Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:38, 17 December 2007

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

Archives

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

Proposed Re-Write in light of "Fog of War"

On August 6, 2007, the Weekly Standard's blog reported that Scott Thomas Beauchamp recanted under oath to Army investigators. The source of that information was revealed to be Marine reservist and embedded reporter Matt Sanchez. Recognizing Sanchez as a controversial, conservative figure, the blogosphere quickly voiced protests and support on both sides of the political spectrum. Matt Sanchez (talk) 09:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope. The story's not about you. Never has been. --Eleemosynary (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, these needless personal attacks need to stop. At this point it's gone beyond mere personal attacks and has risen to the level of harassment. Calbaer (talk) 06:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Editor is taking too much of an interest in grudges with another editor, as opposed to the article itself. Proposed re-write above looks fine to me.62.177.158.148 (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Despite Calbaer's laughable disingenuousness (and the anon sock's chiming in with his second edit), the fact is that Pvt. Sanchez has tried to turn this article in self-promotion for some time, using a variety of socks ("Bluemarine," "MattSanchez," a bunch of unsigned posts "agreeing" with his call for self-promotion.) Check the history of this page (and Sanchez's edits) for more. He's in almost perpetual COI violation (see his Talk page for more on this) and fits of high dudgeon do nothing to improve this article. --Eleemosynary (talk) 03:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You may hold that view (and apparently also hold the view that I have a sockpuppet in the Netherlands, a place I've never ran a web client from), but "My archenemy breaks guidelines and policies" is not a justification for you to break guidelines and policies too. By the way, I don't recall Bluemarine using multiple aliases — which he's allowed to do — in order to pretend that he's multiple people — which he's not. And considering that Bluemarine brought this to the talk page, not the article, the COI accusations seem rather unjustified, too. But, even if they were, his misbehavior would not be a justification for yours. Calbaer (talk) 05:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, your mischaracterizations and high dudgeon are getting the article nowhere. At all. --Eleemosynary (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This issue has not been "about me" but Foer got caught, by his own admission, because of people who verified his shoddy editing and misrepresentations on the ground. I don't need to be "written in" but your objections have become so personal that they are laughable. Please look at my talk page and you'll see an article that is being debated and improved, which is what the Wiki project is about.

I've never once masked my identity or used "multiple identities". In fact, I'm fairly straight forward in who I am, and doubt you can match my transparency. I understand you may know absolutely nothing about the military, I'm not a "Private" I'm a Corporal.

Matt Sanchez (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a question as to whether you're lying about that. Several online sources suggest you were stripped of your rank once the details of your past appeared. In any case, you've not proven yourself a reliable source on any aspect of the Beauchamp story. Nothing you have claimed has been substantiated. --Eleemosynary (talk) 04:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"Several online sources" none of which you've cited here. What a fake, you're no one of importance and Misplaced Pages gives you a sense of purpose. Where did people like you go before the internet?

I was reliable enough to counter Foer's original untruths. Matt Sanchez (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

No you weren't "reliable" at all. Goldfarb's use of you as a source for several untruths -- including the lie that Beauchamp had signed a recantation -- severely undermined his credibility. Perhaps Goldfarb wasn't bothered by your own history of canards -- the nonexistent "harassment" at Columbia, the $12,000 fraud for which the USMC investigated you, your failed attempts to mischaracterize your past -- but encyclopedia editors have to be, regardless of partisan stripe.

You have a history of "playing the victim" when challenged, and it looks like that's exactly what you're doing here. Nevertheless, your contribution to the Beauchamp affair is that of a infinitesimal sideshow, and not worthy of mention on Misplaced Pages. I understand you want more publicity, but you're going to have to get it somewhere else.

By the way, my source for much of the above is the Marine Corps Times. Hardly part of the "liberal media." Better luck next rant. --Eleemosynary (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we get a vote on the below proposed re-write?

