Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:45, 4 October 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sean Hannity article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Media This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite NPOV : Content (media and publishing) Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Other : Answer requests for comments Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York (state) Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: Catholicism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Journalism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sean Hannity article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 30 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Template:Pbneutral

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

No section to reorganize into

As far as I know, this article does not have a "Criticism of..." subarticle. It would be pretty difficult to put the criticism section into a subarticle that doesn't exist. Treybien 15:26 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Education errors... Alma Mater

Beneath education in Hannity's profile section it is stated that New York University and Adelphi University are listed as Alma Maters, but he apparently did not matriculate from either institution so these should not be listed as Alma Maters (i.e. dropped out). This should be modified to 'attended, but did not graduate'.

al⋅ma ma⋅ter  /ˈɑlmə ˈmɑtər, ˈæl-; ˈælmə ˈmeɪtər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation Show IPA Use alma mater in a Sentence –noun 1. a school, college, or university at which one has studied and, usually, from which one has graduated. 2. the official anthem of a school, college, or university. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.4.37 (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• "1. a school, college, or university at which one has studied and, usually, from which one has graduated.". Interestingly, the Misplaced Pages article on Alma mater says: "is often used in place of the name of the university or college from where a person has attended or graduated". Of course I don't suppose it matter to you that the bio on Barack Obama lists Occidental College as one of his alma maters, despite the fact that he attended Occidental, but did not graduate from there, does it? Or that the article on Jimmy Carter lists Georgia Southwestern College as an alma mater, depsite the fact that he didn't graduate from there. Even more on point, it lists Union College as an alma mater when all he took was a single non-credit course from it. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Just calling this out as an apparent attempt to make the issue partisan, "Of course I don't suppose it matter to you" then referencing Democrats' Misplaced Pages articles as examples. It is quite possible to make a point without taking a partisan stance on the issue or assuming that someone who disagrees with you is being partisan. Please try to remain objective in all your edits.Stargnoc (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
• Wait, you are asking someone to be objective? Wow......talk about the pot calling the kettle black. If the IP editor finds it all that important, I'd like to see him suggest the removal of Occidental from the Obama article and see what happens. I bet he won't and I bet his reception won't be any different. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Incorrigible! Stargnoc (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Regarding above discussion, I think that the use of the "alma mater" reference is tenuous. The term is technically acceptable as he did attend those colleges (by the strict definition of the phrase). However, it is colloquially and generally accepted to mean schools from which one matriculates, AND/OR schools from which one received credit and transfers toward EVENTUAL matriculation at that level (e.g. BA, BS, MS, PhD, etc.). Since this subject did not matriculate at any school at the level referenced, I don't think appropriate to list the "alma mater" reference. In my opinion it should be removed. Douggmc (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • And so armed with your opinion, you just remove it? I reverted it, as well as another of your changes that made no sense. Again, I've given examples where the same occurs in other bios, even one listing a college where the person audited a non-credit class. It meets the definition and it is your opinion that it is "tenuous". I would note that you had made only one edit 6 months or so ago and then jumped right into this with both feet, which does make me wonder. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry if I offended you. By no means was that my intent (your response seems that you are somewhat agitated). I removed it ... just as someone put it there based on their opinion. Isn't that the point of wikipedia? :) My explanation for WHY I did this is not addressed specifically in your response. The main point I made is ... the subject did not ultimately end up matriculating from any institution at that level (or higher). The examples you gave are of subjects who did eventually matriculate at other institutions (i.e., most likely transferring their credits) and so it seems appropriate to call out these institutions as alma maters. I just think the inclusion of the statement in the body of the text is appropriate and sufficient regarding his education. The listing of the institutions, by colloquial definition, smells of impartiality and seems misleading. Douggmc (talk) 04:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
      • See, you have it backwards. It was put there because it is a verifiable fact. You are removing it because you have an opinion that the use of the term alma mater shoudn't be applied in the dictionary sense, but in a "colloquially and generally accepted" way. In the body of the article, it is made clear that he did not graduate, so there is no misleading to it. An infobox is supposed to be a quick thumbnail, not an in-depth analysis. I also find your justification for the others interesting. You say they most likely transferred their credits, when I listed one example specifically where the sole course the person took was a NON CREDIT course.....so I'm betting he didn't transfer his non-credit, which was the sole connection to that alam mater. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
        • ... but he DID ultimately matriculate (before or after auditing the non-credit course) at that level. That is my point. The bigger picture here is what is the intent behind the listing. I surmise that it is to give the impression that he earned a degree. Which is not what I consider a neutral illustration of his bio ( WP:NEU ). I've informally asked a few of my friends what they thought listing one's alma mater means. Not surprisingly, they interpret it as a college (or colleges) you attended for which/and after you ULTIMATELY EARNED a degree. Let me give a personal analogy: I was in the Army for 6 years. I never served overseas. I never served in a war. I was fortunate to have served between two conflicts. My service was actually quite pleasant. I am proud of my service, but don't equate it with my father's service in combat in Korea. Nor do I equate it to my nephew's service in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. We are all three (or will be in case of my nephew) veterans by strict definition. Do you see the difference between my service and theirs? Their service is REALLY worthy of the title veteran. The respect and adulation that they deserve as veterans. I celebrate Veteran's Day for my father and my nephew ... not me and my cushy service as a "veteran". This is the point I'm making ... the strict definition of something and what is truly meant. Listing the alma mater for Hannity is correct by strict definition, but not what is truly meant or intended to illustrate. --Douggmc (talk) 07:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    • No, I don't see your example, because I view it differently. Mine is the opposite (big surprise, right?). I am a combat veteran and my father isn't. I view him as every bit the veteran I am. It was people like him who stood the line, whether literally or figuratively, that preserved the country I grew up to serve. The power of an infantry division sitting in the US, even if it never deploys, still weighs heavily on the minds of potential adversaries. An aircraft carrier in the Med or a sub lurking in the Bering Straits is a deterrent whether it ever fires a shot in anger or not. The fact that they all stood ready, every day, ready to serve their country makes them a veteran in my book. As for the article, the fact that he did not graduate from either school is very clear in the body of the article. So anyone who bothers to read shouldn't get the "wrong impression". Niteshift36 (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Regarding your last comment about jumping right in .. well ... we all have to start somewhere. I'm just trying to give an objective and critical analysis on this. As I hope to in the future. I hope I'm not going to be bullied constantly though .. or what is the point of spending my time contributing(and I'm not calling you a bully ... I'm speaking of the process in general that seems to be unfolding here). Douggmc (talk) 04:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
      • And interestingly, you jumped into a discussion that has been littered with sockpuppet participation. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I see that .. it is unfortunate. Hannity is a polarizing figure ... so it unfortunately comes with it. On topic of the alma mater, I haven't undid what you did to my did ... yet. I would hope we get some other discussion from others on this topic (besides from shill accounts). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Douggmc (talk • contribs) 04:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Correction: You jumped into a discussion littered with *accusations* of sockpuppet participation.Stargnoc (talk) 07:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• No, there have been sockpuppets on here. No correction is needed. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

