Jump to content

Talk:Sean Hannity/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Wrong footage of healthcare rally

Hello. In my opinion this must be another "joke" biography. If the flag on the article doesn't already tell you that. Mr. Hannity stopped his show to apologize, and thanked Mr. Stewart for watching. Any journalist would say that is notable, including Mr. Hannity who took airtime to answer, meaning it belongs here in his biography (not off in some third level article about the show). What Mr. Hannity called a "inadvertant mistake" was top news at the New York Times, and was cited to them. I have reverted this twice so cannot do so again. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's what was removed (and I see I got mixed up too) -SusanLesch (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC):
  • "In November 2009, Jon Stewart, the host of Comedy Central's The Daily Show, discovered that video used on Hannity's show to illustrate the size of a Washington, D.C. rally protesting proposed health care reforms was actually taken from another, earlier rally. On November 11, 2009, Hannity conceded the error, calling it 'an inadvertent mistake'."[1]"
  1. ^ Carter, Bill (November 11, 2009). "Hannity Admits to Using 'Incorrect Video'". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-11-11.
Because of my error, reverting the wrong thing, I can try once more. This edit I made to re-add waterboarding was an "inadvertant mistake". -SusanLesch (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Niteshift36. I realize that some people do, but think that it is needed here to balance an article that so far says Hannity is a squeaky clean journalist. Everybody makes mistakes. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what article you are reading, but this one actually does mention some negative things. And I agree that there is more that can be mentioned. The issue here comes back to WP:WEIGHT. On a single broadcast this incident occured. Although it is his show, nobody has shown any evidence that Hannity himself had anything to do with selecting the video footage. He is the face of the show, which is why he made the apology. This entire incident all takes place in the context of the show, which is why I believe it should be in the show article. None of this error has been attributed to Hannity personally and isn't the purpose of the bio to be about the subject and things he personally has done? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Speaking generally, the existence elsewhere of material doesn't preclude inclusion here. Additionally, the show is titled The Sean Hannity Show; the assertion that Hannity bears no responsibility for the content aired on his show is tenuous at best. Additionally, summary style would suggest that a brief summary here of the notable controversies and criticism he's generated/recevied from things he's done on his show would be appropriate. All that said, I'm not necessarily advocating that this individual incident has met that threshold; I just think it's improper to imply that criticism of his professional career need not always be relegated to an article about his show. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Nobody has implied that professional criticism should always be "relegated" to the show article. First, saying "relegated" implies that the other article isn't important. Second, if the event/incident were truly significant (ie something defining, or that merits more than 2 weeks of complaining by "the usual suspects" among media critics) or involves him outside of the show in some way, then of course it might be appropriate for the bio. But this isn't one of those cases. Whether or not you think that he had anything to do with it or not is solely opinion. Do you have anything credible that says he did have personal involvement in it? If this were the big "make Hannity look good" conspiracy some imply, I'd be opposing it in the show article too. This isn't about making him look good or hiding anything. It's putting it where is belongs. Yes, things can be mentioned in more than one place, but this is another case of recentism. It's bordering on WP:NOTNEWS. Repeating it in multiple locations just makes it look like agenda pushing. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I didn't see anything that I thought needed acknowledged. I'm not sure what you think I should have said. You'll also find, if you look at those hits, many sites that won't meet WP:RS. You'll also find the same story over and over. For example, if the AP puts out one story and 50 papers reprint it, you may very well get 50 returns....all of which are the same story. That why ghits are not the standard WP goes by. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Niteshift36, are you arguing just for arguments' sake? Both SusanLesch and I have agreed that this particular criticism may not be best suited in Hannity's biography. We're just pointing out the knee-jerk "it belongs in the article about the show" response is premised upon some questionable conclusions (detailed above). You've now repeated that assertion in several discussions; I'm just noting that regardless of the appropriateness of this specific material, that the general conclusion is improper. Also, I'm still waiting for you to get back to us on what criticisms and controversies you believe are appropriate and acceptable (it's been months!). So far I've only seen you fiercely advocate exclusion of any critical or controversial content. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Get real. I've hardly been here at all. I actually saw this only because I happened to be looking something else up and noticed the page on my watchlist with an edit summary mentioning waterboarding again. As I've said, MORE THAN A FEW TIMES, I've got other stuff going on in my life right now and don't have the time I need to devote to the material I'd like to see added. Maybe since I put it in capital letters this time, you'll actually pay attention and put your own broken record away. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
For Niteshift36: repeating my response, which I imagine you missed the first time, and the second time (when I mentioned the first time). "I went to add it to the show article but it was already there. I already removed it from this one as I imagine you've discovered." Not too neat how your side of this argument went right past you two days ago. Also I wanted to mention that since August 2007, Google hosts and does not reliably index The Associated Press (read the Editor & Publisher or any number of other articles complaining about that). -SusanLesch (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, Niteshift36. That's nice to hear you saw it! I removed the Daily Show from this article and was surprised that nobody cared except in principle (which, Soxwon, I am pleased to drop for now). You know, it matters to me what is in a live article. Heaven help us with flagged revisions. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hannity Waterboarding

See also: Talk:Sean_Hannity/Archive_3#why_was_Sean_Hannity.27s_promise_to_be_waterboarded_taken_out.3F, Talk:Sean_Hannity/Archive_4#Requests_for_comment_on_inclusion_of_Sean_Hannity.27s_political_views_on_waterboarding and Talk:Sean_Hannity/Archive_5#Waterboarding.2C_revisited

A section regarding Hannity's promise to be waterboarded and his subsequent failure to do so is being kept off of the main page by bad dudes. If you are one of these dudes, please cease your badness. Hannity's announcement is noteworthy; Keith Olbermann has mentioned it in a whole series of segments and promised $1000 for every second that Hannity lasts, Mancow Muller's page mentions his experience with waterboarding, and it is generally considered noteworthy. This is a public statement and promise that Hannity made and millions of people await. If you think it's noteworthy to include the [uncited] assertion that Hannity was a bartender and general contractor before he became a news anchor, I don't see why you don't consider a public promise noteworthy or worthwhile.

Regarding WP:OR, that makes no sense at all. A reference was included and Hannity promised it on live television. There is a video of such. That is certainly not original research.

Please refrain from removing this noteworthy and relevant section from this page. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 18:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Keith Olbermann doesn't guarantee notability. This is not a major portion of the man's life, it generated a little attention at the end of April and the beginning of May, hasn't generated a thing since. Soxwon (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • So you come in here and start calling people "bad dudes" and will of course expect everyone to treat you polite and assume good faith, despite the fact that you start out with name calling. The main reason hasn't been OR, it has been notability and weight. This was covered for only a very short time and is relatively insignificant in terms of Hannity's life. It was suggested, over and over, that the incident belongs in the article about the show, not in the bio. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This is most notable. It is a publicly made commitment by him to perform charity work that will benefit the families of our honorable men and women fighting overseas to protect our values, freedoms, and natural resources. Certainly a commitment of this kind is a notable part of any public personality's career. Wtt (talk) 11:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You want notability, show notable coverage, not blurbs from six months ago. Soxwon (talk) 15:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Behold 250,000 hits for "+hannity +waterboard". This is notable to many people, and it's important because it shows that Hannity is unwilling to prove one of his most well-known positions, even after volunteering to do it. It's notable, and this shall be a long revert war, I expect. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 21:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
*sigh* G-news alone is not good enough. You'll notice that if you actually sifted through those results you'll find that the top results are Newser, Huffington Post, foxnewsboycott.com, and a site called "waterboardhannity." That's hardly notable coverage. Besides that simple hits are not enough to establish reliable sourcing. How many of those hits are repeats or more fringe sites? Considering you just threatened to turn this into an edit war, I'll most likely ask for page protection so that we can sort this out. Soxwon (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia exists only by edit war. It's actually the reason I stopped editing regularly several years ago; the winner in Wikipedia is whomever can outlast the other side. It makes editing WP a pretty horrible experience for non-obsessive people. Of course, if someone can convince me that it's actually not relevant that Hannity agreed to be waterboarded, then I'll stop seeing that it's added here; otherwise, I won't (until I get bored enough of it and leave it to WP's regular editors). Isn't that the whole vision of Wikipedia? No authority to keep the little man down? Word. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 22:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
That is NOT what wikipedia is about, it's about try to compromise and work collaboratively. However, this is a WP:BLP, the WP:BURDEN is stronger for this than a normal article and thus you must show why the material is important enough to merit inclusion. A google search does not do this. Soxwon (talk) 22:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
WP:BURDEN says: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." and makes no mention of notability. Multiple sources have been reliable, published sources have been referenced regarding this, and so WP:BURDEN has been fulfilled. It does not stipulate "anything that may cast the living person in a bad light must be proved notable by more than several mentions on other national TV programs and obvious demonstrated public concern", because that would be silly ... but that's what you seem to require here. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 22:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Then why are you using as your justification a google search? That is where I was referring to WP:BURDEN. As for the current "mutliple sources," that was already addressed in previous discussions as not having WP:WEIGHT. The incident was mentioned briefly in late April and early May and hasn't been a point of contention since. Soxwon (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Go have a read of WP:NOTNEWS, as I said at your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
So Being on major tv news shows and having thousands of page hits and having a website discussing the matter isn't enough?That's bullshit of the highest order--86.15.153.179 (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Everytime I see replies like this, I have to ask myself... Did the editor read any of the points above? Did the editor read any of the relevant linked policies? Did the editor even read our notability guidelines? Well, it appears to be a resounding no. Go over and read WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, and google hits to not establish notability. Thanks, see you in a bit, after you have hopefully read all relevant material.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Note, the page has now been protected. I would like to ask cookiecaper and Wtt, please explain why the material should be put in. You have offered as evidence thus far a google search and Keith Olbermann's commentary. Soxwon (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Its an article about his entire life, we don't need to add every small statement that he makes. Now where have we heard that before? OH YA, on the Obama article. If you wouldn't be able to add it to the Obama page, then it shouldn't go in here. The same rules apply people.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this is a small statement. It has been consistently brought before us since the Bush administration. It has been quoted on many websites, and appears on Fox News' website (see here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517609,00.html ). Yet time and again, a small cadre of editors complains that consensus has not been reached. Now, I've been willing to be conservative (er, excuse the pun) about this, but enough is enough already! Let's address this issue instead of constantly sweeping it under the rug. -- JeffBillman (talk) 04:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
This is pointless. There is no reason to add this non-notable event. The transcript from Fox doesn't strengthen your argument, it actually weakens it. The reference and edits were reverted by notability and original research guidelines, and there are others I can cite. I would support this addition if, and only if Charles Grodin accepts Hannity's proposition. I don't know how Olbermann makes this blip worthy of a BLP. Olby made an offer to Hannity, which if even received, was ignored. How can that ever be notable? ThinkEnemies (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
My response to esteemed colleague Soxwon is simple. I have stated above why I believe this is notable and worthy of addition. I stand by my previous statement, and I do not believe sufficient argument to the contrary has been made. This article is filled with tidbits of information that could be considered non-notable by some and notable by others. For example, consider in the Television section the bit about his statements made on-air to Fr. Thomas J. Euteneuer. To those who argue that statements made "in passing" on his show are non-notable -- what makes this statement notable? Please justify, it perhaps it needs to be stricken if we are really concerned about notability. Furthermore, his charity work is mentioned in the article, and his waterboarding offer is certainly an example of such work. Finally, I believe that this adds information about notable controversies & views, which has been requested by other editors. Wtt (talk) 12:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Lack of consensus and a proposal

