Talk:Ben Domenech - Knowledge (XXG)

1455:"The second, a review of a Wallflowers' album, borrowed passages from one published in Rolling Stone by Tom Moon earlier the same month. On March 24, 2006, the editors of National Review confirmed on its blog The Corner 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." 1409:

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 Knowledge (XXG) article might prompt them to look into the matter further -- which benefits everyone.

1639:

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.

670:"RedState contributor Erick (Erickson) came to Domenech's defense , 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. " 2062:. 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. - 1405:(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. 1458:"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"." 376: 352: 475: 1439:"Domenech is the son of Douglas Domenech, the White House Liaison for the Department of the Interior, 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)." 1905:

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."

386: 487: 282: 1280:, 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. 1427:

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.

208: 183: 113: 95: 272: 254: 64: 526: 1515:

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.

931:

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.

835:

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. --

123: 1452:"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." 1252:(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 1449:"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".) Domenech also was criticized for a post quoting from a First Things article by Richard John Neuhaus about Freakonomics and abortion." 1917:

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

1772:

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"

1732:

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

1616:

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.

1523:

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

1408:

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

1227:

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

955:

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

930:

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

1718:

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

1530:

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

1380:

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

1746:

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

1660:

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

1514:

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

834:

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

814:

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

728:

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

1684:

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

1648:

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

1638:

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

1426:

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

753:

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

673:

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

1896:

alone, because to maintain a Neutral Point of View we need to include the contrasting points of view. Knowledge (XXG)'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

1690:

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

1320:

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

1130:

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

704:

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

1706:

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

1904:

So, currently the Ben Domenech article quotes the NYTimes as saying: "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

1296:

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

717:

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

1643:

are supposed to be "written conservatively", i.e., as sparingly as possible, with attention given to neutrality. Furthermore, "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

743:

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.

1823:

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

1908:

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.

1524:

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 Knowledge (XXG)'s NPOV policy. It may be best to erase the sentence entirely if there is any doubt.

1342:

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.

1217:

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.

1106:

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.

894:

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.

1876:. 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. 1064:

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

683:

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.

1436:"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." 988:

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.

912:

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. :-)

1833:

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

1030:

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.

1510:"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." 1977:

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? -

1691:

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.

1654:

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

1925:

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

1015:

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?

1185:

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

1685:

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.

2607: 1921:

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:

1937:

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,

1830:

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.

1381:

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

1884:

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.

1228:

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.

1093:

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.

416: 1929:

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.

1519:"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." 880:

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. --

1412:

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.

1297:

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.

1135:, 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?) 1071:

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.

43: 860:. Unless we have independent citable verification (say, leaked internal e-mails), there's no justification for transcribing that implicit assumption in an encyclopedia article. -- 433: 2617: 2602: 459: 2587: 1256:

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:

328: 2423: 2419: 2405: 2307: 2303: 2289: 754:

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.

465: 2385: 1385:

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.

334: 2092:

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

1893: 536: 48: 423: 1747:

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).

969:

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.

2235: 2622: 2612: 2567: 1769:

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).

1145:

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.

2627: 2597: 31:) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or 2096:? Leave two or three sentences here and link to that article? The duplicate information and duplicate issues and duplicate future maintenance isn't good. 428: 2592: 2582: 2245: 1640: 304: 141: 23: 1527:

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

2577: 2572: 500: 362: 145: 399: 357: 2215: 1995:

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)

295: 259: 932: 729:

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. --

1942:'s wiki page, and/or one of the other organizers of the larger campaign. Including this quote seems to violate Knowledge (XXG)'s rules on 786:

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". --

140:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge (XXG)'s articles about people. All interested editors are invited to 1617:

If there are any questions about my edits, please let me know. I tried to make sure that everything was properly cited and neutral.

1277: 646: 411: 149: 136: 100: 2401:

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

2255: 1344: 1298: 1229: 1191: 1146: 1108: 1078: 770: 2386:

https://web.archive.org/web/20131109130207/http://ricochet.com/main-feed/The-Media-s-Republicans-Have-No-Obamacare-Replacement-Myth

857: 214: 188: 1549:

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.

407:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

691:

I think that it is an important part of the overall narrative. Such anger! Such self-righteous indignation! Such drama! --

75: 2517: 2162: 2011: 1649:

mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

2389: 2236:

https://web.archive.org/web/20060324054610/http://blog.washingtonpost.com:80/washpostblog/2006/03/new_blog_red_america.html

2205: 2466: 2350: 1918:

everything in its power to verify that its news and opinion content is sourced completely and accurately at all times."

2490:

longstanding material from the lead because it is "recounted at considerable length in the body of the article itself"

532: 2246:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110523065237/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/redamerica/2006/03/ben_domenech_resigns.html

1827:

I inserted the Glenn Reynolds quote regarding opinions on Domenech after the Media Matters quote, where it should be.

2225: 978:

This person seems to be one of those who are notable for only one thing. By WP policy they should not have bios.

32: 1953: 1853: 1788: 1669: 1624: 1602: 674:

pretty convincing and available online. Recomend a delete until a defense with verifiable information is found.

2422:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2306:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2239: 567: 936: 2249: 81: 63: 1644:

published about themselves." The Biographies of Living Persons page gives the following excellent example:

2457: 2377: 2341: 2197: 959:

I agree, and if better sourcing is found, I think it should still be tightened up a bit more than it was. --

899:

This is an odd idea. Do you really think that you need to see punishment happen to know right from wrong? --

650: 1999: 1773:

and "Malaysian Payments" subheadings maybe should be eliminated and each topic placed in its own paragraph.

998:

Being fired from a job, which is what 90% of the article is about, does not qualify a person for a WP bio.

766: 758: 642: 219: 193: 2548: 2089: 2050: 1949: 1849: 1784: 1665: 1620: 1598: 1273: 2216:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110524120817/http://www.humanevents.com/search.php?author_name=Ben+Domenech

1897:

debate in order to ensure the article remains neutral. The challenge should be attributed to the source.

639:

Why is it stated that he is openly homosexual? I have never heard him announce that nor seen any proof.

2525: 2482: 2441:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2429: 2325:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2313: 2166: 1350: 1304: 1235: 1197: 1152: 1114: 1084: 706: 685: 675: 618: 589: 492: 303:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

2376:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 2196:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 2145: 1094: 762: 586:

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

2280: 1582:

28- This link redirects to the Flat Hat front page. I cannot find the story on the Flat Hat website.

1579:

27- This link redirects to the Flat Hat front page. I cannot find the story on the Flat Hat website.

1576:

26- This link redirects to the Flat Hat front page. I cannot find the story on the Flat Hat website.

1552:

11- This link redirects to the Flat Hat front page. I cannot find the story on the Flat Hat website.

391: 42:. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to 2043: 2035: 900: 525: 287: 2494: 1253: 801:. Oh well, but the fact seems to be that he did resign. If you can prove otherwise fine with me.-- 2543:

Agree. The text you cite is integral to the article and removal is unjustified. Have reinstated.

2521: 2256:

https://web.archive.org/web/20131203001958/http://archive.redstate.com/story/2006/3/24/231559/931

2219: 2158: 2007: 1059:

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

865: 734: 46:.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see 2426:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

2310:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

2149: 1446:, in addition to his personal blog. The NRO column recapped political talk shows on television." 375: 351: 39: 2442: 2326: 2544: 2170: 2121: 2112: 2093: 2068: 2059: 2047: 1984: 1386: 1322: 1219: 1165: 1136: 1032: 1027: 999: 979: 960: 914: 881: 745: 719: 2141: 1873: 1442:"His career in punditry began as a teenager when he began a column, "Any Given Sunday," for 1347: 1301: 1232: 1194: 1149: 1111: 1081: 474: 128: 2449: 2333: 2039: 2031: 1461:"Domenech took a leave of absence from RedState, but remained on the organization's board." 2101: 1443: 2259: 1272:

had articles written about them other than in connection with what got them fired. Go to

2390:

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/The-Media-s-Republicans-Have-No-Obamacare-Replacement-Myth

2206:

https://web.archive.org/web/20060322093453/http://blog.washingtonpost.com:80/redamerica/

2408:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 2292:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 1939: 990: 836: 692: 601: 573: 2448:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

2415: 2332:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

2299: 2561: 2512: 2153: 2042:. However, this may be too much for this article, whether or not the publication is 2025: 2003: 1969: 1488: 1261: 1017: 861: 730: 404: 2038:

work of an author is in the author's article, and that commentary is not subject to

2369: 2189: 2116: 2063: 2021: 1979: 1555:

12- His bio says no such thing, unfortunately. It'll need to be sourced elsewhere.

