Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JMarkievicz2 (talk | contribs) at 06:40, 10 August 2007 (→So are all these blogs OKay?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Biography: Military Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance).

What is Beauchamp's MOS?

I haven't been able to find it anywhere Matt Sanchez 21:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for the external link to Michelle Malkin's blog or the Free Republic forum. I doubt Free Republic can be classified as a properly cite-able source. -Anon 0))

The same bloggers, Malkin and Confederate Yankee as in the Jamail Hussein controversy

Misplaced Pages has a policy that we can't reference bloggers and some people stick way to strictly to that. I had put in an edit at the Jamail Hussein controversy six months ago that that controversy was started by Confederate Yankee and Malkin. That was removed because of the blog references. This controversy is also being pushed by confederate yankee and malkin, but how would a wiki reader ever know that?

This article is a SMEAR

I added the POV template to the article. This article is a smear.

The account has been confirmed according to TNR to the same standard that we say "The New York Times has confirmed the account", or "The Weekly Standard has confirmed the account."

The charge against Beauchamp that he falsified his account are strong, serious, and damaging. It is a POV smear to place the charges at the beginning of the account, and bury the exoneration at the very end. This is how a newspaper reports information it doesn't want people to read. Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper.

A fair and accurate account of this controversy should include: 1) The names of the bloggers that started this, including Michelle Malkin and the Confederate Yankee 2) A note saying these bloggers also doubted Jamail Hussein and a link to the Jamail Hussein controversy page which was similarly discredited 3) The charges 4) The exoneration

It is a POV Smear to ignore that these bloggers have a history of making false claims of this nature. And it is a POV smear to place the exoneration at the end of the piece that few people will read.

Just say no thank you to turning the Misplaced Pages into a Slander Rag. 71.39.78.68 13:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the slander I see is the above and is the Beauchamp article itself, which TNR "confirmed" contained inaccuracies (e.g., the setting being another country in which there was no war!). The slander I see from the above is the implication that (a) Malkin and Yankee are the only ones to have raised doubts (clearly false) and (b) Malkin and Yankee are liars (your unproven opinion; they hypothesized that Hussein wasn't a policeman or might not exist at all, but their main point was that he seemed to be an unreliable source). It's also a lie to say that the unverified claims of TNR amount to an "exoneration," especially when TNR explicitly indicated at least one gaping inaccuracy in the original article. A nonpartial, chronological explanation of events should suffice. Malkin's claims should not be excised from history because you think they're unreliable; people can look a Malkin's Misplaced Pages page and see her history and biases for themselves. And the article should certainly make clear that admitting one inaccuracy and denying the rest with no means for independent verification is not a "discrediting" of critics. Calbaer 18:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a Smear

There is still a great deal of inconsistency in the "Shock Troops" article and there is, as of now, no exoneration, only TNR ducking the issue and shifting blame. The Jamail Hussein issue was also a media screw-up. The fact that he existed is not proof that he saw what the reported; there is no evidence that anything he "saw" actualy happened. Bob 13:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably a smear. Need to put rank on publications.

The problem with allowing The Weekly Standard and National Review to cast a shadow on Beauchamp is that their purpose in publication is fundamentally biased towards an ideology. It's in their charters. Only (supposedly) neutral players should be allowed to affect the tone of the opening summary of an article. Yes, WaPo and other neutral papers probably have a bias, and that's bad for us in setting a neutral tone... but can't we avoid deliberately shooting ourselves in the foot by allowing an ideologue paper to screw it up from the get-go?

I'll see if I can move it down out of the way without messing up the content, but probably not. --Caidence 14:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

A Nation opinion piece heavily slanted against The Weekly Standard (misrepresenting many of their critiques, for example) nevertheless calls TNR a "prominent partisan political publication," reflecting TNR's bias, which it compares to Weekly Standard's. Calbaer 22:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but Beauchamps motives sound fairly ideological to begin with. I know many reporters at the Washington Post, they are NOT "neutral". A fact is a fact, and the fact is that Beauchamp has been debunked by Milbloggers and the Army.

