Talk:Ben Domenech

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


David Bowie/Q Magazine[edit]

I moved the following from the Plagiarism section:

A poster on Atrios also noted similarities between Domenech's review of a David Bowie album and one published in Q Magazine.[1]

The link to Eschaton is to a post, not to the comment cited. --AStanhope 23:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality dispute?[edit]

This article is now tagged as being the subject of a NPOV dispute, but no explanation has been given.

68.232.142.66 03:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps it should include all the movie reviewers who Domenech hasn't plagiarized from? Would it meet NPOV standards then? -Schrodinger82 06:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that makes no sense.

Why is it stated that he is openly homosexual? I have never heard him announce that nor seen any proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.75.18 (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Defense of plagiarism[edit]

"RedState contributor Erick (Erickson) came to Domenech's defense [7], insisting that the alleged plagiarism were "lies", and that the critics were "censoring, silencing, and viciously, irrationally attacking", and that the criticism would create suspicion of bloggers in professional journalism circles. He further defended the plagiarism as being a misunderstanding where "permissions obtained" were not reflected in the online record. The Flat Hat student newspaper, however, added a note to Domenech-authored articles that they were investigating the plagiarism charges. [8]"

Do we really need all that? The source cited is not notable, and more importantly, it does not provide any verifiable or compelling information. Simply finding some guy who states that the accusations are "lies" doesn't really mean anything -- particularly when the evidence in favor of guilt is pretty convincing and available online. Recomend a delete until a defense with verifiable information is found. Schrodinger82 12:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's relevant; it comes from another Red State editor who knows him, and this essentially summarizes the fellow's defense. The fact that the defense is plainly wrong aside, the fact that they didn't just apologize and accept blame is notable. 70.112.100.53

I think that it is an important part of the overall narrative. Such anger! Such self-righteous indignation! Such drama! --AStanhope 14:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After realizing that Ben was the co-founder of RedState, I no longer have qualms, under the "self-published people commenting about themself" deal. Man, the people on that site are insane. You know you're in trouble when even Michelle Malkin calls for your resignation, yet you're still holding steadfast that he's innocent. Schrodinger82 07:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, it's now pretty irrevelant, and probably wasn't all that relevant to begin with. Now we can use Domenech's own initial "defense" if we'd like, or just cut this paragraph out entirely since it's become redundant, so go to town if you'd like. I'm too tired to finish this sente --BarrettBrown 04:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added most of that, but I agreed with the trims, too. At the time it was just becoming clear where this was heading. My reasoning remains that it demonstrated that Domenech's associates at RedState were vigorously defending him, which seems relevant to the overall story. (There were many bloggers who defended him on their own sites, but so what?) Part of this story was the "battle stations" approach by the left and right bloggers. --Dhartung | Talk 08:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree, because at the time Ben himself hadn't made any statements, and so this was the next best thing. In fact, we should keep something like this in for the exact "battle stations" reason you mention, since it shows how RedState initially handled it. So, I guess, leave this one in. --BarrettBrown 18:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is Erick Erickson not notable? He's a regular on Hannity, Limbaugh, and even Wolf Blitzer's situation room. He's been profiled by the New Yorker and other major magazines and cited by politicians from Jim DeMint to Karl Rove etc. You'd have to be a moron or a partisan hack to say that's not a notable person. That entire paragraph is entirely relevant. The political agenda on display be the "editors" above is disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetableist (talk • contribs) 04:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Resigned?"[edit]

Let's be honest. He didn't "resign", he was fired because he was a plaigarist. He resigned in the same manner that Nixon "resigned". --Cyde Weys 04:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Domenech also said words to the effect that he is not a crook [2]. Oh well, but the fact seems to be that he did resign. If you can prove otherwise fine with me.--CSTAR 05:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He only "resigned" in the sense of "he was forced to resign", i.e., fired. There's a big difference between someone amicably resigning a position and someone being forced to resign a position because of serious troubling concerns. Although I guess the rest of the article makes it clear enough why he was forced to resign. --Cyde Weys 05:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I undertand what you're saying, Cyde, but many/most public resignations are under similar circumstances and we always let them get away with saying resignation, even thought everybody knows what happened. "He resigned to spend more time with his family." Yeah, right. Brady at the Washington Post seems to have said that had Ben not resigned, he would have been fired instead. There are legal aspects to this as well: somebody who has been fired can collect unemployment insurance and might seek to file a complaint about being terminated. Resigning from a position generally excludes one from collecting unemployment. --AStanhope 14:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:No original research. Unless we have independent citable verification (say, leaked internal e-mails), there's no justification for transcribing that implicit assumption in an encyclopedia article. --Dhartung | Talk 08:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, someone at the Post seems to have been quoted as saying that if he didn't quit, he would have been fired, so if someone wants to find that and source it, should be relevant. --BarrettBrown 03:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism and education[edit]