On August 6, 2007, the Weekly Standard's blog reported that Scott Thomas Beauchamp recanted under oath to Army investigators. The source of that information was revealed to be Marine reservist and embedded reporter Matt Sanchez. Recognizing Sanchez as a controversial, conservative figure, the blogosphere quickly voiced protests and support on both sides of the political spectrum.

vote on the re-write:

Approve Matt Sanchez (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope. The story's not about you. Never has been. --Eleemosynary (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Your personal attacks on me are unprofessional, violate the rules and are distracting. Are you trying to get banned? Matt Sanchez (talk) 13:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

See my comments directly above. --Eleemosynary (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Matt has "played the victim" here; he barely commented about unconscionable attacks for months (and he's hit the nail on the head about the motivation for those attacks, although saying as much probably wasn't necessary as it returns incivility with incivility). In fact, I'd say that Matt's been overly aggressive — not wounded — if anything, probably because he's personally invested in this so much. That said, users can't be banned for immaturity. Harassment, on the other hand.... Calbaer (talk) 01:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you try to gin up another noticeboard report, then? Then we can all sit back and watch as it goes down in flames, again. --Eleemosynary (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Description of this as a hoax is no longer controversial

Since TNR disclosed that they were unable to verify the claims in materials they published from STB and their other communications with him they conclude that they were misled.

In what way doesn't that fit the definition of hoax? Was or wasn't TNR misled? patsw (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"journalistic ethics" is one thing (printing stories which can't actually be verified). "hoax" is another entirely. It implies a level of malice or perceived personal entertainment from the action. It's not just a synonym for "lie". Chris Cunningham (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I can understand both viewpoints, but we should probably take the more conservative one and simply call it a scandal and/or matter or journalism ethics, not a hoax. Glass admitted he was making stuff up out of whole cloth. With Beauchamp, it seem plausible that he heard tall tales that his fellow soldiers were telling one another, then turned around and told them as if they were (a) true and (b) experienced first-hand. It's not proper to say that he "tricked" TNR into believing them if he might have believed them himself. Calbaer (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"Hoax" does not require a Bart Simpson-style entertainment value like a prank phone call to Moe's or a confession. The malice is that STB deceived TNR in order to create interest in his stories and thereby gain fame. STB didn't report these merely as "tall tales" but as fact, not a mere possibility. While it is hard to nail down an "admission" from STB, the position of TNR is that post-publication and in the middle of the controversy, STB agreed to provide corroboration, strung TNR along, and then ultimately failed to do so over several months. Chris, Calbaer stipulates that TNR was misled, do you? patsw (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Calbaer's statement was clear enough already without being paraphrased into something stronger. I don't support the hoax category because untruths are not necessarily hoaxes. Chris Cunningham (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Because Beauchamp maintained over an extended period that he could and would provide corroboration for his stories and didn't. TNR's conclusion that it was misled is correct. Had Beauchamp held doubts that the stories were accurate he could have indicated that months ago and ended the controversy before it started.

1. What reason do you have to believe that Beauchamp lacked intent to deceive TNR and its readers?

2. Do you have reason to believe that TNR is itself untruthful in claiming that Beauchamp maintained that he could and would provide corroboration for his stories, and its conclusion that it was deceived by Beauchamp is incorrect?

3. Are you making distinctions among the words: untruth, deception, and hoax? patsw (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Read Thumperward's previous statement. Repeat. --Eleemosynary (talk) 04:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

A hoax is begun with an intent to dupe, which I don't necessarily see here. Yes, Beauchamp kept promising corroboration he failed to deliver. But was his initial intent to mislead, or just to further his career through telling stories he didn't observe first-hand? Beauchamp, from what I can see, was not motivated by making the military look bad (though he did to those who believed what he wrote), but was instead motivated by a desire to break into journalism. So he told stories, but we can't know whether or not he believed they were accurate. For TNR, any of these explanations is equally bad, so it really doesn't add much to call this a "hoax." Calbaer (talk) 05:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Even if the first word of the first story was not written with the intention to deceive, there was an intention to deceive TNR which Beauchamp manifested in not being truthful with TNR when first challenged on the accuracy and sourcing of the stories. It is accurate for the Misplaced Pages to label this a hoax as the secondary sources commenting on this have. It is only speculation on your part he might have initially believed them. Even granting that, Beauchamp later intentionally deceived TNR. If you have an alternate explanation of the facts in which Beauchamp is truthful after questions were raised regarding the veracity of the stories, what is it? patsw (talk) 13:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It is only speculation on your part that my speculation might be wrong. Given the absence of definitive evidence, we can't merely take the word of a biased source calling this a hoax to call this a hoax. Since there's (appropriately) no category for "This is probably a hoax, but it might not be, although certainly some deception was involved at some point," we have to settle for not calling it a hoax.

Again, let's be conservative about this; enough facts are definitive to tell the story of the scandal in an impartial manner. If we, in the article, label it a hoax, condemn Foer's weaselly ways, declare Beauchamp morally bankrupt, etc., not only would this be a POV problem, but it would also lead your average anti-war person to conclude that this article is dominated by pro-war folk who've just told their side of the story. By sourcing the facts and giving them in an impartial fashion — e.g., using TNR's words for their retraction rather than just calling it "a retraction" — hopefully readers will see what the facts are. Yes, there will always be those who assume that this was a grand conspiracy by the military to skillfully manipulate and discredit Beauchamp, but there are also those who believe that the moon landing didn't happen. Misplaced Pages should provide information about known facts about such events, not try to convince the unconvinceable by simplistically saying, "This is a hoax." Calbaer (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that it is very difficult for a deception to turn into a hoax at some later point, actually. Chris Cunningham (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Calbaer, how far are you pushing the goalposts now? Is there anything short of an admission by Beauchamp that would allow you to conclude that this was a deception on his part? Or any indication that he has replied to the accusations against him? Where is this Misplaced Pages "definitive evidence" standard given? The controversy is termed a hoax by a consensus of secondary sources on journalism, it is not a personal judgment by me on Beauchamp's character but an article on the controversy started by his reporting. Are there any secondary sources covering the field of journalism that have concluded that it is plausible (or possible) that Beauchamp was truthful? patsw (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Chris, I can't find a dictionary or usage book which requires that before one writes the first word that one must intend to deceive. What makes this a hoax as I understand the dictionary is that this deception had him reporting the Baghdad Diaries as "true" and then he intentionally misled TNR to cover it up when challenged over their truth over several weeks. It's not a simple, singular lie but a sustained one. You and I can't mind read Beauchamp's mind to ascertain exactly when he decided that merely reporting the truth would be insufficient for his purpose, or for what reason he started the deception. patsw (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

And neither can you. I am very hesitant to declare that something is a "hoax" before a confession to this effect has been made. I've also been hesitant to bring up analogies here for fear of upsetting what I feel is a fragile state of co-operation, but one could also say that the Bush administration's WMD talk was a sustained campaign of disinformation, yet I doubt many people would use the word "hoax" to desribe it. (insert your own choice of political disinformation campaign in place of said analogy as you see fit.) There's a difference between this and Paul is dead and I don't see that it's one of minor semantics. Chris Cunningham (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

My limited contribution to this is only to state that if we have reliable sources stating it is a hoax, we should label it so. Arkon (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Beauchamp is not a hoax, he probably just exaggerated. Foer's the hoax. Matt Sanchez (talk) 13:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The coverup after he was challenged after publication of the stories is the sustained deception. That is the hoax. Whether he wrote the first word of the first story fully intending to report the truth or to tell a lie is irrelevant and unencyclopedic speculation. What reliable sources today assert that Beauchamp is truthful and TNR is deceitful? patsw (talk) 04:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

People don't talk about the "Watergate hoax" or the "Iran-Contra hoax." A person being deceitful does not a hoax make. In any event, seeing as there are various opinions here, it would be wrong to say that calling it a "hoax" isn't controversial, as per the original assertion. Calbaer (talk) 06:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Foer The Fibber

This might explain why Foer is simply not to be believed.

The Lying Dogs of War Matt Sanchez (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Please keep this about the article, e.g., reliable sources, content, etc. Informed opinion pieces about the scandal are interesting, but they don't really help with the development of the article, as they cannot be considered reliable sources. Besides, it's better to let Foer's own words make the case against him. Calbaer (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

All due respect... Maybe you should reconsider what Eleemosynary said about Matt Sanchez and WP:COI in the "Proposed Re-Write in light of 'Fog of War'" thread. JMarkievicz2 (talk) 07:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Although I give an opinion, The "Lying Dogs of War" also directly contradicts, in detail, Foer's account, which is precisely what's fueling the entire controversy surrounding Foer. The article is in fact, not about Foer, but Beauchamp.

