Talk:Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy

Debate on Reflist

 * No. We won't be keeping this list, most of which are unreliable blog posts, "at the end of the page."  Do I need to post a link to your RfC, in which your failed campaign of self-promotion is well-documented?  --Eleemosynary (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion Elee. I still vote to keep a running tally of the sources. Anyone else agree or disagree?


 * AgreeMatt Sanchez (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz --Eleemosynary (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Cause and Effect: The reality is that the these so-called "unreliable blog posts" kept interest in the story alive when the mainstream media wanted to move away from the story and let it die. Eliminate them and you distort the record to the extent that TNR retracted what it published and accused Beauchamp of deception in what would appear to be a total vacuum. 03:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patsw (talk • contribs)


 * It doesn't hurt to keep information on the talk page even if there's been no consensus as to whether it's appropriate to have on the article page. Calbaer (talk) 06:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So, we keep the reflist and dump Elee?Mattsanchez (talk) 11:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't rise to the bait. For now, the reflist can stay on talk, but it's there to allow us to see the refs being discussed. It's not to be used as a means of keeping links around on Wikipedia. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The "refs" are (mostly) to sources unreliable by Wikipedia standards, and are posted on this page as part of Sanchez's self-promotion campaign. Simple as that. --Eleemosynary (talk) 03:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Elee: The only thing "simple" here is your point of view. You don't seem to have the brain power to overcome your childish antics.  The fact that you consistently attack me because you think I'm 'weak' just shows what a coward you are.  You, a faceless, anonymous blip in the blogosphere.  My role behind in the Scott Beauchamp controversy is verifiable even by a sore-loser like Foer who stoops to the same disgraceful level you do.  If you really think you're superior to anyone who has appeared in an adult film than it's obvious that, beyond being unable to contribute productively to this article, you have grave issues of self-worth. Matt Sanchez (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Project much? --Eleemosynary (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And they'll be cropped as the page is archived, in that case. No cause for alarm. Chris Cunningham (talk) 08:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ultra liberal NPR and the hilariously insightful New York Observer are outstanding primary sources, as they speak directly to the actors involved. I'm not sure what Elee reads in whatever part of the world she's in, but these are both reputable media outlets.  The "self-promotion" campaign she speaks of says more about her than myself.  Elee is an obstructionist editor wasting valuable time on here.  I vote that she be banned for immaturity.  Matt Sanchez (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * See above comments. --Eleemosynary (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I dont think your snide remarks about Sanchez helps anything, and I would suggest you act a little more WP:CIVIL or you will be reported. DJ Creamity  Oh Yeah! 19:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * My comments about Sanchez are civil and accurate. Report away. --Eleemosynary (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Your comments have been insulting and just all-around pathetic. I've never met you, I don't want to meet you, but you don't even have the courage to recognize how distasteful you are.  Matt Sanchez (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, my comments about you have been civil and accurate. I understand your anger at being called on your dissembling, but try to keep the histrionics to a minimum.  They're persuading no one. --Eleemosynary (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Fact and Opinion
This article is, in part, missing perspective. It's "important" insofar as it reflects the current ideological divide or culture war that is emblematic of the American political landscape. The facts, in themselves, are quite simple. According to the editor himself and the inaction of the author, the Baghdad Diarist suffers from authenticity/ethic issues. That's not what's important here.

The important part is:
 * TNR, a leftist rag, ran shoddy stories
 * On the ground reporting contradicted TNR
 * TNR used the wife to edit or fact check
 * Conservatives caught on to the sham
 * Foer forced to capitulate, after much hemming and hawing.

This article needs some type of editorial/opinions to contextualize the controversy. Matt Sanchez (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Re: TNR as a leftist rag...


 * This is a dubious characterization. Some TNR critics have even applied the term "neoconservative" to the magazine because of long time owner Marty Peretz:


 * "My Marty problem -- and ours -- is just this: By pretending to speak as a liberal but simultaneously endorsing the central crusades of the right, he has enlisted The New Republic in the service of a ruinous neoconservative doctrine, as the magazine sneered at those liberals who stood firm in the face of its insults. He has done so, moreover, in support of a blinkered and narrow view of Israeli security that, again, celebrates hawks and demonizes doves. Had the United States or even Israel followed the policies advocated by those genuine liberals whom TNR routinely slandered, much of the horror of the past four years would have been happily avoided -- as most of its editors (but not Peretz) now admit. " -- Eric Alterman


 * In the 1990s TNR all but abandoned liberalism. Log Cabin Republican Andrew Sullivan edited the magazine from 1991-1996. His replacement, Michael Kelly (who died covering the Iraq war) was a Clinton-hating war hawk.


 * One of TNR's sharpest critics is Markos Moulitsas -- founder of the genuinely leftist web site Daily Kos. (see his June '06 post "TNR's defection to the Right is now complete"; see also "TNR Misfires") Other prominent liberal bloggers, Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake and the late Steve Gilliard, were also critics of TNR. (see Gilliard's "An ethics lecture from the New Republic is like a lecture on honesty from Tom DeLay" and this post from Hamsher). Liberal bloggers were criticizing TNR and its shoddy reporting more than a year before the Beauchamp controversy -- a point that should be noted if you're trying to put this scandal in the proper context.


 * Any statement that suggests TNR is a major player in the anti-war/left movement is extremely misleading. One major sticking point is TNR's continued support for hawkish candidates, such as former Democrat Joe Lieberman, and its 34-year history of supporting neocon policies. JMarkievicz2 (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Eric Alterman is a certified communist, not to mention a liberal kook. In fact, all of the people you've mentioned above are part of the liberal freak fringe.  Their opinions are to be found on trash like Alternet.com Matt Sanchez (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * More to the point (and I'd avoid terms like "kook" or "freak"), just because you're criticized by two opposing viewpoints doesn't make you "right" or even better than them. This fallacy is one that many journalists fall into, excusing their own sloppiness as being a sign of political neutrality (or, worse, correctness). Calbaer (talk) 05:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to be missing the point entirely. TNR's support for rightwing policies (as its liberal critics have pionted out) is what makes it "right." In its heyday, TNR distinguished itself from other political journals by publishing perspectives from both the right and the left. Lately, it's liberal credentials have been so tarnished, it's lost nearly half its readership. TNR's status as a "leftwing rag" is certainly debatable.Stella4star (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Articles here shouldn't have "perspective". Just the facts.  Only those deeply in denial will fail to draw the conclusion that TNR and Beauchamp did wrong here. Calbaer (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Proof positive that you're incapable of editing this article in a NPOV. --Eleemosynary (talk) 04:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases - what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article." The "neutral article" part is what I meant by not having perspective.  Opinions are relevant to the article, but it is very difficult to achieve balance and avoid undue weight if we have much opinion, especially because it is difficult to find secondary reliable sources defending the actions of TNR.  Even Foer himself admitted wrongdoing on the part of his publication, both in trusting Beauchamp and in letting Beauchamp's wife fact-check Beauchamp's stories.  It would be difficult indeed to strike the right balance, so it's best to let the facts speak for themselves. Calbaer (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * TNR under Foer has been a leftist rag, and most certainly an anti-military rag. Tom Delay is a great guy and a lot more credible than Foer or his acolytes.

