Talk:Sean Hannity/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Conspiracy theorist?

Thanks for the edit MelanieN. However, do you believe the Newsweek article is a sufficient source of declaring the man is a "conspiracy theorist"? It seems a pretty serious accusation to make against a man, which would require more (and stronger) sourcing. That article only says that he has "touted" conspiracy theories and discusses his "foray" into the land of conspiracy. But it never explicitly refers to Hannity as a conspiracy theorist. He also emphatically denies the charge in that article. Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

WaPo: "Fox News conspiracy theorist Sean Hannity"[1]. That said, I don't think a lot of RS explicitly label him a "conspiracy theorist". It's undeniable though that he has been fervently pushing conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton, Seth Rich, the "Deep State" and election fraud in the last 12 months, as substantiated by the content of his Wikipedia page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, you asked for a source; I gave you one; now you want multiple sources? How many do you need? Much of the article is about the various conspiracy theories he promotes (which in turn is because that's what he gets most of his press coverage for), so it doesn't seem too outrageous, or too requiring of multiple sources, to say that's one of the things that defines him. Are you saying that a person who "touts" conspiracy theories, and makes "forays" into the land of conspiracy, isn't a conspiracy theorist? Then who is? Let's look for definitions.

• "a person who holds a theory that explains an event or situation as the result of a secret plan by usually powerful people or groups: Conspiracy theorists believe the government is hiding evidence of UFOs." Merriam-Webster
• "One who believes in, follows, or advances a conspiracy theory." Wiktionary

Most dictionaries don't have a separate definition of "conspiracy theorist", they just redirect to "conspiracy theory". That's what Wikipedia does too. Those that don't define it separately just list it as a "related word" to "conspiracy theory". Dictionary.com Those that do define it, say it is someone who believes in or advances conspiracy theories. Doesn't that describe Hannity? --MelanieN (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure, and I think the WaPo source would be a good addition. I guess normally I think of a guy like Alex Jones when I hear "conspiracy theorist," talking about moon landing hoaxes and lizard people and the like. Hannity strikes me as more like a host who opportunistically latches on to conspiracy theories so long as it advances his desired narratives. Either way, I think the first sentence is in a much better condition now. Hidden Tempo (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

If we’re going to brand Hannity a “conspiracy theorist” in the lead, and cite an opinion/analysis piece by Dave Weigel, then we ought to at least be faithful to Weigel’s piece. Weigel also calls Hannity an “elder statesman” so let’s include that for NPOV. And the conspiracy theorist accusation is in regards to the DNC stabbing Sanders in the back, so we should include that context. So, in the lead, I put this:

He is an elder statesman of Fox News, and a conspiracy theorist regarding the alleged harm done to 2016 presidential candidate Bernie Sanders by his own party.

References

Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah it's a bit dishonest to label Hannity as a conspiracy theorist in the lead. Someone's bias is showing. DoloMikal (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist

Seriously, does Wikipedia even try to hide its liberal biases anymore? Can we at least be fair? Will we identify Harry Reid as a conspiracy theorist for pushing the false allegations that Mitt Romney failed to pay taxes? Will we claim that every leftist who ever argued that collusion existed between the Russian government and the Trump campaign a conspiracy theorist? As even Dianne Feinstein said, there is no evidence for such a connection. It's a problem that goes far beyond this article. Like for instance, we say that many of Trump's campaign statements were "false," even though Clinton made numerous false statements about her email history and other matters. That's not mentioned anywhere in the lead section of her article. In fact, we don't even mention the mail controversy. This comment probably won't change much, but many of our articles on modern day political persons and topics almost read like propaganda pieces for the Democratic Party. Our articles for conservative figures read like hit pieces. It's obvious who writes them. Display name 99 (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton believes in a vast right-wing conspiracy, and I’m sure a lot of other politicians do too, so I guess we better get busy putting “conspiracy theorist” into all of those BLP leads. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't say Wikipedia has a liberal bias but this specific line does sound bias. Hannity is not known for being a conspiracy theorist. DoloMikal (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Someone would have to be known for being a conspiracy theorist primarily to have that line in the lead, such as Alex Jones for example. Sean Hannity is not nearly in the same category, even if he has speculated on things that may be unwarranted. You wouldn't list Donald Trump as a conspiracy theorist in the lead sentence even if he arguable has engaged in some. Marquis de Faux (talk) 04:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The term is amply supported by reliable sources, and the body of the article makes it quite clear in what respects he peddles conspiracy theories. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

These "reliable sources" are all left-wing or left-leaning outlets, and citing them without using any conservative or conservative-leaning sources creates an unbalanced picture. The section on the Clinton "conspiracy theories" makes no mention of her near-collapse on September 11. It makes it seem like Hannity invented it all out of nowhere, which is false. There are several sources calling Rachel Maddow a conspiracy theorist. There are also plenty of left-wing conspiracy theories mentioned above. Are you willing to go around adding that to all the articles for those people, or is this just for conservatives? I agree that he has speculated about things that were either unproven or debunked, but, as was said above, Hannity is not primarily known for promoting conspiracy theories, and therefore including that in the first sentence of the article is inappropriate. Unless, of course, you want to add "conspiracy theorist" to our bios for Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Rachel Maddow, and whoever else. Display name 99 (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I wanted to say that I am in agreement with this comment. Sean Hannity is a lot of things but I do not think he should be called "conspiracy theorist" in the opening sentence.Within cells interlinked (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I also agree with this comment. Sean Hannity has presented false claims, and we should absolutely be clear about when Sean Hannity presents claims that are false, but to equate him to people like Alex Jones by labeling him a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence is misleading. Instead, the article should explain that various sources have labeled him a conspiracy theorist. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 05:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

There are 6 people who don't want him identified as a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence and only 1 who does. That seems like consensus. Therefore, I decided to change it by adding at the end of the first paragraph that he is sometimes accused of being a conspiracy theorist. Display name 99 (talk) 12:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• What 6 people? Old (October) version tells "conspiracy theorist" and it was supported by multiple RS. If you want to change it, make an RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I think they have in mind people like DoloMikal (talk · contribs)... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• I worked on the wording a bit, and I think it's a lot more neutral now. There's nothing wrong with saying that some people say he is a conspiracy theorist; numerous outlets indeed label him as one, and I don't think Hannity himself would disagree that some people see him that way. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 03:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Let's have a balanced lead

