Talk:Sean Hannity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Society Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Media, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to media. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Why is this article's neutrality disputed?

I fail to see how this article violates NPOV rules. Criticism of Hannity seems well-enough balanced with praise, and it doesn't include any defamatory statements. What gives? Treybien (talk) 2:15 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't there any criticism of Sean Hannity? I see it for other television/radio talk show hosts, but not for Sean Hannity. Seems pretty biased to me... What gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.206.73.15 (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Al Franken and Sean Hannity

I added this to the section on criticism: "Al Franken devoted a chapter of his book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them to criticism of Hannity."

It was deleted by Getaway for this reason: Who cares? A politician, Franken, (also a piss poor comic) talking about a radio host.

A google search of Franken Hannity "lies and the lying liars who tell them" produces 12,900 hits. I would suggest that Franken's criticisms of Hannity have received enough attention to meet the notability requirement.--Dcooper 17:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Ossified 18:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, in an encyclopedia, references to notable people people who disagree with the subject of an article shouldn't be deleted. Al Franken is notable in his own right, as a script writer and actor on a very popular television show, as a best-selling writer, and as a candidate for statewide office. He and Hannity have a past. That past has been played out in national media by both Franken AND Hannity. They both acknowledge. There is no reason why it shouldn't be acknowledged on the pages of Wikipedia. If Getaway doesn't care for the text, let me respectfully ask that he edit it, rather deleting references wholesale. It's getting difficult to attribute those undo's to good faith. Ossified 20:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Getaway: I have no problem at all with you adding "former talk radio host" as a descriptor for Al Franken. I don't, however, see why that is more salient or informative than the fact that he's also an Emmy Award winning screenwriter, and is a bestselling author. It has the appearance of downplaying those things which are creditable to Franken, and highlighting what you (based on your repeated use of "radio talk show failure in another section on this page). Let's try to reach some sort of NPOV consensus, OK? Ossified 17:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sean Hannity page reverts

I will try to engage you productively on here regarding your reverts of my entries on the Sean Hannity page for Al Franken's book, Lies and the Lying Liars etc. Sean Hannity is a notable person. Al Franken is a notable person. The book was a national bestseller. An entire chapter is dedicated to Sean Hannity. Hannity has spoken many times of Franken through his various national media outlets. I can't understand why you would prevent any reference to the book on Hannity's page. While your vigilance is admirable, in that you usually revert my entry within minutes of my posting it, I think that you may be overexuberant in reverting. It also appears that you have violated the 'three-revert rule'. As a newbie Wikipedian, I am not looking to make waves or get into edit wars, or start making reports to admins, but I think that some explanation beyond a revert with an edit summary that says, "Take it to Franken's page" should be forthcoming. Ossified 17:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ossified: Let me make it clear the article is about Sean Hannity, not Al Franken. You have placed TWO references to Franken book in the article. That is redundant. It is not appropriate. Also, since Franken is merely a politician these days his opinion is not that original, just another liberal Democrat politician gripping about a conservative talk show host making comments critical of liberalism on the radio. Also, Franken was once a radio talk show host, but he failed and he failed miserably. He never, ever reached the number of listeners that Hannity did and he never, ever will. You want to turn this article about Sean Hannity into a long, long list of critics of Hannity and that violates Wikipedia's avowed goal of neutrality. The fact that you have listed the full name of Franken's idiotic book twice in the article indicates that you have a POV agenda. You want to jam Franken's childish rants down the reader's throats instead of providing the reader some basic information about Hannity. You want force feed the reader your personal agenda about great Al Franken's take on Hannity is. That is why I told you to take it to Franken's page. Franken is merely a very jealous individual that attempted to have a successful national talk radio show himself and failed miserably. You go ahead and contact an admin. That's so liberal jam your opinion down their throats Wikipeidan of you.--Getaway 19:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The quality or integrity of Al Franken's book has nothing to do with whether or not he famously attacked Sean Hannity.--Dcooper 20:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
You are right. But Franken is a failure. Now, why don't you respond to the substantive argument. But Franken is a radio talk show failure. The substantive argument is that the article is about Hannity, not Franken. But Franken is a radio talk show failure. The substantive argument is that Ossified wants to put in the article about HANNITY two or three references to the Franken, the failure, book and Ossified wants to put in the article a long, long dissertation about Franken's moronic comments about Hannity. But Franken is a radio talk show failure. Ossified's attempt to put in all of the constant, unrelenting statements of Franken the failure is a violation of NPOV. Why don't you respond to the substance of the argument about undue weight, violation of NPOV, etc. Also, its not my fault that Franken attempted to have a national radio talk show, just like Hannity's and he failed at it miserably. Deal with the Wikipedia issues, undue weight and Ossified's attempts to violate NPOV.--Getaway 21:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Two references to the book is unnecessary.--Dcooper 21:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I am trying hard to do two things, Getaway: (1) assume good faith on your part and (2) have a civil conversation with you regarding the proprietary interest you seem to take in this page. I agree with Dcooper that two references to Franken's book are unnecessary. I believe that one is a fair compromise. Which one would you prefer, Getaway? I am open to suggestion. My only hope is that we achieve a fair and balanced entry regarding Sean Hannity's life and career. Please stop confusing that with an NPOV violation. My intentions are honest and honorable and have been met (by you) with a series of insta-reverts and what some might characterize as off-topic rants (see "radio talk show failure" x7 above). I submit to you that this is not the appropriate way to achieve an accurate and consensus-driven article. Ossified 22:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are you kidding?

  1. Frank Rich, a columnist for the New York Times' editorial page, criticized Hannity and Dick Morris for using the American flag on their book covers, saying they "use the Stars and Stripes as a merchandising tool for their own self-aggrandizingly patriotic screeds cashing in on their TV celebrity."[16]

The above entry is stupid. I'd consider taking it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.26.68.146 (talk) 18:16, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Just because it's critical of Hannity doesn't mean that it shouldn't be in his entry. The idea behind an encyclopedia is not to collect hagiographies, but to provide as much meaningful, creedible information to the reader as possible. Sean Hannity is a controversial figure. Those controversies should be addressed in his Wikipedia entry. Frank Rich writes an important opnion column for one of the most influential newspapers in the world. This is one of those things that I'd rather have in the article and not need, than need and not have.Ossified 18:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again, the article is about Hannity, not Franken. It is inappropriate to mention Franken's award, etc. You know this is inappropriate, but yet you are continuing to do this. Please stop. The article is about Hannity, not Franken. Call over an admin if you would like as you threatened to do before. This article is about Hannity. You are welcome to add all kinds on information about Franken on Franken's article. Please take the inappropriate POV over there.--Getaway 18:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I never threatened to do any such thing. Please assume good faith when I edit this article. Encyclopedias are more valuable when they fair and balanced. I assure you that I understand that this article is about Sean Hannity. There is a difference, however, between an article that informs the reader about Sean Hannity and one which reads as if he wrote it. I am striving for the former. Let's work constructively to avoid the latter, OK? Being selective about which of his detractors' bona fides you allow to appear tends to move this article away from NPOV. Ossified 18:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to ask for permission. If you put inappropriate matter in the article, I'm going to remove it, ok?--Getaway 18:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I can't see how external criticism of a high profile person by other high profile people is inappropriate. Nobody has responded to the basic point that this is a informational resource, not a biography or hagiography. There are biographies for Hannity available from the institutions he works for/belongs to. If someone writes a best seller criticising him, or is published in a major newspaper attacking him how is that not relevant to an NPOV encyclopedia article about him? So long as the phrasing is NPOV I can't see why there is shrill defense of this person, other than for political motivations. All of the Hannity criticism should remain, just as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Rich#Criticisms should remain. One has to wonder why some people are so desperate to expunge NPOV-phrased facts from this article... CluckCluckBuuurkaaa! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.133.109 (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Where is his military service?

He has none! Pro war but never served. Hypocrite!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.205.220.188 (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you commenting on the article or the subject of the article. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, it is an encyclopedia. Ursasapien (talk) 04:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

RE:CHICKENHAWK I had a number of references to his being called a chickenhawk, one need only google hannity+chickenhawk, but they were reverted by someone saying that they were all "blogs". Sorry but the deck of republican chickenhawks isn't a blog, it's a published deck of cards which names hannity as a chickenhawk. Perhaps it can be moved to a "Trivia" section if people are still upset. However, Wikipedia is not a political platform and published criticism of Hannity (whose notability is that he is a political pundit) should be factually reported and not removed. I would appreciate anyone removing the chickenhawk deck of cards reference to properly justify it because it's quite clear the previous removal claiming it was just "just blogs" was factually incorrect and further exposition should be given if it's going to be removed again. -- CluckCluckBuuurkaaa!

