Talk:Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy

"Experts"

Well, as long as we're citing Steele as an expert, there is now certainly justification to replace this section -- twice blanked by single-purpose-account A.V.[1]:

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

“ There is a cloud over the New Republic, but there's one hanging over the Army, as well. Each investigated this and cleared themselves, but they both have vested interests. ”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“ Paul McLeary, a staff writer for Columbia Journalism Review who has written about the matter, said The New Republic failed to do some basic journalistic legwork, such as calling the public affairs officer for Beauchamp's unit.

"There is a degree of trust and faith editors have to put in their writers," McLeary said. "If you're on a tight deadline, you have to go as far as you can. The New Republic definitely didn't go as far as it could in terms of checking out its stories."

”

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

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

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

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

Conflict of interest in sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources

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

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

Ordering of sections

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

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

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

Military bloggers

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

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

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

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

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

Interview with Michael Goldfarb

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interview with Major John Cross

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

This above quoted from Pajamas Media.

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

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

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

Eleemosynary edits disputed

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

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

I suggest you review Wikipedia's standards for sourcing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Documents

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

• A transcript between Scott Thomas Beauchamp, Franklin Foer (TNR Editor), and Peter Scoblic (TNR Executive Editor) from 2007-09-06 [2][3]
• Legal Review of AR 15-6 Investigation Regarding Allegations of Solider Misconduct Published in The New Republic [4]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Memorandum of Concern

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

Nope. Drudge pulled the link. TNR has responded. The only one "faking" any story here is Drudge (and, by extension, you). Here's just the beginning of long, hard night for the freepers.[5]--Eleemosynary 22:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: And it just gets sadder.[6] DEVELOPING... (LOL) --Eleemosynary 22:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

There's some interesting investigation going on here (e.g., [7]), but, as the Drudge incident shows, what may be useful one hour may be pulled the next. So let's be measured about improving the article, rather than view each hourly development as essential, or, worse a victory for "our side". It would also help prevent the revert war that seems inevitable in the coming hours. Calbaer 22:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

It's doubtful that this is a hoax; see, e.g., [8], in which Foer himself assumes that it's not. It is, however, rather annoying how Eleemosynary calls anyone wanting to have a civil discussion on his or her talk page a "troll" and "vandal"; while reverting such attempts at discussion are within Wikipedia guidelines and policies, throwing around such unfounded accusations is not. However, this is of a piece with the continued violations of WP:NPA via homophobic slurs against User:Bluemarine. The admins are for dealing with that type of disruptive behavior, too. (That said, WP:RS is relevant here. Just because Eleemosynary ignores official policies on civility doesn't mean that we can then ignore guidelines ourselves.) Calbaer 00:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kurtz article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smear links

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

Threshold of evidence to categorize as a hoax

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disfigured woman incident

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

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

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

Documents have been confirmed authentic

Let me make this clear for those of you who have a reading comprehension problem.

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

TNR confimed them[9], as well a CENTCOM source[10]

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

Per the Army's investigation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did Howard Kurtz misquote Franklin Foer?

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

TNR acknowledges

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

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