Talk:Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy/Archive 8

Back on track
Trying to get this back on track, Matt Drudge is not by any stretch of the imagination a reliable source (I'm still waiting for Bill Clinton's black baby). The memos would be citable within the article once they get picked up by a reliable news organization, and if the story really is All That, it'll come to that point before too long. At this point, the best strategy is probably to keep them in mind, table it for now, and revisit in a week or so. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 12:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * All of the links to to the pdf's and the flash page on Drudge are now dead. I agree that it is doubtful that this is a hoax, but I also agree that we should wait a few days and see what comes up. As far as Dirty Sanchez goes, it isn't necessarily a gay term, but it is a nasty practice, and we shouldn't be tossing the term around in content discussions, except perhaps on Talk:Dirty Sanchez. Eleem, you do have a habit of adding extra weight (like a fist pack) to your words, which is neither necessary, nor helpful. - Crockspot 12:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah... great to hear from the voice of reason. Crockspot, should I provide links to some of your more "colorful" statements you've made in the past?  Do you really wish to re-open that can of worms?  Let me know.  (By the way, how's the RFCU on TheDeciderDecides coming?) --Eleemosynary 06:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * WTF? What does my already admitted questionable behavior in the distant past (which never was bad enough to warrant a block) have to do with your behavior right now? We should learn from our mistakes, and grow. You seem to be stuck in the same mode. I'm not sure what you mean about TDD either. He was determined to be the sockpuppet of your good buddy Bmedly Sutler, who was himself a puppet of FAAFA, who used your name and set you up in order to attack me. - Crockspot 16:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's relevant because you're in no position to lecture anyone on civility. (And the "distant past" ruse can be easily dispelled.)  I bring up TDD because, back when you or your cronies were planting off-site statements attributed to my name in order to salvage your adminship application, you also accused me of being the TDD sock.  Let me know if you want the diff, and I'll post it on your Talk page.  I don't want to take up any more space here with this issue.  --Eleemosynary 07:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I kinda figured that last part went without saying, but just in case: I agree with Crockspot that referring to Sanchez in that way is inappropriate. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I only used the nickname b/c Sanchez went by it during his porn career. If Johnny "Wadd" Holmes followed his porn vocation with a career as a lickspittle for the Democrats (as Sanchez is for the GOP), something tells me we'd being seeing Holmes referred to by that nickname on Talk pages.  But in the spirit of comity, I'll stop using his nickname. --Eleemosynary 06:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Good, thank you. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll assume for now (and hope) that this promise is kept and that the gratuitous maligning of Sanchez stops. Also, if there is any evidence that that was a nickname he used, please share it with us.  According to the article on him &mdash; which Eleemosynary insisted I should read &mdash; he didn't even use "Sanchez" in porn.  I believe that the slur was given to him by those opposed to his "right-wing" activities in the hope that it would reduce him in the eyes of others. Calbaer 18:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Only Sanchez has only reduced himself "in the eyes of others." I thought we moved pass this, but if you insist, I never told you the Sanchez article -- which Sanchez has vandalized/scrubbed several times -- said anything about his prior nickname.  You can Google the related terms if you want to find out more about when he used it. --Eleemosynary 07:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have the exhibits referenced in the Cross memo? 68.209.55.126 16:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Kurtz article
Until now, I would agree that the documents in question were not reliably sourced. Because the U.S. Army memo is a primary source, it should also be avoided. Secondary, reliable sources are the ones to use and I haven't seen that until this article from Howard Kurtz. In it, he establishes the bonafides of the transcript well enough to be cited on this page. I believe we should note that Foer disputes the conclusions drawn by many commentators that in the transcript Beauchamp recanted his story. I believe a neutral interpretation of the transcript is that Beauchamp refused to comment on the veracity of the stories, despite pressure from TNR executives to do so. Comments? Ronnotel 14:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that's about right. Beauchamp refused to stand by his stories even as Foer repeatedly asked for an affirmation. But he didn't recant either. So it's fair to say that Beauchamp refused to comment on the veracity of the stories. Foer also says in the transcript that he could no longer support Beauchamp if Beauchamp does not affirm the veracity of his own stories.