It needs to be a reliable source and not an advertisement or a blog. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Examples for reliable source information. --PTR 17:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
There are links to books for sale you didn't remove, so how do they remain and his appearance in another text constitute advertising? The only difference I see is that you have allowed the conservative pro-hannity commerical links to stay, and removed the hannity factual entry. I will revert the edit and you are welcome to remove it again if you remove all of the commercial references or show how one violates and the other doesn't. I have looked closely at the external link rules and don't see how either violate a rule, so I think both should stay as they are useful to a person seeking information about Sean Hannity.
With regard to "reliable source" you removed a link to the Sourcewatch entry, but left the media matters link? These are highly comparable resources, so again I fail to see how one can go without the other, and I fail to see how it's "unreliable", both are resources from non-profit research centers, and both have/had a link to the wikipedia entry on the source so people could see who they are from (which the others do not). I would say again that either both go or both stay with an explanation needed for any further action. Please point to the exact rule and definition that makes Media Matters and Center for Media and Democracy different, and for that matter how they are "unreliable" by a metric that retains a link to foxnews.com. There is even a template on wikipedia for articles incorporating sourcewatch text (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:SourceWatch_text), so I think an external link is more than ok.
Reverting for now as no rule or reason has been given or cited that looks even remotely plausable considering what was left during the edits. But if someone is able to cite some clear rule that makes the hannity book seller/text in which he appears and mediamatters/centermediademocracy different, they are welcome.. and I am interested. -- CluckCluckBuuurkaaa!
For the removal of Source Watch links from BLP articles, see WT:BLP#Sourcewatch. As far as books go, the reason books are listed with ISBN numbers is precisely so that readers are not spammed from sites seeking to sell books. The ISBN number gives the reader the choice of book providers to look at. The chickenhawks link was simply a commercial venture trying to make money off of Wikipedia readers. Your complaints have no merit. - Crockspot 19:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok thanks for clearing up the sourcewatch issue. I still don't see the spam/advertising issue for the deck of cards and will return to this in 24 hours. With regard to the earlier chickenhawk issue, I have added a link to michael moore to settle the issue as he is very high profile and there are links to that domain in other article reference sections. CluckCluckBuuurkaaa!
The reference to the michael moore criticism has been removed. Like others I am having a hard time assuming good faith from some of these editors. Especially when not reason was given by Getaway. Please show respect to people in your comments Getaway, you seem to have a very aggressive tone. And please cite reasons for your revisionism in your editing, as no reason was cited and no comment left on the talk page. I will return to this issue in 24 hours. CluckCluckBuuurkaaa!

[edit] Emphasis on his Irish heritage

The article seems to make much of Hannity's Irish heritage to the point that it seems undue weight. It almost smacks of anti-Irish bias. It should certainly be mentioned, as he talks about it his self, but I am concerned about the prolific and prominent references to this fact. Ursasapien (talk) 10:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It does seem a bit over-represented, as the counties from which his grandparents emigrated doesn't seem notable. There may well be Irish-Americans (or Irish citizens) who disagree about the notability thing, though. Not sure if the intent is/was anti-Irish bias, but I wouldn't argue with a judicious edit. Ossified 11:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I moved his Irish heritage and his religious preference to the expanded infobox. It just sounded funny in the lead. Ursasapien (talk) 05:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I see that someone has replaced it in the first sentence. Ossified has it right that the birthplace of his grandparents isn't worth building up as much as we (collectively) have done here. CsikosLo (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Could some one fix his nationality under his picture. It states his nationality is Irish American. Unless someone can source that he has ever claimed citizenship of the the Republic of Ireland it must be fixed. I believe that the corrected designation under nationality would be U.S. citizen.Seems like people are trying to paint him as some sort of "fresh oot o' tha bogs" mick, and don't care if what is in is accurate. On the other hand, entirely possible that people are ignorant of exactly what nationality is.Die4Dixie 16:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Louima

Please see the archives for discussion of this. Fair.org references onepeoplesproject as their source which is not a reliable source for this article. Onepeoplesproject does not have the statements listed in fair.org's article. The statements could not be tracked down. This is a BLP violation if we cannot get a good source for the statements. --PTR 14:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it again. Please use the discussion page. This has been discussed and is in the archives. Onepeoplesproject is not a reliable source for an article on Hannity. According to fair.org that is where they got their information. We need a better source before this info is included. --PTR 14:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Define reliability: You said, "There is a paragraph in the controversy section (Abner Louima para) that references Fair.org, but Fair.org references OnePeoplesProject.com and OnePeoplesProject.com apparently got the information from an opinion piece in the Philadelphia Telegraph. Is this an acceptable reference for a BLP? --PTR 15:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)".
This editorial was clearly dated 6-7 months after the Fair article. You did not simply argue that onepeoplesproject was unreliable. Can I define your entries as unreliable? Anyone can say that something is unreliable. Because you keep shifting you arguments, I believe that you are simply expressing your personal opinion, not on the source, but on the entry itself--24.12.67.218 14:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
From the archives -
The above uses a citation from Fair.org which cites OnePeoplesProject as their source but OnePeoplesProject does not have the "lying Louima" reference and OnePeoplesProject might be a questionable source for this BLP. The only place we've found this information (Kuzaar tracked it down) was in an opinion piece in the Philadelphia Telegraph which also might be a questionable source for a BLP. --PTR 16:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The main problem was/is that onepeoplesproject is a biased source for an article on Hannity. You have found that onepeoplesproject does have the reference but it still is not a reliable source. Check WP:RS - "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." --PTR 14:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
If this is true then both Fair and Media Matters, who are both using onepeoplesproject, a biased source, as their source for their articles, are unreliable. If Fair and Media Matters are not reliable then they should not be qualified sources in this article or any article on Wiki. Further, the Wiki entry on Louima which uses this same source should also be scrubbed of this same entry. My observation is that the concern is not reliable sources, but the content of the entries in this article. If the concern is over reliable sources then Fair and Media Matters should not be referenced in this article, in the Louima article, or any article on this site.
My observation is based on the fact that the original argument against the Fair article was deceptive in that it was claimed that an editorial was the original source when in fact the original source was written 6-7 months after the Fair article. The next argument was that the onepeoplesproject article could not be found, which it was in the same place as that editorial, archive.org, and finally, the argument that onepeoplesproject is not reliable. Therefore, if Fair and Media Matters uses onepeoplesproject as a source, they are unreliable and should be scrubbed from this and all other articles that references them. But since this consistency does not exist, your arguments must not only be biased, but unreliable as you attempted to source a Fair article 6-7 months after the Fair article was published --24.12.67.218 15:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Not using Fair.org and Media Matters has been discussed many times but Media Matters does generally include links and does have a reputation for fact checking even if they do editorialize.
If there is an issue on the Louima page, that needs to be brought up there.
If you look in the archives you will see that the original problem that existed and still exists is that the paragraph in the fair.org article that the information for this entry comes from is referenced to onepeoplesproject. Onepeoplesproject is not a reliable source. At the time, I did search onepeoplesproject looking for their source and didn't find the reference. We then looked for other sources and found the editorial. I guess we just assumed that the information from Onepeoplesproject came from that editorial. I never checked the dates. The basic issue is still the same as from the archives (see entry above): Fair.org cites OnePeoplesProject as their source for the information that is in question for this article. We shouldn't use onepeoplesproject as a source. --PTR 15:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conservative vs. Neoconservative

Before edit warring ensues, can we get some discussion on this talk page. Yes, Hannity says he is a "Reagan conservative." However, the description at "Neoconservative" seems to fit him just fine. What about conservative? Ursasapien (talk) 11:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

We should give a substantial amount of deference to how he self-identifies, although it's fair to contrast his self-identification with reliably-sourced accounts of how his words or actions may more closely associate him with a different school of thought. Reasonable? Ossified 11:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
We can't use neoconservative in the description in the lead unless there is some reliable source that says he's a neoconservative that trumps his self identification. --PTR 12:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed with the above. To my knowledge, Hannity has never self-identified as a "neoconservative". Just a conservative. His attitude seems to be that "neocon" is more of a pejorative than a legitimate political identification. Therefore, without some sort of reliably-sourced evidence I don't think it's appropriate to describe him as "neoconservative". --Hiddekel 15:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
That is an absurd argument. You cannot base his classification off of his own words. Should we classify Democratic politicans as "Cowards" and "Crooks" and "Liars" because that is how Hannity has described them on his show? Of course we wouldn't. In the same way that Democratic politicans are called "liberal", Hannity is called a "neoconservative". That is what he is and the label should be changed to reflect that. Bluefield 17:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Read your own argument. We don't use the labels of critics - we use the self identification unless there's a reference that proves otherwise (such as someone claiming to be an Idependent but is a registered Libertarian). --PTR 18:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
You have to be kidding - should we classify people who call themselves the second coming as a Prophet? Or people who call themselves a Saint saints? Stephen Colbert would certainly be a lot of things then. Perhaps we should classify in a more objective manner - by the definitions perhaps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.216.106 (talk) 04:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
WP does not decide what to classify. We use [WP:RS]. --PTR 14:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sean Hannity is a conservative. If someone here thinks he deserves the label "neoconservative," please use this section to state your reasons; i.e., he said/did something in particular, which alligns him more with a neo-con than a conservative. I think if we discussed it that way, we could actually make some progress here and find out which term is better fitting.

Is he "conservative" economically? No. He supported what has ammounted to a nation building exercise in Iraq that will cost trillions of dollars. Is he "conservative" diplomatically? No. He has eschewed the policy of his alleged hero Reagan used in the Cold War by using economic might to defeat the enemy, supporting instead the provacative and decidedely unconservative method of preemptive strikes against other sovereign nations. Is he religiously "conservative"? No. He has performed at fundraisers for the pro-choice candidate for the GOP nomination, Rudy Giuliani. In almost every traditional test for what defines a conservative, Hannity fails. He is the new breed of conservatives, which are conservative in name only. That is why he is a neo-conservative, and not a conservative. Bluefield (talk) 04:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Hannity self-identifies as a conservative. No notable reliable sources have been presented that characterize him as a neoconservative. No amount of original research will change that. - Crockspot (talk) 07:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Without a reference, changing him to a neocon would be nothing more than original research, as per WP:NOR. Snowfire51 (talk) 07:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "Neoconservative" is misused often, has several different meanings, and has become a kind of political slur besides. I would be hesitant to define any living people as "neoconservative" unless they have used the term themselves. A preponderance of sources use "conservative," so that's the end of our inquiry. Cool Hand Luke 09:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The word "conservative" is a pretty narrow definition of someone who has made a career off of telling everyone his political opinions. To refer to Noam Chomsky as, simply, a 'liberal' is a bit simplistic, while the term 'libertarian socialist' aligns much better with his espoused beliefs. Ron Paul is also referred to as a 'conservative,' but he and Hannity are polar opposites on many issues. Aceholiday (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul is a paleoconservative, and there has been a war between the two ideologies for several decades.

[edit] Center for American Progress

The Media Matters link provides excerpts from transcripts and a video link to the actual clip. In this link they have statements with no supporting material. I don't think this is a good ref for a BLP. I think it should be removed. --PTR 16:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

    • Your section header reads "Center for American Progress" and you reprinted the line about the Center for American Progress, but then explained why you think the Media Matters link should be removed. Is it the Center for American Progress entry or the Media Matters entry which you are concerned with? Ossified 20:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The Media Matters link provides excerpts from transcripts and a video link to the actual clip of what they are criticizing. It is fine. The CAP link provides no supporting material in their article for the quotes. There is no way to tell in what context the statements were made. The CAP link is the one I think should be removed. --PTR 21:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I have to disagree. Media Matters passes muster under WP:RS. Fox used to make transcripts available on the web but no longer does so. I have no qualms if you wish to see if you can find transcripts elsewhere and determine if the context undermines the claims that Media Matters makes, but in the absence of that, with a reliably sourced quote, there's no reason to assume that it's anything other than what Media Matters says it is. Ossified 21:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually Media Matter is borderline for this BLP since they are biased but I haven't suggested removing the Media Matters link. I moved it to the Professional Life section since Jimbo prefers the criticism to be intertwined into the article --PTR 15:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What does this quote mean? How does it add to the biography?

The show is frequently critical of, and has drawn criticism from, the Democratic Party. David Wade, a John Kerry spokesman, said during the 2004 Presidential election regarding the term carpet bombing, "If the term hasn't found its way into print, its distortions certainly have.

Maybe the meaning of this quote was obvious to Kerry partisans in September 2004, but what does it mean in September 2007? Why is it significant? patsw 00:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcewatch

External links and citations to Sourcewatch are to be removed from all living biographies, according to the consensus on WT:BLP#Sourcewatch, just so everyone knows. - Crockspot 19:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Changes TO line 44

Modified text:

"both children of Irish immigrants. His paternal grandparents immigrated from County Down and his maternal grandparents from County Cork."

The use of variations of immigrant in two sequential sentences is gratuitous and gives undue weight. I removed the "both children of Irish immigrants" and left the second sentences intact. I also changed the Nationality under his picture from Irish American to U.S.citizen. If anyone has a reliable source that he indeed is a citizen of the Republic of Ireland, I'd be happy to see it and that it be included.Die4Dixie 17:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he needs to have dual citizenship to be considered an "Irish American." Many people use the term Irish American in the same way they use African American for people of African descent that were born here. Regardless, it now conflicts with the lead that calls him an Irish-American. Finally, I do not believe "U.S. citizen" is a typical listing under nationality. Ursasapien (talk) 03:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
From the article Irish American:
“ Irish Americans (Irish: Gael-Mheiriceánach) are citizens of the United States who can claim ancestry originating in the west European island of Ireland. ”
Clearly, his nationality or ancestry can be said to be Irish American. However, I can get a source that describes his ancestry as originating from Ireland if you believe it is necessary. To me, it is better to have this in the infobox and as a part of his early life, as opposed to being in the lead. Others mileage may vary. Ursasapien (talk) 05:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
you have confused nationality with ancestry. Please look up both words in you closest dictionary.Die4Dixie 08:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
First, I note the personal attack. Second, I note the disregard for capitalization, punctuation, and proper grammar. Third, I note that you have completely side-stepped the issue of the contemporary meaning of nationality. African Americans are not citizens of Africa. They are Americans of African heritage (and even this is more indicative of their cultural heritage, as most African Americans come of mixed heritage). Sean is a proud Irish American and you should not remove this because of your racist ("fresh oot o' tha bogs" mick} ideology. Ursasapien (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm Irish American. Nationality means that he would be subject in some way to the jurisdiction of Ireland. I have no problem with it saying Irish American . What i have is a problem with someone claiming that his nationality is Irish American. To be considered Irish American , he doesn't need to be a citizen of Ireland. If you want to claim that that is his nationality, please provide some documentation that he is a citizen of the Republic of Ireland. Woman, I'm from the south, just like you. Your vernacular southern use or individual definition of nationality does not belong in an encyclopedia.Die4Dixie 09:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
First, I'm a he. Second, I think you are taking a rather legalistic stance. The WP article on nationality indicates, "Nationality is a relationship between a person and their state of origin, culture, association, affiliation and/or loyalty. . . Generally, nationality is established at birth by a child's place of birth (jus soli) and/or bloodline (jus sanguinis). . . The legal sense of nationality, particularly in the English speaking world, may often mean citizenship, although they do not mean the same thing everywhere in the world. . . Nationality can also mean membership in a cultural/historical group related to political or national identity." Therefore, I don't think it means what you think it means. Nonetheless, I changed it anyway in deference to you. The reason it ended up in the infobox in the first place was I thought it was too over-emphasized. Ursasapien (talk) 09:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The quote in context:

Nationality can also mean membership in a cultural/historical group related to political or national identity, even if it currently lacks a formal state. This meaning is said by some authorities to cover many groups, including Kurds, Basques, Catalans, the Welsh, Scots, Palestinians, Tamils, and many others.

