Talk:Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy/Archive 2

message: This is a discussion worth having.  The fact is that this was blog driven.  The only way this came to fruition was through blogs.  Please note, Goldfarb cites me as a source several times.  Matt Sanchez 19:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Blog debate

message: :Image:Scottthomas.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 03:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Scottthomas.jpg

message: There has been much debate on this article about acceptable sources. Wikipedia policy on blogs states that:
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.
Michael Goldfarb of the Weekly Standard is an established expert, relevant to this story. His work has also been published by reliable, third-party publications. Therefore, the military conclusion should stand.A.V. 15:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per my note below, the fact in dispute is not that Confederate Yankee claims to have been emailed (the thing Goldfarb is self-publishing), it's that Col. Boylan actually refuted it. This is single-sourced to Confederate Yankee. Chris Cunningham 16:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki policies on acceptable sources

message: Military Bloggers who knew Beauchamp's AO Area of Operations doubted, denounced and eventually debunked his claims.  That is the controversy as relayed to publications like the "Weekly Standard".   Matt Sanchez 03:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Controversy

message: He said - he said is exactly what this is. Beauchamp said, in an article published under a pseudonym,  that he had committed violations of the military code (and that others had done so, too.) Now others claim that he did not do those things. TNR, in my opinion, has become no better than a blog, and worse than some of them. htom 23:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  He said -- he said 

message: http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/08/beauchamp_recants.asp  Pajamaparty 03:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The New Republic is now saying that they dispute the Weekly Standard's account - both of the facts surrounding the investigation and whether or not he did indeed recant.  http://www.tnr.com/blog/the_plank?pid=132739 - I think we need to lay off an edit war in the recant section of the article until we see something official.  --AStanhope 19:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Beauchamp Recants

message: This article should be named "Scott Thomas Beauchamp" similar to the article on Stephen Glass. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:PSEUDO. It's that article which needs to be moved (although someone else can do it; I'm trying to wean myself off getting involved in Wikipedia hit-pieces). Chris Cunningham 10:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Name 

message: Of course, it's in their blog, so ...
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/08/military-soldie.html?csp=34
:Unfortunately it's just another iteration of "The Weekly Standard says..."  We need to press Maj Lamb, TNR or Weekly Standard to produce a military document that either refutes or confirms the claims - or we need the document wherein Beauchamp allegedly recanted.  --AStanhope 21:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That would be an original source, and not citable either! htom 21:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  USA Today notices 

message: Check this one out:  http://salon.com/news/feature/2007/08/07/afghan_heroin/  :75.67.75.179 21:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Troops and Heroin 

message: http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3455826&page=1 Arkon 22:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. Arkon 23:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So from what I have read so far, there doesn't seem to be any question that the Pentagon has concluded that he fabricated the stories. The dispute seems to be over whether or not he recanted, and whether or not the Pentagon has concluded correctly. So does the Pentagon's conclusion merit short mention? I think so, but I'd like to hear other opinions. - Crockspot 23:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The obvious answer in my mind is 'yes'. Arkon 23:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds great, hopefully it won't be controversial. Arkon 23:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's give it a while, see if anyone else has something to say. - Crockspot 23:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, according to Goldfarb's blog in the WS, Maj. Lamb says Beauchamp recanted, and an investigation has been concluded.  But according to TNR, Maj. Lamb says he has no knowledge of any recantation, and stated that the military doesn't comment on investigations.  Until this stalemate is resolved, I've offered a less sensational heading for the section.  --Eleemosynary 01:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lamb's statement didn't mention a recantation. He said they did an investigation, and that his stories were found to be false. Goldfarb attributes the recantation to anonymous sources. - Crockspot 03:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  Didn't the military lie about Army Ranger Pat Tillman? Can we trust their "investigations" (cover-ups)?  Skopp (Talk) 01:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent point.  --Eleemosynary 01:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as Beauchamp's recantation, it may be that Maj. Lamb has no knowledge because legally you don't recant unsworn stories. My understanding is that the friendly fire investigation began within hours of Tillman's death, so I'm not sure how much of a coverup there actually was. Massive confusion as people rushed to the TV cameras perhaps, but not a coverup. htom 01:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ABC NEWS cite