Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:19, 22 May 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: Catholicism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Media High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite NPOV : Content (media and publishing) Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Other : Answer requests for comments Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York City Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Radio High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Create: Missing years and articles in radio, National Association of Radio Distress-Signalling and Infocommunications (Hungary) Assess : Unassessed Radio articles; Unknown-importance Radio articles Cleanup : Radio articles needing attention Expand : Midweek Politics Bob Crane Maintain : Portal:Radio Stubs : Expand: Radio stubs Verify : Unreferenced BLPs Other : Collaboration of the Week: Requests for Radio peer review: Rod Serling The Howard Stern Show The History of Rock & Roll American Top 40; The Museum of Curiosity; Scott Mills (radio show) Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York (state): Long Island This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Long Island, a project which is currently considered to be inactive. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/michael-cohen-raid-least-of-his-problems/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/sean-hannity-outing-violates-legal-standards/

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

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

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

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

Template:Vital article

Hannity's attacks on Robert Mueller are not undue

Hannity's attacks on Robert Mueller are not undue. The Hill is RS. Furthermore, there is long-term encyclopaedic value in keeping Hannity's attacks on Mueller, given that this person has by all accounts the ear of the President and reaches out to millions. The text can certainly be trimmed and be made more concise. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually it should be expanded with some context. SPECIFICO talk 17:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree -- "undue" is a very weak argument here, given the nature of the material and the people involved. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it was undue (or more technically, in WP:NOTNEWS territory), at least as it was drafted. There was nothing that conveyed why this was more noteworthy than the zillions of other controversial things Hannity has said that have been reprinted in newspapers. It also seems redundant with the content already in the "Russian interference" section (where the material fit better anyway). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Michael Cohen

Possibly related: Michael Cohen Represented Sean Hannity, Lawyers Reveal.- MrX 🖋 19:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Holy moly. But for what it's worth, the drafted text totally belonged in the article, even before it was revealed that Hannity had a conflict of interest of epic proportions. It's no joke when a man who reaches out to millions, including the President, is pushing for actions that would cause a constitutional crisis. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Without more information I don't see a fit in the article but... how tantalizing! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, in 6 hrs, there will be a dozen RS that link Hannity's criticism of Mueller's investigation to the fact that his lawyer was being investigated. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes to all that, and it's just incredibly weird that this lawyer, who is being federally criminally investigated, has both Hannity and Trump as clients. Of course, one can't infer any wrongdoing from those coincidences.- MrX 🖋 19:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

One can infer, just not on Misplaced Pages. I bet Snoogs is right, this will end up getting plenty of coverage, more things will be revealed at some point, and the story will likely eventually end up deserving a spot in this article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

IMO it’s worth a mention very soon, probably tomorrow (without, of course, referring to Cohen as “Trump’s fixer”) There’s some coverage today, and growing: Vox, CNN, NYT (note Cohen's attorney’s argument that Client #3 was a “prominent person” who would be “embarrassed” to be identified as a client of Cohen’s), even Shep Smith on Fox News, although I don’t have a link on that just now. By tomorrow there will be mature coverage on the story and we should be able to put something in the article.

We are now getting analysis that discusses whether Hannity’s frequent commenting about Cohen, without disclosing their relationship, was a COI, as well as Hannity’s response that he never actually hired Cohen as an attorney, just “had brief discussions with him about legal questions” Observer If we do put something in the article, we should certainly include Hannity’s explanation. Also that although he never paid legal fees to Cohen, he still believed that “we definitely had attorney client privilege” NBC News. Oh, and here’s a beautiful well-maybe qualification to that statement: Hannity now says he “might have handed him 10 bucks”.(NBC News) --MelanieN (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, this is kind of significant. Ima make some popcorn now.- MrX 🖋 22:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Some more references for this (not sure why it hasn't been mentioned yet in the article?):

• https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/16/business/media/sean-hannity-michael-cohen-client.html
• https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/sean-hannity-is-michael-cohens-secret-third-client-why-that-matters.html
• https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/james-comey-interview-how-president-trump-sean-hannity-others-reacting.html
• https://www.axios.com/michael-cohen-3rd-third-client-sean-hannity-4581c096-dc15-46f2-8888-53001f5dfba6.html
• https://www.politico.com/video/2018/04/16/six-times-sean-hannity-defended-michael-cohen-on-fox-news-065803
• https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/16/politics/michael-cohen-hearing/index.html
• http://fortune.com/2018/04/16/michael-cohen-client-sean-hannity/
• https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/16/michael-cohen-trump-attorney-client-privilege
• http://money.cnn.com/2018/04/16/media/sean-hannity-conflicts-of-interest/index.html
• http://time.com/5242207/sean-hannity-michael-cohen-fox-news-trump/
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43791164

John Cummings (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• The info should be in the article already. The base facts first. 1. Cohen says Hannity is client. 2. Hannity says "I never paid legal fees to Michael" and then "might have handed him 10 bucks". starship.paint ~ KO 22:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

We need to figure out an angle that conveys the biographical noteworthiness of the information without innuendo. Simply saying Hannity was represented by Cohen isn't enough. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The New York Times and other sources establish the relevance (and the extent of coverage establishes the noteworthiness). Specifically, Hannity has been shilling for Trump for several years, including discrediting the Mueller investigation, and now he's in the midst of a conflict of interest controversy and can't even get his story straight. As far as I'm concerned, there is sufficient coverage and relevance to warrant inclusion in the article now.- MrX 🖋 23:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I propose to put this in the article:

===Connection to Michael Cohen===

On April 9, 2018, federal agents from the U.S. Attorney’s office served a search warrant on the office and residence of Michael Cohen, Trump’s personal attorney. On the air, Hannity defended Cohen and criticized the federal action, calling it "highly questionable" and "an unprecedented abuse of power". On April 16 in a court hearing, it was revealed that Cohen has only three clients, one of whom is Hannity. Hannity later stated that Cohen had never represented him, only given him advice, and he had never paid a legal fee to Cohen. Although Hannity had often covered Cohen on his show, he had never disclosed that he had used Cohen's services.

Sources

Strobel, Warren; Walcott, John (April 10, 2018). "FBI raids offices, home of Trump's personal lawyer: sources". Reuters. Retrieved April 10, 2018. ^ Winter, Tom; Edelman, Adam (April 16, 2018). "Fox News host Sean Hannity revealed as Michael Cohen's mystery client". NBC News. Retrieved 16 April 2018. Fryer-Biggs, Zachary (April 16, 2018). "Sean Hannity was Michael Cohen's mystery client". Vox. Retrieved 16 April 2018. Richardson, Davis (April 16, 2018). "Fox News and Sean Hannity Downplay Host's Relationship With Attorney Michael Cohen". The Observer. Retrieved 16 April 2018.

What do you think? --MelanieN (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I would say that's a very good start. I would prefer that we not say "was revealed" twice though.- MrX 🖋 23:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Good point. I don't like that first sentence anyhow. Give me a minute, I will redo it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I have revised it. Thanks for the suggestion, I like this better. --MelanieN (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support and would like the ten bucks quote in as well. starship.paint ~ KO 23:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not fully up to date with events, but I think it would be good to note that Hannity has also been a harsh critic of the Mueller investigation in general for months now, not just when Cohen began to be directly implicated. The months-long campaign against Mueller and the investigation do seem relevant now that it's been revealed that Hannity is in the same orbit as Trump (literally shares the same shady lawyer as Trump). Hannity would have surely known that Cohen's shady dealings, including on Hannity's behalf, would be under the scope of the investigation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

If we're connecting dots like that then it should be done with reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, we have the sources; it's in the lede paragraph of the NBC News report. --MelanieN (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Also: I'll be happy to add the ten bucks if other people think it's a good idea. --MelanieN (talk) 23:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• I've added it. We are respecting Hannity by depicting what he says is his version of the events. starship.paint ~ KO 02:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

