Talk:Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy/Archive 9

Reliable Sources and the abundance of facts not in dispute
What then are the reliable sources for this article?


 * The New Republic which has been accused of perpetrating a journalistic hoax and recently gave an account of a conversation with STB which contradicted the leaked Army memos? They are no longer independent of the controversy.  For the editors involved, their careers might be at stake.
 * The United States Army which has been accused of investigating and punishing the soldiers who committed these atrocities. Of course, they were never independent of the controversy.  The honor of the army is at stake.
 * The citizen journalists and mil-bloggers who did the actual interviews on the ground in Iraq. On the other hand, such self-published sources are deprecated by Wikipedia policy.
 * Political comment and advocacy web sites (some supporting the Iraq War and some opposing the Iraq War) such as National Review Online
 * Mainstream media such as the New York Times and Washington Post which have not attempted to investigate the original atrocity stories but have commented on the above sources as a matter of controversy.

I wrote in the Articles for deletion/Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy, there there was a dispute here over what were the reliable sources who didn't have their own stake in the controversy. Someone there commented that such sources were available in spades. But User:Ronnotel wrote in the above sections that TNR and the Army are not independent from the controversy. I note the two sources dispute each other in almost every significant fact.

On one hand, it appear that this article is worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia.

On the other hand, an article for which there are no reliable sources should and would be deleted.

What are those other reliable sources and what facts do they disclose that are not in dispute? patsw 00:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Your most recent episode of using selective quoting to push your agenda (see above), and your stunt today of trying to have the entire article deleted, raises the question if any editors should take you seriously anymore. I certainly don't.  --Eleemosynary 02:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Eleem, there's no need for that, Pat, read WP:POINT; please don't AfD articles which obviously aren't likely to be deleted for the sake of disputing WP's RS policy. Chris Cunningham 10:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What are those other reliable sources and what facts do they disclose that are not in dispute? patsw 18:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

And the "Beauchamp is lying" meme...
... begins to collapse.

Thankfully, there's a remedy. --Eleemosynary 08:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This quote from the first link above may explain why editors here have not resolved issues regarding reliable sources. patsw 12:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I still don't know how much of Beauchamp's tales were accurate and how much was fabricated. Nor do I care.


 * That makes two instances of selective quoting. --Eleemosynary 22:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, great find Eleemosynary! So in the opinion of some blog Beauchamp isn't lying! Well that settles it then. &mdash; Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, you've completed misinterpreted my point! Why am I not surprised? --Eleemosynary 23:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well either you are saying that "Obsidian Wings" should be used as a source or you are using this talk page as your own personal blog. Neither is acceptable. &mdash; Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I'm doing neither. Once again, you're attempting to frame something incorrectly.  It's perfectly acceptable to provide links to blogs on Talk pages, in discussion.  I'm not suggesting we use them in the article.  You'll find other editors have done the same with "Hot Air," above.  (Funny I didn't notice you protesting those Talk page entries.)
 * And it's not the opinion of the Obsidian Wings blogger -- who, by the way, is active military -- that Beauchamp isn't lying, or that he isn't telling the truth. He takes no opinion on those matters.  He just relates a first-hand account of an experience (the killing of dogs) nearly identical to what Beauchamp experienced.  That's all.  It's just one account -- I suspect there will be more to come -- deflating the argument that "Teh Army did an INVESTIGATION!!! and that proves that teh Beauchamp is LYING!!! and teh TNR are LIARSLIARSLIARS!!!"


 * The question, though, is how long before we see this? --Eleemosynary 23:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

LA Times article
... on L'Affaire Beauchamp is here. This definitely passes WP:RS. --Eleemosynary 00:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That article has numerous factual errors in it, noted here.
 * Rutten says "He described the ridicule of a disfigured Iraqi woman, attempts to run over stray dogs with Bradley fighting vehicles..."
 * The burned woman has never be described as being an Iraqi... Rutten is the first. Nor were the claims in the Bradley stories described as mere attempt; there were three successful and grisly killings alleged by the author.
 * Rutten says "The magazine determined that the incident involving the disfigured woman was concocted and corrected that..."
 * No, the editors of TNR did not admit that anecdote was "concocted." They shifted the story to another time, in another country, but still maintain that it occurred.
 * Rutten says "The Army's investigators refused to release details of their findings..."
 * Under federal privacy laws, the details of administrative cases cannot be released without Beauchamp's permission. He has not yet authorized this release.
 * Rutten says "Since then, Beauchamp has remained in Iraq with his unit and the magazine has been unable to communicate with him."
 * Beauchamp has use of his personal cell phone and laptop computer, landline telephone, and may arrange formal interviews with any news outlet that wants to speak to him through the PAO system. He has made the choice not to talk to them, at TNR's explicit request.


