Talk:Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 →

Contents

The focus has changed

The focus has changed from the allegations of sadism by American soldiers to TNR's credibility and integrity

The article ought to be re-written from scratch, or just included into the The New Republic article as it really is about something other than Private Beauchamp and his reporting the conduct of his fellow soldiers. It appears from secondary sources that, according to accepted journalistic standards, TNR would be obligated to report in detail and in specificity what they know to be the corroboration for the Beauchamp claims. TNR claims to have made this investigation and claims to have corroboration and support from experts without making any disclosure of facts that could independently verify the Beauchamp claims.

As of this writing (August 23, 2007), the debate moved from a "Beauchamp controversy" (i.e. the truthfulness of "Scott Thomas") to TNR's refusal to withdraw the story and it silence on facts uncovered by other journalists that prove the stories either false or implausible, and to Beauchamp himself, who is free to speak but last heard of on the record on July 26, 2007. patsw 12:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This is nonsense, and an attempt to "frame the debate" based on supposition. Such weasel-worded justification as "it appears from secondary sources that... TNR would be obligated to report in detail" its sources is ridiculous. No "accepted journalistic standard" requires the revelation of anonymous sources. patsw is also claiming that the debate has "moved" to a question of TNR's credibility. Maybe on right-wing blogs, but not on any objective forum. I could easily say the debate has moved from a "Beauchamp controversy" to the Army's refusal to comment on the matter in anything more than broadbrush e-mails while refusing to make its investigation public. (See Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch.)
And what are these "facts uncovered by other journalists that prove the stories either false or implausible"? Link to some, please (that are other than blog posts). And as for the canard that Beauchamp is "free to speak out," that has never been confirmed by a reliable source. (And no, Goldfarb's blog does not pass the smell test.) The last time he "spoke out," Beauchamp's laptop and cell phone were confiscated, and he was censured by the Army. Enough character assassination. --Eleemosynary 22:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Although I'm not as intent on seeing patsw's remarks as being biased nonsense, I agree that the debate remains the same. From the beginning, critics have criticized TNR's actions, reputation, and bias, and the veracity of the statements Beauchamp made in the magazine. As TNR has refused to be open about the situation, obviously their nontransparency comes under scrutiny, but I don't think that constitutes the "debate moving." Many critics suspected this type of "cover-up" response, and it's not really unique to TNR — see, for example, this critique of The New York Times or the Killian documents affair — so I'm not sure what "accepted journalistic standards" are being referred to here. The investigations — TNR, Army, and critical — have progressed, but I don't think things have changed so fundamentally that a rewrite would be necessary. And, unfortunately, I haven't found a reliable-source counterpart to the riveting account given here.
Finally, the statement, "The last time he 'spoke out,' Beauchamp's laptop and cell phone were confiscated, and he was censured by the Army," reeks of both omission and of post hoc ergo propter hoc. According to the article posted, this was punishment for giving false reports, not for "speaking out" to say that his reports were true (which was his last communication). Calbaer 23:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have any reliable sources to reference? Or will it be just bluster backed up by unsourced blog opinions? (By the way, here's[1] a devastating takedown of the entirely speculative "riveting account" you're so fond of.) --Eleemosynary 23:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I say that the account is an unreliable source. And you say, "Look! It's an unreliable source!" That's not very useful. Nor is the "takedown" any more reliable than the account. But neither is in a presumably fact-checked magazine, so insisting that the same standards should apply for TNR and PajamasMedia/Instaputz is a bit silly. At least PajamasMedia uses qualifiers when it's guessing, as opposed to making stuff up wholesale and presenting it as the truth. And I'm not sure what you mean when you say, "Does anyone have any reliable sources to reference?" In the article? For my statements about what bloggers have said (for which primary sources obviously exist)? Anyway, your criticisms of my words are rather irrelevant to the main point here — and, admittedly, I likely shouldn't have entered the fray on such red herrings — that the article doesn't have to be reformatted due to the current state of the matter. I suppose I was showing that one need not see the debate from your viewpoint to agree with that. Calbaer 01:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Where is your source WP:RS that Beauchamp and/or TNR made "stuff up wholesale and present[ed] it as the truth?" --Eleemosynary 01:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, I did not say that they did. Secondly, I did not say that on the article page, so, even if I did, I wouldn't need an RS. What I am saying is that what you're accusing PM of is nothing compared to what TNR is being accused of. Anyway, I sincerely doubt you were referring to something that I hadn't yet said. Calbaer 01:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

To state the "frame" remains now, as it was in July, only on the presumptively truthful and corroborated three claims of Beauchamp -- atrocities and the delight taken by his fellow soldiers of the United States Army in them and the suffering of Iraqis at their hands -- that is the "nonsense".

