Jump to content

Talk:Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Discussion of TNR's newest statement (Aug7)

According to the latest statement from TNR, Major Lamb claimed to have no knowledge of the anonymous source relating to Beauchamp's recanting. Furthermore, Major Lamb refused to discuss any details of the investigation. At the same time, Major Lamb has issued numerous press releases that the Army investigation is concluded, and Beauchamp's stories were false. We need to be very careful on who said what. Earlier, the article claimed that TNR disputed the recanting and the military investigation. What TNR actually said was:

When we called Army spokesman Major Steven F. Lamb and asked about an anonymously sourced allegation that Beauchamp had recanted his articles in a sworn statement, he told us, "I have no knowledge of that." He added, "If someone is speaking anonymously [to The Weekly Standard], they are on their own." When we pressed Lamb for details on the Army investigation, he told us, "We don't go into the details of how we conduct our investigations."

It's slick, but TNR is not explicilty denying anything with this statement. A.V. 00:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. They're standing by their story. --Eleemosynary 01:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, they are just being very evasive. Not sure how far we can take their words at this point. Arkon 00:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
That decision is not up to you. --Eleemosynary 01:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Nor is it up to you. Wikipedia should contain the most accurate report of TNR's statement which is quoted directly above. Deleting facts does not change them. I or another editor will continue to repair the article as necessary.A.V. 01:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
And each time to you try to push unsourced (or faultily sourced) POV, many editors will revert you. Frequently. --Eleemosynary 01:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Something funny I've noticed is that TNR's recent statement about Beauchamp recanting comes from a blog, yet the TNR defenders among us are no longer questioning a blog's validity. Where are the two day revert wars about whether a blog is an acceptable source? A.V. 01:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As it seems you've created your entire single-purpose account solely to add derogatory statements about Beauchamp to the page[1], one might question the sincerity of your concern. But feel free to remove all blog comments from the page, be they from Goldfarb or The Plank. However, removing one but not the other won't wash. --Eleemosynary 01:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Astanhope, why did you remove the section from USA Today regarding the conclusion of the military investigation. It was a legitimate quote and source. Before I revert your deletion and cause bad feelings, I thought I would give you some time to explain your reasoning.A.V. 01:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I won't speak for Astanhope, but perhaps... just maybe... it's because the USA Today post was from the paper's blog and only referenced Goldfarb's blog as a source. In other words... it... wasn't... a... corroborating... source.
By the way, you might want to check that USA Today blog for an update. Apparently, the military's not commenting to them, either. Goldfarb's beginning to look like another Stephen Glass. --Eleemosynary 02:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Quote from USA Today: This morning, military officials said their review is over. "The investigation is complete and the allegations from PVT Beauchamp are false," Maj. 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."

Their later quote that they've asked for further info from the Army and have not heard back in no way negates the statement they personally received from the military spokesman and published on their site. A.V. 02:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Eleemosynary, I just wanted to congratulate you on the most recent edit, adding the complete TNR statement regarding Beauchamp's recanting. That's a reasonable compromise we can both agree on. Much better than deleting the whole section. Wikipedia articles don't always have to be as troublesome as this one has been. A.V. 03:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What is so unbelievable?