 * Etc. While the Los Angeles Times is a reliable sources in general, that particular article is riddled with errors easily spotted by anyone with a vague familiarity of the topic. &mdash; Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sending in the spin of not only a blogger (Owens), but a blogger who has called for a boycott of TNR. I guess you no longer have a problem with using blog posts on a Talk page, as you did a few hours ago.


 * Nevertheless, Owens is right on exactly one point: TNR did not admit any anecdote was concocted. Hopefully, Rutten will retract this.  The rest of Owens's post is unproven assertion and spin.  And that's not surprising.  The principal "citizen journalist" method of the anti-Beauchamp/TNR club has been 1) assert something, regardless of whether it's true; 2) put fingers in ear and scream LALALALALALA!


 * While that practice may prove comforting to some, it's not going to detract from the reliability of the LATimes article. --Eleemosynary 01:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes Eleemosynary, I know that TNR is still claiming the stories are true. And O. J. Simpson still insists that he is looking for the "real killers." &mdash; Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 07:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Why don't you try your usual tactic, and add a link to O.J. Simpson to the page? --Eleemosynary 07:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What facts are in the Tim Rutten article that were not already covered in the Howard Kurtz article? The Rutten article has too many errors to be considered verifiable, and presents very little but a rehash of material which the Wikipedia article already has correctly cited from both TNR and the Army documents. One particularly bad error is ...the New Republic -- still unable to determine whether its story was true or false... which even contradicts the controversy as Eleemosynary presents it -- i.e. that TNR stands behind the stories. The second half the article is not objective but merely editorial advocacy of TNR's position and accuses without evidence that the Drudge Report and the Army made these documents for evil motives. patsw 03:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * So, now that your attempt to delete the entire article failed, you're returning to selective quoting and unsourced assertion? Good to know. --Eleemosynary 03:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Document the controversy, not the allegations
I'd like to expand on my and some other comments at the AFD: "whether the 'original atrocity stories' have merit is wholly irrelevant to whether the controversy is notable." "this is an article about the controversy - not about the truth or falsehood of the original allegations. They should document the controversy - who said what when - and let readers draw their own conclusions. Wikipedia cannot and should not try to determine which side is true. Editors can and should summarize the elements of the controversy." "whether the reports were a hoax or not, the story about them has become sufficiently well-known to deserve an article on Wikipedia." "I have been persuaded that even if there is no conclusive evidence to prove the original atrocities stories were true, or to prove them to be a hoax, the controversy has gone on long enough for it to be permanently cemented into the pages of history as notable."

A common element in all of these quotes is that there is a difference between the original atrocity stories and the controversy. You may not have enough sources about the atrocities themselves, but you have more than enough sources about the controversy - and your article is about the controversy, not about the alleged atrocities.

Let me draw an analogy with JFK (film), the controversial movie about the assassination of JFK. Some people are convinced that there was a conspiracy and official cover-up of the assassination. Other people believe that the conspiracy theories are hogwash and that the official explanation is the truth. The article about the JFK movie does not try to determine the truth or falsity of the various theories; it merely documents what is in the movie. In other words, the editors do not try to document the event that is at the core of the movie, they simply document the movie about the event.

Similarly, this article should not try to determine the truth or falsity of the allegations at the core of the controversy, it should simply document the controversy about the allegations. And you have more than enough sources about the controversy. The STB controversy occurred mostly in the blogosphere, but became large enough that it spilled out into the mainstream media. The media thus demonstrate that the controversy is notable.

Don't try to document whether the original allegations are true or false. Instead document the controversy about the allegations. Tell us who said what when. Since most of the controversy occurred in blogs, you will have to quote blogs. While that would not be acceptable in an article about the alleged atrocities it is acceptable in an article about the controversy. The controversy is mostly about what was said in blogs, and blogs are a reliable source for what was said in blogs. The blogs do not provide facts about the allegations but they do provide facts about what was said to create the controversy.

Going back to the JFK movie, it is not a reliable source about the assassination of JFK, but it is a reliable source about the content of the movie. Similarly, the blogosphere is not a reliable source about the alleged atrocities, but it is a reliable source about the content of the controversy. A blog is a reliable source for what the blog itself said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbowers3 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "Document the controversy" is a bit close to teach the controversy to me. That's what I'm getting at. By failing to consider the facts of the issue itself in favour of ascribing encyclopedic value to the difference in opinion, one implies to the reader that the "controversy" is legitimate insofar as the factual evidence of the issue is in doubt. That, of course, was the whole point in that attacks on TNR in the first place. I think the controversy is important insofar as it may discuss how both mainstream and "new media" outlets investigate issues and obtain their sources, but that requires a total rethink of how the article is laid out. A he-said-she-said coverage of the issue may be useful for a tabloid magazine, but not an encyclopedia. Chris Cunningham 08:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Archiving
Could we come to some agreement about how we're going to archive this page, please? Having an edit war about it (including such very silly comments as "removing important information", "vandalism", yadda yadda) aren't productive.

This is a fast-moving talk page. There are a few key editors involved in discussion, all of whom appear to be watching the talk page intently. The archived pages are prominently displayed. Pages should be archived as they get to a certain size or they both become difficult to read and difficult to handle on slow PCs / slow Internet connections. Happy to follow any consensus on size or age limits we might agree on in future. Chris Cunningham 08:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Your original archiving, which was reverted twice, was spot on. The user who accused you of "hiding things" by properly archiving the page appears to have been acting out of petulance, perhaps because the huge image files he plastered on the page -- which could, and should be linked to -- were moved to the archive.  It is not Wikipedia policy to plaster image files on Talk pages (as a matter of fact, doing so is quite out of the ordinary); it is Wikipedia policy to archive Talk pages after they become unusually large, as this one has.  I'm fine with your restoring the archive. --Eleemosynary 09:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, when I clicked on "edit this page," here was the message: "This page is 86 kilobytes long. It may be helpful to move older discussion into an archive subpage." --Eleemosynary 09:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * None of this is going to be resolved by name-calling. The editor in question is taking a 24-hour vacation for an unrelated edit war right now, so I can wait until then for his input, but if anyone else would like to comment I'm all eyes. Chris Cunningham 12:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I chalk this up to a misunderstanding. The editor didn't like that such recent comments were archived (and made some inappropriate assumptions about this), while Chris seems okay with letting the de-archiving stand for now.  Attempts to fan the flames of this misunderstanding hopefully won't hinder a resolution based on a return to the assumption of good faith.  It might be good to just archive everything before "Documents" so that no recent conversations are included.  I've archived recent stuff before (maybe not here, but in general) for the purposes of shortening talk pages, but, since it's a bone of contention here, it's likely best to avoid doing so, and stick to archiving discussions that are weeks, not days or hours, old.  After all, after the archive recommendation ("It may be helpful to move older discussion into an archive subpage"), editors are directed to Help:Archiving_a_talk_page, which explicitly states to make sure that active discussions remain on the original talk page.  It's easy to overlook this, so it's good this was brought up, though (like Chris) I'd rather it have been argued first here rather than through a revert war. Calbaer 17:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite due to TNR conclusion
The article should probably be completely rewritten due to the recent article in which Franklin Foer declared that TNR no longer stood by Beauchamp's work. I added to the intro and conclusion, but this piecewise article might be better served by someone who wants to do a rewrite and can be careful to keep a neutral point of view. If no one else volunteers, I might do it. Calbaer 23:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

No, let it stand as evidence of a lie and its shameful cover-up. Werner
 * I'm not suggesting that facts be omitted. But a narrative should differ if the results are known as they are.  Now that the parties involved are less fractured (although seemingly no less hostile), the article itself can be less fractured.  For the first time, this story seems resolved.  (It's also less likely we'll have edit wars with people saying, "Just because a few right wing bloggers allege some problems with the story doesn't make it false," since TNR no longer makes that a defensible position.) Calbaer 18:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

TNR Concedes Beauchamp Stories are false
Fog of War by Franklin Foer:

In retrospect, we never should have put Beauchamp in this situation. He was a young soldier in a war zone, an untried writer without journalistic training. We published his accounts of sensitive events while granting him the shield of anonymity–which, in the wrong hands, can become license to exaggerate, if not fabricate.

When I last spoke with Beauchamp in early November, he continued to stand by his stories. Unfortunately, the standards of this magazine require more than that. And, in light of the evidence available to us, after months of intensive re-reporting, we cannot be confident that the events in his pieces occurred in exactly the manner that he described them. Without that essential confidence, we cannot stand by these stories.

&mdash; Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Didn't say they were "false", they're saying that they cannot stand by them. It's that whole "war distorts moral judgment" thing in action, including theirs. No retraction, no admission that the stories were false. htom 23:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * They are saying they can not stand by them, because they are false. You are parsing a distinction without a difference. &mdash; Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course it is an admission that the stories are false. In what universe would a publisher not "stand behind" accounts which they knew to be true? patsw 05:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * They say