1413: 1293: 1281: 1269: 1051:

He resigned from the Regnery post upon taking the position with Washingtonpost.com.

300: 1053: 1265: 1257: 1132: 559: 2226:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080226120837/http://www.redstate.com:80/stories/5

207: 182: 112: 94: 2414:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 2298:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 2097: 802: 563: 482: 381: 277: 271: 253: 118: 2240:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/washpostblog/2006/03/new_blog_red_america.html

2209: 799: 1898: 1164:

So should the opening sentence be: "Ben Domenech is a dishonest blogger."?

816: 787: 2250:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/redamerica/2006/03/ben_domenech_resigns.html

1595:

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

403:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the 558:

A poster on Atrios also noted similarities between Domenech's review of a

2535: 2502: 2509: 2506: 2491: 2488: 2486: 2552: 2529: 2471: 2395: 2355: 2229: 2175: 2126: 2105: 2073: 2053: 1989: 1957: 1857: 1792: 1673: 1628: 1606: 1416: 1389: 1353: 1325: 1307: 1284: 1238: 1222: 1200: 1168: 1155: 1139: 1117: 1097: 1087: 1035: 1020: 1002: 993: 982: 963: 940: 917: 903: 884: 868: 839: 821: 805: 792: 774: 748: 737: 722: 709: 695: 678: 654: 621: 604: 592: 576: 1077:

If Domenech left Regnery, it was after the plagiarism story broke.

148:. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the 2030:

Not everything in an article about a living person is subject to

572:

The link to Eschaton is to a post, not to the comment cited. --

1943: 1264:

doesn't assert notability beyond the plagiarism. I don't think

1260:

presents a weaker case for an article than this one does. Even

613:

Perhaps it should include all the movie reviewers who Domenech

2220:

http://www.humanevents.com/search.php?author_name=Ben+Domenech

798:

Domenech also said words to the effect that he is not a crook

520: 57: 38:

from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially

15: 1477: 2265:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the

473: 2380:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

2200:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

1892:

Personally, I think it better to leave the quote from the

2608:

Start-Class United States articles of Unknown-importance

2373: 2193: 2138: 1975: 1872:

I have made some changes to the edits recently done by

617:

plagiarized from? Would it meet NPOV standards then? -

2260:

http://archive.redstate.com/story/2006/3/24/231559/931

1899:

