Talk:Sean Hannity

No section to reorganize into

As far as I know, this article does not have a "Criticism of..." subarticle. It would be pretty difficult to put the criticism section into a subarticle that doesn't exist. Treybien 15:26 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism Section

It is inevitable that this article will contain criticism, such as the media matters award, but we need to channel these into a criticism section to keep them from influencing the POV of the article. I propose that we add a criticism section at the bottom and allow the Media Matters piece and other criticisms to go in there. Otherwise, we are going to be back to where we started. Anyone else agree? Mrathel (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• WP:Criticism#Evaluations in a "Criticism" section is worth reading. From what I recall, we used to have such a section in this article and it was, indeed, a troll magnet. Kelly ^hi! 18:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Very Well, I can see how they would definitely be trolling magnets. However, in an article such as this, it would help us keep criticism centered. For instance, the Media Matters deal presents a problem if integrated because it is from a political organization whose ideology is diametrically opposed to that of the article's subject.It is not an "award" so much as a valid piece of criticism from a left-leaning group, but adding it into the text of the article without proper context allows it to unfairly modify the portrayal of Hannity. Removing it, on the other hand, takes away from the obvious fact that many people disagree with Hannity's views. If criticisms are integrated properly, it is possible that we can control the POV, but as this subject is constantly changing with everthing he says and drawing criticism from thousands of sources on a daily basis, it might be easier to keep the criticism ballanced by keeping it separate. The new section(s) would also allow editors to give proper attention to important criticism that have taken place over time and the less-important criticisms that happen to be more recent. Both need to be here to some degree, its just a matter of how we get them onto the page without starting a war.Mrathel (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

My rant against criticism sections: In my opinion, if Adolf Hitler doesn't need a dedicated "criticism" section in his biographical article, neither does anyone else. People may disagree with Hannity, or anyone else, but filling their article with those disagreements, inside or outside of a dedicated criticism section, is taking the article off-course in my opinion; a person's life history should be chronicled by the events of their life, which may include criticisms, but should not be defined by those criticisms, if that makes any sense. It's clear that Hannity is a controversial figure, that controversial nature is somewhat delineated in the section dealing with his professional career, and a laundry list of specific criticisms are best detailed in the articles dealing with his radio and television shows, depending on the criticism. — Hiddekel (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• That was a very good response. Kudos. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the trivia award stuff again. Also, I personally don't have a problem with a criticism section as long as it doesn't become 1/2 the article. Right now, there is a lone sentence about Media Matters in the Prof life section which seems to sort of stick out awkwardly. --Tom 17:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I will restore this until consensus is reached on compromise language.Jimintheatl (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Let me ask the obvious. If most people think it doesn't belong, why do you feel it needs "compromise language"? It appears that you are, in essence, saying that it will be there regardless of what most editors think. If the for/against was closer, then "compromise language" would seem like the ticket. But when it is this lop-sided, it starts to take on the appearence of POV pushing. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, this article is a troll magnet and yes, editors do push an agenda here. Per the above discussion, this "material" should be removed unless there is consensus for it's inclusion, not the other way around. --Tom 13:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I would again point out that you previously pronounced yourself "happy" with the compromise of including Hannity's response. Since that compromise was reached, editors supporting inclusion have left the discussion and new editors have tried to resurrect the issue.Jimintheatl (talk) 13:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• And I would point out again that "happy" is a relative term. You keep harping on that, yet ignoring the fact that I disputed the validity of the award from the start. My "hapiness" was that it was placed in a more appropriate spot and was allowed to include balance. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy is relative in the sense that you would prefer that no criticism of Hannity by MMatters appear, but then agreed to the compromise language. That's called reaching consensus. Your reversal after the fact is troubling.Jimintheatl (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Please refrain from putting words in my mouth. I didn't balk at other criticism by MM that was in the article. I think this "award" is nothing more than editorial opinion disguised as a faux award. I've said that from the start. I was even clear in calling the "award" Hannity gave MM bogus. I did agree to the compromise language. It was the only way to get it placed in an appropriate section and get some balance added to it. You and your gang, either by plan or by coincidence, were pushing hard and that was the best I could get done. Now you take my civility and try to make it something it never was. In any case, it is always my perogative to change my mind about anything I want. Maybe I read someone elses opinion and saw I was wrong in my compromise. Either way, I've stated how I feel. Done with you. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Quoting you is not "putting words in your mouth." Of course its a "fake" award in the sense that it's not laudatory, but it is notable. Civility=compromise("everyone's happy")=consensus. Suddenly having numbers on the side of your original position and then reversing course is unfortunate. The absence of any criticism of Hannity in this article is not worthy of an encyclopedia.Jimintheatl (talk) 02:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Um, no, quoting me is not putting words in my mouth. But saying "you would prefer that no criticism of Hannity by MMatters appear". I said no such thing. I haven't contested legitimate criticism from MM. For you to say that I'd prefer NO criticism from them appear is wrong and putting words in my mouth. There is plenty of criticism in this article. You act as if there isn't. There is no "reversing course" going on and it certainly isn't unfortunate. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Niteshift, this is the problem with trying to accomadate agenda pushers. They will twist and spin in order to push there agenda. --Tom 14:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Assume good faith. FYI: accommodate, their. Cheers.Jimintheatl (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

My spelling sucks :) --Tom 22:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

These arguments always get a bit confusing because there is too much back and forth between editors. My personal opinion is that the Adolf Hitler article doesn't need a criticism section because the history is firmly documented and does not change as rapidly as Hannity's. The liberal/conservative edit war on this article can be avoided if we can find a way to integrate notable criticism in a way that keeps a NPOV on non-contraversial sections such as his life and allows for dissent on issues such as his views of LGBT rights. If a "Criticism" section is not necessary, the least we can do is find a way to integrate valid criticism without giving MM or any other organization the ability to influence the tone and content of the article. Mrathel (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I would actually rather have a criticism section rather than the criticism sprinkled throughout the article as it currently is. --Tom 19:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a point. Or perhaps a "Controversies" section a la Roseanne Barr? That's at least a bit more NPOVish and would require some reliable sourcing to indicate that entries are notable enough to be worth mentioning in the article... — Hiddekel (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think a contraversies section would be less of a troll magnet, and might help get meaningful criticism on the page Mrathel (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this fight (so to speak); I do think Hannity and his like are bad for the political discourse. Regarding a criticism section, would it be appropriate to mention on his website a poll that can arguably be interpreted as advocating overthrow of the U.S. government--I have included the link herehttp://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1326121&page=20Tbolden (talk) 12:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• You start by saying that you don't hav a dog in the fight, then call him bad for political discourse. That sounds pretty opinionated and would indicate you do have a dog in the fight. The url you included doesn't work, but I doubt it matters. Since Hannity himself doesn't administer or really participate in the forum, what would it have to do with his bio. If anything, it would probably be more appropriate for the article about the show, which runs the forum. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• My 2 cents, and forgive me if you have already decided what to do. I was just reading the Rush Limbaugh page, and it would be a crime not to mention his critics in the article. For the purpose of organizing and managing NPOV, I vote for a criticism section. Note that over time, some of the criticism will turn out to be trivial and then removed. Eventually what everyone decides is the real criticism can be incorporated into the body of the article. While the critics are still screaming, please keep the criticism section.Jarhed (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Global warming?

The article doesn't mention his global warming denialism, and his scorn and dissent on the "alarmists" (eg. Al Gore). --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 02:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't mention his denial of The Flying Spaghetti Monster either. This is a biography of his life, not a place to push your POV.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• No mention of his opinions on chocolate cake or Ruths Chris steak house either. You are clearly trying to POV push. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Hannity's opinions on chocolate cake aren't relevant because there is no widespread debate about the existence of chocolate cake, or its impact on our species. There is however, widespread (some would say fierce) debate on climate change and its impacts, and Hannity's position to effectively deny the debate is relevant. Regardless of whether you agree with his opinion, Hannity is in the position to influence the opinions of many because of his job as a talk radio host. That alone makes the discussion relevant. --Sabatino1977 (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• First, this isn't a debate forum. Second, he doesn't deny the planet is warming. He believes it is part of the cyclical nature of temperature changes and not a man made phenomenon. Third, if he says something about it on one of his shows, it's more relevant to the article about that show rather than his biography. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think his stance on Global Warming is completely relevent, because he is a talk show host & political commentator. The only reason people know of him is for his positions on the issues. And since it is one of the most contentious issues it should be included in this article. --Punkrocker27ka (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• Why is it one of the most contentious issues? Because the issue is important to you? How much of his average week is spent talking about GW versus govt. spending, Obama, or most other political happenings? If the guy was spending significant amounts of time on it, you might have a point. But when I happen to listen to the show, I hear about Obama, the senate and the media more than GW. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hannity is actively attacking one of the biggest issues of our time - global warming and its potential to cause massive damage to this planet. It would be ridiculous for an encyclopedia not to include this fact about such an important commentator. FYI I like Hannity I just think his denial of global warming is just incomprehensible given the obvious, widespread scientific consensus (he likes to cherry pick climate skeptics). It's killing me how every time he reports about a massive cold front, he has to throw in a jab about global warming. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

However valid your opinion on Hannity's approach to climate change may be, points made in the article are not supposed to be WP: Original Research. Find an outside WP: Reliable Source that has raised the issue of Hannity and global warming and maybe you'll be in business. Badmintonhist (talk) 07:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

There are quite a few sources regarding Hannity's views on global warming. I should think they would be notable, if not here, then in a daughter article such as the (as yet nonexistent) Political views of Sean Hannity. His views on other issues should also be covered here, rather than barricaded for dubious reasons. 71.182.210.244 (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• That you bold print "massive damage to the planet" makes it appear you have an agenda. Clearly, GW is important to you. Again, if this were something he spends a lot of time on or did something particularly noteworthy about, you might have a point. But I don't see it. From what I've seen, he mentions it when it comes up, but doesn't go out of his way to make it an issue, like he did with Obama issues. The fact that you can google and find mentions of it here and there doesn't make it significant, particularly for a biography. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Just because global warming is on the back burner right now does not mean that it is not relevant or noteworthy. He has run many segments denouncing global warming on his television show and criticized it at length on his radio show. Obviously he has been focusing most of his energy on Barack Obama lately but he has always been a staunch global warming denier and used his platform to promote his view. It is totally relevant to his philosophy as a conservative political commentator. --Punkrocker27ka (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Likewise, just because you find something noteworthy doesn't make it the "most contentious", "biggest issue of our time" either, as you and another editor have called it. His stock and trade is political issues. From what I've seen, he gets into GW only when there is a political issue involved. BTW, that bogus google search being linked to is evidence of nothing. A bunch of blogs and stuff where Hannity and GW are mentioned. Do any of you have a NPOV article that addresses Hannity's influence in the GW debate? Or is this mostly supposition about how relevent his opinions on it are? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Education in info box

Any reason for this to be listed this way at all? Anybody know what the convention is for this? Thank you, --Tom 15:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Tom. If you want to remove a longstanding edit the burden of proof is on your side. The entry in question should stay unless some consensus and understanding is reached that it has no relevance there and should be only mentioned in the main body of the article. So please be specific about why you think it is redundant (and meanwhile be so kind and revert yourself). Also don't try to put the burden of proof on other editors since it was you "blanking" that part w/o given a real valuable reason. I'll happily obey any new consensus but I'm definitely not going to engage in some kind of silly edit warring over this, besides you should've left the original default version until the final version (for now) is determined here on talk. You know the rules so there is no need to throw them at each other. We can "solve" this the nice way, don't you think so? Regards,

PS: You can find information on rules and guidelines at wp:mos and its sub pages like WP:IBT and you might want to compare the info box to other BLP's. That's why I mentioned consistency in my last edit summary.— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk • contribs)

Where do you come up with this stuff?? "The burden of proof" is on the material that goes into the article, whether its been there a year or was added yesterday. There are a bizzillion articles that current have garbage in them. We don't wait around blathering, we fact tag it or remove it. The burden of proof is then on those that want to add material or change material. Look at the Palin article. The "rape kit" "material" was in there for a while, but the ultimate burden was on the folks that wanted to include that garbage and rightly so. I know you are into "sides" but I am more into MOS, NPOV and guidelines and less about adding content. --Tom 00:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

What the...(excuse my french)! We're not talking about the Palin or any other particular article. At least I don't. The "burden of proof" stuff is as I pointed it out! Only in cases of unreliable (or no) citations and especially if it might be a potential BLP vio it can and should be removed on sight. This is not the case here and please don't tell me now about that a certain link is broken and therefore it is not verifiable since you did this quite some time after your "blanking" (but left the paragraph standing). Don't play games with me, alright? So let's go back to the issue that you did not answer but rather evading: Please be specific why you think this fact which is included in most if not in all BLP's is redundant here (as I ask you before). Thanks.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're really not familiar with policies and guidelines on WP, (and I know it ain't so), see WP:BRD for starters.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Would putting in NYU or Adelphi in the info box for education work better for you? Also, <sarcasm>thanks for removing the fact tag I added</sarcasm> Tom 04:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not passing judgement on the specific information we're discussing, but for the record, WP:BLP requires that unsourced or poorly-sourced biographical material should be removed, immediately, and it makes no qualification as to how long that material has been in the article. On the other hand, properly-sourced biographical material should only be removed after reaching consensus in talk, whether it was introduced yesterday or three years ago; the issues there should involve questions such as undue weight or the compromise of privacy, not the length of time the information has persisted in the article. Regards to all. — Hiddekel (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hiddekel, are you taking that from a policy or guideline? I am always at a lost for why the ownous is not on what goes into our articles. I see "its a fact" used as a reason for so much "material" that really has no place in an encyclopediac article. By your reasoning, if 3 editors want to keep it and 3 think it doesn't belong, then it stays in the article? Anyways, thanks again, --Tom 18:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC) ps I see you use the term properly-sourced biographical material. I would agree with that, but how do we define what is biographical material? I think that is where we run into disagreements and people's POV, anyways, --Tom 18:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

For the most part, what I'm talking about here is a matter of official policy, which sort of blends into some well-established editing guidelines. The most relevant official policy as concerns this particular article is Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons, which dictates the necessity to remove poorly or unsourced contentious material from BLP articles immediately and without the need for discussion). WP:BOLD is another relevant issue here, which, while a guideline rather than official policy, still constitutes a central pillar of Wikipedia editing. This suggests that positive changes should be made sooner rather than later... If you see something that needs fixing, fix it. This is balanced by the need to achieve consensus. As to what material is sufficiently "biographical" to be worthy of inclusion, that's a question which doesn't usually have a definitive answer (hence all the editing disputes surrounding that question); the key again is to reach a consensus among interested editors, bearing in mind the aforementioned policies as well as issues such as undue weight and coatracking. If you haven't read the policies and guides I've linked to here, I strongly suggest you do so... It will serve you well. Regards! — Hiddekel (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I have read alot of the policies and guidelines and most have caveats, I guess the reason for all the wiki lawyering that goes on. Anyways, --Tom 14:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)ps, hopefully the editos involed in this will contribute here rather than just blindly reverting, but will see. --Tom 14:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I support it being removed. Almost every [notable] American has gone to a high school, that isn't really what "education" is referring to. I say unneeeded. TheAE talk/sign 16:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Television Section Bias

The Television section reads:

The October 5, 2008 broadcast of Hannity's America entitled "Obama & Friends: The History of Radicalism" presented Andy Martin, among others, as an expert on Barack Obama, without noting Martin's record of anti-Semitism. The show drew criticism from multiple media outlets. The LA Times media columnist James Rainey described the piece as a "faux documentary" and a "new low".[16] The New York Times said the broadcast was "the latest step in the evolution of opinion journalism on cable news" and went on to say that the broadcast "was notable in presenting partisan accusations against Mr. Obama in a journalistic, documentary format in prime time."[17]. Fox Senior Vice President Bill Shine later stated that having Martin on was a mistake and added that it was a result of inadequate research.

That paragraph is written only to the left's point of view. That is clearly unacceptable and is there to make users less favorable of Mr. Hannity. That article should be written so it:

1) Shows both the opinions of the left and the right
or
2) Shows no possible bias
or
3) It contains no quotes opinions on the subject
or
4) Be removed from the article for possible controversy

JRH95 (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If you feel the section is unbalanced, it would probably be best to find some reliable sources that discuss Hannity or the right's perspective on this specific broadcast. As it stands it is a fairly major event in his career and drew comment from several major newspapers as well as FOX exectutives. --Leivick (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Daniel. The criticism is relevant and deserves to stand with specific examples. If there are corresponding sources from the other side, those should be added as well. If there aren't, that's certainly relevant and should not be used to strike the other side of the argument. Dayewalker (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Construction worker lied , his air died

Do you know that he lied all through that he found mass destruction, he lied all through that Obama is associated with terrorists, he lied all through that Americans will have nightmare if Obama is elected,... he lied everything to stop Obama express as well as Hillary express? Now he has become restless and he does not know what he talks about. (Source his radio show ). Glunnbuck (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Call Hannity. If he says no, then delete it. 23:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.113.71 (talk)

• Deleted. Try reading WP:OR and you'll understand why it is being deleted. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment pasted from my talk w/o marking it as such removed.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you the administrator? The consensus will advise.

What are the things that you do not agree? and I will get you the sources that I fetched these. It is the responsibility of the Wiki to advise the editors. Glunnbuck (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to be an administrator to recognize personal opinion and unsourced material. Nor do you need to be an admin to remove it. Before "fetching" your sources, be sure to read WP:RS and find out what a reliable source actually is. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• While you're at it, maybe you can explain why you insist on identifying Hannity as a construction worker? You act as if the guy doesn't have the second highest rated syndicated talk show in radio, hasn't written 2 NYT best sellers and hosts his own TV show. If we're going to identify people by a profession they held years ago, maybe we can start calling Rep. Ron Paul "the paperboy" Niteshift36 (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Hannity is always proud to be called as construction worker. What is your problem? Look at you and your language. You said you would help me to edit what I wrote and you are going away from that. (Source is his Radio program - baseless radio program).

Glunnbuck (talk) 01:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you finally read WP:RS? You need to come up with a citation that backs up what you are saying. We don't take your nor anyone elses editors word for granted.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you sir. I have given the source and updated. You wrote something above about our President Obama and erased it. Glunnbuck (talk) 02:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• First, I never offered to help you re-write anything. Second, I wrote something about Obama (based on an insinuation that was made by the Clinton campaign. Cleaner correctly decided that it was questionable to repeat the rumor and deleted it. Lastly, I know he is proud of his past occupation, but it makes you look like an agenda driven editor when you insist on doing it in the manner that you are. Please read wp:rs, wp:blp, wp:GRAPEVINE Niteshift36 (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Niteshift. It's just pointless to argue with this editor till s/he gets familiar with WP policies and guidelines. I hope s/he takes the advise given to him/her more than once and reconsiders and understands how it works here. Guess I call it a day (night) now or very soon.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not that I don’t want to listen to you. I will go and make corrections if I have violated the Wiki rules (and they will warn me). I will look forward to seeing some more editors jumping into this discussion. Mean while, I will explain what I meant in those I wrote (May be it needs to be reworded).

Remember I have respect for all humans and hence for Mr. Hannity too. Hannity what I am referring to is not that individual; it is about that radio host (it is not a single entity). I’m not comfortable with many of the reckless things he talks about without mercy. How is that he can criticize others; why we cannot?Glunnbuck (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Your statements are simply wrong on so many levels, so please let me try to explain. First, who are these "wiki" people that you think are going to warn you? There are no such people; you only have us. As many have told you, if you care to edit here, please take the effort to learn the purpose of this place and how it works. Second, be uncomfortable with this or that person all you want, but understand this: HIS BIO PAGE ON WIKIPEDIA IS NOT THE PLACE TO AIR YOUR DISAGREEMENT. Have a nice day.Jarhed (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You say he lied about multiple things, can you tell me what your definition of "Lie" is? A new name 2008 (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

'Lied', 'fabricated' are his favorite words on his radio show. I do not know how he defines a 'lie'. I'm trying to use his definition of 'lied' to make it consistent with what we are trying to say.

I don't understand why someone is deleting partly the stuff I wrote in here. Is this section for discussion enabling us ( consensus ) to understand and help each other? Glunnbuck (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• It looks like a difference of opinion is considered a lie in this instance. Obama is associated with Ayers. That is fact. What is open to discussion is to what extent that association is. As for the "will have a nightmare" part, we're 6 weeks into the presidency, so that's a little soon to call the prediction wrong. And again, we're talking about a difference of opinion. Some people believe that some of the actions already taken and the ones already proposed are a nightmare. That's why personal opinions don't get put in here. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Just a point of order. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. This is a page to discuss how to improve this article. Thank you, --Tom 16:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Gee, I thought showing how the "lies" are really matters of opinion, then using it as an example of why we don't let personal opinions into articles was educational in nature. Sorry for trying to help the editor understand. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Niteshift36 that I didn't direct my comment to the editor who was creaming "liar, liar, pants on fire". My point of order was not directed at you since you were assuming good faith with this editor and trying to help him with policy matters as we all should. Anyways, sorry again if you misunderstood my point of order. Anyways, --Tom 16:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• It's all good. I probably shouldn't have taken it as directed at me anyway. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Radicals have taken over !!!!

What does this mean? Who are radicals for Hannity ?(Source: Hannity talk show slogan).

• Maybe you should post that question here: [1]. That is where you go to discuss the show. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Conservatism is in exile !!!!

Why conservatism is in exile? (Source: Hannity talk show slogan).

• Maybe you should post that question here: [2]. That is where you go to discuss the show. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Glunnbuck (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• You still obviously haven't read wp:RSr wp:OR. Don't use me as an excuse to edit how you see fit. Find sources, follow the rules or leave the article alone. And what are you talking about with this "updating the picture" thing? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is not for an individual

This article is not for an individual. It is about the so called Radio host business. The rules that apply to an individual cannot be applied here. I donot have time to fight with wikipedia or anybody about it.

• Editors are currently in dispute concerning points of view expressed in this article. Please help to discuss and resolve the dispute before removing this message and any part in the article.
• This article or section may be slanted towards recent events. Please try to keep recent events in historical perspective.

Keep all the things, not just the one sided story.

It is good not to involve in editing such articles. Let me shut my mouth. Thanks. Athos, Porthos (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this article is for an individual. The Sean Hannity Show is for his "Radio host business." TheAE talk/sign 21:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• • As AE pointed out, this is a BIOGRAHPY article. It is about Sean Hannity, the individual. There are seperate articles about his radio and TV shows. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Also just to note the policy, it doesn't make any difference what page the information is going on if the information is about a living person, it still must comply the requirements in the the Biographies of living persons policy. It applies to this article, the radio show article and all other pages including talk pages on wikipedia. From the first line of the policy:

Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page.

A new name 2008 (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Andy Martin "material"

I am not sure what the deal is here, but it seems that this "event" has gotten pretty significant coverage in the article as it currently stands. Anyways, Tom 03:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, that section mentions that "Martin was presented as an expert on Obama". Is that correct? TIA Tom 03:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"Approved by a sysop"

I keep seeing this mentioned. I've been told by more than one WP administrator (no sysops here guys) that the decision of a single administrator is not the word of God. They make mistakes too. Let's not keep acting like the interpretation of one admin is the final word and can be referenced as "it was decided" as a perpetual reason for reverts. These things can be taken to ANI's. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The "material" that keeps being reinserted could possibly be introduced at the article about the TV show since that is what this is about. Maybe take it to that talk page, but it probably is already covered there, I haven't checked yet but will try to see.--Tom 20:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be covered in the article about the old tv show. Anyways, --Tom 20:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• It was discussed here, at great length. The discussion has been archived. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw some threads about Hal Turner connection, but what was the thinking about this Andy Martin "material"? The multiple crticism quotes seem like undue weight for a bio and more appropriate for the tv show article. Tom 05:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• The Martin material discussion is archived in [3]. The section is titled: Reaction to 10/5 Airing of 'Obama & Friends: A History of Radicalism' on "Hannity's America". Niteshift36 (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that was alot to digest. Anyways, is this "material" really relevant to this bio? It seems more notable to the tv show if at all, especially since there is an article about the show. I will try again to rewrite this with the proper weigh given. Thank you, Tom 12:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• I wasn't kidding when I said "discussed at great length". My position is pretty much the same. 1) The article is a Hannity bio, not an article about the show. 2) It is a minor event in his life compared to everything else he has done. 3) For all the breast beating about the need to show "the truth", not one of the editors who feel this info is earth shattering has bothered to expand the article about Andy Martin. 4) WP:Recentism. 5) If we simply can't live without it, then it should be a sentence or two. Period. All the "this critic said this" stuff should go in the article about the show, not in the personal bio. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Even without the commentary/criticism, it is undue weight. How many episodes of the tv show were there? 100s? And this is what is going to get 1/3 of the section. Should we also include dates and shows that got alot of praise? The tv section should mention the general details about the show and leave the specific criticisms, praise, controversies, specific show details, ect for the sub article about the tv show.Tom 14:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I dont see any problem in including notable praise and criticism about his career (TV show in this case) in his Biography, unless what someone does in their job is not considered part of their Biography... --Docku: What's up? 14:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. He is a radio and TV commentator, so it's a bit disingenuous to say that discussion of his commentary doesn't belong here. It's notable and sourced.Jimintheatl (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be specific to a segement of a specific show. I agree that maybe some praise/criticism of his overall tv career ect could be worked into the section but this seems overally detailed agenda driven criticism and undue weight in relation to the current length of that section. Tom 14:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

and if this specific segment underlines and highlights the overall critcism of the show? By the way, how would you propose to include an overall criticism? wouldnt including an example be more informative to an uninformed reader? --Docku: What's up? 14:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, but who said NO criticism about anything in his career? I know I didn't (despite your false implication) and I've agreed on the inclusion of items critical of Hannity. The point (again) is that it should be a short inclusion, not an expansive one. The expansive one should be in the article about the show. Hannity didn't produce the documentary, he simply gave it exposure on his show, so his responsibility here is that he aired it. It shouldn't take 2 paragraphs to cover that. 2 sentences should suffice. The expanded stuff about what critics said should go in the article about the show and the article about the man who actually made the documentary, which none of you have seen fit to expand on. I guess it isn't as fun to complain about Martin in his own article or in the article about the show. Instead you are using the bio of Hannity, who didn't write, produce, direct or film the documentary. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Neoconservative

This is being added throughout the article. Can sources be provided here and discussed? TIA, --Tom (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, looks like this needs admin intervention, oh well. --Tom (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Isn't his stance on foreign policy source enough?--E tac (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)