I vote to remove Elee who is about as neutral as a positive result on an HIV test.Matt Sanchez (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Classy as usual. I can see why Calbaer is such a fan. --Eleemosynary (talk) 02:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Voting" to "remove" isn't how Wikipedia works. Others have suggested avenues of appeal (e.g., Requests for comment/User conduct; since multiple users have already warned Elee about her (or his) behavior, Wikiquette alerts is probably not appropriate).  There's certainly a lot to look at regarding unreformed behavior here, though, as you saw on your own RfC, getting a thorough record of a user's alleged misbehavior can be extremely time-consuming.  Then again, you (or any other contributor on this page) could take the time saved by ignoring Elee's various missives and direct it to compiling links to those missives which violate policy.  Your call.  Calbaer (talk) 05:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In other words, Calbaer would like others to take up the project he has failed at. Bonne chance. --Eleemosynary (talk) 02:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Protection
Okay, I asked for 24 hours, but got a week. So if we get a resolution on this we need to contact the admin in question to get an unprot. Anyway, yeah, we need some tempered discussion here instead of edit warring. Anyone else fancy chipping in? Chris Cunningham (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You and I tried, but several days have passed and clearly there's not as much interest in civil resolution as there is with unilateral edit warring. At this point, users who refuse to discuss but insist on reverting might force this into an RfC, which would be rather pathetic for such a minute point. Calbaer (talk) 05:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not a minute point at all; it's a salient one. To wit, no user should be adding POV tags to the article.  While "journalism ethics" is less incendiary than "hoaxes," it's still an attempt to add POV to the article.  If there was an admitted ethical breach, then the tag would have a place.  But Foer's essay is no such admission; and thus, the tag does not belong.


 * And Calbaer, who exactly do you think you're fooling with the above-it-all "you and I tried" ruse? You're just as guilty of edit warring this article as many of the editors here, including myself.  --Eleemosynary (talk) 04:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I meant that I tried taking it to the talk page on the 11th, but no one on the anti-"ethics" side seemed willing to discuss it until the 18th, preferring the edit war approach. Given that no one opposed to the categorization gave their reason on the talk page, I think reverting to the talk-page-unanimous agreement is justified and does not, in your words, made me "just as guilt of edit warring this article as many of the editors here, including myself."  As this is your only substantive contribution of the day so far, it is the only one I will respond to.  In that vein, to respond to your assertion that there was no admitted ethical breach, Foer admitted a "clear conflict of interest."  Even if you believe everything Foer claims after that, that's still an admission that the matter inherently concerned journalism ethics. Calbaer (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Enough sophistry, Calbaer. You've been edit-warring this article for some time.  And the proposed tag is far too broad to belong on the page, as well as being POV --Eleemosynary (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The inlcusion of Ethics as a category is 100% justified and those opposed to its inclusion have not made a case why it should be removed. DJ Creamity  Oh Yeah! 19:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Blatant conflict of interest
Why is someone who works for a rival publication being allowed to edit an article about The New Republic? Matt Sanchez/Bluemarine is not only personally involved with this scandal, but he writes for The Weekly Standard. JMarkievicz2 (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Aside from one editor acting as an apologist for his abhorrent behavior, no one is taking Sanchez's self-promotion campaign seriously. I encourage all interested editors to visit Sanchez's RFC, where his disruptive behavior; homophobic insults; violations of COI, BLP, and about 20 other Wiki policies are extremely well-documented. --Eleemosynary (talk) 04:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Now, I'm being judged for insulting homosexuals?? Can you get any more ridiculous?? The RFC ran its course and was proven baseless.   Matt Sanchez (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You're not being "judged," you're being called out for your homophobic rants. Which a Freudian would have a field day with.  But no, your RfC has not "run its course" at all.  It's a great reference guide to your self-promotion campaign, augmented by vituperation, sputtering rage, and bile.  And it's hardly over. --Eleemosynary (talk) 02:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If you mean "why" in a technical sense, it's because his RFC never went anywhere despite seemingly overwhelming support. make of that what you will. Regardless of that, most of his edits are to the talk page, though he occasionally edits the article when a few days' lull is mistaken for consensus. While there is a COI, the best thing to do is still to attempt to work with him to resolve this: a feud clearly isn't going to improve the article. Anyway, it's protected for now on what I would consider to be a pretty COI-free revision. Chris Cunningham (talk) 09:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The portion of the guideline in question is at WP:COIC. Calbaer (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There are far more Wikipedia policies than that one "in question." Please don't try to downplay Sanchez's antics. --Eleemosynary (talk) 04:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The Weekly Standard is not a "rival publication" and again, JMark makes no contribution other than the sharp sound of whining. I have suggested edits that are duly sourced and completely within the rules. Matt Sanchez (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Wishing won't make it so, Matt. --Eleemosynary (talk) 02:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC) -

Confusing sentence in intro
It says "Several conservative publications and bloggers questioned Beauchamp's statements." This seems vague and should be cleared up so readers aren't guessing what was questioned and why. 71.139.2.52 (talk) 09:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine aka Matt Sanchez
FYI, Quite a few editors at Matt's bio have made statements.

An Arbitration case has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. Also see Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine/Workshop. Benjiboi 06:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Freedom of Information Act responses in the Beauchamp investigation
The documents have been released:

My read of these statements is that they are neither plain affirmations nor plain retractions. They are simple equivocations which offer nothing to support the truthfulness of the original stories. The stories are a hoax in the same way that the stories of Jayson Blair, Jack Kelley, Mike Barnicle, Stephen Glass, and Janet Cooke are journalistic hoaxes. Beauchamp wrote one thing for TNR and another for his official statement. Now we have both versions. patsw (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "Your read" is, by definition, POV. It's also erroneous, but -- despite several editors patiently addessing your screeds over the last few months -- you're unlikely to consider anything other than what you've already decided.  You are free to construct an epic poem stating the whole Beauchamp affair was a "hoax," and stick it on your wall, or your blog, or wherever.  But until there's a reliable source stating that it was, indeed, a "hoax," your campaign will have to end there.


 * May I recommend Conservapedia? They're more sympathetic to printing articles that directly contradict established fact. --Eleemosynary (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The released statements contain some denials by Scott of what he wrote (not complete, they're weaseling as well and the Army didn't bother pinning him down). Also on the basic points, his mates do not back up the stories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 05:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The released statements do not contain denials of what he wrote. --Eleemosynary (talk) 06:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course, it is my POV. This is a discussion page and I am a Wikipedia editor.  I am discussing the appearance of new, relevant, and reliable material written by Beauchamp and released as part of an FOIA request.  Most of this could have been disclosed earlier if Beauchamp had waived his right to keep it confidential.  If anyone wants to define or discuss "screeds" then flamebait of Eleemosynary on this talk page would be helpful examples.


 * I reject that there's a consensus that this is not hoax. There's a lot of repetition by a few editors of the form "read the above" when I bring up new material or analysis.  That sort of dismissal is not consensus building.