Army Qualifies Beauchamps allegations as false

After a thorough investigation that lasted nearly a week the 4th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division has concluded that the allegation made by Private Thomas Scott Beauchamp, the "Baghdad Diarist", have been

       "refuted by members of his platoon and proven to be false" 

The official investigation the 4th IBCT Public Affairs Office qualified as "thorough and professional" concluded late August 1st. Officials would not speculate on the possibility of further action against Private Beauchamp, nor would they confirm his current whereabouts or status.

Put Baffles on Weekly Standard and National Review contentions

I went ahead and edited the introduction so that it was stated that the Weekly Standard and National Review are concerned with the political ideals of Beauchamp, instead of honesty. WS and NR are not neutral fact-checking organizations, just political publications. They should not be given the express power to question someone's veracity. --Caidence 15:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Moved Matt Sanchez' claim here "for safekeeping"

I moved this:

Sanchez as of August 3, 2007 reported that the military investigation is concluded and Beauchamp's story has been refuted by his platoon.

— http://www.matt-sanchez.com/2007/08/beachamp-invest.html

I followed the link and I do not see anything there but Matt's claim alone. I don't see any material that came from the military, or any link to any other source. I am not saying that Matt has made this up, but his claim needs to be backed up more strongly than that, with perhaps a jpeg of a scanned letter, or a link to a press release, or something stronger. 71.39.78.68 16:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

TNR's claim of confirmation

I've changed the heading of the TNR confirmation to TNR investigation because the heading was POV. Let TNR's quotes speak for themselves whether Beauchamp's story was confirmed. Since TNR's confirmation changes pertinent details of the original story, many people do not see this as a confirmation. Wiki editors with no political axe to grind should allow the header to be neutral.

First of all when you say, "Wiki editors with no political axe to grind should allow the header to be neutral." that's just a nonsensical appeal to authority. Secondly, TNR's investigation did in fact, confirm the details. They found five soldiers that corroborated the accounts. They concluded that that confirmed the details. That was their conclusion. Your conclusion may differ, but there is no reason to misstate what they say they found. Wiki editors with no political axe to grind should not need to misstate TNR's conclusion. 71.39.78.68 16:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Five anonymous sources from TNR is not very convincing, especially when the main point of the article in TNR's own words was to depict "the morally and emotionally distorting effects of war." Since Beauchamp has admitted that one third of his account took place in Kuwait before he ever entered the war, I have trouble seeing this as a confirmation. I will undo your edit. Perhaps you should read Wiki's policy on edit wars and neutrality.A.V. 16:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I second that. TNR has effectively said, "We've found soldiers that confirm the details, although some of details were wrong and we won't tell you the names of the soldiers or anything else which could allow for independent identification, and the Army made it difficult for us to investigate more anyway." That confirms nothing. It's a claim of confirmation, but such claims have been made before and turned out to be false. It would sound rather awkward to say, "TNR confirmed that Beauchamp was telling the truth. The Army confirmed that he was lying his ass off," but, according to your use of the word, the article could say that. Clearly TNR investigated and concluded, but did not necessarily confirm anything. Calbaer 17:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

(This is a response to both A.V. and Calbaer) Five Sources is not convincing? What would it take to convince you? The only thing wrong was a memory of something occurring in Iraq ACTUALLY occurred, but it occurred in Kuwait. There is no need for an edit war. I changed from confirm to corroborates. Both of these are factually true. You have not changed from your position at all. There is no need for an edit war, you have to be able to move from your position to a position of compromise, and waving wiki policies around in an attempt to shame people. Giving soldiers anonymity in this circumstance is completely understandable. Your position is that TNR and all other journalistic endeavors must out whistleblowers and sources. That goes against how society has determined that journalism must work. The Army has confirmed no such thing as of yet -- all we have is Matt Sanchez' statement that they have but nothing released from the Army. It is just as embarrassing, if not more, for the Army to admit that Sanchez was telling the truth than it is for TNR to admit a mistake. Two completely reasonable headlines would be: TNR Investigation Confirms Beauchamp, followed by: Army Investigation Refutes Beauchamp. When the Army releases in a confirmable manner their results, I suggest you cite them.71.39.78.68 17:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Why fight over the (now unweildy) header, unless you have an axe to grind? A neutral header would be 'TNR investigation', just as the next header reads 'Military investigation'. Perhaps we should change it to 'TNR investigation concludes that some of Beauchamp's account was accurate' Is there something wrong with the neutral heading of 'TNR investigation'? Do these reverts need to go on all day?A.V. 17:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not an axe to grind. It's understanding how readers read and skim and presenting the relevant information to them. Readers read and skim. There is a table of contents to this article that can be used as an outline. It is true that I think this article is primarily a smear created by Malkin and the Confederate Yankee, and I see no reason for the Misplaced Pages, in the claim of neutrality, to aid them in that smear. A smear that might actually get the wikipedia in trouble. I think a fair reading of the TNR statement is they conclude his report is accurate. When the NYTimes makes such a conclusion, we don't say, "the NYTimes investigation made the claim their conclusion was that his claim was accurate", we say, "the NYTimes confirmed the account." and we let others understand this is the NYTimes conclusion. Similarly, my original titles were not unwieldy. "TNR Investigation confirms Beauchamp's account" is not unweildy and it presents the information that the reader needs in a NPOV manner. Forcing the reader to get to the details is a weasel because we know that most readers skim.

