Talk:Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on October 26, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9


Contents

[edit] 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.[1] The source of that information was revealed to be Marine reservist and embedded reporter Matt Sanchez[2]. Recognizing Sanchez as a controversial, conservative figure, the blogosphere quickly voiced protests and support on both sides of the political spectrum. [3][4]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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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)
Beauchamp did recant and that is already a fact, established by both the military and Foer. How can you deny that in light of even Foer admitting it. "Non-existent" harrasment when there are photos [5]and witness to the contrary? Marine Corps completely dismissed the $12,000 allegation[6] and you're just desperate to be pertinent in some way.Matt Sanchez (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
No, Beauchamp never recanted. Neither the military nor Foer claimed as much. You did, when you lied to Goldfarb, however. And there were no witnesses to your being harassed at Columbia, and it's harldy beyond your antics to have made the photos yourself. Many say it was a hoax; I believe them.
By the way, the link to "rightwingnews.com," which is nothing other than an interview with you, in which you claim the Marine Corps dismissed the fraud charges against you, is perhaps the flimsiest attempt at a corroborative source since, well, anything in WorldNetDaily. I'll take my Marine Corps News from the Marine Corps Times, thank you. They reported, several times, on your being investigated for outright fraud, but printed nary a word about the case being dismissed. In other words, Matt, you've got a lot of explaining to do. And as far as my being "desperate to be pertinent," you may want to research the psychological term known as "projection," as you seem to excel in it. --Eleemosynary (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
But if she's (or he's) desperate to be pertinent, isn't your responding to her (or his) one-liners with fully thought-out replies and her (or his) insults with indignation just feeding that? I realize I've done the same, but if this user really is a mere troll, perhaps we shouldn't let her (or him) made this page into her (or his) plaything. Calbaer (talk) 05:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Calbaer's Plan 37. --Eleemosynary (talk) 02:49, 18 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.[1] The source of that information was revealed to be Marine reservist and embedded reporter Matt Sanchez[7]. Recognizing Sanchez as a controversial, conservative figure, the blogosphere quickly voiced protests and support on both sides of the political spectrum. [8][9]

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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia "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)
Actually, with a little perspective, people do talk about the "Beauchamp hoax." I note that "Jayson Blair hoax" gets 6,000 Google hits and "Beauchamp hoax" gets 16,000 Google hits. The difference between the Jayson Blair journalistic hoax and the Beauchamp journalistic hoax is the presence here editors with an anti-Iraq War agenda to push by claiming the original Beauchamp accounts of atrocities which he and other American soldiers committed
Google hits aren't conclusive evidence of anything, especially considering the likelihood that the hits in question are heavily weighted towards right-wing opinion pieces. It's quite possible to hold the position that the original stories were exaggerations and yet that the controversy is not an example of a "hoax". There's still no consensus to add this cat at this time. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you make the point for me. There just isn't any expressions of support for the truthfulness of the original Beauchamp stories anywhere except for the self-described consensus here of editors who maintain that there is evidence of a "controversy". There isn't. There isn't any dispute the conclusion reached in all the media that I read that labels this a hoax as much as that of other Wikipedia-consensus labeled hoaxes by fabrication of stories by Jayson Blair, Jack Kelley, Mike Barnicle, Stephen Glass, and of course, Janet Cooke. The one thing Beauchamp doesn't share with these five is if true the Beauchamp stories of atrocities committed by himself and other American soldiers would have served a specific political agenda of opposition to the war in Iraq.
The idea that in journalism there lies a neutral zone between truth and fabrication (i.e. lies) called exaggeration is a new one to me. Were not the stories of the fabrication five in the previous paragraph plausible exaggerations of something real? What separates them from Beauchamp? Where are there reliable sources describing the Beauchamp stories as neither true nor false but in the new category called exaggerations. patsw (talk) 13:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
As argued above, the term "hoax" is not simply an establishment of truthfulness (or the lack of); it ascribes certain motives, which are clearly present in cases where the guilt of the subject has been confessed but less clear otherwise. The "self-described consensus here" is all that is required when considering how the article is to be edited. Bringing the subject up again on a monthly basis with no new arguments obvious isn't going to effect a change in consensus. Chris Cunningham (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
My arguments are new in that they now reflect a consensus of judgments made by reliable sources regarding whether Beauchamp was truthful and whether he deliberately misled his publisher by fabricating stories. His motive is transparent: accounts of the ordinary life of a soldier honorably serving in Iraq would not attract national attention. Stories of atrocities would. This template of fabricating stories in order to be more famous is what we call a journalistic hoax. Certainly a confession is not a prerequisite for the Wikipedia certification of a hoax. Mike Barnicle has never confessed to fabricating stories. Short of a confession, what is Thumperward's criterion for "hoax" in the Beauchamp case?
Oh! How quickly we move from "This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses" to it now being set in Wikipedia concrete for eternity. If Thumperward doesn't want to engage me on the question of why story fabricators like Bliar, Barnicle, Cooke, Kelley and others are hoaxers yet 2007's story fabricator Beauchamp is not, please attempt "to effect a change" in my view while I attempt to effect a change in your view. patsw (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Am I the only one reminded by this affair of Baron Münchhausen? htom (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This might be an apt point. Münchhausen doesn't belong in the category in question either, despite being a fibber. Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Unlike Bliar, Barnicle, Cooke, Glass, and Kelley, Münchhausen's tales contained elements of implausible fantasy. When the question of plausibility was first raised, there were counter-charges that the Beauchamp stories were plausible because there was an audience for them prepared to believe that cruel Bradley drivers could and would kill dogs if given the chance, and all it took for it to be proven would be a witness to the event. Among the TNR editors, TNR fact-checkers, and pre-December supporters of Beauchamp, the stories were plausible and definitely not in the Münchhausen category. What makes Bliar, Barnicle, Cooke, Glass, and Kelley stories hoaxes and Beauchamp not a hoax? patsw (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
See Calbaer's first reply to this thread. Chris Cunningham (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
See my reply above. I disagree with Calbaer's opinion that either "malice" or "entertainment" are necessary elements of a hoax. I asked for support of that opinion in reliable sources and didn't get a response. The motivation either confessed to, or imputed in the hoaxes of Blair, Barnicle, Cooke, Glass, and Kelley is a desire for fame derived from their false reporting. What makes the Blair, Barnicle, Cooke, Glass, and Kelley stories hoaxes and the Beauchamp accounts not a hoax? patsw (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
See Thumperward's comment immediately above. --Eleemosynary (talk) 06:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Foer The Fibber

