Talk:Sean Hannity/Archive 2

Why is this article's neutrality disputed?
I fail to see how this article violates NPOV rules. Criticism of Hannity seems well-enough balanced with praise, and it doesn't include any defamatory statements. What gives? Treybien (talk) 2:15 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't there any criticism of Sean Hannity? I see it for other television/radio talk show hosts, but not for Sean Hannity. Seems pretty biased to me... What gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.206.73.15 (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Could not agree more. Everytime the slightest criticism is included, it is reverted. The fact is that Hannity has recieved a lot of criticism and has said controversial things; what is wrong with including unbiased, appropriately sourced information about such matters? Treybien (talk) 16:00 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I cant agree more. It is due to some editors who misuse WP:BLP policies to discredit reliable sources. It is disheartening to see that neutral observers cant do anything to bring an end to it. Docku (talk) 23:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree Docku. The problem is that some editors, me for example, try to closely adhere to WP:BLP.  You just want that Hal Turner stuff in the article, and the only semi-reliable source you can seem to find is a blog.  I don't have any problem adding criticism to the article as long as you find a reliable source.Asher196 (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Asher. It is not my problem if you like to call a nation article a blog. You just made a good example how the facts are twisted. Docku (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The Nation article used a blog as their source, sorry. Basically we are rehashing old arguments now.Asher196 (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly, including the twist in the story. In 36 minutes, the blog became an article with blog as a source. :) Docku (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This helps expose a problem with media today and by extension Wikipedia. All a reliable source (for example the New York Times) has to do is publish an article, and instantly that information can be used in Wikipedia, even if the source for the story is unreliable.  For a BLP we should have multiple reliable sources.  Asher196 (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a BLP. Most of the criticism of Hannity is about his radio or television shows.  Since we have articles on both that criticism should be in those articles.  Hannity himself is a pretty boring person.  --PTR (talk) 12:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a question. The Hal Turner info was taken off due to it having its only source as 'a blog' (which is pretty hypocritical for wikipedia, a publically edited site, to claim as unfounded), but there are several other sources for Hannity's connection to Turner, such as the Nation http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050620/blumenthal as well as Hannity himself http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf-oE1mQ5TM. Seriously, the more Fox officials come to this site (either by logging in at work or logging in at *home...your not fooling anyone*), the more people question about it, and the more legitimacy wikipedia looses.

The fact that Hannity or Fox have gone through such lengths to hide all connections between the two (which Turner himself has gone as far as not only admitting, but making much more 'concerning' claims about Hannity's racial beliefs on one of his former 'stormfront' handles...lets call that info another one of Turners 'leaks'), the more people suspect it. You arent hiding this, because its already all over the blogosphere. Whomever edits this is either a supporter/collaborator at fox, or is really making themselves and th is website look bad. We all remember what several moderators let fox news officials do to (and continue in some places) Al Franken, Keith olbermann, and CNN's wiki's. Do the responsible thing and do what this site what made for, post ALL controversial facts about individuals. Use my quote if you need. Youtube wont take down that episode for a while (until the fox lawyers get to it), and there are a dozen other sites under different search terms to also find it. - Concernedwikster —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.139.55 (talk) 07:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Making baseless allegations about the editing being done by "Fox officials" does nothing to enhance your POV. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Al Franken and Sean Hannity
I added this to the section on criticism: "Al Franken devoted a chapter of his book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them to criticism of Hannity."

It was deleted by Getaway for this reason: ''Who cares? A politician, Franken, (also a piss poor comic) talking about a radio host.''

A google search of |Franken Franken Hannity "lies and the lying liars who tell them" produces 12,900 hits. I would suggest that Franken's criticisms of Hannity have received enough attention to meet the notability requirement.--Dcooper 17:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Ossified 18:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, in an encyclopedia, references to notable people people who disagree with the subject of an article shouldn't be deleted. Al Franken is notable in his own right, as a script writer and actor on a very popular television show, as a best-selling writer, and as a candidate for statewide office. He and Hannity have a past. That past has been played out in national media by both Franken AND Hannity. They both acknowledge. There is no reason why it shouldn't be acknowledged on the pages of Wikipedia. If Getaway doesn't care for the text, let me respectfully ask that he edit it, rather deleting references wholesale. It's getting difficult to attribute those undo's to good faith. Ossified 20:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Getaway: I have no problem at all with you adding "former talk radio host" as a descriptor for Al Franken. I don't, however, see why that is more salient or informative than the fact that he's also an Emmy Award winning screenwriter, and is a bestselling author. It has the appearance of downplaying those things which are creditable to Franken, and highlighting what you (based on your repeated use of "radio talk show failure in another section on this page). Let's try to reach some sort of NPOV consensus, OK? Ossified 17:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sean Hannity page reverts
I will try to engage you productively on here regarding your reverts of my entries on the Sean Hannity page for Al Franken's book, Lies and the Lying Liars etc. Sean Hannity is a notable person. Al Franken is a notable person. The book was a national bestseller. An entire chapter is dedicated to Sean Hannity. Hannity has spoken many times of Franken through his various national media outlets. I can't understand why you would prevent any reference to the book on Hannity's page. While your vigilance is admirable, in that you usually revert my entry within minutes of my posting it, I think that you may be overexuberant in reverting. It also appears that you have violated the 'three-revert rule'. As a newbie Wikipedian, I am not looking to make waves or get into edit wars, or start making reports to admins, but I think that some explanation beyond a revert with an edit summary that says, "Take it to Franken's page" should be forthcoming. Ossified 17:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Ossified: Let me make it clear the article is about Sean Hannity, not Al Franken.  You have placed TWO references to Franken book in the article.  That is redundant.  It is not appropriate.  Also, since Franken is merely a politician these days his opinion is not that original, just another liberal Democrat politician gripping about a conservative talk show host making comments critical of liberalism on the radio.  Also, Franken was once a radio talk show host, but he failed and he failed miserably.  He never, ever reached the number of listeners that Hannity did and he never, ever will.  You want to turn this article about Sean Hannity into a long, long list of critics of Hannity and that violates Wikipedia's avowed goal of neutrality.  The fact that you have listed the full name of Franken's idiotic book twice in the article indicates that you have a POV agenda.  You want to jam Franken's childish rants down the reader's throats instead of providing the reader some basic information about Hannity.  You want force feed the reader your personal agenda about great Al Franken's take on Hannity is.  That is why I told you to take it to Franken's page.  Franken is merely a very jealous individual that attempted to have a successful national talk radio show himself and failed miserably.  You go ahead and contact an admin.  That's so liberal jam your opinion down their throats Wikipeidan of you.--Getaway 19:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The quality or integrity of Al Franken's book has nothing to do with whether or not he famously attacked Sean Hannity.--Dcooper 20:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You are right. But Franken is a failure.  Now, why don't you respond to the substantive argument. But Franken is a radio talk show failure. The substantive argument is that the article is about Hannity, not Franken. But Franken is a radio talk show failure. The substantive argument is that Ossified wants to put in the article about HANNITY two or three references to the Franken, the failure, book and Ossified wants to put in the article a long, long dissertation about Franken's moronic comments about Hannity. But Franken is a radio talk show failure. Ossified's attempt to put in all of the constant, unrelenting statements of Franken the failure is a violation of NPOV.  Why don't you respond to the substance of the argument about undue weight, violation of NPOV, etc.  Also, its not my fault that Franken attempted to have a national radio talk show, just like Hannity's and he failed at it miserably.  Deal with the Wikipedia issues, undue weight and Ossified's attempts to violate NPOV.--Getaway 21:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Two references to the book is unnecessary.--Dcooper 21:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am trying hard to do two things, Getaway: (1) assume good faith on your part and (2) have a civil conversation with you regarding the proprietary interest you seem to take in this page. I agree with Dcooper that two references to Franken's book are unnecessary. I believe that one is a fair compromise. Which one would you prefer, Getaway? I am open to suggestion. My only hope is that we achieve a fair and balanced entry regarding Sean Hannity's life and career. Please stop confusing that with an NPOV violation. My intentions are honest and honorable and have been met (by you) with a series of insta-reverts and what some might characterize as off-topic rants (see "radio talk show failure" x7 above). I submit to you that this is not the appropriate way to achieve an accurate and consensus-driven article. Ossified 22:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding?

 * 1) Frank Rich, a columnist for the New York Times' editorial page, criticized Hannity and Dick Morris for using the American flag on their book covers, saying they "use the Stars and Stripes as a merchandising tool for their own self-aggrandizingly patriotic screeds cashing in on their TV celebrity."[16]

The above entry is stupid. I'd consider taking it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Just because it's critical of Hannity doesn't mean that it shouldn't be in his entry. The idea behind an encyclopedia is not to collect hagiographies, but to provide as much meaningful, creedible information to the reader as possible. Sean Hannity is a controversial figure. Those controversies should be addressed in his Wikipedia entry. Frank Rich writes an important opnion column for one of the most influential newspapers in the world. This is one of those things that I'd rather have in the article and not need, than need and not have.Ossified 18:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again, the article is about Hannity, not Franken. It is inappropriate to mention Franken's award, etc.  You know this is inappropriate, but yet you are continuing to do this.  Please stop.  The article is about Hannity, not Franken.  Call over an admin if you would like as you threatened to do before.  This article is about Hannity.  You are welcome to add all kinds on information about Franken on Franken's article. Please take the inappropriate POV over there.--Getaway 18:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I never threatened to do any such thing. Please assume good faith when I edit this article. Encyclopedias are more valuable when they fair and balanced. I assure you that I understand that this article is about Sean Hannity. There is a difference, however, between an article that informs the reader about Sean Hannity and one which reads as if he wrote it. I am striving for the former. Let's work constructively to avoid the latter, OK? Being selective about which of his detractors' bona fides you allow to appear tends to move this article away from NPOV. Ossified 18:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to ask for permission. If you put inappropriate matter in the article, I'm going to remove it, ok?--Getaway 18:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't see how external criticism of a high profile person by other high profile people is inappropriate. Nobody has responded to the basic point that this is a informational resource, not a biography or hagiography. There are biographies for Hannity available from the institutions he works for/belongs to. If someone writes a best seller criticising him, or is published in a major newspaper attacking him how is that not relevant to an NPOV encyclopedia article about him? So long as the phrasing is NPOV I can't see why there is shrill defense of this person, other than for political motivations. All of the Hannity criticism should remain, just as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Rich#Criticisms should remain. One has to wonder why some people are so desperate to expunge NPOV-phrased facts from this article... CluckCluckBuuurkaaa! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.133.109 (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Where is his military service?
He has none! Pro war but never served. Hypocrite!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.205.220.188 (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you commenting on the article or the subject of the article. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, it is an encyclopedia.  Ursasapien (talk) 04:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

RE:CHICKENHAWK I had a number of references to his being called a chickenhawk, one need only google hannity+chickenhawk, but they were reverted by someone saying that they were all "blogs". Sorry but the deck of republican chickenhawks isn't a blog, it's a published deck of cards which names hannity as a chickenhawk. Perhaps it can be moved to a "Trivia" section if people are still upset. However, Wikipedia is not a political platform and published criticism of Hannity (whose notability is that he is a political pundit) should be factually reported and not removed. I would appreciate anyone removing the chickenhawk deck of cards reference to properly justify it because it's quite clear the previous removal claiming it was just "just blogs" was factually incorrect and further exposition should be given if it's going to be removed again. -- CluckCluckBuuurkaaa!


 * It needs to be a reliable source and not an advertisement or a blog. See Reliable sources/Examples for reliable source information. --PTR 17:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There are links to books for sale you didn't remove, so how do they remain and his appearance in another text constitute advertising? The only difference I see is that you have allowed the conservative pro-hannity commerical links to stay, and removed the hannity factual entry. I will revert the edit and you are welcome to remove it again if you remove all of the commercial references or show how one violates and the other doesn't. I have looked closely at the external link rules and don't see how either violate a rule, so I think both should stay as they are useful to a person seeking information about Sean Hannity.
 * With regard to "reliable source" you removed a link to the Sourcewatch entry, but left the media matters link? These are highly comparable resources, so again I fail to see how one can go without the other, and I fail to see how it's "unreliable", both are resources from non-profit research centers, and both have/had a link to the wikipedia entry on the source so people could see who they are from (which the others do not). I would say again that either both go or both stay with an explanation needed for any further action. Please point to the exact rule and definition that makes Media Matters and  Center for Media and Democracy different, and for that matter how they are "unreliable" by a metric that retains a link to foxnews.com. There is even a template on wikipedia for articles incorporating sourcewatch text (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:SourceWatch_text), so I think an external link is more than ok.
 * Reverting for now as no rule or reason has been given or cited that looks even remotely plausable considering what was left during the edits. But if someone is able to cite some clear rule that makes the hannity book seller/text in which he appears and mediamatters/centermediademocracy different, they are welcome.. and I am interested. -- CluckCluckBuuurkaaa!
 * For the removal of Source Watch links from BLP articles, see WT:BLP. As far as books go, the reason books are listed with ISBN numbers is precisely so that readers are not spammed from sites seeking to sell books. The ISBN number gives the reader the choice of book providers to look at. The chickenhawks link was simply a commercial venture trying to make money off of Wikipedia readers. Your complaints have no merit. - Crockspot 19:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks for clearing up the sourcewatch issue. I still don't see the spam/advertising issue for the deck of cards and will return to this in 24 hours. With regard to the earlier chickenhawk issue, I have added a link to michael moore to settle the issue as he is very high profile and there are links to that domain in other article reference sections. CluckCluckBuuurkaaa!
 * The reference to the michael moore criticism has been removed. Like others I am having a hard time assuming good faith from some of these editors. Especially when not reason was given by Getaway. Please show respect to people in your comments Getaway, you seem to have a very aggressive tone. And please cite reasons for your revisionism in your editing, as no reason was cited and no comment left on the talk page. I will return to this issue in 24 hours. CluckCluckBuuurkaaa!

Emphasis on his Irish heritage
The article seems to make much of Hannity's Irish heritage to the point that it seems undue weight. It almost smacks of anti-Irish bias. It should certainly be mentioned, as he talks about it his self, but I am concerned about the prolific and prominent references to this fact. Ursasapien (talk) 10:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It does seem a bit over-represented, as the counties from which his grandparents emigrated doesn't seem notable. There may well be Irish-Americans (or Irish citizens) who disagree about the notability thing, though. Not sure if the intent is/was anti-Irish bias, but I wouldn't argue with a judicious edit. Ossified 11:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I moved his Irish heritage and his religious preference to the expanded infobox. It just sounded funny in the lead.  Ursasapien (talk) 05:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I see that someone has replaced it in the first sentence. Ossified has it right that the birthplace of his grandparents isn't worth building up as much as we (collectively) have done here.  CsikosLo (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Could some one fix his nationality under his picture. It states his nationality is Irish American. Unless someone can source that he has ever claimed citizenship of the the Republic of Ireland it must be fixed. I believe that the corrected designation under nationality would be U.S. citizen.Seems like people are trying to paint him as some sort of "fresh oot o' tha bogs" mick, and don't care if what is in is accurate. On the other hand, entirely possible that people are ignorant of exactly what nationality is.Die4Dixie 16:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Louima
Please see the archives for discussion of this. Fair.org references onepeoplesproject as their source which is not a reliable source for this article. Onepeoplesproject does not have the statements listed in fair.org's article. The statements could not be tracked down. This is a BLP violation if we cannot get a good source for the statements. --PTR 14:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've removed it again. Please use the discussion page.  This has been discussed and is in the archives.  Onepeoplesproject is not a reliable source for an article on Hannity.  According to fair.org that is where they got their information.  We need a better source before this info is included.  --PTR 14:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Define reliability: You said, "There is a paragraph in the controversy section (Abner Louima para) that references Fair.org, but Fair.org references OnePeoplesProject.com and OnePeoplesProject.com apparently got the information from an opinion piece in the Philadelphia Telegraph. Is this an acceptable reference for a BLP? --PTR 15:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)".
 * This editorial was clearly dated 6-7 months after the Fair article. You did not simply argue that onepeoplesproject was unreliable. Can I define your entries as unreliable? Anyone can say that something is unreliable.  Because you keep shifting you arguments, I believe that you are simply expressing your personal opinion, not on the source, but on the entry itself--24.12.67.218 14:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * From the archives -


 * The above uses a citation from Fair.org which cites OnePeoplesProject as their source but OnePeoplesProject does not have the "lying Louima" reference and OnePeoplesProject might be a questionable source for this BLP. The only place we've found this information (Kuzaar tracked it down) was in an opinion piece in the Philadelphia Telegraph which also might be a questionable source for a BLP. --PTR 16:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The main problem was/is that onepeoplesproject is a biased source for an article on Hannity. You have found that onepeoplesproject does have the reference but it still is not a reliable source.  Check WP:RS - "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." --PTR 14:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If this is true then both Fair and Media Matters, who are both using onepeoplesproject, a biased source, as their source for their articles, are unreliable. If Fair and Media Matters are not reliable then they should not be qualified sources in this article or any article on Wiki.  Further, the Wiki entry on Louima which uses this same source should also be scrubbed of this same entry.  My observation is that the concern is not reliable sources, but the content of the entries in this article.  If the concern is over reliable sources then Fair and Media Matters should not be referenced in this article, in the Louima article, or any article on this site.


 * My observation is based on the fact that the original argument against the Fair article was deceptive in that it was claimed that an editorial was the original source when in fact the original source was written 6-7 months after the Fair article. The next argument was that the onepeoplesproject article could not be found, which it was in the same place as that editorial, archive.org, and finally, the argument that onepeoplesproject is not reliable.  Therefore, if Fair and Media Matters uses onepeoplesproject as a source, they are unreliable and should be scrubbed from this and all other articles that references them.  But since this consistency does not exist, your arguments must not only be biased, but unreliable as you attempted to source a Fair article 6-7 months after the Fair article was published --24.12.67.218 15:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Not using Fair.org and Media Matters has been discussed many times but Media Matters does generally include links and does have a reputation for fact checking even if they do editorialize.


 * If there is an issue on the Louima page, that needs to be brought up there.


 * If you look in the archives you will see that the original problem that existed and still exists is that the paragraph in the fair.org article that the information for this entry comes from is referenced to onepeoplesproject. Onepeoplesproject is not a reliable source.  At the time, I did search onepeoplesproject looking for their source and didn't find the reference. We then looked for other sources and found the editorial.  I guess we just assumed that the information from Onepeoplesproject came from that editorial.  I never checked the dates.  The basic issue is still the same as from the archives (see entry above): Fair.org cites OnePeoplesProject as their source for the information that is in question for this article.  We shouldn't use onepeoplesproject as a source.  --PTR 15:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Conservative vs. Neoconservative
Before edit warring ensues, can we get some discussion on this talk page. Yes, Hannity says he is a "Reagan conservative." However, the description at "Neoconservative" seems to fit him just fine. What about conservative? Ursasapien (talk) 11:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * We should give a substantial amount of deference to how he self-identifies, although it's fair to contrast his self-identification with reliably-sourced accounts of how his words or actions may more closely associate him with a different school of thought. Reasonable? Ossified 11:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * We can't use neoconservative in the description in the lead unless there is some reliable source that says he's a neoconservative that trumps his self identification. --PTR 12:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed with the above. To my knowledge, Hannity has never self-identified as a "neoconservative".  Just a conservative.  His attitude seems to be that "neocon" is more of a pejorative than a legitimate political identification.  Therefore, without some sort of reliably-sourced evidence I don't think it's appropriate to describe him as "neoconservative". --Hiddekel 15:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That is an absurd argument. You cannot base his classification off of his own words.  Should we classify Democratic politicans as "Cowards" and "Crooks" and "Liars" because that is how Hannity has described them on his show?  Of course we wouldn't.  In the same way that Democratic politicans are called "liberal", Hannity is called a "neoconservative".  That is what he is and the label should be changed to reflect that.  Bluefield 17:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Read your own argument. We don't use the labels of critics - we use the self identification unless there's a reference that proves otherwise (such as someone claiming to be an Idependent but is a registered Libertarian).  --PTR 18:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You have to be kidding - should we classify people who call themselves the second coming as a Prophet? Or people who call themselves a Saint saints?  Stephen Colbert would certainly be a lot of things then.  Perhaps we should classify in a more objective manner - by the definitions perhaps?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.216.106 (talk) 04:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * WP does not decide what to classify. We use [WP:RS].  --PTR 14:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sean Hannity is a conservative. If someone here thinks he deserves the label "neoconservative," please use this section to state your reasons; i.e., he said/did something in particular, which alligns him more with a neo-con than a conservative. I think if we discussed it that way, we could actually make some progress here and find out which term is better fitting.


 * Is he "conservative" economically? No.  He supported what has ammounted to a nation building exercise in Iraq that will cost trillions of dollars.  Is he "conservative" diplomatically?  No.  He has eschewed the policy of his alleged hero Reagan used in the Cold War by using economic might to defeat the enemy, supporting instead the provacative and decidedely unconservative method of preemptive strikes against other sovereign nations.  Is he religiously "conservative"?  No.  He has performed at fundraisers for the pro-choice candidate for the GOP nomination, Rudy Giuliani.  In almost every traditional test for what defines a conservative, Hannity fails.  He is the new breed of conservatives, which are conservative in name only.  That is why he is a neo-conservative, and not a conservative.  Bluefield (talk) 04:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hannity self-identifies as a conservative. No notable reliable sources have been presented that characterize him as a neoconservative. No amount of original research will change that. - Crockspot (talk) 07:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Without a reference, changing him to a neocon would be nothing more than original research, as per WP:NOR. Snowfire51 (talk) 07:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "Neoconservative" is misused often, has several different meanings, and has become a kind of political slur besides. I would be hesitant to define any living people as "neoconservative" unless they have used the term themselves. A preponderance of sources use "conservative," so that's the end of our inquiry. Cool Hand Luke 09:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The word "conservative" is a pretty narrow definition of someone who has made a career off of telling everyone his political opinions. To refer to Noam Chomsky as, simply, a 'liberal' is a bit simplistic, while the term 'libertarian socialist' aligns much better with his espoused beliefs. Ron Paul is also referred to as a 'conservative,' but he and Hannity are polar opposites on many issues. Aceholiday (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul is a paleoconservative, and there has been a war between the two ideologies for several decades.

Center for American Progress

 * The progressive Center for American Progress has compiled on-air statements from Hannity which it states are false.

The Media Matters link provides excerpts from transcripts and a video link to the actual clip. In this link they have statements with no supporting material. I don't think this is a good ref for a BLP. I think it should be removed. --PTR 16:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Your section header reads "Center for American Progress" and you reprinted the line about the Center for American Progress, but then explained why you think the Media Matters link should be removed. Is it the Center for American Progress entry or the Media Matters entry which you are concerned with? Ossified 20:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The Media Matters link provides excerpts from transcripts and a video link to the actual clip of what they are criticizing. It is fine.  The CAP link provides no supporting material in their article for the quotes.  There is no way to tell in what context the statements were made.  The CAP link is the one I think should be removed. --PTR 21:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree. Media Matters passes muster under WP:RS. Fox used to make transcripts available on the web but no longer does so. I have no qualms if you wish to see if you can find transcripts elsewhere and determine if the context undermines the claims that Media Matters makes, but in the absence of that, with a reliably sourced quote, there's no reason to assume that it's anything other than what Media Matters says it is. Ossified 21:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually Media Matter is borderline for this BLP since they are biased but I haven't suggested removing the Media Matters link. I moved it to the Professional Life section since Jimbo prefers the criticism to be intertwined into the article --PTR 15:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What does this quote mean? How does it add to the biography?

 * The show is frequently critical of, and has drawn criticism from, the Democratic Party. David Wade, a John Kerry spokesman, said during the 2004 Presidential election regarding the term carpet bombing, "If the term hasn't found its way into print, its distortions certainly have.

Maybe the meaning of this quote was obvious to Kerry partisans in September 2004, but what does it mean in September 2007? Why is it significant? patsw 00:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sourcewatch
External links and citations to Sourcewatch are to be removed from all living biographies, according to the consensus on WT:BLP, just so everyone knows. - Crockspot 19:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent Changes TO line 44
Modified text:
 * "both children of Irish immigrants. His paternal grandparents immigrated from County Down and his maternal grandparents from County Cork."

The use of variations of immigrant in two sequential sentences is gratuitous and gives undue weight. I removed the "both children of Irish immigrants" and left the second sentences intact. I also changed the Nationality under his picture from Irish American to U.S.citizen. If anyone has a reliable source that he indeed is a citizen of the Republic of Ireland, I'd be happy to see it and that it be included.Die4Dixie 17:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think he needs to have dual citizenship to be considered an "Irish American." Many people use the term Irish American in the same way they use African American for people of African descent that were born here.  Regardless, it now conflicts with the lead that calls him an Irish-American.  Finally, I do not believe "U.S. citizen" is a typical listing under nationality.  Ursasapien (talk) 03:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * From the article Irish American:

Irish Americans (Irish: Gael-Mheiriceánach) are citizens of the United States who can claim ancestry originating in the west European island of Ireland.
 * Clearly, his nationality or ancestry can be said to be Irish American. However, I can get a source that describes his ancestry as originating from Ireland if you believe it is necessary.  To me, it is better to have this in the infobox and as a part of his early life, as opposed to being in the lead.  Others mileage may vary.  Ursasapien (talk) 05:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * you have confused nationality with ancestry. Please look up both words in you closest dictionary.Die4Dixie 08:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * First, I note the personal attack. Second, I note the disregard for capitalization, punctuation, and proper grammar.  Third, I note that you have completely side-stepped the issue of the contemporary meaning of nationality.  African Americans are not citizens of Africa.  They are Americans of African heritage (and even this is more indicative of their cultural heritage, as most African Americans come of mixed heritage).  Sean is a proud Irish American and you should not remove this because of your racist ("fresh oot o' tha bogs" mick} ideology.  Ursasapien (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm Irish American. Nationality means that he would be subject in some way to the jurisdiction of Ireland. I have no problem with it saying Irish American . What i have is a problem with someone claiming that his nationality is Irish American. To be considered Irish American, he doesn't need to be a citizen of Ireland. If you want to claim that that is his nationality, please provide some documentation that he is a citizen of the Republic of Ireland. Woman, I'm from the south, just like you. Your vernacular southern use or individual definition of nationality does not belong in an encyclopedia.Die4Dixie 09:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * First, I'm a he. Second, I think you are taking a rather legalistic stance.  The WP article on nationality indicates, "Nationality is a relationship between a person and their state of origin, culture, association, affiliation and/or loyalty. . . Generally, nationality is established at birth by a child's place of birth (jus soli) and/or bloodline (jus sanguinis). . . The legal sense of nationality, particularly in the English speaking world, may often mean citizenship, although they do not mean the same thing everywhere in the world. . . Nationality can also mean membership in a cultural/historical group related to political or national identity."  Therefore, I don't think it means what you think it means.  Nonetheless, I changed it anyway in deference to you.  The reason it ended up in the infobox in the first place was I thought it was too over-emphasized.  Ursasapien (talk) 09:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The quote in context:

Nationality can also mean membership in a cultural/historical group related to political or national identity, even if it currently lacks a formal state. This meaning is said by some authorities to cover many groups, including Kurds, Basques, Catalans, the Welsh, Scots, Palestinians, Tamils, and many others.
 * Not trying to rehash this. We are still made up. This has to do with stateless persons and others, not the local NAACP or St. Paddy's Day parade float builders.;)Die4Dixie 09:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Ursasapien has a point. However, for the purpose of the infobox, I reckon that "nationality" refers to the formal meaning of the word. Just my two cents. --Hiddekel 18:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you venture that Die4Dixie has a point too? My concern was only for the info box, where as you rightly point out a formal definition is called for.I think the national identity in the above quote refers to stateless persons, like Palestinians, and a select few others.The Irish do have a formal state. Now if he were Irish and living in Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom, then one could argue that definition of nationality. The "national identity" would hardly work for third generation Irish Americans in the United States without dual citizenship. Here we would be talking about ethnicity rather than nationality. Sometimes these do overlap, but not ,IMHO, in this instance. I will email the State Department and the Irish embassy in Washington soon, and share with you any response that I receive.Die4Dixie 21:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, since I agreed with your bottom line, I figured that'd go without saying. :) --Hiddekel 21:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)It seems to me that Hannity's nationality is American and his ancestry is Irish. I'm not particularly concerned with what goes in the infobox except to the extent that it is consistent with the use of the "Nationality" field in other infoboxes (consistency is the probably the hardest thing to maintain in this project). In all likelihood, "American" is the appropriate entry for the infobox. As far as identifying him as "Irish American" in the lede, that's fine, too. As most Americans are the descendants of immigrants, it's not unusual to use both ancestry and nationality to describe someone (particularly, in this case, if Hannity himself describes himself as Irish American). I'm still a bit concerned, however, about the need to identify which counties in Ireland his grandparents immigrated from. I'm not sure how this adds to the article (except in terms of bulk), and may be an issue of undue weight, since I don't know how his grandparents, or the counties of their departure enlighten us in any way about the subject of the article. Ossified 23:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. You should have seen it before I put my hand to it. Please make some balanced contributions. I think there was some insistence of putting immigrant and its variants at ever possible juncture given some conservatives positions on illegal immigration.I'm satisfied that the box doesn't say Irish American any more, and I am learning if you can just get something small like that once on Wikipedia, then you have accomplished something of epic proportionsDie4Dixie 00:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent Edit
I definitely think that is better. I had wondered how exactly that section could be fixed. Good job ursapaiensDie4Dixie 08:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism/Controversy
Is the flag-waving stuff the best we can do? Certainly don't need this to turn into John Gibson (although Gibson's more like the shock jock of cable news), but come on! Franken's boring to read about. :P Nualran 17:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Any controversy or criticism must be sourced using WP:RS sources, making sure you are aware of WP:BLP. Jimbo prefers no separate Criticism section (since those become vandal magnets) and would prefer any criticism woven into the article.  --PTR 19:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a good point - the flag criticism still seems weak though. Not totally irrelevant, but not the most notable relative to other incidents. That really was what I was trying to say. Nualran 18:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Is he single?
Usually in any biographical article, whether someone is single or not is pretty important. It's certainly something that shouldn't be left out, especially if he's married or something! 69.220.2.188 20:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Olbermann
Why do we keep seeing "so and so was awarded the 'worst person' award by Keith Olbermann" on so many Wikipedia bios? Keith Olbermann's opinion of Sean Hannity simply does not belong on this page. The opinion of a SINGLE PERSON giving out a MEANINGLESS "award" does not belong in an encyclopedia entry. Mark Levin thinks Hannity is a great talk show host...but we don't see that opinion on Sean's page. Why? Because it doesn't belong...and neither does Olbermann's opinion.

Olbermann has a page dedicated to him on Wiki already. If you want to publicize Olbermann's hate fest, do so on his page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.210.1.138 (talk) 02:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Olbermann is a prominent newscaster on MSNBC and his 'worst person' awards generate much publicity and scrutiny. Just mentioning it on Hannity's page doesn't warrant removal. It hasn't become out of hand or too lengthy, and Olbermann's prominent status and frequent criticisms seem to meet importance standards. 21:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Aceholiday (talk)

Prominent status? The guy on a good night might garner a half million viewers. He does not meet any level of importance outside of his own little group of fans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.87.126 (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Neo Conservative
Sean Hannity is clearly a neoconservative and should not be described as anything else.


 * The neo-con debate has been ongoing for a while, but as of yet no one has shown any evidence or proper references indicating he should be classified as such. In spite of the discussion, Wikipedia is not a place for debate. Snowfire51 04:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Freedom Alliance
The Freedom Alliance charity was not started by nor was it administrated by Hannity. He was involved in raising money for the charity. Unless we put this information for all bios throughout WP for each charity that people raise money for, it doesn't belong here. It belongs on the pages of those who are administrators and on the charity's page if it exists. The paragraph also misstates the ref. --PTR (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation
It appears that a large portion of the Professional Career section of this article is copied word for word from http://580wdbo.com/hannity/bio.html. I haven't deleted this text (yet) since I know it's possible the same author wrote both but given that this url is given as a reference source for this section of the article, I strongly doubt it. Perhaps somebody with more knowledge of Hannity's career could re-write this section to avoid this apparent copyright violation. - Dravecky (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert
I reverted:"Parodied by comedian Stephen Colbert, as a blustery, self-obsessed right-wing commentator with a strong distaste for facts."Because first it isn't sourced, not written in a neutral tone of voice and although Colbert is considered a parody of many bloviating right-wing commentators, O'Reilly is commonaly considered his model. I've invited Micmachete to this discussion page (since he reverted my reversion) to defend why these basic Wikipedia policies are not applicable in this situation. &#8756; Therefore | talk 02:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Colbert himself always mentions "Papa Bear" O'Reilly as his hero. I'd take that as meaning it was he whom he was parodying. 83.147.143.148 (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Very Biased
WARNING THE FOLLOWING POST CONTAINS POV AND --ReaganConservative (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)WEASLE WORDS, THANK YOU --ReaganConservative (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC) This discussion page highlights how biased many of the editors are. Someone could fill pages with nonsense that Hannity says that isn't true, and he is most assuredly not a traditional conservative. He meets most, if not all, of the criteria listed under the Wikipedia article for neoconservatism. I don't see why he can define himself as one thing while fitting the criteria of something else, and you would take his word as a source. Would a murderer be allowed to define himself as a simple pimp? Would anyone accept that?

It is clear that some of the editors of this page are themselves extremely conservative, and they are working to "clean" this article based on their own bias. This view is supported by the fact they cannot rationally defend their position(s), but they continue to revert the article to avoid anything they do not like. This smacks of arrogance and bias, and I do not understand how that has any place in an encyclopedia article.

Hannity is not a traditional conservative. He is a Chickenhawk that has supported the Bush administration despite a failing economy, enlarging government, etc. He also spends much of his show, Hannity's America, doing nothing more than attacking "liberals." In fact, his show tonight (01/28/2008) included a piece on polar bears/global warming. Hannity's sources were two conservatives that do not support protecting polar bears, and his only additions to the piece were to keep claiming liberals are ignoring science and lying about the entire subject. He also attacked members of Congress for having a hearing about the subject where they questioned the policies of the Bush administration after listening to testimony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.20.98 (talk) 07:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC) What this user says is not true, and he is a global warming idiot.Alex1996Ne (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia, and is not meant to be a forum for your political views.Asher196 (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll just say I dropped in to read how much education this demagogue has/does not have. My suspicions were confirmed that he lacks one. 74.233.157.192 (talk) 03:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Romney and Rush wars
Should some mention be made of the fact that Hannity, Limbaugh, and other radio types came out strongly against McCain before the Feb 5th primaries in support of Romney, but yet their efforts didn't work and perhaps caused a backlash? OddibeKerfeld (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Mitt Romney
There needs to be a reliable source that says his support failed to bring in any victories. You might know it didn't but wikipedia can't state that as a fact unless someone else has reported it. --PTR (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Summarizing the sub-sections
It seems like there is an abundance of subsections towards the bottom of the main page. Although the info seems pertinant to a degree, breaking up the fact he held a dinner for one candidate and supported another should be lumped together perhaps in just one sub section (or whatever it is called officially) as "2008 presidential campaign involvement" or something of the like. Currently it seems poorly organized. Rocdahut (talk) 10:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Books sub-section
I've re-added the subsection for Hannity's books. I see no reason not to have this information; unless we really over-do it, book reviews (inherently being the opinions of third parties) are unlikely to cause any confusion over whether Wikipedia is endorsing/decrying the subject of the review. I left the review from Business Week intact since this is a very reputable publication. I removed the other review to keep the paragraph feeling "balanced"; if we find another pro- or neutral review we should re-add this. If eventually we can not find another positive/neutral review, then we should also re-add it, since in that case, it isn't our fault that Hannity writes bad books. The excised review follows:
 * The journal of the World Future Society stated, "The polarization typified in this one-eyed rant is a further complication in seeking security in today's world".

