This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Does anyone have any citation for the human hand thing?
Sean Hannity is a danger to conservative politics. His inept propaganda type show turns people away from conservative points of view. He will routinely play a sound byte out of context and then have an artificial debate with a prominent socialist politician. I often think of Nazi style propaganda artist when I listen to Mr. Hannity. He is worse than Tokyo Rose was during WWII. In this new war we need jounalist who use the truth correctly to prove that we are right politically. We don't need chicken hawk arm chair propaganda low lifes like Sean Hannity to lie to us.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.24.169.205 ( talk • contribs).
I have removed the first graph of the criticism section as it violates Wiki standards. Assuming Hannity is reluctant to give an opinion in opposition to Republican talking points, this criticism should only be cited with a source, preferably a reputable source with examples to support the claim, though it should be noted that it is impossible to reliably claim that Hannity is 'incapable' of doing this, 'agonizingly' so or otherwise.
tsmcbride 14:38, 07 Nov 2006
I understand some people have absolutely no tolerance for an opposing point of view, but that doesn't justify the constant NPOV editing to this article. I seriously doubt Sean Hannity is married to Richard Simmons. I believe this article needs to be locked to prevent this abuse.
Um, why is there a quotes section? Isn't this what Wikiquote was made for? Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia agrees with me in a post he made to the Talk:DrinkOrDie page. Here's his quote:
Therefore I'm going to move the quotes to Wikiquote. -- Hoovernj 19:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Just look at the external links for the Hannity page - basically his homepage, some biographical information and a bunch of pages that bash him. Take this article at face value.
Calmypal: it's a hoax. it's an April Fool's joke. -- Nunh-huh 22:01, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Sean Hannity apologising to Bill Clinton? Definitely not a joke. - Woodrow 22:02, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Even if he ought to, it's still a joke. April Fool's is well and good, but in articles it's going too far. Meelar 22:04, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
However did they find an Al Gore impersonator? How is it that the one time I walk away from the radio, he says it's a joke? Oh well, my apologies. - Woodrow 22:10, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Is the WSB link about WSB-FM, WSB-AM, or WSB-TV?? 66.245.66.197 14:10, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Speaking of WSB, it is very misleading to say that "Hannity replaced Boortz and Savage on their flagship stations". It gives the implication that Boortz was replaced after his syndication. It is true that Savage was replaced by Hannity recently. Hannity did a local show in Atlanta like 10 years ago and Boortz has been on WSB since like 95. Whoever wrote this article is either an idiot or willfully lying.
Boortz is a friend of Hannity and they appear on each other's shows all the time.
Are these quotes absolutely neccesary...there are no quotes on Michael Savage or many other radio hosts...(plus, see argument on Talk:FOX News). Ilyanep
Duh. He's a paid speaker, so of course it's necesary to know some of the things he says. I'm sorry if they make him look bad but unfortunately he said them. If you want to add quotes where he says something you feel makes him look good then feel free and add them. And by the way there are indeed quotes for Michael Savage, I should know, I added them myself.
We don't post pictures of historical figures in the bathroom. Neither do we need to post all quotes taken out of context with intent to defame. Though these quotes, and these photos, exist, it is unnecessary to post them.
Please, someone depoliticize this.
One or two quotes might be good for this article, but the excessive amount of quotations here (especially as they're one-liners, almost certainly out of context) really ought to be removed, maybe to Wikiquote. Especially with the article as brief as it is, the list of quotations just isn't appropriate. That's my opinion. Jwrosenzweig 21:36, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm restoring the quotes section. Many biographical articles contain quotes sections, some longer than this one. If the article is brief in comparison, the solution to that particular issue is to expand the article, not to delete the section. If anyone has problems with particular quotes we can discuss candidates for removal, but I object to removing the entire section on such a flimsy basis. I apologize for not chiming in on this debate sooner, as I've been busy (see Sollog, for example) and this didn't pop up onto my radar until now, otherwise I would have objected sooner. Gamaliel 02:37, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I wouldn't say far outnumbered as I'm not counting unsigned drive-by anon comments; without those it seems to be 3-2, roughly even. Regardless, you're right, it should count for something, but what should also count is what goes on in other articles on Wikipedia - after all, we don't have seperate rules for each article.
Some examples: Arnold Schwarzenegger has a good (if a little too hagiographic) quotes section. Ann Coulter has a good quotes section that is the product of a talk page debate where we achived consensus about which ones should stay and which ones should be dumped. I don't like the section on Bill Clinton because it doesn't have sources for any of the quotes, but I'm not going to chop it out because of that. Gamaliel 06:41, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This is hardly that long, there are only seven quotes. If one or two are fine, why delete the whole list? I have no problem reducing the list, but I strongly object to its wholesale removal. Gamaliel 21:56, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The quotes are pretty pointless and not unique enough to really merit their presence. I'm going to pare them down. -- Holdek 08:11, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I can't find a source for it now, but I could've sworn I read somewhere once that his birth name is David and that he's only used Sean since he got involved with radio. I also think that came up once when he had some woman on his television show who was arguing with him, and she called him "David" in order to tick him off, after which he said that people only use his real name to cheap shot him when they can't think of anything else to say. Granted, I am in no way a fan of this guy, so I don't know a whole lot about him, but I'm almost certain I've heard that before. Anyone know anything about that? Beginning 14:05, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
This is quite obviously a case of selective quoting with an intent to defame. Can we just stick to the facts of the history of his life? Now, if there are quotes that he has made that he's been criticized over (similar to Dan Rather's "Courage"), it might be valid to bring them up as such. Of course, one would still have to be careful in that regard, since his entire job is to incite comments. He's not a "journalist" in the Dan Rather sense. However, I notice I don't see any quotes on the Al Franken page.
Anyway, this entire page needs to be scrapped and re-done.
This article is crap. Look, Boortz and Hannity are good friends; that is a fact. Whoever deleted my changes can go to hell. Also, what the hell is your problem deleting my references to the awards he has won and my reference to his support for the troops. Seriously whoever wrote this is an idiot.
There is really only one quote on here that characterizes Sean Hannity; the rest are simply presented as swipes at his character. It's not at all neutral.
I think the best thing to do is to either add context to the more controversial quotes, or remove them and simply add a section to the article making note that he is a highly controversial figure much like Rush Limbaugh. Personally, I think Sean Hannity is out of his mind, and I categorize him with the likes of Ann Coulter; however, an encyclopedia article is no place to discuss that. That's what the external links are for. Superking 18:27, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I pulled out this SLIME ATTACK:
" For example, the documentary This Divided State shows at least one instance where he has taunted the few liberals in the crowd, and singled out a liberal audience member to speak on stage so that the mostly conservative audience could jeer the liberal."
Divided State is a LEFT WING PROPAGANDA piece. I've seen bits and pieces (there are clips on their site) and basically its message is as follows:
Republicans like Sean Hannity: EVIL. Leftys like Michael Moore: WONDERFUL.
They cherry pick the most praiseworthy clips of Moore saying nice things about Republicans (did they forget that the day after 911, in his letter to the terrorists, he suggested they should have bombed the red states where people who voted for Bush lived rather than New York?)
and find one clip where a liberal is booed at a "Hannitization Tour' stop. But even the reference to that piece is dishonest, they edited out the liberal's more provocational comments that stirred up the crowd and claimed the Sean singled him out when he himself volunteered a question.
Big Daddy 14:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I'm one of the "This Divided State" filmmakers and we took no editorial liberties with Hannity's (or Moore's) statements. In fact, a number of reviewers called our film one of the most succesfully balanced political documentaries of all time. And the above statement is true. This Divided State did show at least one instance where he taunted liberals in the crowd and singled out a liberal audience member so he could be jeered.
Hannity is a scumbag phony. there needs to be more criticism of him in the article. Manic Hispanic 17:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
On what basis are we calling Hannity a devout Catholic? To my mind, that would mean weekly attendance at Mass, at a minimum. Unless there is a similarly objective standard, perhaps our entry should read that he "claims/purports/etc" to be a devout Catholic. - Willmcw 01:22, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
If you read 'Deliver Us From Evil: Defeating [..]' he makes numerous (30+) refrences to god and the important roll in american and his own life. He also mentions within the first 40 pages his catholic roots and growing up as an Irish american in New York. Since he uses his religion (he extricates 'evil' from biblical teachings) and uses it as his thesis to content repediatly that there is no such thing as 'moral relativism' or otherwise a psychological disorder. As far as i'm concerned anyone who justifies their views with a doctrine is a devote. When Howard Zinn makes socialistic remarks in 'A People's History of the United States' we label him as a marxist, socialistic-anarchist, this is no different.
I submit that Big Daddy get his own wikipedia article, which details his life and focuses on how, now, he his paranoid of a phantom "liberal media" and how he gets famously mad at things he reads on the internet. And his infamous deviant and downright dangerous homosexual tendancies. - Patrick Rose
I once heard sean speak favorably of capital punishment. How has he reconciled this with his catholic faith that does not support the death penalty. Muntuwandi 17:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Could the editor who deletes these links:
please explain why they are irrelevant? They seem to be directly related to the subject of this article. Thanks, - Willmcw 20:48, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know why any of the complainers keep bringing up Al Franken since according to the edit history, none of them had attempted to insert links or make edits of any sort to that article. Gamaliel 01:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This is hysterical - "Media Matters is usually a great repository of those critical views in a well-written, factual manner."????
Media Matters is a church-lady run nitpicking FAR left organization that's dedicated to slime and spooge conservatives (but completely ignore democrat missteps) as some sort of bizzare repentance ritual by it's founder David Brock to expunge himself of the sin of once being a Republican.
It does appear to back up most of it's points with factual arguments. But they are almost always poisoned with a liberal spin. So the dishonesty inherent in their writing is they confuse liberal spin with reality.
You know sometimes there ARE two sides of a story and the liberal side isn't always the right one.
The mission of Media Matters is to DAMAGE Republicans. Period.
Ps The reason we don't go to Al Franken and garbage-collect a bunch of sleazy quotes about him is that sliming people is not what conservatives do. That's more the stock and trade of liberals.
And this page, the Coulter, O'Reilly and probably countless others in here, prove it.
So very strange that a page about Sean Hannity would be full of Hannity fans, ^douchebag above me^, that's really a mystery. The amount of lunacy on here is a bit much, perhaps a hobby would be healthy for you people.
Added back some external critical links, as similar links are found on Al Franken's page, no one should complain. 66.168.28.42 15:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
What's wrong with the jeering part? It's factually accurate, and is descriptive. It's part of the "Hannitizing" process, so I don't see why it should be removed. -- Holdek (talk) 02:08, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Look, the line on "Jeering for several minutes" is unfair to Mr. Hannity, and if your going to continue to insist on this line I want the following items. 1) evidence from the doccumentry 2) a article written on the doccumentry that is linked into this article. if these are not provided, this line is in my opinion unsuported POV. -- Brandon Warzybok 19:17, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
At least find a link for the trailer, let the people decide. im saying that this claim is currently unsubstanitated, thats my point. --
Brandon Warzybok 21:29, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
I just finished researching the second to last sentance of the article regarding This Divided State. First, regardless of anything else the sentence is very out of place and comes out of no where. Add more cited information to make it a paragraph or remove it. That being said, I looked at the movie clips on the website and found that he calls on a "liberal" in the audience and acts respectful towards him. The audience boos and jeers, but how is that Hannity's fault? Hannity even tries to quiet the audience saying "let him finish." Now two posts up from mine someone explains that the full video shows him inviting a liberal on stage who is then drowned out by the audience. My point is, unless Hannity verbally expresses his specific intent, we can't assume why he did it. The way the sentence is currently phrased makes it seem that the reason he calls the person on stage is so the person can be booed by the audience. How do you know this? Show me inarguable proof that that's what his intentions were and only then should that sentence be kept. Personally I think the sentance should just be removed but mostly have a problem starting with the word "so". If the sentence is kept then my previous "let him finish" example should be added.
I can't find any reference to this. Given the propensity of both parties to seek publicity, I can't understand how a lawsuit like this could have no trace. I'm removing it until we can find a source for the suit aqnd a description of what it was about. - Willmcw 04:48, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
First, the initial sentence after the title "criticisms" makes it seem that Hannity being a conservative is a criticism. Needs to be reworded. Secondly, if there's going to be a criticism section there needs to be a section detailing points of support.
Check the triva and Criticisms sections. The Triva violates the NPOV "Sean Hannity appears as a character in an explicitly conservative comic book". The reason why I believe that the criticisms violates the npov is the fact that the page only has a Criticisms section and not any points from the other side.
The Links in my opinion needs work to solve another NPOV issue I am not sure what Wikipedia rules are on external links but putting someone’s personal hate page about Sean Hannity is not what I think is becoming to a neutral point of view. I do not like Sean Hannity but agree strongly with keeping things with in the NPOV. "Sean Hannity's Democratic Fascist Party" and "SeanHannityEvildoer.com" have to go before this article comes out of dispute.
Apparent vandalism by 66.55.229.151; apologies for mistitling subject line when cleaning it up to "Repeat vandalism", I believe this is the first incident by that IP on this article. My mistake. Lesson: don't edit after staying up all night. :P Ipso-De-Facto 13:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I changed it back to "His critics accuse him of"-- Soliscjw 18:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree that since there is a criticism section, there needs to be at least a short section about the opinions of those who support Hannity's views. I tried to write a section supporting Hannity but when I read it, it seemed to be sarcastic, mocking conservatives. A liberal like me can't solve the problem. If you are capable, you should do your best to improve this article's faults. Onionhound 09:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I made some considerable word changes and added some more information to make the criticism section flow a lot better, especially with the "This Divided State" bit, while pushing the POV a tick back to the right. Perhaps a little too much so, but it is more neutral than it originally was. BTW, I am a Republican searching for a party with values. Please help me...-- MatthewMitchell 00:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Hannidate Is it really needed to have the following sentence end the way it does? "Since 2005, Hannity has run a dating service on his website, called "Hannidate", matching right-leaning singles, although there have been only a few handfuls of users by the year's end." Obviously I'm talking about "although there have been only a few handfuls of users by the years's end." What year? Obviously its 2005, though I think Hannidate started much earlier than that, 2003 or 2004, maybe it wasn't until 2005 where it became a regular, permanent program. But the "few handfuls of users..." Seems like information that is not needed or perhaps gives a POV. I don't know how many people are in Hannidate, but I'm sure its more than a few "handfuls" -- 65.83.137.137 18:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I put it up for about a minute but then relized some one had already removed the item that i was disputing.-- Soliscjw 04:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
"Hannity claims that he is for reducing the size of the Federal Government yet he is all for the Government legislating morality. Hannity claims that progress is being made in Iraq yet he has not set foot in Iraq to document that "progress". He has, however, criticized the Bush administration over its immigration policy and its fiscal spending, as well as its handling of judicial nominations, and, as of this writing, has stepped up his criticisms on the Republican Party on these issues on his radio program." -- Soliscjw 21:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I've cleaned up the article a little. IMHO, here's what we need to work on:
I am a left libertarian who votes Democratic and in the current climate feel that, as a libertarian, I'm much more of a liberal than a social conservative. BUT.... i love wikipedia and understand the importance of NPOV. IMHO the best way to get to NPOV is to replace normative crap. Just so you know where I stand. Cheers. Jackk 06:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
What is up with KCSB? Seems like a lot of information on his earlier career. I don't understand why his advocating for actors/actresses to wear blue ribbons... is needed. Do we need every single statement he's made to be pointed out in Wiki? Looks like more information on his KCSB days then his more recent years. Not saying get rid of the KCSB, but clean it up, and add more to his current status. Kind of comical to actually read this. His top rated radio show, and highly viewed TV show, seem to be barely a blip on this entry. The controversies should be its own entry, with a paragraph or two in this entry "briefly" discussing them. And on the new entry for controversies, get into all the quotes and specifics...-- 65.83.137.137 17:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, as a fan of the concept of WIKI I think these articles should be limited to professional aspects and EMPIRICAL / SOURCED criticism. These sources should be credible and documented, not the political throwes of political hacks. As I'm sure some of you will glean, I am a conservative. However I only look for proper debate and progress, not to stifle political opposition. -- Hackett83 19:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Hannity is 'controversial' - Who says? This is meant to be an encyclopedia article not someone's opinion.
Who says? People say. I say. My mailman says. Many people say Sean Hannity is divisive and offensive, and hurts America, doing so -- that's a fact. Many people say Sean Hannity is just a staunch conservative, sticking to his guns in the face of "the liberal media" -- that's a fact too. This is controversy, no matter which side you're on. People, aside from us ivory-tower encyclopedia contributors, do sometimes tend to influence the world we are writing about. It is not an opinion that Sean Hannity is controversial, it is a fact. It is an opinion that Sean Hannity is a dick, but that's not in the article, as it should not be. He IS controversial. That's perhaps the main part of his gig. That's why so many people know about him. - Patrick Rose
Sean Hannity is not even slightly controversial. Have you ever even listened to the man? He is a repetitive dork. I'm more conservative than he is and I can't listen to him anymore and his nonsensical stances on things. He is not Libertarian, which he tries to claim once and awhile. I don't know how many times he has to tell everyone he's a "Reagan conservative". I think he's trying to convince himself. This "so and so hurts America by being so divisive" is such bullshit, Pat. That's just a way to shut people up. I haven't heard Hannity quoted by Osama Bin Laden. Now, Michael Moore and the DNC talking points are repeated by Osama over and over again. You're in good company.
Hannity 'claims' that he dropped out because of financial difficulties. Is 'said' or 'says' a bit too even-handed for a left-wing smear job?
Oh geez. Someone caught on to the vast, left-wing semantic conspiracy. Quick, let's all hide! Sean Hannity does too good a job smearing himself for the left-wing to need to help. I don't see what's wrong with "claims".-- The Amazing Superking 02:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
'indignance' - not a word I'm familiar with - factual error at least.
Shall I keep going for a fourth paragraph? Perhaps later. There's a start and certainly sufficient cause for a discussion on the neutrality and factual accuracy of the article. Fluterst 03:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
None of these would warrant a totallydisputed tag, so I've removed it. Jackk 01:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The "Criticisms" section desperately needs sources. I was starting to clean up the "Support for Iran-Contra" section until I realized there was no evidence given for Hannity's support for any part of it. The Franken quote is entirely inappropriate for this purpose.
I also don't see why "Conduct at UVSC" is notable. It sounds pretty much like any report about any semi-controversial campus speaker.
Hannity is a controversial figure, so I'm quite disappointed that the unsourced Louima section is the only one that even looks like it might belong here.
-- Ajdz 02:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
THREE POINTS TO CLARIFY OR THINK ABOUT
The referencing for his 'controversial' positions is woeful. At least some sense of WHAT he said about these issues - not just general statements that he thought this/argued that/may or may not have implied the other - should be given. Or else it sounds like biased Hannity-hate. I actually find him way too extreme and much prefer Alan Colmes, but this is an encyclopedia, not an Al Franken rant.
Under criticisms, what on earth is this "world court" which found the US to have committed terrorist acts? The International Criminal Court which did not exist at this time AND of which the US is not a member?
What has Hannity's recent focus on Eminent Domain to do with philanthropy? The other associations are just about charitable (rather than political, especially the first freedom concert association) but what has eminent domain to do with his philanthropic activities?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.15.73 ( talk • contribs) 16:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Is it really necessary? — Ilyan e p (Talk) 04:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I reverted an anon getting rid of neoconservative and replaceing it with conservative. Neoconservative is not an attack, it's simply a statement of fact. Does he advocate liberal policies to enforce social conservative ideals? Yes. A conservative would say that the government has no right to say what someone can and can't do in their home. Does he advocate liberal economic policies to spend money on conservative issues? Yes. This means one is a neoconservative, not that one is satan (although I do have my views on that...) - M ask 21:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Sean Hannity is not a neocon. I agree that neoconservative is not an attack, but Sean Hannity, as much as you despise him, does not adhere to a neocon ideology. He has repeatedly criticized the neoconservative agenda in government size and spending. Furthermore, many traditional conservatives advocate for a role of gov't to uphold "moral standards". Such advocavy is certainly not limited to neocons. Do not confuse a conservative with a libertarian. - Albrock
Hannity has said on many occasions that we are endowed by "our Creator" which is factually incorrect. Why should that fact be removed? I am returning it.
Mediation request has been made over this issue. I will keep the "our Creator" topic off of the Hannity page for the meanwhile even though it is not a POV issue and is verifiable. DanielZimmerman 20:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
This is embarassingly stupid drama. Why don't you guys just mention what HAnnity says and leave it at that, without commenting about it? DUH. 68.59.61.191 16:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I wanted to create a discussion about this topic before adding something to the article about Sean Hannity and his claim to be both a Reagan Conservative and a Libertarian.
| Describes himself as a Reagan Conservative"My only role is to be intellectually honest and truthful to my audience. I barely consider myself a Republican. I am a Reagan conservative. "
I have also heard him describe himself as a libertarian, though I have not been able to find a verifiable source on this (one reason I didnt just throw this in the article)
Can one be both a Libertarian and a Reagan Conservative? Is Sean Hannity either of these that he claims to be? DanielZimmerman 06:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The section "Fred Phelps Protests" does not seem to be a criticism of Hannity, but rather a criticism that Hannity has made of others. I moved this to "Political positions" to make this clear. But I'm not sure why this particular opinon is notable, considering that he probably has a lot of them.
Without a reference to a source being critical of Hannity over this question, this would be original research. Moreover, it seems like a bad example of non-neutrality; I could easily see a liberal-leaning journalist asking the same question, given Buckley's position as a prominent conversative. -- Beland 16:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I'm a mediator from the mediation cabal. No has taken the Hannity case Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-29 Sean Hannity, under God sorry for the long delay. figure I'll take it. Here my facts so that biases are disclosed
BTW if the issue is dead let me know.
OK reading the case. Daniel Zimmerman since you are the one who brought this case. I read your excellent analysis of how using "our creator" is incorrect and "their creator" has a different meaning. Do we have a reputable 3rd party source that agrees with you on this? Do we have a reputable 3rd party source that has raised this criticism? I'm looking for something in line with WP:NOR jbolden1517 Talk 20:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I still don't understand why people are so thick. Sean Hannity deliberately lied and claimed that Fred Phelps and his cache of nutjobs were "liberals" protesting the funerals of dead soldiers and heckling their families. He selectively quoted newspaper clipping to support his story. Someone came into the article and mentioned that he argued with one of them on Hannity & Colmes several months later, and then everyone became confused and removed it. Hannity's misrepresentation of Phelps as a "liberal" is going back in.
Recently on his show Sean mentioned that he recieved an honorary doctorate from Liberty University. In the trivia section another university is credited with this degree. Did he recieve doctorates from both universities, did I simply hear wrong or is there an inacuracy on the page?
"Hannity is a vigorous debater who relies on tactics like offering out of context quotations, stifling alternate viewpoints, attacking the messenger of opposing views, dismissing facts, and presenting straight-up factual errors as truth."
Can we please support this or remove it? To someone who disagrees with him this is true but what "straight up factual errors" were presented, what "alternative viewpoints" were stifled and what "facts" were dismissed. Loucards 19:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, this statement is Original Research. It needs to be removed unless a notable, verifiable source is provided.-- WilliamThweatt 23:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Such a quote as that does not seem to be encyclopedic and should be removed. However, he has done many of those things stated. If someone could present examples of those things in an encyclopedic way then it could be added. This is why I believe a "criticisms" section is warranted because there are many verifiable examples where Sean Hannity has been criticized for what he has said or done. DanielZimmerman 01:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
That statement is factual and should be put back in. If you work with Hannity you shoud not be editing this page. (Anonymous User) May 30, 2006
I believe that this statement is true, but not encyclopedic. It's simply unfair to make vague, negative, uncited judgments of subjects' debating tactics. If someone wants to produce a section entitled "Controversies on Sean Hannity's Program", documenting instances where he has used these tactics or has been accused of using these tactics, that's fine. There has been solid verified research on Hannity's tricks and alleged tricks. This article mainly contains unsubstantiated assertions. -- Jjohn413 18:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I cut out the statement calling Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church part of the "far-right," inasmuch as Phelps supported Al Gore, opposes the Iraq War, supports Cuba and Castro, supports Saddam Hussein (a socialist), etc. I don't think it's accurate to call him either far-right or far-left. LaszloWalrus 10:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Did this guy go to college? On 9/15/06 during his radio broadcast he claimed to have been on the deans list of an unnamed college. He did not specify which college and the lack of citing one in his bio leads one to believe he was less than truthful
The discussion on this articles neutrality seems to have halted, so after making some POV-snipping edits myself (already did, please review), I'm going to remove the tag. If it goes back up, can someone do me a favor and drop me a line so I can come back to discuss? Thanks, Karwynn 21:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I put the tag up for this statement "The protesters were members of the Westboro Baptist Church, a conservative religious hate group led by Fred Phelps." They may be a hate group but saying that is a pov. There is a better way of saying it but I can not think of it right now please change it-- Soliscjw 23:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry thanks for letting me know -- Soliscjw 00:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
When I put the section npov tag up it changed the format of the page what did I do wrong?-- Soliscjw 00:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Binyamin Netanyahu is a recent guest on the Sean Hannity radio show. Condemning terrorists. However, recently, right-wing Israelis including Binyamin Netanyahu attended a 60th anniversary celebration of the bombing of the King David Hotel, which was organized by the Menachem Begin Centre. The British Ambassador in Tel Aviv and the Consul-General in Jerusalem complained, saying "We do not think that it is right for an act of terrorism, which led to the loss of many lives, to be commemorated.".
