Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-29 Sean Hannity, under God

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-04-29 Sean Hannity, under God

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.


[edit] Request Information

Request made by: DanielZimmerman 21:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Where is the issue taking place?
Sean_Hannity#Criticisms
Who's involved?
User:DanielZimmerman, User:WilliamThweatt, User:RustyShackleford
What's going on?
  • I added an "our Creator" section to the Sean Hannity page under the criticisms section. The other two users edited out that section for the reasons stated on the Sean Hannity history page. I claim that he is quoting the Preamble incorrectly, William claims that it is a paraphrase so my statement is POV and Rusty claims that it is not encyclopedic. You can see the discussion on the Sean Hannity talk page. --User:DanielZimmerman
  • As an "involved" user, I am not sure where to place my comments, but as this comment is directly related to Mr. Zimmerman's statment above I will place it here. First of all, Mr. Zimmerman is misrepresenting my argument (assuming Good Faith, it may be that he just doesn't understand my objections; for a complete recap, see Talk:Sean Hannity). I do not claim that the statement in question is definately a paraphrase, only that it is possible (and highly probable) that it was Hannity's intention to paraphrase, not quote verbatim. Short of asking Hannity himself, we have no way of knowing for certain. That he intended to quote the Declaration verbatim is Mr. Zimmerman's interpretation from which he builds his argument that Hannity is incorrect and presents it in the article as fact. This is wrong for a WP article on many levels. First of all, it is logically flawed in that the conclusion is based on an unverifiable premise (Mr. Zimmerman claims it can be verified, but his only source is a FoxNews.com edited transcript that was prepared after-the-fact by a FoxNews.com copyeditor who placement of the written quotation marks is hardly indicative of Mr. Hannity's intention). Secondly, Mr. Zimmerman's interpretation of Hannity's intention introduces Original Research and quite possibly POV.
  • I appologize if I took your claim as being that it was definitely a paraphrase. We can go back and forth as to what it is. Since foxnews.com shows it as an incorrect direct quote and not a paraphrase, im inclined to believe them. The foxnews.com source is a verifiable transcript. DanielZimmerman 14:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
On another level, Mr. Zimmerman has stated on the talk page that even if Hannity is paraphrasing, he is still guilty of misrepresenting the Founders' intended meaning (BTW, I'm paraphrasing Mr. Zimmerman's argument, not quoting directly). This is highly speculative and definately attempts to introduce POV as fact. His assertion that the Founders' intended meaning is misrepresented rests on his opinion of the Founders' intention which, according to Zimmerman's own argument, is based on his interpretation of whether the "their" in question is being used as third-person singular possesive or, indeed, the third-person plural possesive, in which case "our Creator" would be an acceptable, accurate and expedient paraphrase (again, see Talk:Sean Hannity for comprehensive argument).
  • The fact that it is "third person possessive", regardless of singular or plural, has a much different meaning than if it was first person possessive. Regardless of the argument about meaning, it is still an incorrect quote. And it is a quote. It is reported as a quote on a verifiable website. I gave a quote where the context also clearly shows it as a quote (because he quoted other references in the same sentance) What more do you need? DanielZimmerman 14:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Now, having refuted Mr. Zimmerman's position, I believe that, in any case, this whole topic is highly irrelevant. The issue of Hannity "misquoting the Declaration" gets no hits on Google, which, I'm aware is not a criteria here, but it does lend credence to the idea that it is Not Notable and Original Research and not worthy of inclusion in an Encyclopedic article.--WilliamThweatt 01:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Refuted? That is obviously your POV but not fact. Im sure I can find a particular wording on a statement describing many of the articles on wikipedia that will come up with 0 hits on google (even though it is not a criteria here as you admit). DanielZimmerman 14:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • For the record, I tried many different combinations of words and phrases in an honest attempt to find any reference to this issue. I found none.--WilliamThweatt 17:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
What would you like to change about that?
I would like the our Creator section to be returned, since from the verifiable sources that I link, the context clearly shows him making an incorrect quote and not a paraphrase.
If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
No discretion is necessary.
Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?
I would be more than happy to help out Wikipedia in any way, including mediation assignements.
This is, following the Categorical Imperative, the idea that you might want to do
what you expect others to do. You don't have to, of course, that's why it's a question.
...

[edit] Mediator response

It appears initial response as below ended the dispute.


In and of itself a link to forum doesn't really prove this is a criticism since that's not an institutional source. That is anyone can say anything and if it hasn't been repeated it hasn't gotten enough notice basically all you are proving is one guy at one time said X. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards_and_posts_to_Usenet Assuming that is the only source, here is how I would recommend you handle this situation.

  1. Take your argument here expand it and create a web page with that argument (about our creator vs. their creator)
  2. In that article mention the connection with Hannity.
  3. Hopefully at least one other website then sites the page you made in connection with Hannity
  4. Then you can go ahead and link in to wikipedia

Sorry I know that's not what you wanted to hear but there isn't much for me to mediate. Like I said your argument is excellent but excellent arguments from obscure sources are original research. Now if we have several sources things change. jbolden1517Talk 00:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It appears this isn't getting reposted so I'm closing this case out. jbolden1517Talk 01:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence

Please report evidence in this section with {{Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Evidence}} for misconduct and {{Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Evidence3RR}} for 3RR violations. If you need help ask a mediator or an advocate. Evidence is of limited use in mediation as the mediator has no authority. Providing some evidence may, however, be useful in making both sides act more civil.
Wikipedia:Etiquette: Although it's understandably difficult in a heated argument, if the other party is not as civil as you'd like them to be, make sure to be more civil than him or her, not less.

Here is one source of many that shows [Sean Hannity] stating "our creator".

HANNITY: Take "In God We Trust" off U.S. coins, right? "One nation under God" out of the Pledge. We go back to the Declaration of Independence and say, "Endowed by our creator," out, too?

According to the transcript, he is attributing the statement "endowed by our creator" as a direct quote just as he attributes the statement "one nation under God" to the pledge and "in God we trust" off of the money. There are also many other times when Hannity has misquoted our for their. DanielZimmerman 04:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Found a cached reference on hannity.com itself where someone criticized Hannity for "our" vs "their". Criticism DanielZimmerman 15:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I commend your dilligence. However, the fact that one person mentioned it on a web-forum (which could have been you, for all we know...I'm not accusing you...just saying it could have been) doesn't make it a notable criticism.--WilliamThweatt 17:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
It seems that in order to state that something is a criticism, that there has to be proof that there was an actual criticism. I have now shown one example of a person who criticized Mr. Hannity for his use of "our" instead of "their". It was done on his own website. And no, it was not me. If you could make a reasonable case as to why something should be disqualified as a valid source then do so. Just because something "could have been me" means nothing. If you can provide why this source does not meet WP:V then please do so. However, i asserted that Hannity has been criticized for this and then verified it with this link. I reject the notability argument for reasons listed on my talk page and the notability discussions on wikipedia. DanielZimmerman 18:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
You're missing the point entirely. In order for anything to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia, it must be noteworthy. One solitary anonymous comment on a web-forum is not notable. If a prominent figure (Al Gore or Howard Dean, for example) publicly makes the same comment, it becomes notable. Everyone in public life is criticized for every conceivable thing every day on every web forum. By your logic, every comment by any Tom, Dick or Harry becomes worthy of inclusion.--WilliamThweatt 22:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
First, according to the page you cite, There is no official policy on notability.. Second, notability is currently a disputed guideline because of its subjectivity (and while the discussion is on the people page, the guideline for notability as a whole is in dispute). Finally, I cited a source where someone other than myself criticized Hannity on his own forum. Inclusion of this topic in a "criticisms" section therefor meets the verifiability policy as well as the No Original Research policy. I dont think we are going to get anywhere discussing this issue. That is why I brought it to the mediation cabal. DanielZimmerman 21:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.


[edit] Comments by others

While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.


This seems to be the appropriate place to comment on this issue; I do not feel neutral enough to mediate this dispute myself. As I see it, there are several problems with the assertion under contention — I will leave aside the issue of whether this is a "quote" or a "paraphrase" since, short of contacting Hannity himself there is no way of determining this. (1) If this is a frequent misquotation, it would be helpful to find a source other than a transcription of a conversation (I assume the conversation was unscripted). I, for one, would hate to be held to quoting precisely everything I brought up in a conversation — I fear it would leave me with very little to say at all. (2) That Hannity misquotes a passage, however frequently, is not, in itself a criticism of Hannity. Apart from political bickering, does this misquotation have any real relevance? (3) In keeping with WP:NOR, if this is, in fact, a criticism, the criticism should be properly attributed to a reputable source (even a reference to a blog would be something). See also WP:NOT. iggytalk 08:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion