Talk:Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Can we please add something about this?

Here is a second article pointing out that this 'scandal' is a RW distraction or Artificial controversy. I think we need a very samll section stating this POV. Okay? "Actually, getting caught up in a debate over Scott Thomas Beauchamp's veracity is the essence of the trick. Magic tricks and frauds are all about distractions. Three-card monte works because, while the cards are being shuffled, your eye is distracted. Money laundering works because, after a series of sham transactions, regulators are distracted from the origins of illegal proceeds. //The trumped-up cause celebre over Beauchamp's articles is a fraudulent scheme, executed through a series of tricks, designed to create one big distraction. The essence of the scheme is to compel a debate about a trivial subject -- the details of Beauchamp's dog-bites-man stories -- in order to sow confusion that distracts us from the bad news in Iraq." Link Okay? •smedleyΔbutler• 22:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• You complained about Human Events, a magazine that has been published since World War II, but you want to add something from Huffington Post? - Crockspot 03:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The article uses about 5 or 6 sources from the Weekly Standard blog. If it can use all those, it can use HuffPo too. Didnt you say a week ago at least that you were going to take out all the blogs? Oh, now I remember. You said that when I wanted to add a LW blog. •smedleyΔbutler• 04:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Take out all the blogs. I said it then. I still say it. Human Events is not a blog. - Crockspot 04:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Not to belabor the obvious, but blogs are primary sources for what the blogs themselves say, which is only relevant if it effects notable change, e.g., something that reliable-source media discusses. Blogs are not valid secondary sources or tertiary sources. The Huffington Post's discussion of The Weekly Standard, unless it itself effects enough change to the story to be covered by a "legitimate" publication, is not an appropriate source for this article, because it is not a primary source (and is not notable). Calbaer 05:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we could use them as primary sources, but why do we need to when we have a plethora of reliable secondary sources that report on everything that was published on the blogs? - Crockspot 02:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised to see plugs for one Murdoch publication and one closely associated with racism and Nazis? Link "Regnery and two other isolationists began broadcasting Human Events and in 1947 started the Regnery publishing business. Interesting enough the first two titles published by Regnery were critical of the Nuremberg Trials. The third book Regnery published was another pro-Nazi book attacking the allies air campaign. In 1954, Regnery published two books for the John Birch Society" Link Why am I not surprised at all? Time for work on that Human Events and Regnery articles. Link •smedleyΔbutler• 06:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's a link to Regnery's entire published catalog to aid you in your research.[1] - Crockspot 02:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

They dont list this one: THE NUREMBERG JUDGMENTS - THE HIGH COST OF VENGEANGE by Freda Utley (1949 Henry Regnery Company) - I wonder why not. Do you know anything about Regnerys dating service? "William Regnery II, an heir to the Regnery publishing fortune who's a prime mover and shaker in white nationalism publishing, is moving into a new line of business: match-making for "heterosexual whites of Christian cultural heritage." In an appeal to potential investors titled "Population is Destiny," the famously reclusive Regnery wrote this March that the Caucasian dating service would be no ordinary money-making opportunity, but a chance to ensure "the survival of our race," which "depends upon our people marrying, reproducing and parenting." [2] Nice! •smedleyΔbutler• 03:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they are two different legal entities? Regnery Publishing vs. Henrey Regnery Company. - Crockspot 03:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Same family and the family traits run on yes? There is much work to be done here. What I say now is not an attack or a taunting. But if you reject racism as strong as you say, what better way to show that than to help document the racism of this current William Regnery II and his groups here on Wikipedia. It is well hidden. Like the National Policy Institue who published The State of White America in 2007. Will you help? Thank you. •smedleyΔbutler• 04:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The sins of the father, and all that, eh? It is a personal attack in a way, and one that was common from FAAFA. I would not presume to tell you what topics you should be researching, I would expect the same from you. - Crockspot 01:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

:William Regnery II very much alive now and is tied to the publisher of The State of White America (2007) and the "White Supremacist" dating service (2004) [3] Your reply is something not uncommon from banned user Zog. •smedleyΔbutler• 01:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I had to look that one up. The users Zog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and ZOG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) have not been active since 2003, and neither one shows a block in their logs. That's way before my time, but apparently not yours. - Crockspot 01:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I have had about enough of this topic now. It was way before my time too. I did a Google search for Wikipedia + "banned racist" and the result was Zog. You didn't search Wiki enough. Here is his page [4] You should try Google. You can even find out all sorts of things about White Supremacist William Regnery II who you seem to support, IMO. I bet he even uses the racial taunt 'Porch Monkey' too! I'm sorry you dont want to help document racism from racists. It guess hiding well known conservatives homosexuality is more your liking. I read that vandal patrol is the best way to worm into administratorship. Which is the tool you recommend? Thanks •smedleyΔbutler• 03:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Because I won't hop to and be your research assistant, I am now a Regnery supporter? And you attack me personally twice in the same post? - Crockspot 04:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I've posted Wikipedia's rules on blogs before, but they've been lost further up the discussion page:

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

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

The topic of the article is the Scott Beauchamp controversy. TNR and the Weekly Standard are the two main parties involved, so they certainly qualify as experts on this topic. Their blogs should be acceptable, however, Confederate Yankee on one side and Huffington Post on the other are peripheral to the controversy and don't fit Wikipedia guidelines.A.V. 14:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The Weekly Standard does not rise to any level of "expertise" on this subject. While WS did launch scathing attacks on Beauchamp and TNR via Goldfarb's blog (and their doing so should be noted), the "main parties" involved are Beauchamp, TNR, and the U.S. Army. --Eleemosynary 22:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Standard opened the controversy and is the main source refuting Beachamp's account, so they are, in fact, an expert and a party in the controversy. The Wiki rule I posted is clear on this matter.A.V. 19:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

They are a party to the controversy, but by no means an "expert" on any part of it. --Eleemosynary 22:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Quit your petty, partisan sniping. Weekly Standard is one of the main four parties in the controversy, along with Beauchamp, TNR, and the Army. If two people have a conversation, no one has more complete information about what was said than the people doing the speaking. That's what I mean by saying that Weekly Standard is an expert on this controversy.A.V. 12:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I appear to have touched a nerve of yet another partisan editor whose single-purpose account exists solely to attack TNR, Beauchamp et al. But that's as may be. Beauchamp, TNR, and the Army are the only "experts" involved in the story. The Weekly Standard's blog is merely one of several conservative outlets who have tried to get TNR to recant. They haven't succeeded. I can understand why that angers you, but try to avoid personal attacks in the future. --Eleemosynary 03:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack for A.V. to accuse you of being biased or making a (not-necessarily-personal) attack, especially when it's clearly true. And for someone who keeps accusing others of making unspecified ad hominem attacks, you've certainly made a specific one yourself, that A.V.'s opinion doesn't count because his August contributions are limited to this and related articles. By the way, take a look before August and your "single use" assertion reveals itself to be a false one, unless you think Wyatt Earp, Alec Baldwin, Thomas Wolfe, and tarot are inextricably linked to TNR. Calbaer 05:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

At no point have I suggested that A.V.'s opinion "doesn't count." And, since late July, his account has indeed become an SPA. Please try to refrain from sophistry and straw men in the future. --Eleemosynary 10:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can read your words and surmise your ideas and implications (and your honesty about them), so I have nothing more to add. Calbaer 15:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Eleemosynary, I am not aware of the rule that states that I have to edit more than one article per month. Beauchamp's story interests me - so here I am.A.V. 20:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Single_purpose_account states, "A single-purpose account is a user account which appears to be used for edits in one article only, or a small range of often-related articles. This can be perfectly innocent, or it can represent a user pushing an agenda, so such accounts may warrant a bit of gentle scrutiny." So not only is a single-purpose account not discouraged, A.V.'s account isn't a single-purpose account (using the only Wikipedia:-space definition, given in this essay). It certainly is wrong to say that it "exist exists solely to attack TNR, Beauchamp et al.," which the simplest check (well, second-simplest check) shows as being false. Calbaer 21:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"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.[5]:

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)

• [link to Post Chronicle removed]
• [link to Post Chronicle removed]

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 - whom 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)