Talk:Sean Hannity/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

New York mag article

This is a huge bombshell:

• Nuzzi, Olivia. "The Strange Cocoon of Trump and Hannity, Two Friends Who Like to Talk Before Bed". Daily Intelligencer. Retrieved 2018-05-14.

There is so much in that source that's new and worth including. I'd just caution against using the material sourced to anonymous former White House officials. Some of it reads like it comes from Anthony Scaramucci. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I was just about to add that material. The source is not anonymous to the reporter, so the reputation of the source is what matters.- MrX 🖋 17:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes for the material that's written in the source's own voice. But there are some very inflammatory quotes attributed directly to individual anonymous sources. We should use caution for those, especially when they come from the WH. This WH isn't exactly known for hiring reputable staffers. There's a verifiable culture of backstabbing and lying. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I've added two innocuous sentences, both attributed.- MrX 🖋 18:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Trump and Hannity being close friends is a huge bombshell? He's only been saying it on his show for the past 3 years. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a lot more than that. Read the source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the material in the article right now, I just don't think it's particularly interesting or noteworthy that Trump talks to Hannity on a regular basis or that he's on the switchboard "cleared" list, any more than the fact that Rachel Maddow and Trump aren't best mates. I trust NY Mag only slightly less than The Daily Mirror and The Sun, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's all true in this case(minus the enraged editorial commentary, of course). Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a very notable thing. If Trump regularly accepted and trusted advice from a mob boss, a pedophile, and a serial rapist, etc, we'd document it all as examples of his poor judgment. That he's close friends with a conspiracy theorist, and believes his dangerous nonsense and advice, is alarming. He should be distancing himself from Hannity and condemning him, but he isn't. A number of RS cover this, and the content seems pretty good. Can we close this thread? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

If your goal here is to make unsourced attacks on living persons, editorialize on the judgment of politicians, and use this thread as a forum to voice your personal political views, closing this thread is probably good idea. The discussion was essentially over before this disruption was initiated. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

…Rachel Maddow and Trump aren't best mates. I think it should be clear that whom the President of the U.S. seeks out for advice is more important than the billions of people he doesn’t listen to. O3000 (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

It's truly amazing that these discussions actually have to take place. Had President Obama been consulting with Keith Olbermann or Michel Chossudovsky several nights a week, it would be at the top of those articles and not a soul would dispute it. Here, the same editors who cry about an anti-conservative bias on a daily basis actually debate whether this belongs in the article at all. That should put their worldview and their claims of bias into some perspective. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, it isn't. Left-leaning media seem to be just as concerned with who he doesn't listen to as who he does. Again, I have no issues with the material. I just didn't find any "huge bombshells" in the tabloid article. I found the whole thing to be very meh. And to Snoogans, those kinds of general musings and complaints would be better suited for a blog or a forum, not an encyclopedia. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

O3000, these discussions don't have to take place. I started this thread to alert folks to a very useful source, not to start a political debate. Mr. Plainview shouldn't distract anyone from productive editing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

LOL surely you're not blaming the side comments and political navel-gazing from O3000 and Snoogans on me, unless you consider my explicit statement "I don't have a problem with the material in the article right now" to be a distraction from "productive editing". The disruptions and accusations are unwelcome, and AGF should be remembered by all. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Please stop battlegrounding. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any battleground - all I see is an editor disagreeing. Calling that battleground is battleground. Play nice, DrFleischman. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeeeeah. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any battlegrounding, either, just disagreement. In fact, Daniel stating, "The disruptions and accusations are unwelcome, and AGF should be remembered by all" is the very antithesis of WP:BATTLE. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

To each their own, I guess. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Winklevi. I think we could all do a better job of focusing on the material at hand rather than veering off into other territories, myself included. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Note Mr. Daniel Plainview has been blocked as a sock puppet of a community banned editor. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

"False claims about CNN's Jake Tapper" section

Does this section really belong on Sean Hannity's article? One sentence saying that Hannity called Tapper "fake" after a deleted tweet from the Fox News Twitter account? Seems much more relevant to Fox News than Sean Hannity. I'd like to remove this section if there aren't any objections. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Further to the above, I was reverted by Snooganssnoogans after I removed his unsourced text calling the Fox News a "discredited smear," and changed the language from the POV phrasing "Even after..." to the neutral and encyclopedic wording "After..." Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Sean Hannity falsely smeared a real journalist. He did so even after the smear had been corrected and after others at Fox News had apologized for it. RS covered it, so it's WP:DUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Does the source say it was discredited?Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

"Fox News on Wednesday deleted an out-of-context tweet targeting Jake Tapper, but that didn’t stop Sean Hannity and others from repeating the discredited smear."[1] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Problem solved.Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The wording has been improved, but I still am not convinced that Sean Hannity criticizing Jake Tapper is worthy of its own section in Hannity's biography. Hannity is known for criticizing CNN and Jake Tapper, and I wouldn't be surprised if this is a nightly occurrence. All the background about a Fox News controversy isn't germane to Hannity in particular. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

RS disagree that it's notable. Also, I don't know about you, but falsely implying someone is a jihadist terrorist sympathizer is not "criticism". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't dispute that the controversy is notable for the Fox News Controversies article, but it's out of place here. The reader needs to wade through four lines of background that has nothing to do with Sean Hannity. After finishing with that paragraph, the reader is finally informed that Sean Hannity called Jake Tapper "fake" and "liberal," which is not at all surprising or unusual for Sean Hannity. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Smearing someone in a manner that appeals to religious bigotry is an egregious act (which incidentally also indicates how ‘’The Daily Caller’’ is not RS). Problem is, Hannity appears to have a habit of continuing false claims and conspiracy theories after Fox has withdrawn them. This appears to be an example, along with the Seth Rich and Pizzagate conspiracy theories. As long as it’s sourced adequately, I think it’s DUE. O3000 (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake, I didn't see that source. Even if we decide to keep this section at all, I don't think we should be using WikiVoice to call criticism of Tapper a "discredited smear." Not very encyclopedic if you ask me. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• I tentatively agree with Snoogs and O3000 that the story deserves a mention here. However I think it's defitinitely weighted far too heavily toward stuff that's not about Hannity and needs to be re-written to focus on what's relevant to Hannity himself. The entirety of the first paragraph relies on a source that doesn't mention Hannity even once, and should be deleted outright. The "section" (which can be written in 1-2 sentences) should start by saying that Hannity perpetuated a discredited smear by repeating false claims made by Fox News. I'm on the fence about whether it's even noteworthy that Hannity called Tapper "liberal fake news CNN’s fake Jake Tapper." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree. I'm a fan of brevity. O3000 (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Ridiculous that an entire section is devoted to this. If we added a section every time Hannity railed against someone this article would be 1,000,000 chars. Totally WP:UNDUE.– Lionel^(talk) 06:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. It should be cut down to 1-2 sentences and probably put into a new section, either one on false statements and conspiracy theories or one on Hannity's views on the media. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I second DrFleischman's suggestion. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• Note Mr. Daniel Plainview has been blocked as a sock puppet of a community banned editor. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

RS clearly say Hannity owned real estate through LLCs

RS also clearly say that LLCs obscure ownership. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

And?Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

One editor disputes that Hannity owned real estate through LLCs.[2] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

That's not a fair characterization of my position in the slightest. I'm not disputing the accuracy of the material. It's clear to me however that highlighting that LLCs can be used to hide ownership is non-neutral and not reflected by the cited source. LLCs are the most common type of entity used for closely held businesses; most of the time they provide little to no anonymity; and most people use them for purposes that have nothing to do with anonymity. The language you want added suggests that Hannity may have been trying to hide his ownership of these properties. It shouldn't be added without a source that says that explicitly. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll also add that if Hannity really wanted to stay anonymous then he wouldn't have signed public documents like deeds, he would have had his lawyer do it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

According to NYT and the Guardian, LLCs obscure ownership, and they say so explicitly in the context of Hannity's real estate holdings. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with DrFleischman on this. People form LLCs for all sorts of reasons, and there is nothing implicitly nefarious, illegal, or improper about an LLC. Material that attempts to put the fact that Hannity has an LLC in a negative light is POV and possibly conflicts with BLP policy. The current wording is weighted properly and neutral in tone. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Just because LLCs can obscure ownership doesn't mean we should include that fact--see WP:NOTEVERYTHING: Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true. The Guardian source does not say LLCs obscure ownership, which implies that Hannity had something to hide. Instead it said: LLCs are popular among well-known figures such as Hannity who wish to keep their business arrangements private. That paints Hannity in a much more positive light, and it may have been added simply to explain how the Guardian discovered the information. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Unless the preponderance of RS are talking about LLC as a suspect practice, it would seem UNDUE to mention. Also seems just a speculation or innuendo from partisan posturing. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing remotely suspect about LLCs. This is just sensationalism. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I smell an attempt at more WP:SYNTH at this article. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Constructive comments on article content only, please. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:52, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Please tone it down. No one is "attempting" to violate any policies. And plus, attempts don't smell. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC) Calling out what looks like a lead-up to WP:SYNTH is not something that needs to be toned down. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:48, 5 May 2018 (UTC) Stop smelling and start editing. SPECIFICO talk 15:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC) WP:FOC = You first. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC) You're the one who introduced off-topic stink into this thread. It's right here for the world to see. SPECIFICO talk 15:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC) I introduced looking at the possibility that WP:SYNTH is being sought as an editing "plan" by those with an obvious agenda, there's nothing wrong with that. And I'm not the first or only one who's commented on this talk page in the last couple of weeks who's recognized that agenda. It is, after all, "right here for the world to see".[3] -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC) In the last ten days, you have 1) canvassed someone to find something sanctionable about me during a content dispute involving yourself, 2) filed a frivolous sanction report against me, and 3) having failed to find something wrong with my edits on this page, you are instead accusing me of having a secret plan to violate Wikipedia policy with the edits. At the same time, you brandish WP:FOC on a daily basis. Weird. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC) "canvassed someone to find something sanctionable about me No I didn't. "filed a frivolous sanction report against me" No I didn't. "you are instead accusing me of having a secret plan to violate Wikipedia policy with the edits I didn't mention you at all. "on a daily basis No I don't. WP:FOC is policy. You might want to read it, absorb it, and implement it. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Note Mr. Daniel Plainview has been blocked as a sock puppet of a community banned editor. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Using non-attributed Politico article for a statement of fact

* [4] If we are to use one quote from a leftist news org [5], what is your rationale that a Politico writer should be permitted to state facts using Wikipedia's voice? Content like this should be properly attributed. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC) ::Can you please split this out into separate sections or subsections? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

