, I guess you guys are talking about this reference. let us see what other users who are also watching this page say about this? Docku:“what up?” 21:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks are not my forté, Mr. "Niteshift", nor do I wash to be baited. There was absolutely no attack in my query at all. While it may not mean anything, I noticed when people asked, you don't deny you're a Hannity staffer or Hannity himself. It's a matter of curiosity, not a personal attack.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Gee, sorry, I dind't think that something so ridiculous actually needed a response. Considering that your crony wants to believe every word on my user page, it would seem obvious. Aside from the fact that Hannity is Irish and my page shows me as a Scot, do you really think that Hannity would be here editing articles about gangs? Ok, since you have difficulty with the logical, I'll be very direct: Not only am I not Hannity or a Hannity staffer, I've never even spoken to Hanity, a Hannity staffer or anyone even connected to Hannity. I've never called the show, don't listen to it that often and don't belong to his website. Is that clear enough to you? Any other totally baseless allegations you need to have addressed? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for answering that question.

Does Docku's additional reference meet the unacceptably high threshold?

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 02:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• The "unacceptably high threshold"? And you want me to pretend that you are NOT being sarcastic? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

What some people here don't seem to understand is that the Nation reference has been discussed to death here over the last several months, and has been found to be not a reliable source in this matter. Given the nature of the criticism, multiple quality reliable sources are needed for the criticism to be added to this WP:BLP Asher196 (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I remember. You, me, User:Kelly, User:Arzel and User:Gamaliel were there in the discussion. Do you think that prevents new discussion by new people? No one is going to dicate nothing to no one here, I believe. Docku:“what up?” 02:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that this was new discussion, as it seems old to me. Asher196 (talk) 02:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for misquoting your handle nightshift, but you did not answer the question, other than saying you are not Hannity or working for him. You are aware that this is the internet, and thus your claim cannot be verified. But even to take you at your word, why do you hold this site to a higher standard than that of left leaning pundits or topics? Put yourself in the opposite point of view, you would be very cautious about such 'strange conveinences' given Hannity's parent companies previous actions on wiki. -- concernedwikster —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.139.55 (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• I guess I'll let "nightshift" answer that. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)