There is no evidence that Beauchamp has been prevented from communicating with anyone, and as has been pointed out, the Army cannot force him to communicate with members of his family, TRN, or Wikipedia editors. The Army is obligated to respect Beauchamp's privacy with respect to the statements he made to Army investigators. On the other hand, Beauchamp is free to waive that privacy right and set the record straight or simply put another statement on the record. It is Beauchamp's and not the Army's credibility at stake on this point.

The journalistic standard which applies here, I think would be obvious -- TNR should disclose facts which can be subjected to independent verification, not merely assert that Beauchamp is truthful. Fact-checkers are standing by.

It's not a vast right-wing conspiracy to cast Beauchamp as a liar, but to demand of TNR hard facts that support unlikely stories that no one else can seem to find hard facts for, and for which there ought to be an abundance of witnesses and evidence.

If the stonewalling of TNR and Beauchamp continues, the impact is hardly going to be on the United States Army but on the perception of TNR's commitment to fact-checking and truth, and any future book contract for Beauchamp. patsw 00:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

In the right-wing blogosphere, perhaps. And maybe at Regnery. We understand you feel TNR is traitorous by not revealing the names of other soldiers corroborating Beauchamp, who could then themselves be subject to character assassination by right-wing blogs and nakedly partisan attack pieces masquerading as Wikipedia articles. But your calling protecting these soldiers "stonewalling" is only opinion. Good journalists protect the identity of their sources all the time. What some bloggers and Wiki editors are objecting to is that TNR isn't buckling in the face of these hysterical screeds. They stand by Beauchamp. You have every right to your opinion that TNR is untruthful, but such opinion has no place in an encyclopedia. --Eleemosynary 01:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The evidence that allows one to come to such an opinion, however, does. And if TNR provided evidence that STB's disputed claims were true, that would certainly be a point in their favor. They haven't. Now there are some who would say that's due to a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy involving bloggers, the Army, Bradley manufacturers, and "nakedly partisan attack pieces masquerading as Wikipedia articles." That claim, however, also lacks evidence. So stick to the facts. Calbaer 01:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I am sticking to the facts. Nowhere have I tried to inject opinion into the article; I've backed up every claim with a reliable source. As for TNR's evidence, they have provided it: corroborated first-hand accounts of atrocities. Apparently, that's not good enough for some... unless the name, rank, and serial number of every corroborating soldier is made public. (Now, that should certainly encourage more whistleblowers to come forward.) I don't buy your straw man argument regarding a VRWC; I haven't suggested one. You'd like evidence that this Wikipedia article was, at one time, a "nakedly partisan attack piece"? Check the edit history, particularly from the anon IPs. (And check out the repeated, failed attempts to place "Stephen Glass" as a "see also" reference.) Thankfully, the article is now in a somewhat balanced state. --Eleemosynary 02:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
"Corroborated" by whom? And how? TNR gave no information about their corroborations; for all we know, they could have emailed bogus accounts to which STB replied, because TNR refuses to even state how they were corroborated. Or they could have talked on the phone to someone who may or may not have been a soldier (or STB) and/or asked them only vague questions (as this blog post accused them of doing to one "corroborating source"). Withholding any evidence that they weren't duped should be "good enough" for no one! Also, you implied that the article was now a "nakedly partisan attack piece," seeming to imply the VRWC view. I am glad you clarified that you didn't mean that. Also, just because you remove something does not mean that adding it is a "failed attempt." In addition, the fact that you would need to recruit someone who makes personal attacks (see first two bullet points) with every post says a lot about your confidence in your own side. (And a user self-identifying as gay does not mean that he or she is free to ignore gay-related policies in WP:NPA.) Unless you honestly think that homophobic ad hominem attacks against User:Bluemarine help to make your point, your words should be sufficient to speak for your viewpoint. Such attacks only weaken your side of the argument. Calbaer 17:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