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

The Lying Dogs of War [10] 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)
But TNR is involved, so denying it as a primary source would be silly. Likewise, Beauchamp's blog would be acceptable (as a primary source), but someone else's blog might not if it's a secondary source. Calbaer (talk) 05:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] New York Observer Interview with Beauchamp's Wife

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

“ "Ms. Reeve also argued that Mr. Foer’s retraction, titled “The Fog of War,” had failed to prove that any of Mr. Beauchamp’s stories contained fabrications—all it did, she said, was demonstrate that Mr. Foer was tired of dealing with the scandal."[11] ”

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

[edit] NPR Piece with Foer and Beauchamp Wife

Interesting piece I heard the other day. December 4th, 2007[12]

[edit] 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. ^ a b Goldfarb, Michael (2007-08-06). Beauchamp Recants. Worldwide Standard. The Weekly Standard. Retrieved on 2007-08-08.
  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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wall_of_shame.jpg
  6. ^ http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/12/an_interview_with_matt_sanchez.php
  7. ^ http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=51f6dc92-7f1d-4d5b-aebe-94668b7bfb32&p=1
  8. ^ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/the-weekly-standard_b_58977.html
  9. ^ http://hotair.com/archives/2007/08/03/sanchez-army-concludes-beauchamp-investigation/
  10. ^ Lying Dogs of War| 12-10-07
  11. ^ 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
  12. ^ http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16890484 Magazine Questions Accuracy of Soldier's Reports | by David Folkenflik | 12-04-07

[edit] 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 Wikipedia. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The "refs" are (mostly) to sources unreliable by Wikipedia 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 CreamityOh Yeah! 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)
Again, my comments about you have been civil and accurate. I understand your anger at being called on your dissembling, but try to keep the histrionics to a minimum. They're persuading no one. --Eleemosynary (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)
More to the point (and I'd avoid terms like "kook" or "freak"), just because you're criticized by two opposing viewpoints doesn't make you "right" or even better than them. This fallacy is one that many journalists fall into, excusing their own sloppiness as being a sign of political neutrality (or, worse, correctness). Calbaer (talk) 05:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be missing the point entirely. TNR's support for rightwing policies (as its liberal critics have pionted out) is what makes it "right." In its heyday, TNR distinguished itself from other political journals by publishing perspectives from both the right and the left. Lately, it's liberal credentials have been so tarnished, it's lost nearly half its readership. TNR's status as a "leftwing rag" is certainly debatable.Stella4star (talk) 19:57, 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)

