Jump to content

Talk:Sean Hannity

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JRH95 (talk | contribs) at 20:27, 23 February 2009 (→Television Section Bias: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

No section to reorganize into

As far as I know, this article does not have a "Criticism of..." subarticle. It would be pretty difficult to put the criticism section into a subarticle that doesn't exist. Treybien 15:26 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Negativity

This section is extremely negative:

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

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

The statement about Martin becomes virtually meaningless unless the reference to his anti-Semitism or, at the very least his alleged anti-Semitism, is included. Pretty good evidence has been presented that Martin has engaged in grossly anti-Semitic propaganda. Unless you can defend him convincingly the reference should be included. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Badminstohnist, except that I would call Martin's anti-Semitism a matter of public record, and not just 'good evidence'. He wrote it into his frivolous lawsuits.FuriousJorge (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was just wondering, are there any other sources other than the L.A. and N.Y. Times for this section. Most would consider these two newspapers less than "neutral." This section just seems somewhat pointless altogether. I'm not really understanding its encyclopedic value. Jpk314 (talk) 09:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MediaMatters "award"

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

Please deal in facts. It's not a blog; it's clearly identified as a progressive organization, so neutrality is not an issue. Inclusion is warranted.Jimintheatl (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an award given by the organization not just one blogger. Yes, Hannity has an on-going feud with this organization, so notability and inclusion is warranted. --Jmundo (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not an organization award. It is that columnist who decided and puts it in his column. It is as "legitimate" as the one Hannity made to them. Will you support the inclusion of the Hannity award in the Media Matter article? If you would, then I might re-consider my opposition. In any case, I'd like to see more discussion before it gets put back in. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're not dealing in facts. Media Matters issues this award annually (Chris Matthews, ABC and Bill O'Reilly are past winners).Jimintheatl (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have never said this was a first. The fact that you are missing is that it is the sole determination of the columnist (ie just his opinion) and it "awarded" in the form of just expressing his opinion in his column. This is no more an "award" than Hannity expressing his opinion with his so-called "award" on his show. Unlike the other awards mentioned in the bio, this "award" isn't really covered my the mainstream media. It is "covered" by partisan sites like MM and Huffington Post. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The important policy here is WP:BLP, which says that we can't put negative information into a biography of a living person unless it's solidly sourced. If the only source is the site that's presenting the award, I'd say that that's not enough to warrant inclusion. If other mainstream sources start talking about it though, then maybe. --Elonka 15:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
seems like a regular every year award. Chris Matthews' 2005 award is mentioned in his page. Docku: What up? 15:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it needs to come out of that article, too. I think you all are missing a point here. This fake "award" is strictly one guy's opinion of Hannity, and as such adds no value to the article. What would make more sense is to list reliably-sourced information that would support why this so-called "award" was given. Without that, it's nothing but a pot-shot and doesn't belong. And in case you're wondering, I personally cannot stand Sean Hannity. But that fact doesn't belong in the article either. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed from Matthews' page as well. But, it is interesting that Media matters, a supposedly liberal media has awarded this award to Matthews, a supposedly liberal commentator. BTW, it is little intriguing when people get themselves involved in article discussion and claim they personally "dislike" the subject. is not necessary. Docku: What up? 16:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I only bring that up to fend off any possible accusations that I'm a Hannity kiss-up. Actually he's OK as long as he's not talking politics. I don't know if I would classify Matthews as a liberal, as such. He's more of a moderate, and more of a devil's advocate. Of course, he looks moderate anyway, when he's followed up by Olbermann and Maddows. I would make the same argument about the Matthews article as about this one. The "award", by itself, is meaningless - it just says "we don't like this guy". If it were backed up with some substance, from a source other than just Media Matters, then it might be fair to bring it up as an oh-by-the-way. "This organization 'awarded' so-and-so this 'award' because of the following issues..." But then it gets to be a question whether it's about the guy, or about the TV show. That's where the BLP concerns come into play. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd still like to hear someone who supports the inclusion tell me if the "Left-Wing Obamamania Media Propaganda Sleaze Award" that Hannity awarded them (which is mentioned on their own website BTW) should be included in the MM article. If not, what makes his award any less legitimate, particularly since they recognized it on their own website? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have you even read the article? There is criticism under both the Radio and Television sections. Just because there isn't a section labelled "criticism" doesn't mean the article is devoid of criticism. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't matter who else "mentions" this so-called "award". To place it in the article with no context is inappropriate. If you want to propose a criticisms section, as with Bill O'Reilly for example, then that's another story. But even at that, there is no place for this "award" without some kind of elaboration on why. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • MM states, as part of its own description, that their mission is "monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.". They have no intention of doing the same to non-conservative sources. They describe themselves as "progressive", which is simply a prettied up version of liberal. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ironically, describing it as a liberal organization automatically negates any point in putting it in the article - because any semi-extremist person or organization might make such an "award" to any opposite-semi-extremist person or organization. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How notable is the honorary degree given to Hannity by Jerry Falwell, when the source is the University's website? I argue that we should apply the same standard to all "awards". I'm deleting this award until we can find a reliable third-party source.--Jmundo (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is about Hannity: WP:OSE--Jmundo (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Be wary of making pointy edits. Make sure you're deletion is in good faith and isn't retaliation for the resistance you are getting on the edit you want. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you that my edits are in good faith. Per the discussion, please provide third-party references to verify notability of the "honorary" degree. --Jmundo (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need for a third party reference. The reference of the MM award isn't the issue, it is the so-called award itself, which is the opinion of the blogger, not an actual award. A university website is considered a NPOV source in this case. It is not promoting its viewpoint or pushing an agenda. It is simply imparting information about an event.Niteshift36 (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An honorary degree is an actual award, not just an editorial comment. If I may make a trivial comparison, consider an MLB award for MVP. That's a notable honor, and would typically have some context, such as statistical superiority, and it may also come with some controversy. On the other hand, some editorial writer might invent an "award" that so-and-so was the "Least Valuable Player". If that player's article carried that so-called "award", but with no context, it should be stricken as being POV-pushing and meaningless. If it's backed up with some stats, such as a low level of performance vs. a high salary, then it's got some context. Ya follow? 20:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Precisely. It's not an "award or honor" except in a satirical way... such as the "least valuable player". Its proper place, if any, is in a criticism section with appropriate detail as to what the complaints are, beyond "we don't like this guy." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm glad that we can find consensus. I'm including the Media Matter criticism in the TV section providing a proper context. I leave to another editor the task of including Hannity's response. --Jmundo (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Agreed. Done....?Jimintheatl (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed this. Non notable award from smear site isn't needed. --Tom 15:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a controversial topic and any change should be discussed.--Jmundo (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has, it looks like most NPOV editor don't think it belongs. Now for the agenda pushing editors, that is a different matter. Why is it SO important to incluide this "material" in the bio? No need to answer, its pretty clear. --Tom 16:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