You really have to quit the straw men; they don't help you. Your link to confederateyankee uses yet another blog "guess" to (unsuccessfully) bolster your argument. Your "withholding any evidence that they weren't duped" argument doesn't even meet the basic standards of logical cohesion. I didn't "imply" that the article was currently an attack piece; you inferred that, incorrectly. Several editors removed the Glass links; adding them was indeed a failed attempt at POV. I understand your own dispute with Bmedley is getting the better of you; in the future, try to use cogent, well-reasoned arguments instead of ad hominem attacks against other editors. --Eleemosynary 20:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I did use well-reasoned arguments; the fact that you couldn't or wouldn't follow them is not something I can control. And, again, this is a talk page, so unreliable sources can be used for illustrative purposes. The first sentence of WP:RS is "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources." (emphasis mine) Finally, I don't know what "ad hominem attack" you've accused me of. I did not suggest that seeking the help of Bmedley made you a bad person. I suggested that your words alone could make a stronger case than you could by joining a user with such a history. If you wish to ally yourself with that user, that is your decision. Anyway, you seem to have made your decisions regarding your interpretations of my words, interpretations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and alliances, so I don't think there's much more left to say here. Calbaer 21:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
You may wish to reacquaint yourself with the definition of a "well-reasoned argument." Your personal attack on Bmedley -- and, by faulty extension, on me -- are just two of your latest ad hominem arguments. (Whatever the nature of your dispute with Bmedley, that is hardly germane to the article.) Your final sentence is a textbook example of pot/kettle reasoning. Bluster and evasion do not a cogent thesis make. --Eleemosynary 00:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
You remain unable to isolate what "personal attack" or "ad hominem argument" I've made. Accusing me of it over again without being able to reference it adds nothing. I did indeed ask you to reconsider making an alliance with the now-blocked Bmedley, but that was because I didn't think it would benefit you, someone I surmised to be the only person taking TNR's side who had some understanding of Wikipedia, at least enough not to get repeatedly blocked from it (something I now admit I was wrong about). I was not trying to tar you with your association with Bmedley, to make an ad hominem attack on you based on his behavior; I was trying to do the opposite. In any event, I'll no longer suggest with whom you collaborate. Calbaer 05:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
You may want to stop the sophistry; it's fooling no one. --Eleemosynary 09:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for confirming. Calbaer 15:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
For confirming your sophistry? You're welcome. --Eleemosynary 22:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
No, for confirming that your charges of personal and ad hominem attacks were based on bluster, not on any specific comments I've made that could be interpreted as such. Anyway, this has greatly degenerated, so I'll try to ignore any other accusations or misunderstandings you allege in this particular thread. Calbaer 23:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) Your inability to accept the fact that you've made personal attacks, ad hominem attacks, and exhibited a transparently laughable bit of sophistry in the bargain is not my problem. Your torturous attempt to explain it all away has, as one might expect, come to nothing. I wish you well. --Eleemosynary 23:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This controvesy lives on only in the RW blogoworld. The war is going bad. The new NIE was reported today. Bad News. John Warner says to pull out. Bad news. Malaki has no support. Bad news. 14 soldiers died in a air crash. Terrible bad news. Bushs Iraq is Vietnam speech is being mocked and insulted as a disaster of a mistake, even from the RW. Bad news. Of course the RW blogoworld and milbloggers want to keep talking and writing and writing and talking and puffing and chest-thumping and blowviating about Beauchamp. Its their only 'good news' issue. •smedleyΔbutler• 02:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Your first assertion would appear to be incorrect. These are all from the past week, up to five hours ago.
[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] - Crockspot 02:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
My charges stand. There is no new news about this. Where are those new news stories from those muckrakering milbloggers in Iraq like Matt (filmography incudes: Mansex Meltdown and Tijuana Toilet Tramps) Sanchez, and Michael Yon? Maybe Mateo has more important things to cover? He does have a video camera with him. •smedleyΔbutler• 03:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

