"a liberal person's article that has personal blog criticism, and yet you haven't removed any of the criticism. There is clearly a quality difference between Media Matters analysis and Moorewatch.com, but nonetheless you seem fixated on one. Why is that?  

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.  

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. Can anyone give a reason for the material they disagree with and want removed?  
Sure I find lots of reasons.  But one of the biggest is your comment that ""Hannity is a moron.""  It proves that you are biased and incapable of putting together a NPOV article. 

I asked for reasons why you consider it unreliable. Also I never insulted Hannity I added a link to well-traffic Hannity criticism site. Moreover, I told you this already and you still want to falsely claim I insulted Hannity. There is a discussion on Media Matters on WP:RS. Why you don't consider it reiable? Do you think those clips of Hannity speaking are fake?  

 Terri Schiavo 

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 tapeHannity 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"". Should this be included?  

 Lolreverting 

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?  

I agree. Moreover, if the reader wants to learn more they go to the footnote. All material Getaway added is on there.  
Well, if the criticism of Media Matters is going to be on the page, which I don't agree many of these so-called controversies should even be there, but if it is going to be there then the Phelps's Democrat, liberal background needs to be pointed out because Media Matters is attempting to argue that Hannity was completely off base, which he wasn't.  The information will be placed in the article in a NPOV way it will not be placed there at all.  And the way that the Phelps information keeps getting removed is simply POV. 
 Phelps being or not being a Democrat has nothing at all to do with Sean Hannity.  
That is a incorrect conclusionary statement.  You did not provide an argument to back up your personal opinion.  So thank you for your personal opinion, but it is not controlling.  Media Matters, in its criticism, has attempted to argue, as unsuccessfully as you, that Hannity's comments were off the mark.  But it has be