Jump to content

Talk:Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

The Significance of Beauchamp

The significance of Debunking Beauchamp, in my opinion, is the influence of military bloggers who actually had their "boots on the ground" at FOB Falcon and could intervene.

Michael Yon, Johannes, Jeff Emmanuelle and myself, Matt Sanchez have enough access to the media to send a message back at the Mainstream media. If anyone wants to refute that, fine, but back it up with some citations. It is well-documented that I have been feeding Goldfarb and Michelle Malkin their information as I'm here on the FOB.  :)

Matt Sanchez 15:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Although you are a source for the mainstream media outlets involved in this case, many editors at Wikipedia will not tolerate links to blogs, even blogs like Michelle Malkin that may have more readers than the New Republic. Wikipedia rules favor mainstream, published sources. I suspect that your edits will be reverted in the next day or so, because there's an ongoing tug of war over this article.

If you link to mainstream sources like the Weekly Standard as much as possible, perhaps some of your work will remain after the inevitable edit wars. This paragraph, for instance would be hard for any editor to delete:

Michael Goldfarb, of the Weekly Standard, confirmed that the Army refuted all of Beauchamp's claims. A military investigation involving interviews with members of Beauchamp's platoon and company found no one who could substantiate the content of Beauchamp's Shock Troops article. According to the Weekly Standard, Beauchamp does not appear to have violated any laws, but may be subject to administrative discipline. [1]A.V. 16:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

AV, IF YOU READ GOLDFARB'S STATEMENT, He doesn't confirm anything!!!

First off, there's the report from FOB Falcon, courtesy of Matt Sanchez, that the Army's investigation into the claims made by TNR's Baghdad Diarist has now concluded. According to Sanchez, Beauchamp's allegations of misconduct have been

"refuted by members of his platoon and proven to be false."
We are still working on getting something official. And we just heard from a reliable source that we should "stand by for a statement about to come from the Army saying their review of Beauchamp's story shows it to be a combination of complete fabrication and wild exaggeration."
That's not a refutation and that's not an official source! So far, near as I can tell, there are three unsourced claims out there. One is Matt's that it has been completely refuted, and that everyone is linking to, BUT there is no official army document that says that, nor is there press release, or newspaper account. Two, is the report from Kuwait that says the injured woman is an urban myth, but that too is unsourced and there is no official document, press release, or other newsmedia report of it. All we have so far is Matt Sanchez' statement for the former and Confederate Yankee's statement for the latter. And Third is another email Confederate Yankee claims to have received from Boylan, Petraeus' PAO, that also says this has been debunked. BUT, there are no official sources for ANY of this. All we have is Matt's and Confederate Yankee's word.
Contrary to the wikipedia, I think it is completely reasonable to cite bloggers, BUT, I don't think anyone should write that this is the Army's position or conclusion.71.39.78.68 01:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, however Weekly Standard named one of the officers who issued a press release refuting Beauchamp. Although Weekly Standard used a blogger for their source, the magazine itself clearly falls within Wiki standards of acceptable sources. If all of the Army press releases are fabrications, then that is Weekly Standard's credibility problem, not Wiki's. The TNR investigation section uses far less evidence than named Army officials and press releases. If we accept TNR's word, shouldn't we also accept Weekly Standard?

I'm leaving the article alone for the time being to see what other editors want to do. It will be interesting to see how the rest of the story evolves this week. A.V. 04:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Blog debate

This is a discussion worth having. The fact is that this was blog driven. The only way this came to fruition was through blogs. Please note, Goldfarb cites me as a source several times.

Matt Sanchez 19:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Scottthomas.jpg

Image:Scottthomas.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wiki policies on acceptable sources

There has been much debate on this article about acceptable sources. Wikipedia policy on blogs states that:

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 books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

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.

Michael Goldfarb of the Weekly Standard is an established expert, relevant to this story. His work has also been published by reliable, third-party publications. Therefore, the military conclusion should stand.A.V. 15:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Per my note below, the fact in dispute is not that Confederate Yankee claims to have been emailed (the thing Goldfarb is self-publishing), it's that Col. Boylan actually refuted it. This is single-sourced to Confederate Yankee. Chris Cunningham 16:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Various comments on the article

  1. This needs to be moved. It's a pseudobiography which details one particular event in a person's life and is not centred around that person. So it shouldn't pretend to be a biography.
  2. WP:NOT a gossip magazine. This isn't he-said-she-said. Unverified facts should be avoided wherever possible, not just where nobody can find a sufficiently mainstream website which ran with whatever they want to include. In particular, this "weekly standard refutes" thing is garbage and has to go. The source is Confederate Yankee's inbox, so it's going in as "Col. Steven Boylan says" and not "this guy says that this guy says that Col. Steven Boylan says". I'm sure Col. Steven Boylan will confirm this to a reputable, non-wingnut source in due course. Until then it gets a fact tag, because the fact in question is that Col. Steven Boylan has said something, not that Confederate Yankee has said something.
  3. WP:ALSO NOT the New Media. Certain parties involved in discussion above don't appear to be rock solid on this. Wikinews exists for a reason.

