Jump to content

Talk:Sean Hannity

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PTR (talk | contribs) at 19:36, 2 February 2018 (→‎POV in Article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Good idea. I'll work something up and propose it below. --MelanieN (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
MelanieN, I'm sorry for reading more into your statement than was intended. Atsme, you throw around policies yet your edits seem like you might not really understand them. This is best illustrated by you repeatedly mentioning Maddow on a talkpage meant to assist editing for Hannity. Perhaps I'm the only one that finds your brand of quoting policies out of context tiresome and unhelpful, so it's probably best for both our sakes that I just leave your thoughts here mostly unanswered. Thankfully it seems this discussion has attracted some new participants so our arguments can now be judged on a spectrum instead of as two parties in opposition. On that note, I have some catching up to do. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 - [1] and [2] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • MelanieN, that's a nice improvement and I support adopting it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Atsme's ideas haven't been incorporated into the existing text (for good reason). In my view we should improve the paragraph as proposed; to the extent someone wants to consider Atsme's objections, that can be done separately from the proposed improvements, because the proposed improvements don't change the situation in that regard. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm prepared to insert it as proposed (the modified version) but maybe we should wait a day or two to allow for other opinions. I'm not going to add anything more to the wall of text above, since it may discourage others from commenting. --MelanieN (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If Hannity was "often controversial", and "promoted falsehoods and conspiracy theories" as claimed, his wouldn't be the most watched cable news program in its new hour, and FOX News wouldn't be the most-watched cable news network for 190 consecutive months. Our job is to not piss-off our readers, either many or few, and simply present the facts about a BLP in a dispassionate tone, but what you're wanting to include in the lede are opinions by critics, obviously ones some, but not all, of our editors support so now we've added the element of partisanship. I think Masem nailed it with the following explanation: User:Atsme/sandbox#Arguments against use. Atsme📞📧 19:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- I support the revised version presented above ("Hannity is often controversial and has been accused of promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories..."). It's an improvement and hits the right points. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK,I have inserted the revised paragraph into the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summary for the record, noting that this action to include was based on local consensus over the weekend and was not based on an RfC. Atsme📞📧 15:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BLP violation; listing accusations which is sneaky way to tar someone w/out needing proof of fact

I deleted mere accusations. BLP violation. Lets stick to objective facts.(PeacePeace (talk) 02:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]

PeacePeace: Please see the discussion immediately above this one, where there was a rough consensus to include the current wording. Also note that the paragraph has been in the article for a long time, and the discussion was merely about how to word it. You are welcome to join in that discussion if you wish. --MelanieN (talk) 02:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Political commentary, controversies, and criticism

Given the content currently in the section (and not remarking on whether or not the material belongs there) I'd like to propose the following changes to the first paragraph:

"Hannity delivers commentary consistent with his conservative views, though the Washington Post contends that during the Obama-era Hannity's "tone shifted" as he began to lean "more heavily on stories he believed were being given short shrift by the 'liberal media'". Hannity has attracted controversy and has been criticized for promoting conspiracy theories and falsehoods. He has also been criticized for being overly supportive of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump to the detriment of other Republican hopefuls in the 2016 Republican Primary. Hannity has also 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 know that wordsmithing is not my strong suit, but I agree as was mentioned above that this mini-lede section needs reworking. Do you guys generally think this is a step in the right direction? My thought was basically to nuke the third paragraph, and incorporate what I believe it was trying to say into the first paragraph where it fits a bit better. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - and an excellent job of wordsmithing at that. It satisfies neutral, factual, and dispassionate tone with balance and proper weight. Cite the sources and keep doing what your doing. Atsme📞📧 16:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not - What you're proposing is to remove reliably sourced text and replace it partially with WP:WEASEL. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me what specifically you think is weaselly? Right now the section introduction is kind of a mess. I'm not saying my proposal isn't also a mess, but perhaps some suggestions will help me make it better. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote the text originally. I'm vehemently opposed to removing or rephrasing any of the existing text. If you have suggestions for additional text, I'm prepared to hear it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the two pieces that I believe influenced the way you crafted this section, I get the impression that we're kind of missing the evolution of Hannity from your run-of-the-mill conservative commentator to what he is today. I think that's what you're 3rd paragraph was getting at, but it probably deserves more prominence than what the current text gives it. As for the rest: making it a laundry list of controversies (though it does seem to me to see that you picked out the most notable ones that have the best case for being due) before we launch into explaining each controversy seems unnecessary. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your ideas. What you propose should certainly not be in the first paragraph, which is for general biographical information. Your "WaPo says he has evolved" sentence and reference would be better to put in the text rather than in the lede. Once it is in the text we can decide whether to mention it in the existing fourth paragraph of the lede. About that existing paragraph: the "laundry list" of controversies is necessary IMO; we can't just say "he spreads conspiracy theories" without giving examples; we would be constantly challenged for saying it. Of course we don't explain the individual examples, just mention them; explanation is for the text. As for the rest of your proposed addition, I think our current wording is better. It says he was a strong and early supporter of Trump without saying he was criticized for it, and it includes his own response to criticism. But let's keep discussing. --MelanieN (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC) Striking; I misunderstood where this was intended to go. Sorry. --MelanieN (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I guess it wasn't clear... This is for this section, and not the lede for the article. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can we use Daily Wire which explains the crux of what IP207 is saying? Hannity actually strayed from hard core conservative views when he supported Trump. He was highly criticized for being a Trump supporter because Trump defied what the GOP had become. Atsme📞📧 23:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we could both use the Daily Wire piece (saying the shift occurred with Trump) AND the WaPo piece (saying it occurred during the Obama years). Want to propose language? --MelanieN (talk) 00:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MelanieN, I've been taking all my brain enhancing vitamins religiously for months but I just bagged up what's left with plans to return them for a refund because I don't understand what you're asking and it seems simple enough that I should understand it. I thought the IP207's paragraph addressed the Hannity criticisms quite well without treading into UNDUE or BLP noncompliance territory. I remember reading a discussion on one of the noticeboard's (or it could've been in our PAGs) that devoting a section to Criticism was noncompliant with NPOV, and that the article should be well-written so that criticisms are written into the prose per MOS (using inline citations and for disputed contentious statements using in-text attribution). What are you not liking about IP207's proposed paragraph as currently written? Atsme📞📧 22:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so as I understand it then, Atsme is fine with the language I proposed (but prefers Daily Wire sourcing). Haven't heard anything back from Snoogans but he was a hard no. I can't tell, but it seems like MelanieN is a "maybe". I'll go ahead and work on adding in the refs (I'm slow at that), and see if anyone comments in the intervening time. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Small Changes to lede beginning on 12/15/17

It looks like a few editors have changed the lede a bit (changed "falsehood" to "lie", used more direct language). I'm on the fence about reverting since I guess it has been almost two weeks since changes were last discussed, but wanted to start the discussion here... My concerns are that the consensus version uses "accused" and there is a world of difference between that and what the text currently states. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and reverted. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Heart Seminary

The school does exist. Sacred Heart Seminary was founded 1873, and was adjacent to the all-girls school Sacred Heart Academy, see NY Times. — Strongjam (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Smear'

In the Jake Tapper section of the article, it calls the accusations made by Hannity a smear. It can be argued that this is the case but I am not at all convinced it is the role of Wikipedia to assert this. As editors are repeatedly reverting my edits without discussion, I would like to know other people's opinions on the issue. Oscar248 (talk) 13:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV requires that we present information from a neutral point of view. It does not mean that we should replace meaningful words with meaningless euphemisms. "Smear" is both accurate and descriptive. Accuse is not.- MrX 13:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fox News deliberately lied and stated that Tapper said something that he did not. Even after retraction, Hannity continued to insist it was true. "Smear" is more than accurate here. ValarianB (talk) 13:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure they said he said something he did not, they rather edited what he said to imply he said something he did not (without actually claiming he said it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In retrospect Smear is better then Lie, they were really very careful to not actually say anything untrue.Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

False claims about CNN's Jake Tapper

Ancillary to this, I agree with Oscar248 that this is not a false story (he did say it after all) but is rather a misrepresentation of what he said.Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no objections raised I will revert it to say something like "Misleading claims about CNN's Jake Tapper".Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The line reads Fox News distorted a statement by Jake Tapper to make it appear, emphasis mine. Deliberate actions on the part of Fox News to disseminate a story that they knew was untrue, a false narrative carried by Sean Hannity even after Fox retracted it. "Misleading" does not do it justice. Tapper himself said Fox News is lying. ValarianB (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course he would. The fact is they did not lie they distorted. So it should be renamed to reflect the fact what they said was distorted. What did they say that was untrue?Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In fact what do the sources say, false or misleading?Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

POV in Article

I am not currently editing but I do not support the text in the lede and much of the article. All of the criticism in the article is about the Hannity or The Sean Hannity Show and none of it mentions that this is stuff he is saying on his show. This is the Sean Hannity BLP page. However people might feel about his SHOWS and what he says on his shows the man himself is pretty boring. PTR (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a specific section in mind you think needs a rewrite?Slatersteven (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly the short paragraphs like Climate Change or Islam. The details under those sections are about things he said and guests he had on his shows back in 2001, 2006, 2010, and 2011. I know what he says on the shows can be inflammatory but I think the two should be separated for Wikipedia. PTR (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see a point here. The "Sean Hannity Show" is just the medium by which the man expresses his controversial views. Criticism of Hannity or criticism of the show is essentially the same thing. ValarianB (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. The guy's claim to fame is his show. Just about all of the source material concerns is show. It's his show and he decides what's on it. Are you suggesting that our article shouldn't discuss his show? Or are you saying that criticism should be restricted to his personal life and exclude stuff about his work? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since his success is based on ratings we don't actually know if these are his personal views. If he says these things in his real life or in interviews then they belong on the Bio but if they are on the shows and there are pages for the shows then I think the material is better there. PTR (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sean_Hannity&oldid=823684563"