71.39.78.68 17:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, if the Army investigation refutes the account, I think two reasonable headlines would be: "TNR confirms account" and "Army refutes account". Right now we have to wait for the Army to complete its investigation, but that does not mean that "TNR confirms account" is POV. 71.39.78.68 17:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with you that TNR's investigation confirms anything. TNR's confirmation that part of Beauchamp's account took place before he entered the war calls into question TNR's unbiased reporting. Because we disagree on this, why not allow the header to read 'TNR investigation and conclusion'? It is neutral and accurate. Are there other editors who would like to weigh in, since unidentified IP and I cannot reach a conclusion?A.V. 17:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not in favor of "Investigation and conclusion" but I thank you for agreeing to shift a little bit. 71.39.78.68 17:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Except now I see you've reverted it again. I think that makes three reverts for you on this article. Time for you to bow out for today? 71.39.78.68 17:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't agreed to a meaningful shift, investigation and conclusion was fairly close to the neutral header I first proposed. I've requested several times for the edit war to cease.

Let me state my case clearly for the next editor. TNR published this story, in their own words, to depict "the morally and emotionally distorting effects of war". They have since confirmed that one third of Beauchamp's troublesome story occurred before he entered the war, in Kuwait. Therefore, the war had nothing to do with Beauchamp's account of his self-admitted abuse of the IED scarred woman. Neither the military nor the war caused Beauchamp to behave the way he claims he did. In other words, TNR's confirmation is in opposition to their original story. Therefore, TNR can not seriously claim that they've confirmed the accuracy of Beauchamp's account.

Just as you question the bloggers who brought this story to light, I question TNR's reasons for slandering the military.

I've changed the heading back to a neutral stance so that Wiki does not endorse one side or another.

Why don't we let some other editors weigh in before reverting back to your preference, or, better yet, let the story play out for a few more days before reaching conclusions? A.V.

Thank you for changing that to "and conclusion", and by meaningful shift, all I meant was to thank you for agreeing to some form of change and not just leave it at "investigation". I have differences with your conclusions, but I appreciate your being able to discuss it. Enjoy your weekend and let's see how other people ruin both of our efforts!71.39.78.68 18:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable.A.V. 18:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This page should either be a biography, which it is not, or renamed to Scott Beauchamp Army Diary Controversy or something like that.

This page really isn't a biography, it is should really be named something like, Jamil Hussein controversy, which it has a very strong resemblance to.

Who removed the POV Template and why?

Why was the POV template removed? 71.39.78.68 17:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it was CoolMike who removed it, without joining in the discussion, and without explaining why he feels that the questions on the discussion page are frivolous. I have added the POV template back in and I encourage Mike, who is cool, to join us and explain his reasoning. 71.39.78.68 18:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well it seemed like both sides were represented fairly, without too much weasily words and with both sides having some sourced statements. Some statements might have subtle POV issues in them, but the entire article does not need a POV tag in my opinion. I'll re-read the article later and see if I can't add any more specific info to the debate here on the talk page. CoolMike 21:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of the 'Accuracy questions' section

I disagree with Eleemosynary's deletion of this section. His reason:

(Removed smear section that 1) does nothing but parrot right-wing talking points, and 2) references only right-wing blogs)

may have some valid points, in that many of the accuracy questions referenced right-wing blogs.

