Talk:Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy/Archive 5

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ordering of sections 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Military bloggers

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Interview with Michael Goldfarb

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Interview with Major John Cross