Talk:Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy/Archive 3

message: What is so unbelievable about his claims? Haven't you read? A US soldier convicted by a military court in the gang rape and murder of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and the killing of her family was sentenced to 110 years in prison on Saturday, the Army said What Beauchamp did was not so bad compared to this.  Bmedley Sutler 01:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've struck through the libelous, obscene comment posted by A.V..  No doubt it should be reverted completely, but I'd like some more editors to weigh in. --Eleemosynary 02:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. IMHO, Wiki has to think about if it is being 'played' by right-wing bloggers with an 'agenda'. Read this excellent article. Military Atrocities Less Newsworthy Than Right-Wing Fantasies / Press follows smears of New Republic as Nation's evidence of abuse ignored So much 'hooplah' about some lies and exaggerations when we just found out the USMIL lied about Pat Tillman, there are suspicions that he was killed by other US soldiers, and 3 soldiers are convicted of gang raping a 14 years old child, killing her whole family, lighting her dead body on fire and covering it up. And the right-wing are outraged and making a big deal in every blog that this soldier exaggerated or maybe completely lied? This is a fake 'smoke-screen', IMHO. 19 dead American soldiers this month. 190.000 rifles came up missing yesterday, the Sunni's just left the gov that is taking one month off, Bagdhad has almost none electricity, and the right wing want to make a big scene all over the www about Scott Beuchamp, including Wikipedia? Too much 'smoke screen' in this whole article. I vote for 'AFD'. Bmedley Sutler 02:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the above comes perilously close to violating the principle of keeping talk pages limited to discussion of improving the article.  Beauchamp is notable , at least for the moment.  As such, he's appropriate for an encyclopedia.  The fact that suddenly his story is more useful to the right than the left is no reason to whitewash the subject.  Interested people will come to this article seeking a neutral assessment; it is our duty to provide it dispassionately. Vonspringer 03:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I will cocentrate on the article then. Here is a new article from the WA Post's right wing Howard Kurtz Link Bmedley Sutler 04:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is so unbelievable? 

message: It is the only balanced secondary reliable reporting we have right now, and it sources the military investigation, and both the Standard's and the Review's side of the story. Why is it not in the article? - Crockspot 03:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This part is not really true: <I>"After the publication of an entry called "Shock Troops," The Weekly Standard and The National Review questioned the veracity of Beauchamp's claims.</I> All the questioning started on blogs like Malkin and Ace of Spades. And others too. They wrote about this stuff for days and days whipping the right-wing blogopshere into a tornado of outrage before these 2 right-wing MSM publications ever reported it. Like that Dan Rather scandal. It started on blogs too. Bmedley Sutler 05:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, the Dan Rather scandal started when CBS published obviously fake documents.  This Beauchamp scandal either started when Beauchamp published the fake stories, or when bloggers started believing his true stories were fake.  As we are chiefly concerned about verifiability, it's not absolutely certain which is which (though we have a good idea).  What we're waiting for is a source confirming the recantation.  If that happens, it needs to be a prominent part of the article.  Now as an aside, I personally am ideologically inclined to support these swarms of questioning blogs regardless of their affiliation with the left or right.  It's the truth that people should be after, and thousands of people constantly fact-checking does far more good than harm.  And soon enough if they come up with something important and verifiable, it makes its way to reliable secondary sources.  We then write it up as neutrally as possible. Vonspringer 16:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the ABC source gone? 

message: Like these words:
<B>Charges of right-wing 'astroturfing'</B>
<I>"The disparity in media treatment is striking—when right-wing bloggers make unfounded criticisms of reporting that portrays U.S. soldiers in Iraq in a bad light, the "controversy" makes it into papers like the Post and the New York Times, and becomes fodder for cable news. But the Nation's thorough and meticulous investigation of the U.S. military's mistreatment of Iraqi civilians is all but ignored. Apparently critical war reporting is more useful to the mainstream media when specious right-wing doubts can be cast on it." </I>
Military Atrocities Less Newsworthy Than Right-Wing Fantasies / Press follows smears of New Republic as Nation's evidence of abuse ignored 
Is that Okay? I will post it here first for approval. Bmedley Sutler 04:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's what Andrew Sullivan says. I just spent more than one hours reading so many blogs. The reasons behind the right-wings 'tempest in a tea-pot' are more important than the exaggerations or even lies that he told. Did you know that TNR was pro-war? They're not some far left outfit! <I>"the conservative blogosphere has taken such an almighty empirical beating this last year that they have an overwhelming psychic need to lash out at those still clinging to sanity on the war. This Scott Thomas story is a godsend for these people, a beautiful distraction from the reality they refuse to face. It combines all the usual Weimar themes out there: treasonous MSM journalists, treasonous soldiers, stories of atrocities that undermine morale (regardless of whether they're true or not), and blanket ideological denial. We have to understand that some people still do not believe that the U.S. is torturing or has tortured detainees, still do not believe that torture or murder or rape occurred at Abu Ghraib, still believe that everyone at Gitmo is a dangerous terrorist captured by US forces, and still believe we're winning in Iraq. If you believe all this and face the mountains of evidence against you, you have to act ever more decisively and emphatically to refute any evidence that might undermine this worldview."</I> link Bmedley Sutler 05:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * If you can't source these opinions to mainstream reliable published sources, you can't put them in. You know very well that the opinions of bloggers are not usable. In fact, since we have so much mainstream sourcing now, I would advocate the removal of TNR and TWS blog posts, and use only mainstream sourcing in this article from now on, even though those two probably qualify as acceptable blog sources, per WP:V. - Crockspot 14:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not very relevant to the article.  No one's suprised that even American soldiers sometimes commit serious offenses.  Wikipedia already has dozens of articles about that.  What is noteworthy in Beauchamp's case is that he (apparently) lied spectacularly in the service of a particular political agenda.  Had his story been true, Beauchamp probably wouldn't have his own article - he'd probably be a section in violence in occupied Iraq. Vonspringer 16:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I would like to add a small section 

message: Let's get somethings clear.  
1. I am the original source for the Weekly Standard investigation.  I am in Baghdad, was in FOB Falcon before the story broke and returned afterward to follow up.  Goldfarb is in Washington DC. 
2. The Marine Corps investigation of me has nothing to do with Beauchamp.  The investigation started after liberal mostly gay activists started a hoopla about me and Ann Coulter.  SBmedley Sutler forgot to add that my reply to the allegations was that they were "demonstrably false".  So Bmedley sounds like he just wants to smear me, like the groups who protested U-Haul and initiated the allegations against me for misleading U-Haul.  Nevertheless, I don't see how this changes the FACTS that I reported.  I interviewed people on the ground at FOB Falcon and reported what they said.  The investigation against me was dropped because it "lacked merit" according to the Marine Corps.  
3. My comments on Canada are well-documented and I stand by them.  Unlike most of the editors here, I have been to Afghanistan and am currently in Iraq.  So, I do have some "expertise" in this matter.  
4. The facts I reported have since been corroborated by the New York Times, Time Magazine, Newsweek and pretty much everyone.  
 Matt Sanchez 19:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please document: <I>"The investigation against me was dropped because it "lacked merit" according to the Marine Corps."</I> Why wouldn't the Marine Corp Times print that after accusing you of taking $12,000 with false pretenses and being a gay porn star? The Marine Corps must have issued a statement after accusing your fine name of such things! Please document Canada's <I>"300 year history of surrendering"</i> too. After a claim like that why should anyone take what you write seriously? Thank you. Bmedley Sutler 22:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Knock it off.  Arkon 22:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What? Those are all legitimate issues. Bmedley Sutler 00:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not for this article or talk page, no. Arkon 16:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Disagree - this has a lot to do with the credibility of Matt Sanchez as a source. Aatombomb 19:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any response that he would give to the above would do nothing in the way of satisfying any such concerns of credibility.  If there are sources that cast questions upon his reliability, they would belong in his article (if it exists).  We report what sources say, their credibility is not determined by responses, or lack of responses to questions posed to them on talk pages.  Running around plastering various talk pages with the same accusations is just slimy. Arkon 20:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Matt Sanchez, investigations and Bias

message: The Beauchamp article should be listed under the Culture War rubrique as it speaks to media bias, anti-military, progressive/liberal perception etc...   Matt Sanchez 19:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Culture War

message: "For several weeks now, questions have been raised about Scott Beauchamp's Baghdad Diarist "Shock Troops." While many of these questions have been formulated by people with ideological agendas, we recognize that there are legitimate concerns about journalistic accuracy. We at The New Republic take these concerns extremely seriously. This is why we have sought to re-report the story, in the process speaking with five soldiers in Beauchamp's company who substantiate the events described in Beauchamp's essay." Link Bmedley Sutler 21:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article from TNR 

message: Shouldn't the editors concentrate on the facts, instead of making all these silly soapbox speeches?  Just a thought  Matt Sanchez 21:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fake But Accurate

message: The lead paragraph of an article should summarize the article. This one doesn't. The title of the article has the word "controversy". The lede should state what the controversy is. Editors may disagree about the resolution of the controversy but surely you agree that there is a controversy. So add a sentence or two describing the controversy. Perhaps:
The veracity of his claims was questioned. The New Republic investigated and defended the claims. The Army investigated and concluded the claims were false. Beauchamp is alleged to have recanted.
Each sentence is a summary of a section in the article. I think it accurately describes the controversy. Sbowers3 05:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lede isn't a lede 

message: The article's concluding sentence is a quote from this NYT article but misrepresents that source, which continues 
:The brief statement, however, left many questions unanswered. Just last week The New Republic published on its Web site the results of its own investigation, stating that five members of the same company as Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp, who had written the anonymous pieces, "all corroborated Beauchamp’s anecdotes, which they witnessed or, in the case of one soldier, heard about contemporaneously. (All of the soldiers we interviewed who had first-hand knowledge of the episodes requested anonymity.)"
The NYT article should be summarized in a more neutral fashion; the fact that TNR claims that five anonymous soldiers corroborated Beauchamp's stories is important and needs to be mentioned somewhere. AxelBoldt 19:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I just saw that this is already mentioned earlier in the article.AxelBoldt 19:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misrepresentation of NYT article