Talk:Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy

message: :No.  We won't be keeping this list, most of which are unreliable blog posts, "at the end of the page."  Do I need to post a link to your RfC, in which your failed campaign of self-promotion is well-documented?  --Eleemosynary (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AgreeMatt Sanchez (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz --Eleemosynary (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cause and Effect: The reality is that the these so-called "unreliable blog posts" kept interest in the story alive when the mainstream media wanted to move away from the story and let it die.  Eliminate them and you distort the record to the extent that TNR retracted what it published and accused Beauchamp of deception in what would appear to be a total vacuum. 03:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It doesn't hurt to keep information on the talk page even if there's been no consensus as to whether it's appropriate to have on the article page. Calbaer (talk) 06:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: So, we keep the reflist and dump Elee?Mattsanchez (talk) 11:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't rise to the bait. For now, the reflist can stay on talk, but it's there to allow us to see the refs being discussed. It's not to be used as a means of keeping links around on Wikipedia. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "refs" are (mostly) to sources unreliable by Wikipedia standards, and are posted on this page as part of Sanchez's self-promotion campaign.  Simple as that. --Eleemosynary (talk) 03:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Elee: The only thing "simple" here is your point of view.  You don't seem to have the brain power to overcome your childish antics.  The fact that you consistently attack me because you think I'm 'weak' just shows what a coward you are.  You, a faceless, anonymous blip in the blogosphere.  My role behind in the Scott Beauchamp controversy is verifiable even by a sore-loser like Foer who stoops to the same disgraceful level you do.  If you really think you're superior to anyone who has appeared in an adult film than it's obvious that, beyond being unable to contribute productively to this article, you have grave issues of self-worth. Matt Sanchez (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Project much? --Eleemosynary (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  And they'll be cropped as the page is archived, in that case. No cause for alarm. Chris Cunningham (talk) 08:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Ultra liberal NPR and the hilariously insightful New York Observer are outstanding primary sources, as they speak directly to the actors involved.  I'm not sure what Elee reads in whatever part of the world she's in, but these are both reputable media outlets.  The "self-promotion" campaign she speaks of says more about her than myself.  Elee is an obstructionist editor wasting valuable time on here.  I vote that she be banned for immaturity.  Matt Sanchez (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  See above comments. --Eleemosynary (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I dont think your snide remarks about Sanchez helps anything, and I would suggest you act a little more WP:CIVIL or you will be reported. DJ CreamityOh Yeah! 19:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My comments about Sanchez are civil and accurate.  Report away. --Eleemosynary (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comments have been insulting and just all-around pathetic.  I've never met you, I don't want to meet you, but you don't even have the courage to recognize how distasteful you are.  Matt Sanchez (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, my comments about you have been civil and accurate.  I understand your anger at being called on your dissembling, but try to keep the histrionics to a minimum.  They're persuading no one. --Eleemosynary (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate on Reflist 

message: Why is someone who works for a rival publication being allowed to edit an article about The New Republic? Matt Sanchez/Bluemarine is not only personally involved with this scandal, but he writes for The Weekly Standard. JMarkievicz2 (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aside from one editor acting as an apologist for his abhorrent behavior, no one is taking Sanchez's self-promotion campaign seriously. I encourage all interested editors to visit Sanchez's RFC, where his disruptive behavior; homophobic insults; violations of COI, BLP, and about 20 other Wiki policies are extremely well-documented.  --Eleemosynary (talk) 04:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, I'm being judged for insulting homosexuals?? Can you get any more ridiculous??  The RFC ran its course and was proven baseless.   Matt Sanchez (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not being "judged," you're being called out for your homophobic rants.  Which a Freudian would have a field day with.  But no, your RfC has not "run its course" at all.  It's a great reference guide to your self-promotion campaign, augmented by vituperation, sputtering rage, and bile.  And it's hardly over. --Eleemosynary (talk) 02:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: If you mean "why" in a technical sense, it's because his RFC never went anywhere despite seemingly overwhelming support. make of that what you will. Regardless of that, most of his edits are to the talk page, though he occasionally edits the article when a few days' lull is mistaken for consensus. While there is a COI, the best thing to do is still to attempt to work with him to resolve this: a feud clearly isn't going to improve the article. Anyway, it's protected for now on what I would consider to be a pretty COI-free revision. Chris Cunningham (talk) 09:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The portion of the guideline in question is at WP:COIC. Calbaer (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are far more Wikipedia policies than that one "in question."  Please don't try to downplay Sanchez's antics. --Eleemosynary (talk) 04:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blatant conflict of interest 