I wonder if this guy's tendency to plagiarism is the result of being "home-schooled". I imagine he probably never saw anyone being punished, let alone faced such punishment himself, for cheating off a neighbour's test paper or copying someone else's homework.

This is an odd idea. Do you really think that you need to see punishment happen to know right from wrong? --Vardamana 11:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think there might be a point there. If the only people he was responsible to where his parents and they didn't care about his plagiarism. I also notice that he spent Sunday mornings watching the political talk shows, not in church. :-) Steve Dufour 18:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Vardamana, but whereas he/she seems to scoff, there is in fact a huge divide between those of us who believe that we have an intrinsic sense of knowing right from wrong, and those of us who hold that it must be drummed into us on a case by case basis. So yes, Vardamana, there are lots of people in the latter camp and until you realise that people really do think that way, it can be very hard to understand where they are coming from. The "morality/ethics must be imposed by force/threat" philosophy aligns loosely with religious fundamentalism and radical conservatism, but I am not claiming a strict correlation.137.205.238.43 (talk) 10:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Libel section[edit]

I removed a "Libel" section regarding an article Domenech wrote in college because its only reference link was to a single LiveJournal entry. Considering that the section claimed improper actions on Domenech's behalf by the president of the college and the vice president of student affairs, it needs to have something verifiable to back it up.

I agree, and if better sourcing is found, I think it should still be tightened up a bit more than it was. --BarrettBrown 04:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It seemed like the LiveJournal entry and the entry here came from the same source, as I haven't seen anything about this alleged incident anywhere else.

Notability[edit]

This person seems to be one of those who are notable for only one thing. By WP policy they should not have bios. Steve Dufour 02:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. He founded one of the most prominent conservative blogs, took a job with the Washington Post and then resigned after liberal bloggers discovered extensive plagiarism in his work. It was extensively covered in mainstream media. FCYTravis 02:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being fired from a job, which is what 90% of the article is about, does not qualify a person for a WP bio. Steve Dufour 02:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple questions[edit]

Is there something wrong with the Washington Post's hiring system that they didn't recognize his insincerity? How could he be so stupid to consider working for them when he should have known he would be found out? Redddogg 13:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good questions. If you want to get into conspiracy theory stuff then consider that most conservatives wouldn't care about his plagiarism any more then they care about Rush Limbaugh's drug use. It is more likely that the real target is the Post, for their efforts to move to the right recently. Steve Dufour 02:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regnery[edit]

I deleted this sentence and its source:

  • He resigned from the Regnery post upon taking the position with Washingtonpost.com. Human events article

The source is a blog. The assertion is contradicted by contemporary press accounts, for example:

  • Mr. Domenech works full time at Regnery Publishing, a publisher of conservative authors like Michelle Malkin and Tony Blankley....A spokeswoman for Regnery, Angela Phelps, said that while Mr. Domenech remained an employee, the company would look into the accusations. New York Times. Mar 25, 2006
  • He was still awaiting a final decision on his continued employment by Regnery, the rightwing publisher responsible for some of the most lurid accounts of Bill Clinton's presidency. The Guardian. Mar 27, 2006.

If Domenech left Regnery, it was after the plagiarism story broke. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That first link is to a blog, but it is a blog at Human Events, a publication owned by Eagle Publishing, which also owns Regnery. I'm pretty sure they would know if he left first or not. Iamradagast 16:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you'd think, but immediately after the plagiarism came to light the spokesperson for Regnery indicated he was still an employee. It may have been a situation where the subject's resignation was discussed, or even decided upon, but had not yet been finalized. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight to plagiarism[edit]

If it is true that he went back to work for RedState and is continuing his career then the information about his being asked to leave the Washington Post might end up being a minor incident in his life. It probably shouldn't be given so much space in the article then. ( p.s. please compare with Janet Cooke, a much more famous Washington Post reporter who also got into ethical problems but with a much shorter WP article.) (p.p.s What are the ethical standards expected of bloggers?) Steve Dufour 03:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The plagiarism was extensive and of long duration, not a single incident. The revelation got extensive coverage, and is still referred to in the newspapers. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So should the opening sentence be: "Ben Domenech is a dishonest blogger."? Steve Dufour 04:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure we can find a middle path.
Jayson Blair (born March 23, 1976, Columbia, Maryland) is a former New York Times reporter who was forced to resign from the newspaper in May 2003, after he was caught plagiarizing and fabricating elements of his stories.
That's one solution. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think being forced to leave a job after 3 days is worth a WP article. If he goes on as a blogger that will be his notability (unless he decides to do something else). Of course his dishonesty and the Post incident should still be mentioned in the article. Steve Dufour 07:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He was noteworthy before the plagiarism was revealed due to his rapid ascent as a young political blogger. He became much better-known due to his sudden departure under a cloud. At this point in time those are the two most notable things about him. Regarding Cooke, though her article is shorter it is almost entirely about her plagiarism. Regarding its length, that is probably related to "recentism". If the Cooke matter had happened last year I bet we'd have had an artilce twice as long. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)Steve Dufour, The AfD, I think, settled that he's (barely) notable outside of the plagiarism business: There was significant coverage of him. I'm not comfortable with the existence of an article on someone so close to the edge, but the notability standard is met. You might be interested in looking over WP:PSEUDO which goes over this territory. You and Will might find this interesting (doesn't prove anything). I took a look at some other WP bios of people in a similar situation: Ruth Shalit presents a weaker case for an article than this one does. Even Stephen Glass doesn't assert notability beyond the plagiarism. I don't think Janet Cooke or Jayson Blair had articles written about them other than in connection with what got them fired. Go to Scott Thomas Beauchamp and it redirects you to Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy, which I think is right. It's the fact that Domenech was covered entirely separately before his controversy that puts him over the top. It's certainly worth reviewing the length of the plagiarism section, but I suggest waiting a good long while before suggesting any changes unless they're extremely important: too many editors have been debating it, and I doubt a reasonable conclusion is possible at this point. Just my 2 cents.Noroton 20:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with the Jayson Blair bio. It contains a full description of his life, and so is not a "pseudo-biography". However it is mostly devoted to his ethical lapse because that was what brought him fame. There is more biographical info available on Domench than on many subjects, but what brought him to fame were his early prominence as a blogger and his subsequent notoriety for plagiarism. I would say that the plagiarism and subsequent firing are handled in more detail than is absolutely necessary. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also tend to think that a blogger or political commentator is not expected to have the same standards of honesty as a journalist. If he entertains people and provides thought-provoking commentary maybe no one really cares about his college dishonesty. (BTW I've never checked out his site and don't have any plans to.) Steve Dufour 18:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If no one cared he might still have a job at the Washington Post. If no one cared there wouldn't be so many articles about his dismissal. I've never heard anyone assert that plagiarism is acceptable in college or that plagiarism is acceptable among bloggers. Maybe that's so. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Disclaimer I am not a fan of Domenech and have never read anything by him, I also tend to dislike him from what I know of him.) A newspaper reporter writes about factual matters. A history of plagiarism would be a very serious thing for him (and I guess for any employee of a newspaper). It was right for the Post to fire him. A blogger, on the other hand, is mainly a commentator. People do not depend on him for factual information. The information on Domenech's dishonesty and his firing from the Post should be mentioned in a section of this article. But if that section takes up most of the space in the article it is a sign that he is not notable as a blogger after all. Steve Dufour 18:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I think the top five paragraphs (including the long, indented quote from the college newspaper editor) in the "Plagiarism" section can be cut back considerably (maybe to two paragraphs). They're all about allegations of plagiarism in college, for a college newspaper, and therefore don't deserve that much coverage. IMO, the rest of the plagiarism coverage seems to give just enough detail to help the reader understand the subject. I tend to want more detail about anything than most editors do, though.

I disagree about the distinction between newspaper reporters and commentators, and even bloggers. I think leeway is given to commentators and commentator/bloggers over how reasonable or logical their points are, but for any print commentator or reviewer, including those who write online for Web sites associated with print publications, there's no pass for plagiarism -- reviewers at newspapers and magazines have lost their jobs over it (the examples don't come to mind, but I know they exist; I distinctly remember them; National Review Online editors certainly thought it was important that Domenech's reviews not be plagairized). Bloggers not associated with some place where they can get fired can plagiarize and continue on -- simply because they can't get fired. I haven't seen anyone defend an independent blogger who's been plagiarizing. By the way, when I was looking into this I saw somewhere on the Web that Domenech is still writing for some small journal based in Virginia. I think it's sold over amazon.com. It seems to me this probably strengthens the reason to have an article: his readers, if interested enough to look it up, might be served well in knowing that he's been fired over plagiarism concerns in the past. If someone's suspicious about something he wrote, the Wikipedia article might prompt them to look into the matter further -- which benefits everyone.

I also think that an incident that was so important in this young person's life will need more space and will naturally take up most of the article, since the article is so short. Noroton 19:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article Cleanup[edit]

I edited this article because it seems to have become a dumping ground for people who dislike Ben Domenech. The sections on his plagiarism and resignation are overly long and frequently repeat themselves. Considering the enormous number of dead links on this page, the plagiarism scandal and its fallout should probably be rewritten into one paragraph instead of nine. We should use the sources that still exist and are reliable. The Washington Post, NYTimes, and NRO articles are still mostly extant. Each should be cited once and left at that. I've covered some more of the problems below, but there are several things asserted on the Domenech bio that-- while they may be true-- are unsourced because of dead links.

Uncited or supported by dead links:[edit]

  • "Domenech initially denied the theft but ultimately admitted and apologizing for it. After ceasing his online activity for some time Domenech returned to continue editing and writing for Redstate, Human Events, and other conservative publications."
  • "Domenech is the son of Douglas Domenech, the White House Liaison for the Department of the Interior,[9] is a cousin of Puerto Rican Democrat Francisco Domenech, and is descended from Puerto Rican politician, Manuel V. Domenech, former legislator, Mayor of Ponce, Commissioner of the Interior, Treasurer, and acting Governor of Puerto Rico. He was home schooled by his mother using the Calvert School curriculum (and by correspondence for his last three years of high school).[10][dead link]"
  • "His career in punditry began as a teenager when he began a column, "Any Given Sunday," for National Review Online, in addition to his personal blog.[1] The NRO column recapped political talk shows on television."
  • "Another criticism focused on Domenech's previous writings, including a February 7, 2006 condemnation of deceased civil rights activist Coretta Scott King as a "Communist".[17][18]) Domenech also was criticized for a post[19] quoting from a First Things article by Richard John Neuhaus[20] about Freakonomics and abortion."
  • "Blogs Eschaton and Daily Kos soon posted links to movie reviews of Bringing Out the Dead, The Bachelor, and The World Is Not Enough written by Domenech for the same student paper. The reviews appear to be taken nearly verbatim from reviews published by Salon.com and an amateur Usenet reviewer named Steve Rhodes.[citation needed]"
  • "The second, a review of a Wallflowers' album, borrowed passages from one published in Rolling Stone by Tom Moon earlier the same month.[30] On March 24, 2006, the editors of National Review confirmed on its blog The Corner[31] that Domenech appeared to have plagiarized for at least one article he had written for that publication: As the previous links on the matter mention, at least one of the pieces Ben Domenech is accused of having plagiarized was a movie review for National Review Online. A side-by-side comparison to another review of the same film speaks for itself. There is no excuse for plagiarism and we apologize to our readers and to Steve Murray of the Cox News Service from whose piece the language was lifted. With some evidence of possible problems with other pieces, we're also looking into other articles he wrote for NRO. Still later, National Review announced that they had confirmed three other instances of apparent plagiarism. Side-by-side comparisons published on the site indicated that Domenech had also lifted phrases from Rolling Stone, the Dallas Morning News, and other sources.[32]"
  • "Domenech initially denied the charges, blaming several different editors for similarities to other articles. The various editors said that they were not responsible for reviews that Domenech represented to them as being original. [citation needed] On March 24, 2006, after resigning but before admitting his guilt, he claimed that "Virtually every other alleged instance of plagiarism that I’ve seen comes from a single semester’s worth of pieces that were printed under my name at my college paper, The Flat Hat, when I was 17".[2]"
  • "Domenech took a leave of absence from RedState,[when?] but remained on the organization's board.[17]"

References

  1. ^ http://www.bendomenech.com
  2. ^ Domenech's statement on Redstate

Textual Problems:[edit]

The New Ledger no longer exists.

  • "He was also involved in a journalism scandal that resulted in the removal of his work from The Washington Examiner when it was found he was paid by the Malay government to write opinion pieces without disclosing the relationship."

According to the articles linked (and the legal documents they linked to), Domenech was not hired by the Malaysian government, he was hired by consultants hired by corporations linked to the Malaysian government, specifically "APCO and the David All Group and FBC Media". Unless there is a quote to the contrary, we don't know what precisely Domenech knew, unfortunately. According to the Washington Examiner's editorial guidelines, his work should be removed from their site, because he was paid by a third party to write it. But, that is only referenced in cite 7. I contend that this should be moved into a "controversy/scandal" section below.

  • "Domenech said in his Washingtonpost.com bio that he was the youngest political appointee of the George W. Bush administration, although this claim could not be independently verified."

This is problematic, because it reflects information posted on the Washington Post, a good source, but it reflects information that he provided to the editorial staff. That being said, given the subsequent investigations of Domenech's writing, one would think that any lying on his part regarding his status as the "youngest political appointee" would be found out, which is why I removed the words "although this claim could not be independently verified", as it deviates from Wikipedia's NPOV policy. It may be best to erase the sentence entirely if there is any doubt.

The "Career" section should probably be broken up into "career before accusations", "scandal", and then "subsequent career" (some similar phrasing).

Ben Domenech has attracted a fair number of minor scandals. There are enough of them that I believe they warrant their own section. Perhaps a paragraph on the Washington Examiner/Coretta Scott King scandal (and the John Neuhaus scandal if we can find working sources) and another paragraph covering the plagiarism scandal.

Citation Errors:[edit]

Note: this is from before the edits I made.

  • 1- Dead link
  • 9- Dead link
  • 10- The first link redirects to the Flat Hat front page. I cannot find the story on the Flat Hat website. The second link works.
  • 11- This link redirects to the Flat Hat front page. I cannot find the story on the Flat Hat website.
  • 12- His bio says no such thing, unfortunately. It'll need to be sourced elsewhere.
  • 14- Dead link
  • 17- Link goes to a personal blog.
  • 18- Dead link
  • 19- Dead Link
  • 20- Dead link
  • 25- Same as 23.
  • 26- This link redirects to the Flat Hat front page. I cannot find the story on the Flat Hat website.
  • 27- This link redirects to the Flat Hat front page. I cannot find the story on the Flat Hat website.
  • 28- This link redirects to the Flat Hat front page. I cannot find the story on the Flat Hat website.
  • 32- Dead link.
  • 34- Dead Link
  • 35- Dead link

This may be incomplete, but I think it's a start to cleaning up this page.

Bobby newmark81 (talk) 00:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup Complete?[edit]

I have removed all uncited assertion and updated the controversies area with his plagiarism confession (which was lacking before). I also updated the "Subsequent Work" section with his recent speaking and writing positions. I found an old twitter avatar of his that I'm going to post in his bio box. If there are any questions about my edits, please let me know. I tried to make sure that everything was properly cited and neutral.

Bobby newmark81 (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted Edits by User:Grimesspeak[edit]

I've retained the edits by Grimesspeak that change the "Controversy" section into "Controversies" and created two subheadings. I have removed the block quote from the Washington Post. The quote was used out of context, because though it referred to plagiarism as an ethical violation, the article from which the quote came did not assert Domenech's guilt. I restored Domenech's statement of contrition, because it is, in fact, the only sourced admission of guilt that I could find. Domenech's apology, however, did not specify which works he plagiarized. In fact, it did not admit plagiarism at all (which is to be expected). While we can reasonably infer that plagiarism probably occurred, there were no lawsuits and no official findings that can actually prove it. In the citation that quotes PJ O'Rourke he says "I wouldn't want to swear in a court of law that I never met the guy ... but I didn't give him permission to use my words under his byline, no". Domenech, obviously, claimed that they had met and he had been given permission. O'Rourke did not pursue the matter as far as I can tell. Therefore we are left with a "he said, he said" situation. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons are supposed to be "written conservatively", i.e., as sparingly as possible, with attention given to neutrality. Furthermore, "[a]rticles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves." The Biographies of Living Persons page gives the following excellent example:

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.
Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is this important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out, or stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe were divorced."
Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he actually did.

Bobby newmark81 (talk) 03:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good points-- grimespeak
Regarding the New York Times: It is a reliable source, of course. The importance of a quote about falsely blaming editors at the school paper he wrote for are important because they denied them, and the second person, O'Rourke denied his explanation as well. BOTH SIDES are presented: Domenech's comments and also the paper's editors. Glenn Reynolds was writing about something different-- whether there were motivations to shine a light on Domenech because of partisanship or bloggers on the other side.
It is understandable why Ben Domenech would like to put these thigns behind them. But they are a crtitical part of his biography, that can't be done away with. The article is more balanced in the sense that it contains other information-- favorable-- about new ventures and possible professional accomplishments. So for anyone who thinks the emphasis is unfair, deleting or removing true and crucial information is not the way to go, but rather add new info. about other elements of this person and anything positive.
grimessspeak


First of all, thanks for replying. Whether or not Domenech wants to put these things behind him is immaterial-- from what I can see, they don't seem to have affected his career much at all. I don't propose to erase the plagiarism scandal or minimize its importance. The problems I have are as follows:
  • While Domenech apologized, his "contrition" was actually very limited. It's very unclear what he's admitting to or who he's apologizing to, other than the National Review and RedState. It kind of muddies the waters. While I think it's a reasonable assumption that he falsely accused the editors of the Flat Hat, we just don't know.
  • Regarding the Glenn Reynolds quote, I can see both arguments as to why it may or may not belong in the article, but you're right, it doesn't fit with the specific charge of plagiarism. It may, however, fit well with the Media Matters quote in which they criticized the hiring of the Domenech as being unbalanced.
  • The other issue I have is that the plagiarism scandal occurred in 2006 and while Domenech may have dropped out of the spotlight, he was back in the thick of things by the 2008 election. This year his name showed up in my RealClearPolitics RSS with him appearing on Ezra Klein's Washington Post. It doesn't appear that the Washington Post (or any outlet, really) cared about the plagiarism per se, they just didn't want to be embarrassed (or sued, I imagine).
I have a couple of thoughts:
  1. Collapse the plagiarism section to two paragraphs, but include quotes from the NYTimes article in the notes (in the same way the PJ O'Rourke quote is cited).
  2. Get rid of the subheadings under "Controversy." Personally, I'm unsure how to discuss the Malaysian scandal. It needs to stay in and it's definitely distinct from the accusations of plagiarism, but I'm not sure that it should have its own subheading. I'm wondering if getting rid of the "Plagiarism" and "Malaysian Payments" subheadings maybe should be eliminated and each topic placed in its own paragraph.
Bobby newmark81 (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Changes made:
  1. Collapsed the "Plagiarism" section to two paragraphs. I streamline some sentences to make them fit better in the paragraph, but I in no way changed their meaning. I rearranged the sentences to make the narrative flow better. Quotes from the Flat Hat, Washington Post, etc., remain unchanged.
  2. I inserted the Glenn Reynolds quote regarding opinions on Domenech after the Media Matters quote, where it should be.
  3. The sentence about Domenech's apology for calling Coretta Scott King a communist, etc., I removed. It doesn't belong in a discussion of plagiarism and does not contribute to this particular narrative.
  4. Got rid of the subheadings under "Controversies". Really, the single line on the Malaysian story doesn't warrant creating a new section. Appending a new paragraph (as is done here) allows readers to understand that this is a different event.
Bobby newmark81 (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by User:Grimesspeak[edit]

I have made some changes to the edits recently done by Grimesspeak. He or she has not commented on the article's talk page, so I don't know why certain edits have been made or undone. It would be very helpful if Grimesspeaks could comment on the talk page. I think that we are close to finding a consensus on the wording.

Plagiarism[edit]

For both of these pieces I have edited out quotes that are used in such a way as to imply a biased point of view. The facts of this case speak for themselves and we can only present those.

NYTimes Quote[edit]

Personally, I think it better to leave the quote from the NYTimes article alone, because to maintain a Neutral Point of View we need to include the contrasting points of view. Wikipedia's tutorial on NPOV says: "Where accusations are contested in a reliable source, it is important to include this challenge alongside the accusation, and to cover all sides of any debate in order to ensure the article remains neutral. The challenge should be attributed to the source. Give the facts to the reader to decide for themselves."

So, currently the Ben Domenech article quotes the NYTimes as saying: [Domenech] "said one instance was the fault of an editor at the student newspaper, who he said inserted a passage from The New Yorker in an article without his knowledge. In a staff editorial posted on the Web site of The Flat Hat, the student newspaper, the editors called Mr. Domenech's actions, if true, deeply offensive." If we leave this in, we need to include the countervailing points of view mentioned in the article, namely that of Glenn Reynolds: "Glenn Reynolds, who writes the blog Instapundit, said the bloggers were 'motivated by a desire to get' Mr. Domenech. They didn't like him because he was a conservative and he was given real estate at The Washington Post,' he said."

The NYTimes is an entirely reliable source, but if we quote this article we can't pick and choose such that it only makes Domenech look bad. The article has other points of view: those should be represented. Again, my personal opinion is to refer to the article and not quote it.

Washington Post Quote[edit]

This is referring to the following: Brady wrote in a blog post: In the past 24 hours, we learned of allegations that Ben Domenech plagiarized material that appeared under his byline... Plagiarism is perhaps the most serious offense that a writer can commit or be accused of. Washingtonpost.com will do everything in its power to verify that its news and opinion content is sourced completely and accurately at all times."

There are minor errors and a failure to cite which can be cleaned up easily. I believe that it could be better folded in with the previous paragraph and the quote could be shortened considerably by saying:

That same day Washington Post online editor Jim Brady announced Domenech's resignation saying "[a]n investigation into these allegations [of plagiarism] was ongoing, and in the interim, Domenech has resigned, effective immediately."

There is no reason to append the longer quote about the seriousness of plagiarism. In this case, the editorializing by the Washington Post does not contribute to the facts of the case.

Malaysia[edit]

There is no evidence that Ben Domenech knew what he was participating in or what part he played in a larger media push. The details of this particular scandal should either be pushed to their own page, Joshua Trevino's wiki page, and/or one of the other organizers of the larger campaign. Including this quote seems to violate Wikipedia's rules on Guilt by Association.

Bobby newmark81 (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MMfA[edit]

@WeldNeck: This [3] was reverted by you with edit summary of "MMfA not suitable for BLP". But that material does not refer to Ben Domenech, it refers to a critique of one of the online publications he co-founded. How is that a BLP violation? - Cwobeel (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the material does not refer to Domenech, why is it in his bio instead of the article about the publication? 18:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeldNeck (talk • contribs)
@Cwobeel and WeldNeck: Not everything in an article about a living person is subject to WP:BLP; it's frequently the case that commentary on a non-WP:NOTABLE work of an author is in the author's article, and that commentary is not subject to WP:BLP. However, this may be too much for this article, whether or not the publication is WP:NOTABLE. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Arthur Rubin. The reason I used this content is because many editors put forth the argument that this is one of the few sources that describe the website. We have very little out there (I spent several hours researching this) and there is very little as a way of "Reception" that could be used. Now, to the merits of this material, why is it too much? If a website puts forth an argument against LGBT legislation, will not that be useful for our readers? Rather than delete outright, we could reduce the sentence and highlight main points instead. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Federalist merge[edit]

On Talk:Thefederalist.com there was suggestion of merging into the section here, which I doubt is going to fly. But looking at The Federalist section here, maybe that should be merged into Thefederalist.com? Leave two or three sentences here and link to that article? The duplicate information and duplicate issues and duplicate future maintenance isn't good. Alsee (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Once the protection at Thefederalist.com is lifted. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism in lede[edit]

It needs to be there somehow (e.g. [4]), per WP:LEDE and very very basic NPOV. There's just no question about this.... if anyone really wonders then let's ask at WP:NPOVN and get it over with. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 18:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Ben Domenech. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ben Domenech. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism in lede, 2022[edit]

An editor (User:Cathradgenations) twice deleted [5] [6] longstanding material from the lead because it is "recounted at considerable length in the body of the article itself" [7]. In fact, extensive, well-weighted coverage in the body is exactly why material belongs in the lead (a point i raised in a revert's edit summary, [8], which was ignored [9]). --Middle 8 (s)talk • privacy 22:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC); added wl to MOS:LEAD, 06:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The text you cite is integral to the article and removal is unjustified. Have reinstated. Coretheapple (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ben_Domenech&oldid=1207003429"