Can people please stop sanitising the lead by removing the "controversies" paragraph. It leaves a lead that tells readers only about his awards and honours. In that version, it fails to summarise the article properly and is an obvious failure of WP:NPOV. If you don't like the Newsweek source (despite the fact that Newsweek of course meets WP:RS), then you could copy a source used in the relevant sections below. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I am a conservative, and I have to agree with this; both sides should be covered in a neutral fashion per WP:TRUTH. However, it should not be written in a way that endorses Newsweek's point of view, or any other liberal media outlet's point of view. Every media outlet is going to be wrong at some point, so "factually challenged" seems like a more neutral way of covering it than "misleading and inaccurate." PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 22:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous phrase: "He has promoted stories that have been challenged factually". WP:WEASEL. Hannity has not been challenged factually, Hannity has promoted falsehoods and conspiracy theories. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed with Snooganssoogans. Birtherism is not simply "factually challenged" -- it is a conspiracy theory, and "misleading and accurate" is a charitable way of putting it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it would be extremely difficult to get an impartial opinion on such controversial and divisive subject, including from outside sources which are going to be all over the place, which is why softer is better per WP:NPOV (just like saying he has won awards is better than saying he has widespread respect). The fact that numerous established users are edit warring over this (with some even trying to have it outright removed) is why "factually challenged" is a better way of putting it, and putting it that way reduces the desire of newbies to want to vandalize Wikipedia. Put opinions aside for the sake of quality encyclopedia content; we're here to cover a well-known commentator in an encyclopedic fashion not to promote liberalism or conservatism. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 19:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The exact Wikipedia policy to consider here is WP:IMPARTIAL. Please read it. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 19:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

"Factually challenged" is a classic WP:WEASEL. It's also atrocious English. Show me a single source which describes it as "factually challenged". You can't just invent silly phrases out of thin air. It needs to be based on sources. And that is what impartial and NPOV means. Volunteer Marek  19:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 19:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I have not and do not intend to destroy any Keurigs. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 19:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLP

There's an elephant in the room, and that is WP:BLP. The original wording is He has promoted stories that are misleading, unsubstantiated or false, leading some to call him a conspiracy theorist and cites Newsweek, a source that our own article states refocused its content on opinion and commentary beginning with its May 24, 2009, issue. One opinion-based article is not enough to label someone as "misleading" and a "conspiracy theorist." We can't go back to that wording, if anything we could say he has been accused of promoting stories that are misleading, unsubstantiated, or false, leadning some to call him a conspiracy theorist. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 20:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

We shouldn't even cite Newsweek. I never cite Newsweek and dislike it - someone other than me lumped it into the lede. That Hannity has, in no uncertain terms, promoted falsehoods and conspiracy theories is substantiated by a multitude of sources in the body. The lede ought to summarize the body. It's enough to say that Hannity has "frequently promoted falsehoods and conspiracy theories". That's abundantly sourced, and an adequate short summary of extensive text in the body. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I agree we can do without the source and just summarise the content of the appropriate section below. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

You can't make such a statement without sources, and since this is a BLP, we need to include the word "accused." Good, neutral sources exist showing that just about everyone involved in politics have promoted falsehoods, probably because people involved in politics are human and make mistakes, but no neutral sources are saying that Hannity is deliberately promoting falsehoods. Stating that such falsehoods are deliberate is a WP:BLP issue, unless the person admits to deliberately making up stories, a court rules that someone has deliberately made up stories, etc. Lets not worry about covering the WP:TRUTH but instead lean on reliable sources. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 20:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The sources can be found in the relevant sections further down in the article. It's not necessary to repeat them in the lead. See WP:LEADCITE. We can repeat them if someone insists, but it's redundant. All we need to do is to summarise what's already in the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The term "deliberately" is nowhere to be found in any of the suggestions. This is what is being suggested: "frequently promoted falsehoods and conspiracy theories". This is abundantly sourced in the body of the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

There's one section in the whole article that uses the word "falsehood." Using that word in the lead based on one incident is WP:UNDUE. Find multiple, unbiased sources saying that he "frequently promotes falsehoods" (you won't; any source that says that is biased or we wouldn't be having this discussion), find multiple biased sources saying that and use the word "alleged," or it's just plain original research. There's a reason why there is a neutrality tag and on-going edit wars on the article, and the only way that's going to change is compromise. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 20:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

"Using that word in the lead based on one incident". The term "false" occurs 11 times in the article on issues ranging from election fraud, death panels, climate change, Hillary Clinton and CNN. The term "inaccurate" occurs once. The term "conspiracy theor" occurs 24 times, most of them in the context of debunked conspiracy theories and blatant falsehoods. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

So you're saying that most of them are debunked conspiracy theories? Good, so lets just say he frequently promotes conspiracy theories and leave "falsehoods" out of it. I could actually agree with that. It might even be worth while to comb over the entire article for non-neutral language. Again, WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:TRUTH; it's not our job to preach who is right and who is wrong, just to document the facts. BLPs should be the last articles to have neutrality tags. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 21:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:IMPARTIAL

Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.

The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone.

Please explain to me how saying that Sean Hannity promotes falsehoods is compatible with this policy, especially when there is an ongoing dispute between him and Media Matters for America. Really, the same applies to saying someone promotes conspiracy theories. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 21:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

You must be forgetting birtherism, and Seth Rich -- again. These are not issues to be "impartial" about; it's not appropriate for an encyclopedia to contemplate the possibility that Obama might have been born in Kenya, or HRC might have had Seth Rich killed. There's no dispute here, and so nothing to be impartial about. Hannity promoted falsehoods about these topics, among others. No amount of alphabet soup is going to change that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

These are not issues to be impartial about I didn't read that part in the policy. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 21:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I have never cited Media Matters, and I don't believe this Wikipedia page cites Media Matters for anything other than a November 2017 spat over Roy Moore and advertisers. Every sentence that says that Hannity promoted falsehoods cites sources such as the Washington Post, PolitiFact, FactCheck.Org, and by my count, four peer-reviewed academic studies. All reliable sources. If you want to sensibly discuss this, you should perhaps actually read the article from start to finish. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Sean Hannity himself cites fact checkers when someone he doesn't like says something that isn't true, and just about everyone in the field of politics has been dinged by the fact checkers more than once; unless you are using a reliable source that says he frequently promotes falsehoods (and preferably more so than any other political commentator), it's WP:OR. What is wrong with just saying he is known to promote conspiracy theories? Are conspiracy theories credible, in your opinion? Our article on conspiracy theories, which is currently wikilinked in the article, covers the topic quite well. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 22:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

This "everybody lies" nonsense that defenders of crackpots use all the time is both untrue and irrelevant. If there's RS coverage of, say, Rachel Maddow lying about X and Y, then you can go and add that to her article and if a bulk of her article is devoted to her lying, then that should go to the lede, as well. However, what Maddow or anyone else does, or the state of her or anyone else's article, has nothing to do with the Sean Hannity WP article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

If your problem is with "frequently", we can go with "promoted a number of falsehoods and conspiracy theories". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

How about "is noted for promoting a number of falsehoods and conspiracy theories"? That leans on the sources while effectively communicating the information. I can't speak for the people who raised the neutrality dispute in the first place, but that is a lot more neutral than what we had before, in my opinion. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 22:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

That's perfect. I don't think anyone could object to that phrasing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• If multiple RS tell that someone "frequently promoted falsehoods and conspiracy theories", this is something really important and must be included. Please see the entire Category:Conspiracy theorists. My very best wishes (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

2017 Controversies

Please do not add every single non-noteworthy controversy the subject has been involved in. I have removed some of these singular isolated incidents (such as the Keurig Coffee machines). If we do not cover the controversial things Hannity has done over a broad time frame we run afoul of unbalancing the article with only controversies/criticism from this year. WP:Recentism I believe is the rule for this. AmongTheliving66 (talk) 08:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

