Talk:Sean Hannity

Conspiracy theorist?

Thanks for the edit MelanieN. However, do you believe the Newsweek article is a sufficient source of declaring the man is a "conspiracy theorist"? It seems a pretty serious accusation to make against a man, which would require more (and stronger) sourcing. That article only says that he has "touted" conspiracy theories and discusses his "foray" into the land of conspiracy. But it never explicitly refers to Hannity as a conspiracy theorist. He also emphatically denies the charge in that article. Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

WaPo: "Fox News conspiracy theorist Sean Hannity"[1]. That said, I don't think a lot of RS explicitly label him a "conspiracy theorist". It's undeniable though that he has been fervently pushing conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton, Seth Rich, the "Deep State" and election fraud in the last 12 months, as substantiated by the content of his Wikipedia page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, you asked for a source; I gave you one; now you want multiple sources? How many do you need? Much of the article is about the various conspiracy theories he promotes (which in turn is because that's what he gets most of his press coverage for), so it doesn't seem too outrageous, or too requiring of multiple sources, to say that's one of the things that defines him. Are you saying that a person who "touts" conspiracy theories, and makes "forays" into the land of conspiracy, isn't a conspiracy theorist? Then who is? Let's look for definitions.

• "a person who holds a theory that explains an event or situation as the result of a secret plan by usually powerful people or groups: Conspiracy theorists believe the government is hiding evidence of UFOs." Merriam-Webster
• "One who believes in, follows, or advances a conspiracy theory." Wiktionary

Most dictionaries don't have a separate definition of "conspiracy theorist", they just redirect to "conspiracy theory". That's what Wikipedia does too. Those that don't define it separately just list it as a "related word" to "conspiracy theory". Dictionary.com Those that do define it, say it is someone who believes in or advances conspiracy theories. Doesn't that describe Hannity? --MelanieN (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure, and I think the WaPo source would be a good addition. I guess normally I think of a guy like Alex Jones when I hear "conspiracy theorist," talking about moon landing hoaxes and lizard people and the like. Hannity strikes me as more like a host who opportunistically latches on to conspiracy theories so long as it advances his desired narratives. Either way, I think the first sentence is in a much better condition now. Hidden Tempo (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

If we’re going to brand Hannity a “conspiracy theorist” in the lead, and cite an opinion/analysis piece by Dave Weigel, then we ought to at least be faithful to Weigel’s piece. Weigel also calls Hannity an “elder statesman” so let’s include that for NPOV. And the conspiracy theorist accusation is in regards to the DNC stabbing Sanders in the back, so we should include that context. So, in the lead, I put this:

He is an elder statesman of Fox News, and a conspiracy theorist regarding the alleged harm done to 2016 presidential candidate Bernie Sanders by his own party.

References

Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah it's a bit dishonest to label Hannity as a conspiracy theorist in the lead. Someone's bias is showing. DoloMikal (talk) 19:13, 13 November 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

Marc Fisher in the Washington Post

This source [2] 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[3]. 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[4], 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)

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. 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. 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. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:59, 12 November 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)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} 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

@James J. Lambden:, 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#Career 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 Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Definition_of_a_source 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)

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)