 * Looking at the replies to my December edit to include this in the hoax category, many editors were asking "if only we knew more", "what was his intention", etc. These newly-disclosed statements do allow us to know more:


 * (1) STB denies in part what he wrote for TNR.
 * (2) STB offers no affirmations, narrative, or evidence whatsoever for anything he wrote for TNR which were labeled atrocities committed by himself and other Americans in Iraq.


 * TNR was accused of inadequate fact-checking in July 2007 and TNR itself conceded it in December 2007. Even if TNR's fact-checking was inadequate, disclosure of these statements when they were written would have clearly informed everyone that this was a hoax i.e. Beauchamp submitted false accounts to TNR which TNR published: A violation of journalistic ethics.  A journalistic scandal.  A hoax.


 * So read the FOIA documents, and the original TNR articles with a fresh view to determining if the stories of atrocities were true (as some editors still maintain) or false, and if false, is their falsehood an innocent error (as some editors still maintain) or false because of the deliberate choice of Beauchamp to deceive TNR as TNR concluded. The deception is not a one mere insignificant detail, but a totality of false sensationlistic reporting carried on over several months.


 * So I ask editors again what makes the stories Jayson Blair, Jack Kelley, Mike Barnicle, Stephen Glass, and  Janet Cooke hoaxes and Beauchamp's not.  Is there a dictionary that defines hoax in a way that is not consistent with Beauchamp's actions? 15:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * On Wikipedia, we don't look at events and make judgments, however obvious or reasonable we think those judgments may be. Instead, we employ reliable sources and report their determinations, nothing more. Gamaliel (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What in Beauchamp's Army statement supported his stories of atrocities which were published in The New Republic? patsw (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Atrocities
I removed the phrase "accounts of atrocities." I take issue with the description of the acts Beauchamp took part in as atrocities. While they were certainly morally reprehensible I don't think they deserve to be described in the same way we describe ethnic cleansing or other acts of mass murder. KHorberg (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It really is not a matter of what User:KHorberg thinks, or what "we" describe atrocities as. When this matter was getting national media attention 8 months ago, the word atrocities was being used by both sides: advocates for the truth of Beauchamp's accounts and those skeptical of the truth of Beauchamp's accounts.  It was not characterized in these news sources as reprehensible conduct but as atrocities because of their cruelty and depravity and the dishonor it brought to the United States Army.  A large body count is not a required component of an atrocity. Atrocities is the accurate characterization of the accounts. patsw (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Pat here. While the accounts are fabricated, they were still described as atrocities at the time.  Arkon (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I would still like to see the word removed. You will notice that the Radar Online article which is quoted extensively after the "atrocities" sentence does not include the word "atrocities" itself. A Nexis search of the last two years for the words "Beauchamp" and "atrocity" or "atrocities" brings up 51 articles. Three of the articles use the word in the context of Vietnam, five of the articles are irrelevant to Scott Beauchamp, nineteen of the articles are reprints or reposts (mostly on blogs) and 24 articles use both "Beauchamp" and "atrocity" in the context of Iraq. However, in each of those articles the word "atrocity" is used to describe the actions in Iraq as a whole, not to describe the particular actions Beauchamp took part in. If you cannot provide evidence that the media used the word "atrocity" to describe Beauchamp's actions in particular then I must insist we delete the phrase as it stands. KHorberg (talk) 01:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected, you have convinced me. Good data. Arkon (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree you make a very compelling argument and also convinced.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 06:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

murder
This section was removed with this comment: " tenuous relationship and only relevant for an argument rather than for an objective enclyclopedia. Also uses the "some think" style."

tenuous relationship

It's not tenuous. The murders involved some of the same people and have been written about in connection with Beauchamp by several sources. One of those sources is Bob Owens, who is cited as a source elsewhere in this article, so presumably his opinion is notable.

only relevant for an argument rather than for an objective enclyclopedia

This article is about a controversy so much of it is necessarily going to be devoted to arguments and counterarguments.

Also uses the "some think" style."

No it doesn't, all of the opinions are attributed to specific people.

71.182.183.14 (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:SYN-- The Red Pen of Doom  17:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Any positions are being advanced by people outside Wikipedia, not by me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.230.8 (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually whatever. I don't think this violates WP:SYN at all but I'll admit it's basically trivial, so if you don't want it in the article then fine.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.230.8 (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring
So somehow we've ended up with a low-level sockpuppet war on the page again. I've rolled back to the version as of October 21, because that's the last version which doesn't appear to have been edited by POV-pushing anons. if this edit warring continues I'll request semiprotection. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

15 April 2009 convictions
I was going to just delete the apparently completely irrelevant paragraph about the NCO being convicted of murder, but then I read the below discussion, and it sounds like there's a lot of dispute over whether that info belongs in the article. So instead of deleting it, I added some material to make clear *why* it's in the article; without that material, it appears to be completely random and entirely unrelated to the article. Unfortunately, it also appears that there are few or no reliable sources for the info, so I resorted to (a) added citation-needed templates, (b) saying "Some people have claimed", and (c) adding a "weasel words" template to point out the "Some people." I hate to add problems to an article, but I believe these changes are a (small) improvement over what was there before. I look forward to someone with reliable sources reworking that paragraph and doing it right. --Elysdir (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, those facts are sourced in the article, further down the page, from such reliable sources as AP, the Washington Post, and Stars and Stripes. I've removed the tags asking for the sources, as, again, they're already there. --StephenLaurie (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Re this diff: The men convicted of war crimes served in Company A, First Battalion. Beauchamp's unit was, according to the article, "Alpha Company, 1-18 Infantry, Second Brigade Combat Team." The only thing connecting them, as far as I can tell, is the Division itself. If I'm wrong, I invite correction.

See this news story: Mark Shaw (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Another thing: if someone in Beauchamp's unit was convicted of anything, it should be clear that there was some actual direct connection to Beauchamp's allegations before that material is added here. Let's please keep that in mind. Mark Shaw (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The 172nd Infantry Brigade was activated with the following unit redesignations:   On 16 March 2008, 1st Infantry Division’s presence in Europe formally ended when the 2nd (Dagger) Brigade in Schweinfurt, Germany reflagged as the 172d Infantry Brigade.

The 172nd Infantry Brigade was activated with the following unit redesignations: 1st Battalion, 2nd Infantry (reflagged from 1-18 Infantry)

It's the same unit, and Hatley was right in the middle of things as Beauchamp's NCO, you should put that back--Edmarshall3 (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, other than insinuation, how is this at all relevant to Beauchamp? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hartley was one of the people used to discredit STB's story at the height of the controversy. He called STB's writings a "fantasy" and the product of "a vivid imagination."  If he is on the record publically denying these allegations of misconduct by his unit, and yet is convicted of murdering Iraqi insurgents along with two other men in the spring of 2007-- when these alleged incidents were occurring-- how is that not relevant? btswanfury (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.127.92 (talk)


 * First of all, the article says nothing about Hartley discrediting Beauchamp. Where are you getting this, Please?  (I'm not trying to be combative, I'd just like to see your source.)  Second, the crimes for which Hartley et al were convicted seem to have nothing to do with any allegations made by Beauchamp.  So: how is this relevant? Mark Shaw (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2007/07/27/update-on-the-new-republics-man-in-iraq/

The author of the blog seems to be inferring that Hatley conducted the military's investigation into Beauchamp and when Hatley wrote this letter he had murdered four bound prisoners two months earlier.--Edmarshall3 (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, let's do what you say. Leave Hatley out of it, even though he was one of the people used to discredit Beauchamp. What you have then is a situation where men IN Beauchamp's unit were doing far worse things than running over dogs and playing with bones. If we're going to debate whether or not Beauchamp's allegations of wrongdoing are accurate, aren't three murder convictions for crimes which occurred at the time of Beauchamp's writings important enough to at least mention? I mean, Hatley wrote his e-mail defending his unit against STB's allegations only weeks after he murdered 4 men. I think that is enough to impeach him as a character witness.--btswanfury (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.127.92 (talk)

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/sergeant_who_smeared_fellow_soldier_new_republic_w.php

"Some of those conservatives, including the Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb [referenced in article as a source multiple times for assertions], participated in a concerted (and inaccurate) effort to discredit Beauchamp"...