Chris Cunningham 16:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, you are deleting sources contrary to the Wikipedia policy I cited above. Michael Goldfarb at Weekly Standard is an acceptable source. Questioning his sources is beyond the scope of Wiki policy. At least he had a source, unlike TNR's 'five anonymous soldiers' who backed up Beauchamp's claims.
Still, thank you for at least leaving the Army statement intact pending further verification.
I would like to know what some other editors think. Perhaps we can reach a consensus.A.V. 16:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Questioning a known unreliable source is absolutely not "beyond the scope of Wiki policy". His source is known, and the statement in question is not Goldfarb's opinion but Boylan's verdict. Goldfarb's conclusion isn't relevant here, insofar as it isn't a factual statement requiring a source. Chris Cunningham 16:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I would think that everyone could be happy with the article as it stands now - including the Military investigation that says that Boylan refutes all claims. This is truly "fair and balanced." --AStanhope 17:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up and removed POV notice, etc.

I think that the article is in pretty good shape now, and now that the controversy is essentially over, I think it should be okay to remove the POV flags. I also removed or corrected the uncited sources.Athene cunicularia 18:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You missed the original sources of the story and you didn't even bother to discuss them. Where's Michelle Malkim? Where's Matt Sanchez, or any of the milbloggers?Matt Sanchez 19:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policy, blogs are not viable sources.Athene cunicularia 19:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I find it bizarre that one editor on his own would remove a POV tag. In itself, that is a POV act. I think removal of a POV tag should probably be taken as a result of a vote.... Since the editing of this article is relatively furious, I suspect POV will be a reasonable tag for quite awhile.
Finally, WON'T SOMEONE MOVE THIS ARTICLE? It is not a biography? How do we move the article?130.76.64.93 19:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
That's fine. I put the POV notice back. I'm not sure what you mean about moving the article, though. Where would you move it?Athene cunicularia 19:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
To Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy or the like, presumably. Unfortunately I just messed this up, requiring a speedy delete of said to get it shifted properly. Chris Cunningham 20:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I agree. Would the Scott Thomas Beauchamp page be redirected to the controversy page? It seems that putting the entire article on a page called "Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy" would make it harder to find.Athene cunicularia 20:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
There would be a redir assuming Private Beauchamp doesn't become notable enough outwith this situation to merit his own article, yes. Per WP:PSEUDO, while he's notable only for the current thing he doesn't get a biography, nor something which pretends to be one. Chris Cunningham 20:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, works for me.Athene cunicularia 20:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Omission of Matt Sanchez is Astounding

I'm amazed whoever is editing this is writing me out of it. I'm the one who did much of the original legwork and that is very well sourced in the Weekly Standard. Who has a problem with me figuring in this article? Matt Sanchez 19:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want to list which milbloggers criticized the articles, that's fine. However, Wikipedia policy prohibits the use of blog entries as sources. I'm not trying to write you out of the article. However, I have done a lot of "leg work" on this article too, and I am trying to keep it straightforward. The article should do these things:
As I said above, Wikipedia is not the New Media. if you aren't an established reliable source (Wikipedia is hard on blogs for a good reason) and you're in close proximity to both the subject matter and the Wikipedia entry, expect a greater degree of resistance. I'm sure that if your work is good you'll get appropriate credit where it counts. Chris Cunningham 19:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it's inaccurate and wrong to NOT mention Matt Sanchez. Michael Goldfarb is mentioned as saying that Army has refuted the claims, and yet one of Michael Goldfarb's first sources for this was, wait for it, Matt Sanchez. Why is it okay to say Michael Goldfarb sez, when it is not okay to say Michael Goldfab sez Matt Sanchez sez or Matt Sanchez sez.... I think this is just providing inaccurate information all the way around.
Also, given this is a controversy, and not much of one outside of the blogosphere, I think it is highly relevant to note Malkin and Yankee and Powerline. Like the Jamail Hussein Controversy THAT THIS IS A PART OF, these conservative bloggers keep on pushing these stories to the fore. It would make sense for the bloggers's role to be noted, otherwise in future times (and now), folks will not be able to correctly answer questions like: how did this case come to anyone's attention? what role did bloggers play? why does the wikipedia seem to suggest that bloggers had no role in this? etc.
I also think someone should make a template like {rightwing-milblogger-controversies} to link this, jamail hussein, swiftboat, and lots of other phony, propagandistic controversies that have so successfully led to the decline of our nation's stature and made us vulnerable to dictators and terrorists.. 130.76.64.14 23:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Matt - can any blogger do research and then be cited as an expert on any associated topic within the Wikipedia? I blog at Neatorama.com. My own research shows that Beauchamp was vindicated. Should we have a paragraph listing everybody who says he was vindicated? --AStanhope 00:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Your own "research"? I wasn't giving "research" I was reporting the events that happened. I broke the news of the conclusion of the investigation. I'm not sure how you "vindicated Beauchamp unless you're sitting in Iraq, like I am. Or at FOB Falcon, where I interviewed sources. Matt Sanchez 02:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Not self-promotion, just citing fact and sourcing that fact. My name appears clearly by each entry I've made. Matt Sanchez 14:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The Controversy