TNR and Beauchamp have not provided facts to support the allegations which can be independently verified by journalists for stories for which there should be an abundance of evidence and witnesses. It has become a journalism scandal and not a tale of Army atrocities. Beauchamp was last on the record on July 26. patsw 03:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You can keep repeating this nonsense until you're blue in the face; that's not going make it true. TNR need not "provide facts" for "independent verification" by "other journalists." (Just as Woodward and Bernstein did not need to provide Deep Throat's identity to "other journalists" in order to "support the allegations.") It is not incumbent upon journalists to reveal their sources in the face of partisan blog attacks, no matter how hysterical the cries of "treason." TNR has verified Beauchamp's story to their own satisfaction, via corroboration by their other sources. They can choose to reveal those sources or not. If they choose not to, that doesn't cast them in a dissembling light. Also, you are inventing the case that "there should be an abundance of evidence and witnesses" for Beauchamp's claims. Hardly. Beauchamp's diaries do not say crowds witnessed the atrocities. It apparently is beyond the realm of consideration for some editors that some of Beauchamp's platoon may be TNR's other sources, yet do not wish to be scapegoated as Beauchamp was. Unless Beauchamp says he made the whole thing up, or TNR recants the diaries, this is not a "journalism scandal," no matter how badly some right-wing editors want it to be. Again, enough character assassination. --Eleemosynary 04:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
And spare us the "Beauchamp was last on the record on July 26" meme. We don't know what orders he's been given, as the Army refuses to comment on the investigation, or the consequences of it (which is, in itself, very curious.) Beauchamp's silence does not cast a scintilla of doubt on his diaries, no matter how hard some Bush loyalists claim it does. Again, enough character assassination. --Eleemosynary 04:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
      • It will become a 'scandal' when it is talked about by multiple MSM sources, and that can include Fox. Like Jayson Blair or James Frey. Or 'The War on Xmas'. If something is only discussed in The Nation and Daily Kos, or Human Events and HotAir, its not a 'scandal'. Has Billo even done a story on it yet? Matt 'Touched by an Anal' Sanchez even got much more press when he complained so much about being discriminated for being RW at Columbia! Theres no there there. (I just learned that saying - its very good!) This 'scandal' is so small that I should elect it for 'AFD' •smedleyΔbutler• 04:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Beauchamp's Wife As Fact-Checker

Where is the discussion or disclosure that Beauchamp's wife is a fact-checker for TNR? Certainly that poses a conflict of interest and casts doubt upon the veracity of Beauchamp's claimed "facts." Old Bailey 16:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It should be mentioned in the article that his wife is a fact-checker for TNR. The rest of your post is pure conjecture and POV. One could also say "certainly Old Bailey's brand new account, whose second edit has been to come here and attack Beauchamp, indicates that the account is likely a sockpuppet.-Eleemosynary 21:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow, obviously a nerve has been touched. First of all, I merely questioned the fact that there was no disclosure or discussion on this page at all that Beauchamp's wife is a fact-checker and that the mere fact of that relationship casts doubt on the veracity of the facts claimed by Beauchamp. There is nothing else that is POV or conjecture. Old Bailey 19:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Your opinion that Beauchamp's wife as fact-checker somehow "casts doubt on the veracity of the facts claimed by Beauchamp" is mere conjecture unsupported by any facts, and has no place in an encyclopedia. Your personal attack has been removed. -- Eleemosynary 00:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
It is not mere conjecture unsupported by facts. To wit: "Bob Steele, the Nelson Poynter Scholar for Journalism Values at The Poynter Institute school for journalists in St. Petersburg, Fla. states "[H]e was troubled by the fact that the magazine did not catch the scene-shifting from Kuwait to Iraq of the incident Beauchamp described involving the disfigured woman.

'If they were doing any kind of fact-checking, with multiple sources, that error _ or potential deception _ would have emerged,' Steele said.

He added that he was also troubled by the relationship between Beauchamp and Reeve, his wife, who works at The New Republic. 'It raises the possible specter of competing loyalties, which could undermine the credibility of the journalism, he said." Source: http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=55

It is not my opinion, it is the opinion of Mr. Steele, an expert on journalism ethics. Your ad hominem personal attack has been removed.

