Jump to content

Talk:Sean Hannity/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Why the Martin and Turner material does not belong in the bio.

Let me see if I can lay this out clearly.

1) First is WP:WEIGHT. Recently there was great debate about the inclusion of the Freedom Concerts. These are an annual event for the past 6 years, growing from one concert to nine concerts a year. It involves considerable promotion and planning on Hannity's part, involves numerous multi-platinum artists, raises millions of dollars for a charity, has received plenty of media coverage spanning the 6 years and is something Hannity is very involved in personally and professionally. Despite all that, this was cut to a mere 2 sentences because of weight concerns.
a):Now contrast the Martin entry under dispute. Much more text is being devoted to an item that received far less press coverage. The coverage of it was limited mostly to very short time frames (34 gnews hits [1]). At issue is a documentary by a little known director that was shown on his TV show. Hannity had no part in producing, financing, planning, writing or directing the film. He simply allowed it to be shown on his show once (then shown in re-run a second time within a few days). Compare to above: Multi-year events with big stars that Hannity is personally involved in and continuing press coverage, raising millions of dollars for charity or a single showing of a film that Hannity had no involvement with and press coverage limited almost completely to the days immediately afterwards. But if Jorge has his way, the single event, with the limited time span coverage that Hannity had only tertiary involvement with (in providing an outlet for viewing) would be given nearly nearly 3 times as much space in the article.
b): Next is the Turner information. Again, this is something that has received a limited amount of press coverage (45 gnews hits [2]). It involves an "association" that happened in the late 1990's, when Hannity allowed Turner on his radio show a few times. This was when Hannity was a non-syndicated, essentially local show host. Hannity had no personal involvement with the man and was they made the decision to ban Turner from the show on their own.
c): A BLP policy worth noting would be "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association." I believe this is very much the case of the Turner mention. The "criticism" Hannity received about having him on his show was pretty limited, but the linking of a "self-described neo-nazi" (with the "neo-nazi" part being wikilinked so it stands out in blue) does seem to create a guilt by association situation. The sources don't really delve into specifics about if Hannity agreed or disagreed with Turner etc, instead just making the calls an issue. There is possibly a WP:COATRACK issue as well. In the case of the Martin information alone, we may also have a WP:RECENTISM issue, as the lions share of the coverage was limited to a 2 week period immediately after the event. In other words, it rarely gets mentioned after that, which points more towards recentism than a notable event in the life of the article subject.
d): Summary: A significant, on going, multi-year charity event with on-going media coverage that Hannity is personally involved in can't have more than 2 sentences because of WP:WEIGHT, but, in Jorges opinion, having showing a film he wasn't personally involved with and that received limited, short term media coverage should get 3 times as much space in the article and having a negative caller on his local radio show over a decade ago (a person that Hannity banned from his show on his own volition) and received limited press coverage about should get more space as well.

Rather than complicating this with multiple issues, I'll leave this as a discussion of this issue now and address other issues seperately. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I think some of those observations can be dealt with through appropriate editing rather than banishment of all of the material altogether. But be that as it may - maybe there's another way to approach this. Am I correct that you said somewhere - maybe on WP:EAR? - that you agreed that a criticism section, or at least some criticisms, were warranted on this page? If so, what criticisms would you include? JohnInDC (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think should be a "criticism section" as a seperate section, but I do believe that valid, relevant criticisms should be included if written in a NPOV manner. One example that is briefly touched on in the existing article would be when Hannity (a Catholic)was taken to task on air by a member of the Catholic clergy over the issue of birth control. A logical segue at that point might be to include reliably sourced criticism from say NARAL (or something similar) about Hannity's stance on abortion, with say an equally sourced point from a pro-life group to balance it. I'm not picking that issue in particular, but using it as a quick example. Obviously there could be more. Since 99% of what Hannity does is political in nature, there is almost always going to be a source that opposes him on something and one that supports him on something. As long as they are presented in a balanced manner, both criticism and support can be given equal footing. That sounds like neutral and that is the goal, isn't it? Please also keep in mind that I only dealt with the weight issue above, hoping that we can deal with issues more effectively if handled one at a time. I have other issues with the particular info above. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. One of the frustrating things to me about this disagreement, coming in as a third party who knows no more about Sean Hannity than can be gleaned by occasional internet clips, is that it has largely taken the form of addition / reversion / addition / reversion without much in the way of attempted compromise. I gather that Jorge has rewritten the paragraph a couple of times (I'm really not interested in trolling the History to figure it out) but other than that, I don't see much in the way of editors working toward consensus. What if you took a crack at rewriting that material, using as little or as much of it as suited you, in whatever tone seemed to strike you as fair? If you don't think the thing is salvageable at all, then what would you add? I'm really just trying to get a dialogue going - a productive exchange of thoughts - among the people who know the most about the subject and are in the best position to edit the article. JohnInDC (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the idea of compromise and cooperation (really), and I've done it in other articles. However, in the case of these 2 items (Turner and Martin), I think that could be a problem. Turner is, in my opinion, a non-issue in the biography of the subject. It wasn't as if the "association" (if you can call having the guy call into your show for a while before you ban him an association) was ever a big issue. It came up very briefly, was barely covered by the media, and only re-surfaces in articles that are of a generally negative tone. The Martin info is barely an issue. It was made an issue in the blogosphere, but wasn't actually covered that extensively by reliable sources. And after the initially flurry, it pretty much dropped of the radar. Something that Jorge insists on including are the words/phrases "faux documentary" and "a new low". What we fail to take into account is that this is solely the opinion of the opinion columnist who writes on media topics and was written in the first person (which indicates personal (not professional) opinion). Yes, it is sourced, but that doesn't make his opinion that much more relevent than mine. "A new low" is terribly POV. Contrary to the claims of censorship and "Hannity staffers whitewashing", I haven't sought to oppress the information from Wikipedia. I've contended all along that both topics would be better suited for other articles (the Hannity's America article in the case of the Martin incident and possibly The Sean Hannity Show article in the case of Turner. That doesn't keep the info out of wikipedia, but it does place them in the articles associated with the events and lessens the BLP issues I think exist. But Jorge won't even consider it. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • A not-yet-existing WP:COATRACK problem is a good reason to write content in a less POV-magnet way (i.e., "reception" is less coatrack-y than "criticism"), not justification for throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Also, please do not use google hits, google news hits, google hot topics or anything like that as a measure of noteriety. I'll spare you the many example topics that are "notable" by this metric, which you would no doubt object to including in the article.
We're having a similar problem here that we had and are having at Glenn Beck. While many of the individual controversial events and topics involving Sean Hannity are not unto themselves appropriate to include in this article, the fact that he is a polarizing figure, and often says controversial things is not just noteworthy, but probably what he is best known for (and thus absolutely necessary to include). MichaelLNorth (talk) 20:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd just add my voice to the foregoing - it does seem a bit odd that an article about Hannity, a figure whose career has been built on staking out controversial opinions, has no mention of it. JohnInDC (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to say the Martin information, IF and only if it is down to a reasonable size. An entire paragraph (and having to use an NPR link to get it) isn't WP:DUE IMO. That being said, I'm suprised no one has brought up for instance Sean Hannity's supposed bias towards Bush for instance (still digging, but I've seen several credible AP sources on this) [3]? Soxwon (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Michael, I am making an effort to engage in a productive conversation here. I'd appreciate it if you'd leave your sarcasm and biases built from other conversations out of this one. I am not using ghits as a measure of notability in an of itself. It is a supporting factor to the rest of the reasoning. I linked to the search so one could see the pattern of coverage, demonstrating the lack of continuing coverage. Nor did I use WP:COATRACK as the sole reason. It was barely even mentioned in passing, yet much of your response focused on it. And I don't agree with a "reception" section. It's simply a criticism section by a different name. Criticisms should be incorporated into the article itself, not set aside in a seperate section. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • John, again, nobody has opposed the inclusion of ANY criticism. The issue has always been how it is included. If you ever felt the urge to actually look, you'd find that those who are normally inserting the criticism, tend to be accounts that edit primarily this article (some almost exclusively) or ones very similar (like Beck, Limbaugh, Bush) adding similar criticisms. You will find they never add anything positive in those places and often make efforts to oppose anything positive from being added as well. While some misguided editors have attempted to make an issue over userboxes on my user page as evidence of bias, their own edit pattern does that for them. I point this out not because I want to make agendas an issue, but to address your point about "controvery". We have essentially a 50-50 split in the US politically. So seeing a split about what is deemed "controversial" or not shouldn't come as a big surprise. That brings us back to the info at issue. I don't really see the Turner material as being that controversial, particularly in the long term view that a bio should be taking. It came up when a guest mentioned it, got talked about for a little and died off. All of that conversation happened after Turner was already banned from the show. The sources, while reliable, really don't go into specifics (like Hannity agreeing with the caller or stuff that was said) and really just create a guilt by association. You'll also note that for this allegedly big controversy, the biggest source located was the Bergen County Register. Even though Hannity was broadcasting out of NYC at the time, the NYC papers and their big staffs somehow missed this "important event", as did the larger NJ papers. So I have to ask (again) how important (and relevant) this "event" actually was. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Soxwon, any inclusion of his supposed bias towards Bush should also include examples of when he opposed Bush on issues like the Qatar ports deal, immigration etc, don't you think? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I'm not sure it's needed. Soxwon (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, Niteshift, I agree... but, meh. This whole issue of "bias towards Bush" actually is recentism, I think. (And if you'll remember, there are relatively few things I would consider to be recentism.) It pretty much goes without saying that Hannity agreed with Bush on >50% of issues during Bush's terms as President, just as Al Franken agreed with Clinton, Rush Limbaugh agreed with Bush's father, George Will agreed with Reagan, and so on back through history. Even so, all these pundits are independent political voices; there was nothing notable about their agreement with various administrations. I think it might be more notable to indicate where Hannity disagreed with Bush, but again, I don't see that as being significant even today... let alone 5, 10, 20, 50 years from now. -- JeffBillman (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • In looking at the overall, Hannity criticized Bush on immigration for example and still criticizes Obama on it. He feels that neither administration has done enough or the right things to address it. So his criticism appears to be based on principal rather than partisanship. In that regard, an issue like that could be a good one to use as an example of criticism, since he's taken criticism from groups about his immigration stance as well as his disagreement on the issue with the Republican leadership. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, so there's the current, long-term relevance. Very well, then. I'll back you on it. -- JeffBillman (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It's just a siggestion. I'm sure there are others equally good or even better. I haven't opposed criticism in this article. What I've opposed is "flash in the pan" type stuff that would be better suited for articles about the respective shows than in a bio. I have no issue with a balanced presentation of criticisms on the issues he's dealt with for the long term rather than just a week or two. One inherent problem with those short term issues is that there is little time for anything balanced to be produced. What happens, like in the case of Martin, is that a few writers gets upset over it, write some things and then drop it. The rest of the world just doesn't care and there is nothing written to balance it. So you get a one sided criticism. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Education errors... Alma Mater

Beneath education in Hannity's profile section it is stated that New York University and Adelphi University are listed as Alma Maters, but he apparently did not matriculate from either institution so these should not be listed as Alma Maters (i.e. dropped out). This should be modified to 'attended, but did not graduate'.


al⋅ma ma⋅ter  /ˈɑlmə ˈmɑtər, ˈæl-; ˈælmə ˈmeɪtər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ahl-muh mah-ter, al-; al-muh mey-ter] Show IPA Use alma mater in a Sentence –noun 1. a school, college, or university at which one has studied and, usually, from which one has graduated. 2. the official anthem of a school, college, or university. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.4.37 (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

  • "1. a school, college, or university at which one has studied and, usually, from which one has graduated.". Interestingly, the Wikipedia article on Alma mater says: "is often used in place of the name of the university or college from where a person has attended or graduated". Of course I don't suppose it matter to you that the bio on Barack Obama lists Occidental College as one of his alma maters, despite the fact that he attended Occidental, but did not graduate from there, does it? Or that the article on Jimmy Carter lists Georgia Southwestern College as an alma mater, depsite the fact that he didn't graduate from there. Even more on point, it lists Union College as an alma mater when all he took was a single non-credit course from it. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Just calling this out as an apparent attempt to make the issue partisan, "Of course I don't suppose it matter to you" then referencing Democrats' Wikipedia articles as examples. It is quite possible to make a point without taking a partisan stance on the issue or assuming that someone who disagrees with you is being partisan. Please try to remain objective in all your edits.Stargnoc (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Wait, you are asking someone to be objective? Wow......talk about the pot calling the kettle black. If the IP editor finds it all that important, I'd like to see him suggest the removal of Occidental from the Obama article and see what happens. I bet he won't and I bet his reception won't be any different. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Regarding above discussion, I think that the use of the "alma mater" reference is tenuous. The term is technically acceptable as he did attend those colleges (by the strict definition of the phrase). However, it is colloquially and generally accepted to mean schools from which one matriculates, AND/OR schools from which one received credit and transfers toward EVENTUAL matriculation at that level (e.g. BA, BS, MS, PhD, etc.). Since this subject did not matriculate at any school at the level referenced, I don't think appropriate to list the "alma mater" reference. In my opinion it should be removed. Douggmc (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    • And so armed with your opinion, you just remove it? I reverted it, as well as another of your changes that made no sense. Again, I've given examples where the same occurs in other bios, even one listing a college where the person audited a non-credit class. It meets the definition and it is your opinion that it is "tenuous". I would note that you had made only one edit 6 months or so ago and then jumped right into this with both feet, which does make me wonder. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry if I offended you. By no means was that my intent (your response seems that you are somewhat agitated). I removed it ... just as someone put it there based on their opinion. Isn't that the point of wikipedia? :) My explanation for WHY I did this is not addressed specifically in your response. The main point I made is ... the subject did not ultimately end up matriculating from any institution at that level (or higher). The examples you gave are of subjects who did eventually matriculate at other institutions (i.e., most likely transferring their credits) and so it seems appropriate to call out these institutions as alma maters. I just think the inclusion of the statement in the body of the text is appropriate and sufficient regarding his education. The listing of the institutions, by colloquial definition, smells of impartiality and seems misleading. Douggmc (talk) 04:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
        • See, you have it backwards. It was put there because it is a verifiable fact. You are removing it because you have an opinion that the use of the term alma mater shoudn't be applied in the dictionary sense, but in a "colloquially and generally accepted" way. In the body of the article, it is made clear that he did not graduate, so there is no misleading to it. An infobox is supposed to be a quick thumbnail, not an in-depth analysis. I also find your justification for the others interesting. You say they most likely transferred their credits, when I listed one example specifically where the sole course the person took was a NON CREDIT course.....so I'm betting he didn't transfer his non-credit, which was the sole connection to that alam mater. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
          • ... but he DID ultimately matriculate (before or after auditing the non-credit course) at that level. That is my point. The bigger picture here is what is the intent behind the listing. I surmise that it is to give the impression that he earned a degree. Which is not what I consider a neutral illustration of his bio ( WP:NEU ). I've informally asked a few of my friends what they thought listing one's alma mater means. Not surprisingly, they interpret it as a college (or colleges) you attended for which/and after you ULTIMATELY EARNED a degree. Let me give a personal analogy: I was in the Army for 6 years. I never served overseas. I never served in a war. I was fortunate to have served between two conflicts. My service was actually quite pleasant. I am proud of my service, but don't equate it with my father's service in combat in Korea. Nor do I equate it to my nephew's service in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. We are all three (or will be in case of my nephew) veterans by strict definition. Do you see the difference between my service and theirs? Their service is REALLY worthy of the title veteran. The respect and adulation that they deserve as veterans. I celebrate Veteran's Day for my father and my nephew ... not me and my cushy service as a "veteran". This is the point I'm making ... the strict definition of something and what is truly meant. Listing the alma mater for Hannity is correct by strict definition, but not what is truly meant or intended to illustrate. --Douggmc (talk) 07:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
      • No, I don't see your example, because I view it differently. Mine is the opposite (big surprise, right?). I am a combat veteran and my father isn't. I view him as every bit the veteran I am. It was people like him who stood the line, whether literally or figuratively, that preserved the country I grew up to serve. The power of an infantry division sitting in the US, even if it never deploys, still weighs heavily on the minds of potential adversaries. An aircraft carrier in the Med or a sub lurking in the Bering Straits is a deterrent whether it ever fires a shot in anger or not. The fact that they all stood ready, every day, ready to serve their country makes them a veteran in my book. As for the article, the fact that he did not graduate from either school is very clear in the body of the article. So anyone who bothers to read shouldn't get the "wrong impression". Niteshift36 (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Regarding your last comment about jumping right in .. well ... we all have to start somewhere. I'm just trying to give an objective and critical analysis on this. As I hope to in the future. I hope I'm not going to be bullied constantly though .. or what is the point of spending my time contributing(and I'm not calling you a bully ... I'm speaking of the process in general that seems to be unfolding here). Douggmc (talk) 04:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
        • And interestingly, you jumped into a discussion that has been littered with sockpuppet participation. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
        • I see that .. it is unfortunate. Hannity is a polarizing figure ... so it unfortunately comes with it. On topic of the alma mater, I haven't undid what you did to my did ... yet. I would hope we get some other discussion from others on this topic (besides from shill accounts). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Douggmc (talk • contribs) 04:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Correction: You jumped into a discussion littered with *accusations* of sockpuppet participation.Stargnoc (talk) 07:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • No, there have been sockpuppets on here. No correction is needed. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

The indication "Alma Mater" is best used when referring to an institution from which an individual was awarded a degree (diploma, etc.), and (less fittingly) when referring to an institution from which credits were awarded that supported a degree awarded by an accredited institution. It seems pretty dubious to use the term to refer to an institution from which an individual attended briefly, and from which no degree was awarded nor credits applied. Doing so in the article seems like a stretch. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 07:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length on other articles. One does not have to graduate from a school for that school to be considered an "Alma Mater" regardless of what anyone personal feelings are on the case. Arzel (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Have you read the rationale history above for WHY we don't think appropriate? The key point we are making is that it would be appropriate to use the term "alma mater" for lists of schools one attended IF one had GRADUATED at that level from one of those schools. I agree, certainly, that if one graduates at a level (e.g. BS/BA), then listing all schools attended to reach that graduation as "alma maters" is appropriate. The use of it otherwise is .. as noted by myself and others .. somewhat tenuous. It gives the colloquial impression that one has matriculated. If he would have graduated from one of the two schools listed, then we agree that "alma mater" would be appropriate for both. There is no personal feelings here, trying to apply WP:NEU.--Douggmc (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
"Personal feelings" has nothing to do with it, and your (common) attempst to try and turn this (and other points) into "personal" arguments is unproductive, unappreciated, unprofessional, and inappropriate. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Obviously you do have personal feelings or you would not be attempting to define the word to your belief of what it should be. Arzel (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
      • The dictionary clearly defines it as a proper use. It goes on to say "usually". Not "always", not "exclusively", but usually. The use of alma mater does not depart from the definition. I also gave examples where alma maters that people did not graduate from are listed, but I note that neither of them have made an attempt to correct those "errors" and Douggmc has gone so far as to make excuses for it (trying to justify a non-credit class). The article makes it very clear that Hannity did not graduate from either, so the "it gives a wrong impression" excuse is a strawman. So I would like to know on what policy basis this sourced information is being removed? Or is this a matter of WP:IDONTLIKEIT for the definition and use? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
        • I may not be able to find them, so please excuse me ... but what/who are examples of people that did not graduate at that level (e.g. BS or higher) where their alma maters are listed? I'll gladly apply my same rationale in their discussion pages and see if we can can reach a majority opinion again.--Douggmc (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • See, you keep trying to [redefine the term]. The definition of the word says USUALLY. I'm sure if the people at Random House wanted it to say "always", they are more than capable of defining it that way. But since they didn't, what makes you and Blaxthos think you can redefine the word to suit your own purposes? Now, not only do you want to redefine it, but you want to make an exception for those that graduated somewhere else, but still attended a school. How can you have it both ways? It's either a school they graduated from or it's not. I even showed you an example that blew a hole in your "well they transferred the credits" argument and you just ignored it. Now you want me to go find you other examples based on your new, narrowly constructed criteria? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • This is a really dumb arguement. Trying to redefine a word is simply pointless. As I sit here looking at my Webster's New World Dictionary, there is no mention of matriculating from school. Alma Mater is defined as simply a school which was attended. There is simply no standing for removal from this article. Arzel (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The question here is not who can cite more dictionaries or whatever else. The issue is whether using the term "alma mater" might mislead readers into believing that Hannity received a degree or degrees from NYU and Adelphi. I think that it certainly could give people the wrong idea; I have always associated the term with having graduated, and based on the discussion, I'm clearly not alone. The best case put forward relies on a definition that says the term is usually used for graduates; I think that definition actually cuts against including the text in question, since the term is defined as usually meaning something else. Especially when the article text describes his academic history accurately, there's no reason to include something in the infobox that will almost certainly mislead people. Croctotheface (talk) 04:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

  • It shouldn't mislead anyone who bothers to read the article. Have you bothered to read the article Alma mater? It states twice that the term applies to a college someone attended. As I said before, the bios on Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter list schools that they did not graduate from. In fact one of them listed for Carter is one he took a single non-credit course at. It would be easy to argue that Hannity would have a more valid claim to these schools as alma maters than Carter would have to Union College because Hannity actually got credits for his attendence. Why are we to re-define the term just because you, applying your personal understanding of the term, might get the wrong impression? Niteshift36 (talk) 05:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Niteshift, it's pretty apparent that consensus is to leave it out... I am having doubts that you're editing in good faith at this point. I think it's time to let this one go, eh ? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Which consensus is that? Did you miss the fact that when you posted this question at the Village pump, a number of totally uninvolved editors opined that the use was proper? Or do you dismiss them all as "agenda driven partisans" as well? BTW, I've long doubted that you were editing in good faith. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I would like to see other examples of how alma mater is used on wikipedia. I think it is misleading to say Sean Hannity's alma mater is any college, if he did not graduate. I think it would be much more clear to list them as "attended but did not graduate". Why not do this?Stargnoc (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • You've ignored one that is directly on point. The Jimmy Carter bio lists Union College as an alma mater. Carter did not graduate from there. The second excuse some have used to justify inclusion of a college the person didn't graduate from is "he transferred the credits". That is not the case for Carter. Carter to a single non-credit course at Union college and did not pursue a degree beyond the one he got in at the Naval Academy. He took the Union College course after receiving his one and only degree. So that eliminates the 2 things I've heard since he didn't graduate from Union, nor did he transfer any credits from it to another school. In fact, he never received ANY credits from the school. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, but their contention is that this is an anomoly that doesn't happen anywhere else and that it is solely because I am pushing a "right wing agenda" (even though I'm not the one who put it there in the first place). What better example than to show that the same thing is done on a bio of a man who is the polar opposite of Hannity, therefore countering the baseless accusation of a vast right-wing conspiracy to make a conservative look good? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

A simple solution?