 * As for primary sources - aren't they OK once referenced by a reputable secondary source? WaPo's Kurtz characterizes the documents so: "A transcript of the conversation was obtained by Internet columnist Matt Drudge, who yesterday also posted the internal Army report on the case." Elsewhere in the article, Foer asserts that the Army "selective leaked" material to Drudge, while not challenging their veracity (I suppose he would know, since he was a party to the transcripted conversation). The Army also says it will be conducting an investigation into the leak.


 * So in sum, none of the parties challenge that the documents are genuine, and actually made comments premised on the assumption that they were real. As such, the primary sources pass the smell test for now. 220.255.116.153 15:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with your statement regarding primary sources and the memo. That should be in play now as well as per its reference in the article. Ronnotel 15:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Me three, the secondary referencing, and the lack of dispute, seems to put us outside of a Killian Documents scenario. Being a work of the US govt., the docs would also be public domain, so they could be added to wikisource. - Crockspot 15:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There seems to be the beginnings of a consensus on this. I'll go ahead and unprotect. Ronnotel 15:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The leaked documents are by now presumptively authentic because people in a position to know if they were faked have said they appear to be authentic. The fact this is leading to a leak investigation rather than being dismissed as a hoax is about the best evidence that we Wikipedians are likely to ever see of their authenticity. They are not "primary sources" in any case: The "primary source" for the stories of these allegations of atrocities would be the army perpetrators, their victims, or a witness to them such as Beauchamp claimed to be. The military authors of these documents are one level removed from the allegations, i.e. secondary sources. As I wrote over a month ago, the "story" had become less about the allegations of atrocities by soldiers, and more about the credibility of Beauchamp and the New Republic. patsw 02:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur completely. That Beauchamp's stories are fiction is no longer in doubt. The questions remain about the response (or lack of) by the editors of The New Republic.&mdash; Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 03:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wishing won't make it so, guys. Please re-read Ronnotel's first comment in this section, particularly "I believe a neutral interpretation of the transcript is that Beauchamp refused to comment on the veracity of the stories, despite pressure from TNR executives to do so."  I concur with that.  But Steven Andrew Miller's unproven assertion above, along with his attempts to insert "smear links" (see below) into the article, are disgraceful. -- Eleemosynary 05:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I would like to point out that the memos are the opinion of the investigator. They cannot be construed as fact. A more exhaustive study of the circumstances is really necessary because the facts haven't been laid out on the table anywhere, so far as I can see. And, of course, that more exhaustive study has to take place outside of Wikipedia, because of WP:OR. John Duncan 02:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, John, for bringing some reason to this discussion. --Eleemosynary 07:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Smear links
Do any of you want to explain to User:Steven Andrew Miller why his constant insertion of these these links, as well as these need to be reverted? Or is an RFC in order? --Eleemosynary 05:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Threshold of evidence to categorize as a hoax

 * 1) No one in a position to know, not The New Republic nor Beauchamp himself, continues to assert these stories were true.  TNR no longer comments on their truth.  Beauchamp no longer comments on their truth.  In fact, Beauchamp no longer comments, period.  While TNR continues to use the phrase that they "stand by" their author, but that author no longer "stands by" what he wrote.  Whatever one takes away from that, it won't be that there's a vigorous defense of the original truth of the stories of atrocities taking place here.  To me it seems like damage control.
 * 2) There are lies, misdirections, and omissions beyond numeration from TNR/B regarding the veracity of the stories which all point away from the getting at the truth but towards their being a hoax, such as the false claims that there was corroboration of the stories, or that TNR was prevented from speaking to B.
 * 3) There's no Fifth Amendment rule in the Wikipedia that denies to editors the right to draw conclusions based upon TNR/B's refusal  to answer questions raised by their reporting by their critics.

