Talk:Sean Hannity/Archive 1

message: 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:
::* What is the purpose of the "quotations" section?
::--Larry Sanger''
Therefore I'm going to move the quotes to Wikiquote. --Hoovernj 19:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: Is the WSB link about WSB-FM, WSB-AM, or WSB-TV?? 66.245.66.197 14:10, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to make a total guess and say AM, because those are usually the talk stations (FM being music, dunno bout TV). Ilyanep 15:40, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to WSB 

message: 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.
:Wait.  It is unnecesary to post them?  What the hell is this?  This man speaks for a fucking living, it's his job to say things.  Of course it's important to know what he says, I'm sorry if they make him look bad.  If you don't like it find some other quotes you do like, go for it, I won't stop you.  What the fuck are you so interested in protecting Hannity for?  Especially when on his show he feels free to attack people all the time.  I'm sorry if you can't deal with these quotes, but as a man whose job it is to babble its extremely important for people to know what he says.  And use your handle next time, it gives you at least a shred of credibility. StoptheBus18 14:41, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please dePoliticize this 

message: 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)
:Further, I see some Catholics criticize his acceptance of contraception, which is at odds with the Church's own teachings. . We shouldn't simply endorse his claim to devoutness if there is a controversy over the matter. -Willmcw 01:27, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
::Having heard no objections, I have edited it to read, ...he is a member of the Roman Catholic faith.  I think that captures the truth. If someone else wants to get into his disagreements with the teachings of the church they are welcome to it. But I think it is now more accurate. Cheers, -Willmcw 02:23, Apr 10, 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.
:Speaking only on what the Catholic church says, Sean Hannity is not a Catholic.  He has said numerous times that he is against abortion except in cases of medical need or rape.  The Catholic church does not allow its members to support abortion in cases of rape, so Sean Hannity would not be considered Catholic in that sense.  However, I doubt it comes up at your average church meeting and I doubt a priest would bar him from entering a church so I guess it stands alright. - 24.7.186.18 17:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Devout Catholic 

message: 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)
thread_title: Death Penalty

message: 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.
: That does not violate NPOV. The comic book in question was billed specifically as conservative comic book by its creators and by a wide range of the conservative movement.  I believe it was even plugged by Hannity himself. Furthermore, I do not believe this statement is biased or defamatory in any fashion.  TheDeadlyShoe 22:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Triva and Criticisms 

message: 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.
:The links don't have to be NPOV.  And there are several of them, both pro and con, giving different perspectives on Hannity.  Holdek (talk) 18:57, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
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)
thread_title:  Links and npov 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hannity fans 

message: 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)
thread_title:  sorry about the npov tag 

message: "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)
thread_title:  This needs to be fixed 

message: I've cleaned up the article a little.  IMHO, here's what we need to work on:
* More info on early career/work.  At the moment it's not that cohesive.
* Some brief info about Hannity & Colmes, as well as his Radio Show.  Can probably poach the former from the H&C article.  The current info is all over the place.
* Elimination of Weasel words.  Critics need to be shown.
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)
thread_title:  Clean Up 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Further Clean Up 

message: ===First paragraph===
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.
===Second paragraph===
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)
thread_title:  Neutrality/Factual Issues 

message: 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)
thread_title: Second paragraph

message: '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)
thread_title: Third paragraph

message: * Controversial is not a perjorative.  Ghandi was controversial.  Hitler was also controversial.  Pretty much any public figure you want to pick is controversial in one way or another.  Does the word need to appear next to Hannity's name.  No, probably not.  Is there reason to remove it?  No, probably not.
* "Claims" is also not a perjorative.  states, asserts, claims.... are all synonyms.
* Because the contributor doesn't understand the word indignance, and doesn't want to look it up in a dictionary doesn't mean that a "factual error" exists!  I seriously cannot see how that passage could be construed to be NPOV.
None of these would warrant a totallydisputed tag, so I've removed it.  Jackk 01:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments don't warrant totallydisputed tag 

message: Is it really necessary? — Ilyanep (Talk) 04:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dichotomy of External links 

message: 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...) -Mask  21:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neoconservative note 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reagan Conservative or Libertarian? Both? Neither? 