Would a simple solution be to simply change the template to read "schools attended" instead of "alma mater"? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. For that that graduated from a given school a seperate template could be added for Allumnus. Arzel (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Not the worst thing in the world and would also be accurate. Anyways, good luck as always :) --Tom (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
This would be acceptable to me.--Douggmc (talk) 23:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I moved his schools from alma matar to education while this is being hashed out on numerous boards. I reserve the right to change my mind and go back to Arzel version :) --Tom (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
"Schools Attended" (as proposed by Niteshift36) ... is different from "Education". :) I'm not sure that "Education" isn't EVEN MORE confusing/misleading than "Alma Maters". At this point though, I'm not going to engage in any more edits on the education/alma mater/schools attended issue. My goal is(was) to ensure that when someone views a page ... and glances at the quick info. section of the page ... they get a clear and immediate representation of the subject's "education" level. I'll state one more time (and final time ... I promise) that I don't think "Alma Mater" (and now "Education") gives the correct impression. I've done my due diligence in regards to stating my opinion and attempting to document as such. Thanks all for your opinion too.--Douggmc (talk) 01:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
"Education" does not really clear up the issue. What "numerous boards" is this being hashed out on?Stargnoc (talk) 07:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
This whole thing really seems like a mountain out of a mole hill or some point to be made at this point. It reminds me of the KO nonsesne about him "not really" going to Cornell or whever school he went to. I am not even sure what we are aruging about any more or who is for what "solution" or what people would be willing to accept, ect. I really don't care. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Prior to reading Hannity wiki article I had the impression that Hannity didn't graduate from college. Upon reading the heading of the article, I got the impression that he DID graduate from college. Only after reading the details did I verify that he did NOT graduate from college. This seems like a pattern that Conservatives use, all the time, they seem to relish in the gamesmenship of twisting reality with words. It winds up wasting everyone's time, slowing progress, which by definition is what Conservatism is about, maintaining what we have, as opposed to making changes. I see the wordsmenship merely as a political tactic. Interesting to see it plays out on wikipedia. What I was looking for on Hannity that I did not see was his family background and more on the life shaping events that brought him to take on the role he has chosen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertdavis3 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Wow....that was constructive. Read WP:SOAP and you'll understand why I don't take the time to tell you things about the tendency for liberals to just hear sound bytes (or just read info boxes) and make uninformed decisions (or vote) based on them. Instead, I'll stick to the points that have been made. His box is no different than Michael Dell, Bill Gates, Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama and others who list colleges from which they did not graduate. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
An editor took out the schools altogether, complaining that the box gave the impression he'd graduated. Personally that's the way I read it too (despite the ultimate lack of a graduation year). I think it's clearer to lead with "attended" and restored the text in that fashion. The box thus conveys the information, correctly, that he attended the two schools, while at the same time making it a bit clearer that he did not obtain degrees from them. JohnInDC (talk) 03:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • You can't indicate a university as "Education" when the person never completed. Maybe he failed out, maybe he chose to leave, but listing this as "education" implied he holds a degree from each school. Billy Joel attended one class in a college in Long Island, NY, should I go and write that university under his picture...ABSOLUTELY NOT that is extremely misleading. The entire section should be removed. Nobody here has provided just cause for leaving it.

Waterboarding, revisited

Fellow editors, we had a discussion about waterboarding (above) that appears to have ended prematurely when the controversy section was removed. While I support the removal of the controversy section, I can't help but think that consensus had been to include something about the waterboarding controversy in this article; and that this consensus had been ignored. Now, rather than incite an(other) edit war over this, I would like to calmly discuss this subject in order to better ascertain the consensus on it. Thoughts? -- JeffBillman (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

My question, why is this important? What makes it significant? Soxwon (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Let me answer that question first with another question: Do you disagree that consensus has been to include this incident? Looking at the above discussion, I count more people in favor of including it than opposed. Do I err in my count? This is pertinent, because if I'm simply mistaken about measuring that consensus, then really there's no need to re-open this conversation. Cheers! -- JeffBillman (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, I disagree that there was a consensus to include it. The reason being.......meat/sockpuppetry. If you notice, there are a few names that come here, stir things up and then leave. Then "coincidentally", that name leaves and another one that hasn't edited here for a while re-appears to take up the slack, says a few things, then a new one appears. There are only a couple of editors that I can say, without a doubt aren't somehow related to each other, that were supporting it. And there were an equal number of unconnected ones that opposed it. That said....I'll repeat what I said in the other debate. Thi was an issue that spiked for a week or two and went away. People keep trying to pick very short term items and make them into major events. Why aren't we looking at things the subject has talked about for years: abortion, social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, judicial nominees, gun control, immigration. These are the things that he's talked, controversially, about day in and day out. Why are we mining the obscure to see if we can find something that sounds extreme? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with your assessment that the issue is "obscure", but it seems my disagreement is moot at this point. I naively thought we had reached a consensus that Hannity's views on waterboarding are not significantly less notable than the subject of the article himself; i.e., if Hannity himself is notable today and notable in the foreseeable future, then so too are the issue of waterboarding and Hannity's response to it. That said, if it is true that the issue is spearheaded by an editor engaged in sockpuppetry, then that consensus is not clear and we gain nothing by pushing the issue. Wikipedia is not a race, so let's table this for now. If I'm right that this matter is long-term significant, then there will be time later to add it back in. And if I'm wrong... well, then, who cares? ;-) -- JeffBillman (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Don't take my word for it. Look at the news coverage (actual reliable sources, not the blogosphere). A short spike......then literally weks with nothing until Mancow underwent it himself. That caused it to be mentioned for a couple more days....then nothing again. It was a blip on the radar. If we apply the "10 year test" that WP:RECENTISM suggests, the topic fails miserably. It doesn't even pass the "10 month test" or even the "10 week test". The only people talking about this issue are here. The rest of the world pretty much moved on to something else. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I wonder how long the article would be if we applied the 10 year WP:Recentism test to everything in it. JohnInDC (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Good question. But he's been nationally syndicated for 8 years and had a TV show for 13 years. I bet there were issues he's been talking about all that time. I bet there hasn't been a week go by in those 9 and 13 year histories that he hasn't talked about the issues I mentioned above. But instead of looking at those long term controversial issues, we are trying to pick a 2 week spike that really wasn't covered all that heavily and make it an issue? 13 years of uninterrupted TV broadcasts and we have to pick a one time statement as something defining in his biography? Something that the press barely noticed and dropped inside of two weeks. Does that honestly sound neutral to you? Or even put in a reasonably balanced historical context? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
The vast, vast majority of content on all of Wikipedia would fail the misinterpretation of the "10 year test" and the "news spike" language in the recentism essay that some are advancing. The question is not whether there will be a continued high level of news coverage of an issue in ten years: "news spikes" are inevitable, and it's unrealistic to expect any kind of sustained high level of coverage of any event, however important. The 1998 elections aren't covered much in the news these days, either; does any content relating to them have to go?
The question to ask about this content is whether it will remain relevant to the article. The "waterboarding for charity" promise and subsequent silence is quite telling, in terms of Hannity, his character, his politics, and as a reflection of the Bush era and its policies. Readers interested in a neutral depiction of Sean Hannity now, 10 years from now, or 100 years from now will find this episode illuminating. It should go in the article. Croctotheface (talk) 08:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I simply don't see it. The man said something once, almost in passing, and we're acting like it is a core principal of his life. I'm sure nobody here has said "I'll bet a million dollars that......" in the course of expressing a belief without meaning it literally. So the guy shot his mouth off a little in the heat of the moment without thinking that people will take it so literally? Given the amount of hours a week he is on the radio and TV, it's surprising that there aren't more cases like this. He tends to argue in a somewhat passionate manner. Things get said that way. For some of the people who think this is a defining moment in his life, I wonder how well they'd fare if someone recorded every word they said for a year or two. I also feel you're misconstruing what I said about the 10 year test. This "important controversy" really wasn't covered that much in the first place. A couple of media outlets and a competitor that has a beef with Hannity made an issue of it. When the rest of the media and the public in general failed to respond, they dropped it. No, we aren't talking about the 98 elections on a regualr basis today, but it was covered heavily, for weeks and months. And it wasn't covered by just a couple of newspapers. You saw coverage in every newspaper, on every network. Was this waterboarding thing mentioned on a single network news broadcast? The 98 election was on the front page of many nation newspapers, not in a column by an entertainment writer in the sporadic paper. It was actual news, not fodder for media critics. Throw the 10 year test away. Where was the media coverage 3 months later? Niteshift36 (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I* don't see it. The man is controversial, often inflammatory. Yet somehow after two weeks of discussion the article still reads like he's some kind of modern day Paul Harvey. If the controversies are fleeting it is because the attention span of the public and the media is short. It does not diminish them; it is simply the nature of the controversies that Hannity generates. He says something extreme, there's a brief firestorm, then everyone moves on. That's not a reason to exclude controversies from the article - it's just a reason to explain them a bit more completely. JohnInDC (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
If there is a consequence to the controversy then you have some cause and effect which makes it notable for inclusion, otherwise who cares? There are several places on the internet for people to complain about Hannity, this, however, is not one of them. Arzel (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • John, who has suggested this article be free of controversies? I was asked for some and I gave what I thought would be a good example of a topic he's been involved in controversy over, a topic that has been an enduring issue, not just a fleeting one, that represents his enduring views. I even suggested where to put it. I listed other topics he's taken controversial positions on and talked about consistently. In the case of immigration, he has opposed not only Democrats/liberal positions (which is expected), but he criticized the Bush administration and Republicans for not doing enough and continues the criticism into the Obama administration. Yet nobody seems to care about those. Everyone wants to be so focused on this single statement. Talk about not being able to see the forest for the trees. Five long term controversial topics or a single controversial statement......which one sounds more balanced, neutral and in keeping with the general idea behind a biography? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
First, in response to Arzel, I'm not "complaining" about Hannity. I'm trying to help construct an article that does a fairly complete, and neutral, job of describing the man and his career - something that goes beyond his ratings and charitable works. And while "controversies based on principle" certainly should be included, if the article is confined to those, you risk winding up with an article in which every "controversy" is one in which the subject courageously stuck to his guns, offending doubters of every stripe. That's not neutral or comprehensive; it's hagiography. What's the harm in noting a couple of well-publicized, if transitory, instances of apparent hypocrisy? They can even be *described* that way. JohnInDC (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • That's sort of the point John. It wasn't that "well publicized". It was jumped on by a small number of people (including a competitor with an axe to grind) and largely ignored by everyone else. And I don't mean the controversies need to be ones "based on principle" in the manner you're speaking of. I'm talking about positions that he has taken and kept, demonstrating an actual opinion/position about the topic and not just a one off statment like the "I'll do it" sort of thing. I'm sure you've said something in the heat of a discussion you didn't mean to be taken quite as literally as it was taken. If a bio were written about you, would that represent your life? Again I ask, why are we ignoring multiple long term, controversial positions in favor of trying to focus on a statement he made once and didn't bother to repeat? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
"Well-publicized" or not, I heard of it and I gainsay that many other readers of Wikipedia did as well. As for intemperate statements - sure. We all make them. When we're called out on it by friends or relatives or coworkers, though, most of us don't have the luxury of simply ignoring the complaints, of pretending we never said it in the first place. We might apologize, or try explain the circumstances under which we said it - or, if we really believed what we said, reaction be damned, then even reaffirm what we said in the first place. *Something*. You do that, and there's not much "controversy" left to talk about. Indeed if I were given to intemperate statements but equally given to owning up to them afterwards I might even be proud to have it in my biography. My bottom line is that it just appears to me, an editor without much knowledge of Hannity other than the general sense that he is a polarizing figure, that this article fails to capture that. JohnInDC (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • John, the article DOES fail to capture that. I have said that ad naseum. I simply don't think that the waterboarding "issue" is what will do it. Further, you assume he is "given to intemperate statements". We're talking about one here, not plural. Do you have another example in mind? As I've pointed out here before, we are not good yardsticks for what people have heard of or not. Given that we are here, editing this article, we have demonstrated more than a passing interest in the topic of political matters. I bet you know the name of your congressman, but I dare say that well over half the adults I could ask in virtually any mall in the US wouldn't. I'd be willing to bet that 30-40% of those adults couldn't even name the Vice President, but I bet you can. I know that John Stewart was born John Leibowitz and that Geraldo Rivera was born Gerald, but I doubt most people do. What we have heard of most likely doesn't represent the populice at large. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Good god, what does any of that have to do with the issue at hand? Niteshift, I've never seen you advocate inclusion of any negative or slightly unflattering information about Mr. Hannity, and I have a real hard time believing that you'll ever let anything of that nature go in without a fight (and your userboxen on your userpage set the stage perfectly). Other than the "FNC isn't biased, liberals are out to destroy wikipedia" crowd (of 2), consensus seems pretty clearly towards including this information. Given the circumstances above, I'm not inclined to give much benefit of the doubt here -- I suggest we forgo the "should it be included" (that ship has sailed) and move on to the "how should it be included". //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Sigh, I thought we were going to try not being personal Blax. First, apparently you didn't bother reading this discussion, since I clearly listed a very specific example of an issue that not only Hannity has received criticism on, but even suggested where it would be a good idea to place it. I also listed several other issues that I saw very real potential for a neutral presentation of criticism. But apparently that slipped by you. Next, are we going to go over the whole freakin userbox thing again? That is the lamest pile of crap, but you keep trotting it out. Instead of playing little secret squirrel games, I don't hide my beliefs. Would I be a different person if I didn't put them up, like some people here do? Some here have clear agendas and beliefs, but try to pretend they don't. Of course, had you bothered to read the entire discussion, you wouldn't have felt the need to go into the who bad faith bit about userboxes yet again. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Dude, I think that to any outside observers and to many here, your bias is obvious -- that you take pride it in only makes it easier to identify, but please don't pretend that your comments here are objective. You can't wear your agenda on your sleeve, fight against any negative information for a year with fervid ownership, and then act like you're the objective party here -- that don't won't hunt. Even if you discount the (single) IP editor who also had an account, there is clearly a majority of editor either asking why it's not included, or arguing for its inclusion. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 10:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • And none of that changes the fact that I've made suggestions of criticism that should be included and repeatedly agreeed that criticism needs to be part of the article. I'm not going to get into your personal pettiness. You have zero room to lecture about ownership and agendas. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah Blax, keep yammering about agendas. Just because you don't display user boxes doesn't make it impossible to see yours. Just over 11,000 edits and in excess of 1550 (going on 15%) of them for Fox News Channel or people who have shows on FNC. I'll gladly compare my 2.5% of my edits involving Hannity to the 8% of your edits for the FNC article alone. My 380 edits at the Hannity article pales in comparison to your 933 at the FNC article. That isn't counting the additional 167 for the article on FNC controversies. You can pretend all you want, you might even fool the uninformed, but you're not going to fool those who can see the obvious. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
So, Niteshift, how about you write something up, put it here on the Talk page for comment, and see where it leads us? JohnInDC (talk) 12:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Any progress on that section? JohnInDC (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes. I chose abortion to start with. The main problem has been that there are so many sources to go through, since this has ben a long term issue with him. Unlike the topic at hand, there are years of sources to look through, not just a couple of weeks. Aside from the obvious disagreement from abortion activists, I'm including criticism he's received from Catholics over his stance on contraception as a means to prevent abortion and on criticism he received from conservatives over his borderline endorsement of Giuliani, who was pro-choice and mentioning an incident where he appeared to have "saved" Fred Thompson from saying he supported pro-choice laws by cutting him off and rephrasing Thompson's answer. (even though that was a one time occurance, it fit the larger pattern with Rudy).Niteshift36 (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Good, thanks. As you are writing, keep in mind that a sound "criticisms" or "controversies" section should not simply reflect principled disagreements, if there are also examples tp be had of - for example - unprincipled disagreements or hypocrisy. (I think the waterboarding thing is a good example, though I know you disagree with its inclusion.) The risk otherwise is that the "controversies" section comes across like one of those smarmy interview candidates, who, when asked if they have any weaknesses, respond with something like, "I think I care too much about my subordinates" or "I'm too much of a perfectionist". A balanced article should try to avoid that - uh, aroma! JohnInDC (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't see a seperate section for criticism at all. I see working it into existing sections. Criticism sections just draw attention to anyone just wanting to vent or create a list. Nor do I see putting Hannity's response in that much unless it is notable. In the case of abortion, I've never read anything notable from him in the way of responses, so I haven't seen anything I felt warranted inclusion. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Wow, what a long discussion page...this needs to be archived. I'm going to agree with both sides in different ways. As I see it, the involvement of the confirmed sock flawed the previous discussion, and I didn't really see a clear consensus for either side. Conversely, I believe that a short mention of this statement would be appropriate — although of course he makes tons of statements on tons of positions, a statement of this sort plus the pledge to undergo it himself is a clear sign of his position on this specific subject. To avoid the appearance of recentism: his position on this subject may not be relevant to the waterboarding question in future years, but his position on this subject will be relevant to an understanding of Sean Hannity in future years. As long as we have solid, reliable sourcing for this statement, I see no problem with inclusion. A self-published source would be entirely appropriate in this specific situation — as long as we're talking about what he thinks, there's no reason to say that he's not a reliable source for what he thinks. Moreover, even if all the media outlets in the world said "Hannity's never claimed this position" and his own website said that he had, I'd say that he had — saying so on his website would be such a claim. Nyttend (talk) 02:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Picture.... (read on)