The threshold of evidence for considering these stories a hoax was met a long time ago. patsw 12:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

That's some pretty flimsy Wikilawyering, Patsw. To wit:


 * 1. First statement is pure conjecture, and what it "seems" like to you.  So now the encyclopedic standard for inclusion is if something "seems" like "damage control?"  Please.  Beauchamp never recanted; the phone transcript is an extended "no comment."  Or so says the National Review.  (By the way, if Beauchamp recanted, where's that signed recantation we heard so much about a few weeks ago?  Why wasn't that leaked?)  No threshold to label the stories a hoax or fraud.


 * 2. More conjecture.  "False claims that there was corroboration?"  Where's your source on that?  "TNR was prevented from speaking to B?"  Are you claiming that at no point was Beauchamp prevented from speaking to TNR?  If so, where's your source?  Furthermore, do you have a source for any of your above statements beyond your "gut feelings" and "IT'S TRUE BECAUSE TEH ARMY SAYS SO AND TEH DIRTY HIPPIES ARE LIARS LIARS LIARS!!!"?  Let us know.


 * 3. Yes, draw any conclusions you want... on your blog.  Just don't pollute the article with unsourced POV, categorizing the page under "frauds," "hoaxes," and linking to "Stephen Glass" unless we have sourced reliable reporting that it is a fraud or a hoax.  There is a rule about that.  Several, actually.  --Eleemosynary 12:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to take the evidence we agree upon, the extended "no-comment" is itself conclusive that the threshold of "hoax" has been reached given the weight of reliable reporting that journalists failed to independently corroborate the original stories. TNR's position of the moment is the journalistic equivalent to a plea of nolo contendere which, of course, was not given on TNR's own initiative but done as a response to the leaked documents.  As long as we're being literalists here, TNR/B no longer assert the stories were true. patsw 14:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, more flimsy Wiki-lawyering. This "threshold" is one of your own design.  You have a long, long history on Wikipedia (and, years before that, on Usenet) of simply making unfounded assertions and behaving as if they were fact.  That isn't going to work here. --Eleemosynary 14:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't use language as incendiary, but I would probably agree that labeling this episode as a "hoax" doesn't seem well-sourced - yet. I personally have little doubt that B was in over his head and TNR's conduct has been, well, colorful. But I'd like to see a relevant source label this as a "hoax" before WP makes that particular leap. My $0.02. Ronnotel 18:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry Ronnotel, but it is more than clear, from the Army's own investigation that the stories are false and made up. That means they are a hoax. There is no two ways about this. &mdash; Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The above comment is nothing but stubbornness, via use of faulty logic ("If the Army says it's false, it's false"). Comments such as "there is [sic] no two ways about this" suggest Steven Andrew Miller is simply pushing an opinion, and not editing in good faith. --Eleemosynary 07:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I can certainly understand your reasoning. However, as an involved party to the dispute, I would classify the Army document as a primary source, which is why I don't think the "hoax" tag is justified yet. If there were a secondary source supporting the Army's conclusion, that would be different. Ronnotel 19:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As someone who thinks STB perpetrated a hoax, I want to say that labeling it a hoax is not YET appropriate. I think to label it a hoax, it must be perceived and generally recognized as a hoax. While it most certainly is a hoax (at least to me), we aren't there yet.  The evidence showing that it is a hoax simply has not gotten enough play in the media for it to meet a "general perception" threshold.  It may never, due primarily to the fact that this controversy is a fairly esoteric component of the debate over the Iraq War.  But it probably will, due to the fact that such a perception is justified by the evidence at hand, and that enough people in the media are watching TNR's treatment of the issue after the Glass affair.  Evensong 01:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Disfigured woman incident
The article lists this claim, made in the Cross memorandum.

"That the incident of blatant disrespect for a disfigured woman in the FOB Falcon DFAC is a tale completely fabricated by Private Beauchamp."

But above it says that TNR already corrected the record and that the incident was in Kuwait, not Iraq, where FOB Falcon is. I'm adding a mention of the above info. John Duncan 13:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Documents have been confirmed authentic
Let me make this clear:

THE UNITED STATES ARMY MEMOS LEAKED TO DRUDGE HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED AS AUTHENTIC

TNR confimed them, as well a CENTCOM source

&mdash; Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Per the Army's investigation:


 * That the incident of blatant disrespect for a disfigured woman in the FOB Falcon DFAC is a tale completely fabricated by Private Beauchamp. (The New Republic issued a correction saying the story took place in Kuwait, not Iraq.)
 * That the descration of human remains and the discover of a "Saddam-era dumping ground" is false.
 * That the deliberate targeting of wild dogs is completely unfounded.
 * That Private Beauchamp desired to use his experiences to enhance his writing and provide legitimacy to his work possibly becoming the next Hemmingway.
 * That Private Beauchamp is not a credible source for making the allegation he wrote about in "Shock Troops." He admitted that he was not an eyewitness to the targeting of dogs and only saw animal bones during the construction of Combat Outpost Ellis. Combined with the piece of fiction that he wrote on 8 May 2006 on his blog, I find that Private Beauchamp takes small bits of truth and twists and exaggerates them into fictional account that he puts forth as the whole truth for public consumption

In plain English, Beauchamp peddled lies as the truth to The New Republic and they published it. That, by definition is a hoax.

&mdash; Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Clearly, STB lied and refused to stand by his comments. However, I think that his defenders would say that no one's yet proved that his articles themselves were lies.  That's hard to fathom, but it is true that, although he's a confirmed liar &mdash;  when you say one thing once and deny its truth later, you're a liar &mdash; in this saga, it's not clear which statements were the lies and which the truth.  It should be sufficient to say things like, "In transcripts whose authenticity was confirmed by TNR, STB refused to stand by his articles, in spite of pressure from TNR to do so, and claimed that statement X and statement Y were untrue.  TNR said that STB later phoned to say that he did, in fact, stand by his stories."  That alone doesn't prove that the stories are hoaxes, but it does illustrate to anyone paying attention just what STB's level of credibility is.  And it certainly puts down those who thought that Drudge's withdrawal indicated that the transcripts were false.  TNR ' s admission means that they are true.  (Unless of course Foer recants this admission, too!)