message: 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.
:Despite Hannity's previous claim that Fox News is "fair and balanced" and having defended it from accusations of being Republican propaganda, Hannity appeared to slip on air in 2005 when he asked William F. Buckley Jr. if he was proud that conservatives had become dominant and created a "conservative media", including talk radio and Fox News.
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)
replies: text: I agree with Beland here.  This section has always struck me as not belonging in an encyclopedia but I've never had the time to reason why.  I think Beland has hit on it.  It's being critical of something Hannity said, giving as a source only a transcript of what he said.  This is, indeed, original research.  The editor is commentating on what Hannity said.  It would only be proper to mention this if the point was made by a notable source which could then be recounted here and cited.  Unless somebody can provide a logical refutation as to why this is encyclopedic and not editorializing, commentary & OR, I am going to delete this section.  Thanks, Beland.  Good catch.--WilliamThweatt 19:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: With no objections, I was going to remove the section, but I see Beland has already done so!--WilliamThweatt 23:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that criticisms CAN be a valid section in an encyclopedic entry. In order for an entry to be placed in a criticisms section, that criticism has to be verifiable and not the POV of the author. For example, I had read several websites earlier that criticized hannity and his use of "our creator". Unfortunately, since then I have not been able to track those sites down in our discussions about the "under god" issue. If I would be unable to come up with those sites, then I would agree that the under god criticism would not be allowed since it would then, by definition, fall under "original research". Ill have to take a look at the criticisms section closer to see the other issues. DanielZimmerman 05:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I edited the Kosovo section to make it "Kosovo vs. Iraq", linked to a criticism (making that a verifiable criticism) and took out the actual quotes (leaving the section to be expanded by those who can verifiy the statements about those quotes). DanielZimmerman 05:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  Edited the Fred Phelps section, linked to sources ot make it verifiable, and removed some statements that may be factually correct but could be argued as pov. DanielZimmerman 05:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  Removed the Iran Contra section for not being verifiable DanielZimmerman 05:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms and sourcing 

message: 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?
:He has two honorary degrees. He does not have any earned degrees from places of higher learning. Arbusto 22:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sean's Doctorate 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Phelps = Far right? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Remove tag 

message: 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)
replies: text: Please don't put a dispute tag over the entire article just for a single word about a group entirely unrelated to Hannity.  Try the  tag instead. Gamaliel 23:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This is so blatantly agianst Wikipedia policy that it doesn't even merit discussion!  Wikipedia can't start labelling various groups as "hate" groups.  If a source can be cited that accusses them of being a "hate group" we can word it that way as long as the source is properly cited, but this is not acceptable.  (For the record, I think these guys are nut-jobs, but this is not an issue of what we think of them...it's a matter of WP policy)--WilliamThweatt 02:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  npov again 

message: 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.
:It's generally accepted that George W. Bush has a political agenda.  Can we not use him as a source, either? Nareek 20:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MM is defeinitely not an acceptable external link, unless the page is about Media Matters directly.  EmmSeeMusic 02:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sean Hannity has to be one of the stupidest men in the United States of America.  And that is saying something.  Matthew A.J.י.B. 09:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media Matters 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Neutraility of article 

message: 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)
replies: text: "There is no actual video tape of this or audio tape for that matter."? Really it took me two seconds to find the video. Arbusto 07:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coaching Allegations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fred Phelps 

message: 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)
replies: text: Well, that's a very open ended question.  What's the info? Squiggyfm 02:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That is a very open-ended question, I hope it's not a foreshadowing of the quality of your edits. :-)  But, seriously, all contributions that add notable, encyclopedic info are welcome and encouraged as long as they're verifiable and backed up with citations.  And remember the rule that most people seem to forget in bios of controversial political figures: "The more outraguous the claim, the more solid the source has to be".--WilliamThweatt 02:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Roger! Squiggyfm 03:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Comments removed because they violate Living Person rules of Wikipedia.--Getaway 20:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: Doesn't anyone have any ideas for anything on the todo list. --Zonerocks 05:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any Ideas? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Good point, but it keeps coming back.--Getaway 20:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fred Phelps 

