Talk:Sean Hannity

Al Franken and Sean Hannity

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sean Hannity page reverts

I will try to engage you productively on here regarding your reverts of my entries on the Sean Hannity page for Al Franken's book, Lies and the Lying Liars etc. Sean Hannity is a notable person. Al Franken is a notable person. The book was a national bestseller. An entire chapter is dedicated to Sean Hannity. Hannity has spoken many times of Franken through his various national media outlets. I can't understand why you would prevent any reference to the book on Hannity's page. While your vigilance is admirable, in that you usually revert my entry within minutes of my posting it, I think that you may be overexuberant in reverting. It also appears that you have violated the 'three-revert rule'. As a newbie Wikipedian, I am not looking to make waves or get into edit wars, or start making reports to admins, but I think that some explanation beyond a revert with an edit summary that says, "Take it to Franken's page" should be forthcoming. Ossified 17:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ossified: Let me make it clear the article is about Sean Hannity, not Al Franken. You have placed TWO references to Franken book in the article. That is redundant. It is not appropriate. Also, since Franken is merely a politician these days his opinion is not that original, just another liberal Democrat politician gripping about a conservative talk show host making comments critical of liberalism on the radio. Also, Franken was once a radio talk show host, but he failed and he failed miserably. He never, ever reached the number of listeners that Hannity did and he never, ever will. You want to turn this article about Sean Hannity into a long, long list of critics of Hannity and that violates Wikipedia's avowed goal of neutrality. The fact that you have listed the full name of Franken's idiotic book twice in the article indicates that you have a POV agenda. You want to jam Franken's childish rants down the reader's throats instead of providing the reader some basic information about Hannity. You want force feed the reader your personal agenda about great Al Franken's take on Hannity is. That is why I told you to take it to Franken's page. Franken is merely a very jealous individual that attempted to have a successful national talk radio show himself and failed miserably. You go ahead and contact an admin. That's so liberal jam your opinion down their throats Wikipeidan of you.--Getaway 19:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The quality or integrity of Al Franken's book has nothing to do with whether or not he famously attacked Sean Hannity.--Dcooper 20:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Are you kidding?

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

The above entry is stupid. I'd consider taking it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.26.68.146 (talk) 18:16, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Just because it's critical of Hannity doesn't mean that it shouldn't be in his entry. The idea behind an encyclopedia is not to collect hagiographies, but to provide as much meaningful, creedible information to the reader as possible. Sean Hannity is a controversial figure. Those controversies should be addressed in his Wikipedia entry. Frank Rich writes an important opnion column for one of the most influential newspapers in the world. This is one of those things that I'd rather have in the article and not need, than need and not have.Ossified 18:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again, the article is about Hannity, not Franken. It is inappropriate to mention Franken's award, etc. You know this is inappropriate, but yet you are continuing to do this. Please stop. The article is about Hannity, not Franken. Call over an admin if you would like as you threatened to do before. This article is about Hannity. You are welcome to add all kinds on information about Franken on Franken's article. Please take the inappropriate POV over there.--Getaway 18:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I never threatened to do any such thing. Please assume good faith when I edit this article. Encyclopedias are more valuable when they fair and balanced. I assure you that I understand that this article is about Sean Hannity. There is a difference, however, between an article that informs the reader about Sean Hannity and one which reads as if he wrote it. I am striving for the former. Let's work constructively to avoid the latter, OK? Being selective about which of his detractors' bona fides you allow to appear tends to move this article away from NPOV. Ossified 18:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to ask for permission. If you put inappropriate matter in the article, I'm going to remove it, ok?--Getaway 18:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Where is his military service?

He has none! Pro war but never served. Hypocrite!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.205.220.188 (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you commenting on the article or the subject of the article. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, it is an encyclopedia. Ursasapien (talk) 04:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Emphasis on his Irish heritage

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

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

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

Louima

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

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

Define reliability: You said, "There is a paragraph in the controversy section (Abner Louima para) that references Fair.org, but Fair.org references OnePeoplesProject.com and OnePeoplesProject.com apparently got the information from an opinion piece in the Philadelphia Telegraph. Is this an acceptable reference for a BLP? --PTR 15:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)".

This editorial was clearly dated 6-7 months after the Fair article. You did not simply argue that onepeoplesproject was unreliable. Can I define your entries as unreliable? Anyone can say that something is unreliable. Because you keep shifting you arguments, I believe that you are simply expressing your personal opinion, not on the source, but on the entry itself--24.12.67.218 14:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

From the archives -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conservative vs. Neoconservative

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

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

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

Center for American Progress

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shouldn't even have an article

who cares what this mick thinks