Talk:Sean Hannity

No section to reorganize into

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Holy cow, batman! Can't we all just grow up a little? George is right that his original contribution should not have been deleted, since the page was obviously vandalized in june to remove all criticism of Sean Hannity. Maybe the bit about the "chagrin of Hannity staffers" in the note wasn't tacful, but that should only be offensive to two people: Hannity Staffers, and whoever vandalized the page in June. The contribution is well referenced, and clearly pertininent to THIS article. 67.84.209.35 (talk) 14:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Confirmed to be a sockpuppet of FuriousJorge. (Note: This account was confirmed at SPI as FuriourJorge) [1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

A: When they say anything negative about my Hannity.

Q: When is someone SPA?

A: See question 1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vote fraud

Is being discussed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FuriousJorge.

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

• SPI confirmed that you were 67.84.209.35 and even the clerk suspects meatpuppetry. Oddly, meatpuppetry was the outcome of the only SPI I've ever filed....over something that happened on this page. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Relevant link. Do not lie to us again, furious, or I'm sure you'll find yourself blocked. Abusive sockpuppetry is not overlooked.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• • Respectfully that is incorrect. I did not lie to you. Please see the conclusion of the discussion I had with Daedalus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FuriousJorge#Block_extended. I was not '67.84.209.35'. I don't care to rehash any of our other disagreements, but I wouldn't mind agreeing to disagree here, and being done with it. 67.84.213.7 (talk) 10:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Who Removed All the Criticism From This Article in June?

The person who took out all negative information about Sean Hannity without discussion (6/15) made some very questionable yet similar decisions in other edits around that time. For starters, (6/11) he removed all references to the Holocaust Museums shooter's relationship with The Free Republic from that article, as well as all references to criticism of The Free Republics for racism against President Obama. All that information has been restored since.

On the same day he created a much needed "Reaction" section in the article about the United States Holocaust Memorial_Museum shooting. The only problem with it was that it consisted entirely of an apologetic distancing of a white supremacist group for their association with the shooter. For some reason subsequent editors thought that was perhaps not the most appropriate blurb for the article's reaction section, and out it went.

Shortly after this, the same user thought it was unfair that Bill O'Reilley was being criticized after George Tiller's shooting for historically referring to him "Tiller The Baby Killer" on his show. So, he removed all criticism of O'Reilley relating to this matter. What's interesting about this post is not that the information was restored (it was), but that his argument was that it should be included only in the article about his show, not in the article itself. A familiar argument that some have been making here.

This person found time amid that spree to visit this page and remove anything critical of Sean Hannity. This was criticism that had been debated and inserted in October, including, not surprisingly, all mention of Hannity's common knowledge association with Neo-Nazi Hal Turner. Nobody stopped him, and everyone *pretended* not to notice, but when I tried to reinsert criticism of Hannity (in the middle of the night) it was removed within five minutes, again with no discussion.

This stinks of POV Pushing (at best) if not Vandalism (at worst) to me.

This was after only a few minutes of investigation. I'm sure it gets much more interesting if one has time to look. Just thought we should know the person I'm trying (unsuccessfully) to revert.

Cheers.FuriousJorge (talk) 09:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I took the liberty of putting this talk section back in because I don't understand why it was removed, and I don't think there is any basis for objection (right?). Having been 'found guilty' in the above investigation I had recused myself from contributing to this page or it's talk. That said, I do check in every now and then, and I feel it is important to include this sectiion in order to frame the above discussion, and the subsequent section when that same vandal struck again.

As you can see from that user's page his/her behavior seems to fit a pattern (I would call it anti-Israel, anti-minority, anti-Obama POV pushing). He/she has been caught and blocked since I originally added this section. It's probably not a coincidence.

Moreover I see that his repeated vandalisms are always reversed (this page being the exception), both before and especially after I included this section.

Also, I wanted to demonstrate I've learned from past experience and state that I have nothing to do with the other user who has since vandlaized this talk page multiple times. This person replaced everything with "Sean Hannity is a great American..." repeatedly. On the surface it may seem obvious that this wouldn't have been me, but curiously the last time this person vandalized the page he/she only removed the section prior to this one wherein I was 'found guilty' of meatpuppeting. I have no idea why he/she would vandalize this page in such a blatantly 'pro-hannity' way, but only take out information critical of me in the last go round.

This person's IP may or may not be similar to mine, but if that was an attempt to liberal-pov-push on my behalf I want to denounce it before there is another 'investigation'.

Clearly there are forces at work here that are beyond my comprehension, and I frankly no longer have the motivation to investigate. Just piecing this together took hours.

Speaking of those forces, I want to unequivocally state: I did not have the same IP as the random poster who, among others, agreed with me the day I brought this up (as has been suggested above). I had a 'similar' IP. Nor did I recruit this person. I'm not going to rehash my defense of this charge. If you care, read what I had to say about it here.

To prove my good will, I will agree to conceed all points to this page's primary editors with whom I've disagreed in the past, and go back to recusing myself from contributing to this article or its discussion, if by some miracle this section isn't removed upon my submission. (The fact is that I just don't have the time to argue this anyway. I did next to nothing at work those few days that I spent with this, and the joke is on me because I'm self employed.))

67.84.213.7 (talk) 10:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC) (My mistake, forgot to sign in, the above was me) FuriousJorge (talk) 10:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Picture.... (read on)

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

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

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

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

Unexplained removal of content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thought a consensus was reached to include a section on Sean's political views, including those on waterboarding. I reviewed some of the talk page archives and apparently Niteshift36's argument against this inclusion is his continued accusation that numerous editors who came to said consensus are just sock puppets who stop by every once in a while to stir things up then disappear. Well, Niteshift, I'm not a sock puppet. Believe it or not some of us have better things to do than to sit constantly on one article and repeatedly vandalize it. Every time I happen to come back here, the page is again vandalized to include only information on the subject of the article that is positive. I have submitted this article for semi-protection.Stargnoc (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of talk page content

Not only has content been routinely vandalized, but so has the talk page. All of the discussion from only a few months ago, which resulted in the vast majority of contributers agreeing that Sean's political views (including those on waterboarding) should be included as a section, was removed. I have requested semi-protection for both this page and the talk page and I will also comb through the edits to determine the identities of the vandals and report them accordingly.Stargnoc (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)