--PeruvianLlama(spit) 06:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * His books are universally viewed as ranting trash by reputable academic journals. Just a fact.  Nuff said. 74.233.86.49 (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, it isn't "Nuff said." If the section seeks to maintain a neutral point of view than it should include a line such as "However, the book has recieved favorable reviews from  EXAMPLE who have said the book was 'PERTINANT QUOTE'." I just bring this up because simply by including one source with one view, how ever high the reputation, is a subtle way of injecting POV into the article. I am terrible though at figuring out the controls of wikipedia, so I do not know how to do the insertion of a footnote marker and I just haven't had the time to really invest in figuring it out. Perhaps I will one day. Until then though, as an English Lit major with a passion for semantics I can tell at a glance that you say as much with what you leave out of an article as with what you put in. For example, I wouldn't be allowed, nor should I be allowed, to go to the article for Rush Limbaugh and blankout the section on his perscription drug abuse simply because I felt that it added POV to the article. It is a fact of who he is and what he has done. Can some one please fix the book review section. To ignore the POV here harms wikipedia. Rocdahut (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Feel free to try to find positive reviews of his books from reputable sources. But like I said, good luck with that.  If you can't find them, there is no neutrality issue.  74.233.164.239 (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Rocdahut: if you have any references but you feel un-familiar with the use of ref tags, then do feel free to post the relevant info here on the talk page and I'm sure someone would be happy to add them for you! I mostly agree with what you're saying (both of you, actually) and my suggestion is this: that for the moment, we leave out the 'World Future Society' review above until we (and others) can make a sincere effort in finding reviews that may come from alternate viewpoints, thus ensuring the Books section is NPOV. However if we cannot find any sources within a reasonable time-frame (a week?) which gave Hannity's book a non-negative review, then we should just go ahead and put in whatever we find, pro or con. I'm all for holding off a little while so that both sides of the story can be told; but if there really is only one side to the story, then we should not feel hindered by the NPOV policy. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 03:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In point of fact, intellectuals both right and left view Hannity's outputs as textbook examples of Propaganda techniques in action and express concern for America about listeners' sheep-like susceptibility to them. On the right, this is viewed as a very troubling "de-intellectualizing" of Buckley's conservatism, while on the left this same concern is coupled with concerns over the overall political climate that has resulted in America plus the policy and electoral outcomes that can result.  So again, good luck finding really positive reviews, I think you'll find they just don't exist outside of the partisan blogosphere where anybody and their dog can write.  I have treated the books as fairly as possible given the available material from reputable sources.  Again, if the outcome is less than desirable for followers of Hannity, they need to consider that perhaps his books are actually deserving of the negative reviews they have received.  What is actually most instructive about the books is just how few reviews they have received, including not even one in an academic journal, indicating that intellectuals and most reputable publishers don't even take the books seriously enough to review them.  This is utterly remarkable, yet telling, for books that have sold in measure (best-selling) as have Hannity's.  If serious academic criticisms of his work existed, there would be a both left and right unison over the fact that the man is a true novice about the things over which he pontificates day in and day out (note both Hannity and Limbaugh never completed college, lest went on to graduate work), that he exhibits a plain-faced Manichaean worldview which defies reality and actual usefulness in real-world political affairs, and that he is a demagogue in the easiest-to-detect and truest possible sense of the word.  If you want to know where I am coming from in all this, I am a political moderate and academician who shares the concerns of both the right and left over the phenomenon of Hannity and those like him, and have stated nothing other than what is verifiable about the matter in my additions.  74.233.164.23 (talk) 08:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that you sound anything but a political moderate, this really is a discussion about making the article non POV. Not a soapbox for you to rant about how you don't like the guy. You may attempt to hide the fact that what you posted was a rant under the guise of 'concerned academic,' but essentially you could be a poly-sci major with a particular bent against talk radio who decided to pretend that their self-agrandizing bluster was something more than just that. I am talking semantics, you are talking politics. Whether I do the search or others do the search makes no difference to me, I merely pointed out the fact that there was a lack of favorable reviews which could lead a person to interpret the inclusion of only the negative ones as POV. Even if no positive reviews are found in a week's time, it might help to maintain a nuetral atmosphere to the article to include a line such as "Although no academic reviewers gave his books positive reviews, the book sold well," or "It recieved positive reviews from pundits on the right side of the asile." Or something to that effect. By making this suggestion I am not attempting to "soften the criticism" as I no doubt guess you are ready to say. However, what I am trying to do is assure that those who look to wikipedia do not recive a lopsided view. To summarize my main point: We need to find a way to objectively say "Some people liked it Some people didn't." Rocdahut (talk) 10:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * When the books were reviewed universally as poor, there is no POV, just facts. Again, for the fifth time, if you wish to add positive book reviews from reputable sources, find them.  I've already looked high and low, and using the full database resources of a university library. 74.233.157.154 (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If so, there is no WP:UNDUE issue and thus no NPOV issue and thus no WP:BLP issue. C.m.jones (talk) 07:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hal Turner?
Isn't the Hal Turner section a bit... biased? -- Shark face  217  04:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you mean that it relies on a single source with secondhand information, then yes.Asher196 (talk) 04:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Bad sourcing? In what way? Turner's own words? Jimintheatl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimintheatl (talk • contribs) 16:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that for a claim this controversial you'll need a reliable source, not just Turner's own claims on his own website. Nesodak (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * All it takes is a simple google search and you will find Hannity's version, spoken on his show. CyberAnth (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This seriously shouldn't be a problem to set up in a decent way. Right now the "controversy" section seems to exist solely to highlight Hal Turner.  Not to mention that calling it a "controversy" is gross POV when the source that calls it a controversy is politcally slanted website.  Furthermore, the quote from Turner's website would seem more perinent on his page, not on Hannity's.  Also, it is worth mentioning that simply because a person inserts a lengthy quote and sources it, doesn't mean that you aren't trying to weasel in a bit of POV.  If this isn't true, then I could go to the Hillary Clinton wikipage, or the Obama page, or the McCain page and post lengthy sourced quotes all with things along the lines of something like this:  Political commentator x has once called him/her 'the worst living person on the face of the planet, we should stone them immediately.'  Such a thing would be reverted and removed, and should be.  As such, I am once again removing the controversies section.  It is serving as nothing more than a POV ground to weasal in defamation of character.  A person may not agree with the man's views, but this is not the forum for that.  Rocdahut (talk) 05:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked over the page for several minutes. Not only did I finda superfluous inject of Hal Turner's name, but that the suggested link merely stated that Sean Hannity had worked at a particular radio station. No mention of Mr. Turner. I moved the whole Hal Turner thing into the newly renamed criticisms section, as now it includes more than just books and magazine reviews. I still feel that it is grossly POV, but at least now it is in the criticisms section, rather than seperate from it masquarading as a "controversy." That is a pretty weighty word to toss around so lightly. Especially given that the web-links are all for opinion sites. Before somebody cries foul or erroniously attempts to claims that I am sanitizing the article, please take a moment to think that I removed little, despite the fact that I find it POV. I simply moved it to the appropriate section. Finally, even if a magazine calls it a controversy, doesn't mean that it is really worthy of the name. Merely throwing the name in their does not make it one. Rocdahut (talk) 05:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * For now, I flagged the section as needing a POV rework. It certainly seems to give undue weight to the Hal Turner thing. The sources are horrible...looks like one op-ed, and a bare link to Turner's homepage. Hasn't there been any coverage by a real journalist? Barring better sources than this, it should be removed, especially with the current weasel words and apparent POV slant. Nesodak (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ugh. The only reputable online publications I can find discussing this allegation are The Nation and The Huffington Post, and both of these articles seem to be op-eds referring to allegations made on various blogs. The Nation piece seems particularly problematic...it makes claims that read as if the author feels he can read Hannity's mind; "Hannity recognized his audience's thirst for red meat, racist rhetoric", and "...Hannity found he could avoid the dangers of direct race-baiting by simply outsourcing it to Turner". Also, it appears that both Hannity and the program director have specifically denied the allegations, a fact this article doesn't mention. Is there a reason why so much is being made of the claim that some fringe figure was calling in to somebody's radio show? I don't get it...and I think it's problematic to attempt to tie so prominent a media figure to a white supremacist on "evidence" that seems this flimsy, especially since the connection has apparently been denied. Nesodak (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I totally agree. Also, a revert was made of edits that I did the other day on this article in an attempt to clean up what I thought looked like fairly blatent POV, someone said in the revert line that they were unsure what specific wikipedia standard I was quoting, but I honestly don't know if there is a subsection of rules to deal with this.  I assumed that the quoting of an op-ed piece did not belong anywhere except for in the criticisms section.  Furthermore, I am going to once again remove the Hal Turner mentions from the early career section.  The footnote makes no mention of Hal Turner, and the hyperlink provided in the text can't really serve as evidence as it makes a claim that is currently the dispute of the controversy section.  My own belief is that people with a certain political slant are feverishly attempting to tie Mr. Hannity with Hal Turner as if they were bosom buddies.  This is getting close to revert war territory as it seems right now. Rocdahut (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I did my best to reword the section in a neutral way, and integrated it into the "Professional life" section. I also removed the statement about the Jack Kemp criticism...it had no source except for a Wikilink to Wikipedia's LexisNexis article, and there were no claims for its significance in any case (from what I can see, Hannity has been criticised by lots of people, in lots of places, for lots of reasons. Nesodak (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the current edit, which stresses the "personal relationship" aspect, misses the point. Isn't the critical fact that Sean Hannity provided a regular forum to Hal Turner? Jimintheatl (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Jimintheatl
 * It would seem that the Hal Turner inclusion is only "critical" to establishing your POV. Why should one arguably-biased article about one particular individual be included in a section about Hannity's professional life or career?  if we're going to include the Nation bit, then we should include every article written about every guest Hannity has had on or has ever called in to the program, no?  Faldo57 (talk  14:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me; go for it. Assuming the guests are noteworthy, that is. I would say that the #2 talk show providing a platform to a white supremacist and anti-Semite is noteworthy. Jimintheatl (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

POV Pushing
There is a lot of POV pushing. The Nation and Huffington Post are not objective at all, and the Cal Thomas and someone else comment has dubious use at all, and especially doesn't belong in the lead. Look at Rush Limbaugh for comparison. Any more attempts to add it shoudl be delete.-- Bedford 17:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Radio History
The Hal Turner stuff seeems a little better, but still needs a little work. I am going to remove the Fortune magazine quote from the Radio subheading. It seems more like a random criticism than a detail about his radio career. If there are any objections to this, please make them known and why. As it is, it seems too abitrary to include at all, but I do not want to be accused of attempting to sanitize the article. Rocdahut (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm accusing you of sanitizing. It is a reputable, non-partisan source stating their view of the show. 74.233.86.159 (talk) 05:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said before, it is not the content, but its placement that is objectionable. Creating a criticism section to handle this quote would seem more appropriate.  As it is, this particular quote, although from a reputable magazine, serves no other function than offering up a critique of Sean Hannity within information about his rise in radio.  In essence, it is a way to worm in a critique, while under the guise of information about his radio career.  Yet it offers nothing more about the man's history in radio other than a brief insight into what the writers of Fortune magazine, how ever thoughtful that they may be in their intent, still boils down to a criticism.  It may have been a criticism that he recieved during his program's history, but again, it is a criticism.  I am exercising a bit of verbosity here to make the point that it simply does not belong in the article in its current location, not that it does not belong at all. Feel free to create a section on criticisms of Sean Hannity and put the quote from Fortune magazine there.  Two final things of note: It is a shame that you are not reading carefully, because you might have seen that I asked for feedback as to why it should be included in that section seeing as I already mentioned that it was a criticism, and not really a fact about his radio career.  You seem to agree though, as you mention, that it is source stating their view of the show; which would consitute a criticism, not really a fact.  And if you say it is a fact that he was criticised, then that seems a bit of stretch to include it, as it is that would definetly be pushing it just to get that particular quote in the piece in its current location.    Last note,  I can read carefully though, and have gone to your edits page and see that not only are you posting as an anonymous user, but that a majority of your posts are recent.  The only non-Sean Hannity edit that you have done is to Polarization, where you saw fit to include a random bit of criticism to Sean Hannity.  I am not here to sanitize this one man's article, however you seem intent on using wikipedia as a political forum in an attempt to defame the man.  As such, I am reporting your account to an admin so that they can put you on their watch list, thank you and good day.  Rocdahut (talk) 06:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Er, a statement about his radio show belongs under the section about his radio show. And since the statement is attributed, there is no weasel words issue. C.m.jones (talk) 08:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, if it were about his contract, his pay rate, or even if his sponsors decided to yank his contract due to his statements that would warrent inclusion, but it does not change the fact that the source article mentioned is an opinion of the show. Maybe it should be included in a section about other people's opinions on the show.  To call me a prude and bluster about how "duh it should be included," to paraphrase the edit line, never really addresses the issue I am bringing up.  It seems a tad disingenuous to claim that since it is about his radio show that it should be included in the sub-section on radios, all the while ignoring the fact that I said perhaps it should be included in an opinions section.  If wikipedia were to include every opinion that every reputable magazine gave on every political pundit then these articles would be ludicrously long.  That aside, as I said before, I think that as it stands the Fortune quote could remain in a different section.  How many times will people choose to ignore this and harp on about "well, it is well sourced and about radio and reputable."  Frankly I think that people who are constantly reverting without actually thinking for a moment about what I am saying are acting absurdly.  I've tagged the section and am looking for a moderator over this subject. Rocdahut (talk) 10:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Rocdahut....also, why does the "Bottom feeder" quote keep getting put into the lead paragraph? I don't understand why it's appropriate there. Nesodak (talk) 12:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If this article is relevant, then why don't we include every article on Hannity from every newspaper or magazine ever published? I simply don't see how this one article is of such importance as to merit inclusion. Faldo57 (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I will remove it again and put it in the critical opinions section where it belongs. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Whomever is responsible for the current set up, thank you. I do editing from time to time so but I still was unsure of how to proceed on the article.  I think the tag at the top of the page will hopefully cut down on some of the edit-warring, but I have to admit before posting this I did revert of some random unregistered user (with a low edit history) who changed everthing back to a much older edit.  I think that this page should be semi-protected so as to avoid the three revert rule. Also, is this the only page where we talk about this, or can some one provide a link to a discussion forum?  (Or am I missing it and it is obvious to the more savvy wikipedia user?  I don't mean to appear ignorant here, my major may be English Lit, but that doesn't translate into wiki-knowledge unfortunatly...) Rocdahut (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)\

I see not one "Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial claim" in this version of the article - not one - otherwise, list them below. What I do see, however, is that some people dislike what the well-souced staements actually say. I also see a bunch of false edit summaries thart amaount to lying, calling things reversion of vandalism and removal of weasel words, when in actual fact what is being removed is very well sourced assertions by non-partisam sources. You all ought be ashamed of this behavior. CyberAnth (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please tone down the rhetoric and assume good faith. What everyone should be ashamed of is the edit-warring happening in the article. CyberAnth, I'd be more inclined to give you credibility if your edits weren't seemingly a one-sided attempt to insert criticism, rather than to work with others toward an article that achieves WP:NPOV. Nesodak (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Page Protection
Following a request for protection at WP:RFPP, I've fully-protected this article for 15 days, or until disputes are resolved by discussion, to avoid further disruption caused by constant reverting. I see there is active discussion taking place above, and I hope that this discussion will draw some sort of consensus for the disputed parts of the article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The story here is pretty simple. Hannity supporters don't want anything negative in the article.  It starts and ends there. C.m.jones (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not here to defend Hannity, but I've found that many of the articles that involve controversial people tend to become articles about the controversy and not the person. Every thing they say or do that someone feels is controversial is added to the article making it unwieldy. Can you imagine how long and irrelevant these type of articles would become over the course of time unless someone reigns in the POV and tries to make the article adhere to Biographies of living persons? Just because you can find 150 negative opinions or reviews doesn't mean they should all be listed. I'll quote from WP:BLP "The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics; rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one."Asher196 (talk) 03:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Minority views? You're kidding, right?  The sources in the current version of the article that criticize Hannity are from non-partisan sources - the journals, magazines, newspaper, and book (the book is coauthored by one conservative and one liberal).  Find non-partisan sources that speak positively of Hannity and put the info below and we can continue this conversation.  If you can't find them, the discussion is over.  You can't under a guise of NPOV eliminate negative views of person just because positive ones don't or scantly exist.  Some people just plain old do not engender positive comments from such quarters.  Even if we were to count up unapologetically partisan views of Hannity (I'm not recommending this), postive views of Hannity would be the minority among all partisan views expressed, so this would mean that positive views would be placed in the minority position as regards weight.   C.m.jones (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * We might consider deleting the article if Hannity is not so important. Or trimming it to just a stub.  An encyclopedia should be a place where people come to learn something, not just to read negative opinions which could be found by a Yahoo or Google search. (p.s. I didn't remove any information, just moved a quote from the intro down to the body of the article.) (p.p.s. When you write an article on someone you strongly dislike it really shows. Better spend your time and effort on a topic you do like.) Steve Dufour (talk) 05:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, if we apply that same standard to all Wikipedia articles; otherwise it's bowdlerization. When one reads views of someone from reputable sources, they are learning something, very, very obviously.  C.m.jones (talk) 05:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Some criticism is fine. But the main purpose of an encyclopedia article is to give people basic information about the subject of the article, not to repeat every opinion that has ever been stated about the topic. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Your assumption is that readers do not learn anything from articles which contain information which you deem negative. This is clearly false. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "...to repeat every opinion that has ever been stated about the topic". This is turning what I've argued into pure hyperbole.  While I do know of a certain radio talk show host that uses that technique with great effect, it does not work with me.  C.m.jones (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A question...if it's important to include all criticism of Hannity from reliable sources that we can find, is it also important to include all praise of him that we can find in reliable sources? Nesodak (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I would be fine with an external link to a site that collected all the criticisms. I think the New York Times article has something like that.Steve Dufour (talk) 04:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Full Fortune Magazine quote
The article is called, The 25 people we envy most.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2005/10/17/8358072/index.htm

The actual section on Hannity: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.16.134.154 (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

''It's every blowhard's dream: getting paid to preach to the choir. For four hours a day Hannity fills the airwaves with his sure-fire formula: If you agree with his conservative worldview, you're deemed a "great American." If you don't, you're a pusillanimous blame-America-firster, who might as well pledge allegiance to France. Armed with a classic talk-radio voice, Hannity reportedly makes $5 million a year for the radio show, and undoubtedly more from Fox. Plus he's written two bestsellers and draws legions of fans to his national tours. -- K. B.''

It's broken up into two sections in the article which makes it disjointed. If you're going to put in the quote it should probably be in one place.

Common Ground: How to Stop the Partisan War That Is Destroying America
You should put the full name of the book in the body of the article (when it's unprotected), take out the scare quotes and note that Bob Beckel acknowledges Sean Hannity on the Acknowledgments page of the book. - Page 264 - Acknowledgements. I don't think it's necessary to quote it but I put it here for your review.


 * To Sean Hannity, who is a pain on air and a prince off. Thank you, Sean, for your kindness during difficult times.

Also, they do not describe him as the "leader of the pack" among the "bottom feeders" of "political polarizers. They name Ann Colter and Michael Moore as the bottom feeders (page 7 Introduction).  The sentence on Hannity is included on Page 6 - Introduction:


 * "Who are the polarizers? The following qualify, as do hundreds of others in their respective categories: ... In Broadcasting, Sean Hannity to the right and Al Franken to the left are leaders of the pack."