No worries, and done. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Politico isn't a leftist news organization. The suggestion is laughable. Politico is unquestionably a RS. "Mediabiasfactcheck" is a nonsense site. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

::: AllSides also confirms that Politico favors the American left. Not to say that Politico's reporting isn't generally reliable (they are, with the exception of former staffer Glenn Thrush), but its partisan leanings helps contextualize the material in question. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Neither Mediabiasfactcheck nor AllSides are reliable sources. AllSides is just straight-up nonsense[6]. Its Politico "bias" rating is sourced to Wikipedia and random-ass website users for Christ's sake. Do you just cite random rubbish that you find in a Google search? What's next in line - a Twitter survey? A Breitbart user poll? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

::::: I'm sorry, you know we just had a discussion about staying on topic so this is the wrong path. Let's get back to the material at hand. More than happy to continue a debate on Politico's partisan leanings another time, possibly at Politico. Also, please remember to AGF and stay civil, even on pages that aren't under DS. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

You're arguing that Politico is not a RS and can't be used to state things in Wiki voice. What are we supposed to discuss here if not that? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

::::::: Please either post the link showing that I argued that Politico is not a RS or kindly reword that comment. What we are discussing here is why a single article is being used to make a dubious statement in Wikipedia's voice without attribution. WP:BIASEDSOURCES touches on this, and I believe there is another article that is even clearer, although it's escaping me at the moment. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm unable to take this complaint seriously. Right now the best I can do is to point you to WP:BIASED, WP:YESPOV ("Avoid stating facts as opinions"), and the countless discussions in which Politico sources have been deemed to be perfectly reliable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

::: I really don't know how my statement ("Not to say that Politico's reporting isn't generally reliable (they are, with the exception of former staffer Glenn Thrush)...")[7] could be missed not just once, but twice. This section has nothing to do with the reliability of Politico. Since I cited WP:BIASEDSOURCES in my very last comment[8], I think it's safe to say I don't need to be pointed to WP:BIASED since they link to the exact same section. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

You want to take reliably sourced factual content from Politico and cast it as an "argument" because Politico is "leftist." Sorry, I'm done. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

:::::Sorry to hear that you're "done," but I'll respond anyway. I never said any such thing, nor implied it. The material should be properly attributed if there is only one writer making the claim. Unless the statement is a demonstrable fact, I see no reason to give Mr. Lima over at Politico the final authority to determine what is factual and what is not in an encyclopedia. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

You're shifting the goalposts. This is your original edit where you cast reliably sourced facts reported in Politico as an "argument." And this is where you justified that edit based on your view that Politico is "leftist." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

:::::::No, you're either misunderstanding what I said or perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I do not take whatever I read on the Internet, especially Politico, as fact. I see no citations that back Lima's assertion that Hannity (or Trump) has been spouting "anti-media rhetoric". As far as I know, both Hannity and Trump have been highly critical of anti-Trump media (nearly all major news orgs), but Lima does nothing to support his view that the rhetoric has been "anti-media". That's Lima's view, and many people do not share it. It's a debatable opinion. The second link, again, is in reference to the problem with citing one source for a dubious statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice. Politico's leftist ideologies further cement the fact that the allegation should be properly attributed. I said nothing that even remotely resembled "Politico is a source that shouldn't be used because it's a leftist source". Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Cement in your mind. Not in the rest of ours. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

:::::::::Who else are you speaking for besides yourself? You can disagree withe the fact that Politico's ideological leanings are relevant, but I should know which other minds you are speaking on behalf of, here. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't speak on behalf of anyone, but Snoogs evidently opposes the change. More to the point, however, you can say your mind is made up, but that doesn't mean the consensus agrees with you. You can shout from the rooftops that Politico is "leftist" but it will only backfire. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

:::::::::::Got it. That remains to be seen - let's not say what the consensus is or isn't prematurely. The discussion hasn't even been open for half a day. Once again, Politico's "leftist" (what's with the scare quotes, by the way?) leanings doesn't need to be shouted from anywhere. It's confirmed in reliable sources, and besides, that's not the crux of the issue. I'm sure they make plenty of money from their content and don't have to worry about their ideology backfiring on them. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

So what is the crux of the issue? I guess I'm not following. As best as I can tell when you take out the argument that Politico is leftist, you're left with the argument that the source doesn't back up its conclusion of examples or evidence, ergo it must be wrong. That will never fly either. If that were our standards we'd have take down half the encyclopedia. (Or include in-text attribution for half of its verifiable facts.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• Barring reliable sources that dispute it, Politico is a reliable source for an unattributed statement of fact about Hannity's views on immigration. The quoted part is Hannity's own words (or it will be, once I correct it.)- MrX 🖋 11:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

:I stated what the crux of the issue is in the first line of this section. The sources say that Politico is a left-wing news org, so we refer to it as such. Mr. Lima could be correct, but I have seen no evidence to back his claims. If you can find more sources that support what Mr. Lima is claiming, we should add those. If not, the content should be sourced appropriately. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

"The sources say that Politico is a left-wing news org". You've brought up two sources for this claim, both of which are garbage. It reflects poorly on you that you still maintain that Mediabiasfactcheck and AllSides are RS after checking their methodology and the people behind those sites. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

::: Neither source is garbage, and I do not know enough about the editors to criticize them in any way. In any case, this is a side distraction. Again, we can discuss this issue on Politico perhaps at a later date. I will also say that I am rapidly tiring of your continued snarky remarks about editors rather than the material at hand, in spite of my repeated requests. That needs to stop, and it needs to stop immediately. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a waste of time. Daniel, if you want to convince me that you're not being disruptive then we can take it up at user talk. Until then, I'm done. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

:::::You explicitly asked me to create separate sections for the issues raised by Markbassett and myself, and now you're accusing me of disruption. Paging Rod Serling. This is the second time you've stated you're done, so excuse me if I take that with a grain of salt! Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Daniel Plainview blocked as sock of Hidden Tempo. O3000 (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

And I've struck through his edits. Banned users aren't allowed to edit. Love his request to AGF. Doug Weller talk 16:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Hannity's attacks on the Mueller investigation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This strikes me as kind of a separate issue, not specifically related to Cohen. I was surprised not to find a section in the article about his attacks on Mueller and on the investigation generally. He has made this a primary theme for months and IMO this is important enough for a section; in fact I'm surprised it isn't in the lede (where we do talk about how he is and has been such a strong booster of Trump). Anybody got any thoughts on this? --MelanieN (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I have been fighting the good fight for some time now.[9] This text of mine was removed last month[10]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

We need more than occasional comments. We need sources documenting the pattern. I'll work on it. Tomorrow. --MelanieN (talk) 04:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Hannity's career has spanned 30 years. However 20% of the article is devoted to approximately 2 of those years: the 2016 election. This is a textbook example of WP:UNDUE. We should be working on trimming the 2016 election content---not increasing it to 30% or 40% of the total article length. – Lionel^(talk) 11:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, this is a textbook example of adhering to WP:DUEWEIGHT. The volume of coverage in reliable source for the past few years (post-Alan Colmes) increased as a direct result of Hannity's inflammatory comments, pro-Trump propagandizing, spreading of falsehoods, promoting of conspiracy theories, and now his relationship with Trump's consigliere.- MrX 🖋 12:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

It is apparent to any objective editor that this article has a serious balance problem. Example: Birther section has 1048 chars. In comparison, the Books section has only 725 chars. Now, Hannity has three books which made the NY Times bestseller list. Little more than the titles are in the text. It's ridiculous.– Lionel^(talk) 07:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Vote

• Agree 100% with Lionelt's assessment. This article, The Ingraham Angle article, et al - all contain undue weight focused on events of the last year to 18 months and all not only contains as much negative content and tone about the article subjects as possible, there are editors who frequent these articles to make sure such content, tone, and undue weight remains. And continues to grow. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it is not unusual for 20% of a biography to be devoted to the last few years. It's the nature of coverage, for one thing; it's harder to find older coverage. But if you feel there is insufficient attention paid to the other 28 years of Hannity's career, the solution isn't to trim the current content; it's to add more content about his earlier career. Provided it has received DUE coverage of course. --MelanieN (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN: We don't do "coverage". That's for news organizations. This is an encyclopedia. WP:BALANCE is needed and WP:UNDUE is to be avoided. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Right. And BALANCE and UNDUE are determined by how much coverage the material has received - from news organizations, books, academic writing, and the other kinds of sources we draw from. --MelanieN (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• Include. Lionel and Winkelvi's concerns are legitimate, but not including anything at all about Hannity's campaign against the Mueller investigation would be ridiculous. We should include a short section that gives appropriate weight reflecting coverage by reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• Include. That seems pretty DUE for me. Also, to rebuff the general claim about focus on recent events: Hannity clearly has taken much greater international importance since the election of DJT. Our coverage should also be proportionate. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude: we do not fill our articles with breaking news. This already fails WP:10 year test. And if there are no more news cycles on this item then we will look silly.– Lionel^(talk) 07:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
• Include. I don't know what's going on here and why there's a vote, but Hannity's attacks on the Mueller investigation are obviously appropriate for inclusion. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
• Include per my previous comments and extent of coverage which strongly suggests this can't be swept under the rug. 10YT is part of an essay that should be applied to sports stats and Korean boy bands before anything else. It has little bearing on a policy-based discussion. - MrX 🖋 11:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• Include I have strengthened our text section about his attacks on the FBI, Mueller, and Comey. I think it is now substantial enough to warrant a mention in the lede, possibly as an extension of the existing sentence. I'll propose wording below. --MelanieN (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• IncludeWhilst recentism has some validity usually this is a major issue, it simply cannot be ignored.Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed wording

The current last sentence of the lede says "Since Trump's election Hannity has often acted as a conduit for Trump's messaging,[4] including the claim that there is a "deep state" within the federal government working to hinder the Trump administration." That's the only reference in the lede, and per WP style it should not be there, so let's leave it out. It doesn't even support the point very well. (Actually here is a good quote that sums that point up: Hannity "has echoed Trump’s anti-media rhetoric and his attacks on the Russia inquiry".) Also I think we should replace the "deep state" reference with something more general. Maybe something like this: "Since Trump's election Hannity has often acted as a conduit for Trump's messaging, criticizing the media and attacking the special counsel inquiry."