I won't express an opinion on whether the material should or shouldn't be included (these current arguments and the archived arguments both for and against have merit) but I do have an opinion on whether there is consensus. When adding the links to the discussions and the warning box at the top of this section I read through this all the previous discussions and I didn't see the consensus that is claimed. I see those involved editors that want it in or out and some uninvolved editors that argue for it to be in or out and the latest uninvolved editor in the last discussion pointing out that there is no consensus. To me, that adds up to a no consensus position. A way forward is to do a proper RfC. The previous one was derailed because some of the involved parties did not actually wait for any outside comments and instead just used the RfC to continue with exactly the same arguments they had previously been having. So here is my proposal; first briefly list the arguments for and against (with links to the archives that best sums up those positions, if needed) then include that list at the top of an RfC and then wait for a couple of weeks for outside, uninvolved input and take it from there. Brumski (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you help set that up for us? I'm not entirely sure what constitutes a "proper" RfC... is there a WP project somewhere (similar to WP:AFD, etc.) we need to use? -- JeffBillman (talk) 15:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
The process is described at Wikipedia:RfC#Request_comment_through_talk_pages. You can see what one looks like by reading the last one that was held on this issue in archive 4 [1] (where the final conclusion seems to have been that the waterboarding text should be included [2]; although, to be fair, that conclusion was by an editor that wanted it included). "Proper" RfC is probably a bad choice of words on my part. I mean an RfC where the people that have already offered their opinion on the issue on this talk page over the last four discussions just don't comment - i.e. it's a request for outside and uninvolved comment, rather than another argument by the same groups of people. If a brief list of the current opinions from the last 4 discussions on the matter is summarized at the top of the RfC then there is no need for the previously involved editors to offer an opinion during the RfC and there is less chance of it descending into the same old arguments again. In theory that then encourages people that arrive here to comment on the RfC to offer an opinion because they see a summary of the arguments for and against and can make an informed comment rather than seeing reams of argumentative text and leaving. Brumski (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, can we move forward with the RFC process now? I propose that each editor involved contribute a brief summary of their position for or against inclusion by, say, 3 December 2009, at which time I will check back here and initiate the RFC for biographies process. During the RFC time, I propose that all of us involved respect the process and allow it to work. I believe, as mentioned by Brumski, this means that we withhold comments until the RFC period is over. Our position summaries should be enough for outside parties to know where we stand. Wtt (talk) 08:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
That seems a bit too soon, I would at least like to push the deadline to get summaries in by the weekend, rather than pushing a deadline that no one is likely to achieve but you.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I am in agreement with gentle editor Daedalus969. The weekend it is. However, I wonder if the recent developments below are enough to conclude that consensus has been reached for inclusion in the form of a brief sentence or two? Wtt (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Position Summaries in Preparation for RFC

Hannity Waterboarding contd.

As much as I don't like to say it (cookie and I have our differences) , cookiecaper is right on the money with this. It's been covered by several media organization[3][4][5][6][7], has received responses from several politicians such as Jesse Ventura [8] fueled an ongoing cable-TV debate [9], and prompted US citizens to petition for hannity being waterboarded [10][11].
This meets the WP:V threshold, the WP:N threshold, and so on. If this was "WP:ONEEVENT", then coverage of this wouldn't span several months or several dozens of media organisation including Huffinton Posts, Politico, The Week, MSNBC, and so on. It's notable (as per this extremely small sample of links, I could fetch hundreds more), verifiable, and thus should be included per WP:COMMONSENSE. Wikipedia is a WP:CLUEOCRACY, not a WP:DEMOCRACY. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Several months? No one beyond the HP covered it after the beginning of May. Most of those appear to concentrate around 4/28-5/07 with the HP exception being on 5/22. That appears to be a one shot deal (the site I would tend to ignore, there are sites dedicated to a lot of things that don't get recognized and the site has 10 people who have agreed to donate outside of Olbermann for a total of 33 dollars, hardly noteworthy). I really don't see much coverage in G-News beyond that 4/28-mid May coverage. Soxwon (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
You're right. This wouldn't be WP:ONEEVENT if coverage spanned several months. However, coverage did not span several months, therefore, it does fall under one event, not to mention WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. In fact, per your own supported link, WP:COMMONSENSE, it should not be included, as it violates the policies mentioned above, not to mention that this article is about his life, not a single promise during the course of his entire career that he broke. Common sense dictates that such a thing should be included in the article about his show. Not his life.— Dædαlus Contribs 09:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The original Hannity thing happened in April. Wanda Sykes joked about it at the White House Correspondance Dinner a week or two after that. Jesse Ventura challenged him in mid-May (and there's more than the HP who covered that), Olberman challenged Hannity to get waterboared. Mancow agreed to be waterboarded because Hannity refused to be waterboard. After Mancow was waterboarded, Mancow discussing Hannity's refusal to call waterboarding torture with Olbermann a couple of days after that. That's six events all related to each other, all started by Hannity's remarks. These span about a month and a half, got covered by several media organization. While the media coverage directly covering this died down about a month after this was all over, references to these events continued for several months well into the last stretch of the 2008 presidential campaign. I don't know what your personal notability threshold for inclusion is, but this meet Wikipedia's. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 10:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Just the fact that there's so much debate on this means it should probably be included. I could care less about politics and I remember hearing about this on the news. It is also a little odd that every editor who does not want this information included is an outgoing conservative, per their own user pae. IcyCoco (talk) 11:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
There's also a lot of debate over the 9/11 conspiracy theories, most people wouldn't include it. Also please comment on content, not contributors. Soxwon (talk) 11:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Amount of debate on a topic does not make it notable enough to be included, nor should it be reason for something to be included. There's likely substantial debate about the color of Hannity's hair, by say, enthusiasts that doesn't mean such information should be included. Please try actually discuss the information at hand, instead of making sweeping statements about other users(I'm a liberal), and posting arguments that don't even address the topic.— Dædαlus Contribs 11:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Headbomb, you say that this event has media coverage besides the month and half it was covered. First of all, please list all sources that you describe, in regards to that specific timeframe. Secondly, if the sources you describe do exist, then such sources could not be used to include this in the article, as they would only be a passing mention, and not directly addressing the topic. Lastly, please stop evading the points made by myself and other users. Please address why such information, in an article about his life, should violate our policy on undue weight and news. Please address why we should give this particular promise so much weight, as opposed to everything else Hannity has said in the span of his entire career. As has been stated numerous times, such information is better suited in the article about his show, not his life. This article is about him as a person, not broken promises during his career.
So really, please stop evading and address the points made, Headbomb.— Dædαlus Contribs 11:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I just did. I see no point in giving you a list of sources again, I gave you about 10 links before, which you dismissed with the back of the hand. Then you ask that I again provide link, then dismiss them before I even provide them ("if the sources you describe do exist, then such sources could not be used"!). You do not own this article, several people (and no, not due to the reddit canvassing), including myself, have given you lengthy explanations of how this isn't a WP:ONEEVENT. You disagree with that, fine, but accept that you are in the minority. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 18:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't claim the majority just yet, Headbomb. Those who oppose are Niteshift36, Soxwon, Jojhutton, dαlus, and ThinkEnemies (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
You're still evading. Why specifically, does WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, WP:NOTNEWS not apply here? Why should we list a single promise in an article about his entire life? This man has made many promises throughout his life. You still have not given a reason why this one has any more merit than any of his other promises. As to me dismissing the sources before you give them, you described them yourself as being passing mentions. Now, for the sake of simplicity, please list all sources you think are relevant(that support the inclusion of this in the article). As you list every source, describe in what detail the waterboarding is mentioned, be it an article on the matter, or a passing mention. Secondly, we are not the minority, and WP:CONSENSUS is not about who has more people on their side, it is general agreement between all involved editors. Thirdly, to cite the policy that you cite above, For instance, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy does not apply to articles within its scope, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right. You haven't given any reason why the policies I listed do not apply, you are not doing yourself a favor by evading such questions. Oh, here's another useful exrept: Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. I just read that entire page. Not once does it say that consensus is the majority of editors, so instead of discounting our arguments because you think you're in the majority, address them instead of continuing to evade them. Despite the fact that you said you have addressed our points, you have not. Not once did you say why undue weight and not news don't apply. As I said, it will not look good for you to continue to evade the questions, just like it didn't look good for Palin during that notorious interview.— Dædαlus Contribs 00:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
How then are we to judge the quality of a person if not by their actions and the promises they make and/or break. It is alarming to me that there is absolutely no criticism of this person in his biographical article. Certainly he is not so far above reproach, as we are currently discussing a broken promise to perform a charitable act during a very critical time for our country. I believe that this information needs to be added as quickly as possible, along with additional information that characterizes the climate in which his broken promise was made. (I add this and reiterate my above points made in response to colleague Soxwon.) Wtt (talk) 12:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the promise to be waterboarded should be included based on the discussion here. It seems the event is verifiably true and while its hard to define a clear standard of what elements of his history should be included on this page, this particular issue seems to be notable enough to merit inclusion. It has been covered by Hannity and other media many times and is linked to a wildly controversial and notable issue. Regardless of all the hoopla regarding this issue, it does seem that the event and perhaps a brief summary of the notable reactions, should be included. Moreover, it would seem to me that inclusion in this article would help the reader understand the man's positions and style of discourse more fully, which seems to me to further strengthen the case for inclusion beyond that which can be made for coverage of the event in the abstract.--Δζ (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
You haven't given one reason why this information should be listed, in violation of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. In this case, it doesn't matter that the information is verifiable. This is an article about his life, not some stupid promise he made in the middle of his career, as has been stated many times. Of course it's been covered by media many times. That is typically what happens during the news, however, you fail to note the fact that news coverage of the event has since dropped off the radar. You know why that is? It's because the information is not notable. If it was, they certainly would still be covering it, but they aren't. And a passing mention does not count as covering it. Lastly, the inclusion of an excerpt about Hannity's broken promise would not help any reader understand anything more about Hannity except for the fact that he broke a promise. As has been stated numerous times, the section gives undue weight. Hannity has many more policitcal stances, why aren't you trying to include them? Go have a read of WP:NPOV, then return here once you understand the policy.— Dædαlus Contribs 01:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Which of these promises have an even comparable coverage in the news (received US-wide attention over months, tackled by former governors, triggered other national radio personalities to step-up to the challenge, detailed non-trivially in several media at the national level, and so on...) and are not mentioned here? Hannity, unlike Colbert, doesn't have a "character" that is distinct from the off-air Hannity. Shep Smith's remarks about torture aka the famous "I don't give a rat's ass if it helps. We are America! We do not fucking torture!" are included in his article, not on Studio B or whatever program Shep said them on. Likewise Bill O'Reily's remarks on Bush are in his article. "If the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean...I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration again." (2003) vs. "My analysis was wrong and I'm sorry. I was wrong. I'm not pleased about it at all." (2004) are also included.
There is precedent to include remarks made by the host of a show, in the show, on the host's article. The threshold is that the remarks have generated nationwide (US) attention and are covered non-trivially by national or international media. Examples of notability include the original promise on Fox News (see video), The New York Times, The Huffington Post, Countdown with Keith Olberman (see video), ABC News, White House Correspondance Dinner (see video), The Mancow & Cassidy Show, etc...
Mancow's waterboarding is covered on his page. Christopher Hitchens' waterboarding is covered on his page, (or rather on Political_views_of_Christopher_Hitchens#Waterboardingthe page covering his political view). Ventura's view on waterboarding are detailed on his page. Shep Smith's view on waterboarding are detailed on his page.
WP:ONEEVENT covers people who are only notable for one event, meaning that someone like Steve Bartman aren't notable enough for their on articles, even if the Steve Bartman incident is thus is a non-issue here. Likewise WP:NOTNEWS covers "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism". And WP:UNDUEWEIGHT is pretty weird to invoke here, as Hannity is first and foremost a political pundit, and thus his article should detail his punditry. This is an aspect of his punditry that made the news, created national controversy/intersests, and got response from several well-known media personalities. It passes all the criteria for inclusions with flying colors.
And please stop with your condescending remarks. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
First and foremost, every single news clipping you posted above stretches from the end of March to May. There is no news coverage of the event beyond that. In this, it violates WP:NOTNEWS, in that it was an announcement(he announced he wanted to be waterboarded, or something of a similar manner), and the news covered it. However, it soon dropped off the news wire radar, as all announcements typically do. They're covered for a few weeks, but then they disappear, just like this event has. WP:UNDUEWEIGHT is not odd to invoke in this instance. As has been stated numerous times, this is an article about his entire life, not some stupid promise he made during his political career. The fact of the matter is(redundancy aside), you are giving a fair(I do not mean 'fair' in this instance as fair between two sides, but instead a great amount) amount of weight to a single political event, an event which the media didn't deem notable enough for continued coverage. Why should we? On WP:ONEEVENT, I see no reason to address this, as I have not used it in any of my posts. On Hannity on political notes, I can easily see a section in this article remaining in regards to Hannity's political stances on major issues, such as waterboarding, but I cannot see the amount of weight given to this single event as conforming to WP policy, as stated previously. As to other promises, what about his promise to examine every dollar proposed, or this promise(although personally, I wouldn't really use this one, just noting it's existance), or his promise to respond to a comedy show that fact-checked him. Those are only a few, I'm sure there are many more. Besides this broken promise, along with other promises, I'm sure Hannity has made many demeaning or insulting statements during the course of his career, which have received as much news coverage as this broken promise, however, I don't see a group of editors trying to include such sections.. at least not yet. As to your statement that various BLP have sections regarding their views on waterboarding. Yes, that is true, however, you are mis-using this tidbit of information. The key difference here, is that the section you are trying to include on this article is about a broken promise concerning waterboarding. Not his views regarding it, and, even if such views were included, the section would have to be balanced with other views on other topics. To be clear, I am not fine with a section on his broken promise, I am however fine with a section on his views of said topics, a section that is equally balanced with other views on other topics.
As to my condescending comments, as long as people avoid arguments that state things like: people are arguing over this so it should be included, I shouldn't feel obligated to say that such arguments are without merit or any weight in a discussion such as this. I shouldn't feel the need, to directly quote policy to you, as long as you stop asserting the WP:CONSENSUS is a majority, and not a discussion/agreement between all involved editors, as is stated quite clearly at the policy page that you yourself linked. So, for transparency, and simplicity, I will not discount arguments, as long as they do not rely on some inane value that really has nothing to do with the material being discussed at all, and I will not quote policy to you, as long as you do not misquote policy, or the events taking place here.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how I can be criticised for not clearly explaining why I feel the information should be included. It seems you imply that my arguments aren't meritorious because no policy was cited, however; the reasons I gave are precisely those which would make this event worthy of inclusion by Wikipedia's standards. While clearly the person arguing for inclusion bears the burden of persuasion, I don't think my reasons were at all novel or unclear, and in any case the other responses seem to adequately rebut your conclusory claims re: policy. I would only add that you've not made any clear argument as to why policy counsels against addition, saying only that its one promise in the middle of his career, something that doesn't seem to be relevant to WP:NOTNEWS et cet. Further, you've not made any clear argument as to why my reasons are insufficient, again making only conclusory claims without stating the basis therefore. Could you explain why you think the claimed lack of current sources argues against inclusion? It seems to me this is irrelevant, the event must be sufficiently notable and appropriate for this article, but there is no requirement I'm aware of that would limit biographical information to things covered in recent media.
Finally, I must ask you not to again claim I don't understand wikipedia policy- it is both irrelevant and impolite. If you feel my arguement is poor then by all means explain why, but my understanding of policy is irrelevant to this discussion, as are your assumptions about it.--Δζ (talk) 05:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
You think that because information A is being debated by numerous people on this page, that makes said information notable. Such a stance belays that you do not understand key policies of wikipedia. As to my own stances, I explained them above. Back to your stance, if some person(who will remain nameless for the purpose of this example) had an article here, and I and a bunch of editors find it, develop similar opinions about it, and try to include a section about their hair-color change decision, and others debate it with us, such a debate does not make said section notable, and justifiable for inclusion in the article. The fact that your argument does not cite policy has nothing to do with why I discount it's merit, I discount it's merit because it does not address why said information should be included. As has been stated above(I know I am very redundant), being debated by people on a page doesn't make it notable. It simply doesn't, and quite frankly, it falls into the lines of WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, or, more specifically, WP:INTERESTING, WP:ADHOM(in a sense, in that you aren't commenting on the merits of the article, but the fact that it is being debated).
If I misinterpreted what you meant by under debate, I apologize.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I understand what your objection was. I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. I agree that the subject's suitability for this article is completely removed from any discussion or level of interest on wikipedia. By referring to the controversy, I meant the controversy over enhanced interrogation techniques, torture, and waterboarding. All I was saying was that it seems this material may be more relevant to his biography because of the debate over waterboarding et cet than another subject matter receiving the same coverage (i.e. if he adopted a rare dog or something and it got the same media attention) because this material touches on a subject of great (preexisting) interest in the sphere in which Hannity is most know in, media and politics. Basically, because this material is related to something (the debate over waterboarding et cet) that is a) allready of great notability, and b) directly related to the subject's most well known activities (the shows where he discusses politics, and specifically waterboarding at times), I think it is more appropriate for his biography than it would be otherwise. Anyways, I've said about all that's worth saying on that comment. Given the media coverage of Hannity's waterboarding comments, which in my view makes them notable enough for inclusion, the relevance of the comments to his most famous activities (his shows), and the comment's relation to the international debate over waterboarding, I believe the incident is both notable enough and is appropriate for coverage in his biography. One or two sentences detailing teh context, remarks, and notable reactions would seem sufficient coverage. --Δζ (talk) 08:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
( :) ), thank you for explaining your stance. I am sorry for earlier saying, in some manner, that you did not know policy. That aside, I could probably see it being mentioned in this article, per your very last sentence, of the note being only a sentence or two, versus the paragraph that it is now. However, I could only see such a thing, if other notable events were also mentioned, in order to give the article balance.— Dædαlus Contribs 09:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree on all measures. I don't think this event warrants a paragraph based on the coverage I've seen- its not that it would be clearly excessive to give a paragraph to the event, I just don't see how the biography could be contained within sensible bounds of length if every item of similar notability was given its own section and paragraph (and if they weren't, their could be problems of undue weight/imbalance). Unless further developments arise, it seems two sentences or so should be plenty to explain things. In any case, I think we should just be careful to attribute reactions/opinions to their sources and balance the treatment of these so as to maintain neutrality. Really strikes me as an off hand silly remark that people have run with, but if its notable its notable- and the topic of the remark/reaction seems relevant to a biographical article on Hannity.--Δζ (talk) 07:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Fully protected

Please discuss on talk page and if necessary engage in WP:dispute resolution processes. Cirt (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

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)



So basically as far as I can tell, all of the arguments on this page about waterboarding and the wrong protest footage can be summed up and solved by simply ADDING A CONTROVERSY SECTION. plenty of other celebrities have it, and it would put an end to all of these arguments by creating a section for it! --duct tape (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Protection template

{{editprotected}} Please put the {{Pp-semi-blp}} in remark tags as long as the protection is full. This will prevent an error category being added to this article Thank you, Debresser (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Waterboarding

Consensus at the end of "Hannity Waterboarding contd." clearly supports inclusion of a one or two sentence mention of the waterboarding issue. If this still needs discussion if consensus is now against it it should be discussed here. --Leivick (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Middle Name

He just said on air that he doesn't have one. 69.208.1.122 (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

His name is not Sean Patrick Hannity, it's just Sean Hannity.

He has no middle name. I just heard him say that on the radio but I don't have any source to back it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.129.157.18 (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Sean Hannity WWF 1980's

Sean Hannity's early career included hosting Mountain Dew's "Slam of the Week" on the WWF's "Saturday Night's Main Event" in the 1980's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.172.60 (talk) 06:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That's nice to know but we need a source.--Jarhed (talk) 09:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
It was Sean Mooney; not Sean Hannity, who announced for the World Wrestling Federation (now World Wrestling Entertainment). The initial comment is incorrect. 167.206.169.135 (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Middle name is not Patrick

On 2/12/10 at approximately 5:20, a caller greeted him as "Sean Patrick," to which he replied, "My name is not Sean Patrick." The caller told him she got that information from Wikipedia. Sitting in my office, I was able to click on the net and check it out myself. Sure enough, it says "Sean Patrick" here, but he said he doesn't have a middle name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.109.130.26 (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to use a tool to find out who added in that name, and then ask them for their sources.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I know his son is named Patrick. Kind of difficult to believe that he doesn't have a middle name considering that his family was supposed to be pretty traditional. The Notable Names Database (NNDB) lists him as Sean Patrick, but I have my doubts about accuracy and I hate seeing them used as a source. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I heard the same program as 129.109.130.26 a little while ago. Sean said he has no middle name (even "Rodham"). Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Why are you wasting time by asking this in 2 places at the same time? I'm clearing talking about this here, so why am I getting the question on my talk page, then having it re-done here? The article has said "Patrick" for a while. An IP editor with a talk page full of vandalism templates came in a changed it without explaination. I reverted it. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I had not known of your speaking here at the time of asking the question.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I find it highly dubious that he doesn't have a middle name. He was born Roman Catholic and has Irish heritage. Catholics almost always have one of their given names be that of a Saint, especially someone of his age. Since there is no St. Sean, it would only be logical that he has a middle name, and Patrick is a saint name. Now it is possible that he was born Sean Patrick Hannity, and has since changed it to Sean Hannity. But unless there is a RS we should probably leave it out. Arzel (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Huffington Post

Once, again, the topic of whether or not including something based solely on the HP is coming up. Honestly, they're job appears to be criticizing what they view as right-wing propaganda (see top news items: Bill O'Reilly, Fox News, CNN's new conservative political commentator). IMO, you're going to need something more than an HP original and a press release by the group filing the suit. Soxwon (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