Conspiracy theorist

Seriously, does Wikipedia even try to hide its liberal biases anymore? Can we at least be fair? Will we identify Harry Reid as a conspiracy theorist for pushing the false allegations that Mitt Romney failed to pay taxes? Will we claim that every leftist who ever argued that collusion existed between the Russian government and the Trump campaign a conspiracy theorist? As even Dianne Feinstein said, there is no evidence for such a connection. It's a problem that goes far beyond this article. Like for instance, we say that many of Trump's campaign statements were "false," even though Clinton made numerous false statements about her email history and other matters. That's not mentioned anywhere in the lead section of her article. In fact, we don't even mention the mail controversy. This comment probably won't change much, but many of our articles on modern day political persons and topics almost read like propaganda pieces for the Democratic Party. Our articles for conservative figures read like hit pieces. It's obvious who writes them. Display name 99 (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton believes in a vast right-wing conspiracy, and I’m sure a lot of other politicians do too, so I guess we better get busy putting “conspiracy theorist” into all of those BLP leads. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't say Wikipedia has a liberal bias but this specific line does sound bias. Hannity is not known for being a conspiracy theorist. DoloMikal (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Someone would have to be known for being a conspiracy theorist primarily to have that line in the lead, such as Alex Jones for example. Sean Hannity is not nearly in the same category, even if he has speculated on things that may be unwarranted. You wouldn't list Donald Trump as a conspiracy theorist in the lead sentence even if he arguable has engaged in some. Marquis de Faux (talk) 04:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The term is amply supported by reliable sources, and the body of the article makes it quite clear in what respects he peddles conspiracy theories. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

These "reliable sources" are all left-wing or left-leaning outlets, and citing them without using any conservative or conservative-leaning sources creates an unbalanced picture. The section on the Clinton "conspiracy theories" makes no mention of her near-collapse on September 11. It makes it seem like Hannity invented it all out of nowhere, which is false. There are several sources calling Rachel Maddow a conspiracy theorist. There are also plenty of left-wing conspiracy theories mentioned above. Are you willing to go around adding that to all the articles for those people, or is this just for conservatives? I agree that he has speculated about things that were either unproven or debunked, but, as was said above, Hannity is not primarily known for promoting conspiracy theories, and therefore including that in the first sentence of the article is inappropriate. Unless, of course, you want to add "conspiracy theorist" to our bios for Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Rachel Maddow, and whoever else. Display name 99 (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I wanted to say that I am in agreement with this comment. Sean Hannity is a lot of things but I do not think he should be called "conspiracy theorist" in the opening sentence.Within cells interlinked (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I also agree with this comment. Sean Hannity has presented false claims, and we should absolutely be clear about when Sean Hannity presents claims that are false, but to equate him to people like Alex Jones by labeling him a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence is misleading. Instead, the article should explain that various sources have labeled him a conspiracy theorist. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 05:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

There are 6 people who don't want him identified as a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence and only 1 who does. That seems like consensus. Therefore, I decided to change it by adding at the end of the first paragraph that he is sometimes accused of being a conspiracy theorist. Display name 99 (talk) 12:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• What 6 people? Old (October) version tells "conspiracy theorist" and it was supported by multiple RS. If you want to change it, make an RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I think they have in mind people like DoloMikal (talk · contribs)... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• I worked on the wording a bit, and I think it's a lot more neutral now. There's nothing wrong with saying that some people say he is a conspiracy theorist; numerous outlets indeed label him as one, and I don't think Hannity himself would disagree that some people see him that way. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 03:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Let's have a balanced lead

Can people please stop sanitising the lead by removing the "controversies" paragraph. It leaves a lead that tells readers only about his awards and honours. In that version, it fails to summarise the article properly and is an obvious failure of WP:NPOV. If you don't like the Newsweek source (despite the fact that Newsweek of course meets WP:RS), then you could copy a source used in the relevant sections below. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I am a conservative, and I have to agree with this; both sides should be covered in a neutral fashion per WP:TRUTH. However, it should not be written in a way that endorses Newsweek's point of view, or any other liberal media outlet's point of view. Every media outlet is going to be wrong at some point, so "factually challenged" seems like a more neutral way of covering it than "misleading and inaccurate." PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 22:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous phrase: "He has promoted stories that have been challenged factually". WP:WEASEL. Hannity has not been challenged factually, Hannity has promoted falsehoods and conspiracy theories. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed with Snooganssoogans. Birtherism is not simply "factually challenged" -- it is a conspiracy theory, and "misleading and accurate" is a charitable way of putting it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it would be extremely difficult to get an impartial opinion on such controversial and divisive subject, including from outside sources which are going to be all over the place, which is why softer is better per WP:NPOV (just like saying he has won awards is better than saying he has widespread respect). The fact that numerous established users are edit warring over this (with some even trying to have it outright removed) is why "factually challenged" is a better way of putting it, and putting it that way reduces the desire of newbies to want to vandalize Wikipedia. Put opinions aside for the sake of quality encyclopedia content; we're here to cover a well-known commentator in an encyclopedic fashion not to promote liberalism or conservatism. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 19:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The exact Wikipedia policy to consider here is WP:IMPARTIAL. Please read it. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 19:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

