Talk:Sean Hannity/Archive 7

Hannity the Manatee
http://semi-vegan-in-dystopia.blogspot.com/2008/10/this-just-in-hannitys-plump-as-manatee.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.238.122.199 (talk) 06:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Utterly irrelevant. Dayewalker (talk) 06:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Soxwon (talk) 07:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Work Experience
Removed assertion that Hannity was a general contractor. Link was dead. Name does not appear at website of California Contractors State License Board. Tapered (talk) 06:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds more like a brochure than a well articulated and balanced (pro/con) article.
Education is listed as New York University and Adelphi University yet he by his own admission never finished. Would appear to be more appropriate to list those institutions he has completed such as his high school. There seems to be scant critical information of some of his more flagrant mendacity of pertinent information such as his "You can also look it up, this is one of the coldest years in history, this past year," he said on his radio show on November 24. "...this is the coldest year on record ... or one of them," he insisted on November 18. "This is one of the coldest years on record, ladies and gentlemen," he announced on Fox News on November 10.

Wow, that is shocking! And... completely false. According to Media Matters:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: 2009 year-to-date global temperatures tied as fifth warmest January-through-October period.

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies: 2009 year-to-date global surface temperature ranks fifth warmest out of 130 years.

The Met Office: 2009 will be one of top five warmest years globally. (http://journals.democraticunderground.com/top10/378).

Just a thought if we are looking for "fair and balanced." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brucejr (talk • contribs) 15:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC) — Brucejr (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Media Matters references by themselves shouldn't be used in a WP:BLP article and Democratic Underground references shouldn't be used at all in them. Would you want Media Research Center / Newsbusters and FreeRepublic references to be used in BLP articles of liberals?

Not suggesting that Media Matters be used as the basis for anything but I would also not indicate under "education" two school he did not complete and in fact dropped out of. But of course I was neither identifying him as a liberal nor a conservative so it is interesting you brought up that point yourself. But NASA, and NOAA are neither thought of as conservative nor liberal but scientific organizations that report the data inconvenient or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brucejr (talk • contribs) 15:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC) — Brucejr (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Personally I don't have a problem dropping the education info in his infobox or in handling it the way it's handled in Nina Totenberg. But notice that in the 'Personal background' section plainly points out that "Hannity dropped out of New York University and Adelphi University to pursue his broadcasting career." So anyone skimming the top of his article could see that. You could mention the climate statements if a good source like the Washington Post mentions in a news story Hannity's use of them. Drrll (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The way it is stated in Nina Totenbergis perfect as it clearly states she did not complete her degree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brucejr (talk • contribs) 16:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC) — Brucejr (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I added a small (did not graduate) after both universities in the infobox. I think this is sufficient. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 16:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. Drrll (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a bio about Hannity, not a battleground for GW. What he says on his show is more relevant to the article about the show than to his personal biography. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Global Warming? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brucejr (talk • contribs) 13:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC) — Brucejr (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Yes, global warming. That is the context in which the remark was made, wasn't it? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

CREW allegation revisited
For over a year now the part about CREW requesting an investigation into the Freedom Alliance finances (something Hannity has no control over). A year later, we have no info on whether or not there was an investigation, the outcome, nothing. I submit that now we are treading on WP:UNDUE territory. Over a year, implying that Hannity has done something wrong by being associated with an organization that may or may not have been investigated. I have absolutely no doubt that had any violation been found, it would have been reported like crazy. How long do with leave this implication of wrong-doing in the article without a resolution? I know there is no time limit on notability etc, but implying this sort of thing is a BLP issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You're quite right that had a violation been found, it would have got major media play. A search of 'Major World Publications' in LexisNexis reveals no such news items. I supported inclusion before, but it has been over a year and nothing came of it (did any government agencies actually investigate, or were they merely asked to investigate). I think the Debbie Schlussel bit should go too (with the whole paragraph), as this article says that the CREW request was a result of Schlussel's blog posts and she is hardly noteworthy. BTW, the same LexisNexis search of 'Major World Publications' show a grand total of two articles that discuss this issue, both at the end of March 2010:  one the column in The Washington Post that I linked to, and another a brief news story in The Washington Times. Drrll (talk) 02:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That brings up another important fact. While the partisan blogosphere fed like sharks for a week or so, the MSM pretty much yawned. With so few reliable sources actually paying attention to it, one has to consider WP:UNDUE again. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's undue now. I'm going to remove the entire paragraph. Drrll (talk) 02:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A charity can spend 80% of its contributions on administrative expenses, etc, and only 20% on its program expenses without violating any laws. To note that money is being raised for a cause, without any mention of the issues about how that money is spent, is to give an incomplete picture. I suggest either deleting mention of the Freedom Alliance or mentioning that it has been criticized for the small percentage of its contributions that go to its charitable purpose.   Will Beback    talk    03:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is the problem Will: Hannity is very involved in promoting the charity and the Freedom Concert events. He is not, however, a mamber of the board or an employee. He has ZERO control over how money is spent. The scale of these concerts make them a fairly significant event in his life over the past few years. They should be mentioned in the bio. However, there is not even a real allegation that Hannity personally did anything wrong in the complaints. Having the concerts in the bio is a no-brainer, but how can we justify allegations about things that happen with the money raised, after the concerts and totally out of Hannity's control is quite an different issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If we don't want to mention that sources say only a small fraction of ticket sales go to scholarships then let's leave the scholarships out of the article. The way it's currently written gives a false impression.   Will Beback    talk    07:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Will, do you know any good sources that raise questions about Freedom Alliance with regard to Hannity (and not just ones that report that someone like a blogger has criticized him)? I haven't seen any. Like Niteshift said, he has no control over how the money is spent (maybe he should, given his key role in raising funds, but that would need to be sourced). Drrll (talk) 06:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * But surprisingly little of that money actually reaches veterans, the American Institute of Philanthropy says. [..] One organization passed along a scant 1 cent of every dollar raised to veterans, an institute report says. The Washington Post, which conducted an analysis of tax filings, reported that Help Hospitalized Veterans paid its founder and his wife a combined $540,000 in salary and benefits last year. Twelve of the 28 charities received failing grades from the institute. The 12 received a combined $266 million in donations in the past fiscal year, The Post said. One was the Freedom Alliance, an organization founded by Oliver North and heavily promoted by syndicated talk show host Sean Hannity. Hannity has sponsored events he calls Freedom Concerts for several years to raise money for the alliance's scholarship fund for children of slain servicemen and women. Tickets prices at a July 26 concert sold for $38 to $78. But only $4 of every ticket purchased went to the alliance, less than what went to parking and facility fees.
 * EDITORIAL: Charitable mis-giving. The Roanoke Times. Dec 16, 2007.
 * I'll see if I can track down the original Washington Post article. But this piece indicates that only a small portion of the ticket price goes to the charity. The charity's own 990 form, available on Guidestar, shows that only 1/3 of their receipts were spent fulfilling their purpose in 2009, the rest going to overhead, etc. Even if a ticket sells for $78, and only $1.33 goes to the scholarships then it doesn't mean that any laws have been broken. But if we're going to say that the concerts are for the benefit of the scholarships then NPOV requires we give all significant views on that matter.   Will Beback    talk    07:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think this is the Post article you are talking about. That article mentions that Freedom Alliance receives a failing grade from a charity rating agency in regards to funds passed on to the intended recipients, but doesn't mention Hannity or the concerts. The editorial mentions both Hannity and the concerts, but I believe that opinion pieces generally should not be used as sources for facts (especially in a BLP). If you can find a news source that mentions the charity's poor record that also mentions Hannity or the concerts (I could only find an opinion column by Dana Milbank in the Post that mentioned Schlussel's and CREW's criticism about the issue), I'd support putting this into the article, along with the fact that Hannity has no control over how the money is spent. Drrll (talk)
 * The only factual assertion in the editorial that isn't in the WaPo article is the detail about how much of a ticket price goes to the charity. That information was apparently publicized by concert organizers.   Will Beback    talk    21:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sigh........this is NOT an article about the Freedom Alliance. It is a bio of Sean Hannity. What Hannity personally does with the charity (ie the concerts) is what belongs here. If you want to discuss financial dealings of the Freedom Alliance, I'm sure the FA will apss notability enough to get its own article. Using the bio of a person who happens to help them raise money (yet had no control over how they spend it) as a platform to criticize the charity is wrong. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Niteshift here. The Freedom Alliance certainly could have its own article where those criticisms are mentioned. One difficulty, however, is that this section of the Hannity article has the aspect of a rather glitzy promotion of the organization (ex. the long list of star performers) which kinda makes it seem like the greatest thing since sliced bread. This rather invites editors who are not great fans of either Hannity or Ollie North to want to cut it down to size. I would suggest a briefer, drier, more encyclopedic description of Hannity's association with the organization. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I know you aren't trying to be offensive, but I need to clarify one thing. Contrary to what some have claimed, I am not a "great fan" of Hannity. I've read 2 of his book, watched his TV show probably less than 10 times and have probably heard a total of 30 minutes of his radio show in the past 6 months. I wouldn't say that makes me too great of a fan. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * In referring to "editors who are not great fans of Hannity or Ollie North" I didn't mean to imply that you were. It was just my way of referring to editors who tend to be anxious to include negative material on those fellows. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that, in general, any criticism of Freedom Alliance should go into an article about itself. If a good news source--not an opinion piece--examines the issue of FA's charity performance and directly brings in discussion of Hannity or the concerts (and not simply reports that others are doing so), then I do think we should follow the reliable sources. If think that that is a pretty high standard that must be met before including it, especially in a BLP. I also agree that the description of the Freedom Concerts is a bit much, especially reporting on specifics of the 2010 series. I do believe it is somewhat misleading to report the laudable purpose of FA in the first sentence and then report in the second sentence that the concert series has raised $9 million, implicitly all or mostly for scholarships, when the charity rating organization reports that FA's record is not that good. Drrll (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the feeling is that this article isn't about the charity, I've edited the article to omit its name, etc. It's sufficient to say that the concerts raise money for charity.   Will Beback    talk    19:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The only thing that I'd point out is that Hannity actually appeared onstage and sang with one of those acts most years. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If there's a source for that it'd be a relevant detail.   Will Beback    talk    23:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, that section used to be pretty well sourced, but certain POV warriors whittled down one after another. Previous refs did mention his singing with the guests. It just pisses me off a little that I have to go back and do the work over again. I'll think abot whether or not I want to do it again. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's best not to refer to other editors as "POV warriors".   Will Beback    talk    01:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In general, you are correct. In the cases I am referring to, the term is absolutely correct and I'll do it again if I need to. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