  • In this case, HP is biased an unreliable. There are times they can be a RS. This isn't one of them. Again, if this "issue" starts being covered by the real media, it might merit inclusion. But at this point, it's little more than a rumor. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, this is not a HuffPost blog. It's an actual legal filing(i.e., not frivolous) with two US gov't agencies(I realize that Hannity fans may not recognize the legitimacy of a non-Bush/Kenyan-born presidency but we're stuck with it)Jimintheatl (talk) 01:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Legal filings≠automatically equal inclusion. There are many many many suits that get filed on behalf of everything (including citizenship rumors and other things for Obama) that don't get included, we go by coverage thank you. Soxwon (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
As for the ref being a "press release," sorry that's how too many news orgs operate these days, and you don't get to choose the ones you disagree with if an RS picks up the "press release."Jimintheatl (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
No, you don't seem to get it, business wire is nothing but press releases from companies, they're not picky, this isn't the same thing as CNN covering a press release. Soxwon (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • You consider an "actual legal filing" to be automatically "not frivolous"? LMFAO!!!. Frivolous legal filings and lawsuits are a way of life in this country. Any jerkoff with a grudge can go fishing with an "actual legal filing". Filing proves jack. What is the result? You don't know. But because you dislike the man, you're willing to insert contentious, flimsy accusations that the mainstream media has so far ignored. Press releases on Business Wire? Oh puhleeze. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
By frivolous, I was referring (not well, I admit) to your claim that this was merely a "rumor." It stopped being mere rumor when it became a legal filing.Jimintheatl (talk) 12
57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for being a great American.Jimintheatl (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
You too. Irony, much?.Jimintheatl (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Say when...Never? Jimintheatl (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
The Politico reference is a reliable source. Be sure to include the group's rebuttal.--Drrll (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • You still don't get it, do you? Is it because you simply don't understand? Or are you unwilling to understand. Nobody disputes that a group filed the complaint. So what? ANYONE can file a complaint over anything. I could go to my local police dept. right now and file a report that says that you called me 3 times last night and threatened to kill me. It's not true. I don't even have evidence. But I CAN file the complaint. Making a complaint means little. It means even less in his biography when it's involving financial matters that he has no control over. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
what you don't get is that this is a legitimate, RS-reported controversy about a controversial figure. Stop the whitewashing; this article is so scrubbed that no one reading it gets an accurate portrait of its subject.Jimintheatl (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Alright, the Politico story (filed in the last 24 hours) and the gazette story (today's paper) are good sources, Yahoo news canada, salon, and the site of the group filing the law suit are not. Soxwon (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
So, 2 of the three editors previously objecting to inclusion are now recognizing that RS are reporting the story. So we include, yes?Jimintheatl (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
It's in now, in a balanced manner, which is far from the what you inserted. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Here is the part some of you are missing. This is the bio of Sean Hannity. The Freedom concert metntions cover his involvement in it. But Sean Hannity is not on the board of the charity and there is no evidence whatsoever that he has any say in how the money is spent. Allegations about spending are allegations about the charity. Not one of these sources allege that Hannity personally spent or authorized the spending (or not spending) of a single dollar. So why should this be part of his bio? Again, what is covered in this article should be he PERSONALLY does concerning the charity (attends, promotes, participates in etc). If you want to write an article about the charity or the concerts, have at it. But unless you can show where Hannity personally was involved in any of the spending decisions in question, it doesn't belong in his bio. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Following your logic, the Freedom Concerts should not be included in the article. Agreed? OK.Jimintheatl (talk) 12:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
No, that's a false dichotomy, just because we don't go into great detail doesn't mean they have to be taken out all together. Otherwise everything on every page would be either absurdly long or empty. Soxwon (talk) 13:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • As pointed out, your conclusion is illogical. I was pretty clear that the current article talks about his personal involvement in the concert series and a brief idea of what the concerts are (to put it into context). What you are proposing, by including tis, is like going off on a tangent about child labor law violations by Nike in an article about Tiger Woods because Nike sponsors Tiger. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Blogger Debbie Schlussel attacked Sean Hannity and Ollie North over a charity they work with, alleging that the Freedom Alliance "spent millions on cronies and expenses." The charity denied the allegations, but Schlussel's reports led Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington to file a complaint Monday with the Federal Trade Commission. It alleged that Hannity engaged in "illegal and deceptive marketing practices" by saying that all money from tickets to "Freedom Concerts" went to children of service members who were killed or wounded. Washington Post Online March 30/2010. This would seem to be the "real media" reporting on the subject. Vote —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drayfin13 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Yes, she did attack them and her blog isn't a reliable source. Further, unlike Hannity, North is actually on the board of the charity. North DOES have some sort of control over their financial dealings. Hannity does not. Want to take bets on where those complaints go? So you want to put this contentious material up for 6-9 months (or longer), then when it is dismissed by the FTC as unfounded, you'll want to do one of two things: remove it (which in no way undoes the 6-9 months) or, more likely, leave up the allegation and just say it was dismissed. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
So issues have to be resolved before they merit mention? Interesting standard. Let's apply that to global warming, the Toyota recalls, Tiger Woods. Do you find it at all strange that a media figure as contentious and polarizing as Hannity has such a bland article?Jimintheatl (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Global warming and Toyota recalls aren't BLP's, are they? Again, you miss the glaring point that Hannity isn't on the board of the charity and has no hand in their spending. So whether they have or have not given enough money away isn't an issue for his biography. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
So why are the Freedom Concerts on his page? And in such glowing terms?Jimintheatl (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
So he has a "bland" article. Does that mean that you should just add things that you feel will make him look bad regardless of whether or not they actually matter as you seem to be doing? Soxwon (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not interested in making him look "bad." (Parenthetical aside: He does a fine job all by himself.) But this is a vanilla article about a decidedly divisive figure. It gives no feel for why fans adore him or critics loathe him.Jimintheatl (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with the emerging consensus here. The fact that Hannity is involved with the Freedom concerts is notable. The fact that an allegation has been made against a charity that Hannity is not a board member or officer thereof seems to be no more than a scurrilous attempt to besmear by association. It should be removed. FellGleaming (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I disagree that the charges are not notable. Keep in mind that the CREW group complained to the FTC and the IRS--an FTC and IRS run by an Obama administration that would love to tar Hannity. The complaint to the FTC claims that Hannity himself misrepresented the use of concert proceeds going toward scholarships. The charges are all the more notable because a reliable source, Politico, reported these charges.--Drrll (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point. Such an allegation is only notable if it speaks to the character or reliability of the person. If Hannity isn't directly involved with the charity, then whether or not these charges are true, it doesn't affect him personally. If he has no personal knowledge of how the board uses funds, then he's simply repeating their official statement. If I go to the website of Red Cross, repeat some statement I find there, I'm not guilty of "misrepresentation" if they later are found to be cooking the books. FellGleaming (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
You're right that if Freedom Alliance, which administers the funding of the scholarships, is not properly funding them it is not Hannity's fault. The problem is, CREW filed its complaint with the FTC against Hannity's Freedom Concerts, not against Freedom Alliance, and the complaint accuses Hannity himself of wrongdoing, not Freedom Alliance (they actually do accuse Freedom Alliance of wrongdoing, but their complaint against them is directed toward the IRS and not the FTC, and is centered around political activity, not misappropriation of funds). I personally think their complaints are without merit, especially the one against Hannity. That doesn't change the fact that Obama's FTC now has a complaint against Hannity or that Politico has reported on it.--Drrll (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
You're misreading the story. The CREW complaint is against Freedom Concerts, not against Hannity. You may have been confused because the Politico story includes a CREW statement that mentions Hannity by name, but the complaint does not: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/35160.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by FellGleaming (talk • contribs) 00:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually we were both wrong. The CREW complaint to the FTC is against Freedom Concerts, Hannity personally, Freedom Alliance, and others, not just against Freedom Concerts. From the actual complaint itself:
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington ("CREW") respectfully requests that the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") investigate whether the Freedom Alliance, Freedom Concerts, Premiere Marketing, Sean Hannity, Lt. Col. Oliver North, and Duane Ward have engaged in "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce" in violation of 15 U.S.C 45(a) by suggesting the proceeds of all ticket sales for the Freedom Concerts go to college scholarships of deceased and wounded military service members.
(see http://www.citizensforethics.org/files/20100329%20-%20HannityFTC%20-%20Complaint%20and%20Exhibits.pdf ).
--Drrll (talk) 04:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • That's what I was trying to get at earlier. Say for example I raise money for the Susan G. Komen breast cancer charity (which I did this year). According to them (in pamphlets and their website), 75% of the money raised is spent locally and 25% goes to national research project. So that is what I told people sponsoring me, 75% stays local. Now, if 6 months down the road, we find out that only 50% is being kept locally, am I now responsible for this? Am I now a "liar" and a "con man"? I acted in good faith. I repeated their public material. I'm not on their board and have absolutely no say over how money is spent. According to some in this thread, I would be a "con man" and that's absurd. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
That's really the heart of the matter. Including this material is an obvious attempt to make a CoatRack article. Spokespeople who support and donate time to charities are not responsible for misrepresentation by that charity, no more than is any random person who makes a donation. FellGleaming (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Apparently he is still confident in the charity. He just donated $550K to the charity and is donating all the proceeds from his book that was released yesterday to the charity. So I don't think he believes the allegations. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The complaint filed with the IRS doesn't allege Hannity did anything wrong. It notes that he has personally donated to the charity and has helped host it. His main reason for inclusion in the complaint is when they list conservatives affiliated with the charity in some manner, contending that the charity serves conservative interests only. Aside from donating to them and helping host the events, CREW doesn't indicate they think Hannity did anything wrong. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Under "Television"

The portion about Hannity's offer to be waterboarded for charity fails to note that Keith Olbermann has offered $1000 per second that Hannity is voluntarily submits to the procedure. See: http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2009-04-28-olbermann-hannity_N.htm.

This is a pertinent fact that should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saldana33 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Education

I read the arguments in the archive for his Education. Please tell me again the justification for listing every college that someone attended. This implies they obtained a degree. At least write "incomplete" next to the university. For all we know, he could have failed out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sstorman (talk • contribs) 16:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

  • For all we know he failed out? Not according to the source. So unless you have a reliable source to show otherwise, we can drop that. Listing where he attended doesn't imply anything and it is quite clear in the body of the article that he didn't graduate from either one. I've shown examples from Michael Dell, Bill Gates and Jimmy Carter that show the same thing being done in their infobox, listing colleges that they didn't graduate from. In Carter's case, an alma mater is listed that he only took one class from and it was a non-credit class. Have you tried changing those articles? Might want to go take Occidental College off Obama's infobox too. He didn't graduate from there either. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Then write "schools attended" or "incomplete" but it is reckless to write "Education" Each example you provided has some indication that the person did not complete the degree. Dell and Gates even have specific dates of attendance. I think we are obligated to indicate an incomplete degree either with dates of attendance or by saying "dropped out" or "incomplete" or "schools attended"

  • Saying schools attended was suggested before. It used to say alma mater and alma mater actually means schools attended, but some people argued that gave the impression that he graduated (despite that examples I gave) from them, so it was changed to education. I'd have no issue with it saying schools attended (which is alma mater). Niteshift36 (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

What about just putting "incomplete" I think we should write the dates which he attended. Do we have that information? I think we are obligated to make it clear he did not complete the degree. By defining the section it implies a completion unless specific dates or a clear statement of incomplete is written. Unless of course you wish to mislead those who don't read the complete article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sstorman (talk • contribs) 16:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

  • I haven't seen a reliable source that listed dates. Our "obligation" is met in the body of the article. If people are too lazy to actually read and end up with wrong info, that isn't our fault. Life is more than info boxes and sound bytes. I ask again, are you going to take this accuracy drive to the other examples I've mentioned? Or is this limited to Hannity? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I will take it elsewhere. I agree how Bill Gates and Dell have their pages. I like that Gates just has it as "dropped out in ___" I think that would be fine. However, since we do not know the dates for Hannity, then simply writing "incomplete" would be fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sstorman (talk • contribs) 16:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Note - the actual consensus at the end of the discussions was to include (No degree awarded; it appears that indicator got quietly removed when no one was looking. There is no harm in noting verifiable facts; I can only think an attempt to hide that fact is an attempt to inject a point of view. If we're going to list all the places he attended, we must also note the disposition. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Was that the consensus? I don't recall that. I do recall your push to have it reworded from "alma mater" to "education". Would you be so kind at to provide a diff to where we reached that consensus? As noted before, "attended" is much different than "graduated" and most people will see that. I'll go ahead and revert your good faith edit pending your providing that diff. Thanks. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't recall that as the concensus either. Attended is perfectly resonable and means basically the same thing without trying to make a point. Arzel (talk) 02:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • There was no consensus to include a small no degree awarded. More bs as usuall. --Tom (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)ps, maybe I should say, there was some sort of fake/declared consensus? anyways, same thing, people throwing around "consensus" to keep there preffered version, typical, --Tom (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
That was a productive 1/2 hour review of the archives, NOT. Looks like some SPA ip commented on the talk page about the info box and then Blaxthos, made his change and declared consensus and case closed. Anyways, my still #1 favorite thing by far about this project is it's transparancy if you willing to go back and look at talk pages and contributions, ect. My memory goes back about an hour (old age :)) which is actually good and bad in a way. I love reading my old comments :)...anyways, --Tom (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • This happens over and over. An issue is discussed and debated extensively, an understanding gets reached and 2 months later, someone that has never edited the article comes in a re-invents the wheel. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think "Attended" is fine at all. It's not consistent with other Wikipedia pages such as Bill Gates, and it's also much more ambiguous than "dropped out". The only reason I can think of for the discrepancy is that Sean Hannity is a political figure with a clear ideology, and those with his ideology are the ones opposing a more clear representation of his education. Sarah Palin's article does not list all 5 schools she attended over 7 years. If "attended" was sufficient, it would be that way on all the other articles, but it's pretty obvious that "dropped out" is a much more accurate and clear description. Wikipediarules2221 17:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • So Palin's bio doesn't list all her schools? So? Carter's does, even schools that he didn't get a single credit from. Obama's list one he didn't graduate from too. As we discussed, Michael Dell lists his as "attended". Bill Gates says dropped out. The point? There obviously is no standardization for politicians or anyone else, so you WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS theory doesn't hold true. As for you accusation of bad faith, well....I probably don't need to spell that out for you. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • You certainly don't have to spell it out; you're user page says it all. Perhaps we can hear from someone more neutral than a neoconservative. Wikipediarules2221 09:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh, another "person" who thinks that they know everything about me because of a few userboxes. How juvenile. Too bad you drew the wrong conclusion sunshine. I'm not a neoconservative. Wonder what that says about the accuracy of the rest of your assumptions? Further, my political beliefs don't change the fact that Hannity's infobox is being populated in the same way as other politicians (including liberals) and other public figures, so your complaint that his isn't the same as "all the other articles" is as wrong as the conclusion you drew about me. Maybe drawing conclusions just isn't your strong suit. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Agreed with niteshift (though my opinion obviously won't matter since I'm open about where I stand politically, which automatically makes my bias worse than someone who left it off their page). Soxwon (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, all of the jingoism and pro-military icons must have confused me... Anyway, what makes you the authority on the Sean Hannity article? You still haven't made a valid argument as to why it should be this way. He dropped out of both of the schools, did he not? I still haven't heard why you object to calling a spade a spade. It seems you want to try to conceal this fact. Wikipediarules2221 23:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I would also like to add that you have been one of the only editors taking this position and you have responded to numerous users requesting the change. You seem to have the minority opinion and this should be put to a vote. Wikipediarules2221 23:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Really? Perhaps you should go back through the archives. The agreed consensus was to change it from "alma mater" to "attended". There is no concealing, no agenda. The only conspiracy here is the one you've imagined. I've given you numerous, valid examples of why Hannity isn't being treated differently than anyone else. That you just don't like it really isn't that relevant. Funny, you say it's calling a spade a spade to say he dropped out, yet it's equally calling a spade a spade to say he attended. After seeing how easily you were confused by a few userboxes on my page, I'm not terribly shocked that you get confused by that too. BTW, I'm not sorry for being pro-military, nor am I sorry that you were (easily) confused by it. If you don't like it, that gives you a perfect excuse to stay off my user page. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  • You are the only one responding. There is no consensus. It should be put to a vote for consensus because you are clearly the conservative guardian of the Hannity article. You make numerous edits to it daily. Wikipediarules2221 06:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
  • And you're the only one bitching about it. While you complain about "conservative guardian" blah, blah, blah, it doesn't take more than a quick look at your edit history to see that you do the exact opposite, disrupting articles to insert your personal, liberal POV (and pretend it's balance). This was discussed. Consensus was reached. 3 other editors have also said this was the consensus within the past month as well. The fact that I choose to entertain your agenda, while others have just ignored you, doesn't change that. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

For what is worth from someone not involved in this discussion and not a big fan of Sean Hannity, I think Colleges Attended would be adequate and "dropped out" would be a pejorative descriptive term. I think in Bill Gate's case it is an amusing aside that one of the richest men in the world is a college "drop out"... for everyone else its pejorative. Also, I feel if you want to add a descriptor to the college i would say, "no degree obtained"... which would leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusion.--Tgottsdo (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Expenses for the Freedom Concerts

Looking at Mediamatters here we should bother but wait for more reputable sources picking up on this here. Unless someone has photoshopped the PDFs for the tax return it would appear to be substantiated though presented by a rather shrill source. It will at least give us a balancing view of the incomes for the concerts (which we cite the self-published figure anyway). Ttiotsw (talk) 07:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

  • MM didn't just say to wait, they conceeded "Schlussel's characterizations and assertions need to be taken with more than a grain of salt -- they require an entire salt lick, at least". They also pointed out that the Freedom Alliance has a broader mission than scholarships and that Schlussel ignores that. MM also points out that the other part of her claim is completely unsupported at this point. If this story turns out to be true, with reliable sources (and not speculation), then it does belong in there somewhere. Right now, even people who hate Hannity are using the proverbial 10 foot pole to keep their distance. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like Debbie Schlussel has some splaining to do. According to the American Spectator here, it seems that DS's report was very misleading. Also, the Freedom Alliance has issued a statement here, making DS not merely wrong, but in some cases actually a liar. I have no idea what motivates her but she is not trustworthy anymore (assuming she ever was trustworthy, that is). Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

  • This is exactly why we don't rush to put in something to provide "balance" until it actually gets sorted out. I highly doubt Schlussel's accusations will turn out to be accurate, but that's beside the point. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I removed a link to a pdf of the tax return as original research. If this is some huge story in a year, then maybe revisit. --Tom (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, SOMEBODY should edit this section for grammar and English language usage. The phrase "allegedly falsely claiming" is silly. The claim is NOT "allegedly" made. It WAS made. And it is not "falsely" claimed until it's proven false. It may be false. But it's not false YET. The section should be changed to "claiming" and leave it at that. Both sides of this pro-Hannity, anti-Hannity argument are ridiculous. Just do it right. (cf) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubfan515 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

  • It was worded strangely, but you also misunderstood it. There was no attempt to weasel there. You concentrated too much on the parts and didn't look at the whole. It said that the allegation (the complaint) was that the charity made false claims. It wasn't trying to downplay the "it's not proven" or claim that the complaint is "false". I broke it into 2 sentences and made it a little more clear. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk versus News show

The first paragraph says, "Hannity also hosts a cable-news show, Hannity, on Fox News Channel," however, this is a cable-talk show, rather than news show, as noted on the Fox News Channel page. Would an "established" user with permission please make this change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daspiffy (talk • contribs) 20:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen the show, but Fox calls it the "second highest show in cable news", implying at least that they classify it as cable news. Another reference I found called it a debate show, so it seems it could go either way. FellGleaming (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Footnote 38

At the risk of exposing my techno-incompetence, how does footnote 38 work/support the "liberal" tag?Jimintheatl (talk) 11:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

In the WSJ article it says, "liberal group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington..." There is no free link to the article, but it is available from library databases, from WP:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request, or I could email you a copy if you want to see it.--Drrll (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Gotcha. Thanks. Jimintheatl (talk) 19
53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • How about this reliable source: [13] that calls CREW "liberal-leaning"? This op-ed from a regular columnist: [14] calling them "liberal"? The Phoenix Business Journal called them "a Lliberal advocacy group", "Washington D.C.-based liberal group" and "left-leaning" [15]. CBS News called them " a liberal watchdog group" [16]. So did the San Diego Union-Tribune [17]. So did CNN [18]. I'm sure I could easily find more if you want. But I'm pretty certain that this half dozen reliable sources should suffice. Feel free to add them to the list of sources if having a net accessible one makes you feel better about them being identified as liberal. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

CREW

Describing CREW as liberal in the FreedomWorks section colors the whole paragraph as if it were some illicit political action. Falcon8765 (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Illicit? no. Political? Possibly. Done with publicity in mind? Most likely. I'll grant that CREW is more balanced than many orgs, but this smells like a publicity event to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
It correctly alerts the reader there may be a political motivation involved. The label is both correct and pertinent. FellGleaming (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
RE: Recent reversions. I see three editors who favor identifying CREW as such (myself, Drll, and Niteshift36. How many exactly are against this? FellGleaming (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Me Bluebadger1 (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

  • I don't know that I'd call them liberal. They do take funds from very liberal orgs, but they seem to be reasonably balanced. If anything, they're more attention seeking than politically motivated in my view. And right now conservatives are good targets to get attention from. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Nowhere do I see Nite agreeing with you, as shown above in their first response to this section. Rather the opposite.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I was misled by his original choice of words "politically motivated". With his clarification, it appears there are 3 against, and only 2 for. On that basis, I don't have any problem dropping the adjective.FellGleaming (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Update: Given Drll's new source, and a little extra research on my own, it seems the liberal tag is more fitting than we once thought. CREW is funded by the Democratic Alliance and George Soros. It was also founded by a group of Democratic activists[1], and their current executive director served on Joe Biden's staff. Failing to note the possible political connection in the story is doing the reader a vast injustice. FellGleaming (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
If CREW had it's own page, I'd disagree with the "liberal" addition. But seeing as it doesn't I'm on the fence. Soxwon (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You aren't supposed to be doing your own research as to whether they are "liberal" or not I don't think, but referencing independent 3rd party reliable sources. How is "liberal" relevant to the investigation? You are trying to add liberal to bias the claims against Hannity's org. If Liberal is relevant, than so is the fact the votevets.org etc. is a veterans group of iraw and afghanistan vets.

It is the investigation that is relevant to Hannity, not that George Soros funds them. Are you going to Ben Frankiln's wiki page to add who funded his electrical research with a kite and lightening? Is it relevant? The FTC if investigating is a govt. org. Also the tax returns of the organization speak for themselves. The "argument" about "liberal group" is an attempt to distract from the real referenced, encyclopaedic facts..Bluebadger1 (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

  • As I said above they do take funding from some very liberal orgs. I also noted that this may be political and most likely is attention seeking. I don't have a problem with labelling them as liberal, so I'm not opposing it. My personal opinion is that they are liberal. The main reason I haven't been behind this completely is that the org does appear to go after people on both sides of the fence. It looks, from a quick trip to their site, like they go after more conservatives than liberals, but they have gone after some fairly high profile libs too. As I said, I think they do whatever gets them attention. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
A very revealing article about CREW in Roll Call in January 2008 states that "all but a handful of its complaints against Members of Congress have targeted Republicans." Note that it's referring to formal complaints filed with government agencies, not just press releases or web mentions. While they occasionally criticize liberals like Jesse Jackson, Jr and Maxine Waters, they focus their legal fire almost exclusively upon Republicans and comparatively conservative Democrats (or those Democrats who take conservative positions on certain issues like abortion or the Iraq War authorization). This article also points out that CREW attacks "groups and individuals who are the foes of CREW's donors."--Drrll (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
A cunning tactic. Post a few Democratic mugshots on your website so you can claim "non-partisanship", then file all your actual complaints against Republicans. FellGleaming (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I've certainly considered the idea that picking a few Dems is just a ploy, but their doing enough of it that they're at least keeping up the appearence of doing more than just paying lip service to being balanced. For example, they did their list of 15 most corrupt in Congress for the year. 8 Republicans and 7 Democrats. True, more Republicans, but that's pretty darn balanced. And they named some of the bigger names too (obvious, but still big) like Rangel and Murtha as well as Waters and Jackson to the list. And they DO file complaints about Dems. They filed with the FEC over Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), with the ethics committee on Representatives Mike Doyle (D-PA), Heath Shuler (D-NC), Bart Stupak (D-MI). Yes, it could all be a big cover....but they're doing a good job of it. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
As far as the list of corrupt Congress members, it is just a publicity measure, not a a legal complaint and with the Dems running Congress and with their overwhelming numbers, there should be close to twice as many Dems as Repubs. As far as the legal complaints against Democrats, notice that Sen. Landrieu is one of the most conservative Democrats in the Senate, Mike Doyle is pro-life, Heath Shuler is one of the most conservative Democrats in the House (including pro-life), and Bart Stupak is pro-life.--Drrll (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Good point. Statistically, with nearly twice as many Democrats in office, you'd expect a truly non-partisan group to file twice as many complaints against them. Did the Roll Call article have any hard figures on the actual amounts of complaints they've filed against Repubs and Dems? FellGleaming (talk) 05:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
No, the article unfortunately didn't provide hard figures, just that out of the large number of complaints they filed against members of Congress, only a handful were against Democrats.--Drrll (talk) 07:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Bad theory. The article was in Jan. 2008, that means they gathered stats from the 2007 Congress. The 109th Congress ended in 2007 with 55 Rep and 44 Dems in the Senate and the 110th which started in 2007 had 49-49 and ended with 48 Dems and 49Reps. The Democrats didn't have a real majority until after Nov. 2008, 10 months after the article. Same in the House: 110th began with 233 Dems-202 Rep. Hardly "twice as many" It ended in Jan. 2009 with a 235-198 split. That's less than 9% difference. Again, hardly "twice as many".Niteshift36 (talk) 06:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
You're right about that if the corrupt list (released in Sept 2009) were strictly proportional, there shouldn't be twice as many Dems--just about 50% more. But that doesn't account for the fact that the Democrats run Congress and the committees, making them more subject to corruption and pushing the proportion "close to twice as many". As far as the Roll Call article goes, it didn't address the party numbers involved in the corrupt list, just the numbers involved in actual legal complaints against members of Congress, where out of the huge number of complaints filed by CREW over the years preceeding 2008, "only a handful" were against Dems (and again, most of those were against comparatively conservative Dems).--Drrll (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not talking about the article in Jan 2008, I'm talking about their website today. Four of their last five complaints were filed against Republicans, despite the massive Democratic majority in Congress. And the only one against a Democrat is against Heath Schuler, a pro-life Democrat. This is bi-partisanship? Sell me a bridge, will you? FellGleaming (talk) 13:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • What math are you people using? The 110th Congress ended with Democrats having 50.5% of the Senate and 54.3% of the House. The 111th is currently 59% Democrat in the Senate and 58.9% Democrat in the House. By what stretch of any math is 59% anywhere near "twice" 41%???? That's 18% difference. Where do you get "twice" out of that? Niteshift36 (talk) 08:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Again, since the most recent corrupt list is about the 111th Congress, the list should have about 1.5 times as many Dems as Repubs based strictly upon proportion. The fact that the Dems run Congress, committees, subcommittees should put the number closer to 2 times as many.--Drrll (talk) 08:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Again, you dodge what was said. You said that the article in Roll Call said it was a "handful" of Democrats. I mentioned the corrupt list, but you and Fell have chosen to stick with complaints being filed. In either case, whether you are talking about the list or complaints filed, Fell is wrong when he said "nearly twice as many" and you are wrong for trying to defend it. There is no way in hell that 18% more works out to "nearly twice as many". You're about 82% off of that mark. He made an error and you keep defending it. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I was defending my own comments yesterday at 20:07: "should be close to twice as many Dems as Repubs" on the corrupt list, with Democrats having 1.5 times as many and running the show. The "only a handful" quote was meant to refer to legal complaints filed, but maybe I wasn't as clear as I could have been on this.--Drrll (talk) 09:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
59% is 44% (1.44 times) more than 41%, not 18% more than 41%, as 256 Dems is 44% more than 178 Repubs (the numbers in Congress at the time of the release of the corrupt list), not 18% more.--Drrll (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I think it's worth noting that while certain editors act like this is the story of the year, CREW's website just pushes the story further down their main page as they do something else. 2 days after they listed it on their site, it's down to the #3 story. Top is their most recent actions. In other words, they file and move on. But OHMIGOD!!! this is a HUGE event in Hannity's live, right? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Why are you focusing on one single action of theirs from two years ago? By their acts today, four of their last five complaints are against Republicans, and the fifth against a pro-life Democrat. Does that sound like a bi-partisan group? FellGleaming (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
The statement about CREW being a liberal group was reverted with the summary, "2 seperate sources". One is a blog, which does not meet WP:RS, and the other is an opinion piece from a Washington newspaper. That's not nearly enough to declare that a self-declared non-partisan group is liberal.Mk5384 (talk) 07:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
  • What you dismiss as just a "blog" is a blog written by professional journalists employed by MSNBC, hosted on MSNBC's website and subjected to MSNBC oversight. What you dismiss as an "opinion piece by a Washington paper", is a columnist, employed by the Washington Post (more than just "a Washington paper") and subject to editorial oversight. If you don't think that either of them would pass RS, I invite you to take the matter to the WP:RSN and come back when you find out that you are wrong. I am completely confident that both will easily pass WP:RS. The inclusion of the term liberal and those sources was the result of a lot of discussion. Your removal, then revert, is not in keeping with the result of that discussion. I'd invite you to discuss it here before continuing to revert. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
That CREW is a liberal organization is well-established in reliable sources. All of the following left-leaning sources refer to CREW as "liberal" in news stories: The Washington Post (e.g. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/17/AR2008061702579.html), the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and Roll Call. Drrll (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
No it is not. I have reported this matter at WP:RSN.Mk5384 (talk) 10:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
  • You asked for their opinion. That's great. But that doesn't change anything here yet. There is a consensus for the current wording and you are avoiding it. The prudent thing is to go with the consensus until the matter is resolved. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Mk5384, are you going to keep the discussion going, or are you going to keep making reverts with no edit summaries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drrll (talk • contribs) 16:06, 18 July 2010

Attribute disputed statements to the sources

  • Rather than stating matter-of-factly that the organizations are liberal when the sources and organizations being discussed aren't all on the same page, perhaps it ought be modified to state that "In 2010 the CREW (described as liberal by Xyz) and VoteVets.org (also described as liberal by Yyz)". –xenotalk 18:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Now there's a good idea.Mk5384 (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I was indicating that I approved of actually discussing the issue, not giving my support to the compromise edit. Also, to Mk5384, I will post notifications that I am required to post on your page. Part of the 3RR rules require me to show that you were notified. Unfortunately, you can't tell me not to post them on your page. Policy over-rides your personal wishes. But trust that I have no desire to communicate on your talk page beyond what I am required to do. As for the compromise version, it seems ackwardly worded to me and not necessary. As you can see from the discussion, I wasn't initially in favor of calling CREW "liberal", but evidence and consensus led me the other way. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • To matter-of-factly state the organization is liberal when not all sources agree and the organization describes itself otherwise seems to be taking a point of view. If the wording is awkward, can't it be modified rather than reverted? –xenotalk 14:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Aside from the orgs themselves saying they are "non-partisan" (which is dubious), I haven't seen anyone present a reliable source that says they are NOT liberal. If that were to happen, there would be something to discuss, right? But until then, saying "all sources don't agree" isn't really a supportable position is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niteshift36 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 19 July 2010
  • I understand your position, I think you're missing mine. His position was that the sources weren't reliable. NOW, we have a different discussion based on what you're bringing to the table. Do you see what I've been saying? Could there be compromise? Probably. Is the version that was just shoved in there the right one? Not in my opinion. It was worded in a strange way that didn't flow very well. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Understood. Moving past the RSN issue, could you prepare an edit (here, to avoid concerns of 3RR) you feel is acceptable that takes the concerns of both sides into account? –xenotalk 14:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Your link was 4 sources. 2 of the 4 (#2 and #3) are identical articles (same story carried in 2 papers), so they are really 1 source. Source #4 doesn't call CREW nonpartisan. The word nonpartisan is in a separate part of the article, having nothing to do with CREW. So the 4 sources are, in reality, 2 sources. Just felt that needed clarified. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I didn't look very hard. My point was that not all sources agree; so to maintain the neutral point of view with respect to CREW's position in the political spectrum, we shouldn't present any one particular source's opinion as "fact". –xenotalk 15:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • These sources, so far unused in the article, also call them liberal: [20], [21], [22]. Just because only 2 sources were used doesn't mean they were the only 2 sources available. I'd also like to note that we've talked about self-identification. If you look at CREW's Facebook page, they use the Wikipedia entry that says "Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is a liberal watchdog group founded in 2003".[23]. Not a reliable source, but interesting. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

← So why not Although presenting itself as nonpartisan, CREW is widely described as liberal.[source1][2][3][4] –xenotalk 15:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That will work for me (are you talking about the Sean Hannity article or the CREW article?). Drrll (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Sean Hannity, but that is a good point and one that I was going to bring up: now that CREW actually has an article, it may make sense to leave off the descriptor altogether and discuss their position in the political spectrum there. –xenotalk 15:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the single editor edit warring here, because they are simply saying 'per talk page', without actually changing the article to what was discussed on this talk page. In the edit summary, I ask that someone else please make the change, instead of a simple revert, which is what this user(Mk5384 (talk · contribs)) is doing.— Dædαlus Contribs 19:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

  • For those who didn't keep up with it, Mk5384 got a block for edit-warring, he took it badly and imploded, vandalizing involved admin pages via IP (which is now blocked too). Then when a discussion was started in ANI to enforce the civility restrictions etc he was already under, he threated to sock and well.....you can guess how that went over. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Although it seems like a logical time-saver, I'd suggest that the issue about how the CREW article reads be conducted on that page or at least a notice about this discussion placed there so that editors with an interest in that article who may not be involved in this page could have input. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This article has been scrubbed clean of criticism

Looks like this article has been scrubbed clean of criticism. There is significant past discussion on controversies and a (overdue) tag on the article's top for lack of controversy. Yet still (or again) there is no mention of Hannity's controversial opinions covered by reliable sources. The only hints of controversy:

Critics argued that the show highlighted Hannity's views and those of conservative guests over Colmes' and those of liberal guests. [15]
In April 2009, Hannity said he'd allow himself to be waterboarded for charity.[19] The statement generated some attention, though there has been no public follow-up by Hannity and has since dropped from the media's attention.

(Removing my remark about another editor) - PrBeacon (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

And? Comment on content, not contributors. His last 3rr block was two years ago, so stop bringing up irrelevant details, two years in the future.— Dædαlus Contribs 21:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Let's be more substantively specific, Pr. What "controversial opinions" should Hannity's bio include? What criticisms have scrubbed out? Badmintonhist (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
You missed one, PRBeacon. There is a large paragraph in the Freedom Concerts section about accusations of impropriety by the group CREW. I knew it was there because I advocated keeping it in the article.--Drrll (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Is Beacon correct? Is there only 1 piece of criticism? As Drrl already pointed out, you missed the 5 lines about the Freedom Alliance. He apparently also missed the part about Hannity getting his show cancelled too. So that's three, not one. But what you failed to do is look at other items that were moved to the articles about his shows, since they were really more criticisms of something show related and not so much him. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say there was one piece. I was citing two examples of weak criticism within the article. The "five lines" you mention includes a rebuttal which is actually stronger than the allegations. And most importantly, the lead says nothing of criticism or controversy. PrBeacon (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • First, there is nothing that says all criticism needs to contain only negative info. If a mention of controversy or criticism shows those who oppose it and those who support it, that seems to me to be neutral. Second, the guideline on leads says that you can mention controversies, but doesn't require it. In a case like FNC, the main gripe is usually neutrality, so it's easy to say "this is the main criticism". In a case like Hannity, where there can be a number of very disparate smaller criticisms, it's not so easy. Is there a specific criticism/controversy you think belongs in the lead? Making it a litany of smaller complaints wouldn't be neutral, yet I have trouble identifying a single "major" or "predominate" criticism that would be the "trademark" (for lack of a better term) criticism for Hannity aside from people just not liking his political views. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Article assessment

Soxwon, can you please justify this revert? Specifically:

  1. You assert that this is a "B" quality article, which necessarily means "The article is mostly complete and without major issues". Given the number of editors who have noted both the lack of balanced viewpoints, as well as the frequent ownership issues, is it your assertion that this article is complete, verifiable, and accurately reflects all significant information and viewpoints?
  2. You assert that Hannity is a "High Importance" article for both WikiProject Radio and WikiProject Media. What are you basing this on? There are only 35 total "High" importance (and only 10 "Top" importance) articles in all of Media -- are you asserting that Sean Hannity is on of the 45 most important topics in all of Media?

//Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Answer to 1: Considering you have been one of those vocal critics, I would await a more neutral person to review the article.
Answer to 2: For Media, yes I could see the downgrade, however, considering he is the second most listened to show on the air, I would consider him of very high importance with regards to radio. Soxwon (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Clarify something for me. Is there some policy that limits the number of High Importance articles to 35? Or is that simply how many there are. I know you don't like the guy Blax, but he has been the #2 syndicated radio show for years, has a high rated TV show, won a couple of Marconi's and wrote 3 Best-Sellers. Politics aside, he has accomplished a lot and is pretty important in the media world. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you two simply incapable of responding to content without also attacking what you imagine my opinions to be, or is it simply that you have nothing else to fall back on? Either way, my opinions are irrelevant and have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Given multiple editors have expressed WP:OWN concerns, and the clear warning tag at the top of the article, Soxwon should justify his assertion that the article IS mostly complete and DOES represent all relevant information and viewpoints. Based on his response above, it sure as hell sounds like Soxwon just reverted because it's me -- given all the ad hominem bullshit above, I don't think either of you have the integrity to ever admit that I might be right. If that's the case, you're not editing in good faith. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

No, what I stated was that, as an involved party, you should not be the one reassessing it. Another person who has not been involved should. I would have said the same thing if Niteshift or anyone else had tried to re-assess (also, many ppl? you mean FuriousJorge who socked)? Since you feel that it is completely lacking despite the fact that no one seems to be able to come up with anything outside of a few waterboarding comments then fine, go ahead. Also, please point to where Niteshift mentioned you in anyway other than asking you to clarify in his original post (just wondering as I reread it and saw nothing...) Soxwon (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Blax, get a grip on your emotions. There was no ad hominem anything and apparently, you've decided civility has no place in this discussion, so I'm game. I asked you a valid question: Is there a policy creating a limit. How about you put your big girl panties on, stop your whining and just answer the fucking question for a change instead of your (usual) baseless bullshit about ownership and imagined personal attacks? Now that would be a welcome change. And for you to speak to anyone about integrity....well, thanks for the laugh. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually Blaxthos, since you all keep calling for notable controversies, why not produce some that should be added? I keep waiting for people to produce some that should be added. I have removed the tag and will gladly add it back once someone comes here with legitimate material to add. Soxwon (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Aug. 2010

I think his daily attacks on Obama need to be mentioned, as well as the faked Tea Party footage. The "Stop Obama Express", the "Stop Hillary Express" and "Stop Pelosi Express" were multi-year crusades against Democrats and should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.148.224 (talk) 00:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  • In order: "Daily attacks" are more appropriate to the show article than to his bio. "Faked" footage wasn't fake. It was real footage. The footage was used on a story that it didn't belong to. There is a difference. The issue is covered in the article about the TV show. As for the others.....again, those are things he uses in the show. They're not part of his personal life. (BTW, since Hillary stopped running for anything, that has ceased to be a "multi-year" thing. Try to keep up with the times.) Of course the guy attacks Democrats. That's his job as a conservative commentator. He never pretends to be non-partisan. What else would you expect? Pelsoi attacks Republicans on a daily basis. You feel the need to add that to her article? I doubt it. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory?

Would this claim by Hannity be considered an example of a conspiracy theory? Stonemason89 (talk) 02:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The video wouldn't open for me, but probably the usual muck racking, reported by another muck racker. Same ol, same ol.--Threeafterthree (talk) 03:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
It opened now. Like I thought, just the usuall. It would OR to label/call conspiracy based on a tv clip. Now if mutiple RS say this guy is a conspiracy theorist, then we are on to something. --Threeafterthree (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

"Liberal Organizations"

It seems unfair to call Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and VoteVets.org liberal organizations, especially when their Wikipedia page states that they are non-partisan. I've changed it once and it was reverted. Can someone get some clarification in here? Thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.32.23.19 (talk) 07:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Both organizations have a history of targeting conservatives and Republicans, and in the case of VoteVets.org, supporting Democrats and liberals. They may call themselves non-partisan and they are legally required to be non-partisan for tax purposes. The use of "liberal" adds important context to the nature of their attacks on Sean Hannity and others. Most importantly, "liberal" is sourced to reliable sources--sources that can't be described as conservative. Drrll (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Liberal is not relevant to the facts of the article. Nor did I see you reference the specifics that they are liberal? That seems like someones personal bias. It may be important to you, but the encyclopaedic facts are all wikipedia is supposed to contain. An editor recently deleted the fact that vote vets is a veterans group... From the same articles you are saying state importantly (enought to be included), that the groups are "liberal".Bluebadger1 (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
It is very relevant to the nature of their attacks on Hannity. The references that use "liberal" to describe them are currently #38, 39, & 40 (Washington Post, MSNBC, & WaPo again). That they are primarily a political action committee instead of just a veterans group is evidenced by their own website (http://votevets.org/index_html). Look at the bottom of the page & see that they refer to themselves as a PAC. As Soxwon said, you need to make your case and get agreement here before including the contentious material you added. Drrll (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Pubilc Offer to Undergo Waterboarding for Charity

Also referenced on user talk page for Niteshift36 Niteshift36

The references and facts you deleted form the Sean Hannity page met both notability and wp:V guidelines, and are clearly referenced according to BLP. Assuming good faith, otherwise deletion of referenced facts on public instances directly related to a new broadcaster and his show I think would be Vandalism. You stated there is no dispute the facts happened, and state they are given undue weight? What is the undue weight? They are simple statements he made, unkept promises he made on his tv show, (which must be given undue weight if it is mentioned? and the public response to his actions, including being called out infront of the President, and several other media outlets picking up the story. Being made a joke of infront of POTUS, while you may not like it, is NOTABLE, VERIFIABLE, and meet the WP:WELL KNOWN standards.

Please reference how this is given undue weight if there is no dispute about the fact that it happened? Is Al Capone's biography giving undue weight to his criminal actions when they are the newsworthy and notable events?

Also please justify the comment: The statement generated some attention, though there has been no public follow-up by Hannity and has since dropped from the media's attention. Or another question: why his theme songs are included in the article and relevant, or not considered given undue weight if something he said or promised to do but did not is relevant?

Please See: Public figures WP:WELLKNOWN

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out. Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is this important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out, or stick to the facts: "John Doe divorced Jane Doe." Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but The New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing The New York Times as the source.

Please do not violate 3rr or begin an edit war.Bluebadger1 (talk) 08:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Sigh.........where to start: "Is Al Capone's biography giving undue weight to his criminal actions when they are the newsworthy and notable events?" First, Capone is dead, therefore doesn't fall under BLP. Second, Capone is primarily known for his criminal activities. Hannity is known for many things. A week blip in news-coverage doesn't necessarily make something significant in his life. It might be justified in the article about the show, but as far as personal, biographical terms, no. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:WELLKNOWN - Agreed, this article is scrubbed of criticism, heavily favouring undue "positive weight"

"This article has been scrubbed clean of criticism" Looks like this article has been scrubbed clean of criticism. There is significant past discussion on controversies and a (overdue) tag on the article's top for lack of controversy. Yet still (or again) there is no mention of Hannity's controversial opinions covered by reliable sources. AGREED

Appears to be actively scrubbed and not to meet the standards of WP:WELLKNOWN based on recent deletion of documented referenced facts. WP:WELLKNOWN In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is this important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out, or stick to the facts: "John Doe divorced Jane Doe." Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but The New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing The New York Times as the source..Bluebadger1 (talk) 08:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If the inclusion of his charitable works like Freedom Concerts can be included, and the details about the people involved, monies raised, etc. in Freedom Works - Then clearly his failure to keep his promise to be water-boarded, and the money from that he failed to raise, must be included, as well as including the media coverage other who agreed to be waterboarded and did, and punlic coverage of the waterboarding controversy reporting on Hannity's unkept promises. Also this brings into question his honesty and trustworthiness as a host for a news organization and as such is notable, and giving fair weight to a public controversy.

Suggest inclusion on BLP notice board, watch for socking, and vandalism.Bluebadger1 (talk) 09:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Socking? Really? Paranoid much? Most of the editors involved here are long time editors with involvement in many different topics. "If the inclusion of his charitable works like Freedom Concerts can be included, and the details about the people involved, monies raised, etc. in Freedom Works" Apples and oranges. The Freedom concerts are a long-term, on-going event. They alone could probably become their own wikipedia article. The fevered rantings of a few idealogues for a couple of days that were quickly forgotten doesn't compare. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Note to Bluebadger1

Please for the love of God, FORMAT YOUR POSTS! Indent for replies and try to keep posts to a manageable size. Please show coverage of the items you wish to have added outside of MMFA and HP. Soxwon (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Editing on Sean Hanity.

Thanks for encouragement, and taking the time to help me format my posts. Oh, wait, we are complaining a blaspheming.

If you would like to help edit my posts, and teach me a bit more about formatting I would be happy to learn, and would appreciate you formatting them or helping me with that. Otherwise your CAPs and mentioning of God in an inappropriate place seems offensive, and does nothing to help here I think.

Try to keep posts a manageable size? Where is the WP reference for proper post size. Please advise?

Your note here might be better suited on my talk page than here, as it is not relevant to Sean Hannity.

Maybe you should be discussing the deletions and section blanking your are doing on this talk page, and referencing your additions/deletions rather than section blanking. Instead of complaining about formatting? You are page blanking and deleting referenced information. The section blanking has been reported for Vandalism. Please reference any changes deletions, or additions you are making, and also discuss those changes on talk page rather than starting an edit war, then trying to get a lock or block via 3rr.

You made revisions with no reference or reasons for the deletion/blanking. The facts are referenced and meet wp:v wp:wellknown. Please justify reference any changes. The edits your reverted drew info from the same articles you reverted too. EG: You want to include votevet.org is a "liberal group" why not include that the same articles include it is a veterans group? Bluebadger1 (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLP. Biographies are held to a high standard in terms of sourcing and contentious information is removed on the spot. Reverting does not require sourcing, it is up to you to prove why the material belongs in the article. Soxwon (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
The material is reference, includes public record us government tax records, and uses the exact same references for material you have included. Eg the references that you have allowed to stand and reverted to where CREW is listed as a "liberal" groups also states votevet.org is a "veterans group of iraq and afghanistan war veterans".
You cannot include one fact, but delete the other without showing bias, hypocrisy, and of course still claim the deletion is not in good faith.Bluebadger1 (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
The inclusion of the label liberal is irrelevant to the addition of the other material. Each needs to be measured based on its own sourcing. The liberal label is well sourced and thus included. Your material is linked to HP and MMFA, sources that, by themselves, are frowned upon for this type of article (or at the very least, should have other sources supporting them). Soxwon (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

So you are all agreed that the article referenced currently "^ DiMascio, Jen (March 29, 2010). "CREW flags Hannity concert series". Politico. Retrieved 2010-03-30." Is an acceptable source? Bluebadger1 (talk) 03:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent challenge on use of "liberal" and "political action committee"

The use of "liberal" for CREW & VoteVets.org is sourced to the Washington Post and MSNBC (with more references available) and is relevant to these organizations' attack on Hannity (both organizations regularly attack conservatives and Republicans overwhelmingly over liberals and Democrats, especially VoteVets.org). The term "political action committee" is sourced in the VoteVets.org WP article and actually appears at the bottom of their main page on their website ("Paid for VoteVets Political Action Committee..."). Drrll (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur with this opinion. Kelly hi! 22:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
No argument here. Soxwon (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
For the record, why was the new editor claiming it was a BLP violation? I don't have a problem with people readding it, although of course more than the negative issues of BLP is at stake - we also have to worry about neutrality and having too flowery a piece. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Not sure what the BLP concern is about the "liberal" label. You're right about the rest - though changes are best proposed here. I'm sure you know how it goes with controversial figures like this - there are sometimes coatracking problems, and people who insist that any controversy must be added to the article IMMEDIATELY and in-depth. Kelly hi! 00:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • As for the liberal label part, I'm pretty sure this was discussed at length before. As for the waterboarding, we did spend a LOT of time discussing it. The whole "incident" was covered by a couple of news sources, some just reporting what places the HuffPo said about it. 2 weeks after it happened, there was no coverage about it. This "huge issue" was forgotten. Something like 6-9 months later, someone brought it up on TV, the mention got covered for a day or two and it slipped back into the obscurity it deserves. There never was significant amounts of lasting coverage about it. Much of the limited coverage was by sources that have a clear axe to grond. To put the significance into a different perspective, if you search for Lindsay Lohan, court and fingernails (remember the whole flap about her nails?), Gnews has over 1900 stories indexed, but that (correctly) isn't mentioned in her bio because it's not a significant event in her life. If you search Gnews for Sean Hannity, waterboard and charity, you get 13 results (with 5 of them being MSNBC). Niteshift36 (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Re: Kelly: I do realize this. Sometimes I wish there was a way that anybody who visits HuffingtonPost, DailyKos, Newsbusters, etc. could get banned for a day, not because of ideological tilt but because they encourage so much mindless editing that is directly contradictory to WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. Of course, Hannity no doubt has his own whitewashers.
Re: Niteshift, I don't know if it's worth inclusion, but I do remember seeing it on the news. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • There is no dispute that it was covered, very briefly and not very in-depth. The fact of the matter is that this "event" is a non-event. There was nothing significant about it. On the other hand, a similarly small event, his remarks to a gay woman, is included depsite having less coverage. Why? It was significant. It caused him to get fired from a job. This was simply a couple of days of "did you hear what Hannity said". If we included every "did you hear what he said" moment, this bio would be ridiculously long. Not only did I cite weight at the time, I also pointed at WP:RECENTISM. Using the "would it be significant 10 years from now" question, the answer is a respounding no. The "event" wasn't even getting coverage 10 days later. Nothing significant 10 months later either. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Where is the consensus? Magogs removal of "liberal" was reverted 4 hours after my block was removed? How could consensus have been reached if the objector did not have a chance to discuss the issue?

I would ask the person who did so to revert, and allow time to discuss. Reverting Magogs change before the objector has had a chance to state a case seems does not seem very neutral?

In the best interest of NPOV, and BLP, wouldn't it be best to allow new impartial people (other than the initial people that denied my referenced edits and challenges to the undue weight of the Freedom Concerts rebuttal of the allegations) be allowed to chime in? Not to mention you all allow the rebuttle from Hannity's org to be discussed, but not the facts or allegations... Like the Tax return.

For starters? Why is liberal relevant to the fact that Hannity's org is under investigation, or that an investigation was requested? Other than the fact that Hannity is s self identified Conservative, I still don't see it's relevance to the facts one way or the other that to put a slant on the allegations? Relevant facts would be what was proven true or untrue, not that CREW is liberal? Bluebadger1 (talk) 06:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

  • You're asking about "neutral", but you're missing something: When consensus was achieved, there is no need to change what is on the article to accomodate a single late arrival. If anything, your changes should be reverted until the changes are discussed. You are the one who came in, made sweeping changes, then wants your version to remain while it gets talked about. This isn't about neutrality, it's about sense. And your complaint about the objector not being able to comment: It's not our fault you got blocked for the 3RR. Why should the world grind to a halt? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I waited until several hours after your block to revert, even though Magog said a good bit earlier that it was fine that the words be added back. How about now making your case for your changes? Drrll (talk) 13:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
A few hours seems fair, certainly shows that concensus is what you have in mind. LOL ::1) As I said: Why is liberal relevant to the fact that Hannity's org is under investigation, or that an investigation was requested? Other than the fact that Hannity is a self identified Conservative, I still don't see it's relevance to the facts one way or the other that to put a slant on the allegations? Relevant facts would be what was proven true or untrue, not that CREW is a liberal org IMHO. That seems to ensure NPOV.
2) So you are all agreed that the article referenced currently "^ DiMascio, Jen (March 29, 2010). "CREW flags Hannity concert series". Politico. Retrieved 2010-03-30." Is an acceptable source as it is one of the references you have chosen to validate the inclusion of the liberal tag?

Bluebadger1 (talk) 03:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes politico is an acceptable source. Soxwon (talk) 05:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
1) It's relevant to the fact that these groups requested an investigation of a group associated with conservatives, while at the same time they haven't requested investigations of groups associated with liberals. If you have additional information that Hannity's group is actually under investigation, then provide it.
2) Politico (newspaper) is a prominent mainstream news source. Drrll (talk) 11:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Given that a) Hannity isn't personally responsible for how money is or is not distributed; b) It's not alleged that he personally did anything wrong; c) that 8 months later, nothing has been done as far as an investigation or charges and d) aside from a few partisan sources, the whole thing was essentially ignored by the rest of the MSM, I'm starting to question if the whole thing even belongs in the article at all. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Even though Hannity isn't responsible for the distribution of money by Freedom Alliance, I think that Hannity is alleged to have said that all proceeds of Freedom Concerts (his organization) would go to children of fallen service members. This story was covered in Politico and a column in The Washington Post, but yes, it seems to have been ignored by the rest of the MSM. Since Freedom Concerts and Hannity himself was cited in the complaint to the FTC, I think that it does deserve a mention, at least until a reliable source or the FTC itself says that the FTC has denied the request or cleared Freedom Concerts / Hannity. Drrll (talk) 06:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The issue here Drrll that simple. First, whether Hannity said it or not is moot if he was told by the FA that all the proceeds would go to the families. Second, the complaint isn't so much that the proceeds aren't being given to them, but that they are being given out slowly and in small amounts. Third, almost every non-profit has some sort of expenses that have to be covered, that's just common sense. Fourth is the trickiest part.....essentially only partisan sources covered the complaint and did so mainly based on the press releases by the complaining orgs. The rest of the media pretty much ignored it. Are we really going to believe that CREW and VV.org are going to equally publicize the conclusion of the complaint if it doesn't show what they wanted it to show? And will the rest of the media that ignored the complaint give any coverage to the less sensational conclusion? It's a classic "if a tree falls in the woods" scenario. Lastly, couple back to the first point, this is the personal bio of Sean Hannity. If his only "sin" was to repeat what the FA told him the money would be used for, is that terribly significant? Initially, when this all came up, I was ok with including it, but I was under the presumption that there would also be an end to the story. Now we have a contentious allegation being made, no balancing viewpoint and no sign of an end to the story. So if nobody ever concluded the story for us, it just hangs there forever, looking like he might have done something wrong, but being based on nothing more than a complaint made by groups that dislike him. Does that sound right? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
You've made a compelling case for removing this material. It really is not news that liberal groups would lodge complaints to a government agency against one of their ideological opponents, despite being reported by the respected Politico. It would be news if the FTC actually ruled against Hannity or if it was revealed in a reliable source that Hannity knew that all of the proceeds of Freedom Concerts didn't go toward scholarships. I now recommend that we remove the material and add it back only if something further develops. What do others think? Drrll (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The 2005 tax return, public record, was posted in my edits to these accusations as a reference. The evidence showed that only 3.68% of the moneys generated were given to soldiers/families IIRC. That fact aside, you have both acredited Politico as a source that meets WP:V. The allegations themselves are notable and newsworthy. WP:Well Known guides very clearly that there was an allegation and Politico reported on it.

"Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but The New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing The New York Times as the source." Bluebadger1 01:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluebadger1 (talk • contribs)

  • You are using one guideline and making it trump everything. Don't forget that just because something is verifiable (nobody disputes there was a complaint), that doesn't absolve us from all responsibility for WP:NPOV. Further, you forgot to quote the rest of the policy: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented..." that is what is being discussed here. If it is notable (I am questioning that), relevant (I am also questioning that. Nice try, but no cookie for you. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
We seem to have only one source for this (the Washington Post reference is a column, not reporting), and that Politico piece keeps using phrases like "according to Sloan," instead of doing original reporting. It is therefore not "well-documented" and not "well-known." The use of a tax return (that of Freedom Alliance, not a group of Hannity's) is original research, since a reliable secondary source doesn't report on it. Drrll (talk) 09:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Tax returns are also posted on the Freedom Alliance Website. A citation already approved by past editors here. Charity Navigator downgrading Freedom Alliance from 4 to 2 stars, and the allegations (meeting WP:V and WP Well Known) covered by Poitico are confirmed by those records. More money on postage than given to soldiers. But hey, if you don't think that is worth including when Hannity said on his show that every cent went to charity... Well... Seems like a very pro-Hannity article with no controversy about him included at all. Not very NPOV, and certainly Undue weight when including about his charity work, not not controversy around it as he is/was the frontman. Bluebadger1 06:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "the allegations (meeting WP:V and WP Well Known) covered by Poitico are confirmed by those records." Once again, you ignore the part of the policy you are quoting about being relevant and notable. That is what is being discussed. "Seems like a very pro-Hannity article with no controversy about him included at all." Thinking like that is a problem my friend. Adding controversy just for the sake of having more controversy is a wrong-headed approach. If it is significant, that's one thing, but just adding anything you can find is something else. NPOV desn't mean an equal number of "good" vs. "bad" items. Bottom line: you've shown nothing that shows Hannity knew anything about how or what percentage of funds were being distributed to whom, that he did anything wrong or said anything he knew to be false. This looks a lot like guilt by association.20:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
As Niteshift36 said, even if Freedom Alliance is at fault in its distribution of funds, it doesn't mean that Hannity is at fault for anything. If it is revealed that Hannity knew that all of the concert proceeds wouldn't go toward scholarships, then that is a different matter, but I don't know that even CREW or VV is alleging that. The information about FA's charity rating belongs in an article about Freedom Alliance. As far as "no controversy about him included at all," I saw 3 issues of controversy in the article--his firing at his first radio job, his being called a political polarizer, and his disagreement with the Catholic Church on contraception. Drrll (talk) 12:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

So you are both agreeing the allegations are properly documented, just that it is not notable enough??? Bluebadger1 21:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluebadger1 (talk • contribs)

What is properly documented by the Politico story is that CREW and VV say that Hannity was untruthful, and the fact that these two liberal groups accuse him of that is not notable enough. It may be notable enough for a different article that Freedom Alliance was failed by a charity-rating organization, but that has little to do with Hannity. Drrll (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The question is moot to me at this point. If I can document that Hannity said he owned a baseball glove, does that make it relevant to include? Until the issue of relevance and notability is settled, discussing/agreeing on sources is pointless.Niteshift36 (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
So Niteshift and co, for the sake of consensus of course, you also agree Politico, and the referenced article is an acceptable source for info for a wikipedia article. Thank You.
-The statement "It's relevant to the fact that these groups requested an investigation of a group associated with conservatives, while at the same time they haven't requested investigations of groups associated with liberals." that is IMHO an personal anecdote or opinion, and NOT referenced by the article or anything provided. By injecting "liberal", a single word, because you feel the above is true, we as editors would be adding personal or political bias though interpreting the source, rather than relying on it. I think that violates neutrality, and invalidates the reason for use of 3rd party sources, and discredits wikipedia's work. That is why I disagree with the inclusion, not on a lib/con basis. Of course, with respect, that is not a personal comment or attack on any of the editors. Just the reason for my objection. We should stick to the FACTS in the article. Whether we like or are biased towards those facts or not is the issue.
-I feel the same way about the comment "the whole thing was essentially ignored by the rest of the MSM, I'm starting to question if the whole thing even belongs in the article at all". Doesn't WP:V and WP:Well Known guides us to include that information? And WP:Undue also guides us to add more info about the allegations, as previous edits/editors have given undue weight to the rebuttal by Freedom Concerts by not including the details and facts re: the allegations. So to balance that, and augment the article, we should include the the facts or numbers behind the allegations, or the specific comments by the spokepeople for CREW and VoteVet.
-"*Given that a) Hannity isn't personally responsible for how money is or is not distributed; b) It's not alleged that he personally did anything wrong"...
Well, according to the article news article you just accredited and "approved", which is 3rd party, independant, and fact checks statements they print: "“Hannity has promoted the concerts on his show, making statements such as, ‘Every penny, 100 percent of the donations are applied to the Freedom Alliance Scholarship Fund" then we should definitely include it. Or at least the allegation, in quotes, as justification for the freedom concert rebuttal you have allowed to stand.
  • What news article did I "just accredit and 'approve'"? Further, as I stated above, repeating a claim that the FA presented to you isn't wrong-doing and, if that is the extent of allegations againt him, he won't be held culpable for anything. Say the United Way tells you that all the money you collect this weekend will go to help the homeless. People ask you what you're colecting for and you tell them the money goes to help the homeless. So you go out and collect money. Six months down the road, someone who dislikes you, writes a complaint to the IRS about the accounting practices of the United Way since some of the money from that weekend was used to pay the rent on the UW offices. Should you be named as a co-conspirator/liar because you told people what the United Way told you? Should we include that in your bio and never tell anyone the outcome of that complaint? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

"-Since we are all in agreement, the fact that it was covered by Politico makes it worthy of inclusion, specifically by your acceptance and definition of Politico of as "a prominent mainstream news source", I think should support my suggested changes. Thank you. Bluebadger1 05:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with including additional things from the Politico story (apparently the only major news story that covered it), but you'll need to get others to support the addition. Drrll (talk) 06:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7309
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sean_Hannity/Archive_6&oldid=1136234306"