If we're connecting dots like that then it should be done with reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I support adding Melanie's proposal as a good start. I'm confused about something though. Maybe I'm misreading the sources but they seem to be at odds about Cohen's client history. Some say he's had only the 3 clients since early last year when he stopped working directly for the Trump Organization. Others say he had 8 clients clients in 2017, others say he had 7 clients in 2017 and they were all "business clients," not legal clients (whatever that means). Perhaps someone can clear this up. I oppose the "ten bucks" comment. Excessive detail/recentism. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I will go ahead and add it. We can tweak it, hopefully discussing major additions or changes here first. --MelanieN (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

"that he had used Cohen's services" Hannity didn't use Cohen's services. He consulted with him, asked advice. If he never paid him for anything, that's a conversation, that's not using a lawyer's services (which is to provide legal advice to an actual client and bill for those services). As written, the proposed content is dishonest and misleading. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's how sources describe it. Probably because a guy standing in front of a judge and ordered to cough up the name or else, and who knew the FBI was already sifting through his files, said that Hannity was his client. On the other side we have tweets from Hannity who both claims "client-attorney privilege" and at the same time insists that ... he wasn't a client.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Exact quotes and context for Hannity's use of "client-attorney privilege", Volunteer Marek? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi, you asked for Exact quotes and context for Hannity's use of "client-attorney privilege". No problem. Per NBC News, "Michael never represented me in any matter, I never retained him in the traditional sense as retaining a lawyer, I never received an invoice from Michael, I never paid legal fees to Michael," Hannity said, before adding, "We definitely had attorney client privilege because I asked him for that but, you know, he never sent me a bill or an invoice or did I actually officially retain him." BTW it isn't required that money change hands to create an attorney-client relationship. For example, an attorney may take a case pro bono and have a full attorney-client relationship even though there are no fees involved. --MelanieN (talk) 04:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd be happy to provide those but it looks like he removed all Cohen-related tweets from his twitter. So take it up with him.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The New York Times seems to disagree with Winkelvi:

In court papers filed before the hearing, Mr. Cohen’s lawyers had said that he had represented three clients on legal matters in the last few years. Two of them, the lawyers said, were Mr. Trump and a Republican donor, Elliott Broidy...The lawyers refused to name the third client...until, that is, Judge Wood forced them to identify him as Mr. Hannity. --Calton | Talk 03:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Hate to break it to you, Calton, but I'm not a source, nor have I claimed to be one, so the NYT can't disagree with me. Regardless, Hannity has said all day on his radio show, online, and tonight on his TV program that he was never a client of Cohen's. Until there's something substantive that proves otherwise, all we have is a he-said/they said/media distorts. Question: have you seen the court transcripts that prove actual testimony that actually claims Hannity was an official client? Nope, and neither has anyone. Right now, all we have is media claiming something and the person in question denying their claims. Court transcripts will be the way to go here, since it all happened in a courtroom. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

You made a (fairly clumsy) claim; I rebutted said claim with a reliable source. Whether you are or are not a reliable source -- or a media personality, a lefthander, a sharp-dressed man, a dog on the Internet, etc -- is irrelevant. Hate to break it to you, Winkelvi, but your clumsy attempt at rewriting the news to fit your ideology is not the go-to move here. --Calton | Talk 03:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, your claimed "he-said/they said, let's wait and see" is hard to square with your asserting AS FACT that Hannity didn't use Cohen's services. He consulted with him, asked advice. You don't get to have it both ways. --Calton | Talk 03:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

You made a clumsy claim that the New York Times disagrees with me. The NYT didn't, nor would they, disagree with me on anything since they have no interest in me and no clue who I am. You chose to make a statement that was personally directed at me. I made a statement above based on WP:COMMONSENSE. I suggest you worry about content rather than personally attacking other editors. As far as my "ideology", sorry, but I'm not politically inclined and really have no ideology. I vote, but not because I lean one way or the other. Now, do you have something positive to contribute here that doesn't involved attacking other editors based on your own biases and assumptions? If so, I suggest you get to it per WP:FOC. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that this is a case of "he said/they said/media distorts." Legitimate news outlets -- NY Times, WaPo, et al. -- not Fox News reported "audible gasps" were heard in courtroom when Hannity was revealed as Cohen client whose attorney said would be "embarrassed" to have his name revealed. ("Embarrassed" is putting it mildly.) Despite a year and a half of having "FAKE NEWS" shouted at us in Twitter tantrums, fact remains these are legitimate and respected news outlets that carefully vet stories and adhere to a code of professional ethics -- like admitting you've had "conversations" with a lawyer whose office was just raided by FBI agents -- the same raid you're condemning as a "witch hunt" and "deep state" shenanigans. This content and context matter and should remain in wiki entry. Kinkyturnip (talk) 03:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, this ends the argument about whether Hannity got legal services or not. Cohen’s lawyers told the judge he had 10 clients in 2017-2018 but did "traditional legal tasks" for only three. One of the three was Hannity. That's from Cohen's own lawyers: Hannity did get traditional legal services from Cohen. I have added it to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 04:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, look. Cohen said (or his lawyers), under oath, that Hannity was his client. That's what reliable sources are reporting. End of story. This isn't "hear say" or "he said/she said". It's freakin' testimony before a judge under oath. If there's a reliable source out there which claims that Cohen perjured himself, by all means, present it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• Los Angeles Times- U.S. District Judge Kimba Wood ... Cohen's lawyer, Stephen Ryan, told the court that Cohen had only three clients — Trump, Elliott Broidy, a prominent Los Angeles-based Republican fundraiser, and a third whom he declined to name ... Wood ordered the disclosure made in open court. "I rule it must be disclosed now," she said. ... "The client's name is Sean Hannity," Ryan said. starship.paint ~ KO 05:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Ten bucks

Why are we restoring the "ten bucks" quote without consensus? If you look above, starship.paint wanted it added and I didn't (as recentism). Melanie said she'd add it "if other people think it's a good idea." That's it. MrX, please remove until we can get a consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Obviously I also support the material. Are there other editors besides yourself that think it should be left out? For my part, I don't think we can simply select the statement from Hannity that is the most favorable for him, when his statements yesterday contradict each other. We don't have to literally quote him to say that, but it does need to be said.- MrX 🖋 19:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how the "ten bucks" comment reflects one way or another on Hannity (or Cohen). Not to mention that the quote can be readily paraphrased if it really matters how much Hannity did or didn't pay Cohen. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• "I never retained him, received an invoice, or paid legal fees" - why would we only present one side of his own opinion? starship.paint ~ KO 23:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it should be added, per WP:RECENT. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• Everything about Cohen is recent. starship.paint ~ KO 23:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Not at all. There's been a Misplaced Pages article on him since January 15, 2016‎. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• I'm sorry I wasn't clearer. I meant that everything on a substantial connection between Hannity and Cohen is recent, since we're on Hannity's article and not on Cohen's. starship.paint ~ KO 03:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Starship, you're missing the point of recentism. It's not that nothing recent can be included. It's that many editors take the position that, in adhering to WP:NOTEVERYTHING, we should only only include content that has lasting significance. The rule of thumb often cited is WP:10YT: Will someone ten years from now be confused about how this article is written? In ten years will this addition still appear relevant? If I am devoting more time to it than other topics in the article, will it appear more relevant than what is already here? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Attorney-client privilege

Why do we have two sentences quoting Hannity talking about whether he and Cohen had attorney-client privilege? Isn't that undue, considering that the the only relevance of this is that it's evidence that Hannity was a client of Cohen? As far as I know there's no indication that the Cohen investigation is seeking potentially privileged communications between Cohen and Hannity. Can we just say Hannity asked for or thought he had attorney-client privilege and leave it at that? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Because he contradicted himself.- MrX 🖋 19:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we should quote someone every time they say something that contradicts something else they said that we include in the article. If we followed that then Donald Trump would be a total mess. Saying that Hannity said he had asked for attorney-client privilege would seem to convey the contradiction perfectly adequately. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely agree, DrFleischman. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• Disagree to only present one side. In Social policy of Donald Trump we can see how they presented Trump's changing views of abortion. In this case, this is not some minor issue Hannity's contradicting himself about. The main issue is whether Hannity is a client or not, otherwise everything else falls apart. He seems to be suggesting he's not, but he said he wanted and got the client's privilege anyway, and supposedly might have paid for that privilege. starship.paint ~ KO 03:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we need to break it down to such an excessive level of detail about what Hannity said. He's not a reliable source. The reliable sources are saying he was a client. Here's an example. It's really not that complicated. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Hannity's attacks on the Mueller investigation