Dean1970 22 July, 2006. (60th anniversary of the act of terrorism which clamed over 90 lives)
You can't use Media Matters as a source. They're not credible anymore. I'm not trying to hook this left or right, I'm just saying that it is generally accepted that MM carries a political agenda.
First of all, there is no mention in the article of his education. Then henever dropped out of college according to his biography on the foxnews.com website. Matthew lol. What a coincedence. Did you just check this page out today. Also There is bad grammar in this article and I will be fixing that. This article is bad people, and it needs to be fixed and cleaned up. -- Zonerocks 23:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
During the Terri Schiavo controversy, two of Schiavo's nurses appeared on Hannity and Colmes to argue that Schiavo was not brain dead. Comedian Harry Shearer obtained a video tape[1] where Hannity can be heard coaching the nurses on how to respond to Alan Colmes's questions. He told them to respond "I'm just here to tell you what I saw", no matter what Colmes asked. After the segment, Hannity can be heard saying "We got the points out...But you did great, both of you." First of all this was an allegation. This is one of the things on the article that makes this POV. This should be cleaned up from the article. There is no actual video tape of this or audio tape for that matter. For all we know, the COMEDIAN made it up. -- Zonerocks 00:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
What's the point of this section, looks like this section needs to be cleaned up. It has false facts. We could put his education in this section. -- Zonerocks 00:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
If no one objects to me adding some new info about sean hannity, then I will add it. -- Zonerocks 00:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Sean Hannity joined the FOX News Channel (FNC) in September 1996 as co-host of Hannity & Colmes (Monday-Friday, 9-10PM ET), a primetime one-hour debate driven talk show focusing on the controversial issues and newsmakers of the day. He serves as the program’s conservative counterpart to liberal Alan Colmes. He also currently serves as the host of WABC-AM’s highly rated afternoon talk program, The Sean Hannity Show.
Known for his provocative style, Hannity has become one of the most popular radio personalities in New York and has appeared on a number of talk shows to offer his free-wheeling, passionate commentary on politics and the American agenda. He has interviewed many key political figures ranging from President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Reverend Jesse Jackson, Steve Forbes, New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, Ralph Nader and Ken Starr.
Prior to his post at Fox News Channel, Hannity hosted a radio talk show in Atlanta on WGST-AM. He also frequently substitutes for fellow talk show host, Rush Limbaugh on WABC in New York.
Sean Hannity has been named "Talk Show Host of the Year" and one of the "Top 100 Talk Hosts in America." by Talkers Magazine. He is originally from Long Island, New York. http://premierespeakers.com/560/index.cfm http://wabcradio.com/programming.asp -- Zonerocks 02:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
So is that alright? --
Zonerocks
03:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I hope yall liked the changes in the early life and career section. I think now we need to get to the other issues in this article. This article has alot more criticism then talking up the positives. This is a very biased article. let's clean this up yall. -- Zonerocks 05:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't anyone have any ideas for anything on the todo list. -- Zonerocks 05:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
This is a very irrelevant part of the article. It's part of one the biased things in this article. I would like to get rid of it an instead replace it with education. -- Zonerocks 18:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
ok, Biased Republican Propanaganda. Come on. The second one what the hell is that, the third qutoe Sean hannity doesn't call the show on a regular basis. You can decide on the rest. My point is that we should get rid of this pointless and very biased, and vandalistic section. -- Zonerocks 00:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC) P.S hmmm no one wants to deal with this page besides me. So I guess it's up to me to get this page correct.
I will be adding a criticisms section to talk about sean's criticism.
Wow this is better than it looked yesterday. Good job. Very Unbiased, but I think you need to add more to the page. -- Proudzionist2347 03:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The friendship between Hannity and well-known New Jersey white supremacist radio host Hal Turner is worth mentioning. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050620/blumenthal -- Baltech22 02:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't put that. The Link doesn't work, and plus it is biased. --
Zonerocks
16:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
If you consider it POV, why not include it in the 'criticisms' section? It's not isolated to just that one article. Refer to http://www.newshounds.us/2006/08/18/sean_hannity_phony_friend_to_jews.php http://www.sanderhicks.com/hannitymania.html http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=04BA10C53820685A59536F41E333485F?diaryId=2788 [among others] -- Baltech22 21:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
What your trying to say is not true. The side chat was to offer support for his cocaine habit and homosexual leanings. You totally twisted the words. Fix it or it goes away.-- Zonerocks 21:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Read the article, buddy. The charge is that Hannity offered Turner a venue to air his views. That is a documented criticism. There is absolutely no reason to remove it from that section. The question isn't whether the criticism is correct, but whether the criticisms section accurately reflects how Hannity is criticized, and it definitely does that. -- Baltech22 23:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed it again. Media Matters is far from an acceptable source, but that isn't even the point. Keep it official in the external links. There is already a criticism section, put specific entries of criticism there (with references). EmmSeeMusic 16:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The criticism section is seriously distorted. I can't stand this man, but the section makes him out to be Satan. I also put up a Cleanup tag; I think it's best for this article. Ohyeahmormons 19:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Is there a photo we can use with Hannity wearing less makeup? 23:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
A good friend claims that He see's Sean Sunday at the baptist church he attends in Long Island, yet the article states he's a practicing Catholic. Is his wife bapsist? Does he attend two church services a weekend. A practicing Catholic would regularly attend a Catholic church on Sunday. Perhaps the verbiage should be changed to claims to be a practicing Catholic. -- Zippy1981 00:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Your removal of the critique in regards to Hannity's incorrect statement that the picketers at a soldier's funeral were "anti-war leftists", as opposed to radical homophobes, is flawed. You claim, correctly, that Phelps calls himself a Democrat, at least in name. However, Hannity never mentions anything about the picketers being "democrats", but rather he claims that they are "the anti-war left". Phelps may call himself a "democrat" based on some strange tradition he has, but to therefore consider him "left-wing", despite his clearly non-liberal stance, is severe spin at work. How do his actions give any indication of a left-wing lean? His stance on gay rights? Religious tolerance? He may dislike George Bush, but he hates Clinton just as much. There is nothing factually innacurate in the criticism. Get your spin straight. -- Jackbirdsong 23:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC) (This comment was originally placed on my talk page and not here on the Sean Hannity talk page as it should have been.-- Getaway 14:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC))
It seems not everyone can maintain a high enough level of maturity to handle this biographical article... I can't say I support the guy, but I can say what is going on with this page only goes to show how passionate people can become over such matters of "great significance".
Whether the man is a jerk, fraud, or a saint should be the product of a person's individual research and observations. I've seen people get offensive over this article, putting in considerably negative and biased opinions. Many negative inputs were not biased opinions, of course, and most likely the ones that have survived the page would be the ones. I've also seen people get defensive, quickly removing anything that deems him less-than-saintly. Whatever.. he's human.
And, well, yeah; that's it. This guy's a public figure, it can be especially difficult for us to maintain a neutral viewpoint, and I am not a big-time contributor here, and maybe it's not my place, but I have read my share of wikipedia articles for leisure or for research, and I have seen how they sound, look, and feel, and I think the best direction for this topic would be to pretty much cut out all the specific criticisms because, for one, there are too many for it to be practical, and because... is it really our job to dig up the "dirt" on him? How specific is too specific?
Or maybe the better question is.... is controversial bad? 8 ) My last input on this piece (quite possibly the last time I ever view this article as well). Take it or leave it. -- Soul in Ether 06:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
This is in the criticism section but doesn't say who criticized it:
During the Terri Schiavo controversy, two of Schiavo's nurses appeared on Hannity and Colmes to argue that Schiavo was not brain dead. Talk show host and actor Harry Shearer obtained a video tape[2] where Hannity can be heard coaching the nurses on how to respond to Alan Colmes's questions. He told them to respond "I'm just here to tell you what I saw", no matter what Colmes asked. After the segment, Hannity can be heard saying "We got the points out...But you did great, both of you"Video on Youtube.-- PTR 12:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
This section states: Hannity was an outspoken critic of police brutality victim, Abner Louima. Louima, a black Haitian Immigrant was beaten severely by Brooklyn police officers in 1997. During the attack, Louima was forcefully sodomized with a plunger causing severe internal injuries as well as being beaten, threatened with death and racially abused. Hannity was one of Louima's biggest critics, charging that he had fabricated the rape — calling him "lying Louima" citation needed and using interviews with people alleging Louima had past sexual relationships with men to bolster the claim that he had sustained his injuries during a "gay sex act." During, the trial of officer Justin Volpe, Volpe admitted to sodomizing Louima and was sentenced to 30 years in prison without the possibility of parole.
It seems a lot of this information is included on or belongs on the Sean Hannity Radio show page. Wouldn't criticisms of the Hannity and Colmes show and the Sean Hannity Radio show be better placed there? -- PTR 21:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
It would do the editors of this article to remember Wikipedia's policies on weasel words, and be reminded that according to WP:NPOV, the purpose of Wikipedia in the cases of political and other conflicts is to describe the debate, not to advocate either side. I have noticed that in the Criticism section of this article, steps have been taken to discredit people the article's subject disagrees with by the use of Weasel Words to slyly imply that Hannity is correct, or to give his opinions extra weight. Note that both of these uses of these words are ruled as unacceptable in the relevent policies. Neutral point of view is what editors must attempt to strive for. -- Kuzaar- T- C- 14:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
One issue I have noticed on this page, particularly in dealing with the above problems with weasel words, attempts to give undue weight to the article's subject, and attempts to discredit people and organizations the article's subject disagrees with, is the removal of and material critical to him. Specifically, I refer to the above issues in which Hannity has been criticized (criticized, literally, as in organizations have found fault and error with what he has said or done) for his actions. Criticism is not, as some editors appear to think, any idea that the article's subject's political views are objectively right or wrong, but, by definition, showing that something he said was incorrect, at least according to Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com. I have reinserted the "Criticism" subheading for the time being. -- Kuzaar- T- C- 14:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, just popping in here -- I've posed a question on BLP's talk page about criticism sections and I thought you should be aware of the response. -- plange 16:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I deleted this entire section:
"* In 2003, shortly after the fall of Baghdad, Sean Hannity interviewed Ex-Marine and Chief Weapons Inspector in Iraq, Scott Ritter on the validity of the invasion and his involvement in the Weapons Inspection program. Hannity outright claimed Ritter was biased and paid off by the Iraqi government (without evidence)to endorse the idea of WMD no longer existing in Iraq, the conversation finally turned to the future of the occupation where Sean believed the occupation would be very short and successful, Ritter said we'd be there years from now and in the same state as the occupation of South Vietnam.
citation neededHannity has never apologized for this character assasination."
Why? Well, the first sentence is fine. We've been waiting for a citation for the rest of it through the next-to-last sentence for 3 months - apparently none is forthcoming. And the last sentence is pure argumentation: "character assasination" is a clearly POV phrase and the statement that he "has never apologized" presupposes that he should. Pinkvolkswagen 02:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Today Getaway brought up some questions regarding the reliability of the reporting organization "Media Matters" in edit summaries on the main article. Personally, I think that while it is a niche reporting organization (just like the LogCabinRepublicans link, which Getaway added), that does not make it an unreliable source. In honesty, I am more concerned that Getaway does not think it is a reliable source because it is critical of the article's subject. If any other editors would like to express an opinion, I encourage them to. -- Kuzaar- T- C- 15:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
No, not a reliable source: according to the info on Jossi's talk page, they definitely aren't neutral, and have a slant; hence, are likely presenting slanted information.
Just took my first look at this page, which is giving undue weight to criticism, and needs a rewrite. Try to get some distance: when Sean Hannity's obituary is written, will a single one of those Criticism headline sections occupy an entire paragraph in any bios or obits? Does this *look like* an encyclopedic entry in any reputable encyclopedia? Does it look like a bio in any hard print source? If not, there's likely some POV-pushing going on in this article. Criticism sections are to be avoided, per Jimbo, anyway. Criticism is the bulk of this article: looks like POV at work. Sandy 16:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
By the way, Youtube isn't a reliable source either: needs to be removed from the article, content sourced to reliable sources. Sandy 16:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
According to Sandy (see User:jossi talk page "Hannity") The Nation is not a reliable source for Hannity either. -- PTR 20:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the criticism to this discussion page.
According The Nation, on Hannity's WABC show, Hannity took phone calls from racist and anti-Semitic talk show host Hal Turner on his WABC show. [2]
Hannity was a critic of police brutality victim, Abner Louima, a black Haitian immigrant beaten severely by Brooklyn police officers in 1997. During the beating, Louima was forcefully sodomized with a plunger causing severe internal injuries. Hannity was criticized for charging that he had fabricated the rape, calling him "lying Louima" [3] and using interviews with people alleging Louima had past sexual relationships with men to bolster the claim that he had sustained his injuries during a "gay sex act." During the trial of officer Justin Volpe, Volpe admitted to sodomizing Louima and was sentenced to 30 years in prison without the possibility of parole.