Not trying to rehash this. We are still made up. This has to do with stateless persons and others, not the local NAACP or St. Paddy's Day parade float builders.;)Die4Dixie 09:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Ursasapien has a point. However, for the purpose of the infobox, I reckon that "nationality" refers to the formal meaning of the word. Just my two cents. --Hiddekel 18:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you venture that Die4Dixie has a point too? My concern was only for the info box, where as you rightly point out a formal definition is called for.I think the national identity in the above quote refers to stateless persons, like Palestinians, and a select few others.The Irish do have a formal state. Now if he were Irish and living in Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom, then one could argue that definition of nationality. The "national identity" would hardly work for third generation Irish Americans in the United States without dual citizenship. Here we would be talking about ethnicity rather than nationality. Sometimes these do overlap, but not ,IMHO, in this instance. I will email the State Department and the Irish embassy in Washington soon, and share with you any response that I receive.Die4Dixie 21:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, since I agreed with your bottom line, I figured that'd go without saying. :) --Hiddekel 21:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)It seems to me that Hannity's nationality is American and his ancestry is Irish. I'm not particularly concerned with what goes in the infobox except to the extent that it is consistent with the use of the "Nationality" field in other infoboxes (consistency is the probably the hardest thing to maintain in this project). In all likelihood, "American" is the appropriate entry for the infobox. As far as identifying him as "Irish American" in the lede, that's fine, too. As most Americans are the descendants of immigrants, it's not unusual to use both ancestry and nationality to describe someone (particularly, in this case, if Hannity himself describes himself as Irish American). I'm still a bit concerned, however, about the need to identify which counties in Ireland his grandparents immigrated from. I'm not sure how this adds to the article (except in terms of bulk), and may be an issue of undue weight, since I don't know how his grandparents, or the counties of their departure enlighten us in any way about the subject of the article. Ossified 23:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. You should have seen it before I put my hand to it. Please make some balanced contributions. I think there was some insistence of putting immigrant and its variants at ever possible juncture given some conservatives positions on illegal immigration.I'm satisfied that the box doesn't say Irish American any more, and I am learning if you can just get something small like that once on Wikipedia, then you have accomplished something of epic proportionsDie4Dixie 00:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Edit

I definitely think that is better. I had wondered how exactly that section could be fixed. Good job ursapaiensDie4Dixie 08:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism/Controversy

Is the flag-waving stuff the best we can do? Certainly don't need this to turn into John Gibson (although Gibson's more like the shock jock of cable news), but come on! Franken's boring to read about. :P Nualran 17:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Any controversy or criticism must be sourced using WP:RS sources, making sure you are aware of WP:BLP. Jimbo prefers no separate Criticism section (since those become vandal magnets) and would prefer any criticism woven into the article. --PTR 19:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
That's a good point - the flag criticism still seems weak though. Not totally irrelevant, but not the most notable relative to other incidents. That really was what I was trying to say. Nualran 18:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is he single?

Usually in any biographical article, whether someone is single or not is pretty important. It's certainly something that shouldn't be left out, especially if he's married or something! 69.220.2.188 20:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Olbermann

Why do we keep seeing "so and so was awarded the 'worst person' award by Keith Olbermann" on so many Wikipedia bios? Keith Olbermann's opinion of Sean Hannity simply does not belong on this page. The opinion of a SINGLE PERSON giving out a MEANINGLESS "award" does not belong in an encyclopedia entry. Mark Levin thinks Hannity is a great talk show host...but we don't see that opinion on Sean's page. Why? Because it doesn't belong...and neither does Olbermann's opinion.

Olbermann has a page dedicated to him on Wiki already. If you want to publicize Olbermann's hate fest, do so on his page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.210.1.138 (talk) 02:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Olbermann is a prominent newscaster on MSNBC and his 'worst person' awards generate much publicity and scrutiny. Just mentioning it on Hannity's page doesn't warrant removal. It hasn't become out of hand or too lengthy, and Olbermann's prominent status and frequent criticisms seem to meet importance standards. 21:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Aceholiday (talk)

Prominent status? The guy on a good night might garner a half million viewers. He does not meet any level of importance outside of his own little group of fans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.87.126 (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neo Conservative

Sean Hannity is clearly a neoconservative and should not be described as anything else.

The neo-con debate has been ongoing for a while, but as of yet no one has shown any evidence or proper references indicating he should be classified as such. In spite of the discussion, Wikipedia is not a place for debate. Snowfire51 04:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Freedom Alliance

The Freedom Alliance charity was not started by nor was it administrated by Hannity. He was involved in raising money for the charity. Unless we put this information for all bios throughout WP for each charity that people raise money for, it doesn't belong here. It belongs on the pages of those who are administrators and on the charity's page if it exists. The paragraph also misstates the ref. --PTR (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible copyright violation

It appears that a large portion of the Professional Career section of this article is copied word for word from http://580wdbo.com/hannity/bio.html. I haven't deleted this text (yet) since I know it's possible the same author wrote both but given that this url is given as a reference source for this section of the article, I strongly doubt it. Perhaps somebody with more knowledge of Hannity's career could re-write this section to avoid this apparent copyright violation. - Dravecky (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Colbert

I reverted:

Parodied by comedian Stephen Colbert, as a blustery, self-obsessed right-wing commentator with a strong distaste for facts.

Because first it isn't sourced, not written in a neutral tone of voice and although Colbert is considered a parody of many bloviating right-wing commentators, O'Reilly is commonaly considered his model. I've invited Micmachete to this discussion page (since he reverted my reversion) to defend why these basic Wikipedia policies are not applicable in this situation. ∴ Therefore | talk 02:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Colbert himself always mentions "Papa Bear" O'Reilly as his hero. I'd take that as meaning it was he whom he was parodying. 83.147.143.148 (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Very Biased

WARNING THE FOLLOWING POST CONTAINS POV AND --ReaganConservative (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)WEASLE WORDS, THANK YOU --ReaganConservative (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC) This discussion page highlights how biased many of the editors are. Someone could fill pages with nonsense that Hannity says that isn't true, and he is most assuredly not a traditional conservative. He meets most, if not all, of the criteria listed under the Wikipedia article for neoconservatism. I don't see why he can define himself as one thing while fitting the criteria of something else, and you would take his word as a source. Would a murderer be allowed to define himself as a simple pimp? Would anyone accept that?

It is clear that some of the editors of this page are themselves extremely conservative, and they are working to "clean" this article based on their own bias. This view is supported by the fact they cannot rationally defend their position(s), but they continue to revert the article to avoid anything they do not like. This smacks of arrogance and bias, and I do not understand how that has any place in an encyclopedia article.

Hannity is not a traditional conservative. He is a Chickenhawk that has supported the Bush administration despite a failing economy, enlarging government, etc. He also spends much of his show, Hannity's America, doing nothing more than attacking "liberals." In fact, his show tonight (01/28/2008) included a piece on polar bears/global warming. Hannity's sources were two conservatives that do not support protecting polar bears, and his only additions to the piece were to keep claiming liberals are ignoring science and lying about the entire subject. He also attacked members of Congress for having a hearing about the subject where they questioned the policies of the Bush administration after listening to testimony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.20.98 (talk) 07:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC) What this user says is not true, and he is a global warming idiot.Alex1996Ne (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, and is not meant to be a forum for your political views.Asher196 (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll just say I dropped in to read how much education this demagogue has/does not have. My suspicions were confirmed that he lacks one. 74.233.157.192 (talk) 03:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Romney and Rush wars

Should some mention be made of the fact that Hannity, Limbaugh, and other radio types came out strongly against McCain before the Feb 5th primaries in support of Romney, but yet their efforts didn't work and perhaps caused a backlash? OddibeKerfeld (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mitt Romney

There needs to be a reliable source that says his support failed to bring in any victories. You might know it didn't but wikipedia can't state that as a fact unless someone else has reported it. --PTR (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Summarizing the sub-sections

It seems like there is an abundance of subsections towards the bottom of the main page. Although the info seems pertinant to a degree, breaking up the fact he held a dinner for one candidate and supported another should be lumped together perhaps in just one sub section (or whatever it is called officially) as "2008 presidential campaign involvement" or something of the like. Currently it seems poorly organized. Rocdahut (talk) 10:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Books sub-section

I've re-added the subsection for Hannity's books. I see no reason not to have this information; unless we really over-do it, book reviews (inherently being the opinions of third parties) are unlikely to cause any confusion over whether Wikipedia is endorsing/decrying the subject of the review. I left the review from Business Week intact since this is a very reputable publication. I removed the other review to keep the paragraph feeling "balanced"; if we find another pro- or neutral review we should re-add this. If eventually we can not find another positive/neutral review, then we should also re-add it, since in that case, it isn't our fault that Hannity writes bad books. The excised review follows:

The journal of the [[World Future Society]] stated, "The polarization typified in this one-eyed rant is a further complication in seeking security in today's world".<ref>Book Review: Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism. ''Future Survey'', June 2005, Vol. 27 Issue 6, p5-5, 1/2p; ISSN 0190-3241.</ref>

