Talk:Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Documents

The Drudge Report has published "internal documents" from the United States Army regarding this.

• A transcript between Scott Thomas Beauchamp, Franklin Foer (TNR Editor), and Peter Scoblic (TNR Executive Editor) from 2007-09-06 [1][2]
• Legal Review of AR 15-6 Investigation Regarding Allegations of Solider Misconduct Published in The New Republic [3]

Document 1: Beauchamp Refuses to Stand by Story (Beauchamp Transcript Part 1)

THE NEW REPUBLIC has been standing behind the stories from their Baghdad Diarist, Scott Thomas Beauchamp, since questions were first raised about their accuracy over the summer. On August 10, the editors at TNR accused the Army of "stonewalling" their investigation into the stories by preventing them from speaking with Beauchamp. The DRUDGE REPORT has since obtained the transcript of a September 7 call between TNR editor Frank Foer, TNR executive editor Peter Scoblic, and Private Beauchamp. During the call, Beauchamp declines to stand by his stories, telling his editors that "I just want it to end. I'm not going to talk to anyone about anything really." The editors respond that "we just can't, in good conscience, continue to defend the piece" without an explanation, but Beauchamp responds only that he "doesn't care what the public thinks." The editors then ask Beauchamp to cancel scheduled interviews with the WASHINGTON POST and NEWSWEEK.

Document 2: Beauchamp Admits to "Gross Exaggerations and Inaccurate Allegations" (Beauchamp Transcript Part 2)

The DRUDGE REPORT has also obtained a signed "Memorandum for Record" in which Beauchamp recants his stories and concedes the facts of the Army's investigation -- that his stories contained "gross exaggerations and inaccurate allegations of misconduct" by his fellow soldiers.

Document 3: Army Investigation: Tales "Completely Fabricated," Beauchamp Wanted to be Hemingway

The third document obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT is the Army's official report on the investigation into the allegations made by Private Beauchamp. The Army concluded that Beauchamp had "completely fabricated" the story of mocking a disfigured woman, that his description of a "Saddam-era dumping ground" was false, and that claims that he and his men had deliberately targeted dogs with their armored vehicles was "completely unfounded." Further the report stated "that Private Beauchamp desired to use his experiences to enhance his writing and provide legitimacy to his work possibly becoming the next Hemingway."

The report concludes that "Private Beauchamp takes small bits of truth and twists and exaggerates them into fictional accounts that he puts forth as the whole truth for public consumption."

— Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Memorandum of Concern

In light of these new documents there can no loner remain any doubt that the stories TNR published are anything but fiction. This entire article needed to be reworked. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Drudge pulled the link. TNR has responded. The only one "faking" any story here is Drudge (and, by extension, you). Here's just the beginning of long, hard night for the freepers.[4]--Eleemosynary 22:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: And it just gets sadder.[5] DEVELOPING... (LOL) --Eleemosynary 22:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. Drudge pulling the link without explanation doesn't mean he's "faking," and citing Drudge certainly isn't "faking." Nor can there be "no doubt" this is fiction. I think that the Hot Air coverage is fairly good at giving links (including to a claim that Jon Chait doesn't dispute the documents, merely Drudge's context). (Yes, this is not a reliable source, but this is a talk page, not an article, so I think it's useful nonetheless.) It includes the following quote: "[I]t won’t change anyone’s mind. The left will dismiss the statements as coerced, even the circumstantial evidence re: the dog-killing. And then, in a year or two, when Beauchamp's out of the service he’ll write a new piece for TNR or Vanity Fair or whoever claiming that it’s all true and he was 'silenced' and you’ll just have to take his golden word for it, and then they’ll turn him into a free speech martyr." I really don't think, short of a full Glass-style TNR retraction, people like Eleemosynary will ever believe that Beauchamp's stories were false. And, given TNR's recent behavior, I really don't see that happening. Incidentally, if you want the documents for yourself, they're been saved here. Calbaer 22:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Drudge pulled the link, for some unknown reason, but the files still exist. More so TNR Editor Jonathan Chait "doesn't dispute the accuracy of the documents" — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There's some interesting investigation going on here (e.g., [6]), but, as the Drudge incident shows, what may be useful one hour may be pulled the next. So let's be measured about improving the article, rather than view each hourly development as essential, or, worse a victory for "our side". It would also help prevent the revert war that seems inevitable in the coming hours. Calbaer 22:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Add all the feverish original research you want, backed up by Drudge and bloggers. Then watch it disappear, as it violates WP:RS. I thought you would have learned last time you tried this. Ah, well.. that's what the admins are for. --Eleemosynary 23:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Memorandum of the United States Army is not "original research" not matter how much you wish it is. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 23:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No reliable source says it's even accurate. For all we know, this could be yet another hoax perpetrated by Matt "Dirty" Sanchez. --Eleemosynary 23:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Since you apparently do not think that the United States Army is a "reliable source" please list, in full, who exactly is a "reliable source"? — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

See WP:RS. And soon. --Eleemosynary 00:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's doubtful that this is a hoax; see, e.g., [7], in which Foer himself assumes that it's not. It is, however, rather annoying how Eleemosynary calls anyone wanting to have a civil discussion on his or her talk page a "troll" and "vandal"; while reverting such attempts at discussion are within Wikipedia guidelines and policies, throwing around such unfounded accusations is not. However, this is of a piece with the continued violations of WP:NPA via homophobic slurs against User:Bluemarine. The admins are for dealing with that type of disruptive behavior, too. (That said, WP:RS is relevant here. Just because Eleemosynary ignores official policies on civility doesn't mean that we can then ignore guidelines ourselves.) Calbaer 00:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting Observer link, Calbaer. Now that someone in the military is continuing to leak classified documents (which hardly show Beauchamp "recanted" anything) solely to right-wing blogs, Wikipedia's policy of not allowing institutions as "reliable sources" for their own documents makes even more sense. And your POV campaign here is tiresome. But your accusation that I've used a "homophobic slur" against Matt "Dirty" Sanchez is untrue, and beyond the pale. Sanchez's history as a gay porn actor and prostitute is documented. Just take a look at his article page: Matt Sanchez. He has also been investigated by the military for fraud and theft, a fact also documented. Stating these truths are not slurs. But, as Sanchez repeatedly tries (and fails) to take credit for "breaking" the Beauchamp story here and elsewhere, and has, rightfully, been treated as a joke, perhaps you feel the need to defend him. That's fine. Just don't mischaracterize my statements. Coming to my talk page and claiming they were "slurs" is trolling. Your comments were rightly reverted, and will continue to be so. --Eleemosynary 00:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No where does anyone indicate the documents are "classified." Moreso, Franklin Foer just confrimed their authenticity in The Observer by acknowledging that they are the same documents that The New Republic is trying to obtain via FOIA request. Eleemosynary, I do not know what your obsession is with Matt Sanchez, but he has no connection whatsoever to these documents. As I suggested on your talk page, which you removed and labeled "vandalism, trolling" that you take the time to read the Army memos, as they might enlighten you. The Army's own investigation concluded, irregardless if Beauchamp recants or confesses, that his stories were fiction. He is even rebuked in a letter, linked, from his commanding officer LTC Glaze. It is crystal clear that this was a hoax perpetrated by Beauchamp on the editors of TNR. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait: Are they fake or are they leaks? Were you wrong when you said they were fake? Which is it that you're advocating? Also, I'm not sure how you can call this a "POV campaign" when I'm trying to take a measured approach that amounts to taking your side on this in not yet posting the leaks. Even Miller seems willing to go along with your protection request, even though it seems to be an attempt to get around WP:3RR, which has gotten you blocked multiple times in the past. And it is laughable that doing homosexual acts means that you can't be subject to homophobic slurs such as "Dirty Sanchez." Generally, those are the people that are slurred, and it takes a lot of chutzpah to deny that that is a gay slur of someone who happens to have the name of that act. Your flagrant violations of WP:NPA on this account are rather disgusting. Finally, it's rather curious that when Sanchez is investigated for fraud, he should be presumed guilty, but when Beauchamp has been found fraudulent, he should still be presumed innocent. Now that's a POV campaign. Calbaer 00:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You could not be more correct about that last point. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, a lot of Kool-Aid sure got drunk today. SAM, the only thing that is "crystal clear" is that you are desperately, desperately trying to draw a conclusion in the article that Beauchamp was lying. Earlier today, when Drudge published yet another faulty "analysis" of the docs, you thought you had your man. Now, Drudge has turned tail and run, and you're left grasping at straws. What the "army has concluded" does not have the weight of fact, much as you apparently wish it did. I understand you believe the U.S. Army is "reliable source." Please see Patrick Tillman for more on that. You have vandalized the article by, among other things, adding links to "frauds." Unfortunately, the article was locked while your vandalism was on the page. But hey, that happens sometimes. When it's unlocked, your vandalism will be reverted. And so on. (And as far as "obsessions" about Matt "Dirty" Sanchez go, you might want to ask that question to Calbaer. He's the one who brought it up in his post.)

And Calbaer, exactly whom do you think you're fooling? Your "measured approach" is an ad hominem snarl. (By the way, why don't you bite the bullet and mention my block history every time you post? Maybe, eventually, someone will care.) And as far as Matt "Dirty" Sanchez's nickname, I didn't make that up, by any means. Google it. For all I know, he was using it when he was performing in gay porn. Isn't that how he got it? As for your final sentence, how do you know Sanchez hasn't been found fraudulent? Maybe they just haven't leaked the docs.) -- Eleemosynary 00:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur. "Dirty Sanchez" is a homophobic slur. I must commend Steve and Calbaer for their civility and general restraint in this discussion. No need to resort to slurs - homophobic or otherwise - as you've had the better of the argument. 220.255.116.153 00:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I just googled the phrase, and saw the Wiki page. It's not a slur (homophobic or otherwise), but I had no idea "Dirty Sanchez" was even an act. Seriously, there was some talk on one of the pages about him using this nickname in gay porn. That's the only reason I referenced it. --Eleemosynary 00:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

"Gay porn", "dirty" . . . what has this got to do with anything? Why are you even getting personal? Sorry, but it just looks to me like you're not editing in good faith. If you were, you wouldn't have to resort to making crudely personal comments with a distinct homophobic flavour. Anyway, I'm not going to debate this with you. It's obvious to anyone following this exchange. 220.255.116.153 05:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

See above comments. --Eleemosynary 06:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• 
  Memorandum of Concern
• 
  Johnson memo (1)
• 
  Johnson memo (2)
• 
  Cross memo (1)
• 
  Cross memo (2)
• 
  Cross memo (3)
• 
  Cross memo (4)
• 
  Cross memo (5)

• 
• 
• Image:Beauchamp - Memorandum of Concern.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven Andrew Miller (talk • contribs) 23:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Trying to get this back on track, Matt Drudge is not by any stretch of the imagination a reliable source (I'm still waiting for Bill Clinton's black baby). The memos would be citable within the article once they get picked up by a reliable news organization, and if the story really is All That, it'll come to that point before too long. At this point, the best strategy is probably to keep them in mind, table it for now, and revisit in a week or so. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 12:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• All of the links to to the pdf's and the flash page on Drudge are now dead. I agree that it is doubtful that this is a hoax, but I also agree that we should wait a few days and see what comes up. As far as Dirty Sanchez goes, it isn't necessarily a gay term, but it is a nasty practice, and we shouldn't be tossing the term around in content discussions, except perhaps on Talk:Dirty Sanchez. Eleem, you do have a habit of adding extra weight (like a fist pack) to your words, which is neither necessary, nor helpful. - Crockspot 12:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah... great to hear from the voice of reason. Crockspot, should I provide links to some of your more "colorful" statements you've made in the past? Do you really wish to re-open that can of worms? Let me know. (By the way, how's the RFCU on TheDeciderDecides coming?) --Eleemosynary 06:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• WTF? What does my already admitted questionable behavior in the distant past (which never was bad enough to warrant a block) have to do with your behavior right now? We should learn from our mistakes, and grow. You seem to be stuck in the same mode. I'm not sure what you mean about TDD either. He was determined to be the sockpuppet of your good buddy Bmedly Sutler, who was himself a puppet of FAAFA, who used your name and set you up in order to attack me. - Crockspot 16:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It's relevant because you're in no position to lecture anyone on civility. (And the "distant past" ruse can be easily dispelled.) I bring up TDD because, back when you or your cronies were planting off-site statements attributed to my name in order to salvage your adminship application, you also accused me of being the TDD sock. Let me know if you want the diff, and I'll post it on your Talk page. I don't want to take up any more space here with this issue. --Eleemosynary 07:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• I kinda figured that last part went without saying, but just in case: I agree with Crockspot that referring to Sanchez in that way is inappropriate. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I only used the nickname b/c Sanchez went by it during his porn career. If Johnny "Wadd" Holmes followed his porn vocation with a career as a lickspittle for the Democrats (as Sanchez is for the GOP), something tells me we'd being seeing Holmes referred to by that nickname on Talk pages. But in the spirit of comity, I'll stop using his nickname. --Eleemosynary 06:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Good, thank you. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll assume for now (and hope) that this promise is kept and that the gratuitous maligning of Sanchez stops. Also, if there is any evidence that that was a nickname he used, please share it with us. According to the article on him — which Eleemosynary insisted I should read — he didn't even use "Sanchez" in porn. I believe that the slur was given to him by those opposed to his "right-wing" activities in the hope that it would reduce him in the eyes of others. Calbaer 18:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Only Sanchez has only reduced himself "in the eyes of others." I thought we moved pass this, but if you insist, I never told you the Sanchez article -- which Sanchez has vandalized/scrubbed several times -- said anything about his prior nickname. You can Google the related terms if you want to find out more about when he used it. --Eleemosynary 07:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have the exhibits referenced in the Cross memo? 68.209.55.126 16:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Kurtz article