The indication "Alma Mater" is best used when referring to an institution from which an individual was awarded a degree (diploma, etc.), and (less fittingly) when referring to an institution from which credits were awarded that supported a degree awarded by an accredited institution. It seems pretty dubious to use the term to refer to an institution from which an individual attended briefly, and from which no degree was awarded nor credits applied. Doing so in the article seems like a stretch. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 07:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length on other articles. One does not have to graduate from a school for that school to be considered an "Alma Mater" regardless of what anyone personal feelings are on the case. Arzel (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the rationale history above for WHY we don't think appropriate? The key point we are making is that it would be appropriate to use the term "alma mater" for lists of schools one attended IF one had GRADUATED at that level from one of those schools. I agree, certainly, that if one graduates at a level (e.g. BS/BA), then listing all schools attended to reach that graduation as "alma maters" is appropriate. The use of it otherwise is .. as noted by myself and others .. somewhat tenuous. It gives the colloquial impression that one has matriculated. If he would have graduated from one of the two schools listed, then we agree that "alma mater" would be appropriate for both. There is no personal feelings here, trying to apply WP:NEU.--Douggmc (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"Personal feelings" has nothing to do with it, and your (common) attempst to try and turn this (and other points) into "personal" arguments is unproductive, unappreciated, unprofessional, and inappropriate. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Obviously you do have personal feelings or you would not be attempting to define the word to your belief of what it should be. Arzel (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• • • The dictionary clearly defines it as a proper use. It goes on to say "usually". Not "always", not "exclusively", but usually. The use of alma mater does not depart from the definition. I also gave examples where alma maters that people did not graduate from are listed, but I note that neither of them have made an attempt to correct those "errors" and Douggmc has gone so far as to make excuses for it (trying to justify a non-credit class). The article makes it very clear that Hannity did not graduate from either, so the "it gives a wrong impression" excuse is a strawman. So I would like to know on what policy basis this sourced information is being removed? Or is this a matter of WP:IDONTLIKEIT for the definition and use? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I may not be able to find them, so please excuse me ... but what/who are examples of people that did not graduate at that level (e.g. BS or higher) where their alma maters are listed? I'll gladly apply my same rationale in their discussion pages and see if we can can reach a majority opinion again.--Douggmc (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• See, you keep trying to . The definition of the word says USUALLY. I'm sure if the people at Random House wanted it to say "always", they are more than capable of defining it that way. But since they didn't, what makes you and Blaxthos think you can redefine the word to suit your own purposes? Now, not only do you want to redefine it, but you want to make an exception for those that graduated somewhere else, but still attended a school. How can you have it both ways? It's either a school they graduated from or it's not. I even showed you an example that blew a hole in your "well they transferred the credits" argument and you just ignored it. Now you want me to go find you other examples based on your new, narrowly constructed criteria? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• This is a really dumb arguement. Trying to redefine a word is simply pointless. As I sit here looking at my Webster's New World Dictionary, there is no mention of matriculating from school. Alma Mater is defined as simply a school which was attended. There is simply no standing for removal from this article. Arzel (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The question here is not who can cite more dictionaries or whatever else. The issue is whether using the term "alma mater" might mislead readers into believing that Hannity received a degree or degrees from NYU and Adelphi. I think that it certainly could give people the wrong idea; I have always associated the term with having graduated, and based on the discussion, I'm clearly not alone. The best case put forward relies on a definition that says the term is usually used for graduates; I think that definition actually cuts against including the text in question, since the term is defined as usually meaning something else. Especially when the article text describes his academic history accurately, there's no reason to include something in the infobox that will almost certainly mislead people. Croctotheface (talk) 04:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• It shouldn't mislead anyone who bothers to read the article. Have you bothered to read the article Alma mater? It states twice that the term applies to a college someone attended. As I said before, the bios on Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter list schools that they did not graduate from. In fact one of them listed for Carter is one he took a single non-credit course at. It would be easy to argue that Hannity would have a more valid claim to these schools as alma maters than Carter would have to Union College because Hannity actually got credits for his attendence. Why are we to re-define the term just because you, applying your personal understanding of the term, might get the wrong impression? Niteshift36 (talk) 05:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Niteshift, it's pretty apparent that consensus is to leave it out... I am having doubts that you're editing in good faith at this point. I think it's time to let this one go, eh ? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Which consensus is that? Did you miss the fact that when you posted this question at the Village pump, a number of totally uninvolved editors opined that the use was proper? Or do you dismiss them all as "agenda driven partisans" as well? BTW, I've long doubted that you were editing in good faith. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see other examples of how alma mater is used on wikipedia. I think it is misleading to say Sean Hannity's alma mater is any college, if he did not graduate. I think it would be much more clear to list them as "attended but did not graduate". Why not do this?Stargnoc (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• You've ignored one that is directly on point. The Jimmy Carter bio lists Union College as an alma mater. Carter did not graduate from there. The second excuse some have used to justify inclusion of a college the person didn't graduate from is "he transferred the credits". That is not the case for Carter. Carter to a single non-credit course at Union college and did not pursue a degree beyond the one he got in at the Naval Academy. He took the Union College course after receiving his one and only degree. So that eliminates the 2 things I've heard since he didn't graduate from Union, nor did he transfer any credits from it to another school. In fact, he never received ANY credits from the school. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, that's a great example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Soxwon (talk) 13:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, but their contention is that this is an anomoly that doesn't happen anywhere else and that it is solely because I am pushing a "right wing agenda" (even though I'm not the one who put it there in the first place). What better example than to show that the same thing is done on a bio of a man who is the polar opposite of Hannity, therefore countering the baseless accusation of a vast right-wing conspiracy to make a conservative look good? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Also take a look at the Bill Gates bio, which lists his alma mater as Harvard, despite having dropped out. The Michael Dell bio changes the template from "alma mater" to "education" and lists his 1 year at the University of Texas. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

A simple solution?

