Talk:Ben Domenech

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Contents 1 David Bowie/Q Magazine 2 Neutrality dispute? 3 Defense of plagiarism 4 "Resigned?" 5 Plagiarism and education 6 Libel section

[edit] David Bowie/Q Magazine

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)

[edit] Neutrality dispute?

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)

• It looks clean to me. --AStanhope 04:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

No, that makes no sense.

[edit] Defense of plagiarism

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] "Resigned?"

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Plagiarism and education

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)

[edit] Libel section

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)

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.