Talk:Ben Domenech

message: 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.
The link to Eschaton is to a post, not to the comment cited.  --AStanhope 23:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Bowie/Q Magazine 

message: 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)
replies: text: *It looks clean to me.  --AStanhope 04:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Neutrality dispute? 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Defense of plagiarism 

message: 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)
replies: text: Domenech also said words to the effect that he is not a crook . 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Resigned?" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Plagiarism and education 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Notability

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: A couple questions

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Regnery 

message: 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: ===
* "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.http://www.bendomenech.com 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.  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".Domenech's statement on Redstate"
* "Domenech took a leave of absence from RedState,[when?] but remained on the organization's board.[17]"
=== Textual Problems: ===
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: ===
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)
thread_title:  Article Cleanup 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citation Errors: 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cleanup Complete? 

message: 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 ===
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 ====
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 ====
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 ===
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)
thread_title:  Edits by User:Grimesspeak 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Malaysia 

message: This  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Thanks . 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)
thread_title:  MMfA 

message: 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)
replies: text: Sure. Once the protection at Thefederalist.com is lifted. -  Cwobeel (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Federalist merge 

message: It needs to be there somehow (e.g. ), 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)
thread_title: Plagiarism in lede

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060322093453/http://blog.washingtonpost.com:80/redamerica/ to http://blog.washingtonpost.com/redamerica/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110524120817/http://www.humanevents.com/search.php?author_name=Ben+Domenech to http://www.humanevents.com/search.php?author_name=Ben+Domenech
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080226120837/http://www.redstate.com:80/stories/5 to http://www.redstate.com/stories/5
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060324054610/http://blog.washingtonpost.com:80/washpostblog/2006/03/new_blog_red_america.html to http://blog.washingtonpost.com/washpostblog/2006/03/new_blog_red_america.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110523065237/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/redamerica/2006/03/ben_domenech_resigns.html to http://blog.washingtonpost.com/redamerica/2006/03/ben_domenech_resigns.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203001958/http://archive.redstate.com/story/2006/3/24/231559/931 to http://archive.redstate.com/story/2006/3/24/231559/931
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131109130207/http://ricochet.com/main-feed/The-Media-s-Republicans-Have-No-Obamacare-Replacement-Myth to http://ricochet.com/main-feed/The-Media-s-Republicans-Have-No-Obamacare-Replacement-Myth
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.redstate.com/stories/5
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: An editor (User:Cathradgenations) twice deleted   longstanding material from the lead because it is "recounted at considerable length in the body of the article itself" .  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, , which was ignored ).  --Middle 8 (s)talk • privacy 22:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. The text you cite is integral to the article and removal is unjustified. Have reinstated. Coretheapple (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism in lede, 2022