Still, some of the questions in the section help explain the controversy. Rather than delete the entire section, couldn't it be revised to read that the Weekly Standard questioned Beauchamp's claims, and why? Deleting the entire section obscures the meaning behind this controversy.

Here's my suggested version. Would anyone care to vote on it?:

The Weekly Standard questioned Beauchamp's accounts of harassing a disfigured woman, the excavation of the mass grave near Baghdad, and the "Bradleys careening wildly through the streets of Baghdad," and called for people to step forward with information. These statements were questioned by The Weekly Standard, and others, for the following reasons: The injuries of the woman seemed not to match those of an IED victim, and such an outburst would have witnesses and likely also ramifications; a mass grave should have been reported (although a simple cemetery would not have been), and officers likely would reprimand prolonged public mischief; and any vehicle "careening wildly" would be at high risk of running into an explosive device, its behavior putting its occupants in extreme peril. In addition, Beauchamp's accounts strongly mirrored fictional stories he wrote prior to his time in Iraq. A.V. 19:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Voting isn't how Misplaced Pages works, but of course I like that version — It's the one I wrote! Anyway, the role of the blogosphere cannot be removed. Malkin's blog is a RS for her criticisms, but not for journalistic facts. Biased sources are reliable for certain facts, keeping in mind their biases. The reality that right-wing publications are more up-front about their biases than left-wing publications should not count against them. Imagine if Watergate hadn't been put into encyclopedias because of the Nixon machine's insistence that Woodward and Bernstein were radical partisans! If all people with biases were discounted, after a short time, you'd have a blank encyclopedia. Calbaer 19:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully, you will return the best parts of the section to the article, as it leaves quite a bit of information about Scott Thomas's questionable claims out at this point. A.V. 19:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

A Controversy, Not a biography

I strongly agree with the suggestion that this is not a biography of Beauchamp. Soundbyte 19:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)soundbyte

Not with folks like you using the article as an excuse to make accusations of critics. Without any mention of Sanchez in this article (or even with), it is highly inappropriate; if you want to include personal information about Sanchez reporting on this story, do so in the Sanchez article, not this one. Calbaer 20:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Link to Beauchamp's blog

Eleemosynary has questioned whether Beauchamp's own blog is a quotable source relevant to the controversy. Wiki's policy states:

Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as: • it is relevant to their notability; • it is not contentious; • it is not unduly self-serving; • it does not involve claims about third parties; • it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; • there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it; • the article is not based primarily on such sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29

Hopefully, that will clear up the confusion.A.V. 17:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Wiki's aversion to blogs is asinine. This controversy like so many others, was hyped by blogs the entire way. It is a POV act on the part of Wiki to demand that bloggers like Malkin, Confederate Yankee, Powerline that played enormous roles in pushing this along are not mentioned. It gets worse when one realizes that there are many such "controversies" caused by these bloggers documented at the wikipedia that also get shut out of the wikipedia. When the bloggers are right, they should be noted, and when the bloggers are wrong, they should be noted, otherwise, current readers and future readers will be unable to research or understand the roles blogs have played in our society and elections. Furthermore, I am not a wiki expert, but the other rebuttable to Eleem... is that there is another wiki policy, and I am paraphrasing now, that is "consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds" that basically says don't get stuck on arbitrary policies and do the right thing. In this case it is abundantly clear that a link to Beauchamp's blog and citing his blog is totally germane to this article. 71.39.78.68 17:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The other thing I've noticed is that editors keep cutting out reference to Malkin as one of the main critics of TNR in this controversy. It's one thing to delete facts derived from blogs, but it's a different matter erasing Malkin's name, as if she doesn't exist or isn't a notable figure.75.41.169.66 22:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Greetings from FOB Falcon, Baghdad

I'm Matt Sanchez and I just wanted to give an update. I've noticed some peculiar editing and I wanted to clear the air before politics becomes a more important factor than fact.

1. On August 4th the Army corroborated

my initial announcement on August 3nd by Staff NCO Sergeant First Class Robert Timmons that Beauchamp's allegations were

...refuted by members of his platoon and proven to be false"

2. Michelle Malkin definitely spearheaded this effort and needs to be mentioned. I wrote to Michelle before her Factor segment. I told her I'd be arriving at FOB Falcon on the July 31st.

