Talk:Sean Hannity/Archive 10

He reportedly speaks to Trump on the phone most weeknights.
The cited references to this statement above are based from a written opinion piece in Business Insider. The disclaimer fo-- MelanieN (talk) 04:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)r Business Insider website states "Insider Inc. publishes news, information, analysis, opinion, and commentary. The Sites include both reported and edited content and unmoderated posts and comments containing personal opinions on a wide range of topics." In this Business Insider opinion piece, the author claims to have obtained this information from a report in Intelligencer. Another opinion piece which state these comments are from so-called white house staffers, with no credible named sources. It is also stated in the Intelligencer website disclaimer: "The Sites, their parents, affiliates and subsidiaries do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement or other information displayed or distributed through our Sites." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conservativetexasgirl (talk • contribs)


 * It is well known that they talk most nights. Neither of them has ever denied it. If you don't like these three sources, or the multiple secondary sources who quote New York Magazine, here's another: The Washington Post. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Since Trump's election, Hannity has often acted as an unofficial spokesman for the President, criticizing the media
Who's opinion is this? Who is citing that Sean Hannity acted as an unofficial spokesman for the president? This statement should be removed immediately. It is completely biased and illustrates insinuation. There is not a legitimate role as an "unofficial spokesman" hence the term "unofficial". This definition of Sean Hannity is unprofessional and discredits Wikipedia legitimacy completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conservativetexasgirl (talk • contribs)
 * Well, here are some sources: "It frees the president, too: to use Hannity to spread his message, a direct line from the presidential mind to millions of viewers, unalloyed and pure and unfiltered by the fact-checks and contexts that professional reporters would provide." --The Atlantic . Here's another: Trump says "they’re (Fox News and Hannity) very special, they’ve done an incredible job for us. They’ve been with us from the beginning." AP News. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Nonstopdrivel provided incorrect facts about Sean Hannity
Nonstopdrivel and or whom ever provided the content of Sean Hannity has factually described Sean Hannity incorrectly. Sean Hannity does not promote conspiracy. Just because he stands up to the liberal agenda and media doesn’t make him anything but objective. Just because he has communications with Trump doesn’t make him a trump promoter, it makes him a journalist getting facts direct from the horses mouth and not here say or “sources” as most media pundits put it. Objectiveguy3 (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We go with what RS say, have any RS denied he is a conspiracy pedlar?Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Hannity may be many things, but a journalist is not one of them. Do you see something in his educational or employment history that suggests otherwise? ValarianB (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Your oviously a hannity supporter because Sean Hannity does promote conspiracy.

every night Sean Hannity has lost at least five different advertisers after he has continued to spread a conspiracy theory about Seth Rich.

https://www.vox.com/2017/11/15/16649292/hannity-conspiracy-theorist-transcript-data he past two years of transcripts from Hannity, his Fox News program that airs every weeknight, and found a show that peddles conspiracy theories more than any other news show in the US. Hannity often mirrors the language of online conspiracy forums, and it's only gotten more frequent since Hannity's friend and fellow conspiracy theorist Donald Trump became president.

Why is Sean Hannity peddling bonkers conspiracy theories? article by Moustafa Bayoumi https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/25/sean-hannity-conspiracy-theories-seth-rich-fox-news

Fox News opinion hosts, right-wing radio hosts, and social media users have contributed to an “infodemic” plaguing society alongside the spread of the coronavirus.

By Caleb Ecarma

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/04/coronavirus-conspiracies-charged-conservative-media-fox-news

