Jump to content

Talk:Sean Hannity/Receiption workspace

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is to serve as an in-progress workspace for adding a Reception & controversies section to Sean Hannity.

Sources

[edit]

Please add reliable sources here for review, which will then be incorporated into the proposed text section.

  • Insert reference here
  • Insert reference here

Ideas and discussion

[edit]

(This is where we talk about ideas and suggestions.)

In the interest of full disclosure I would like to mention that I was 'found guilty' of 'meatpuppetry' behind this article. I continue to 'proclaim my innocence' (I just realized I've always wanted to say that), and I'm happy to debate the merits of my conviction _on_my_talk_page_ (not here). After which, I'd recused myself from expressing my opinion vis-a-vis this article, but I feel I owe it to Blaxthos to chime in here. After all, I started all of this, and he was conscientious enough to follow up.

PROPOSAL #1 IS MINE

Now that that is out of the way, my request is only that the information critical of Mr. Hannity that was removed by a well known vandal in June is reinserted into the article. I have added more reliable sources and more defense of Mr. Hannity in order to make the blurb more palatable to those with dissenting opinion. I will gladly recuse myself from further arguing this point. I only ask that my esteemed fellow editors who frequent this page and disagreed with me do the same.

Anyway, as I accurately predicted in 2008 (I said: 'the next step is someone coming along and saying it is not notable. Then this entire article will go back to having no criticism of hannity at all, like when I found it.'), the criticism that was fought so hard for by the community was once again removed. PROPOSAL #1 is what I would like to see put back in for a second round of debate.

FuriousJorge (talk) 07:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal #2 is also mine. FuriousJorge (talk) 08:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal #3 is also mine. FuriousJorge (talk) 10:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter to me how many different sources we use, I still don't believe that the topics of #1 or #2 really belong in the bio. #1 is simply a non-event in his life, period, and happened on a show that doesn't exist anymore. #2, as I have said all along, belongs more properly in the article about the show, not in the bio. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed text

[edit]