Talk:Sean Hannity/Archive 4

Views section
I added a Views section for political positions & views, but so far all that is listed is waterboarding. It could use some more examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stargnoc (talk • contribs) 06:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed per WP:RECENT. You've been trying include this section for some time, and every time, you are told the same thing.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  06:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Other policies that apply include WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  06:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A political views section is entirely relevant.Stargnoc (talk) 08:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't Hannity's association with Hal Turner mentioned?
Someone brought to my attention that Hal Turner's association with Hannity is mentioned in his bio. Discussion as to whether it should be included in Hannity's as well, please?Stargnoc (talk) 05:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't relevant to his biography. It would be more appropriate to include in the show article. However, certain editors were willing to edit war to get it in the bio and the compromise was reached. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't like this inclination to only include information about Hannity in his show article. But in the specific case of Hal Turner I don't know enough about their relationship to confirm that it should be in his biography.  If the relationship was purely business, then it could be included in the show article.  Otherwise, it could be included here.Stargnoc (talk) 00:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never seen, or even heard of, any information that their relationship extended beyond having him as a show guest. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"Freedom Concerts" Section
Is this an objective, factual, and worthy addition? At what point does material become superfluous and not pertinent to the subject. Does anybody else have an opinion on whether this section should be removed entirely? Douggmc (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would it be removed? Hannity has organized these concerts for 6 years. They've grown each year, from one concert to a series of 8. They've featured some very big music acts, speeches by notable policitcal figures and raise millions of dollars for the Freedom Alliance Scholarship Fund, which is a recognized charity that assists the families of military personnel killed in the line of duty. The concert series has grown and succeed in very, very large part due to Hannity's involvement. I dare say there is not much chance it would be more than one annual event were it not for his involvement. So given his personal involvement (he appears at every one of them) in the concert series and the large amount of good it has done, I have to ask why on earth you think this shouldn't be in his bio? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It feels somewhat like recentism to me.  I'm just trying to "think like a newsman" here ... and stick to the pertinent facts for this BLP.   Maybe in 20 years, if these events turn out to be a momentous part of his life and or philanthropic legacy, they would deem inclusion.  My vote is for the complete remove still. Douggmc (talk) 04:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering that he has done this for 6 years running, I would say we are well on the way to passing the "ten year test" suggested in WP:RECENTISM, especially since they have grown in number every year. I wonder, if you are so interested in the long term prospect, maybe you'd like to opine on the waterboarding section some editors keep trying to force into the article, which is a clear case of recentism. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Opined ... and before you even asked me (per time stamp). Back on this topic, I think it is borderline.  I somewhat feel like I'm reading a bio from his own web site or a resume ... in that it feels like tooting an unwarranted horn (at least in terms of a BLP ... his participation does seem great subjectively). Douggmc (talk) 04:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why does it seem borderline? Not only has he been instrumental in making it grow, he personally appears (and often performs) at every single concert. The Freedom Alliance themselves even call them the Hannity Freedom Concerts on their own website: . The charity recognizes him as instrumental in the endeavor that has raised millions of dollars for veterans killed in action, why are you having difficulty with it? It is verifiable. It is certainly not a "one event" situation. Given that it has expanded and grown over 6 years, I think we're out of the WP:NOTNEWS area. I am having a hard time calling an annual event that has grown for 6 years "recentism". Niteshift36 (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, not trying to characterize this as personal and I'm not having "difficulty" with it. So please ... easy does it.  As I further think about, I'm still convinced (even more) this is inappropriate section.  I think a better approach may be a new section called "Personal Life" or "Philanthropy" (certainly not "Professional").  In this new section we could include something maybe like: "Hannity has been a presenter for and donated to the Freedom Concerts (which hyperlinks to detailed page describing the event and the Freedom Alliance, how it was started by North, etc.) since 2003".   This would achieve two things: 1) More succinct and objective BLP. 2) A new wiki page that goes into much more detail for what seems to be a deserving and worthy organization. Douggmc (talk) 04:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed.Stargnoc (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that is certainly different from the original question of if it is worthy of mention and should we just remove it completely. Let's hear what others have to say about it. I'd have no objection to retitling it as philanthropy etc. I would strong object to its outright removal. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable to me. Let's hope we can get some other good input.  I'll just add that outright removal is preferable to the way it is now ... IMHO. So equally strong objection to leaving it as is. --Douggmc (talk) 05:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Still would appreciate others' input on this. Some ideas I'd like to see discussed:


 * a) Create new section entitled "Other" or "Personal Life" (suggestions on name?). Shuffle some sub-sections around.  Maybe move sub-sections "Awards and Honors" to this new "Other" section.


 * b) Remove "Freedom Concerts" sub-sections and/or place in "Other" section as single line notation. If moved to "Other" section, then be more succinct in notation and provide link to new wiki page describing the Freedom Alliance and the Freedom Concert.