The fact that an editor made a mistake of judgement is not the problem here, the controversy and polemic comes from Foer's evasion and selective memory. Let's not forget, "The Fog of War" has much of Foer's opinions. The fact is that his side of the Beauchamp saga was contradicted by people on the ground who directly contradicted what both Beauchamp and Foer reported. Matt Sanchez (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If the article goes into details about Foer's opinions, then balance is needed. However, the article doesn't go into those details, and, if it did, this balance should be provided by mainstream media sources. Although your take is interesting and — for those following every twist and turn of the story — valuable, I don't think it's relevant to the article, which provides a summary of events. As I indicated before, there's plenty to be proud of in your role and there's plenty of shame in those who would attack you for it (especially in the ways those attacks have taken place), but there's a problem with using sources such as blogs or WorldNetDaily, and in using opinion pieces worded as strongly as yours. WP:NPOV and WP:V problems should be avoided, if at all possible. Calbaer (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You should note that The New Republic is not a mainstream media source, TNR is ideologically driven and should be subjected to those same forces for the sake of balance. This controversy is ideologically driven. This is perhaps best described as an appeal for diversity of opinion.Matt Sanchez (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

TNR is a primary source. The controversy is about TNR, so clearly its contents are a reliable source for what its contents are. Calbaer (talk) 06:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The controversy is not exclusively about TNR, it's about Beauchamp and the polemic surrounding the original publication of the stories. Matt Sanchez (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Categories

Even though the reverters seem only willing to, well, revert, I'm going to try to begin a discussion on Category:Journalism ethics and Category:Scandals. Contrary to claim in the most recent edit summary reversion, these have not been discussed here, aside from Thumperward's remark that "journalism ethics" applies more to this than "hoax" does (not exactly a thorough discussion). Perhaps "scandals" might be avoided since it's a very broad and POV category, but "journalism ethics" seems appropriate for this, as it's an instance involving journalism ethics. Granted, other instances, e.g., Centennial Olympic Park bombing, have not been included in this category, but we should include or exclude the article based on its own merits, and, by that measurement, it belongs there. Calbaer (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with ethics. I think "scandal" implies wider implications in the aftermath, which I don't see happening (no resignations, prosecutions etc.) right now. Chris Cunningham (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Is the culture war a category? Matt Sanchez (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of ethics (determining what is right and wrong in principle and applying it to a specific situation). It's wrong for an author to deceive a publisher. Always wrong and never right. It was a deception over published items sustained over several weeks, that is a hoax. patsw (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you object to "journalism ethics" as a category for this or just to "hoax" not being a category for this? Calbaer (talk) 06:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

New York Observer Interview with Beauchamp's Wife

For your consideration. A GEM that may help shape this article.

Matt Sanchez (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

NPR Piece with Foer and Beauchamp Wife

Interesting piece I heard the other day. December 4th, 2007

Debate on Reflist

No. We won't be keeping this list, most of which are unreliable blog posts, "at the end of the page." Do I need to post a link to your RfC, in which your failed campaign of self-promotion is well-documented? --Eleemosynary (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion Elee. I still vote to keep a running tally of the sources. Anyone else agree or disagree?

AgreeMatt Sanchez (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz --Eleemosynary (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Cause and Effect: The reality is that the these so-called "unreliable blog posts" kept interest in the story alive when the mainstream media wanted to move away from the story and let it die. Eliminate them and you distort the record to the extent that TNR retracted what it published and accused Beauchamp of deception in what would appear to be a total vacuum. 03:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patsw (talk • contribs)

It doesn't hurt to keep information on the talk page even if there's been no consensus as to whether it's appropriate to have on the article page. Calbaer (talk) 06:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

So, we keep the reflist and dump Elee?Mattsanchez (talk) 11:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't rise to the bait. For now, the reflist can stay on talk, but it's there to allow us to see the refs being discussed. It's not to be used as a means of keeping links around on Misplaced Pages. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The "refs" are (mostly) to sources unreliable by Misplaced Pages standards, and are posted on this page as part of Sanchez's self-promotion campaign. Simple as that. --Eleemosynary (talk) 03:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Elee: The only thing "simple" here is your point of view. You don't seem to have the brain power to overcome your childish antics. The fact that you consistently attack me because you think I'm 'weak' just shows what a coward you are. You, a faceless, anonymous blip in the blogosphere. My role behind in the Scott Beauchamp controversy is verifiable even by a sore-loser like Foer who stoops to the same disgraceful level you do. If you really think you're superior to anyone who has appeared in an adult film than it's obvious that, beyond being unable to contribute productively to this article, you have grave issues of self-worth. Matt Sanchez (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Project much? --Eleemosynary (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

And they'll be cropped as the page is archived, in that case. No cause for alarm. Chris Cunningham (talk) 08:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ultra liberal NPR and the hilariously insightful New York Observer are outstanding primary sources, as they speak directly to the actors involved. I'm not sure what Elee reads in whatever part of the world she's in, but these are both reputable media outlets. The "self-promotion" campaign she speaks of says more about her than myself. Elee is an obstructionist editor wasting valuable time on here. I vote that she be banned for immaturity. Matt Sanchez (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

See above comments. --Eleemosynary (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I dont think your snide remarks about Sanchez helps anything, and I would suggest you act a little more WP:CIVIL or you will be reported. DJ Creamity 19:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

My comments about Sanchez are civil and accurate. Report away. --Eleemosynary (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Your comments have been insulting and just all-around pathetic. I've never met you, I don't want to meet you, but you don't even have the courage to recognize how distasteful you are. Matt Sanchez (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Fact and Opinion

This article is, in part, missing perspective. It's "important" insofar as it reflects the current ideological divide or culture war that is emblematic of the American political landscape. The facts, in themselves, are quite simple. According to the editor himself and the inaction of the author, the Baghdad Diarist suffers from authenticity/ethic issues. That's not what's important here.

The important part is:

• TNR, a leftist rag, ran shoddy stories
• On the ground reporting contradicted TNR
• TNR used the wife to edit or fact check
• Conservatives caught on to the sham
• Foer forced to capitulate, after much hemming and hawing.

This article needs some type of editorial/opinions to contextualize the controversy. Matt Sanchez (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: TNR as a leftist rag...

This is a dubious characterization. Some TNR critics have even applied the term "neoconservative" to the magazine because of long time owner Marty Peretz:

"My Marty problem -- and ours -- is just this: By pretending to speak as a liberal but simultaneously endorsing the central crusades of the right, he has enlisted The New Republic in the service of a ruinous neoconservative doctrine, as the magazine sneered at those liberals who stood firm in the face of its insults. He has done so, moreover, in support of a blinkered and narrow view of Israeli security that, again, celebrates hawks and demonizes doves. Had the United States or even Israel followed the policies advocated by those genuine liberals whom TNR routinely slandered, much of the horror of the past four years would have been happily avoided -- as most of its editors (but not Peretz) now admit. " -- Eric Alterman

In the 1990s TNR all but abandoned liberalism. Log Cabin Republican Andrew Sullivan edited the magazine from 1991-1996. His replacement, Michael Kelly (who died covering the Iraq war) was a Clinton-hating war hawk.

One of TNR's sharpest critics is Markos Moulitsas -- founder of the genuinely leftist web site Daily Kos. (see his June '06 post "TNR's defection to the Right is now complete"; see also "TNR Misfires") Other prominent liberal bloggers, Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake and the late Steve Gilliard, were also critics of TNR. (see Gilliard's "An ethics lecture from the New Republic is like a lecture on honesty from Tom DeLay" and this post from Hamsher). Liberal bloggers were criticizing TNR and its shoddy reporting more than a year before the Beauchamp controversy -- a point that should be noted if you're trying to put this scandal in the proper context.

Any statement that suggests TNR is a major player in the anti-war/left movement is extremely misleading. One major sticking point is TNR's continued support for hawkish candidates, such as former Democrat Joe Lieberman, and its 34-year history of supporting neocon policies. JMarkievicz2 (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Eric Alterman is a certified communist, not to mention a liberal kook. In fact, all of the people you've mentioned above are part of the liberal freak fringe. Their opinions are to be found on trash like Alternet.com Matt Sanchez (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Articles here shouldn't have "perspective". Just the facts. Only those deeply in denial will fail to draw the conclusion that TNR and Beauchamp did wrong here. Calbaer (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Proof positive that you're incapable of editing this article in a NPOV. --Eleemosynary (talk) 04:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

"NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases - what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article." The "neutral article" part is what I meant by not having perspective. Opinions are relevant to the article, but it is very difficult to achieve balance and avoid undue weight if we have much opinion, especially because it is difficult to find secondary reliable sources defending the actions of TNR. Even Foer himself admitted wrongdoing on the part of his publication, both in trusting Beauchamp and in letting Beauchamp's wife fact-check Beauchamp's stories. It would be difficult indeed to strike the right balance, so it's best to let the facts speak for themselves. Calbaer (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

TNR under Foer has been a leftist rag, and most certainly an anti-military rag. Tom Delay is a great guy and a lot more credible than Foer or his acolytes.

I vote to remove Elee who is about as neutral as a positive result on an HIV test.Matt Sanchez (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Okay, I asked for 24 hours, but got a week. So if we get a resolution on this we need to contact the admin in question to get an unprot. Anyway, yeah, we need some tempered discussion here instead of edit warring. Anyone else fancy chipping in? Chris Cunningham (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Blatant conflict of interest

Why is someone who works for a rival publication being allowed to edit an article about The New Republic? Matt Sanchez/Bluemarine is not only personally involved with this scandal, but he writes for The Weekly Standard. JMarkievicz2 (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Aside from one editor acting as an apologist for his abhorrent behavior, no one is taking Sanchez's self-promotion campaign seriously. I encourage all interested editors to visit Sanchez's RFC, where his disruptive behavior; homophobic insults; violations of COI, BLP, and about 20 other Wiki policies are extremely well-documented. --Eleemosynary (talk) 04:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Now, I'm being judged for insulting homosexuals?? Can you get any more ridiculous?? The RFC ran its course and was proven baseless. Matt Sanchez (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If you mean "why" in a technical sense, it's because his RFC never went anywhere despite seemingly overwhelming support. make of that what you will. Regardless of that, most of his edits are to the talk page, though he occasionally edits the article when a few days' lull is mistaken for consensus. While there is a COI, the best thing to do is still to attempt to work with him to resolve this: a feud clearly isn't going to improve the article. Anyway, it's protected for now on what I would consider to be a pretty COI-free revision. Chris Cunningham (talk) 09:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The portion of the guideline in question is at WP:COIC. Calbaer (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The Weekly Standard is not a "rival publication" and again, JMark makes no contribution other than the sharp sound of whining. I have suggested edits that are duly sourced and completely within the rules. Matt Sanchez (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemarine (talk • contribs) 01:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Reference List

Just to keep track of all the information, let's put this up. Let's keep this at the end of the page.

1. ^ Goldfarb, Michael (2007-08-06). "Beauchamp Recants". Worldwide Standard. The Weekly Standard. Retrieved 2007-08-08. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
2. http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=51f6dc92-7f1d-4d5b-aebe-94668b7bfb32&p=1
3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/the-weekly-standard_b_58977.html
4. Army Concludes Beauchamp Investigation
5. http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=51f6dc92-7f1d-4d5b-aebe-94668b7bfb32&p=1
6. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/the-weekly-standard_b_58977.html
7. http://hotair.com/archives/2007/08/03/sanchez-army-concludes-beauchamp-investigation/
8. Lying Dogs of War| 12-10-07
9. http://www.observer.com/2007/foer-s-foggy-new-republic-retraction-doesn-t-please-everyone New York Observer Interview with Elspeth Reeve, by Leon Neyfakh
10. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16890484 Magazine Questions Accuracy of Soldier's Reports | by David Folkenflik | 12-04-07

• Biography articles of living people