What's that saying about glass houses....I don't know what "agendas" may or may not exist, but the very idea of pure objectivity is silly. The MM award is notable because MM is probably the premiere progressive media watchdog org in the US (they are a regular source in the media whenever issues of "conservative bias/misinformation" is an issue. This award is not a random "blogger comment" as was suggested earlier, but an annual award which does receive media attention, and attention from the subject himself. I have no problem including Hannity's response.Jimintheatl (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to take issue with what you just blamed on me. He writes a regular blog for MM. But it is still a blog (which is clearly stated right at the top of his page) and one who writes a blog is called a blogger, aren't they? I never called it random. I never said it wasn't something that he never awarded before or doesn't do each of the past couple years. What I have said is that it is solely based on his opinion. Do you have evidence that it is based on more than that, like a vote or poll or something? To recap: Is it improper to call someone who writes a blog a blogger? Do you have evidence that this "award" is based on anything other than the bloggers opinion? If the answer to either of these is yes, please explain. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the unfortunate placement of an "ad banner(?)" for "County Fair" created the confusion. The award is clearly designated as coming from the organization, not a person. County Fair is written by two people, neither of whom wrote the award column. If you click on the ad banner or go to County Fair, the award is not mentioned.Jimintheatl (talk) 14:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That may be. Can either of you tell me this: How is the award actually determined? Is this an editorial board decision? O board of Directors? Member vote? Did they even consider anyone else this year? I really like Bugs' example of someone calling a player the "least valuable player". I think it's spot on. The other thing is the partisan battle between MM and Hannity. They focus solely on "conservatives", which excludes other facets. Yet they call the award "Misinformer of the Year", without disclosing in talking about the award that it is limited only to conservatives. While you feel it adds to relevence, I feel it takes away from it. Let's just look at this as a common sense issue. An "award" in common usage is something you want, earn or even seek, like an Academy Award or Grammy. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Media Matters focus is not solely on conservatives. The website has a piece about Blitzer (CNN), Wash. Times and NBC. The 2006 award when to ABC for the "Path to 9/11" miniseries.--Jmundo (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say they don't, but they say that is their focus. From their website: "Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time." Do you have some inside information that refutes what they claim in their own website? And again, I will ask, does anyone know how the "award" is picked? BTW, the 2006 award to ABC was because they felt they were advancing a conservative viewpoint. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MM focuses on conservative misinformation, not conservative personalities. While they do much of their reporting on false or misleading claims by conservative outlets, they also monitor the "liberal" mainstream media for what is known as the "echo chamber" effect, i.e., when a conservative-developed meme gains foothold in the "liberal" media. As for the award, my understanding is that it is akin to Time's Man of the Year---staff/editorial decision.Jimintheatl (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you tell me where you got the understanding that it was a staff decision? I find it difficult to hold an old, mainstream print publication like Time in the same esteem as a partisan, internet based activist group. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One clarification: I was not "blaming" you. At least one other editor mentioned, inaccurately, that this was just one guy's opinion. Apologies if it seemed that way. MM has given this "award" for about 5 years, so it isn't a "one blogger" thing, even if the "award" status is ironic. Further, like it or not, and I'm not sure I do, the net is soon to supersede old-time print media.Jimintheatl (talk) 03:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for whether they considered others, a companion article details other notable misinformation.Jimintheatl (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This debate reminds me of the annual "Idiotarian of the Year" award given out by Little Green Footballs (you can probably guess at its purpose). As I recall, the eventual decision there was to not mention it in the biographies of recipients. "Awards" that are in reality little more than editorial insults toward the recipient are generally non-notable, and I'd say that one from some guy at Media Matters would fall into that category. --Hiddekel (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, unless it recieves a ton of coverage and becomes noteworthy which is not the case here. --Tom 19:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I want to further add, after reading the disputed edits, that this is obviously an attempt by some to reintroduce criticism into a biography article which by apparent consensus lacks a criticism section. I find that improper. If you want to include criticism, don't try sneaking it in through the back door, add it in an appropriate section or create a criticism fork and defend it from the inevitable deletion attempts. --Hiddekel (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't think many of us can say we are being unbiased when we add such awards to articles on contraversial characters. We are talking aobut one of the most hated people on talk radio, and the argument has boiled down to a Media Matters award. If this were the obama article, would we be discussing whether or not to include an award given to him by the GOP, Rush Limbaugh, or the National Review? This article suffers from recentism to the highest degree. Mostly, that is because Hannity spends 3 hours of each day on the radio, but we have to come up with a real list of topics that span his entire time in the public spotlight, and this is a very, very small issue. There is much to be said about Hannity from his millions of critics, but it needs to be done in a fair and intellectually appropriate way. Mrathel (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll on Media Matters award mention

Just a quick tally of where folks stand. Thanks,

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

achieved consensus? By 3-4 editors and even then it seemed like there wasn't total agreement on how to treat this new material. The poll is just trying to see where folks currently stand and a start to reach a true and current consensus. Anyways, it doesn't look like too many folks are interested right now. Maybe after the Holidays :) Cheers! --Tom 22:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is worth noting that in the original discussion about it, I never actually supported it being there, but at least got it to be reasonably balanced. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, in the original discussion, you said you were "happy" with the current edit.
        *
         o I'm glad that we can find consensus. I'm including the Media Matter criticism in the TV section providing a proper context. I leave to another editor the task of including Hannity's response. --Jmundo (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

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

  • That is taken out of context. You forget where I said "I'd find it less controversial if it was included, in context, with other criticisms about his radio or tv show.". "Less controversialisn't a ringing endorsement. And now you want to take my attempt at being civil and conciliatory and use it as an endorsement? Sheesh, so much for trying to be a nice guy. Next time, I'll just stay adversarial if you plan to use attempts at civility as "proof" of something it wasn't intended to be. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being civil and conciliatory, yes, but isn't that what reaching consensus involves? When you announced that "everyone is happy" it seems reasonable for everyone to conclude that "everyone" includes you, so your reversal to "unhappiness" was a surprise.Jimintheatl (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy is relative. I don't think it belongs there at all, but I am "happier" with balance and it being in a more appropriate location than in the awards section with real awards. I can be "happy" with a pizza, but I am happier when it has bacon and pepperoni. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I'm confused. It looks to me like far more editors are saying DO NOT include than saying include, yet it is still in the article and when an editor removed it, it was reverted. How long is this going to go on? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a troll magnet. Fortunately, enough eyes are here, hopefully :) --Tom 21:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Include mention

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

Do not include mention

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

New show

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

It doesn't sound dumb at all. I expressed a similar concern at Talk:Hannity. Like I said on that page, time will tell. Thompsontough (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the questions, yes and yes. Its a new show, and its the old show without Colmes. Hope that clears things up. Seriously, what do reliable sources say? Not sure if this is a good analogy, but a little like Meet the Press? Actually, bad analogy. Anyways, --Tom 19:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To use an example, look at the article on CBS evening news. There aren't seperate articles for the evening news with Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather etc. Just one because it is the same program, same time, same network. Just who was sitting in the chair changed. That's how I see this. Hannity is on the same network, in the same time slot, just with one of the 2 hosts gone. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Question of whether or not it is a new show was brought up by Colmes himself when he mocked the name of the new show back in December. But I would have to say that if Hannity and Colmes was a show set up to allow a conservative and liberal voice have equal time on prime time tv, then Hannity really is a new show because it lacks the very essence of what the old show was meant to provide Mrathel (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism Section

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

Very Well, I can see how they would definitely be trolling magnets. However, in an article such as this, it would help us keep criticism centered. For instance, the Media Matters deal presents a problem if integrated because it is from a political organization whose ideology is diametrically opposed to that of the article's subject.It is not an "award" so much as a valid piece of criticism from a left-leaning group, but adding it into the text of the article without proper context allows it to unfairly modify the portrayal of Hannity. Removing it, on the other hand, takes away from the obvious fact that many people disagree with Hannity's views. If criticisms are integrated properly, it is possible that we can control the POV, but as this subject is constantly changing with everthing he says and drawing criticism from thousands of sources on a daily basis, it might be easier to keep the criticism ballanced by keeping it separate. The new section(s) would also allow editors to give proper attention to important criticism that have taken place over time and the less-important criticisms that happen to be more recent. Both need to be here to some degree, its just a matter of how we get them onto the page without starting a war.Mrathel (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My rant against criticism sections: In my opinion, if Adolf Hitler doesn't need a dedicated "criticism" section in his biographical article, neither does anyone else. People may disagree with Hannity, or anyone else, but filling their article with those disagreements, inside or outside of a dedicated criticism section, is taking the article off-course in my opinion; a person's life history should be chronicled by the events of their life, which may include criticisms, but should not be defined by those criticisms, if that makes any sense. It's clear that Hannity is a controversial figure, that controversial nature is somewhat delineated in the section dealing with his professional career, and a laundry list of specific criticisms are best detailed in the articles dealing with his radio and television shows, depending on the criticism. — Hiddekel (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the trivia award stuff again. Also, I personally don't have a problem with a criticism section as long as it doesn't become 1/2 the article. Right now, there is a lone sentence about Media Matters in the Prof life section which seems to sort of stick out awkwardly. --Tom 17:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will restore this until consensus is reached on compromise language.Jimintheatl (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me ask the obvious. If most people think it doesn't belong, why do you feel it needs "compromise language"? It appears that you are, in essence, saying that it will be there regardless of what most editors think. If the for/against was closer, then "compromise language" would seem like the ticket. But when it is this lop-sided, it starts to take on the appearence of POV pushing. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out above, this article is a troll magnet and yes, editors do push an agenda here. Per the above discussion, this "material" should be removed unless there is consensus for it's inclusion, not the other way around. --Tom 13:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would again point out that you previously pronounced yourself "happy" with the compromise of including Hannity's response. Since that compromise was reached, editors supporting inclusion have left the discussion and new editors have tried to resurrect the issue.Jimintheatl (talk) 13:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I would point out again that "happy" is a relative term. You keep harping on that, yet ignoring the fact that I disputed the validity of the award from the start. My "hapiness" was that it was placed in a more appropriate spot and was allowed to include balance. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Happy is relative in the sense that you would prefer that no criticism of Hannity by MMatters appear, but then agreed to the compromise language. That's called reaching consensus. Your reversal after the fact is troubling.Jimintheatl (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please refrain from putting words in my mouth. I didn't balk at other criticism by MM that was in the article. I think this "award" is nothing more than editorial opinion disguised as a faux award. I've said that from the start. I was even clear in calling the "award" Hannity gave MM bogus. I did agree to the compromise language. It was the only way to get it placed in an appropriate section and get some balance added to it. You and your gang, either by plan or by coincidence, were pushing hard and that was the best I could get done. Now you take my civility and try to make it something it never was. In any case, it is always my perogative to change my mind about anything I want. Maybe I read someone elses opinion and saw I was wrong in my compromise. Either way, I've stated how I feel. Done with you. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Quoting you is not "putting words in your mouth." Of course its a "fake" award in the sense that it's not laudatory, but it is notable. Civility=compromise("everyone's happy")=consensus. Suddenly having numbers on the side of your original position and then reversing course is unfortunate. The absence of any criticism of Hannity in this article is not worthy of an encyclopedia.Jimintheatl (talk) 02:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, no, quoting me is not putting words in my mouth. But saying "you would prefer that no criticism of Hannity by MMatters appear". I said no such thing. I haven't contested legitimate criticism from MM. For you to say that I'd prefer NO criticism from them appear is wrong and putting words in my mouth. There is plenty of criticism in this article. You act as if there isn't. There is no "reversing course" going on and it certainly isn't unfortunate. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Niteshift, this is the problem with trying to accomadate agenda pushers. They will twist and spin in order to push there agenda. --Tom 14:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Assume good faith. FYI: accommodate, their. Cheers.Jimintheatl (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My spelling sucks :) --Tom 22:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would actually rather have a criticism section rather than the criticism sprinkled throughout the article as it currently is. --Tom 19:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a point. Or perhaps a "Controversies" section a la Roseanne Barr? That's at least a bit more NPOVish and would require some reliable sourcing to indicate that entries are notable enough to be worth mentioning in the article... — Hiddekel (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think a contraversies section would be less of a troll magnet, and might help get meaningful criticism on the page Mrathel (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo/FORMER VP Cheney

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

It does fit the truth. The picture was taken October 24, 2006 and on that day Dick Cheney was Vice-President of the United States. If a picture is taken after January 20, 2009 then he is the former Vice-President and that would be the proper caption. A new name 2008 (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen this happening in many articles. Editors placing "former" in front of any reference to Bush or Cheney, despite the fact that other former officials are not labelled as "former" in the same article. I have yet to see a rash of "former"'s being placed in front of Kennedy, Lincoln or Washington references, even though they were all "formers" before wikipedia ever existed. Since I'm seeing it limited to Bush and Cheney, I have to wonder if there is something more than a desire for accuracy behind it. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right and I think it should be changed everywhere, because there only is 1 president and 1 VP at a time, every "former" is NOT the president or VP. I just corrected it here because I noticed it here, absolutely no offense, I just found it to be incorrect.
Would you agree that it should be changed with every former president and VP, or should Wikipedia stick to the way it is with Cheney in this article? -- Zoidberg1388 (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it should be changed. Would you change the caption on this picture to read, President Obama sits and talks with former President Bush in the oval office? Should this picture's caption say that it is a picture of former President Clinton's cabinet? My answer to both questions is no, those captions do not give an accurate description of those pictures. Pictures are frozen in time. The first picture I referenced, will always be a picture of President Bush and President-elect Obama, the second picture is a picture of President Clinton and his cabinet and the picture in this article will always be a picture of VP Cheney. I think we should look at when the picture was taken and accurately describe the picture as it was taken, not decribe who the people in the picture are today. A new name 2008 (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's a good point. I agree. Thanks for the discussion. -- Zoidberg1388 (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning re edit warring

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

Global warming?

