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)

Negativity

This section is extremely negative:

"The October 5, 2008 broadcast of Hannity's America entitled Obama & Friends: The History of Radicalism presented Andy Martin as an expert on Barack Obama, without noting Martin's political stances and history of anti-Semitism. Fox News and 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".[18] 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."[19]. 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."

Some parts of this are unnecessary. I'm editing it down.PokeHomsar (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The statement about Martin becomes virtually meaningless unless the reference to his anti-Semitism or, at the very least his alleged anti-Semitism, is included. Pretty good evidence has been presented that Martin has engaged in grossly anti-Semitic propaganda. Unless you can defend him convincingly the reference should be included. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Badminstohnist, except that I would call Martin's anti-Semitism a matter of public record, and not just 'good evidence'. He wrote it into his frivolous lawsuits.FuriousJorge (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I was just wondering, are there any other sources other than the L.A. and N.Y. Times for this section. Most would consider these two newspapers less than "neutral." This section just seems somewhat pointless altogether. I'm not really understanding its encyclopedic value. Jpk314 (talk) 09:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll on Media Matters award mention

Just a quick tally of where folks stand. Thanks,

Straw polling is not a means of achieving consensus. The current edit, which includes both the MM award and Hannity's response, seemed to have achieved consensus until some latecomers to the discussion started deleting the agreed upon edit.Jimintheatl (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

achieved consensus? By 3-4 editors and even then it seemed like there wasn't total agreement on how to treat this new material. The poll is just trying to see where folks currently stand and a start to reach a true and current consensus. Anyways, it doesn't look like too many folks are interested right now. Maybe after the Holidays :) Cheers! --Tom 22:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• It is worth noting that in the original discussion about it, I never actually supported it being there, but at least got it to be reasonably balanced. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • • Actually, in the original discussion, you said you were "happy" with the current edit.

        *
         o I'm glad that we can find consensus. I'm including the Media Matter criticism in the TV section providing a proper context. I leave to another editor the task of including Hannity's response. --Jmundo (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

See, everyone is happy. All I asked for was discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC) Jimintheatl (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• That is taken out of context. You forget where I said "I'd find it less controversial if it was included, in context, with other criticisms about his radio or tv show.". "Less controversialisn't a ringing endorsement. And now you want to take my attempt at being civil and conciliatory and use it as an endorsement? Sheesh, so much for trying to be a nice guy. Next time, I'll just stay adversarial if you plan to use attempts at civility as "proof" of something it wasn't intended to be. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Being civil and conciliatory, yes, but isn't that what reaching consensus involves? When you announced that "everyone is happy" it seems reasonable for everyone to conclude that "everyone" includes you, so your reversal to "unhappiness" was a surprise.Jimintheatl (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Happy is relative. I don't think it belongs there at all, but I am "happier" with balance and it being in a more appropriate location than in the awards section with real awards. I can be "happy" with a pizza, but I am happier when it has bacon and pepperoni. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Ok, I'm confused. It looks to me like far more editors are saying DO NOT include than saying include, yet it is still in the article and when an editor removed it, it was reverted. How long is this going to go on? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is a troll magnet. Fortunately, enough eyes are here, hopefully :) --Tom 21:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Include mention

• looks fair and balanced to me, as is.
• Mentioning the award is not, in my opinion, a matter of any great importance, but I do feel that mentioning it in the "Professional life" section in addition to the comments already made about criticism and Media Matters would be justified. TennysonXII (talk) 10:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Do not include mention

1. --Tom 14:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
2. I say do not include, but if it must be included, should be balanced with Hannity's response (his "award" to them), like the compromise we worked out before. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
3. No need to include.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 23:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
4. I think not, for reasons stated above. --Hiddekel (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Pass, for the reasons discussed above. Newguy34 (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Reciprocal routine insults are not especially encyclopedic. A few weeks ago the specific name of an "award" that Keith Olbermann received from the Media Research Council was deleted in favor of simply mentioning that the MRC had been critical of him. I think that this would the right approach in the case of Hannity and Media Matters. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
7. This is not a notable award, and is meant soley as a negative resonse to his work Mrathel (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2009 (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)

Photo/FORMER VP Cheney

Under the photo, I corrected it to "former Vice President", but it was revised. Could someone just update the sentence, so it fits the truth? 78.54.179.239 (talk) 00:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It does fit the truth. The picture was taken October 24, 2006 and on that day Dick Cheney was Vice-President of the United States. If a picture is taken after January 20, 2009 then he is the former Vice-President and that would be the proper caption. A new name 2008 (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've seen this happening in many articles. Editors placing "former" in front of any reference to Bush or Cheney, despite the fact that other former officials are not labelled as "former" in the same article. I have yet to see a rash of "former"'s being placed in front of Kennedy, Lincoln or Washington references, even though they were all "formers" before wikipedia ever existed. Since I'm seeing it limited to Bush and Cheney, I have to wonder if there is something more than a desire for accuracy behind it. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right and I think it should be changed everywhere, because there only is 1 president and 1 VP at a time, every "former" is NOT the president or VP. I just corrected it here because I noticed it here, absolutely no offense, I just found it to be incorrect.

Would you agree that it should be changed with every former president and VP, or should Wikipedia stick to the way it is with Cheney in this article? -- Zoidberg1388 (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe it should be changed. Would you change the caption on this picture to read, President Obama sits and talks with former President Bush in the oval office? Should this picture's caption say that it is a picture of former President Clinton's cabinet? My answer to both questions is no, those captions do not give an accurate description of those pictures. Pictures are frozen in time. The first picture I referenced, will always be a picture of President Bush and President-elect Obama, the second picture is a picture of President Clinton and his cabinet and the picture in this article will always be a picture of VP Cheney. I think we should look at when the picture was taken and accurately describe the picture as it was taken, not decribe who the people in the picture are today. A new name 2008 (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's a good point. I agree. Thanks for the discussion. -- Zoidberg1388 (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Warning re edit warring

I come from WP:AN3. Both T and J at least are edit warring over this. All are cautioned to avoid getting close to 3R William M. Connolley (talk) 19:31, 27 January 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)

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)

Please remove from the "criticism of feminism" category

The article presents no sources on any "criticism of feminism", and so the category should be removed. 71.182.210.244 (talk) 07:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done, I concur, there is nothing in the article about feminism at all so I removed it. A new name 2008 (talk) 13:09, 15 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)

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?

Do you know that he lied all through that he found weapons of mass destruction (I do not know why he supported the war), he lied all through that Obama is associated with terrorist Biil Ayres, he lied all through that Americans will have nightmare if Obama is elected (why he did not he like to see Obama government,... he lied everything to stop Obama express as well as Hillary express (to stop them get elected)? Now he has become restless and he does not know what he is talking about. (Source his radio show as well as TV 2007-2008). What is his net gain?? He lost. He was a construction worker at one time and he should realize what it means helping people to come out of the hole they are in now. Glunnbuck (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)