Talk:Sean Hannity

Removal of Immigration subsection

I noted this section in April, and mentioned it in comments of the RfC re: Article tone and WP:POV, which closed with no consensus on that but did mention "There are some specific points made in the Comments section which editors may wish to address in isolation.".

At that time, the section read only : Hannity opposed amnesty, then he favored a "path to citizenship" before he opposed that idea.[7] and cited a Washington Post article which had this as tiny bit of the content, stating only opposition with no information on or quote of that. This appears to have been a single line based on a single not-echoed article.

Since then it was expanded a bit to: Hannity opposed amnesty, then he said in 2012 that he had evolved on the issue and favored a "pathway to citizenship".[118][7] Later, he opposed that idea.[7] By 2018, he was described as an "immigration hardliner".[119][120][121] The previous line is split into two and the first line adds a 2012 Politico cite to an article focused on to the pathway part, with no specifics on the amnesty opposition.

Please provide evidence for your statements. For example, I would ask for

• "wrong on everything" - please show "no biographical significance" wrong by some RS cites stating these have led to an impact to his life
• "notable" - please prove how. On the contrary, I think WP standards of UNDUE are hit here. Googling him gets 6 million + hits, the Post bit I'm seeing as single-hit UNDUE, the 'hardliner' is a rare name-calling at ~3,600 hits, and the 'pathway' line is the most at ~36,100 hits. That still seems undue, not affecting his life, and frankly that 6 years ago he once said secure the borders first and then pathway to citizenship seems a one-day note without enduring mention or importance in the world. There simply seems nothing noted in him about these items, or about anything related to immigration

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

It's sort of hard to even understand what you're asking. What does "wrong on everything" refer to? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I told him that he was "wrong on everything", referring to his edit summary when he removed the content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

We don't determine notability by Google hits, we do it by RS coverage. In this instance, we have five RS to support the disputed text. But if we did use Google hits (which we of course should not do), then "Sean Hannity" + "immigration" gets more than a million hits, which should be sufficient according to these new bizarre standards to justify coverage of Hannity's position on the subject. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Notability is irrelevant to article content, undue may not be. But he is noted (very widely) For his stances and statements on immigration. As to his not commenting in immigration (or immigrants) recently [1], [2].Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Technically you are correct, but in making decisions about WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTEVERYTHING we often look to coverage by reliable sources. That being said, to suggest that Hannity's positions on immigration are somehow not noteworthy or covered by the media seems preposterous to me. The bottom line is, there's no dispute this is reliably sourced content, so the burden is effectively on the party seeking to remove the content to justify their position, not the other way around. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans - You seem to be proving my point by dodging or missing on the questions a bit. Googling hannity and immigration is arguing the current content is even more despicable because out of millions of hits this is one nit of no great notice, and a name-calling by a tiny minority. If those million hits are worth anything for a BLP then what sorts of BIG things are in there and start by deleting this trivial junk out of where something worthwhile should be. As to the two things I asked for proof on, here they are in simpler form

• show an impact to his life mentioned in RS
• show the article content is notable - I offered that google counts for them is saying no, but gladly await your alternative facts that prove it true.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

User:DrFleischman -- that he changed his mind some unstated way and time in the last 6 years or so is OK as sole and vital thing for this BLP section ? You really want to go with that ??? As to the part about him changing again, that seems only remarked on by Washington Post so also fails RS wanted by the WP:PUBLICFIGURE line "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." (But I suggest you focus more to the article content and substantive discussion than the procedural tidbits.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

This discussion does not seem constructive so I decline to participate in it any further. I reserve the right to change my mind. Best of luck. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

User:DrFleischman - you certainly may choose to not participate in BRD. However, having not discussed your views basis, not responding to my offering two illustrative items and not responding to hints towards working an alternative cut, then ... your concerns are not visible and might not be addressed. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Mark. The section is UNDUE and should be removed. The bit about him changing his mind appears to be weaselly at best and WP:SYNTH at worst. – Lionel^(talk) 10:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I fixed the weasel problem. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

User:DrFleischman ??? - Adding the names of the cite sources to make it "By 2018, he was described as an immigration hardliner by CNN, The Washington Post, and New York magazine.[119][120][121]" I'm not sure that is a WP:WEASEL fix, it's still a vague claim though naming the sourcing is better than 'some say'. But the deletion was about the section being insignificant amount of content, UNDUE content selected, and POV. Saying that CNN etc did not add any substance, and it is an inappropriate paraphrase though, another flavor of UNDUE selection making for mis-portrayal because they almost never do so. Googling for hardliner or hard-liner and him at those sites shows the following.

* CNN - Hannity 4,130 hits -- 25 mention either spelling but seems mostly for Ann Coulter, Steven Miller, Blankenship, etcetera and others and not him.

* WaPo - Hannity 6,030 hits -- 108 mention either, but a lot of 'voices' not-WaPo speaking, or about Stephen Miller etcetera instead.

* NYM - Hannity 1,139 hits -- only 1 mention 'hard-liners'

Soooo... 133 matches out of 11,299 articles mentioning Hannity -- only about 1% coincidence, seems maybe below 0.5% said about him. That looks pretty WP:FRINGE to me. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Please stop pinging me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Well if he does not want to be pinged that the edit failed to fix weaseling, meh. Weaseling describes “words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated.” Stating Hannity opposed something (unstated) at some (unstated) time, then saying path to citizenship in 2012 (but not mentioning he said secure borders first), then saying he had an objection (unsaid) sometime (unstated) has a lot of gap and is rather unclear what the point is. The addition of the cite sources into text already visible in cite only led to noting how fringe that is, it did not make it less vague or more meaningful. Still not seeing responses to my offered way for proofs, my mention of a way to possible alternative content, or any suggestions for some other addressing of this topic. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

p.s. It’s been about another 2 weeks in this thread with no additional substance to the teeeny and UNDUE tidbit or further discussion forward. That is after about 6 weeks at the thread for input about ranking and before that my 2 May mention in the RFC for Tone. So I believe it is about time to delete again. Other than saying the same thing more verbosely there does not seem additional edits appearing. Markbassett (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

If you delete then someone will likely report you. You made your proposal and it was rejected by multiple editors. No one has any obligation to respond to your unconvincing and unhelpful follow-up comments. I have repeatedly explained on your user talk why you haven't been getting any traction on this issue, but for whatever reason you haven't responded. Consensus-building is on you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

User:DrFleischman - ??? ?? There are not multiple items from you on my talk page. I also did not make a proposal. And if you want a response to anything like ths, you should address it or ping. Markbassett (talk) 06:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Markbassett, so true, just once... You may want pings, but I do not, and I told you that already. Do not ping me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Enough weeks have passed, I've got about equal numbers against the section as for the section, and no substantive input seems coming that would make for further resolution or replacement. WP:ONUS puts the obligation to show cause for anything included, so I'll delete again and perhaps that will lead to some further response will come or perhaps a general RFC will be needed. Markbassett (talk) 00:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• No, the onus is on the editor seeking to make a change, and you have been warned not to do that. You are being disruptive and I kindly ask you to stop. If you cannot build a consensus for a change, then you must let it go. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Suggest you read it again. WP:ONUS clearly says "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. " I'd be happy to get some other substantive content, or substantive discussions even ... but as said above, I've got about equal numbers against the section as for the section, and no substantive input seems coming that would make for further resolution or replacement, and time for a general RFC. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Suggest you brush up on our policies and guidelines. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Lede

I see there was an earlier RfC that closed without significant changes being made, but am I the only one who notices the obvious bias in the lede section? "Hannity has promoted falsehoods and conspiracy theories" is followed by a list of conspiracy theories which, while unsubstantiated, are wrongly linked to falsehoods to suggest without overtly saying so that the editors of Wikipedia are pronouncing them as such. Worse still is the phrase "Hannity has often acted as a conduit for Trump's messaging..." What? How do we know this, and what does acting as a conduit entail precisely? We know Hannity is a conservative who is likely to have a generally favorable view of the Trump administration, but how does that differ from any other similar personality? The wording suggests that he is acting in an unofficial role as a spokesman of some type. That's pretty blatant editorializing, in my opinion.-RHM22 (talk) 03:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe the RfC was specifically about the lead; however I disagree with your assessment. In generally we follow the reliable sources. If I'm not mistaken, everything you listed is supported by reliable sources. If something isn't reflective of the sources then we can and should fix it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Well I'd be willing to concede on the first part that I mentioned, as it's technically correct despite what is, in my opinion, leading wording (no pun intended). However, to the latter point, I think it's inappropriate to say that Hannity is a conduit for the President's messaging, as that implies direct influence (e.g., "Pravda acted as a conduit for the Communist Party"). Looking at the sources for the relevant portion of the main article body (although neither that phrase nor any similar are repeated therein), they indicate that Hannity and Trump have a close relationship and are regularly in consultation with one another, but not that the former acts as a messenger for the latter as the phrasing in the lede section suggests. I would suggest rewording to something along the lines of "Since Trump's election, Hannity has often put forward viewpoints concordant with the President's messaging..." I believe that something like this would preserve the intent of the sentence (that Hannity's viewpoints generally echo Trump's messaging) without implying direct influence.-RHM22 (talk) 01:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I am also surprised that nothing has come from the previous discussion. While I agree with leaning on reliable sources, I believe we should lean on those reliable sources a little more; we should say in the lede "ABC Magazine has identified falsehoods promoted by Hannity" or at least "numerous sources have criticized Hannity for promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories" with strong inline references to back it up as was discussed before; that way Wikipedia isn't saying it, the source is saying it. When I have a little time I will look into making a WP:BOLD change here that will hopefully be agreeable. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 16:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

RFC: Should the article remove the Immigration section ?

The consensus is to keep the immigration section, which editors consider to be due weight.

Cunard (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the section Immigration be removed from this BLP ?

The section was criticized as trivial in amount or portion of his positions, and just not biographically significant. It was a single line: Hannity opposed amnesty, then he favored a "path to citizenship" before he opposed that idea.[7]

Since then the line has been been stated a bit more verbosely, and then another remark added: Hannity opposed amnesty, then he said in 2012 that he had evolved on the issue and favored a "pathway to citizenship".[118][7] Later, he opposed that idea.[7] By 2018, he was described as an "immigration hardliner".[119][120][121]

Please indicate whether to Delete or Keep this as a section of the article, along with your reasoning. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Delete - as proposer and prior discussions. The WP:ONUS says that "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." and that has not shown up in prior talk. A single remark buried in a WaPo article on him just isn't enough for a section, even adding in a few folks call him a label. Also the single remark by WaPo that is awfully vague fails BLP guidance for WP:PUBLICFIGURE "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Noting he was in favor of pathway ('first, secure the border') in 2012 got minor coverage not enough to be even a major item of his coverage, and the reporting of further change seems single-site. The added line about a label for him is not the most common description, so seems UNDUE as well as pointless -- so sometime in all stories about him this is said about his immigration positions -- most say other terms, or even praise him which is not included. Markbassett (talk) 05:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. I have seen no legitimate content-based justification for removing this section. It's reliably sourced, widely covered, and highly noteworthy. I don't think anyone is seriously claiming that the current content is controversial or inaccurate, so I don't see how BLP applies. The "multiple sources" sentence in WP:PUBLICFIGURE is expressly about allegations and incidents not about matter-of-course content like this. If the section is too small for some editors' stylistic tastes then it can be expanded or consolidated into another section. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

In correction to your voiced beliefs... Actually controversial and inaccurate have been mentioned -- WEASEL and POV were called on it by others. And ONUS is clear the onus is that inclusion must show justification so you have that wrong. And yes I am citing PUBLICFIGURE failure on bits *not* widely covered -- of the vague reference of an incident opposing 'first secure the borders, then pathway' as having only one source. It could be disproven by turning up a couple other sources that say so, and preferably convey what the opposition was and when. But really now -- To base an entire section on something only one article had as a vague side-remark should be an easy call to remove and not missed. The added that three places called him a label should also be an easy call as it's not what they usually call him, and isn't amazing or make a difference to his life bio this article is about. Deletion should be easy here, there's just nothing much here. If other material is turned up that deserves presence -- then we could drop this junk and keep the good stuff. But this vague and vapid tidbit should go, and having a section without any good stuff on the basis that maybe something might later turn up does not seem sensible. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. Well-sourced, due weight. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. Politico, CNN, and WaPo are all reliable sources; Hannity talks about immigration so a section for his views is warranted.-Ich (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - His views on immigration are adequately sourced and of encyclopedic value.- MrX 🖋 15:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Obvious keep - Several reliable sources. 16:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snooganssnoogans (talk • contribs)
• Keep and expand - Especially the first part - "opposed amnesty" - This assumes knowledge on the part of the reader. What did he oppose? what was amnesty's position in the first place? These are questions which should be answered in the section. Edaham (talk) 05:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't have the sources here right now, but I'm pretty sure Hannity used the term "amnesty" verbatim, which usually refers to granting undocumented immigrants the legal rights to stay in the country and/or citizenship under certain conditions. I don't think it would be a good idea to define specifically what Hannity meant, given that amnesty can encompass temporary stay to actual citizenship. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah ok I misunderstood. English is fast becoming a second language for me. Edaham (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Edaham - I believe he opposed things labeled “amnesty”, not particularly noted, and in 2012 casually suggested it was all easy to fix by ‘first secure the borders, pathway to citizenship, done’. That does not to me mean he changed to approving any amnesty or thing like “amnesty” but seems like the Wall-for-DACA attempted bills of the last couple years. What the Washington Post writer meant by the final bit I have no idea — the writer in that long article apparently felt no need to show it, but Googles around that year showed me nothing. Perhaps it was just a repeat of opposing an amnesty or opposes a DACA without “Wall” first, but saw nothing like that. I would expect he still opposes amnesty and still supports DACA-for-Wall, but not sure of that. As phrased, the article gives the impression of changing views at 6 years ago, and then sometime since then, but only that article seems to mention position change since 2012. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:DUE; relevant to his bio as noted by 3rd party sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• Pinging prior participants on this and related threads - user:Lionelt, User:Snooganssnoogans, User:Slatersteven, User:Volunteer Marek, User:Objective3000, User:Display name 99, User:Winkelvi, User:Iselilja - please provide RFC inputs, thank you. (Note: Dr F not pinged because he objects about it; Danial Plainview not pinged as was reported sock).

This section is basically just a side one-liner that only one source remarked on that he was for "first secure the border, [then] pathway to citizenship, done" before he opposed it -- but obviously if that article felt the opposition not important enough to say what/when details, and nobody else took note of it, then how could it have made any biographical impact in his life ??? Markbassett (talk) 02:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• So far seems strongly Keep with little discussion, no input from prior complaint editors, and apparent confusing over a few cites exist versus WP:DUE which often occurs. Noted call for more on the first line, and challenge/more fore the second line, and generally seems a desire for more meat to the section rather than delete the section as meatless. Markbassett (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Boycotts in the lede

I don't think they should be there[3]. The body yes, the lede no. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Considering the boycotts have had relatively little impact on him (compared to Glenn Beck, for example), I would agree including them in the lede is WP:UNDUE. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 16:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Leave the boycotts out of the lede. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Insofar as the boycotts have had some coverage that merits inclusion in the body, and the lead should provide an overview of the body, the lead could have a single, short sentence mentioning boycotts in the final paragraph, but absolutely no more than that. The lack of impact of the boycotts isn't relevant to the question of whether the lead should mention them per WP:LEAD. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2018

In the fourth paragraph, first sentence, delete the phrase "falsehoods and". In the fourth paragraph, first sentence, delete the phrase "reporting false". In the fourth paragraph, fifth sentence, delete the phrase "Because of Trump,"

These may or may not be true, but are unsubstantiated and are presented as opinion. If necessary, discuss the controversy in Section 3 and appropriately footnote it. Stadler33 (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I rephrased and added attribution to fifth sentence. I don't see a problem with the others. O3000 (talk) 01:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done by O3000 L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2018

Please change Category:Conspiracy theorists to Category:American conspiracy theorists as Sean Hannity was an American by birth and by residence. He promoted conspiracy theories from the United States as far as I am concerned. 24.105.170.133 (talk) 14:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)