Talk:Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy/Archive 7

"Experts"
Well, as long as we're citing Steele as an expert, there is now certainly justification to replace this section -- twice blanked by single-purpose-account A.V.:


 * Kurtz also quoted Mark Feldstein, a journalism professor at George Washington University, concerning the conflicting outcomes of the investigations by the military and The New Republic:

There is a cloud over the New Republic, but there's one hanging over the Army, as well. Each investigated this and cleared themselves, but they both have vested interests. --Eleemosynary 22:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be satisfactory, though I wonder if it would fit better in the further developments section, than the military investigation section since it pertains to both sides in the conflict. Either way, as long as both sides get appropriate quotes.
 * Also, Eleemosynary, I'd appreciate it if you would remove the personal attack against me in your statement above. You've been blocked once over this article, already. Your confrontational edits and comments bring down the tone of Wikipedia. A.V. 19:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hardly appropriate, in my opinion. The Army isn't a newspaper.  The opinion of Mark Feldstein, journalism professor, is really only an expert opinion on the journalism aspect.  He is not, from what I gather, an expert in how the Army conducts investigations.  His opinion as to whether there's a "cloud" over the Army or not is entirely irrelevant to whether TNR followed accepted journalism ethical standards by using the anonymous submissions of a spouse of one of their fact-checkers.  If Mr. Feldstein's comments were limited to journalism, then fine.  But he's no expert on the Army investigation. Old Bailey 17:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Documents
The Drudge Report has published "internal documents" from the United States Army regarding this.
 * A transcript between Scott Thomas Beauchamp, Franklin Foer (TNR Editor), and Peter Scoblic (TNR Executive Editor) from 2007-09-06
 * Legal Review of AR 15-6 Investigation Regarding Allegations of Solider Misconduct Published in The New Republic

Document 1: Beauchamp Refuses to Stand by Story (Beauchamp Transcript Part 1)

THE NEW REPUBLIC has been standing behind the stories from their Baghdad Diarist, Scott Thomas Beauchamp, since questions were first raised about their accuracy over the summer. On August 10, the editors at TNR accused the Army of "stonewalling" their investigation into the stories by preventing them from speaking with Beauchamp. The DRUDGE REPORT has since obtained the transcript of a September 7 call between TNR editor Frank Foer, TNR executive editor Peter Scoblic, and Private Beauchamp. During the call, Beauchamp declines to stand by his stories, telling his editors that "I just want it to end. I'm not going to talk to anyone about anything really." The editors respond that "we just can't, in good conscience, continue to defend the piece" without an explanation, but Beauchamp responds only that he "doesn't care what the public thinks." The editors then ask Beauchamp to cancel scheduled interviews with the WASHINGTON POST and NEWSWEEK.

Document 2: Beauchamp Admits to "Gross Exaggerations and Inaccurate Allegations" (Beauchamp Transcript Part 2)

The DRUDGE REPORT has also obtained a signed "Memorandum for Record" in which Beauchamp recants his stories and concedes the facts of the Army's investigation -- that his stories contained "gross exaggerations and inaccurate allegations of misconduct" by his fellow soldiers.

Document 3: Army Investigation: Tales "Completely Fabricated," Beauchamp Wanted to be Hemingway

The third document obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT is the Army's official report on the investigation into the allegations made by Private Beauchamp. The Army concluded that Beauchamp had "completely fabricated" the story of mocking a disfigured woman, that his description of a "Saddam-era dumping ground" was false, and that claims that he and his men had deliberately targeted dogs with their armored vehicles was "completely unfounded." Further the report stated "that Private Beauchamp desired to use his experiences to enhance his writing and provide legitimacy to his work possibly becoming the next Hemingway."

The report concludes that "Private Beauchamp takes small bits of truth and twists and exaggerates them into fictional accounts that he puts forth as the whole truth for public consumption."

