Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:43, 2 November 2007

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

This article was nominated for deletion on October 26, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

"Experts"

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

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

--Eleemosynary 22:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be satisfactory, though I wonder if it would fit better in the further developments section, than the military investigation section since it pertains to both sides in the conflict. Either way, as long as both sides get appropriate quotes.

Also, Eleemosynary, I'd appreciate it if you would remove the personal attack against me in your statement above. You've been blocked once over this article, already. Your confrontational edits and comments bring down the tone of Misplaced Pages. A.V. 19:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-08-09-soldier-blogger-denounced_N.htm

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

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

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

Conflict of interest in sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources

Here are a couple of sources from the past few days. I think I saw Krauthammer discussed in one. - Crockspot 02:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Aronoff, Roger (2007-08-27). "Fact-Checking Blues At The New Republic". Post Chronicle. Retrieved 2007-08-30.
• Tabor, Nathan (2007-08-27). "The Front Lines Of Pseudo-Journalism". Post Chronicle. Retrieved 2007-08-30.

Ordering of sections

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

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

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

Military bloggers

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

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

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

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

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

Interview with Michael Goldfarb

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interview with Major John Cross

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

This above quoted from Pajamas Media.

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

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

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

Eleemosynary edits disputed

Template:RFCbio

I dispute the edits removing relevant, verified information from the article:

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

I suggest you review Misplaced Pages's standards for sourcing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I sympathize with the need not to rush to judgment but given the lack of transparency on the part of TNR since August. This is turning out to be a slow crawl to judgment. patsw 13:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Did TNR actually say that they were "prevented" from contacting Beauchamp, or that they were "unable" to contact him? htom 19:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"Prevented" is TNR's description as of August 10. patsw 21:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Link has been hidden behind the subscriber wall. :( Did they happen to say who had prevented them? Beauchamp, perhaps, saying "I won't talk to them?" htom 21:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Documents

The Drudge Report has published "internal documents" from the United States Army regarding this.

• A transcript between Scott Thomas Beauchamp, Franklin Foer (TNR Editor), and Peter Scoblic (TNR Executive Editor) from 2007-09-06
• Legal Review of AR 15-6 Investigation Regarding Allegations of Solider Misconduct Published in The New Republic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Drudge pulled the link, for some unknown reason, but the files still exist. More so TNR Editor Jonathan Chait "doesn't dispute the accuracy of the documents" — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There's some interesting investigation going on here (e.g., ), but, as the Drudge incident shows, what may be useful one hour may be pulled the next. So let's be measured about improving the article, rather than view each hourly development as essential, or, worse a victory for "our side". It would also help prevent the revert war that seems inevitable in the coming hours. Calbaer 22:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Add all the feverish original research you want, backed up by Drudge and bloggers. Then watch it disappear, as it violates WP:RS. I thought you would have learned last time you tried this. Ah, well.. that's what the admins are for. --Eleemosynary 23:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Memorandum of the United States Army is not "original research" not matter how much you wish it is. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 23:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No reliable source says it's even accurate. For all we know, this could be yet another hoax perpetrated by Matt "Dirty" Sanchez. --Eleemosynary 23:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Since you apparently do not think that the United States Army is a "reliable source" please list, in full, who exactly is a "reliable source"? — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Memorandum of Concern
• Johnson memo (1)
• Johnson memo (2)
• Cross memo (1)
• Cross memo (2)
• Cross memo (3)
• Cross memo (4)
• Cross memo (5)

• 
• 
• Image:Beauchamp - Memorandum of Concern.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven Andrew Miller (talk • contribs) 23:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Ah... great to hear from the voice of reason. Crockspot, should I provide links to some of your more "colorful" statements you've made in the past? Do you really wish to re-open that can of worms? Let me know. (By the way, how's the RFCU on TheDeciderDecides coming?) --Eleemosynary 06:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• WTF? What does my already admitted questionable behavior in the distant past (which never was bad enough to warrant a block) have to do with your behavior right now? We should learn from our mistakes, and grow. You seem to be stuck in the same mode. I'm not sure what you mean about TDD either. He was determined to be the sockpuppet of your good buddy Bmedly Sutler, who was himself a puppet of FAAFA, who used your name and set you up in order to attack me. - Crockspot 16:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I only used the nickname b/c Sanchez went by it during his porn career. If Johnny "Wadd" Holmes followed his porn vocation with a career as a lickspittle for the Democrats (as Sanchez is for the GOP), something tells me we'd being seeing Holmes referred to by that nickname on Talk pages. But in the spirit of comity, I'll stop using his nickname. --Eleemosynary 06:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Good, thank you. -Hit bull, win steak 14:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll assume for now (and hope) that this promise is kept and that the gratuitous maligning of Sanchez stops. Also, if there is any evidence that that was a nickname he used, please share it with us. According to the article on him — which Eleemosynary insisted I should read — he didn't even use "Sanchez" in porn. I believe that the slur was given to him by those opposed to his "right-wing" activities in the hope that it would reduce him in the eyes of others. Calbaer 18:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Kurtz article