"Factually challenged" is a classic WP:WEASEL. It's also atrocious English. Show me a single source which describes it as "factually challenged". You can't just invent silly phrases out of thin air. It needs to be based on sources. And that is what impartial and NPOV means. Volunteer Marek  19:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 19:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I have not and do not intend to destroy any Keurigs. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 19:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLP

There's an elephant in the room, and that is WP:BLP. The original wording is He has promoted stories that are misleading, unsubstantiated or false, leading some to call him a conspiracy theorist and cites Newsweek, a source that our own article states refocused its content on opinion and commentary beginning with its May 24, 2009, issue. One opinion-based article is not enough to label someone as "misleading" and a "conspiracy theorist." We can't go back to that wording, if anything we could say he has been accused of promoting stories that are misleading, unsubstantiated, or false, leadning some to call him a conspiracy theorist. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 20:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

We shouldn't even cite Newsweek. I never cite Newsweek and dislike it - someone other than me lumped it into the lede. That Hannity has, in no uncertain terms, promoted falsehoods and conspiracy theories is substantiated by a multitude of sources in the body. The lede ought to summarize the body. It's enough to say that Hannity has "frequently promoted falsehoods and conspiracy theories". That's abundantly sourced, and an adequate short summary of extensive text in the body. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I agree we can do without the source and just summarise the content of the appropriate section below. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

You can't make such a statement without sources, and since this is a BLP, we need to include the word "accused." Good, neutral sources exist showing that just about everyone involved in politics have promoted falsehoods, probably because people involved in politics are human and make mistakes, but no neutral sources are saying that Hannity is deliberately promoting falsehoods. Stating that such falsehoods are deliberate is a WP:BLP issue, unless the person admits to deliberately making up stories, a court rules that someone has deliberately made up stories, etc. Lets not worry about covering the WP:TRUTH but instead lean on reliable sources. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 20:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The sources can be found in the relevant sections further down in the article. It's not necessary to repeat them in the lead. See WP:LEADCITE. We can repeat them if someone insists, but it's redundant. All we need to do is to summarise what's already in the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The term "deliberately" is nowhere to be found in any of the suggestions. This is what is being suggested: "frequently promoted falsehoods and conspiracy theories". This is abundantly sourced in the body of the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

There's one section in the whole article that uses the word "falsehood." Using that word in the lead based on one incident is WP:UNDUE. Find multiple, unbiased sources saying that he "frequently promotes falsehoods" (you won't; any source that says that is biased or we wouldn't be having this discussion), find multiple biased sources saying that and use the word "alleged," or it's just plain original research. There's a reason why there is a neutrality tag and on-going edit wars on the article, and the only way that's going to change is compromise. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 20:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

"Using that word in the lead based on one incident". The term "false" occurs 11 times in the article on issues ranging from election fraud, death panels, climate change, Hillary Clinton and CNN. The term "inaccurate" occurs once. The term "conspiracy theor" occurs 24 times, most of them in the context of debunked conspiracy theories and blatant falsehoods. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

So you're saying that most of them are debunked conspiracy theories? Good, so lets just say he frequently promotes conspiracy theories and leave "falsehoods" out of it. I could actually agree with that. It might even be worth while to comb over the entire article for non-neutral language. Again, WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:TRUTH; it's not our job to preach who is right and who is wrong, just to document the facts. BLPs should be the last articles to have neutrality tags. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 21:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:IMPARTIAL

Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.

The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone.