Using Steele's personal opinion -- and his "expertise" is also something you, and only you, are claiming -- as ironclad fact won't wash here. --Eleemosynary 06:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
That's a ridiculous argument, Eleemosynary. Bob Steele and the Poynter Institute are professional entities in the field of journalism and journalism ethics. Professional opinions that TNR has violated the rules of ethical reporting are certainly valuable and worthy of inclusion in the article.A.V. 14:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
See my section on "experts" below. Nice to see you want to include them now. --Eleemosynary 22:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
It is a ridiculous argument. It is not POV to point out that there are standards in professional journalism. Nor is it POV to point out that TNR violated those standards. Nor is it POV to point out that the violation of those standards casts doubt on the veracity of the item being reported. That is the entire reason the standards exist in the first place. The standards exist for the purpose of ensuring that the reader gets facts as opposed to opinion. In any situation, having those "facts" being "checked" by the spouse of the writer violates those standards. Even if she didn't fact-check this article, having the spouse on-staff at the same publication leads to the same conclusion. It's a classic conflict-of-interest and should be included in the article. Old Bailey 16:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Fine to include Steele's thoughts. Your supposition, however, that Beauchamp's wife working as a fact-checker is solid proof that she had a conflict of interest is mere conjecture, and has no place in an encyclopedia article. Howard Kurtz's wife is a GOP strategist. Does that cast doubt on all his reporting? --Eleemosynary 22:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Another ridiculous argument. First of all, nowhere did I say that it is solid proof. Maybe you should check *your* facts a little more carefully as well. Or have your spouse do it. I'm sure they're unbiased. What you continue to fail to understand is the difference between *actual* conflicts of interest and *potential* conflicts of interests, both of which are violations. It is not necessary to prove anything - the mere fact that his wife is a fact-checker for the magazine in which his anonymous stories were printed, and the fact that TNR failed to disclose this fact, present *potential* conflicts of interest, the existence of which cast doubt upon the veracity of the facts claimed. Please understand that fact before you comment further. Old Bailey 22:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Your initial statement said nothing about a "potential" conflict of interest; it stated a "conflict of interest" without a modifier. If you're adjusting your argument in light of this colloquy, good for you. It takes guts to admit you were wrong. But please familiarize yourself with your own words before commenting further. --Eleemosynary 10:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

More to the point, the above dialogs involving Eleemosynary and others have been unnecessarily antagonistic. Even though not all contributors share Eleemosynary's opinion, there is much common ground that can be extracted here. For example, the following text (especially with sources added) might be a good compromise between Eleemosynary and those he or she disagrees with:

Critics have raised questions about TNR's fact-checking process. The process has not been as transparent as such critics would like. All experts and witnesses were kept anonymous, making independent confirmation impossible, and no details of the methods of TNR's information confirmation were shared*. The process allowed Beauchamp to misstate events outside of the war zone, in Kuwait, as occurring inside, in Iraq, although TNR stated that their internal investigation found that that was Beauchamp's only inaccuracy. At the times of the articles' publication, Beauchamp's wife served as one of the three fact-checkers on TNR's staff.