message: # Sean Hannity received an honorary doctorate in Republican Propaganda from Southeastern University in 2006.
# Alec Baldwin in a recent exchange with Hannity referred to him as a "No talent whore" and "a former construction-worker hack" resulting in Hannity referring to Baldwin as a third rate actor. The feud between the two continues with Hannity frequently playing an actual clip of Baldwin hosting his own talk radio show. The clip contains some rather unflattering moments from Baldwin.
# Hannity interviewed Opie and Anthony during their hiatus from radio. The radio duo call their friendship with Hannity unlikely and are appreciative of how fairly he treated them in the interview. Hannity regularly calls their current show.
# On his IFC Network television show, Henry Rollins stated he wanted Hillary Clinton to be elected president specifically for the hilarity Hannity's reaction to it would bring.
# Hannity appeared in an episode of the 2003 ABC drama Threat Matrix.
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)
thread_title:  Getting rid of trivia 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Criticisms Section 

message: 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)
replies: text: How would you know it's biased if the link didn't work? I fixed the link. If you can dispute the info within, be my guest. Bias in an article does not imply factual inaccuracy. --Baltech22 17:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: it;s pov. You just want to ruin the article, that People have worked hard on. I recieved a barnstar for this article. --Zonerocks 18:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please conduct talk page discussions in a civil manner and do not make accusations.  Thank you. Gamaliel 18:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hal Turner connection 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Criticisms Section 

message: 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)
replies: text: Maybe it would be best if you guys take out the entire criticism section. Perhaps rewrite it to, instead of going into the details of his "scandals," simply list the basic information. There's no need to go into the details because you can find that "dirt" anywhere. Let's be realistic: Some people hate Hannity. Hell, you could even PUT THAT INTO THE ARTICLE - you can link to this discussion page as an absolutely viable source! Just my two cents, I was bored and I decided to take a peak into this article. Soul in Ether 07:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV...again 

message: Is there a photo we can use with Hannity wearing less makeup? 23:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Less makeup? 

message: 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)
replies: text: The editor Jackbirdsong keeps putting in the article his own personal rant.  There are several problems with his rant: (1) it violates the principal Wikipedia:No original research (it is the personal opinions of Jackbirdsong and for that reason alone it needs to be removed), (2) it violates the principal of Wikipedia:Verifiability (there is just one citation for the information and zero citations given for the opinions expressed and this is another reason that should and will be removed), (3) it violates the principal of Wikipedia:Copyrights (many, many parts of Jackbirdsong's extended rant quotes another article from a TV website in Indianapolis, Indiana word for word (also, for this reason alone the whole rant must be removed).  I am going to remove the rant.  Also, it is way, way too long for the article and it violates the Wikipedia idea of balance.  Its size and detail and ranting style are also completely inapproprate for an encylopedia.  It was be removed over and over again.--Getaway 01:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, not that it is important, but I almost forgot to respond to jackbirdsong's political rant.  Fred Phelps used to love Clinton and Fred Phelps, Jr, his son, was Al Gore's state of Kansas Presidential campaign manager.  Clinton and Gore invited Fred Phelps to his Clinton's inaugural.  Fred Phelps ran for offic in Kansas five times as a Democrat.  He has never been registered as a Republican.  Fred Phelps, earlier in his life, was an attorney and he did civil rights work, a clearly left-wing cause.  Five of Fred Phelps's children attended Washuburn Law School and they have been personal injury attorneys, all of them taking after their father, one of the most obnoxious personal injury attorneys in the nation, much less Kansas.  Think of it:  six Fred Phelps running around suing people, not just one.  The only reason Fred Phelps has the time to picket soliders's graves now is because he got disbarred as an attorney.  He took his left-wing courtroom work just a bit too far and got himself disbarred.  Every single Supreme Court justice in Kansas signed the petition to have his left-wing attorney butt thrown out of court.  He was later disbarred from Federal court too.  He just has one of his crazy daughter's do his crazy left-wing legal work now.  Yes, Sean Hannity was right, Fred Phelps is a Democrat and a left-wing nutjob.  Sorry, but your evaluation of the Fred Phelps's background is completely off base.--Getaway 04:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gamaliel has reverted my removal of jackbirdsong's personal commentary twice today. You can review those reverts here:  and here: . I want to remind Gamaliel that there is no citation for the commentary placed in the Hannity article by jackbirdsong.  Wikipedia is not a place for Wikipedia:No original research.  Also, jackbirdsong's commentary, which Gamaliel keeps putting back in the article, has claims in its commentary that cannot be verified.  Please review this Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability. Thanks,--Getaway 14:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fred Phelps 