"For his reporting, Goldfarb relied on some...let's call them 'questionable' sources and even got an assist, in a bizarre breach of protocol, from Beauchamp's First Sergeant, who took to the blogosphere to make the case against the beleaguered Private. "My soldiers [sic] conduct is consistently honorable."..."The name of that Non-Commissioned Officer might ring a bell: John Hatley." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.59.127.217 (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Weblogs are not WP:RS, of course. And the fact of Hartley's crimes does absolutely nothing to rehabilitate Beauchamp.  All parties have agreed that his claims were unsupportable, and unsupportable they remain.  Hartley's conviction has no relevance here, unless he is mentioned earlier in the article, and even then that conviction would amount to no more than a minor and peripheral detail. Mark Shaw (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * TPM isn't just any old web log. It's the first internet-only news operation to win a Polk Award for investigative reporting. There seems to be a double standard at work here. Why is TPM an unacceptable source when the Beauchamp article relies on partisan rightwing weblogs like Hot Air to malign Beauchamp's reputation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.5.234 (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, all parties do not agree at all. Hatley (drop the R), was his NCO which means that he was on point for the investigation.  An investigation conducted by a convicted war criminal into soldier's misconduct is far less credible than a source problem regarding weblogs.  I'll wait for someone to write it up in non blog form, but it's going up when it does.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edmarshall3 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (Note: I've corrected Edmarshall3's indentation - let's please try to keep this readable.) First of all, Hatley did not conduct any investigation that I'm aware of. Second, both the Army and The New Republic have repudiated Beauchamp's claims.  Hatley's conviction is not relevant to this article in its current form, unless you can show that the impeachment of Beauchamp's claims depended entirely on Hatley's statements.


 * I don't know what your game is here, but I suspect that you are a WP:SPA intent on injecting POV into this article. If you are not, you are at least not very experienced as yet (as a peek at your contributions shows), and I'd advise you to back off for a bit until you learn a little more about how consensus works on Wikipedia.  (I know that probably sounds a little harsh, but it's not intended to.  We were all newbies once.) Mark Shaw (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't usually edit wiki, or recognize every acronym, but if POV is point of you I'd like to note that the main editor of this --Edmarshall3 (talk) 21:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)page is Mark Sanchez who certainly doesn't float around in the ether of objectivism. I'll be interested to see how the process works out.--Edmarshall3 (talk) 21:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Eleemosynary! Figured you'd turn up here again SPA/Socking...Waiter, WP:RFCU please!71.183.164.226 (talk) 03:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * So, in other words, STB made allegations of improper conduct that were much less serious in nature. Hatley, who serves with Beauchamp, denies these allegations and claims that he is serving with America's "best."  It then turns out that Hatley and other men in that unit murdered captives.  This in your mind has no bearing at all on the veracity of STB's allegations of general wrongdoing by his unit?  Especially since some of the people attacking STB's credibility are no0w convicted murderers?  btswanfury (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.127.92 (talk)


 * (Again: indentation corrected.) The fact that individuals in the unit committed crimes is now indisputable, but that fact is not relevant to Beauchamp's specific allegations. I can see something along the lines of including a section describing known war crimes committed in the unit, in a generalized fashion, certainly.  But an entire section consisting mainly of copyright violations, simply detailing those crimes in a manner clearly intended to rehabilitate Beauchamp, isn't appropriate.  Remember that the article is about Beauchamp, his claims, and the unsupportable nature of those claims, not about the presence or absence of wrongdoing in the unit. Mark Shaw (talk) 22:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * So, since the NYT is a RS, an article by Jayson Blair, would be a good source? Or an article quoting Enron/WorldCom/Tyco executives as to their prior financial statements would be reliable?  The man who was a primary source for articles by a self-described political magazine has been convicted crimes re:the conduct of his unit.  Hatley commented on and denied the assertion by STB of misconduct of the unit.  Hatley has now been convicted of misconduct at the highest level.  The source(s) for the pieces accusing STB of falsehood cannot be taken to be 100% valid or trustworthy; and in fact now have be judged to be criminal.  The Weekly Standard/NRO/HotAir articles should be removed as sources at a minimum.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.59.127.217 (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The Weekly Standard/NRO/HotAir articles should be removed as sources - well, then so should the New Republic, then, since they've also repudiated Beauchamp's claims.


 * Bottom line: Beauchamp's allegations, while more credible in the context of this new development, remain uncorroborated. The convictions of Hatley et al change nothing.  If this material is to remain in the article, it's going to have to be rewritten so as not to imply that it's dispositive. Mark Shaw (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Beauchamp's main allegation was that there was misconduct by soldiers. The recent murder convictions of members of his former unit back up his main theme - out of control soldiers who did not respect the local population.  During the time frame that Beauchamp was writing about out of control soldiers in Iraq, members of his unit had killed 4 bound Iraqi POWs/Detainees, and then tried to cover up the incident.  TharsHammar Bits andPieces 16:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The recent murder convictions of members of his former unit back up his main theme - yes, but not his specific allegations. Why do we keep going around and around on this point? Mark Shaw (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Logic. STB makes Aseertion X (Misconduct in Unit).  Hatley denies X.  Hatley's denial used to assert Not-X.  Hatley convicted of X (MAJOR Misconduct in Unit).  Other unit members also convicted of Misconduct.  The only other named source has been investigated for Fraud.  SEE http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/the-weekly-standard_b_58977.html


 * "Among all the active duty soldiers used by Goldfarb to undermine Beauchamp, only one is cited by name: Matt Sanchez, a corporal in the Marine reserves. "Frankly, I don't believe ANY of this story," Sanchez proclaimed in the Standard about Beauchamp's diary. Who is Sanchez? According to Goldfarb, he is simply a soldier "who stands behind his work."
 * But Sanchez is more than a mere man in uniform. As I reported for Media Matters today, Sanchez is also a conservative pro-war activist...
 * More importantly, Sanchez has been under investigation by the Marine Corps for fraud. According to an April 1 Marine Corps Times article, Sanchez was informed in a March 22 email from Reserve Col. Charles Jones, a staff judge advocate, that he was under investigation for lying "'to various people, including but not limited to, representatives of the New York City United War Veterans Council [UWVC] and U-Haul Corporation' about deploying to Iraq at the commandant's request."