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

message: FYI, Quite a few editors at Matt's bio have made statements.
An Arbitration case has been opened, and is located here.  Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. Also see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine/Workshop. Benjiboi 06:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine]] aka Matt Sanchez 

message: I removed the phrase "accounts of atrocities." I take issue with the description of the acts Beauchamp took part in as atrocities. While they were certainly morally reprehensible I don't think they deserve to be described in the same way we describe ethnic cleansing or other acts of mass murder. KHorberg (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It really is not a matter of what User:KHorberg thinks, or what "we" describe atrocities as.  When this matter was getting national media attention 8 months ago, the word atrocities was being used by both sides: advocates for the truth of Beauchamp's accounts and those skeptical of the truth of Beauchamp's accounts.  It was not characterized in these news sources as reprehensible conduct but as atrocities because of their cruelty and depravity and the dishonor it brought to the United States Army.  A large body count is not a required component of an atrocity. Atrocities is the accurate characterization of the accounts. patsw (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with Pat here.  While the accounts are fabricated, they were still described as atrocities at the time.  Arkon (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would still like to see the word removed. You will notice that the Radar Online article which is quoted extensively after the "atrocities" sentence does not include the word "atrocities" itself. A Nexis search of the last two years for the words "Beauchamp" and "atrocity" or "atrocities" brings up 51 articles. Three of the articles use the word in the context of Vietnam, five of the articles are irrelevant to Scott Beauchamp, nineteen of the articles are reprints or reposts (mostly on blogs) and 24 articles use both "Beauchamp" and "atrocity" in the context of Iraq. However, in each of those articles the word "atrocity" is used to describe the actions in Iraq as a whole, not to describe the particular actions Beauchamp took part in. If you cannot provide evidence that the media used the word "atrocity" to describe Beauchamp's actions in particular then I must insist we delete the phrase as it stands. KHorberg (talk) 01:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I stand corrected, you have convinced me.  Good data. Arkon (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atrocities 

message: This section was removed with this comment: " tenuous relationship and only relevant for an argument rather than for an objective enclyclopedia. Also uses the "some think" style."
tenuous relationship
It's not tenuous.  The murders involved some of the same people and have been written about in connection with Beauchamp by several sources. One of those sources is Bob Owens, who is cited as a source elsewhere in this article, so presumably his opinion is notable.
only relevant for an argument rather than for an objective enclyclopedia
This article is about a controversy so much of it is necessarily going to be devoted to arguments and counterarguments.
Also uses the "some think" style."
No it doesn't, all of the opinions are attributed to specific people.
71.182.183.14 (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SYN-- The Red Pen of Doom 17:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Any positions are being advanced by people outside Wikipedia, not by me.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.230.8 (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually whatever.  I don't think this violates WP:SYN at all but I'll admit it's basically trivial, so if you don't want it in the article then fine.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.230.8 (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  murder 

message: So somehow we've ended up with a low-level sockpuppet war on the page again. I've rolled back to the version as of October 21, because that's the last version which doesn't appear to have been edited by POV-pushing anons. if this edit warring continues I'll request semiprotection. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring 