Give the facts to the reader to decide for themselves

2034:; it's frequently the case that commentary on a non- 299:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2418:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 2302:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 554:I moved the following from the Plagiarism section: 464:This article has not yet received a rating on the 333:This article has not yet received a rating on the 2148:.... if anyone really wonders then let's ask at 217:, a project which is currently considered to be 2505:(a point i raised in a revert's edit summary, 2404:This message was posted before February 2018. 2288:This message was posted before February 2018. 1641:Knowledge (XXG):Biographies of living persons 8: 1539:Note: this is from before the edits I made. 956:to have something verifiable to back it up. 61: 2618:Unknown-importance South Carolina articles 2210:http://blog.washingtonpost.com/redamerica/ 346: 248: 177: 89: 2603:Unknown-importance United States articles 2368:I have just modified 2 external links on 2188:I have just modified 6 external links on 1026:Good questions. If you want to get into 444:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject United States 2588:Unknown-importance Conservatism articles 2144:and very very basic NPOV. There's just 1046:I deleted this sentence and its source: 313:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Conservatism 1470: 348: 250: 179: 91: 2277:to let others know (documentation at 1661:the affair, not that he actually did. 158:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Biography 7: 858:Knowledge (XXG):No original research 397:This article is within the scope of 293:This article is within the scope of 229:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Blogging 213:This article is within the scope of 134:This article is within the scope of 2623:WikiProject South Carolina articles 2613:Start-Class South Carolina articles 2568:Biography articles of living people 2137:It needs to be there somehow (e.g. 1431:Uncited or supported by dead links: 1181:I'm sure we can find a middle path. 80:It is of interest to the following 2628:WikiProject United States articles 2598:Start-Class United States articles 1634:Reverted Edits by User:Grimesspeak 1278:Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy 535:on August 29, 2007. The result of 447:Template:WikiProject United States 14: 2593:WikiProject Conservatism articles 2583:Start-Class Conservatism articles 2396:http://www.redstate.com/stories/5 2372:. Please take a moment to review 2230:http://www.redstate.com/stories/5 2192:. Please take a moment to review 1719:the Flat Hat, we just don't know. 1561:17- Link goes to a personal blog. 316:Template:WikiProject Conservatism 1489:Domenech's statement on Redstate 524: 485: 384: 374: 350: 280: 270: 252: 206: 181: 121: 111: 93: 62: 21:This article must adhere to the 2394:Corrected formatting/usage for 705:steadfast that he's innocent. 531:This article was nominated for 2578:WikiProject Biography articles 2573:Start-Class biography articles 161:Template:WikiProject Biography 1: 2111:Sure. Once the protection at 1417:19:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC) 1390:18:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC) 1354:18:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC) 1326:18:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC) 1308:23:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC) 1285:20:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC) 1118:19:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC) 1098:16:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC) 1036:02:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC) 918:18:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC) 775:04:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 498:This article is supported by 307:and see a list of open tasks. 232:Template:WikiProject Blogging 24:biographies of living persons 2356:15:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC) 1758:I have a couple of thoughts: 1067:New York Times. Mar 25, 2006 941:10:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC) 815:he was forced to resign. -- 146:contribute to the discussion 2538:, 06:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC) 2127:18:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC) 2106:17:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC) 2074:22:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC) 2054:18:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC) 1990:16:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC) 1239:07:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC) 1223:07:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC) 1201:06:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC) 1169:04:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC) 1156:03:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC) 1140:03:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC) 1088:20:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC) 1073:The Guardian. Mar 27, 2006. 1021:13:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC) 1003:02:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC) 994:02:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC) 983:02:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC) 562:album and one published in 36:must be removed immediately 2644: 2435:(last update: 5 June 2024) 2365:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 2319:(last update: 5 June 2024) 2185:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 1958:14:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC) 1858:20:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC) 1793:19:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC) 1674:03:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC) 1607:00:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC) 1478:http://www.bendomenech.com 1321:don't have any plans to.) 1126:Undue weight to plagiarism 885:03:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC) 869:08:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC) 840:14:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC) 822:05:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC) 806:05:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC) 793:04:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC) 749:18:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC) 738:08:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC) 723:04:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC) 710:07:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC) 696:14:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC) 679:12:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC) 655:22:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC) 622:06:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC) 605:04:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC) 593:03:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC) 577:23:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC) 501:WikiProject South Carolina 466:project's importance scale 335:project's importance scale 2553:18:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC) 2530:22:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC) 2472:19:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC) 2176:18:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC) 2152:and get it over with. -- 1868:Edits by User:Grimesspeak 1629:23:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC) 964:04:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC) 904:11:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC) 631:No, that makes no sense. 600:It looks clean to me. -- 481: 463: 400:WikiProject United States 369: 332: 265: 201: 106: 88: 2497:coverage in the body is 2477:Plagiarism in lede, 2022 1679:Good points-- grimespeak 1531:the plagiarism scandal. 1276:and it redirects you to 890:Plagiarism and education 405:United States of America 296:WikiProject Conservatism 2493:. In fact, extensive, 2361:External links modified 2181:External links modified 2146:no question about this 2090:Talk:Thefederalist.com 1444:National Review Online 1292:I'm familiar with the 1274:Scott Thomas Beauchamp 1190:That's one solution. 550:David Bowie/Q Magazine 478: 450:United States articles 70:This article is rated 2483:User:Cathradgenations 1913:Washington Post Quote 666:Defense of plagiarism 493:South Carolina portal 477: 319:Conservatism articles 137:WikiProject Biography 74:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 2508:, which was ignored 2416:regular verification 2300:regular verification 1944:Guilt by Association 1054:Human events article 392:United States portal 215:WikiProject Blogging 2503:belongs in the lead 2406:After February 2018 2290:After February 2018 2269:parameter below to 582:Neutrality dispute? 418:Articles Requested! 288:Conservatism portal 2460:InternetArchiveBot 2411:InternetArchiveBot 2344:InternetArchiveBot 2295:InternetArchiveBot 2133:Plagiarism in lede 1506:no longer exists. 1011:A couple questions 479: 164:biography articles 76:content assessment 2539: 2528: 2436: 2320: 2174: 2113:Thefederalist.com 2094:Thefederalist.com 2016: 2002:comment added by 1612:Cleanup Complete? 1499:Textual Problems: 1028:conspiracy theory 778: 761:comment added by 645:comment added by 547: 546: 516: 515: 512: 511: 508: 507: 345: 344: 341: 340: 247: 246: 243: 242: 235:Blogging articles 176: 175: 172: 171: 56: 55: 2635: 2533: 2515: 2485:) twice deleted 2470: 2461: 2434: 2433: 2412: 2354: 2345: 2318: 2317: 2296: 2284: 2156: 2124: 2119: 2084:Federalist merge 2071: 2066: 2029: 2015: 1996: 1987: 1982: 1973: 1535:Citation Errors: 1491: 1486: 1480: 1475: 777: 755: 657: 528: 521: 495: 490: 489: 488: 452: 451: 448: 445: 442: 394: 389: 388: 387: 378: 371: 370: 365: 354: 347: 321: 320: 317: 314: 311: 290: 285: 284: 283: 274: 267: 266: 256: 249: 237: 236: 233: 230: 227: 210: 203: 202: 197: 185: 178: 166: 165: 162: 159: 156: 142:join the project 131: 129:Biography portal 126: 125: 124: 115: 108: 107: 97: 90: 73: 67: 66: 58: 44:this noticeboard 16: 2643: 2642: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2558: 2557: 2479: 2464: 2459: 2427: 2420:have permission 2410: 2378:this simple FaQ 2363: 2348: 2343: 2311: 2304:have permission 2294: 2278: 2198:this simple FaQ 2183: 2135: 2122: 2117: 2086: 2069: 2064: 2019: 1997: 1985: 1980: 1967: 1965: 1950:Bobby newmark81 1935: 1915: 1894:NYTimes article 1890: 1882: 1870: 1850:Bobby newmark81 1785:Bobby newmark81 1666:Bobby newmark81 1636: 1621:Bobby newmark81 1614: 1599:Bobby newmark81 1573:25- Same as 23. 1537: 1501: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1487: 1483: 1476: 1472: 1433: 1424: 1422:Article Cleanup 1128: 1044: 1013: 976: 953: 892: 784: 756: 668: 640: 584: 552: 491: 486: 484: 449: 446: 443: 440: 439: 438: 424:Become a Member 390: 385: 383: 360: 318: 315: 312: 309: 308: 286: 281: 279: 234: 231: 228: 225: 224: 191: 163: 160: 157: 154: 153: 127: 122: 120: 71: 12: 11: 5: 2641: 2639: 2631: 2630: 2625: 2620: 2615: 2610: 2605: 2600: 2595: 2590: 2585: 2580: 2575: 2570: 2560: 2559: 2556: 2555: 2478: 2475: 2454: 2453: 2446: 2399: 2398: 2392: 2384:Added archive 2362: 2359: 2338: 2337: 2330: 2263: 2262: 2254:Added archive 2252: 2244:Added archive 2242: 2234:Added archive 2232: 2224:Added archive 2222: 2214:Added archive 2212: 2204:Added archive 2182: 2179: 2134: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2115:is lifted. - 2085: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2076: 1964: 1961: 1940:Joshua Trevino 1934: 1931: 1914: 1911: 1889: 1886: 1881: 1878: 1869: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1831: 1828: 1825: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1800: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1770: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1700: 1698: 1697: 1693: 1692: 1687: 1686: 1681: 1680: 1663: 1662: 1657: 1656: 1651: 1650: 1635: 1632: 1613: 1610: 1593: 1592: 1589: 1586: 1585:32- Dead link. 1583: 1580: 1577: 1574: 1571: 1568: 1565: 1562: 1559: 1556: 1553: 1550: 1547: 1544: 1536: 1533: 1521: 1520: 1512: 1511: 1504:The New Ledger 1500: 1497: 1493: 1492: 1481: 1469: 1468: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1459: 1456: 1453: 1450: 1447: 1440: 1437: 1432: 1429: 1423: 1420: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1188: 1182: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1159: 1158: 1127: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1101: 1100: 1075: 1074: 1068: 1057: 1056: 1043: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1012: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1005: 975: 972: 971: 970: 952: 949: 948: 947: 946: 945: 944: 943: 933:137.205.238.43 923: 922: 921: 920: 907: 906: 891: 888: 878: 877: 876: 875: 874: 873: 872: 871: 847: 846: 845: 844: 843: 842: 827: 826: 825: 824: 809: 808: 783: 780: 741: 740: 715: 714: 713: 712: 699: 698: 667: 664: 663: 662: 661: 660: 659: 658: 629: 628: 627: 626: 625: 624: 608: 607: 583: 580: 570: 569: 551: 548: 545: 544: 537:the discussion 529: 518: 514: 513: 510: 509: 506: 505: 497: 496: 480: 470: 469: 462: 456: 455: 453: 437: 436: 431: 426: 421: 414: 412:Template Usage 408: 396: 395: 379: 367: 366: 363:South Carolina 355: 343: 342: 339: 338: 331: 325: 324: 322: 305:the discussion 292: 291: 275: 263: 262: 257: 245: 244: 241: 240: 238: 211: 199: 198: 186: 174: 173: 170: 169: 167: 133: 132: 116: 104: 103: 98: 86: 85: 79: 68: 54: 53: 49:this help page 33:poorly sourced 