Talk:Jim Horne (model)
Outright plagiarism from NYTimes article (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/business/media/25horne.html)"He was, in the lexicon of the day, a man's man, and in the lexicon of today, a hottie."
While the image of Jim Horne used in this article might well be very popular on the Internet, we shouldn't have an 'Internet meme' section unless someone can find some references to it in reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Things have gone missing!
When I created this article two years ago, I had the best intentions to raise awareness of who Mr. Horne was. Not just as an Internet Meme or Male Model, but also a war hero. It appears that information has been redacted. One of the contributors has also removed the cited sources due to what he said was "outright plagiarism", however this user's statements have been unfounded and their IP Address (126.96.36.199) links to a server in Peru that has been blacklisted. I will admit this article needs a major overhaul, but it has been online for nearly two years, and subjected to various edits by other users. The accusations of plagiarism do not hold water. While some information was borrowed from a New York Times article, it was not lifted word for word. For instance, the reference to his movie carrier on IMDB was removed. In the NYT article, their was mention of his work as a Marlboro Man. This article made no mention of that. What I am most disappointed about with this article is that since it was created, none of the other contributors took the time to add more information, replaced any of part of the article with other sources, nor provided links to his military career from other places. Yet it was so much easier for them to cry out "plagiarism" and to contribute nonsense to the article. If it appeases Wikipedia, this article will be rewritten in the very near future, be better quoted, and encourage other users to seek other sources outside of the NYT and IMDB. I really wanted to find an article from GQ Magazine, where Horne had worked for a while. Sadly, the GQ of today is not the same as it was 50 years ago, and when he did pass away, GQ appeared to not have mentioned his passing of this almost forgotten person. Please reconsider your support of speedy deltion. Save this article. Thank You. --Bushido Hacks (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I was the editor who removed the text, not the IP editor (who, by the way, is not "blacklisted", whatever that means. He's not blocked, either.) Ouside of the lede, which is anodyne enough to escape a charge of plagiarism, 12 of the 13 paragraphs in last revision were word-for-word copies of the text in the Bruce Weber article cited in The New York Times. The only one which differed was the facepalm paragraph, in which the first and last sentences were not Weber's writing. Interestingly enough, that section was deleted by Robofish as uncited.
- (The breakdown is as follows: The first paragraph of the Wikipedia article was the tenth paragraph of the NYT piece. The second paragraph of the Wikipedia version was half of the third paragraph from the NYT. Paragraphs three through nine in Wikipedia were paragraphs 11 through 17 of the NYT. The tenth paragraph of the Wikipedia piece is the eighth paragraph in the NYT article. The original portion of the 11th paragraph—the "facepalm" section—is a big chunk of the 18th paragraph in the NYT. The final paragraph was the other half of the third paragraph of the NYT article. Outside of the addition of his father's name into the first paragraph and the two original sentences in the 11th paragraph, this was a verbatim copy of what was written in the NYT, shuffled about a bit.)
- That is unquestionably plagiarism, and I reverted it on sight. Do not restore it in that form, or in a substantially similar form; changing a word here and there does not fix plagiarism. You need to write it yourself, with a more encyclopedic tone; Weber's prose is engaging and appropriate for a feature, but not for an encyclopedia article.) Horologium (talk) 19:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)