Talk:Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

What is Beauchamp's MOS?

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

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

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

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

This article is a SMEAR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not a Smear

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

Probably a smear. Need to put rank on publications.

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

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

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

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

Army Qualifies Beauchamps allegations as false

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

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

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

Put Baffles on Weekly Standard and National Review contentions

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

Moved Matt Sanchez' claim here "for safekeeping"

I moved this:

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

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

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

TNR's claim of confirmation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

71.39.78.68 17:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who removed the POV Template and why?

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

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

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

Deletion of the 'Accuracy questions' section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Controversy, Not a biography

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

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

Link to Beauchamp's blog

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

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

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

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

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

Greetings from FOB Falcon, Baghdad

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

1. On August 4th the Army corroborated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Army Confirms Matt Sanchez Initial Report

Sanchez as of August 3, 2007 reported that the military investigation is concluded and Beauchamp's story has been refuted by his platoon. [1] I followed the link and I do not see anything there but Matt's claim alone. I don't see any material that came from the military, or any link to any other source. I am not saying that Matt has made this up, but his claim needs to be backed up more strongly than that, with perhaps a jpeg of a scanned letter, or a link to a press release, or something stronger. 71.39.78.68 16:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Sanchez as of August 3, 2007 reported that the military investigation is concluded and Beauchamp's story has been refuted by his platoon. [1] I followed the link and I do not see anything there but Matt's claim alone. I don't see any material that came from the military, or any link to any other source. I am not saying that Matt has made this up, but his claim needs to be backed up more strongly than that, with perhaps a jpeg of a scanned letter, or a link to a press release, or something stronger. 71.39.78.68 16:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The Army has confirmed the initial report.

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

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

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

Addition of the Milbloggers is Key

The introduction is faulty.

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

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

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

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

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

Besides, I always make time for the little people.

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

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

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

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

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

Added and referenced more information

In the The New Republic, under the pen name Scott Thomas, Beauchamp posted three diary entries about serving at FOB Falcon, Baghdad. The veracity of these entries was called into question by milbloggers Michael Yon[3], JD Johannes and Matt Sanchez[4] [5] who had all previously embedded as members of the media at FOB Falcon. Publications such as The Weekly Standard, the National Review voiced the blogger's skepticism. Initially, Beauchamp's NCO, SFC Hatley raised questions, but eventually retracted his statements.[6]

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

Revert wars and vandalism

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

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

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

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