*If we can find a reliable source for this, we could add, "Defenders of TNR state that details of military sources were kept secret due to concerns for their well-being," and/or "...although confirmation methods and non-military sources were also kept secret." Beauchamp's wife is mentioned under fact-checking here, but it's not stated that her being fact-checker "casts doubt on the veracity of the facts claimed by Beauchamp." The reader can decide that. This seems a good compromise between Eleemosynary's, "It should be mentioned in the article that his wife is a fact-checker for TNR," and Old Bailey's original question, "Where is the discussion or disclosure that Beauchamp's wife is a fact-checker for TNR?" which, clearly, are not intrinsically at odds with one another. Calbaer 17:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, with the caveat that it's not just "critics" that have raised questions. As pointed out above, having the spouse on the fact-check team is criticized by professionals in the area of journalism ethics. Qualifying that by saying "critics have raised questions" unnecessarily dilutes the meaning of the paragraph. Old Bailey 16:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
So far, one sourced individual is criticizing TNR about Beauchamp's wife/fact-checking/possible COI. Show sources for these "professionals in the area of journalism ethics" you are citing. Otherwise, it's just exaggeration. --Eleemosynary 22:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Talk about your moving goal-posts. How many sources do you need? First it was no one, now it's "only one." The point is - TNR failed to follow the basic tenents of journalism ethics. Exacerbating the problem is the fact that TNR failed to disclose the relationship between its author and the fact-checker. You can still go to bat for them all you want, and you're entitled to that opinion. You're not entitled to your own facts, however. By the way, see the "Experts" section below for other experts that criticize the ethics of TNR in this case. Old Bailey 22:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Talk about projection. Your opinion that "TNR failed to follow the basic tenents [sic] of journalism ethics" is an extrapolation made by you alone. You are inflating criticism of their fact-checking into a broadbrush condemnation of their entire journalistic process. It won't wash. You can use your single-purpose account to smear TNR all you want. But you're also not entitled to your own facts. --Eleemosynary 22:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Imitation is the highest form of flattery, as they say. Thanks, I'm flattered. However, pleasantries aside, your point is entirely misplaced. Shocking, huh? It is not *my* opinion that they violated accepted ethics of journalism, it is the opinion of experts in the field, which I cite. Nowhere do I inflate criticism to more than the essence of the criticism; to wit, the spouse of the author is a fact-checker for the magazine. TNR did NOT disclose this fact. The mere appearance of this potential conflict of interest casts doubt on the veracity of the claimed "facts" by Beauchamp. Whatever conclusions the reader draws from these statements of facts, well, is the province of that reader. Your inane comparison with Mr. Kurtz is misplaced - it would only be appropriate if she fact-checked his articles. It's similar to any other "oversight" position. Is it not a conflict of interest to have a company's auditor be married to the CFO? Is it not a conflict of interest to have a lawyer in a case be married to the judge? Of course it is. Just as it is a conflict of interest to have an author/contributor for the magazine be married to a fact-chekcer. Just because they're married doesn't necessarily mean that the auditor can't properly audit the CFO - but it doesn't pass the smell-test. Neither does this. The whole thing stinks to high heaven. Old Bailey 17:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Try to calm down. Re-read my comments. By the way, where has TNR stated that Beauchamp's wife fact-checked his article specifically? They have more than one fact checker. And more than one source. Please stop trying to invent "stories" that may not have occurred. --Eleemosynary 09:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
But they're hiding all of that. Why did TNR not say, "His wife did not fact-check his manuscript," if that's true? And even if it weren't true, the pressure under a fact-checker not to find fault with the husband of one of two of the other fact-checkers would be immense. Of course, we can't say that in the article, since that would be mere speculation. But if we clearly say that his wife was one of three staff fact checkers and TNR refuses to say whether or not she fact-checked his work, anyone whose critical thinking skills are not blinded by bias will be able to see the potential problems. Calbaer 15:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Wrong again, in yet another entirely speculative comment. Where did TNR "refuse" to confirm whether she fact-checked the article? Your conspiracy theories are getting the better of you. --Eleemosynary 22:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
They said she was a "researcher," i.e., fact-checker. They did not say whether she fact-checked his articles. By "hiding," I did not mean in a malicious sense, but in a de facto sense. They are not and have not said anything about it. That is the point I am trying to make. In the article, we can worry about making it as NPOV as possible, but here, writing "hiding" instead of "not revealing" is not the sin you're making it out to be. Anyway, it's purposeless to have this discussion, since my assumptions of good faith in you were wrong, and the other users trying to defend Beauchamp and TNR have either abandoned this needlessly long conversation or been blocked. If a different user has a problem with mentioning that it is known that the wife was a fact checker but unknown whether or not she fact-checked his articles, I'd be glad to discuss the appropriate language with him or her. From now on, I'll try to ignore your taunts. Calbaer 23:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
They're not taunts, just well-reasoned responses to your faulty arguments. You seem to engage along these lines: 1) Make a statement. 2) When challenged, claim that you never made the statement, or claim the intent of the statement was the opposite of what you originally used it for. Then, you devolve into a reference to Bmedley being blocked (really, what is your obsession with that editor?). And now you're claiming you ever "assumed good faith" in the first place? Please. --Eleemosynary 23:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Eleemosynary, there's no content relating to the article in your above post, in responding to a post of mine that is primarily about the content of the article. This page is supposed to be about the article, not about making non-specific, irrelevant accusations of other editors. What's the use, though — Your own words reveal your true nature more than any response I could ever provide. Calbaer 00:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for illustrating my point. I understand that you don't want your attacks/accusations/sophistry pointed out. But I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed. Repeatedly. --Eleemosynary 00:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)