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

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

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

  • Why is it one of the most contentious issues? Because the issue is important to you? How much of his average week is spent talking about GW versus govt. spending, Obama, or most other political happenings? If the guy was spending significant amounts of time on it, you might have a point. But when I happen to listen to the show, I hear about Obama, the senate and the media more than GW. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hannity is actively attacking one of the biggest issues of our time - global warming and its potential to cause massive damage to this planet. It would be ridiculous for an encyclopedia not to include this fact about such an important commentator. FYI I like Hannity I just think his denial of global warming is just incomprehensible given the obvious, widespread scientific consensus (he likes to cherry pick climate skeptics). It's killing me how every time he reports about a massive cold front, he has to throw in a jab about global warming. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However valid your opinion on Hannity's approach to climate change may be, points made in the article are not supposed to be WP: Original Research. Find an outside WP: Reliable Source that has raised the issue of Hannity and global warming and maybe you'll be in business. Badmintonhist (talk) 07:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are quite a few sources regarding Hannity's views on global warming. I should think they would be notable, if not here, then in a daughter article such as the (as yet nonexistent) Political views of Sean Hannity. His views on other issues should also be covered here, rather than barricaded for dubious reasons. 71.182.210.244 (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That you bold print "massive damage to the planet" makes it appear you have an agenda. Clearly, GW is important to you. Again, if this were something he spends a lot of time on or did something particularly noteworthy about, you might have a point. But I don't see it. From what I've seen, he mentions it when it comes up, but doesn't go out of his way to make it an issue, like he did with Obama issues. The fact that you can google and find mentions of it here and there doesn't make it significant, particularly for a biography. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because global warming is on the back burner right now does not mean that it is not relevant or noteworthy. He has run many segments denouncing global warming on his television show and criticized it at length on his radio show. Obviously he has been focusing most of his energy on Barack Obama lately but he has always been a staunch global warming denier and used his platform to promote his view. It is totally relevant to his philosophy as a conservative political commentator. --Punkrocker27ka (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, just because you find something noteworthy doesn't make it the "most contentious", "biggest issue of our time" either, as you and another editor have called it. His stock and trade is political issues. From what I've seen, he gets into GW only when there is a political issue involved. BTW, that bogus google search being linked to is evidence of nothing. A bunch of blogs and stuff where Hannity and GW are mentioned. Do any of you have a NPOV article that addresses Hannity's influence in the GW debate? Or is this mostly supposition about how relevent his opinions on it are? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove from the "criticism of feminism" category

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

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

Education in info box

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

Dear Tom. If you want to remove a longstanding edit the burden of proof is on your side. The entry in question should stay unless some consensus and understanding is reached that it has no relevance there and should be only mentioned in the main body of the article. So please be specific about why you think it is redundant (and meanwhile be so kind and revert yourself). Also don't try to put the burden of proof on other editors since it was you "blanking" that part w/o given a real valuable reason. I'll happily obey any new consensus but I'm definitely not going to engage in some kind of silly edit warring over this, besides you should've left the original default version until the final version (for now) is determined here on talk. You know the rules so there is no need to throw them at each other. We can "solve" this the nice way, don't you think so? Regards,
PS: You can find information on rules and guidelines at wp:mos and its sub pages like WP:IBT and you might want to compare the info box to other BLP's. That's why I mentioned consistency in my last edit summary.— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk • contribs)
Where do you come up with this stuff?? "The burden of proof" is on the material that goes into the article, whether its been there a year or was added yesterday. There are a bizzillion articles that current have garbage in them. We don't wait around blathering, we fact tag it or remove it. The burden of proof is then on those that want to add material or change material. Look at the Palin article. The "rape kit" "material" was in there for a while, but the ultimate burden was on the folks that wanted to include that garbage and rightly so. I know you are into "sides" but I am more into MOS, NPOV and guidelines and less about adding content. --Tom 00:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What the...(excuse my french)! We're not talking about the Palin or any other particular article. At least I don't. The "burden of proof" stuff is as I pointed it out! Only in cases of unreliable (or no) citations and especially if it might be a potential BLP vio it can and should be removed on sight. This is not the case here and please don't tell me now about that a certain link is broken and therefore it is not verifiable since you did this quite some time after your "blanking" (but left the paragraph standing). Don't play games with me, alright? So let's go back to the issue that you did not answer but rather evading: Please be specific why you think this fact which is included in most if not in all BLP's is redundant here (as I ask you before). Thanks.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're really not familiar with policies and guidelines on WP, (and I know it ain't so), see WP:BRD for starters.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would putting in NYU or Adelphi in the info box for education work better for you? Also, <sarcasm>thanks for removing the fact tag I added</sarcasm> Tom 04:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Television Section Bias

The Television section reads:

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

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sean_Hannity&oldid=272795608"