message: 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)
thread_title:  PoV: Criticisms 

message: 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)
replies: text: There is NOT one piece of support for this basic commentary of a Wikipedian.  There is no citation that Hannity said what the section states that he said.  How do we know that Hannity stated such a thing??  How?  I don't see a citation.  Also, how do we know that Hannity was "one of Louima's biggest critics"?  That's sounds like the commentary of a Wikipedian that does not particularly like Hannity and wants to use Wikipedia to make comments about Hannity.  There is no support of any kind for this assertion.  Where is the citation?  Also, how do we know that Hannity "using interviews with people alleging Louima had past sexual relationships with men"?? May be Hannity did, but I don't see a citation for this allegation and the premise of the sentence is that Hannity was "bolster[ing] the claim" of Hannity.  How do I know this is true??  Is this commentary of a Wikipedian?  It sure looks like it.  It is not encyclopedic, just more of the use Wikipedia to attack living persons that you don't like for whatever reason.  This whole section needs a good editing because right now it is merely editorializing.--Getaway 16:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: A quick google confirms that accusations of Louima lying about his claims were indeed made. However, transcripts of copyrighted material are difficult to come by- on the other hand, there's some measure of discussion on hannity.com's forums that shows up near the top of the search regarding if Hannity should apologize for the accusation. I will see what I can turn up regarding the content and allegations made on the show. --Kuzaar-T-C- 17:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it. here. Please in the future assume good faith in the actions of other Wikipedians, Getaway. It took 10 seconds to find the article on Google to properly source that paragraph. --Kuzaar-T-C- 17:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: 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"  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.
:There is NOT one piece of support for this basic commentary of a Wikipedian.  There is no citation that Hannity said what the section states that he said.  How do we know that Hannity stated such a thing??  How?  I don't see a citation.  Also, how do we know that Hannity was "one of Louima's biggest critics"?  That's sounds like the commentary of a Wikipedian that does not particularly like Hannity and wants to use Wikipedia to make comments about Hannity.  There is no support of any kind for this assertion.  Where is the citation?  Also, how do we know that Hannity "using interviews with people alleging Louima had past sexual relationships with men"?? May be Hannity did, but I don't see a citation for this allegation and the premise of the sentence is that Hannity was "bolster[ing] the claim" of Hannity.  How do I know this is true??  Is this commentary of a Wikipedian?  It sure looks like it.  It is not encyclopedic, just more of the use Wikipedia to attack living persons that you don't like for whatever reason.  This whole section needs a good editing because right now it is merely editorializing.--Getaway 16:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick google confirms that accusations of Louima lying about his claims were indeed made. However, transcripts of copyrighted material are difficult to come by- on the other hand, there's some measure of discussion on hannity.com's forums that shows up near the top of the search regarding if Hannity should apologize for the accusation. I will see what I can turn up regarding the content and allegations made on the show. --Kuzaar-T-C- 17:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it. here. Please in the future assume good faith in the actions of other Wikipedians, Getaway. It took 10 seconds to find the article on Google to properly source that paragraph. --Kuzaar-T-C- 17:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Abner Louima

message: 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)
thread_title:  Information duplicated/misplaced 