 * The credibility of the sources is, at minimum, questionable for any assertions - general or specific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.59.127.217 (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Logic. STB makes Aseertion [sic] X (Misconduct in Unit).  Hatley denies X.  Hatley's denial used to assert Not-X.  Hatley convicted of X (MAJOR Misconduct in Unit).  No.  Try: "Hatley [et al] convicted of Y."  Speaking of, you know, logic and all: Beauchamp made no claims about the crime Hatley was charged with and convicted for; in fact, it seems obvious that he was not aware of it.


 * But we're arguing the phenomenon of Beauchamp's fabulisms here, and that's not what this discussion page is for. Let's get back to the question of the article itself.  I propose that it be reworded to retain the detail of the Hatley (et al) conviction - it seems consensus is for that - but to decouple that fact from the question of Beauchamp's credibility. Mark Shaw (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Y is a sub set of X. If you don't agree, let us reason by analogy.  If a whistleblower at Madoff Securities said 'The recordkeeping is not being kept in accordance with proper standards."  Then Bernie Madoff said "The whistleblower is a liar and cannot prove these assertions."  Then Mr. Madoff is judged guilty by a court of crimes of fraud beyond just proper records keeping, but theft.  Would you still have questions as to the whistleblower's credibility based on the assertions of Bernie Madoff?  Do you think the records were properly kept?  Hatley was STB's NCO.  The doubts as to STB's credibility are from sources at issue here.  STB may or not be credible.  However, Hatley and Sanchez were the sources for much of the controversy.  Are they reliable?   Additionally, your assertion above that TNR has 'repudiated' STB's claims is not fully accurate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by HenryV19 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * We're not allowed to judge the veracity of primary sources. This is a descriptive tertiary source, not a journalistic publication. Unless Hatley's conviction is tied, by a reliable source, directly to a vindication of Beauchamp then we cannot use it as evidence here to make that argument. End of story. I have once again removed the section in question until et al have consensus for its inclusion, if ever. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages." Do you think it is common sense to trust an article from a partisan secondary source based on a primary source who lied regarding the manner [He said he saw no dishonorable activity in the unit; I assume he saw the murder of which he was convicted] and another secondary source accused of fraud? Again, while there is no "vindication" of STB, there is doubt as to the claims against him and the people who made them.  The controversy is more properly framed as an assertion is made.  Counter-claims arise.  Counter-claimants discredited.  Initial claims make or may not be valid, but cannot be assumed invalid solely based on the the discredited counterclaims.  Any article on the STB controversy should make front and center the fact the credibility and character of the origins of accusers. HenryV19 (talk) 01:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to say, to be constructive I hope, that I agree fully with the idea above of noting the conviction but decoupling it from the issue of credibility of STB. Perhaps my point goes further in that I would support decoupling the the issue of STB's credibility from the some of the sources that are in question.  HenryV19 (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Deleting out the sections in their entirety seems draconian. This is obviously pertinent to the history.  If soonergrunt doesn't reappear, that doesn't change much of anything.  This part of story is crucial and if there is some editing problem you see, and would like to shape how this chapter is formed that would be helpful. If you think this is totally tangental there will be no consensus and we should move to other options.--Edmarshall3 (talk) 03:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to roll it back, there is no synthesis of opinion. There is no opinion at all in the edits you deleted.  --Edmarshall3 (talk) 04:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The information on convictions is directly relevant to this article, which is about the Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy. The article is about the whole controversy, and the crimes that the convictions are based on are part of that controversy. We are not asserting they prove his thesis, we are not saying they destroy the credibility of those attacking Beauchamp, no we are laying out the facts of the convictions. Please see this piece by Beauchamp's wife detailing how the convictions are just part of the whole controversy. Again, this is a article on the whole controversy, and as such we should include information about the whole controversy. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 05:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to including something about Hatley (et al) here. The state it's currently in (represented by this diff), however, amounts to a data dump that leaves interpretation of the meaning of those convictions up to the reader.  That's not encyclopedic practice.  As I noted above, the crimes for which Hatley et al were convicted were not among those Beauchamp claimed he witnessed, and the article should make that clear. Mark Shaw (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOR prevents us from making interpretations. Since you, and an IP address who used your wording of "data dump" keep deleting the entire section, what do you propose as an amount of detail that is acceptable.  14:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TharsHammar (talk • contribs)


 * As I wrote previously: I propose that it be reworded to retain the detail of the Hatley (et al) conviction - it seems consensus is for that - but to decouple that fact from the question of Beauchamp's credibility. More completely: I think a mention of Hatley's crime and conviction is appropriate, given that he was one of the voices raised against Beauchamp's claims. But the way the article was written before this revert carries a strong implication that that conviction has restored Beauchamp's credibility. That offends WP:NPOV, clearly. And the inclusion of Hatley's entire email exchange is quite a bit too much (WP:UNDUE, for one thing); it would be better referred to in the article rather than quoted inline, if it's mentioned at all.


 * I would be willing to perform this rewrite and expose it to comment and criticism, if others will agree to stop edit-warring via reverts in the interim. Mark Shaw (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Break 1
Go ahead, perform the rewrite and put it below here, we can then comment. I will hold off on editing in the interim. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 17:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, good. It will probably take me 12-24 hours to get to this because of professional obligations, though. Mark Shaw (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, the world won't end in the next 12-24 hours. Hopefully. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 17:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Update: bear with me here, please - I should have something within the next few hours or so. Busy week. Mark Shaw (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ugh. Just got home - as I said, I'm having a very busy week.  I'm self-reverting the article till I can address this.  Note that I am not acquiescing, just tabling the matter and handing the baton back until I can give this the attention it deserves.  Should be soon; right now I'm going to bed. Mark Shaw (talk) 03:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Its been what a week and a half? Are you going to actually perform a re-write like you said, or just hope that others acquiesce to your constant reverts? TharsHammar Bits andPieces 12:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmmmm. I think you may have tipped your hand by reverting to old form here....  time for RFCU? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.7.191 (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL. The "208" IP troll has the stench -- stench, I tell you -- of failed desperation.  It's actually quite touching. Update:  the anon IP troll is... Matt Sanchez!  Good to know.  --StephenLaurie (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've reverted your most recent addition. We have nothing showing this was done soley by 'conservative bloggers'.  Arkon (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * And I've reverted your reversion. All links critical of Beauchamp are either from conservative bloggers (Weekly Standard or NRO online), or from mainstream articles referencing conservative bloggers (Kurtz in WaPo).  Take your revisionism elsewhere.  --StephenLaurie (talk) 02:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In agreement with StephenLaurie. Also want to point out that Howard Kurtz is a media critic, not a reporter. He didn't independently verify any of the allegations made against Beauchamp. And since Kurtz is married to Sheri Annis, a Republican strategist who sometimes writes for National Review, he's hardly an unbiased source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.48.217 (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've self-reverted, as you can see (and as I've noted just above), so I have no idea what you're on about. I'll get to it when I can. Mark Shaw (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

BLP problems
Those seeking to delete the material have oft cited "BLP concerns" what exactly are the BLP concerns you have about the material. Please when deleting this amount of material explain a little more than that. Please discuss here what the issues are instead of deleting the exact same things over and over again. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 12:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read the long discussion above this section. The additions you are adding are not about Beauchamp but about other people.  There is no balance to these additions, they are not about Beauchamp, are undue weight, tenditious, and POV. Mohummy (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read the title of the article. This is not a bio of Scott Thomas Beauchamp, this is an article about the Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy.  TharsHammar Bits andPieces 13:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also note that I was involved in the long discussion above, and it ended with the editor who was proposing a re-writing giving up then socking. Also we are not Fox News, no where does it say wikipedia needs to balance. WP:V and WP:RS covers what we should include, and sometimes the situations do not have balancing opinions.  After all we don't include the balancing opinions saying Charles Manson was a great guy. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 13:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There are no "BLP concerns" with the additional material regarding Beauchamp's cohort. Too often, editors without an argument to make attempt to rely on "BLP concerns" as a catch-all, edit-summary justification to scrub sourced data which doesn't mesh with their worldviews and politics.  The reversions and edit summaries by Mohummy and the anon IP (173.xxx) would seem to fit this description. --StephenLaurie (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Final section
The last section consists mostly of material that is redundant with material in Section 7 (along with being exceedingly self-redundant). The links might be useful, but the content is not. I'm removing it while preserving the links. Calbaer (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The information is pertinent to the controversy, and should not be unilaterally scrubbed. I've restored it. --StephenLaurie (talk) 02:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Pertinent to the controversy"? It's redundant.  Going into so much detail with repetitious language not only degrades the quality of the article and its writing, but gives this aspect undue weight.  (I must say that the section is extremely poorly written.  It gives the impression that coinciding timelines are the main connection here and that these might all be separate events, not the same event described four times.  Judging from the talk page, I'm not the only one who had that first impression.)  Actually, the prior section is also arguably given undue weight, since Beauchamp had thorough coverage, whereas Hatley was mentioned by only one source mentioned in the article, an obscure blog, ranked #43965 in terms of traffic according to The Truth Laid Bear.  Mention the convictions, and move on.  And if no one can get a notable source that actually covered the "widely passed" and "routinely quoted" email, the prior section should be removed, too, as per WP:UNDUE.  If you feel differently, justify it, don't just assert "the information is pertinent."  Right now, it just seems an attempt to add fear, uncertainty and doubt, not relevant information. Calbaer (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A quick look at the history seems to verify this. Hatley's so-called "widely spread" email wasn't deemed relevant to Beauchamp until Hatley was convicted of murder.  It wasn't widely spread, and it isn't relevant.  I see absolutely no justification of all this, so I'm taking it out. Calbaer (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And I've restored it. I agree that the material needs tightening, but your scrubbing it is little more than blanking.  The page, again, is not a bio of STB, but is about the controversy, of which the murder convictions are a part.  "Mention the convictions and move on?"  You've got to be kidding.


 * Again, the language needs tightening. But not blanking. --StephenLaurie (talk) 04:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I cited specific policies. All I'm getting as a response is, "Well, it's not great and we didn't really change it since an anonymous IP put it in seven weeks ago, but I think this information should be in here because, well, I just think it should."  "You've got to be kidding" is not a defense.
 * To be honest, I don't think it's relevant at all. Beauchamp invented some things that were bad and passed it off as fact.  Other people in his circle of associates were convicted of completely different things that also were bad.  It would be like putting in an article about the Holocaust that the highways built by the Nazis now have no speed limit, thus furthering their goal of killing people to this very day.  It's apples and oranges.  It's biased.  It doesn't belong.
 * Still, I'm willing to concede that some people might find it relevant. However, unless your goal is to smear folks for guilt by association and you're incapable of clicking on references, you won't want or need two sections on this tangential tragedy.  I followed the Beauchamp scandal fairly closely when it occurred, and I never heard of Hatley before his conviction.  Of course, it doesn't matter what I personally think, but I can find absolutely no evidence that my impression of this was wrong.  Hatley wasn't mentioned in the article before his conviction because he played no effective role in the controversy.  He was just dredged up after the fact to say that his email was "widely passed" and "routinely quoted" by conservatives (it wasn't), and thus those conservatives relied on a murderer (they didn't), and they're just as suspect as Beauchamp (they aren't).  You're right: this page is about the controversy, and this played no role in the controversy unless something can be retroactively added to a controversy merely by anonymous folks adding text on a webpage.  If mentioned at all, it should be mentioned as what it was: a temporally coincident "bad thing" that wasn't described among Beauchamp's "bad things."  That's worth about two or three sentences, if that.
 * Anyway, I won't take it out now, but honestly you have no business re-adding text you refuse to defend on its merits and on Wikipedia policy. I'll give you a few days to formulate a reason beyond "It's a part of it" that it should be on here; if you do not, I'll take it out. Calbaer (talk) 06:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless you couldn't tell there is a whole long section above detailing arguments for and against inclusion of the material. Furthermore there is no proof for your statement "Beauchamp invented some things that were bad and passed it off as fact." TharsHammar Bits andPieces 20:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I already read it. And I'm persuaded by the "against" side, but more importantly it needs to be edited.  There was no resolution except that people agreed it needs to be rewritten; everyone seems to agree that the material right now is poor.  Yet anyone attempting to edit it for readability and due weight finds their edits reverted!  That's kind of a joke.  And now the reverter is arguing that I'm wrong in saying it's given undue weight, but without any logical argument as to why. Calbaer (talk) 02:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll be unavailable for a while, but hopefully by the time I get back, there will be a two-sided discussion about the pertinent issues here, namely: why the last section had four paragraphs where a sentence would do and why the change to a sentence keeps getting reverted; why the letter from the convicted soldier (Hatley) should or should not be in here (no one can give an example of it being covered, either in medium-to-large-following online sources or in news articles about the soldier and/or the controversy); what would due weight be for the soldier (especially given the lack of sources, reliable or otherwise, about any connection between him and this controversy). Without an explanation about these, the sections on Hatley would be cut down to one sentence, if that.  In the meantime, please stop reverting my changes until you can explain just why the status quo (or a future alternative) regarding these issues is better than the changes I've made.  Until you do at least that, your accusations of childish reverting will seem exceedingly hypocritical. Calbaer (talk) 09:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Rather than continue pingponging between two very different versions, and throwing accusations of sockpuppetry around, let's try something different. I don't have any illusions that this edit of mine will be the final word, but perhaps it's a place to start. Mark Shaw (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That addresses only a small part of the issues here, and, again, relies on a minor blog as its source. From what I understand of the policies mentioned above, this isn't worthy of inclusion here.  Please let me know if anything you find in policies and guidelines seems to indicate otherwise.  Anyway, at least one person took the time to actually comment about this.  I think the lack of willingness to discuss the relevant policies indicates that these sections should be cut as I recommended. Calbaer (talk) 03:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's your opinion, but by no means consensus. The blanking/vandalism is being done by anon IPs now.  That's not a solution.  --StephenLaurie (talk) 01:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Quoting the entirety of a (purported) personal email to a random blogger simply isn't going to stand for the long term. Please work with other editors to find a reasonable middle ground. Mark Shaw (talk) 03:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your pattern of harassment tonight (edit summary insults, revert war, etc.) has been duly noted. Unfortunately, based on your actions, it is no longer possible to assume good faith with you.  --StephenLaurie (talk) 06:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of Hatley email
The inclusion of, or reference to, John Hatley's email to blogger Cheryl McElroy violates both WP:ELNO and WP:RS. Hence, this typical correction. These corrections, and the restoration of the thoroughly inappropriate in-line inclusion of that email in the article body, have been the basis of a running edit war for some time now.

I offered a third alternative here, but was accused of being a sockpuppet and, bizarrely, an IP. So, if other editors(?) intend to take a hard-line, all-or-nothing position here, the obvious better alternative is "nothing."

This material is nonencyclopedic, and has only a peripheral connection to the article at best, and hence must be excluded. Mark Shaw (talk) 11:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You were accused of being neither a sockpuppet nor an IP. That was the edit prior to yours.  You did not offer a legitimate third way, but a single, cursory sentence following a massive blanking by another editor.  You then initiated a bogus RFCU (that was quickly closed) without notifying either party you were doing so, in violation of Wiki policy.  Thus, your actions suggest you are not editing in good faith, and are trying to pour gasoline on a revert war that was all but extinguished.  Best that you stop.


 * The material in question has direct bearing on the Beauchamp story, has a direct connection to the article, and must certainly be included. The language needs tightening, and crisper prose, but it must certainly remain.  --StephenLaurie (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, an ad hominem attack followed by an assertion without offering any Wikipedia policy to support it. Perhaps you think inclusion "must certainly remain," but it violates all three core policies:
 * NPOV: Its inclusion offers an insignificant POV unfairly and disproportionately, thus reflecting bias.
 * Verifiability: It relies on an unreliable source (by Wikipedia's definition of RS).
 * No original research: This is the synthesis of an obscure blog post and news articles to impeach the credibility of Beauchamp's critics. (Actually, this last point is debatable as to whether it's really "original research" according to Wikipedia's definition.  It is original research according to the common definition, but it's really the first two policy violations that are most egregious.)
 * You've had many months and dozens of responses to formulate a defense based on any specific Wikipedia policy, but you have never taken the opportunity to do so. You must therefore know that the material does not belong in Wikipedia, yet believe that wishful thinking will change that.  It won't.  The material must go. Calbaer (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I'm supporting the previous arguments made on this page for the inclusion, none of which you've been able to refute (your bluster aside), and all of which still stand. I'm not going to be drawn into a sophomoric game of gainsaying with you.  You are twisting yourself into a partisan pretzel trying to remove sourced material from the page concerning Beauchamp's cohort being convicted of war crimes.  The material is not POV, completely verifiable, and does not come from an "obscure blog post."  I have reviewed the edit history of this page, and see that you are no fan of Beauchamp's.  That's your right.  But it's not your right to remove sourced, verifiable information in an attempt to skew the article to reflect a reality that you think should exist, but doesn't.


 * As to your last point, I'm not going to go around and around and around with you "formulating a defense." This is not a trial, and you are not in possession of facts to be disproved.  I see no record, in your activities in this article, to compromise, or build consensus, on any point.  Your "wishful thinking" comment is projection, and it's laughable that you would accuse someone else of "ad hominem."


 * The new, sourced material must be included. --StephenLaurie (talk) 07:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I suppose you think that something existing on the Internet is enough for it to be "verified" and "sourced," since you give absolutely no reasoning as to your claim that the material from the blog isn't obscure and is notable, in spite of no reliable source claiming this. (In fact, no source but Wikipedia contributors seem to claim otherwise.)  Again, Wikipedia policy is that the onus is on those who want material in, not those who want it out, to prove their position the correct one.  "This is not a trial" will not get you past that simple fact.  Yet still you refuse, falling back on generalities rather than arguments on the specifics.  I've illustrated how obscure the blog was and challenged anyone to show that the material was notable, less alone influential and "widespread," as claimed.  "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable.  Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."  In this case, that is so far from the case that there shouldn't even be a debate about this.  I'm all for including material from blogs: If a notable person publishes his or her opinion on a blog, then that is a reliable record of his or her opinion.  However, this situation is very far from that and is such a clear violation of Wikipedia's core policies that it's easy to see why no one is defending it with facts and logic.  Instead, I get, "No you're the one not refuting me" (without an example of what I'm supposedly not refuting) --- among other "I'm rubber; you're glue" arguments --- and "This isn't a trial."  Again, it's fundamental that the defense for inclusion is on those who want to include, but you continually refuse to do so.  Therefore, keeping the material is in violation of Wikipedia's core policies.  If you believe the information should be public, then start a blog or wiki of your own; it has no place here. Calbaer (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And, by the way, you might enjoy trying to conflate the issues, but the conviction of Beauchamp's "cohort" is the one thing I've never removed from the article. That part has always been about restoring proper weight, which is certainly not paragraph after paragraph for an event that does not pertain to Beauchamp's writings, only to the coincidence that he served with this man.  (Actually, I haven't seen any reliable source as to the nature of how closely they served together.  Such a source would definitely help.)  The convicted man's letter, although interesting, cannot be included for the article to remain consistent with Wikipedia policy. Calbaer (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, it seems as though the "public email" text &mdash; the text no reliable sources can be found for &mdash; was introduced by User:Soonergrunt on April 2009 (21 months after the "routinely quoted" email was published), a single-purpose account that also added the same information (without any source, let alone a reliable one) to John E. Hatley. So anything that's relevant here is relevant there.  If I'm mistaken and it was introduced by someone else, I didn't see it earlier. Calbaer (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Defend it
As you can see, there is section that is currently being readded over and over against consensus (discussed on this very talk page, in the section right above this one no less). Those who wish to include this, please defend it. Here. I made this request the first time, and it was ignored, now you are working against those who -actually- used the talk page. I will repeat my original reversion from the November: (rv to remove irrelevent murder conviction of someone else (who was never mentioned in the original Beauchamp letters/articles). If there is discussion, please put it on this talk page.) Arkon (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for coming to the talk page with this. I hope we can resolve this amicably. I'll keep my initial observation short and to the point: there has been a lot of back-and-forth on this over the months, and the version restored by Hit bull, win steak represents the compromise work-product of that long and bitter discussion. Personally (and an examination of this talk page will back this up), I don't believe the inclusion of anything about the crimes of Hatley et al is really appropriate in this article, but it is peripheral to the Beauchamp saga, and the current version is certainly brief enough. At any rate: I'm actually open to either taking it out or leaving it in, or various reasonable modifications, but please let's work that out without any repetition of the previous unpleasantness. Cheers! Mark Shaw (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * (a bit later) This edit simply removed the references for the note about the Hatley->McLeroy email. Without those references, that passage can't stand. Making that edit now; however I should note that I consider everything in this section still up for discussion. Mark Shaw (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that they can't stay in without the references - however, I don't see any reason why those references should not be used. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't get it either; the editor who removed them just said they weren't WP:RS, and while I won't take a position on that I also don't think that amounts to much more than an unsupported assertion. By way of moving forward, how would you feel about replacing those two refs with this link to McLeroy's blog? Mark Shaw (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the TPM ref needs to stay in to avoid problems with WP:SYN. I would have no objection to replacing the other ref with your link, if that's more to people's liking. If anything, it's probably better as the point of first origin for the e-mail itself. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 23:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine to me, so long as the article itself conforms to WP:NPOV and does not draw or suggest any connection between Hatley's crimes and Beauchamp's allegations. In other words, the same wording as in the version you restored, with the substitution of the link to McLeroy's blog for the old reference (which appears to be dead anyway), and the restoration of the link to TPM for the other reference. Mark Shaw (talk) 02:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been more than 48 hours with no further discussion. I'm making the indicated change. Mark Shaw (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I figured that I probably shouldn't, as an involved party, and since no one else apparently wants to talk... -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't ignore your request, Arkon - I requested in turn that you state your objection to the consensus version of the page, so I would know exactly what problem you had with the passage in question, as I can't read your mind and it doesn't seem objectionable to me in any way. Would you please do so now? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 01:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, now that I look back at my talk page, I see that you did participate in that discussion, and then dropped out without responding to my question at that time. If your primary objection now (as it was then) is that TPM does not meet WP:RS, then I don't understand the nature of your problem with the source. They have a high degree of editorial oversight, and they've won prestigious awards for journalism (most notably the George Polk Awards). Time magazine, a pretty non-partisan source, described them last year as "the prototype of what a successful Web-based news organization is likely to be in the future". Why, then, do you consider them to be unreliable? Or if that is not your current objection, can you please articulate the nature of your problem? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 01:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys, I was looking back through my edits and ran across this. First, I want to apologize for the vitriol in my post, It was a not so sober editing moment. Second, no one else has made a real objection to your edit, so I bow to consensus, and appreciate your time in responding. See you around! Arkon (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. No offense was taken, and I'm glad to know we don't need to send out a search party. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ditto on that - not an issue. Cheers! Mark Shaw (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

1st Sgt conviction
This is an article about Scott Thomas Beauchamp and his controversial writings. Scott did not write about the 1st Sgt. The fact that a member of Beauchamp's unit was convicted of an unrelated act is the height of irrelevance. It (the sgt's conviction) is possibly notable in it's own right, it doesn't belong in this article under any stretch of the imagination.Capitalismojo (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, an unknown blog posting a letter questioning Beauchamp's bloviation from the Sgt doesn't add anything of value to the article and is not RS. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Talking Points Memo is not an "unknown blog". It has a high degree of editorial oversight, it is staffed by professional journalists, and it has received numerous awards for journalism, most notably the George Polk Awards. For further discussion of its merits as a source, see the discussion at Talk:Scott_Thomas_Beauchamp_controversy. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 23:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * With respect, I was referring to the blog, not TPM. Those are two different refs. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As regards TPM. I am aware that they won the Polk Award for their legal reporting on the US Attorney firings under Bush. That really doesn't go to the heart of this issue, however. It is irrelevant to this article. This article is about Scott Beauchamp's problematic writings. The Sgt was not a subject of those writings. It is tangential at best. That was the point I was trying, apparently very unclearly, to make. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Blog Post in Final Section
This blogger posted only 26 posts total from 2007 to now. To say that this is a RS for anything is a wild stretch. The ref should be removed, and I have done so.Capitalismojo (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The blog post in question qualifies as a reliable source because it is a primary source, containing Hatley's own words on the subject. Per WP:RS, primary sources "can be both reliable and useful in certain situations". This is one of them - a direct quotation from Hatley is appropriate in demonstrating his publicly stated position on the issue. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If we knew that they were actually Hatley's words. If we knew that there was some sort of effort to insure that they were accurate. If, if. This is not only unreliable, it is the most unreliable. There is no indication that this is reliable or accurate. The blog doesn't even seem to really still exist in any meaningful way. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:PRIMARY and WP:RS apply here. We are supposed to avoid and be very very wary of primary sources and further we can not use material that is not from a reliable source. The blog is both not RS in any sense and it is also being used as primary source material. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

new source for 1st sergeant
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/06/iraq-war-crime-army-cunningham-hatley-trial FYI. --Jeremyb (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * After coming across this page last night (linked through from The New Republic) I read all that was posted with interest but found the article to be a bit long/drawn out/jittery for something that is essentially - Soldier writes articles from the frontline → Magazine publishes them in good faith → Doubt Arises → Army and Magazine have investigations → Army always maintains inaccuracy/fabrication of published content → Magazine first stands by author but eventually has doubts and no longer supports author's claims. Although I thought the article could be condensed I felt like something was missing.
 * Click through to this talk page and after reading everything here (no archives were read or the user pages linked to due to the simple fact of so much arguing has been done here already) and I found what was missing, the confirmation of misconduct within the unit of Scott Thomas Beauchamp.
 * The article, while doing it's best to be balanced, appeared to lack any real substance as to why the reader should believe Scott Thomas Beauchamp, The Army or The New Republic version of events. While this is obviously my opinion and not encyclopedic, where there's smoke there's fire! Reading the article as it currently stands left me thinking that Scott Thomas Beauchamp made some (if not all of it) up, but the early persistence of The New Republic to stand by his claims makes one wonder why they stood by him, which to me doesn't fit with the overall conclusion presented here.
 * The conviction of a First Sergeant of the very same unit the author served in, for war crimes committed at the same time the author claimed misconduct was occurring IS relevant to this article. A lot of arguments were advanced early on this page about First Sergeant Hatley's conviction not being relevant to this case, which is a very limited view to hold when speaking of the military. Militaries work on a chain of command - if someone as high up as a First Sergeant is going rogue and killing civilians without justification all while keeping higher officers in the dark - claims of misconduct from a lower ranked member of the same unit would be relevant. Regardless of whether Scott Thomas Beauchamp was referring to misconduct by First Sergeant Hatley (or the other two found guilty with him) or other soldiers is not what is important. What is relevant is a military unit's chain of command was involved in criminal behaviour yet claimed no such behaviour was happening at a time when misconduct was concurrently reported by Scott Thomas Beauchamp/The New Republic.
 * I'm not here to argue and can see that many of these arguments have gone nowhere in the past, especially due to their being nowhere to reference this link. Now we have an editor who has kindly provided us with a valid source that links the convictions of First Sergeant Hatley and co with the claims of misconduct by Scott Thomas Beauchamp and even makes the same links I and others on this page have - If the First Sergeant is a CONFIRMED bad egg, why was Scott Thomas Beauchamp's claims concluded as unreliable? As such something about First Sergeant Hatley needs to be reinserted into the article, and I don't want to do it lol. Thanks for your time. 101.184.155.231 (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

False allegation of falsification?
There must be more to the allegation of falsification than that Beauchamp could not "provide documentation for his three published columns"? That is pretty much normal for a diary! Furthermore the statement that "one of the anonymous military experts consulted by TNR refuted Beauchamp's allegations regarding Bradley Fighting Vehicles" makes no sense. An anonymous source cannot deny that a vehicle ran over a dog. The source was not there! Is there any evidence or suggestion or an orchestrated attempt (presumably by the military) to discredit Beauchamp?Royalcourtier (talk) 07:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)