Talk:Sean Hannity/Receiption workspace
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
- http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-onthemedia10-2008oct10,0,783115.story
- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/us/politics/07fox.html
- Kurtz, Howard. World's Apart: The Great Hannity-Olbermann Divide Washington Post October 27, 2008.
- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/marsgeek?action=comments&display=news&sort=newest
- http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/80477/fox%27s_sean_hannity_confronted_over_relationship_with_neo-nazi_hal_turner/
- http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050620/blumenthal
- http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/1701
- a b Kladko, Brian (2003-02-23). "A voice filled with hatred, intolerance". The Record. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-72035237.html. Retrieved 2008-10-22.
- http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/1701
- http://halturnershow.blogspot.com/[unreliable source?]
- Huus, Kari (2005-03-10). "Lefkow slayings divide white supremacists". MSNBC. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7129533/. Retrieved 2008-10-22.
- http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2009-04-28-olbermann-hannity_N.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by FuriousJorge *(talk • contribs) 08:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
Proposal #2 is also mine. FuriousJorge (talk) 08:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Proposal #3 is also mine. FuriousJorge (talk) 10:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
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)