3. I got comments from Major Kirk Ludeke and published them. TNR responded with the change of Dinning Facilities from FOB Falcon to Camp Buehring. Which is kind of like confusing Boise, Idaho with the Bronx, New York.

4. The latest you will see are quotes from people who were involved in the investigation.

"If it's true, someone's going to be in trouble.

If it's not true, someone's going to be in trouble."

Reaction of Colonel Ricky Gibbs, Commander, 4th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, Fort Riley, Kansas--Private Thomas Scott Beauchamp's Brigade.

Matt Sanchez 22:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Moved Matt Sanchez' claim here "for safekeeping" I moved this:

Army Confirms Matt Sanchez Initial Report

Sanchez as of August 3, 2007 reported that the military investigation is concluded and Beauchamp's story has been refuted by his platoon. I followed the link and I do not see anything there but Matt's claim alone. I don't see any material that came from the military, or any link to any other source. I am not saying that Matt has made this up, but his claim needs to be backed up more strongly than that, with perhaps a jpeg of a scanned letter, or a link to a press release, or something stronger. 71.39.78.68 16:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Moved Matt Sanchez' claim here "for safekeeping" I moved this:

Sanchez as of August 3, 2007 reported that the military investigation is concluded and Beauchamp's story has been refuted by his platoon. I followed the link and I do not see anything there but Matt's claim alone. I don't see any material that came from the military, or any link to any other source. I am not saying that Matt has made this up, but his claim needs to be backed up more strongly than that, with perhaps a jpeg of a scanned letter, or a link to a press release, or something stronger. 71.39.78.68 16:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The Army has confirmed the initial report.

Matt Sanchez 22:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt, there is nothing I can see at your site to verify what you are saying. I don't see how you can just put this into the wiki with citing a press release, newspaper article, or anything. Please add a citation for this.71.39.78.68 00:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

CONFIRMATION AND CITATION On August 3 2007, Matt Sanchez reported the conclusion of the Army investigation into the Private Beauchamp Affair.

Addition of the Milbloggers is Key

The introduction is faulty.

Under the pen name Scott Thomas, Beauchamp posted three diary entries about the war at The New Republic, the final one of which recalled incidents that described a less-than-heroic side of American soldiers in Iraq, himself included. The veracity of these entries has been called into question by The Weekly Standard, the National Review, as well as SFC Hatley in Iraq, who is reported to be Beauchamp's NCO

It was Milbloggers JD Johannes, Michael Yon, Jeff Emanuelle and myself Matt Sanchez who raised the red flag on the Beauchamp since we had all been stationed at FOB Falcon.

Matt Sanchez 22:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Haven't you got something better to do with your time, Matt? --AStanhope 03:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Astanhope, regardless of how you view Misplaced Pages, this is worth my time.

Besides, I always make time for the little people.

Matt Sanchez 14:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Astanhope views Misplaced Pages as more worth his time than you do. Even with blogs (though I must give him credit for not pursuing vain AfDs and being polite about that particular incident).

Anyway, this is worthwhile, since the opinion on what many if not most people believe is the most important issue to Americans at this time is shaped by what we here about it. And it is clear that this opinion, in turn, leads politics, rather than vice versa. So when a leading news source publishes out-and-out lies about it — even if only one of them has been confirmed without any doubt — that's important. I can imagine it would be especially important to someone actually fighting the war.

That said, we have to be careful to only reference blogs in terms of what they say, not reporting their reporting as facts. While Misplaced Pages and Hot Air are probably my #1 sources of information, I know that neither is "reliable," but both are well-sourced, so I can judge the veracity of information for myself, based on the sources. The difference is that Hot Air can use, say, Sanchez's blog as a source of information, since its readers can judge it as reliable or not, whereas Misplaced Pages needs to keep its sources reliable. So, for example, it might be more appropriate to say, "Blogger Matt Sanchez has reported that the Army's findings find no basis for Beauchamp's claims, although the Army has not released these findings to the general public yet." Some would argue that such information should be kept off altogether, but given Sanchez's critical role in the scandal, I'd argue that his information is appropriate to include, with the caveat that it cannot be stated as absolute fact. Calbaer 16:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It can be stated as fact, once it has been substantiated. General Boylan confirmed the investigation. Matt Sanchez 14:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Added and referenced more information

In the The New Republic, under the pen name Scott Thomas, Beauchamp posted three diary entries about serving at FOB Falcon, Baghdad. The veracity of these entries was called into question by milbloggers Michael Yon, JD Johannes and Matt Sanchez who had all previously embedded as members of the media at FOB Falcon. Publications such as The Weekly Standard, the National Review voiced the blogger's skepticism. Initially, Beauchamp's NCO, SFC Hatley raised questions, but eventually retracted his statements.

Matt Sanchez 23:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Revert wars and vandalism

Eleemosynary has repeatedly removed linked material from mainstream sources in an attempt to remove links to blogs and much of the information about the controversy. In my opinion, these changes have risen near the level of vandalism.

By my count, both Eleemosynary and I have changed each other's work three times in the last day or so, which is warned against in Wiki policy. To avoid a revert war, I will refrain from adding back material from blogs at this time. Perhaps some other editors can review the changes and recommend temporarily locking the article or further administrative action.A.V. 04:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I've added back material from mainstream news sources. I've also added back the names of the bloggers who initiated the controversy. Although no facts are linked using bloggers as sources, the names of the bloggers remain in the article. By removing all mention of bloggers' involvement, the article does not even explain what the controversy entailed.

Eleemosynary, regarding your continued deletions, could you please join the talk page discussion so that we may find a compromise to satisfy us both? Without feedback from you, we are doing nothing but reverting each other. I would like to discuss your objections in good faith.A.V. 04:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The Significance of Beauchamp

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"refuted by members of his platoon and proven to be false."

We are still working on getting something official. And we just heard from a reliable source that we should "stand by for a statement about to come from the Army saying their review of Beauchamp's story shows it to be a combination of complete fabrication and wild exaggeration."

That's not a refutation and that's not an official source! So far, near as I can tell, there are three unsourced claims out there. One is Matt's that it has been completely refuted, and that everyone is linking to, BUT there is no official army document that says that, nor is there press release, or newspaper account. Two, is the report from Kuwait that says the injured woman is an urban myth, but that too is unsourced and there is no official document, press release, or other newsmedia report of it. All we have so far is Matt Sanchez' statement for the former and Confederate Yankee's statement for the latter. And Third is another email Confederate Yankee claims to have received from Boylan, Petraeus' PAO, that also says this has been debunked. BUT, there are no official sources for ANY of this. All we have is Matt's and Confederate Yankee's word.

Contrary to the wikipedia, I think it is completely reasonable to cite bloggers, BUT, I don't think anyone should write that this is the Army's position or conclusion.71.39.78.68 01:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Blog debate

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

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Scottthomas.jpg

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 03:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wiki policies on acceptable sources

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

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

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

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

Various comments on the article

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

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

In my opinion, you are deleting sources contrary to the Misplaced Pages policy I cited above. Michael Goldfarb at Weekly Standard is an acceptable source. Questioning his sources is beyond the scope of Wiki policy. At least he had a source, unlike TNR's 'five anonymous soldiers' who backed up Beauchamp's claims.

Still, thank you for at least leaving the Army statement intact pending further verification.

I would like to know what some other editors think. Perhaps we can reach a consensus.A.V. 16:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Questioning a known unreliable source is absolutely not "beyond the scope of Wiki policy". His source is known, and the statement in question is not Goldfarb's opinion but Boylan's verdict. Goldfarb's conclusion isn't relevant here, insofar as it isn't a factual statement requiring a source. Chris Cunningham 16:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • I would think that everyone could be happy with the article as it stands now - including the Military investigation that says that Boylan refutes all claims. This is truly "fair and balanced." --AStanhope 17:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up and removed POV notice, etc.

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

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

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

I find it bizarre that one editor on his own would remove a POV tag. In itself, that is a POV act. I think removal of a POV tag should probably be taken as a result of a vote.... Since the editing of this article is relatively furious, I suspect POV will be a reasonable tag for quite awhile.

