Talk:Sean Hannity

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


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)

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)
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)
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)
  • Are we now good with the fact that the second source uses "smear"? Not sure why the word would be in question, given the source. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
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)

False claims about CNN's Jake Tapper[edit]

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)

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)

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)
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)
In fact what do the sources say, false or misleading?Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

POV in Article[edit]

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)

Do you have a specific section in mind you think needs a rewrite?Slatersteven (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Seems to me they can go equally well in both articles, as whilst they are show content they are also his views.Slatersteven (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

From the responses I can see that there is an effort to push the POV on the article - so I'll step away until there is more neutral support. At least be aware that the information under LGBT rights is also under the Career section. I don't think the person that added that section read the article. PTR (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

PTR, you've piqued my curiosity. Tou don't have anything you can point to that suggests Hannity doesn't believe some of the things he says on his show, do you? Like newspaper articles or interviews? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't. I've never looked for anything but when a show is done for entertainment and depends on ratings like a Howard Stern, Don Imus and Hannity - I think you can't discern the true beliefs or the shocking statements from the stories for ratings. I don't like his show but I think the bio and the show are different animals.PTR (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
If RS make the claim that this is all just an act and pretense (to entertain?) That would be a good reason to remove material form his show and instated have that. If he claims this that would also be a reason(it fact it would by vital to give this more prominence then his affected opinions). But if this is just your speculation it is not a valid reason. So can you produce any RS to back your opinion?Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I think PTR already explained this is just their speculation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Then we can end this now. Because until;l he does produce RS we are not going to make edits based on just his opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Youtube Schmoyoho Culture Reference[edit]

Can we add that he was popularly mentioned by Schmoyoho in "TRUMP VS. CLINTON (ft. Blondie) - Songify 2016" by Donald Trump as he claimed to be the only one not refusing to talk to Sean Hannity and even got a Sean Hannity 10 Minute Loop? Schmoyoho makes comedic youtube-music-video from original clips, in one of them working with Weird Al. -- (talk) 13:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I doubt it as he is just another youtuber, not anyone of note.Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Not just another youtuber. Schmoyoho is the youtube channel for The Gregory Brothers, who are quite notable; e.g. they've been written up in Politico. That said, if we're going to include a reference to the Trump vs. Clinton Songify then we'd need an independent reliable source to establish noteworthiness. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Are 2.3 Mio Views, 34k up/downvotes and 3.1 Mio Subscribers noteworthy? Fox News Prime time viewer count for November 2017 was 2.3 Mio. There are a lot of people just knowing Sean from this video and not from fox news. Thus it would also be interesting to read about why Trump claimed that no one talks to Sean. -- (talk) 08:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
No. Lots of extremely popular and more prominent youtubers have mentioned Sean Hannity. At a minimum we need a reliable independent secondary source (such as an article in a reputable newspaper) demonstrating that the video is noteworthy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


"Point/Counterpoint" debate segments of 60 Minutes, with conservative James J. Kilpatrick, Shana Alexander, and Nicholas von Hoffman, were satirized by Saturday Night Live. (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

yes, do you have an edit to suggest?Slatersteven (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Climate change[edit]

There are numerous statements in the article that are not neutral. These include “Hannity falsely claimed that scientists can’t agree if global warming is fact or fiction.” That is not a provably false statement. It’s highly debatable, perhaps even dubious, but not demonstrably false. This happens at many points in the article. SDW2001 (talk) 01:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Global warming is not debatable. ValarianB (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I think he mans the statement about Hannity, so is it sourced, and if so do we attribute it to that source?Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
It's verifiable that he did say that; I found a transcript online. But what does the McKnight source say specifically about falsity? I don't have access. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Maybe just remove the word falsely, and let the reader decide if his claim is true.Slatersteven (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
That's a violation of WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia should refer to fringe theories and blatant falsehoods as such. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
If the source is reliable and says the statement was false, then we should say it was false. At a minimum we should explain the scientific consensus per WP:FRINGE, as Hannity's statement was misleading at best. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I removed "falsely" and made the language more neutral in a few other places. And we should not use that paragraph to claim or explain that Hannity is wrong. There is plenty else in the paragraph to imply that but let his words stand on their own. --MelanieN (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Hannity was pressing a misleading, fringe, and possibly false view. It's our obligation to communicate that explicitly to readers. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Possible, But is it true that all scientists (note scientists, not Climatologists, cleaver but there we are) agree, if not then what he said is technically not false, just not the whole truth. Hard to see how we can word this, without pushing the POV envelope. I suspect we may just have to look for more analysis of what he said, and quote that.Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
That's why we need access to the source, which is behind a paywall. Perhaps we can track down the editor who added the content, or ask the research desk for help. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Or look for other sources? what we need is a bit more analysis of this then one persons opinion it is false (as it (as I said) is technically not, just a bit disingenuous).Slatersteven (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I looked and couldn't find one, but if you found something it could certainly be helpful. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
No I have not, and this is what worries me. I really do not think we can put this in Wikipedia voice, not with one source. If he had said "There is not consensus among climate scientists" or some such then yes, Fringe come into it. What he said can be shown to not be false (there are plenty of scientists who have publicly stated they do not believe in global warming).Slatersteven (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)