Sources

This makes the point about his attacks on Mueller, Comey, et al., but leaves the detail to the text. Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Since we clearly have consensus to say something about attacks on Mueller, I will add this pending further discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Umm, no. There's a consensus for Hannity's attacks re: the investigation, not Mueller. One is not the other. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I misspoke. Not "attacks on Mueller" (although he has done that too). Consensus is to say something about his attacks on the Mueller investigation, and that is what this proposal says: "attacking the special counsel inquiry".--MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC re: Article tone and WP:POV

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Does this article have an overly pov tone (rather than neutral pov and does it need to be revised? For example: "Promotes/promoted/promoting" is used 22 times. Variations of "false" regarding the article subject's statements are used 15 times. "Conspiracy" in relation to the article subject's television show content is used 32 times. Many of the instances where these words are used have no source to support the usage. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Survey

Yes

• Yes and yes. This BLP article is full of biased sentence structure, word usage, and tone as well as use of weasel phrasing and wording. As the above states, "promotes/promoted/promoting" is used 22 times. Variations of "false" in relation to statements Hannity has made on his show are used 15 times. "Conspiracy" in relation to the content Hannity discusses on his show is used 32 times. This doesn't read like an encyclopedia article or neutral biography, it reads like a POV hit piece on a living individual. Just to make things clear: I don't care about Hannity one way or the other. I do care what readers see when they read this article and whether or not what they are reading is filled with facts or if it's simply parroting the opinions of those who write for what Wikipedia refers to as reliable sources. There are ways to write articles like this on high-profile article subjects that don't "promote" (to use that word so popular with those editing this article) a particular bias against the article subject. It's been done carefully and purposefully at numerous BLPs on left-leaning article subjects (most recently at the David Hogg article and the Emma Gonzalez article), and it should be done at articles on right-leaning article subjects, as well. We need more eyes on this and some suggestions/action to get the tone appropriate for a BLP/encyclopedia article and in a state of WP:NPOV. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, please see my comments in the discussion section below re: WP:UNDUE. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Yes Support POV tag until the article is revised. In it's current form it sounds like it was written by one of his timeslot competitors, frankly. For comparison, look at Rachel Maddow or Don Lemon, who both occupy similar niches on the liberal end of the spectrum. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)sock Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
• Yes: is the sky blue? In the grass green? Is global warming a hoax? (haha got you on the last one) Of course this article is heavily biased. Have you seen the Controversies section? Looks like it was written by far left CNN. – Lionel^(talk) 06:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - lots of WP:LABEL, and space spent on criticisms dominates the article. Those are not BLP topics of major events and actions by him, and seem far above due WP:WEIGHT towards being an WP:ATTACK page. A quick gooogle at BBC.com shots 2000+ hits for him and only 78 also use the phrase “conspiracy theory”. Suggest put a neutrality dispute tag on and start working on things. I’ll suggest start by thinning the 16 subsections to say the 5 biggest in his life. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - serious BALANCE and DUE issues, some COI issues (liberal media vs conservative media)...needs work. Mueller & OIG investigations will either drastically change or support the news perspectives, some of which is subject to RECENTISM, and/or has -0- encyclopedic value. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

No

No And this is a pointless RfC because it resolves not even one editing issue. RfC's need to be specific. Burn and bury. SPECIFICO talk 17:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:TONE and WP:NPOV are both specific and policy. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC's need to be about specific edits and sources. WP policy is stipulated. We don't do RfC's here to affirm site policy. BTW... why do you have 2 yesses to one question? SPECIFICO talk 18:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:RfC, "Requests for comment (RfC) is a process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines or article content. RfCs are a way to attract more attention to a discussion about making changes to pages or procedures, including articles, essays, guidelines, policies, and many other kinds of pages." This RfC falls under both content and and policies/guidelines. There's nothing in the policy re: RfCs that states the procedure needs to be focused on "specific edits and sources". -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

If you don't even understand the instructions, how are you going to put together the product? If you want to discuss changing policies, go to a policy talk page. SPECIFICO talk 19:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• This isn't even a real RfC.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Consider the venue. How appropriate. SPECIFICO talk 22:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Close this because it's not an actual RFC nor does it try to resolve anything ...... I would suggest the OP goes and rereaders WP:RFC, Only thing I support is the closing and archiving of this "discussion". –Davey2010^Talk 14:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• No, and I agree, close this - This is not an actionable RfC. I'm not even sure what a "an overly pov tone" would be. I guess it means editorializing and WP:WEASEL. If that's the intent, I don't see it being an issue at all.- MrX 🖋 15:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• • No to closing as, at this point, it would be quite inappropriate given the concerns listed by the 'Yes' !votes above and those who have not !voted but have raised their concerns regarding tone, pov, and undue in the comments below (specifically, Iselilja, DrFleischman, and Sławomir Biały...). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

"concerns listed by the 'Yes' !votes above"<-- Like the guy who referred to "far left CNN" (sic)? Those concerns? Nah, I think we can ignore them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• No and close - Unclear as what action is to be taken. O3000 (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• No and close. We have to go by the sources; keyword searches are useless for evaluating WP:TONE. If the sources frequently describe someone as promoting conspiracy theories and making false statements, then that has to be a major component of their article (and demanding otherwise goes against WP:FALSEBALANCE.) If anything is poorly-sourced (or doesn't reflect the source) that has to be investigated on an individual basis, but broad sweeping statements about the article aren't useful as an RFC, and on a quick scan I couldn't find any glaring examples of controversial statements that lacked sources. The fact that no examples of this have been provided means there's no indication of what changes, exactly, are being proposed here, and no coherent or useful discussion to be had in this RFC. --Aquillion (talk) 04:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• No & close: not an actionable RfC. Too vague to be useful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• No & close (Summoned by bot) Agree with K.e. coffman that this RfC is simply too vague to be of any value and that there is no glaring issue with the POV of this article. I suggest that it be phrased more narrowly. Coretheapple (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
• Close, but probably no RfC is too vague to be useful. Also, per Aquillion, if the subject of a BLP is controversial, it is to be expected that our coverage will reflect that. On a quick-skim read, it did not seem overly PoV, which doesn't of course mean that individual parts can't be improved. Pincrete (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

This is essentially my position as well. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• No. This is not a proper RfC. A proper RfC asks a real question or presents specific and concrete options (i.e., 'should X be changed to Y?" or "should Z be included or excluded?"). This does neither. Neutrality^talk 22:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments/discussion

So can you given any specific instances of this being used inappropriately, if (for example) he has promoted a given conspiracy theory why would we not use the phrase "promoted the conspiracy theory"? What would be a better way of putting that?Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• I came here via a notice on a project page, not previously been involved with the article as I can recall. Skimming briefly through part of it, I do think there are some problems with tone. I will mention two examples:

1) "Hannity came under criticism in October 2017 when he attacked Democrats after it was revealed that a large number of women had accused Harvey Weinstein, a prominent Hollywood producer and donor to Democratic causes, of sexual harassment.[100] Critics noted that Hannity had weeks earlier defended and hosted his coworker Bill O'Reilly" Here it would seem fair to start by saying neutrally that Hannity critized Democrats for hypocracy regarding sexual harassment, then go on to critism, and the loaded "critics noted" phrase should be replaced with "critics said", "critics argued" or similar.

2) From the lead: "He was an early supporter of Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election, giving him more air time than other primary candidates, asking friendly interview questions, and defending Trump whenever he was criticized". First, I think practically all TV stations/programs gave Trump more airtime than other Republican candidates, so it may be somewhat doubtful to write this like it was something special about Hannity. Second "defended Trump whenever he was critized" seems a bit over the top. In the article itself it cites a CNN article which says Hannity either "ignored or defended" Trump's more controversial stances and statements. Not so much of a difference, but it seems more realistic that he alternated between "ignoring or defending" the more controversial/problematic expression and in an encyclopedia we shouldn't use over the top language.

Iselilja (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm reserving judgment on the RfC for the time being, but I agree with Iselilja's specific concerns here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Slatersteven - WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE using their phrasing. For yet another example, where the birtherism cite does not use “promote”, and uses ‘Hannity and others kept asking’, not “Hannity kept asking”, the WP phrasing is exaggerating a NYT cite that already seems chosen as a more extreme coverage. Cover it, but do it as WP:BLP says “must be written conservatively”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Excellent points. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

No issue with saying what the sources say, But we are also allowed to paraphrase, are you really saying that Hanity has not supported or actively encouraged birthism?. [[11]], [[12]], [[13]].Slatersteven (talk) 08:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Slatersteven - a blog / opinion piece, HuffPo, and Esquire are not WP:BESTSOURCES. I'll point out that WP:BALANCE says "neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence" so it would be better to look at the more mainstream sites like BBC, ABC, NBC, and so forth. And in general -- it's just not credible that simple WP:PARAPHRASE close paraphrasing is happening to wind up with 67 repetitions of 32 "conspiracy". 22 "promote" and 15 "false". BBC mostly just does not cover all these trivial bits, and even with the few that had actual impact in his life like Seth Rich they say he gave "coverage to a debunked election murder conspiracy" (Seth Rich), or "contributed to spreading", but not "promote". Seriously, going on and on into trivia and cherrypicking or exaggerating available cites is evidence towards the concerns here of WP:POV and WP:TONE. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

So "contributed to spreading" does not mean promoted? Wouod you rather we said "contributed to spreading"?Slatersteven (talk) 08:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven - Oh, it's more than that. More generally in this thread topics POV and TONE it's fairly simple:

• (a) most of the extensive criticism subsections simply go away as UNDUE mention for BLP and trivial content

e.g. Immigration does not deserve a whole section for one single line, and googling gets pitiful small number of hits

• (b) usages without cites and not in the cites there -- just delete the unsupported line
• (c) elsewhere -- Stick to the Sources of whatever wording the cite has.

For the birtherism in particular, I think it got enough coverage from years before 2016 to stay but got an obvious POV issue of single-POV in cites NYT, NYT, NYT, and NYT. The "promote" line just can go away because it has no cite and is not in the next NYT cite.

Bottom line goal, BLP should be more about his life rather than two-thirds about the dozen plus tiny topics criticised in the last 2 years from a progressive POV. Should be more like how it looked in 2015, and should be looking to add things important across his whole life and not just the criticized parts -- add the names of his kids and their birth years, the years of his books, the other films he was in, and so forth. Going thru 10 screens of rant against him is just not going to be fixed by swapping 'promoted' for another phrase. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Undue weight: In addition to my !vote comments above, it's also just occurred to me that this article is way too heavy on content that's related to Hannity's radio and television shows, rather than Hannity the man. This is a BLP, not an article on The Sean Hannity Show or Hannity. All that in mind, WP:UNDUE seems to also be in play and should be rectified. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hannity the Man? Is that an HBO series? This is about the factors in his life and career that make him such a notable figure and one of the most popular TV personalities of the millennium. Of course it has to do with his media presence.