The picture is of low quality, so I propose we take it down until we find a new and better one.----------------136.183.240.185 (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no. The picture is fine.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It actualy is an awful picture technicaly, but pretty good in that he is looking directly at the camera and is smiling. It is a decent potrait, but grainy and low quality...and yes low resolution....at least this much is low quality, but it's free and it's here. Why take it down untill a new one is found. Find a new one and then replace it....but it has to be free.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of content

With this change, an editor removed content that has been in the article for months - since at least December 2008. I undid this unexplained removal of content here. My undoing of that inappropriate and unexplained edit has now itself been undone twice, without any supporting reason offered. If you don't think the section is appropriately included, raise the issue here. Don't simply foment an edit war by repeatedly and without comment restoring an inappropriate edit. Thank you. JohnInDC (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This is insufficient. JohnInDC (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
The FAIR, like MMFA,is notorious for nitpicking non-notable events. Need to something bigger to confirm this accusation. Soxwon (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
That particular piece of information has been in the article for months, surviving a lot of edits in what is a pretty contentious article. I would like to hear what other editors have to say. In addition I object to your having removed this established content three times without explanation. Wholly apart from the apparent violation of Wikipedia policy, I think experienced editors owe one another a bit more consideration. JohnInDC (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
In addition, FAIR was not the only source cited for the material. I think removal of this content, particularly given the prior "whitewash" discussion, is inappropriate and it should remain. JohnInDC (talk) 21:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Media Matters and FAIR are generally accepted on Wikipedia as reliable sources within their respective fields. Please don't confuse the meaning of "reliable" as defined in policy. The content looks sufficiently sourced and properly presented. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No, they are good for fact-checking, not WP:DUE. While they may be factually accurate, they represent a fringe viewpoint. This would be the equivalent of citing Free Republic for the Olbermann article. Soxwon (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I think the KCBS incident is relevant and belongs in the article. It was his first (or one of his first) shows and his remarks got him fired from it. That's fairly significant in the terms of a biography, particularly when he went on to become the #2 radio talk host in the country. It's not like he got fired from McDonalds for burning a batch of fries. As for Media Matters....they are completely biased. Even their own website admits that they only monitor conservative shows. In other words, they could give a hoot about any "misinformation" on a liberal show. That makes them biased, along with the fact that not just a few of their efforts at refuting things are pretty much POV. They should not be used. I haven't looked at FAIR in depth enough to opine on their reliability. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
If Media Matters is unreliable, it can't be demonstrated by the fact that they only monitor and report on "conservative" shows. It's a logical non sequitur. It's just what they focus on, like a marine biologist focuses on sea life. It suggests they bring a point of view to their efforts, sure, but you still need to demonstrate POV and bias in practice. JohnInDC (talk) 11:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Again, look through WP:RS/N, they are good to use if their are other MSM sources used already (NYT, LAT, USA Today etc.), but by themselves they don't represent WP:DUE. Soxwon (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Let me try to clear up what I meant. MM is a POV organization. They are funded solely to refute the POV of their opposite segment. When it comes to matters of fact, they can be a RS, when it comes to interpretation or opinion, they are not neutral and using them as a source requires great care in terms of POV and UNDUE. Perhaps an example or two would be appropriate. Example of them as RS: Hannity apparently hadn't read all the particulars of the "Cash for Clunkers" of quite incorrectly stated on the air that "..all we've got to do is ... go to a local junkyard, all you've got to do is tow it to your house. And you're going to get $4,500.”. MM responded by showing that this was incorrect, using verifiable facts. I have no issue with the use of MM as a source for that. The opposite, less obvious example would be when MM "refuted" Hannity saying that Obama in his remarks to a joint session of Congress on health care reform said that insurance executives are "bad people". They used semantics to refute his point. In that case, I would dispute their neutrality as POV pushing. In the case of Hannity in particular, we should be extremely careful since they gave him their psuedo-award of "Misinformer of the Year", which shows that there is a very real possibility of a bias against him. My question would be this: If anything was really that relevant, wouldn't there be more neutral sources also covering it that we could cite? If something is covered only by MM, is it likely going to be something relevant enough to be an "event" in his life? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Much clearer and sensible explanation, thanks Nite. I am not entirely sure I agree with you but I follow your reasoning and appreciate the distinctions you're making. JohnInDC (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought a consensus was reached to include a section on Sean's political views, including those on waterboarding. I reviewed some of the talk page archives and apparently Niteshift36's argument against this inclusion is his continued accusation that numerous editors who came to said consensus are just sock puppets who stop by every once in a while to stir things up then disappear. Well, Niteshift, I'm not a sock puppet. Believe it or not some of us have better things to do than to sit constantly on one article and repeatedly vandalize it. Every time I happen to come back here, the page is again vandalized to include only information on the subject of the article that is positive. I have submitted this article for semi-protection.Stargnoc (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

  • First off, my sole arguement hasn't been sockpuppetry. Second, isn't it an incredibly amazing coincidence that your last contribution was on Aug 30, 2009. Furious Georges last edit was also on Aug. 30, 2009. Then he came back and accused "vandals" of removing the content from this talk page on his page: [4]. Then you come in and make the same accusation [5]. After which, you remove your accusation, finding out you made the same error "he" made. What do you suppose the odds of that happening are? 2 accounts, going inactive for the same time period, coming back, making the same incorrect statement? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
    • That makes sense, because if I were this guy's sockpuppet I obviously wouldn't have learned the first time I made the mistake. Sorry bud, I'm not a sockpuppet.Stargnoc (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
      • So you expect us to believe that neither of you had the common sense to look at the history first, instead choosing to make the same baseless allegation and that the fact that both of you disappeared on the same date, only to return and reach the same wrong conclusion within 48 hours of each other is just an odd coincidence? LOL. Ok friend, whatever. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I don't know anything about the posting habits of this other user. I do know that you're mistaken to accuse me. Please end the accusations of sockpuppetry at those who disagree with you. Let's stick to the issues.Stargnoc (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, I provided you links to the diff, so you can familiarize yourself with it. Further, I've just pointed out an incredible coincidence. I haven't really accused you. I dislike the ridiculously cumbersome SPI complaint process, although if this silliness keeps up, I may have to go through it anyway. And, BTW, I did a SPI related to this topic befor and it showed I was correct, they were working in concert. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I just reviewed FuriousJorge's talk page and I see he is blocked but I'm certainly not convinced you were shown to be correct. They had no evidence against the poor schmuck yet it appears he's still blocked. I guess if you've gotten one person blocked unjustly you can do it again.Stargnoc (talk) 01:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Do facts mean anything to you? First, I didn't make the SPI complaint on him. Second, the one I refer to making was another user. Third, there was enough evidence for the administrators at SPI to make the determination and for an uninvolved admin to reject his appeal. Fouth, he isn't still blocked. He was blocked for 1 week (at the exact same time you mysteriously disappeared). I'm done wasting time on this with you. Perhaps if you stop talking about it yourself, you'll chalk up fewer errors. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • If facts were your life, you would have actually had some before you went to at least 3 different locations and incorrectly accused me of getting Jorge blocked when it wasn't me. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


Proposal to add views / reception section

I would like to see a section detailing Sean Hannity's political and personal views as these are what have made him famous. He has expressed them on his show, in his books, and in interviews. Possibly also a section on reception of his views. There has been discussion on some of these issues before as you can see in the archives but no resolution was made.Stargnoc (talk) 04:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