What is so unbelievable about his claims? Haven't you read? A US soldier convicted by a military court in the gang rape and murder of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and the killing of her family was sentenced to 110 years in prison on Saturday, the Army said What Beauchamp did was not so bad compared to this. Bmedley Sutler 01:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a very sad story, and I'm glad the military is doing what it can to punish the offender. Luckily, the murderer did not work for TNR, or he would have been claiming that he killed and ate an entire village of orphans.A.V. 01:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I've struck through the libelous, obscene comment posted by A.V.. No doubt it should be reverted completely, but I'd like some more editors to weigh in. --Eleemosynary 02:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. IMHO, Wiki has to think about if it is being 'played' by right-wing bloggers with an 'agenda'. Read this excellent article. Military Atrocities Less Newsworthy Than Right-Wing Fantasies / Press follows smears of New Republic as Nation's evidence of abuse ignored So much 'hooplah' about some lies and exaggerations when we just found out the USMIL lied about Pat Tillman, there are suspicions that he was killed by other US soldiers, and 3 soldiers are convicted of gang raping a 14 years old child, killing her whole family, lighting her dead body on fire and covering it up. And the right-wing are outraged and making a big deal in every blog that this soldier exaggerated or maybe completely lied? This is a fake 'smoke-screen', IMHO. 19 dead American soldiers this month. 190.000 rifles came up missing yesterday, the Sunni's just left the gov that is taking one month off, Bagdhad has almost none electricity, and the right wing want to make a big scene all over the www about Scott Beuchamp, including Wikipedia? Too much 'smoke screen' in this whole article. I vote for 'AFD'. Bmedley Sutler 02:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the above comes perilously close to violating the principle of keeping talk pages limited to discussion of improving the article. Beauchamp is notable , at least for the moment. As such, he's appropriate for an encyclopedia. The fact that suddenly his story is more useful to the right than the left is no reason to whitewash the subject. Interested people will come to this article seeking a neutral assessment; it is our duty to provide it dispassionately. Vonspringer 03:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I will cocentrate on the article then. Here is a new article from the WA Post's right wing Howard Kurtz Link Bmedley Sutler 04:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is the ABC source gone?

It is the only balanced secondary reliable reporting we have right now, and it sources the military investigation, and both the Standard's and the Review's side of the story. Why is it not in the article? - Crockspot 03:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Who knows? It probably fell through the cracks in the constant edit wars. I agree with you - return it to the article.A.V. 03:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it would be against Wiki policy to name the cause of much of the trouble. Mostly it's ridiculous arguments like this:

USAT blog did not "report" that the investigation was complete. It relayed Lamb's alleged email. Curious why no other news orgs report receiving this email.

If you read the USA Today article, they state at least two times that the military investigation is complete. Why one contentious editor would get so upset by USA Today reporting that minor fact is beyond me. Some people just like trouble.A.V. 03:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, they are fighting a losing battle. I'm not inclined to edit the article this evening, but I will add sources here for others to use. - Crockspot 03:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Kurtz, Howard (2007-08-08). "Army Concludes Baghdad Diarist Accounts Untrue". Washington Post. pp. C01. Retrieved 2007-08-08.
  • Baram, Marcus (2007-08-07). "Pentagon: Baghdad Diarist Writes Fiction". ABC News. Retrieved 2007-08-07.
  • "Army: Private made up magazine stories". UPI. 2007-08-07. Retrieved 2007-08-08.
  • [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57046 "Report: Soldier fabricated 'cruelty' stories"]. WorldNetDaily. 2007-08-07. Retrieved 2007-08-08. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help)
  • Malkin, Michelle (2007-08-08). "Bogus in Baghdad". opinion. New York Post. Retrieved 2007-08-08.
  • Parker, Kathleen (2007-08-09). "A million little pieces of truthiness". opinion. GateHouse Media. Retrieved 2007-08-09.
  • Millburn, John (2007-08-09). "New Republic Iraq stories questioned". AP. Retrieved 2007-08-09. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • Goldfarb, Michael (2007-08-09). "One of TNR's Experts...Refutes TNR". Weekly Standard. Retrieved 2007-08-09.
  • Krauthammer, Charles (2007-08-10). "You can write off this morality tale: Iraq dispatches disingenuous". editorial. Boston Herald. Retrieved 2007-08-10.

While we're at it:

Vonspringer 03:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This part is not really true: "After the publication of an entry called "Shock Troops," The Weekly Standard and The National Review questioned the veracity of Beauchamp's claims. All the questioning started on blogs like Malkin and Ace of Spades. And others too. They wrote about this stuff for days and days whipping the right-wing blogopshere into a tornado of outrage before these 2 right-wing MSM publications ever reported it. Like that Dan Rather scandal. It started on blogs too. Bmedley Sutler 05:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
To be fair, the Dan Rather scandal started when CBS published obviously fake documents. This Beauchamp scandal either started when Beauchamp published the fake stories, or when bloggers started believing his true stories were fake. As we are chiefly concerned about verifiability, it's not absolutely certain which is which (though we have a good idea). What we're waiting for is a source confirming the recantation. If that happens, it needs to be a prominent part of the article. Now as an aside, I personally am ideologically inclined to support these swarms of questioning blogs regardless of their affiliation with the left or right. It's the truth that people should be after, and thousands of people constantly fact-checking does far more good than harm. And soon enough if they come up with something important and verifiable, it makes its way to reliable secondary sources. We then write it up as neutrally as possible. Vonspringer 16:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add a small section