19: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2640: 2629: 2626: 2624: 2621: 2619: 2616: 2614: 2611: 2609: 2606: 2604: 2601: 2599: 2596: 2594: 2591: 2589: 2586: 2584: 2581: 2579: 2576: 2574: 2571: 2569: 2566: 2565: 2563: 2554: 2550: 2546: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2537: 2531: 2527: 2523: 2519: 2514: 2510: 2507: 2504: 2501:why material 2500: 2496: 2495:well-weighted 2492: 2489: 2487: 2484: 2476: 2474: 2473: 2468: 2463: 2462: 2451: 2447: 2444: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2431: 2425: 2421: 2417: 2413: 2407: 2402: 2397: 2393: 2391: 2387: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2379: 2375: 2371: 2366: 2360: 2358: 2357: 2352: 2347: 2346: 2335: 2331: 2328: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2315: 2309: 2305: 2301: 2297: 2291: 2286: 2282: 2276: 2272: 2268: 2261: 2257: 2253: 2251: 2247: 2243: 2241: 2237: 2233: 2231: 2227: 2223: 2221: 2217: 2213: 2211: 2207: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2199: 2195: 2191: 2186: 2180: 2178: 2177: 2172: 2168: 2164: 2160: 2155: 2151: 2147: 2143: 2139: 2132: 2128: 2125: 2120: 2114: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2103: 2099: 2095: 2091: 2083: 2075: 2072: 2067: 2061: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2052: 2049: 2045: 2041: 2037: 2033: 2027: 2023: 2018: 2017: 2013: 2009: 2005: 2001: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1988: 1983: 1976: 1971: 1962: 1960: 1959: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1945: 1941: 1932: 1930: 1927: 1923: 1919: 1912: 1910: 1906: 1902: 1900: 1895: 1888:NYTimes Quote 1887: 1885: 1879: 1877: 1875: 1867: 1859: 1855: 1851: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1832: 1829: 1826: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1808:Changes made: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1794: 1790: 1786: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1771: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1695: 1694: 1689: 1688: 1683: 1682: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1671: 1667: 1659: 1658: 1653: 1652: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1642: 1633: 1631: 1630: 1626: 1622: 1618: 1611: 1609: 1608: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1591:35- Dead link 1590: 1588:34- Dead Link 1587: 1584: 1581: 1578: 1575: 1572: 1570:20- Dead link 1569: 1567:19- Dead Link 1566: 1564:18- Dead link 1563: 1560: 1558:14- Dead link 1557: 1554: 1551: 1548: 1545: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1534: 1532: 1528: 1525: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1505: 1498: 1490: 1485: 1482: 1479: 1474: 1471: 1467: 1460: 1457: 1454: 1451: 1448: 1445: 1441: 1438: 1435: 1434: 1430: 1428: 1421: 1419: 1418: 1415: 1410: 1406: 1391: 1388: 1384: 1379: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1355: 1352: 1349: 1346: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1327: 1324: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1309: 1306: 1303: 1300: 1295: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1271: 1267: 1263: 1262:Stephen Glass 1259: 1255: 1240: 1237: 1234: 1231: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1221: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1202: 1199: 1196: 1193: 1189: 1187: 1183: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1170: 1167: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1157: 1154: 1151: 1148: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1138: 1134: 1125: 1119: 1116: 1113: 1110: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1099: 1096: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1086: 1083: 1080: 1072: 1069: 1066: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1055: 1052: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1041: 1037: 1034: 1029: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1019: 1010: 1004: 1001: 997: 996: 995: 992: 987: 986: 985: 984: 981: 973: 968: 967: 966: 965: 962: 957: 951:Libel section 950: 942: 938: 934: 929: 928: 927: 926: 925: 924: 919: 916: 911: 910: 909: 908: 905: 902: 898: 897: 896: 889: 887: 886: 883: 870: 867: 863: 859: 855: 854: 853: 852: 851: 850: 849: 848: 841: 838: 833: 832: 831: 830: 829: 828: 823: 820: 819: 813: 812: 811: 810: 807: 804: 800: 797: 796: 795: 794: 791: 790: 781: 779: 776: 772: 768: 764: 760: 751: 750: 747: 739: 736: 732: 727: 726: 725: 724: 721: 711: 708: 707:Schrodinger82 703: 702: 701: 700: 697: 694: 690: 689: 688: 687: 686:70.112.100.53 681: 680: 677: 676:Schrodinger82 671: 665: 656: 652: 648: 644: 638: 637: 636: 635: 634: 633: 632: 623: 620: 619:Schrodinger82 616: 612: 611: 610: 609: 606: 603: 599: 598: 597: 596: 595: 594: 591: 590:68.232.142.66 587: 581: 579: 578: 575: 568: 565: 561: 557: 556: 555: 549: 542: 538: 534: 530: 527: 523: 522: 519: 503: 502: 494: 483: 476: 472: 471: 467: 461: 458: 457: 454: 441:United States 435: 432: 430: 427: 425: 422: 420: 419: 415: 413: 410: 409: 406: 402: 401: 393: 382: 380: 377: 373: 372: 368: 364: 359: 358:United States 356: 353: 349: 336: 330: 327: 326: 323: 306: 302: 298: 297: 289: 278: 276: 273: 269: 268: 264: 261: 258: 255: 251: 239: 222: 221: 216: 212: 209: 205: 204: 200: 195: 190: 187: 184: 180: 168: 151: 150:documentation 147: 143: 139: 138: 130: 119: 117: 114: 110: 109: 105: 102: 99: 96: 92: 87: 83: 77: 69: 65: 60: 59: 51: 50: 45: 41: 37: 34: 30: 26: 25: 20: 18: 17: 2545:Coretheapple 2534:added wl to 2498: 2480: 2458: 2455: 2430:source check 2409: 2403: 2400: 2370:Ben Domenech 2367: 2364: 2342: 2339: 2314:source check 2293: 2287: 2274: 2270: 2266: 2264: 2190:Ben Domenech 2187: 2184: 2136: 2087: 2060:Arthur Rubin 2048:Arthur Rubin 1998:— Preceding 1966: 1948: 1936: 1928: 1924: 1920: 1916: 1907: 1903: 1891: 1883: 1871: 1799: 1699: 1696:grimessspeak 1664: 1637: 1619: 1615: 1597: 1594: 1546:9- Dead link 1543:1- Dead link 1538: 1529: 1526: 1522: 1513: 1503: 1502: 1484: 1473: 1465: 1425: 1411: 1407: 1404: 1387:Steve Dufour 1382: 1377: 1323:Steve Dufour 1294:Jayson Blair 1270:Jayson Blair 1251: 1220:Steve Dufour 1184: 1166:Steve Dufour 1137:Steve Dufour 1129: 1076: 1070: 1065:accusations. 1063: 1058: 1050: 1045: 1033:Steve Dufour 1014: 1000:Steve Dufour 980:Steve Dufour 977: 961:BarrettBrown 958: 954: 915:Steve Dufour 893: 882:BarrettBrown 879: 817: 788: 785: 752: 746:BarrettBrown 742: 720:BarrettBrown 716: 682: 672: 669: 647:71.196.75.18 630: 614: 588: 585: 571: 553: 540: 517: 499: 429:Project Talk 417: 398: 310:Conservatism 301:conservatism 294: 260:Conservatism 218: 135: 82:WikiProjects 47: 35: 28: 22: 2481:An editor ( 2281:Sourcecheck 1874:Grimesspeak 1733:unbalanced. 1348:Will Beback 1302:Will Beback 1266:Janet Cooke 1258:Ruth Shalit 1233:Will Beback 1195:Will Beback 1150:Will Beback 1133:Janet Cooke 1112:Will Beback 1095:Iamradagast 1082:Will Beback 782:"Resigned?" 763:Thetableist 757:—Preceding 641:—Preceding 560:David Bowie 72:Start-class 2562:Categories 2467:Report bug 2351:Report bug 2044:WP:NOTABLE 2036:WP:NOTABLE 1880:Plagiarism 1824:unchanged. 1655:divorced." 1466:References 1378:Disclaimer 974:Notability 564:Q Magazine 2450:this tool 2443:this tool 2334:this tool 2327:this tool 1254:WP:PSEUDO 991:FCYTravis 901:Vardamana 837:AStanhope 818:Cyde Weys 789:Cyde Weys 693:AStanhope 602:AStanhope 574:AStanhope 155:Biography 101:Biography 40:libellous 2536:MOS:LEAD 2513:Middle 8 2456:Cheers.— 2340:Cheers.— 2154:Middle 8 2150:WP:NPOVN 2026:WeldNeck 2012:contribs 2004:WeldNeck 2000:unsigned 1970:WeldNeck 1933:Malaysia 1707:follows: 1186:stories. 1018:Redddogg 862:Dhartung 771:contribs 759:unsigned 731:Dhartung 643:unsigned 533:deletion 226:Blogging 220:inactive 194:inactive 189:Blogging 2526:privacy 2499:exactly 2374:my edit 2267:checked 2194:my edit 2167:privacy 2142:WP:LEDE 2140:), per 2118:Cwobeel 2065:Cwobeel 2058:Thanks 2022:Cwobeel 1981:Cwobeel 1414:Noroton 1282:Noroton 1042:Regnery 2511:). -- 2275:failed 2123:(talk) 2070:(talk) 2051:(talk) 2040:WP:BLP 2032:WP:BLP 1986:(talk) 1834:event. 1383:should 615:hasn't 434:Alerts 78:scale. 2098:Alsee 2046:. — 1974:This 803:CSTAR 2549:talk 2522:talk 2271:true 2102:talk 2024:and 2008:talk 1963:MMfA 1954:talk 1854:talk 1789:talk 1670:talk 1625:talk 1603:talk 1345:·:· 1299:·:· 1230:·:· 1192:·:· 1147:·:· 1109:·:· 1079:·:· 937:talk 866:Talk 856:See 767:talk 735:Talk 651:talk 541:Keep 539:was 144:and 2424:RfC 2388:to 2308:RfC 2285:). 2273:or 2258:to 2248:to 2238:to 2228:to 2218:to 2208:to 2171:COI 2088:On 1901:." 1351:·:· 1305:·:· 1268:or 1236:·:· 1198:·:· 1153:·:· 1115:·:· 1085:·:· 460:??? 329:??? 29:BLP 2564:: 2551:) 2532:; 2524:• 2437:. 2432:}} 2428:{{ 2321:. 2316:}} 2312:{{ 2283:}} 2279:{{ 2169:• 2165:| 2161:• 2104:) 2014:) 2010:• 1956:) 1946:. 1856:) 1791:) 1672:) 1627:) 1605:) 939:) 864:| 773:) 769:• 744:-- 733:| 718:-- 653:) 361:: 2547:( 2520:) 2518:s 2516:( 2469:) 2465:( 2452:. 2445:. 2353:) 2349:( 2336:. 2329:. 2173:) 2163:c 2159:t 2157:( 2100:( 2028:: 2020:@ 2006:( 1972:: 1968:@ 1952:( 1852:( 1787:( 1668:( 1623:( 1601:( 1376:( 935:( 765:( 649:( 566:. 543:. 504:. 468:. 337:. 223:. 196:) 192:( 152:. 84:: 52:. 27:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index