So it is important to mention Freedom Concerts... And the bands that played... and the money raised in Hannity's article??? Why? Cause it makes him look good by association. But since Hannity is on the board and only PROMOTES a charity (and sings on the stage with the members) it isn't appropriate to state there is some controversy about the charity? "Here is the problem Will: Hannity is very involved in promoting the charity and the Freedom Concert events". As such, and knowing there is an issue about how the funds are spent, Hanniity by continuing to be associated with Freedom Concerts makes this newsworthy and appropriate for inclusion in his personal article: Given that you think the other matters are worthy.Bluebadger1 07:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluebadger1 (talk • contribs)

importance ranking for conservatism
I have degraded Hannity imporantance status of Wikiproject Conservatism to low. Wikiproject Conservatism covers a broad topic that cover hundreds of years and several countries. It's obvious that when Hannity was labelled as "High" imporantance, the ranker was only thinking of modern American politics. Looking at conservative globally and historically, Hannity is not a significent figure, he did not pioneer conservative though, lead a significent movement or event that impacted conservatism historically. He hosts a popular radio show and thats it. LittleJerry (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * He's definitely not LOW either. I'd give him Mid.-- King Bedford I  Seek his grace  18:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say mid also, as the #2 political talk show host. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 23:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Importance ratings are governed by and are based on notability.– Lionel (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no consideration of how relevant they are to the topic? For example, Bill O'Reilly is very well known, but not a major conservative voice. Should he still be high importance? –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 00:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's avoid recentism or systemic bias. Radio shows have been around for at least 80 years, and TV shows for at least 60 years. Should we rate the #2 political talk show hosts, by ratings, from every era? Also, how significant is the subject in Europe or other areas? How often are his writings cited by others?     Will Beback    talk    00:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume you are responding to Lionel, not me? If so, you may want to adjust the indenting accordingly to clarify. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 00:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was just making a general point. I've adjusted to make that clearer.   Will Beback    talk    20:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * First, I recommend not making such bold changes on controversial articles without discussion. Second, if I understand you correctly, you would rate Jesus Christ and Julius Ceasar as higher on the Conservatism importance scale than Hannity. If that is what you mean, then the rating is meaningless. Someone with millions of daily viewers and listeners can in no way said to be of low importance.Jarhed (talk) 01:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just for the sake of asking....doesn't this discussion really belong on the talk page for the project, where more project members are likely to see it? Since this is really a question of what the project ranks it as, whatever the project decides should be the end of it, right? This IS a question of the importance to that project, isn' it? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That makes great sense and I am personally fine with whatever the project editors decide.Jarhed (talk) 02:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So he has a popular radio show, so what? What legacy does he have? Is know about Hannity really important for the subject of conservatism? LittleJerry (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your questions are debatable...so go debate them at the Conservatism project.Jarhed (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What Jarhed said. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism.   Will Beback    talk    23:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Will, your note at the Conservatism project makes it look like people should come here to discuss the issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Mid He is obviously not low, given his notability in the U.S. But he's no innovator, will likely have no legacy, and is not of worldwide importance. μηδείς (talk) 01:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I still think Mid is too high. Being a well known pundit is hardly impressive. If Hannity is Mid then who would be Low? LittleJerry (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why don't you go discuss it on the project page? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What Niteshift said.Jarhed (talk) 02:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Why does it matter? And are you a puppet user? LittleJerry (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A puppet user? Listen up johnny-come-lately, even the most cursory glance will show that I have edits in this article for years. That you even asked shows me a lot and none of it reflects well on you. To answer your question: This page is about improving THIS article. People are all here because of this article. Only a handful are in that project or give a rat's butt about how it gets classified. However, everyone at the project page cares about the project. In other words.....conduct project business on the project page. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Your accusation is a violation of Wikipedia policy. I insist that you comply with Wikipedia policy when commenting on this article.Jarhed (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Why does this article act as if the amount that Hannity's freedom concerts is a given?
It is not a fact and there is much information on the web disputing this fact. Is this a commercial for Hannity or a fact based article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.248.207 (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think you misread. I've never seen anyone dispute the amount raised. What was disputed (and never proven) was how much actually went to the soldiers. So stating an amount here isn't a "commercial".Niteshift36 (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Link to Dropout needed
The article mentions Hannity is a double dropout, but there is no hyperlink to dropout like there is in the Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.135.9 (talk) 03:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be in the other articles either. Commonly understood terms shouldn't be linked according to WP:OVERLINK. I'd submit that the vast majority of readers understand the term. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request February 6
The grammar in the first sentence of the "Personal background"section is incorrect.

"Sean Hannity is the son of Hugh J. and Lillian F. Hannity. His paternal and maternal grandparents immigrated from Ireland."

The sentence should read either:

"Sean Hannity is the son of Hugh J. and Lillian F. Hannity. His paternal and maternal grandparents emigrated from Ireland."

or

"Sean Hannity is the son of Hugh J. and Lillian F. Hannity. His paternal and maternal grandparents immigrated to the United States from Ireland."

Ttiltonheylin (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Thomas Tilton-Heylin 2/6/2013
 * Yes check.svg Done Changed to the second option to clear the sentence up. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Life before 1989
The article begins Hannity's adult career with a one year stint as a radio talk show host in Santa Barbara in 1989. Inasmuch as the man was born in 1961, he was 27 or 28 years of age at that time. Other than dropping out of two universities, what did this man do? Also, from 1989 or 1990 until his start with Fox News in the late 1990's what did he do? Who were his collaborators who helped (wrote) his books? Who were the money men who groomed him to be the "human being" his is today? This is the information I seek to know about Sean Hannity, not what is common knowledge or exceedingly obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.132.106.25 (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC) I want to know specifically what he did between the ages of 6 and 9 years of age. Those are formative years and are crucial to the biography of any person of note. Who's covering up?98.110.35.22 (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Hans Wurst
 * The article talks about middle school and high school, as well as working as a general contractor before going into radio. It used to contain other info, but the source material was deemed unreliable. There were no co-authors (or collaborators) on his three books. If there were, that info would be more appropriate for that articles on the respective books. "Money men"? Um.....not even sure what you are talking about. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Photo update
The photo seems a little old, could it be updated? -- Billybob2002 (talk) 03:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

PICTURE AND CRITICISM =(
The picture is old and not good and where is the criticism equal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.163.84 (talk) 01:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Feud with Michael Savage
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Niteshift36 reverted my edit about Hannity's fight with Savage on the grounds of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RECENTISM

I disagree with this. To quote from the recent-ism page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RECENTISM#Suggestions_for_dealing_with_recentism

"Consider the ten-year test as a thought experiment that might be helpful:

In ten years will this addition still appear relevant? If I am devoting more time to it than other topics in the article, will it appear more relevant than what is already here?"

I think the answer to the first question is clearly yes. You have a feud between two of the top hosts in the country, with both making comments about it. I think that if someone were to write a bio of either of these two men in 10 years from now, it would have at least a few pages on this business.

As to the second question: I stuck in three lines with 2 sources, in a subsection of a subsection of a subsection of the article. I have given it no special prominence or relevancy.

I am therefore going to restore my edit. Costatitanica (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You say you don't want to get into an edit war, yet you have reverted two editors so far.  You are writing about a feud that is a few weeks old in an encyclopedia article, under the assumption that in ten years, it will have relevance.  There is no need to have this in the article at this point.  How about revisiting this issue in six months and see if it is still relevant.--Asher196 (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm NOT interested in getting into an edit war. I reverted Niteshift after responding to his point and I reverted you, because you had not even commented in the talk page yet. "How about revisiting this issue in six months and see if it is still relevant" Seriously? Wikipedia is supposed to be six months behind schedule? Costatitanica (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no "clearly yes" about this passing the 10 year test. In fact, I doubt this would pass the 1 year test. This passing tiff between Hannity and Savage is even less important than the feud of the week between 2 rappers. The media will collectively yawn in a couple of weeks and this will fall rightly into obscurity. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The media tends to report current events. Does the fact that they're not talking about Hannity's freedom concerts mean they're "yawning" about it? Costatitanica (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. This is way too recent and not even that notable. If this "feud" were that big of a deal independent media outlets would be talking about it, and they're not.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * 2 of the biggest talkers in the nation think it's notable enough to comment on, but you don't? I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.Costatitanica (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

At any rate, since the numbers are against me, I'm not going to fight for my edit. I'm just going to leave it here in case any other editors who agree with me should decide to restore it.Costatitanica (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