message: Go ahead, perform the rewrite and put it below here, we can then comment.  I will hold off on editing in the interim. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 17:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, good.  It will probably take me 12-24 hours to get to this because of professional obligations, though. Mark Shaw (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries, the world won't end in the next 12-24 hours.  Hopefully. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 17:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Ugh.  Just got home - as I said, I'm having a very busy week.  I'm self-reverting the article till I can address this.  Note that I am not acquiescing, just tabling the matter and handing the baton back until I can give this the attention it deserves.  Should be soon; right now I'm going to bed. Mark Shaw (talk) 03:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Its been what a week and a half?  Are you going to actually perform a re-write like you said, or just hope that others acquiesce to your constant reverts? TharsHammar Bits andPieces 12:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmmm.  I think you may have tipped your hand by reverting to old form here....  time for RFCU?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.7.191 (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL. The "208" IP troll has the stench  -- stench, I tell you -- of failed desperation.  It's actually quite touching. Update:  the anon IP troll is... Matt Sanchez!  Good to know.  --StephenLaurie (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted your most recent addition.  We have nothing showing this was done soley by 'conservative bloggers'.  Arkon (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And I've reverted your reversion.  All links critical of Beauchamp are either from conservative bloggers (Weekly Standard or NRO online), or from mainstream articles referencing conservative bloggers (Kurtz in WaPo).  Take your revisionism elsewhere.  --StephenLaurie (talk) 02:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  In agreement with StephenLaurie. Also want to point out that Howard Kurtz is a media critic, not a reporter. He didn't independently verify any of the allegations made against Beauchamp. And since Kurtz is married to Sheri Annis, a Republican strategist who sometimes writes for National Review, he's hardly an unbiased source.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.48.217 (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I've self-reverted, as you can see (and as I've noted just above), so I have no idea what you're on about. I'll get to it when I can. Mark Shaw (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Break 1 

message: Those seeking to delete the material have oft cited "BLP concerns" what exactly are the BLP concerns you have about the material.  Please when deleting this amount of material explain a little more than that.  Please discuss here what the issues are instead of deleting the exact same things over and over again. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 12:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the long discussion above this section.  The additions you are adding are not about Beauchamp but about other people.  There is no balance to these additions, they are not about Beauchamp, are undue weight, tenditious, and POV. Mohummy (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the title of the article.  This is not a bio of Scott Thomas Beauchamp, this is an article about the Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy.  TharsHammar Bits andPieces 13:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Also note that I was involved in the long discussion above, and it ended with the editor who was proposing a re-writing giving up then socking. Also we are not Fox News, no where does it say wikipedia needs to balance.  WP:V and WP:RS covers what we should include, and sometimes the situations do not have balancing opinions.  After all we don't include the balancing opinions saying Charles Manson was a great guy. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 13:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no "BLP concerns" with the additional material regarding Beauchamp's cohort.  Too often, editors without an argument to make attempt to rely on "BLP concerns" as a catch-all, edit-summary justification to scrub sourced data which doesn't mesh with their worldviews and politics.  The reversions and edit summaries by Mohummy and the anon IP (173.xxx) would seem to fit this description. --StephenLaurie (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP problems 

message: As you can see, there is section that is currently being readded over and over against consensus (discussed on this very talk page, in the section right above this one no less).  Those who wish to include this, please defend it.  Here.  I made this request the first time, and it was ignored, now you are working against those who -actually- used the talk page.  I will repeat my original reversion from the November:  (rv to remove irrelevent murder conviction of someone else (who was never mentioned in the original Beauchamp letters/articles). If there is discussion, please put it on this talk page.) Arkon (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for coming to the talk page with this. I hope we can resolve this amicably. I'll keep my initial observation short and to the point: there has been a lot of back-and-forth on this over the months, and the version restored by Hit bull, win steak represents the compromise work-product of that long and bitter discussion. Personally (and an examination of this talk page will back this up), I don't believe the inclusion of anything about the crimes of Hatley et al is really appropriate in this article, but it is peripheral to the Beauchamp saga, and the current version is certainly brief enough. At any rate: I'm actually open to either taking it out or leaving it in, or various reasonable modifications, but please let's work that out without any repetition of the previous unpleasantness. Cheers! Mark Shaw (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