Would a simple solution be to simply change the template to read "schools attended" instead of "alma mater"? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. For that that graduated from a given school a seperate template could be added for Allumnus. Arzel (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Not the worst thing in the world and would also be accurate. Anyways, good luck as always :) --Tom (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This would be acceptable to me.--Douggmc (talk) 23:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I moved his schools from alma matar to education while this is being hashed out on numerous boards. I reserve the right to change my mind and go back to Arzel version :) --Tom (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"Schools Attended" (as proposed by Niteshift36) ... is different from "Education". :) I'm not sure that "Education" isn't EVEN MORE confusing/misleading than "Alma Maters". At this point though, I'm not going to engage in any more edits on the education/alma mater/schools attended issue. My goal is(was) to ensure that when someone views a page ... and glances at the quick info. section of the page ... they get a clear and immediate representation of the subject's "education" level. I'll state one more time (and final time ... I promise) that I don't think "Alma Mater" (and now "Education") gives the correct impression. I've done my due diligence in regards to stating my opinion and attempting to document as such. Thanks all for your opinion too.--Douggmc (talk) 01:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"Education" does not really clear up the issue. What "numerous boards" is this being hashed out on?Stargnoc (talk) 07:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• "Education" is exactly how it is in the info box on the Michael Dell bio, listing his one year at the Univ. of Texas. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This whole thing really seems like a mountain out of a mole hill or some point to be made at this point. It reminds me of the KO nonsesne about him "not really" going to Cornell or whever school he went to. I am not even sure what we are aruging about any more or who is for what "solution" or what people would be willing to accept, ect. I really don't care. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Prior to reading Hannity wiki article I had the impression that Hannity didn't graduate from college. Upon reading the heading of the article, I got the impression that he DID graduate from college. Only after reading the details did I verify that he did NOT graduate from college. This seems like a pattern that Conservatives use, all the time, they seem to relish in the gamesmenship of twisting reality with words. It winds up wasting everyone's time, slowing progress, which by definition is what Conservatism is about, maintaining what we have, as opposed to making changes. I see the wordsmenship merely as a political tactic. Interesting to see it plays out on wikipedia. What I was looking for on Hannity that I did not see was his family background and more on the life shaping events that brought him to take on the role he has chosen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertdavis3 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Wow....that was constructive. Read WP:SOAP and you'll understand why I don't take the time to tell you things about the tendency for liberals to just hear sound bytes (or just read info boxes) and make uninformed decisions (or vote) based on them. Instead, I'll stick to the points that have been made. His box is no different than Michael Dell, Bill Gates, Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama and others who list colleges from which they did not graduate. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

An editor took out the schools altogether, complaining that the box gave the impression he'd graduated. Personally that's the way I read it too (despite the ultimate lack of a graduation year). I think it's clearer to lead with "attended" and restored the text in that fashion. The box thus conveys the information, correctly, that he attended the two schools, while at the same time making it a bit clearer that he did not obtain degrees from them. JohnInDC (talk) 03:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

STOP WHITEWASHING: re-added criticism, as per note requesting "neglected viewpoints"

Someone or some people, for years, have been editing this page to eliminate all information in any way negative of Sean Hannity. While I am happy that they have been able to keep their jobs in this economy, it does not do reality justice.

How is it possible that CNN anchor Campbell Brown has more criticism in her article than Fox News opinion show host Sean Hannity?

The criticism section will be deleted again by the Hannity staffer(s), and I will put it back in.

We've been through this, the community agreed it should be in there, and it needs to be in there. Let's not rehash this.

It is disgusting and offensive that someone feels entitled to whitewash this page whenever people stop looking.

Enough.FuriousJorge (talk) 06:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"While I am happy that they have been able to keep their jobs in this economy, it does not do reality justice." Are you implying that the economy is Sean Hannity's fault? Gtbob12 (talk) 09:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Proving my point, the section was removed in classic "shoot first ask questions later fashion." There was no discussion or respect for differing viewpoints.

FuriousJorge (talk) 06:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I only glanced through your edits, as your edit summary of Re-added criticism, much to chagrin of hannity staffers didn't do wonders for Ol' Good Faithful. Your sources also were suspect as you used Newshounds, a blog, and TheNation, hardly good sources for a WP:BLP. Soxwon (talk) 06:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Luckily for us there is no need to go over this again. It was discussed in Nov-Jan and the community came to a consensus. If you have a problem with a source, say something.

Don't shoot first and ask questions later. One of the founding principals of wikipedia is that no one person should control the dissemination of information.

Take it out as often as you want, and I will put it back in. As I just said, in the end it will stay as a matter of precedence. FuriousJorge (talk) 06:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

One of the founding principals of wikipedia is that no one person should control the dissemination of information. followed immediately by Take it out as often as you want, and I will put it back in. Oh the irony... Soxwon (talk) 06:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

What's ironic is that I'm putting it back in on behalf of the community that fought SOME CRITICISM on this page not long ago.

The fact that you are so determined to keep this page CRITICISM FREE speaks volumes, so I don't have to say anything else.FuriousJorge (talk) 06:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• I always find it interesting when an editor is absent for 8 months and comes in, not having participated in any of the discussions that have gone on for those 8 months and makes 5 edits in 37 minutes, including 3 reverts in less that 20 mins. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Community? I haven't seen you here and you claim consensus, the discussions I viewed in November were far from "unanimous" or the "clear consensus" you tout. I've re-evaluated your sources and saw the LA Times and NYT and don't have any problems with them being re-added. Soxwon (talk) 06:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Some criticism DOES belong here. However, as has been pointed out before, some of what you are re-adding, spends a lot of time talking about someone else, not Hannity. Also, some of it belongs more appropriately in the article about his show. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Bottom line is this: I don't need to ask permission to add to this page, but I posted here anyway. By the same token, you are within your right to just take out what I put in, and not give a reason... if that's the type of person you want to be.