message: 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)
replies: text: Incidentally, per Getaway's edit summary on an edit on the 15th, saying that Code Pink IS a far-left organization: I can only encourage some research here- according to Code Pink's mission statement, they are strictly an anti-war organization, and do not have anything regarding a progressive or liberal agenda listed anywhere that I could find on their website. So, to say that they are is disingenuous. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's keep it short, could we Kuzaar?  Media Matters is a left-wing organization with an axe to grind.  We cannot take their version of the events without question.  Media Matters so called quoting of Hannity is not a Reliable Source on which to quote Hannity.  At best we need a transcript of the radio broadcast, but taking the word of Media Matters is biased. Period.  Whether you want to believe it or not.--Getaway 15:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Media Matters is a political reporting organization, exactly like your Log Cabin Republicans link. That does not make it an unreliable source, regardless of what you say. Period. If you can find a transcript of the show, then I agree, it is better to use that. However, in the lack of that one is forced to rely on what other reliable sources can be found. In this case, I have seen nothing that questions the reliability of Media Matters as a reporting org, only that what they report regards progressive politics. Some of my other concerns are in the "Media Matters- Reliable?" section below. --Kuzaar-T-C- 15:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:AWW|Weasel Words]] and this article 

message: 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)
replies: text: And neither is the Log Cabin Republicans or National Review for the same reasons --plange 20:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The controversies in question above might be better handled by PTR's situation- that is, moving them to the pages for the individual shows, in which more marginal sources would not be ruled out because of WP:BLP. That way the political opinions on both sides would be served and the debate framed in an NPOV fashion, without stepping on the toes of the BLP guidelines. --Kuzaar-T-C- 20:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for all your work PTR!  I would point out though that Hannity was not involved with Fred Phelps in any way.  He was just commenting on the horrible actions of Phelps, who is rabidly anti-gay.  Hannity did NOT condone Phelps comments.  He actually is opposed to what Phelps stands for.  All Hannity was trying to do is point out that Phelps has a history in and ties to the Democratic Party, specifically the 1998 Al Gore for President campaign and Phelps has run for office in Kansas five times as a Democrat--winning the Democratic nomination at least a couple of times.  Hannity was attempting to make the point that there are ant-war Democrats who cross the line in their demonstrations against the war and personally attack and belittle soliders.  He used Phelps and Code Pink to demonstrate this viewpoint.  So I would change your wording "Hannity was involved in a controversial dispute concerning the church of Fred Phelps" to reflect that attempt by Hannity because as you currently have it worded it sounds like you are making the point that Hannity knows and is involved with Phelps, which is far from the truth of the matter.  Hannity dislikes Phelps, as most people (both Democrats and Republicans) do, tremendously.  Also, Media Matters, who criticized Hannity, was attempting to make the argument that Phelps is not "left-wing" only "anti-gay."  But Media Matters leaves out the fact that Phelps may not be "left-wing" (because he is against gay marriage and abortion, etc.) but Phelps and his church members are against the Iraq War ("anti-war") and they ARE Democrats that have been long-time civil rights supporters (Phelps, as an attorney, filed numerous civil rights lawsuits against the City of Topeka, Kansas, Santa Fe railroad, etc.) and personal injury attorneys, traditional Democratic areas.  It is a complex issue and I don't know if one or two sentences are going to do justice to the topic without offending either side of the debate.  AND I'm not all that sure that the topic is even notable for an encyclopedia.  These are bigger issues that need to be settled.--Getaway 15:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the criticism of the show should be included on the show's page or reliably referenced criticisms be weaved in here under the radio and television sections.  Those sections need more info.  It would also be good to include any extracurricular activities, awards etc.  I haven't included the Phelps part on the Hannity & Colmes page because it seems they are having a POV dispute and I didn't want to jump in.--PTR 16:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Nation 

message: In August, 2005, Hannity was involved in a controversial dispute concerning the church of Fred Phelps protesting at the funeral of Jeremy Doyle.Mediamatters on Hannity's reporting of the Phelps funeral protest, Media Matters for America, Aug 31, 2005. Around the same time, Hannity also reported on a gathering by the activist group Code Pink in front of Walter Reed medical center. FOX News story on CODE PINK protests at Walter Reed Medical Center
--PTR 21:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for all your work PTR!  I would point out though that Hannity was not involved with Fred Phelps in any way.  He was just commenting on the horrible actions of Phelps, who is rabidly anti-gay.  Hannity did NOT condone Phelps comments.  He actually is opposed to what Phelps stands for.  All Hannity was trying to do is point out that Phelps has a history in and ties to the Democratic Party, specifically the 1998 Al Gore for President campaign and Phelps has run for office in Kansas five times as a Democrat--winning the Democratic nomination at least a couple of times.  Hannity was attempting to make the point that there are ant-war Democrats who cross the line in their demonstrations against the war and personally attack and belittle soliders.  He used Phelps and Code Pink to demonstrate this viewpoint.  So I would change your wording "Hannity was involved in a controversial dispute concerning the church of Fred Phelps" to reflect that attempt by Hannity because as you currently have it worded it sounds like you are making the point that Hannity knows and is involved with Phelps, which is far from the truth of the matter.  Hannity dislikes Phelps, as most people (both Democrats and Republicans) do, tremendously.  Also, Media Matters, who criticized Hannity, was attempting to make the argument that Phelps is not "left-wing" only "anti-gay."  But Media Matters leaves out the fact that Phelps may not be "left-wing" (because he is against gay marriage and abortion, etc.) but Phelps and his church members are against the Iraq War ("anti-war") and they ARE Democrats that have been long-time civil rights supporters (Phelps, as an attorney, filed numerous civil rights lawsuits against the City of Topeka, Kansas, Santa Fe railroad, etc.) and personal injury attorneys, traditional Democratic areas.  It is a complex issue and I don't know if one or two sentences are going to do justice to the topic without offending either side of the debate.  AND I'm not all that sure that the topic is even notable for an encyclopedia.  These are bigger issues that need to be settled.--Getaway 15:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the criticism of the show should be included on the show's page or reliably referenced criticisms be weaved in here under the radio and television sections.  Those sections need more info.  It would also be good to include any extracurricular activities, awards etc.  I haven't included the Phelps part on the Hannity & Colmes page because it seems they are having a POV dispute and I didn't want to jump in.--PTR 16:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fred Phelps and Code Pink

message: 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)
thread_title:  Copyedit 

message: 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)
replies: text: Limited? By what criteria? Arbusto 07:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: 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)
replies: text: On second thought, disregard the above comment. I am not confident that the other editors on this page are willing to or interested in working toward a consensus or NPOV version of this article that accurately reflects any conflicts or controversial statements in the subject's career. The BLP guidelines are an effort to remove defamatory material, not whitewash and provide a singularly positive view of any article's subject. That being said, I am done editing this page for now. I can be reached on my talk page for any questions. --Kuzaar-T-C- 19:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the only reason SandyGeorgia removed the "controversy" section at this time is that there was no information in it right now.  There is no reason not to add any well resourced controversies into the article.  I've noticed, however, that wikipedia is pretty powerful, whatever we put here is picked up all over the internet.  If there are biased sources in this article and we quote what they say, those quotes are repeated in a multitude of places. --PTR 19:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section said nothing; it was a heading, with a place-holder sentence.  When building a neutral article, please keep in mind that Criticism sections (controversy sections are close) are discouraged by Jimbo:  try to build a neutral, balanced article, rather than a minimum bio which a large bunch of criticism from unreliable sources.  Sandy 21:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Im glad the section was removed. There is no verifiable links for that section. Also there has never been concensus over that section. So cut the bull crap. That section was a very clear violation of POV. This article is a piece of crap now. I have no clue what happened to it. It is way to short. Also Sean Hannity never dropped out of college. He was never a construction worker. Let's get most of the info of sean from his bio on foxnews website. That is probably the only fair link we will ever have about the life and career of Sean Hannity. Bill O'Reilly (commentator) This is a good reference about an american commentator, also it is a very example of what this page should exemplify.  --Zonerocks 21:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A bio straight from his website would not be NPOV. Well-sourced criticisms are not forbidden per BLP, it's only that they need to be well-sourced and woven into the overall prose of the bio, has context, and is part of an overall reflection of the man that is neutral. That means not sympathetic and not opposing. Jimbo frowns on a criticism section... This is extremely hard to do well and correctly so don't give up.... --plange 02:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having done some research into a variety of other BLP articles and seeing either a criticism or controversy section in many of them, it would seem POV, IMHO, to start admonishing anybody who sought to create a well referenced controversy sec. on the page of such a highly opinionated figure who places himself in the political limelight (see: Al Franken). Of course there will always be some amount of POV to deal with in any article on such a figure, but to have an exclusively positive interpretation of somebody rendered in an encyclopedia article is just as biased. It is my intention to seek out some objective refs and restore some, if not all, of the controversy section in a multilateral and unbiased fashion. If this does not seem reasonable to anybody, remember that we can work together on this.--Jackbirdsong 04:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The only reason the criticism section was removed is because of the sources.  Some of them were opinion pieces, some broken links, some to biased sources.  As we find good sources the material should go back in. The other problem was, the article is deemed too short now but the only difference is the criticism section has been removed.  Wouldn't it be a good idea to put in some information on the guy as well as adding in the criticisms? I'll be out of town on business for about a week or so.  --PTR 12:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly! I understand why it was taken out, I was originally responding to the guy who thought we should just copy the official bio from FOX, and then to Jackbirdsong... I know you guys are working hard on it, but it worries me that Kuzaar has dropped out... --plange 14:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: 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? Arbusto 03:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terri Schiavo 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree. Moreover, if the reader wants to learn more they go to the footnote. All material Getaway added is on there. Arbusto 18:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.--Getaway 21:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Phelps being or not being a Democrat has nothing at all to do with Sean Hannity. JBKramer 21:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 been pointed out time and time again that Phelps is an old-time Democrat who pickets solider's funerals and CODE PINK is a liberal organization that pickets hurt, wounded and dead soliders.  Media Matters is a left-wing organization with an agenda to push.  Now, the MM comments are going to stay in the article then an explanation of Phelps ties to the liberal Al Gore will remain. Have a good day!--Getaway 21:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Firstly, I'm going to have to insist that you remain WP:CIVIL. I understand now that Hannity said that Fred Phelps was liberal. If you could please source this statement of Hannity, it would be very much appreciated. Also, please remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground - you can argue politics with liberals somewhere else. Thanks. JBKramer 21:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have remained civil all day, every day, so I really don't know what you are talking about. Now, I would ask you to follow the 3RR rules.  You haven't followed them today. Also, there is a cite for it.  I will find it sometime today. I've only put it in the article at least six times and various liberal bend editors have removed it.  You are just the latest version of the tactic.  You're right Wikipedia is not a battleground, so you don't act like and revert others constantly.  It makes your argument stronger to practice what you preach. Have a good day!--Getaway 21:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have not violated WP:3rr here. JBKramer 21:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Could we get somes sources for that stuff? Can we get it cited to avoid WP:OR? If not it will be removed. Arbusto 00:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lolreverting 

message: 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)
replies: text: This is incorrect - See Wikipedia:Fair_use#Images. Morphh (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right. I must have been thinking about the Wikisource rules. See Wikipedia:Publicity photos. Perhaps, rather than nicking a photo from Fox News, an actual "press kit" photo can be found from Hannity's website? Crockspot 14:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that would be better.  Morphh (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair Use Image dispute 