Like these words:

Charges of right-wing 'astroturfing'

"The disparity in media treatment is striking—when right-wing bloggers make unfounded criticisms of reporting that portrays U.S. soldiers in Iraq in a bad light, the "controversy" makes it into papers like the Post and the New York Times, and becomes fodder for cable news. But the Nation's thorough and meticulous investigation of the U.S. military's mistreatment of Iraqi civilians is all but ignored. Apparently critical war reporting is more useful to the mainstream media when specious right-wing doubts can be cast on it."

Military Atrocities Less Newsworthy Than Right-Wing Fantasies / Press follows smears of New Republic as Nation's evidence of abuse ignored

Is that Okay? I will post it here first for approval. Bmedley Sutler 04:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's what Andrew Sullivan says. I just spent more than one hours reading so many blogs. The reasons behind the right-wings 'tempest in a tea-pot' are more important than the exaggerations or even lies that he told. Did you know that TNR was pro-war? They're not some far left outfit! "the conservative blogosphere has taken such an almighty empirical beating this last year that they have an overwhelming psychic need to lash out at those still clinging to sanity on the war. This Scott Thomas story is a godsend for these people, a beautiful distraction from the reality they refuse to face. It combines all the usual Weimar themes out there: treasonous MSM journalists, treasonous soldiers, stories of atrocities that undermine morale (regardless of whether they're true or not), and blanket ideological denial. We have to understand that some people still do not believe that the U.S. is torturing or has tortured detainees, still do not believe that torture or murder or rape occurred at Abu Ghraib, still believe that everyone at Gitmo is a dangerous terrorist captured by US forces, and still believe we're winning in Iraq. If you believe all this and face the mountains of evidence against you, you have to act ever more decisively and emphatically to refute any evidence that might undermine this worldview." link Bmedley Sutler 05:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • If you can't source these opinions to mainstream reliable published sources, you can't put them in. You know very well that the opinions of bloggers are not usable. In fact, since we have so much mainstream sourcing now, I would advocate the removal of TNR and TWS blog posts, and use only mainstream sourcing in this article from now on, even though those two probably qualify as acceptable blog sources, per WP:V. - Crockspot 14:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not very relevant to the article. No one's suprised that even American soldiers sometimes commit serious offenses. Wikipedia already has dozens of articles about that. What is noteworthy in Beauchamp's case is that he (apparently) lied spectacularly in the service of a particular political agenda. Had his story been true, Beauchamp probably wouldn't have his own article - he'd probably be a section in violence in occupied Iraq. Vonspringer 16:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Loons are out on this one. Can't you concentrate on the Facts of Scott Thomas Beauchamp instead of going on a "No oil for blood tirade?"193.219.255.33 21:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