"2.2.1 Feud With Michael Savage

Hannity has been involved in a personal dispute with talk-show host Michael Savage, who replaced his slot on Cumulus at the beginning of 2014. Savage said about Hannity “My competitor doesn’t have the capacity to go beyond the Democrat-Republican talking points. That’s all he’s ever done. That’s all he can do. He has no education. I’m just going to lay it on the line, I’m not going to mince words.” Hannity said of Savage "The poor guy is just an angry, depressed, and jealous human being who has been hanging around the backwaters of broadcasting for too many years. Now in his 70's, it’s sad to see that he is so angry, envious, and obsessed with fellow broadcasters. Perhaps his anger and conflict comes from his skinny dipping days in Fiji with his liberal poet friend Alan Ginsburg, or from having to admit his support of Jerry Brown." "        Costatitanica (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The Freedom concerts were, at the time, well covered and large scale events. Series of events even, involving multiple notable people. This is 2 guys making snarky remarks. Hardly the same events. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Cliven Bundy
Why is there no mention of the controversy on Clive Bundy in this article? Cwobeel (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Why should there be, really? Doc   talk  03:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Because is a notable event, Hannity defending and promoting Bundi, only to be forced to retract his support due to racist comments. Cwobeel (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

See: Cwobeel (talk) 03:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And see WP:NOTNEWS. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's particularly notable enough to mention here. Others may disagree. Hannity's been commenting on many, many issues for many years. You seem to have really taken a "shine" to the Bundy case. Keeping it in perspective (i.e. not slathering it gratuitously on articles like this) is probably a good thing. Doc   talk  03:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not "slathering it gratuitously" anything, Mr Doc. Yes, Hannity has commented on many issues during his career, but nothing has had the coverage this has, and thus it is notable. Cwobeel (talk) 03:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "nothing has had the coverage this has"? According to whom? We don't do POV-pushing here, and spinning this is not going to work out the way you might envision. Doc   talk  03:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Easy on your assessments, please. I asked a question and did not edit the article, so I'd expect you engage civilly and discuss. Cwobeel (talk) 04:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I see you are an experienced editor and Wikipedian. I'd have expected a better response other than an WP:PA Cwobeel (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * (Sigh) No personal attack towards you, and sorry if it came off that way. It's much better and more appropriate (for anyone) to link Hannity and the other conservative commentators on the Bundy page, rather than go additionally around and add a reference to the case on every subject's article page that mentioned the standoff. For instance, this article mentions comments from Dean Heller, Rand Paul, Michael Steele, Harry Reid, Reince Priebus... all before mentioning Hannity. Should all those articles get a mention of this case, or the other way around? For commentators like Hannity, who opine daily on a staggering amount of people, it means a far less cumbersome Hannity article. Cheers Doc   talk  05:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Good points, Doc. Thanks. Cwobeel (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Need mention of Climate change skepticism or delete category
While working on Category:Climate change skeptics, I noticed that this article has been added to that category, yet there is no mention in the prose of this article that this article's subject is considered a climate change skeptic (complete with reliable sources). A quick online check showed that reliable sources do exist showing this to be the case. Please add this to the prose to this article or delete the category from this article. Prhartcom (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Why no mention of Hannity's failed promise to raise money for the Troops money by being waterboarded?

What percentage of the money raised in the freedom concerts actually went to scholarships as promised? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.110.183.238 (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Climate change: Since he's not a scientist or academic, I don't see why he'd be in it. To me, he's some guy with an opinion. I removed it since the article doesn't support it. The waterboarding thing: That was discussed at length here and is in the archives. There was no consensus to include it. At the time, the event was a minor event and an example or recentism. The lack of continuing coverage years later would tend to support that position. If you search the archives, you'll also see discussion about topic two. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why an influential news media personality or politician should be exempted from appearing in a "climate change denialism" article, if indeed they are deniers or skeptics. The "I'm not a scientist" defense has been used quite successfully by many politicians who want to duck the issue when confronted with facts. But these same politicians are also not experts on human psychology, sexuality, the military and any number of other subjects however they are very free with their opinions on same. A media star is MUCH more influential than any individual scientist on the question of human induced climate change. To exempt such a person from the category of "climate change skeptic" because they are not a scientist is rather disingenuous. 24.96.202.141 (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And a year ago when we were discussing this category, your input might have been more relevant. But since the category has been deleted, reviving this has little use. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hal Turner speculation
Although the sources cited may display partisanship, they are cited on a wholly factual basis. Hannity WAS suggest to have maintained a friendship with Hal Turner, Turner WAS once a frequent guest on Hannity's talk show (which Turner DID claim was the genesis of their relationship), and Hannity DID deny it and his denial WAS contradictory. Furthermore, Hannity's interview with Malik Zulu Shabazz is surely as significant an episode as the theme song change, recalled in detail in this article. I'm willing to propose that the exclusion of these particular details is a more biased offense than their inclusion could ever be. It is a factual document of speculation, not speculation itself. The fact that it could colour readers' estimation of Mr Hannity is testament to its significance in the grand scheme of his biography.RemoteControl97 (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC) — RemoteControl97 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Turner himself is completely unreliable because, well...look at the guy. Second, you say "friendship", but I think we interpret that very differently. I'm reminded of people who've dropped my name in real life, acting like there was a friendship, while our relationship was totally work-related....I kept arresting them. If I call Hannity's show 5 times, that doesn't make us friends. And if I have a show and want ratings, I'll let people with controversial opinions call in to generate buzz. That makes them a tool, not a friend. Define "frequent guest". Was he an actual guest or was he just calling in? It's also fair to note that the only edits you've made on Wikipedia have been the ones in question. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Turner is certainly unreliable, but the fact remains that he alleged - reliably or unreliably - to have once been 'friendly' with Hannity. My entry itself makes no implication that Turner's allegation admits of either truth or falsehood. I should think 'frequent guest' means that they regularly appeared on the show, call-in or not. Taking issue with the semantics of the entry is besides the point - if you wish me to replace 'friendship' with 'association' and 'guest' with 'caller' I'd be happy to do so. But I reiterate: my entry is a FACTUAL RECORD of the POTENTIALLY NONFACTUAL SPECULATION that constituted as significant an episode in Hannity's career as any other related within the article. If my being a new user should bear any significance on my capacity to edit Mr Hannity's page, then surely the alignment of your own political views (clear from your own page) with that of Mr Hannity himself, pose a similar dilemma? If you take no further issue, please be sure not to revert my edit in future.RemoteControl97 (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC) — RemoteControl97 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You may be right, but edit warring will only get you blocked. Please stop and seek consensus. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  13:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Just because an unreliable person makes an allegation doesn't mean we have to include it. Why do you think we don't allow the National Enquirer or Weekly World News as generally reliable sources? Including it does give weight to the allegation. So you think "frequent guest" means regular appearence? Is that once a week? Once a month? A few times a year? Semantics isn't beside the point. This is an encyclopedia, semantics is always a point. You can attempt to make an issue of my politics, but since I've edited hundreds and hundreds or different types of articles, it's tough to make a case that I'm here solely to drive an agenda. On the other hand, you have done nothing but try to force this into the article, giving you the appearence of someone who has an agenda. Try reading WP:SPA. You may be new, but your focus is narrow and instant on inserting contentious material. Looks like a WP:DUCK to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

This, from the Hal Turner article:

-  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

So, I would argue that a short mention could be relevant in Hannity's bio. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd disagree. Just because a guy called some talk shows a lot doesn't mean there was a coordinated effort. Further, any mention of being "friends" is prejudicial. If I run a show and let you get on the air because it stirs people up and makes them listen/call, you're my tool, not my friend. I can't even believe that Turner's MySpace page is even mentioned as a RS. Similarly, Newshounds isn't a RS either. What you have here is the uncorroborated word of a person we all agree is a bottom feeder and a commentin the comment section of a non-RS website that is allegedly from Boyce. If you remove just those two non-RS, what is really left? The HffPo article depends on the non-RS Newshounds as a basis for his story and uses Turner's unsubstantiated word at face value. In reality, it does nothing but repeat the other sources (WP:CIRCULAR). Not much left. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Niteshift36, you may have edited a number of different articles, but your dogged attention to this particular issue raises questions about your ability to arbitrate neutral. The presence of passages about Hannity's various other on-air disputes makes the absence of this issue seem surreptitious. Of course semantics are important, but only insofar as that they must reflect the consensus on the issue. Modifying the semantics of an entry is different to removing it completely - I accept the former, but not the latter. Consultation of the talk page's archives indicates that the general disagreements on the subject (and indeed Niteshift36's principal grievances) were over A) whether or not Hannity and Turner could be considered to have ever actually personally associated, B) whether or not Turner stands up as a reliable source, and C) whether or not the episode is significant enough to feature in the article. In response to A) and B) my entry makes no insinuation that the two ever did personally 'associate'. It merely recalls without conjecture that their association was suggested by Shabazz and later Turner himself, and truthfully notes that Turner was a regular guest/caller on the show, and that this was suggested to be the root of the pair's association. The reliability of Turner as a source would be a valid concern if I was claiming that he and Hannity did indeed share a relationship, but I am not. I understand concerns over C). I'm willing to move the passages on the matter entirely into the 'Television' section, as a footnote/disclaimer to a discussion of the Shabazz interview - it is perhaps a little misleading to include such contentious material alongside information about the man's marriage etc. What's more, I'm willing to remove the wikilinks to the white nationalist and holocaust denier pages. This may appease Niteshift36's past concerns over 'guilt by association'. What other problems are found with my entry?RemoteControl97 (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC) — RemoteControl97 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * RemoteControl97, you, being a SPA, have no business talking about others ability to be neutral. This is NOT a significant event or material in the scope of this bio, period. --Malerooster (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * RemoteControl, you're not even addressing the actual issues. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Enlighten me then. You, meanwhile, seem to be missing to the point. Turner, the Huff Post, Newshounds - their reliability/bias is irrelevant in this context, as I am not using them to reach an empirical conclusion. The fact is that this speculation did take place, and deserves a mention in this article, especially considering one of the objects of the speculation confirmed (albeit dubiously) its verity, and it takes up a significant amount space in his own bio. RemoteControl97 (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC) — RemoteControl97 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Your inexperience is showing. It is a basic policy of Wikipedia that anything said must be verifiable from a reliable source. That standard is even more stringent with contentious material in a biography of a living person.If Turner and Newshounds are not reliable sources, then they can't be used here. It makes the HuffPo claims questionable. Anything attributed to them from them isn't usuable in this case. Nor would the comments allegedly made by Boyce be usable. As the policy WP:NOTNEWS tells us: "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia" and "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." Just because it's there doesn't mean it belongs here. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand the policy. The sources in question are verifiable with regards to what they confirm in the entry. Their conjecture certainly renders them unreliable as sources for a conclusive judgement on the matter, but this is not what I'm doing. The episode did take place, and the speculation was made - the articles cited are verifiable, reliable evidence to this fact, if nothing else. If they are insufficient, perhaps the YouTube video of Malik Shabazz making the suggestion, and Hannity refuting it, would content you? RemoteControl97 (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC) — RemoteControl97 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You don't understand the policy. Whether they said it or not isn't at issue, their reliability is. If the Weekly World News said John Tavolta is actually a crab-person instead of a human, they DID say it, but we don't repeat it because they're not reliable. Being able to verify that a non-reliqable source said something also doesn't help. Part of V is that it is from a RS. And nobody dispute that Shabazz said it. 16:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Is The Nation a WP:RS? If so, we can mention this based on that article alone, with full attribution per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, of course. Thoughts? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The Nation is a reliable source, but that alone doesn't mean this issue gets included. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Niteshift36: Exactly. The fact that Shabazz (and indeed Turner) suggested it is indisputable. This is all that the entry would make light of. The articles, amongst all the partisanship, provide a record of that fact. To extend your metaphor, all I am saying is that 'Weekly World News has called John Travolta a crab-person'. Despite the potential ridiculousness of the claim, the claim has still been made, and the fact that the claim has been made is verifiable and indisputable. Again: the sources are reliable in that matter, if nothing else.RemoteControl97 (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC) — RemoteControl97 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * No RemoteControl, you still aren't getting the basic idea here. The WWN isn't a RS, so we don't report that they claimed Travolta is a crab-person. It is a fact that they said it, but we still don't report it because they're not a RS. Newshounds, Turner etc are not RS, so they don't go here. As I said, BLP's have an even higher standard. WP:BLPREMOVE: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published source". If it's a non-RS, like Newshounds, it is poorly sourced. Publishing Turners claim about another is a self-published source. WP:BLPGOSSIP "Avoid repeating gossip.". I'd argue that the HuffPo repeating unsubstantiated info is bordering on gossip and that Turner is little more than a gossip source.Niteshift36 (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Other sources: -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Common Nonsense: Glenn Beck and the Triumph of Ignorance, ISBN 9780470630655 : Sean Hannity, whose radio program during the 1990s frequently welcomed Hal Turner, a well-known white supremacist
 * Through My Eyes: A Foreign View of the 2008 Us Presidential Elections, ISBN 9781440133411
 * Regarding source 1: That sentence, out of context, really doesn't mean much. The fact that Hannity did allow Turner to call into his local radio show isn't in dispute. The sentence, however, isn't very good with the context. It doesn't relate that it was a local show, leaving the impression is was Hannity's national show. It uses the weasel word "frequently" without any context. Then "welcomed"? Is there any evidence that this was every anything like Turner being an actual guest? Or was he just a caller, "Hal from North Bergen", to a talk radio show? So if I make it on Limbaugh's caller's 3 times this year, am I his friend now? Source 2 is a self-published opinion book from a non-notable author. No value at all. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not arguing for inclusion of the entire disputed text. I am arguing for a short mention based on the reliable sources that we have available to us. Please work with me in crafting a short sentence about this. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Another source, from Springer Publishing: Cold Breezes and Idiot Winds: Patriotic Correctness and the Post-9/11 Assault on Academe, ISBN 9789460914096. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Just mentioning random sources that mention that Turner called in isn't helpful. If you're proposing a single sentence mention, what is that sentence? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on the last source, we could have something like this:


 * -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, you are free to propose an alternative. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Which source says he "supported" his candidacy? I see a mention that Hannity allowed him to make an announcement. That's not supporting him. And you say at WABC, which Boyce refutes. Your 1 sentence is 2 and saying he "reportedly" had a personal relationship is weasel wording. Just because some non-notable activist made the claim, we don't start acting like it's true. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Niteshift36, it seems to me that you are still misunderstanding the object of this entry. There may not be any reliable evidence that Turner was ever anything more than 'Hal from North Bergen', but there is certainly categorical evidence that he was suggested to have been. Cwobeel's draft looks good to me. I suppose it would feature under the 'Radio' subheading?RemoteControl97 (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC) — RemoteControl97 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You miss the point of BLP. His draft isn't even factually correct. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Read the source. It is there black upon white -   Cwobeel   (talk)  20:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, you mean that tiny half of a sentence that doesn't tell us anything about how he allegedly assisted his campaign? That's what you want to hang around the subject's neck? An activist author who hasn't written anything notable makes a statement without context at all and you think that belongs here? I honestly thought you were more neutral than that. At least the Nation article is honest enough to just say that Turner called the show and announced his candidacy. Even they didn't try to call it "supporting" him. The Nation article is the most reliable of them and it's based on the hearsay of an activist. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The source is clear. And Cwobeel's draft adheres to it fairly. Is it not true that a single sentence would probably fail to communicate the subtlety of the issue? As for 'support'/'weasel wording':


 * RemoteControl97 (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC) — RemoteControl97 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I can live with that. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Niteshift36's verdict? And what of the Malik Shabazz interview in which the issue was raised - does this not deserve a mention? Could the episode itself be cited?. - RemoteControl97 (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC) — RemoteControl97 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * How about:


 * - RemoteControl97 (talk) 10:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC) — RemoteControl97 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You people are incredible. I don't respond for a day because of a real life issue and all of the sudden, you add junk and it's all solved? Sorry I can't be here 24/7 to answer every redundant question, but this issue is not solved, despite the SPA RemoteControl's declaration otherwise. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:WPDNNY. Also, you asked for sources which I provided, and asked several times for you to propose alternative wording, but it seems that you are not interested in collaborating. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you considered it doesn't need you? I mean if you're going to link to that stupid essay, have you at least considered that you're what isn't needed? I didn't just ask for sources. You gave sources that were worthless or not helpful. But here's the bigger issue: You keep asking for alternative wording and ignoring the fact that I don't think it belongs at all. Demanding that I give you a different way of saying it isn't "compromise". Niteshift36 (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Still no consensus for this. --Malerooster (talk) 03:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I am outta here. No point in discussing when it is so obvious that the interest here is to whitewash this article. Off my watch list, have fun without me. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Notable negative material is fine. Just adding negative for the sake of adding it is not. It's not whitewashed. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me for being presumptive - my mistake. Please make some constructive suggestions as to how the proposed entry can be improved. As far as I'm concerned I've addressed all the concerns you've expressed, and it abides by citation policy etc. As for negative material, I'd say that 'alleged friendship with a white supremacist' is fairly notable... RemoteControl97 (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC) — RemoteControl97 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * If I don't even believe it belongs, asking me to give you ways to word it better isn't really as "cooperative" as you try to make it sound. The issue of enduring notability and undue weight need to be addressed before wording. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, why don't you think it's of note? You started out saying the sources were unreliable; we found reliable sources. Then you took issue with the wording; we changed the wording. Now you're saying that the man's association with a neo-nazi is not notable enough for a 3 1/2 line mention, most of which is exposition... The entry complies with Wiki policy and recounts the episode objectively so unless you have a vested interest in preventing transparency, I can see no reason for your continued hostility.RemoteControl97 (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC) — RemoteControl97 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Actually, you're wrong. I didn't start with a concern about sources. While you may have just breezed into Wikipedia a few days ago with the singular purpose of adding this information' (6 days of editing and this non-event is the sole thing you've been concerned with editing), this isn't the first time it was discussed. I've maintained all along that this is a minor thing being blown up as part of someone trying to make a point. If nothing else, the fact that there is still a lack of continuing coverage indicates that I was correct back then, it's WP:RECENTISM. Someone makes a little noise about an old item, a few in the media talk about it for a few days and then it goes away. The whole thing stinks of guilt by association and undue weight. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

A google search of 'Sean Hannity and Hal Turner' yields 27,400 hits, the first of which is an article from April 2014 (http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/neo-nazi-claimed-sean-hannity-supported-many-of-his-views/18621-neo-nazi-claimed-sean-hannity-supported-many-of-his-views). Below that is an article from 2005 (http://www.thenation.com/article/hannitys-soul-mate-hate), and further down articles from 2012, 2008, 2009, 2010... Continuing coverage? What's more the episode features prominently on Hal Turner's bio. How could it be that such a 'non-event' can figure so boldly in the biography of a man whose history is plagued with controversy? This is not recentism. This is not undue weight. The allegations merit the 3 1/2 lines of the proposed entry. RemoteControl97 (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC) — RemoteControl97 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Still no. --Malerooster (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And a Google search of "Justin Bieber hat" has 41 million results, but his bio doesn't talk about hats. That's because WP:GHITS don't really indicate whether or not something is notable. So a non-RS, Truthout, talked about it? Big deal. That's not the continuing coverage we need. The original and then a spike when Shabazz said something. Aside from that, just non-RS partisan websites doing what they do, which is why they aren't reliable sources. I don't know why it's prominent in Turner's bio. I'm not editing his bio. And what might be significant for Turner may not be for everyone. If you met Obama today, that would be significant, a story you'd tell your grandchildren. If Obama met you, he wouldn't remember your name by dinner time. All things aren't created equal. I get it: You stumbled across something and feel this burning desire to "tell the world". That's an agenda. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

EXACTLY - in contrast to Turner, Hannity's led a fairly uncontroversial career. By your own logic, a relatively minor controversy should figure in a relatively uncontroversial bio. Google hits are an accurate measure of the attention paid to an issue. You're basing your argument entirely on the purported lack of attention, I was merely illustrating why you're wrong. Do I really have to reiterate the point about RS? The entry says allegations were made. The allegations themselves are fairly reliable evidence of that fact. RemoteControl97 (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what article you're reading. There is controversy in this article. Additionally, there is some in the articles about his shows. GHITS are NOT a measure. A Ghit will return Crazy Uncle Bubba's blog as a hit. That means nothing. Only coverage in reliable third party sources matter here. And you shouldn't repeat anything about RS, since you apparently are fuzzy on the concept. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * given that you have rejected mediation, maybe an RFC is the way forward. Care to try and craft a neutral RFC? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You too? Do you guys always skip so far ahead on everything? Remote went straight to the 7th step. You jumped straight to the 3rd. Why aren't you looking at DRN? That IS step one. If we're going to skip steps, I'd be more inclined to go to BLPN. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Two users want the entry. One doesn't. Unanimity is preferable, but clearly unattainable. We could compromise and make the entry with your choice of wording, or we could continue to bicker about Ghits etc. Forgive me for leaping to 7th step. I am new here, after all. RemoteControl97 (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC) — RemoteControl97 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Are you this premature in all aspects of your life? This isn't a 2 to 1 vote. First off, Wikipedia isn't a popularity contest. Second, 3 editors have removed the material. (I note you left one out of your premature mediation request). 2 editors have opposed it in this discussion. So no, your tally is a little off. You two can talk about how you want to word it all you want, but until the base issue is resolved, deciding how we want to arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic isn't all that helpful and it's not "being constructive" to ignore the base issue in favor of forcing in the material. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

How can we resolve the 'base issue' when you're so unwilling to acknowledge the validity of our concern? "Consensus results in the best solution that the group can achieve at the time. Remember, the root of "consensus" is "consent". This means that even if parties disagree, there is still overall consent to move forward in order to settle the issue. This requires co-operation among editors with different interests and opinions." If you can think of other users who support your position, please appeal to them. Maybe they'll be able to make your case more reasonably. RemoteControl97 (talk) 10:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC) — RemoteControl97 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Why is your concern of rewording more valid that my concern that it doesn't belong? You two keep complaining about "productive" discussions about the wording when deciding how to say something I don't think belongs isn't "productive". Don't define consensus for me because 1) it's condescending and 2) 2 people isn't a consensus when 3 others have removed it. My case hasn't been made unreasonably, you simply don't like it. You're here with the express purpose of adding that material. Nothing else. Thus, nothing short of having it added will satisfy you and you'll just keep repeating yourself. That's one of the issues with SPA's. I've already suggested an alternative and you're response is to lecture me about what consensus means. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Just filed a report in DRN. Consensus there will be final? RemoteControl97 (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC) — RemoteControl97 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * It's not a court. It depends on how consensus is reached. DRN is step one, not the only step. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I would argue mention of Hal Turner, IMHO would fly in the face of WP:NOTGOSSIP and as this is a BLP article the guidence of WP:BLPGOSSIP applies; furthermore to give Hal Turner undue weight in this BLP is not in the best interest of this article. A mention in Hal Turner's article of the allegation might be worthy of weight, but not here, IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a BLP. If it wasn't there might be some reason to discuss it. But it is. Hence, there ain't. Don't include.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

New NEWS today, "King Maker" for Conservatives
"Reliably conservative!" Headline-1: Sean Hannity plays conservative kingmaker QUOTE: "In the last two months, four GOP hopefuls have given Sean Hannity dibs on their first interviews as candidates and been rewarded with hour-long "special events" on his primetime Fox News program. ... On Thursday, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry will become the fourth Republican to get an hour-long special on Hannity's program. Senators Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio were all given the same hour-long special the night after they formally announced their bids. For Republicans, Hannity provides instant access to the highly coveted conservative base. His show averaged more than 1.5 million viewers a night" -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.
 * http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/06/sean-hannity-plays-conservative-kingmaker-208290.html
 * What is your point?--Asher196 (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Sean Hannity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://video1.washingtontimes.com/culture/2007/03/hannity_at_odds_with_catholic.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Sean Hannity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121019191936/http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/entertainment/2006/07/20/2006-07-20_hannity_bringing__freedom__c.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/entertainment/2006/07/20/2006-07-20_hannity_bringing__freedom__c.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081219025025/http://www.liberty.edu:80/academics/communications/champion/index.cfm?PID=10609&CAID=217 to http://www.liberty.edu/academics/communications/champion/index.cfm?PID=10609&CAID=217

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Sourcecheck).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Campaign activity (and coverage)
A lot can be added to current Sean Hannity 2016 Republican Primary (activity). Rather than promote any specific candidate, like Trump or Cruz, Hannity gives access to all current candidates. He was accused by a Hillary-supporter-blogger of supporting Trump, and his radio team documented the time spent (TV team also) and the radio time was proportionally spread; plus on the radio Hannity and guest scheduler said the active Republican candidates can call in at any time and have radio time. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this information belongs better in the article on his radio show: The_Sean_Hannity_Show -- Just saying, AstroU (talk) 10:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Faux award....again
We discussed the so-called misinformer "award" before. Yes, consensus can change, but we should see that consensus here. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems like not much discussion by a bunch of ideologues who have been permanently blocked, but whatever, defend your boy...NotHoratio (talk)]]
 * NotHoratio, who knows what kind of ideologue is, or who their "boy" is. (Mine is here.) But Niteshift is correct: it takes a consensus to overthrow a consensus. ("Only" two of the seven are indef-blocked.) So you can cuss and whatnot, but if you actually want to change something, this is the place to do it. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Net Worth
The Net worth on the sidebar says $29mil, but this seems to be confused with the "annual income" listed under the personal life. The Forbes link is dead so I don't know which is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.12.184.7 (talk) 08:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Sean Hannity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://affiliates.abcradionetworks.com/abcradio/seanhannitybio.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100903062331/http://talkers.com/online/?p=267 to http://talkers.com/online/?p=267

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2016
Near the end of the 'Candidacy of Donald Trump' section, the word 'challenged' is missing its g. The sentence is as follows "During the first presidential debate, when challened about his claims that he was an early opponent of the Iraq war, Trump told moderator Lester Holt to "Call Sean Hannity."" 98.228.90.3 (talk) 05:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 10:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Political commentary section
was recently added. The first section is about a controversey and the 2nd is about his political support for Trump. The first seems like undue wieght and if notable would maybe go in career section?--Malerooster (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * All the content is supported by numerous reliable sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Lead section
I removed the following: During and after the election, he made controversial statements in support of Trump and against Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party. I wouldn't include the sentence about Trump either in the lede, but thats another story I guess. --Malerooster (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The lede should reflect the content of the article. Hannity's advocacy for Trump is a significant part of his claim to notability and gets adequate attention in this article and in reliable sources to be mentioned in the lede. So does his promotion of conspiracy theories. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's undue and partisan. All of it should be removed. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There are twelve reliable sources in the lede, and more can be found if needed. Your claim that the section is undue and partisan is unsubstantiated. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * @Snooganssnoogans, others disagree with you. Its time to seek consensus on the talk page. --Malerooster (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So far it's one editor who clearly doesn't understand WP:UNDUE and then it's you who just disagrees with the inclusion for no cited reason at all. User:Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans, please stop edit warring and just gain consensus, your agenda pushing is really tiresome. --Malerooster (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Please explain why this content does not belong in the lede (something you've not even attempted to do). Half of the article is about Hannity's falsehood-peddling and conspiracy theorizing, all backed up by numerous reliable sources. The lede should per Wiki policy summarize that content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ok, then you please tell everybody here about your agenda pushing on political articles. Half the article, which was adding in the last two weeks covers all of Hannity's controversies and other such muckracking, great, whatever. But now you want to add these to the lede? This "material" doesn't rise to the level worthy of inclusion in the lede per editorial discrection. If consensus forms that is should be in the lede, then fine, but that hasn't been established. The ownous(sp) is on the editor who wants to drasticaly change the lede of the bio and not on those maintaining the last stable version. Ok, now tell everybody how you have ZERO agenda pushing in regards to politically bios and articles on this project, I need a good laugh. --Malerooster (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've noticed a pattern in your editing (not the first time I've encountered this BS from you). You go from page to page to whitewash content and you never offer a policy-based reason for exclusion, because there are never any actual problems in terms of reliability, notability and accuracy. You cite BRD and then say that all the reliably sourced, accurate content needs to meet consensus in the hopes that nobody bothers to persist through your disingenuous stalling tactics. I'm here on talk page explaining why the content merits inclusion and you neither suggest improvements nor offer reasons why my rationale for inclusion is wrong. That's not consistent with Wiki policy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This is what I accept from an agenda pushing editor such as yourself. Thank you for proving me right. --Malerooster (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

This is simply a summary of article's content. There shouldn't be anything controversial about having this sentence in the lede given that the article discusses these very things.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Then leave it out.--Malerooster (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, that doesn't make sense. We shouldn't "leave it out" since it summarizes article content.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You should be sorry for pushing your agenda with POV editing. --Malerooster (talk) 01:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Stop making personal attack. Can you please what you mean by your comment above? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Certainly. You are here to push your own personal agenda which is clear by your editing. This material has no current consensus for inclusion and is undue weight compared to the rest of the lede as currently structured. --Malerooster (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I really really really don't feel like going to WP:AE again but if you persist with personal attacks such as these - and keep discussing editors, their supposed motives as imagined by you and casting WP:ASPERSIONS - you'll leave me no choice.
 * Again. This is just a summary of article content. If you have problem with the content then discuss that. But as long as the article discusses this issue it should be summarized in the lede.
 * And one person - you - is not "current consensus". That's ridiculous, especially since at least two editors disagreed with you. Wikipedia policy - site wide consensus - also disagrees with you, per Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * But as long as the article discusses this issue it should be summarized in the lede. Not true. Not at all. Not everything discussed in an article is necessarily included in the lede. It's a matter of WP:WEIGHT: Is that material important enough to the biography that it should be in the lede as well as the text? And what is the nature of the lede - that is, how much of what kind of information does it summarize? We don't pick one item or one incident and include it in the lede, if no other items or incidents of similar weight are included there. --MelanieN (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * @Volunteer Marek, I never said I was "current consensus", just that we haven't reached a new consensus for inclusion. Sorry if you are confused. --Malerooster (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2017
"However, Factcheck.org and PolitiFact found that it was not unusual at all for this occur," missing a "to" in there. thx. 188.108.133.21 (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Gulumeemee (talk) 23:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

RFC: Should the lede mention his actions during the 2016 presidential campaign?
Should the following text be included to the lede?:

"Hannity drew attention during the 2016 presidential campaign for his overly favorable coverage of Donald Trump, his promotion of Trump's false and unsubstantiated voter fraud claims, and for periodically promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support - This lede should summarize the content of the article. The content above is reliably sourced in the 'Political commentary' section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No - Especially the way the lede is written now, its undue weight. --Malerooster (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - one sentence seems like fair weight for this. It accurately summarizes the article. I would omit the word "overly," however. Neutralitytalk 05:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - this is just a summary of the article's main content. Having this summary sentence in the lede just follows WP:LEAD. (Fine with omitting the word "overly").Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Undue weight in the lede as currently constituted. --Jahaza (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No such thing as "undue weight in the lede". Lede summarizes the article. If it's in the article, it gets summarized in the lede. "Undue" has nothing to do with it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course it does. Pushing your agenda of cherry picking material just added to the article in the last few days and adding it to the lede against consensus is a problem. --Malerooster (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, no it doesn't. And personal attacks are not a valid argument. Sort of opposite actually, they are an admission that you don't have a good reason to stand on. Why else would you have to resort to making them, unless it's all you got?Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * A spade is a spade, and your editing pattern shows this. AGF is not a suicide pact. --Malerooster (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not even asking you to AGF. All I'm asking is that you cut it out with the personal attacks. Read WP:NPA.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Calling a spade a spade is NOT a personal attack...still. --Malerooster (talk) 01:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - Succinct lede summary of article text verified and widely reported by RS. This is key to Hannity's professional identity and success. SPECIFICO  talk  16:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose The lede of this article is very brief and is focused purely on biographical highlights. Adding this sentence to the lede would unbalance it. The material is properly included in the body of the text but should not be put in the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If the lede was expanded to include other info, would you be okay with including this sentence as well? In other words, is the problem with the overall length of the lede, or with this specific sentence? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It's a tough question, and certainly it gained him significant attention, and so is therefore responsible to some (small) degree for his current notability, and helps us get a handle on the person. It certainly belongs in the body of the article. However... it's not lede-worthy IMO. One questions is "is this going to be the lede in ten or twenty years?" We don't really want to keep changing ledes everytime this person does something that reminds people that he's an egregious montebank. There's no end to it. The lede needs to be quick summation of the subject, and "political commentator and writer" pretty much covers it; we don't want to get down in the lede into the weeds of particular controversies and so forth. Herostratus (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. The lede should be either very short - as it is right now (then including "Hannity drew attention during the 2016 presidential campaign ..." would be undue in lede), or it could be significantly extended (then including this phrase would be OK). My very best wishes (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. I more or less agree with Mvbw.  If the lead is very short, then even a small mention of the 2016 election seems unbalanced and undue.  If the lead is significantly longer, then I could see a stronger case for including this.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - the length of the lede should be "long enough" to summarize the article. It should be proportional to article size. Right now the length of the article is about 2000 words. Right now the lede is 87 words (and that includes the inappropriate list of his books, which should be removed - so don't tell me it's about lede being too long). That's a ratio of about .04. Come on, the lede is not too long, that's a red herring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per MelanieN's argument. The lead, as it stands, is too short to include this claim. Inclusion would be WP:UNDUE. And no I do not support expanding the lead in order to include the content either. Hannity was significantly notable prior to the 2016 presidential campaign. Meatsgains (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Very blatantly non-neutral as proposed. The proposed language takes the opinions of Hannity's detractors and puts them in Wikipedia's own voice, without any attribution and without any balance against the opinions of his supporters. Now, there may be elements of this sentence that are reliably sourced facts rather than opinions. Those elements can and should be separated out and stated in Wikipedia's voice. (I'm not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the intro could certainly use another paragraph expounding on Hannity's views and history of endorsements, including his status as a would-be kingmaker for Donald Trump, but this sentence is not the way to go - all the stuff about voter fraud, etc. would be too trivial for the intro even if it weren't so blatantly biased. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per MelanieN, she makes good points. PackMecEng (talk) 14:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - The article currently reads like a sales pitch for race-hate demagoguery. This would help balance it. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a bit roundabout, as sales pitches go. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - WP:RECENTISM H&C, which as far as I know was really the start of his career, appears to have started in October 1996. There is no compelling reason whatsoever to address his take on the 2016 election in the lead, as opposed to what I can only assume was comparative coverage of five other electionsthat he's been on the national airwaves for. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Blatently partisan trolling, not compliant to wp lead guidance to being an overview or being neutral Markbassett (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The proposed addition is redolent of the general lack of balance found throughout the 'Political commentary' section, which discusses only Mr Hannity's more contentious positions (one is left to wonder whether the title 'Controversies' might be more appropriate). In any case, the incorporation of the such material into the lede would constitute a breach of WP:NPOV. Scyldinga (talk) 05:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Summoned by bot. Clear POV and certainly not something that should included in the lead of a BLP. Meatsgains (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Summoned by the bot. If something about that topic is needed, a more neutral wording would be "During the 2016 presidential campaign Hannity wrote strongly favorable coverage of Donald Trump, promoted Trump's voter fraud claims, and periodically publicized negative reports about Hillary Clinton, some unsubstantiated". However, 's point about recentism is well taken, and a more general statement about overall election coverage over the years may be better, unless other writers covered him a lot more extensively this time.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support but rephrase to be more WP:NPOV. Kamalthebest (talk) 06:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - A sentence describing a newscasters support of fake news is important for a page about a newscaster. TheGnerd (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2017 (EST)

Threaded discussion
I've just seen that there's a BLPN thread on this and have commented there. Although I think this content should be summarized in the lede, I would be receptive to a slimmer version. This might address 's concern. We shouldn't put a play-by-play in the lede, but a summary that says he's been noted for promoting alt-Right memes, fake news, and conspiracy theories seems appropriate. I don't think the lede has to say which ones. I'd also be concerned btw about calling him a "conservative" -- that is widely disputed by acknowledged conservative figures and notable conservative organizations. SPECIFICO talk  18:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Debbie Schlussel
Personal life section states she accused him of sexual harassment, however, now she says she didn't. Should be removed until she gets her story, if any, straight Beaglemix (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

She also now says he asked her to his hotel, not his hotel room. See updated reference Beaglemix (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree it should not be in the article at this time. So far the only reporting of this claim has been from non-reliable sources, and she herself has apparently made contradictory statements on the subject. I have deleted it twice so far: once from the "Television" section, once from the "Personal life" section. If people continue to add it I think we should continue to remove it, unless and until it is reported in a consistent manner by Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Sean Hannity goes on vacation as advertisers drop out of his show
Sean Hannity goes on vacation as advertisers drop out of his show, Los Angeles Times.

Might want to update the article. Sagecandor (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In a couple of days after the protection expires. --MelanieN (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Full protection
Given the sheer number of edits to this page removing and re-adding a disputed section of text and without a corresponding talkpage section about the text, I have fully protected this article until a consensus is agreed. Woody (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

There seem to be A LOT Of edits by anonymous / not logged in users with summaries like "fake news" just because they don't like the content. This isn't keeping with Wikipedia's NPOV rules at all. Sniper Fox (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

A bit of meatpuppetry going on from /r/The_Donald. Keep that in mind when judging consensus. —Guanaco 18:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

As for my opinion, I do think the sections are valid and need to be kept. There are some valid concerns about wording; in a lot of places I've seen a negative tone. We can revise it and where Hannity has lied or gone off the rails, the facts can speak for themselves. In no case should we remove a section because well-sourced information portrays him badly. —Guanaco 18:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Given the lack of input from the one side and the link provided above to the reddit board that clearly shows some meatpuppetry I have semi-protected the article. I had hoped to have a sensible and reasoned discussion on this talk page from both sides but that requires involvement from both sides. Woody (talk) 10:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Expansion of the "claims about Hillary Clinton" section
This material has been added and reverted several times today. Per the DS we should discuss it before restoring it. (My mistake, this article is not under discretionary sanctions.)

During the 2016 presidential election, Hannity periodically promoted conspiracy theories regarding Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party. Hannity promoted conspiracy theories that Clinton had serious medical problems and that the media was covering them up. He misrepresented photos of Clinton to give the impression that she had secret medical problems. He also shared a photo from the hoax-site Gateway Pundit and falsely claimed that it showed her Secret Service agent holding a diazepam pen intended to treat seizures, when he in fact was holding a small flashlight. Furthermore, he booked medical pundits on his show to discuss these baseless theories; these pundits, despite never having personally examined Clinton, made alarmist statements about her state of health. At one point, Hannity promoted a conspiracy theory that Clinton was drunk at a rally; at another point, he suggested that Clinton was drunk and that her campaign needed to "sober her up".

My own opinion: some of the language here needs to be made more neutral, and it could be trimmed somewhat, but IMO it is well sourced and should be included. What do others think? --MelanieN (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with all of this. I wrote it though. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that this should be included. This is something that has been well-covered by serious journalists (Brian Stelter, who focuses on the media, and Dave Weigel, who focuses on the American right wing). The coverage shows that this wasn't a one-day story, but something that Hannity did over a series of months, which was reported over a serious of months. I have no objections to copy editing/revisions/trimming for stylistic reasons, but I don't think the length is excessive or that the text is unduly emphasized (i.e., I think this is within due weight). Neutralitytalk 01:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Quick note: WP:WEASEL language is not the same thing as "neutral". What's neutral is what sources say. And sources say things like "debunked" "fishy" "flimsy" "conspiracy theory". NOT reflecting what the sources say is non-neutral.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit protect request - Los Angeles Times and The Hollywood Reporter
Please add to section: Sean_Hannity:

Hannity faced a backlash following his promotion of the conspiracy theory, and he went off-the-air on vacation on May 25, 2017, amid several advertisers including Crowne Plaza Hotels, Cars.com, Leesa Mattress, USAA, Peloton and Casper Sleep deciding to pull their marketing from his program on Fox News.

---

Thanks! Sagecandor (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The page is semi-protected now so you can make the edit yourself. Woody (talk) 10:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Sagecandor (talk) 12:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * How about adding that the advertisers started pulling out AFTER Media Matters started a campaign to have people Target then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.144.134 (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Content on Obama and Clinton
Re. As can be easily verified Hannity's comments on Obama and Clinton are referred to as "conspiracy theories" by sources. Indeed pretty much ANY sane source is going to refer to the questioning of Obama's citizenship as a conspiracy theory. Likewise the material on Seth Rich is a conspiracy theory.

The user making the revert quotes WP:NDESC - ok, but "non-judgmental" here, as always, means "reflect reliable sources". Also, whatever Wiki project conservatism has decided is not policy.

Accurately titling a section to reflect content IS neutral.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've never arrived here to deny anything, but to make sure that everything is stylistically homogeneous to all other encyclopedic material. The section titles on Sean Hannity are exclusive to Sean Hannity, and don't reflect those of articles like Ann Coulter, Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, Trevor Noah, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Andrew Breitbart, Milo Yiannopoulos... I could go on. Even people like Richard B. Spencer and Brittany Pettibone have such condensed section titles. In fact, it'd be hard not to find section titles in such a style, which is my argument; The detailed section titles on Sean Hannity are only found on Sean Hannity, and it's not necessary. Use the titles as introductions, the paragraphs as details.
 * Look, I'm looking to removing that template and to put Sean Hannity in a better state than it is. If I were really here trying to obstruct information, why wouldn't I just delete the information altogether and call it "NPOV"? I'm not here to deny what he did, but what I am here for is to try and help the article be written in such a manner that it be stylistically consistent with all others.
 * Then again, we could always just add detailed titles to all the others, that'd be another option, but we'll see how this goes. Skzt t c 02:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * What subsection titles look like on those pages is irrelevant. Subsection titles should describe the content within the subsection, not be uniform across pages regardless of the contents of the subsections. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Section titles should also be brief, WP:CONCISE, and even if it is a 1-2 word difference, we name it, Massachusetts, not "Commonwealth of Massachusetts." The titles provided do not compromise any important information, and yes they should be consistent, WP:CONSISTENCY. Skzt t c 16:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Your re-wording does sacrifice important information. The sections are exclusively about Hannity's promotion of conspiracy theories and false claims. They are not, say, nuanced and broad reflections on Obama's citizenship, they are very specifically promotions of Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. If you're concerned about brevity, I can totally go along with changing the section "Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories" into "Birtherism". Should we do that? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes! I can definitely agree with "Birtherism". It's very short, provides enough information, and frankly a great title. For the other sections, how should we do them? I suggest "Hillary Clinton,"  "Murder of Seth Rich," (Or just "Seth Rich") and "Election Fraud," to match "Wikileaks," "Russian Interference," and "Deep State," if not, how would you want them? Skzt t c 17:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I changed the Birther one, as the change of title doesn't sacrifice important info and because you agree. I disagree with the rest of your changes, as they sacrifice important info. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. How can we compact them without sacrificing information? I just find "Conspiracy Theories" to be a bit verbose, and can be summed up in 1 word or so. Maybe something along the lines of "Misinformation about Hillary Clinton" and "Falsehoods about Seth Rich"? We'll have to see and I don't want to compromise anything here. Skzt t c 18:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Deleted material
, you instructed me to provide sources for my recent edit. I shall now do so.

For his Memorial Break being annual:
 * Take a look at the tweet. People have attempted to disprove Hannity's statements regarding a variety of things lately, but so far I don't think anybody has challenged the truthfulness of this tweet.

For USAA returning:
 * I think it might actually be better to keep the fact that USAA pulled out and afterwards state that it came back in. I think that one other advertiser did this as well. Display name 99 (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, I went to the talk page like you said, but you did not respond the post. You've made edits since then, so it's not like you didn't see this one. So I'm going to undo your edit. Display name 99 (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Birthirism
Re this edit reverting a cn span tag placement by me, saying "Undid revision 793974783 by Wtmitchell (talk) this is sourced)", I do screw up from time to time, but I don't think I screwed up this time. As I read it, the cited source, does not support the current assertion that "Hannity did promote the notion that Barack Obama was born in Kenya". It does say, "Sean Hannity has echoed calls for Obama to show a birth certificate, though he has said he believes the president was born in the United States". Let's take a look at how the assertion currently in the article developed: I'm not going to get int a discussion about what source does or does not support these intermediate assertions but, as far as I can see, the currently cited supporting source, does not suppoirt the assertion "Hannity did promote the notion that Barack Obama was born in Kenya". Accordingly, I have reverted the referenced edit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The current assertion came from this unsupported change which replaced the previous assertion reading "Hannity did entertain the false notion" with "Hannity did promote the notion".
 * That came from this edit, which replaced "misleading" with "false".
 * That came from this edit, which inserted a bunch of stuff, citing a couple of sources in support.
 * That is to promote the conspiracy. The sources in question also put Hannity in that context: the notion that Obama was not born in the US is undoubtedly false, yet Hannity continues to ask for proof:


 * WaPo: "Despite extensive reporting by the nonpartisan PolitiFact site and other outlets debunking the notion that Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii, the conspiracy theorizing has remained alive — at least in some circles. The conservative site WorldNetDaily routinely runs stories questioning Obama’s heritage. Talk show host Sean Hannity has echoed calls for Obama to show a birth certificate, though he has said he believes the president was born in the United States."
 * NYT: "Most segments of the media kept the so-called “birther” movement at arm’s length when it emerged in the early months of the Obama presidency. By then, legal proof of Mr. Obama’s birth had already been released and groups like FactCheck.org had verified its authenticity. But murmurs on Internet forums led to whispers on talk radio. Some hosts shrugged it off, but others, like Rush Limbaugh and Lou Dobbs, questioned why the long-form birth certificate had not been released. Only after Mr. Trump spoke out did it become a major topic for the news media. Fox News Channel commentators, who had rarely invoked the issue, started bringing it up, as did their guests; Sean Hannity, Fox’s 9 p.m. host, asked repeatedly in March, “Why can’t they just release the birth certificate?” " Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually MelanieN and I had a talk about that in the section above, but I think Wtmitchell's argument is convincing, here. The source does not support the material in the article. Snoogans, your references only add more weight to the "not a conspiracy theorist" side. If he believes the president was born in the US, then he's not a "birther", by definition. Calling for his birth certificate (even though he believes he was born in the US) makes Hannity more of a..."birth certificater". Hidden Tempo (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Calling for proof of something that had already been resoundingly proven is promoting the conspiracy theory. Calling for Obama's birth certificate and asking "why won't he?" implies that Obama had not come clean and that there were legitimate concerns over his place of birth. That's to promote the conspiracy theory that Obama was not born in the US. Pinging, who has been mentioned here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. My earlier interest here was in regard to calling him a "conspiracy theorist" in the lede - which IMO is supportable by references and by the many conspiracy theories detailed in this article, regardless of whether one considers him a birther or not. On the birtherism issue, he seems to have been talking out of both sides of his mouth (as is not uncommon for public figures) - saying he believes Obama was born in the US but repeatedly echoing the demand of genuine birthers for "more evidence". I doubt if that can be described as "promoting" the theory; more like being sympathetic toward it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Regardless of editorial opinion about the circumstances of Obama's birth and the sufficiency of the proofs which have been offered about that, the assertion in the article that "Hannity did promote the notion that Barack Obama was born in Kenya." is unsupported and has a dubious editorial history. Is there a citeable reliable source, or is this unvanished original research? Quoting from that last-mentioned policy page: "[original research] includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. [...] you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2017
Hannity's higher education is misleadingly dealt with and is incomplete. What kind of bio omits education?

Hannity's education as a topic is omitted from the text. There is language regarding his employment at UCSB followed by "after graduation" that misleadingly hints he graduated from UCSB. Other sources say he attended a prep school in New York, and entered a university there but dropped out.

I see two problems with the information on this page.

1. Education is sketchy and unclear. 2. Text is misleading written to suggest he attended and graduated from UCSB. 3. The bullet points on the list a private school he attended as a child, not higher education.

I had to research elsewhere to find information about Hannity's education. Wikipedia can be better. Thank you. Thejonesgirl (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

This:

Hannity was born and grew up in New York. He worked as a general contractor, and volunteer talk show host at UC Santa Barbara in 1989. After graduation, he joined WVNN in Athens, Alabama, and shortly afterward,WGST in Atlanta

should be changed to:

Hannity was born and grew up in New York. He worked as a general contractor, and volunteer talk show host at UC Santa Barbara in 1989. After graduation FROM HIGH SCHOOL, he joined WVNN in Athens, Alabama, and shortly afterward,WGST in Atlanta

(because the sentence allows a person to believe he graduated from UCSB which he in fact never attended) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thejonesgirl (talk • contribs) 03:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Sean Hannity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://wsbradio.com/inside/sean_hannity_bio.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081012131347/http://www.wabcradio.com/showdj.asp?DJID=1725 to http://www.wabcradio.com/showdj.asp?DJID=1725
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326002949/http://affiliates.abcradionetworks.com/press/2006releases/090806.pdf to http://affiliates.abcradionetworks.com/press/2006releases/090806.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326002948/http://affiliates.abcradionetworks.com/press/2006releases/010306.pdf to http://affiliates.abcradionetworks.com/press/2006releases/010306.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.talkers.com/top-talk-radio-audiences/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081029031453/http://affiliates.abcradionetworks.com/press/2007releases/092807.pdf to http://affiliates.abcradionetworks.com/press/2007releases/092807.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Marc Fisher in the Washington Post
This source from the Washington Post's style section is being relied on too heavily. I removed the introduction of the Political commentary and controversies section sourced entirely to the piece and in my opinion incorrectly attributed, but its use article-wide should be reconsidered. It is an opinion piece which to the best of my knowledge has received no secondary coverage. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not an op-ed. It's a lengthy report on Hannity's career. When news outlets do these kinds of 'life and career of X' stories, they usually summarize individual's positions and philosophies in ways that day-to-day news coverage doesn't (which gives them extremely high encyclopaedic value IMO). There aren't any earth-shattering revelations in the lengthy piece, so why should there be secondary coverage? That said, the Independent did cover the WaPo piece. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have never said it was an op-ed. It is an opinion piece posted in the style section. I did not remove any content which received secondary coverage in the Independent. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to note that this is yet another Wikipedia article that Lambden never edited until I added content to it today. Lambden then proceeded to delete much of what I added just hours later. This is part of a pattern: Lambden follows me to a foreign page and proceeds to revert (usually mass-revert) what I added. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The pattern is your addition of poorly-sourced content to biographies of living persons. It is unreasonable to expect the community to supervise the edits of a singly-focused, prolific editor who is apparently unable to differentiate between suitable and unsuitable biographical sources. Had most editors with existing AP2 sanctions added pinknews as a source in a political BLP they would likely be sanctioned severely. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * On nearly every occasion where you´ve stalked me to a new page and mass-reverted me, my edits were essentially restored in full in agreement with other editors. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Your repetition of false claims and mischaracterization of my edits and subsequent restorations are disappointing and reminiscent of another. You would do well to choose a better role model. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Who is the other? Snooganssnoogans, careful now: don't make me jealous. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As a proud member of the Islamo-Leftism alliance of beta male cucked-ass SJW white knights on Wikipedia, I can not divulge who my cucked comrades are. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Ah, there we are! Thank you for coming by, James Lambden. I am happy to agree that it's used quite liberally (get it? that one was for you!) but that's not a reason to cut so drastically, certainly not the "general" point". Now, that a decent article in a decent newspaper should itself get secondary coverage, that's news to me--I'm reminded of tortoises sitting on tortoises. What we certainly could use is more sources that argue these rather well-known points. Would that satisfy? BTW really? He really "egged on" some dude who said gays got AIDS from eating feces? Drmies (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2017
Change: Sean Patrick Hannity (born December 30, 1961) is an American talk show host, author, conservative political commentator and conspiracy theorist[4]. To: Sean Patrick Hannity (born December 30, 1961) is an American talk show host, author, conservative political commentator. 2605:E000:D511:8400:EC6D:3B8B:C625:B8D3 (talk) 22:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. The item that is being asked to be removed is cited and sourced properly according to our policy on biographies of living persons. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent deletions

 * , please justify your deletions of sourced material here. Your apparent mis-understanding of the BLP policy is woefully inadequate, one-sided, and obviously biased. That a statement is sourced to an article on pinknews or a book written by a community college professor does not make them non-RS.  You are now edit-warring and should self-revert as the WP:3RRNO exception does not apply. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinknews is not a reliable source. A book published by an assistant professor (not even an associate) is not RS. This is poorly-sourced and I have removed it per WP:BLPREMOVE. If you find reliable sources I will not remove it. The LGBT section was removed as part of the revert because it should be integrated in the section that already discusses it Sean_Hannity following WP:CRIT. If you want to expand that section you may bearing WP:WEIGHT in mind. James J. Lambden (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Your understanding of BLP continues to be lacking. The academic status of an author has no bearing on its RS status.  If you can find any mention of professorial rank in WP:RS, I'll eat my hat.  You need to justify calling something non-RS based on accepted policy, not merely repeated assertions once they are challenged. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Tone down the personal comments. Read the first paragraph of Identifying_reliable_sources which explains the author is one of three factors that determine reliability. James J. Lambden (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You might want to find another area to edit in. The idea that a scholarly book does not meet WP:RS because of the rank of the academic -- I mean, come on...  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * EC ...And there is nothing that says anywhere that academic rank has any bearing on the credibility of the author. This is blatantly WP:GAME behavior.  I will not "tone down" criticism of obvious POV edits, which have no safe harbor under WP:NPA.  You might refer to WP:PACT. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You will be forced to. WP:RS does not proscribe the use of mental patients as sources either. It is assumed we have sufficient judgement to evaluate authors without explicit prescriptions. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you now making threats Lambden? Eggishorn is exactly right - when somebody tries to WP:GAME Wikipedia policies (in this case WP:RS) by bizarrely claiming that a source is not RS because it was written by a assistant professor, then calling them on it is not a "personal comment", but a perfectly justified criticism.  Volunteer Marek   17:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The comment about just an assistant professor and not even an associate professor is just bizarre... the tenure status of an academic does not bear on whether he is an RS. This book is published by a so-so academic press and someone who has a PhD and specializes on this topic. The text does not even cite the author's reflections on Hannity but just quotes what Hannity verifiably said about Ellison and the Quran. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As for Hannity's anti-LGBT comments, they belong in the commentary section. His career already briefly and succinctly mentions his departure and the reasons for it. The commentary section elaborates on and precisely accounts for his views. WP:WEIGHT in your mind just means "reflects poorly on a conservative", judging by your history with this policy (mass-removals of multiple high-quality RS in the past). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm also still unclear on why Lambden thinks pinknews is not RS.  Volunteer Marek   17:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * A book published by an assistant professor (not even an associate) is not RS Points for creativity but this statement is completely false, and very obviously so. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * BTW, one aspect I didn't revert was the bit about whether his conspiracy theorizing pertains only to opponents of Trump (or is he a "conspiracy theorist" in a more general sense). I think it should be reverted, but I figured it could stand to be considered by others as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Graduated?
News sources state that Hannity did not graduate college. Yet the second paragraph states that, "Hannity was born and grew up in New York City. He worked as a general contractor, and volunteer talk show host at UC Santa Barbara in 1989. After graduation, he joined WVNN in Athens, Alabama, and shortly afterward, WGST in Atlanta." This implies that he graduated UC Santa Barbara, which he did not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.150.58.222 (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right. He wasn't even a student there. I took it out. --MelanieN (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2017
removing very slight bias from this page. especially in the controversy section Dr.Pietroczar (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Conspiracies theories have been about opponents of Trump
The body of this BLP cites only three types of conspiracy theories, all of them directed at opponents of Donald Trump: (1) a conspiracy theory about Ted Cruz and Cruz’s father, (2) conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton, and (3) conspiracy theories regarding Seth Rich. No other conspiracy theories are mentioned or cited in the article body. Therefore, when the lead sentence calls him a conspiracy theorist, it ought not to overgeneralize, and instead should say he’s put forth conspiracy theories about opponents of Donald Trump. If material is added to the body of the article, showing that reliable sources consider him a conspiracy theorist more broadly, then that can be done instead of fixing the lead sentence. For example, no sources are cited or used that describe Hannity as a birtherism “conspiracy theorist”. On the contrary, the body of this BLP explicitly says “he believed that President Barack Obama was born in the United States“. Do reliable sources say that anyone is a conspiracy theorist who merely wanted Obama to release his long form certificate in order to be transparent? I doubt it.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm unclear on how calling someone who propagates conspiracy theories (which you don't dispute) a "conspiracy theorist" is "overgeneralizing".  Volunteer Marek   22:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I did dispute at BLPN that “conspiracy theorist” is a sufficiently precise term for us to like using; for example, people who theorize that Trump colluded with Russia to win the election might easily qualify. Anyway, all the lead sentences of US President BLPs say what number he was; we could get rid of that specificity, but why?  And when throwing around a pejorative, the advisability of specificity seems double, so readers won’t think the subject of the BLP is more of a conspiracy theorist than reliable sources say he is.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's goofball. One good one is sufficient, and apparently SH has several under his belt.  SPECIFICO  talk  23:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Let’s use an objective standard
Category:Conspiracy theorists says not to include anyone unless they engage in one of the theories listed on Category:Conspiracy theories. That seems like a reasonable procedure for us to follow here too. Hillary Clinton has talked about a right-wing conspiracy and a conspiracy with Russia to meddle in the 2016 election, et cetera, and we ought to use the same procedure with her BLP too.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)