Talk:Sean Hannity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Conspiracy theorist?[edit]

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

WaPo: "Fox News conspiracy theorist Sean Hannity"[1]. That said, I don't think a lot of RS explicitly label him a "conspiracy theorist". It's undeniable though that he has been fervently pushing conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton, Seth Rich, the "Deep State" and election fraud in the last 12 months, as substantiated by the content of his Wikipedia page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, you asked for a source; I gave you one; now you want multiple sources? How many do you need? Much of the article is about the various conspiracy theories he promotes (which in turn is because that's what he gets most of his press coverage for), so it doesn't seem too outrageous, or too requiring of multiple sources, to say that's one of the things that defines him. Are you saying that a person who "touts" conspiracy theories, and makes "forays" into the land of conspiracy, isn't a conspiracy theorist? Then who is? Let's look for definitions.
  • "a person who holds a theory that explains an event or situation as the result of a secret plan by usually powerful people or groups: Conspiracy theorists believe the government is hiding evidence of UFOs." Merriam-Webster
  • "One who believes in, follows, or advances a conspiracy theory." Wiktionary
Most dictionaries don't have a separate definition of "conspiracy theorist", they just redirect to "conspiracy theory". That's what Wikipedia does too. Those that don't define it separately just list it as a "related word" to "conspiracy theory". Dictionary.com Those that do define it, say it is someone who believes in or advances conspiracy theories. Doesn't that describe Hannity? --MelanieN (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Sure, and I think the WaPo source would be a good addition. I guess normally I think of a guy like Alex Jones when I hear "conspiracy theorist," talking about moon landing hoaxes and lizard people and the like. Hannity strikes me as more like a host who opportunistically latches on to conspiracy theories so long as it advances his desired narratives. Either way, I think the first sentence is in a much better condition now. Hidden Tempo (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

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

He is an elder statesman of Fox News, and a conspiracy theorist regarding the alleged harm done to 2016 presidential candidate Bernie Sanders by his own party.[1]

References

  1. ^ Weigel, Dave. “The Seth Rich conspiracy shows how fake news still works”, Washington Post: “The resignation of DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz during the Democrats' convention fed into the idea that the DNC hack must have been devastating, revealing — in the words of Fox News conspiracy theorist Sean Hannity — that the ‘DNC was conspiring to hurt Bernie Sanders and help Hillary Clinton win the nomination....Sean Hannity, who's now a sort of elder statesman in Fox News's prime time lineup, devoted parts of three episodes this week to the Rich story.”

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Sean Hannity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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

Marc Fisher in the Washington Post[edit]

This source [2] from the Washington Post's style section is being relied on too heavily. I removed the introduction of the Political commentary and controversies section sourced entirely to the piece and in my opinion incorrectly attributed, but its use article-wide should be reconsidered. It is an opinion piece which to the best of my knowledge has received no secondary coverage. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not an op-ed. It's a lengthy report on Hannity's career. When news outlets do these kinds of 'life and career of X' stories, they usually summarize individual's positions and philosophies in ways that day-to-day news coverage doesn't (which gives them extremely high encyclopaedic value IMO). There aren't any earth-shattering revelations in the lengthy piece, so why should there be secondary coverage? That said, the Independent did cover the WaPo piece[3]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I have never said it was an op-ed. It is an opinion piece posted in the style section. I did not remove any content which received secondary coverage in the Independent. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I'd also like to note that this is yet another Wikipedia article that Lambden never edited until I added content to it today. Lambden then proceeded to delete much of what I added just hours later. This is part of a pattern: Lambden follows me to a foreign page and proceeds to revert (usually mass-revert) what I added. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The pattern is your addition of poorly-sourced content to biographies of living persons. It is unreasonable to expect the community to supervise the edits of a singly-focused, prolific editor who is apparently unable to differentiate between suitable and unsuitable biographical sources. Had most editors with existing AP2 sanctions added pinknews as a source in a political BLP they would likely be sanctioned severely. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
On nearly every occasion where you´ve stalked me to a new page and mass-reverted me, my edits were essentially restored in full in agreement with other editors. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Your repetition of false claims and mischaracterization of my edits and subsequent restorations are disappointing and reminiscent of another. You would do well to choose a better role model. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Who is the other? Snooganssnoogans, careful now: don't make me jealous. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
As a proud member of the Islamo-Leftism alliance of beta male cucked-ass SJW white knights on Wikipedia[4], I can not divulge who my cucked comrades are. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ah, there we are! Thank you for coming by, James Lambden. I am happy to agree that it's used quite liberally (get it? that one was for you!) but that's not a reason to cut so drastically, certainly not the "general" point". Now, that a decent article in a decent newspaper should itself get secondary coverage, that's news to me--I'm reminded of tortoises sitting on tortoises. What we certainly could use is more sources that argue these rather well-known points. Would that satisfy? BTW really? He really "egged on" some dude who said gays got AIDS from eating feces? Drmies (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Conspiracies theories have been about opponents of Trump[edit]

The body of this BLP cites only three types of conspiracy theories, all of them directed at opponents of Donald Trump: (1) a conspiracy theory about Ted Cruz and Cruz’s father, (2) conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton, and (3) conspiracy theories regarding Seth Rich. No other conspiracy theories are mentioned or cited in the article body. Therefore, when the lead sentence calls him a conspiracy theorist, it ought not to overgeneralize, and instead should say he’s put forth conspiracy theories about opponents of Donald Trump. If material is added to the body of the article, showing that reliable sources consider him a conspiracy theorist more broadly, then that can be done instead of fixing the lead sentence. For example, no sources are cited or used that describe Hannity as a birtherism “conspiracy theorist”. On the contrary, the body of this BLP explicitly says “he believed that President Barack Obama was born in the United States“. Do reliable sources say that anyone is a conspiracy theorist who merely wanted Obama to release his long form certificate in order to be transparent? I doubt it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm unclear on how calling someone who propagates conspiracy theories (which you don't dispute) a "conspiracy theorist" is "overgeneralizing". Volunteer Marek  22:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I did dispute at BLPN that “conspiracy theorist” is a sufficiently precise term for us to like using; for example, people who theorize that Trump colluded with Russia to win the election might easily qualify. Anyway, all the lead sentences of US President BLPs say what number he was; we could get rid of that specificity, but why? And when throwing around a pejorative, the advisability of specificity seems double, so readers won’t think the subject of the BLP is more of a conspiracy theorist than reliable sources say he is. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
That's goofball. One good one is sufficient, and apparently SH has several under his belt. SPECIFICO talk 23:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2017[edit]

Change: Sean Patrick Hannity (born December 30, 1961) is an American talk show host, author, conservative political commentator and conspiracy theorist[4]. To: Sean Patrick Hannity (born December 30, 1961) is an American talk show host, author, conservative political commentator. 2605:E000:D511:8400:EC6D:3B8B:C625:B8D3 (talk) 22:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The item that is being asked to be removed is cited and sourced properly according to our policy on biographies of living persons. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent deletions[edit]

@James J. Lambden:, please justify your deletions of sourced material here. Your apparent mis-understanding of the BLP policy is woefully inadequate, one-sided, and obviously biased. That a statement is sourced to an article on pinknews or a book written by a community college professor does not make them non-RS. You are now edit-warring and should self-revert as the WP:3RRNO exception does not apply. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Pinknews is not a reliable source. A book published by an assistant professor (not even an associate) is not RS. This is poorly-sourced and I have removed it per WP:BLPREMOVE. If you find reliable sources I will not remove it. The LGBT section was removed as part of the revert because it should be integrated in the section that already discusses it Sean_Hannity#Career following WP:CRIT. If you want to expand that section you may bearing WP:WEIGHT in mind. James J. Lambden (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Your understanding of BLP continues to be lacking. The academic status of an author has no bearing on its RS status. If you can find any mention of professorial rank in WP:RS, I'll eat my hat. You need to justify calling something non-RS based on accepted policy, not merely repeated assertions once they are challenged. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Tone down the personal comments. Read the first paragraph of Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Definition_of_a_source which explains the author is one of three factors that determine reliability. James J. Lambden (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
You might want to find another area to edit in. The idea that a scholarly book does not meet WP:RS because of the rank of the academic -- I mean, come on... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
EC...And there is nothing that says anywhere that academic rank has any bearing on the credibility of the author. This is blatantly WP:GAME behavior. I will not "tone down" criticism of obvious POV edits, which have no safe harbor under WP:NPA. You might refer to WP:PACT. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
You will be forced to. WP:RS does not proscribe the use of mental patients as sources either. It is assumed we have sufficient judgement to evaluate authors without explicit prescriptions. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Are you now making threats Lambden? Eggishorn is exactly right - when somebody tries to WP:GAME Wikipedia policies (in this case WP:RS) by bizarrely claiming that a source is not RS because it was written by a assistant professor, then calling them on it is not a "personal comment", but a perfectly justified criticism. Volunteer Marek  17:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
The comment about just an assistant professor and not even an associate professor is just bizarre... the tenure status of an academic does not bear on whether he is an RS. This book is published by a so-so academic press and someone who has a PhD and specializes on this topic. The text does not even cite the author's reflections on Hannity but just quotes what Hannity verifiably said about Ellison and the Quran. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
As for Hannity's anti-LGBT comments, they belong in the commentary section. His career already briefly and succinctly mentions his departure and the reasons for it. The commentary section elaborates on and precisely accounts for his views. WP:WEIGHT in your mind just means "reflects poorly on a conservative", judging by your history with this policy (mass-removals of multiple high-quality RS in the past). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm also still unclear on why Lambden thinks pinknews is not RS. Volunteer Marek  17:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
A book published by an assistant professor (not even an associate) is not RS Points for creativity but this statement is completely false, and very obviously so. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • BTW, one aspect I didn't revert was the bit about whether his conspiracy theorizing pertains only to opponents of Trump (or is he a "conspiracy theorist" in a more general sense). I think it should be reverted, but I figured it could stand to be considered by others as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)