I've been reverted three times, so I'm putting it back in and reporting the problem if it comes out again. I have no problem letting a neutral point of view decide.FuriousJorge (talk) 07:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, consensus, even when it exists, is not a reasonable excuse to violate 3RR or start edit wars. Second, I gave you reasons: poor sourcing and non-notable material. Soxwon (talk) 07:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Another revert will put you in violation of the 3RR. You were already warned of this on your talk page. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Niteshift36, you yourself agreed that this was appropriate when it went in the first time. Now that no one besides me is looking, and you have a sympathetic reverter, you are trying to start this up all over again.

I put a 100% legit criticism section in with references, and it was taken out with no discussion within five minutes. Spin it however you want, but clearly we know who is right here.FuriousJorge (talk) 07:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Which thing? You re-added more than one thing. You readded Hal Turner and Andy Martin. Also, as pointed out, sources like newshounds.us isn't a RS. It's a blog. Then you say I am trying to start it all up again? Um, I didn't start this. I came in after you'd already done 3 reverts. I didn't start anything my furious friend. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Which thing? The criticism section. Any criticism. Once again, we've been over this. You were forced to agree then that there was no basis to remove all criticism from this page, and I don't see why now is any different.

If you had a problem with one source, then take out what you deem is incorrect and we can discuss it.

I didn't say you started anything. I said you want to start this up again now that you have only sympathetic observers.

And how can you accuse me of violating 3RR when I am the original editor? I'm the one being reverted.

Will the Ministry of Information please inform us what, if any, criticism is allowed on this page? This way, when the inevitable transpires, and you are forced to acknowledge that the section is legit (again), we don't have to go too far back in the logs the next time it's whitewashed.FuriousJorge (talk) 07:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• You act like Soxwon and I conspired to be here at the same time, just in case you came back after 8 months to edit this article. And you did add the info....then have reverted it 3 times after that. The next revert in 24 hours will be a violation. I'll ignore your copious sarcasm. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Can I assume that by avoiding the question you are implying that you have waffled back to your "no criticism section, no criticism period" position from '08?

FuriousJorge (talk) 03:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Did you totally miss the reply above where I said, pretty clearly, "Some criticism DOES belong here"? I guess you did or you wouldn't keep asking the same question and making allegations about ducking a question that I laready answered. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't miss it, but that's not an answer. Isn't it obvious what needs to happen now? Put the section back in, take out whatever you have a problem with. If you're wish to volunteer yourself as the arbitrator I'm fine with that if you in turn pretend to not be biased.FuriousJorge (talk) 08:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• It is an answer. It was also an answer when I said "some of what you are re-adding, spends a lot of time talking about someone else, not Hannity. Also, some of it belongs more appropriately in the article about his show."I don't think either the Turner or Martin bits belong in the bio. I believe they more appropriately belong in the articles about the show. The Turner thing isn't really that big of a deal and the Martin thing was shown once, on Hannity's show. Hannity had no part in writing or producing it. He simply aired it.....wait for it....on the show. Is that simple enough? Niteshift36 (talk) 08:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Clear enough now. You are saying exactly what you said in October. How did that turn out? Luckily for us, it's moot. In our dispute resolution process the reverter said he/she didn't mean to take out the part about his precedent setting "fauxumentary", so it goes back in. Just looking for the latest pre-censorship version. FuriousJorge (talk) 08:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I restored the section per the discussion at editor requests noticeboard. Please now imporve the section by discussion, removing unreferenced or poorly referenced parts, rewriting parts, by adding references, and by appropriate use of tags. Thanks. Verbal chat 08:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• • An hour of discussion, that the involved parties weren't even informed of (per WP:CIVIL) doesn't settle the issue. Nor does it give you the mandate to swoop in and force the info back into the article. While Soxwon might not have meant to remove it, I did. And I don't know why this can't actually be discussed instead of "settled" right this minute. Further, going to that discussion does not absolve you from the 3RR Jorge. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take out newshounds reference and look for additional sources tomorrow for that first blurb.FuriousJorge (talk) 08:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Nitshift, why can't we discuss while the information is in there. It should not have been removed to begin with, today or in June. On top of that, it isn't anything new. The community already decided this EXACT information SHOULD be in the article. Just because it's in the chat history, don't pretend we haven been over this EXACT debate already, and that it wasn't already "settled" the first time. FuriousJorge (talk) 09:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• The community never decided it should be in the article. And I'll ask you the opposite question, why can't we discuss it without it being there? In fact, let me ask a better question, what harm is there in having the info in the show articles instead of the bio, like I've suggested all along? Niteshift36 (talk) 09:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

As to your first point: The community did decide the information was pertinent to THIS article after this SAME debate, which you already participated in. As evidence, please note that the information was in the article for 6 months before all criticism of Mr. Hannity was removed in June with no reason given.

As to why it should be in there now: because I put it back in. It should not have been removed to begin with, and there is already a note on the page REQUESTING alternate viewpoints. Would you say that we have alternate viewpoints? Also, see my first point.FuriousJorge (talk) 09:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Who puts the information in is irrelevant, has no sway in why it should be included.— Dædαlus 09:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• First, I saw not "community view". Second, even if you believe there was a consensus then, consensus can change. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Niteshift, although you are correct that consensus can change, and although I must say I would support distributing sourced criticism throughout the article so to mitigate POV concerns, at a guess you will not find consensus for the removal of information properly cited with reliable sources. I don't doubt your good faith toward editing this article, but I can certainly see how some of your fellow editors may view this as a bit of whitewashing. Please reconsider distributing the criticism through the article-- I support you on your efforts to eliminate the criticism section per se, but let's try working toward a compromise. Thanks! -- JeffBillman (talk) 10:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Jeff, perhaps you'd like to answer my question. Why shouldn't these two items go in the show articles? They are absolutely related to the show and I don't dispute that in the least. What I have an issue with is including it in the bio because these additions spend asmuch time talking about the people involved etc as about Hannity, who is the subject of this article. There is no whitewash or cover up. Nobody is trying to keep the info out of wikipedia. I simply contend it belongs in a different article. How is that a whitewash? Nor is anyone disputing that information as unsourced.....I'm solely contending that it makes more sense to put it in the show articles and not the bio. Why is that the wrong way to go? Niteshift36 (talk) 10:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Are we to go through every article about a journalist and place all criticism in the article of the show where the controversy occurred? We should start a page about "Hannity in the Mornigns", or whatever his local radio show was where the turner controversy occurred? Of course the information is notable enough to go on his bio, just read the NYT and LAT articles. They use words like "new low", "first time" and "fauxumentary". Also, the name of the show is "Hannity's America". It's not like he is just the host of the show, he was THE journalist. His name is in the title. Clearly HE is responsible for the content. Doesn't it mean anything to call yourself a journalist anymore?