message: 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)
replies: text: Dear JBKramer:  It has been sourced on the Fred Phelps page for over a year.  Mother Jones has documented it.  You can find it here:  ref name=Lauerman>Lauerman, Kerry. "The Man Who Loves To Hate". Mother Jones.  March/April 1999. </ref>  I'm going to put the citation in the article.  You question has been definitively answered and rejected. Thanks for playing.--Getaway 20:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is not a game. I'm looking for a citation that show Hannity saying this - did he say that Phelps was far left, or are you interpreting his statements? JBKramer 20:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you even read ANY of the articles???  Seriously, if you are not going to take the time to read the articles then you should not be editing the section.  Even a cursory review of the articles points out that Phelps is a Democrat (something you wasted time questioning) that Hannity called Phelps a leftist (which you now claim that I, a wikipedian, came up with).  Read the articles or stop editing the section.  You can't even get the facts straight.--Getaway 20:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you show me where the articles discuss Hannity saying Phelps was a leftist? JBKramer 20:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, you are reverting all of the work that I do.  Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative effort.  You are not collaborating, but reverting.  Go find the information yourself.  If the Media Matter BS is going to be in the section then there is going to be all of the information about Gore and his relationship with Phelps.  If the section stays, then the Gore information stays.  If the section goes, then fine--I'm not in love with it.--Getaway 21:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's not how it works. You cannot insert information that is not verifiable, or that is origional research - and it is your responsibility to demonstrate such. I do not believe Hannity ever said Phelps' is a leftist, but out of deference to you, I did not press you hard on such. Now I am. Cite your sources. JBKramer 21:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have pointed out before that you need to read the articles or don't edit the section.  The Media Matters page has a transcript of part of the Hannity discussion and in that partial transcipt there is a where Hannity calls Phelps a leftist.  Also, the burden of proof is on you. Not me.  There have been citations provided and you have not provided citations that contradict the original citation provided.  You are simply stating, "Not true, show me something else."  If the bs Media Matters comment stay then the balancing information will stay.  If Media Matter goes then the Phelps/Gore connection goes. Simple as that.  Now, once again, please provide sources that contradict the citations provided.  The burden is on you.--Getaway 21:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. The MMFA article does not have Hannity saying Phelps is a leftist. It has him saying the protesters are leftists - he didn't know the protestors were infact Phelpses. That was the gaffe - Phelps is not a leftist in the eyes of many. Thus, a gotya. Unless, of course, you have a transcript of Hannity saying Phelps is a leftist? JBKramer 21:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Yes, as Kramer pointed out; provide a source. Arbusto 00:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fred Phelps 

message: 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)
replies: text: I posted a question about this on the BLP noticeboard. --PTR 15:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies - again 

message: 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)
replies: text: I posted a question about this on the BLP noticeboard. --PTR 16:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It should be noted Media Matters is cited in both the Michael J. Fox and the Limbaugh articles. Both include criticism. Arbusto 07:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media Matters 

message: 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."Fair.org article regarding Hannity's comments on Louima 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)
replies: text:  Here is the cite that Kuzaar found. --PTR 23:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had some trouble finding it, but thanks to the wayback machine internet archive, I think I found the original source in which the assertion surfaced. It was the Philadelphia Inquirer:  - copy and paste the link if it doesn't work. --Kuzaar-T-C- 15:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch.  I guess the next question is whether the Philly Inquirer fact-checks its guest editorials to the same standard as its news pieces.  If anyone wants to listen to it, I think that Terry Gross might ask the Inquirer about that in this interview.  TheronJ 15:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: In response to this and above sections: While I am not interested in wading back into a BLP mess again, I also contacted the Editorial editor-chief at the Philadelphia paper, who said he didn't have up-to-date contact information for the writers who wrote the piece in question. I also contacted the people at WABC radio to see if any transcripts or copy could be had to verify some of the claims from the original source- unfortunately, they had absolutely no transcripts of their programs and so I turned up another blank there. I'm going to keep digging and see if I can find anything substantive at all- given Sean Hannity's polemic style of political commentary on some of his shows, I would not be surprised if they were true, but without any sources the claims obviously cannot be made. --Kuzaar-T-C- 15:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed text from Controversy section to this page 

message: 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. 
HARD HITTER: Angry man Hannity a big draw at the Garden. Houston Chronicle. Sept. 2, 2004''
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)
thread_title:  Houston Chronicle 

message: 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.  
:* Features in the book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them by Al Franken.
--PTR 19:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: 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)
replies: text: According to the article on Neoconservatism, neoconservative ideas had a significant presence in the Reagan administration. I would think, then that him identifying himself as a "Reagan conservative", whatever it implies, would be something in favor of including the link, not excluding it. --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Need a better source for a neocon. claim. C56C 19:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reagan Conservative 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Use of categories re: [[WP:BLP]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dismissal 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Grammatical Error Spotted 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Format of The Sean Hannity Show