• Comment. In some places, I think the article fails in some places to lay out the factual basis for what amount to editorial judgements. The feud with Jake Tapper seems to be of minor importance at best, and the language of "distorted" there seems overblown. The fourth paragraph of the lead strikes me as stuff that should be attributed. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Now please list it at all the other related projects so the crazed partisans here you do not accuse you of canvassing. SPECIFICO talk 21:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

All of this article's related projects we're notified hours ago of this RfC. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Keep this RfC open. I don't think the RfC is particularly well presented or actionable, but it has led indirectly to some constructive feedback, as well as some actionable ones and actual improvements to the article. I'm also not aware of any requirement that RfCs be actionable. Sometimes they're just to draw eyeballs and solicit general feedback, and in my view those sorts of RfCs should be encouraged. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• -- ψλ what about notifying on entertainment related projects - tv & radio personalities, shows, etc.? ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ranking sections

ClosingEnded with little information added, as no more seems coming. Will proceed with edits according to limited information gotten as the best available thru CONSENSUS approach. Suggestion to do deletions individually noted and seems good. No ranking consensus emerged as to sections of more value than others, little particular or nuanced discussions for individual items, and no consensus or nuanced discussion as to limits (either 'it is all absolutely vital' or 'it is all junk that should go'). Markbassett (talk) 03:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The RFC above led me to look at the "Political commentary, controversies, and criticism" twenty subsections and think it should be thinned down to the ones that actually are the most significant in his BLP life or at least have the most google hits. So which ones are the 'top' 6 or 7 items here ? And how far down the list is the cut line of what stays or goes ?

For a first effort, I'll suggest candidates to dispose of from google count are:

• Hillary's health
• the Trump second section "Relationship with Trump"
• FBI
• Harrassment commentary
• LGBT
• Immigration (nothing much here)
• Sharia law
• Torture - waterboarding 2009 joking offer
• Death panel
• Jake Tapper
• Michael Cohen

I'll suggest keep only this list:

• Birtherism
• Trump campaign support
• Seth Rich
• Wikileaks
• Deep State
• Climate change
• Roy Moore

If there's a reasoning one of the 'dispose' list should rank higher than an entry on the 'keep' list, please explain the reasoning. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Why cut it down? Do we have a size problem? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

User:DrFleischman - I described a seeking input on which are the more vital ones and why, to elicit if people feel some of these are significant in his life and what makes an item more or less 'significant'. That is more the area of BLPs WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:BLPGRAPEVINE and generally WP:UNDUE or WP:BALASP. If there's no one who has a rationale other than simple google count of prominence, I've shown above what that sort of looks like when I do it -- but I'm thinking that people may want to go by another significance, such as some specific BLP impact to his life. Inputs for just one item are fine as I will read silence on others as as neutral. (But a !vote of just blind assertion without rationale, I'll take that as evidence of someone wanting to support was unable/unwilling to show any importance.) Please do offer views on which are the more vital ones and why. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The sections are all notable, well-sourced and of long-term encyclopedic value. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm not going to participate in an effort to decide what's more or less significant when none of these sections should be cut in the first place. A refactoring may be warranted, sure, but I haven't seen any reasonable justification for removal of verifiable content. Hannity is a public figure, so BLP supports inclusion of this material: If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

From what I can see, many of those sections can be removed or renamed, and the material from the sections that are worthy of inclusion should be edited for POV and DUE concerns.

• Hillary's health: Massively POV. Many of the alleged "conspiracy theories" occurred before her Trump allergies/dehydration/pneumonia collapse at the 9/11 memorial, as well as her falls down stairs in India earlier this year. Could be removed from the lede and then retitled "Speculation about Hillary Clinton health issues," and then cut down.
• Relationship with Trump: Could be trimmed for WEIGHT issues. Hannity makes no secret of his close friendship with the president. Maybe a sentence or two maximum.
• FBI: "Attacks on the FBI, DOJ, and Special Counsel" is POV and inaccurate. Could be retitled "Criticism of Strzok, Page, Ohr, and Mueller" for example. Hannity has stressed repeatedly that his criticism is not directed at the "rank and file of the FBI," rather those that he believes are part of the Deep State. Material is not supported by the sources.
• Harrassment commentary - I don't see a problem with keeping this, although should be trimmed for WEIGHT.
• LGBT - Material I think is DUE, but "LGBT rights" is an odd section title. Could be "1989 comments on homosexuality". First sentence is POV, and should be reworded to "comments that many called anti-gay."
• Immigration (nothing much here): Should be removed. Very insignificant for a non-politician.
• Sharia law: See above. Every political position need not be summarized.
• Torture - waterboarding 2009 joking offer: See above.
• Death panel - Could be worthy of inclusion, but needs massive rewrite for POV and DUE concerns. Words like "myth" are not encyclopedic.
• Jake Tapper - Already weighed in on this previously, but I agree with the removal. This is a Fox News controversy, and has very little to do with Sean Hannity.
• Michael Cohen - Worthy of one or two sentences. Far too much detail to comply with DUE and WEIGHT.
  
  

I think your keep list is fine. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. On many sections, in particular the FBI, DOJ, and Special Counsel ones, we would do better to provide evidence cited by both Hannity and by his critics to add some context into what he's actually talking about. Instead, we simply include quotations without any context meant to make him sound ridiculous. Display name 99 (talk) 02:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Oppose this effort. If you have specific problems with specific sections, I suggest handling them one at a time. O3000 (talk) 10:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans - Please provide a ranking with reasoning based on policy, your flat declarations with no reasoning tends nostly to convince me you have nothing to support it, and in any case a 'no preference' input would make no effect to the combined ranking. Again, what shows no biographical significance in effect to his personal life seems either required to be eliminated or to satisfy WP:WEIGHT coverage in proportion to prominence -- e.g. be cut 90%. Markbassett (talk) 04:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

User:DrFleischman - not participating, roger. I note WP:PUBLICFIGURE, precedent that it does not include minor or heavily suspect material. (e.g. the Jane Doe complaint). It also only seeks "allegations and incidents" and does not cover simple commentary. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Objective3000 - delete individually, understood. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Mark, please don't ping folks for those sorts of comments. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Mr. Daniel Plainview and User:Display name 99 - thanks for all the edit input, will try to get that in here. Do you have any edit or deletion feelings for the topics of higher google counts ? (i.e. Birtherism, Trump campaign support, Seth Rich, Wikileaks, Deep State, Climate change, and Roy Moore.) The relationship with Trump I might merge with the Trump support for example. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

TWIMC - It's been a couple weeks. I intend to keep this open a couple more weeks for inputs, and then try to implement suggestions. So please add your preferred sections rankings with reason why and what you think should/should not be the cut line. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

None of these sections should be removed. WP:NPOV requires that we include material such as this that has been extensively covered in reliable sources. All of it is highly relevant to Hannity's life, career, and public image.- MrX 🖋 11:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

You haven't obtained consensus to implement anything. O3000 (talk) 11:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't even know if you need to keep it open a few weeks. You could just start trimming out large sections of material and see how editors respond. I have seen this approach recently at Presidency of Donald Trump and found an article discussing such an event at CNN controversies ([14]). I have seen this course of action referred to as "being BOLD". Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

There isn't anything close to consensus that this article needs major trimming. And, why would you link to Breibart? O3000 (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Markbassett, Display name 99, myself, and likely many other editors have a different view. I linked the article as it demonstrated precedent for deleting large sections of material without prior consensus. What's wrong with Breitbart? Other than it's a conservative news organization, of course. It's full of links that direct back to Wikipedia for your own verification, if you have doubts. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk)

It's best to use sources which are centrist, center-left, or center-right. That means that conservative news sources like Breitbart, Daily Wire, and Conservative Review are out. This also generally excludes left-wing sources like Think Progress and the Huffington Post. Display name 99 (talk) 15:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Not to mention 90% of American news orgs. I wasn't even using that link to source any material, just to help show Markbassett that you don't have to get permission from anybody to delete a bunch of undue and POV fluff. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Display name 99 is correct about the types of source we should use, especially for BLPs.- MrX 🖋 15:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we are all correct and all in agreement. Back to the topic we go. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

No, consensus at RSN and elsewhere is pretty clear that there are outlets that would likely not be categorized as centrist, center-left, or center-right that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and therefore can be used. I'm thinking of outlets like Mother Jones, The Nation, and yes, HuffPo, and there may be others on the other end of the spectrum. Just as importantly, imposing an ideological litmus test on sources is a recipe for talk page warfare. We should not be getting bogged down in disputes about where outlet X or Y falls on the political spectrum. That's inconsistent with the applicable guideline and never leads anywhere productive. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Display name 99 I think Breitbart depends on the context, and use caution. Yes, for many things one can likely find among the many covering a topic that WP:BESTSOURCES greater experts happened elsewhere. But Breitbart is not banned, and topics exist where the positions seem mostly talked about by one side and/or the other and after one checks the overall prominence of the item then regardless of whether the appearance is predominantly left or right WP:WEIGHT is to be followed. Many seem simply playing to their audience so I believe one accepts WP:BIASED and just looks for quality of production and prominence of how wide their distribution/viewership is. I do not think of "RS" as meaning truth. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Breitbart is de facto banned. Its fact-checking track record is so bad, and it's so ideologically polarizing, that I'd bet good money there will never be a case where a consensus supports using it as a secondary source for factual content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

DrFleischman is correct. We do not use Breitbart as a source, except in very narrow circumstances.- MrX 🖋 11:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Which is to say WP does use Breitbart as RS sometimes, but almost always find that of hundreds of potential sources there is almost always another RS which has greater circulation or better expert or something that makes it BESTSOURCE, though for a right-wing position about Sean Hannity we might well find Breitbart as a BESTSOURCE. I'm not following how the CNN controversies ([15]) is a precedent for deleting large sections of material to apply here though, or how a Breitbart cite would help this rating thread. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 01:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I hesitate to keep this line of discussion going, but since you asked, I was illustrating that it's not out of the ordinary to just start trimming articles without getting consensus for each trim piecemeal. Such an approach, while collegial and shows a collaborative spirit, will almost assuredly be met with filibustering, muddying the waters, and poisoning the well until no consensus is reached and the article stays just the way it is (which is of course the end goal). I've seen it happen to at least 3-4 articles now. If you have something negative to add to the article, on the other hand, you will likely be met with little to no resistance. A few of the editors who have contributed to this article are mentioned by name in the Breitbart piece, in fact. That's the relevance, here. But if you are willing to undergo multiple RfC's and agonizing over each and every section, I'd be happy to contribute. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic distraction. Please focus on improving Sean Hannity. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

To be more accurate, almost all conservative and right-leaning media is banned and it doesn't really has anything to do with fact-checking practices. "Reliable sources" (liberal and left-leaning media) have spent the week trying to pin Hamas violence in Gaza on the Israelis. Andrea Mitchell (NBC) recently falsely claimed that Donald Trump called illegal immigrants "animals", rather than MS-13 gang members. Try to use Fox News, National Review, Daily Caller, Weekly Standard, Daily Wire, etc. as a source and watch the mayhem unfold. This Breitbart talk has nothing to do with this article, and is a distraction, but if we're going to talk about it, we should be honest about the status quo. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC) Actually, Trump just did call some immigrants charged with nothing and not members of any gang animals. The reason that we don’t use some of the sources you mentioned is that they spread fake news, which you just repeated. O3000 (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC) Let's look at the quote to find out if you have your facts straight or just casting aspersions against other editors: "There could be an MS-13 gang member I know about, if they don’t reach a certain threshold, I cannot tell ICE about them.” - Trump: "You wouldn’t believe how bad these people are. These aren’t people, these are animals" [16]. Right, now that we've got that straight, let's see your sources to back your claims that the above sources "spread fake news," keeping in mind that NBC (an aggressively liberal American news network) recently had to correct their false claim that Michael Cohen was "wiretapped".[17] Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC) What’s the point of leaving words out? I listened four times and came to the same conclusion that nearly all of the respected press reached. Trump was NOT specifically talking about MS-13. He was also complaining about people coming over the border from Mexico. MS-13 was created in the U.S., not Mexico. And California does not catch and release MS-13 members anyhow. I looked at lots of sources. The right-wing sources generally do not include a full clip and interpret Trump’s comments in an odd way highly favorable to Trump. If people obtain all of the info from right-wing sites, they will have a very different view of reality. O3000 (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC) And by "respected," of course, you mean "liberal". Liberal and left-leaning media falsely claimed (as you did) that Trump was referring to illegal immigrants in general, without evidence. Conservative and right-leaning media correctly pointed out that he was referring specifically to MS-13. Even the left-leaning PolitiFact took exception to Dianne Feinstein repeating the lie [18]. I agree with your last statement. People who voraciously consume exclusively left-wing "news" articles will have a very different view of reality from those who consume news from a politically diverse pool of sources. Stop assuming bad faith and casting aspersions. NeilN has warned you already about this, and yet you continue to engage in this behavior. Not good. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC) And by "respected," of course, you mean "liberal". I most certainly did not. Do not put words in my mouth and do not make ridiculous accusations. I don’t read left-wing sources. I have no interest in such. I just listened to it again. He clearly was NOT talking specifically about MS-13. Which is why a Congressman right after the tape said the president should apologize. That was followed by Sarah falsely, and egregiously, claiming that liberals are defending MS-13. Further, I said absolutely nothing about bad faith nor did I cast aspersions. Please be civil. O3000 (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Mr. Daniel Plainview- I think this is somewhat following WP:TALK towards WP:CONSENSUS "an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." It is a way to elicit other editor views and priorities on the significance of things to his BLP, so as to "takes into account all of the proper concerns raised." I'll particularly thank you for your detailed input and mechanism suggestions that I had not anticipated and are hopefully good to find. Markbassett (talk) 01:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you and I think that's generally the best way to go about it. As you can see, you're being met with hostility and red-hot protest at the mere suggestion of removing undue content from this article, but that doesn't mean that it's not the right thing to do. What you are suggesting is in perfect harmony with Wikipedia policy. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I think the feedback that is blanket objection to any ranking, by not having some new point or policy note and being unspecific, winds up as had no specific effect. The different preferences and especially the method inputs were novel for me and good to add, and if there is a particular reason someone had for part N that I did not know. Will move on with it in a bit, and RFC if have to. Markbassett (talk) 11:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• Note Mr. Daniel Plainview has been blocked as a sock puppet of a community banned editor. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I've struck out the blocked sock's comments. Bennv3771 (talk) 06:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

(my prior atop that was snipped and moved here returned to top as wikitable) Markbassett (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Only uninvolved editors can close discussions. See WP:CLOSE. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

User:DrFleischman - I think that altering atop and moving my text from top to down here was a misplacement so I have returned it to where it was, reformed to a wikitable for the apparent concern on atop usage, and struck closing into ending. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Markbassett, I might have misunderstood but it appears you said you'd cut material with consensus. Well, you don't have consensus for this section blanking. Please don't do that again. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

User:DrFleischman - yes, you have misunderstood or mismapped or something or other. That edit made no mention of consensus. The edit summary said "remove Immigration section - tiny amount of content, appearance of OR, no biographical significance.". It also is not the topic of this thread, which was asking for substantive discussion of ranking subsections with the rationale of ranking (such as importance to his life or Google hits or other substantive method and evidence) and was summarized by me as over without substantive inputs and a couple topics mentioned explicitly no consensus or nuanced discussions

While I appreciate being asked nicely, it feels inappropriate, has not given any reason, and seems under an apparent unrelated misunderstanding ... but further discussion should be in a separate thread. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Outdated link

This says "In June 2018, after reports that Special Counsel Mueller's probe had asked witnesses to turn their personal phones over to investigators for examination, Hannity suggested on air to the witnesses that they "follow Hillary Clinton’s lead" and destroy their personal phones so that they cannot be examined." That's a lie and the link for this is outdated. The link was corrected after the reporter realized that it wasn't true. Here is the current link http://thehill.com/homenews/media/391115-hannity-advises-witnesses-in-mueller-probe-smash-their-phones-to-little-itsy. It was obvious he was being sarcastic. That shit should be deleted because it links to an old version of the article before it was debunked and Sean Hannity was obviously joking. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 01:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I was going to say something constructive until I noticed you're a sock. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Immigration subsection

I noted this section in April, and mentioned it in comments of the RfC re: Article tone and WP:POV, which closed with no consensus on that but did mention "There are some specific points made in the Comments section which editors may wish to address in isolation.".

At that time, the section read only : Hannity opposed amnesty, then he favored a "path to citizenship" before he opposed that idea.[7] and cited a Washington Post article which had this as tiny bit of the content, stating only opposition with no information on or quote of that. This appears to have been a single line based on a single not-echoed article.

Since then it was expanded a bit to: Hannity opposed amnesty, then he said in 2012 that he had evolved on the issue and favored a "pathway to citizenship".[118][7] Later, he opposed that idea.[7] By 2018, he was described as an "immigration hardliner".[119][120][121] The previous line is split into two and the first line adds a 2012 Politico cite to an article focused on to the pathway part, with no specifics on the amnesty opposition.

Please provide evidence for your statements. For example, I would ask for

• "wrong on everything" - please show "no biographical significance" wrong by some RS cites stating these have led to an impact to his life
• "notable" - please prove how. On the contrary, I think WP standards of UNDUE are hit here. Googling him gets 6 million + hits, the Post bit I'm seeing as single-hit UNDUE, the 'hardliner' is a rare name-calling at ~3,600 hits, and the 'pathway' line is the most at ~36,100 hits. That still seems undue, not affecting his life, and frankly that 6 years ago he once said secure the borders first and then pathway to citizenship seems a one-day note without enduring mention or importance in the world. There simply seems nothing noted in him about these items, or about anything related to immigration

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

It's sort of hard to even understand what you're asking. What does "wrong on everything" refer to? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I told him that he was "wrong on everything", referring to his edit summary when he removed the content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

We don't determine notability by Google hits, we do it by RS coverage. In this instance, we have five RS to support the disputed text. But if we did use Google hits (which we of course should not do), then "Sean Hannity" + "immigration" gets more than a million hits, which should be sufficient according to these new bizarre standards to justify coverage of Hannity's position on the subject. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Notability is irrelevant to article content, undue may not be. But he is noted (very widely) For his stances and statements on immigration. As to his not commenting in immigration (or immigrants) recently [19], [20].Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Technically you are correct, but in making decisions about WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTEVERYTHING we often look to coverage by reliable sources. That being said, to suggest that Hannity's positions on immigration are somehow not noteworthy or covered by the media seems preposterous to me. The bottom line is, there's no dispute this is reliably sourced content, so the burden is effectively on the party seeking to remove the content to justify their position, not the other way around. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans - You seem to be proving my point by dodging or missing on the questions a bit. Googling hannity and immigration is arguing the current content is even more despicable because out of millions of hits this is one nit of no great notice, and a name-calling by a tiny minority. If those million hits are worth anything for a BLP then what sorts of BIG things are in there and start by deleting this trivial junk out of where something worthwhile should be. As to the two things I asked for proof on, here they are in simpler form

• show an impact to his life mentioned in RS
• show the article content is notable - I offered that google counts for them is saying no, but gladly await your alternative facts that prove it true.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

User:DrFleischman -- that he changed his mind some unstated way and time in the last 6 years or so is OK as sole and vital thing for this BLP section ? You really want to go with that ??? As to the part about him changing again, that seems only remarked on by Washington Post so also fails RS wanted by the WP:PUBLICFIGURE line "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." (But I suggest you focus more to the article content and substantive discussion than the procedural tidbits.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

This discussion does not seem constructive so I decline to participate in it any further. I reserve the right to change my mind. Best of luck. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

User:DrFleischman - you certainly may choose to not participate in BRD. However, having not discussed your views basis, not responding to my offering two illustrative items and not responding to hints towards working an alternative cut, then ... your concerns are not visible and might not be addressed. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Mark. The section is UNDUE and should be removed. The bit about him changing his mind appears to be weaselly at best and WP:SYNTH at worst. – Lionel^(talk) 10:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I fixed the weasel problem. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

User:DrFleischman ??? - Adding the names of the cite sources to make it "By 2018, he was described as an immigration hardliner by CNN, The Washington Post, and New York magazine.[119][120][121]" I'm not sure that is a WP:WEASEL fix, it's still a vague claim though naming the sourcing is better than 'some say'. But the deletion was about the section being insignificant amount of content, UNDUE content selected, and POV. Saying that CNN etc did not add any substance, and it is an inappropriate paraphrase though, another flavor of UNDUE selection making for mis-portrayal because they almost never do so. Googling for hardliner or hard-liner and him at those sites shows the following.

* CNN - Hannity 4,130 hits -- 25 mention either spelling but seems mostly for Ann Coulter, Steven Miller, Blankenship, etcetera and others and not him.