If there were already too many criticisms in the article I might agree, but there are NONE. It almost seems like you want to hide the information.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that the information should ALSO be in the articles about the show.FuriousJorge (talk) 10:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Niteshift, I don't see it as an either/or scenario. It can go in the show articles for all I care. Frankly, I don't have those articles on my radar anyway. But let me turn that around: Why shouldn't these two items be in the biography? Ultimately, it is Hannity who bears the criticism for what occurs on his programs. As for putting the Turner controversy on an article about the WABC show, that's a non-starter. Do you really think such an article could (or should) stand on its own notability? Or would you agree that info about the WABC show belongs in this article anyway? -- JeffBillman (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• So now you contend that the same story should be repeated a multiple articles? Getting difficult to assume good faith now. Niteshift36 (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

No, now I contend you understood my joviality perfectly, but would rather change the subject right about now.FuriousJorge (talk) 10:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Nope. I think you meant it, particularly since you said it in two different locations, and simply thought you wouldn't get called on it. But that is just my opinion. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

So how many more people who don't live on this discussion page need to weigh in before we repeat history and reinsert the content againFuriousJorge (talk) 11:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe try addressing people civilly? Just a suggestion. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

So one more and we'll call it then?FuriousJorge (talk) 11:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Holy cow, batman! Can't we all just grow up a little? George is right that his original contribution should not have been deleted, since the page was obviously vandalized in june to remove all criticism of Sean Hannity. Maybe the bit about the "chagrin of Hannity staffers" in the note wasn't tacful, but that should only be offensive to two people: Hannity Staffers, and whoever vandalized the page in June. The contribution is well referenced, and clearly pertininent to THIS article. 67.84.209.35 (talk) 14:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Confirmed to be a sockpuppet of FuriousJorge. This template must be substituted. (Note: This account was confirmed at SPI as FuriourJorge)

Um, no. You're obviously an SPA, and it will be found out soon who you really are. Besides that, Nite and others were correct to remove the section. BLP policy is very clear, you cannot have poorly sourced criticisms in an article.— Dædαlus 18:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that this article was "vandalized" back in June, and was not caught until Jorge happened to come along. More likely, the article was brought into compliance with WP:BLP back in June. I also note that in almost a year, this talk page and article are the only ones edited by FuriousJorge. Crockspot (talk) 01:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, believe it. Look for yourself. All negative information that was fought for in October was removed in June. No reason was given. This was information that was thoroughly discussed a few months prior. The only place that is not vandalism is apparently right here. I'm sure many people noticed, but the ones who did, this page's "sponsors", were quite glad to see it go.

As to me only editing one page in a year, it's simply not true. Many of us who post infrequently forget our user names and passwords and need to recreate accounts. 99% of my posts are non-political and anonymous. This account exists so that I can make edits to farce pages that are locked down, like this one. I almost forgot the user name when I noticed the egregious bias.

FuriousJorge (talk) 03:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Q: When is the Bergen Record, LA Times, and NYT a poor source?

A: When they say anything negative about my Hannity.

Q: When is someone SPA?

A: See question 1.

FuriousJorge (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You're quite rude calling me an SPA. I've been here far longer than you have, and I have more experience here. That IP above is obviously an SPA, as they have no prior edits to the one made here. I suggest you go read up on what an SPA is before you throw around baseless accusations.— Dædαlus 22:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

On what planet did I accuse you of anything? As far as I can tell YOU are the one who accused ME of being SPA. Isn't there a pending investigation? Any promising leads, detective? LOL.

I like the new tactic: when you don't like the message slander the messenger and quickly change the subject. Now if nobody but the "criticism police" who patrol this page and are all over the discussion section object, I think it's time to put the criticism back in.

Don't feel bad. It was a good try. It's just how the cycle goes. You guys allow the page to get whitewashed, then you prevent anyone from putting in any criticism, then, after a popular uprising against you, all you have to do is wait till no one is looking and repeat the cycle... again.FuriousJorge (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I never called you the SPA, I called you the sock master, there's a difference. As to the evidence, WP:DUCK is plently reason to assume. Currently you're the only editor here asking for inclusion, then, when the concept of voting comes up, out pops an account that had never contributed before, just to take your side. It is clearly an SPA. That is clearly a sock, who's sock, I don't know, but I have been dealing with socks for awhile now, so I know what I'm talking about. As to the whitewashing. You have already been told that two of the sources used there are blogs and therefore not reliable. When a BLP is involved, information from sources which are unreliable should never be included.— Dædαlus 01:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop misrepresenting the content. All blogs were removed in the final version that Niteshift last reverted last night. The sources include the New York Times, The LA Times, and even The Bergan Record from hannity's pre-syndication days. That is some QUALITY content, which was vandalized in June.

Also, please stop misrepresenting the number of people who have either reverted the content besides myself, or asked that it be included in the article. The only people dissenting are the you three content police who exist only to prevent criticism from being inserted into the article. We should be able to have this conversation without misrepresentation of the facts.

I apologize, but you and you cohorts can no longer control reality in the article, or in the discussion.

A greater number of individuals, here and on the dispute page, have asked that the information be put back in where it belongs.

So since your problem was the blogs, and now they are gone, you must certainly be all for the reinsertion of the blog-free version, correct?FuriousJorge (talk) 02:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Vote fraud

Is being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/FuriousJorge.

Ha. Godspeed in you investigation, and good luck keeping the page scrubbed nice and clean (again). I won't ask for an apology when you're done. I think it's pretty clear which way the majority swings (again).FuriousJorge (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• SPI confirmed that you were 67.84.209.35 and even the clerk suspects meatpuppetry. Oddly, meatpuppetry was the outcome of the only SPI I've ever filed....over something that happened on this page. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
• Relevant link. Do not lie to us again, furious, or I'm sure you'll find yourself blocked. Abusive sockpuppetry is not overlooked.— Dædαlus 01:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Waterboarding, revisited

Fellow editors, we had a discussion about waterboarding (above) that appears to have ended prematurely when the controversy section was removed. While I support the removal of the controversy section, I can't help but think that consensus had been to include something about the waterboarding controversy in this article; and that this consensus had been ignored. Now, rather than incite an(other) edit war over this, I would like to calmly discuss this subject in order to better ascertain the consensus on it. Thoughts? -- JeffBillman (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

My question, why is this important? What makes it significant? Soxwon (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me answer that question first with another question: Do you disagree that consensus has been to include this incident? Looking at the above discussion, I count more people in favor of including it than opposed. Do I err in my count? This is pertinent, because if I'm simply mistaken about measuring that consensus, then really there's no need to re-open this conversation. Cheers! -- JeffBillman (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I disagree that there was a consensus to include it. The reason being.......meat/sockpuppetry. If you notice, there are a few names that come here, stir things up and then leave. Then "coincidentally", that name leaves and another one that hasn't edited here for a while re-appears to take up the slack, says a few things, then a new one appears. There are only a couple of editors that I can say, without a doubt aren't somehow related to each other, that were supporting it. And there were an equal number of unconnected ones that opposed it. That said....I'll repeat what I said in the other debate. Thi was an issue that spiked for a week or two and went away. People keep trying to pick very short term items and make them into major events. Why aren't we looking at things the subject has talked about for years: abortion, social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, judicial nominees, gun control, immigration. These are the things that he's talked, controversially, about day in and day out. Why are we mining the obscure to see if we can find something that sounds extreme? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment that the issue is "obscure", but it seems my disagreement is moot at this point. I naively thought we had reached a consensus that Hannity's views on waterboarding are not significantly less notable than the subject of the article himself; i.e., if Hannity himself is notable today and notable in the foreseeable future, then so too are the issue of waterboarding and Hannity's response to it. That said, if it is true that the issue is spearheaded by an editor engaged in sockpuppetry, then that consensus is not clear and we gain nothing by pushing the issue. Misplaced Pages is not a race, so let's table this for now. If I'm right that this matter is long-term significant, then there will be time later to add it back in. And if I'm wrong... well, then, who cares? ;-) -- JeffBillman (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Don't take my word for it. Look at the news coverage (actual reliable sources, not the blogosphere). A short spike......then literally weks with nothing until Mancow underwent it himself. That caused it to be mentioned for a couple more days....then nothing again. It was a blip on the radar. If we apply the "10 year test" that WP:RECENTISM suggests, the topic fails miserably. It doesn't even pass the "10 month test" or even the "10 week test". The only people talking about this issue are here. The rest of the world pretty much moved on to something else. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how long the article would be if we applied the 10 year WP:Recentism test to everything in it. JohnInDC (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Good question. But he's been nationally syndicated for 8 years and had a TV show for 13 years. I bet there were issues he's been talking about all that time. I bet there hasn't been a week go by in those 9 and 13 year histories that he hasn't talked about the issues I mentioned above. But instead of looking at those long term controversial issues, we are trying to pick a 2 week spike that really wasn't covered all that heavily and make it an issue? 13 years of uninterrupted TV broadcasts and we have to pick a one time statement as something defining in his biography? Something that the press barely noticed and dropped inside of two weeks. Does that honestly sound neutral to you? Or even put in a reasonably balanced historical context? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The vast, vast majority of content on all of Misplaced Pages would fail the misinterpretation of the "10 year test" and the "news spike" language in the recentism essay that some are advancing. The question is not whether there will be a continued high level of news coverage of an issue in ten years: "news spikes" are inevitable, and it's unrealistic to expect any kind of sustained high level of coverage of any event, however important. The 1998 elections aren't covered much in the news these days, either; does any content relating to them have to go?

The question to ask about this content is whether it will remain relevant to the article. The "waterboarding for charity" promise and subsequent silence is quite telling, in terms of Hannity, his character, his politics, and as a reflection of the Bush era and its policies. Readers interested in a neutral depiction of Sean Hannity now, 10 years from now, or 100 years from now will find this episode illuminating. It should go in the article. Croctotheface (talk) 08:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• I simply don't see it. The man said something once, almost in passing, and we're acting like it is a core principal of his life. I'm sure nobody here has said "I'll bet a million dollars that......" in the course of expressing a belief without meaning it literally. So the guy shot his mouth off a little in the heat of the moment without thinking that people will take it so literally? Given the amount of hours a week he is on the radio and TV, it's surprising that there aren't more cases like this. He tends to argue in a somewhat passionate manner. Things get said that way. For some of the people who think this is a defining moment in his life, I wonder how well they'd fare if someone recorded every word they said for a year or two. I also feel you're misconstruing what I said about the 10 year test. This "important controversy" really wasn't covered that much in the first place. A couple of media outlets and a competitor that has a beef with Hannity made an issue of it. When the rest of the media and the public in general failed to respond, they dropped it. No, we aren't talking about the 98 elections on a regualr basis today, but it was covered heavily, for weeks and months. And it wasn't covered by just a couple of newspapers. You saw coverage in every newspaper, on every network. Was this waterboarding thing mentioned on a single network news broadcast? The 98 election was on the front page of many nation newspapers, not in a column by an entertainment writer in the sporadic paper. It was actual news, not fodder for media critics. Throw the 10 year test away. Where was the media coverage 3 months later? Niteshift36 (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• I* don't see it. The man is controversial, often inflammatory. Yet somehow after two weeks of discussion the article still reads like he's some kind of modern day Paul Harvey. If the controversies are fleeting it is because the attention span of the public and the media is short. It does not diminish them; it is simply the nature of the controversies that Hannity generates. He says something extreme, there's a brief firestorm, then everyone moves on. That's not a reason to exclude controversies from the article - it's just a reason to explain them a bit more completely. JohnInDC (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If there is a consequence to the controversy then you have some cause and effect which makes it notable for inclusion, otherwise who cares? There are several places on the internet for people to complain about Hannity, this, however, is not one of them. Arzel (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• John, who has suggested this article be free of controversies? I was asked for some and I gave what I thought would be a good example of a topic he's been involved in controversy over, a topic that has been an enduring issue, not just a fleeting one, that represents his enduring views. I even suggested where to put it. I listed other topics he's taken controversial positions on and talked about consistently. In the case of immigration, he has opposed not only Democrats/liberal positions (which is expected), but he criticized the Bush administration and Republicans for not doing enough and continues the criticism into the Obama administration. Yet nobody seems to care about those. Everyone wants to be so focused on this single statement. Talk about not being able to see the forest for the trees. Five long term controversial topics or a single controversial statement......which one sounds more balanced, neutral and in keeping with the general idea behind a biography? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