Until now, I would agree that the documents in question were not reliably sourced. Because the U.S. Army memo is a primary source, it should also be avoided. Secondary, reliable sources are the ones to use and I haven't seen that until this article from Howard Kurtz. In it, he establishes the bonafides of the transcript well enough to be cited on this page. I believe we should note that Foer disputes the conclusions drawn by many commentators that in the transcript Beauchamp recanted his story. I believe a neutral interpretation of the transcript is that Beauchamp refused to comment on the veracity of the stories, despite pressure from TNR executives to do so. Comments? Ronnotel 14:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that's about right. Beauchamp refused to stand by his stories even as Foer repeatedly asked for an affirmation. But he didn't recant either. So it's fair to say that Beauchamp refused to comment on the veracity of the stories. Foer also says in the transcript that he could no longer support Beauchamp if Beauchamp does not affirm the veracity of his own stories.

As for primary sources - aren't they OK once referenced by a reputable secondary source? WaPo's Kurtz characterizes the documents so: "A transcript of the conversation was obtained by Internet columnist Matt Drudge, who yesterday also posted the internal Army report on the case." Elsewhere in the article, Foer asserts that the Army "selective leaked" material to Drudge, while not challenging their veracity (I suppose he would know, since he was a party to the transcripted conversation). The Army also says it will be conducting an investigation into the leak.

So in sum, none of the parties challenge that the documents are genuine, and actually made comments premised on the assumption that they were real. As such, the primary sources pass the smell test for now. 220.255.116.153 15:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your statement regarding primary sources and the memo. That should be in play now as well as per its reference in the article. Ronnotel 15:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Me three, the secondary referencing, and the lack of dispute, seems to put us outside of a Killian Documents scenario. Being a work of the US govt., the docs would also be public domain, so they could be added to wikisource. - Crockspot 15:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be the beginnings of a consensus on this. I'll go ahead and unprotect. Ronnotel 15:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The leaked documents are by now presumptively authentic because people in a position to know if they were faked have said they appear to be authentic. The fact this is leading to a leak investigation rather than being dismissed as a hoax is about the best evidence that we Wikipedians are likely to ever see of their authenticity. They are not "primary sources" in any case: The "primary source" for the stories of these allegations of atrocities would be the army perpetrators, their victims, or a witness to them such as Beauchamp claimed to be. The military authors of these documents are one level removed from the allegations, i.e. secondary sources. As I wrote over a month ago, the "story" had become less about the allegations of atrocities by soldiers, and more about the credibility of Beauchamp and the New Republic. patsw 02:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur completely. That Beauchamp's stories are fiction is no longer in doubt. The questions remain about the response (or lack of) by the editors of The New Republic.— Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 03:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Wishing won't make it so, guys. Please re-read Ronnotel's first comment in this section, particularly "I believe a neutral interpretation of the transcript is that Beauchamp refused to comment on the veracity of the stories, despite pressure from TNR executives to do so." I concur with that. But Steven Andrew Miller's unproven assertion above, along with his attempts to insert "smear links" (see below) into the article, are disgraceful. -- Eleemosynary 05:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I would like to point out that the memos are the opinion of the investigator. They cannot be construed as fact. A more exhaustive study of the circumstances is really necessary because the facts haven't been laid out on the table anywhere, so far as I can see. And, of course, that more exhaustive study has to take place outside of Wikipedia, because of WP:OR. John Duncan 02:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, John, for bringing some reason to this discussion. --Eleemosynary 07:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Smear links

Do any of you want to explain to User:Steven Andrew Miller why his constant insertion of these these links, as well as these need to be reverted? Or is an RFC in order? --Eleemosynary 05:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Threshold of evidence to categorize as a hoax

1. No one in a position to know, not The New Republic nor Beauchamp himself, continues to assert these stories were true. TNR no longer comments on their truth. Beauchamp no longer comments on their truth. In fact, Beauchamp no longer comments, period. While TNR continues to use the phrase that they "stand by" their author, but that author no longer "stands by" what he wrote. Whatever one takes away from that, it won't be that there's a vigorous defense of the original truth of the stories of atrocities taking place here. To me it seems like damage control.
2. There are lies, misdirections, and omissions beyond numeration from TNR/B regarding the veracity of the stories which all point away from the getting at the truth but towards their being a hoax, such as the false claims that there was corroboration of the stories, or that TNR was prevented from speaking to B.
3. There's no Fifth Amendment rule in the Wikipedia that denies to editors the right to draw conclusions based upon TNR/B's refusal to answer questions raised by their reporting by their critics.

The threshold of evidence for considering these stories a hoax was met a long time ago. patsw 12:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

That's some pretty flimsy Wikilawyering, Patsw. To wit:

1. First statement is pure conjecture, and what it "seems" like to you. So now the encyclopedic standard for inclusion is if something "seems" like "damage control?" Please. Beauchamp never recanted; the phone transcript is an extended "no comment." Or so says the National Review. (By the way, if Beauchamp recanted, where's that signed recantation we heard so much about a few weeks ago? Why wasn't that leaked?) No threshold to label the stories a hoax or fraud.

2. More conjecture. "False claims that there was corroboration?" Where's your source on that? "TNR was prevented from speaking to B?" Are you claiming that at no point was Beauchamp prevented from speaking to TNR? If so, where's your source? Furthermore, do you have a source for any of your above statements beyond your "gut feelings" and "IT'S TRUE BECAUSE TEH ARMY SAYS SO AND TEH DIRTY HIPPIES ARE LIARS LIARS LIARS!!!"? Let us know.

3. Yes, draw any conclusions you want... on your blog. Just don't pollute the article with unsourced POV, categorizing the page under "frauds," "hoaxes," and linking to "Stephen Glass" unless we have sourced reliable reporting that it is a fraud or a hoax. There is a rule about that. Several, actually. --Eleemosynary 12:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to take the evidence we agree upon, the extended "no-comment" is itself conclusive that the threshold of "hoax" has been reached given the weight of reliable reporting that journalists failed to independently corroborate the original stories. TNR's position of the moment is the journalistic equivalent to a plea of nolo contendere which, of course, was not given on TNR's own initiative but done as a response to the leaked documents. As long as we're being literalists here, TNR/B no longer assert the stories were true. patsw 14:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, more flimsy Wiki-lawyering. This "threshold" is one of your own design. You have a long, long history on Wikipedia (and, years before that, on Usenet) of simply making unfounded assertions and behaving as if they were fact. That isn't going to work here. --Eleemosynary 14:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't use language as incendiary, but I would probably agree that labeling this episode as a "hoax" doesn't seem well-sourced - yet. I personally have little doubt that B was in over his head and TNR's conduct has been, well, colorful. But I'd like to see a relevant source label this as a "hoax" before WP makes that particular leap. My $0.02. Ronnotel 18:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry Ronnotel, but it is more than clear, from the Army's own investigation that the stories are false and made up. That means they are a hoax. There is no two ways about this. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The above comment is nothing but stubbornness, via use of faulty logic ("If the Army says it's false, it's false"). Comments such as "there is [sic] no two ways about this" suggest Steven Andrew Miller is simply pushing an opinion, and not editing in good faith. --Eleemosynary 07:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I can certainly understand your reasoning. However, as an involved party to the dispute, I would classify the Army document as a primary source, which is why I don't think the "hoax" tag is justified yet. If there were a secondary source supporting the Army's conclusion, that would be different. Ronnotel 19:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

As someone who thinks STB perpetrated a hoax, I want to say that labeling it a hoax is not YET appropriate. I think to label it a hoax, it must be perceived and generally recognized as a hoax. While it most certainly is a hoax (at least to me), we aren't there yet. The evidence showing that it is a hoax simply has not gotten enough play in the media for it to meet a "general perception" threshold. It may never, due primarily to the fact that this controversy is a fairly esoteric component of the debate over the Iraq War. But it probably will, due to the fact that such a perception is justified by the evidence at hand, and that enough people in the media are watching TNR's treatment of the issue after the Glass affair. Evensong 01:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)