 * c) "Hannidate" sub-section. Remove completely. Not sure if a reference to a politically affiliated "booty call" (I kid  .... "dating") site (free or paid) is appropriate or necessary in a BLP.  If others see appropriate to keep, add to the new "Other" section and be more succint.  --Douggmc (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're incredible. After all that discussion about the Freedom concerts (which you really didn't know much about), you suggest making it a single line? That is ridiculous. As for the Hannidate part, it probably doesn't belong in his bio, rather in one of his show articles, but it is on his website, which covers both mediums. However, calling it "politically affiliated" shows you didn't even bother to read the entry, let alone research the topic. It was pretty clear to a neutral editor that everyone was welcome, regardless of affiliation and included a section for gay dating. It simply means to bring people of similar ideas together. There is no affiliation with any political party implied or evidenced. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please quit personally attacking me and my opinion. I'd appreciate if you kept the discussion on topic instead of me. --Douggmc (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I ask you, what's more important? Sean's participation in Hannidate or his political views on what is widely considered torture of prisoners by the United States?  Which is recentism?  I don't think we'll be talking about Hannidate in 10 years!Stargnoc (talk) 00:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why must we choose? WP:RECENTISM is an essay.  It does not even rise to the level of an official guideline, as reliable sources does.  Wikipedia's official guidelines allow for the occasional exceptions; thus, common sense would hold that unofficial essays such as WP:RECENTISM would allow for more frequent exceptions.  And anyway, I don't see this as recentism, either.  Recentism, to my way of thinking, denotes such incidents as the "Toledo Riot" included in the article at Toledo, Ohio while the event was still unfolding, and before reliable sources could be found to substantiate.  Think of WP:RECENTISM as a brake pedal, not a parking brake. -- JeffBillman (talk) 00:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What personal attack? It is factual that we had a lot of discussion about it. It is factual that you were told a lot about the series you didn't know. It is my opinion that after all that discussion that your position is ridiculous. It is factual that neither this article or the Hannidate site are affiliated with any political party, so your calling ti "pollitically affiliated" is evidence that you either didn't read the article or sources. Again, where is the personal attack? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll just add that a section regarding Hannity's political views has priority over a section mentioning "Hannidate". Far more relevant IMO.Stargnoc (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And let me just add that I don't think this is recentism, either. Indeed, I think there are times when charges of "recentism" are a red herring.  So long as reliable sources can be found, recentism need not be a concern.  Let the sources decide what is "recentism" and what is not; it's not really our job to adjudicate that. -- JeffBillman (talk) 23:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Something that has happened annually for 6 straight years, growing each year, isn't recentism. Period. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I agree with you. But then, I am not one to call "recentism" at much of anything. -- JeffBillman (talk) 01:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I got that. I do think recentism is an issue on WP. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Political views
I would like to see a fully fleshed-out political views section for Sean Hannity. Let's brainstorm a set of those views.Stargnoc (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Abortion, conservatism in general, and Iraq would probably be near the top of the list. Soxwon (talk) 13:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This type of content seems to be conspicuously missing. For an article about someone who has made a career out of discussing, criticizing and publicizing various controversial political views and causes, there seems to be virtually no content regarding controversy ("reception" is the preferred term on wikipedia, I believe) or his viewpoints in general. As long as any such content simply states the existence of controversy, without either agreeing or disagreeing with it, it shouldn't violate WP:POV, right? Surely his fans and critics can agree on the fact that a large part of his career has revolved around political controversy, and thus giving it little or no weight in this article is inappropriate MichaelLNorth (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to agree -- it seems like there has been a concerted effort to keep out any unflattering or negative information. The article certainly doesn't accurately cover the subject in any depth, and seems wholly lacking in substance that defines the subject...  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh Blax, you have no basis for that accusation... Soxwon (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree -- the level of ownership this article has experienced is plainly obvious, both in the content (or lack thereof) in the article, as well as the obvious pattern of an ideological editor or two. In any case, instead of pretending no problem exists let's focus on actually improving the article by encompassing a more holistic and realistic coverage of the subject.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, Michael, there are topics that should be included here in a NPOV way. Regardless of Blaxthos' imaginary ownership fantasy, the things that have been opposed have been opposed for specific reasons, like WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE. Some editors come here solely to add negative information and don't even try to make it neutral and for them it becomes an all or nothing proposition. Things that have been long term issues for Hannity like abortion, fiscal conservatism etc. are certainly open to inclusion in a neutral manner. But certain editors only want to make mountains out of molehills and then complain if anyone has the gall to oppose them on it. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a good start is to add the "Missing information about notable controversies" banner to the article, as seen on the Glenn Beck page. Unless someone has the viewpoint that there are no controversies involving Sean Hannity, or that they have not been a defining characteristic of his career, this would likely be appropriate. MichaelLNorth (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What does the banner really accomplish? It works on the idea that "political views" and "controversy" are interchangeable terms, which is sort of an opinion, isn't it? Why not just figure out say 2-3 topics (can add more later, but why start with 6) to start with, work up an agreeably neutral presentation and put it in the article, then work on more? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To answer your first question, the banner is the first step in adding the conspicuously missing information from Sean Hannity's page, by acknowledging the information is both notable and missing. Selecting 2-3 topics is a later step, as there will no doubt be some disagreement over which topics to include, whether they're notable, whether the sources are "far left" or "far right", etc... If history is any indicator, this will take a while. For now, as long as we can agree that Sean Hannity has built his career on unfiltered opinions of controversial issues like homosexuality, abortion, climate change and demand-side economic stimulus, the banner belongs on his page. To argue against applying the banner is to claim that no information about notable controversies is missing. Is that your viewpoint? MichaelLNorth (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No, my view point is that the banner is really just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. It's even less than a band-aid. I'd say let's try to pick the first 2-3 topics and get to work, rather than waste time worrying about whether a banner than accomplishes nothing belongs or not. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Nobody here is disagreeing with the fact that this article is lacking content regarding hannity's political views, which are on controversial subject matter, and are themselves controversial. You can criticize the effectiveness of the wikipedia tools, but they're what we have available to work on matters such as these. The banner indicates that we have come to a consensus regarding missing information about notable controversies. Do you believe that there are no notable controversies involving/centered around Sean Hannity? I am very much trying to WP:AGF but if there's too much fuss over merely agknowleging the existence of notable controversies surrounding a figure like Sean Hannity, I will start to think that this is just stalling or WP:OWN. Once we can agree on that, we can begin the possibly never-ending process of deciding which controversies to list, and how to present them in a WP:NPOV way. MichaelLNorth (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So to be clear, you acknowledge that the article is severely imbalanced and needs some serious work to be neutrally presented with an honest presentation of the subject? Excellent!  As Michael and other experienced editors have long known, these sorts of corrections generally take a "long time" to build consensus and add to the articles -- as such, we appropriately place banners in the article for the duration of that process to indicate to other editors that yes, a problem has been recognized and the community is working on improvement.  If you agree that the banner content is germane and applicable (which it appears you did), I can't understand why you'd argue against actually using it -- the edit takes all of five seconds to place a banner.  :)  I'll take care of it.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 10:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do either of you bother to read? Quit listening to Blax and his ownership delusions and actually read my word. I've done nothing but agree that there needs to be content about controversies and have simply advocated getting to work on it instead of wasting time talking about a banner that accomplishes nothing. Since we're all into "is this your position" questions......I want to get to work immediately, but you want to talk about a banner instead of fixing the problem. Is that your position? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, the problem with the article is that it lacks sufficient information on Hannity's views on specific issues. The problem is not that it takes a politically imbalanced view of Hannity, which would be a different matter altogether. I know almost nothing about these banners and what kinds of them are available, but this is clearly not the one which accurately describes the weakness of the article. Badmintonhist (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course the article is not politically imbalanced. It contains hardly information about the person, and reads like a TV guide blurb, telling viewers what shows he is involved with and when they are on. His positions on immigration, gay marriage, liberals in general (he repeatedly has referred to liberalism as a "disease"), abortion, gay marriage, homosexuals being allowed around children, gay adoption, global warming, torture, demand-side economic stimulus, defense spending, etc... are all controversial, and they are the single largest driving force for why Hannity is a notable person. If you don't want to call this "controversy", the wikipedia-preferred term is "reception", but in any case, this is the banner that is typically used. If your position is that there are no notable controversies involving Sean Hannity, please state so in plain language so we can debate that point. MichaelLNorth (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No doubt Hannity has strong opinions on controversial issues, but I don't know if that automatically makes said opinions or himself controversial or have anything to do with his notability. I would say the controversy and notability comes from how he presents these opinions (it's been called propaganda and demagoguery among other things by detractors) as well as his large following.  It is a joke that the controversial side of his notability has been omitted from his Wikipedia biography while the popularity side of it is highlighted in the article.  However I fear your argument, as currently framed, can easily be read as saying that being an outspoken conservative equals controversial.  If other's read it that way, you can expect brushback. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the controversy is in how he presents his views, and not in the views themselves, but I find it difficult to separate the two. For example, when speaking about the 2009 Oscars, Hannity said "[My wife] said, you know, they keep showing the scenes of men kissing....[and] I’m thinking do we have to expose our children to more and more sex, more and more violence" . His opinion that two men kissing is "sex and violence" is undeniably controversial. In any case, what we're really talking about is whether or not there are controversies related to Sean Hannity, because none are mentioned on his page. Once we can establish that, we can open the can of worms that is debating which are notable, and which can be properly verified. MichaelLNorth (talk) 22:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I think the Hannity "style" is already pretty well revealed in the article. His two bestsellers are mentioned twice. With titles such as Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism and Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism, I think that most readers would know that the article is not dealing with a George Will or a David Brooks kind of conservative. The inclusion of the early controversy at KCSB radio and his description as a "broadcasting political polarizer" in the book by Bob Beckel and Cal Thomas also help to paint the picture. I suppose that a more direct description of his style by a respected observer with no axe to grind might also be included. The main deficiency in the article, as I see it, is that it lacks a brief rundown of his basic views on particular issues, although even here the reader probably has enough information to surmise them accurately. Details of of his TV and radio show "controversies" such as they are should be left to the specific Wikipedia articles dealing with them. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Ommitted Information/Controversies
One incident that I think could be mentioned (and was in the article before actually) was Hannity's use of Andy Martin on one of his specials. I know this received mainstream criticism, and it would go to one of the aspects of his notability-- i.e. his professional ethics (sorry if that comes across harsher than intended. He is not a journalist, so I don't want to hold him to that standard.  However, many feel that he still has a duty to be honest on his shows and in their opinion he often falls short of that). Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As I recall, one of the major problems with the Martin case was that the entry spent so much time talking about Martin, ignoring the fact that this is Hannity's bio. Hannity's real role in the "controversy" was deciding to show the documentary. He had no hand in researching, writing, filming, editing or producing it. The proposed entry spent a lot of time talking about Martin and what, in the opinion of other wirters, was the problem with the film. While that might be ok to include in the more detailed version in the article about the show, it seems strange to include it in the bio here because it wasn't something Hannity produced. To use a more specific example, remember the controversy when Dateline NBC faked footage of GM pickup trucks exploding? 3 producers were fired, a reporter transferred and the president of NBC News resigned under pressure. The incident was covered extensively and still pops up from time to time. Do you see mentions of that controversy in the bios of Stone Phillips or Jane Pauley? No. Why not? It was a notable controversy and they were the show hosts? Probably because they had no hand in doing the news piece. They simply presented it. Where can we find info about that event on Wikipedia? In the article about the show, Dateline NBC. Can you see what I'm getting at? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (FWIW- it's not in the show article either.) I don't agree with the Dateline comparison.  I think Hannity's America is more along the lines of Oprah, or the O'Reilly Factor where although the hosts have support staff, the editorial decisions and direction of the show are controlled by the host.  They are not simply reading a teleprompter like the folks at Dateline or 20/20.  It's the reason why Stossel or Geraldo get personally criticized if they get something wrong, and not the respective show they aired it on.  Now I don't know about this looking for individual controversies to add to this article.  But over the years there has been certain themes developed by his detractors and this is one I've seen in mainstream sources (i.e. that he gives a journalistic presentation, although he's not a journalist, and the research sometimes falls short).  To me that's more important than the particular details of the episode which could go into the show article.  I highlight that incident as an example of a larger criticism.  Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether it is in the show article or not is immaterial. Have you tried putting it there? There've been a number of things that I opposed including here in the bio that I suggested should go in the show article. Aside from that, I see you missed my point entirely and simply want to focus on justifying why it belongs in the bio. Stossel and Geraldo get criticized for stories they actually do, not stories they introduce. You can chatter all you want about "direction of the show", but nothing will change the fact that Hannity didn't have anything to do with producing the documentary. I suggested alternate placement that I felt was more appropriate and less controversial. Some people claim I'm trying to suppress any negative info. I call bullshit on that. I just don't think that items like the Martin thing go in the bio. I never said it didn't belong on WP. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm on this article and doing the same thing you are-- suggesting stuff to see what can work and what won't in order to improve it.
 * I got your point and disagree with it. It happens in the real world all the time.  Usually when mature adult have differing viewpoints they can come to some sort of consensus.  The more I come here, I realize that maturity is sorely lacking with a lot of editors here.  I could say you missed my point, as you keep harping on the incident even though I think I make it pretty clear that I'm talking about the general criticism.
 * I've never made that claim, and I don't care to make it. But if you are seens as always trying to keep info out of the article, unfortunately that is the assumption that will be applied.  Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Are all awards and honors notable?
By wikipedia standards, not all of the "awards and honors" listed are well-sourced enough to be included. There are "references" to sources like his "RottenTomatoes.com" biography. These should be removed if they can't be properly verified with secondary sources. MichaelLNorth (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, all awards aren't notable. And agreed that unsourced ones should be removed. However, an honorary degree from a recognized school is notable enough for inclusion. So why not fact tag it for a little while and then remove it if someone can't provide a RS? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at the Rotten Tomatoes link shows that it is content taken from here. Further, the WL goes to the wrong school. I can find coverage of him speaking at the school, but no mention of an honorary degree, so I'm removing it.
 * Correct. The three sources for the Liberty University degree are two blogs and a primary source (liberty.edu domain). Thus, this is not notable MichaelLNorth (talk) 14:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hannity's "honorary degree" from Liberty University
The only source for this degree that remains (after I removed the two blog sources) is from Liberty University its self, and says that hannity will recieve an "honorary degree". However, the text of the article says "honorary doctorate degree". I propose that unless an appropriate third party source can be found that describes the degree as specifically being a "doctorate", we remove this piece of unsourced information and simply call it what the single reference calls it: "honorary degree". MichaelLNorth (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hannity was the keynote speaker and received an honorary doctorate, that is just how they do it. I don't know exactly why you are arguing this in the first place.  It is simply an award bestowed upon him, it doesn't have any educational implications and it is not like he can call himself Dr. Hannity because of it.  Arzel (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry if the source doesn't say that, we can't. That's just how Wikipedia works. Gamaliel (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Arzel, if you can come up with a source that says "honorary doctorate" or "honorary doctorate degree" or the like, of course we should call the degree a "doctorate". Until then, all we have is the one source, which describes it as an "honorary degree", and as such we cannot call it anything else. MichaelLNorth (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this one is pretty clear; I doubt multiple reliable sources are forthcoming. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hannity's party registration
Ideally, the "party affiliation" line wouldn't be on the bio (although of any public figure who isn't an elected official, a strong argument can be made). But here's a link to the screenshot of the NYSVoter page, and the NYS Voter lookup page. You can verify this information for yourself by going to the NYS page, entering his DOB, entering his zip code and county (both of which can be figured out on checking the address on his contributions to Jeanine Pirro), and hitting enter. I didn't catch the revert and message from Niteshift36 when it happened so i'm getting back to you on that whole thing.