Military Bloggers who knew Beauchamp's AO Area of Operations doubted, denounced and eventually debunked his claims. That is the controversy as relayed to publications like the "Weekly Standard".

Matt Sanchez 03:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

He said -- he said

He said - he said is exactly what this is. Beauchamp said, in an article published under a pseudonym, that he had committed violations of the military code (and that others had done so, too.) Now others claim that he did not do those things. TNR, in my opinion, has become no better than a blog, and worse than some of them. htom 23:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Beauchamp Recants

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/08/beauchamp_recants.asp Pajamaparty 03:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The New Republic is now saying that they dispute the Weekly Standard's account - both of the facts surrounding the investigation and whether or not he did indeed recant. http://www.tnr.com/blog/the_plank?pid=132739 - I think we need to lay off an edit war in the recant section of the article until we see something official. --AStanhope 19:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Beauchamp

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/08/beauchamp_recants.asp -- Matt Sanchez 02:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a blog post, and does not pass the Wikipedia smell test. When a reliable source confirms it, then feel free to add it to the article. --Eleemosynary 03:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Blogposts do pass the "smell test". It's a matter of judging the quality of the blog. So far, you've taken off Malkin who was key in this. She did the O'Reilly Factor segment on this and spurred interest.Matt Sanchez 03:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope, Matt. Neither your blog, nor the WS blog, nor Malkin's blog, nor any blog passes the "smell test" under the rules of WP:RS. Familiarize yourself with this guideline. --Eleemosynary 03:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Print the rules. Surely the O'Reilly segment itself passes the "sniff test"? Why are you citing the Weekly Standard blog?

Matt Sanchez 03:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Follow the link. WP:RS --Eleemosynary 03:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
vvv He's got a point. The word blog isn't even in the guideline. Furthermore, I doubt The Weekly Standard would allow anything relating to an accusation of terrible fact-checking by TNR to be itself badly fact-checked. At this point the question is probably closer to "Now that Beauchamp has been (or shortly will verifiably be) demonstrated to be a writer of fiction, is he even notable enough to merit an article?" Vonspringer 04:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

First, the word "blog" appears nowhere on WP:RS. Second, the Weekly Standard's blog is not the same as the blog of some 13 year-old in Peoria. It is an arm of a legitimate news magazine. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 04:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC) The Weekly Stanard certainly meets Wikipedia standards of reliability. The WS and the New Republic are similar types of publications with similar standards. If you would cite the New Republic you cannot ignore or ban cites from the Weekly Standard. Pajamaparty 12:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Eleemosynary, you are mistating Wikipedia rules regarding blogs:

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 books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

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.''

Michael Goldfarb is a previously published, established expert (on this case). The information on Beauchamp's recanting did not come from what Wikipedia considers to be an unacceptable blog.A.V. 04:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

He's not an "established expert" on anything to do with this case. Do you really expect your patently untrue claims to go unrefuted? --Eleemosynary 01:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
That is a correct interpretation of the policy on blogs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. WS is breaking this on their blog, because they are a weekly magazine. - Crockspot 05:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. A blog cannot be used for negative BLP, and to say a person recanted is negative BLP. Some other source must report it. I do not consider this optional, and I'm deleting it, and will if necessary protect. DGG (talk) 09:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
It may well be true of course, in which case an actual nonpartisan RS will publish it tomorrow, and it can be reinserted on that basis. DGG (talk) 09:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

In addition, USA Today's Deadline, a news page that reports on the blogosphere says they've received this:

This morning, military officials said their review is over. "The investigation is complete and the allegations from PVT Beauchamp are false," Major Steven Lamb, a spokesman for Multi National Division-Baghdad, says in an e-mail to On Deadline. "Anything that may or may not happen from his actions are personnel related and we don't share that publicly." http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/08/military-soldie.html?csp=34 A.V. 17:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

By practice here, this does meet the rules for sourcing, at least for most purposes. An accepted news source reprinting a blog gives it adequate authority for most things. I am not certain that it provides adequate authority for negative BLP. (Especially on an issue where the blog is known to be heavily invested on one side of the story, and the news source is also considered to have somewhat of the same political allegiance.) USA today is a reference for what the Dept of Defense said, but not for the fact that he recanted. (I will go out on a limb and guess that he partially recanted, and that the National will say that the basis of the story is true, and the Standard that almost nothing is--in which case the article has to explain the difference.)
I assume that additional sources will republish it. But if they republish only that the National Standard has said it, this is different from if they publish that Beauchamp retracted it, and the story should be adjusted. Even Fox is, strictly speaking, only evidence that the National Standard blog said say. If, for example, the story was false entirely, the link will still hold, but the wording will change a good deal. I do not see the point in further corrections hour-by-hour; we are not a news service. Let's see what the story looks like tomorrow. I don't normally work on these topics, and I leave it to the other editors here. DGG (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that we have TNR's blog disputing TWS's blog, I think this is the time we should sit back and let the dust settle for a few days. We have what everyone is reporting cited, so we have at least a level of truthiness going on here. Let's let it ride until it all gets hashed out in the press. - Crockspot 19:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Article Name

This article should be named "Scott Thomas Beauchamp" similar to the article on Stephen Glass. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:PSEUDO. It's that article which needs to be moved (although someone else can do it; I'm trying to wean myself off getting involved in Wikipedia hit-pieces). Chris Cunningham 10:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

USA Today notices

Of course, it's in their blog, so ...

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/08/military-soldie.html?csp=34

Unfortunately it's just another iteration of "The Weekly Standard says..." We need to press Maj Lamb, TNR or Weekly Standard to produce a military document that either refutes or confirms the claims - or we need the document wherein Beauchamp allegedly recanted. --AStanhope 21:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
That would be an original source, and not citable either! htom 21:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

US Troops and Heroin

Check this one out: http://salon.com/news/feature/2007/08/07/afghan_heroin/  :75.67.75.179 21:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to the topic and should be deleted.Blevitz 00:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

ABC NEWS cite

http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3455826&page=1 Arkon 22:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Also http://www.columbiatribune.com/2007/Aug/20070807News003.asp Arkon 23:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Arkon 23:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
So from what I have read so far, there doesn't seem to be any question that the Pentagon has concluded that he fabricated the stories. The dispute seems to be over whether or not he recanted, and whether or not the Pentagon has concluded correctly. So does the Pentagon's conclusion merit short mention? I think so, but I'd like to hear other opinions. - Crockspot 23:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The obvious answer in my mind is 'yes'. Arkon 23:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Here is my proposed inclusion: A military investigation has concluded that Beauchamp's stories were "found to be false". (citing the ABC piece) - Crockspot 23:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds great, hopefully it won't be controversial. Arkon 23:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Let's give it a while, see if anyone else has something to say. - Crockspot 23:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
So, according to Goldfarb's blog in the WS, Maj. Lamb says Beauchamp recanted, and an investigation has been concluded. But according to TNR, Maj. Lamb says he has no knowledge of any recantation, and stated that the military doesn't comment on investigations. Until this stalemate is resolved, I've offered a less sensational heading for the section. --Eleemosynary 01:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Lamb's statement didn't mention a recantation. He said they did an investigation, and that his stories were found to be false. Goldfarb attributes the recantation to anonymous sources. - Crockspot 03:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Didn't the military lie about Army Ranger Pat Tillman? Can we trust their "investigations" (cover-ups)? Skopp (Talk) 01:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Excellent point. --Eleemosynary 01:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
As far as Beauchamp's recantation, it may be that Maj. Lamb has no knowledge because legally you don't recant unsworn stories. My understanding is that the friendly fire investigation began within hours of Tillman's death, so I'm not sure how much of a coverup there actually was. Massive confusion as people rushed to the TV cameras perhaps, but not a coverup. htom 01:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ Weekly Standard Weblog, August 4, 2007
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scott_Thomas_Beauchamp_controversy/Archive_2&oldid=1137176691"