POV

Eleemosynary keeps removing things items from the See Also section of the article. Stephen Glass & Journalism scandals are both completely relevant to this article. The United States Army has now confirmed to multiple sources that Beauchamp's stories were made up and false. In other words, The New Republic published false stories that they did not properly fact check, just like they did with Stephen Glass. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 06:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to frustrate your crusade, but no... neither link is relevant. Glass admits he made up his stories; Beauchamp categorically states that he witnessed the atrocities, made up nothing, and the Army has prevented him from further communications. No reliable source is calling this a "journalism scandal." And the New Republic stands by the story. Your POV here is overwhelmingly obvious. --Eleemosynary 07:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC) 07:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Kurtz of the Washington Post, surely a reliable source, reports that the stories Beauchamp sold TNR are false and made up. — [[User:Steven Andrew M8 August 2007 (UTC)
Kurtz is reporting nothing of the sort. He's reporting the Army is saying they're false, and that the military is providing no further comment. The New Republic is standing by its story. You seem to think that because the Army is claiming something to be true, it's necessarily true. Pat Tillman's family might have something to say about that. --Eleemosynary 08:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
It is too new to call it a 'scandal' or link it to Steven Glass. After another week or so maybe. Bmedley Sutler 07:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
And how exactly do you come to that conclusion? — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 08:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Unless Beauchamp actually says he made up the stories, or The New Republic retracts, there is no reason to link to Glass. And guess what, Sam? No scandal. At this point, it's he-said, she-said. --Eleemosynary 08:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but the AP's story on this ends with the Glass connection, so it's pretty difficult to argue there is "no reason to link to Glass." And, I might add, the first person on the talk page to bring up a connection between Glass and this story was none other than Eleemosynary, so even Eleemosynary connects the stories, albeit not in the same way that AP and other contributors do. But the elements are all the same: TNR, allegations of published falsehoods insufficiently "fact-checked," and the certainty that someone's lying who shouldn't be.... Calbaer 17:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
No way. Until such point as there's actual proof of lying, a seealso link to Glass is a judgement. The extlink to the Winter Soldiers article is just as bad, and the Coulter link which was just added is included in extlinks even though it's referenced contextually in-article, so I'm removing these as well. Chris Cunningham 18:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm the one who most recently added the external link to the Winter Soldiers article, so I'll speak on that aspect of the Stephen Glass connection. Thumperward makes a good point; it's an editorial passing judgement, and until one side or another is proven lying, probably doesn't belong. I will not add the Winter Soldier link again. A.V. 19:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

While the Beauchamp and Glass cases aren't exactly the same, they're clearly related. For instance, both are cases of journalists accused of fabrication or plagiarism. --Daniel11 23:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a big difference between accusation and admission of guilt. That someone came up with a pretty category to tag this with doesn't make the link more relevant. Chris Cunningham 12:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
While I think they're related enough to justify mention, giving the Glass mention its own paragraph in the intro is going too far. So, if no one beats me to it, I'll take that out. Also, please note that there's also a difference between accusation with fact-based evidence (which WS and the blogs have given) and accusation without fact-based evidence (a la TNR). The bloggers and WS have consistently challenged TNR to explain specific facts of the story, and TNR has not replied in kind; in fact, they only seem to be specific about the fact that they admit is wrong (that what was said to have occurred in the Iraq warzone instead happened in peaceful Kuwait). One thing that this has in common with Glass is the process of fact-checking, which TNR isn't divulging in this case (and, in the Glass case, admitted was insufficient). Even if everything Beauchamp said were true — which we now know was not the case — basic facts still needed to be verified, and, aside from saying, "It's all/mostly true" and "anonymous sources confirm," TNR hasn't given any information about their having done this. That makes this more than a mere accusation. Calbaer 20:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

are all these blogs OKay?

I thought blogs were a no-no here! So many of this article's links go to blogs. Is that Okay? If so I am going to write my small section with links to some very important blogs and their well known spokesmen like Eric Alterman and Andrew Sullivan are saying this is an Artificial controversy to keep the focus off issues like Pat Tillman and how bad the war is going. Here is what was written over Jamilgate and it is so true now. "And now the right-wing blogosphere stands revealed as what they are -- a pack of gossip-mongering hysterics who routinely attack any press reports that reflect poorly on their Leader or his policies, with rank innuendo, Internet gossip, base speculation, and wholesale error as their most frequent tools of the trade. They operate in packs, constantly repeating each other's innuendo and expanding on it incrementally, and they then cite to each other endlessly in one self-feeding, self-affirming orgy of links, as though that constitutes proof." So blogs are Okay? Bmedley Sutler 04:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