This strikes me as kind of a separate issue, not specifically related to Cohen. I was surprised not to find a section in the article about his attacks on Mueller and on the investigation generally. He has made this a primary theme for months and IMO this is important enough for a section; in fact I'm surprised it isn't in the lede (where we do talk about how he is and has been such a strong booster of Trump). Anybody got any thoughts on this? --MelanieN (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I have been fighting the good fight for some time now. This text of mine was removed last month. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

We need more than occasional comments. We need sources documenting the pattern. I'll work on it. Tomorrow. --MelanieN (talk) 04:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Hannity's career has spanned 30 years. However 20% of the article is devoted to approximately 2 of those years: the 2016 election. This is a textbook example of WP:UNDUE. We should be working on trimming the 2016 election content---not increasing it to 30% or 40% of the total article length. – Lionel 11:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, this is a textbook example of adhering to WP:DUEWEIGHT. The volume of coverage in reliable source for the past few years (post-Alan Colmes) increased as a direct result of Hannity's inflammatory comments, pro-Trump propagandizing, spreading of falsehoods, promoting of conspiracy theories, and now his relationship with Trump's consigliere.- MrX 🖋 12:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

It is apparent to any objective editor that this article has a serious balance problem. Example: Birther section has 1048 chars. In comparison, the Books section has only 725 chars. Now, Hannity has three books which made the NY Times bestseller list. Little more than the titles are in the text. It's ridiculous.– Lionel 07:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Vote

• Agree 100% with Lionelt's assessment. This article, The Ingraham Angle article, et al - all contain undue weight focused on events of the last year to 18 months and all not only contains as much negative content and tone about the article subjects as possible, there are editors who frequent these articles to make sure such content, tone, and undue weight remains. And continues to grow. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it is not unusual for 20% of a biography to be devoted to the last few years. It's the nature of coverage, for one thing; it's harder to find older coverage. But if you feel there is insufficient attention paid to the other 28 years of Hannity's career, the solution isn't to trim the current content; it's to add more content about his earlier career. Provided it has received DUE coverage of course. --MelanieN (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN: We don't do "coverage". That's for news organizations. This is an encyclopedia. WP:BALANCE is needed and WP:UNDUE is to be avoided. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Right. And BALANCE and UNDUE are determined by how much coverage the material has received - from news organizations, books, academic writing, and the other kinds of sources we draw from. --MelanieN (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• Include. Lionel and Winkelvi's concerns are legitimate, but not including anything at all about Hannity's campaign against the Mueller investigation would be ridiculous. We should include a short section that gives appropriate weight reflecting coverage by reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• Include. That seems pretty DUE for me. Also, to rebuff the general claim about focus on recent events: Hannity clearly has taken much greater international importance since the election of DJT. Our coverage should also be proportionate. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude: we do not fill our articles with breaking news. This already fails WP:10 year test. And if there are no more news cycles on this item then we will look silly.– Lionel 07:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
• Include. I don't know what's going on here and why there's a vote, but Hannity's attacks on the Mueller investigation are obviously appropriate for inclusion. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
• Include per my previous comments and extent of coverage which strongly suggests this can't be swept under the rug. 10YT is part of an essay that should be applied to sports stats and Korean boy bands before anything else. It has little bearing on a policy-based discussion. - MrX 🖋 11:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• Include I have strengthened our text section about his attacks on the FBI, Mueller, and Comey. I think it is now substantial enough to warrant a mention in the lede, possibly as an extension of the existing sentence. I'll propose wording below. --MelanieN (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• IncludeWhilst recentism has some validity usually this is a major issue, it simply cannot be ignored.Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed wording

The current last sentence of the lede says "Since Trump's election Hannity has often acted as a conduit for Trump's messaging, including the claim that there is a "deep state" within the federal government working to hinder the Trump administration." That's the only reference in the lede, and per WP style it should not be there, so let's leave it out. It doesn't even support the point very well. (Actually here is a good quote that sums that point up: Hannity "has echoed Trump’s anti-media rhetoric and his attacks on the Russia inquiry".) Also I think we should replace the "deep state" reference with something more general. Maybe something like this: "Since Trump's election Hannity has often acted as a conduit for Trump's messaging, criticizing the media and attacking the special counsel inquiry."

This makes the point about his attacks on Mueller, Comey, et al., but leaves the detail to the text. Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Since we clearly have consensus to say something about attacks on Mueller, I will add this pending further discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Umm, no. There's a consensus for Hannity's attacks re: the investigation, not Mueller. One is not the other. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I misspoke. Not "attacks on Mueller" (although he has done that too). Consensus is to say something about his attacks on the Mueller investigation, and that is what this proposal says: "attacking the special counsel inquiry".--MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Do we really...

... need a "Current event" tag on this article??? --MelanieN (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I have no objection to removing it.- MrX 🖋 01:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Cohen, Sekulow, and Toensing

In light of the recent news about Hannity's representation by Sekulow and Toensing, I think we should re-write the Cohen section to be about all three lawyers and how Hannity and Trump shared two of them, and Toensing was almost a third. Also, I understand there may not be agreement on this, but this broader context underlines that, recentism aside, it's undue to exhaustively chronicle the blow-by-blow details of how the Cohen representation came to light. The primary relevance of all of this material is Hannity's conflicts of interest, and they're just as serious for Sekulow as they are for Cohen, arguably even more serious. The spectacular way in which Cohen's representation was revealed in open court was titillating and newsworthy, but relatively insignificant from a biographical perspective. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Are there sources that cover the three lawyers and Hannity in sufficient detail with sufficient context so as not to leave readers in the dark? While we don't have to exhaustively chronicle the Cohen connection, we do need to convey to readers why it's important enough to put in this bio.- MrX 🖋 11:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

To put what in the bio? Sekulow and Toensing's representation of Hannity? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Cohen.- MrX 🖋 17:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't quite follow, but I suspect we're saying the same thing in different ways. As you mentioned in a previous discussion, the importance of the Hannity-Cohen relationship is in the conflict of interest that has been discussed in various sources but is currently not in our article. That should be added. The importance of the Hannity-Sekulow and Hannity-Toensing relationships is the same, as these WaPo and Atlantic sources describe all three relationships as related conflicts of interest. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, now I understand and I agree we should reshape the content to include the other lawyers, and trim some of the more ephemeral detail.- MrX 🖋 18:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Thinking about this a bit more, since the importance of the lawyer stuff the conflict of interest in relation to Hannity's coverage of Trump and the Mueller investigation, I think this stuff should be collapsed into the Trump section that MelanieN just drafted. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm inclined to think the lawyer issue is separate from the "attacks on the investigation" issue. --MelanieN (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2018

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change or delete "accused of promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories" to "has questioned the birthplace of Barack Obama and re-opened discussions about the mysterious death of Seth Rich" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niemiw (talk • contribs)

As I see it RS have said the former, and not really the latter (and is this all he has said?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs)

The current wording is best. Obama's birth and Seth Rich are not the only conspiracy theories he has extensively promoted. --MelanieN (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

He's never "promoted" Obama-related birtherism. He's spoken of it. As Niemiw correctly pointed out, Hannity has re-opened discussion about the death of Seth Rich on his show. He has been accused of promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories, but let's be careful we don't say in the article that he has promoted conspiracy theories - extensively or otherwise - whether it be in the article or on that article talk page. This is still a BLP and BLP policies apply to BLP article talk pages as much as the articles themselve. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Niemiw pointed out Hannity questioned the birthplace of Barack Obama.Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

BS. He's promoted conspiracy theories. That's what sources say, and that's what we say. BLP ain't got nothing to do with it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

"re-opened discussion about the death of Seth Rich on his show" <-- seriously? He led a campaign to promote a bunch of BS conspiracy clap trap even as the parents of Seth have begged him to stop. Take this kind of wool-pooling crap elsewhere.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Our job is to write content objectively in articles and do the same on talk pages. The best editors will write and comment in such a way that no will be able to provide evidence of what their personal opinion on the subject matter. And guess what? An encyclopedic work contains no hint of bias in content, either. One plus the other results in a truly reliable source, which - last time I looked - Misplaced Pages still isn't considered to be. One reason is because content is and can be edited by anyone who happens by. The other reason...? Take a guess. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

If you try to rephrase "pushed conspiracy theories even as the subject's parents begged him to stop" into "re-opened discussion about blah blah blah", then are you gonna be able to tell what a person's personal opinions are? Because I sure as hell can. Objectivity means writing in a way which doesn't try to misinform or misrepresent as your and the other guy's phrasing clearly tries to do.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying, Volunteer Marek and don't necessarily disagree with it. My issue is that I'm seeing an increasing trend at articles/talk page related to Conservative article subjects and issues that is far less than NPOV. And, to be honest, it bothers me a great deal. I believe that we shouldn't be airing our politics here nor should we be editing or commenting with a political bias in any way, shape, or form. Yet, it's happening - and increasingly in a blatant, obvious manner. I don't get it, don't think I ever will. This is the internet, but it's not supposed to be social media or look like the ugliness you find there. Nonetheless, it feels more and more like it every day. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• Let's stick with the sources. Does anyone deny that the sources say he promoted falsehoods and conspiracy theories? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Nope.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC re: Article tone and WP:POV

Does this article have an overly pov tone (rather than neutral pov and does it need to be revised? For example: "Promotes/promoted/promoting" is used 22 times. Variations of "false" regarding the article subject's statements are used 15 times. "Conspiracy" in relation to the article subject's television show content is used 32 times. Many of the instances where these words are used have no source to support the usage. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Survey

Yes

• Yes and yes. This BLP article is full of biased sentence structure, word usage, and tone as well as use of weasel phrasing and wording. As the above states, "promotes/promoted/promoting" is used 22 times. Variations of "false" in relation to statements Hannity has made on his show are used 15 times. "Conspiracy" in relation to the content Hannity discusses on his show is used 32 times. This doesn't read like an encyclopedia article or neutral biography, it reads like a POV hit piece on a living individual. Just to make things clear: I don't care about Hannity one way or the other. I do care what readers see when they read this article and whether or not what they are reading is filled with facts or if it's simply parroting the opinions of those who write for what Misplaced Pages refers to as reliable sources. There are ways to write articles like this on high-profile article subjects that don't "promote" (to use that word so popular with those editing this article) a particular bias against the article subject. It's been done carefully and purposefully at numerous BLPs on left-leaning article subjects (most recently at the David Hogg article and the Emma Gonzalez article), and it should be done at articles on right-leaning article subjects, as well. We need more eyes on this and some suggestions/action to get the tone appropriate for a BLP/encyclopedia article and in a state of WP:NPOV. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, please see my comments in the discussion section below re: WP:UNDUE. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Yes Support POV tag until the article is revised. In it's current form it sounds like it was written by one of his timeslot competitors, frankly. For comparison, look at Rachel Maddow or Don Lemon, who both occupy similar niches on the liberal end of the spectrum. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• Yes: is the sky blue? In the grass green? Is global warming a hoax? (haha got you on the last one) Of course this article is heavily biased. Have you seen the Controversies section? Looks like it was written by far left CNN. – Lionel 06:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - lots of WP:LABEL, and space spent on criticisms dominates the article. Those are not BLP topics of major events and actions by him, and seem far above due WP:WEIGHT towards being an WP:ATTACK page. A quick gooogle at BBC.com shots 2000+ hits for him and only 78 also use the phrase “conspiracy theory”. Suggest put a neutrality dispute tag on and start working on things. I’ll suggest start by thinning the 16 subsections to say the 5 biggest in his life. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - serious BALANCE and DUE issues, some COI issues (liberal media vs conservative media)...needs work. Mueller & OIG investigations will either drastically change or support the news perspectives, some of which is subject to RECENTISM, and/or has -0- encyclopedic value. 12:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

No

No And this is a pointless RfC because it resolves not even one editing issue. RfC's need to be specific. Burn and bury. SPECIFICO talk 17:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:TONE and WP:NPOV are both specific and policy. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC's need to be about specific edits and sources. WP policy is stipulated. We don't do RfC's here to affirm site policy. BTW... why do you have 2 yesses to one question? SPECIFICO talk 18:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:RfC, "Requests for comment (RfC) is a process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines or article content. RfCs are a way to attract more attention to a discussion about making changes to pages or procedures, including articles, essays, guidelines, policies, and many other kinds of pages." This RfC falls under both content and and policies/guidelines. There's nothing in the policy re: RfCs that states the procedure needs to be focused on "specific edits and sources". -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

If you don't even understand the instructions, how are you going to put together the product? If you want to discuss changing policies, go to a policy talk page. SPECIFICO talk 19:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• This isn't even a real RfC.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Consider the venue. How appropriate. SPECIFICO talk 22:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Close this because it's not an actual RFC nor does it try to resolve anything ...... I would suggest the OP goes and rereaders WP:RFC, Only thing I support is the closing and archiving of this "discussion". –Davey2010 14:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• No, and I agree, close this - This is not an actionable RfC. I'm not even sure what a "an overly pov tone" would be. I guess it means editorializing and WP:WEASEL. If that's the intent, I don't see it being an issue at all.- MrX 🖋 15:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• • No to closing as, at this point, it would be quite inappropriate given the concerns listed by the 'Yes' !votes above and those who have not !voted but have raised their concerns regarding tone, pov, and undue in the comments below (specifically, Iselilja, DrFleischman, and Sławomir Biały...). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

"concerns listed by the 'Yes' !votes above"<-- Like the guy who referred to "far left CNN" (sic)? Those concerns? Nah, I think we can ignore them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• No and close - Unclear as what action is to be taken. O3000 (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• No and close. We have to go by the sources; keyword searches are useless for evaluating WP:TONE. If the sources frequently describe someone as promoting conspiracy theories and making false statements, then that has to be a major component of their article (and demanding otherwise goes against WP:FALSEBALANCE.) If anything is poorly-sourced (or doesn't reflect the source) that has to be investigated on an individual basis, but broad sweeping statements about the article aren't useful as an RFC, and on a quick scan I couldn't find any glaring examples of controversial statements that lacked sources. The fact that no examples of this have been provided means there's no indication of what changes, exactly, are being proposed here, and no coherent or useful discussion to be had in this RFC. --Aquillion (talk) 04:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• No & close: not an actionable RfC. Too vague to be useful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• No & close (Summoned by bot) Agree with K.e. coffman that this RfC is simply too vague to be of any value and that there is no glaring issue with the POV of this article. I suggest that it be phrased more narrowly. Coretheapple (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
• Close, but probably no RfC is too vague to be useful. Also, per Aquillion, if the subject of a BLP is controversial, it is to be expected that our coverage will reflect that. On a quick-skim read, it did not seem overly PoV, which doesn't of course mean that individual parts can't be improved. Pincrete (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

This is essentially my position as well. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• No. This is not a proper RfC. A proper RfC asks a real question or presents specific and concrete options (i.e., 'should X be changed to Y?" or "should Z be included or excluded?"). This does neither. Neutrality 22:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments/discussion

So can you given any specific instances of this being used inappropriately, if (for example) he has promoted a given conspiracy theory why would we not use the phrase "promoted the conspiracy theory"? What would be a better way of putting that?Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• I came here via a notice on a project page, not previously been involved with the article as I can recall. Skimming briefly through part of it, I do think there are some problems with tone. I will mention two examples:

1) "Hannity came under criticism in October 2017 when he attacked Democrats after it was revealed that a large number of women had accused Harvey Weinstein, a prominent Hollywood producer and donor to Democratic causes, of sexual harassment. Critics noted that Hannity had weeks earlier defended and hosted his coworker Bill O'Reilly" Here it would seem fair to start by saying neutrally that Hannity critized Democrats for hypocracy regarding sexual harassment, then go on to critism, and the loaded "critics noted" phrase should be replaced with "critics said", "critics argued" or similar.

2) From the lead: "He was an early supporter of Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election, giving him more air time than other primary candidates, asking friendly interview questions, and defending Trump whenever he was criticized". First, I think practically all TV stations/programs gave Trump more airtime than other Republican candidates, so it may be somewhat doubtful to write this like it was something special about Hannity. Second "defended Trump whenever he was critized" seems a bit over the top. In the article itself it cites a CNN article which says Hannity either "ignored or defended" Trump's more controversial stances and statements. Not so much of a difference, but it seems more realistic that he alternated between "ignoring or defending" the more controversial/problematic expression and in an encyclopedia we shouldn't use over the top language.

Iselilja (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm reserving judgment on the RfC for the time being, but I agree with Iselilja's specific concerns here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Slatersteven - WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE using their phrasing. For yet another example, where the birtherism cite does not use “promote”, and uses ‘Hannity and others kept asking’, not “Hannity kept asking”, the WP phrasing is exaggerating a NYT cite that already seems chosen as a more extreme coverage. Cover it, but do it as WP:BLP says “must be written conservatively”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Excellent points. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

No issue with saying what the sources say, But we are also allowed to paraphrase, are you really saying that Hanity has not supported or actively encouraged birthism?. ], ], ].Slatersteven (talk) 08:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Slatersteven - a blog / opinion piece, HuffPo, and Esquire are not WP:BESTSOURCES. I'll point out that WP:BALANCE says "neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence" so it would be better to look at the more mainstream sites like BBC, ABC, NBC, and so forth. And in general -- it's just not credible that simple WP:PARAPHRASE close paraphrasing is happening to wind up with 67 repetitions of 32 "conspiracy". 22 "promote" and 15 "false". BBC mostly just does not cover all these trivial bits, and even with the few that had actual impact in his life like Seth Rich they say he gave "coverage to a debunked election murder conspiracy" (Seth Rich), or "contributed to spreading", but not "promote". Seriously, going on and on into trivia and cherrypicking or exaggerating available cites is evidence towards the concerns here of WP:POV and WP:TONE. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

So "contributed to spreading" does not mean promoted? Wouod you rather we said "contributed to spreading"?Slatersteven (talk) 08:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven - Oh, it's more than that. More generally in this thread topics POV and TONE it's fairly simple:

• (a) most of the extensive criticism subsections simply go away as UNDUE mention for BLP and trivial content

e.g. Immigration does not deserve a whole section for one single line, and googling gets pitiful small number of hits

• (b) usages without cites and not in the cites there -- just delete the unsupported line
• (c) elsewhere -- Stick to the Sources of whatever wording the cite has.

For the birtherism in particular, I think it got enough coverage from years before 2016 to stay but got an obvious POV issue of single-POV in cites NYT, NYT, NYT, and NYT. The "promote" line just can go away because it has no cite and is not in the next NYT cite.

Bottom line goal, BLP should be more about his life rather than two-thirds about the dozen plus tiny topics criticised in the last 2 years from a progressive POV. Should be more like how it looked in 2015, and should be looking to add things important across his whole life and not just the criticized parts -- add the names of his kids and their birth years, the years of his books, the other films he was in, and so forth. Going thru 10 screens of rant against him is just not going to be fixed by swapping 'promoted' for another phrase. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Undue weight: In addition to my !vote comments above, it's also just occurred to me that this article is way too heavy on content that's related to Hannity's radio and television shows, rather than Hannity the man. This is a BLP, not an article on The Sean Hannity Show or Hannity. All that in mind, WP:UNDUE seems to also be in play and should be rectified. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hannity the Man? Is that an HBO series? This is about the factors in his life and career that make him such a notable figure and one of the most popular TV personalities of the millennium. Of course it has to do with his media presence.

• Comment. In some places, I think the article fails in some places to lay out the factual basis for what amount to editorial judgements. The feud with Jake Tapper seems to be of minor importance at best, and the language of "distorted" there seems overblown. The fourth paragraph of the lead strikes me as stuff that should be attributed. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been listed at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Conservatism. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Now please list it at all the other related projects so the crazed partisans here you do not accuse you of canvassing. SPECIFICO talk 21:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

All of this article's related projects we're notified hours ago of this RfC. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Keep this RfC open. I don't think the RfC is particularly well presented or actionable, but it has led indirectly to some constructive feedback, as well as some actionable ones and actual improvements to the article. I'm also not aware of any requirement that RfCs be actionable. Sometimes they're just to draw eyeballs and solicit general feedback, and in my view those sorts of RfCs should be encouraged. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• -- ψλ what about notifying on entertainment related projects - tv & radio personalities, shows, etc.? 12:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

"False claims about CNN's Jake Tapper" section

Does this section really belong on Sean Hannity's article? One sentence saying that Hannity called Tapper "fake" after a deleted tweet from the Fox News Twitter account? Seems much more relevant to Fox News than Sean Hannity. I'd like to remove this section if there aren't any objections. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Further to the above, I was reverted by Snooganssnoogans after I removed his unsourced text calling the Fox News a "discredited smear," and changed the language from the POV phrasing "Even after..." to the neutral and encyclopedic wording "After..." Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Sean Hannity falsely smeared a real journalist. He did so even after the smear had been corrected and after others at Fox News had apologized for it. RS covered it, so it's WP:DUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Does the source say it was discredited?Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

"Fox News on Wednesday deleted an out-of-context tweet targeting Jake Tapper, but that didn’t stop Sean Hannity and others from repeating the discredited smear." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Problem solved.Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The wording has been improved, but I still am not convinced that Sean Hannity criticizing Jake Tapper is worthy of its own section in Hannity's biography. Hannity is known for criticizing CNN and Jake Tapper, and I wouldn't be surprised if this is a nightly occurrence. All the background about a Fox News controversy isn't germane to Hannity in particular. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

RS disagree that it's notable. Also, I don't know about you, but falsely implying someone is a jihadist terrorist sympathizer is not "criticism". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't dispute that the controversy is notable for the Fox News Controversies article, but it's out of place here. The reader needs to wade through four lines of background that has nothing to do with Sean Hannity. After finishing with that paragraph, the reader is finally informed that Sean Hannity called Jake Tapper "fake" and "liberal," which is not at all surprising or unusual for Sean Hannity. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Smearing someone in a manner that appeals to religious bigotry is an egregious act (which incidentally also indicates how ‘’The Daily Caller’’ is not RS). Problem is, Hannity appears to have a habit of continuing false claims and conspiracy theories after Fox has withdrawn them. This appears to be an example, along with the Seth Rich and Pizzagate conspiracy theories. As long as it’s sourced adequately, I think it’s DUE. O3000 (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake, I didn't see that source. Even if we decide to keep this section at all, I don't think we should be using WikiVoice to call criticism of Tapper a "discredited smear." Not very encyclopedic if you ask me. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• I tentatively agree with Snoogs and O3000 that the story deserves a mention here. However I think it's defitinitely weighted far too heavily toward stuff that's not about Hannity and needs to be re-written to focus on what's relevant to Hannity himself. The entirety of the first paragraph relies on a source that doesn't mention Hannity even once, and should be deleted outright. The "section" (which can be written in 1-2 sentences) should start by saying that Hannity perpetuated a discredited smear by repeating false claims made by Fox News. I'm on the fence about whether it's even noteworthy that Hannity called Tapper "liberal fake news CNN’s fake Jake Tapper." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree. I'm a fan of brevity. O3000 (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Ridiculous that an entire section is devoted to this. If we added a section every time Hannity railed against someone this article would be 1,000,000 chars. Totally WP:UNDUE.– Lionel 06:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. It should be cut down to 1-2 sentences and probably put into a new section, either one on false statements and conspiracy theories or one on Hannity's views on the media. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I second DrFleischman's suggestion. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Michael Cohen/Jay Sekulow

Are we writing an encyclopedia because if we were we wouldn't be stuffing irrelevant material into an already bloated & UNDUE "Controversy" section:

"The following day, news reports revealed that Hannity had shared another lawyer with Trump, Jay Sekulow. Sekulow had written a cease-and-desist letter to KFAQ on Hannity's behalf in May 2017, and later represented Trump in connection with the Mueller investigation."

– Lionel 06:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The story in question was very widely reported. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources..." One sentence seems pretty DUE to me. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

We just had a discussion about this in the "Cohen, Sekulow, and Toensing" section above. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Very due. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

RS clearly say Hannity owned real estate through LLCs

RS also clearly say that LLCs obscure ownership. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

And?Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

One editor disputes that Hannity owned real estate through LLCs. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

That's not a fair characterization of my position in the slightest. I'm not disputing the accuracy of the material. It's clear to me however that highlighting that LLCs can be used to hide ownership is non-neutral and not reflected by the cited source. LLCs are the most common type of entity used for closely held businesses; most of the time they provide little to no anonymity; and most people use them for purposes that have nothing to do with anonymity. The language you want added suggests that Hannity may have been trying to hide his ownership of these properties. It shouldn't be added without a source that says that explicitly. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll also add that if Hannity really wanted to stay anonymous then he wouldn't have signed public documents like deeds, he would have had his lawyer do it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

According to NYT and the Guardian, LLCs obscure ownership, and they say so explicitly in the context of Hannity's real estate holdings. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with DrFleischman on this. People form LLCs for all sorts of reasons, and there is nothing implicitly nefarious, illegal, or improper about an LLC. Material that attempts to put the fact that Hannity has an LLC in a negative light is POV and possibly conflicts with BLP policy. The current wording is weighted properly and neutral in tone. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Just because LLCs can obscure ownership doesn't mean we should include that fact--see WP:NOTEVERYTHING: Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true. The Guardian source does not say LLCs obscure ownership, which implies that Hannity had something to hide. Instead it said: LLCs are popular among well-known figures such as Hannity who wish to keep their business arrangements private. That paints Hannity in a much more positive light, and it may have been added simply to explain how the Guardian discovered the information. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Unless the preponderance of RS are talking about LLC as a suspect practice, it would seem UNDUE to mention. Also seems just a speculation or innuendo from partisan posturing. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing remotely suspect about LLCs. This is just sensationalism. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I smell an attempt at more WP:SYNTH at this article. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Ranking sections

The RFC above led me to look at the "Political commentary, controversies, and criticism" twenty subsections and think it should be thinned down to the ones that actually are the most significant in his BLP life or at least have the most google hits. So which ones are the 'top' 6 or 7 items here ? And how far down the list is the cut line of what stays or goes ?

For a first effort, I'll suggest candidates to dispose of from google count are:

• Hillary's health
• the Trump second section "Relationship with Trump"
• FBI
• Harrassment commentary
• LGBT
• Immigration (nothing much here)
• Sharia law
• Torture - waterboarding 2009 joking offer
• Death panel
• Jake Tapper
• Michael Cohen

I'll suggest keep only this list:

• Birtherism
• Trump campaign support
• Seth Rich
• Wikileaks
• Deep State
• Climate change
• Roy Moore

If there's a reasoning one of the 'dispose' list should rank higher than an entry on the 'keep' list, please explain the reasoning. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Why cut it down? Do we have a size problem? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

User:DrFleischman - I described a seeking input on which are the more vital ones and why, to elicit if people feel some of these are significant in his life and what makes an item more or less 'significant'. That is more the area of BLPs WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:BLPGRAPEVINE and generally WP:UNDUE or WP:BALASP. If there's no one who has a rationale other than simple google count of prominence, I've shown above what that sort of looks like when I do it -- but I'm thinking that people may want to go by another significance, such as some specific BLP impact to his life. Inputs for just one item are fine as I will read silence on others as as neutral. (But a !vote of just blind assertion without rationale, I'll take that as evidence of someone wanting to support was unable/unwilling to show any importance.) Please do offer views on which are the more vital ones and why. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The sections are all notable, well-sourced and of long-term encyclopedic value. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm not going to participate in an effort to decide what's more or less significant when none of these sections should be cut in the first place. A refactoring may be warranted, sure, but I haven't seen any reasonable justification for removal of verifiable content. Hannity is a public figure, so BLP supports inclusion of this material: If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

From what I can see, many of those sections can be removed or renamed, and the material from the sections that are worthy of inclusion should be edited for POV and DUE concerns.

• Hillary's health: Massively POV. Many of the alleged "conspiracy theories" occurred before her Trump allergies/dehydration/pneumonia collapse at the 9/11 memorial, as well as her falls down stairs in India earlier this year. Could be removed from the lede and then retitled "Speculation about Hillary Clinton health issues," and then cut down.
• Relationship with Trump: Could be trimmed for WEIGHT issues. Hannity makes no secret of his close friendship with the president. Maybe a sentence or two maximum.
• FBI: "Attacks on the FBI, DOJ, and Special Counsel" is POV and inaccurate. Could be retitled "Criticism of Strzok, Page, Ohr, and Mueller" for example. Hannity has stressed repeatedly that his criticism is not directed at the "rank and file of the FBI," rather those that he believes are part of the Deep State. Material is not supported by the sources.
• Harrassment commentary - I don't see a problem with keeping this, although should be trimmed for WEIGHT.
• LGBT - Material I think is DUE, but "LGBT rights" is an odd section title. Could be "1989 comments on homosexuality". First sentence is POV, and should be reworded to "comments that many called anti-gay."
• Immigration (nothing much here): Should be removed. Very insignificant for a non-politician.
• Sharia law: See above. Every political position need not be summarized.
• Torture - waterboarding 2009 joking offer: See above.
• Death panel - Could be worthy of inclusion, but needs massive rewrite for POV and DUE concerns. Words like "myth" are not encyclopedic.
• Jake Tapper - Already weighed in on this previously, but I agree with the removal. This is a Fox News controversy, and has very little to do with Sean Hannity.
• Michael Cohen - Worthy of one or two sentences. Far too much detail to comply with DUE and WEIGHT.
  
  

I think your keep list is fine. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. On many sections, in particular the FBI, DOJ, and Special Counsel ones, we would do better to provide evidence cited by both Hannity and by his critics to add some context into what he's actually talking about. Instead, we simply include quotations without any context meant to make him sound ridiculous. Display name 99 (talk) 02:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Oppose this effort. If you have specific problems with specific sections, I suggest handling them one at a time. O3000 (talk) 10:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans - Please provide a ranking with reasoning based on policy, your flat declarations with no reasoning tends nostly to convince me you have nothing to support it, and in any case a 'no preference' input would make no effect to the combined ranking. Again, what shows no biographical significance in effect to his personal life seems either required to be eliminated or to satisfy WP:WEIGHT coverage in proportion to prominence -- e.g. be cut 90%. Markbassett (talk) 04:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

User:DrFleischman - not participating, roger. I note WP:PUBLICFIGURE, precedent that it does not include minor or heavily suspect material. (e.g. the Jane Doe complaint). It also only seeks "allegations and incidents" and does not cover simple commentary. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Objective3000 - delete individually, understood. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Mark, please don't ping folks for those sorts of comments. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Mr. Daniel Plainview and User:Display name 99 - thanks for all the edit input, will try to get that in here. Do you have any edit or deletion feelings for the topics of higher google counts ? (i.e. Birtherism, Trump campaign support, Seth Rich, Wikileaks, Deep State, Climate change, and Roy Moore.) The relationship with Trump I might merge with the Trump support for example. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

TWIMC - It's been a couple weeks. I intend to keep this open a couple more weeks for inputs, and then try to implement suggestions. So please add your preferred sections rankings with reason why and what you think should/should not be the cut line. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

None of these sections should be removed. WP:NPOV requires that we include material such as this that has been extensively covered in reliable sources. All of it is highly relevant to Hannity's life, career, and public image.- MrX 🖋 11:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

You haven't obtained consensus to implement anything. O3000 (talk) 11:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't even know if you need to keep it open a few weeks. You could just start trimming out large sections of material and see how editors respond. I have seen this approach recently at Presidency of Donald Trump and found an article discussing such an event at CNN controversies (). I have seen this course of action referred to as "being BOLD". Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

There isn't anything close to consensus that this article needs major trimming. And, why would you link to Breibart? O3000 (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Markbassett, Display name 99, myself, and likely many other editors have a different view. I linked the article as it demonstrated precedent for deleting large sections of material without prior consensus. What's wrong with Breitbart? Other than it's a conservative news organization, of course. It's full of links that direct back to Misplaced Pages for your own verification, if you have doubts. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk)

It's best to use sources which are centrist, center-left, or center-right. That means that conservative news sources like Breitbart, Daily Wire, and Conservative Review are out. This also generally excludes left-wing sources like Think Progress and the Huffington Post. Display name 99 (talk) 15:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Not to mention 90% of American news orgs. I wasn't even using that link to source any material, just to help show Markbassett that you don't have to get permission from anybody to delete a bunch of undue and POV fluff. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Display name 99 is correct about the types of source we should use, especially for BLPs.- MrX 🖋 15:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we are all correct and all in agreement. Back to the topic we go. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

No, consensus at RSN and elsewhere is pretty clear that there are outlets that would likely not be categorized as centrist, center-left, or center-right that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and therefore can be used. I'm thinking of outlets like Mother Jones, The Nation, and yes, HuffPo, and there may be others on the other end of the spectrum. Just as importantly, imposing an ideological litmus test on sources is a recipe for talk page warfare. We should not be getting bogged down in disputes about where outlet X or Y falls on the political spectrum. That's inconsistent with the applicable guideline and never leads anywhere productive. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Display name 99 I think Breitbart depends on the context, and use caution. Yes, for many things one can likely find among the many covering a topic that WP:BESTSOURCES greater experts happened elsewhere. But Breitbart is not banned, and topics exist where the positions seem mostly talked about by one side and/or the other and after one checks the overall prominence of the item then regardless of whether the appearance is predominantly left or right WP:WEIGHT is to be followed. Many seem simply playing to their audience so I believe one accepts WP:BIASED and just looks for quality of production and prominence of how wide their distribution/viewership is. I do not think of "RS" as meaning truth. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Breitbart is de facto banned. Its fact-checking track record is so bad, and it's so ideologically polarizing, that I'd bet good money there will never be a case where a consensus supports using it as a secondary source for factual content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

DrFleischman is correct. We do not use Breitbart as a source, except in very narrow circumstances.- MrX 🖋 11:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Which is to say WP does use Breitbart as RS sometimes, but almost always find that of hundreds of potential sources there is almost always another RS which has greater circulation or better expert or something that makes it BESTSOURCE, though for a right-wing position about Sean Hannity we might well find Breitbart as a BESTSOURCE. I'm not following how the CNN controversies () is a precedent for deleting large sections of material to apply here though, or how a Breitbart cite would help this rating thread. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 01:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I hesitate to keep this line of discussion going, but since you asked, I was illustrating that it's not out of the ordinary to just start trimming articles without getting consensus for each trim piecemeal. Such an approach, while collegial and shows a collaborative spirit, will almost assuredly be met with filibustering, muddying the waters, and poisoning the well until no consensus is reached and the article stays just the way it is (which is of course the end goal). I've seen it happen to at least 3-4 articles now. If you have something negative to add to the article, on the other hand, you will likely be met with little to no resistance. A few of the editors who have contributed to this article are mentioned by name in the Breitbart piece, in fact. That's the relevance, here. But if you are willing to undergo multiple RfC's and agonizing over each and every section, I'd be happy to contribute. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Mr. Daniel Plainview- I think this is somewhat following WP:TALK towards WP:CONSENSUS "an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines." It is a way to elicit other editor views and priorities on the significance of things to his BLP, so as to "takes into account all of the proper concerns raised." I'll particularly thank you for your detailed input and mechanism suggestions that I had not anticipated and are hopefully good to find. Markbassett (talk) 01:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you and I think that's generally the best way to go about it. As you can see, you're being met with hostility and red-hot protest at the mere suggestion of removing undue content from this article, but that doesn't mean that it's not the right thing to do. What you are suggesting is in perfect harmony with Misplaced Pages policy. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Error

"Hannity was born and grew up in New York City."

He was born in New York City. He did not grow up in New York City. He grew up on Long Island.108.245.209.39 (talk) 17:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Source?Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Haven't you heard him speak? . West/Central Long island 1970's. SPECIFICO talk 18:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

This reads like an op-ed piece not an encyclopedia entry!

Citing that Hannity is a conspiracy theorist and that he has reported false stories is erroneous. These are opinions and should be removed. Dornj32 (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the article calling him a conspiracy theorist. It does cite the conservative National Review calling him a conspiracy theorist. It also says he promotes conspiracy theories, which is well documented. O3000 (talk) 12:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

As is his "reporting" of falsehoods. (Btw, Hannity isn't a reporter.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

New York mag article

This is a huge bombshell:

• Nuzzi, Olivia. "The Strange Cocoon of Trump and Hannity, Two Friends Who Like to Talk Before Bed". Daily Intelligencer. Retrieved 2018-05-14.

There is so much in that source that's new and worth including. I'd just caution against using the material sourced to anonymous former White House officials. Some of it reads like it comes from Anthony Scaramucci. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I was just about to add that material. The source is not anonymous to the reporter, so the reputation of the source is what matters.- MrX 🖋 17:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes for the material that's written in the source's own voice. But there are some very inflammatory quotes attributed directly to individual anonymous sources. We should use caution for those, especially when they come from the WH. This WH isn't exactly known for hiring reputable staffers. There's a verifiable culture of backstabbing and lying. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I've added two innocuous sentences, both attributed.- MrX 🖋 18:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Trump and Hannity being close friends is a huge bombshell? He's only been saying it on his show for the past 3 years. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a lot more than that. Read the source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the material in the article right now, I just don't think it's particularly interesting or noteworthy that Trump talks to Hannity on a regular basis or that he's on the switchboard "cleared" list, any more than the fact that Rachel Maddow and Trump aren't best mates. I trust NY Mag only slightly less than The Daily Mirror and The Sun, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's all true in this case(minus the enraged editorial commentary, of course). Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a very notable thing. If Trump regularly accepted and trusted advice from a mob boss, a pedophile, and a serial rapist, etc, we'd document it all as examples of his poor judgment. That he's close friends with a conspiracy theorist, and believes his dangerous nonsense and advice, is alarming. He should be distancing himself from Hannity and condemning him, but he isn't. A number of RS cover this, and the content seems pretty good. Can we close this thread? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

If your goal here is to make unsourced attacks on living persons, editorialize on the judgment of politicians, and use this thread as a forum to voice your personal political views, closing this thread is probably good idea. The discussion was essentially over before this disruption was initiated. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

…Rachel Maddow and Trump aren't best mates. I think it should be clear that whom the President of the U.S. seeks out for advice is more important than the billions of people he doesn’t listen to. O3000 (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

It's truly amazing that these discussions actually have to take place. Had President Obama been consulting with Keith Olbermann or Michel Chossudovsky several nights a week, it would be at the top of those articles and not a soul would dispute it. Here, the same editors who cry about an anti-conservative bias on a daily basis actually debate whether this belongs in the article at all. That should put their worldview and their claims of bias into some perspective. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, it isn't. Left-leaning media seem to be just as concerned with who he doesn't listen to as who he does. Again, I have no issues with the material. I just didn't find any "huge bombshells" in the tabloid article. I found the whole thing to be very meh. And to Snoogans, those kinds of general musings and complaints would be better suited for a blog or a forum, not an encyclopedia. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

O3000, these discussions don't have to take place. I started this thread to alert folks to a very useful source, not to start a political debate. Mr. Plainview shouldn't distract anyone from productive editing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

LOL surely you're not blaming the side comments and political navel-gazing from O3000 and Snoogans on me, unless you consider my explicit statement "I don't have a problem with the material in the article right now" to be a distraction from "productive editing". The disruptions and accusations are unwelcome, and AGF should be remembered by all. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Please stop battlegrounding. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any battleground - all I see is an editor disagreeing. Calling that battleground is battleground. Play nice, DrFleischman. 18:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeeeeah. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any battlegrounding, either, just disagreement. In fact, Daniel stating, "The disruptions and accusations are unwelcome, and AGF should be remembered by all" is the very antithesis of WP:BATTLE. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

To each their own, I guess. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Winklevi. I think we could all do a better job of focusing on the material at hand rather than veering off into other territories, myself included. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Enhanced interrogation: Calling it "euphemism for torture" as a statement of fact

I boldly acted on some of your thoughts, Markbassett, although it seems DrFleischman isn't happy with our improvement suggestions. Picked out a few for discussion.

• DrF, why do you believe that the point of view that "enhanced interrogation" is a "euphemism for torture" should be stated in Misplaced Pages's voice? This seems well below the bar for neutrality. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The language mirrors that on the Misplaced Pages page for enhanced interrogation. Seems fine to me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I take exception with that article also taking sides in terms of whether or not "enhanced interrogation" is a euphemism for torture. There are many who would argue that being forced to listen to the Chili Peppers and keeping the lights on at night doesn't fall into the same category as yanking off fingernails and breaking bones. I would be receptive to a "what Hannity calls enhanced interrogation, called "torture" by critics" amendment to get closer to NPOV language. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

What would you call: “beating, binding in contorted stress positions, hooding, subjection to deafening noise, sleep disruption, sleep deprivation to the point of hallucination, deprivation of food, drink, and withholding medical care for wounds, as well as waterboarding, walling, sexual humiliation, subjection to extreme heat or extreme cold, confinement in small coffin-like boxes, and repeated slapping. Several detainees endured medically unnecessary

Doesn't matter what my point of view is on any of those things. What matters to me is NPOV material and what the sources say. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

As Snoogs said, the "euphemism" bit is reliably and extensively sourced at Enhanced interrogation techniques and has stood the test of time there for something like 8 years, despite numerous contentious discussions. I'm not interested in getting into a drawn-out discussion about The Truth. The whole point of our verifiability policy is to avoid those sorts of debates, and I have no dog in this fight except to avoid reinventing the wheel. If this is going to become an issue then I'll post something at Talk:Enhanced interrogation techniques, and perhaps those folks would like to weigh in here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Separate section for one sentence re: Hannity's immigration views

• I would like to hear your rationale for an entire section devoted to one sentence about Hannity's views on immigration, and why this is due. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Hannity's views on immigration were reported by a high-quality RS (in an extensive profile no less). It's unclear why this content should be scrubbed from his page. It's common to describe the political views of pundits and politicians across a wide variety of topics. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Lots of stuff that Hannity has said is reported by high-quality RS - doesn't mean it all goes into the article. Perhaps it could be merged into another section. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a rather important and heavily discussed issue affecting millions of people. O3000 (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

As is everything Hannity discusses on his program. I still do not see a rationale for creating an entire section for a sentence. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I generally do not like single-sentence sections, and I would not be opposed to a refactoring for stylistic reasons. However removal of noteworthy, reliably sourced content on this basis is right out and completely contrary to our core policies. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

For what its worth, I'm totally fine with one-sentence sections. But I did change the section to a three-sentence section, and added additional sources. There are also RS out there that suggest that Hannity has an influence on Trump's rhetoric and actions on immigration, and has discussed these issues with him, but those RS have not yet been added. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Using non-attributed Politico article for a statement of fact

• If we are to use one quote from a leftist news org , what is your rationale that a Politico writer should be permitted to state facts using Misplaced Pages's voice? Content like this should be properly attributed. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you please split this out into separate sections or subsections? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

No worries, and done. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Politico isn't a leftist news organization. The suggestion is laughable. Politico is unquestionably a RS. "Mediabiasfactcheck" is a nonsense site. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

AllSides also confirms that Politico favors the American left. Not to say that Politico's reporting isn't generally reliable (they are, with the exception of former staffer Glenn Thrush), but its partisan leanings helps contextualize the material in question. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Neither Mediabiasfactcheck nor AllSides are reliable sources. AllSides is just straight-up nonsense. Its Politico "bias" rating is sourced to Misplaced Pages and random-ass website users for Christ's sake. Do you just cite random rubbish that you find in a Google search? What's next in line - a Twitter survey? A Breitbart user poll? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you know we just had a discussion about staying on topic so this is the wrong path. Let's get back to the material at hand. More than happy to continue a debate on Politico's partisan leanings another time, possibly at Politico. Also, please remember to AGF and stay civil, even on pages that aren't under DS. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

You're arguing that Politico is not a RS and can't be used to state things in Wiki voice. What are we supposed to discuss here if not that? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Please either post the link showing that I argued that Politico is not a RS or kindly reword that comment. What we are discussing here is why a single article is being used to make a dubious statement in Misplaced Pages's voice without attribution. WP:BIASEDSOURCES touches on this, and I believe there is another article that is even clearer, although it's escaping me at the moment. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm unable to take this complaint seriously. Right now the best I can do is to point you to WP:BIASED, WP:YESPOV ("Avoid stating facts as opinions"), and the countless discussions in which Politico sources have been deemed to be perfectly reliable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I really don't know how my statement ("Not to say that Politico's reporting isn't generally reliable (they are, with the exception of former staffer Glenn Thrush)...") could be missed not just once, but twice. This section has nothing to do with the reliability of Politico. Since I cited WP:BIASEDSOURCES in my very last comment, I think it's safe to say I don't need to be pointed to WP:BIASED since they link to the exact same section. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

You want to take reliably sourced factual content from Politico and cast it as an "argument" because Politico is "leftist." Sorry, I'm done. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that you're "done," but I'll respond anyway. I never said any such thing, nor implied it. The material should be properly attributed if there is only one writer making the claim. Unless the statement is a demonstrable fact, I see no reason to give Mr. Lima over at Politico the final authority to determine what is factual and what is not in an encyclopedia. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

You're shifting the goalposts. This is your original edit where you cast reliably sourced facts reported in Politico as an "argument." And this is where you justified that edit based on your view that Politico is "leftist." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

No, you're either misunderstanding what I said or perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I do not take whatever I read on the Internet, especially Politico, as fact. I see no citations that back Lima's assertion that Hannity (or Trump) has been spouting "anti-media rhetoric". As far as I know, both Hannity and Trump have been highly critical of anti-Trump media (nearly all major news orgs), but Lima does nothing to support his view that the rhetoric has been "anti-media". That's Lima's view, and many people do not share it. It's a debatable opinion. The second link, again, is in reference to the problem with citing one source for a dubious statement of fact in Misplaced Pages's voice. Politico's leftist ideologies further cement the fact that the allegation should be properly attributed. I said nothing that even remotely resembled "Politico is a source that shouldn't be used because it's a leftist source". Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Cement in your mind. Not in the rest of ours. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Who else are you speaking for besides yourself? You can disagree withe the fact that Politico's ideological leanings are relevant, but I should know which other minds you are speaking on behalf of, here. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't speak on behalf of anyone, but Snoogs evidently opposes the change. More to the point, however, you can say your mind is made up, but that doesn't mean the consensus agrees with you. You can shout from the rooftops that Politico is "leftist" but it will only backfire. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Got it. That remains to be seen - let's not say what the consensus is or isn't prematurely. The discussion hasn't even been open for half a day. Once again, Politico's "leftist" (what's with the scare quotes, by the way?) leanings doesn't need to be shouted from anywhere. It's confirmed in reliable sources, and besides, that's not the crux of the issue. I'm sure they make plenty of money from their content and don't have to worry about their ideology backfiring on them. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

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