--PeruvianLlama(spit) 06:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

His books are universally viewed as ranting trash by reputable academic journals. Just a fact. Nuff said. 74.233.86.49 (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, it isn't "Nuff said." If the section seeks to maintain a neutral point of view than it should include a line such as "However, the book has recieved favorable reviews from EXAMPLE who have said the book was 'PERTINANT QUOTE'." I just bring this up because simply by including one source with one view, how ever high the reputation, is a subtle way of injecting POV into the article. I am terrible though at figuring out the controls of wikipedia, so I do not know how to do the insertion of a footnote marker and I just haven't had the time to really invest in figuring it out. Perhaps I will one day. Until then though, as an English Lit major with a passion for semantics I can tell at a glance that you say as much with what you leave out of an article as with what you put in. For example, I wouldn't be allowed, nor should I be allowed, to go to the article for Rush Limbaugh and blankout the section on his perscription drug abuse simply because I felt that it added POV to the article. It is a fact of who he is and what he has done. Can some one please fix the book review section. To ignore the POV here harms wikipedia. Rocdahut (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to try to find positive reviews of his books from reputable sources. But like I said, good luck with that. If you can't find them, there is no neutrality issue. 74.233.164.239 (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Rocdahut: if you have any references but you feel un-familiar with the use of ref tags, then do feel free to post the relevant info here on the talk page and I'm sure someone would be happy to add them for you! I mostly agree with what you're saying (both of you, actually) and my suggestion is this: that for the moment, we leave out the 'World Future Society' review above until we (and others) can make a sincere effort in finding reviews that may come from alternate viewpoints, thus ensuring the Books section is NPOV. However if we cannot find any sources within a reasonable time-frame (a week?) which gave Hannity's book a non-negative review, then we should just go ahead and put in whatever we find, pro or con. I'm all for holding off a little while so that both sides of the story can be told; but if there really is only one side to the story, then we should not feel hindered by the NPOV policy. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 03:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
In point of fact, intellectuals both right and left view Hannity's outputs as textbook examples of Propaganda techniques in action and express concern for America about listeners' sheep-like susceptibility to them. On the right, this is viewed as a very troubling "de-intellectualizing" of Buckley's conservatism, while on the left this same concern is coupled with concerns over the overall political climate that has resulted in America plus the policy and electoral outcomes that can result. So again, good luck finding really positive reviews, I think you'll find they just don't exist outside of the partisan blogosphere where anybody and their dog can write. I have treated the books as fairly as possible given the available material from reputable sources. Again, if the outcome is less than desirable for followers of Hannity, they need to consider that perhaps his books are actually deserving of the negative reviews they have received. What is actually most instructive about the books is just how few reviews they have received, including not even one in an academic journal, indicating that intellectuals and most reputable publishers don't even take the books seriously enough to review them. This is utterly remarkable, yet telling, for books that have sold in measure (best-selling) as have Hannity's. If serious academic criticisms of his work existed, there would be a both left and right unison over the fact that the man is a true novice about the things over which he pontificates day in and day out (note both Hannity and Limbaugh never completed college, lest went on to graduate work), that he exhibits a plain-faced Manichaean worldview which defies reality and actual usefulness in real-world political affairs, and that he is a demagogue in the easiest-to-detect and truest possible sense of the word. If you want to know where I am coming from in all this, I am a political moderate and academician who shares the concerns of both the right and left over the phenomenon of Hannity and those like him, and have stated nothing other than what is verifiable about the matter in my additions. 74.233.164.23 (talk) 08:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that you sound anything but a political moderate, this really is a discussion about making the article non POV. Not a soapbox for you to rant about how you don't like the guy. You may attempt to hide the fact that what you posted was a rant under the guise of 'concerned academic,' but essentially you could be a poly-sci major with a particular bent against talk radio who decided to pretend that their self-agrandizing bluster was something more than just that. I am talking semantics, you are talking politics. Whether I do the search or others do the search makes no difference to me, I merely pointed out the fact that there was a lack of favorable reviews which could lead a person to interpret the inclusion of only the negative ones as POV. Even if no positive reviews are found in a week's time, it might help to maintain a nuetral atmosphere to the article to include a line such as "Although no academic reviewers gave his books positive reviews, the book sold well," or "It recieved positive reviews from pundits on the right side of the asile." Or something to that effect. By making this suggestion I am not attempting to "soften the criticism" as I no doubt guess you are ready to say. However, what I am trying to do is assure that those who look to wikipedia do not recive a lopsided view. To summarize my main point: We need to find a way to objectively say "Some people liked it Some people didn't." Rocdahut (talk) 10:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

When the books were reviewed universally as poor, there is no POV, just facts. Again, for the fifth time, if you wish to add positive book reviews from reputable sources, find them. I've already looked high and low, and using the full database resources of a university library. 74.233.157.154 (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
If so, there is no WP:UNDUE issue and thus no NPOV issue and thus no WP:BLP issue. C.m.jones (talk) 07:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hal Turner?

Isn't the Hal Turner section a bit... biased? --Sharkface217 04:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If you mean that it relies on a single source with secondhand information, then yes.Asher196 (talk) 04:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Bad sourcing? In what way? Turner's own words? ~~Jimintheatl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimintheatl (talk • contribs) 16:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that for a claim this controversial you'll need a reliable source, not just Turner's own claims on his own website. Nesodak (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
All it takes is a simple google search and you will find Hannity's version, spoken on his show. CyberAnth (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
This seriously shouldn't be a problem to set up in a decent way. Right now the "controversy" section seems to exist solely to highlight Hal Turner. Not to mention that calling it a "controversy" is gross POV when the source that calls it a controversy is politcally slanted website. Furthermore, the quote from Turner's website would seem more perinent on his page, not on Hannity's. Also, it is worth mentioning that simply because a person inserts a lengthy quote and sources it, doesn't mean that you aren't trying to weasel in a bit of POV. If this isn't true, then I could go to the Hillary Clinton wikipage, or the Obama page, or the McCain page and post lengthy sourced quotes all with things along the lines of something like this: Political commentator x has once called him/her 'the worst living person on the face of the planet, we should stone them immediately.' Such a thing would be reverted and removed, and should be. As such, I am once again removing the controversies section. It is serving as nothing more than a POV ground to weasal in defamation of character. A person may not agree with the man's views, but this is not the forum for that. Rocdahut (talk) 05:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked over the page for several minutes. Not only did I finda superfluous inject of Hal Turner's name, but that the suggested link merely stated that Sean Hannity had worked at a particular radio station. No mention of Mr. Turner. I moved the whole Hal Turner thing into the newly renamed criticisms section, as now it includes more than just books and magazine reviews. I still feel that it is grossly POV, but at least now it is in the criticisms section, rather than seperate from it masquarading as a "controversy." That is a pretty weighty word to toss around so lightly. Especially given that the web-links are all for opinion sites. Before somebody cries foul or erroniously attempts to claims that I am sanitizing the article, please take a moment to think that I removed little, despite the fact that I find it POV. I simply moved it to the appropriate section. Finally, even if a magazine calls it a controversy, doesn't mean that it is really worthy of the name. Merely throwing the name in their does not make it one. Rocdahut (talk) 05:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

For now, I flagged the section as needing a POV rework. It certainly seems to give undue weight to the Hal Turner thing. The sources are horrible...looks like one op-ed, and a bare link to Turner's homepage. Hasn't there been any coverage by a real journalist? Barring better sources than this, it should be removed, especially with the current weasel words and apparent POV slant. Nesodak (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Ugh. The only reputable online publications I can find discussing this allegation are The Nation[1] and The Huffington Post,[2] and both of these articles seem to be op-eds referring to allegations made on various blogs. The Nation piece seems particularly problematic...it makes claims that read as if the author feels he can read Hannity's mind; "Hannity recognized his audience's thirst for red meat, racist rhetoric", and "...Hannity found he could avoid the dangers of direct race-baiting by simply outsourcing it to Turner". Also, it appears that both Hannity and the program director have specifically denied the allegations[3], a fact this article doesn't mention. Is there a reason why so much is being made of the claim that some fringe figure was calling in to somebody's radio show? I don't get it...and I think it's problematic to attempt to tie so prominent a media figure to a white supremacist on "evidence" that seems this flimsy, especially since the connection has apparently been denied. Nesodak (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


I totally agree. Also, a revert was made of edits that I did the other day on this article in an attempt to clean up what I thought looked like fairly blatent POV, someone said in the revert line that they were unsure what specific wikipedia standard I was quoting, but I honestly don't know if there is a subsection of rules to deal with this. I assumed that the quoting of an op-ed piece did not belong anywhere except for in the criticisms section. Furthermore, I am going to once again remove the Hal Turner mentions from the early career section. The footnote makes no mention of Hal Turner, and the hyperlink provided in the text can't really serve as evidence as it makes a claim that is currently the dispute of the controversy section. My own belief is that people with a certain political slant are feverishly attempting to tie Mr. Hannity with Hal Turner as if they were bosom buddies. This is getting close to revert war territory as it seems right now. Rocdahut (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I did my best to reword the section in a neutral way, and integrated it into the "Professional life" section. I also removed the statement about the Jack Kemp criticism...it had no source except for a Wikilink to Wikipedia's LexisNexis article, and there were no claims for its significance in any case (from what I can see, Hannity has been criticised by lots of people, in lots of places, for lots of reasons. Nesodak (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the current edit, which stresses the "personal relationship" aspect, misses the point. Isn't the critical fact that Sean Hannity provided a regular forum to Hal Turner? Jimintheatl (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Jimintheatl

It would seem that the Hal Turner inclusion is only "critical" to establishing your POV. Why should one arguably-biased article about one particular individual be included in a section about Hannity's professional life or career? if we're going to include the Nation bit, then we should include every article written about every guest Hannity has had on or has ever called in to the program, no? Faldo57 (talk 14:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me; go for it. Assuming the guests are noteworthy, that is. I would say that the #2 talk show providing a platform to a white supremacist and anti-Semite is noteworthy. Jimintheatl (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV Pushing

There is a lot of POV pushing. The Nation and Huffington Post are not objective at all, and the Cal Thomas and someone else comment has dubious use at all, and especially doesn't belong in the lead. Look at Rush Limbaugh for comparison. Any more attempts to add it shoudl be delete.--Bedford 17:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Radio History

The Hal Turner stuff seeems a little better, but still needs a little work. I am going to remove the Fortune magazine quote from the Radio subheading. It seems more like a random criticism than a detail about his radio career. If there are any objections to this, please make them known and why. As it is, it seems too abitrary to include at all, but I do not want to be accused of attempting to sanitize the article. Rocdahut (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm accusing you of sanitizing. It is a reputable, non-partisan source stating their view of the show. 74.233.86.159 (talk) 05:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


As I said before, it is not the content, but its placement that is objectionable. Creating a criticism section to handle this quote would seem more appropriate. As it is, this particular quote, although from a reputable magazine, serves no other function than offering up a critique of Sean Hannity within information about his rise in radio. In essence, it is a way to worm in a critique, while under the guise of information about his radio career. Yet it offers nothing more about the man's history in radio other than a brief insight into what the writers of Fortune magazine, how ever thoughtful that they may be in their intent, still boils down to a criticism. It may have been a criticism that he recieved during his program's history, but again, it is a criticism. I am exercising a bit of verbosity here to make the point that it simply does not belong in the article in its current location, not that it does not belong at all. Feel free to create a section on criticisms of Sean Hannity and put the quote from Fortune magazine there. Two final things of note: It is a shame that you are not reading carefully, because you might have seen that I asked for feedback as to why it should be included in that section seeing as I already mentioned that it was a criticism, and not really a fact about his radio career. You seem to agree though, as you mention, that it is source stating their view of the show; which would consitute a criticism, not really a fact. And if you say it is a fact that he was criticised, then that seems a bit of stretch to include it, as it is that would definetly be pushing it just to get that particular quote in the piece in its current location. Last note, I can read carefully though, and have gone to your edits page and see that not only are you posting as an anonymous user, but that a majority of your posts are recent. The only non-Sean Hannity edit that you have done is to Polarization, where you saw fit to include a random bit of criticism to Sean Hannity. I am not here to sanitize this one man's article, however you seem intent on using wikipedia as a political forum in an attempt to defame the man. As such, I am reporting your account to an admin so that they can put you on their watch list, thank you and good day. Rocdahut (talk) 06:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Er, a statement about his radio show belongs under the section about his radio show. And since the statement is attributed, there is no weasel words issue. C.m.jones (talk) 08:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, if it were about his contract, his pay rate, or even if his sponsors decided to yank his contract due to his statements that would warrent inclusion, but it does not change the fact that the source article mentioned is an opinion of the show. Maybe it should be included in a section about other people's opinions on the show. To call me a prude and bluster about how "duh it should be included," to paraphrase the edit line, never really addresses the issue I am bringing up. It seems a tad disingenuous to claim that since it is about his radio show that it should be included in the sub-section on radios, all the while ignoring the fact that I said perhaps it should be included in an opinions section. If wikipedia were to include every opinion that every reputable magazine gave on every political pundit then these articles would be ludicrously long. That aside, as I said before, I think that as it stands the Fortune quote could remain in a different section. How many times will people choose to ignore this and harp on about "well, it is well sourced and about radio and reputable." Frankly I think that people who are constantly reverting without actually thinking for a moment about what I am saying are acting absurdly. I've tagged the section and am looking for a moderator over this subject. Rocdahut (talk) 10:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Rocdahut....also, why does the "Bottom feeder" quote keep getting put into the lead paragraph? I don't understand why it's appropriate there. Nesodak (talk) 12:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
If this article is relevant, then why don't we include every article on Hannity from every newspaper or magazine ever published? I simply don't see how this one article is of such importance as to merit inclusion. Faldo57 (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I will remove it again and put it in the critical opinions section where it belongs. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Whomever is responsible for the current set up, thank you. I do editing from time to time so but I still was unsure of how to proceed on the article. I think the tag at the top of the page will hopefully cut down on some of the edit-warring, but I have to admit before posting this I did revert of some random unregistered user (with a low edit history) who changed everthing back to a much older edit. I think that this page should be semi-protected so as to avoid the three revert rule. Also, is this the only page where we talk about this, or can some one provide a link to a discussion forum? (Or am I missing it and it is obvious to the more savvy wikipedia user? I don't mean to appear ignorant here, my major may be English Lit, but that doesn't translate into wiki-knowledge unfortunatly...) Rocdahut (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)\

I see not one "Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial claim" in this version of the article - not one - otherwise, list them below. What I do see, however, is that some people dislike what the well-souced staements actually say. I also see a bunch of false edit summaries thart amaount to lying, calling things reversion of vandalism and removal of weasel words, when in actual fact what is being removed is very well sourced assertions by non-partisam sources. You all ought be ashamed of this behavior. CyberAnth (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Please tone down the rhetoric and assume good faith. What everyone should be ashamed of is the edit-warring happening in the article. CyberAnth, I'd be more inclined to give you credibility if your edits weren't seemingly a one-sided attempt to insert criticism, rather than to work with others toward an article that achieves WP:NPOV. Nesodak (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page Protection

Following a request for protection at WP:RFPP, I've fully-protected this article for 15 days, or until disputes are resolved by discussion, to avoid further disruption caused by constant reverting. I see there is active discussion taking place above, and I hope that this discussion will draw some sort of consensus for the disputed parts of the article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The story here is pretty simple. Hannity supporters don't want anything negative in the article. It starts and ends there. C.m.jones (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not here to defend Hannity, but I've found that many of the articles that involve controversial people tend to become articles about the controversy and not the person. Every thing they say or do that someone feels is controversial is added to the article making it unwieldy. Can you imagine how long and irrelevant these type of articles would become over the course of time unless someone reigns in the POV and tries to make the article adhere to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons? Just because you can find 150 negative opinions or reviews doesn't mean they should all be listed. I'll quote from WP:BLP "The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics; rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one."----Asher196 (talk) 03:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Minority views? You're kidding, right? The sources in the current version of the article that criticize Hannity are from non-partisan sources - the journals, magazines, newspaper, and book (the book is coauthored by one conservative and one liberal). Find non-partisan sources that speak positively of Hannity and put the info below and we can continue this conversation. If you can't find them, the discussion is over. You can't under a guise of NPOV eliminate negative views of person just because positive ones don't or scantly exist. Some people just plain old do not engender positive comments from such quarters. Even if we were to count up unapologetically partisan views of Hannity (I'm not recommending this), postive views of Hannity would be the minority among all partisan views expressed, so this would mean that positive views would be placed in the minority position as regards weight. C.m.jones (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
We might consider deleting the article if Hannity is not so important. Or trimming it to just a stub. An encyclopedia should be a place where people come to learn something, not just to read negative opinions which could be found by a Yahoo or Google search. (p.s. I didn't remove any information, just moved a quote from the intro down to the body of the article.) (p.p.s. When you write an article on someone you strongly dislike it really shows. Better spend your time and effort on a topic you do like.) Steve Dufour (talk) 05:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure, if we apply that same standard to all Wikipedia articles; otherwise it's bowdlerization. When one reads views of someone from reputable sources, they are learning something, very, very obviously. C.m.jones (talk) 05:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Some criticism is fine. But the main purpose of an encyclopedia article is to give people basic information about the subject of the article, not to repeat every opinion that has ever been stated about the topic. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Your assumption is that readers do not learn anything from articles which contain information which you deem negative. This is clearly false. — goethean ॐ 16:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
"...to repeat every opinion that has ever been stated about the topic". This is turning what I've argued into pure hyperbole. While I do know of a certain radio talk show host that uses that technique with great effect, it does not work with me. C.m.jones (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
A question...if it's important to include all criticism of Hannity from reliable sources that we can find, is it also important to include all praise of him that we can find in reliable sources? Nesodak (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I would be fine with an external link to a site that collected all the criticisms. I think the New York Times article has something like that.Steve Dufour (talk) 04:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Full Fortune Magazine quote

The article is called, The 25 people we envy most.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2005/10/17/8358072/index.htm

The actual section on Hannity: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.16.134.154 (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's every blowhard's dream: getting paid to preach to the choir. For four hours a day Hannity fills the airwaves with his sure-fire formula: If you agree with his conservative worldview, you're deemed a "great American." If you don't, you're a pusillanimous blame-America-firster, who might as well pledge allegiance to France. Armed with a classic talk-radio voice, Hannity reportedly makes $5 million a year for the radio show, and undoubtedly more from Fox. Plus he's written two bestsellers and draws legions of fans to his national tours. -- K. B.

It's broken up into two sections in the article which makes it disjointed. If you're going to put in the quote it should probably be in one place.

[edit] Common Ground: How to Stop the Partisan War That Is Destroying America

You should put the full name of the book in the body of the article (when it's unprotected), take out the scare quotes and note that Bob Beckel acknowledges Sean Hannity on the Acknowledgments page of the book. - Page 264 - Acknowledgements. I don't think it's necessary to quote it but I put it here for your review.

To Sean Hannity, who is a pain on air and a prince off. Thank you, Sean, for your kindness during difficult times.

Also, they do not describe him as the "leader of the pack" among the "bottom feeders" of "political polarizers. They name Ann Colter and Michael Moore as the bottom feeders (page 7 Introduction). The sentence on Hannity is included on Page 6 - Introduction:

"Who are the polarizers? The following qualify, as do hundreds of others in their respective categories: ... In Broadcasting, Sean Hannity to the right and Al Franken to the left are leaders of the pack."

You can read the referenced pages of the book at the Barnes & Noble site using the link below.

http://search2.barnesandnoble.com/BookViewer/?ean=9780061236341

[edit] Jerry Falwell's Liberty University

Does it need to be mentioned that the school is Jerry Falwell's Liberty University? Why not just say Liberty University? Falwell did found the university, but I'm sure many other schools were founded by people also. And their names don't always come before them. Any thoughts? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 07:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody else have any thoughts on this issue? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 06:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Jerry Falwell was added as POV pushing in my opinion....Asher196 (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps. Or maybe because Falwell is just so connected to LU in people's minds. I will change it. Thanks. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, in the source, it says that Falwell bestowed the honorary degree on Hannity. So perhaps that's why it was written like that. But I've changed it now. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit request

{{editprotected}} Please add the following below the categories:

{{blpwatch|from=04/2008|reason=Controversial media figure, disputed BLP.}}

Thanks! Kelly hi! 15:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

done. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deliver Us from Evil

I've tagged this section per NPOV-section as all of the reviews are negative reviews. I wonder if we could add some positive ones? --Non-dropframe (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, most "mainstream" reviews are done by liberals, who naturally hate the books. Find those that like the books, and they would be openly conservative publications, which the liberals trying to POV this article would deem unworthy of inclusion. There's no reasoning with such people; you just have to hold your ground.--Bedford 09:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Ooo-wee. Displaying that Manichaean wordview, are we? In point of fact, the reviews in the article are from non-partisan publications. And, you won't find any positive reviews from such sources. There is nothing POV about including negative reviews when they all are negative. Ewenss (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Ewenss, the personal attack is really not needed. Furthermore, "non-partisan" does not equal "unbiased." Are you telling me that a NYT Bestseller doesn't have ANY good reviews? If it's so terrible how did he sell so many? --Non-dropframe (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
By selling it to followers. Ewenss (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
One doesn't ride the NYT Bestseller list for five weeks by selling a book to one group of people. Besides that, if the book sucked people aren't going to continue to buy it. Hannity listeners tend to have their own minds and aren't sheep-like "followers" as you say. And you didn't address my 'non-partisan/unbiased' point. I'm restoring the NPOV tag as the neutrality is clearly disputed. --Non-dropframe (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense. In 2005 Hannity had 12.5 million minimum weekly listeners.[4] He pushed the book constantly over the air and sold it over his website. What would be amazing is if the book did not hit the best seller list, given that size of an audience. And if you are so sure that quality sources published positive reviews then find and place them. Good luck with that. As you can read above, all this territory has been gone through before and nothing has been produced. Ewenss (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

The text being inserted for ReganBooks is not NPOV. This article is not about ReganBooks and it is linked. The text is using implication which is against NPOV. The text about his dropping out of college "he says because he ran out of money." is not NPOV. It is in the cite. Please stick to NPOV and facts that are not inferences. This is a BLP. --PTR (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The section on Deliver Us From Evil should probably be set up as it's own article. It's becoming to large for a section in an article. Remember undue weight. --PTR (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

There is inadequate material for such an article and the material is not out of balance at all but is brief, you probably just don't like it. Apparently, no one writing in any academic journal has taken Hannity's books seriously enough to engage with them. I've searched exhaustively, and that does not mean just Googling. Ewenss (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
This one section is undue weight in this article. It is taking up more text than any other section. Why don't we get a mediator? --PTR (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, that's nonsense. The section "Professional Life" is very much longer. Heck, the "Freedom Concerts" section is about equal length. You need to understand what undue weight really is. A real example is at Jimmy Swaggart and the amount of coverage given to the sex scandal. No discussion of his truly extensive discography, nor his many books, nor material from the autobiography he published, nor his Bible College, etc. And overall, the "controversy and criticisms" section is longer than the biographical material. Ewenss (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I do understand what undue weight is. This article is not about the book and you're not writing about Hannity but the book. If you want to include a lot of material about the book, write it its own article. I've listed this at third party opinion for some new input. --PTR (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

I would say it's perfectly fine to include some information, but the tone isn't right. Specifically, the quotes from book reviews should go. From looking at what's here now, you could condense the books section to a sentence or two. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 11:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I also think it's not encyclopedic to have book reviews in the article and think that mentioning the books would suffice. --PTR (talk) 12:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] If Sean Hannity's children are under the age of 18, I feel their names should be removed for privacy

Name of children of public figures are not notable. It is me i think (talk) 22:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

They're published. Ewenss (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
But they themselves are not notable. It is me i think (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Is there a wiki policy regarding the listing of names of non-notable children? And is the policy different, if the children are under 18. It is me i think (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The policy is if they've been published before they can be included. I agree there is little point in including them in this case, however. Ewenss (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting removal of children's names

Can anyone tell me why this is necessary,they are children of a public figure, their names are not notable? It is me i think (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I am currently considering this request after a message was left on my talk page. Edits I can make to a fully protected page have to be done carefully per WP:PREFER. I think it would be better if I know first - is there anybody who objects if I take these names out? Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with this. --PTR (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Removing the minor children's names would be prudent.Asher196 (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Y Done Per the above comments. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer reviewed academic law journal

This removed text:

Arguing in a peer reviewed law journal concerning the politically-wedded religious elements in Hannity's book, lawyer and author Jason Carter stated that the book is "an example of not only 'us against them' piety but also the inappropriate use of religious language." He stated that "Hannity compares American liberals to terrorists and despots and categorically calls them 'evil'."[2] Carter states that Hannity "takes a line from the Lord's Prayer, praying for God to deliver us from evil, and uses it to make a political statement as though his argument, his party, or his President would do the delivering."[3]

is from Carter, Jason, "Toward a Genuine Debate about Morals, Religion, Politics, and Law: Why America Needs a Christian Response to the Christian Right." Georgia Law Review. Rev. 69 (2006-2007). It is the hight of foolishness to want to remove the lone mention of Hannity in peer reviewed academic literature.

Ewenss (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Content in a BLP should be about the subject of the article specifically. The text above might fit in an article about the book itself. I don't think book reviews should be included in a biographical article. --PTR (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh?? An article about an author should not contain commentary about his books??? You're kidding, right? Ewenss (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No, not kidding. I didn't say commentary. If Obama, Clinton or McLean said something about the book then that should be included. What is included here are book reviews. Most book reviews are not fact checked since they are opinions. As opinions from non-notable people, I don't believe they belong in any encyclopedia. --PTR (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The 45 day test

This article was locked once because some people did not like negative reviews of Hannity's books from quality sources placed in the article. 30 days were given for these people to provide positive reviews. Nothing turned up--no surprise, they do not exist in exist in quality sources.

Now, it is locked again...for the same reason. And now its been a week, no positive reviews have turned up, so alas, the bar has lowered; now we hear "Well, no reviews of his books should even be in the article", a ridiculous notion. This notion has led even to the mere removal of material from a peer reviewed academic journal!

Neutral point of view means providing comprehensive coverage of all aspects of a story. It does not mean providing equal time for two viewpoints by removing "extra" material from one side to "restore balance". The article on evolution does not have equal time for creationists, for example. Hannity's books were very widely reviewed negatively. That's the fact. There is no material to balance it with I have discovered.

If you dislike that this article has those negative reviews, what you are supposed to do is go out and document positive reviews from quality sources, not endlessly remove the negative reviews, and then go tell an admin that someone is edit warring when they restore the material you merely removed.

So here we go again. You've got till the 12th to find positive reviews from quality sources. If they do not appear, this matter should be ended and future attempts to simply remove the material should be viewed as simply a bowdlerizing attempt and admins should side against such people.

Ewenss (talk) 05:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Who do you think you are, to make such demands? Your attitude makes people not bother with you and just ignore your demands.--Bedford 06:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
His comments above are admittedly pretty snotty, but what Ewenss is doing is trying to build consensus. He posted material that was deemed NPOV, so the article wound up protected. He's advising people who think his contributions are NPOV to try and find representation of the other side, and so far no one has taken him up on it. If his contributions only show one side, I'd advise (as he did) that representations of the other side be found to balance it out. If it can't be found, then it certainly isn't NPOV or WP:UNDUE to point it out. Redrocket (talk) 06:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
As has been argued since March 26, 2008; hence, my frustration with this second drive-by page lock at the behest of POV pushers. Ewenss (talk) 07:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I've never said it's NPOV. I said it's undue weight - which is why I asked for the third opinion above. One book is not the focus of the article but the reordering of the sections and including more than a couple of reviews puts too much weight on this one section. I don't think any book reviews should be in the article - good or bad. Check out Al Franken. However, I did not remove the reviews that are currently in the article even though most biographical articles in true encyclopedias would not include book reviews as they are usually one person's opinion. If there are going to be any book reviews in the article I think putting in all the critical book reviews you can find is against WP:UNDUE - pick a couple and move on. I also think reordering the sections so the Television section is after the books is mis-ordering since he is most known for his television and radio which is also correct chronologically. The peer reviewed academic journal article is on a subscription only site but the copy I found is a law student's seminar paper http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3508&context=expresso and is an opinion piece. --PTR (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Well building consensus involves discussing the issue (is happening), not edit warring (was happening) - so if a consensus is being built here the protection is doing exactly what it is supposed to do. As for the "POV pushers" issue, as a person on the outside looking in on this dispute, I can see where both sides are coming from on this, and I think both are acting in good faith, and I think such accusations lack foundation and will not help build a consensus. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Jason Carter is Jimmy Carter's grandson,[5] and whether or not he wrote that paper as a fourth-year law student is not germane. It was published in a peer-reviewed law journal. Let me explain how that works. Anyone may submit an article to any peer reviewed journal. When they do so, all information about the author is removed. The material is then reviewed by a group of eminent experts in the field (in this case, law), who make a determination about the material, whether it will be published or not. Only afterward is the person's identity made known. Thus, the important thing is that it appeared in the peer-reviewed Georgia Law Review. That makes it a very important article to include. CyberAnth (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Real encyclopedia's do indeed include commentary about an author's books. The entry "Sean Hannity" in Contemporary Authors published by Thomson Gale, 2005, in fact, includes most of the very same commentary included in this article. You can read Contemporary Authors through most university libraries; it requires a subscription to access. CyberAnth (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Created Book Article

Since there is quite a bit of material on the book, I created it it's own article. Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism. Now we can link to it as is done on Al Franken. I'll create a page for the other book next week. --PTR (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I created both book articles and moved the information there and linked from here. --PTR (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To be added

In Critical Review, a peer-reviewed academic journal, Jeffrey Friedman, Senior fellow of the Institute for the Advancement of the Social Sciences at Boston University, published an analysis of the cognitive structures whereby people organize their political perceptions. In his discussion of "the problem of ideologues" in American democracy, Friedman concluded that Hannity's various outputs presented a "troubling situation". Friedman argued that, while Hannity is "well informed about which policies are advocated by conservatives and liberals," he seems "appallingly ignorant of the arguments and evidence for liberal positions. Friedman accordingly argued that Hannity fostered in people the "possession of willful but uninformed political 'attitudes'" rather than "the ability to make informed policy judgments."[4]

  1. ^ The Document Sean Hannity Doesn't Want You To Read
  2. ^ Carter, Jason, "Toward a Genuine Debate about Morals, Religion, Politics, and Law: Why America Needs a Christian Response to the Christian Right." Georgia Law Review. Rev. 69 (2006-2007), p. 112. Also see cover of Hannity's book and supra notes 80-86 and accompanying text.
  3. ^ Carter, Jason, "Toward a Genuine Debate about Morals, Religion, Politics, and Law: Why America Needs a Christian Response to the Christian Right." Georgia Law Review. Rev. 69 (2006-2007), p. 112. Also see in Hannity's book supra note 172, at 1, and notes 103-06 and accompanying text.
  4. ^ Jeffrey Friedman (2006). "Democratic competence in normative and positive theory: Neglected implications of “the nature of belief systems in mass publics". Critical Review 18:1 (1-43).  Emphasis in original.


The Friedman article paragraph reads:
Consider the most reviled pundit on the other side of the political spectrum from yourself. To liberal ears, a Rush Limbaugh or a Sean Hannity, while well informed about which policies are advocated by conservatives and liberals, will seem appallingly ignorant of the arguments and evidence for liberal positions. The same goes in reverse for a Frank Rich or a Paul Krugman, whose knowledge of the “basics” of liberalism and conservatism will seem, in the eyes of a conservative, to be matched by grave misunderstandings of the rationales for conservative policies. If Limbaugh, Rich, et al., turn out to exemplify the “cognitive elite,” we are in serious trouble.
Perhaps there is another article? --PTR (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Now read and understand the whole article and you'll find the text to be added fair. CyberAnth (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I did read and understand the article and he's talking about a collective group and not Hannity in particular. There are also some critical proponents of quotes left out. The paragraph says "to liberal ears ... he will seem appallingly ignorant" which is not the same as "he seems "appallingly ignorant of the...". The second version puts it as Friedman saying it which is a misstatement. The phrase "possession of willful but uninformed political 'attitudes'" is in the abstract but not in the actual paper.
It might be better to rewrite as:
In Critical Review, a peer-reviewed academic journal, Jeffrey Friedman, Senior fellow of the Institute for the Advancement of the Social Sciences at Boston University, published an analysis of the cognitive structures whereby people organize their political perceptions. In his discussion of "the problem of ideologues" in American democracy, Friedman included Hannity as one of the "cognitive elite." Friedman says that, while Hannity is "well informed about which policies are advocated by conservatives and liberals," to liberals he seems "appallingly ignorant of the arguments and evidence for liberal positions. [1] --PTR (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Peer reviewed? "we have, except in rare cases (see below), replaced peer review with an aggressive, often substantive editing process." [2]. " Articles are selectively peer reviewed and subject to editorial changes. Using the phrase "peer review" gives the publication inappropriate weight. Better to call it a scholarly or academic journal without the term peer review. "Critical Review publishes (i) research papers, (ii) review essays, (iii) articles, (iv) symposia, and (v) replies and rejoinders to previous papers. All research papers, articles, and review essays, unsolicited or invited, may be subject to editorial and/or peer review prior to acceptance." (same ref.) Some articles published in the journal might not be reviewed at all. I haven't checked the article cited specifically, but offering a word of caution. Biccat (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I support this addition. Speaker1978 (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)