You can read the referenced pages of the book at the Barnes & Noble site using the link below.

http://search2.barnesandnoble.com/BookViewer/?ean=9780061236341

Jerry Falwell's Liberty University
Does it need to be mentioned that the school is Jerry Falwell's Liberty University? Why not just say Liberty University? Falwell did found the university, but I'm sure many other schools were founded by people also. And their names don't always come before them. Any thoughts? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 07:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody else have any thoughts on this issue? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 06:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Jerry Falwell was added as POV pushing in my opinion....Asher196 (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps. Or maybe because Falwell is just so connected to LU in people's minds. I will change it. Thanks. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, in the source, it says that Falwell bestowed the honorary degree on Hannity. So perhaps that's why it was written like that. But I've changed it now. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit request
editprotected Please add the following below the categories:

Thanks! Kelly hi! 15:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * done. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 16:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Deliver Us from Evil
I've tagged this section per NPOV-section as all of the reviews are negative reviews. I wonder if we could add some positive ones? --Non-dropframe (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is, most "mainstream" reviews are done by liberals, who naturally hate the books. Find those that like the books, and they would be openly conservative publications, which the liberals trying to POV this article would deem unworthy of inclusion.  There's no reasoning with such people; you just have to hold your ground.-- Bedford  09:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ooo-wee. Displaying that Manichaean wordview, are we?  In point of fact, the reviews in the article are from non-partisan publications.  And, you won't find any positive reviews from such sources.  There is nothing POV about including negative reviews when they all are negative.  Ewenss (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ewenss, the personal attack is really not needed. Furthermore, "non-partisan" does not equal "unbiased." Are you telling me that a NYT Bestseller doesn't have ANY good reviews? If it's so terrible how did he sell so many? --Non-dropframe (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * By selling it to followers. Ewenss (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * One doesn't ride the NYT Bestseller list for five weeks by selling a book to one group of people. Besides that, if the book sucked people aren't going to continue to buy it. Hannity listeners tend to have their own minds and aren't sheep-like "followers" as you say. And you didn't address my 'non-partisan/unbiased' point. I'm restoring the NPOV tag as the neutrality is clearly disputed. --Non-dropframe (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. In 2005 Hannity had 12.5 million minimum weekly listeners.  He pushed the book constantly over the air and sold it over his website.  What would be amazing is if the book did not hit the best seller list, given that size of an audience.  And if you are so sure that quality sources published positive reviews then find and place them.  Good luck with that.  As you can read above, all this territory has been gone through before and nothing has been produced.  Ewenss (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring
The text being inserted for ReganBooks is not NPOV. This article is not about ReganBooks and it is linked. The text is using implication which is against NPOV. The text about his dropping out of college "he says because he ran out of money." is not NPOV. It is in the cite. Please stick to NPOV and facts that are not inferences. This is a BLP. --PTR (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The section on Deliver Us From Evil should probably be set up as it's own article. It's becoming to large for a section in an article. Remember undue weight. --PTR (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There is inadequate material for such an article and the material is not out of balance at all but is brief, you probably just don't like it. Apparently, no one writing in any academic journal has taken Hannity's books seriously enough to engage with them. I've searched exhaustively, and that does not mean just Googling.  Ewenss (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This one section is undue weight in this article. It is taking up more text than any other section.  Why don't we get a mediator?  --PTR (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, that's nonsense. The section "Professional Life" is very much longer.  Heck, the "Freedom Concerts" section is about equal length. You need to understand what undue weight really is.  A real example is at Jimmy Swaggart and the amount of coverage given to the sex scandal.  No discussion of his truly extensive discography, nor his many books, nor material from the autobiography he published, nor his Bible College, etc.  And overall, the "controversy and criticisms" section is longer than the biographical material. Ewenss (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I do understand what undue weight is. This article is not about the book and you're not writing about Hannity but the book.  If you want to include a lot of material about the book, write it its own article.  I've listed this at third party opinion for some new input.  --PTR (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion
I would say it's perfectly fine to include some information, but the tone isn't right. Specifically, the quotes from book reviews should go. From looking at what's here now, you could condense the books section to a sentence or two. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 11:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. I also think it's not encyclopedic to have book reviews in the article and think that mentioning the books would suffice.  --PTR (talk) 12:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If Sean Hannity's children are under the age of 18, I feel their names should be removed for privacy
Name of children of public figures are not notable. It is me i think (talk) 22:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * They're published. Ewenss (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * But they themselves are not notable. It is me i think (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there a wiki policy regarding the listing of names of non-notable children? And is the policy different, if the children are under 18.  It is me i think (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The policy is if they've been published before they can be included. I agree there is little point in including them in this case, however. Ewenss (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Requesting removal of children's names
Can anyone tell me why this is necessary,they are children of a public figure, their names are not notable? It is me i think (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am currently considering this request after a message was left on my talk page. Edits I can make to a fully protected page have to be done carefully per WP:PREFER. I think it would be better if I know first - is there anybody who objects if I take these names out? Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with this. --PTR (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Removing the minor children's names would be prudent.Asher196 (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ Done Per the above comments. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer reviewed academic law journal
This removed text:


 * Arguing in a peer reviewed law journal concerning the politically-wedded religious elements in Hannity's book, lawyer and author Jason Carter stated that the book is "an example of not only 'us against them' piety but also the inappropriate use of religious language." He stated that "Hannity compares American liberals to terrorists and despots and categorically calls them 'evil'." Carter states that Hannity "takes a line from the Lord's Prayer, praying for God to deliver us from evil, and uses it to make a political statement as though his argument, his party, or his President would do the delivering."

is from Carter, Jason, "Toward a Genuine Debate about Morals, Religion, Politics, and Law: Why America Needs a Christian Response to the Christian Right." Georgia Law Review. Rev. 69 (2006-2007). It is the hight of foolishness to want to remove the lone mention of Hannity in peer reviewed academic literature.

Ewenss (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Content in a BLP should be about the subject of the article specifically. The text above might fit in an article about the book itself.  I don't think book reviews should be included in a biographical article. --PTR (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh?? An article about an author should not contain commentary about his books??? You're kidding, right? Ewenss (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, not kidding. I didn't say commentary.  If Obama, Clinton or McLean said something about the book then that should be included.  What is included here are book reviews.  Most book reviews are not fact checked since they are opinions.  As opinions from non-notable people, I don't believe they belong in any encyclopedia.  --PTR (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The 45 day test
This article was locked once because some people did not like negative reviews of Hannity's books from quality sources placed in the article. 30 days were given for these people to provide positive reviews. Nothing turned up--no surprise, they do not exist in exist in quality sources.

Now, it is locked again...for the same reason. And now its been a week, no positive reviews have turned up, so alas, the bar has lowered; now we hear "Well, no reviews of his books should even be in the article", a ridiculous notion. This notion has led even to the mere removal of material from a peer reviewed academic journal!

Neutral point of view means providing comprehensive coverage of all aspects of a story. It does not mean providing equal time for two viewpoints by removing "extra" material from one side to "restore balance". The article on evolution does not have equal time for creationists, for example. Hannity's books were very widely reviewed negatively. That's the fact. There is no material to balance it with I have discovered.

If you dislike that this article has those negative reviews, what you are supposed to do is go out and document positive reviews from quality sources, not endlessly remove the negative reviews, and then go tell an admin that someone is edit warring when they restore the material you merely removed.

So here we go again. You've got till the 12th to find positive reviews from quality sources. If they do not appear, this matter should be ended and future attempts to simply remove the material should be viewed as simply a bowdlerizing attempt and admins should side against such people.

Ewenss (talk) 05:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Who do you think you are, to make such demands? Your attitude makes people not bother with you and just ignore your demands.-- Bedford  06:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * His comments above are admittedly pretty snotty, but what Ewenss is doing is trying to build consensus. He posted material that was deemed NPOV, so the article wound up protected. He's advising people who think his contributions are NPOV to try and find representation of the other side, and so far no one has taken him up on it. If his contributions only show one side, I'd advise (as he did) that representations of the other side be found to balance it out. If it can't be found, then it certainly isn't NPOV or WP:UNDUE to point it out. Redrocket (talk) 06:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As has been argued since March 26, 2008; hence, my frustration with this second drive-by page lock at the behest of POV pushers. Ewenss (talk) 07:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've never said it's NPOV. I said it's undue weight - which is why I asked for the third opinion above.  One book is not the focus of the article but the reordering of the sections and including more than a couple of reviews puts too much weight on this one section.  I don't think any book reviews should be in the article - good or bad.  Check out Al Franken.  However, I did not remove the reviews that are currently in the article even though most biographical articles in true encyclopedias would not include book reviews as they are usually one person's opinion. If there are going to be any book reviews in the article I think putting in all the critical book reviews you can find is against WP:UNDUE - pick a couple and move on.  I also think reordering the sections so the Television section is after the books is mis-ordering since he is most known for his television and radio which is also correct chronologically.  The peer reviewed academic journal article is on a subscription only site but the copy I found is a law student's seminar paper http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3508&context=expresso and is an opinion piece.  --PTR (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well building consensus involves discussing the issue (is happening), not edit warring (was happening) - so if a consensus is being built here the protection is doing exactly what it is supposed to do. As for the "POV pushers" issue, as a person on the outside looking in on this dispute, I can see where both sides are coming from on this, and I think both are acting in good faith, and I think such accusations lack foundation and will not help build a consensus. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Jason Carter is Jimmy Carter's grandson, and whether or not he wrote that paper as a fourth-year law student is not germane. It was published in a peer-reviewed law journal.  Let me explain how that works.  Anyone may submit an article to any peer reviewed journal.  When they do so, all information about the author is removed.  The material is then reviewed by a group of eminent experts in the field (in this case, law), who make a determination about the material, whether it will be published or not.  Only afterward is the person's identity made known.  Thus, the important thing is that it appeared in the peer-reviewed Georgia Law Review.  That makes it a very important article to include.  CyberAnth (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Real encyclopedia's do indeed include commentary about an author's books. The entry "Sean Hannity" in Contemporary Authors published by Thomson Gale, 2005, in fact, includes most of the very same commentary included in this article. You can read Contemporary Authors through most university libraries; it requires a subscription to access. CyberAnth (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Created Book Article
Since there is quite a bit of material on the book, I created it it's own article. Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism. Now we can link to it as is done on Al Franken. I'll create a page for the other book next week. --PTR (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I created both book articles and moved the information there and linked from here. --PTR (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

To be added
In Critical Review, a peer-reviewed academic journal, Jeffrey Friedman, Senior fellow of the Institute for the Advancement of the Social Sciences at Boston University, published an analysis of the cognitive structures whereby people organize their political perceptions. In his discussion of "the problem of ideologues" in American democracy, Friedman concluded that Hannity's various outputs presented a "troubling situation". Friedman argued that, while Hannity is "well informed about which policies are advocated by conservatives and liberals," he seems "appallingly ignorant of the arguments and evidence for liberal positions. Friedman accordingly argued that Hannity fostered in people the "possession of willful but uninformed political 'attitudes'" rather than "the ability to make informed policy judgments."


 * The Friedman article paragraph reads:


 * Consider the most reviled pundit on the other side of the political spectrum from yourself. To liberal ears, a Rush Limbaugh or a Sean Hannity, while well informed about which policies are advocated by conservatives and liberals, will seem appallingly ignorant of the arguments and evidence for liberal positions. The same goes in reverse for a Frank Rich or a Paul Krugman, whose knowledge of the “basics” of liberalism and conservatism will seem, in the eyes of a conservative, to be matched by grave misunderstandings of the rationales for conservative policies. If Limbaugh, Rich, et al., turn out to exemplify the “cognitive elite,” we are in serious trouble.


 * Perhaps there is another article? --PTR (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Now read and understand the whole article and you'll find the text to be added fair. CyberAnth (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I did read and understand the article and he's talking about a collective group and not Hannity in particular. There are also some critical proponents of quotes left out.  The paragraph says "to liberal ears ... he will seem appallingly ignorant" which is not the same as "he seems "appallingly ignorant of the...".  The second version puts it as Friedman saying it which is a misstatement.  The phrase "possession of willful but uninformed political 'attitudes'" is in the abstract but not in the actual paper.


 * It might be better to rewrite as:


 * In Critical Review, a peer-reviewed academic journal, Jeffrey Friedman, Senior fellow of the Institute for the Advancement of the Social Sciences at Boston University, published an analysis of the cognitive structures whereby people organize their political perceptions. In his discussion of "the problem of ideologues" in American democracy, Friedman included Hannity as one of the "cognitive elite." Friedman says that, while Hannity is "well informed about which policies are advocated by conservatives and liberals," to liberals he seems "appallingly ignorant of the arguments and evidence for liberal positions. --PTR (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Peer reviewed? "we have, except in rare cases (see below), replaced peer review with an aggressive, often substantive editing process." .  "  Articles are selectively peer reviewed and subject to editorial changes.  Using the phrase "peer review" gives the publication inappropriate weight.  Better to call it a scholarly or academic journal without the term peer review.  "Critical Review publishes (i) research papers, (ii) review essays, (iii) articles, (iv) symposia, and (v) replies and rejoinders to previous papers. All research papers, articles, and review essays, unsolicited or invited, may be subject to editorial and/or peer review prior to acceptance." (same ref.)  Some articles published in the journal might not be reviewed at all.  I haven't checked the article cited specifically, but offering a word of caution. Biccat (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I support this addition. Speaker1978 (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section
Extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources. Two blogs and an editorial in The Nation are not reliable sources for an article on Hannity. In addition, why is this not going in the article on the radio show? --PTR (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I am not sure if it is an extraordinary claim? Docku (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * ''Extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources.'
 * That's not a Wikipedia policy. Policy is that any claim needs reliable sources. Reliable sources have been provided. Therefore, I will revert the removal of the section. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please review WP:REDFLAG. These types of entries into a BLP need mainstream reliable sources.  Blogs are not considered reliable sources for any article.  I've reverted per WP:BLP and WP:REDFLAG.  I've also listed this on the reliable sources noticeboard.  --PTR (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, we got some replies from Reliable sources notice board. I am trying to understand it.Docku (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't this fail via WP:WELLKNOWN? If it was really this much of a controversy then we should be able to find third party reliable sources, if not it should go.  Arzel (talk) 21:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, how are we going to define whether Sean Hannity is well known or not well known...Besides, as per Reliable sources notice board, The Nation is a reliable source.Docku (talk) 23:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sean Hannity is one of the most well-known personalities in his field, just after Rush Limbaugh, I don't think that is questionable. I'm not saying The Nation is not a RS, but per the RS noticeboards the Blogs are not neccessarily usable in all instances.  This situation is the same as saying X alleges that Y did Z.  If Z is true then there should be reliable sources (that are not X) to correspond the action of Y.  Basically right now it is Blumenthal and Turner making the claim, and Turner is the subject (thus not reliable at all in this sense since it is a self-reference.)  Arzel (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, as far as I understand, information from this article from The Nation is used for creating this section. Now, Reliable sources says that The Nation is a reliable source. I dont understand why we should not include this section? I guess the issue is resolved already at the Reliable sources notice board, let us move on..Docku (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure how you claim it is resolved, seems discussion is still ongoing. Some comments within the sections which are claims of Turner don't meet reliability criteria.  The whole section is what Hannity allegedly did, and if it really did happen the way Turner said it did, there should be some additional sources which talk about the situation.  Arzel (talk) 01:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * From what I remember, this was previously mentioned in the article, and included a sourced claim for balance that Hannity had denied these claims and banned Turner from the show. Eventually, the entire section was deleted, but if it's going to be re-added, the balance of Hannity's statement should definitely be added back as well. Kelly  hi! 16:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, here is the version where I tried to work this neutrally for balance: Journalist Max Blumenthal, in a June 2005 article published in The Nation, claimed that Hannity had a friendly off-air relationship with white nationalist Hal Turner which lasted from from 1998 to 2000. While the relationship claims were seconded by Turner himself in a posting on his personal blog, they were denied by Hannity himself and by the program director at WABC, Larry Boyce, who disputed the factual accuracy of many of the allegations. Should this go back in? Kelly hi! 16:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it sounds like a reasonable compromise. However, it would be helpful to have a look at the reference quoted for Hannity and Larry Boyce's denial before.Docku (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Here. Kelly  hi! 17:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly better than what is currently in the article, which gives far to much weight to the notion that Hannity was criticized. If there was really wide reaching criticism it should be well referenced from multiple sources.  Arzel (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I put it in for now as a compromise to the current version which gives too much weight to a minority view and didn't include a response. Arzel (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's better. It's still controversial material that's not well sourced but I won't revert. --PTR (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I am trying to read the article and I am not able to find where Boyce has denied these accusations? I am pasting the last part of the article here. '''Update: Newhounds has updated its Hannity/Turner post, pointing out a comment signed by Phil Boyce, Program Director of WABC, Hannity's radio station, disputing many of the facts, especially the dates, in Turner's account (Boyce's comment has been posted here as well. See first comment below). Newshounds responded to Boyce's criticisms, saying: "the real issue is what was Turner allowed to say on the air, how often and what was Hannity's reaction? We have an article in a national magazine plus one of the parties involved who say that Hannity was a welcoming, friendly and encouraging host for Turner's views for a good while. Neither Boyce nor Hannity has specifically denied that."

'''
 * I am actually getting a feeling that while Phil Boyce has questioned the accuracy of the dates of Hal Turner's appearance on Hannity's radio show, he actually hasnt denied that he was a friednly guest of Hannity.Docku (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's odd - looks like both NewsHounds and Huffington Post have removed their previous quotation of Boyce. I distinctly remember seeing the quotes in both places when I originally was trying to find a compromise for this article back in March. Anyway, did some digging, and I think this is the post referred to by the Huffington Post. Kelly  hi! 18:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Can www.haloscan.com blogs be used as a reliable source? if it can be, it should be added in substitute of the huffingtonpost article in the article page.Docku (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a problem...blog comments aren't acceptable as a source. That's why I had sourced it to the Linkins article at the Huffington Post, because Linkins had apparently accepted that the comment came from Boyce. I guess the Linkins article still does refer to Boyce's comments, it just doesn't directly quote them anymore for some reason. Kelly  hi! 18:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Kelly's version is good for the material it covers, but neglects to mention the on-air relationship, and given that it is in the section about Hannity's radio show, we should mention the connection. Gamaliel (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've reworded it somewhat, but I'm concerned about the coverage of this claim, which is based on a single source from a somewhat ideological publication, expanding too far and thus giving undue weight to a poorly-sourced potentially defamatory claim. This is why mention of this incident keeps getting added and removed from this article as editors come and go. Kelly  hi! 23:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, it is all highly speculative, and there doesn't appear to be any objective sources. All of it is based off Turner's claims which means it is all alleged to have happened the way Turner has described.  Hannity has already denied that it happened the way Turner claims it to have happened, and I don't think Hannity's article should be used as a forum for Turner to present his point of view, unless there are some reliable third party sources that would confirm that A) Hannity willfully gave Turner a forum to present his racist remarks, and B) that Hannity and Turner were friends off the air.  Perhaps an RfC is due.  Arzel (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently, I dont agree with this especially since Hannity himself has admitted his relationship with Hal Turner on his own show. I guess we should keep the edit as it is. If Arzel is not happy with this, pls request an RFC or place it on WP:BLPN. Docku (talk) 00:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I made a request for a neutral opinion at WP:3O. Kelly  hi! 00:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Third opinion: This page was delisted from the 3O page by the admin there. Third opinions are generally for pages that only have two active editors. Since there are at least six active editors here, it's beyond the scope of the project. If you're trying to drum up some consensus, try WP:RFC. Having said that, I tried to find some other articles on the topic, and all seem to link back to NewsHounds, who in turn mention The Nation article. Perhaps an unrelated source would help clear this up. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * ThanksHelloAnnyong for your help. I guess we will try WP:RFC.Docku (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Another problem with this is that the Nation article (according to the article) is based on information from One People's Project which is not a reliable source for wikipedia. So how do we handle information that is included in a reliable source that says throughout the article that it is based on an unreliable source? --PTR (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That is not a problem at all. Well, it is like questioning where CNN or FOX news channel get their information from. I guess reliable sources make sure that they dont write unreliable material on their website, books or journals. Isnt that why they are called reliable sources? Docku (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a problem when the cite is an editorial column. This is becoming more and more a case of WP:REDFLAG.  The Nation bills itself as "a weekly journal of left/liberal opinion" which is not a good sole resource to use for controversial material in an article about a conservative, the cite is an editorial column and not an article http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050620 but we are using it to state facts.  The only other sources are blogs and forums.  I'll leave it for today but if we can't come up with better sources it will need to be removed.  --PTR (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no need for that. There are examples of conservative editorials and articles used for controversial issues against people who are considered liberals. This example here accuses Keith Olbermann of liberal bias by the conservative media watchdog Media Research Center.