&mdash; Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)



In light of these new documents there can no loner remain any doubt that the stories TNR published are anything but fiction. This entire article needed to be reworked. &mdash; Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope. Drudge pulled the link.  TNR has responded.  The only one "faking" any story here is Drudge (and, by extension, you).  Here's just the beginning of long, hard night for the freepers.--Eleemosynary 22:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: And it just gets sadder. DEVELOPING... (LOL) --Eleemosynary 22:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, no. Drudge pulling the link without explanation doesn't mean he's "faking," and citing Drudge certainly isn't "faking."  Nor can there be "no doubt" this is fiction.  I think that the Hot Air coverage is fairly good at giving links (including to a claim that Jon Chait doesn't dispute the documents, merely Drudge's context).  (Yes, this is not a reliable source, but this is a talk page, not an article, so I think it's useful nonetheless.)  It includes the following quote: "[I]t won’t change anyone’s mind. The left will dismiss the statements as coerced, even the circumstantial evidence re: the dog-killing. And then, in a year or two, when Beauchamp's out of the service he’ll write a new piece for TNR or Vanity Fair or whoever claiming that it’s all true and he was 'silenced' and you’ll just have to take his golden word for it, and then they’ll turn him into a free speech martyr."  I really don't think, short of a full Glass-style TNR retraction, people like Eleemosynary will ever believe that Beauchamp's stories were false.  And, given TNR ' s recent behavior, I really don't see that happening.  Incidentally, if you want the documents for yourself, they're been saved here. Calbaer 22:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Drudge pulled the link, for some unknown reason, but the files still exist. More so TNR Editor Jonathan Chait "doesn't dispute the accuracy of the documents" &mdash; Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There's some interesting investigation going on here (e.g., ), but, as the Drudge incident shows, what may be useful one hour may be pulled the next. So let's be measured about improving the article, rather than view each hourly development as essential, or, worse a victory for "our side".  It would also help prevent the revert war that seems inevitable in the coming hours. Calbaer 22:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Add all the feverish original research you want, backed up by Drudge and bloggers. Then watch it disappear, as it violates WP:RS.  I thought you would have learned last time you tried this.  Ah, well.. that's what the admins are for. --Eleemosynary 23:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Memorandum of the United States Army is not "original research" not matter how much you wish it is. &mdash; Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 23:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No reliable source says it's even accurate. For all we know, this could be yet another hoax perpetrated by Matt "Dirty" Sanchez. --Eleemosynary 23:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Since you apparently do not think that the United States Army is a "reliable source" please list, in full, who exactly is a "reliable source"? &mdash; Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * See WP:RS. And soon. --Eleemosynary 00:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's doubtful that this is a hoax; see, e.g.,, in which Foer himself assumes that it's not. It is, however, rather annoying how Eleemosynary calls anyone wanting to have a civil discussion on his or her talk page a "troll" and "vandal"; while reverting such attempts at discussion are within Wikipedia guidelines and policies, throwing around such unfounded accusations is not.  However, this is of a piece with the continued violations of WP:NPA via homophobic slurs against User:Bluemarine.  The admins are for dealing with that type of disruptive behavior, too.  (That said, WP:RS is relevant here.  Just because Eleemosynary ignores official policies on civility doesn't mean that we can then ignore guidelines ourselves.)  Calbaer 00:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting Observer link, Calbaer. Now that someone in the military is continuing to leak classified documents (which hardly show Beauchamp "recanted" anything) solely to right-wing blogs, Wikipedia's policy of not allowing institutions as "reliable sources" for their own documents makes even more sense.  And your POV campaign here is tiresome.  But your accusation that I've used a "homophobic slur" against Matt "Dirty" Sanchez is untrue, and beyond the pale.  Sanchez's history as a gay porn actor and prostitute is documented.  Just take a look at his article page: Matt Sanchez.  He has also been investigated by the military for fraud and theft, a fact also documented.  Stating these truths are not slurs.  But, as Sanchez repeatedly tries (and fails) to take credit for "breaking" the Beauchamp story here and elsewhere, and has, rightfully, been treated as a joke, perhaps you feel the need to defend him.  That's fine.  Just don't mis characterize my statements.  Coming to my talk page and claiming they were "slurs" is trolling.  Your comments were rightly reverted, and will continue to be so. --Eleemosynary 00:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No where does anyone indicate the documents are "classified." Moreso, Franklin Foer just confrimed their authenticity in The Observer by acknowledging that they are the same documents that The New Republic is trying to obtain via FOIA request. Eleemosynary, I do not know what your obsession is with Matt Sanchez, but he has no connection whatsoever to these documents. As I suggested on your talk page, which you removed and labeled "vandalism, trolling" that you take the time to read the Army memos, as they might enlighten you. The Army's own investigation concluded, irregardless if Beauchamp recants or confesses, that his stories were fiction. He is even rebuked in a letter, linked, from his commanding officer LTC Glaze. It is crystal clear that this was a hoax perpetrated by Beauchamp on the editors of TNR. &mdash; Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wait: Are they fake or are they leaks? Were you wrong when you said they were fake?  Which is it that you're advocating?  Also, I'm not sure how you can call this a "POV campaign" when I'm trying to take a measured approach that amounts to taking your side on this in not yet posting the leaks.  Even Miller seems willing to go along with your protection request, even though it seems to be an attempt to get around WP:3RR, which has gotten you blocked multiple times in the past.  And it is laughable that doing homosexual acts means that you can't be subject to homophobic slurs such as "Dirty Sanchez."  Generally, those are the people that are slurred, and it takes a lot of chutzpah to deny that that is a gay slur of someone who happens to have the name of that act.  Your flagrant violations of WP:NPA on this account are rather disgusting.  Finally, it's rather curious that when Sanchez is investigated for fraud, he should be presumed guilty, but when Beauchamp has been found fraudulent, he should still be presumed innocent.  Now that's a POV campaign. Calbaer 00:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You could not be more correct about that last point. &mdash; Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, a lot of Kool-Aid sure got drunk today. SAM, the only thing that is "crystal clear" is that you are desperately, desperately trying to draw a conclusion in the article that Beauchamp was lying.  Earlier today, when Drudge published yet another faulty "analysis" of the docs, you thought you had your man.  Now, Drudge has turned tail and run, and you're left grasping at straws.  What the "army has concluded" does not have the weight of fact, much as you apparently wish it did.  I understand you believe the U.S. Army is "reliable source."  Please see Patrick Tillman for more on that.  You have vandalized the article by, among other things, adding links to "frauds."  Unfortunately, the article was locked while your vandalism was on the page.  But hey, that happens sometimes.  When it's unlocked, your vandalism will be reverted.  And so on.  (And as far as "obsessions" about Matt "Dirty" Sanchez go, you might want to ask that question to Calbaer.  He's the one who brought it up in his post.)


 * And Calbaer, exactly whom do you think you're fooling? Your "measured approach" is an ad hominem snarl.  (By the way, why don't you bite the bullet and mention my block history every time you post?  Maybe, eventually, someone will care.)  And as far as Matt "Dirty" Sanchez's nickname, I didn't make that up, by any means.  Google it.  For all I know, he was using it when he was performing in gay porn.  Isn't that how he got it?  As for your final sentence, how do you know Sanchez hasn't been found fraudulent?  Maybe they just haven't leaked the docs.) -- Eleemosynary 00:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur. "Dirty Sanchez" is a homophobic slur. I must commend Steve and Calbaer for their civility and general restraint in this discussion. No need to resort to slurs - homophobic or otherwise - as you've had the better of the argument. 220.255.116.153 00:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I just googled the phrase, and saw the Wiki page. It's not a slur (homophobic or otherwise), but I had no idea "Dirty Sanchez" was even an act.  Seriously, there was some talk on one of the pages about him using this nickname in gay porn.  That's the only reason I referenced it. --Eleemosynary 00:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "Gay porn", "dirty" . . . what has this got to do with anything? Why are you even getting personal? Sorry, but it just looks to me like you're not editing in good faith. If you were, you wouldn't have to resort to making crudely personal comments with a distinct homophobic flavour. Anyway, I'm not going to debate this with you. It's obvious to anyone following this exchange. 220.255.116.153 05:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * See above comments. --Eleemosynary 06:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sez you. Please.  You've already revealed an overwhelming bias by ranting how this affair "stinks to high heaven."  Now you're trying to excise a legitimate quote which is equally critical of TNR and the Army.  Why?  Because you claim "he's no expert on Army investigation."  As if you have any knowledge of the level of expertise of any of the sources quoted in this article.  You seem to define an "expert" as someone who agrees with your low opinion of TNR.  Such boorishness has no place in an encyclopedia.  --Eleemosynary 10:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Critics of Beauchamp's article have criticized mainly TNR. TNR's investigation (mostly) "cleared" itself and Beauchamp.  The article itself concerned not the Army as an institution, but the grunts.  The Army's investigation thus "cleared" the grunts.  It is thus inaccurate to say that "each ... cleared themselves [sic]."  All this should be made clear if the quote is to be included, since, out of context, it has the false appearance of impartiality. Calbaer 19:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope. Your "analysis" of the quote is your opinion.  It need not be couched with POV qualifiers in order to support a thesis you are struggling to make. --Eleemosynary 10:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

In addition to Steele's quote regarding conflict of interest at TNR, there's also this one:

Paul McLeary, a staff writer for Columbia Journalism Review who has written about the matter, said The New Republic failed to do some basic journalistic legwork, such as calling the public affairs officer for Beauchamp's unit.

"There is a degree of trust and faith editors have to put in their writers," McLeary said. "If you're on a tight deadline, you have to go as far as you can. The New Republic definitely didn't go as far as it could in terms of checking out its stories." http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-08-09-soldier-blogger-denounced_N.htm

It's important that we don't whitewash or ignore the multiple mainstream media sources who've been critical of TNR's policies.A.V. 20:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Quite right. There are several souces, some cited above, that are critical of the practices of TNR as it relates to the Beauchamp "story".  It should definitely be a part of the article. Old Bailey 17:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, list as many reliably sourced quotes as you like. But if they violate undue weight, watch them disappear.  Almost as if by magic. --Eleemosynary 10:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest in sources
You refuse to cite blogs and bloggers when, in fact, this story comes from the blogosphere, and of course, Wikipedia is a type of blog itself. The blogs and especially military bloggers drove this story.

People like Eleemosynary seem to have far too much "power" here. I thought this was a collaboration Matt Sanchez 23:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Acute reasoning, as usual. I suggest you re-read the below response to your earlier attempts at self-promotion from Athene cunicularia, which I am re-posting.


 * It's kind of funny that you were editing this article under a pseudonym. I didn't realize that what you were doing amounted to linkspam. Using blog references is no permitted. What about using references to your own blog? What you really meant was "Omission of me is astounding," or "Removal of my self-promotion is astounding," but you had to say it in the third person because you didn't want others to realize that you were promoting yourself. Next time you promote yourself on wikipedia (an obvious show of bias), perhaps you should know what you're getting into and not be so "astounded" when it's removed.Athene cunicularia 13:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * --Eleemosynary 23:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a blog. Both Wikipedia and blogs have users who contribute, but, aside from that, they're very different.  And Eleemosynary has no more power than any other user.  (The ability to fill a talk page is not evidence of power; in fact, it is evidence of the opposite, since if a user got everything he or she demanded, there would be no need for discussion.)  Considering that he or she is the only user who is not currently blocked to defend TNR, it might be argued that the "power" lies with his or her opponents.  I've even seen the other pro-TNR contributor to the talk page complaining about how Wikipedia makes it too hard on left-wing editors and to easy on right-wing editors.  But of course that's not true.  It makes things easiest on editors who follow the rules.  Wikipedia has guidelines and policies which dictate behavior in articles and talk pages.  Those policies are rather conservative when it comes to blogs, but being limited to using blogs as a primary source isn't such a bad thing.  And the rules are what got the other editor blocked for a week because his persistent violation of them made such an action necessary for preventing harm to Wikipedia.  In this manner and others, they make it easier to collaborate; this is a collaboration, just one within rules and reason.  If you want a different standard, there are other wikis, e.g., Conservapedia or dKosopedia. Calbaer 23:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ordering of sections
I'm going to try something KeRRRRRRAZY and actually use the talk page to discuss page edits. Hope y'all don't mind.

Section 2 ("Baghdad diarist") logically follows section 3 ("Shock troops") because it references it in the lead. These should be swapped. Objections? Chris Cunningham 14:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me, but even that simple change would need a few additional changes to be sure that there's nothing lacking antecedents in "Shock troops." Calbaer 16:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Military bloggers
There needs to be mention of the Military bloggers. The only reason this got out was because of people who had been there. The WEekly Standard sourced bloggers/journalists —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.40.86.166 (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Find a reliable source that mentions the context of the milbloggers and add it in if you like. Calbaer 06:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please stop removing other's contributions to the talk page. It makes it very hard to follow a discussion. Thank you. htom 15:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not delete them, I responded to them. User:Thumperward deleted them, an action consistent with (but not mandated by) WP:NPA. Calbaer 21:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I should have been more careful in my attempt to understand and then more targeted in my request; I thought that several had done so, and was making a general request of all of those doing that. htom 04:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Interview with Michael Goldfarb
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/09/09/new-vent-checking-up-on-the-new-republic/

He cites milbloggers as source and confirmation Matt Sanchez 13:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

An article by Newsweek that intimates Beauchamp is being punished for "dissent". This reporting is shoddy


 * 1) The article states no facts
 * 2) Downplays or omits that Beauchamp himself confessed to fabricating his comments
 * 3) Omits that Beauchamps problem was "writing anonymously", and not owning up to what he wrote.

And yet, for wiki, this piece is more "credible" than pieces by people who are actually on the scene, spoke to those involved and interviewed members of Beauchamp's unit.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20439108/site/newsweek/

Matt Sanchez 13:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The MSNBC article is basically just an overview. It lacks the investimigation skillz of the Hot Air article because it isn't intended to be an in-depth investimigation. And credibility is established by getting things consistently right; milbloggers in general have accuracy rates similar to that of stopped clocks, no matter how much they self-promote their successes. Chris Cunningham 15:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hot Air is Michelle and Allah pundit, I was there source and that is readily verifiable. This is a matter of accuracy, the self-promotion is just a fringe benefit. But I'm proud nevertheless.

Milbloggers have done an ENORMOUS job reporting this war, much more in depth and with far more nuance than the MSM.

Interview with Major John Cross

 * Now PJM’s Bob Owens interviews Major John Cross, who led the U.S. Army’s investigation into Private Beauchamp’s shocking claims. Even more shocking is what Cross reveals below: Among other findings, there is no credible evidence that TNR made any attempt at fact checking prior to publishing the articles. Furthermore, not one of the soldiers interviewed under oath in the investigation corroborated Beauchamp’s story.

This above quoted from Pajamas Media.

It extends the controversy not only to the veracity of the allegations made by Beauchamp of misconduct by himself and fellow soliders, but it is now disputed that The New Republic conducted any fact checking prior to publication, or that there were any soldiers who corroborated the Beauchamps account after publication. patsw 03:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What happens if the Ayatollah Khamenei - who PJM swore died in January - rises from his grave and disputes this? Chris Cunningham 10:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

In early August, Matt Sanchez, (me, full disclosure), reported that TNR made NO attempt to fact check before running the story.

Eleemosynary edits disputed
I dispute the edits removing relevant, verified information from the article:
 * 1) The interview with Major Cross is on the record and relevant to the controversy.  If there's a better citation for it, please edit it accordingly.
 * 2) The identification of the wife of the soldier at the center of the controversy being employed by TNR as a researcher is relevant.  If there's a better citation for it, please edit it accordingly.
 * 3) TNR justified their inability to report on Beauchamp's retraction was that he was prevented from contacting TNR.  The reader of this Wikipedia article should be informed that as of October 2007, TNR did not update this statement, or that Beauchamp himself has made no public statement since the wide reporting of his retraction in August 2007 confirming or denying the retraction.  This is relevant as well. patsw 17:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest you review Wikipedia's standards for sourcing.


 * 1. The Cross interview was conducted by a right-wing blogger (Confederate Yankee), and sourced to a blogsite (PJM). Doesn't pass the smell test.  If there's an acceptable citation for the interview, I suggest you find it, and edit accordingly.


 * 2. There is already ample mention of Elspeth as Beauchamp's wife in the article. You may want to re-read it.  Closely.  Your conjecture that she specifically fact-checked Beauchamp's articles is supported by no sourced facts.


 * 3. This is barely coherent. Please revise, and try again.  --Eleemosynary 00:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. The Cross interview happened. The main stream media failed to pursue the story and it was left to a citizen journalist, Bob Owens, to contact Major Cross and interview him for the Pajamas Media web site.  The contents of the interview were then accepted as a credible by the main stream media, and widely copied all over the net and included in reporting by main stream media on the Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy (Google search for "Major John Cross Beauchamp"). The Cross interview isn't controversial -- there's no claim that Owens or Cross "made it all up" or are lying.


 * 2. The comment that Reeve was a fact-checker for the Beauchamp articles is speculation. I was incorrect to add that to the article.  It seems a reasonable inference that because Beauchamp's wife was employed by TNR, Beauchamp's work in TNR was not given the same high degree of scrutiny as any other anonymous contributor would have received.  That's a judgment for the reader to make.


 * 3. I will give this another try: It also appears that TNR was able to speak to Beauchamp but decided to not use the interview in its own reporting. Scott Johnson (It's the coverup that kills you) is reporting that TNR did  interview Beauchamp and then TNR asked Beauchamp to cancel interviews with the Washington Post and Newsweek on September 7.  TNR's last word on this was, of course, they they were prevented from contacting Beauchamp.


 * I sympathize with the need not to rush to judgment but given the lack of transparency on the part of TNR since August. This is turning out to be a slow crawl to judgment. patsw 13:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Did TNR actually say that they were "prevented" from contacting Beauchamp, or that they were "unable" to contact him? htom 19:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Prevented" is TNR's description as of August 10. patsw 21:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Link has been hidden behind the subscriber wall. :( Did they happen to say who had prevented them? Beauchamp, perhaps, saying "I won't talk to them?" htom 21:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)