* WaPo - Hannity 6,030 hits -- 108 mention either, but a lot of 'voices' not-WaPo speaking, or about Stephen Miller etcetera instead.

* NYM - Hannity 1,139 hits -- only 1 mention 'hard-liners'

Soooo... 133 matches out of 11,299 articles mentioning Hannity -- only about 1% coincidence, seems maybe below 0.5% said about him. That looks pretty WP:FRINGE to me. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Please stop pinging me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Well if he does not want to be pinged that the edit failed to fix weaseling, meh. Weaseling describes “words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated.” Stating Hannity opposed something (unstated) at some (unstated) time, then saying path to citizenship in 2012 (but not mentioning he said secure borders first), then saying he had an objection (unsaid) sometime (unstated) has a lot of gap and is rather unclear what the point is. The addition of the cite sources into text already visible in cite only led to noting how fringe that is, it did not make it less vague or more meaningful. Still not seeing responses to my offered way for proofs, my mention of a way to possible alternative content, or any suggestions for some other addressing of this topic. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

p.s. It’s been about another 2 weeks in this thread with no additional substance to the teeeny and UNDUE tidbit or further discussion forward. That is after about 6 weeks at the thread for input about ranking and before that my 2 May mention in the RFC for Tone. So I believe it is about time to delete again. Other than saying the same thing more verbosely there does not seem additional edits appearing. Markbassett (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

If you delete then someone will likely report you. You made your proposal and it was rejected by multiple editors. No one has any obligation to respond to your unconvincing and unhelpful follow-up comments. I have repeatedly explained on your user talk why you haven't been getting any traction on this issue, but for whatever reason you haven't responded. Consensus-building is on you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

User:DrFleischman - ??? ?? There are not multiple items from you on my talk page. I also did not make a proposal. And if you want a response to anything like ths, you should address it or ping. Markbassett (talk) 06:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Markbassett, so true, just once... You may want pings, but I do not, and I told you that already. Do not ping me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Enough weeks have passed, I've got about equal numbers against the section as for the section, and no substantive input seems coming that would make for further resolution or replacement. WP:ONUS puts the obligation to show cause for anything included, so I'll delete again and perhaps that will lead to some further response will come or perhaps a general RFC will be needed. Markbassett (talk) 00:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• No, the onus is on the editor seeking to make a change, and you have been warned not to do that. You are being disruptive and I kindly ask you to stop. If you cannot build a consensus for a change, then you must let it go. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Suggest you read it again. WP:ONUS clearly says "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. " I'd be happy to get some other substantive content, or substantive discussions even ... but as said above, I've got about equal numbers against the section as for the section, and no substantive input seems coming that would make for further resolution or replacement, and time for a general RFC. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Suggest you brush up on our policies and guidelines. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

RFC: Should the article remove the Immigration section ?

The consensus is to keep the immigration section, which editors consider to be due weight.

Cunard (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the section Immigration be removed from this BLP ?

The section was criticized as trivial in amount or portion of his positions, and just not biographically significant. It was a single line: Hannity opposed amnesty, then he favored a "path to citizenship" before he opposed that idea.[7]

Since then the line has been been stated a bit more verbosely, and then another remark added: Hannity opposed amnesty, then he said in 2012 that he had evolved on the issue and favored a "pathway to citizenship".[118][7] Later, he opposed that idea.[7] By 2018, he was described as an "immigration hardliner".[119][120][121]

Please indicate whether to Delete or Keep this as a section of the article, along with your reasoning. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Delete - as proposer and prior discussions. The WP:ONUS says that "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." and that has not shown up in prior talk. A single remark buried in a WaPo article on him just isn't enough for a section, even adding in a few folks call him a label. Also the single remark by WaPo that is awfully vague fails BLP guidance for WP:PUBLICFIGURE "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Noting he was in favor of pathway ('first, secure the border') in 2012 got minor coverage not enough to be even a major item of his coverage, and the reporting of further change seems single-site. The added line about a label for him is not the most common description, so seems UNDUE as well as pointless -- so sometime in all stories about him this is said about his immigration positions -- most say other terms, or even praise him which is not included. Markbassett (talk) 05:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. I have seen no legitimate content-based justification for removing this section. It's reliably sourced, widely covered, and highly noteworthy. I don't think anyone is seriously claiming that the current content is controversial or inaccurate, so I don't see how BLP applies. The "multiple sources" sentence in WP:PUBLICFIGURE is expressly about allegations and incidents not about matter-of-course content like this. If the section is too small for some editors' stylistic tastes then it can be expanded or consolidated into another section. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

In correction to your voiced beliefs... Actually controversial and inaccurate have been mentioned -- WEASEL and POV were called on it by others. And ONUS is clear the onus is that inclusion must show justification so you have that wrong. And yes I am citing PUBLICFIGURE failure on bits *not* widely covered -- of the vague reference of an incident opposing 'first secure the borders, then pathway' as having only one source. It could be disproven by turning up a couple other sources that say so, and preferably convey what the opposition was and when. But really now -- To base an entire section on something only one article had as a vague side-remark should be an easy call to remove and not missed. The added that three places called him a label should also be an easy call as it's not what they usually call him, and isn't amazing or make a difference to his life bio this article is about. Deletion should be easy here, there's just nothing much here. If other material is turned up that deserves presence -- then we could drop this junk and keep the good stuff. But this vague and vapid tidbit should go, and having a section without any good stuff on the basis that maybe something might later turn up does not seem sensible. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. Well-sourced, due weight. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. Politico, CNN, and WaPo are all reliable sources; Hannity talks about immigration so a section for his views is warranted.-Ich (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - His views on immigration are adequately sourced and of encyclopedic value.- MrX 🖋 15:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Obvious keep - Several reliable sources. 16:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snooganssnoogans (talk • contribs)
• Keep and expand - Especially the first part - "opposed amnesty" - This assumes knowledge on the part of the reader. What did he oppose? what was amnesty's position in the first place? These are questions which should be answered in the section. Edaham (talk) 05:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't have the sources here right now, but I'm pretty sure Hannity used the term "amnesty" verbatim, which usually refers to granting undocumented immigrants the legal rights to stay in the country and/or citizenship under certain conditions. I don't think it would be a good idea to define specifically what Hannity meant, given that amnesty can encompass temporary stay to actual citizenship. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah ok I misunderstood. English is fast becoming a second language for me. Edaham (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Edaham - I believe he opposed things labeled “amnesty”, not particularly noted, and in 2012 casually suggested it was all easy to fix by ‘first secure the borders, pathway to citizenship, done’. That does not to me mean he changed to approving any amnesty or thing like “amnesty” but seems like the Wall-for-DACA attempted bills of the last couple years. What the Washington Post writer meant by the final bit I have no idea — the writer in that long article apparently felt no need to show it, but Googles around that year showed me nothing. Perhaps it was just a repeat of opposing an amnesty or opposes a DACA without “Wall” first, but saw nothing like that. I would expect he still opposes amnesty and still supports DACA-for-Wall, but not sure of that. As phrased, the article gives the impression of changing views at 6 years ago, and then sometime since then, but only that article seems to mention position change since 2012. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:DUE; relevant to his bio as noted by 3rd party sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• Pinging prior participants on this and related threads - user:Lionelt, User:Snooganssnoogans, User:Slatersteven, User:Volunteer Marek, User:Objective3000, User:Display name 99, User:Winkelvi, User:Iselilja - please provide RFC inputs, thank you. (Note: Dr F not pinged because he objects about it; Danial Plainview not pinged as was reported sock).

This section is basically just a side one-liner that only one source remarked on that he was for "first secure the border, [then] pathway to citizenship, done" before he opposed it -- but obviously if that article felt the opposition not important enough to say what/when details, and nobody else took note of it, then how could it have made any biographical impact in his life ??? Markbassett (talk) 02:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• So far seems strongly Keep with little discussion, no input from prior complaint editors, and apparent confusing over a few cites exist versus WP:DUE which often occurs. Noted call for more on the first line, and challenge/more fore the second line, and generally seems a desire for more meat to the section rather than delete the section as meatless. Markbassett (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Boycotts in the lede

I don't think they should be there[21]. The body yes, the lede no. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Considering the boycotts have had relatively little impact on him (compared to Glenn Beck, for example), I would agree including them in the lede is WP:UNDUE. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 16:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Leave the boycotts out of the lede. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Insofar as the boycotts have had some coverage that merits inclusion in the body, and the lead should provide an overview of the body, the lead could have a single, short sentence mentioning boycotts in the final paragraph, but absolutely no more than that. The lack of impact of the boycotts isn't relevant to the question of whether the lead should mention them per WP:LEAD. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2018

In the fourth paragraph, first sentence, delete the phrase "falsehoods and". In the fourth paragraph, first sentence, delete the phrase "reporting false". In the fourth paragraph, fifth sentence, delete the phrase "Because of Trump,"

These may or may not be true, but are unsubstantiated and are presented as opinion. If necessary, discuss the controversy in Section 3 and appropriately footnote it. Stadler33 (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I rephrased and added attribution to fifth sentence. I don't see a problem with the others. O3000 (talk) 01:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done by O3000 L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2018

Please change Category:Conspiracy theorists to Category:American conspiracy theorists as Sean Hannity was an American by birth and by residence. He promoted conspiracy theories from the United States as far as I am concerned. 24.105.170.133 (talk) 14:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

 Already done. Flooded with them hundreds 14:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2019

Sean Hannity is a white nationalist not a conservative

2603:9001:5811:FD00:C8DD:5B8:DAD3:5443 (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. If you can't cite reliable sources saying that, Wikipedia can't say it either. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Sean Hannity/Criticism of FBI, DOJ, and special counsel

(2nd try, my first try deleted from talk page without any explanation) Please add to "Sean Hannity/Criticism of FBI, DOJ, and special counsel" (I am not authorized to edit)

A Hannity segment related to Russian interference is an example of how Hannity deceives his viewers, sometimes in a spectacularly egregious manner. When Hannity re-broadcast a portion of Lester Holt's explosive May 11, 2017 television interview with Donald Trump, Hannity conspicuously ended the video at a point just before Trump openly admitted that he fired James Comey because of the "Russia thing". Having thus indoctrinated his millions of viewers by portraying the interview as inconsequential, Hannity subsequently dismissed or ignored Trump's confession.

Johndoe4891 (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Youtube is not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, will research RS to try to find acceptable source, thanks.Johndoe4891 (talk) 20:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

To address the objections, I submit the new text below, cite two primary reliable sources, and cite Wikipedia's own rules regarding original research and primary sources, as follows:

A Hannity segment related to Russian interference is an example of how Hannity deceives his viewers. When Hannity re-broadcast a portion of Lester Holt's May 11, 2017 television interview with Donald Trump, in which Trump talked about his reasons for firing James Comey, Hannity conspicuously ended the video at a point just before Trump, referring to Comey's firing, said "when I decided to just do it, I said, you know, this Russia thing, with Trump and Russia, is a made-up story". Having thus omitted Trump's now-famous citation of Russia as a reason for firing Comey, Hannity continued his show without ever mentioning it.

I believe that the new text does not constitute WP:or. Also, I believe that the two primary sources are used by the new text in accordance with Wikipedia rules. From Wikipedia:No original research: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." The statements in the new text may be verifed by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.Johndoe4891 (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is still original research. You need reliable secondary sources for an addition; not you rown opinions about what you have seen -- no matter how rational they may seem. O3000 (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The issue is your claim it was a deliberate attempt to deceive. Moreover did Hannity say "Trump did not fire him over Russia" in that program? Did he make other changes, or otherwise broadcast it whole?Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, thank you, I will work to address these concerns.Johndoe4891 (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Hannity did not say the words "Trump did not fire him over Russia", although he clearly implied that. Hannity did not make other changes (that I am aware of). Hannity did not otherwise broadcast it whole in that episode of the show. To address the concerns, I submit the new text below, which omits any mention of deception and any mention of opinion. All that is left is a literal description of the content of the video.

In the May 11, 2017, episode of "Hannity" on Fox News, Hannity started his show with a segment about Lester Holt's television interview of that same day with Donald Trump. The segment used screen banners such as "TRUMP EXPLAINS DECISION TO FIRE COMEY". In the segment, Hannity re-broadcast a portion of Holt's interview, in which Trump talked about his reasons for firing James Comey. Hannity conspicuously ended the video at a point just before Trump, referring to Comey's firing, said, "when I decided to just do it, I said, you know, this Russia thing, with Trump and Russia, is a made-up story". Having thus omitted Trump's now-famous citation of Russia, Hannity finished the show without ever mentioning it.Johndoe4891 (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Sources

JohnDoe4891, I appreciate how hard you are trying to come up with acceptable wording. But please read WP:SOURCES. The things you have cited here are all primary sources - that is, things like the actual interview. We do not cite primary sources to try to prove a point. We do not add our own interpretation of what happened. We need to find reliable independent reliable sources that say what we want to say. We would need some independent, mainstream news source (not a partisan news source, not an opinion page, not a blog) pointing out that Hannity did this. See if you can find something like that. I'm sorry if you find this to be limiting, but we are an encyclopedia and we only publish what has already been published by independent, reliable sources. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

OK. So far, I have spent several hours searching for such a secondary source, to no avail.Johndoe4891 (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Then I suggest drop and and find something more constructive to do. If RS do not support it we cannot say it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2019

In the see also section - please add Ri Chun-hee. She is the most well-known news presenter on North Korean State TV, and like Hannity enthusiastically reports on the government in broadcasts that are neither fair or balanced. 81.159.166.148 (talk) 10:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

What are her links to Hannity?Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Request to update Hannity's degree to reflect that it is a Doctorate. He also earned one from from Southeastern University.

Original: Hannity has received several awards and honors, including an honorary degree from Liberty University. Proposed Edit: Hannity has received several awards and honors, including an Honorary Doctorate from Southeastern University and Liberty University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:58B:4102:7451:4460:4694:8543:B5A9 (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Can we move forward with this edit? Triciclosam (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Only if someone provides reliable WP:SECONDARY sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Lede

I see there was an earlier RfC that closed without significant changes being made, but am I the only one who notices the obvious bias in the lede section? "Hannity has promoted falsehoods and conspiracy theories" is followed by a list of conspiracy theories which, while unsubstantiated, are wrongly linked to falsehoods to suggest without overtly saying so that the editors of Wikipedia are pronouncing them as such. Worse still is the phrase "Hannity has often acted as a conduit for Trump's messaging..." What? How do we know this, and what does acting as a conduit entail precisely? We know Hannity is a conservative who is likely to have a generally favorable view of the Trump administration, but how does that differ from any other similar personality? The wording suggests that he is acting in an unofficial role as a spokesman of some type. That's pretty blatant editorializing, in my opinion.-RHM22 (talk) 03:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe the RfC was specifically about the lead; however I disagree with your assessment. In generally we follow the reliable sources. If I'm not mistaken, everything you listed is supported by reliable sources. If something isn't reflective of the sources then we can and should fix it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Well I'd be willing to concede on the first part that I mentioned, as it's technically correct despite what is, in my opinion, leading wording (no pun intended). However, to the latter point, I think it's inappropriate to say that Hannity is a conduit for the President's messaging, as that implies direct influence (e.g., "Pravda acted as a conduit for the Communist Party"). Looking at the sources for the relevant portion of the main article body (although neither that phrase nor any similar are repeated therein), they indicate that Hannity and Trump have a close relationship and are regularly in consultation with one another, but not that the former acts as a messenger for the latter as the phrasing in the lede section suggests. I would suggest rewording to something along the lines of "Since Trump's election, Hannity has often put forward viewpoints concordant with the President's messaging..." I believe that something like this would preserve the intent of the sentence (that Hannity's viewpoints generally echo Trump's messaging) without implying direct influence.-RHM22 (talk) 01:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I am also surprised that nothing has come from the previous discussion. While I agree with leaning on reliable sources, I believe we should lean on those reliable sources a little more; we should say in the lede "ABC Magazine has identified falsehoods promoted by Hannity" or at least "numerous sources have criticized Hannity for promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories" with strong inline references to back it up as was discussed before; that way Wikipedia isn't saying it, the source is saying it. When I have a little time I will look into making a WP:BOLD change here that will hopefully be agreeable. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 16:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

No, you aren't the only one that notices the obvious bias in the lede. Similar claims show up in a lot of BLP's of people on the Right, but they never seem to appear in the BLP's of the their Left-wing counterparts. I think it shows an overall bias of Wikipedia itself. Sourcing isn't the issue since you could make such claims about anybody and provide reliable sources. Nobody's infallible. So unless we are okay allowing such claims on every BLP of a commentator/journalist/politician etc, we should maintain NPOV and not not allow it on anyone's--74.195.159.155 (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

"They never seem to appear in the BLP's of their Left-wing counterparts" because those people generally do not engage in things similar to "promoted falsehoods and conspiracy theories, such as casting doubt on Barack Obama's birthplace, promoting conspiracy theories about the murder of Seth Rich, and reporting false stories about Hillary Clinton's health," to name just a few (and those are tame compared to his more recent assertions). If you disagree, I encourage you to add similar information to the BLP of, say, Rachel Maddow, rather than complain on Talk pages. "They never seem to appear in the BLP's of their Left-wing counterparts" because no one adds them there, and for good reason. Cheers. soibangla (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

That sounds like an admission that Rachel Maddow promotes falsehoods. I agree, but I don't think smears on left-wing people is an antidote to smears on right-wing people. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

It's nothing of the kind, but if you think she promotes falsehoods as a general practice, I encourage you to add that to her BLP. If no one does that, that suggest she doesn't do it. No one is being prevented from editing here. soibangla (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I would only do that to illustrate my point, but I wouldn't want that stain on my contribs whether it was a successful edit or whether it successfully proved my point. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

That’s WP:OTHERCONTENT, and a rather odd conclusion anyhow. Do you have a specific argument regarding how the lede violates WP:NPOV? It appears to be well sourced. O3000 (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

The claim that somebody promotes falsehoods can always be well sourced. Bias can be well sourced. That's besides the point. A claim like "Sean Hannity has promoted truths such as..." would be just as truthful, just as sourceable, and just as biased. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. No, "promoting falsehoods" cannot be attributed to reliable sources for anyone as they would not be considered reliable sources if they attributed such to people without rationale. Please read WP:V. O3000 (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

You have ignored WP:V when making the same claim (and it remains unsourced to this day). So it's not as if that's being strictly followed even by you. It seems to appear that if enough editors agree with a claim, proper sourcing per WP:V isn't required. Regardless of variability, it's still the case that virtually everybody in Hannity's field has promoted falsehoods. Just considering WMD's in Iraq and Trump-Russia collusion pretty much covers them all. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Please, I didn't originally add that and it's well sourced. And your argument is based on WP:OTHERCONTENT and WP:OR, which are not usable arguments. 03:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)O3000 (talk)

The same burden lies with the editor that adds or restores material. But thanks for illustrating my point. There's no inline citation for readers to verify the claim per WP:V, the claim doesn't appear in any of the RS's cited in the article, and no RS's do they describe any of his claims as being false and yet you think it's "well-sourced". If we used your low standards regarding WP:V and WP:OR then we could absolutely make this claim for anybody in Hannity's field. The claim will then not only take a negative pov on the subject and be outside the scope of a biography, but also be quite meaningless. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I've tried to remove the disputed text per WP:BLP – diff after I was instructed by another editor[22]. I don't watch their shows, I'm not even an American, but multiple reliable sources say both Hannity and Rachel Maddow (diff, diff) spread conspiracy theories. Why is there such an obvious double standard? -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCONTENT is not an acceptable argument. If you have a problem with another article, please discuss it there. O3000 (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Tobby72, besides "OTHER STUFF", you will have to do better than you did in the Maddow article. I'm looking at all these sources--though of course I'm skipping what Hannity has to say, since we need reliable sources. I'm puzzled, for instance, by your citing this Forbes article--Forbes doesn't say she peddles in conspiracy theories: it quotes Hannity saying that. Willa Paskin, who wrote the Slate article, she's a TV critic: not the kind of source we should cite. The Washington Post link seems credible, but it's an opinion piece by someone (Sonny Punch) who is quite clearly NOT neutral. Similar with the Guardian article: Ross Barkan seems legit, but in the opening sentence he starts with the "liberal media ecosystem", and it doesn't get much better after that. Finally, the Fox News article basically rehashes something from Huff Post--which really no one should cite for politics. Sorry, but no. If you want to make the case for Maddow you'll need stronger sources and you might have to run the gauntlet of BLPN and RSN with the ones you presented. So no, it's not equal on both sides. Drmies (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

No I said I do not care what she says. If you were not using her as a source then WP:OTHER applies, it does not matter what we do on another article, as the situation may not be the same (as pointed out above). Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The content is RSed and covered at great length in the body. Thus it belongs in the lede. This is one thing that makes Hannity notable and which has encyclopedic value today, 10 yrs from, 50 yrs from now. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Hannity is listed as #2 on the 2017 Talkers Heavy Hundred... but, there's more

Sean Hannity has appeared on the Talkers Heavy Hundred many times. In 2018, the Hundred listed him at #1, displacing Rush Limbaugh. In 2019, the Hundred listed him again at #1.

Any hope that the article will reflect the most recent information as opposed to older info that is not quite as flattering?

JesseMcKay (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

If I knew what the hell it was I might agree, but as I do not I am not sure its all that worthy of inclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Rachel Maddow comments

@Tobby72: I don't see anything that would suggest that his comments about Maddow are WP:DUE for inclusion. Moreover: your edit doesn't even specify what "lie" he's accusing Maddow of telling, or offer any counterpoint or response from anyone else. This is a problem. Nblund ^talk 21:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely ridiculous and not encyclopedic in the slightest

This is probably the most ridiculous article I've seen on Wikipedia in all my years here. Pretty much nothing more than an annals of bickering back and forth, with Hannity's insanity followed by debunking by left-wing journalists. Some sections, like the "foreign policy" section, seem pointless. This is an encyclopedia page, not a collection of quotes, which makes this whole thing seem rather childish.

I'm a complete "radical leftist" in Hannity's phrasing, so I'm not trying to defend him by any means; rather, I think this article needs to be thoroughly rewritten if it is to appear credible and encyclopedic.

Philologick (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I am also a “crazy socialist” according to Hannity, but the way this article is written is not encyclopaedic. I agree it needs to be rewritten Yoleaux (talk) 00:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

'pseudo-conspiracy program'

The audacity to claim something like that in a LEDE and then locking the page to edits is cowardly and reprehensible. I don't even like Sean Hannity (I think he's a dunce), but this editorializing is absurd and childish. Cut it out and grow up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.81.171.17 (talk) 03:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Completely agree with this, and have restored the November version of the intro. One can cover the likes of Hannity without being puerile, people. ValarianB (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Its also not an news program it is an opinion piece.Slatersteven (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

How to turn a 'rumor' into facts

Did you know that Sean Hannity speaks with President Trump most week nights? Me neither. According to who? According to no one, but if you look at Wikipedia, it is a fact. Here is the quote to prove it: "He speaks to the president on the phone most weeknights." This fact is based on a Business Insider article where the author writes: "President Donald Trump and Fox News host Sean Hannity talk on the phone most nights, according to a report from New York Magazine that goes inside the president's close relationship with the television personality." So let's keep following the source and read the New York Magazine. Here is the relevant passage: "The call to the White House comes after ten o’clock most weeknights, when Hannity is over. Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, Sean Hannity broadcasts live at 9 p.m. on Fox News, usually from Studio J in midtown, where the network is headquartered, but sometimes from a remote studio on Long Island, where he was raised and now lives." Get it? No named or unnamed source. So that story without a source from the New York Magazine becomes "President Donald Trump and Sean Hannity talk on the phone most nights, according to a report in New York Magazine: (or, as the title of the Business Insider article says "Trump reportedly (emphasis added) talks to Sean Hannity most nights before bed") becomes "He speaks to the president on the phone most weeknights" on Wikipedia. Boom, magic! From rumor to fact. I have added the words "According to media reports" to the Hannity Wikipedia article many times and within minutes editors delete my text. Why? Odd. Alain Alainlambert (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Your edit qualified not only what you cite here, but three things, including he has spoken at the president's lectern during a Trump rally, which is an objective fact. soibangla (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

About two years ago I learned from reliable news sources (TV news and/or reliable print journalism) that yes, indeed, Hannity and trump spoke on the phone often. I am well aware that such an unsourced recollection is no substitute for citing reliable sources. But I'm also aware that not knowing how to verify a claim is very different from confirming that it is untrue.50.205.142.50 (talk) 01:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Year in his professional radio chronology

His professional breakthrough was when he was picked up by the Huntsville, Alabama radio station. Yet, there is no year for that where this is discussed.Dogru144 (talk) 09:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Improvement in Sean Hannity Post

This post seems woefully out of date and inadequate.

I would start in the second sentence with

Sean Hannity is a conservative television and radio host whose earnings in 2019 were $46 million. The conservative radio and television host's haul rose by 30% thanks to pay bumps from Premiere Networks and Fox News. Hannity was the most-watched cable news host in 2018, averaging 3.28 million viewers. Known as "The King of Cable" he has a close friendship with President Donald Trump, landing several exclusives and appearing at one of his rallies.

Source: https://www.forbes.com/profile/sean-hannity/#52f69274772e — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackBloom088 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Talkers Magazine 'Heavy Hundred'

In 2017, Sean Hannity was ranked #2 on the Heavy Hundred; in 2018 and 2019, Sean was ranked #1.

Source: http://www.talkers.com

http://www.talkers.com/2017-talkers-heavy-hundred-1-25/ http://www.talkers.com/2018-talkers-heavy-hundred-1-25/ http://www.talkers.com/2019-talkers-heavy-hundred-1-25/

Thank you.

Jessemckay (talk) 00:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

This does not appear to be a notable publication. ValarianB (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

POV

WOW! I don’t even like this guy but this whole article has a major POV problem. There’s so much opinion in it that I’m not even sure where to start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.125.166 (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree (PeacePeace (talk) 05:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC))

'Radio' section, second paragraph

"After leaving KCSB, Hannity placed an ad in radio publications, presenting himself as "the most talked about college radio host in America."[citation needed]"

I can't access The Washington Post, apparently owing to my ad-blocker, but a Google search suggests to me that this article would fit the bill for the required citation. Perhaps some kind editor could verify this and make the addition? Thanks in advance, Harfarhs (talk) 08:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that source supports the passage and contains the quote. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a million for confirming that. Owing to the semi-blocking of access I mentioned earlier, not only can I not see the text of the article, but I can't see the byline or date. I've filled out the citation details as far as I can, but those other details need to be added - would you be so kind as to do that? Harfarhs (talk) 08:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I suggest that you have more than one browser in your computer, and have one which does not block ads, so that when you encounter an AD BLOCK WALL, you can go to that site using your unblocking browser. (PeacePeace (talk) 05:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC))

BLP violations? Is this a polemical hit piece or objective biography?

This article appears to be a biased attempt to refute Hannity's POV on a number of issues (NPOV), instead of an objective biography. If Hannity has taken a POV on a number of issues, this is not the place to refute his POV. If it is wished to have NPOV, then we could present the rebuttal of the refutations; but the purpose this article should not be to present a political debate. I have taken the bold step of eliminating a little of the biased language, like using "conspiracy theory" as a pejorative to shrug off a POV, especially where the issue is not that a group of persons planned to do something evil, where the issue of "group" vs individual is of little importance. -IMHO (PeacePeace (talk) 05:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC))

We go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Hit Piece

Very disappointed on the left-wing bias shown through out this article. Too much of it is taken out of context and appear to be liberal echo chamber talking points not based on facts. The whole thing should be rewritten and reflects an intolerance towards a successful Conservative commentator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:587:8200:C380:0:0:0:1 (talk) 11:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

If there is bias it is in the sources, see wp:undue.Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

You need to specify exactly what you believe isn't based on facts. O3000 (talk) 11:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Forbes cite in lead

Maybe I'm missing something here, Treybien2, but are you sure the Business Insider ref you provide supports this sentence?

According to Forbes, by 2018 Hannity had become one of the most-watched hosts in cable news and most-listened-to hosts in talk radio, due in part to his closeness and access to Trump

soibangla (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Hannity took the coronavirus "seriously all along"

The editor Malerooster removed language which clarified that Hannity had not in fact taken the coronavirus seriously all along (contrary to Hannity's assertion).[23] Malerooster falsely claimed that the language was "not in citation". The NY Times says that Hannity's claim was false ("he falsely asserted")[24] and there's an entire Vox piece which is basically about Hannity's gaslighting on the issue.[25] Malerooster's edit should be reverted ASAP. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. KidAd (💬💬) 23:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The "falsely asserted" is referring to Trump, not Hannity. KidAd, please read the citation yourself, thank you. I reverted this edit as such. --Malerooster (talk) 11:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

"Mr. Hannity recently published a timeline of his own comments on the virus, which creates a revisionist impression that he was consistently raising concerns." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

does not say false.Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, the reading of the sources is obvious in that Hannity's assertion was false. Would you be fine that we literally use verbatim what the NY Times said ("revisionist" account) so that readers will know that Hannity's assertion that he took the coronavirus "seriously all along" is not true? Or do you think the article should present Hannnity's inaccurate assertion that he took the coronavirus "seriously all along" without any pushback? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Revisionist does not mean false, by all mean say "revisionist".Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

In this context "creates a revisionist impression” would most nearly mean "creates a false impression.” Its pretty clear how they mean to be using that term. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Date revision rejected ?

in the wiki entry for Sean Hannity under torture it says

"In 2009, Hannity said he supported enhanced interrogation, a euphemism for torture. He also volunteered to be water boarded for charity". The wiki entry said "Hannity has not been water boarded as of March 2018"

To this date he has still not been water-boarderd for charity or for any other reasons

I updated the date to the current date 2020

This update was rejected and changed back by user Peter Gulutzan as un-sourced

you cant source something that has not happened, you cant prove a negative

Unless Peter Gulutzan is privy to information that the rest of the world is unaware of ,changing what was a simple date update as "un-sourced" is simply ridiculous

Had Hannity been water boarded for charity or any other reason he would have shouted from the roof tops.we would have had a whole week of video and mutual back slapping from the fox news network ,if for no other reason to embarrass Keith Olbermann on national television.

 Dixon hill (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)dixon hill

I would say no, its a bit wp:or to say he has not, maybe he might have shouted about it, or maybe not. Its OR to decide why he might not have done.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

2019 [[26]].Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

You cant prove a negative I am willing to concede the point if evidence can be provided he has , But i would direct you to this link https://archive.thinkprogress.org/hannity-explodes-after-being-confronted-by-thinkprogress-about-previous-offer-to-be-waterboarded-for-644af3767139/

and this one

https://www.mediamatters.org/sean-hannity/torture-fan-sean-hannity-still-hasnt-been-waterboarded-he-promised this one https://www.newshounds.us/sean_hannity_confronted_politicon_waterboarding_cowardice_102819

Once again you cant prove a negative though many reputable news outlets have tried

Dixon hill (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Dixon hill

At the end of the sentence there is a cite of a source, dated 2018. I did not see how a 2018 source can be used to support a statement about 2020, so I reverted with edit summary = "Unsourced". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Read wp:v, we can say 2018, because we have a source form that date. We can say 2019, as we have a source form that date.Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)