Please explain to me how saying that Sean Hannity promotes falsehoods is compatible with this policy, especially when there is an ongoing dispute between him and Media Matters for America. Really, the same applies to saying someone promotes conspiracy theories. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 21:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

You must be forgetting birtherism, and Seth Rich -- again. These are not issues to be "impartial" about; it's not appropriate for an encyclopedia to contemplate the possibility that Obama might have been born in Kenya, or HRC might have had Seth Rich killed. There's no dispute here, and so nothing to be impartial about. Hannity promoted falsehoods about these topics, among others. No amount of alphabet soup is going to change that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

These are not issues to be impartial about I didn't read that part in the policy. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 21:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I have never cited Media Matters, and I don't believe this Wikipedia page cites Media Matters for anything other than a November 2017 spat over Roy Moore and advertisers. Every sentence that says that Hannity promoted falsehoods cites sources such as the Washington Post, PolitiFact, FactCheck.Org, and by my count, four peer-reviewed academic studies. All reliable sources. If you want to sensibly discuss this, you should perhaps actually read the article from start to finish. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Sean Hannity himself cites fact checkers when someone he doesn't like says something that isn't true, and just about everyone in the field of politics has been dinged by the fact checkers more than once; unless you are using a reliable source that says he frequently promotes falsehoods (and preferably more so than any other political commentator), it's WP:OR. What is wrong with just saying he is known to promote conspiracy theories? Are conspiracy theories credible, in your opinion? Our article on conspiracy theories, which is currently wikilinked in the article, covers the topic quite well. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 22:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

This "everybody lies" nonsense that defenders of crackpots use all the time is both untrue and irrelevant. If there's RS coverage of, say, Rachel Maddow lying about X and Y, then you can go and add that to her article and if a bulk of her article is devoted to her lying, then that should go to the lede, as well. However, what Maddow or anyone else does, or the state of her or anyone else's article, has nothing to do with the Sean Hannity WP article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

If your problem is with "frequently", we can go with "promoted a number of falsehoods and conspiracy theories". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

How about "is noted for promoting a number of falsehoods and conspiracy theories"? That leans on the sources while effectively communicating the information. I can't speak for the people who raised the neutrality dispute in the first place, but that is a lot more neutral than what we had before, in my opinion. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 22:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

That's perfect. I don't think anyone could object to that phrasing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• If multiple RS tell that someone "frequently promoted falsehoods and conspiracy theories", this is something really important and must be included. Please see the entire Category:Conspiracy theorists. My very best wishes (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

2017 Controversies

Please do not add every single non-noteworthy controversy the subject has been involved in. I have removed some of these singular isolated incidents (such as the Keurig Coffee machines). If we do not cover the controversial things Hannity has done over a broad time frame we run afoul of unbalancing the article with only controversies/criticism from this year. WP:Recentism I believe is the rule for this. AmongTheliving66 (talk) 08:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

We do cover controversies that he's been involved in over time and comments that he's made over time. In fact, you just whitewashed his changing views on immigration over time. As for lop-sided post-2015 coverage in the Wikipedia article, it's no coincidence that Hannity has received more extensive RS coverage since he turned into Trump's lapdog in 2016 and has been willing to push lies and conspiracy theories that echo throughout the population and have enormous ramifications. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEGROUND Can we seriously act like adults and compromise instead of using inflammatory language like Trump's lapdog? That kind of language is not going to help resolve the situation. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 20:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Here is text under discussion. All this info was well sourced and must be included. Remember that the subject is a notable and controversial political commentator who attracted a lot of criticism. This is nothing extraordinary. My very best wishes (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I wrote part of that. This is the original version, before I rewrote it. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 02:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Reverted removal of criticism from lede

Removing this longstanding section from the lede leaves prominent sections of the article essentially unsummarized in the lede. Its removal doesn't appear to be based in policy, and thus I reverted it. I also object to the removal of the "American Conspiracy Theorists" category from Hannity's page. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Challenge NPOV compliance - there's a tag on the article and the issues must be addressed. Discuss. Use Rachel Maddow BLP as a guide. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The only sentence in the lede I think is problematic is He has also been criticized for being overly supportive of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. It's an NPOV violation in that implies that supporting Donald Trump is a bad thing. The rest is fine; having some mention of Hannity's bizarre pushing of fringe theories is necessary, but calling him a "conspiracy theorist" in the lede sentence definitely is not necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I could almost see your argument about the sentence about his support for Trump, although it pretty clearly implies that the issue is that he is "too" supportive of Trump to the point where he refuses to report or comment on any negative aspect of Trump or his administration. As for the "conspiracy theorist" concern: it's what RS bears out. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're starting the discussion in the wrong place and thus I'm not willing to discuss this on your terms: there is nothing in the removed section that violates NPOV... And your comparison to the Maddow BLP is completely irrelevant. I found your comment there by the way, and read the article you linked to about right-wing groups requesting boycotts for Maddow's "promotion" of conspiracy theories after you agreed with an editor trying to add spurious claims to that bio. You might want to read the article, because it's headline is misleading and it doesn't actually say what you think it says, and furthermore your editing there seems to suggest you view the encyclopedia as a "tit-for-tat" exercise. Comparing one group's slanted quest for vengeance after perceived slights against right-wing commentators to the sum total of the RS coverage that has covered Hannity's controversies is a little laughable. I would ask you to review WP:BATTLEGROUND, and perhaps consider how it might apply. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The battleground is an IP and Nomo reverting challenged material. As I explained, review Rachel Maddow - Hannity competitor - and tell me where you see the conspiracy theorist crap in that BLP. I will provide the RS and will use that to demonstrate the issue of noncompliance here. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Your problem begins and ends with calling "Rachel Maddow" a Hannity competitor. Tell me exactly what relevance that has here? They are two very different people, known for two very different brands of reporting. One does not need to be a veritable coin flip of the other, unless you see yourself fighting some sort of ideological war. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• LOL* That argument doesn't work - try something with substance. We have something called PAGs and consistency on WP. I'm trying to comply with NPOV - no ideologue here - no soapboxing, either. In case you haven't noticed, you are the one adding back noncompliant material that was challenged - not unlike the material challenged at Maddow that was promptly reverted. This a BLP - pay attention. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Alright, Atsme. When you get to the point in a discussion where one editor thinks their strongest argument is to cry BLP about statements that have 20+ sources, it's safe to say we're getting no where. Sorry, but your desired change to the longstanding text is currently against consensus. The best we can do at this point is wait for more people to chime in who might have more cogent arguments. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here by Atsme. That does not mean I agree with her, and I am certainly no fan of Hannity. But I hadn't looked at this article in a while so I did. I do believe the "controversy" paragraph should be rewritten to be more balanced. IMO it should say that 1) he was an early and eager supporter of Trump 2) he is controversial and promotes some conspiracy theories, and 3) he responds that he is not a journalist but a talk show host. The reason I think is should not be removed entirely is that his promotion of controversial and/or false material is part of his fame, and his support for Trump was a major reason for his rise in visibility and ratings.

I also took a look at the "Political commentary, controversies, and criticism" section. I believe the opening material, which serves as a mini-lede for the section, needs to be reorganized. Birtherism and "overly supportive of Trump" are detailed in subsections so they are OK to mention there. There should also be a mention of Clinton conspiracy theories. The "deep state" thing does not need to be in the opening section. I would delete the third paragraph of the opening section; the actions described are no different from what most political commentators do, i.e., being supportive of presidents from "their" side and critical of presidents from the "other" side.

Will it be OK with people here if I redo the paragraph in the lede, and the opening section of the "commentary" section, along these lines? --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps propose some text here for the lede paragraph? I'd use a different order: first the controversial & conspiracy theory stuff, then Trump, then response. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll work something up and propose it below. --MelanieN (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully declaring our personal preferences for the subjects of a biography doesn't become necessary before we can participate in editing. I know this was intended to show that you believe you will edit neutrally (and I think I remember that you usually succeed in doing so), but seeing some of the responses on this page (trying to create false "balance" between this biography and the Maddow biography, for instance, because supposedly being political adversaries (or whatever) dictates that we do so) makes me see this kind of declarative (and more so that you felt it was neccessary) as indicative of this topic being over-ran by people treating it like a battleground. This is broaching on becoming preachy, so I'll just leave it there. As for a potential rewrite: Hannity's promotion of conspiracy theories predates Trump (as with birtherism, some of the conspiracy theories surrounding the Clintons, etc.) While some RS say that Trump has elevated Hannity's promotion of what could be considered fringey under the best possible light to something of a fever-pitch, I don't think it would be accurate to imply that Hannity's support for Trump was the first time he dipped his toes into the conspiracy theory well. I agree the other section needs some work as well, and agree the third paragraph is really clunky/probably unnecessary. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Please don't put words into my mouth. When I say "balance" I am talking about the paragraph, and the article, on its own, and the need to accurately and neutrally reflect what sources say. I certainly have never agreed with Atsme's claim that there needs to be some kind of parallelism between this article and Maddow's, and have said so on the several occasions when she raised it before. Each article has to be based on what Reliable Sources say, not on what other articles say. I felt a disclaimer was necessary because I had been asked to come here by a particular editor who is on one side of this discussion. Also because I have noticed that some people on this page tend to assume that anyone who disagrees with them does so because of their political beliefs - that any editor who doesn't agree with them must be a "Trump supporter" on the one side, or a "Trump hater" on the other. --MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with MelanieN reorganizing and rewording the problematic statements to make them compliant. The claim by the IP that the challenged section is "longstanding" is ludicrous at best as demonstrated by this edit made by Nomoskedasticity on the Nov 18th, and who noted in his edit summary that we would want this material even without a source. No, I don't think so, and if it's kept in lede, it requires WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and strict adherence to WP:ACHIEVE NPOV. The fact that all of my edits are being tag-teamed and "rejected" despite my correctly challenging them as noncompliant with policy is highly disruptive as is the refusal of my accusers to discuss these issues in a civil manner. Their relentless WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT position is why I asked MelanieN to review the article, and I was immediately accused of canvassing as if what I did was a violation - again, disruptive. There is clearly an issue of tendentious editing in this article, and that needs to stop. As for the Maddow comparison, it is perfectly legitimate to demonstrate how that article does not include any criticism that I can see, despite being warranted as evidenced by this and other RS. We cannot dismiss the fact that Hannity and Maddow are primetime competitors, and both are subject to BLP policy which requires strict adherence to NPOV, regardless of an editor's own political biases. The stark dichotomy between the two supports my concern of a partisan bias favoring Maddow while being highly unfavorable toward Hannity. Tendentious editing is not allowed, and there is no valid reason to not use similar articles as guides, especially when criticism is aggressively being kept out and noncompliance with WP:IMPARTIAL is not being adhered to the way it should be in one article and quite the opposite is taking place in the other. All articles are subject to NPOV policy (BLP policy when it's a living person) with emphasis on the following: neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. That's NPOV 101, especially when contentious labels and biased views are involved. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed change to the paragraph in the lede

The existing paragraph says:

Hannity has been involved with numerous controversies. He is noted for promoting a number of falsehoods and conspiracy theories. He has been criticized for promoting birtherism, making unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud in the 2016 presidential election, and other conspiracy theories. He promotes pro-Trump views and coverage. Hannity has promoted the idea of a "deep state", which he describes as a "Shadow Government" – a network of government officials that is working to hinder the Trump administration.

I'd propose changing it to better reflect the coverage and the weight in the article text, and to take some of the assertions out of Wikipedia's voice: (See revised proposal below)

Hannity is often controversial and has been accused of promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories, such as casting doubt on Barack Obama's birthplace and promoting unproven stories about Hillary Clinton. He was an early supporter of Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election, giving him more air time than other candidates, asking friendly interview questions, and defending Trump whenever he was criticized. After Trump's election Hannity promoted unproven accusations made by Trump, such as that there was massive voter fraud in the 2016 election, or that there is a "deep state" within the federal government working to hinder the Trump administration. Hannity dismisses these criticisms by saying that he is a talk show host, not a journalist.

I would also suggest moving this paragraph into last position in the lede, after the paragraph about his honors and his books. Thoughts? MelanieN (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The two mentions of "unproven" above should be "false" and are typically described as such by reliable sources. Other than that, I have no problem with the proposed text. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The first "unproven" should definitely be "false". I'd rephrase the other sentence containing "unproven" as "After Trump's election Hannity promoted accusations made by Trump, such as the falsehood that there was massive voter fraud in the 2016 election, or the conspiracy theory that there is a "deep state" within the federal government working to hinder the Trump administration." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I generally prefer "unproven" or "unsubstantiated" over "false". But in the case of the Hillary Clinton stories, some of them were flat-out lies, like the EpiPen allegation, so I am OK with calling that one "false". As for the last sentence: actually, reviewing the sources, I find that I misinterpreted one thing. I do not find any evidence that he echoed Trump's presidential "3 million fraudulent votes" claim, which was what I thought. His actual voter fraud claims were during the election and were to support his claims that the election was "rigged". So I need to take that out of the "after Trump's election" sentence. That leaves the "deep state" claim, which I will just call a claim. However I find I omitted the Seth Rich material, which needs to be included and which definitely is a conspiracy theory. That leaves a revised proposal:

Hannity is often controversial and has been accused of promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories, such as casting doubt on Barack Obama's birthplace, promoting conspiracy theories about the Murder of Seth Rich, and reporting false stories about Hillary Clinton's health. He was an early supporter of Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election, giving him more air time than other primary candidates, asking friendly interview questions, and defending Trump whenever he was criticized. Since Trump's election Hannity has promoted Trump's claim that there is a "deep state" within the federal government working to hinder the Trump administration. Hannity dismisses criticism by saying that he is a talk show host, not a journalist.

Comments? --MelanieN (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you about "unproven" opposed to "false." I think we're moving in the right direction here. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 00:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

comment - If you're going to include the Seth Rich angle, then make sure to provide the key aspects of it such as the fact his murderer remains at large, and that Julian Assange offered a reward for information. With regards to "false stories" about HRC's health - be more specific - she actually was ill and fainted while getting into her vehicle, tripped getting into the plane, and had to be escorted up stairs on numerous occasions, etc. A person's medical records are their own so there's no way to disprove it, and there's no denying she had issues. Hannity actually had a panel of medical experts who analyzed her condition as possibly experiencing after-effects from her 2012 concussion - there's plenty of RS that wrote about it - and when experts say it, we cite it, right? It actually was an important issue for a presidential candidate. As for giving Trump lots of airtime, let's look at that a little closer. Who was giving HRC all the airtime, and feeding her questions ahead of debates? Include it but you also need to include both the Pew and Harvard research that proves Trump's coverage was overly negative opinions by MSM - [5] and [6] so there's no denying it. Pew nails it. It's all about NPOV and what we choose to use for RS and the information we cite in those sources. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

We most certainly do not need to give credence to Seth Rich conspiracy theories, cite hacks who are spitballing ailments for someone they've never met on the basis of a photo of a stumble or add your WP:OR about media bias. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Credence? Nobody is saying anything about it being true - we say what the sources say - we don't censor. The reward was gigantic news and it hasn't gone awayy, so if you're saying we're not supposed to publish what RS say based on IDONTLIKEIT, sorry - that's not how WP works. Per NPOV: representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. As for conspiracy theories, we're still pushing the Trump collusion story with zero evidence, so don't go there. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

We are talking about the lede here. None of that kind of detail would go in the lede. The lede just summarizes what is in the article. As for him "reporting false stories" about Clinton's health, yes, she did have some well reported medical issues. But Hannity went way beyond that. The "false" tag refers to things like Hannity claiming he saw a secret service agent holding an EpiPen for her, which he took to mean she was having seizures. The SS agent was actually holding a pen small flashlight. It's not a defense against "false" to say that he also said some true things. --MelanieN (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Melanie, if it cannot be presented from a NPOV, we should not include it at all, especially not in the lede. Save it for the body. Masem addressed the opinion/contentious label issues quite well. I really don't see the need to add something as trivial as the mistaken pen id in the lede. C'mon. Editors rejected the inclusion of any mention of conspiracy theories whatsoever in Maddow's BLP - so I ask, why is there a double standard? What valid reason could an editor possibly give to not include this conspiracy theory in the Maddow BLP? Whatever that reason is, that's the reason I'm invoking here. As for what is actually acceptable to include in the lede...the only factual statement (non-opinion) that can be generalized in the lede, if it really has to be included at all, is that Hannity was criticized for not immediately dropping the Seth Rich conspiracy theory after Fox News retracted the story. More detail can be added in the body, including the information about the ongoing rewards. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Atsme, please READ what is being proposed. There is nothing about the EpiPen in the lede, and nothing is being proposed. It is in the body of the article, as it should be. I just mentioned it to you as an example of why the word "false" is justified in that case. As for your "it is in Maddow so it should be here" argument - that has no validity, nobody is buying it, and you might as well drop it. Content is based on WP:Reliable Source coverage according to WP:WEIGHT. It is not based on some kind of other articles say this so we should too criterion. --MelanieN (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

The Maddow comparison is along the same line as WP:ATA. Anyway, I did read what you proposed and my suggestions are:

1. Eliminate "reporting false stories about Hillary Clinton's health". I already explained that coverage was based on the analysis of medical experts. HRC did have health issues after the concussion, and we also know that something caused her to fall and hit her head.
2. Saying "Hannity is often controversial" is weaselly - try Hannity has faced controversy throughout his career on Fox News.
3. Saying he spreads "falsehoods" is POV weighty - needs in-text attribution. What "falsehoods" did he spread? What supports such a claim and what does that mean exactly? Useful article - candid exchange, well-rounded.
4. Hannity's critics claim that he spreads falsehoods and conspiracy theories; however,Hannity rarely grants interviews to mainstream reporters, and believes they are “disgustingly biased, ideological and corrupt.” ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

1. No. At WP we have consistently refused to use or cite "remote diagnosis" - that is, medical opinions offered by professionals who have not actually examined or treated the subject. Most notably, at the Trump article we have never included any of the "mental health analyses" of Trump by psychiatrists and psychologists. As I said before (and won't say again; I get tired of repeating myself) it is true that she had some health issues, but he went way beyond the actual reported issues, to invent stories about seizures, drunkenness, etc. Those invented stories are detailed in the article text. They were false and we can say so. 2 No significant change proposed. 3. Answered already. 4. Irrelevant. --MelanieN (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I think a few may have been missed, like this one Goldwater_rule#Regarding_Donald_Trump where they're hard to find...but staying on course is a good thing. Regardless, while WP tries to avoid medical opinions, that does not warrant inclusion of the statement, "reporting false stories about Hillary Clinton's health". That simply isn't true and is a very partisan statement which makes it noncompliant. If you insist on including it, use in-text attribution but not as a cherrypicked opinion to denigrate - it must also include what the sources say about Hannity basing his reports on a panel of medical experts - which has nothing to do with WP making medical claims - it is simply stating what the sources say. No editorializing beyond that and no coatracking. Also, if you're intention is to include statements by critics, our policies say we also include what the person says in response to that criticism, so please stop trying to censor it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• MelanieN, that's a nice improvement and I support adopting it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)