Dixon hill (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Dixon hill

ValerianB to my knowledge, Mr. Hannity has never claimed to be a journalist. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. He's very openly an opinion commentator and does not try to hide his political views. That's certainly not true of the line up on CNN who falsely claim to be objective journalists but are really liberal opinion commentators. EPicmAx4 (talk) 01:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Sexual misconduct material
This material looks new to the personal section, but was in a different section before? Not sure what or where it should be included if at all but it seems like undue weight for the personal section as it currently is. Thoughts? Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I assume you mean "Personal life" section, "Sexual misconduct allegations" subsection. I apologize if I misunderstood you or if I am leaving something out in this attempted history. Treybien2 inserted it in multiple edits with edit summaries "Personal life", ‎"Sexual Harassment Accusations", etc. Hardyplants removed it with edit summary "Sexual Harassment Accusations: Wikipedia is not a gossip tabloid. Convictions or admissions of guilt would note worthy.". ValarianB re-inserted it with edit summary "Undid revision 980764162 by Hardyplants (talk) - sourced to non-tabloids, and quite relevant. do not remove sourced material without consensus". ... but later removed it again. Treybien2 re-inserted in another series of edits. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken removed a small part with the edit summary "Sexual misconduct allegations: unsourced content removed)". You removed it with the edit summary "Personal life: rm recently added material, maybe time for talk page?". Nomoskedasticity re-inserted it with the edit summary "looks like it's been there for a while...". I re-removed it with the edit summary "Undid revision 990570824 by Nomoskedasticity (talk) Looks like it was added at 08:49, 28 September 2020". So as of today it is out but given the history I expect it will be inserted yet again. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks for that detective work, my head is spinning. My take away is that there is slight consensus for inclusion? I certainly could be wrong. --Malerooster (talk) 03:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you were right when you wrote there is no consensus.Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * With all the back and forth and without a true clear consensus, I would leave it out for now until that changes. --Malerooster (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Should be left out, the current material is dated from 2017 but has seemingly gone cold since. Unless something new occurs in relation to it its best removed as to avoid any WP:BLP issues. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Orwell’s 1984
Hannity surmised 1984 was written in 1984. Literary genius denied; but, a notation of degree of ignorance, as self acknowledged, might be included in article. Aired on radio January 12 2021 Wikipietime (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * No. Our articles would be full of gaffes if this was the standard for inclusion. From Obama's 57 states to Bush Jr's "noo-kyoo-ler". ValarianB (talk) 13:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Tend to agree, unless this becomes some major controversy leave it out.Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2021
I want to add net worth data to this page TheSpaceGuy22 (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2021
Change "He attended New York University and Adelphi University, but did not graduate either." to "He attended New York University and Adelphi University, but was not graduated from either." Slobotic (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That is worse.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: I agree that the suggestion is not better than the original text. Please fix and resubmit when ready. Living Concrete (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2021
The party affiliation listed for Sean Hannity is incorrect. I have heard him mention several times on his radio show that he is registered in the Conservative party in NY state, not the Republican party. 66.24.1.249 (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I've heard him say many things, many false. Please provide a reliable source. soibangla (talk) 20:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Reconsider:Do you have evidence that Hannity is a member of the Republican party?  The references provided are not evidence.   It is like saying Bernie Sanders is not "Independent".   If you insist on not changing Hannity's political affiliation then please change Bernie Sanders' political affiliation to "Democrat".

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2021
In the COVID-19 pandemic section, I recommend adding this: On July 19, 2021, Hannity urged viewers to take the threat of COVID-19 seriously, as well as urging viewers to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. 2603:6010:D307:98CA:1B5:141F:95F9:27B5 (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Given his previous record over this issue I would rather wait to see if this sticks,. or he changes his mind.Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done I'd say no, mostly because of WP:NOTNEWS. If we have later reporting on this, it might be more relevant. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2021
Hannity did not attend Sacred Heart Seminary in Hempstead. Citation 14 is incorrect. There was no Sacred Heart Seminary. In Hempstead there was only Sacred Heart Academy which was an all girls school EdinSeattle (talk) 23:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The new York times is a more reliable source than uncited conjecture. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: I checked into this further, and there was a sacred heart seminar, which closed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2021
I watch Hannity nightly. He NEVER discouraged social distancing. He gave his opinion. First one to support mask wearing if it got us back to ballgames. Always says "I am not a Doctor: talk to yours". Jillnage (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Jillnage Jillnage (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting removal of the article phrase "... and discouraging social distancing amid the COVID-19 pandemic"? It's due to this edit by Iandaandi. There's a cite to New York Times but I didn't find anything there that supports the phrase.Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Removed. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Splitting up Sections
The article could be better organized. For example, "Commentary, controversies, and criticism", could and should be broken up as those topics are on other pages. I'm proposing dividing this section in "Commentary and views" and "Controversies and criticism". I am suggesting only organizational changes, not substantive ones but given the sensitivity of this particular figure I felt it appropriate to make note of my intentions here first to see if any other editors may object for whatever reasons. OgamD218 (talk) 08:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Questionable claim
The section Personal life includes this statement:

"In high school, Merri was the fourth highest ranked tennis player in New York State."

The only reference is to a colllege web page that does not explain this "ranking".

But this web page makes it clear that, as of January 4, 2021, "Merri Kelly" of Oyster Bay was ranked 22nd on Long Island among "Girls 18 Singles":

https://longislandtennismagazine.com/usta-long-island-regional-rankings-1421.

This calls into serious question the claim that in high school she was the "fourth highest ranked tennis player in New York State". 2601:200:C000:1A0:AC8F:FBEF:B6C7:8E7D (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Should be removed, its puffery anyway, and sod all to do woth Hannity.Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Vaccine mandate
I have sent this to Jessie and Gutfield. I just can’t understand how they say this is a vaccine when the definition clearly shows you it’s no more than a glorified flu shot. Read definition  of vaccine. End of story. This is a virus. Not a disease. No legal way they can call what they have a vaccine??????? Step up and address this 66.148.48.250 (talk) 02:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Errr, the "Flu shot" is a vaccine. Flu is caused by a Virus. I suggest you bring some RS to this thread.Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * you could bringing try some knowledge as well... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

These talk pages are great for popcorn. Only rarely good for actual discussion by one-off users with fully reverted edit histories. Tyrone (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

CDC estimates natural immunity article
Can the media make it public so reduce the height of alarm for unvaccinated individuals not harmful those who are vaccinated. 74.105.37.189 (talk) 05:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please provide the suggested wording and the reliable sources to back it up. -- Valjean (talk) 06:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like confirmation bias to me but if you have the RS, get back to us. Tyrone (talk) 12:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Propagandist in lead?
I don't think this is appropriate for the lead. The sourcing for it is a yahoo news reprint of this Huffpo Politics article, which at WP:RSP is In the 2020 RfC, there was no consensus on HuffPost staff writers' reliability for political topics. The community considers HuffPost openly biased on US politics.

Another article is Vox, which at RSP is Vox is considered generally reliable. Some editors say that Vox is a partisan source in the field of politics. That piece is a discussion with Tom Rosenstiel, not any sort of news report, and it is Rosenstiel's contention that Hannity is engaging in propaganda.

One CNN Business analysis, not news article, is being used to synthesize propagandist from "The mob that stormed and desecrated the Capitol ... could not have existed in a country that hadn't been radicalized by the likes of [Fox News hosts] Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham, and swayed by biased news coverage," wrote Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan. But are the airwaves of any democracy free of this kind of harmful propaganda and downright fiction? The United Kingdom, for one, comes pretty close. Again, it's the opinion of a columnist, who doesn't even say propaganda, then the analyst who says this kind of harmful propaganda with no qualification as to what specifically they're speaking about.

The other CNN Business piece is the only source that actually says For most of his career, the right-wing Fox propagandist has been in the shadows of someone else.

This seems pretty thin tea to be used as a label in the lead, especially as that's the only time the word is used in the article. There is no other mention of propaganda or propagandist, so it's not really summarizing the article, it's just putting a weakly sourced attack in the first sentence of the article of a BLP. This seems more fitting for the enormous criticism and controversy section, as attributed opinion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait -- so the CNN articles, already present as references at the end of the first sentence, were similarly inadequate for "conservative political commentator"? I mean, I don't think that's what you're saying -- so...  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's adequately covered in the article, and doesn't need sourcing in the lead. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The term "propagandist" should not be used in this article unless supported by robust RS. Not shady sourcing like HuffPo and Vox or an oped in CNN. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I have removed propagandist from the lead since this term is under active discussion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I concur. This is a loaded term which should not be used in a BLP unless it is generally recognized as their profession. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC) P.S. I might go along with "conspiracy theorist". We use that in the lead of multiple BLPs, provided it is widely reported and adequately covered in the article text. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Searches on propagandist, conspiracy theorist, lie
1 2 3 Among others. SPECIFICO talk 18:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * If those are sources than he should be labeled Superman in the lead, has more hits than propaganda or conspiracy. Look at the section immediately above, please. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, and hannity acrobat is about the same as hannity propaganda. This is a fun game. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If you wish your views to be considered, please engage thoughtfully by reading the articles. SPECIFICO talk 19:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Which of the 3+million you linked to in broad Google searches would you recommend? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I found 2 sources (both from Vox, which WP:RSP already says could be politically biased) calling Hannity a conspiracy theorist. The rest say something along the lines of he's "promoting a conspiracy theory" or "peddling a conspiracy theory". To call him a conspiracy theorist in WP:WIKIVOICE in the first sentence of his article, much better sourcing is going to be needed. The same appears to be true for "propagandist".  above cited the CNN article as the one source describing him as a propagandist. I dug around a bit and was able to find this one Guardian article as well, but that's it. I really don't see a heavy amount of sourcing for such contentious claims to be said in WP:WIKIVOICE on a WP:BLP. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Contentious" to his viewers and fans, of couirse. But that is not the standard here. See WP:FALSEBALANCE. SPECIFICO talk 15:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Calling him a propagandist or conspiracy theorist is a false balance as I just explained above, with sourcing. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Pen Or Flashlight
The article has a sentence: He shared a photo from the fake news site Gateway Pundit and falsely claimed that it showed her Secret Service agent holding a diazepam pen intended to treat seizures, when he in fact was holding a small flashlight. citing Washington Post. However, the Washington Post actually says "what appeared to be a small flashlight", and it's based on a Snopes statement "it is being used like a flashlight". (Snopes doesn't mention Mr Hannity and Washington Post doesn't provide a link to a transcript where Mr Hannity says "Secret Service agent" but I've seen a claim that a vaguely similar conversation happened.) So the word "falsely" and "in fact" are not backed up by the cited source at all, and what they do say is opinion. This absence of sourcing could perhaps be saved by changing to He shared a photo from the Gateway Pundit and said that it showed her Secret Service agent holding a diazepam pen intended to treat seizures, when the agent may have been holding a flashlight., if there's a consensus for that, but otherwise I intend removal. I am obliged first to ping participants of a 2017 discussion about a paragraph that contained this sentence -- MelanieN, Snooganssnoogans, Neutrality, Volunteer Marek. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well if he says it was, and it is not clear it was, that would still be false. Also do any sources say it was a diazepam pen? If not then he made the claim without any evidence. Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not how the English language works. Maybe you meant to write "could still be false"? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No I meant what I write, if you say something that is false (such as You are a small donkey) that is (not might) be false. As he claimed it was an object (and no source even implied it was) that would be a false claim (it might be an honest mistake, it's still not true it was one). Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We'll see whether others use similar logic. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm -- okay, we're reopening how to write about that episode, are we? Okay: I propose we draw directly on the source here, which says that "Hannity brought another fishy analysis into the conversation".  We can just go with what the source says: Hannity brought up another fishy analysis.  Of course, this might not fit an agenda that wants to let readers wonder whether it might really have been a diazepam pen -- which is what the OP's proposed version here would do.  But the source also says: "the rumor that he was holding a medical device was based entirely on hearsay" -- so I have no intention of agreeing to a version that simply propagates Hannity's rumor.  I figure the current version is good, in the sense that it reflects the totality of what the sources say.  But if we need to change it, we can work with "fishy analysis" and rumor based on hearsay.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Or we could say "without any evidence". Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * He shared a photo from the fake news site Gateway Pundit and claimed without evidence that it showed her Secret Service agent holding a diazepam pen intended to treat seizures.
 * I'm more concerned about WP:DUE weight. I searched google news for hannity diazepam pen, and got 10 results. There are 4800 words of the "point out every time someone in the media disagreed with, or pointed out a problem with Hannity" section, versus 1800 words of literally everything else, which still sneaks in a bit more negative POV. Is there any lasting impact of this? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I see that back in 2017 I felt the sentence could be better worded, and I still think so. I think the assertions "falsely claimed" and "in fact he was holding" go beyond the sources. How about He shared a photo from the fake news site Gateway Pundit, claiming that it showed her Secret Service agent holding a diazepam pen intended to treat seizures; however, The Washington Post dismissed that description of the device as "rumor", saying "the agent was holding what appeared to be a small flashlight." I think it is OK to call Gateway Pundit a fake news site, since that is how we describe it in Wikipedia's voice at their article here. WaPo asserts "appears to be a small flashlight" in their own voice, so no need to mention Snopes. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Except its not just them https://edition.cnn.com/videos/tv/2016/08/14/hannity-pushes-debunked-clinton-theory.cnn (called it debunked) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/08/11/in-prime-time-sean-hannity-carries-out-a-clinton-medical-investigation/ (largely debunked) (note in both cases they say he pushed this after it had been debunked) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37090082 (and on his own show medical experts refused to confirm his claims) https://qz.com/1533847/roger-stones-indictment-reveals-plan-to-discredit-hillary-clintons-health/ (make not direct claim about the pen, but called the geneneral idea "lies"). So not it was not just one source that covered this. Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * MelanieN's suggestion is better than mine, if we have to accept the sentence with different wording that gets around the lack of sources. (I looked at Slatersteven's list, I skipped the video, I saw that BBC is incorrectly saying "(Fact checking website Snopes says it actually was a small torch.)", and it's already admitted that quartz doesn't say something relevant to this.) I do think that ScottishFinnishRadish is right about the lack of coverage, I find it additionally curious that I can't find the original, as I thought that Washington Post would normally link to what they're criticizing. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I support MelanieN's proposition. The current wording is simply not in line with RS. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I + MelanieN + Iamreallygoodatcheckers would be good with MelanieN's proposal (though I'd prefer removal). I don't think that's enough yet. Anybody else want to join? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2022
Sean Hannity is not a conspiracy theorist, your page says he is. That’s not accurate. It leads one to question the objectivity of The Wikipedia sight. 2603:9009:C04:A1EE:D6C:D12C:F959:D3A1 (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * RS say he is, as such so do we. Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2023
Regarding Ainsley Earhardt, the text should read,

"During the COVID-19 pandemic, she hosted her Fox & Friends program from a remote studio in the basement of Hannity's Long Island mansion"

as opposed to:

"During the COVID-19 pandemic, she has been hosting her Fox & Friends program from a remote studio in the basement of Hannity's Long Island mansion." Gkamer (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ M.Bitton (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)