  • The only blogs that should be cited in this article are those of the Weekly Standard and the New Republic, because they are the blogs of reliable print publications, and are staffed by professional journalists. These are periodical publications, and they use their blogs to break stories in between print runs. But actually, I have listed enough reliable secondary sources above that we don't even need to cite those two blogs directly, because the news articles reference them. So I would not be opposed to taking all blogs out. - Crockspot 04:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
In that case, Time Magazine's Swampland blog should also be cited. This Time Magazine post raises questions about the credibility of The Weekly Standard's source. JMarkievicz2 06:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
That one would probably qualify as usable. But as I said, we already have enough secondaries that we don't need to cite any of these blogs. Why use marginal sources when we have a plethora of strong sources? - Crockspot 14:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you think its OK that The Weekly Standard uses Matt Sanchez as a source when not disclosing his past? And this article doesn't either? Have you read this article from the Marine Corps Times? Matt Sanchez Investigation "The Corps on Friday was slated to wrap up an investigation into allegations that a corporal in the Individual Ready Reserve who appeared in gay porn films before enlisting solicited more than $12,000 from private organizations by asking them to fund a deployment to Iraq he never made, according to e-mails from the investigating officer forwarded to Marine Corps Times. Reserve Col. Charles Jones, a staff judge advocate called to Marine Corps Mobilization Command in Kansas City, Mo., on temporary orders that expire Saturday, informed Reserve Cpl. Matt Sanchez of the allegations against him in a March 22 e-mail that advised Sanchez of his rights. Jones wrote that Sanchez’s participation in porn films was part of the investigation, but that two of the three allegations against him involved lying “to various people, including but not limited to, representatives of the New York City United War Veterans Council and U-Haul Corporation” about deploying to Iraq at the commandant’s request. “Specifically, you wrongfully solicited funds to support your purported deployment to Iraq” by coordinating a $300 payment from the UWVC and $12,000 from U-Haul, Jones wrote." By the way, Matt Sanchez accuses liberals of being against him. Read this 46 page long post about him on this miltary site. Link One post from a soldier (?) says he should be killed. Read this too. Link It talks about the 'white wash' here on Wikipedia. He is not a 'reliable source' and neither are the blogs that quote him. Neither is the Weekly Standard. They publish Stepehen Hayes who told so many lies about Iraq and Saddam, and claimed that the #3 al Qaeda had a fake leg. The USMIL killed him and he had two real legs. The Weekly Standard also said so many things about WMD and Saddam and al Qaeda that turned out 100% wrong. How can you claim they are 'reliable'? You are making a joke, yes? Bmedley Sutler 07:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Ironic that in that MilitaryTimes thread Sanchez asks for his fellow Marines to give him the benefit of the doubt until all the facts come out. It would appear that he was at the front of the lynch mob out to get Beauchamp long before all the facts came out in Beauchamp's case. I wonder if the mistreatment that Sanchez received in the wake of his "outing" (and, indeed, I think he was mistreated) contributed to his mistreatment of Beauchamp. I certainly hope not. That would be lame. --AStanhope 07:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Errr, kids, the source in question is actively involved in editing the article and in this discussion. Please keep that in mind. These are real people we're talking about.
I would rather this article erred on the side of caution by ignoring blogs where possible on both sides. One does not bring balance to an article by adding a section which says "but source X says this is all rubbish". Chris Cunningham 13:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
You've just highlighted another problem. Matt Sanchez's contribution to this article is original research. Is it really appropriate for someone who is directly involved with this controversy to be writing the WP article? He also has a vested interest in pushing this story, because he's trying to build a reputation in rightwing circles. JMarkievicz2 20:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I know he edits here. For two days I have read everything I can find regarding him. He is not reliable and not fair. He talks all the time about that liberals are so mean to him. Read the 46 pages on Miltary Times Link Why does he never talk about how soldiers and retired soldiers are so mean to him? There are lots of proofs of his 'honesty' in that 46 pages. Read one of his newest columns link where he claims that Canadians have a 300 year history of surrendering, when Canada has never surrendered in any war! Some Canadians point that out to him. The blog quoting him should be taken out. Bmedley Sutler 20:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
We're mature adults, and should be able to handle unreliable sources without throwing about lots of defamatory ad hominems. Any COI in Sanchez's contributions should be handled per policy, not by personally attacking him on the talk page. That's policy violation, and hurts the reasonable arguments being used currently to keep such blog allegations out of the article. Chris Cunningham 22:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
That's from the Marine Times and a Marine spokesman and his own blog. If he posts on his own blogs the claim that Canada are surrenderers and Canadians prove him wrong that is important to his reliability. Bmedley Sutler 23:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The gay porn thing doesn't, though. All I'm saying is that we're not here to fight each other. Let's not turn the talk page into an ad hominem wasteland. Chris Cunningham 23:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes it does. Matt Sanchez Investigation "The Corps on Friday was slated to wrap up an investigation into allegations that a corporal in the Individual Ready Reserve who appeared in gay porn films before enlisting /. I'm not fighting. Look at Google News now! Link Bmedley Sutler 23:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


Whatever. This is as bad as the warbloggers themselves. I'd rather distance myself from any editors who though that was relevant to this article. Chris Cunningham 00:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez, investigations and Bias

Let's get somethings clear.

1. I am the original source for the Weekly Standard investigation. I am in Baghdad, was in FOB Falcon before the story broke and returned afterward to follow up. Goldfarb is in Washington DC.

2. The Marine Corps investigation of me has nothing to do with Beauchamp. The investigation started after liberal mostly gay activists started a hoopla about me and Ann Coulter. SBmedley Sutler forgot to add that my reply to the allegations was that they were "demonstrably false". So Bmedley sounds like he just wants to smear me, like the groups who protested U-Haul and initiated the allegations against me for misleading U-Haul. Nevertheless, I don't see how this changes the FACTS that I reported. I interviewed people on the ground at FOB Falcon and reported what they said. The investigation against me was dropped because it "lacked merit" according to the Marine Corps.

3. My comments on Canada are well-documented and I stand by them. Unlike most of the editors here, I have been to Afghanistan and am currently in Iraq. So, I do have some "expertise" in this matter.

4. The facts I reported have since been corroborated by the New York Times, Time Magazine, Newsweek and pretty much everyone.

Matt Sanchez 19:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC) You may want to see how much opinion and bias there is on my own article at Matt Sanchez some of the "editors" over there seem to have found their way here. The person who said he "spent all night" reading about me, is simply lying. He's been reading about me for quite some time and contributing to my article.

Matt Sanchez 19:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Please document: "The investigation against me was dropped because it "lacked merit" according to the Marine Corps." Why wouldn't the Marine Corp Times print that after accusing you of taking $12,000 with false pretenses and being a gay porn star? The Marine Corps must have issued a statement after accusing your fine name of such things! Please document Canada's "300 year history of surrendering" too. After a claim like that why should anyone take what you write seriously? Thank you. Bmedley Sutler 22:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Knock it off. Arkon 22:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
What? Those are all legitimate issues. Bmedley Sutler 00:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Not for this article or talk page, no. Arkon 16:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Disagree - this has a lot to do with the credibility of Matt Sanchez as a source. Aatombomb 19:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Any response that he would give to the above would do nothing in the way of satisfying any such concerns of credibility. If there are sources that cast questions upon his reliability, they would belong in his article (if it exists). We report what sources say, their credibility is not determined by responses, or lack of responses to questions posed to them on talk pages. Running around plastering various talk pages with the same accusations is just slimy. Arkon 20:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Culture War

The Beauchamp article should be listed under the Culture War rubrique as it speaks to media bias, anti-military, progressive/liberal perception etc...

Matt Sanchez 19:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

New article from TNR

"For several weeks now, questions have been raised about Scott Beauchamp's Baghdad Diarist "Shock Troops." While many of these questions have been formulated by people with ideological agendas, we recognize that there are legitimate concerns about journalistic accuracy. We at The New Republic take these concerns extremely seriously. This is why we have sought to re-report the story, in the process speaking with five soldiers in Beauchamp's company who substantiate the events described in Beauchamp's essay." Link Bmedley Sutler 21:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What a BS statement. TNR has an "ideological agenda". I personally spoke with soldiers who denied having anything to do with what Beauchamp said.

Matt Sanchez 19:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Glass

Please stop adding the Stephen Glass reference to the article. Glass and Beauchamp are apples and oranges. Glass was a full-time writer for TNR who wrote more than 40 articles, many of which were - according to Glass himself - entirely made up. Furthermore, Glass took explicit steps to reinforce the faux-validity of some of his stories - like creating a bogus website for an invented source.

Beauchamp was effectively a correspondent who was allowed to use a nom de plume. Let's not forget that of the three reports from the field he filed, only the last has caused questions to arise. The Weekly Standard and friends both accepted and amplified Beauchamp's report of insurgents cutting out the tongue of an Iraqi youth because he had spoken with foreigners.

As it stands now, Beauchamp claims that his stories were truthful and TNR does as well. Yes, apparently military spokesperson Lamb claims that none of Beauchamp's allegations are true. Neither Beauchamp nor TNR are conceding that.

Everything Beauchamp has ever written may in fact turn out to be completely bogus. We simply do not know this to be the case yet and both Beauchamp and TNR are far from even hinting that this may be the case. Glass' misbehavior was blatant and confessed to - a cut-and-dry case of journalistic fraud.

The only tie between Glass and Beauchamp at the moment is that they both wrote for TNR, albeit in different capacities.

It is wrong to push the alleged parallels between Beauchamp and Glass as long as TNR and Beauchamp continue to stand by Beauchamp's work.

Rest assured that those of you who are clearly out for Beauchamp's blood are landing plenty of painful blows on him. Instead of kicking him while he's down the correct thing to do is to wait and see how the conflict between the TNR/Beauchamp and the Weekly Standard/Army positions pans out. --AStanhope 23:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I read that at first these right-wing blogs claimed that Scott Thomas didn't even exist like they did with Jamilgate, and had to 'eat their words' on that. Where is the mentioning of that in the article? Bmedley Sutler 23:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
There's none, because it isn't notable. So there's no need to discuss it. Chris Cunningham 23:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
...and just where is this mention of Thomas not existing? There may have been doubts about the accuracy of what he said, and some wondered whether or not he was a soldier, had served in Iraq, or existed at all, but did anyone say, "He doesn't exist" (excluding of course random comments that anyone, even Thomas supporters, could have written)?
No one's claiming that Beauchamp and Glass are identical. Every story is different. But these two have many of the same components. In a world in which we link Watergate, Irangate, travelgate, and Rathergate, questions about TNR's accuracy and fact-checking seem pretty related, even if one was admitted wrongdoing and the other is characterized by denials.
And, frankly, few are "out for blood." It's just that if a story is a lie, it would be nice it that were stated by those who published it, and, if it's the truth, some evidence of that would be nice. I think most people pursuing this would rather TNR admit wrongdoing rather than have Beauchamp's head on a pike and have TNR pretend that nothing happened. Because, frankly, millions of people would lie to get their names in a prominent magazine; that's not that big a deal. The big deal is when a magazine finds a story, as they say, "too good to check" and publishes it without regards to its veracity. Calbaer 01:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a great example of what is wrong with Wikipedia. Even the AP article mentioned Stephen Glass, but no not here on Wikipeida! AStanhope says that people should "wait and see how the conflict between the TNR/Beauchamp and the Weekly Standard/Army positions pans out." The problem for AStanhope is that it has already panned out. The Army has confirmed to multiple reputable sources that Beauchamp lied to The New Republic and he was being charge with making false statements. The attempt to pretend that Glass' fabrications are not related and/or relevant is beyond absurd, but partisans have dug in their heels so now any attempt to add the reference to Glass, well that is editwaring! So will just use Wikipedia arbitrary rules to make sure the article conforms to our own partisan realities. Can't let those "right-wing blogs" get hold of this! No the left-wing blogs are the defenders of truth and light! In a nutshell, everything that is wrong with Wikipedia. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 10:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Steven - I realize that this is the particular axe you have to grind, but please try to understand... It doesn't appear to some of us that the issue of Beauchamp's guilt is a closed book yet. It looks pretty bad for him, indeed, but for the moment he and TNR are sticking to their guns. Let's give it a few more days to play out before you try and convict him. --AStanhope 11:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
AStanhope, I do not have an axe to grind. If you look through my history of edits, I rarely contribute to articles of a political nature, for exactly the reasons I outlined above. Last time I checked both Mary Mapes was still looking for the origin of the Killian documents, and OJ Simpson was still looking for the "real killer." Just because someone still sticking to their guns, doesn't mean we should ignore the obvious. As A.V. posted below, it now appears that Beauchamp just hoping this all goes away. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Just for future reference, when should the Glass link be allowed? As it stands, it's just whose side you're on, the Army or anti-war media. I think a good tipping point would be if TNR disowns Beauchamp or if the editor resigns. That seems, to me, to be an admission of bad journalism. Anyone else have any ideas of a standard we can use to judge the controversy closed?A.V. 19:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I say to wait two weeks. TNR supported the war. They are not the 'anti-war media'. Bmedley Sutler 04:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC) Why would anyone believe the USMIL after Pat Tillman, Jessica Lynch, and WMD anyway? They are not a 'RS'. Here is one of the articles, Caliber. Punishing Scott Thomas Beauchamp Bmedley Sutler 04:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The New Republic changed editors and went anti-war several years ago.

Oh please! Fouad Ajami and Charles Krauthammer are still working for them. The editor change you talk about was under 1.5 years ago. Did you see them fire these war-hawks? No you didn't. Bmedley Sutler 04:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Standard has released an e-mail from the Army stating that Beauchamp has been free to make statements to the press or talk to his family since the investigation concluded. I look forward to his public clarification on whether he signed a retraction, or whether he still stands by his stories. http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/08/post_8.asp A.V. 15:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch stories military? Why should anyone believe them any bit more than Steven Glass? Bmedley Sutler 04:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
That's why Wikipedia says things like, "The military reported that X," rather than just "X." The facts are reported in the article. That way who believe those who published Stephen Glass rather than Army investigators can draw their own conclusions. Calbaer 16:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Bmedley Sutler, I would appreciate if you would stop cutting into other people's comments to place your talk as you did to mine above. You can place your talk after someone's comments - it's more polite. It makes it very difficult to understand the ongoing discussion.A.V. 12:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I second that. I don't enjoy being censored because you think your viewpoint being challenged qualifies as a "personal attack," in contrast to the criteria at WP:NPA. Calbaer 16:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I removed your NPA which you didn't re-post. Removal of NPA is allowed. I didn't know about the rules on posting an answer in the middle of some one elses. I do now. Sorry. Bmedley Sutler 21:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Back to when the controversy will be closed, it probably won't. Nothing much has happened for more than a week, and, after sticking to its guns for so long, TNR probably isn't going to budge. Likewise, there will always be people who don't believe anyone associated with the Army, be it Army officials, military bloggers, or embedded bloggers. Anyone, that is, except Beauchamp. Confirmation bias is a strong elixir, and I doubt Beauchamp will ever publicly deny the veracity of his entire oeuvre. This article will likely have to continue its balancing act of presenting all notable facts and reports, keeping NPOV and RS, and avoiding any conclusions. That's how it should be; as much as some might like it to be otherwise, Wikipedia is not a jury meant to judge facts that reasonable people can disagree about. As for "Punishing Scott Thomas Beauchamp," if it's supposed to be an example of someone denying the existence of the man, it's certainly a silly one, since it's a satire. Calbaer 20:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Fake But Accurate

Shouldn't the editors concentrate on the facts, instead of making all these silly soapbox speeches? Just a thought

Matt Sanchez 21:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The lede isn't a lede

The lead paragraph of an article should summarize the article. This one doesn't. The title of the article has the word "controversy". The lede should state what the controversy is. Editors may disagree about the resolution of the controversy but surely you agree that there is a controversy. So add a sentence or two describing the controversy. Perhaps:

The veracity of his claims was questioned. The New Republic investigated and defended the claims. The Army investigated and concluded the claims were false. Beauchamp is alleged to have recanted.

Each sentence is a summary of a section in the article. I think it accurately describes the controversy. Sbowers3 05:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of NYT article

The article's concluding sentence is a quote from this NYT article but misrepresents that source, which continues

The brief statement, however, left many questions unanswered. Just last week The New Republic published on its Web site the results of its own investigation, stating that five members of the same company as Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp, who had written the anonymous pieces, "all corroborated Beauchamp’s anecdotes, which they witnessed or, in the case of one soldier, heard about contemporaneously. (All of the soldiers we interviewed who had first-hand knowledge of the episodes requested anonymity.)"

The NYT article should be summarized in a more neutral fashion; the fact that TNR claims that five anonymous soldiers corroborated Beauchamp's stories is important and needs to be mentioned somewhere. AxelBoldt 19:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I just saw that this is already mentioned earlier in the article.AxelBoldt 19:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scott_Thomas_Beauchamp_controversy/Archive_3&oldid=867465738"