Classy as usual. I can see why Calbaer is such a fan. --Eleemosynary (talk) 02:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
"Voting" to "remove" isn't how Wikipedia works. Others have suggested avenues of appeal (e.g., Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct; since multiple users have already warned Elee about her (or his) behavior, Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts is probably not appropriate). There's certainly a lot to look at regarding unreformed behavior here, though, as you saw on your own RfC, getting a thorough record of a user's alleged misbehavior can be extremely time-consuming. Then again, you (or any other contributor on this page) could take the time saved by ignoring Elee's various missives and direct it to compiling links to those missives which violate policy. Your call. Calbaer (talk) 05:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
In other words, Calbaer would like others to take up the project he has failed at. Bonne chance. --Eleemosynary (talk) 02:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

You and I tried, but several days have passed and clearly there's not as much interest in civil resolution as there is with unilateral edit warring. At this point, users who refuse to discuss but insist on reverting might force this into an RfC, which would be rather pathetic for such a minute point. Calbaer (talk) 05:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not a minute point at all; it's a salient one. To wit, no user should be adding POV tags to the article. While "journalism ethics" is less incendiary than "hoaxes," it's still an attempt to add POV to the article. If there was an admitted ethical breach, then the tag would have a place. But Foer's essay is no such admission; and thus, the tag does not belong.
And Calbaer, who exactly do you think you're fooling with the above-it-all "you and I tried" ruse? You're just as guilty of edit warring this article as many of the editors here, including myself. --Eleemosynary (talk) 04:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I meant that I tried taking it to the talk page on the 11th, but no one on the anti-"ethics" side seemed willing to discuss it until the 18th, preferring the edit war approach. Given that no one opposed to the categorization gave their reason on the talk page, I think reverting to the talk-page-unanimous agreement is justified and does not, in your words, made me "just as guilt of edit warring this article as many of the editors here, including myself." As this is your only substantive contribution of the day so far, it is the only one I will respond to. In that vein, to respond to your assertion that there was no admitted ethical breach, Foer admitted a "clear conflict of interest." Even if you believe everything Foer claims after that, that's still an admission that the matter inherently concerned journalism ethics. Calbaer (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Enough sophistry, Calbaer. You've been edit-warring this article for some time. And the proposed tag is far too broad to belong on the page, as well as being POV --Eleemosynary (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The inlcusion of Ethics as a category is 100% justified and those opposed to its inclusion have not made a case why it should be removed. DJ CreamityOh Yeah! 19:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)
You're not being "judged," you're being called out for your homophobic rants. Which a Freudian would have a field day with. But no, your RfC has not "run its course" at all. It's a great reference guide to your self-promotion campaign, augmented by vituperation, sputtering rage, and bile. And it's hardly over. --Eleemosynary (talk) 02:36, 18 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)
There are far more Wikipedia policies than that one "in question." Please don't try to downplay Sanchez's antics. --Eleemosynary (talk) 04:05, 18 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)

Wishing won't make it so, Matt. --Eleemosynary (talk) 02:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing sentence in intro

It says "Several conservative publications and bloggers questioned Beauchamp's statements." This seems vague and should be cleared up so readers aren't guessing what was questioned and why. 71.139.2.52 (talk) 09:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine aka Matt Sanchez

FYI, Quite a few editors at Matt's bio have made statements.

An Arbitration case has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. Also see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine/Workshop. Benjiboi 06:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Freedom of Information Act responses in the Beauchamp investigation

The documents have been released: Scott Thomas Beauchamp's "Shock Troops" Statements.

My read of these statements is that they are neither plain affirmations nor plain retractions. They are simple equivocations which offer nothing to support the truthfulness of the original stories. The stories are a hoax in the same way that the stories of Jayson Blair, Jack Kelley, Mike Barnicle, Stephen Glass, and Janet Cooke are journalistic hoaxes. Beauchamp wrote one thing for TNR and another for his official statement. Now we have both versions. patsw (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"Your read" is, by definition, POV. It's also erroneous, but -- despite several editors patiently addessing your screeds over the last few months -- you're unlikely to consider anything other than what you've already decided. You are free to construct an epic poem stating the whole Beauchamp affair was a "hoax," and stick it on your wall, or your blog, or wherever. But until there's a reliable source stating that it was, indeed, a "hoax," your campaign will have to end there.
May I recommend Conservapedia? They're more sympathetic to printing articles that directly contradict established fact. --Eleemosynary (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The released statements contain some denials by Scott of what he wrote (not complete, they're weaseling as well and the Army didn't bother pinning him down). Also on the basic points, his mates do not back up the stories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 05:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The released statements do not contain denials of what he wrote. --Eleemosynary (talk) 06:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course, it is my POV. This is a discussion page and I am a Wikipedia editor. I am discussing the appearance of new, relevant, and reliable material written by Beauchamp and released as part of an FOIA request. Most of this could have been disclosed earlier if Beauchamp had waived his right to keep it confidential. If anyone wants to define or discuss "screeds" then flamebait of Eleemosynary on this talk page would be helpful examples.
I reject that there's a consensus that this is not hoax. There's a lot of repetition by a few editors of the form "read the above" when I bring up new material or analysis. That sort of dismissal is not consensus building.
Looking at the replies to my December edit to include this in the hoax category, many editors were asking "if only we knew more", "what was his intention", etc. These newly-disclosed statements do allow us to know more:
(1) STB denies in part what he wrote for TNR.
(2) STB offers no affirmations, narrative, or evidence whatsoever for anything he wrote for TNR which were labeled atrocities committed by himself and other Americans in Iraq.
TNR was accused of inadequate fact-checking in July 2007 and TNR itself conceded it in December 2007. Even if TNR's fact-checking was inadequate, disclosure of these statements when they were written would have clearly informed everyone that this was a hoax i.e. Beauchamp submitted false accounts to TNR which TNR published: A violation of journalistic ethics. A journalistic scandal. A hoax.
So read the FOIA documents, and the original TNR articles with a fresh view to determining if the stories of atrocities were true (as some editors still maintain) or false, and if false, is their falsehood an innocent error (as some editors still maintain) or false because of the deliberate choice of Beauchamp to deceive TNR as TNR concluded. The deception is not a one mere insignificant detail, but a totality of false sensationlistic reporting carried on over several months.
So I ask editors again what makes the stories Jayson Blair, Jack Kelley, Mike Barnicle, Stephen Glass, and Janet Cooke hoaxes and Beauchamp's not. Is there a dictionary that defines hoax in a way that is not consistent with Beauchamp's actions? 15:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, we don't look at events and make judgments, however obvious or reasonable we think those judgments may be. Instead, we employ reliable sources and report their determinations, nothing more. Gamaliel (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What in Beauchamp's Army statement supported his stories of atrocities which were published in The New Republic? patsw (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Atrocities

I removed the phrase "accounts of atrocities." I take issue with the description of the acts Beauchamp took part in as atrocities. While they were certainly morally reprehensible I don't think they deserve to be described in the same way we describe ethnic cleansing or other acts of mass murder. KHorberg (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It really is not a matter of what User:KHorberg thinks, or what "we" describe atrocities as. When this matter was getting national media attention 8 months ago, the word atrocities was being used by both sides: advocates for the truth of Beauchamp's accounts and those skeptical of the truth of Beauchamp's accounts. It was not characterized in these news sources as reprehensible conduct but as atrocities because of their cruelty and depravity and the dishonor it brought to the United States Army. A large body count is not a required component of an atrocity. Atrocities is the accurate characterization of the accounts. patsw (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Pat here. While the accounts are fabricated, they were still described as atrocities at the time. Arkon (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I would still like to see the word removed. You will notice that the Radar Online article which is quoted extensively after the "atrocities" sentence does not include the word "atrocities" itself. A Nexis search of the last two years for the words "Beauchamp" and "atrocity" or "atrocities" brings up 51 articles. Three of the articles use the word in the context of Vietnam, five of the articles are irrelevant to Scott Beauchamp, nineteen of the articles are reprints or reposts (mostly on blogs) and 24 articles use both "Beauchamp" and "atrocity" in the context of Iraq. However, in each of those articles the word "atrocity" is used to describe the actions in Iraq as a whole, not to describe the particular actions Beauchamp took part in. If you cannot provide evidence that the media used the word "atrocity" to describe Beauchamp's actions in particular then I must insist we delete the phrase as it stands. KHorberg (talk) 01:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I stand corrected, you have convinced me. Good data. Arkon (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree you make a very compelling argument and also convinced.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 06:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)