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

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

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

So in sum, none of the parties challenge that the documents are genuine, and actually made comments premised on the assumption that they were real. As such, the primary sources pass the smell test for now. 220.255.116.153 15:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your statement regarding primary sources and the memo. That should be in play now as well as per its reference in the article. Ronnotel 15:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Me three, the secondary referencing, and the lack of dispute, seems to put us outside of a Killian Documents scenario. Being a work of the US govt., the docs would also be public domain, so they could be added to wikisource. - Crockspot 15:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be the beginnings of a consensus on this. I'll go ahead and unprotect. Ronnotel 15:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The leaked documents are by now presumptively authentic because people in a position to know if they were faked have said they appear to be authentic. The fact this is leading to a leak investigation rather than being dismissed as a hoax is about the best evidence that we Wikipedians are likely to ever see of their authenticity. They are not "primary sources" in any case: The "primary source" for the stories of these allegations of atrocities would be the army perpetrators, their victims, or a witness to them such as Beauchamp claimed to be. The military authors of these documents are one level removed from the allegations, i.e. secondary sources. As I wrote over a month ago, the "story" had become less about the allegations of atrocities by soldiers, and more about the credibility of Beauchamp and the New Republic. patsw 02:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur completely. That Beauchamp's stories are fiction is no longer in doubt. The questions remain about the response (or lack of) by the editors of The New Republic.— Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 03:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Smear links

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

Threshold of evidence to categorize as a hoax

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, more flimsy Wiki-lawyering. This "threshold" is one of your own design. You have a long, long history on Misplaced Pages (and, years before that, on Usenet) of simply making unfounded assertions and behaving as if they were fact. That isn't going to work here. --Eleemosynary 14:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't use language as incendiary, but I would probably agree that labeling this episode as a "hoax" doesn't seem well-sourced - yet. I personally have little doubt that B was in over his head and TNR's conduct has been, well, colorful. But I'd like to see a relevant source label this as a "hoax" before WP makes that particular leap. My $0.02. Ronnotel 18:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry Ronnotel, but it is more than clear, from the Army's own investigation that the stories are false and made up. That means they are a hoax. There is no two ways about this. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Disfigured woman incident

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

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

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

Documents have been confirmed authentic

Let me make this clear:

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

TNR confimed them, as well a CENTCOM source

— Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Per the Army's investigation:

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

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

— Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

And all this should be in the article. But you've got to realize that nothing less than indisputable physical evidence and/or a recantation by TNR will make certain people believe this was a hoax. Maybe STB is the only one telling the truth in the articles, while he and other soldiers lied under pressure from the Army. Sure, there are inconsistencies, but maybe they're unlikely but true events, or maybe they're unimportant, like the difference between a war zone and Kuwait. That's the way STB's defenders think. After some time, hopefully, the truth will be undeniable, but, for now, we have to present everything that indicates what the truth is and let readers figure it out for themselves. Given the evidence, those reading in good faith should be able to figure it out. Calbaer 20:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

For some, I doubt that there is any way to change their minds; if STB was to go to court and swear under oath that he'd made it all up, they'd claim that he was coerced into giving false testimony by any number of possible suspects, and they'd demand proof that that had not happened -- and any proof offered would be likewise disbelieved. htom 21:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Three points:

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

— Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The atrocity stories can no longer presumed to be true "in good faith"

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

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

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

Did Howard Kurtz misquote Franklin Foer?

While Beauchamp "didn't stand by his stories in that conversation, he didn't recant his stories," Foer said in an interview.WAPO

TNR acknowledges

Beauchamp’s refusal to defend himself certainly raised serious doubts.TNR

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

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

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

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

I recommend all editors read the full post, here

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

NO HOAX: TNR and Beauchamp stand by the stories

TNR has responded. Apparently, a few individuals in the Army have conducted themselves pretty shamefully. (Monitoring Beauchamp during his phone call with the TNR editors? Is it any wonder he didn't want to comment?) That's a shame, but even an institution as great as the Army has its bad apples. So, though I don't expect any of this to stop the sophistry, tortured syllogisms, and deliberate misstatements of fact by a few editors above, we can safely say that, as of now, there is no reason for any "hoax," "fraud," or "journalism scandal" tag, nor any link to "Stephen Glass." --Eleemosynary 07:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I will point out that no one at The New Republic has presented any evidence that the United States Army forced Beauchamp to say or do anything. And at this point TNR doesn't exactly have a whole lot of credibility, except with partisan hacks. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 09:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making your point of view crystal clear. TNR, actually, has presented exactly as much "evidence" as the U.S. Army. --Eleemosynary 09:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, exactlly the same, except all of the interviews with parties involved who say that Beauchamp is a liar. So on one hand you have TNR's editors, who are not in Iraq, and Beauchamp's refusal to comment. On the other hand you have Major John Cross' investigation where he interview Beauchamp's platoon. Yeah, exactly the same. The only question that remains is how long TNR is going to stonewall. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 09:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Precisely. --Eleemosynary 10:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

And a correct one. --Eleemosynary 21:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Please stop violating WP:TALK#Others.27_comments for "personal attacks" that are only in your imagination. What I said — that you didn't like that Army and Miller didn't like TNR due to their respective behaviors in this scandal — is the truth. Yes, I was flippant in the way I said it, but no more than you in portraying that who don't believe Beauchamp as believing, "Teh Army did an INVESTIGATION!!! and that proves that teh Beauchamp is LYING!!! and teh TNR are LIARSLIARSLIARS!!!"

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

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

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

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages.

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)

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. — 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. — 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. — 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." — 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 Misplaced Pages article already has correctly cited from both TNR and the Army documents. One particularly bad error is

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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages.

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 Misplaced Pages policy to plaster image files on Talk pages (as a matter of fact, doing so is quite out of the ordinary); it is Misplaced Pages 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#Move_procedure, 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)

1. Kurtz, Howard (2007-08-08). "Army Concludes Baghdad Diarist Accounts Untrue". The Washington Post. p. C01. Retrieved 2007-08-08. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
2. http://mediamatters.org/items/200708020003
3. http://hotair.com/archives/2007/07/31/blogging-from-baghdad-matt-sanchez-checks-in-at-fob-falcon/
4. http://hotair.com/archives/2007/07/31/blogging-from-baghdad-matt-sanchez-checks-in-at-fob-falcon/

• Biography articles of living people