text: (a bit later) This edit simply removed the references for the note about the Hatley->McLeroy email. Without those references, that passage can't stand. Making that edit now; however I should note that I consider everything in this section still up for discussion. Mark Shaw (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that they can't stay in without the references - however, I don't see any reason why those references should not be used. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't get it either; the editor who removed them just said they weren't WP:RS, and while I won't take a position on that I also don't think that amounts to much more than an unsupported assertion. By way of moving forward, how would you feel about replacing those two refs with this link to McLeroy's blog? Mark Shaw (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the TPM ref needs to stay in to avoid problems with WP:SYN. I would have no objection to replacing the other ref with your link, if that's more to people's liking. If anything, it's probably better as the point of first origin for the e-mail itself. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 23:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds fine to me, so long as the article itself conforms to WP:NPOV and does not draw or suggest any connection between Hatley's crimes and Beauchamp's allegations. In other words, the same wording as in the version you restored, with the substitution of the link to McLeroy's blog for the old reference (which appears to be dead anyway), and the restoration of the link to TPM for the other reference. Mark Shaw (talk) 02:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been more than 48 hours with no further discussion. I'm making the indicated change. Mark Shaw (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I figured that I probably shouldn't, as an involved party, and since no one else apparently wants to talk... -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I didn't ignore your request, Arkon - I requested in turn that you state your objection to the consensus version of the page, so I would know exactly what problem you had with the passage in question, as I can't read your mind and it doesn't seem objectionable to me in any way. Would you please do so now? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 01:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, now that I look back at my talk page, I see that you did participate in that discussion, and then dropped out without responding to my question at that time. If your primary objection now (as it was then) is that TPM does not meet WP:RS, then I don't understand the nature of your problem with the source. They have a high degree of editorial oversight, and they've won prestigious awards for journalism (most notably the George Polk Awards). Time magazine, a pretty non-partisan source, described them last year as "the prototype of what a successful Web-based news organization is likely to be in the future". Why, then, do you consider them to be unreliable? Or if that is not your current objection, can you please articulate the nature of your problem? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 01:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Not a problem. No offense was taken, and I'm glad to know we don't need to send out a search party. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Ditto on that - not an issue. Cheers! Mark Shaw (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defend it 

message: This is an article about Scott Thomas Beauchamp and his controversial writings. Scott did not write about the 1st Sgt. The fact that a member of Beauchamp's unit was convicted of an unrelated act is the height of irrelevance. It (the sgt's conviction) is possibly notable in it's own right, it doesn't belong in this article under any stretch of the imagination.Capitalismojo (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, an unknown blog posting a letter questioning Beauchamp's bloviation from the Sgt doesn't add anything of value to the article and is not RS. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Talking Points Memo is not an "unknown blog". It has a high degree of editorial oversight, it is staffed by professional journalists, and it has received numerous awards for journalism, most notably the George Polk Awards. For further discussion of its merits as a source, see the discussion at Talk:Scott_Thomas_Beauchamp_controversy#Defend_it. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 23:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect, I was referring to the blog, not TPM. Those are two different refs.  Capitalismojo (talk) 00:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As regards TPM. I am aware that they won the Polk Award for their legal reporting on the US Attorney firings under Bush. That really doesn't go to the heart of this issue, however. It is irrelevant to this article. This article is about Scott Beauchamp's problematic writings. The Sgt was not a subject of those writings. It is tangential at best. That was the point I was trying, apparently very unclearly, to make. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  1st Sgt conviction 

message: This blogger posted only 26 posts total from 2007 to now. To say that this is a RS for anything is a wild stretch. The ref should be removed, and I have done so.Capitalismojo (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The blog post in question qualifies as a reliable source because it is a primary source, containing Hatley's own words on the subject. Per WP:RS, primary sources "can be both reliable and useful in certain situations". This is one of them - a direct quotation from Hatley is appropriate in demonstrating his publicly stated position on the issue. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If we knew that they were actually Hatley's words. If we knew that there was some sort of effort to insure that they were accurate. If, if. This is not only unreliable, it is the most unreliable. There is no indication that this is reliable or accurate. The blog doesn't even seem to really still exist in any meaningful way. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:PRIMARY and WP:RS apply here. We are supposed to avoid and be very very wary of primary sources and further we can not use material that is not from a reliable source. The blog is both not RS in any sense and it is also being used as primary source material. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blog Post in Final Section 

message: There must be more to the allegation of falsification than that Beauchamp could not "provide documentation for his three published columns"?  That is pretty much normal for a diary! Furthermore the statement that "one of the anonymous military experts consulted by TNR refuted Beauchamp's allegations regarding Bradley Fighting Vehicles" makes no sense. An anonymous source cannot deny that a vehicle ran over a dog. The source was not there! Is there any evidence or suggestion or an orchestrated attempt (presumably by the military) to discredit Beauchamp?Royalcourtier (talk) 07:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  False allegation of falsification?