  • What specific ones are you talking about? As I've said before, it appears more logical to me to concentrate on the issues he's made a long term thing about (abortion, fiscal conservatism etc) than trying to make a big deal over a one time comment. That would appear less like POV pushing and more like balanced article writing. And Stargnoc, please learn to sign your freakin posts! Niteshift36 (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I can quote from one archive: "Of course the article is not politically imbalanced. It contains hardly information about the person, and reads like a TV guide blurb, telling viewers what shows he is involved with and when they are on. His positions on immigration, gay marriage, liberals in general (he repeatedly has referred to liberalism as a "disease"), abortion, gay marriage, homosexuals being allowed around children, gay adoption, global warming, torture, demand-side economic stimulus, defense spending, etc... are all controversial, and they are the single largest driving force for why Hannity is a notable person. If you don't want to call this "controversy", the wikipedia-preferred term is "reception", but in any case, this is the banner that is typically used. If your position is that there are no notable controversies involving Sean Hannity, please state so in plain language so we can debate that point." I know I've spelled out several topics before as well. There's been plenty of discussion in the archives, just no action - or if there was action it was reverted.Stargnoc (talk) 05:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Niteshift36, are you saying you believe that there aren't any relevant criticisms, views, and events that aren't covered in this article, and that the article is properly balanced? Is that your position? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I've said, multiple times, that this article should have some criticisms that aren't included. You know I've said it. Why would you even ask such a stilted question, particularly because I've said some does belong here and in light of my response above? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
You've also said (some months ago) that you would work on some examples of what you believe is "acceptable" criticism/rounded viewpoints. Since then, I haven't seen any proposals for balanced content from you, but I've seen plenty of mudslinging and rabid attacks on people who seem to want those sorts of things included. I'm just wondering if you're actually interested in including those things, or if you're just paying lip service without actual intent. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Really? Have you seen that? Would you care to point out where you've seen "plenty of it"? Because I have had a total of 2 edits on this article in over a month and one of those was to remove a wikilink. I hadn't written anything on the talk page in over 2 weeks. As I said earlier, unlike the psuedo-controversy about waterboarding, where there was a 2 week period and a few sources to comb through, abortion (which was what I chose to go after first), covers over a decade and hundreds upon hundreds of sources. A since you seem to follow my every move, you should have probably noted a drop in my editing as real life issues have cut my time here. But don't try to throw the "lip service" stone. You just know it'll end up back-firing on you. Just like your ridiculous question above. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
The pattern extends far beyond the last two weeks (or even two months). If you consult the record, you'll note that several editors raised ownership and agenda servicing concerns with regards to your campaign to excise any sort of negative or controversial content about Mr. Hannity. That discussion concluded with an editor asking you for some examples of critical or unflattering content that you wouldn't object to, and you saying you would write some proposed text to help balance the article. Here we are two months later, and you've made no proposals at all (though you have continued with the POV campaign, it seems). I think the point here (and in the section below) is that the pattern seems to be giving lip service to the "I want balance too", promising to add content later, and simply waiting until it's archived/forgotten. Lather, rinse, repeat. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • And none of them have ever answered the substantial questions. Now you want to go back to this "ownership" BS again. And I've addressed the question about the part I was working on writing. I've addressed it numerous times. I might have even had time this weekend if people quit asking the same question over and over and ignoring the answer when it's given.

Talk page archiving too frequent

A 30 day archive is too frequent for this talk page so I removed it for now. It's as if all the discussion over the past few months doesn't exist and certainly very little has been done to improve the article. Niteshift36, you said you were going to include some information on abortion?Stargnoc (talk) 05:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes, I did. And I've addressed that twice today and once earlier. Please stop asking the same question in multiple locations. It's annoying to answer it over and over. Ask it once, get your answer. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't be disruptive by removing the archival because you think it's too frequent. I've reverted you, and changed the date to 60 days. Two months should be plenty of time.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. Please don't accuse me of being disruptive, I wasn't trying to be.97.95.36.89 (talk) 12:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Stargnoc (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
My goal with this edit was merely to allow us to establish an appropriate interval for archiving the talk page. Is 30 days too short? Currently, yes. Is 60 days enough? Maybe, maybe not. Let's be sure to discuss it again when the time comes.Stargnoc (talk) 13:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Do you read? He already said he changed it to 60 days. So what is there to discuss? I personally don't care if it is 30 days because I know how to go look at the archives before running around, making allegations of vandalism and cover-up. Apparently you and FuriousJorge aren't familiar with the concept. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Niteshift, please rein it in a bit. There is no need for the tone here, as the question of when to archive is valid. I agree that 30 days is too frequent, but I fear that the current setting of 60 days may be too infrequent as it may allow disputes to escalate. We need a clear timetable for discussion on this article, as consensus-building appears to be difficult for any number of reasons. -- JeffBillman (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • With all due respect Jeff, I have every right to start getting irritated. I had NOTHING to do with the archiving. I have this "editor" running around, repeating a false claim in multiple locations, starting a WQA over crap that is over a month old and in general, going out of his way to irritate me in particular. The "editor" got his undies in a bunch when I pointed out a very, very unlikely "coincidence", but then went on to admit that he does in fact use two different accounts, but he refuses to disclose the other one and expects us to just "take his word for it" that it never gets used in this article. But somehow, I'm the only one who needs to "rein it in"? Whatever. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I realize you have nothing to do with the archiving. I understand it's done by User:MiszaBot I-- a bot-- according to the schedule that we set by consensus. That brings us to this current discussion; which at face value, assuming nothing (no, not even good faith, as I am beginning to be of the mind that Miguel Ángel Ruiz's principle that we should not make assumptions is a better model for Wikipedia than assuming good faith... but never mind that for now) appears to be a question of how frequently we direct the bot to archive the talk page. Secondary to that question is Stargnoc's belief that there was an open question on information you had offered. Because that is secondary to the issue of archiving, quite honestly I couldn't care less at the moment what Stargnoc, you, or anyone else thinks of the abortion issue vis a vis Hannity. I certainly don't care what FuriousJorge thinks of it, as to my knowledge (again, assuming nothing) FuriousJorge has not chimed in on the matter at hand. Where that issue is concerned, I agree that there is nothing to discuss; certainly nothing that would spark my interest at the moment. But with archiving, there is a worthwhile issue to discuss IMO, and frankly it need not be a contentious issue.

Simply put, there is no cause for anyone to take personal offense, and no cause for anyone to give it. Let's all rein it in. We're talking about how a bot does its job, and I don't think we're going to hurt the bot's feelings by offering that it does it too quickly or too slowly. So that said, do we go back to 30 days? Do we remain with 60? Or maybe we should try 45? I would like to suggest the latter. My reasoning is that I'm happy with 30 days, but because I am of the belief that leaving discussions open for 60 days would lead to a greater amount of pointless debate, and because others are apparently unsatisfied with 30, perhaps we can compromise at 45. Cheers! -- JeffBillman (talk) 08:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Reception workspace

After months of lip service and inaction, we're going to move forward with balancing this article. I've created a Reception workspace where we can all collaborate. I suggest the first step is for us to all go out and find reliable sources that cover this topic, and then we use those to formulate balanced text covering the critical reception and notable controversies. Your assistance is cordially requested. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Let me be the first to say I think that's a good idea. I'll try to post over some of the abortion stuff I have been working on in the next couple of days. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Good idea. We can pull in material from the archives and I think Niteshift36 has one or more of Sean Hannity's books so perhaps there is material there which can be drawn from. Again I'd like to see information on Sean Hannity's political views mainly, because those are what made him relevant enough to have a Wikipedia page. A separate section on reception could also be created or just noted where applicable in the views section, but I'm not as concerned about that. Most important to me is to have a section identifying Sean's notable views and actions which have garnered media attention OR have relevance to the political climate.Stargnoc (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Really? What makes you think that? I actually don't own either one of his books (he's only written 2). Never have. Borrowed them from the library when I read them. Keep making those assumptions....maybe you'll get one right eventually. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • What exactly do we post in this workspace? We can we list suggested topics without already having found sources to explain them, can't we? To use as a guide on what information should be researched? This isn't clear in the workspace description.Stargnoc (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm pleased to see such an enthusiastic response. I just kinda setup some default headers; I think a discussion area type of header is a good idea too. I would ask that we leave the bottom sections for actual proposed text (ie a final section(s) we can copy/paste into main). I'm going to be out of town over the next week, so please add sections and discussions as needed. One point of order -- let's get the sources first, and then surmise them into text (as opposed to letting our beliefs dictate the text, and then going to find sources that support that ideology -- cart before horse and all that). Cheers! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
FYI I'm giving up on this article because it's not worth the effort to try to make it right.Stargnoc (talk) 04:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Clarification: If at some point the obstacles in the way of successfully editing the article are removed I may consider coming back to the article, sure.Stargnoc (talk) 10:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Translation: If his arbcom against me is successful, he will come back and make it the way he wants it. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Explaining the Unexplained Removal of Content

I can explain, but for some reason even my contributions to the talk page have been censored of late, so I don't know how long this section will last.

This removal was the work of a user by the name of John_Asfukzenski. (please follow link)

This is the same user that vandalized this page in June, which brought me back to this page, and which I have been unable to revert. (For those who don’t know, that information was added only after a protracted battle in ’08, which I took part in.)

This user has a history of, and has been blocked multiple times for, removing content critical of right-wing political figures from articles. In other words he is a well-known vandal.

This person took out all negative information about Sean Hannity without discussion, and (6/15) made some very questionable yet similar decisions in other edits around that time.

For starters, on 6/11 he removed all references to the Holocaust Museums shooter's relationship with The Free Republic from that article, as well as all references to criticism of The Free Republics for racism against President Obama. All that information has been restored since.

On the same day he created a much needed "Reaction" section in the article about the United States Holocaust Memorial_Museum shooting. The only problem with it was that it consisted entirely of an apologetic distancing of a white supremacist group for their association with the shooter. For some reason subsequent editors thought that was perhaps not the most appropriate blurb for the article's Reaction Section, and out it went.

Shortly after this, the same user thought it was unfair that Bill O'Reilley was being criticized after George Tiller's shooting for historically referring to him "Tiller The Baby Killer" on his show. So, he removed all criticism of O'Reilley relating to this matter. What's interesting about this post is not that the information was restored (it was), but that his argument was that it should be included only in the article about his show, not in the article itself. A familiar argument that some have been making here…

This person found time amid that spree to visit this page and remove anything critical of Sean Hannity. This was criticism that had been debated and inserted in October, including, not surprisingly, all mention of Hannity's Hannity's common knowledge association with Neo-Nazi Hal Turner. Nobody stopped him, and no one seemed to notice, but when I tried to reinsert criticism of Hannity (in the middle of the night) it was removed within five minutes, again with no discussion.

Months later the vandal reappeared and removed the last criticism from this page. JohnInDC reverted the information. His revert met the exact same fate as mine, but due to his more diplomatic and mature handling of the matter he was able to preserve the one remaining fact critical of Mr. Hannity in this article.

As you can see from that user's page his/her behavior seems to fit a pattern (I would call it anti-Israel, anti-minority, anti-Obama POV pushing). This behavior continued unchecked for months. He/she has been caught and blocked since I originally added this information to the talk page. It's probably not a coincidence.

Moreover I see that his repeated vandalisms are always reversed (this page being the exception), both before and especially after I originally noted this pattern on behavior in this talk page.

If you check the history of the talk page, you will see that I’d included a section very similar to this not long ago. The MizaBot archived the content, and I saw fit to reinsert it in order to put the previous section in context. This information was subsequently removed, once again, from the talk page.

I hope that my fellow editors will graciously allow my contributions to the talk page to stand this time. FuriousJorge (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

On an only slightly unrelated note, I also want to say that I have nothing to do with the other editor who has since vandalized this talk page multiple times. This person replaced everything with "Sean Hannity is a great American..." repeatedly. On the surface it may seem obvious that this wouldn't have been me, but curiously the last time this person vandalized the page he/she only removed the section prior to this one wherein I was 'found guilty' of meatpuppeting. I have no idea why he/she would vandalize this page in such a blatantly 'pro-hannity' way, but only take out information critical of me in the last go round. The only explanation is that this person was not actually ‘pro-hannity’, and was instead masquerading as someone who is ‘anti-hannity’.
This person's IP may or may not be similar to mine, but if that was an attempt to liberal-POVpush on my behalf, as it appears it was, I want to denounce it before there is another 'investigation'. There is no excuse for that. Clearly there are forces at work here that are beyond my comprehension, and I frankly no longer have the motivation to investigate. Just piecing this together took hours.
Now, because I have been 'found guilty' of 'meatpuppetry' (that's recruiting someone to post on my behalf for those who don't know) I will continue to recuse myself from sharing my opinions on this article.
I do continue to deny that I either posted on my own behalf from a different account, or that I recruited anyone to post on my behalf.
That said I would like to apologize to my fellow editors for any comments they may have felt were personal attacks against them. Looking back I see that I was a bit rude (I wasn't the only one, but still), and I've learned from this experience and will not repeat the same mistake. I've learned that feeling righteous is no excuse to be uncivil. It's not that I'm a staunch Liberal, it's just that my perception of censorship got me standing on my soapbox, and I might have gotten a little carried away.

FuriousJorge (talk) 06:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You have just as much right to post your opinions on improving the article as anyone else. I see no reason for you to be reverted. Soxwon (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the stormfront repsonse was never removed. John Asfukzenski (talk) 02:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Sox, and thanks as well to the person that deleted my talk contib last time, for permitting me to post in here again.

John, I stand corrected. My apologies. If it were appropriate to go back and correcet the mistake in my comments I would do it. (It isn't, right?) Also, I wanted to ask you, is this serious, or are you somehow being ironic?FuriousJorge (talk) 07:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I have a better question: What difference does it make? I'm really getting sick and tired of people who see a picture or a userbox on a user page and hold it out like some holy grail of "truth", as "proof" of a bias. Deal with the edits he makes here and leave his freakin user space out of it. Whether I agree with him or not is immaterial. At least doesn't hide who he is. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
    • You don't understand: there was a picture of Hitler there when I linked to it. Now it redirects to his talk. I was just so aghast to see his that image. It featured Hittler and included a quote about 'sabotage' being the 'way of the future', which, in the context of his much debated and controversial 'contributions' to this article (and personal history). I thought might be relevant to this discussion. Maybe it wasn't though. I guess you may have a point, anyway, I'll grant you that. In fairness to me though, I don't think I ever mentioned your talk page, and I certainly never made an issue out of it. FuriousJorge (talk) 09:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I understand. I saw the picture. My view remains the same. And whether you mentioned my talk page or not is irrelevant. Others have and you are doing it to this editor. Just because you didn't do it to me personally doesn't invalidate my observation.Niteshift36 (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Niteshift, I tried to leave it at that, but as I'm sure you can understand: I just could not help myself ;)
  • You're right. 'Userboxen' should be left out of it, and there is something to be said for knowing where someone comes from. If your user page says you are a 'member of a vast right wing conspiracy', then let me follow in your and Stargnoc's example and say that I am a proud Libertarian Socialist (though not a conspirator) (source). Now that we have established that I am no better than you, and you are no better than I, can we unequivocally agree that Cultural Relativism is for leftist-academic-elitists?
  • You're also correct that, while I personally have never made an issue out of your user page, I am now making one out of John's.
  • I understand that one of the beautiful things about Wikipedia is that even an unrepentant Nazi has as much say as you or I. It doesn't even matter if this person is a known vandal (who's 'contributions' continue to indicate nothing but a neo-fascist POV), with a history of excreting his 'contributions' to this specific article. As the expression goes 'even a broken clock is correct twice a day'. I get that whether John (the Nazi) or I constitute 'the broken clock' is a matter of personal opinion.
  • My point has nothing to do with who has the correct time. I'm simply positing that while making an issue of your or my user page is unfair, I think we should both agree that a Nazi's POV is BS, and Nazis should be 'called out' wherever they are discovered. In other words, while I agree that your user page is irrelevant to your opinions vis a vis this article, I think that a Nazi's POV is (de facto) guilty until proven innocent. If my opinion in this respect is 'too conservative' for Wikipedia, and considered uncivil in some regard, then I make no apologies.
  • Respectfully, I'd love to know what you think. Thanks, in advance, for continuing to indulge my POV banter.FuriousJorge (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Userboxen and the like

Though this isn't the appropriate place for such, since you guys insist on opening the can of worms here... Niteshift36, you can't honestly expect that when you plaster your userpage with agenda-based userboxen and then proceed to make article/talkpage edits that always service that agenda that editors should be expected to continually assume good faith that your edits are unbiased and neutral. You've made your intent here very clear; if you don't wish to be called out for such you should probably reconsider wearing your agenda on your sleeve. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

OMG! Blax, you are absolutely the last person in this entire Wiki project who should be chiding others about agenda-driven edits! Quite sincerely, your lack of self-awareness is simply extraordinary! Mind-boggling! Badmintonhist (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Nice move linking the word "intent" with the essay about ownership (which seems to be a favorite of yours). It gives the appearence of being deceptive to me. (That is an observation, not an accusation or a personal attack, so save the indigation). I know it boogles your mind that I simply don't hide my beliefs and pretend to have none. I know this might be tough for you, but try to explain the difference between mine and an editor that puts nothing on their userpage and proceeds to make only of a negative nature in articles about conservative topics. There is no difference, except that you expect me and everyone else to AGF with them because they don't have a user box. And to clear up your exaggeration about having my page "plastered with agenda-based user boxes. I have a total of 35 on my page. 3 of them mentions conservatism or something related. 3 of 35....wow, what a stunningly hig ratio. And one of those is a joke (there is no vast right wing conspiracy to be a member of.). So saying that I "plastered" the page with them is an over-statement....unless of course you considered being a fan of Jericho, Star Wars and the Sopranos to be "evidence" of conservatism. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • If I may offer a bit of unsanctioned advice: Assume nothing. Don't assume good faith, even though that's something of a rule here on Wikipedia. Don't assume that another editor has a particular intent, whether "good" or "bad". Don't even assume that another editor is a human rather than a dog. Why? Because when you make any assumption, even one of good faith, you are creating for yourself an illusion from which the truth may disappoint you. More pertinently, you expect a series of interactions from your fellow editors that may or may not be fulfilled. Ultimately, you reduce your fellow editors to your own prejudices and preconceptions. If instead you assume nothing, nobody will ever correctly accuse you of assuming bad faith, and you will never fall short of the ideal of assuming good faith. Indeed, it's the best way out of that thought trap. Cheers, JeffBillman (talk) 03:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I find your advice both eloquently posited and very romantic (in the classical sense). I do not find it very pragmatic. See my most recent contribution to this talk page for a counterexample. As I said to Niteshift, I'd love to know what you think.FuriousJorge (talk) 12:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
      • One thing seems to elude you, and some others. There is no "vast right wing conspiracy". Conservatives (which I am one and have never denied) use it as a way to poke fun at liberals who make claims like that. Every time we hear a liberal utter that phrase, we laugh at them. The box isn't a statement of my political activities, it is sarcasm. I put it up a long time ago after someone accused me of being a member of the "vast right wing conspiracy". Niteshift36 (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
      • What do I think? Well, at the risk of sounding rude, I think I couldn't care any less. Let's put it this way: I don't assume that there's any truth to Niteshift's claim of being a member of the "vast right wing conspiracy". I don't assume that it's a lie, either; or a joke, or anything else. It is to me, simply a statement Niteshift wished to share with readers of his (her? Seem to recall Niteshift identifies as male, apologies if this is incorrect) userspace, for reasons I'm rather disinterested in knowing at the moment. Because of this, I don't assume anything about Niteshift when I read his contributions here. I find this to be a much more tenable position than the assumption of "good faith" Wikipedia asks us to maintain. Because I don't assume good faith per se, it's also difficult for me to assume bad faith. I'll admit this is a fairly recent discovery of mine. Up until recently, I tried to assume good faith of my fellow editors, and failed miserably at times. This seems to be working out for me thus far. Just a suggestion... -- JeffBillman (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Respectfully, I'm not sure what it was about what I'd said in the 'parent section' above to cause a couple of fellows as intelligent as yourselves to get my point exactly wrong.
        • As I said, I agree with niteshift that "there is something to be said for knowing where someone comes from". I also agreed with niteshift in that, for the most part, "'Userboxen' should be left out of it", and that if Niteshifts user page says he is a "member of a vast right wing conspiracy" then "I am no better than [he], and [he] no better than I."
        • I picked that one specific part out of his user box to make that point. I would have gone with the bit about being "a conservative" if it were as high as the other bit, only because it would make sense in the context of this specific page... but my point remains: ***I agree that it doesn't matter... in _our_ cases, and to a point.***
        • I do think that once you post a picture of Hitler in your user box, you are officially guilty until proven innocent when it comes to certain topics. If that person has a contribution to the article about Rocketry, that is one thing. On the other hand, if that same user wants to continue his history of vandalizing certain topics by removing well referenced material from this article, I personally have a problem with that. Sure, it isn't very idealistic, but it is pragmatic. As you can see he's still at it as of yesterday. My question was then, and continues to be: should he get the benefit of the doubt that niteshift, you, and I deserve? I say 'no', but again, I'm more of a pragmatist than an idealist.
        • So you see, Niteshift and Jeff, we do agree... to a point. Granted I had no idea that niteshift was being sarcastic with that user box note about being a 'member of right-wing conspiracy', which is why I felt the need to state specifically that, while I am no better than he, I am not a member of a 'left-wing conspiracy' (simply because I'm not, and I've heard that term in the media). In any case I only brought that up in the context of it being irrelevant. I can see how my denial of being a conspirator could be construed as denouncement, but how was I to know he was being sarcastic? Was your sarcasm in some way obvious, niteshift? Am I missing something? Was I supposed to infer sarcasm because your user box also says you are part of the "counter-vandalism unit"?
        • Yes, that was a joke, which I hope you will forgive. Obviously, at the time of our dispute you had no idea that the whitewash you were defending was the work of a Nazi vandal who's MO seems to be removing well referenced material from articles he feels the need to censor.
        • In summation, I think that my user box, and Jeff's user box, and niteshifts user box should be left out of it. I agree with Niteshift, and disagree with Blaxthos, in that there is something to be said for knowing where someone stands. I agree with Jeff that, ideally, it is even better to assume nothing than to assume good faith, which is certainly better than assuming vandalism... Unless you happen to be a Nazi vandal. In which case, I hope you will both respect that I will continue to assume something, that being 'bad faith'.
        • I guess that makes me a radical as far as wikipedia is concerned.FuriousJorge (talk) 11:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Education

I've forgotten my log in name because i usually let others who i hope know more than me edit. but 1 thing caught my attention. i reviewed the previous discussion about how the colleges Mr. Hannity had attended be listed, and i felt the very first poster had the right idea. "Attended, did not Graduate" rather than currently "attended". this is because while technically correct, attended can also be used to describe a graduate, his page clearly relates this information but his quick bio is somewhat misleading. attended is a misleading term, it can both me graduated OR Did not graduate. this is an issue that would affect all pages on wikipedia. although successful graduation can be easily distinguished, the term for non-graduate are is not itself as precise. so in Mr. Hannity's case it should say "Attended, did not Graduate". while if hypothetically lets say he later transferred credits to another college and then finished his degree, having "attended" for one and "graduated" by another lower on the list would be essentially what i feel would be most clear and accurate. i prefer to leave the editing to others, but i wanted to address this issue. thanks (i hope this isnt a big deal, its an appropriate change.)(76.84.72.207 (talk) 09:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC))

 Done Given the limited space available in a userbox, I've instead added (No degrees awarded) under the Universities listed instead of the cumbersome "did not graduate". //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Reverted nonsense. --Tom (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
This is as bad as the KO didn't go to Cornell bs. What is the "standard" for this type of situation if thee is one? TIA --Tom (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC) ps, Blaxthos, we don't just make changes per one ip who conviently forgot their sign in and then mark done without discussion. What do others think?
This may be a stunner, but I actually have some sympathy for the Blaxthosian position on this issue, though why he thinks that "no degrees awarded" is less cumbersome than "did not graduate" eludes me. Actually leaving in the names of two universities, neither of which Hannity graduated from, seems rather silly to me. For all I know he might only have had a cup of coffee at each. One might list the name of the high school from which he (presumably) graduated and then simply say that he took some college courses. I wouldn't make a big issue of either defending or diminishing Hannity's modest level of formal education. We don't expect political talk show hosts to be rocket scientists or brain surgeons. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Not sure why you're giving different weight to leaving in the high school he graduated from, while suggesting removing the colleges he studied at, when the fact that neither claim has a source attached, and both should be cited before this discussion can proceed with any credibility (mine included). I've tagged the claim in the article.—DMCer™ 08:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Accordingly I have removed the unsourced material claiming that Hannity attended university at two schools.Stargnoc (talk) 04:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
On second though I left the request for citation in the main article, maybe we can get a source.Stargnoc (talk) 05:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • This again? First was the complaining about the use of the term "alma mater" (even thought it was being used within the definition). So it was chaged to attended just so a couple of editors would stop complaining. So now we wait a little while and try to get "schools attended" removed as well. Talk about incrementalism. Once again, I will point out that the bio of Michael Dell uses the "attended" method in the infobox, the bio of Bill Gates calls Harvard his "alma mater", even though he didn't graduate from there (or anywhere else) and the bio on Jimmy Carter lists an alma matter from which he only took one non-credit class. So why does Hannity have to be treated differently? Niteshift36 (talk) 08:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Look, I don't know how attending but not graduating from an institution of higher learning is handled in other Wiki bios. Maybe it is typical procedure to list them without comment. Starting from scratch, however, listing colleges one attended but didn't graduate from seems silly and presumptuous to me. If one graduates we know that the person has at least done enough studying to achieve that result. If one has merely attended all we really know is that the person was accepted at the college. He or she might have blown off every class and done no studying at all. To reiterate, the practice of listing such colleges, without really knowing anything about the person's record at that college, seems kind of silly to me. Badmintonhist (talk) 13:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • It may or may not be. My point is that if it is done, without dispute, in other bios, why is it out of line to do it here? I suspect I know why, but I'll refrain from sharing that. I do find itinteresting that I have pointed those examples, and others, to the same editor that is so bothered by it in this article, yet he never made a single effort to change it in any of the examples I gave. Simply put, this "standard" is being applied to Hannity and it is ignored when applied to others. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind the "attended" compromise, becasue that is what he did, right? Also, I agree that there should be sourcing for this as well, but I thought this wasn't that contentious, is it? Anyways, the beat goes on :) --Tom (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

First off, Tom, simply saying "reverted nonsense" is completely useless -- an anonymous editor pointed out a problem and made a request for an edit change, since the article is semi-protected. Calling it "nonsense" without addressing the issue is, in my opinion, extremely poor form and does nothing to advance the dialogue. Secondly, to Badmintonhist, I'm glad we can find some common ground -- the reason I chose "no degree awarded" is twofold: one, "did not graduate" next to each entry is entirely too wide for the info box; and two, applying it at the bottom does leaves it unclear that he did not graduate from either institution. Thirdly, unless you can point to a style guideline or content policy that gives explicit instructions regarding the "proper" way to handle this situation, there is no valid reason to claim it's "right" here. And fourthly, if you will all recall, I was not in favor of including them at all and only did so as a compromise -- doing so is indeed "silly and presumptuous" (as Badmintonhist so properly stated). I'm sorry, guys, but it sure seems like in the last debate (about Alumni moniker) and herein people are bending over backwards to try and leave some sliver by which a reader may assume that a degree was conferred. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Blaxthos, I had a feeling this would end up here and I still feel this whole "thing" is/was "nonsense" along the lines of the KO didn't really graduate from Cornell. Anyways,carry on, --Tom (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "Attended" means attended. That doesn't imply anything. If he graduated, I'm sure that would be stated. This isn't even the alma mater argument. This is simple, straightforward English. Secondly, as I've said all along, the article body states clearly that he dropped out. I'm sorry that some people might be so attention deficit afflicted that they only look at the info boxes, but the body of the article has to mean something, else we should simply do away with it. There is nobody bending over backwards to include anything that some people will assume incorrectly (by not reading the article). It has more the appearence of some going to any extreme to not include a factual event in Hannity's life (you know, the thing the bio is supposed to be about), while at the same time supporting the inclusion of items that were said once and not repeated. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Niteshift, one would think in light of recent ArbCom members' comments regarding your rhetorical style that you might think twice before firing off comments in which you blame any viewpoint other than your own on someone being " attention deficit afflicted". So, to be clear, an otherwise uninvolved/anonymous editor stopped by to inform us that the infobox is unclear and gives the wrong impression, and asked us to correct it. Instead of listening to this outside input, Tom starts calling it "nonsense" and you start attacking the editor who made the request. This shows zero respect for the editorial process and is pretty enlightening with regards to how well you take words of caution to heart. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • So now making a comment about some unspecified person who MIGHT get the wrong impression is an issue? You are really getting sensitive Blax. I wasn't referring to anyone in particular. Try reading what I actually write instead of what you think I mean. Nor did I attack that editor. In fact, I never even responded to him. My first response in this topic was directed to you. The mention of the alma mater issue and "incrimentalism" should have been clues, since that editor wasn't involved in the alma mater discussion and it's pretty difficult for someone to display incrementalism with a total of one edit, isn't it? But again, you just assume the worst and start pointing fingers. That shows a lack of respect for the editorial process on your part my friend.Niteshift36 (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Points of order:
  1. We're not talking about what might have happened -- it actually happened. A guy came by and said (paraphrase) hey, this is unclear; allow me to suggest a better way.
  2. Since it actually happened, it's fairly reasonable to conclude that you were directing said attack at that specific editor.
  3. However, even if you weren't, such a generalization on its face means if someone is confused, they must be "attention deficit afflicted".
  4. By continually asserting that any misunderstanding or lack of clarity must come from a defective reader, you show no respect for (1) other viewpoints, (2) readers who are confused and make constructive suggestions, or (3) the process by which encyclopedic articles get improved.
//Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Of course yours is the only way to look at things. That is always your position Blax. What you consider a "fairly reasonable" conclusions is based on what you want to believe, which is always going to be whatever allows you to complain about me. I explained where your error is. Instead of saying "ok, I misunderstood" (which is unlikely to hear from you), you could have said "you should have been more clear" (which at least allows you to continue complaining about me). Instead, you resort to trying to tell me how I couldn't have meant what I meant. Yet you still pretend like you aren't exhibiting any hostile behavior, that it can only be me. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I believe the goal of this whole project is to give a clear presentation of facts about a particular subject. Since a reader stopped by to tell us that the wording is currently unclear, what is the objection to being more clear? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The removal of "alma mater" and changing it to "attended" was done to address that issue. Now one editor opines that it might confuse someone and we need to jump again? We addressed this before. We arrived at an acceptable compromise. Does this "process" demand that we react to every single concern of every individual? Niteshift36 (talk) 05:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Again, what's the objection to being more clear about verifiable facts? We don't want to give the wrong impression, right? So why are you pushing so hard to be more ambiguous in an encyclopedic article? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I am confused at the removal of alma mater (or more correctly for Mr. Hannity, almae matres) and the removal of the citation. I was not aware of any consensus made before (link maybe?), and think that the way I made my revision is more accurate of Hannity's post-high school education. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 14:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

TheWeak, you can find that discussion in the archives. The term "alma mater" was deemed inappropriate because the primary usage is to indicate an institution from which a degree was awarded. "Colleges attended" (or something very similar) was chosen, and an anonymous editor stopped by to say that the infobox is still unclear. I am now asking what legitimate purpose is served by encouraging ambiguity. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I see that now. I'm going to go to the talk page of the template to see if a uniform way of addressing said colleges (for any person) would be. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 17:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
For those interested: Template talk:Infobox person#Proposed Deprecation of alma mater. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 18:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Also, FWIW, I believe that the alma mater discussion here was accompanied by a more ranging discussion at the pump. IIRC, the consensus there was to use a more specific designator than the oft confusing alma mater. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The general concensus at the pump was to use "Attended". I suppose we could use plusclasses for those that took a class and plusgraduate for those that graduated, and maybe doubleplusgraduate for those with double majors, and possibly minusclasses for those that transfered their classes to another university with which they graduated. </sarc> Arzel (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
But for the infobox, what should be used? Nevertheless, education and alma mater are semi-redundant. Education is less clear to what the value should be (thus one could put "middle school" "high school" or "college" (or specifically the names of colleges, followed by a degree or whatnot)), thus is more acceptable, in my opinion. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 19:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree, but some people are really are against it saying Alma Mater regardless of what the word means. The assumption by many is that Alma Mater implies graduation from, hence my 1984 reference to show how we simply have too many words that confuse. Arzel (talk) 02:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

STOP WHITEWASHING: re-added criticism, as per note requesting "neglected viewpoints"

Someone or some people, for years, have been editing this page to eliminate all information in any way negative of Sean Hannity. While I am happy that they have been able to keep their jobs in this economy, it does not do reality justice.

How is it possible that CNN anchor Campbell Brown has more criticism in her article than Fox News opinion show host Sean Hannity?

The criticism section will be deleted again by the Hannity staffer(s), and I will put it back in.

We've been through this, the community agreed it should be in there, and it needs to be in there. Let's not rehash this.

It is disgusting and offensive that someone feels entitled to whitewash this page whenever people stop looking.

Enough.FuriousJorge (talk) 06:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"While I am happy that they have been able to keep their jobs in this economy, it does not do reality justice." Are you implying that the economy is Sean Hannity's fault? Gtbob12 (talk) 09:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


Proving my point, the section was removed in classic "shoot first ask questions later fashion." There was no discussion or respect for differing viewpoints.

FuriousJorge (talk) 06:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I only glanced through your edits, as your edit summary of Re-added criticism, much to chagrin of hannity staffers didn't do wonders for Ol' Good Faithful. Your sources also were suspect as you used Newshounds, a blog, and TheNation, hardly good sources for a WP:BLP. Soxwon (talk) 06:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Luckily for us there is no need to go over this again. It was discussed in Nov-Jan and the community came to a consensus. If you have a problem with a source, say something.

Don't shoot first and ask questions later. One of the founding principals of wikipedia is that no one person should control the dissemination of information.

Take it out as often as you want, and I will put it back in. As I just said, in the end it will stay as a matter of precedence. FuriousJorge (talk) 06:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

One of the founding principals of wikipedia is that no one person should control the dissemination of information. followed immediately by Take it out as often as you want, and I will put it back in. Oh the irony... Soxwon (talk) 06:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

What's ironic is that I'm putting it back in on behalf of the community that fought SOME CRITICISM on this page not long ago.

The fact that you are so determined to keep this page CRITICISM FREE speaks volumes, so I don't have to say anything else.FuriousJorge (talk) 06:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I always find it interesting when an editor is absent for 8 months and comes in, not having participated in any of the discussions that have gone on for those 8 months and makes 5 edits in 37 minutes, including 3 reverts in less that 20 mins. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Community? I haven't seen you here and you claim consensus, the discussions I viewed in November were far from "unanimous" or the "clear consensus" you tout. I've re-evaluated your sources and saw the LA Times and NYT and don't have any problems with them being re-added. Soxwon (talk) 06:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Some criticism DOES belong here. However, as has been pointed out before, some of what you are re-adding, spends a lot of time talking about someone else, not Hannity. Also, some of it belongs more appropriately in the article about his show. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


Bottom line is this: I don't need to ask permission to add to this page, but I posted here anyway. By the same token, you are within your right to just take out what I put in, and not give a reason... if that's the type of person you want to be.

I've been reverted three times, so I'm putting it back in and reporting the problem if it comes out again. I have no problem letting a neutral point of view decide.FuriousJorge (talk) 07:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, consensus, even when it exists, is not a reasonable excuse to violate 3RR or start edit wars. Second, I gave you reasons: poor sourcing and non-notable material. Soxwon (talk) 07:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


Niteshift36, you yourself agreed that this was appropriate when it went in the first time. Now that no one besides me is looking, and you have a sympathetic reverter, you are trying to start this up all over again.
I put a 100% legit criticism section in with references, and it was taken out with no discussion within five minutes. Spin it however you want, but clearly we know who is right here.FuriousJorge (talk) 07:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Which thing? You re-added more than one thing. You readded Hal Turner and Andy Martin. Also, as pointed out, sources like newshounds.us isn't a RS. It's a blog. Then you say I am trying to start it all up again? Um, I didn't start this. I came in after you'd already done 3 reverts. I didn't start anything my furious friend. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Which thing? The criticism section. Any criticism. Once again, we've been over this. You were forced to agree then that there was no basis to remove all criticism from this page, and I don't see why now is any different.
If you had a problem with one source, then take out what you deem is incorrect and we can discuss it.
I didn't say you started anything. I said you want to start this up again now that you have only sympathetic observers.
And how can you accuse me of violating 3RR when I am the original editor? I'm the one being reverted.
Will the Ministry of Information please inform us what, if any, criticism is allowed on this page? This way, when the inevitable transpires, and you are forced to acknowledge that the section is legit (again), we don't have to go too far back in the logs the next time it's whitewashed.FuriousJorge (talk) 07:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • You act like Soxwon and I conspired to be here at the same time, just in case you came back after 8 months to edit this article. And you did add the info....then have reverted it 3 times after that. The next revert in 24 hours will be a violation. I'll ignore your copious sarcasm. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Can I assume that by avoiding the question you are implying that you have waffled back to your "no criticism section, no criticism period" position from '08?

FuriousJorge (talk) 03:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Did you totally miss the reply above where I said, pretty clearly, "Some criticism DOES belong here"? I guess you did or you wouldn't keep asking the same question and making allegations about ducking a question that I laready answered. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't miss it, but that's not an answer. Isn't it obvious what needs to happen now? Put the section back in, take out whatever you have a problem with. If you're wish to volunteer yourself as the arbitrator I'm fine with that if you in turn pretend to not be biased.FuriousJorge (talk) 08:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  • It is an answer. It was also an answer when I said "some of what you are re-adding, spends a lot of time talking about someone else, not Hannity. Also, some of it belongs more appropriately in the article about his show."I don't think either the Turner or Martin bits belong in the bio. I believe they more appropriately belong in the articles about the show. The Turner thing isn't really that big of a deal and the Martin thing was shown once, on Hannity's show. Hannity had no part in writing or producing it. He simply aired it.....wait for it....on the show. Is that simple enough? Niteshift36 (talk) 08:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Clear enough now. You are saying exactly what you said in October. How did that turn out? Luckily for us, it's moot. In our dispute resolution process the reverter said he/she didn't mean to take out the part about his precedent setting "fauxumentary", so it goes back in. Just looking for the latest pre-censorship version. FuriousJorge (talk) 08:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I restored the section per the discussion at editor requests noticeboard. Please now imporve the section by discussion, removing unreferenced or poorly referenced parts, rewriting parts, by adding references, and by appropriate use of tags. Thanks. Verbal chat 08:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    • An hour of discussion, that the involved parties weren't even informed of (per WP:CIVIL) doesn't settle the issue. Nor does it give you the mandate to swoop in and force the info back into the article. While Soxwon might not have meant to remove it, I did. And I don't know why this can't actually be discussed instead of "settled" right this minute. Further, going to that discussion does not absolve you from the 3RR Jorge. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll take out newshounds reference and look for additional sources tomorrow for that first blurb.FuriousJorge (talk) 08:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Nitshift, why can't we discuss while the information is in there. It should not have been removed to begin with, today or in June. On top of that, it isn't anything new. The community already decided this EXACT information SHOULD be in the article. Just because it's in the chat history, don't pretend we haven been over this EXACT debate already, and that it wasn't already "settled" the first time. FuriousJorge (talk) 09:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The community never decided it should be in the article. And I'll ask you the opposite question, why can't we discuss it without it being there? In fact, let me ask a better question, what harm is there in having the info in the show articles instead of the bio, like I've suggested all along? Niteshift36 (talk) 09:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
As to your first point: The community did decide the information was pertinent to THIS article after this SAME debate, which you already participated in. As evidence, please note that the information was in the article for 6 months before all criticism of Mr. Hannity was removed in June with no reason given.
As to why it should be in there now: because I put it back in. It should not have been removed to begin with, and there is already a note on the page REQUESTING alternate viewpoints. Would you say that we have alternate viewpoints? Also, see my first point.FuriousJorge (talk) 09:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Who puts the information in is irrelevant, has no sway in why it should be included.— Dædαlus Contribs 09:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Wow. Niteshift, although you are correct that consensus can change, and although I must say I would support distributing sourced criticism throughout the article so to mitigate POV concerns, at a guess you will not find consensus for the removal of information properly cited with reliable sources. I don't doubt your good faith toward editing this article, but I can certainly see how some of your fellow editors may view this as a bit of whitewashing. Please reconsider distributing the criticism through the article-- I support you on your efforts to eliminate the criticism section per se, but let's try working toward a compromise. Thanks! -- JeffBillman (talk) 10:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Jeff, perhaps you'd like to answer my question. Why shouldn't these two items go in the show articles? They are absolutely related to the show and I don't dispute that in the least. What I have an issue with is including it in the bio because these additions spend asmuch time talking about the people involved etc as about Hannity, who is the subject of this article. There is no whitewash or cover up. Nobody is trying to keep the info out of wikipedia. I simply contend it belongs in a different article. How is that a whitewash? Nor is anyone disputing that information as unsourced.....I'm solely contending that it makes more sense to put it in the show articles and not the bio. Why is that the wrong way to go? Niteshift36 (talk) 10:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Are we to go through every article about a journalist and place all criticism in the article of the show where the controversy occurred? We should start a page about "Hannity in the Mornigns", or whatever his local radio show was where the turner controversy occurred? Of course the information is notable enough to go on his bio, just read the NYT and LAT articles. They use words like "new low", "first time" and "fauxumentary". Also, the name of the show is "Hannity's America". It's not like he is just the host of the show, he was THE journalist. His name is in the title. Clearly HE is responsible for the content. Doesn't it mean anything to call yourself a journalist anymore?
If there were already too many criticisms in the article I might agree, but there are NONE. It almost seems like you want to hide the information.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that the information should ALSO be in the articles about the show.FuriousJorge (talk) 10:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Niteshift, I don't see it as an either/or scenario. It can go in the show articles for all I care. Frankly, I don't have those articles on my radar anyway. But let me turn that around: Why shouldn't these two items be in the biography? Ultimately, it is Hannity who bears the criticism for what occurs on his programs. As for putting the Turner controversy on an article about the WABC show, that's a non-starter. Do you really think such an article could (or should) stand on its own notability? Or would you agree that info about the WABC show belongs in this article anyway? -- JeffBillman (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
No, now I contend you understood my joviality perfectly, but would rather change the subject right about now.FuriousJorge (talk) 10:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Nope. I think you meant it, particularly since you said it in two different locations, and simply thought you wouldn't get called on it. But that is just my opinion. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
So how many more people who don't live on this discussion page need to weigh in before we repeat history and reinsert the content againFuriousJorge (talk) 11:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
So one more and we'll call it then?FuriousJorge (talk) 11:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Holy cow, batman! Can't we all just grow up a little? George is right that his original contribution should not have been deleted, since the page was obviously vandalized in june to remove all criticism of Sean Hannity. Maybe the bit about the "chagrin of Hannity staffers" in the note wasn't tacful, but that should only be offensive to two people: Hannity Staffers, and whoever vandalized the page in June. The contribution is well referenced, and clearly pertininent to THIS article. 67.84.209.35 (talk) 14:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Confirmed to be a sockpuppet of FuriousJorge.— 67.84.209.35 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (Note: This account was confirmed at SPI as FuriourJorge) [6]

Um, no. You're obviously an SPA, and it will be found out soon who you really are. Besides that, Nite and others were correct to remove the section. BLP policy is very clear, you cannot have poorly sourced criticisms in an article.— Dædαlus Contribs 18:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe that this article was "vandalized" back in June, and was not caught until Jorge happened to come along. More likely, the article was brought into compliance with WP:BLP back in June. I also note that in almost a year, this talk page and article are the only ones edited by FuriousJorge. Crockspot (talk) 01:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, believe it. Look for yourself. All negative information that was fought for in October was removed in June. No reason was given. This was information that was thoroughly discussed a few months prior. The only place that is not vandalism is apparently right here. I'm sure many people noticed, but the ones who did, this page's "sponsors", were quite glad to see it go.
As to me only editing one page in a year, it's simply not true. Many of us who post infrequently forget our user names and passwords and need to recreate accounts. 99% of my posts are non-political and anonymous. This account exists so that I can make edits to farce pages that are locked down, like this one. I almost forgot the user name when I noticed the egregious bias.

FuriousJorge (talk) 03:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Q: When is the Bergen Record, LA Times, and NYT a poor source?
A: When they say anything negative about my Hannity.
Q: When is someone SPA?
A: See question 1.

FuriousJorge (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You're quite rude calling me an SPA. I've been here far longer than you have, and I have more experience here. That IP above is obviously an SPA, as they have no prior edits to the one made here. I suggest you go read up on what an SPA is before you throw around baseless accusations.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


On what planet did I accuse you of anything? As far as I can tell YOU are the one who accused ME of being SPA. Isn't there a pending investigation? Any promising leads, detective? LOL.
I like the new tactic: when you don't like the message slander the messenger and quickly change the subject. Now if nobody but the "criticism police" who patrol this page and are all over the discussion section object, I think it's time to put the criticism back in.
Don't feel bad. It was a good try. It's just how the cycle goes. You guys allow the page to get whitewashed, then you prevent anyone from putting in any criticism, then, after a popular uprising against you, all you have to do is wait till no one is looking and repeat the cycle... again.FuriousJorge (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I never called you the SPA, I called you the sock master, there's a difference. As to the evidence, WP:DUCK is plently reason to assume. Currently you're the only editor here asking for inclusion, then, when the concept of voting comes up, out pops an account that had never contributed before, just to take your side. It is clearly an SPA. That is clearly a sock, who's sock, I don't know, but I have been dealing with socks for awhile now, so I know what I'm talking about. As to the whitewashing. You have already been told that two of the sources used there are blogs and therefore not reliable. When a BLP is involved, information from sources which are unreliable should never be included.— Dædαlus Contribs 01:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Please stop misrepresenting the content. All blogs were removed in the final version that Niteshift last reverted last night. The sources include the New York Times, The LA Times, and even The Bergan Record from hannity's pre-syndication days. That is some QUALITY content, which was vandalized in June.
Also, please stop misrepresenting the number of people who have either reverted the content besides myself, or asked that it be included in the article. The only people dissenting are the you three content police who exist only to prevent criticism from being inserted into the article. We should be able to have this conversation without misrepresentation of the facts.
I apologize, but you and you cohorts can no longer control reality in the article, or in the discussion.
A greater number of individuals, here and on the dispute page, have asked that the information be put back in where it belongs.
So since your problem was the blogs, and now they are gone, you must certainly be all for the reinsertion of the blog-free version, correct?FuriousJorge (talk) 02:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Vote fraud

Is being discussed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FuriousJorge.

Ha. Godspeed in you investigation, and good luck keeping the page scrubbed nice and clean (again). I won't ask for an apology when you're done. I think it's pretty clear which way the majority swings (again).FuriousJorge (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  • SPI confirmed that you were 67.84.209.35 and even the clerk suspects meatpuppetry. Oddly, meatpuppetry was the outcome of the only SPI I've ever filed....over something that happened on this page. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
You can't simply say that it is incorrect. You cannot prove a negative. For all we know, that's you on your mobile phone, or in an internet cafe, or even your friend, in a case of meat puppetry. The fact of the matter is that your IP and that IP are too close in area to be a coincidence. Both of the IPs geolocate to the -exact- same spot. Not only that, they're on the same /21 range. You simply cannot disregard, not dispute, this evidence.— Dædαlus Contribs 01:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
You're exactly right, in that I cannot proce a negative. As such, I'm just going to reiterate that I did not post on my own behalf as another account, nor did I recruit someone to post on my behalf. We can agree to disagree, and I can respect and understand your position. Thanks. FuriousJorge (talk) 04:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is sorely missing on balanced criticism and praise, especially since this is such a heavily criticized person. 88.159.72.240 (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sean_Hannity/Archive_5&oldid=1248813601"