 * I know it's frustrating to see that Wikipedia rules prevent us from saying what seems blindingly obvious &mdash; and, indeed, what is beyond any reasonable doubt &mdash; but we need to stick to confirmed, reliably-sourced facts. And in this article, the facts should speak for themselves. Calbaer 20:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * While the transcript is an interesting read, it is not the pertinent document. What needs to be looked at is the Cross memo ("AR 15-6 Report - RE: Allegations of Soldier - Unit Misconduct"), specifically pages 3 thru 5 which summarize the Army's own investigation. The memo summarizes by bullet point, citing interviews with members of Beauchamp platoon (would-be eyewitnesses), that each claim by STB is made up. &mdash; Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And all this should be in the article. But you've got to realize that nothing less than indisputable physical evidence and/or a recantation by TNR will make certain people believe this was a hoax.  Maybe STB is the only one telling the truth in the articles, while he and other soldiers lied under pressure from the Army.  Sure, there are inconsistencies, but maybe they're unlikely but true events, or maybe they're unimportant, like the difference between a war zone and Kuwait.  That's the way STB's defenders think.  After some time, hopefully, the truth will be undeniable, but, for now, we have to present everything that indicates what the truth is and let readers figure it out for themselves.  Given the evidence, those reading in good faith should be able to figure it out. Calbaer 20:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * For some, I doubt that there is any way to change their minds; if STB was to go to court and swear under oath that he'd made it all up, they'd claim that he was coerced into giving false testimony by any number of possible suspects, and they'd demand proof that that had not happened -- and any proof offered would be likewise disbelieved. htom 21:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a fun little echo chamber, but the general predilection for non-"citizen journalists" to fail to believe stories primarily broken through channels like Drudge and PJM is due to the observation that almost everything coming from those channels has been, within a finite amount of time since its breaking, debunked conclusively. Especially in cases such as this one where such information is accompanied by a sustained and coordinated campaign of bad-faith edits and process abuses, the campaign to convince fellow editors to accept evidence may be harder than that of obtaining said evidence in the first place. To that I would suggest that perhaps in future the citizen journalists in question would not initiate campaigns of bad-faith edits and process abuses at the drop of a hat based on evidence which they themselves cannot in good faith claim to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Chris Cunningham 22:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellently put, Chris. --Eleemosynary 07:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Three points:
 * It is rather amusing for you to accuse others of being in an "echo chamber" pot/kettle/black/etc
 * You keep saying that Drudge is not a valid source, which I would quibble with, but that ignores (again) that the documents leaked to Drudge have been confirmed by The New Republic themselves. Both the Army and TNR say the documents are real, so it does not matter if they were leaked to the Drudge, The New York Times or some random blog.
 * Again, you are amusing when you cast aspersions on Pajamas Media. You say "almost everything coming from those channels has been, within a finite amount of time since its breaking, debunked conclusively." Really? Do you have any proof of that? I mean, I know Pajamas Media doesn't have the sterling reputation of The New Republic (Stephen Glass), The New York Times (Jayson Blair), or the 'Tiffany Network' CBS (Dan Rather), but normally when one makes an accusation that everything an news organ publishes is debunked, one requires some shred of evidence.
 * &mdash; Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Many "citizen journalists" are careful, to the point that, when many can agree on something for weeks on end, it is almost always true; in fact, it's more likely true than when mainstream media report. (Such self-policing can be seen, in the example you gave above, in "Pajamas Media: Iran’s supreme leader dead," which starts "This is either going to be a two-ton feather in Pajamas’s cap or a major embarrassment." It seems to have been the latter.)  Drudge got his fame breaking the Lewinsky scandal and the blogosphere came into its own with the Killian fraud, a case where a "reliable medium" was shown to be fraudulent. We need to follow WP:RS here, but saying that something can't be believed because it doesn't satisfy WP:RS is backwards.


 * Nobody is saying you're not allowed to "believe" anything. This is a straw man argument.  Some people believe that Dick Cheney is a "fraud," guilty of a "hoax" by lying to the country about WMD.  Verified memos, documents, testimony of official investigators, and photographs now show there were never any WMD in Iraq, yet Cheney asserted there were.  But the reason those people can't label Cheney a "fraud" on his page is the same reason they can't label Beauchamp one here. --Eleemosynary 07:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The dead bodies in the mass graves killed by poison gas indicate that all of the "verified memos, documents, testimony, and photographs" are proof that there's a disconnect between what was and what is. I suppose that it's possible that Saddam used all of his supply, stopping only because he'd run out; but even then there were WMD there, and where the unused WMD went is still a question. "There were never any WMD" is incorrect; "there were none left" is a supposition. htom 13:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

If this is an echo chamber, it is because those on the "other side" have either given up this story or have been otherwise victimized by cognitive dissonance. I'd love more voices for balancing this article, making sure all relevant information is in here and satisfying WP:RS, but few anti-war or anti-Bush or pro-TNR folks are following this, because, frankly, it doesn't really help their case and/or mindset. Calbaer 23:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Attacking your fellow editors is not helping your argument. A counterpoint to your attack was just yesterday offered by conservative author Andrew Sullivan, who stated "You'd... think [the Beauchamp] piece appeared in some vicious anti-American anti-war magazine. It appeared in The New Republic, which supported the Iraq war in the beginning, and which has a sterling reputation with respect to America's armed forces. This whole kerfuffle strikes me as unhinged in its ferocity. It's really about something else: the fury of the right at the management of a war they are permanently wedded to; and the need to lash out at someone - anyone - other than the people ultimately responsible." --Eleemosynary 12:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The atrocity stories can no longer presumed to be true "in good faith"
The "good faith" presumption that the Beauchamp atrocity stories were true was discarded when Beauchamp refused to assert that his stories were true when asked to do so by both the Army and TNR in September. STB is free to say "no comment" for his own motives forever, and shrug off the burden of proof. However, to maintain the possibility that the stories were true, there would need to be at least one person in the world to say they were true, because he or she (too) was a witness to them, or explain how the the atrocities stories and the Army documents could both be true.


 * No one is now asserting the atrocity stories were true.
 * No one is claiming that the Army documents are a hoax. It matters not they appeared via Drudge and not the New York Times, or TNR itself. patsw 22:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * TNR is still claiming the stories are true. Yes, they have little basis for believing them, but it's not true to say that no one asserts the stories as being true. Calbaer 23:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Did Howard Kurtz misquote Franklin Foer? "While Beauchamp "didn't stand by his stories in that conversation, he didn't recant his stories," Foer said in an interview.WAPO" TNR acknowledges "Beauchamp’s refusal to defend himself certainly raised serious doubts.TNR"

So, if STB doesn't stand behind his stories, who does? It is true to say that no one is now asserting the atrocity stories were true. patsw 00:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it's entirely untrue to say that. Your "selective quote" above, when read in context of the entire post, has the opposite effect you wish it to have.  Here is the full quote:


 * "Beauchamp’s refusal to defend himself certainly raised serious doubts. That said, Beauchamp’s words were being monitored: His squad leader was in the room as he spoke to us, as was a public affairs specialist, and it is now clear that the Army was recording the conversation for its files.


 * The next day, via his wife, we learned that Beauchamp did want to stand by his stories and wanted to communicate with us again. Two-and-a-half weeks later, Beauchamp telephoned Foer at home and, in an unmonitored conversation, told him that he continued to stand by every aspect of his story, except for the one inaccuracy he had previously admitted. He also told Foer that in the September 6 call he had spoken under duress, with the implicit threat that he would lose all the freedoms and privileges that his commanding officer had recently restored if he discussed the story with us.

I recommend all editors read the full post, here

Please explain your selective quoting, patsw, and why you feel any editor should assume good faith with you from this point forward. --Eleemosynary 07:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

NO HOAX: TNR and Beauchamp stand by the stories
TNR has responded. Apparently, a few individuals in the Army have conducted themselves pretty shamefully. (Monitoring Beauchamp during his phone call with the TNR editors? Is it any wonder he didn't want to comment?)  That's a shame, but even an institution as great as the Army has its bad apples. So, though I don't expect any of this to stop the sophistry, tortured syllogisms, and deliberate misstatements of fact by a few editors above, we can safely say that, as of now, there is no reason for any "hoax," "fraud," or "journalism scandal" tag, nor any link to "Stephen Glass." --Eleemosynary 07:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I will point out that no one at The New Republic has presented any evidence that the United States Army forced Beauchamp to say or do anything. And at this point TNR doesn't exactly have a whole lot of credibility, except with partisan hacks. &mdash; Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 09:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for making your point of view crystal clear. TNR, actually, has presented exactly as much "evidence" as the U.S. Army. --Eleemosynary 09:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, exactlly the same, except all of the interviews with parties involved who say that Beauchamp is a liar. So on one hand you have TNR's editors, who are not in Iraq, and Beauchamp's refusal to comment. On the other hand you have Major John Cross' investigation where he interview Beauchamp's platoon. Yeah, exactly the same. The only question that remains is how long TNR is going to stonewall. &mdash; Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 09:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Eleemosynary, are you suggesting that this controversy is really a US Army vs. TNR situation? The overwhelming bulk of the criticism against TNR is not coming from the US Army.  Also, the symmetry of evidence dichotomy you constructed here also smacks of, well, forcing one to disprove a negative.  With all due respect (much) you may want to check your POV on this issue.  Evensong 11:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying anything remotely close to what you're suggesting. And the last thing this page needs is another straw man argument. --Eleemosynary 12:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Eleem's point is that the Army is the only reliable source for the refutations. The overwhelming bulk of criticism is coming from people with no authority or record for accuracy whatsoever, so is irrelevant to the establishment of the facts of the situation. Chris Cunningham 11:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. But before certain editors try to twist the above comment to mean the leaked Army memos are somehow "proof" that Beauchamp's story is a "hoax," and that Beauchamp himself is a "fraud,"  let me be clear:  No reliable source, by the standards of WP:RS and WP:BLP has made the case, or claim, that Beauchamp was lying, or reported it as such.  Hence, no "guilt-by-assocation" article tags and links (fraud, hoax, journalism scandals, Stephen Glass, etc.) should be in the article at this point.   The Army and TNR are still sticking to their respective conclusions.  And that is sourced.  --Eleemosynary 12:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Even giving you this biased phrasing of the sitation, you are in fact right: while no reliable source is describing it as a hoax, we're not describing it as a hoax. TNR still has Wikipedia's approval as a reliable source, even if it's lost the citizen-journalists. We can revisit this as more evidence comes in, preferably through more official channels. Chris Cunningham 09:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Precisely. --Eleemosynary 10:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. Until then, just present the evidence, and don't make characterizations (or implications) in Wikipedia's voice, without an RS to attribute it to. At this point, we cannot characterize it as either a hoax or a non-hoax. - Crockspot 12:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

(undent)Just to weigh in, personally I would not regard either the Army or TNR as WP:RS for the purpose of this article. Neither are independent so we should treat any claim made by those parties as ''so and so claims. . .'' rather than lend an assumption of veracity as we might for other stories. That's my interpretation of WP:RS. Ronnotel 13:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And a correct one. --Eleemosynary 21:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. An accurate, balanced article would be best. (Also, just because this article doesn't label it a hoax doesn't mean it isn't, so the title of this section isn't accurate.  In fact, it isn't accurate to say that Beauchamp stands by his stories.  TNR claims that Beauchamp stands by the stories, which is precisely what the article should say.) Calbaer 23:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've removed your personal attack, as per Wikipedia policies. As for the title of this section... it's a Talk page heading, pal.  Enough with the seething.  --Eleemosynary 02:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please stop violating WP:TALK for "personal attacks" that are only in your imagination. What I said &mdash; that you didn't like that Army and Miller didn't like TNR due to their respective behaviors in this scandal &mdash; is the truth.  Yes, I was flippant in the way I said it, but no more than you in portraying that who don't believe Beauchamp as believing, "Teh Army did an INVESTIGATION!!! and that proves that teh Beauchamp is LYING!!! and teh TNR are LIARSLIARSLIARS!!!"


 * You see, when you mischaracterize your "opponents" like that, I merely answer, "There is plenty of evidence of Beauchamp's deceit &mdash; his uncontested interview transcripts, the discrepancies in his stories, the admitted inaccuracy &mdash; which show Beauchamp's guilt in this matter and which are independent of the Army and/or not contested by TNR." I do not violate guidelines by removing your comments, which are no less insulting or libelous than mine.  And for someone with a long history of homophobic personal attacks against Matt Sanchez which explicitly violated WP:NPA, you really shouldn't have such a low threshold when it comes to yourself.  (It is also ironic that you should object to the mere hint of changing a talk page heading, but not to changing the words that others write here.  And that's not to mention the fact that you see fit to use harsh words against me and violate Wikipedia guidelines even when I'm primarily agreeing with you.) Calbaer 17:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, your assertion that policy dictates that PAs should be removed is false: WP:NPA states, "On other [non-user] talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited." Your history of removing any text imagined as a personal attack &mdash; even if they had been actual personal attacks &mdash; certainly goes against this limitation. Calbaer 17:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, please. --Eleemosynary 07:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)