 * Besides, the disputed edit clearly conforms to the most important WP:VERI guidelines and therefore cant be removed.Docku (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And look how many other sources they include to support the statement. If, for example, National Republic had a controversial editorial on their site about Mr. Olbermann there would have to be many more reliable sources saying the same thing to include that information about Mr. Olbermann and that is how it should be.  The first rule in a BLP is "do no harm."  Have you read WP:REDFLAG? --PTR (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * RFC request may be a good idea.Docku (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have requested for an RFC. Let us not delete anything till we hear from them. Thanks.Docku (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Good. However, since it's controversial and a BLP I'm more in favor of deleting until after the RFC.  It's a better way to "get it right" as per WP:BLP.  Would you have an objection to this?  --PTR (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I agree it is controversial and we have to be sensitive to the person involved. However, we can not ignore the fact that it is verifiable. I, however would agree to delete (if there is no objection from other editors involved) for the sake of not sounding like an uncooperative editor).Docku (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Dispute explanation. I am just trying to narrate the sequence of events here for the RFC to be able to understand the dispute and the players involved easily. User:Treybien added this disputed material as a separate controversy section in the article on 17 June 08. That is when the dispute started. User:PTR, User:Asher196, User:Kelly, and User:Arzel opposed the inclusion. Apart from the user who added it, User:Docku, User:Gamaliel, User:Goethean supported the inclusion. User:PTR posted the dispute in WP:RS/N and two editors in the notice board affirmed that The Nation is a reliable source. User:kelly presents a balanced version of the disputed edit as supposedly discussed earlier in this same article. User:Gamaliel suggests a compromise edit by removing the controversy section and moving it to the "Professional career" section including the suggestions brought to the table by User:Kelly. Both User:Arzel, User:Docku agree to this compromise suggested by User:Kelly and incorporated by User:Gamaliel. User:PTR says that it is better but not fully satisfied. Then discussion erupts again and after back and forth reverting by opposing sides citing subtleties in WP:Guidelines, User:Kelly listed the dispute for WP:3O and 3O declined to comment as there are more than 2 editors involved in this dispute. After what looked like a small pause when it appeared that there is some kind of agreement, User:PTR reappears with same issues discussed earlier and expresses his willingness to delete it.

I tried my best to narrate it correctly. I hope it will be useful for the RFC to understand the article and talk page more easily. If there is anything i added or not added, it is not intentional. pls feel free to correct it. Thanks.Docku (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Not quite correct. I (Arzel) put in the current version because there was a huge edit war going on between most parties.  I don't think it should belong because it fails WP:WELLKNOWN, and even though The Nation may be a RS, the sources in general are not presented from a third person's point of view.  It is almost entirely presented as Turner's word against Hannity's.  If it is really a contorversial issue there should be no problem in finding some reliable third party sources that talk about it.  Arzel (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I concur Arzel. --PTR (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

A better way to present the parties may be as such. Feel free to edit your name if I am incorrect. Arzel (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Users in Favor of including material with current sources:
 * 1) Docku
 * 2) Gamaliel
 * 3) Goethean
 * 4) JamesMLane


 * Users requesting additional independent third party sources:
 * 1) Arzel
 * 2) Kelly
 * 3) PTR
 * 4) Bedford
 * 5) Asher196


 * The edit conforms to WP:VERI, WP:RS. The edit is backed by this article in The Nation. The nation clearly qualifies to be reliable source according to WP:RS. Please read the article, which has a lot of information starting with quotation from "Daryle Jenkins, co-founder of the New Jersey-based antiracism group One People's Project". I know that youtube videos dont qualify to be evidences here, but it can be used as a back-up evidence to support the nation article and the article in One people's project. I can present you the FOX news Hannity and Colmes show you tube video where Hannity admits that Hal Turner was on his radio show years before.Docku (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The issue is not that Turner called into the radio show. This issue (and criticism) is whether Turner was a friend of Hannity's and was granted a forum to present his racist views.  This appears to be Turner's word against Hannity's word.  The Nation article simply restates Turner's claim.  Arzel (talk) 14:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. We would not have even talked about including Turner's words if he had just written it in a blog. we are suggesting those words to be used here because his words were used by a reliable source thus giving some degree of legitimacy. All we are going to do is to quote the reliable source. In other words, we dont know if Turner's words were true or not. But we know that it is verifiable according to WP:VERI. Docku (talk) 14:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Since this is an editorial column we are not supposed to be using it to specify facts but only the opinion of the writer of the editorial. This is controversial and one editorial in a biased medium is not enough to incude it in the article.  --PTR (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Editorials are facts mixed with opinions. No reliable magazine will allow journalists to write their opinion on non-facts. so, I am totally against using any of Max Blumenthal's opinion. I am suggesting to use only the facts as presented in the article. Anybody who reads the article can easily distinguish what is presented as facts and what are his opinions.Docku (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That is backward to what was written in the RS noticeboard:


 * OpEd pieces are generally not considered reliable for statements of fact, but are reliable for statements of opinion... So... The blog in question is reliable for statements of Max Blumenthal's opinion on Mr. Hannity... but not for statements of fact about Mr. Hannity.


 * This is also still one editorial on a controversial inclusion in an article. I think it should be removed until we can find independent third party sources.--PTR (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, reading the same phrases again, the editors say "generally not considered". That means it can be considered sometimes. Besides, the editors gave a general opinion about OpED. They probably didnt have a chance to read the article in whole. I am just assuming. I dont know.
 * Well, I am just pasting a small part of Max Blumenthal's article which we are using as a reference.During an August 1998 episode of the show, Turner reminded Hannity that were it not for the graciousness of the white man, "black people would still be swinging on trees in Africa," according to Daryle Jenkins, co-founder of the New Jersey-based antiracism group One People's Project. Instead of rebuking Turner or cutting him off, Hannity continued to welcome his calls. On December 10 of the following year, Turner called Hannity's show to announce his campaign to run for a seat in the US House of Representatives from New Jersey, and to attack his presumptive opponent, Democratic Representative Robert Menendez, as a "left-wing nut." By this time, according to Jenkins, Turner and Hannity had bonded off-air. Well, I dont think it is Max's opinion. He is quoting Daryle Jenkins. He is quoting them as facts. Well, if you ask me if i believe it or not, the answer is I really dont know. But it is there and it is verifiable. Let us also not forget that Max Blumenthal is also a noted journalist.


 * Finally, It is clear that the edit is verifiable and has a reliable source. It clearly conforms to WP:VERI and WP:RS. Trying to drag the discussion around and around to wear the editors out to somehow make and win a point could amount to WP:GAME. I am not impolite to call it WP:DE yet. I will wait for the RFC and their opinion.Docku (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Considering that Jenkins has a website with a large section devoted to exposing what HE feels is the racisim of Hannity, I find his word hard to take at face value. His website certainly does not meet RS standards, and again it is all speculative allegations.  Jenkins and Blumenthal are trying to say that Hannity and Turner were friends so they can prove that Hannity is somehow a racist.  Turner appears to be pissed because Hannity blocked his calls.  You keep going back to verifiability, but I think you continue to miss the primary point.  If this really did happen the way Turner claims it did, then there are some reliable sources that actually talk about it, not a couple of people that already don't like Hannity simply repeating what Turner is claiming.  WP is not the place to report gossip and speculation.  Unless some additional sources can be found it fails WP:WELLKNOWN.  WP is not the place to perpetuate the vendetta that these few people have against Hannity.  Arzel (talk) 06:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, you are missing the point here. Hannity is not running for president. So, mainstream probably doesnt care about reporting it. I just dont know and it doesnt matter to me. Well, If he has decided to run for president, there could probably be hundreds of citations now. For a talk host of his stature, one reliable source citation and an account of the person with whom he is associated with is sufficient.
 * I think you answered the question here for yourself. For one Hannity is the number 2 talk radio show host in America with over 12 million listeners, he is very well known there is simply no denying this.  Secondly, if the mainstream doesn't care about reporting it then why should it be included here?  If the mainstream doesn't think it is a big deal then why should his WP article make it seem like it is a big deal?  This would fall under WP:UNDUE.  Arzel (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What? How much do we know about Obama's controversies till he started running for president? Stop WP:GAME and WP:WL. Let us wait for RFC. Docku (talk) 04:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What you are also assuming is that the subject is innocent of the issues attributed to him regardless of the reliable source article and the primary witness to this case, Hal Turner himself. How do you know? Well, the answer should be, you dont know and I dont know. But we have an obligation to write what is reported in a reliable source magazine. What caused max Blumenthal and Hal Turner to talk about and write about the subject is not an issue here unless we care deeply about the subject as a friend or an affiliate. In that case, it could just be WP:COI.
 * Finally, fyi, a simple Google search of Sean Hannity would yield enough hits of Sean Hannity and Hal Turner association, though I am not trying to make any point here.Docku (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So? A bunch of intolerant leftwingers wanting to smear a conservative keep posting it all over the place, creating a de facto Googlebomb?  Doesn't impress me.-- Bedford  Pray  00:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Just to play fair, the paragraph in question can be seen in this edit. The paragraph starts with "Journalist Max Blumenthal..." &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If there is anyone watching this conversation who is neutral, I would like to know, if there is a possibility of analysing an user's contributions and find whether it could qualify to be a WP:SPA. If established, Would that help in understanding this situation and might help in understanding some kind of a larger agenda behind this process? Docku (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's get this discussion back on track. My stance on this issue: [WP:BLP] states we need to get it right, write conservatively and insist on high quality reliable sources. If this is a solid issue, more citations will come with time. There is no need for controversial material to be added to a BLP with only an editorial citation from a biased source. Let's wait and see if more sources are out there. --PTR (talk) 12:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I agree with you. But I wanna make it clear that the "biased" source (in your opinion) is a reliable source (The Nation). The author (Max Blumenthal) of the article is a noted Journalist. We also have first hand evidence (Hal Turner's account). So, let us see.Docku (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a reliable source but sources have to be taken in context with the article and the material being added. In this case an editorial in a magazine that bills itself as "a weekly journal of left/liberal opinion" is not a good sole source for controversial material in an article about a conservative.  Once supporting sources are found in more mainstream publications this could then be used.  A first person account is never a good reliable source.  --PTR (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, that is what you would want. We have talked about it over and over again. Repeat: WP:VERI and WP:RS are satisfied by the sources we cite. Docku (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Context and the possible bias of the publication do need to be taken into consideration. From WP:RS:


 * Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. (Emphasis in the original guideline)


 * I understand this process can seem frustrating but it is important to get it right and not harm someone by inserting unsubstantiated gossip in their BLP.  --PTR (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, making the process long and frustrating the editors may also constitute a form of editing in wikipedia. That is what they call WP:GAME and WP:WL. For the same reasons you quote what a reliable source should be, The Nation certainly qualifies to be called a reliable source which was in fact confirmed by your own request at WP:RS/N. Well, you are entitled to think that The Nation article is biased, but, I dont think so. One more important issue is that it is verifiable WP:VERI. Bottom line is Verifiable material from a reliable source. Docku (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * But you are ignoring what the noticeboard said about how editorials should be used. Since it seems we are the only two commenting on this request for comment and you think the source is acceptable for the material while I don't, perhaps we should wait for someone else to comment or list is at third opinion? --PTR (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not ignoring anything. let me paste the same thing I pasted earlier from the The Nation we are using for our article. During an August 1998 episode of the show, Turner reminded Hannity that were it not for the graciousness of the white man, "black people would still be swinging on trees in Africa," according to Daryle Jenkins, co-founder of the New Jersey-based antiracism group One People's Project. Instead of rebuking Turner or cutting him off, Hannity continued to welcome his calls. On December 10 of the following year, Turner called Hannity's show to announce his campaign to run for a seat in the US House of Representatives from New Jersey, and to attack his presumptive opponent, Democratic Representative Robert Menendez, as a "left-wing nut." By this time, according to Jenkins, Turner and Hannity had bonded off-air. I guess that says a lot about whether it is the author's opinion or attributable fact. I am more than ok with waiting for a third opinion. In fact, I have been stressing on that all the time. Docku (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) 3O already dropped this request. I don't see a point in discussing any further. Hannity is well known, by WP:WELLKNOWN which falls under the broader WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE policies, unless some additional relibale sources can be found which discuss this matter it simply does not belong as these other policies trump verifiability. Arzel (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Same issue same answer. Hannity is not running for president. How much did we know about Obama's controversies till he decided to run for president? HelloAnnyong from WP:3O suggested us to post a request at RFC if you remember and we are waiting for RFC. For a person of Hannity's stature, one reliable source according to WP:RS and verifiablity according to WP:VERI and Hal Turner's own account is more than sufficient to include the edit. Docku (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Obama has no relevance here, I am not sure why you continue to make that reference. Just why do you think Hannity's stature is low?  (edit conflict)  Now what the editor below brings up is probably worth inclusion.  I suspect there is some MSM coverage of this. Arzel (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We have talked about it all. I would really like to hear a neutral opinion. I cant wait to hear from RFC. Docku (talk) 02:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not sure how RFC works. I am under the impression that our RFC request is pretty much at the last in the big line of requests. Wouldnt it be better that we make sure that someone interested in participating in RFC is watching our conversation which will make our effort here more meaningful. It may be overwhelming for the person to read everything altogether and make a clear picture of our arguments. Besides, I dont have time for the endless discussion. Docku (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment I came here through the RfC and this is my evaluation of the situation. We have a noted journalist in a reliable source claiming that Hannity did have a relationship with Turner. The association of Sean Hannity and racism is hardly fringe (Googling <"Sean Hannity" racism> on google scholar or books brought up several articles and books, I wasn't able to ascertain the depth of coverage, but we're not talking about lizard men.) The use of the blog post by Turner is valid since its information about the source - the blog post wherein Turner says "I talked with Sean Hannity" is valid evidence for the statement "Turner claims that he's talked with Sean Hannity" - and must be included if the article is going to state that, as it does currently. Hannity and associates denial of Turner and Blumenthal's claim must also be sourced and their statements are sufficient to do this. Should the passage be included? Probably only if the claim has been discussed in other media besides the original Nation article; I'm confident that this can be found. The transcript of the radio broadcasts in question may also be available to enterprising citizens. Gimme danger (talk) 07:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Googling "Sean Hannity racism" and getting results means absolutely nothing. I can Google "Sean Hannity Spongebob" and get 17000 hits.  Also, when you find the other reliable sources, please list them here for review.Asher196 (talk) 12:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess Gimme Danger was making a broader point than what was narrowly perceived by Asher196. He probably meant that it is just an indication, not proof. I dont think you can just type any "politician's name and racism" and it would probably not be yielding similar results, if it is the same, there needs certainly be some concern. Docku (talk) 13:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not an indication and we probably would see similiar results for other people. since the books returned in the search on google books were about politics and the word "racism" is used in the book.  If the book also mentions the politician's name (not in conjunction) you would have a hit.  That doesn't mean they are suggesting that person is a racist.  Just to clarify I did a google search and there are 38 hits returned for Sean Hannity racism in google books. None of the books listed on the first two pages of the results (I didn't check the third page) talks about Hannity and racism in the same sentence.  There are 126 hits on google scholar and the same thing is true there.  I did the same search for Al Franken and got 19 google book hits and 115 google scholar hits. --PTR (talk) 14:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Gimme Danger, you are slightly mistaken about the use of Blogs. Please read WP:SELFPUB as this breaks a few guidelines.
 * Self-published and questionable sources may only be used as sources about themselves, and only if:
 * the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject being discussed; (OK)
 * it is not contentious; (NOT OK)
 * it is not unduly self-serving; (NOT OK)
 * it does not involve claims about third parties; (NOT OK)
 * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; (OK)
 * there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it; (OK)
 * the article is not based primarily on such sources. (OK) Arzel (talk) 14:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am quoting the first lines from WP:BLP.Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially:Neutral point of view (NPOV)WP:NPOV, VerifiabilityWP:VERI, No original researchWP:NOR.
 * The disputed passage is certainly written in a way it satisfies WP:NPOV by including Hannity's denials, it adheres to WP:VERI,and WP:NOR. Besides, The Nation is a reliable article so it adheres to WP:RS. The reliability was also confirmed by Reliable source noticeboard We have both primary source (Turner's account) and secondary source (The Nation article) thus satisfying WP:PSTS. Therefore, the only way you can argue that we should not include this material is by cherry picking sentences from rules and forgetting about the whole context. I would like to call it gaming and wikilawyering. Please stop spinning and attacking others (including the mediator) words and concentrate on the policy and settle this. Docku (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I think that you overstate the consensus you received at Reliable source noticeboard. They said that The Nation article was reliable as a source of Max Blumenthal's opinion but NOT as to statements of fact regarding Hannity. The statement "their relationship extended to an off-air friendship from 1998 to 2000" is a statement of fact, not merely a statement of Blumenthal's opinion.  As such Blumenthal's editorial cannot be used to establish whether Hannity and Turner had a relationship or not.  About the most that you could use here, I think, is something on the order of "Max Blumenthal thinks Sean Hannity is a racist," which is of course a statement of opinion. --GoRight (talk) 06:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Docku, I see that you inserted the material back into the article during this RcF. This along with your continued accusations of gaming show a serious lack of good faith. This also shows me that you have no intention of abiding to the RfC. Unless some compelling reason can be given for inclusion that doesn't break WP policies (as it currently does) then I think it is time to call this RfC closed with concensus against inclusion because of WP violations. I would give it more time, but since Docku has already broken protocol I see no reason to continue. Arzel (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I restored what was deleted. Docku (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you don't get to declare consensus like that. Gamaliel (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you going to add something to the discussion? Arzel (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Pls give sufficient time for editors to respond also dont intimidate others. Docku (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There has been ample time, with no real interest in the matter that I can see. Gamaliel was part of the editing process originally, but hasn't made a single comment here regarding the issue.  As for intimidation, I don't think I could intimidate Gamaliel who happens to be an Admin.  Arzel (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know what else to say. My position has been that we have a reliable source so there should be no obstacles to inclusion. It hasn't changed, nor have I had time to endlessly debate that. Gamaliel (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Editorials aren't reliable sources for facts and blogs are not reliable sources. Do you have other sources for the material? --PTR (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * An article from a reliable source is a reliable source, regardless. A personal blog is a reliable source for the thoughts and positions of that person.  Gamaliel (talk) 17:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not being used as for the thoughts and positions of the person but to repeat facts he said he heard from another person. This would be akin to using a National Review editorial as a sole source of contentious material in the Al Franken article.--PTR (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In regards to the blog, I thought you were talking about Hal Turner's blog being used as a source of Hal Turner's thoughts. If there is another blog being proposed for use as a source, I am not aware of it. Forgive me for not keeping up with this debate, I've been busy.  18:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I was speaking about the Nation editorial above. It is a blog column on a web magazine.  It's listed in web exclusive columns not articles.  We could, of course, never use the Turner blog or any other blog.  According to [Wikipedia:Reliable source examples] blogs are never to be used for secondary sources on BLPs. --PTR (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Even if we were to accept the dubious proposition that this is a "blog column", whatever that is, and not a feature like any other in the magazine, print or otherwise, blogs are not automatically disqualified, only self-published blogs like Hal Turner's. Material from a reliable source is a reliable source, regardless of whether or not it is a print article or a "blog column". Gamaliel (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * According to their issue index: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050620, it is a web exclusive column listed under column left not an article or feature.  As you know we need to use editorial columns differently than articles since they are the opinion of the person writing the editorial.  They can only be used for the opinion of the person and not for facts.  We need to treat this as we would an editorial in National Review for a liberal/progressive BLP - it is not enough of a reliable source for contentious material.  When other mainstream sources show up it can be added. --PTR (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the qualifications added to the article by other editors are sufficient. The Wall Street Journal aside, a reliable publication doesn't suddenly start making shit up because the word "column" is attached to the article. And, looking at the TOC again, I'm not convinced the word "column" actually is attached to it. "Column left" describes Robert Scheer's article and not everything below it, and the Blumenthal article is in The Nation's business section. Gamaliel (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * None of the other qualifications can be used since they are blogs and forums. This would be the only source that could be used and it's still not enough for this controversial material.  And it is listed under "Fox News Network".  Everything in that section is an editorial about Fox News and their personnel. --PTR (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Blog, forum, blog column, editorial, none of these terms apply and your rotating use of them just makes it appear you are trying to find one that fits instead of evaluating the source. It's even more clear to me now that the Blumenthal article is a perfectly acceptable source and there is no valid reason to disqualify it. Gamaliel (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't called this a blog or a forum. The other sources you want to use in the paragraph are blogs and forums (huffingtonpost ect.)  This one (the Nation editorial) is an editorial.  When you said other qualifications I thought you were speaking about the other sources in the paragraph you want to add.  They are blogs and forums.  When I referred to this as a blog column I mistakenly wrote blog instead of editorial.  I didn't think it mattered since you had already answered so I didn't fix it.  The Blumenthal editorial is fine for presenting his opinion but not for presenting facts or other people's opinions.--PTR (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Journalist Max Blumenthal, son of former Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal, in a June 2005 article published in The Nation, claimed that Hannity's radio show provided a regular forum for the rants of white supremacist Hal Turner and that their relationship extended to an off-air friendship from 1998 to 2000 is how it is in the article. It would be wrong if we purely stated that Sean Hannity provided a regular forum for the rants of Hal Turner. We attribute it to Max Blumenthal. The reliable material is written in a most balanced way. Docku (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clearing that up, your past comments were somewhat confusing. And as I said before I am unaware of other sources proposed besides The Nation and Hal Turner's blog, so please don't attribute advocacy of sources I am unaware of to me. Since we were talking about The Nation, I assumed all your comments pertained to this source.  If you change the topic, you should let other people know.  In any case, I think I should sum up my position and leave it at that: The Nation is a reliable source and all material from that source is reliable, regardless of the label anyone attaches to it, as per WP practices and policies.  The Blumenthal article is a regular article and there is no indication that it an editorial or a blog or anything else besides the opinions of editors here.  Gamaliel (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. I thought you had changed the topic since you mentioned other qualifications and I honestly didn't know what you were referring to and should have asked.  I'll also sum up my position since this is getting tedious and pointless since we won't convince each other but that's sometimes the outcome of a debate.  My position:  The Nation is a reliable source but the Blumenthal article by it's placement in the index and the lack of presentation of the other side of the issue is an editorial.  The lack of any other third party sources and the controversial nature of the the proposed text preclude it being added as proposed.  If the editorial is to be used it can only be used for Mr. Blumenthal's opinion and not for any factual information.  --PTR (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly, the editor has been calling it an editorial for a long time and tried to prove that editorials are unreliable. Then he started calling it blog column and said blog columns are unreliable. Now it turned into just blog. It is just a concerted effort to disqualify a reliable source and thus becoming hard to reason with. Docku (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Besides, we are attributing the content in the article to Max Blumenthal like it should be. We also have a sentence which includes the denial from Hannity and his producer. I dont understand why such a relevant well sourced and balanced material is disputed so much. Docku (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (EC)Docku, First, GimmeDanger is not a mediator. RFC's don't have mediators just other users that drop by if they see an RFC posted and give their opinion.  If you would like to enter into mediation you would need to list it at MedCab.  You can discuss any of your options with Haemo.  He is an uninvolved admin who has never edited this page and is very level headed.


 * Second, please stop accusing others of gaming and wikilawyering. I've ignored it up to now but it's creating a bad climate here.  We can have a discussion and might never come to consensus on this.  We might need to go through other channels since you are not satisified with the results of this RFC so far, but keep in mind that we are in a discussion where one side sees things according to policy one way and the other side sees it differently.  I do believe you can argue not to include the material due to the fact that even according to Reliable source noticeboard editorials should not be used to state fact.  Also because of the lack of mainstreams sources and WP:REDFLAG.  In addition, sticking strictly to the rules of policies is encouraged, not discouraged.  Arzel is correct that blogs cannot be used as sources according to the policies.  --PTR (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, we have a comment from another unrelated (not involved in this topic) and neutral editor (administrator) here. Docku (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) I still don't see how this passes WP:WELLKNOWN and at the same time WP:UNDUE. If this was really a substantial issue there should be several reliable sources to pull from as this is a pretty serious allegation which Turner has leveled against Hannity. By inclusion we are giving pretty substantial weight to the opinion of one person which Hannity has already denied happened the way Turner is claiming. Arzel (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, first of all I want to reiterate the point that Hannity is not running for president and I would be curious to know how much we knew about Obama's controversies before he started running for president? So, WP:WELLKNOWN is not suitable here. Even if we decide to take it for considertation for the sake of argument, the other guidelines WP:VERI, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:PSTS which are satisfied by this edit far outweighs it to be discouraged using the WP:WELLKNOWN. WP:UNDUE does not apply here because the edit provides equal weightage to Hannity and his producer's denials (we agreed to include this though these are not in reliable sources). Docku (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is not about Obama, I see absolutly no relevance here. Someone not need run for president to be well known.  Is Cher well known?  How about Madonna?  Hannity is well known, stop tyring to obfuscate  the situation.  A little more searching leads me to believe that this may even fail RS via RS News Organizations not to mention WP:REDFLAG and WP:WELLKNOWN.  Your assertation of WP:UNDUE is not apt.  Undue clearly states that minority views not be included at all, and I would say that a couple of people (those making the claim that Hannity and Turner were friends) is a minority view.  Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.  All that you have provided to this point is that "The Nation" is a reliable source, that is not enough for a BLP If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.  And it is already in the ancillary artilce (Turner's) were it belongs.  Arzel (talk) 03:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am confused with your position. On one hand, you agree that The Nation is a reliable source and on the other hand, you put forth arguments against unreliable sources. Let us make it clear. When you quote all these guidelenies from Wikipedia, let us not forget that those are applicable to shady, not so reliable sources, certainly not to the Nation. Secondly, let me quote something from WP:UNDUE If you are able to prove something that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced. Explanation: Hannity's association has been discussed in blogs and by Turner himself (corresponds to the first sentence in the quote). Well, Is that sufficient to include? No. Well, when it was presented and discussed by The Nation (corresponds to the second sentence in the quote), it qualifies to be included into the article according to the quotation. Docku (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Now, will you be able to find one more sentence from one of these guidelines to discredit this reliable source? of course, yes! Scourging the wikipedia guidelines to find one sentence which would suit the argument and present it out of context only to discourage a reliable source is not difficult. Using this procedure, we could probably discredit pretty much half the sources cited in all the articles in wikipedia. I will insert a quote from WP:GAME for others consideration.An editor gaming the system is seeking to use policies with bad faith, by finding within their wording apparent justification for disruptive actions and stances that policy is clearly not at all intended to support. In doing this, the gamester separates policies and guidelines from their rightful place as a means of documenting community consensus, and attempts to use them selectively for a personal agenda. I would also suggest that it is a rightful procedure for neutral observers (who are probably paying attention to this debate) to watch edit history to find evidences of probable WP:SPA in the parties involved here in this dispute. Docku (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I came here from Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. The short answer is, the Hal Turner material should not be included in this article, IMHO. The details backing up this answer are on the BLPN just cited. --GoRight (talk) 06:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Another RfC responder: I agree with those who consider The Nation a reliable source. Furthermore, as I understand it, the disputed text discloses that it's from The Nation, and links there. It's not like saying "Hannity is a friend of Turner's" followed by a footnote. It's more like reporting an opinion that's expressly attributed to Blumenthal and The Nation, which is permitted by WP:NPOV if you grant that they're prominent spokespersons. (I agree with GoRight that it's akin to writing, "Max Blumenthal thinks Sean Hannity is a racist." That's not a statement of opinion; it's a statement of facts about opinions and permissible under WP:NPOV.)  Similarly, Turner's own assertion of a friendship is notable and is proper for inclusion if it's attributed to him, not adopted by Wikipedia as a fact. A few sentences on this subject doesn't seem like undue weight. To call Turner's statements "rants" is also an opinion, one that could be included if properly attributed. Nevertheless, including Blumenthal's opinion about Turner's views is getting too far afield for the Hannity article, so I'd omit "rants" and just refer to "Turner's calls" or the like. JamesMLane t c 08:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Comment. I am also an RfC responder: I agree that the The Nation is a reliable source. The proposed chunk should stay in the article. Hannity is a journalist who deliberately courts controversy, and so I don't see a BLP violation here. The article could have a "Controversy" or "Criticism" section to contain such.Verklempt (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Apparently, we are getting more response in favour of the inclusion of the controversy section from neutral editors.Docku (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * One says "no", one says "yes" and one says it would need to be reworded. We also had responders at the BLP noticeboard that were all over the board about inclusion.  --PTR (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe rewording is a possible solution. Docku (talk) 05:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we should wait for mainstream sources before adding this info to a BLP. It's just not responsible to label someone a racist with just one questionable source.  --PTR (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am pasting the controversy section. Please let me know where we call him a racist.


 * Providing him a forum for the rants of and being a friend of a white supremacist is a WP:Coatrack way of calling him a racist. This violates WP:Coatrack and also WP:Redflag --PTR (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

"Journalist Max Blumenthal, son of former Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal, in a June 2005 article published in The Nation, claimed that Hannity's radio show provided a regular forum for the rants of white supremacist Hal Turner and that their relationship extended to an off-air friendship from 1998 to 2000. While the relationship claims were seconded by Turner in a posting on his personal blog, they were denied by Hannity and by the program director at WABC, Phil Boyce, who disputed the factual accuracy of many of the allegations.
 * Apparently, you are not interested in a compromise, I assume. Docku (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In view of respecting the comments from neutral editors from WP:RFC in support of the inclusion of the controversial subject and the unwillingness from opposing editors to work out a compromise, I am restoring the controversial section which was deleted. Docku (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please don't keep doing this. We've had three comments on the RFC.  One no, one yes and one that says not as is.  We have had no consensus on this edit.  We've had plenty of discussion on the BLP noticeboard and there is still no consensus that this is a solid source for something this controversial.  I have asked you for mainstream sources from neutral media.  You have not found any.  I believe I am acting as policy requires to remove any and all controversial material that is not well sourced as this violates WP:REDFLAG and you can provide no other sources.  --PTR (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Hannity was a very Influential character during the 2008 democratic primaries.
Mr.Hannity regularly talks about “ The Stop Obama Express” on his radio show and recently included the term “ Stop The Radical Barrack Obama Express” both these campaigns were started after a successful “Stop The Hillary Express” was concluded, during the 2008 democratic primaries. The Stop Hillary Express campaign was to ensure Hillary Clinton was not to be the democratic nominee for president in 2008.

The Stop Hillary express was an intrical part of the 2008 presidential democratic primary, and the “ Stop Obama Express “ will most likely be a contentious part of the 2008 presidential general election in November 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff808808 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Turner material
There is currently no clear consensus to add this material and controversial material needs consensus and clearly recognized mainstream reliable sources. Please wait until there are more reliable sources before adding this material back in - unless consensus changes. --PTR (talk) 13:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * But it depends on what we are waiting consensus for. Since the material is reliable, we are waiting for a consensus to delete. Since there is no consensus, I guess it stays there. Docku (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Without additional sources it does not belong, reliability of the existing source is not the issue. This was the basic response from BLP.  Without additional sources it fails WP:UNDUE.  Arzel (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You do not seem to care so much about the response from WP:RS and WP:RFC and also the response not in your favour from WP:BLP. Why is that? I would like to join your noble fight using WP:BLP as a tool in articles other than Sean Hannity and Kevin James and related articles. Docku (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 7 editors have stated between here and BLP noticeboard that additional sources are needed to cover WP:REDFLAG and WP:WELLKNOWN issues. 5 editors wish to include as is.  None of these 5 editors have provided any response to WP:REDFLAG or WP:WELLKNOWN save yourself, and your response was that he wasn't well known enough to be covered by wellknown.  Now if you can provide some additional reliable sources that talk about this, making the case that Turner was a friend of Hannity and that Hannity provided a forum for Turner's racist rants then I will change my view.  But to include it as is, with only the word of Turner being repeated by a known anti-FOX person then you have a really biased view.  WP is not the place to repeat gossip, which is what this is.  Arzel (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I looked up this article to use material for a post-convention Hannity-Colmes column I'm working on and found all the Hal Turner stuff stripped out. Why is this? One by one, I'm watching Turner material disappear on the web. Are we cleansing Hannity's record? Can we make the article something more useful than a political puff piece, something fair and balanced with multiple sides? The bickering is hurting those of us who need to use it.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Good luck for you. Docku Hi 04:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Protected again
Take a break, go do something productive elsewhere, work on consensus here on the Talk page. I'll start blocking persistent edit warriors if this protection expires and there is still edit warring over this same point. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Radio stations
editprotected Disambiguation as follows: Professional life - WSB ==> WSB (AM); Radio - WKRC ==> WKRC (AM), WOOD ==> WOOD (AM), WOAI ==> WOAI (AM)
 * Done. Thanks! – Luna Santin  (talk) 11:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Compromise
We have so far received opinions from WP:RS/N, two users, User:Blueboar and User:PelleSmith have responded positively about the inclusion, however cautioned us to write carefully. I guess we have done so by attributing the comments to Blumenthal and including Hannity's denial. From RFC, We have opposition from User:Gimme danger and support from JamesMLane and Verklempt. We have got three replies from WP:BLP/N, User: Will Beback in support and User:AniMate in opposition and User:GoRight in opposition.

Thus when I count the opinion of neutral editors, we have 5 supporters (for inclusion) and 3 opposers (for inclusion). Since it is very close, I even suggested a compromise. Instead of participating in a discussion for a compromise, reverting the edits added amounts to WP:DISRUPT. I would recommend you (PTR) revert it back yourself and engage in compromise talk here or face serious consequences. Docku (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Apparently user PTR has chosen to take an enforced wikbreak. It probably helps from engaging in unreasonable compulsive reverting. I guess somebody should put the deleted section back in. Docku (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I stayed out of the "heated discussion" for not getting involved in such but paid a lot of attention to it. So you can count me as an supporter even so to be fair only with a 1/2 vote and the condition to write it in very carefully chosen NPOV language. --Floridianed (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * PS: The way it was included before I probably would have reverted it by myself if no one else would've. --Floridianed (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * @Docku. Are you mathematically troubled (to count right) or do you just dismiss my opinion? Either way it's kind of shameless from my point of view. Thanks and no thanks to you, --Floridianed (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * First, I would recommend you to be civil, it might be helpful to read these guidelines WP:Civil. I am not dismissing your opinion nor do I have the right to. I am just not sure what your opinion is. I guess you dont support the inclusion as is. Well, let me be clear. I am willing to be totally involved in a compromise inclusion which in everyone's opinion is NPOV (though I already believe it is NPOV). While you are welcome to be involved in the compromise discussion, I am not sure whether your opinion will be counted as one of the opinion of uninvolved neutral editors due to your previous involvement in this article. Docku (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, Let us start from here. Since you mentioned that you followed the heated discussion, I assume it would be easier for you to suggest a compromised version of the section. If you are willing to do so, we would take the conversation from there. Docku (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is quite disengenious. There were FIVE (5) at the RfC here against inclusion.  Blueboar and PelleSmith only talked about whether "The Nation" was a reliable source, any comments about inclusion are not clear.  So your numbers are way off.  Arzel (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please take a chance to read the Reliable source notice board again. They mentioned that the Nation article can be included. Second, i would like to see the 5 opposers from RFC. Pls prove it. Docku (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That is not what they said. Me (Arzel), Kelly, PTR, Bedford, and Asher196 all stated they were against inclusion (just up this page a little bit).  Add to these GimmeDanger, GoRight, and Animate and you have 8 against.  Arzel (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That is disengineous. Stop including the parties in the neutral opinions. Docku (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What?! The first five I listed said that want additional sources.  The other three are ones that YOU mentioned.  furthermore you do not have concensus.  Arzel (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have admitted that the voting is close and that is why we are discussing a compromise here. Please be warned that your willingness not to cooperate and dirupt the compromise process will make me take the issue to the administrators. Docku (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't threaten me, you knowingly put up false numbers which show support in your direction. I have discussed this to death, and unless you have some new evidence to support your reasoning for inclusion, or at least a good answer for WP:REDFLAG and WP:WELLKNOWN I don't see a reason to spend time in discussion since nothing has changed since the previous discussion.  Arzel (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I showed evidence of the support and opposition. Why dont you back up the evidence for your argument of 5 opposers from RFC. I recommend you do it. Failing to do so might prove disruptive editing and will be taken action. Docku (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am waiting. Docku (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please stop threatening "serious consequences" and "action" to be taken against those who do not share your point of view on this article. If the stale edit war resumes, and the same material continues to be added and removed from the article, there may well be consequences, but you are certainly not the judge of that. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Eskog. I will be careful with my words. But I hope you are noticing the false claims and the unwillingness for cooperation for compromise from Arzel. Docku (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As I have demonstrated, there are 5 neutral editors who support the inclusion and 3 who oppose it. It can be pointed out that the editors who both oppose and support the inclusion have done so by pointing out different wikipedia policies. Though there is more support for inclusion than opposition, I still tried to get a compromise on the edit to be added to the article. I am restoring the edits deleted by PTR since there is no sign of interest from the opposing parties in a compromise. I would still be glad to participate in a compromise on the words included. Docku (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That is a lie. There are 5 editors on the RfC here that have stated they want additional sources per two wikipedia policies WP:REDFLAG and WP:WELLKNOWN.  There are an additional 3 (according to Docku) from the BLP and RS page expressing concern.  There are 2 from RS that stated "The Nation" is a reliable source.  Please don't obfuscate the arguement.  As I have said before, if you present your case and present additional RS then we can discuss further.  It seems your definition of compromise is to wait long enough that people forget and then put it back in because no one is discussing, however simply putting the material back in when you clearly did not have concensus to do so shows a serious lack of good faith.  Arzel (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * you are calling me a liar. Please refrain from personal attack WP:ATTACK. Well, your calculation includes the parties involved in the dispute. My calculation involves only the non-involved neutral editors who commented on this. Is that clear?? if it is not yet clear to you, read this again where I have shown evidence who all supports and who all dont. Docku (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Confrontation with Malik Zulu Shabazz
I noticed that an anonymous user placed this text into the controversy section. I am wondering if Huffington Post is considered a reliable source. Docku (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The article from Huffington Post claims that hannity tacitly admitted that he knew Hal Turner. This confirms the previous The nation article's assertion thus providing new source for the edits validity. Docku (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That article was mentioned a few times earlier in the talk. In general I don't think the Hiffington Post is considered a reliable source, since most of what is there are blogs.  They do have some actual news which but this doesn't appear to be that.  In any case it simply repeats the nation piece and added Turner's claim.  The article also goes on to list the two sources for this story, The Nation piece and Turner's claim on his website.  I think this further illustrates the problem with this specific section.  Arzel (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring - final warning
Anyone who is substantially involved in the discussions above, regarding the Turner controversy, who edits the article either to add or remove the information will be blocked for edit warring. Page protection has failed, discussion on the Talk page has failed. From Edit war: Blocks are preferred when there is evidence that a user cannot or will not moderate their behavior, often demonstrated by an inflexible demeanor, incivility, or past instances of edit warring and unchanged behavior. (ESkog)(Talk) 23:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I reverted myself. Well, you have seen the facts. Hope you will mediate to bring a good solution. Docku (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * When reasonable people are looking at a discussion and cannot agree on what consensus is, perhaps there is not yet consensus. However, one measure of consensus which I have often found to be useful is to ask (or tell) the primary participants in a dispute to step aside and let some fresh eyes do the editing on a topic for a while. If your change truly has consensus, you probably shouldn't be the only one (or two) making the change. (ESkog)(Talk) 23:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Asher196 has violated the warning. Dock Hi 17:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Docku, that is pretty juvenile. Asher196 removed non-relevant information which violates WP:COAT in this article, and is unrelated to the previous issue.  Arzel (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand how Hannity can not be responsible if someone goes crazy reading his books. But, I guess ESKog has made a warning that editors involved in the preceding dispute not involve in any removal or addition of controversial matter. This is regardless of the merit of the edit. Read above. Besides, I am done discussing with you. I just brought it to the attention of the administrator. Dock Hi 17:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

On a sidenote, I just read the article on Joseph Goebbels and Asher196 would need to remove a whole lot of non-relevant information from it. After all, poor Goebbels can not be responsible if someone goes crazy listening to his speeches? Acerbic1 (talk) 06:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The Joseph Goebbels article doesn't fall under WP:BLP. Asher196 (talk) 13:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Discussing about another article here is irrelevant. However, i am impressed by the fast decision made by Asher196 without pointing out the reasons. Dock Hi 13:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It is further proof of the fanaticism of Hannity's followers that they are willing to "protect" this page keeping constant watch, hitting refresh once a minute... Acerbic1 (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, even well cited and totally relevant information gets removed here. Yours edit doesnt stand a chance here because the first one is not referenced and second one is irrelevant to his biography. If you find a reliable source for the first, it can be considered for inclusion. Dock Hi 11:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not a follower of Hannity, I rarely watch or listen to his shows. I'm just trying to make a better encyclopedia.  Part of that is closely following WP:BLP.  Just because you disagree with me on a source doesn't make me a Hannity fanatic. Asher196 (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversy
I'll assume good faith here, but honestly, this newly added section seems not only unencylopedic, but POV against Hannity for the sole reason of being POV. Not saying that the guy hasn't done things that would annoy people or that there are probably sufficient to be controversial. Just this particular one seems solely to exist to say something nasty. And it's unreferenced. Other thoughts on this? I'd as soon delete it honestly. Rocdahut (talk) 06:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I saved you the trouble. Docku Hi 09:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Much obliged. Rocdahut (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey bro im the one who put together CONTROVERSY, im completely understand conservatives being pissed but like it or not, im a republican, it does have a nasty tone in some parts, but it also makes legitimate points about alot of false info sean pushes, i say like in the article, things should be balanced and using your words id be olbiged to editing changing reviewing it, but you cant deny on his wikipedia page you guys handle him with kitten gloves, while he handles everyone else with boxing gloves in the news, some mention if it, even as little as a few lines should be mentioned that he is at least in the top 5 if not top 3 most controversial news broadcaster on tv. the fact that so many people like him, for the same reasons so many hate him i mean you guys dont even touch on this anywhere.wikipedia is supposed to were you really tell it like it is, like it or not. it seems you guys are on his nuts way too hard.i dont deny im new to editing wikipedia im sure its blatantly obvious and i have poor grammar but i look to this website for alot of info and you guys are scared to really talk about why sean hannity is so famous. Redskies08, 10:16p.m., 5 August 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redskies08 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you'd like to believe all of that. The real answer is much simpler. Your contribution is original research, which is against policy. Read WP:OR and see. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

hahaha that makes sense so you guys only allow people who are un-original to edit your pages fits you perfectly. i think the dispute between sean hannity and john podesta, when sean hannity challenged podesta and i qoute Hannity challenged Podesta to "defend and explain one example where I -- where I said something that was so false." and podesta published 15 cited and sourced examples of sean hannity lying outrite. this needs to be mentioned. so can somebody thats un-original please do the reasearch because im sorry but im original and thats my policy. or we can compromise and work together on something that is non-bias but touches on it. o ya and ive been dating my posts august hahaha my b its cuase i subconsciously dont want summer to end. Redskies08, 10:34, September 5th 2008

how about just this under the title controversy let the qoutes and constitutions speak for themselves??EXAMPLES: (1)HANNITY: "It doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution this idea of the separation of church and state." (8/25/03)

FACT: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." (1st Amendment)[26]

(2)HANNITY: "You want to refer to some liberal activist judge..., that's fine, but I'm going to go directly to the source. The author of the Bill of Rights [James Madison] hired the first chaplain in 1789, and I gotta' tell ya' somethin', I think the author of the Bill of Rights knows more about the original intent--no offense to you and your liberal atheist activism--knows more about it than you do." (9/4/02)

FACT: The first congressional chaplains weren't hired by James Madison--they were appointed by a committee of the Senate and House in, respectively, April and May, 1789, before the First Amendment even existed. James Madison's view: "Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative." (James Madison)[27]

(3)HANNITY: "But the Alabama Constitution, which Chief Justice Roy Moore is sworn to uphold, clearly it says, as a matter of fact that the recognition of God is the foundation of that state's Constitution." (8/21/03)

FACT: While the preamble of the Alabama Constitution does reference "the Almighty," section three provides: "That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles." (Alabama Constitution, Section 3)

(4)HANNITY: "Betsy(Mccaughey), they're not going to lose it [public housing], because if you work less than 30 hours a week -- if you work more than 30 hours a week, you don't have to do it. If you're between the ages of 18 and 62 and you're not legally disabled and you have free housing -- in other words..."

FACT: Residents of public housing pay rent scaled to their household's anticipated gross annual income, less deductions for dependents and disabilities. The basic formula for rent is 30 percent of this monthly adjusted income. There are exceptions for extremely low incomes, but the minimum rent is $25 per month. No one lives in public housing for free. (Department of Housing and Urban Development) --Redskies08 (talk) 05:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

i mean you editors are crying crocodile tears about sources and its the friggin u.s. constitution the most cited source in the history of the world --Redskies08 (talk) 05:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, read WP:OR...........and I'd be willing to guess the Bible is more often cited source of history in the world. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

really the bible? ya ur def right haha, considering all the lawyers and district attorney's in the u.s. that cite the bible during trial, and sworn testimony all they do is cite the bible excerpts to uphold the law, think about how many times the constitution is cited in legal proceedings and in law making, this just re-assures my assumtion that you definetly went to the wrong website today your at wikipedia, the website your looking for is conservapedia.--Redskies08 (talk) 06:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

so how about i just post the videos of sean saying each qoute and skip the citeing for that, and then source the fact rebuttles, could i post that and it woudlnt get deleted?--Redskies08 (talk) 06:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Most would still be OR. For example, there are a variety of opinions about the First Amendment as it applies to religion. Some reputable legal scholars interpret it the way you do. Other reputable legal scholars interpret it the way Hannity does. By posting your "fact rebuttal", you are pushing a POV. You should find an article from a NPOV source that says what you want to present and, preferably, one that shows the other side. The object is to provide balance. Ofcourse I'd find it easier to believe that you are concerned about the accuracy of the article and not just trying to slam him if it weren't for the things you said above and if you hadn't been reverted a week ago for adding things like Hannity is known "for sucking massiver cock". Niteshift36 (talk) 08:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

haha i thought this got deleted, but hey i mean if sean hannity is known for sucking massive cock as YOU stated than it deserves to be included in his "biography" i mean you editors say you want balance but your when it comes to the tone of the article and how you treat the consertavite editors. its like your scared. are you scared of sean hannity and his peons?. you guys are on his nuts so hard they must be sore...and niteshift36 you really need to cite your sources for your personal comments i mean come on dont you know the rules? Again, read WP:OR........... --Redskies08 (talk) 09:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't state it genius. I QUOTED you saying it. Your coment was deleted from the article, but the record still exists, the record showing YOU said it. I do know the rule. Do you? Apparently you don't. Niteshift36 (talk) 10:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Reaction to 10/5 Airing of 'Obama & Friends: A History of Radicalism' on "Hannity's America"
Hannity was criticized recently for his documentary on Obama by Media Matters. He basically found a known and vocal anti-semite to slander Obama for him, but made no mention of the man's outrageous history. He later compared it, during post debate coverage, to 'interviewing' people he doesn't agree with all the time. However, this man, Andy Martin was the focus of the documentary. It basically centered around him, and no mention was made of his past.

If someone doesn't think this is significant, could they provide another example of a journalist on a major news channel doing something similar.

At the very least there should be a 'Criticisms' section. This page has been severly whitewashed, considering how controversial and polarizing Hannity is.07:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.209.140 (talk)


 * Could you pls provide some sources.  Docku: “what up?”  11:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Turns out I referenced it incorrectly. Is this better:  67.84.209.140 (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * And here it is again in the New York Times, which I believe is still the 'paper of record' among the 'main stream'. Their take on it is as follows--  "The program was the latest step in the evolution of opinion journalism on cable news. It comes as one of Fox News’s rivals, MSNBC, becomes increasingly liberal, with hosts like Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann advocating against Senator John McCain. But Mr. Hannity’s program on Sunday was notable in presenting partisan accusations against Mr. Obama in a journalistic, documentary format in prime time."   It sounds like the NYT thinks this is groundbreaking stuff.67.84.209.140 (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Quoting from the article.
 * "Sean Hannity, the conservative radio and television host, was the host of the hourlong program, which raised, among other things, unsubstantiated accusations that Mr. Obama’s work as a community organizer in Chicago was “training for a radical overthrow of the government."


 * I am not sure. Could you please propose a sentence (as you would want to include) and let us see what other users have to say about it.  Docku: “what up?”  20:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Something like that quote above sounds good. Off the top of my head, how does something similar to this sound-

''In what was considered by some as precedent setting action, the October 5th broadcast of 'Hannity's America' presented right wing partisan propaganda as an unbiased documentary, during prime time, on one of the three major Cable News Networks (Fox News). The show centered around a known and vocal anti-Semite, Andy Martin. Martin was presented as an 'expert' and a 'journalist' without mention of his history of inflammatory rhetoric and exposed slandering of Obama. According to the NYT, "[Martin] is credited as being among the first -- if not the first -- to assert in a chain e-mail message that Mr. Obama was secretly a Muslim." ''

''During the fallout from that show, Liberal Pundit Robert Gibbs appeared on post-Presidential Debate coverage hosted by Hannity for Fox News on on 10/07/08, and immediately and repeatedly asked Hannity if he was an Anti-Semite. At one point Gibbs said the lack of journalistic integrity led him to believe that every one of Hannity's and 'his networks' viewers were Anti-Semitic. Seeming exasperated, Hannity denounced Martin's past statements as 'reprehensible', and pointed out that he interviews people he doesn't agree with 'all the time'. To this, Gibbs exclaimed "You centered your whole show around him, Sean!". At that point, Hannity's co-host and Liberal Foil,[Alan Colmes], stepped in to quell the argument, and defend Hannity's record on Jewish Affairs. ''


 * Obviously, it needs some cleaning up, as far as dates and references and use of english, but that's all I have to say on the subject. I think this is significant, because Fox News routinely attracts the largest viewership of any of the Cable News channels.  I believe anyone who values impartial journalism should think it significant as well.  This could be the beginning of something very ugly

FuriousJorge (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Can I make an observation? This whole discussion starts out with criticism by Media Matters. MM is hardly neutral. Hillary Clinton has claimed to have helped start MM and they do lean very left. MM was also founded due to a large donation by George Soros, who funds a number of Democratic organizations, such as moveon.org. While Salon magazine is also very supportive of Obama (and dislikes those who criticize him), their entry shown above is much more balanced and has less of a neutrality problem. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware of MediaMatter's reputation, and I certainly don't want to be seen as advocating biased sources. As to what goes into the article, I have no problem not using MM, since they just link to the NYT article, and all the debunked claims by Martrin, anyway.  Here is a blurb on the airing from the ultra conservative Drudge Report, which includes a quote from the ultra conservative Washington Times about the qualifications of Hannity's expert:
 * This is how Fox described him on-screen when he spoke: "Andy Martin, AUTHOR & JOURNALIST".


 * Here's some history on Martin from the Washington Times:


 * '"In a New York bankruptcy case, he referred to a judge as a "crooked, slimy Jew." During the bankruptcy dispute, he filed a civil-rights lawsuit claiming Jewish bankruptcy judges and lawyers were conspiring to steal his property. "'


 * Again, I think a major cable news network's journalist presenting partisan propaganda and conjecture as a 'documentary' in prime time is both precedent setting and very significant. I did say when this whole discussion started that if anyone thought it wasn't significant they should provide an example of similar action by another journalist.FuriousJorge (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Not to be obstinant, but Drudge isn't "ultra-conservative". I could make a good case that they aren't even conservative at all if this were a debate forum. I do think that one think is being overlooked here: Regardless of guests, Hannity is there to provide opinion. That is his job. He is not considered one of their news programs. His program is to provide commentary and discussion. So traditional "journalism standards" (I laugh everytime I say that), don't really apply. The other part of my concern here is that this is a bio of Hannity, not of his guests. Hannity didn't say "crooked, slimy Jew" or make any other anti-semetic comments. Hannity has guests on that are VERY opposite of his personal and political beliefs because they either stimulate debate or controversy (ie ratings) or because they are a current news topic (ie ratings). Now if this were an article about the show, this would be a whole different discussion. But this is a bio article of Hannity himself and I believe that is a factor. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a potential notable controversy as evidenced by its coverage in several MSM newspapers. As long as any addition is neutral and responsible there really is no basis to keep this out of the article.  You are right that it should not center on Martin and his views since this is a bio of Hannity, but there should be some mention of notable controversies in the article. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, we agree that this article is about Hannity, not Martin. Why not go the safest, simplest, most neutral route? Instead of a whole lot of fighting about how much and what content, why not just a line or two about Hannity getting criticism for having the guy on and end it there? Then in the article about Martin, people can freely talk about what Martin has said (since he is the subject of THAT article) and where he said it. In other words, keep the details etc about Martin more in the article about Martin and not so much in the article about Hannity, who didn't say these things? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the responses. I think a separate article on Martin is a great idea, and I certainly didn't want to imply he should be quoted in this one.  I respectfully disagree, however,  that this is just a matter of 'having a guy on' who's controversial.  I may have been wrong about Drudge, but I just wanted to illustrate that sources other than the HuffingtonPost and DailyKos have noticed.  I didn't mean to imply that any of Martin's words should be in the blurb, I just wanted to illustrate, in 100 words or less, that this guy has long been regarded as less than credible and professional, as far as 'experts' go.
 * As to what actually should go in, see my original suggestion italicized above. Is anything wrong with something like that?  I think this deserves more than a sentence or two, because I believe he has lowered the bar for 'objectivity when impersonating a journalist.'  My position from the beginning has been that he's achieved a new low, and the LA Times seems to agree in an article entitled "Fox News' faux documentary sets new low". .  If we do agree that it deserves to be in there, can we frame the discussion in terms of what is wrong with a cleaned up version of what I suggested above, using the LAT and NYT as sources?  I believe I can sound impartialFuriousJorge (talk) 07:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There already is an article on Andy Martin. 100 words or less? Much less. Martin is one of hundreds of guests that Hannity has had on. Let's face it, he lives and dies by ratings. A controversial guy is good for ratings. I'm not going to fault him for that and I'm not going to imply that he somehow sympathizes with Martin because he had him on. As I see it, the italicized suggestion you have deals with Martin more than Hannity and with Gibbs implying that Hannity is anti-semetic. Hannity denies he is and Colmes supports that. But that only gets a mention, whereas what Gibbs said (which is little more than innuendo), gets much more attention. This becomes a weight issue to me, which is a factor in a BLP article. If you can make it impartial, fine. But the version I see above doesn't sound the least bit impartial, even if it was written by the LA Times. Words like ""right wing", "fallout" and "propaganda" don't sound impartial. They sound like an agenda, whether is is the NYT using them or not. Now I know this falls under the category of OR, but I have to say that I've always heard Hannity as a staunch supporter of Israel and he frequently has Joe Lieberman on his show and they consider each other friends. So I'd say there is reason to believe that the "anti-semetic" label is merely being thrown around by people who disargree with Hannity's politics. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * On October 5, 2008 during a post debate discusion with Obama spokesperson Robert Gibbs, Hannity was repeatedly asked by Gibbs, if he should be considered an anti-Semite by his association with and "centering his show" around Andy Martin. This was in response to Hannity attempting to ask Gibbs about Obama's relationship with William Ayers.  Pressed repeatedly about some of Martin's previous controversial statements, Hannity denounced Martin's past statements as 'reprehensible'.  He further pointed out that he interviews people he disagrees with all the time.  Hannity's co-host Alan Colmes defended Hannity by saying that he was against the guilt by association argument and that Hannity was not an anti-semite. 


 * ''The show referenced by Gibbs was the October 2nd broadcast of 'Hannity's America' called Obama & Friends: The History of Radicalism where Martin was presented as an expert about Barack Obama without noting the hosts political stances and controversies.

''
 * The above is my proposal. I think it's more neutral than the previous entry, and I'm not sure if the Hannity's America date was right or if it was a re-broadcast of an earlier broadcasts. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That sounds fine.  Docku: “what up?”  18:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That sounds pretty neutral to me. Good job. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ramsquire, that sounds great to me. The only thing I would like to humbly suggest is that some mention be given to the precedent set by Hannity:  It's not a matter of just 'having someone on for ratings' as someone else suggested.  The problem is in fact that he hid the controversial history of his 'experts'.  Granted, we all saw it for what it was, but there are a lot of people out there who 'saw it in a "documentary", so it must be true'.  Nobody else does or has done this; not Olbermann, or O'Reilly, or Dobbs, or Van Sustren, because it is highly unethical.  I just think Sean should get credit for his groundbreaking coverage.
 * Perhaps, something like:


 * On October 5, 2008 during a post debate discussion with Obama Campaign Communications Director Robert Gibbs, Hannity was repeatedly asked by Gibbs, if he should be considered an anti-Semite for his association with, and "centering his show" around, Andy Martin. This was in response to Hannity's attempting to ask Gibbs about Obama's relationship with William Ayers.  Pressed repeatedly about some of Martin's previous controversial statements, Hannity denounced Martin's past statements as 'despicable'.  He further pointed out that he interviews people he disagrees with all the time.  Hannity's co-host Alan Colmes defended Hannity by saying that he was against the guilt by association argument in all cases, and that Hannity was not an anti-semite. 


 * The show referenced by Gibbs was the October 2nd broadcast of 'Hannity's America' where Martin was presented as an expert about Barack Obama without noting the hosts political stances and controversies. The broadcast was criticized as 'lowering the bar' for political pundits on the Cable News Networks, for presenting a one-sided and highly partisan perspective in documentary format, during Prime Time.


 * I must emphasize that I think that second part is actually the important part here.


 * Niteshift36. Again, I must re-emphasize that I quoted Martin to describe his controversiality for the purposes of this discussion page, in '100 words or less', and not for the purposes of putting any amount of his words in the blurb.  That would be silly.
 * Thanks for the responses.FuriousJorge (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * May i suggest-- The broadcast was harshly criticized for presenting a one-sided and highly partisan perspective in documentary format.-- and putting the title of the hour back into the first sentence. I think that is a more neutral presentation. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me.FuriousJorge (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've boldly added the section since there seemed to be support. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The subsection seems to be written in a neutral enough way. The problem with it is that it's classic WP:Recentism. Almost nobody is going to care about this spat four weeks from now. Mentioning the Obama and Friends episode as an example of Hannity's (entirely expected) partisanship during the 2008 presidential election campaign is fine. The alleged anti-Semitism of Andrew Martin (I know nothing about the man) might also be mentioned if credible evidence can be cited. But bringing up the heated exchange between Hannity and Robert Gibbs, as if it is some major episode in Hannity's life or career, is kind of silly in my opinion. It will probably be deleted within months, if not weeks, as something that is no longer especially important. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You are right! After the election, who will really care. I don't expect him to be non-partisan anyway. He has an opinion show (not a newscast) and refers to his radio show as the "stop Obama express". Niteshift36 (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I must emphasize that the important part of this controversy is not that Hannity and Gibbs had an On-Air 'spat', but rather that Hannity lowered the bar for Primetime Cable News 'Journalism' by presenting partisan and one-sided opinions in documentary format. The NYT and LAT described this as a 'new low', which is why it deserves specific mention.  Mr. Hannity's Faux-Documentary should be duly noted for the precedent it set.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by FuriousJorge (talk • contribs) 22:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You mean that in the opinion of 2 newspaper writers, he lowered the bar. You state it like it is a fact, carved in stone. I'm sure nobody, including Hannity, was surprised when 2 of the most liberal newspapers in the country criticized him. If you are going to include sheer opinion on the show, then I'd suggest you balance it with a positive opinion and, preferably, a neutral one too. That would be fair, don't you think? I added statement by the shows producer found in a NYT article about the show. If you have something better, let me know. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Though not politically slanted, the section on the Andrew Martin controversy was rather roundabout. I've attempted a rewrite to make it more straightforward. An acceptable source is still needed for the second half of the first paragraph. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The section in question attempts to soft-pedal Martin's lunatic anti-semetism and consists of mostly defenses of Hannity by everyone in sight. This is a bit ridiculous. Gamaliel (talk) 23:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Your protest contains the answer. You are worried about MARTIN'S anti-semetism. The article is about Hannity. What you are talking about belongs in the article about MARTIN. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Gosh, I really liked my rewrite, thinking it would be unobjectionable to all concerned, and now it's gone in a few hours. I'd better stay out of this one. However, I still don't like the "flashback" technique that the present version employs -- not in an encyclopedia article. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * May I suggest the version I first added which everyone agreed was "neutral enough." Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes! You wrote a couple of drafts. Everyone agreed you did a good job being neutral. I don't see anyone objecting to your version. Then along comes Gamaliel, trashing the consensus version. Among the things we agreed on was that this article is about Hannity, not Martin. Martin has his own article. Spending time focusing on something Martin said years before, not on Hannity's show, and with no direct connection to the documentary, doesn't belong here. It belongs in the article on Martin. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have no problem with later additions or edits to the draft, but so that the article remains relatively stable while the discussion continues, I'm reverting back to that version until some consensus is reached on a final version. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Can I make a suggestion? The confrontation with Gibbs is given too much emphasis, and when I originally brought this up, I intended it only as context.  As such, I simply switched the order of the paragraphs.  I also changed the start of that paragraph to read "political stances and history of Antisemitism.", whereas before it said something like "political stances and controversies", otherwise it is ambiguous as the first line.


 * Also, I must re-re-re-emphasize that all this is still somewhat tangential, and, respectfully, no one has spoken to my original point: As the NYT and LAT point out, what's important here is not that 'Hannity had some 'controversial' guy on, and didn't mention his past.'  It's not that he did it in Prime Time on one of the Three Major Cable News Networks, either.  What's important here is that Hannity did all that AND presented it as a Documentary.  He's set a new low, even for advocacy journalism.  I think it should be written as such, using appropriate wording like 'lowered the bar' or 'set precedent' or 'in a first for advocacy journalism', however you want to put it.  THAT is what's important here.  Not to be flip about it, but if anyone disagrees with me, (respectfully) they should either provide a counter example, or explain why integrity in journalism is no longer important.FuriousJorge (talk) 02:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * How about something like "The broadcast and Fox News drew criticism for presenting a one-sided and partisan perspective in documentary format during Prime Time. Some described the show as precedent-setting for Cable News Networks and advocacy journalism." [17] [18]FuriousJorge (talk) 02:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Your main issue is that it was presented as a documentary? Are you for real? You live in a time where Farenheit 9/11 gets an oscar for best documentary, despite blatant POV pushing and actual, provable fabrication. I know you want to think that a documentary is supposed to be neutral, but the truth is that it doesn't. The author may or may not try to be neutral and, even when trying, he is giving us his version of neutral. Just because they called it "a first" doesn't make it so. Moore released f9/11 4 months before the election and blatantly stated that he hoped it would change the election. Does that sound neutral? And that was a "documentary" that won an oscar. It was even shown on TV the night before the election. So hearing these authors blather about it being a first is hollow. And don't get me started about media bias. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not the first time you've misconstrued my statements, and generally been uncivil with me. In the future, kindly consider reading the sources before you add your one cent: This is not 'my issue.'  The LAT called it a 'new low', because, as the NYT said, the show 'was notable in presenting partisan accusations against Mr. Obama in a journalistic, documentary format in prime time.'  Notice the use of the word 'notable'?  Furthermore, groundbreaking journalism should get the credit it deserves.  As the NYT puts it, 'The program was the latest step in the evolution of opinion journalism on cable news.' You have a right to think it's 'no big deal', and I chose to hold people impersonating journalists to a higher standard.  We don't have to agree, but that's been my point from the beginning, so please don't twist my words. Moving on...FuriousJorge (talk) 07:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Slanted "documentaries," sometimes very slanted ones, are actually pretty common, even if this one was a doozy. The other point, Jorge, is that you need a WP:RS to actually make the point that you are trying to make, it can't simply be the point of view of an editor. I included quotes from the Los Angeles Times' critic James Rainey in my earlier edit which comes fairly close to what want. That may be about as good as you can hope for. You would also have to include Hannity's producer's rebuttal. I agree with you that the exchange between Gibbs and Hannity is not especially important. Nor, in my opinion, is Colmes's defense of Hannity. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I hadn't noticed your version. It's well written, and looks fine to me with the quotes you used.  If I could make one suggestion, it would be to lose a quote from Rainey, in favor of something like:


 * The NYT described the show as 'the latest step in the evolution of opinion journalism on cable news', and it went on to say the broadcast was 'notable in presenting partisan accusations against Mr. Obama in a journalistic, documentary format in prime time.' It may be wise to use a direct quote, since the topic seems to be a sensitive one for some.FuriousJorge (talk) 07:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I see what FJ means. Quoting what he just said ´was notable in presenting partisan accusations against Mr. Obama in a journalistic, documentary format in prime time`. The key words are journalistic, documentary and prime time. precedent setting? probably.... Fahrenheit 9/11 was not a journalistic prime time documentary.  Docku: “what up?”  14:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It was shown on ABC during primetime. It is a documentary. It was presented as fact. Man on the street interviews, expose' style, using news clips and headlines. Sounds like a journalistic format. But of course none of you see this. If Michael Moore did the same thing to Obama he did to Bush, I bet you'd be pretty peeved. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * But it was not an ABC production. Please dont make the arguments personal. I see you are trying hard to whitewash this article. I dont really care.  Docku: “what up?”  23:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Nor was this a production of FNC or Hannity. They aired it, but they didn't produce it. Same as ABC and F9/11. I'm not whitewashing, I'm showing that this isn't the "groundbreaking first" others are painting it to be. And I'm not making the arguement personal. Saying that I bet he'd be upset is my opinion. And observation. I didn't name call, accuse him of anything or generally make him out to be a bad guy. I'm simply saying "think about if it the shoe was on the other foot." Niteshift36 (talk) 23:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Then who produced it? Where did the money come from?  Did it debut anywhere else, but Fox NEWS?.  It would be interesting if you could find out with sources.    Fahrenheit 9/11 was a documentary that premiered in theaters, and got plenty of news coverage before it made it to any of the networks.  Hannity's America:  Obama and Friends debuted on Hannity's program, and tried to 'pull a fast one' by using Martin, by any standards.  Maybe you could help us all out by either suggesting a controversy that SHOULD go in, or at least why Hannity has never done anything controversial.67.84.209.140 (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, we can't pick and chose how reliable sources are depending on what they say. The NYT says it's 'notable' and was very specific as to why.  I find it VERY difficult to believe that ABC aired Fahrenheit 9/11 without making at least some mention of Moorer's politics.  Can you provide a source where ABC was criticized for it?  Maybe you should be on ABC's wikipedia page  trying to get that in there?  Even if they 'glossed it over' by saying something like 'Moorer is a Kerry supporter', everyone knows where Michael Moorer.  Martin  makes Moorer look moderate, and was presented as an 'Obama Expert' and 'Internet Journalist'. 67.84.209.140 (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, I'm not going to waste time researching anything about F9/11. We had a neutral version that everyone was ok with. That is consensus. Why is this battle even happening? Why is there such a push to make things Martin said a topic of Hannity's profile? All this "it was a first" talk is a smoke screen to try to cover an effort to just try to cast Hannity in a worse light. You know what I find interesting? Not a single one of the editors making such an issue of it here has made a single edit in the Andy Martin article. Not one. The entry in the Martin article about this broadcast is 2 sentences. It looks to me like the broadcast isn't as much the issue as just trying to be negative about Hannity. Doesn't that strike anyone as odd? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Good grief, Charlie Brown, I can't believe how long this section of the talk page is getting. To summarize, FuiousJorge wants the biased nature of the Obama "documentary" to be emphasized. Gamaliel wants Andy Martin's anti-Semitism to be stressed and made more specific. Niteshift doesn't want either to be overly-emphasized (in his view), probably thinks it's WP:UNDUE among other things. I want the events of October 5, to be mentioned before the events of Oct7, though it's no big deal to me. I suggest that we cool it for about 34 hours, in part because there will be another Hannity's America installment of the Obama saga on Sunday, Oct. 19. Actually, it would probably be better to draft a more lasting section summarizing Hannity's treatment of the Obama candidacy after the election to put it in perspective and avoid WP:RECENTISM, with a fairly cursory mention for now. Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to be news blogs. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You are correct Badmiton. I do think this is most definately wp:recentism. 4 months from now, nobody will give a tinkers damn about it. 4 months from now, most of you will have something else to complain about from his show and forget all about this. And yes, again you are correct, I believe this is wp:undue. As I said, this is supposed to be about Hannity. When Gamiel wants to make it about Martin, that is wrong to me. And worrying about what the LA Times (who have endorsed Obama) says about it in an opinion piece really doesn't seem like it matters much since most of their complaint is the actual info, which is Martin's responsibility, not Hannity's. This is kind of like taking the article about Johnny Bench and making a big deal about the fact that he was on the same team as Pete Rose, then talking about Rose's gambling. Not to sound like a fan, but why are we writing this much over a broadcast he made once (and was repeated), showing a film he did not make, while none of you want to write a single sentence about how he has won 2 Marconi's. How many other hosts have won 2 of them? Why do we need to devote 2 full paragraphs to something negative (the others have done) and a single line to something positive that nobody else I can think of has done? My guess is because of bias. And while some here have accused me of much more bias than I am guilty of, they deny their own. To be honest, I think that is becoming the more important issue here to everyone involved. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know that you can speak for everyone. No one wants to make it about martin.  If you don't want to worry about the LAT, then you should worry about the NYT, and all the other Reliable Sources that noticed it.  If Johnny Bench has presented Pete Rose as an expert on ethics in sports, it would absolutely make it in to the article.  I don't understand how the people and opinions appearing on his show are 'Not Hannity's Responsibility, as you clearly said.  Did Rather get a pass on 'memogate'?  No he didn't.  You can't distance Hannity from it now.  The show was a "Hannity's America Special Report."  That hardly sounds like a rebroadcast of an indie film.67.84.209.140 (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * On a personal level, I could care less about the NYT. They are as biased as they can be. No, that isn't just my opinion. There are books on the topic. The NYT has never even endorsed a Republican for president. Never. But that is beside that point. Yes, you can call the opinion of a NYT writer a reliable source and use it. And the fact that they've had writers proven to be liars (Jayson Blair anyone?) doesn't mean this writer wrong. However, I highly doubt that even this writer would say he actually researched that single line everyone is getting so excited over. Your Rather example is a strawman. Rather was personally involved in the production of his story, which was presented on a newscast, not an opinion show. And when I said everyone agreed....several versions were presented. One was chosen. Nobody objected. When nobody objects, people commonly say "everyone" agreed. Bottom line, this is an incident of wp:weight and wp:recentism and 4 months from now, it won't be a blip in Hannity's life, which is supposed to the be topic of this article. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Your assertion that the NYT has never endorsed a Republican is simply false. Secondly, I can't tell if you are making the point that the NYT should not be trusted on any political issues, or just the ones that you don't agree with.  Also, I dont' see how you can make the argument that Rather was more personally involved in the memogate story than Hannity was in his 'Special Report documentary'.  Most disturbing is that you think in four months no one will care.  This is only true if we let the people impersonating journalists on both sides get away with it.  We have two major newspapers denouncing hannity, and whole slew of other sources.  You still haven't found another example (because there is none), and you haven't told us who did produce the Faux-u-mentary, if Hannity didn't.FuriousJorge (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Docku. For the record, if Fahrenheit 9/11 or any film written, directed, and produced by Michael Moorer were presented on 'AC360' without considering the source, I would call that equally egregious.FuriousJorge (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Documenting this incident in the article is entirely inappropriate WP:COATRACKing. This section was added into the very midst of Hannity's professional biography, giving it much more WP:WEIGHT than it deserves. A better approach might be to create, in a sandbox, a section documenting (with quality, reliable sources) various criticisms of Hannity. This latest incident can then be put into appropriate context. This section can then be introduced in a Criticism section of the article, and then gradually merged in with the rest of the content. siℓℓy rabbit (  talk  ) 01:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree that it is inappropriate coattracking and recentism (it just happens to be something inappropriate that Mr. Hannity did recently), however I completely agree with your sandbox idea. Also, now that we have a criticisms section, can I just do a quick sanity check here:  When two of the most circulated newspapers write a story about you, using terms like 'new low', 'plumbing the depths', 'next step in the evolution of cable news', 'was notable'; if that does not merit a mention in a criticism section in Wikipedia, then I would like to know what does.  Just to be clear, the only thing I want changed is the following:


 * Currently reads: "The broadcast was criticized for presenting a one-sided and partisan perspective in documentary format."


 * Should read: "The show was criticized by multiple media outlets.  The [New York Times] described the it as 'the latest step in the evolution of opinion journalism on cable news', and it went on to say the broadcast was 'notable in presenting partisan accusations against Mr. Obama in a journalistic, documentary format in prime time [31][32].'"


 * This way, everyone can consider the source(s) for themselves. Can we begin to bring this to a close by agreeing that this is the heart of the matter?  I thought the anecdote about Obama Campaign Comm Dir Gibbs provided interesting context, but we can take it all out for all i care.FuriousJorge (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)