In August, 2005, Hannity was involved in a controversial dispute concerning the church of Fred Phelps protesting at the funeral of Jeremy Doyle. [4] citation needed. Around the same time, Hannity also reported on a gathering by the activist group Code Pink in front of Walter Reed medical center. [5]
-- PTR 21:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I moved a lot of information around. I think we can flesh out the Radio and Television sections with more detail (maybe weave some of the controversial stuff in) and add awards and his off TV/Radio life. -- PTR 21:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
After moving the sections around and removing the criticism section to the talk page, there is only one reference left. Seems we need some citations. -- PTR 21:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Fair.org says their information came from OnePeoplesProject.com and this is the only item on Hannity I could find on their site. (I searched in google for OnePeoplesProject and hannity.) They don't seem unbiased according to this piece and I couldn't find the lying Louima reference here.
http://www.onepeoplesproject.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=90&Itemid=27-- PTR 14:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
This should be a limited section. There is almost more criticism on this page then actual good info. It is pathetic. Wow should this section exist. It should be limited if anything. Most of the info in that section is POV. and most of the criticisms are lies. -- Zonerocks 22:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I noticed today that the editor SandyGeorgia removed the "controversy" section entirely- is this appropriate? There's consensus, at the very minimum, that Hannity is a controversial figure, and I do not think that WP:BLP gives any editor free reign to delete sections stating that there has been controversy surrounding any person on their article, even if BLP *does* state that it is inappropriate to make potentially defamatory claims without a reliable source. My solution to this would be to say that there have been controversies Hannity has been involved in concerning topics X, Y, and Z, citing the sources previously used but not going into detail on them, and bring up the specific assertions on a seperate page, as per the Wikipedia article on Bill O'Reilly. -- Kuzaar- T- C- 18:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
(unindent) -- hmm, didn't mean to imply the article had to be positive, just neutral, meaning we don't advocate one side or the other with either tone or undue weight, but it doesn't mean negative stuff can't be in here. Surely there's objective material out there on Sean Hannity commenting on his actions?! What about transcripts of his program? I just took a gander at Al Franken and it has some problems too! Glad you brought it up-- it has some criticisms in there too that are from blogs, yikes! -- plange 04:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Once again SandyGeorgia ( talk · contribs) has removed something he does not like on conservative political voice. [10] This user has been threatened to be blocked for another article for this garbage.
Please explain why Media Matters is not a WP:RS for a Media Matters analysis. Also WP:V says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."
MM has video and audio of Hannity's comments. Arbusto 19:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I am looking at an article that used to have criticism on it, but two user's pulled MM off and then removed the controversy section. Arbusto 01:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I quote from WP:RS, "The websites and publications of political parties and religious groups should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief is in itself a reason not to use a source." I'd like to point out Media Matters is not a political party nor religious organization. [11] Can anyone give a reason for the material they disagree with and want removed? Arbusto 01:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
During the Terri Schiavo controversy, two of Schiavo's nurses appeared on Hannity and Colmes to argue that Schiavo was not brain dead. Talk show host and actor Harry Shearer obtained a video tape Hannity and Colmes video where Hannity can be heard coaching the nurses on how to respond to Alan Colmes's questions. He told them to respond "I'm just here to tell you what I saw", no matter what Colmes asked. After the segment, Hannity can be heard saying "We got the points out...But you did great, both of you". [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] Should this be included? Arbusto 03:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't blindly revert things like fixing fair use images. I see no reason to discuss Fred Phelps on this page. He is more than adequately discuessed on his own page. In fact, I see no reason for most of this page to exist. Are the controvercies notable at all? JBKramer 18:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Review my recent edit to the controvercies section. I see no reason to play laundry list. JBKramer 20:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Just an FYI as I don't see it posted here. JBKramer has disputed the Fair Use of the main Hannity pic Image:Hannity.jpg with the statement "This pictures is not acceptable in this article because it is a picture of a living person used only to show the appearance of that person." Further information may be available on the image's talk page. Please provide a rationale on the image page as to why this image qualifies as fair use. If no acceptable rationale can be provided, this image may be nominated for deletion in the future. Morphh (talk) 14:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
It is written that Hannity defended his statements by saying Phelps was a democrat. Can we source this? JBKramer 20:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Remove all references to Media Matters in this article. As it is a biased, polemic enterprise with the sole admitted purpose of discrediting Hannity and all others who espouse who they deem to be spreading conservative misinformation. A separate Hannity controversies article should be created, remembering that it must also comply with WP:BLP. This article should be a vanilla neutral description of Hannity's life. Ramsquire 21:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Discussion of consensus about Media Matters is here, for anyone interested in following (for when PTR returns from his travel, I'll say that I'm no longer interested in helping out here, as the environment has turned too toxic for my taste). Questions have been raised about the reliability of the source, but also issues of undue weight, notability, and attack page concerns — do read the entire discussion. Sandy ( Talk) 02:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Has there been an actual consensus on this matter, I plan on writing new wikipedia policy on the issue of having a criticism section in articles. Personally I think they should be no criticism in any article. Back to Consensus, I think we should ask for consensus on this issue pretty soon. -- Zonerocks 01:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The Louima section cites Fair.org as the source, Fair.org cites OnePeoplesProject.com as their source and OnePeoplesProject.com cites an opinion piece which is not a reliable source for a BLP. Isn't there a reliable source for this?
The Hal Turner article by the Nation does not criticize Hannity. It says he called the show. It's guilt by association. Turner is a bad guy, Hannity let him call his show and spoke with him but it never criticizes him.
I think these items should be removed until we have sources that are reliable and say what we say they say. -- PTR 23:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with criticizing Hannity but using a site that is dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media strikes me as wrong for a BLP of a conservative. The site is presenting a certain view with their lead-in articles for the clips. No attack on them, that is their stated purpose.
Also, in the paragraph we say number of organizations which would be fine if we listed some of them ...number of organizations, such as; Blah, Blah and Blah... with citations.
If Hannity is such a controversial figure don't we have mainstream news articles or interviews that criticize him like there is for Rush Limbaugh? Diane Sawyer just interviewed Hannity for supporting Rush Limbaugh over the Michael J. Fox issue. That is recent, controversial and in the mainstream media. -- PTR 00:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Moved the following here pending discussion, creditable references and a response from the noticeboard.
Hannity was a critic of police brutality victim, Abner Louima, a black Haitian immigrant beaten severely by Brooklyn police officers in 1997. During the beating, Louima was forcefully sodomized with a plunger causing severe internal injuries. Hannity was criticized for charging that he had fabricated the rape, calling him "lying Louima", and using interviews with people alleging Louima had past sexual relationships with men to bolster the claim that he had sustained his injuries during a "gay sex act." [6] During the trial of officer Justin Volpe, Volpe admitted to sodomizing Louima and was sentenced to 30 years in prison without the possibility of parole.
The above uses a citation from Fair.org which cites OnePeoplesProject as their source but OnePeoplesProject does not have the "lying Louima" reference and OnePeoplesProject might be a questionable source for this BLP. The only place we've found this information (Kuzaar tracked it down) was in an opinion piece in the Philadelphia Telegraph which also might be a questionable source for a BLP. -- PTR 16:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The following was removed pending discussion and response from the BLP Noticeboard.
Hannity has been criticized for taking phone calls from racist and anti-Semitic talk show host Hal Turner on his WABC show. [7]
The article referenced doesn't criticize Hannity, it says Turner calls in and he and Hannity have talked. To use the phrase criticized for taking phone calls is misleading and The Nation might be a questionable source for this BLP. -- PTR 16:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
This continued POV campaign is not acceptable. I want to know why the NY Times was removed. No strange coincidence that Getaway ( talk · contribs) is also in favor of removing various other criticisms on this article and other conservative articles. Arbusto 07:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Given the polarising nature of this issue, I do consider that the article has over compensated given the discussions in various sections above. The criticism section is very small and does not reflect the level of debate/discussion. ScMeGr 01:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed this mistatement of the article that makes it seem that the Houston Chronicle called Democrats dumb and shallow.
In 2004 the Houston Chronicle wrote Hannity is a "angry man" whose comments like Democrats are "dumb and shallow" draw "a smattering of applause" from conserative onlookers. [8]
If this reference is used it should probably go into the Radio section and include some of the flattering quotes as well as critical ones. -- PTR 16:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
The following was included in the Controversy and criticism section but doesn't explain what the controversy or criticism was or if it was controversy or criticism.
-- PTR 19:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The following sentence regarding Hannity's radio show: "The program, heard by over 13 million listeners a week, has the second-largest radio audience in the country." was referenced by Talkers.com, yet I cannot seem to find the specific info regarding Hannity anywhere in this site. Perhaps somebody else can take a look? Otherwise, obviously this needs to be properly, and currently, ref'd.-- Jackbirdsong 03:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I reverted the link because he identifies himself as a Reagan Conservative.
"I identify myself as an independent compassionate Reagan conservative."
http://www.radioink.com/listingsEntry.asp?ID=88120&PT=industryqa
"I’m a Reagan conservative."
http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=407
-- PTR 23:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
WP:BLP#Use of categories states, among other things: Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for the category must be made clear in the article text. The article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag and these facts must be sourced. The insertion of the Neoconservative, or any other inappropriate category should be removed as a violation of WP:BLP, which is an exception to the 3RR rule. - Crockspot 23:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
There are two sources that contradict each other. One says Antonio made the turkey baster remark the other says Hannity did. We can't just pick the one we like best so I removed the remark and left both sources in. That he was dismissed is a fact. The rest is impossible to cite with confidence. -- PTR 14:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
"Sean Patrick Hannity (born December 30, 1961, in New York City, New York) is a American conservative talk radio host..." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.139.152.64 ( talk) 02:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
Note that Sean's show is well-received because it is a debate show. Sean has guests, from diverse viewpoints (right, left, centrist, environmentalist, he's even interviewed ex-Muslim terrorists) usually at least one prominent guest per 3-hour show. This is a difference in format from other syndicated talkers. Rush Limbaugh does not have guests on his show as a general rule. Some of Sean's regular guests include Dick Morris, Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, Newt Gingrich, and Oliver North.
Jessemckay 10:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Is this page locked? If so, why it doesn't have the lock icon or/and an explanation of why is locked for editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.136.200 ( talk) 06:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Its sickening to think and outspoken controversial pundit like sean hannity has received NO criticism on his page, every time someone puts a critique up it is reverted instantly, this page needs to be moderated. its very sick what people will do to defend their savior Atheist1981 ( talk) 05:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Children! This is no more a 'biography' than Spongebob is about oceanography. Why not put your 'cleansed and purfied' article on Conservapedia instead of trashing up Wikipedia? Oh, right, you already have.
When y'all are done sanitizing here, head on over to the White Aryan page… They'd love your revisionist treatment of the Holocaust.
-- UnicornTapestry ( talk) 01:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I have to add my voice that this article is unsuitable and unencyclopedic. I'm astonished that ANY critical source is dismissed as "left wing" out of hand, including former right-wing associates and even a former conservative maven. I also have to question if this article isn't being run not merely by "fan boys" as you put it, but by Hannity staffers as this sort of thing has happened before. I won't be surprised if my two cents gets deleted as I see that has happened here. What are you afraid of? I hope somebody shows gumption and get the article on the straight and level. -- 64.45.228.234 ( talk) 12:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
It seems very odd that all criticisms of Hannity keep getting taken down, yet all criticisms by the people who run this page and others from the fox boards on notable left wing pundits cannot get taken off for good. Has wikipedia been taken over by fox? These people claim its not a gossip forum, then post gossip claims on other pages. Not very objective. - concernedwikster
There is no 'conspiracy theory'. Fox news has already made similar actions. Plus, this is not a government cover up, this is a bunch of guys limiting access to 'fair and balanced' information about individuals whom their employers, or they personally support the views/believes/mutual dislikings and prejudices of. This 'nightshade' individual, who, according to his own profile, is a right winger, should not be allowed to control this site. If the standard were that NO criticisms were allowed on any site, I would understand, but this individual (and a few others here) have a history of hopskipping to other articles and leaving criticism, or complaining about them. Nightshade, I ask you personally, what standard are you holding to critiques of Hannity on this public wiki that you oppose holding against other non-right-winger wiki pages? You dont see a double standard? I am sure you, as well as everyone else here, is very aware of the changes made to many fox news related wikis by fox staffers a while back. Though they are no longer doing the obvious and changing sans proxy or from work rather than home, the taint is in the air, and your policy on moderation seems to be reflecting similar mentalities. What say you do this?--consernedwikster
I apologize for misquoting your handle nightshift, but you did not answer the question, other than saying you are not Hannity or working for him. You are aware that this is the internet, and thus your claim cannot be verified. But even to take you at your word, why do you hold this site to a higher standard than that of left leaning pundits or topics? Put yourself in the opposite point of view, you would be very cautious about such 'strange conveinences' given Hannity's parent companies previous actions on wiki. -- concernedwikster —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.72.139.55 (
talk)
17:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Does anyone have any citation for the human hand thing?
Sean Hannity is a danger to conservative politics. His inept propaganda type show turns people away from conservative points of view. He will routinely play a sound byte out of context and then have an artificial debate with a prominent socialist politician. I often think of Nazi style propaganda artist when I listen to Mr. Hannity. He is worse than Tokyo Rose was during WWII. In this new war we need jounalist who use the truth correctly to prove that we are right politically. We don't need chicken hawk arm chair propaganda low lifes like Sean Hannity to lie to us.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.24.169.205 ( talk • contribs).
I have removed the first graph of the criticism section as it violates Wiki standards. Assuming Hannity is reluctant to give an opinion in opposition to Republican talking points, this criticism should only be cited with a source, preferably a reputable source with examples to support the claim, though it should be noted that it is impossible to reliably claim that Hannity is 'incapable' of doing this, 'agonizingly' so or otherwise.
tsmcbride 14:38, 07 Nov 2006
I understand some people have absolutely no tolerance for an opposing point of view, but that doesn't justify the constant NPOV editing to this article. I seriously doubt Sean Hannity is married to Richard Simmons. I believe this article needs to be locked to prevent this abuse.
Um, why is there a quotes section? Isn't this what Wikiquote was made for? Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia agrees with me in a post he made to the Talk:DrinkOrDie page. Here's his quote:
Therefore I'm going to move the quotes to Wikiquote. -- Hoovernj 19:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Just look at the external links for the Hannity page - basically his homepage, some biographical information and a bunch of pages that bash him. Take this article at face value.
Calmypal: it's a hoax. it's an April Fool's joke. -- Nunh-huh 22:01, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Sean Hannity apologising to Bill Clinton? Definitely not a joke. - Woodrow 22:02, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Even if he ought to, it's still a joke. April Fool's is well and good, but in articles it's going too far. Meelar 22:04, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
However did they find an Al Gore impersonator? How is it that the one time I walk away from the radio, he says it's a joke? Oh well, my apologies. - Woodrow 22:10, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Is the WSB link about WSB-FM, WSB-AM, or WSB-TV?? 66.245.66.197 14:10, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Speaking of WSB, it is very misleading to say that "Hannity replaced Boortz and Savage on their flagship stations". It gives the implication that Boortz was replaced after his syndication. It is true that Savage was replaced by Hannity recently. Hannity did a local show in Atlanta like 10 years ago and Boortz has been on WSB since like 95. Whoever wrote this article is either an idiot or willfully lying.
Boortz is a friend of Hannity and they appear on each other's shows all the time.
Are these quotes absolutely neccesary...there are no quotes on Michael Savage or many other radio hosts...(plus, see argument on Talk:FOX News). Ilyanep
Duh. He's a paid speaker, so of course it's necesary to know some of the things he says. I'm sorry if they make him look bad but unfortunately he said them. If you want to add quotes where he says something you feel makes him look good then feel free and add them. And by the way there are indeed quotes for Michael Savage, I should know, I added them myself.
We don't post pictures of historical figures in the bathroom. Neither do we need to post all quotes taken out of context with intent to defame. Though these quotes, and these photos, exist, it is unnecessary to post them.
Please, someone depoliticize this.
One or two quotes might be good for this article, but the excessive amount of quotations here (especially as they're one-liners, almost certainly out of context) really ought to be removed, maybe to Wikiquote. Especially with the article as brief as it is, the list of quotations just isn't appropriate. That's my opinion. Jwrosenzweig 21:36, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm restoring the quotes section. Many biographical articles contain quotes sections, some longer than this one. If the article is brief in comparison, the solution to that particular issue is to expand the article, not to delete the section. If anyone has problems with particular quotes we can discuss candidates for removal, but I object to removing the entire section on such a flimsy basis. I apologize for not chiming in on this debate sooner, as I've been busy (see Sollog, for example) and this didn't pop up onto my radar until now, otherwise I would have objected sooner. Gamaliel 02:37, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I wouldn't say far outnumbered as I'm not counting unsigned drive-by anon comments; without those it seems to be 3-2, roughly even. Regardless, you're right, it should count for something, but what should also count is what goes on in other articles on Wikipedia - after all, we don't have seperate rules for each article.
Some examples: Arnold Schwarzenegger has a good (if a little too hagiographic) quotes section. Ann Coulter has a good quotes section that is the product of a talk page debate where we achived consensus about which ones should stay and which ones should be dumped. I don't like the section on Bill Clinton because it doesn't have sources for any of the quotes, but I'm not going to chop it out because of that. Gamaliel 06:41, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This is hardly that long, there are only seven quotes. If one or two are fine, why delete the whole list? I have no problem reducing the list, but I strongly object to its wholesale removal. Gamaliel 21:56, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The quotes are pretty pointless and not unique enough to really merit their presence. I'm going to pare them down. -- Holdek 08:11, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I can't find a source for it now, but I could've sworn I read somewhere once that his birth name is David and that he's only used Sean since he got involved with radio. I also think that came up once when he had some woman on his television show who was arguing with him, and she called him "David" in order to tick him off, after which he said that people only use his real name to cheap shot him when they can't think of anything else to say. Granted, I am in no way a fan of this guy, so I don't know a whole lot about him, but I'm almost certain I've heard that before. Anyone know anything about that? Beginning 14:05, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
This is quite obviously a case of selective quoting with an intent to defame. Can we just stick to the facts of the history of his life? Now, if there are quotes that he has made that he's been criticized over (similar to Dan Rather's "Courage"), it might be valid to bring them up as such. Of course, one would still have to be careful in that regard, since his entire job is to incite comments. He's not a "journalist" in the Dan Rather sense. However, I notice I don't see any quotes on the Al Franken page.
Anyway, this entire page needs to be scrapped and re-done.
This article is crap. Look, Boortz and Hannity are good friends; that is a fact. Whoever deleted my changes can go to hell. Also, what the hell is your problem deleting my references to the awards he has won and my reference to his support for the troops. Seriously whoever wrote this is an idiot.
There is really only one quote on here that characterizes Sean Hannity; the rest are simply presented as swipes at his character. It's not at all neutral.
I think the best thing to do is to either add context to the more controversial quotes, or remove them and simply add a section to the article making note that he is a highly controversial figure much like Rush Limbaugh. Personally, I think Sean Hannity is out of his mind, and I categorize him with the likes of Ann Coulter; however, an encyclopedia article is no place to discuss that. That's what the external links are for. Superking 18:27, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I pulled out this SLIME ATTACK:
" For example, the documentary This Divided State shows at least one instance where he has taunted the few liberals in the crowd, and singled out a liberal audience member to speak on stage so that the mostly conservative audience could jeer the liberal."
Divided State is a LEFT WING PROPAGANDA piece. I've seen bits and pieces (there are clips on their site) and basically its message is as follows:
Republicans like Sean Hannity: EVIL. Leftys like Michael Moore: WONDERFUL.
They cherry pick the most praiseworthy clips of Moore saying nice things about Republicans (did they forget that the day after 911, in his letter to the terrorists, he suggested they should have bombed the red states where people who voted for Bush lived rather than New York?)
and find one clip where a liberal is booed at a "Hannitization Tour' stop. But even the reference to that piece is dishonest, they edited out the liberal's more provocational comments that stirred up the crowd and claimed the Sean singled him out when he himself volunteered a question.
Big Daddy 14:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I'm one of the "This Divided State" filmmakers and we took no editorial liberties with Hannity's (or Moore's) statements. In fact, a number of reviewers called our film one of the most succesfully balanced political documentaries of all time. And the above statement is true. This Divided State did show at least one instance where he taunted liberals in the crowd and singled out a liberal audience member so he could be jeered.
Hannity is a scumbag phony. there needs to be more criticism of him in the article. Manic Hispanic 17:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
On what basis are we calling Hannity a devout Catholic? To my mind, that would mean weekly attendance at Mass, at a minimum. Unless there is a similarly objective standard, perhaps our entry should read that he "claims/purports/etc" to be a devout Catholic. - Willmcw 01:22, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
If you read 'Deliver Us From Evil: Defeating [..]' he makes numerous (30+) refrences to god and the important roll in american and his own life. He also mentions within the first 40 pages his catholic roots and growing up as an Irish american in New York. Since he uses his religion (he extricates 'evil' from biblical teachings) and uses it as his thesis to content repediatly that there is no such thing as 'moral relativism' or otherwise a psychological disorder. As far as i'm concerned anyone who justifies their views with a doctrine is a devote. When Howard Zinn makes socialistic remarks in 'A People's History of the United States' we label him as a marxist, socialistic-anarchist, this is no different.
I submit that Big Daddy get his own wikipedia article, which details his life and focuses on how, now, he his paranoid of a phantom "liberal media" and how he gets famously mad at things he reads on the internet. And his infamous deviant and downright dangerous homosexual tendancies. - Patrick Rose
I once heard sean speak favorably of capital punishment. How has he reconciled this with his catholic faith that does not support the death penalty. Muntuwandi 17:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Could the editor who deletes these links:
please explain why they are irrelevant? They seem to be directly related to the subject of this article. Thanks, - Willmcw 20:48, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know why any of the complainers keep bringing up Al Franken since according to the edit history, none of them had attempted to insert links or make edits of any sort to that article. Gamaliel 01:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This is hysterical - "Media Matters is usually a great repository of those critical views in a well-written, factual manner."????
Media Matters is a church-lady run nitpicking FAR left organization that's dedicated to slime and spooge conservatives (but completely ignore democrat missteps) as some sort of bizzare repentance ritual by it's founder David Brock to expunge himself of the sin of once being a Republican.
It does appear to back up most of it's points with factual arguments. But they are almost always poisoned with a liberal spin. So the dishonesty inherent in their writing is they confuse liberal spin with reality.
You know sometimes there ARE two sides of a story and the liberal side isn't always the right one.
The mission of Media Matters is to DAMAGE Republicans. Period.
Ps The reason we don't go to Al Franken and garbage-collect a bunch of sleazy quotes about him is that sliming people is not what conservatives do. That's more the stock and trade of liberals.
And this page, the Coulter, O'Reilly and probably countless others in here, prove it.
So very strange that a page about Sean Hannity would be full of Hannity fans, ^douchebag above me^, that's really a mystery. The amount of lunacy on here is a bit much, perhaps a hobby would be healthy for you people.
Added back some external critical links, as similar links are found on Al Franken's page, no one should complain. 66.168.28.42 15:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
What's wrong with the jeering part? It's factually accurate, and is descriptive. It's part of the "Hannitizing" process, so I don't see why it should be removed. -- Holdek (talk) 02:08, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Look, the line on "Jeering for several minutes" is unfair to Mr. Hannity, and if your going to continue to insist on this line I want the following items. 1) evidence from the doccumentry 2) a article written on the doccumentry that is linked into this article. if these are not provided, this line is in my opinion unsuported POV. -- Brandon Warzybok 19:17, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
At least find a link for the trailer, let the people decide. im saying that this claim is currently unsubstanitated, thats my point. --
Brandon Warzybok 21:29, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
I just finished researching the second to last sentance of the article regarding This Divided State. First, regardless of anything else the sentence is very out of place and comes out of no where. Add more cited information to make it a paragraph or remove it. That being said, I looked at the movie clips on the website and found that he calls on a "liberal" in the audience and acts respectful towards him. The audience boos and jeers, but how is that Hannity's fault? Hannity even tries to quiet the audience saying "let him finish." Now two posts up from mine someone explains that the full video shows him inviting a liberal on stage who is then drowned out by the audience. My point is, unless Hannity verbally expresses his specific intent, we can't assume why he did it. The way the sentence is currently phrased makes it seem that the reason he calls the person on stage is so the person can be booed by the audience. How do you know this? Show me inarguable proof that that's what his intentions were and only then should that sentence be kept. Personally I think the sentance should just be removed but mostly have a problem starting with the word "so". If the sentence is kept then my previous "let him finish" example should be added.
I can't find any reference to this. Given the propensity of both parties to seek publicity, I can't understand how a lawsuit like this could have no trace. I'm removing it until we can find a source for the suit aqnd a description of what it was about. - Willmcw 04:48, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
First, the initial sentence after the title "criticisms" makes it seem that Hannity being a conservative is a criticism. Needs to be reworded. Secondly, if there's going to be a criticism section there needs to be a section detailing points of support.
Check the triva and Criticisms sections. The Triva violates the NPOV "Sean Hannity appears as a character in an explicitly conservative comic book". The reason why I believe that the criticisms violates the npov is the fact that the page only has a Criticisms section and not any points from the other side.
The Links in my opinion needs work to solve another NPOV issue I am not sure what Wikipedia rules are on external links but putting someone’s personal hate page about Sean Hannity is not what I think is becoming to a neutral point of view. I do not like Sean Hannity but agree strongly with keeping things with in the NPOV. "Sean Hannity's Democratic Fascist Party" and "SeanHannityEvildoer.com" have to go before this article comes out of dispute.
Apparent vandalism by 66.55.229.151; apologies for mistitling subject line when cleaning it up to "Repeat vandalism", I believe this is the first incident by that IP on this article. My mistake. Lesson: don't edit after staying up all night. :P Ipso-De-Facto 13:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I changed it back to "His critics accuse him of"-- Soliscjw 18:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree that since there is a criticism section, there needs to be at least a short section about the opinions of those who support Hannity's views. I tried to write a section supporting Hannity but when I read it, it seemed to be sarcastic, mocking conservatives. A liberal like me can't solve the problem. If you are capable, you should do your best to improve this article's faults. Onionhound 09:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I made some considerable word changes and added some more information to make the criticism section flow a lot better, especially with the "This Divided State" bit, while pushing the POV a tick back to the right. Perhaps a little too much so, but it is more neutral than it originally was. BTW, I am a Republican searching for a party with values. Please help me...-- MatthewMitchell 00:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Hannidate Is it really needed to have the following sentence end the way it does? "Since 2005, Hannity has run a dating service on his website, called "Hannidate", matching right-leaning singles, although there have been only a few handfuls of users by the year's end." Obviously I'm talking about "although there have been only a few handfuls of users by the years's end." What year? Obviously its 2005, though I think Hannidate started much earlier than that, 2003 or 2004, maybe it wasn't until 2005 where it became a regular, permanent program. But the "few handfuls of users..." Seems like information that is not needed or perhaps gives a POV. I don't know how many people are in Hannidate, but I'm sure its more than a few "handfuls" -- 65.83.137.137 18:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I put it up for about a minute but then relized some one had already removed the item that i was disputing.-- Soliscjw 04:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
"Hannity claims that he is for reducing the size of the Federal Government yet he is all for the Government legislating morality. Hannity claims that progress is being made in Iraq yet he has not set foot in Iraq to document that "progress". He has, however, criticized the Bush administration over its immigration policy and its fiscal spending, as well as its handling of judicial nominations, and, as of this writing, has stepped up his criticisms on the Republican Party on these issues on his radio program." -- Soliscjw 21:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I've cleaned up the article a little. IMHO, here's what we need to work on:
I am a left libertarian who votes Democratic and in the current climate feel that, as a libertarian, I'm much more of a liberal than a social conservative. BUT.... i love wikipedia and understand the importance of NPOV. IMHO the best way to get to NPOV is to replace normative crap. Just so you know where I stand. Cheers. Jackk 06:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
What is up with KCSB? Seems like a lot of information on his earlier career. I don't understand why his advocating for actors/actresses to wear blue ribbons... is needed. Do we need every single statement he's made to be pointed out in Wiki? Looks like more information on his KCSB days then his more recent years. Not saying get rid of the KCSB, but clean it up, and add more to his current status. Kind of comical to actually read this. His top rated radio show, and highly viewed TV show, seem to be barely a blip on this entry. The controversies should be its own entry, with a paragraph or two in this entry "briefly" discussing them. And on the new entry for controversies, get into all the quotes and specifics...-- 65.83.137.137 17:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, as a fan of the concept of WIKI I think these articles should be limited to professional aspects and EMPIRICAL / SOURCED criticism. These sources should be credible and documented, not the political throwes of political hacks. As I'm sure some of you will glean, I am a conservative. However I only look for proper debate and progress, not to stifle political opposition. -- Hackett83 19:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Hannity is 'controversial' - Who says? This is meant to be an encyclopedia article not someone's opinion.
Who says? People say. I say. My mailman says. Many people say Sean Hannity is divisive and offensive, and hurts America, doing so -- that's a fact. Many people say Sean Hannity is just a staunch conservative, sticking to his guns in the face of "the liberal media" -- that's a fact too. This is controversy, no matter which side you're on. People, aside from us ivory-tower encyclopedia contributors, do sometimes tend to influence the world we are writing about. It is not an opinion that Sean Hannity is controversial, it is a fact. It is an opinion that Sean Hannity is a dick, but that's not in the article, as it should not be. He IS controversial. That's perhaps the main part of his gig. That's why so many people know about him. - Patrick Rose
Sean Hannity is not even slightly controversial. Have you ever even listened to the man? He is a repetitive dork. I'm more conservative than he is and I can't listen to him anymore and his nonsensical stances on things. He is not Libertarian, which he tries to claim once and awhile. I don't know how many times he has to tell everyone he's a "Reagan conservative". I think he's trying to convince himself. This "so and so hurts America by being so divisive" is such bullshit, Pat. That's just a way to shut people up. I haven't heard Hannity quoted by Osama Bin Laden. Now, Michael Moore and the DNC talking points are repeated by Osama over and over again. You're in good company.
Hannity 'claims' that he dropped out because of financial difficulties. Is 'said' or 'says' a bit too even-handed for a left-wing smear job?
Oh geez. Someone caught on to the vast, left-wing semantic conspiracy. Quick, let's all hide! Sean Hannity does too good a job smearing himself for the left-wing to need to help. I don't see what's wrong with "claims".-- The Amazing Superking 02:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
'indignance' - not a word I'm familiar with - factual error at least.
Shall I keep going for a fourth paragraph? Perhaps later. There's a start and certainly sufficient cause for a discussion on the neutrality and factual accuracy of the article. Fluterst 03:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
None of these would warrant a totallydisputed tag, so I've removed it. Jackk 01:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The "Criticisms" section desperately needs sources. I was starting to clean up the "Support for Iran-Contra" section until I realized there was no evidence given for Hannity's support for any part of it. The Franken quote is entirely inappropriate for this purpose.
I also don't see why "Conduct at UVSC" is notable. It sounds pretty much like any report about any semi-controversial campus speaker.
Hannity is a controversial figure, so I'm quite disappointed that the unsourced Louima section is the only one that even looks like it might belong here.
-- Ajdz 02:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
THREE POINTS TO CLARIFY OR THINK ABOUT
The referencing for his 'controversial' positions is woeful. At least some sense of WHAT he said about these issues - not just general statements that he thought this/argued that/may or may not have implied the other - should be given. Or else it sounds like biased Hannity-hate. I actually find him way too extreme and much prefer Alan Colmes, but this is an encyclopedia, not an Al Franken rant.
Under criticisms, what on earth is this "world court" which found the US to have committed terrorist acts? The International Criminal Court which did not exist at this time AND of which the US is not a member?
What has Hannity's recent focus on Eminent Domain to do with philanthropy? The other associations are just about charitable (rather than political, especially the first freedom concert association) but what has eminent domain to do with his philanthropic activities?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.15.73 ( talk • contribs) 16:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Is it really necessary? — Ilyan e p (Talk) 04:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I reverted an anon getting rid of neoconservative and replaceing it with conservative. Neoconservative is not an attack, it's simply a statement of fact. Does he advocate liberal policies to enforce social conservative ideals? Yes. A conservative would say that the government has no right to say what someone can and can't do in their home. Does he advocate liberal economic policies to spend money on conservative issues? Yes. This means one is a neoconservative, not that one is satan (although I do have my views on that...) - M ask 21:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Sean Hannity is not a neocon. I agree that neoconservative is not an attack, but Sean Hannity, as much as you despise him, does not adhere to a neocon ideology. He has repeatedly criticized the neoconservative agenda in government size and spending. Furthermore, many traditional conservatives advocate for a role of gov't to uphold "moral standards". Such advocavy is certainly not limited to neocons. Do not confuse a conservative with a libertarian. - Albrock
Hannity has said on many occasions that we are endowed by "our Creator" which is factually incorrect. Why should that fact be removed? I am returning it.
Mediation request has been made over this issue. I will keep the "our Creator" topic off of the Hannity page for the meanwhile even though it is not a POV issue and is verifiable. DanielZimmerman 20:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
This is embarassingly stupid drama. Why don't you guys just mention what HAnnity says and leave it at that, without commenting about it? DUH. 68.59.61.191 16:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I wanted to create a discussion about this topic before adding something to the article about Sean Hannity and his claim to be both a Reagan Conservative and a Libertarian.
| Describes himself as a Reagan Conservative"My only role is to be intellectually honest and truthful to my audience. I barely consider myself a Republican. I am a Reagan conservative. "
I have also heard him describe himself as a libertarian, though I have not been able to find a verifiable source on this (one reason I didnt just throw this in the article)
Can one be both a Libertarian and a Reagan Conservative? Is Sean Hannity either of these that he claims to be? DanielZimmerman 06:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The section "Fred Phelps Protests" does not seem to be a criticism of Hannity, but rather a criticism that Hannity has made of others. I moved this to "Political positions" to make this clear. But I'm not sure why this particular opinon is notable, considering that he probably has a lot of them.
Without a reference to a source being critical of Hannity over this question, this would be original research. Moreover, it seems like a bad example of non-neutrality; I could easily see a liberal-leaning journalist asking the same question, given Buckley's position as a prominent conversative. -- Beland 16:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I'm a mediator from the mediation cabal. No has taken the Hannity case Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-29 Sean Hannity, under God sorry for the long delay. figure I'll take it. Here my facts so that biases are disclosed
BTW if the issue is dead let me know.
OK reading the case. Daniel Zimmerman since you are the one who brought this case. I read your excellent analysis of how using "our creator" is incorrect and "their creator" has a different meaning. Do we have a reputable 3rd party source that agrees with you on this? Do we have a reputable 3rd party source that has raised this criticism? I'm looking for something in line with WP:NOR jbolden1517 Talk 20:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I still don't understand why people are so thick. Sean Hannity deliberately lied and claimed that Fred Phelps and his cache of nutjobs were "liberals" protesting the funerals of dead soldiers and heckling their families. He selectively quoted newspaper clipping to support his story. Someone came into the article and mentioned that he argued with one of them on Hannity & Colmes several months later, and then everyone became confused and removed it. Hannity's misrepresentation of Phelps as a "liberal" is going back in.
Recently on his show Sean mentioned that he recieved an honorary doctorate from Liberty University. In the trivia section another university is credited with this degree. Did he recieve doctorates from both universities, did I simply hear wrong or is there an inacuracy on the page?
"Hannity is a vigorous debater who relies on tactics like offering out of context quotations, stifling alternate viewpoints, attacking the messenger of opposing views, dismissing facts, and presenting straight-up factual errors as truth."
Can we please support this or remove it? To someone who disagrees with him this is true but what "straight up factual errors" were presented, what "alternative viewpoints" were stifled and what "facts" were dismissed. Loucards 19:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, this statement is Original Research. It needs to be removed unless a notable, verifiable source is provided.-- WilliamThweatt 23:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Such a quote as that does not seem to be encyclopedic and should be removed. However, he has done many of those things stated. If someone could present examples of those things in an encyclopedic way then it could be added. This is why I believe a "criticisms" section is warranted because there are many verifiable examples where Sean Hannity has been criticized for what he has said or done. DanielZimmerman 01:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
That statement is factual and should be put back in. If you work with Hannity you shoud not be editing this page. (Anonymous User) May 30, 2006
I believe that this statement is true, but not encyclopedic. It's simply unfair to make vague, negative, uncited judgments of subjects' debating tactics. If someone wants to produce a section entitled "Controversies on Sean Hannity's Program", documenting instances where he has used these tactics or has been accused of using these tactics, that's fine. There has been solid verified research on Hannity's tricks and alleged tricks. This article mainly contains unsubstantiated assertions. -- Jjohn413 18:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I cut out the statement calling Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church part of the "far-right," inasmuch as Phelps supported Al Gore, opposes the Iraq War, supports Cuba and Castro, supports Saddam Hussein (a socialist), etc. I don't think it's accurate to call him either far-right or far-left. LaszloWalrus 10:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Did this guy go to college? On 9/15/06 during his radio broadcast he claimed to have been on the deans list of an unnamed college. He did not specify which college and the lack of citing one in his bio leads one to believe he was less than truthful
The discussion on this articles neutrality seems to have halted, so after making some POV-snipping edits myself (already did, please review), I'm going to remove the tag. If it goes back up, can someone do me a favor and drop me a line so I can come back to discuss? Thanks, Karwynn 21:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I put the tag up for this statement "The protesters were members of the Westboro Baptist Church, a conservative religious hate group led by Fred Phelps." They may be a hate group but saying that is a pov. There is a better way of saying it but I can not think of it right now please change it-- Soliscjw 23:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry thanks for letting me know -- Soliscjw 00:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
When I put the section npov tag up it changed the format of the page what did I do wrong?-- Soliscjw 00:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Binyamin Netanyahu is a recent guest on the Sean Hannity radio show. Condemning terrorists. However, recently, right-wing Israelis including Binyamin Netanyahu attended a 60th anniversary celebration of the bombing of the King David Hotel, which was organized by the Menachem Begin Centre. The British Ambassador in Tel Aviv and the Consul-General in Jerusalem complained, saying "We do not think that it is right for an act of terrorism, which led to the loss of many lives, to be commemorated.".
Dean1970 22 July, 2006. (60th anniversary of the act of terrorism which clamed over 90 lives)
You can't use Media Matters as a source. They're not credible anymore. I'm not trying to hook this left or right, I'm just saying that it is generally accepted that MM carries a political agenda.
First of all, there is no mention in the article of his education. Then henever dropped out of college according to his biography on the foxnews.com website. Matthew lol. What a coincedence. Did you just check this page out today. Also There is bad grammar in this article and I will be fixing that. This article is bad people, and it needs to be fixed and cleaned up. -- Zonerocks 23:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
During the Terri Schiavo controversy, two of Schiavo's nurses appeared on Hannity and Colmes to argue that Schiavo was not brain dead. Comedian Harry Shearer obtained a video tape[1] where Hannity can be heard coaching the nurses on how to respond to Alan Colmes's questions. He told them to respond "I'm just here to tell you what I saw", no matter what Colmes asked. After the segment, Hannity can be heard saying "We got the points out...But you did great, both of you." First of all this was an allegation. This is one of the things on the article that makes this POV. This should be cleaned up from the article. There is no actual video tape of this or audio tape for that matter. For all we know, the COMEDIAN made it up. -- Zonerocks 00:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
What's the point of this section, looks like this section needs to be cleaned up. It has false facts. We could put his education in this section. -- Zonerocks 00:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
If no one objects to me adding some new info about sean hannity, then I will add it. -- Zonerocks 00:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Sean Hannity joined the FOX News Channel (FNC) in September 1996 as co-host of Hannity & Colmes (Monday-Friday, 9-10PM ET), a primetime one-hour debate driven talk show focusing on the controversial issues and newsmakers of the day. He serves as the program’s conservative counterpart to liberal Alan Colmes. He also currently serves as the host of WABC-AM’s highly rated afternoon talk program, The Sean Hannity Show.
Known for his provocative style, Hannity has become one of the most popular radio personalities in New York and has appeared on a number of talk shows to offer his free-wheeling, passionate commentary on politics and the American agenda. He has interviewed many key political figures ranging from President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Reverend Jesse Jackson, Steve Forbes, New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, Ralph Nader and Ken Starr.
Prior to his post at Fox News Channel, Hannity hosted a radio talk show in Atlanta on WGST-AM. He also frequently substitutes for fellow talk show host, Rush Limbaugh on WABC in New York.
Sean Hannity has been named "Talk Show Host of the Year" and one of the "Top 100 Talk Hosts in America." by Talkers Magazine. He is originally from Long Island, New York. http://premierespeakers.com/560/index.cfm http://wabcradio.com/programming.asp -- Zonerocks 02:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
So is that alright? --
Zonerocks
03:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I hope yall liked the changes in the early life and career section. I think now we need to get to the other issues in this article. This article has alot more criticism then talking up the positives. This is a very biased article. let's clean this up yall. -- Zonerocks 05:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't anyone have any ideas for anything on the todo list. -- Zonerocks 05:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
This is a very irrelevant part of the article. It's part of one the biased things in this article. I would like to get rid of it an instead replace it with education. -- Zonerocks 18:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
ok, Biased Republican Propanaganda. Come on. The second one what the hell is that, the third qutoe Sean hannity doesn't call the show on a regular basis. You can decide on the rest. My point is that we should get rid of this pointless and very biased, and vandalistic section. -- Zonerocks 00:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC) P.S hmmm no one wants to deal with this page besides me. So I guess it's up to me to get this page correct.
I will be adding a criticisms section to talk about sean's criticism.
Wow this is better than it looked yesterday. Good job. Very Unbiased, but I think you need to add more to the page. -- Proudzionist2347 03:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The friendship between Hannity and well-known New Jersey white supremacist radio host Hal Turner is worth mentioning. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050620/blumenthal -- Baltech22 02:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't put that. The Link doesn't work, and plus it is biased. --
Zonerocks
16:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
If you consider it POV, why not include it in the 'criticisms' section? It's not isolated to just that one article. Refer to http://www.newshounds.us/2006/08/18/sean_hannity_phony_friend_to_jews.php http://www.sanderhicks.com/hannitymania.html http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=04BA10C53820685A59536F41E333485F?diaryId=2788 [among others] -- Baltech22 21:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
What your trying to say is not true. The side chat was to offer support for his cocaine habit and homosexual leanings. You totally twisted the words. Fix it or it goes away.-- Zonerocks 21:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Read the article, buddy. The charge is that Hannity offered Turner a venue to air his views. That is a documented criticism. There is absolutely no reason to remove it from that section. The question isn't whether the criticism is correct, but whether the criticisms section accurately reflects how Hannity is criticized, and it definitely does that. -- Baltech22 23:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed it again. Media Matters is far from an acceptable source, but that isn't even the point. Keep it official in the external links. There is already a criticism section, put specific entries of criticism there (with references). EmmSeeMusic 16:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The criticism section is seriously distorted. I can't stand this man, but the section makes him out to be Satan. I also put up a Cleanup tag; I think it's best for this article. Ohyeahmormons 19:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Is there a photo we can use with Hannity wearing less makeup? 23:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
A good friend claims that He see's Sean Sunday at the baptist church he attends in Long Island, yet the article states he's a practicing Catholic. Is his wife bapsist? Does he attend two church services a weekend. A practicing Catholic would regularly attend a Catholic church on Sunday. Perhaps the verbiage should be changed to claims to be a practicing Catholic. -- Zippy1981 00:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Your removal of the critique in regards to Hannity's incorrect statement that the picketers at a soldier's funeral were "anti-war leftists", as opposed to radical homophobes, is flawed. You claim, correctly, that Phelps calls himself a Democrat, at least in name. However, Hannity never mentions anything about the picketers being "democrats", but rather he claims that they are "the anti-war left". Phelps may call himself a "democrat" based on some strange tradition he has, but to therefore consider him "left-wing", despite his clearly non-liberal stance, is severe spin at work. How do his actions give any indication of a left-wing lean? His stance on gay rights? Religious tolerance? He may dislike George Bush, but he hates Clinton just as much. There is nothing factually innacurate in the criticism. Get your spin straight. -- Jackbirdsong 23:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC) (This comment was originally placed on my talk page and not here on the Sean Hannity talk page as it should have been.-- Getaway 14:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC))
It seems not everyone can maintain a high enough level of maturity to handle this biographical article... I can't say I support the guy, but I can say what is going on with this page only goes to show how passionate people can become over such matters of "great significance".
Whether the man is a jerk, fraud, or a saint should be the product of a person's individual research and observations. I've seen people get offensive over this article, putting in considerably negative and biased opinions. Many negative inputs were not biased opinions, of course, and most likely the ones that have survived the page would be the ones. I've also seen people get defensive, quickly removing anything that deems him less-than-saintly. Whatever.. he's human.
And, well, yeah; that's it. This guy's a public figure, it can be especially difficult for us to maintain a neutral viewpoint, and I am not a big-time contributor here, and maybe it's not my place, but I have read my share of wikipedia articles for leisure or for research, and I have seen how they sound, look, and feel, and I think the best direction for this topic would be to pretty much cut out all the specific criticisms because, for one, there are too many for it to be practical, and because... is it really our job to dig up the "dirt" on him? How specific is too specific?
Or maybe the better question is.... is controversial bad? 8 ) My last input on this piece (quite possibly the last time I ever view this article as well). Take it or leave it. -- Soul in Ether 06:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
This is in the criticism section but doesn't say who criticized it:
During the Terri Schiavo controversy, two of Schiavo's nurses appeared on Hannity and Colmes to argue that Schiavo was not brain dead. Talk show host and actor Harry Shearer obtained a video tape[2] where Hannity can be heard coaching the nurses on how to respond to Alan Colmes's questions. He told them to respond "I'm just here to tell you what I saw", no matter what Colmes asked. After the segment, Hannity can be heard saying "We got the points out...But you did great, both of you"Video on Youtube.-- PTR 12:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
This section states: Hannity was an outspoken critic of police brutality victim, Abner Louima. Louima, a black Haitian Immigrant was beaten severely by Brooklyn police officers in 1997. During the attack, Louima was forcefully sodomized with a plunger causing severe internal injuries as well as being beaten, threatened with death and racially abused. Hannity was one of Louima's biggest critics, charging that he had fabricated the rape — calling him "lying Louima" citation needed and using interviews with people alleging Louima had past sexual relationships with men to bolster the claim that he had sustained his injuries during a "gay sex act." During, the trial of officer Justin Volpe, Volpe admitted to sodomizing Louima and was sentenced to 30 years in prison without the possibility of parole.
It seems a lot of this information is included on or belongs on the Sean Hannity Radio show page. Wouldn't criticisms of the Hannity and Colmes show and the Sean Hannity Radio show be better placed there? -- PTR 21:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
It would do the editors of this article to remember Wikipedia's policies on weasel words, and be reminded that according to WP:NPOV, the purpose of Wikipedia in the cases of political and other conflicts is to describe the debate, not to advocate either side. I have noticed that in the Criticism section of this article, steps have been taken to discredit people the article's subject disagrees with by the use of Weasel Words to slyly imply that Hannity is correct, or to give his opinions extra weight. Note that both of these uses of these words are ruled as unacceptable in the relevent policies. Neutral point of view is what editors must attempt to strive for. -- Kuzaar- T- C- 14:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
One issue I have noticed on this page, particularly in dealing with the above problems with weasel words, attempts to give undue weight to the article's subject, and attempts to discredit people and organizations the article's subject disagrees with, is the removal of and material critical to him. Specifically, I refer to the above issues in which Hannity has been criticized (criticized, literally, as in organizations have found fault and error with what he has said or done) for his actions. Criticism is not, as some editors appear to think, any idea that the article's subject's political views are objectively right or wrong, but, by definition, showing that something he said was incorrect, at least according to Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com. I have reinserted the "Criticism" subheading for the time being. -- Kuzaar- T- C- 14:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, just popping in here -- I've posed a question on BLP's talk page about criticism sections and I thought you should be aware of the response. -- plange 16:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I deleted this entire section:
"* In 2003, shortly after the fall of Baghdad, Sean Hannity interviewed Ex-Marine and Chief Weapons Inspector in Iraq, Scott Ritter on the validity of the invasion and his involvement in the Weapons Inspection program. Hannity outright claimed Ritter was biased and paid off by the Iraqi government (without evidence)to endorse the idea of WMD no longer existing in Iraq, the conversation finally turned to the future of the occupation where Sean believed the occupation would be very short and successful, Ritter said we'd be there years from now and in the same state as the occupation of South Vietnam.
citation neededHannity has never apologized for this character assasination."
Why? Well, the first sentence is fine. We've been waiting for a citation for the rest of it through the next-to-last sentence for 3 months - apparently none is forthcoming. And the last sentence is pure argumentation: "character assasination" is a clearly POV phrase and the statement that he "has never apologized" presupposes that he should. Pinkvolkswagen 02:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Today Getaway brought up some questions regarding the reliability of the reporting organization "Media Matters" in edit summaries on the main article. Personally, I think that while it is a niche reporting organization (just like the LogCabinRepublicans link, which Getaway added), that does not make it an unreliable source. In honesty, I am more concerned that Getaway does not think it is a reliable source because it is critical of the article's subject. If any other editors would like to express an opinion, I encourage them to. -- Kuzaar- T- C- 15:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
No, not a reliable source: according to the info on Jossi's talk page, they definitely aren't neutral, and have a slant; hence, are likely presenting slanted information.
Just took my first look at this page, which is giving undue weight to criticism, and needs a rewrite. Try to get some distance: when Sean Hannity's obituary is written, will a single one of those Criticism headline sections occupy an entire paragraph in any bios or obits? Does this *look like* an encyclopedic entry in any reputable encyclopedia? Does it look like a bio in any hard print source? If not, there's likely some POV-pushing going on in this article. Criticism sections are to be avoided, per Jimbo, anyway. Criticism is the bulk of this article: looks like POV at work. Sandy 16:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
By the way, Youtube isn't a reliable source either: needs to be removed from the article, content sourced to reliable sources. Sandy 16:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
According to Sandy (see User:jossi talk page "Hannity") The Nation is not a reliable source for Hannity either. -- PTR 20:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the criticism to this discussion page.
According The Nation, on Hannity's WABC show, Hannity took phone calls from racist and anti-Semitic talk show host Hal Turner on his WABC show. [2]
Hannity was a critic of police brutality victim, Abner Louima, a black Haitian immigrant beaten severely by Brooklyn police officers in 1997. During the beating, Louima was forcefully sodomized with a plunger causing severe internal injuries. Hannity was criticized for charging that he had fabricated the rape, calling him "lying Louima" [3] and using interviews with people alleging Louima had past sexual relationships with men to bolster the claim that he had sustained his injuries during a "gay sex act." During the trial of officer Justin Volpe, Volpe admitted to sodomizing Louima and was sentenced to 30 years in prison without the possibility of parole.
In August, 2005, Hannity was involved in a controversial dispute concerning the church of Fred Phelps protesting at the funeral of Jeremy Doyle. [4] citation needed. Around the same time, Hannity also reported on a gathering by the activist group Code Pink in front of Walter Reed medical center. [5]
-- PTR 21:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I moved a lot of information around. I think we can flesh out the Radio and Television sections with more detail (maybe weave some of the controversial stuff in) and add awards and his off TV/Radio life. -- PTR 21:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
After moving the sections around and removing the criticism section to the talk page, there is only one reference left. Seems we need some citations. -- PTR 21:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Fair.org says their information came from OnePeoplesProject.com and this is the only item on Hannity I could find on their site. (I searched in google for OnePeoplesProject and hannity.) They don't seem unbiased according to this piece and I couldn't find the lying Louima reference here.
http://www.onepeoplesproject.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=90&Itemid=27-- PTR 14:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
This should be a limited section. There is almost more criticism on this page then actual good info. It is pathetic. Wow should this section exist. It should be limited if anything. Most of the info in that section is POV. and most of the criticisms are lies. -- Zonerocks 22:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I noticed today that the editor SandyGeorgia removed the "controversy" section entirely- is this appropriate? There's consensus, at the very minimum, that Hannity is a controversial figure, and I do not think that WP:BLP gives any editor free reign to delete sections stating that there has been controversy surrounding any person on their article, even if BLP *does* state that it is inappropriate to make potentially defamatory claims without a reliable source. My solution to this would be to say that there have been controversies Hannity has been involved in concerning topics X, Y, and Z, citing the sources previously used but not going into detail on them, and bring up the specific assertions on a seperate page, as per the Wikipedia article on Bill O'Reilly. -- Kuzaar- T- C- 18:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
(unindent) -- hmm, didn't mean to imply the article had to be positive, just neutral, meaning we don't advocate one side or the other with either tone or undue weight, but it doesn't mean negative stuff can't be in here. Surely there's objective material out there on Sean Hannity commenting on his actions?! What about transcripts of his program? I just took a gander at Al Franken and it has some problems too! Glad you brought it up-- it has some criticisms in there too that are from blogs, yikes! -- plange 04:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Once again SandyGeorgia ( talk · contribs) has removed something he does not like on conservative political voice. [10] This user has been threatened to be blocked for another article for this garbage.
Please explain why Media Matters is not a WP:RS for a Media Matters analysis. Also WP:V says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."
MM has video and audio of Hannity's comments. Arbusto 19:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I am looking at an article that used to have criticism on it, but two user's pulled MM off and then removed the controversy section. Arbusto 01:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I quote from WP:RS, "The websites and publications of political parties and religious groups should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief is in itself a reason not to use a source." I'd like to point out Media Matters is not a political party nor religious organization. [11] Can anyone give a reason for the material they disagree with and want removed? Arbusto 01:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
During the Terri Schiavo controversy, two of Schiavo's nurses appeared on Hannity and Colmes to argue that Schiavo was not brain dead. Talk show host and actor Harry Shearer obtained a video tape Hannity and Colmes video where Hannity can be heard coaching the nurses on how to respond to Alan Colmes's questions. He told them to respond "I'm just here to tell you what I saw", no matter what Colmes asked. After the segment, Hannity can be heard saying "We got the points out...But you did great, both of you". [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] Should this be included? Arbusto 03:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't blindly revert things like fixing fair use images. I see no reason to discuss Fred Phelps on this page. He is more than adequately discuessed on his own page. In fact, I see no reason for most of this page to exist. Are the controvercies notable at all? JBKramer 18:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Review my recent edit to the controvercies section. I see no reason to play laundry list. JBKramer 20:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Just an FYI as I don't see it posted here. JBKramer has disputed the Fair Use of the main Hannity pic Image:Hannity.jpg with the statement "This pictures is not acceptable in this article because it is a picture of a living person used only to show the appearance of that person." Further information may be available on the image's talk page. Please provide a rationale on the image page as to why this image qualifies as fair use. If no acceptable rationale can be provided, this image may be nominated for deletion in the future. Morphh (talk) 14:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
It is written that Hannity defended his statements by saying Phelps was a democrat. Can we source this? JBKramer 20:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Remove all references to Media Matters in this article. As it is a biased, polemic enterprise with the sole admitted purpose of discrediting Hannity and all others who espouse who they deem to be spreading conservative misinformation. A separate Hannity controversies article should be created, remembering that it must also comply with WP:BLP. This article should be a vanilla neutral description of Hannity's life. Ramsquire 21:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Discussion of consensus about Media Matters is here, for anyone interested in following (for when PTR returns from his travel, I'll say that I'm no longer interested in helping out here, as the environment has turned too toxic for my taste). Questions have been raised about the reliability of the source, but also issues of undue weight, notability, and attack page concerns — do read the entire discussion. Sandy ( Talk) 02:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Has there been an actual consensus on this matter, I plan on writing new wikipedia policy on the issue of having a criticism section in articles. Personally I think they should be no criticism in any article. Back to Consensus, I think we should ask for consensus on this issue pretty soon. -- Zonerocks 01:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The Louima section cites Fair.org as the source, Fair.org cites OnePeoplesProject.com as their source and OnePeoplesProject.com cites an opinion piece which is not a reliable source for a BLP. Isn't there a reliable source for this?
The Hal Turner article by the Nation does not criticize Hannity. It says he called the show. It's guilt by association. Turner is a bad guy, Hannity let him call his show and spoke with him but it never criticizes him.
I think these items should be removed until we have sources that are reliable and say what we say they say. -- PTR 23:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with criticizing Hannity but using a site that is dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media strikes me as wrong for a BLP of a conservative. The site is presenting a certain view with their lead-in articles for the clips. No attack on them, that is their stated purpose.
Also, in the paragraph we say number of organizations which would be fine if we listed some of them ...number of organizations, such as; Blah, Blah and Blah... with citations.
If Hannity is such a controversial figure don't we have mainstream news articles or interviews that criticize him like there is for Rush Limbaugh? Diane Sawyer just interviewed Hannity for supporting Rush Limbaugh over the Michael J. Fox issue. That is recent, controversial and in the mainstream media. -- PTR 00:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Moved the following here pending discussion, creditable references and a response from the noticeboard.
Hannity was a critic of police brutality victim, Abner Louima, a black Haitian immigrant beaten severely by Brooklyn police officers in 1997. During the beating, Louima was forcefully sodomized with a plunger causing severe internal injuries. Hannity was criticized for charging that he had fabricated the rape, calling him "lying Louima", and using interviews with people alleging Louima had past sexual relationships with men to bolster the claim that he had sustained his injuries during a "gay sex act." [6] During the trial of officer Justin Volpe, Volpe admitted to sodomizing Louima and was sentenced to 30 years in prison without the possibility of parole.
The above uses a citation from Fair.org which cites OnePeoplesProject as their source but OnePeoplesProject does not have the "lying Louima" reference and OnePeoplesProject might be a questionable source for this BLP. The only place we've found this information (Kuzaar tracked it down) was in an opinion piece in the Philadelphia Telegraph which also might be a questionable source for a BLP. -- PTR 16:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The following was removed pending discussion and response from the BLP Noticeboard.
Hannity has been criticized for taking phone calls from racist and anti-Semitic talk show host Hal Turner on his WABC show. [7]
The article referenced doesn't criticize Hannity, it says Turner calls in and he and Hannity have talked. To use the phrase criticized for taking phone calls is misleading and The Nation might be a questionable source for this BLP. -- PTR 16:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
This continued POV campaign is not acceptable. I want to know why the NY Times was removed. No strange coincidence that Getaway ( talk · contribs) is also in favor of removing various other criticisms on this article and other conservative articles. Arbusto 07:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Given the polarising nature of this issue, I do consider that the article has over compensated given the discussions in various sections above. The criticism section is very small and does not reflect the level of debate/discussion. ScMeGr 01:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed this mistatement of the article that makes it seem that the Houston Chronicle called Democrats dumb and shallow.
In 2004 the Houston Chronicle wrote Hannity is a "angry man" whose comments like Democrats are "dumb and shallow" draw "a smattering of applause" from conserative onlookers. [8]
If this reference is used it should probably go into the Radio section and include some of the flattering quotes as well as critical ones. -- PTR 16:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
The following was included in the Controversy and criticism section but doesn't explain what the controversy or criticism was or if it was controversy or criticism.
-- PTR 19:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The following sentence regarding Hannity's radio show: "The program, heard by over 13 million listeners a week, has the second-largest radio audience in the country." was referenced by Talkers.com, yet I cannot seem to find the specific info regarding Hannity anywhere in this site. Perhaps somebody else can take a look? Otherwise, obviously this needs to be properly, and currently, ref'd.-- Jackbirdsong 03:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I reverted the link because he identifies himself as a Reagan Conservative.
"I identify myself as an independent compassionate Reagan conservative."
http://www.radioink.com/listingsEntry.asp?ID=88120&PT=industryqa
"I’m a Reagan conservative."
http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=407
-- PTR 23:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
WP:BLP#Use of categories states, among other things: Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for the category must be made clear in the article text. The article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag and these facts must be sourced. The insertion of the Neoconservative, or any other inappropriate category should be removed as a violation of WP:BLP, which is an exception to the 3RR rule. - Crockspot 23:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
There are two sources that contradict each other. One says Antonio made the turkey baster remark the other says Hannity did. We can't just pick the one we like best so I removed the remark and left both sources in. That he was dismissed is a fact. The rest is impossible to cite with confidence. -- PTR 14:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
"Sean Patrick Hannity (born December 30, 1961, in New York City, New York) is a American conservative talk radio host..." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.139.152.64 ( talk) 02:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
Note that Sean's show is well-received because it is a debate show. Sean has guests, from diverse viewpoints (right, left, centrist, environmentalist, he's even interviewed ex-Muslim terrorists) usually at least one prominent guest per 3-hour show. This is a difference in format from other syndicated talkers. Rush Limbaugh does not have guests on his show as a general rule. Some of Sean's regular guests include Dick Morris, Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, Newt Gingrich, and Oliver North.
Jessemckay 10:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Is this page locked? If so, why it doesn't have the lock icon or/and an explanation of why is locked for editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.136.200 ( talk) 06:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Its sickening to think and outspoken controversial pundit like sean hannity has received NO criticism on his page, every time someone puts a critique up it is reverted instantly, this page needs to be moderated. its very sick what people will do to defend their savior Atheist1981 ( talk) 05:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Children! This is no more a 'biography' than Spongebob is about oceanography. Why not put your 'cleansed and purfied' article on Conservapedia instead of trashing up Wikipedia? Oh, right, you already have.
When y'all are done sanitizing here, head on over to the White Aryan page… They'd love your revisionist treatment of the Holocaust.
-- UnicornTapestry ( talk) 01:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I have to add my voice that this article is unsuitable and unencyclopedic. I'm astonished that ANY critical source is dismissed as "left wing" out of hand, including former right-wing associates and even a former conservative maven. I also have to question if this article isn't being run not merely by "fan boys" as you put it, but by Hannity staffers as this sort of thing has happened before. I won't be surprised if my two cents gets deleted as I see that has happened here. What are you afraid of? I hope somebody shows gumption and get the article on the straight and level. -- 64.45.228.234 ( talk) 12:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
It seems very odd that all criticisms of Hannity keep getting taken down, yet all criticisms by the people who run this page and others from the fox boards on notable left wing pundits cannot get taken off for good. Has wikipedia been taken over by fox? These people claim its not a gossip forum, then post gossip claims on other pages. Not very objective. - concernedwikster
There is no 'conspiracy theory'. Fox news has already made similar actions. Plus, this is not a government cover up, this is a bunch of guys limiting access to 'fair and balanced' information about individuals whom their employers, or they personally support the views/believes/mutual dislikings and prejudices of. This 'nightshade' individual, who, according to his own profile, is a right winger, should not be allowed to control this site. If the standard were that NO criticisms were allowed on any site, I would understand, but this individual (and a few others here) have a history of hopskipping to other articles and leaving criticism, or complaining about them. Nightshade, I ask you personally, what standard are you holding to critiques of Hannity on this public wiki that you oppose holding against other non-right-winger wiki pages? You dont see a double standard? I am sure you, as well as everyone else here, is very aware of the changes made to many fox news related wikis by fox staffers a while back. Though they are no longer doing the obvious and changing sans proxy or from work rather than home, the taint is in the air, and your policy on moderation seems to be reflecting similar mentalities. What say you do this?--consernedwikster
I apologize for misquoting your handle nightshift, but you did not answer the question, other than saying you are not Hannity or working for him. You are aware that this is the internet, and thus your claim cannot be verified. But even to take you at your word, why do you hold this site to a higher standard than that of left leaning pundits or topics? Put yourself in the opposite point of view, you would be very cautious about such 'strange conveinences' given Hannity's parent companies previous actions on wiki. -- concernedwikster —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.72.139.55 (
talk)
17:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)