First, in response to Arzel, I'm not "complaining" about Hannity. I'm trying to help construct an article that does a fairly complete, and neutral, job of describing the man and his career - something that goes beyond his ratings and charitable works. And while "controversies based on principle" certainly should be included, if the article is confined to those, you risk winding up with an article in which every "controversy" is one in which the subject courageously stuck to his guns, offending doubters of every stripe. That's not neutral or comprehensive; it's hagiography. What's the harm in noting a couple of well-publicized, if transitory, instances of apparent hypocrisy? They can even be *described* that way. JohnInDC (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• That's sort of the point John. It wasn't that "well publicized". It was jumped on by a small number of people (including a competitor with an axe to grind) and largely ignored by everyone else. And I don't mean the controversies need to be ones "based on principle" in the manner you're speaking of. I'm talking about positions that he has taken and kept, demonstrating an actual opinion/position about the topic and not just a one off statment like the "I'll do it" sort of thing. I'm sure you've said something in the heat of a discussion you didn't mean to be taken quite as literally as it was taken. If a bio were written about you, would that represent your life? Again I ask, why are we ignoring multiple long term, controversial positions in favor of trying to focus on a statement he made once and didn't bother to repeat? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"Well-publicized" or not, I heard of it and I gainsay that many other readers of Misplaced Pages did as well. As for intemperate statements - sure. We all make them. When we're called out on it by friends or relatives or coworkers, though, most of us don't have the luxury of simply ignoring the complaints, of pretending we never said it in the first place. We might apologize, or try explain the circumstances under which we said it - or, if we really believed what we said, reaction be damned, then even reaffirm what we said in the first place. *Something*. You do that, and there's not much "controversy" left to talk about. Indeed if I were given to intemperate statements but equally given to owning up to them afterwards I might even be proud to have it in my biography. My bottom line is that it just appears to me, an editor without much knowledge of Hannity other than the general sense that he is a polarizing figure, that this article fails to capture that. JohnInDC (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• John, the article DOES fail to capture that. I have said that ad naseum. I simply don't think that the waterboarding "issue" is what will do it. Further, you assume he is "given to intemperate statements". We're talking about one here, not plural. Do you have another example in mind? As I've pointed out here before, we are not good yardsticks for what people have heard of or not. Given that we are here, editing this article, we have demonstrated more than a passing interest in the topic of political matters. I bet you know the name of your congressman, but I dare say that well over half the adults I could ask in virtually any mall in the US wouldn't. I'd be willing to bet that 30-40% of those adults couldn't even name the Vice President, but I bet you can. I know that John Stewart was born John Leibowitz and that Geraldo Rivera was born Gerald, but I doubt most people do. What we have heard of most likely doesn't represent the populice at large. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Good god, what does any of that have to do with the issue at hand? Niteshift, I've never seen you advocate inclusion of any negative or slightly unflattering information about Mr. Hannity, and I have a real hard time believing that you'll ever let anything of that nature go in without a fight (and your userboxen on your userpage set the stage perfectly). Other than the "FNC isn't biased, liberals are out to destroy wikipedia" crowd (of 2), consensus seems pretty clearly towards including this information. Given the circumstances above, I'm not inclined to give much benefit of the doubt here -- I suggest we forgo the "should it be included" (that ship has sailed) and move on to the "how should it be included". //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Sigh, I thought we were going to try not being personal Blax. First, apparently you didn't bother reading this discussion, since I clearly listed a very specific example of an issue that not only Hannity has received criticism on, but even suggested where it would be a good idea to place it. I also listed several other issues that I saw very real potential for a neutral presentation of criticism. But apparently that slipped by you. Next, are we going to go over the whole freakin userbox thing again? That is the lamest pile of crap, but you keep trotting it out. Instead of playing little secret squirrel games, I don't hide my beliefs. Would I be a different person if I didn't put them up, like some people here do? Some here have clear agendas and beliefs, but try to pretend they don't. Of course, had you bothered to read the entire discussion, you wouldn't have felt the need to go into the who bad faith bit about userboxes yet again. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Dude, I think that to any outside observers and to many here, your bias is obvious -- that you take pride it in only makes it easier to identify, but please don't pretend that your comments here are objective. You can't wear your agenda on your sleeve, fight against any negative information for a year with fervid ownership, and then act like you're the objective party here -- that don't won't hunt. Even if you discount the (single) IP editor who also had an account, there is clearly a majority of editor either asking why it's not included, or arguing for its inclusion. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 10:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• And none of that changes the fact that I've made suggestions of criticism that should be included and repeatedly agreeed that criticism needs to be part of the article. I'm not going to get into your personal pettiness. You have zero room to lecture about ownership and agendas. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah Blax, keep yammering about agendas. Just because you don't display user boxes doesn't make it impossible to see yours. Just over 11,000 edits and in excess of 1550 (going on 15%) of them for Fox News Channel or people who have shows on FNC. I'll gladly compare my 2.5% of my edits involving Hannity to the 8% of your edits for the FNC article alone. My 380 edits at the Hannity article pales in comparison to your 933 at the FNC article. That isn't counting the additional 167 for the article on FNC controversies. You can pretend all you want, you might even fool the uninformed, but you're not going to fool those who can see the obvious. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

So, Niteshift, how about you write something up, put it here on the Talk page for comment, and see where it leads us? JohnInDC (talk) 12:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'll write something up on a topic in a day or two. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Any progress on that section? JohnInDC (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. I chose abortion to start with. The main problem has been that there are so many sources to go through, since this has ben a long term issue with him. Unlike the topic at hand, there are years of sources to look through, not just a couple of weeks. Aside from the obvious disagreement from abortion activists, I'm including criticism he's received from Catholics over his stance on contraception as a means to prevent abortion and on criticism he received from conservatives over his borderline endorsement of Giuliani, who was pro-choice and mentioning an incident where he appeared to have "saved" Fred Thompson from saying he supported pro-choice laws by cutting him off and rephrasing Thompson's answer. (even though that was a one time occurance, it fit the larger pattern with Rudy).Niteshift36 (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Good, thanks. As you are writing, keep in mind that a sound "criticisms" or "controversies" section should not simply reflect principled disagreements, if there are also examples tp be had of - for example - unprincipled disagreements or hypocrisy. (I think the waterboarding thing is a good example, though I know you disagree with its inclusion.) The risk otherwise is that the "controversies" section comes across like one of those smarmy interview candidates, who, when asked if they have any weaknesses, respond with something like, "I think I care too much about my subordinates" or "I'm too much of a perfectionist". A balanced article should try to avoid that - uh, aroma! JohnInDC (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see a seperate section for criticism at all. I see working it into existing sections. Criticism sections just draw attention to anyone just wanting to vent or create a list. Nor do I see putting Hannity's response in that much unless it is notable. In the case of abortion, I've never read anything notable from him in the way of responses, so I haven't seen anything I felt warranted inclusion. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what a long discussion page...this needs to be archived. I'm going to agree with both sides in different ways. As I see it, the involvement of the confirmed sock flawed the previous discussion, and I didn't really see a clear consensus for either side. Conversely, I believe that a short mention of this statement would be appropriate — although of course he makes tons of statements on tons of positions, a statement of this sort plus the pledge to undergo it himself is a clear sign of his position on this specific subject. To avoid the appearance of recentism: his position on this subject may not be relevant to the waterboarding question in future years, but his position on this subject will be relevant to an understanding of Sean Hannity in future years. As long as we have solid, reliable sourcing for this statement, I see no problem with inclusion. A self-published source would be entirely appropriate in this specific situation — as long as we're talking about what he thinks, there's no reason to say that he's not a reliable source for what he thinks. Moreover, even if all the media outlets in the world said "Hannity's never claimed this position" and his own website said that he had, I'd say that he had — saying so on his website would be such a claim. Nyttend (talk) 02:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Picture.... (read on)

The picture is of low quality, so I propose we take it down until we find a new and better one.----------------136.183.240.185 (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no. The picture is fine.— Dædαlus 20:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• I see no problem with it. It's of relatively low resolution, but that doesn't necessarily mean low quality. -- JeffBillman (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It actualy is an awful picture technicaly, but pretty good in that he is looking directly at the camera and is smiling. It is a decent potrait, but grainy and low quality...and yes low resolution....at least this much is low quality, but it's free and it's here. Why take it down untill a new one is found. Find a new one and then replace it....but it has to be free.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of content

With this change, an editor removed content that has been in the article for months - since at least December 2008. I undid this unexplained removal of content here. My undoing of that inappropriate and unexplained edit has now itself been undone twice, without any supporting reason offered. If you don't think the section is appropriately included, raise the issue here. Don't simply foment an edit war by repeatedly and without comment restoring an inappropriate edit. Thank you. JohnInDC (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This is insufficient. JohnInDC (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The FAIR, like MMFA,is notorious for nitpicking non-notable events. Need to something bigger to confirm this accusation. Soxwon (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That particular piece of information has been in the article for months, surviving a lot of edits in what is a pretty contentious article. I would like to hear what other editors have to say. In addition I object to your having removed this established content three times without explanation. Wholly apart from the apparent violation of Misplaced Pages policy, I think experienced editors owe one another a bit more consideration. JohnInDC (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

In addition, FAIR was not the only source cited for the material. I think removal of this content, particularly given the prior "whitewash" discussion, is inappropriate and it should remain. JohnInDC (talk) 21:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Media Matters and FAIR are generally accepted on Misplaced Pages as reliable sources within their respective fields. Please don't confuse the meaning of "reliable" as defined in policy. The content looks sufficiently sourced and properly presented. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No, they are good for fact-checking, not WP:DUE. While they may be factually accurate, they represent a fringe viewpoint. This would be the equivalent of citing Free Republic for the Olbermann article. Soxwon (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think the KCBS incident is relevant and belongs in the article. It was his first (or one of his first) shows and his remarks got him fired from it. That's fairly significant in the terms of a biography, particularly when he went on to become the #2 radio talk host in the country. It's not like he got fired from McDonalds for burning a batch of fries. As for Media Matters....they are completely biased. Even their own website admits that they only monitor conservative shows. In other words, they could give a hoot about any "misinformation" on a liberal show. That makes them biased, along with the fact that not just a few of their efforts at refuting things are pretty much POV. They should not be used. I haven't looked at FAIR in depth enough to opine on their reliability. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

If Media Matters is unreliable, it can't be demonstrated by the fact that they only monitor and report on "conservative" shows. It's a logical non sequitur. It's just what they focus on, like a marine biologist focuses on sea life. It suggests they bring a point of view to their efforts, sure, but you still need to demonstrate POV and bias in practice. JohnInDC (talk) 11:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, look through WP:RS/N, they are good to use if their are other MSM sources used already (NYT, LAT, USA Today etc.), but by themselves they don't represent WP:DUE. Soxwon (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Let me try to clear up what I meant. MM is a POV organization. They are funded solely to refute the POV of their opposite segment. When it comes to matters of fact, they can be a RS, when it comes to interpretation or opinion, they are not neutral and using them as a source requires great care in terms of POV and UNDUE. Perhaps an example or two would be appropriate. Example of them as RS: Hannity apparently hadn't read all the particulars of the "Cash for Clunkers" of quite incorrectly stated on the air that "..all we've got to do is ... go to a local junkyard, all you've got to do is tow it to your house. And you're going to get $4,500.”. MM responded by showing that this was incorrect, using verifiable facts. I have no issue with the use of MM as a source for that. The opposite, less obvious example would be when MM "refuted" Hannity saying that Obama in his remarks to a joint session of Congress on health care reform said that insurance executives are "bad people". They used semantics to refute his point. In that case, I would dispute their neutrality as POV pushing. In the case of Hannity in particular, we should be extremely careful since they gave him their psuedo-award of "Misinformer of the Year", which shows that there is a very real possibility of a bias against him. My question would be this: If anything was really that relevant, wouldn't there be more neutral sources also covering it that we could cite? If something is covered only by MM, is it likely going to be something relevant enough to be an "event" in his life? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Much clearer and sensible explanation, thanks Nite. I am not entirely sure I agree with you but I follow your reasoning and appreciate the distinctions you're making. JohnInDC (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed Media articles
• Unknown-importance Media articles
• WikiProject Media articles
• B-Class New York (state) articles
• Low-importance New York (state) articles
• B-Class Christianity articles
• Low-importance Christianity articles
• B-Class Catholicism articles
• Low-importance Catholicism articles
• WikiProject Catholicism articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Mid-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Mid-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed Journalism articles
• Unknown-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics