Talk:Ben Domenech

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on August 29, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Contents

[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)
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)

[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.

[edit] Notability

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)

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)
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)

[edit] A couple questions

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)

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)

[edit] Regnery

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)

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)
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)

[edit] Undue weight to plagiarism

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)

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)
So should the opening sentence be: "Ben Domenech is a dishonest blogger."? Steve Dufour 04:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

(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)

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)
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)
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)
(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)

(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)