--RobbieFal (talk) 09:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Is it possible to register as a CPNY in NY? Or do members of CPNY simply work within the Republican Party?  It would appear from the CPNY website that they work within the Republican Party and would be registered as Republicans so they could participate in Republican primaries in order to support the conservative option of their choice.  If Hannity delcares himself as a CPNY then I don't really see the problem with the classification as what you have done is WP:OR.  Arzel (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The Conservative Party of New York is a separate party and NYS voters can register Conservative (146K New Yorkers are registered Conservative). The talk of working in the Republican Party is mainly due to electoral fusion, as a majority of CPNY candidates are Republicans. Third parties in New York are different from virtually everywhere else due to fusion. --RobbieFal (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Very interesting. Thanks for the clarification.   Arzel (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Apparently he changed his registration somewhere along the line. He's made the claim that he was registered with CPNY more than once in the past. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Freedom concerts - Not notable appropriate weight
All of the sources for the section on freedom concerts are either from hannity's website, Six Flags (where the event was hosted one year), and the local radio station that broadcasted the event live. None of these are third party sources. MichaelLNorth (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

My slimming down of this section was reverted, yet there is no comment here. Please don't shoot first and ask questions later. My rationale was as follows: Notwithstanding, a good rule of thumb would be to not cite hannity's own website, or the site for his freedom concerts -- info that is only found there is not likely to be WP:NOTABLE. MichaelLNorth (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Listing the fact that Sam and Joe and Billy and Steve all appeared at "Freedom concerts" is an obvious case of WP:TRIVIA. This does not belong on wikipedia.
 * The venue of the 2006 and 2007 concerts is WP:RECENT and WP:TRIVIA as well. You may as well list the soft drinks that were available for purchase there. Perhaps if the topic were WP:NOTABLE enough to warrant a seperate article you could include this type of thing, but that is not our current situation.
 * The whole section is really not notable, as it is only of importance to Hannity listeners/fans. Freedom Concerts have received little to no coverage from third party media sources. However -- I know that removing the whole section will send some of his proponents into a frenzy, so I will not disagree that we should keep what the concerts are, what type of music is played there, when he started having them, where the proceeds go, etc...
 * First off, you didn't "slim it down" last night, you gutted it. Then you give me this "look at the talk page first" crap in your edit summary, even thought you "slimmed it down" without discussion, and didn't bother to put your reasoning here for severl hours afterwards.. So, moving past your "do as I say, not as I do" style of editing.... 1)While your opinion is that listing some of the performers is "trivia", I hold a different opinion. Showing some of the top names that have performed gives a reader some perspective of how big these events are. There are multiple, notable acts performing at each one, not a collection of nobodies and cover bands. 2) Listing where the venues were is not recentism or trivia. How you find events from 2-3 years ago to be recentism is a good question. Further, listing the locations of past events is no more trivial than listing locations where past World Series games have been played.  3) The section is notable in respect to Hannity's life. This is his bio, remember? This is something he works on every year. It has grown markedly and raises millions of dollars for charity. And it is something he is personally involved in. He doesn't just lend his name to it, he appears at every single event. 4) I think you are wrong when you say citing the charaties website is not reliable. Hannity doesn't control their website. They are a good source of information about this topic.
 * I would also like to know why you decided to stick this section near the top of the page instead of the bottom as we do with everything else? Not even at the top, just near it. It almost looks like you were trying to make it harder to find.


 * Instead of removing the information you felt wasn't properly sourced, would it have been so difficult to just remove the source and then fact tag it? It wasn't hard to find good sources.Niteshift36 (talk) 09:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the amount of media coverage I've found (almost 500 Gnews hits), not only does the concert series appear notable, I'm considering making it an article of it's own. That amount of coverage does indicate notability. What do you have to support your "it's just not notable" opinion? Niteshift36 (talk) 10:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * First, I'll address your attack on my editing style. You claim that there were several hours between my posting of rationalization here and my reverting of your revert. Here is the edit to the page (20:27.18), and here is the edit to the talk page, posting my rationalization (20:26.18). I will ask that you refrain from making personal attacks (i.e., your claim that I have a "do as I do, not as I say" editing style), especially when you have your facts wrong. Your assertion that I deliberately made this section hard to find is a personal attack as well. After thinking about it for a while, having a list of artists is appropriate, providing that they're not listed by year (i.e., "In 2007, Bill, Bob, Steve and Harry played. In 2008, Jill, Jeff and Sarah played). I am fine with what is on the page now. While I agree that the artists do give the concerts context, I disagree with your assertion that the venue does as well. I didn't remove information I felt was improperly sourced, I removed what seemed like unimportant, irrelevant trivia. I added about half of it back last night after reconsidering, and you added some new info this morning. You are twisting my words regarding reliability of sources. I never said that hannity.com or hannityfreedomconcerts.com was unreliable, only that if you find yourself NEEDING to use them as a reference (i.e., no other source contains that information) it is probably not notable. Please read WP:Agf carefully. MichaelLNorth (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * First, drop your "personal attack" bit. You tried it before and they didn't buy it at WQA. Second, you buried your reasoning by inserting it in the middle of all the existing discussions instead of adding it to the bottom. It was placed between discussions that took place in October 2008 and April 2009. I doubt many people go back to look at the old conversations to see if someone put a new section in. It is a commonly accepted practice in the community to add new discussion to the bottom. Even the instructions tell us to do that. Looking at the page history, it looks like you made an edit to an old conversation. If it was just slopiness on your part, that's one thing. If it was deception, it's another. I'll let you tell me which one it was. But I would still like to know why you didn't just continue in the existing section on that topic. Then you took a 3 paragraph section and gutted it to 2 sentences, solely based on your opinion. And since the notability of the concert series had already been under discussion, you knew full well that the change was not going to be uncontroversial. In short, you simply decided it should be your way. (And don't give me the WP:BOLD line either, you already knew your postion was disputed). I intend to add more material as well. I found a lot of useful sources on it. Lastly, read WP:AGF yourself. Making comments like calling people "proponents" and characterizing their opposition to your changes as "a frenzy" doesn't sound like someone assuming good faith. Believe it or not (and I've said this before), I listen to Hannity about a total of 1 hour or less a week (out of about 15 hours of radio and 7 hours of TV). I'm not much of a proponent. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have never used WQA for anything. Once again, you seem to be mistaken. Feel free to try to prove me wrong by posting any link of any WQA complaint I have started, contributed to, or been involved with in any way. While you're at it, when you say "Then you took a 3 paragraph section and gutted it to 2 sentences, solely based on your opinion", you may wish to provide a diff. You seem to think that at one point this was a large section, when I would estimate the largest it ever got was the 4 sentences it was before I touched it. Two of these sentences were about a particular freedom concert on September 11, 2007 (perhaps someone attended that concert, and then added this information shortly thereafter?), not the concerts as a whole. I would react similarly if you started talking adding information about the March 24, 2009 episode of Hannity (i.e., who was the guest, what issues were discussed, etc...) "You already knew your postion was disputed" is an assumption about my motivations. Let's talk about the content, not the editors. Any comment on your claim that I waited several hours between making changes and posting my rationale? Do you dispute the authenticity of the two diffs I posted above? MichaelLNorth (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You are correct about the WQA. It was not you, it was Starnocg using the same wording. I apologize. You want a diff to show 3 paragraphs turning into 2 sentences? Sure, no problem because that is exactly what happened. . Granted, not big paragraphs, but 3 paragraphs nonetheless being reduced to 2 sentences. And when I reverted, I said that some of it probably could be pared down, but you didn't pare, you gutted. There is no assumption about your motivation. It is a statement of fact. There was already discussion about it (in a properly labelled section) with someone using words almost identical to yours. I didn't address your motives. I addressed the fact that you made major changes that you knew were disputed. As for the time between, I already addressed, at length, how your reasoning was placed out of sequence, among old discussion, and without an edit summary that indicate you were starting a new topic. If you want to start the "answer my question" routine, I'll be waiting for your answer as to whether it was slopiness or deceit that made you place it in between two months old discussions with no edit summary to indicate you'd started something new. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It sounds like you get accused of making personal attacks often, if you have identical complaints that are so similar that you get them confused. You can call the diff 3 paragraphs into 2 sentences or 4 sentences into 2 sentences, or 108 characters into 2 sentences. It seems strange to compare apples and oranges, but whatever floats your boat. It was not indiscriminate, and I posted my rationalization at roughly the same time (60 seconds before) as the edit so as to not be accused of "gutting". Still waiting on an explanation as to why you accused me of taking "hours" to post my rationalization, but I won't bother creating a loaded question to ask you. The diffs are above if you want to verify this. I removed information specific to a particular freedom concert, in the interest of keeping the section about freedom concerts in general (not any specific one, like the 9/11/2007 concert details I removed). When you say, " I didn't address your motives. I addressed the fact that you made major changes that you knew were disputed.", you are being self-contradictory. Making any claim as to what I knew or didn't know is tantamount to assuming my motives/thoughts/ideas. Normally I wouldn't answer a ridiculous loaded question like the one you have posed, but here's what you're looking for: I am a new editor (long time user) of wikipedia, and added a new section by "editing" the first one, and putting a new section at the bottom. It would definitely be against several wikipedia policies to assert, suggest or imply that I did this deliberately, especially since it's easy to see how new an account is. MichaelLNorth (talk) 04:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Freedom concerts in the Hannity article: it has nothing to with notability
The Wikipedia uses the term notablility to refer to the inclusion of an article in the Wikipedia based on guidelines for the quantity and quality of external coverage of the article's subject WP:N and WP:GNG, in this case, Hannity. Discussion of whether or not the Freedom Concerts should be mentioned in the article is a matter of how relevant they are to the subject of the article -- this test they easily meet. The rest are content guidelines (reliability, verifiability, balance with the rest of the article, etc.) to be worked out among the editors. patsw (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Patsw. I think that we have clarified that point, and now are discussing an appropriate WP:WEIGHT they should have in the article. MichaelLNorth (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section
For those of you joining this debate now, I've taken the liberty of starting the discussion over, since some people would rather slander me than the discuss the topic at this point.

In October, there was a prolonged debate about entering criticism into this article. Myself and nightwatch36 were involved. In the end, the criticism was deemed appropriate, and it was inserted into the article where it remained until June.

In June the page was vandalized, and all content critical of Mr. Hannity was removed without explanation. In August the community took notice of the blatantly biased nature of the article, and tagged it as biased and unbalanced. When I discovered this I reinserted the vandalized content, started a discussion about whitewashing, and mentioned in the edit note that "Hannity Staffers" (i.e. the vandal) should not remove any and all criticism from the page.

Seems obvious right?

Some people must have thought the shoe fit, because within five minutes the content was again deleted without explanation. I reinserted it twice, with the same result. Within 5 more minutes, the "criticism police" in the form of Daedalus, Niteshift, and Soxwon, the same people who reject any and all criticism of Mr. Hannity in this article and control the message completely, were pulling all the stops to make sure the information the community decided was relevant and notable would not be put back in.

This effort most recently culminated in accusing me of sockpuppeting in a transparent attempt to change the subject. By that point the content had already been reverted by an independent 3rd party (read: people who don't live on the discussion page blatantly trying to prevent the insertion of any criticism), only to be removed again. Several other people have asked that the content be put back in.

When someone says the content is noteworthy it is demanded that they justify why. In other words, the only time negative information gets put in this article is when there is a popular uprising that outlasts the "criticism police's" ability to haunt this page and control the discussion, and is not drowned out by the interference of their concerted effort.

The problem is that when the information gets put back in, the police will still be here. They will wait until a like minded individual removes all criticism again (read: vandalism), say nothing about it again, and once again delete-first-ask-questions-never when a Wikipedia denizen attempts to add anything in the least bit unflattering (again).

Control over a passive majority by a vocal and transparently biased minority flies in the face of everything Wikipedia stands for, and I for one will not put up with it. FuriousJorge (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could show us this clear majority? Removing possibly contentious material isn't vandalism, WP:CCC and characterizing changes that aren't really that concrete as vandalism is really POV in and of itself. Soxwon (talk) 02:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And please, for the sake of formatting, use indentations and sign right after your posts, instead of like how you did up there, signing a line below your posts.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  02:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As we are responding to you, we indent so our posts appear one level below yours.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  02:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If I were responding to myself, this is where my post would go.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  02:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And so on. So please, keep with the formatting.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  02:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Show you the clear majority? Are we on separate topics here?  Just look at the discussion here and on the editor intervention page.  I count at least five people that have either reverted the content or asked that it be included in the article in some way.  Look for yourself.


 * The only ones dissenting are you three, who's names are all over this discussion section controlling the message and rejecting critical information. You are the same people participated in the debate and came out on the losing side in October, and you are the same ones who "didn't notice" when the page was vandalized in June.
 * By my count the vote is 5-0 among people who don't live on this page, and aren't blatantly biased (read: nightshift's user page).FuriousJorge (talk) 02:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I fixed your post so it indents properly, please use proper formatting, it makes reading this page much easier. Since you are responding to Soxwon, your post is indented one more than his is, rather than being the same as his.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  02:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You don't give people enough credit. People will notice that every time you are backed into a corner you change the subject.  If you feel the need to adjust my indentation please grace us with a response that is on topic as well (and try not to misrepresent again)FuriousJorge (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want me to respond to you, use proper formatting.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  02:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Who is Nightwatch36 and should we invited him to opine on this? I'm sorry, but I can't resist doing this: Jorge, you keep talking about how 3 people "live on this page". I have FAR, FAR more edits on WP than you do and a great many of them are in articles that have nothing to do with politics. Pity, you can't make that statement. Jorge has been ranting about "people who live on this page" (and how their opinion shouldn't carry weight). As of the time I started this post, Jorge had a total of 221 edits on Wikipedia. 8 are about John McCain, 3 about a college politics professor, 10 about Joe the Plumber, 1 about an athlete, 7 about medical topics, 1 about Barack Obama, 2 about Phil Gramm. What about the remaining 189 edits? About Sean Hannity. 189 out of 221 edits were related to Hannity. 213 of 221 edits were about political topics. (that's 96%) A stunning 85% of the edits you've made on Wikipedia were about Hannity, but because I have a couple of userboxes, I am the one with an "obvious agenda"? Who really lives on this page in Wikipedia terms Jorge? 85% of MY edits aren't about Sean Hannity. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please refer to your user page and find me the one criticism of your hero that you accepted, then accuse me of having an agenda. The reason I have so many posts about hannity is because you and the other two people who LIVE ON THIS PAGE will not allow any negative information into the page.  I am a casual editor who normally posts anonymously and was inspired to create an account 8 months ago when I saw the blatant and unethical bias both here and in Hannity's show.  This account would have remained dead if the page hadn't been vandalized on your watch.


 * The absolute truth is that I never posted about politics until I saw the injustice that went on here. I can point you to many anonymous entries I'm responsible for, none of which relate to politics, but I wont allow you to change the subject again.  You wanna say that this is my cause on wikipedia?  Fine, but it is a righteous one.  Down with the oppression of dissenting opinions.FuriousJorge (talk) 04:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Furious, I'm tired of this, please show me that consensus hasn't changed, or please just stop, ok? Soxwon (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * For the umpteenth time, present company excluded, in only 24 hours every independent voice that has weighed in has been basically unanimous for the re-inclusion of some or all of the vandalized version. Show me where I'm wrong.  There you have it (again).


 * Just because they post and haven't yet come back doesn't mean they don't count, and just because you are more vocal than they doesn't make you more correct.FuriousJorge (talk) 04:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How about you name names instead of making sweeping statements that have no weight.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  05:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh huh........spin away. I have over 9000 contributions on Wikipedia. Well over 95% of MY edits have nothing to do with this article. To put it another way, of every hour spent editing WP, I spend 57 minutes somewhere other than this article. For every hour YOU are on WP, you spend 51 minutes on this article. So I ask again, who lives on this page in reality? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I come on this page twice a year to right a wrong. You are on the page every day making sure that no negative information gets included. You wanna say that getting SOME CRITICISM into hannity's page is my crusade? Fine, it is. But it is still a righteous one. You make me passionate with your bias. If you want me on this page less re include the information that should never have been removed with no discussion in June (read: Vandalism by Whitewashing). You'll note (actually you won't) that when the article was not biased you didn't see any of me trying to add criticism, but you were here the whole time trying to prevent it.FuriousJorge (talk) 04:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So when it matched your POV it was ok and when we disagree we're no longer neutral? Nice spin-doctoring... Soxwon (talk) 05:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Correct, in this case, but it's not spin. Any fair-minded individual would agree with me.  Take note that all disinterested parties to-date have come out against the censorship.FuriousJorge (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop with the blatant improperly formatted posts. Stop signging your posts twice as well.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  05:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So they're only fair-minded if they agree with you, otherwise they're for censorship and not disinterested? A Godwin's Law argument is just on the tip of my tongue... Soxwon (talk) 05:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

People question whether or not this is censorship. It is censorship because all criticism of Hannity was removed (page was vandalized) in June where it had been as a result of needlessly obstructed collaborative effort a few months prior. It is censorship because when I added the latest version it was removed wholesale, with no discussion posted. It is censorship because only people with a history of obstructing any criticism of the subject continue to favor its exclusion. It is censorship because you will not allow the information to remain posted during the debate, thereby ensuring disinterest from 3rd parties who don't feel like going through the history to see what we are talking about. Why are you scared to put it up there for a few days. In short, it is censorship. FuriousJorge (talk) 05:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Censorship, abiding by wikipedia policy, what's the difference so long as your POV shows up. Soxwon (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Renaming thread
I have renamed the thread because it blatantly attacks others.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  05:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Whatever. I found another source for the Hal Turner bit.  It is from a conservative magazine.  Please make my day and continue to censor and strong arm dissenting opinions.  Whatever you do, don't let the people decide while the information is in there.FuriousJorge (talk) 05:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename it to attack others again and I'll report you for a violation of personal attacks.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  05:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe, at some point, you'll understand that my objection, thus far, hasn't been about sourcing. It's about whether or not it even belongs in this article. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I do understand, and I disagree, but I wasn't debating you just then, was I.
 * We should put our differences aside and rejoice. A completely non-biased and pertinent blurb has been inserted, with references, in the "radio" section
 * Gentlemen, a new day is upon on us, where criticism of Sean Hannity is once again in his Wikepedia page. Some may still disagree with it, but the question remains, will it be allowed to exist for all to see and discuss, or will it be censured anew.  Time will tell.FuriousJorge (talk) 05:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If that bit I removed was your idea of pertinent and neutral, you really need to review WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Soxwon (talk) 05:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Time has told. Under a minute.  That is exactly what was in there for six months, without the references you had a problem with.  Thanks for proving my point, and making sure no one can see the blurb as we debate it.FuriousJorge (talk) 06:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So you're saying we need to violate policy just so you can be happy? Soxwon (talk) 06:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You were doing so well, why stop now with correct formatting?—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  06:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They can see it. Same way I did. Click on history. You really can't understand the concept that what was here in Nov. (or June or whenever) doesn't necessarily mean it was consensus or meets applicable policies, can you? Niteshift36 (talk)
 * Then why was it allowed in, despite your best efforts where it remained until October until all criticism of Hannity was removed without reason? You argued so passionately against its inclusion then that you should at least have the courtesy to not pretend you wouldn't have removed it yourself it was against popular opinion or in violation of policy.  Your side lost that one and it will lose this one.FuriousJorge (talk) 06:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

To all: As I said before:  This is censorship. Hannity's page once again contains 0 criticism.FuriousJorge (talk) 06:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Names
This section is quite simple, Furious. You keep saying that some five people support your or have consensus or something. Name them now, or stop referring to them.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  06:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Finally we are back on topic. The following is a list of people whose names do not appear on this discussion page prior to this discussion, and support the inclusion of some or all of the critical content that was removed in June.

1) Verbal saw the Editor Assistance page and restored it outright.  That's how obvious it was to him.
 * Um, no. Verbal made no statements that clarified whether he or she actually agreed with anything.  They just made a sweeping edit that didn't take into account everyone's arguments.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  06:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Joking right? His opinion was clearly expressed by his actions.  He read my complaint and he acted accordingly.FuriousJorge (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed your bold, as it just ruins everything. That aside, what you state is not how things are.  You are not allowed to assume at people's motives.  Verbal did not explicitly state that was his or her opinion, so can it.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  07:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

2) Shortly thereafter JeffBillman stated that he could see how this appeared to be "whitewashing" and said that he supported the criticism being added (though not in a criticism section, instead throughout the article).  He also described the blurbs as "Well sources" or something similar.FuriousJorge (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Appearing to be something, and being something, are two very different things.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  06:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that your way of saying you can't take this one away? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FuriousJorge (talk • contribs)
 * No, that is my way of saying that you can't count someone who didn't explicitly state their opinion.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  07:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

3) Random IP guy said the information deserved to be in THIS article, and because that particular IP had no prior post (there are billions of possible IPs and some people get a new one every few hours) I was slandered as a sock master, execution before trial.FuriousJorge (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, first off, let me say that if I really cared, I would have restored the section. That said, I'm in favor of criticism appearing in the article, but not in favor of a separate criticism section.  Decide from there. -- JeffBillman (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Obvious SPAs don't count.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  06:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's one thing to slander me, it's another to discount his vote with no proof. I'm not conceding this vote.  The world has billions of possible IPs and most change quite often.  Ever hear of innocent until proven guilty?FuriousJorge (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's how it is. The account is an obvious SPA, and SPAs are not counted, ever.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  07:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And it is another thing to lie until you're blue in the face. The IP is confirmed to be FuriousJorge.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  00:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

4) JohnInDC called it remarkable that no criticism was included in hannity's page, and did while he did not specifically endorse what I had to say, he did not disagree with me when I called him a supported of anti-censorship on the hannity page thereafter.
 * No disagreements is not consensus.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  06:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is tacit agreement by any _reasonable_ standard.FuriousJorge (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Too bad the world doesn't work that way, try taking a gander at WP:CONSENSUS.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  07:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

5) Finally, I had no problem with this page before it was vandalized.  I only came back, as you point, out after 8 months when I saw what transpired.  I never tried to get any additional criticism into this article in the meantime, while any time a criticism was raised some combination of you three shot it down.  Thanks for playing.


 * Now surely you will say I don't count and John wasn't specific, fine. Then count it three.


 * Please count YOUR votes, and see if you can find three people who agree with you that don't previously appear on this page knocking down any and every criticism anyone wants to include, specifically those of you who revert I say.


 * Now consider that it has only been 24 hours, and that none of your votes should count, as you are clearly not disinterested parties. Pretending otherwise would just be insulting at this point.


 * So your turn. Give a number first, then we'll argue about it.FuriousJorge (talk) 06:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, you skipped your turn. Which disinterested parties do you have? 0? Got one somewhere? More votes will come in against censorship and bias-sponsored vandalism, don't worry. Again, it's only been 24-hours, and you're already scrambling to discount and discredit people's opinions.FuriousJorge (talk) 06:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Requests for comment on inclusion of Sean Hannity's political views on waterboarding
Should Sean Hannity's political views on waterboarding be included in this article? See discussions in Talk:Sean_Hannity and Talk:Sean_Hannity.

Proposed edit:
 * ==Views==


 * ===Waterboarding===
 * Hannity has stated that waterboarding is not torture and has described those who oppose waterboarding as "moral fools". He said on April 22, 2009 that he would subject himself to waterboarding to prove that it is not torture, but as of yet has not undergone the technique.

Stargnoc (talk) 08:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Since you've decided to make this a RfC, I'll briefly recap what I've said and save people time:
 * 1) I believe this is a case of WP:RECENTISM. It made the news in a limited number of outlets, then pretty much disappeared from the news. Using the Recentism suggestion of asking if this will be relevent in 10 years, the answer is a resounding no. It wasn't even being covered to any real 10 weeks later.
 * 2) I believe this is a case of WP:UNDUE.
 * 3) The "event" is already covered in the article about the show (which is where it happened) and doesn't really belong in a biography. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I was happy with where we ended up with the article last night, Niteshift36, but Dædαlus decided to interfere with yet another reversion of all content, glossing over all of the discussion on the issue that clearly shows Hannity's political views are to be included in his biography. So far all that has happened is discussion, discussion, discussion, and then unwillingness on the part of some to find a common middle-ground, revert, revert, revert.  I - and others - have continued to try to come up with a compromise and have been met with staunch refusal to include any material on Sean Hannity's political views in HIS OWN BIO.  As discussion continues to go nowhere, RfC is my only possible next step to try to get this resolved.Stargnoc (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we discussed and reached a compromise, but as I pointed out, I'm just one editor that was opposing the inclusion. There were and are others. And I noticed how happy you were with the compromise. It was pretty evident when you decided to partner up with User:Revrant to comment in your first ever contribution on that noticeboard. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hannity holds a political view that waterboarding is not torture. His political views are fair game for inclusion in a biography and I believe more of his views should also be included.  The issues of waterboarding and torture are certainly ones that will be relevant still in 10 years.  This viewpoint should be included in Hannity's bio here.  There are plenty of examples of biographies for news commentators in which political viewpoints are listed, and there is absolutely no reason to suppress Hannity's views here.Stargnoc (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Hannity holds that view. Hannity holds many views on many topics. I do dispute whether or not this will be relevent in 10 years. I find it tough to believe that 10 years from now, if someone is discussing waterboarding, they'll be using Hannity as part of the discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you agree. Hannity holds many views on many topics, and those topics which will be relevant in 10 years, such as waterboarding, should be amongst the relevant views listed in Hannity's biography.Stargnoc (talk) 00:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Now whether or not the information on his statement that he would volunteer to be waterboarded should be in the article is something one can argue. I believe that it provides an interesting anecdote regarding Hannity's opinion on waterboarding as torture.  It may have been WP:RECENTISM when the story first came out, but since then we have seen other commentators with similar views undergo waterboarding and come out acknowledging that it is torture.  So this is certainly relevant to the debate on whether waterboarding is torture.  Whether or not to include it in the article here is a matter of opinion, but including it only in the wikipedia page for his show does not make sense.  If nothing else, Hannity's views on waterboarding should be listed in the article with a link provided like so (waterboarding) so people can find further information on the waterboarding discussion.Stargnoc (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You say that many others have commented since that time. But the fact is that those "many" others did so within about 2 weeks. 99% of them haven't revisisted the issue. In fact, had Mancow not made the issue resurface, there would be a virtual derth of coverage. Even with his (Mancow's) brief re-visiting of the issue, that coverage lasted a day or two and ended. The simple fact of the matter is that the coverage about this "promise" was very short-lived and that is a strong indicator of WP:RECENTISM. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Furthermore if I were to read an article on Hannity's political leanings 10 years from now, I would EXPECT to see a section on his assertion that waterboarding is not torture. I would also EXPECT that such an article, if not written by an author trying to suppress all the information, would mention Hannity's volunteering to be waterboarded and any follow-up events on that story.  It wouldn't seem responsible to leave this event out.  Also, if I were to read an article on the waterboarding as torture discussion 10 years from now it would likely include an article on the effect of the media's subsequent reaction on the debate; I'm sure I would find mention of members of the media who tried to prove their viewpoints on either side and it is likely that Hannity and Mancow could be presented as examples of media members on either side of the argument.  This is not something that will be forgotten.  Therefore Hannity's political views should be on wikipedia NOW and Hannity's volunteering to be waterboarding should be included in the waterboarding article on wikipedia - which it is - if not also in Sean Hannity's article.Stargnoc (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done nothing but try to stay on point, dealing with only the issue in this section, but you've decided to start with the "if not written by an author trying to suppress all the information" direction. I thought you'd actually try to stay on commenting about the issue and not start with editors motives. I was wrong. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Am I the only uninvolved editor here? Anyway, as a neutral editor, the waterboarding inclusion seems trivial. "but as of yet has not undergone the technique"? What is that? Is that encyclopedic? 99.162.212.56 (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC) (Oops not logged in) Lionelt (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are the first uninvolved editor to respond to the RfC. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears so. There are two questions here. 1) Are Sean Hannity's political views appropriate for his biography? I think this is clearly a "yes" based on other political commentator's wikipedia pages. Hannity's views on waterboarding as torture are clearly relevant, then. 2) Is Hannity's proposal to undergo waterboarding to prove his assertion that waterboarding is not torture relevant? This is the only one up for debate as far as I am concerned. I have already expressed my views concerning why I think this, as well, should be included. Please do not feel the need to group #1 and #2 together when you respond. They are 2 separate issues.Stargnoc (talk) 00:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless someone can mind meld with Hannity ... and get a complete, objective, factual listing of his political views .. than NO they don't belong in his bio. If ... for example 20 years from now ... this current political affair regarding his comments on water boarding become historically impactful on is biography, then they should be included.  Untit then, In my opinion, they don't belong.  I say take your point to the page on his particular show and then scale it down to be succint ... maybe it belongs there. Douggmc (talk) 04:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hannity has clearly stated his opinion on waterboarding. He has also clearly stated his opinion on other political views.  Similarly, many other political commentators have political views sections on wikipedia.  Please explain to me why Sean Hannity's political views should not be included on his wikipedia page.Stargnoc (talk) 23:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also please explain to me why Sean Hannity's political views should go in an article for his television show rather than an article about him where they seem rather clearly to me to fit. Hannity is known for being a political commentator as is clearly stated in his article numerous times.  He has also stated his political opinions not only on his television show, but on other television shows and on the radio.  Furthermore, every other political commentator I have found on wikipedia has a list of their political views clearly presented.  Why is Hannity any different?Stargnoc (talk) 23:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't take my words out of context. I was referring a hypothetical biographer of the future, who, if it truly impartial, would include Sean Hannity's opinion on waterboarding.Stargnoc (talk) 23:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My rationale is that this is one of his many expressed views and opinions. Which ones are appropriate to list and which ones are not (rhetorical question)?  Only the test of time will say so.   Hence my logic that, looking back 20 years from now, this "waterboarding" statement/position he has made may be meaningless.  Therefore, let it simmer for a few years, re-evaluate then and consider whether worthy of adding.  Also ... his high level political affiliation and stance is listed multiple times (conservative).--Douggmc (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't see how Sean's opinion on waterboarding could not be an issue in 20 years. I'm sure any meaningful biography would touch on this  issue and many others that should be included in his biography on wikipedia today.  Do you know of any guidance regarding which political views should be included for political commentators?  I think it's far more likely that Sean's views on waterboarding will still be relevant 20 years from now than that they will be forgotten.  It's like we're using recentism although I can't see how his views will be forgotten.  If Sean's views were forgotten in 20 years it would only be because Sean personally was forgotten.  So should we remove the article entirely because it's recentism?  It doesn't make sense to me that we would censor information because there's a very small chance that it wouldn't be relevant in 5 or 10 or 20 years.97.95.36.89 (talk) 03:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * '''Note: User: 97.95.36.89 is Stargnoc. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I find it difficult to believe that in 20 years, people will be routinely sitting around discussing waterboarding. I find it even more difficult to believe that they'd be unable to have that conversation without mentioning Hannity. I can have it now without mentioning him, so I'm doubting that I'll need to invoke his name in 20 years either. Really, I doubt Hannity will be all that relevant to a discussion about many topics in 20 years. And your assertion that Hannity's persona is so closely tied to this one issue is kind of...well, laughable. He wrote 2 best sellers, won a couple of Marconi awards, had a TV show and had the #2 talk show in the country before most people ever heard of waterboarding (perhaps even before you heard of it). Niteshift36 (talk) 05:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that those discussing waterboarding will necessarily mention Hannity, although I think it would be a nice anecdote on the whole affair even in 20 years. I'm saying that those discussing Hannity's views will probably mention his stance on waterboarding.Stargnoc (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If I may interject, I'd like to see what method is being used to determine that waterboarding (so far the only view that would be listed) is as important or more so apparently than his stand on abortion, the death penalty, public education, the military, the war in Iraq, gun rights, etc. Your assertion of importance is your opinion, what proof have you that waterboarding is going to be viewed as important in 20 years? If you can supply me such information, then it should go in. However, if you cannot, then the information that goes in should be based on coverage. Most if not all of the stories on Sean hannity's comments on G-news center around a 3 month period, hardly enough coverage to point to as a defining characteristic or an important stance (even more so when half of the articles are Olbermann ribbing Hannity to do it). Soxwon (talk) 04:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC) I would like to see a political views section, which I've already tried to add once, but was removed without discussion. I'd like to see it fleshed out much like other political commentators' sections. I don't want just waterboarding listed there. And at the very least I would like to see a link to waterboarding from Sean Hannity's article, because it is an important issue and one that he has commented on. As a man famous for being a political COMMENTATOR, his views are entirely relevant to his biography.Stargnoc (talk) 23:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Include proposal. I don't think this is recentism. Fifty years later, we're still talking about the Red Scare, and still associating that event (actually the second) with Joseph McCarthy.  It's not unthinkable that we'll be doing the same vis a vis Hannity and Waterboarding in another 20-50 years. -- JeffBillman (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Talking about waterboarding 20-50 years from now is not the same as talking about Hannity 2-50 years from now. Frankly, I doubt any of us will be talking about Hannity in any context 50 years from now. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to know how political views detailed in other articles on political commentators are chosen. What are the criteria to decide if a specific view should be displayed?  I think all of the issues you mentioned, if Sean has stated a clear opinion on them, should be included for the sake of completeness.  Torture and the United States' participation in waterboarding is an important issue and always will be.  Not including political views of a political commentator seems to me to be irresponsible.  I would like to see a political views section for Sean Hannity, just like there was one for every other commentator I've looked up.  But when I added it before it was removed, in my opinion without just cause.  Why can't Hannity have a section on his political views even though many of his views are well-established?Stargnoc (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How can waterboarding and the United States' military's practices of torture not be relevant to a democracy? Torture goes against our fundamental values and is a violation of the Geneva Conventions though I don't think the U.S. actually ratified that portion(?).  How am I to have "proof" that waterboarding and torture will be relevant in 20 years?  And since when is anything less than 20 years considered recentism?  I think it's fair to make an educated determination as to whether the United States waterboarding of prisoners will be in the history books.  Clearly, it will be.  It's an issue today and it won't be forgotten.  Of course I cannot supply you with inescapable proof of the future, but I think it's clear that the history books will comment on waterboarding in 100 years.  And I think it's very clear that any biography on Hannity will mention his political views in full detail.  It's common sense.Stargnoc (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, who cares if waterboarding is a relevant topic in 100 years? The question is whether Hannity will be relevant in that discussion and I don't think he will be. 2 years after he goes off the air, you'll forget about him and find someone else that pisses you off. 20 years from now, you'll struggle to remember his name. 50 years from now, the man will most likely be dead and I highly doubt that any of his opinions will appear too relevant to anyone after his death. If you stop to look at your last statement, you might see how preposterous it is. 100 years from now? Let's just say that the people who are having this hypothetical conversation about waterboarding are 20 (we'll make them young). That means they still won't be born for another 80 years from now. Hannity will be dead and buried by the time they are born (or 127 years old). Even if he broadcasts into his 70's (which is doubtful), he'd still have been off the air for nearly 50 years before these two 20 year olds were even born. You are giving him a truckload of credit if you think that people won't be able to discuss waterboarding without invoking the name of a guy that neither of them had ever even heard broadcast. Do you honestly believe that when you open a high school history book in 2109, it will have Hannity's name anywhere in it? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do history books cover the Holocaust? Do they cover Japanese internment camps during WW2?  Do they cover human rights violations in the United States and other countries?  The answer is an overwhelming "Yes".  And waterboarding, indeed, is torture.  A clear human rights violation.  It won't go away, nor will the history book's memory of those who voiced their support of it.  Hence, it should be included as one of Sean Hannity's political views.Stargnoc (talk) 23:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether or not we are talking about waterboarding 20, 40 or 60 years form now isn't the issue for this bio. The issue is whether Hannity would be relevent in that discussion. No. 20 years from now, you won't be talking about him. You'll have some new target to focus on. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Include proposal - this has gathered plenty of coverage in reliable sources, and is relevant here because Mr. Hannity (not a show) made both the comments and the offer to be waterboarded for charity. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not include proposal - As has been stated many times, this is a case of WP:RECENT, and WP:UNDUE. If, and when, this is spoken of again, then include it, otherwise, no.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  23:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Include Proposal - Changed, this isn't about his request to be waterboarded.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  05:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As has been stated many times, this is neither a case of WP:RECENT nor WP:UNDUE. I would appreciate further response to my points on various issues raised.  I'd like to see a consideration of alternative viewpoints.  I'm having a very hard time seeing why Sean Hannity's political views are not relevant, especially when it's clear to me that waterboarding will be covered in history books even 100 years from now.  Please see my other comments and if you're willing, reply to them.  I would like to see a differing opinion.Stargnoc (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also please recognize that this is not about inclusion of Sean Hannity's proposal to be waterboarded. This is about inclusion of Sean Hannity's political views on waterboarding (in addition to all other meaningful political views).  Sean Hannity has shown no inclination to change his opinion on waterboarding as torture.  Whether or not there are more articles on Sean Hannity's declaration that he would undergo waterboarding is irrelevant.  He has clearly shown his opinion on waterboarding and this political view should be included in his biography as he is most well-known for being a political commentator.  This is common for every single political commentator I have viewed on wikipedia as of yet, and I would assume the vast majority.  Clearly Sean's volunteering to be waterboarded can be seen as WP:RECENT.  However, I requested an opinion as to whether his political views on waterboarding should be included, NOT as to whether his volunteering to be waterboarded should be included.  Please revise your opinion based on this.Stargnoc (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well some of those voting are talking about his "promise". Niteshift36 (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As long as reliable sources are used, i.e., interviews with Hannity, to show his views not the perception of his views as seen by others then I would have no problem including a section on his political views. The problem with a section like that is people will try to put in what others think his views are. This needs to be very well sourced and not to comments others have written about that they've heard on his shows.  Those comments should go on the show page.  --PTR (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but there is a problem with assuming that something will be important in 10-20 years. I would put this in the same category as Terry Schiavo, Elian Gonzales, Y2K, and a long list of other "moments" in history that were talked about for awhile, and made GREAT political fodder, but are then forgotten.
 * None of these things are forgotten, seeing as you and I still know what they are. Today, little is forgotten.  These events, just as Hannity's personal views on waterboarding which have been clearly stated on his radio and TV shows, will still be in the books 10 years from now.  There are plenty of examples of Hannity's personal views on his show, and I certainly don't agree that his opinion has to be expressed in some sort of interview.  He expresses his opinions every day on Fox News and his radio show, clearly, as he is a political commentator, not a reporter.Stargnoc (talk) 07:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I could stop in any mall in the US and ask 100 random adults who Elian Gonzalez is and I bet that less than 30% would get it right. Ever watched Jay Leno's man on the street bits? People that can't even name their own vice president won't remember Elian Gonzalez. Nor would they be able to tell you why Randy Weaver was notable, who Jim Jones was or why Anita Hill was relevant. I'm sure you know the answers to all of those, but let's be honest. We're not like most people. Regardless of which side of the fence we're on (or in the middle), we're spending (wasting?) our time on an article about a policitcal commentator. We're not here listing Pokeman characters or trying to make some band we heard on myspace look important. The fact that we are here, doing what we are doing, shows that we are more aware of and interested in political events than most people, regardless of whether we are conservative, liberal or middle of the road. Using ourselves as the standard of what most people will remember isn't really realistic. I just gave a talk to a group of 15-18 year olds last week and not a single one of them could tell me what the Congressional Medal of Honor was, despite the fact that they've been awarded in the past 2-3 years. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * However, even if I'm wrong, I'm not sure what seems to suggest that one of the defining details of Hannity's bio in 20 years will be the fact that he didn't think of Waterboarding as torture. He neither participated, nor went out on a limb, he simply did his job and gave his view on the subject. Why this view should be picked from the thousands of other's on issues that have proven, lasting importance (listed above)? Soxwon (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't care if it's "defining," I care if it will be mentioned, and it's very likely that a complete biography will.Stargnoc (talk) 07:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Set priorities If we're going to include a political view's section, this one should be close to the bottom, considering there is far more coverage of other issues like his stance on abortion or other hot-button issues that have been the bread and butter for his show and others for years. Soxwon (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sean has expressed his opinion on waterboarding as torture numerous times and it's just as relevant as any other issue. I don't see why you would set a priority on a current issue like this such that it should not be included.Stargnoc (talk) 07:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Include proposalHannity may be forgotten in the future. If he is remembered it should his claim should be also. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears to me that many of us agree that Sean Hannity's views on waterboarding are appropriate for inclusion in this article. Other notable political views should also be included.  To be honest I'm not sure what constitutes a 'consensus' on wikipedia so I won't say whether we have that yet - if a consensus has not been reached I'll be happy to escalate to the next level.  I would like to see editors take a stab at adding a political views section to the article (which there is a discussion topic for below).  I probably won't get to it for another few weeks but if nobody else takes a stab at it by then, I will.Stargnoc (talk) 03:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Who Removed All the Criticism From This Article in June?
The person who took out all negative information about Sean Hannity without discussion (6/15) made some very questionable yet similar decisions in other edits around that time. For starters, (6/11) he removed all references to the Holocaust Museums shooter's relationship with The Free Republic from that article, as well as all references to criticism of The Free Republics for racism against President Obama. All that information has been restored since.

On the same day he created a much needed "Reaction" section in the article about the United States Holocaust Memorial_Museum shooting. The only problem with it was that it consisted entirely of an apologetic distancing of a white supremacist group for their association with the shooter. For some reason subsequent editors thought that was perhaps not the most appropriate blurb for the article's reaction section, and out it went.

Shortly after this, the same user thought it was unfair that Bill O'Reilley was being criticized after George Tiller's shooting for historically referring to him "Tiller The Baby Killer" on his show. So, he removed all criticism of O'Reilley relating to this matter. What's interesting about this post is not that the information was restored (it was), but that his argument was that it should be included only in the article about his show, not in the article itself. A familiar argument that some have been making here.

This person found time amid that spree to visit this page and remove anything critical of Sean Hannity. This was criticism that had been debated and inserted in October, including, not surprisingly, all mention of Hannity's common knowledge association with Neo-Nazi Hal Turner. Nobody stopped him, and everyone *pretended* not to notice, but when I tried to reinsert criticism of Hannity (in the middle of the night) it was removed within five minutes, again with no discussion.

This stinks of POV Pushing (at best) if not Vandalism (at worst) to me.

This was after only a few minutes of investigation. I'm sure it gets much more interesting if one has time to look. Just thought we should know the person I'm trying (unsuccessfully) to revert.

Cheers.FuriousJorge (talk) 09:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Criticism section
Should there be a Criticism section or similar in Sean Hannity? If so, should it include the appearances of Hal Turner and/or Andy Martin (U.S. politician) on Hannity's shows? Anarchangel (talk) 08:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for noticing my probably improperly formatted Request. I just wanted to clarify one thing:  I'm not looking for a criticism section per se, I'm looking for the criticism that was taken out on June 15th by John Asfukzenski without discussion to be reverted.  I'm currently not being permitted to do so by some fellow editors.


 * Since I started this I would like to offer a suggestion for an improved version of some of content that was removed when everything critical of the subject was deleted on 6/15:


 * First, in the Radio section:

``Hannity has drawn criticism from left-leaning media outlets for having provided a forum on his late 1990s WABC radio program to self-described neo-Nazi Hal Turner. Phil Boyce, program director at WABC-AM, told The Record of Bergen County, New Jersey that Turner's views were "inappropriate", and that they stopped taking his calls when "basically, the shows didn't feel he was of value anymore." For his part, Turner said that Hannity had become too "timid" and "politically correct". Sean Hannity denies he ever considered Turner a friend.``


 * Secondly, in the television section:

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


 * If everyone can give on opinion on whether all, some, or none of that deserves to be the first criticism in this article I'm sure we'll resolve this quickly.

Thanks! FuriousJorge (talk) 10:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Two things off the top. First, I think the first section needs a bit of editing for clarity (the WABC producer's response reads as though it was the initial criticism when instead it appears to have been an acknowledgment of the issue), and second, can someone with objections to this material please explain them succinctly to save everyone the trouble of extracting them from the extensive, and not always substantive, back-and-forth above?  Jorge - please don't try to refute or rebut them yet.  Let's just have everything laid out here neatly so that other editors can get a sense of the disagreement.  Thanks.  JohnInDC (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. See below. Further, as a general question: Aren't criticism sections generally frowned on in BLP articles? Isn't the more commonly accepted practice to incorporate any issues into the article without a seperate section? I acknowledge that although Jorge initially tried to make it a seperate section, he did later try adding it into existing sections, but I'm asking for the sake of clarity because of the wording of the RfC.Niteshift36 (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC Comment: Add as a WP:NPOV "Reception" section, not "Criticism". While "criticism" sections are frowned upon, largely due to being POV magnets, having no criticisms in an article about a figure as polarizing as Sean Hannity is certainly a problem. "Reception" sections are not frowned upon, especially for topics where there is a wide aray of notable points of view to document. The Andy Martin topic should certainly be included, with some care to not violate WP:UNDUE.MichaelLNorth (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

reply to rfc there should definitely be a criticism or controversy section on this page, as the is a major aspect of his notability. untwirl (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Even those who are pushing for more criticism ackowledge that a seperate section isn't the way to go. Nobody has denied that criticism belongs here. The question has been what criticism is relevant. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

reply to rfc From what I see here, I tend to hold a view similar to Niteshift36. There is nothing wrong with a criticism section in a BLP article, as long as the criticism is not given undue weight, is relevant to the person, and is properly sourced in strict adherence to WP:BLP. I don't think it is proper to list every criticism ever leveled. There are certain organizations (MediaMatters comes to mind) that will nitpick at Hannity every day of the week. Of course, MM is a partisan organization, and is not a particularly reliable source to begin with, but I do see them cited quite often as if they were. - Crockspot (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll add that criticism of things that occurred on one of his shows might properly be mentioned in the articles on those shows. When we have subjects with forks for various television and radio shows, the main article should really try to stick to the subject at hand: the man and his life. - Crockspot (talk) 18:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The target of the criticism is the man, not the show. Please be careful of separating views expressed on the shows and a "media persona" from the man. Sean Hannity does not pretend to be someone else while on the air (like Stephen Colbert does) -- the views expressed are his own, and any criticism leveled at things he says on his shows are leveled at the man, not the program. Furthermore, advocating that all criticism be placed in articles that are far less prominent could be seen as another type of POV-pushing. The WP:NPOV thing to do is to judge on a case-by-case basis which content belongs in which article. MichaelLNorth (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The flip side is that this is about Hannity's life, public and private. While something might be "important" in terms of the show (such as one time things like the waterboarding or Andy Martin), compared to long term issues and events or other things that have happened in his life, it might not be that important, so inclusion in the show article and not the bio would work. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)