We do cover controversies that he's been involved in over time and comments that he's made over time. In fact, you just whitewashed his changing views on immigration over time. As for lop-sided post-2015 coverage in the Wikipedia article, it's no coincidence that Hannity has received more extensive RS coverage since he turned into Trump's lapdog in 2016 and has been willing to push lies and conspiracy theories that echo throughout the population and have enormous ramifications. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEGROUND Can we seriously act like adults and compromise instead of using inflammatory language like Trump's lapdog? That kind of language is not going to help resolve the situation. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 20:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Here is text under discussion. All this info was well sourced and must be included. Remember that the subject is a notable and controversial political commentator who attracted a lot of criticism. This is nothing extraordinary. My very best wishes (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I wrote part of that. This is the original version, before I rewrote it. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 02:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Reverted removal of criticism from lede

Removing this longstanding section from the lede leaves prominent sections of the article essentially unsummarized in the lede. Its removal doesn't appear to be based in policy, and thus I reverted it. I also object to the removal of the "American Conspiracy Theorists" category from Hannity's page. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Challenge NPOV compliance - there's a tag on the article and the issues must be addressed. Discuss. Use Rachel Maddow BLP as a guide. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The only sentence in the lede I think is problematic is He has also been criticized for being overly supportive of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. It's an NPOV violation in that implies that supporting Donald Trump is a bad thing. The rest is fine; having some mention of Hannity's bizarre pushing of fringe theories is necessary, but calling him a "conspiracy theorist" in the lede sentence definitely is not necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I could almost see your argument about the sentence about his support for Trump, although it pretty clearly implies that the issue is that he is "too" supportive of Trump to the point where he refuses to report or comment on any negative aspect of Trump or his administration. As for the "conspiracy theorist" concern: it's what RS bears out. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're starting the discussion in the wrong place and thus I'm not willing to discuss this on your terms: there is nothing in the removed section that violates NPOV... And your comparison to the Maddow BLP is completely irrelevant. I found your comment there by the way, and read the article you linked to about right-wing groups requesting boycotts for Maddow's "promotion" of conspiracy theories after you agreed with an editor trying to add spurious claims to that bio. You might want to read the article, because it's headline is misleading and it doesn't actually say what you think it says, and furthermore your editing there seems to suggest you view the encyclopedia as a "tit-for-tat" exercise. Comparing one group's slanted quest for vengeance after perceived slights against right-wing commentators to the sum total of the RS coverage that has covered Hannity's controversies is a little laughable. I would ask you to review WP:BATTLEGROUND, and perhaps consider how it might apply. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The battleground is an IP and Nomo reverting challenged material. As I explained, review Rachel Maddow - Hannity competitor - and tell me where you see the conspiracy theorist crap in that BLP. I will provide the RS and will use that to demonstrate the issue of noncompliance here. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Your problem begins and ends with calling "Rachel Maddow" a Hannity competitor. Tell me exactly what relevance that has here? They are two very different people, known for two very different brands of reporting. One does not need to be a veritable coin flip of the other, unless you see yourself fighting some sort of ideological war. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• LOL* That argument doesn't work - try something with substance. We have something called PAGs and consistency on WP. I'm trying to comply with NPOV - no ideologue here - no soapboxing, either. In case you haven't noticed, you are the one adding back noncompliant material that was challenged - not unlike the material challenged at Maddow that was promptly reverted. This a BLP - pay attention. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Alright, Atsme. When you get to the point in a discussion where one editor thinks their strongest argument is to cry BLP about statements that have 20+ sources, it's safe to say we're getting no where. Sorry, but your desired change to the longstanding text is currently against consensus. The best we can do at this point is wait for more people to chime in who might have more cogent arguments. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here by Atsme. That does not mean I agree with her, and I am certainly no fan of Hannity. But I hadn't looked at this article in a while so I did. I do believe the "controversy" paragraph should be rewritten to be more balanced. IMO it should say that 1) he was an early and eager supporter of Trump 2) he is controversial and promotes some conspiracy theories, and 3) he responds that he is not a journalist but a talk show host. The reason I think is should not be removed entirely is that his promotion of controversial and/or false material is part of his fame, and his support for Trump was a major reason for his rise in visibility and ratings.

I also took a look at the "Political commentary, controversies, and criticism" section. I believe the opening material, which serves as a mini-lede for the section, needs to be reorganized. Birtherism and "overly supportive of Trump" are detailed in subsections so they are OK to mention there. There should also be a mention of Clinton conspiracy theories. The "deep state" thing does not need to be in the opening section. I would delete the third paragraph of the opening section; the actions described are no different from what most political commentators do, i.e., being supportive of presidents from "their" side and critical of presidents from the "other" side.

Will it be OK with people here if I redo the paragraph in the lede, and the opening section of the "commentary" section, along these lines? --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps propose some text here for the lede paragraph? I'd use a different order: first the controversial & conspiracy theory stuff, then Trump, then response. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll work something up and propose it below. --MelanieN (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully declaring our personal preferences for the subjects of a biography doesn't become necessary before we can participate in editing. I know this was intended to show that you believe you will edit neutrally (and I think I remember that you usually succeed in doing so), but seeing some of the responses on this page (trying to create false "balance" between this biography and the Maddow biography, for instance, because supposedly being political adversaries (or whatever) dictates that we do so) makes me see this kind of declarative (and more so that you felt it was neccessary) as indicative of this topic being over-ran by people treating it like a battleground. This is broaching on becoming preachy, so I'll just leave it there. As for a potential rewrite: Hannity's promotion of conspiracy theories predates Trump (as with birtherism, some of the conspiracy theories surrounding the Clintons, etc.) While some RS say that Trump has elevated Hannity's promotion of what could be considered fringey under the best possible light to something of a fever-pitch, I don't think it would be accurate to imply that Hannity's support for Trump was the first time he dipped his toes into the conspiracy theory well. I agree the other section needs some work as well, and agree the third paragraph is really clunky/probably unnecessary. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Please don't put words into my mouth. When I say "balance" I am talking about the paragraph, and the article, on its own, and the need to accurately and neutrally reflect what sources say. I certainly have never agreed with Atsme's claim that there needs to be some kind of parallelism between this article and Maddow's, and have said so on the several occasions when she raised it before. Each article has to be based on what Reliable Sources say, not on what other articles say. I felt a disclaimer was necessary because I had been asked to come here by a particular editor who is on one side of this discussion. Also because I have noticed that some people on this page tend to assume that anyone who disagrees with them does so because of their political beliefs - that any editor who doesn't agree with them must be a "Trump supporter" on the one side, or a "Trump hater" on the other. --MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with MelanieN reorganizing and rewording the problematic statements to make them compliant. The claim by the IP that the challenged section is "longstanding" is ludicrous at best as demonstrated by this edit made by Nomoskedasticity on the Nov 18th, and who noted in his edit summary that we would want this material even without a source. No, I don't think so, and if it's kept in lede, it requires WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and strict adherence to WP:ACHIEVE NPOV. The fact that all of my edits are being tag-teamed and "rejected" despite my correctly challenging them as noncompliant with policy is highly disruptive as is the refusal of my accusers to discuss these issues in a civil manner. Their relentless WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT position is why I asked MelanieN to review the article, and I was immediately accused of canvassing as if what I did was a violation - again, disruptive. There is clearly an issue of tendentious editing in this article, and that needs to stop. As for the Maddow comparison, it is perfectly legitimate to demonstrate how that article does not include any criticism that I can see, despite being warranted as evidenced by this and other RS. We cannot dismiss the fact that Hannity and Maddow are primetime competitors, and both are subject to BLP policy which requires strict adherence to NPOV, regardless of an editor's own political biases. The stark dichotomy between the two supports my concern of a partisan bias favoring Maddow while being highly unfavorable toward Hannity. Tendentious editing is not allowed, and there is no valid reason to not use similar articles as guides, especially when criticism is aggressively being kept out and noncompliance with WP:IMPARTIAL is not being adhered to the way it should be in one article and quite the opposite is taking place in the other. All articles are subject to NPOV policy (BLP policy when it's a living person) with emphasis on the following: neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. That's NPOV 101, especially when contentious labels and biased views are involved. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN, I'm sorry for reading more into your statement than was intended. Atsme, you throw around policies yet your edits seem like you might not really understand them. This is best illustrated by you repeatedly mentioning Maddow on a talkpage meant to assist editing for Hannity. Perhaps I'm the only one that finds your brand of quoting policies out of context tiresome and unhelpful, so it's probably best for both our sakes that I just leave your thoughts here mostly unanswered. Thankfully it seems this discussion has attracted some new participants so our arguments can now be judged on a spectrum instead of as two parties in opposition. On that note, I have some catching up to do. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed change to the paragraph in the lede

The existing paragraph says:

Hannity has been involved with numerous controversies. He is noted for promoting a number of falsehoods and conspiracy theories. He has been criticized for promoting birtherism, making unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud in the 2016 presidential election, and other conspiracy theories. He promotes pro-Trump views and coverage. Hannity has promoted the idea of a "deep state", which he describes as a "Shadow Government" – a network of government officials that is working to hinder the Trump administration.

I'd propose changing it to better reflect the coverage and the weight in the article text, and to take some of the assertions out of Wikipedia's voice: (See revised proposal below)

Hannity is often controversial and has been accused of promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories, such as casting doubt on Barack Obama's birthplace and promoting unproven stories about Hillary Clinton. He was an early supporter of Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election, giving him more air time than other candidates, asking friendly interview questions, and defending Trump whenever he was criticized. After Trump's election Hannity promoted unproven accusations made by Trump, such as that there was massive voter fraud in the 2016 election, or that there is a "deep state" within the federal government working to hinder the Trump administration. Hannity dismisses these criticisms by saying that he is a talk show host, not a journalist.

I would also suggest moving this paragraph into last position in the lede, after the paragraph about his honors and his books. Thoughts? MelanieN (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The two mentions of "unproven" above should be "false" and are typically described as such by reliable sources. Other than that, I have no problem with the proposed text. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The first "unproven" should definitely be "false". I'd rephrase the other sentence containing "unproven" as "After Trump's election Hannity promoted accusations made by Trump, such as the falsehood that there was massive voter fraud in the 2016 election, or the conspiracy theory that there is a "deep state" within the federal government working to hinder the Trump administration." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I generally prefer "unproven" or "unsubstantiated" over "false". But in the case of the Hillary Clinton stories, some of them were flat-out lies, like the EpiPen allegation, so I am OK with calling that one "false". As for the last sentence: actually, reviewing the sources, I find that I misinterpreted one thing. I do not find any evidence that he echoed Trump's presidential "3 million fraudulent votes" claim, which was what I thought. His actual voter fraud claims were during the election and were to support his claims that the election was "rigged". So I need to take that out of the "after Trump's election" sentence. That leaves the "deep state" claim, which I will just call a claim. However I find I omitted the Seth Rich material, which needs to be included and which definitely is a conspiracy theory. That leaves a revised proposal:

Hannity is often controversial and has been accused of promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories, such as casting doubt on Barack Obama's birthplace, promoting conspiracy theories about the Murder of Seth Rich, and reporting false stories about Hillary Clinton's health. 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. Since Trump's election Hannity has promoted Trump's claim that there is a "deep state" within the federal government working to hinder the Trump administration. Hannity dismisses criticism by saying that he is a talk show host, not a journalist.

Comments? --MelanieN (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you about "unproven" opposed to "false." I think we're moving in the right direction here. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 00:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

comment - If you're going to include the Seth Rich angle, then make sure to provide the key aspects of it such as the fact his murderer remains at large, and that Julian Assange offered a reward for information. With regards to "false stories" about HRC's health - be more specific - she actually was ill and fainted while getting into her vehicle, tripped getting into the plane, and had to be escorted up stairs on numerous occasions, etc. A person's medical records are their own so there's no way to disprove it, and there's no denying she had issues. Hannity actually had a panel of medical experts who analyzed her condition as possibly experiencing after-effects from her 2012 concussion - there's plenty of RS that wrote about it - and when experts say it, we cite it, right? It actually was an important issue for a presidential candidate. As for giving Trump lots of airtime, let's look at that a little closer. Who was giving HRC all the airtime, and feeding her questions ahead of debates? Include it but you also need to include both the Pew and Harvard research that proves Trump's coverage was overly negative opinions by MSM - [2] and [3] so there's no denying it. Pew nails it. It's all about NPOV and what we choose to use for RS and the information we cite in those sources. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

We most certainly do not need to give credence to Seth Rich conspiracy theories, cite hacks who are spitballing ailments for someone they've never met on the basis of a photo of a stumble or add your WP:OR about media bias. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Credence? Nobody is saying anything about it being true - we say what the sources say - we don't censor. The reward was gigantic news and it hasn't gone awayy, so if you're saying we're not supposed to publish what RS say based on IDONTLIKEIT, sorry - that's not how WP works. Per NPOV: representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. As for conspiracy theories, we're still pushing the Trump collusion story with zero evidence, so don't go there. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

We are talking about the lede here. None of that kind of detail would go in the lede. The lede just summarizes what is in the article. As for him "reporting false stories" about Clinton's health, yes, she did have some well reported medical issues. But Hannity went way beyond that. The "false" tag refers to things like Hannity claiming he saw a secret service agent holding an EpiPen for her, which he took to mean she was having seizures. The SS agent was actually holding a pen small flashlight. It's not a defense against "false" to say that he also said some true things. --MelanieN (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Melanie, if it cannot be presented from a NPOV, we should not include it at all, especially not in the lede. Save it for the body. Masem addressed the opinion/contentious label issues quite well. I really don't see the need to add something as trivial as the mistaken pen id in the lede. C'mon. Editors rejected the inclusion of any mention of conspiracy theories whatsoever in Maddow's BLP - so I ask, why is there a double standard? What valid reason could an editor possibly give to not include this conspiracy theory in the Maddow BLP? Whatever that reason is, that's the reason I'm invoking here. As for what is actually acceptable to include in the lede...the only factual statement (non-opinion) that can be generalized in the lede, if it really has to be included at all, is that Hannity was criticized for not immediately dropping the Seth Rich conspiracy theory after Fox News retracted the story. More detail can be added in the body, including the information about the ongoing rewards. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Atsme, please READ what is being proposed. There is nothing about the EpiPen in the lede, and nothing is being proposed. It is in the body of the article, as it should be. I just mentioned it to you as an example of why the word "false" is justified in that case. As for your "it is in Maddow so it should be here" argument - that has no validity, nobody is buying it, and you might as well drop it. Content is based on WP:Reliable Source coverage according to WP:WEIGHT. It is not based on some kind of other articles say this so we should too criterion. --MelanieN (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

The Maddow comparison is along the same line as WP:ATA. Anyway, I did read what you proposed and my suggestions are:

1. Eliminate "reporting false stories about Hillary Clinton's health". I already explained that coverage was based on the analysis of medical experts. HRC did have health issues after the concussion, and we also know that something caused her to fall and hit her head.
2. Saying "Hannity is often controversial" is weaselly - try Hannity has faced controversy throughout his career on Fox News.
3. Saying he spreads "falsehoods" is POV weighty - needs in-text attribution. What "falsehoods" did he spread? What supports such a claim and what does that mean exactly? Useful article - candid exchange, well-rounded.
4. Hannity's critics claim that he spreads falsehoods and conspiracy theories; however,Hannity rarely grants interviews to mainstream reporters, and believes they are “disgustingly biased, ideological and corrupt.” ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

1. No. At WP we have consistently refused to use or cite "remote diagnosis" - that is, medical opinions offered by professionals who have not actually examined or treated the subject. Most notably, at the Trump article we have never included any of the "mental health analyses" of Trump by psychiatrists and psychologists. As I said before (and won't say again; I get tired of repeating myself) it is true that she had some health issues, but he went way beyond the actual reported issues, to invent stories about seizures, drunkenness, etc. Those invented stories are detailed in the article text. They were false and we can say so. 2 No significant change proposed. 3. Answered already. 4. Irrelevant. --MelanieN (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I think a few may have been missed, like this one Goldwater_rule#Regarding_Donald_Trump where they're hard to find...but staying on course is a good thing. Regardless, while WP tries to avoid medical opinions, that does not warrant inclusion of the statement, "reporting false stories about Hillary Clinton's health". That simply isn't true and is a very partisan statement which makes it noncompliant. If you insist on including it, use in-text attribution but not as a cherrypicked opinion to denigrate - it must also include what the sources say about Hannity basing his reports on a panel of medical experts - which has nothing to do with WP making medical claims - it is simply stating what the sources say. No editorializing beyond that and no coatracking. Also, if you're intention is to include statements by critics, our policies say we also include what the person says in response to that criticism, so please stop trying to censor it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• MelanieN, that's a nice improvement and I support adopting it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Atsme's ideas haven't been incorporated into the existing text (for good reason). In my view we should improve the paragraph as proposed; to the extent someone wants to consider Atsme's objections, that can be done separately from the proposed improvements, because the proposed improvements don't change the situation in that regard. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I'm prepared to insert it as proposed (the modified version) but maybe we should wait a day or two to allow for other opinions. I'm not going to add anything more to the wall of text above, since it may discourage others from commenting. --MelanieN (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

If Hannity was "often controversial", and "promoted falsehoods and conspiracy theories" as claimed, his wouldn't be the most watched cable news program in its new hour, and FOX News wouldn't be the most-watched cable news network for 190 consecutive months. Our job is to not piss-off our readers, either many or few, and simply present the facts about a BLP in a dispassionate tone, but what you're wanting to include in the lede are opinions by critics, obviously ones some, but not all, of our editors support so now we've added the element of partisanship. I think Masem nailed it with the following explanation: User:Atsme/sandbox#Arguments against use. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support -- I support the revised version presented above ("Hannity is often controversial and has been accused of promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories..."). It's an improvement and hits the right points. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

OK,I have inserted the revised paragraph into the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Summary for the record, noting that this action to include was based on local consensus over the weekend and was not based on an RfC. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• I also support MelanieN's proposed text as added to the article. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

BLP violation; listing accusations which is sneaky way to tar someone w/out needing proof of fact

I deleted mere accusations. BLP violation. Lets stick to objective facts.(PeacePeace (talk) 02:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC))

PeacePeace: Please see the discussion immediately above this one, where there was a rough consensus to include the current wording. Also note that the paragraph has been in the article for a long time, and the discussion was merely about how to word it. You are welcome to join in that discussion if you wish. --MelanieN (talk) 02:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Political commentary, controversies, and criticism

Given the content currently in the section (and not remarking on whether or not the material belongs there) I'd like to propose the following changes to the first paragraph:

"Hannity delivers commentary consistent with his conservative views, though the Washington Post contends that during the Obama-era Hannity's "tone shifted" as he began to lean "more heavily on stories he believed were being given short shrift by the 'liberal media'". Hannity has attracted controversy and has been criticized for promoting conspiracy theories and falsehoods. He has also been criticized for being overly supportive of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump to the detriment of other Republican hopefuls in the 2016 Republican Primary. Hannity has also promoted the idea of a "deep state", which he describes as a "Shadow Government" – a network of government officials that is working to hinder the Trump administration."

I know that wordsmithing is not my strong suit, but I agree as was mentioned above that this mini-lede section needs reworking. Do you guys generally think this is a step in the right direction? My thought was basically to nuke the third paragraph, and incorporate what I believe it was trying to say into the first paragraph where it fits a bit better. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Support - and an excellent job of wordsmithing at that. It satisfies neutral, factual, and dispassionate tone with balance and proper weight. Cite the sources and keep doing what your doing. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely not - What you're proposing is to remove reliably sourced text and replace it partially with WP:WEASEL. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Can you tell me what specifically you think is weaselly? Right now the section introduction is kind of a mess. I'm not saying my proposal isn't also a mess, but perhaps some suggestions will help me make it better. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I wrote the text originally. I'm vehemently opposed to removing or rephrasing any of the existing text. If you have suggestions for additional text, I'm prepared to hear it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Having read the two pieces that I believe influenced the way you crafted this section, I get the impression that we're kind of missing the evolution of Hannity from your run-of-the-mill conservative commentator to what he is today. I think that's what you're 3rd paragraph was getting at, but it probably deserves more prominence than what the current text gives it. As for the rest: making it a laundry list of controversies (though it does seem to me to see that you picked out the most notable ones that have the best case for being due) before we launch into explaining each controversy seems unnecessary. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your ideas. What you propose should certainly not be in the first paragraph, which is for general biographical information. Your "WaPo says he has evolved" sentence and reference would be better to put in the text rather than in the lede. Once it is in the text we can decide whether to mention it in the existing fourth paragraph of the lede. About that existing paragraph: the "laundry list" of controversies is necessary IMO; we can't just say "he spreads conspiracy theories" without giving examples; we would be constantly challenged for saying it. Of course we don't explain the individual examples, just mention them; explanation is for the text. As for the rest of your proposed addition, I think our current wording is better. It says he was a strong and early supporter of Trump without saying he was criticized for it, and it includes his own response to criticism. But let's keep discussing. --MelanieN (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC) Striking; I misunderstood where this was intended to go. Sorry. --MelanieN (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I guess it wasn't clear... This is for this section, and not the lede for the article. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Can we use Daily Wire which explains the crux of what IP207 is saying? Hannity actually strayed from hard core conservative views when he supported Trump. He was highly criticized for being a Trump supporter because Trump defied what the GOP had become. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we could both use the Daily Wire piece (saying the shift occurred with Trump) AND the WaPo piece (saying it occurred during the Obama years). Want to propose language? --MelanieN (talk) 00:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN, I've been taking all my brain enhancing vitamins religiously for months but I just bagged up what's left with plans to return them for a refund because I don't understand what you're asking and it seems simple enough that I should understand it. I thought the IP207's paragraph addressed the Hannity criticisms quite well without treading into UNDUE or BLP noncompliance territory. I remember reading a discussion on one of the noticeboard's (or it could've been in our PAGs) that devoting a section to Criticism was noncompliant with NPOV, and that the article should be well-written so that criticisms are written into the prose per MOS (using inline citations and for disputed contentious statements using in-text attribution). What are you not liking about IP207's proposed paragraph as currently written? ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so as I understand it then, Atsme is fine with the language I proposed (but prefers Daily Wire sourcing). Haven't heard anything back from Snoogans but he was a hard no. I can't tell, but it seems like MelanieN is a "maybe". I'll go ahead and work on adding in the refs (I'm slow at that), and see if anyone comments in the intervening time. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Small Changes to lede beginning on 12/15/17

It looks like a few editors have changed the lede a bit (changed "falsehood" to "lie", used more direct language). I'm on the fence about reverting since I guess it has been almost two weeks since changes were last discussed, but wanted to start the discussion here... My concerns are that the consensus version uses "accused" and there is a world of difference between that and what the text currently states. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and reverted. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Sacred Heart Seminary

The school does exist. Sacred Heart Seminary was founded 1873, and was adjacent to the all-girls school Sacred Heart Academy, see NY Times. — Strongjam (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

'Smear'

In the Jake Tapper section of the article, it calls the accusations made by Hannity a smear. It can be argued that this is the case but I am not at all convinced it is the role of Wikipedia to assert this. As editors are repeatedly reverting my edits without discussion, I would like to know other people's opinions on the issue. Oscar248 (talk) 13:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:NPOV requires that we present information from a neutral point of view. It does not mean that we should replace meaningful words with meaningless euphemisms. "Smear" is both accurate and descriptive. Accuse is not.- MrX 13:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Fox News deliberately lied and stated that Tapper said something that he did not. Even after retraction, Hannity continued to insist it was true. "Smear" is more than accurate here. ValarianB (talk) 13:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Not sure they said he said something he did not, they rather edited what he said to imply he said something he did not (without actually claiming he said it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Are we now good with the fact that the second source uses "smear"? Not sure why the word would be in question, given the source. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

In retrospect Smear is better then Lie, they were really very careful to not actually say anything untrue.Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

False claims about CNN's Jake Tapper

Ancillary to this, I agree with Oscar248 that this is not a false story (he did say it after all) but is rather a misrepresentation of what he said.Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

If there are no objections raised I will revert it to say something like "Misleading claims about CNN's Jake Tapper".Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The line reads Fox News distorted a statement by Jake Tapper to make it appear, emphasis mine. Deliberate actions on the part of Fox News to disseminate a story that they knew was untrue, a false narrative carried by Sean Hannity even after Fox retracted it. "Misleading" does not do it justice. Tapper himself said Fox News is lying. ValarianB (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course he would. The fact is they did not lie they distorted. So it should be renamed to reflect the fact what they said was distorted. What did they say that was untrue?Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

In fact what do the sources say, false or misleading?Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

POV in Article

I am not currently editing but I do not support the text in the lede and much of the article. All of the criticism in the article is about the Hannity or The Sean Hannity Show and none of it mentions that this is stuff he is saying on his show. This is the Sean Hannity BLP page. However people might feel about his SHOWS and what he says on his shows the man himself is pretty boring. PTR (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a specific section in mind you think needs a rewrite?Slatersteven (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Mostly the short paragraphs like Climate Change or Islam. The details under those sections are about things he said and guests he had on his shows back in 2001, 2006, 2010, and 2011. I know what he says on the shows can be inflammatory but I think the two should be separated for Wikipedia. PTR (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't really see a point here. The "Sean Hannity Show" is just the medium by which the man expresses his controversial views. Criticism of Hannity or criticism of the show is essentially the same thing. ValarianB (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm confused. The guy's claim to fame is his show. Just about all of the source material concerns is show. It's his show and he decides what's on it. Are you suggesting that our article shouldn't discuss his show? Or are you saying that criticism should be restricted to his personal life and exclude stuff about his work? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Since his success is based on ratings we don't actually know if these are his personal views. If he says these things in his real life or in interviews then they belong on the Bio but if they are on the shows and there are pages for the shows then I think the material is better there. PTR (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Seems to me they can go equally well in both articles, as whilst they are show content they are also his views.Slatersteven (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

From the responses I can see that there is an effort to push the POV on the article - so I'll step away until there is more neutral support. At least be aware that the information under LGBT rights is also under the Career section. I don't think the person that added that section read the article. PTR (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

PTR, you've piqued my curiosity. Tou don't have anything you can point to that suggests Hannity doesn't believe some of the things he says on his show, do you? Like newspaper articles or interviews? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't. I've never looked for anything but when a show is done for entertainment and depends on ratings like a Howard Stern, Don Imus and Hannity - I think you can't discern the true beliefs or the shocking statements from the stories for ratings. I don't like his show but I think the bio and the show are different animals.PTR (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

If RS make the claim that this is all just an act and pretense (to entertain?) That would be a good reason to remove material form his show and instated have that. If he claims this that would also be a reason(it fact it would by vital to give this more prominence then his affected opinions). But if this is just your speculation it is not a valid reason. So can you produce any RS to back your opinion?Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I think PTR already explained this is just their speculation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Then we can end this now. Because until;l he does produce RS we are not going to make edits based on just his opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Youtube Schmoyoho Culture Reference

Can we add that he was popularly mentioned by Schmoyoho in "TRUMP VS. CLINTON (ft. Blondie) - Songify 2016" by Donald Trump as he claimed to be the only one not refusing to talk to Sean Hannity and even got a Sean Hannity 10 Minute Loop? Schmoyoho makes comedic youtube-music-video from original clips, in one of them working with Weird Al. --87.143.207.208 (talk) 13:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I doubt it as he is just another youtuber, not anyone of note.Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Not just another youtuber. Schmoyoho is the youtube channel for The Gregory Brothers, who are quite notable; e.g. they've been written up in Politico. That said, if we're going to include a reference to the Trump vs. Clinton Songify then we'd need an independent reliable source to establish noteworthiness. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Are 2.3 Mio Views, 34k up/downvotes and 3.1 Mio Subscribers noteworthy? Fox News Prime time viewer count for November 2017 was 2.3 Mio. http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/fox-news-is-basic-cables-most-watched-network-for-the-17th-straight-month/350264 There are a lot of people just knowing Sean from this video and not from fox news. Thus it would also be interesting to read about why Trump claimed that no one talks to Sean. --87.143.207.208 (talk) 08:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

No. Lots of extremely popular and more prominent youtubers have mentioned Sean Hannity. At a minimum we need a reliable independent secondary source (such as an article in a reputable newspaper) demonstrating that the video is noteworthy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Fix this misleading garbage! This is an online encyclopedia not an op-ed piece for cnn. Disgusting!

This is an extremely left-leaning, biased, opinion-filled, and fact-lacking entry. This needs to be fixed NOW or I will refuse to use Wikipedia personally as well as in my classroom! Hannity is the number one rated cable news show and his erroneous entry is referring to him as a conspiracy theorist and that he reports falsehoods. These are completely unsubstantiated claims and this needs to be addressed now. If this is not fixed, Sean Hannity should sue for libel! FIX NOW! Dornj32 (talk) 01:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

"Point/Counterpoint"

"Point/Counterpoint" debate segments of 60 Minutes, with conservative James J. Kilpatrick, Shana Alexander, and Nicholas von Hoffman, were satirized by Saturday Night Live.

• https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/shana-alexander-famed-for-point-counterpoint-dies/
• http://www.sentinelsource.com/opinion/my-gifted-counterpoint-on-minutes-wrote-like-an-angel-by/article_cf66570c-f7aa-5f2a-9b2f-b636f24420cd.html
• http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/point-counterpoint-lee-marvin-and-michelle-triola/2846665

64.175.40.231 (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

yes, do you have an edit to suggest?Slatersteven (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Climate change

There are numerous statements in the article that are not neutral. These include “Hannity falsely claimed that scientists can’t agree if global warming is fact or fiction.” That is not a provably false statement. It’s highly debatable, perhaps even dubious, but not demonstrably false. This happens at many points in the article. SDW2001 (talk) 01:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Global warming is not debatable. ValarianB (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I think he mans the statement about Hannity, so is it sourced, and if so do we attribute it to that source?Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

It's verifiable that he did say that; I found a transcript online. But what does the McKnight source say specifically about falsity? I don't have access. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe just remove the word falsely, and let the reader decide if his claim is true.Slatersteven (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

That's a violation of WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia should refer to fringe theories and blatant falsehoods as such. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

If the source is reliable and says the statement was false, then we should say it was false. At a minimum we should explain the scientific consensus per WP:FRINGE, as Hannity's statement was misleading at best. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I removed "falsely" and made the language more neutral in a few other places. And we should not use that paragraph to claim or explain that Hannity is wrong. There is plenty else in the paragraph to imply that but let his words stand on their own. --MelanieN (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hannity was pressing a misleading, fringe, and possibly false view. It's our obligation to communicate that explicitly to readers. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Possible, But is it true that all scientists (note scientists, not Climatologists, cleaver but there we are) agree, if not then what he said is technically not false, just not the whole truth. Hard to see how we can word this, without pushing the POV envelope. I suspect we may just have to look for more analysis of what he said, and quote that.Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

That's why we need access to the source, which is behind a paywall. Perhaps we can track down the editor who added the content, or ask the research desk for help. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Or look for other sources? what we need is a bit more analysis of this then one persons opinion it is false (as it (as I said) is technically not, just a bit disingenuous).Slatersteven (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I looked and couldn't find one, but if you found something it could certainly be helpful. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

No I have not, and this is what worries me. I really do not think we can put this in Wikipedia voice, not with one source. If he had said "There is not consensus among climate scientists" or some such then yes, Fringe come into it. What he said can be shown to not be false (there are plenty of scientists who have publicly stated they do not believe in global warming).Slatersteven (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 Wikipedia. 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 [4] 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

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. [5] --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 [emphasis mine] 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.[6] --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.[7] 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 Wikipedia 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)

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

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 - Wikipedia 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)

Off-topic political discussion. The talk page is for discussing the content of the article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
To the extent that that is happening - and I have my doubts, it often seems like we're actually white washing lots of Trump related articles so as to avoid negative aspects until these get impossible to ignore - I think that in good part it's simply a reflection of some unfortunate trends on the conservative side of things. Today's "conservatives" are a lot different then even ten years ago (and this does not appear to be limited to the United States or even developed countries).Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC) I agree. On a related note, why does the lead say "Hannity has been accused of promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories," rather than the more direct "Hannity has promoted falsehoods and conspiracy theories,". As far as I understand, his promotion of the conspiracy theories is what's notable, not the accusations.- MrX 🖋 21:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC) "Today's "conservatives" are a lot different then even ten years ago" Here's some perspective: Today's liberals are a lot different than even ten years ago" ... or even twenty years ago. Take a look at Bill Clinton's speeches, even take a look at Hillary's speeches or Dianne Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi from ten, fifteen years ago. The things they espoused were what the current president espouses and supports today. Things Conservatives have always been for. So tell us - which side has really changed? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC) Rachel Maddow summed it up well: "I'm undoubtedly a liberal, which means that I'm in almost total agreement with the Eisenhower-era Republican party platform. Our politics have drifted so far to the right now that, for example, no one believes there is a single, confirmable judicial nominee out there who is as liberal as the Supreme Court Justice he or she will replace—a Republican appointed by a Republican president in the '70s. Justice Stevens didn't become a liberal once he was on the Court—he maintained his moderate Republican-style views, while the Court (and the rest of our national politics) shifted so far to the right that he ended up on the Court's far-left wing, simply by standing still." --MelanieN (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC) During Eisenhower's time (which Maddow doesn't remember because she wasn't born then - I, however, do remember), a "Liberal" was an anomaly in the Democrat party. Even during Kennedy's short tenure and then the LBJ years, a "Liberal" was a new concept. Kennedy wasn't a Liberal, and neither was Johnson or RFK. Hubert Humphrey was a quintessential Liberal, and the DNC was not going down that road. At all. Even with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Democrats were not on-board. Who was? The GOP. And, truth be told, they still are. MLK was a Republican and a Conservative. Malcolm X was wholly against Blacks being Democrats. Why? Because they were anti-civil rights and wanted to keep a certain kind of control over minorities. That was the party and even into the 1970s with George Wallace. Liberalism didn't take over the DNC until identity politics became "a thing" and the entire party became something that even Hubert Humphrey wouldn't recognize - which is where we are today. Sorry, but Maddow couldn't be more wrong and intellectually dishonest about her attempt to equate Ike and Liberalism. Economist Thomas Sowell hit the nail on the head when he said re: Liberal and Democrat control over America's poorest cities where he believes Liberalism has prevented the black population from rising out of poverty: "When Democrats are in control, cities tend to go soft on crime, reward cronies with public funds, establish hostile business environments, heavily tax the most productive citizens and set up fat pensions for their union friends. Simply put, theirs is a Blue State blueprint for disaster." That picture doesn't sound anything like Eisenhower's politics and policies in the least. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC) You know, I read like the first couple sentences and then was going to write: "Maybe the problem is that your definition of a "liberal" is a bit off, hmmm?" and say something about the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act but then I actually read the rest of your comment and ... Holy Shit you got some twisted ideas about history!!! MLK was a Republican and a Conservative??? What freakin' alternative universe are you talking about? Wait. Here. The Democrats weren't on board with the Voting Rights Act of 1965??? Funny, that must be why 46 of them sponsored (sponsored, not voted) it, compared to 20 Republicans. Must also be why a Democratic president originated the push for it and a different Democratic president signed it. And yes, the Republican party of that era was a lot more sane than the GOP of today and the Democrats had a significant racist faction. Guess what happened to that faction? Yeah, that's right, they left the Democratic Party, joined the GOP and helped to turn it into what it's become today. Oh and remind me who this guy called Barry Goldwater was and how he made his name. I mean, this is like the history version of WP:COMPETENCE - you do have to actually know certain basic facts before you choose to engage in these discussions. (and Sowell hasn't done crap in economics since he wrote his thesis back in whenever that was - not to mention that these "blueprint for disaster" much better describes what happened in places like Kansas after Kobach and his GOP pals took over. And Oklahoma. And the Carolinas. And Kentucky). Man, seriously, lay off the fake news and come back to reality.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC) Also, it's pretty clear that Maddow was referring to the economic aspects of Eisenhower era GOP - before they went nuts on the supply side kool aid. Eisenhower's economic policy included, let's see, reduction in military spending, general opposition to tax cuts and specifically for the wealthy, increases in the minimum wage, expansion of social security (privatization of that wasn't on anyone's radar back then which, again, shows how much the GOP has moved to the right), expansion of unemployment insurance and a general, if somewhat vague, support for unions. So yea, in that respect Maddow was perfectly right.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC) (and of course Malcolm X wasn't a Democrat nor a liberal - he was a radical. What does that have to do with anything?) Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC) (and the GOP of today being on board with the Civil Rights and Voting Acts? You sure? Because a Trump nominee can't even acknowledge that Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka was correctly decided [8] ).Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC) During Eisenhower's time (which Maddow doesn't remember because she wasn't born then Maddow has a bachelor's in public policy from Stanford and a doctorate in political science from Oxford University (Lincoln College). So yeah, it's safe to say that deespite your clumsy gotcha attempt, she knows more about politics than you, especially given what you demonstrated above. --Calton | Talk 02:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC) Volunteer Marek, I'm going to take a guess here that you are not as old as I am and that you do not remember the Civil Rights Movement, you do not remember MLK, you do not remember Malcolm X, you do not remember the Johnson Administration, and you do not know what hoops Johnson and Humphrey had to jump through to get those votes for the Voting Rights Act. That the Civil Rights Act was strongly opposed by Democrats. I'm wondering if you even remember the Democrat Party of the 70s with George Wallace's run for the presidency. Maybe you were alive through all of it and were of voting age, paying attention to politics at that time. I'm thinking not. If you were, you would know that what is in the history books now does not reflect the actual politics of the DNC then and Liberalism and the DNC is a relatively new thing. No, I don't live in an alternate universe. I do have a very good memory and remember it all. If you weren't there, don't rely on history that has been since revised. As far as Thomas Sowell goes, you and I should both be so lucky to have as brilliant a mind and see things from his perspective as both a trained, experienced economist and a Black man who was most certainly more there than even I was. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC) Look. It's simple. You claimed MLK was "a Republican and a conservative". That's a false and ridiculous statement. You claimed that the Democrats opposed ("were not on board") with the Voting Rights and the Civil Rights Act. That's a false statement. The only part of it that is true is in regards to the Dixiecrats. But then that means that you are either purposefully or ignorantly ... ignoring the fact that the Dixiecrats left the Democratic Party over these acts and joined the Republicans. You claimed the Democrats were "were anti-civil rights". Which is also a false and ridiculous claim. I don't care how old you are or what you think you "remember". Those are just blatantly wrong, "alternative universe", kind of claims. And the fact that rather than actually addressing the points - who was Barry Goldwater again? - you choose to do a little argument from authority by invoking your age, sorta shows that you can't back any of it up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC) VM, almost all Blacks were Republicans then. And why wouldn't they be? What party was created for the reason of oppressing them and what party was behind the creation of the KKK? You're looking at history through a current-lens rather than taking what our country was like in context and according to the times. The known racist LBJ said, "I’ll have those <insert racist nomenclature for Blacks here> voting Democratic for 200 years” when referring to one of the benefits (from his perspective) of getting the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act passed. If the DNC didn't need the Black vote, he wouldn't have done something he knew would insure the Black vote in the future. Even the very Liberal MSNBC notes Johnson's racism and reason for getting those two landmark bills passed. [9] -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC) (ec)Well, first, your claim was about MLK, not "almost all Blacks". And it was a false claim. And now that it's been shown to be a false claim you're trying to ... substitute in another false claim. No, it's not true that "almost all Blacks were Republicans then". This is ridiculous. You're off by about 70 years. In the 1932 election, about 70% of Africans Americans voted Democrat. In the 1948 election, about 77% of African Americans voted Democrat. It basically fluctuated around 70% until Johnson, who got something like 90% of the African American vote. I'm not looking at history through a current lens. You're just looking at... hell, I don't know, an alternative universe that never existed. It's probably relevant that this discussion is taking place on the talk page of the Sean Hannity article. You're also evading the main point. While the Democratic party may have "moved left" in the sense that they dumped the racist Dixiecrats of the Wallace sort (who - though not Wallace himself - then went running to the GOP), the Republican part has moved hard right like a two legged cheetah on roller skates.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC) And this from the also very Liberal Huffington Post on LBJ's racism and reasons for getting the two bills passed as well as the "farce" the writer feels the DNC has been promoting for too long: [10]. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC) This is demonstrably nuts. What makes you think this?? Paul Ryan said "Party of Lincoln" at an Alabama pig roast on tv? SPECIFICO talk 03:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC) And I'm going to guess -- based on the above -- that you're unaware that history -- and Wikipedia articles -- based not on fuzzy misremembered details that conveniently slot into one's existing prejudices, but on these things known as "books" and "actual facts". --Calton | Talk 02:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC) "it's safe to say that deespite your clumsy gotcha attempt, she knows more about politics than you" Calton, what's my education, what degrees do I hold, what is my profession? Despite your clumsy gotcha attempt, the truth is, you have no clue who I am, how much education I have, what my professional experience and background is. Don't assume. It's seriously not a smart move in an anonymous and blind internet environment. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC) More nuts and crackers. Not you, just your statements. SPECIFICO talk 03:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC) Frankly, I don't believe you when you say you're not referring to me. I do believe you are assuming I'm White since you just called me a "Cracker". Well, isn't that special? A heated discussion is one thing, but you took it too far. I'm out. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC) Ummm, no, SPECIFICO did not call you a "cracker". I'm guessing this is the reference and all it means is that you're saying crazy and absurd things. Which you are. But hey, you wanna play the victim, go ahead.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:45, 22 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)

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^(talk) 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)

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? [11]. 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)

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.

• [12] DrF, why do you believe that the point of view that "enhanced interrogation" is a "euphemism for torture" should be stated in Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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[ "rectal rehydration", "rectal fluid resuscitation", and "rectal feeding". In addition to brutalizing detainees, there were threats to their families such as threats to harm children, and threats to sexually abuse or to cut the throat of detainees' mothers.” Enhanced interrogation techniques O3000 (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

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

• [13] 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)