...we cannot be confident that the events in his pieces occurred in exactly the manner that he described them. which to me says that they think that the stories are true, except in some exact details. htom 07:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * They already knew that one detail was wrong. While it is wrong to strictly stay that Foer called the stories "false," they were admitted to be false in the same way that someone a court lets out of prison is "exonerated."  There is a technical difference that perhaps we should keep in mind for the article, and there's a difference in attitude that accounts for Foer's continued defensiveness and hostility, but it is untrue to say that Foer thinks the stories are true save some details.  To best resolve his cognitive dissonance, he's adopted a "no one can be sure what's true and what's false" attitude.  The effect, though, is that while Foer has little interest in saying, "This is true and that is false," the stories overall have been disowned by everyone involved.  TNR published them and they shouldn't have due to their veracity being questionable and unverified at best, or nil at worst.  The article here should be semantically unimpeachable, but should still make this much clear. Calbaer 18:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez Role Confirmed
"On August 1, six days after the 'skulls on their head in sector' meeting, the Army concluded its investigation. Two days later, a public affairs officer announced that Beauchamp's piece had been 'refuted by members of his platoon and proven to be false.' The Army didn't announce this to The New York Times or even The Weekly Standard, let alone in a public report. It first gave the story of Beauchamp's supposed fraudulence to a former porn actor turned blogger named Matt Sanchez. Apparently, the Army wanted the matter to quietly fade away. Several days after Sanchez's scoop, the Standard reported, based on an anonymous military source, that Beauchamp had signed a statement admitting that all three of his pieces were 'fabrications containing only 'a smidgen' of truth. '" Matt Sanchez 23:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and you should feel some pride in that, though of course, if incorporated into the article, we have to do so in an NPOV manner, something Foer, in citing you as a "porn actor turned blogger," fails to do in his own publication. (Of course, he's not required to abide by Wikipedia's standards for his magazine, though one would think professionalism would temper his language somewhat.)  If you want to edit the article, make sure to just use relevant facts neutrally stated. Calbaer 23:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm still in Afghanistan working for worldnetdaily as a war correspondent and can't really make the edit, but it is funny to see how mean-spirited Foer is in trying to discredit me. I'll try to check up on this article in the upcoming days and weeks. I will be writing a substantial article for the Weekly Standard on the matter, so I'll keep checking in.  Matt Sanchez 04:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Does No One Care That the TNR finally retracted?
I won't give into my optimism given the lack of respect for sourcing among wikipedians but:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=51f6dc92-7f1d-4d5b-aebe-94668b7bfb32&p=1


 * Classic case of bad faith argument. Because it took 2-3 days to update the article, you assume "we" would just prefer to keep it buried. Plus you accuse Wikipedians of not sourcing articles. Given that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, you have actually just disproven yourself by participating. Ingolfson 11:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A careful unbiased reading of Franklin Foer's lengthy and thorough article in TNR shows that it is a thoughtful and professional explanation, not at all a retraction. And a careful reading of the many comments following TNR's article demonstrates that most commentators there had not even skimmed -- let alone read -- the Foer article. What a contrast that Foer explanation is to the reckless and thoughtless comments on it! CoppBob (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A careful unbiased reading shows that's the impression Foer is trying to give, but he clearly fails for any unbiased (or biased against TNR) reader. Let's see what passes for "thoughtful and professional explanation":
 * "The Army didn't announce this to The New York Times or even The Weekly Standard, let alone in a public report. It first gave the story of Beauchamp's supposed fraudulence to a former porn actor turned blogger named Matt Sanchez. Apparently, the Army wanted the matter to quietly fade away." (Why is a long-ago job relevant if not to be unprofessionally dismissive of an amateur journalist?)
 * "'tnr: fuck is this it for communication?'" (Perhaps it is professional not to bowdlerize your own words, but the use of such language for written communications is rather unprofessional in the first place.)
 * "It wasn’t just the testimonials from the soldiers in his unit. Among others, we had called a forensic anthropologist and a spokesman for the manufacturer of Bradley Fighting Vehicles. Nothing in our conversations with them had dissuaded us of the plausibility of Beauchamp’s pieces." (Note the use of language; saying a simple "Hello, how are you" wouldn't have dissuaded anyone.  In 15 pages of justifications, why can't they take a paragraph or two to say what they specifically asked and what the answers were?  A professional explanation would have laid out what they knew rather than glossing over inconvenient facts and describing convenient ones in detail.)


 * And let's try to see whether or not this is a retraction:
 * "For the past four-and-a-half months, we've been reluctant to retract Beauchamp's stories. Substantial evidence supports his account. It is difficult to imagine that he could enlist a conspiracy of soldiers to lie on his behalf."
 * "[W]e cannot stand by these stories."
 * Even though Foer doesn't want to say so directly, those last two statements make it very clear that this is, indeed, a retraction. Until now, TNR has been reluctant to issue a retraction, but now they realize they can no longer stand by them.  In what world is that not a retraction?
 * In any event, the article shouldn't beat up on Foer, but present the facts as they're known. "Fog" is a retraction by any reasonable standard, but we can simply use his words, "[W]e cannot stand by these stories."  As is, the article does an okay job of explaining things, but a rewrite could make the narrative a bit better.
 * (By the way, if you expect the comments on an article to be superior to an article, even such a poor excuse of an article as Foer's, you will be forever disappointed in your Internet comment reading experience.) Calbaer (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)