Finally, WON'T SOMEONE MOVE THIS ARTICLE? It is not a biography? How do we move the article?130.76.64.93 19:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I put the POV notice back. I'm not sure what you mean about moving the article, though. Where would you move it?Athene cunicularia 19:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

To Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy or the like, presumably. Unfortunately I just messed this up, requiring a speedy delete of said to get it shifted properly. Chris Cunningham 20:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree. Would the Scott Thomas Beauchamp page be redirected to the controversy page? It seems that putting the entire article on a page called "Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy" would make it harder to find.Athene cunicularia 20:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There would be a redir assuming Private Beauchamp doesn't become notable enough outwith this situation to merit his own article, yes. Per WP:PSEUDO, while he's notable only for the current thing he doesn't get a biography, nor something which pretends to be one. Chris Cunningham 20:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, works for me.Athene cunicularia 20:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Omission of Matt Sanchez is Astounding

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

If you want to list which milbloggers criticized the articles, that's fine. However, Misplaced Pages policy prohibits the use of blog entries as sources. I'm not trying to write you out of the article. However, I have done a lot of "leg work" on this article too, and I am trying to keep it straightforward. The article should do these things:

• Describe the person
• Describe the controversy
• Describe the resolutionAthene cunicularia 19:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, Misplaced Pages is not the New Media. if you aren't an established reliable source (Misplaced Pages is hard on blogs for a good reason) and you're in close proximity to both the subject matter and the Misplaced Pages entry, expect a greater degree of resistance. I'm sure that if your work is good you'll get appropriate credit where it counts. Chris Cunningham 19:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's inaccurate and wrong to NOT mention Matt Sanchez. Michael Goldfarb is mentioned as saying that Army has refuted the claims, and yet one of Michael Goldfarb's first sources for this was, wait for it, Matt Sanchez. Why is it okay to say Michael Goldfarb sez, when it is not okay to say Michael Goldfab sez Matt Sanchez sez or Matt Sanchez sez.... I think this is just providing inaccurate information all the way around.

Also, given this is a controversy, and not much of one outside of the blogosphere, I think it is highly relevant to note Malkin and Yankee and Powerline. Like the Jamail Hussein Controversy THAT THIS IS A PART OF, these conservative bloggers keep on pushing these stories to the fore. It would make sense for the bloggers's role to be noted, otherwise in future times (and now), folks will not be able to correctly answer questions like: how did this case come to anyone's attention? what role did bloggers play? why does the wikipedia seem to suggest that bloggers had no role in this? etc.

I also think someone should make a template like {rightwing-milblogger-controversies} to link this, jamail hussein, swiftboat, and lots of other phony, propagandistic controversies that have so successfully led to the decline of our nation's stature and made us vulnerable to dictators and terrorists.. 130.76.64.14 23:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Matt - can any blogger do research and then be cited as an expert on any associated topic within the Misplaced Pages? I blog at Neatorama.com. My own research shows that Beauchamp was vindicated. Should we have a paragraph listing everybody who says he was vindicated? --AStanhope 00:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The Controversy

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

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

He said -- he said

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

Beauchamp Recants

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

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

Beauchamp

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow the link. WP:RS --Eleemosynary 03:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Eleemosynary, you are mistating Misplaced Pages rules regarding blogs:

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.''

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

He's not an "established expert" on anything to do with this case. Do you really expect your patently untrue claims to go unrefuted? --Eleemosynary 01:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That is a correct interpretation of the policy on blogs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. WS is breaking this on their blog, because they are a weekly magazine. - Crockspot 05:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. A blog cannot be used for negative BLP, and to say a person recanted is negative BLP. Some other source must report it. I do not consider this optional, and I'm deleting it, and will if necessary protect. DGG (talk) 09:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It may well be true of course, in which case an actual nonpartisan RS will publish it tomorrow, and it can be reinserted on that basis. DGG (talk) 09:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Here is the first secondary report: http://www.kxmb.com/News/Nation/150508.asp - Crockspot 12:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• And another: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292367,00.html - Crockspot 14:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• And another: http://news.yahoo.com/s/weeklystandard/20070807/cm_weeklystandard/beauchamprecants

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

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

By practice here, this does meet the rules for sourcing, at least for most purposes. An accepted news source reprinting a blog gives it adequate authority for most things. I am not certain that it provides adequate authority for negative BLP. (Especially on an issue where the blog is known to be heavily invested on one side of the story, and the news source is also considered to have somewhat of the same political allegiance.) USA today is a reference for what the Dept of Defense said, but not for the fact that he recanted. (I will go out on a limb and guess that he partially recanted, and that the National will say that the basis of the story is true, and the Standard that almost nothing is--in which case the article has to explain the difference.)

I assume that additional sources will republish it. But if they republish only that the National Standard has said it, this is different from if they publish that Beauchamp retracted it, and the story should be adjusted. Even Fox is, strictly speaking, only evidence that the National Standard blog said say. If, for example, the story was false entirely, the link will still hold, but the wording will change a good deal. I do not see the point in further corrections hour-by-hour; we are not a news service. Let's see what the story looks like tomorrow. I don't normally work on these topics, and I leave it to the other editors here. DGG (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Article Name

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

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

USA Today notices

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

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

Unfortunately it's just another iteration of "The Weekly Standard says..." We need to press Maj Lamb, TNR or Weekly Standard to produce a military document that either refutes or confirms the claims - or we need the document wherein Beauchamp allegedly recanted. --AStanhope 21:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be an original source, and not citable either! htom 21:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

US Troops and Heroin

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

ABC NEWS cite

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

• That's the best one so far. I'll format it up. - Crockspot 22:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

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

• The ABC one is more balanced, so I used that one. It also covers TNR's response. - Crockspot 23:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Arkon 23:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

So from what I have read so far, there doesn't seem to be any question that the Pentagon has concluded that he fabricated the stories. The dispute seems to be over whether or not he recanted, and whether or not the Pentagon has concluded correctly. So does the Pentagon's conclusion merit short mention? I think so, but I'd like to hear other opinions. - Crockspot 23:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The obvious answer in my mind is 'yes'. Arkon 23:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Here is my proposed inclusion: A military investigation has concluded that Beauchamp's stories were "found to be false". (citing the ABC piece) - Crockspot 23:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds great, hopefully it won't be controversial. Arkon 23:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's give it a while, see if anyone else has something to say. - Crockspot 23:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

So, according to Goldfarb's blog in the WS, Maj. Lamb says Beauchamp recanted, and an investigation has been concluded. But according to TNR, Maj. Lamb says he has no knowledge of any recantation, and stated that the military doesn't comment on investigations. Until this stalemate is resolved, I've offered a less sensational heading for the section. --Eleemosynary 01:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Lamb's statement didn't mention a recantation. He said they did an investigation, and that his stories were found to be false. Goldfarb attributes the recantation to anonymous sources. - Crockspot 03:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Didn't the military lie about Army Ranger Pat Tillman? Can we trust their "investigations" (cover-ups)? Skopp (Talk) 01:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point. --Eleemosynary 01:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as Beauchamp's recantation, it may be that Maj. Lamb has no knowledge because legally you don't recant unsworn stories. My understanding is that the friendly fire investigation began within hours of Tillman's death, so I'm not sure how much of a coverup there actually was. Massive confusion as people rushed to the TV cameras perhaps, but not a coverup. htom 01:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of TNR's newest statement (Aug7)

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

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

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

Wrong. They're standing by their story. --Eleemosynary 01:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, they are just being very evasive. Not sure how far we can take their words at this point. Arkon 00:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That decision is not up to you. --Eleemosynary 01:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Nor is it up to you. Misplaced Pages should contain the most accurate report of TNR's statement which is quoted directly above. Deleting facts does not change them. I or another editor will continue to repair the article as necessary.A.V. 01:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

And each time to you try to push unsourced (or faultily sourced) POV, many editors will revert you. Frequently. --Eleemosynary 01:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

I won't speak for Astanhope, but perhaps... just maybe... it's because the USA Today post was from the paper's blog and only referenced Goldfarb's blog as a source. In other words... it... wasn't... a... corroborating... source.

By the way, you might want to check that USA Today blog for an update. Apparently, the military's not commenting to them, either. Goldfarb's beginning to look like another Stephen Glass. --Eleemosynary 02:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Quote from USA Today: This morning, military officials said their review is over. "The investigation is complete and the allegations from PVT Beauchamp are false," Maj. Steven Lamb, a spokesman for Multi National Division-Baghdad, says in an e-mail to On Deadline. "Anything that may or may not happen from his actions are personnel related and we don't share that publicly."

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

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

What is so unbelievable?

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

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

• Stub-Class biography articles
• Stub-Class biography (military) articles
• Low-importance biography (military) articles
• Military biography work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles