Talk:Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

On August 6, 2007, the Weekly Standard's blog reported that Scott Thomas Beauchamp recanted under oath to Army investigators.^[1] The source of that information was revealed to be Marine reservist and embedded reporter Matt Sanchez^[2]. Recognizing Sanchez as a controversial, conservative figure, the blogosphere quickly voiced protests and support on both sides of the political spectrum. ^[3][4]Matt Sanchez (talk) 09:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope. The story's not about you. Never has been. --Eleemosynary (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, these needless personal attacks need to stop. At this point it's gone beyond mere personal attacks and has risen to the level of harassment. Calbaer (talk) 06:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Editor is taking too much of an interest in grudges with another editor, as opposed to the article itself. Proposed re-write above looks fine to me.62.177.158.148 (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Despite Calbaer's laughable disingenuousness (and the anon sock's chiming in with his second edit), the fact is that Pvt. Sanchez has tried to turn this article in self-promotion for some time, using a variety of socks ("Bluemarine," "MattSanchez," a bunch of unsigned posts "agreeing" with his call for self-promotion.) Check the history of this page (and Sanchez's edits) for more. He's in almost perpetual COI violation (see his Talk page for more on this) and fits of high dudgeon do nothing to improve this article. --Eleemosynary (talk) 03:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You may hold that view (and apparently also hold the view that I have a sockpuppet in the Netherlands, a place I've never ran a web client from), but "My archenemy breaks guidelines and policies" is not a justification for you to break guidelines and policies too. By the way, I don't recall Bluemarine using multiple aliases — which he's allowed to do — in order to pretend that he's multiple people — which he's not. And considering that Bluemarine brought this to the talk page, not the article, the COI accusations seem rather unjustified, too. But, even if they were, his misbehavior would not be a justification for yours. Calbaer (talk) 05:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, your mischaracterizations and high dudgeon are getting the article nowhere. At all. --Eleemosynary (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This issue has not been "about me" but Foer got caught, by his own admission, because of people who verified his shoddy editing and misrepresentations on the ground. I don't need to be "written in" but your objections have become so personal that they are laughable. Please look at my talk page and you'll see an article that is being debated and improved, which is what the Wiki project is about.

I've never once masked my identity or used "multiple identities". In fact, I'm fairly straight forward in who I am, and doubt you can match my transparency. I understand you may know absolutely nothing about the military, I'm not a "Private" I'm a Corporal.

Matt Sanchez (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a question as to whether you're lying about that. Several online sources suggest you were stripped of your rank once the details of your past appeared. In any case, you've not proven yourself a reliable source on any aspect of the Beauchamp story. Nothing you have claimed has been substantiated. --Eleemosynary (talk) 04:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"Several online sources" none of which you've cited here. What a fake, you're no one of importance and Wikipedia gives you a sense of purpose. Where did people like you go before the internet?

I was reliable enough to counter Foer's original untruths. Matt Sanchez (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

No you weren't "reliable" at all. Goldfarb's use of you as a source for several untruths -- including the lie that Beauchamp had signed a recantation -- severely undermined his credibility. Perhaps Goldfarb wasn't bothered by your own history of canards -- the nonexistent "harassment" at Columbia, the $12,000 fraud for which the USMC investigated you, your failed attempts to mischaracterize your past -- but encyclopedia editors have to be, regardless of partisan stripe.

You have a history of "playing the victim" when challenged, and it looks like that's exactly what you're doing here. Nevertheless, your contribution to the Beauchamp affair is that of a infinitesimal sideshow, and not worthy of mention on Wikipedia. I understand you want more publicity, but you're going to have to get it somewhere else.

By the way, my source for much of the above is the Marine Corps Times. Hardly part of the "liberal media." Better luck next rant. --Eleemosynary (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Beauchamp did recant and that is already a fact, established by both the military and Foer. How can you deny that in light of even Foer admitting it. "Non-existent" harrasment when there are photos ^[5]and witness to the contrary? Marine Corps completely dismissed the $12,000 allegation^[6] and you're just desperate to be pertinent in some way.Matt Sanchez (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No, Beauchamp never recanted. Neither the military nor Foer claimed as much. You did, when you lied to Goldfarb, however. And there were no witnesses to your being harassed at Columbia, and it's harldy beyond your antics to have made the photos yourself. Many say it was a hoax; I believe them.

By the way, the link to "rightwingnews.com," which is nothing other than an interview with you, in which you claim the Marine Corps dismissed the fraud charges against you, is perhaps the flimsiest attempt at a corroborative source since, well, anything in WorldNetDaily. I'll take my Marine Corps News from the Marine Corps Times, thank you. They reported, several times, on your being investigated for outright fraud, but printed nary a word about the case being dismissed. In other words, Matt, you've got a lot of explaining to do. And as far as my being "desperate to be pertinent," you may want to research the psychological term known as "projection," as you seem to excel in it. --Eleemosynary (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

But if she's (or he's) desperate to be pertinent, isn't your responding to her (or his) one-liners with fully thought-out replies and her (or his) insults with indignation just feeding that? I realize I've done the same, but if this user really is a mere troll, perhaps we shouldn't let her (or him) made this page into her (or his) plaything. Calbaer (talk) 05:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Calbaer's Plan 37. --Eleemosynary (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we get a vote on the below proposed re-write?

On August 6, 2007, the Weekly Standard's blog reported that Scott Thomas Beauchamp recanted under oath to Army investigators.^[1] The source of that information was revealed to be Marine reservist and embedded reporter Matt Sanchez^[7]. Recognizing Sanchez as a controversial, conservative figure, the blogosphere quickly voiced protests and support on both sides of the political spectrum. ^[8][9]

vote on the re-write:

Approve Matt Sanchez (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope. The story's not about you. Never has been. --Eleemosynary (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Your personal attacks on me are unprofessional, violate the rules and are distracting. Are you trying to get banned? Matt Sanchez (talk) 13:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

See my comments directly above. --Eleemosynary (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Matt has "played the victim" here; he barely commented about unconscionable attacks for months (and he's hit the nail on the head about the motivation for those attacks, although saying as much probably wasn't necessary as it returns incivility with incivility). In fact, I'd say that Matt's been overly aggressive — not wounded — if anything, probably because he's personally invested in this so much. That said, users can't be banned for immaturity. Harassment, on the other hand.... Calbaer (talk) 01:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you try to gin up another noticeboard report, then? Then we can all sit back and watch as it goes down in flames, again. --Eleemosynary (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Since TNR disclosed that they were unable to verify the claims in materials they published from STB and their other communications with him they conclude that they were misled.

In what way doesn't that fit the definition of hoax? Was or wasn't TNR misled? patsw (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"journalistic ethics" is one thing (printing stories which can't actually be verified). "hoax" is another entirely. It implies a level of malice or perceived personal entertainment from the action. It's not just a synonym for "lie". Chris Cunningham (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I can understand both viewpoints, but we should probably take the more conservative one and simply call it a scandal and/or matter or journalism ethics, not a hoax. Glass admitted he was making stuff up out of whole cloth. With Beauchamp, it seem plausible that he heard tall tales that his fellow soldiers were telling one another, then turned around and told them as if they were (a) true and (b) experienced first-hand. It's not proper to say that he "tricked" TNR into believing them if he might have believed them himself. Calbaer (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"Hoax" does not require a Bart Simpson-style entertainment value like a prank phone call to Moe's or a confession. The malice is that STB deceived TNR in order to create interest in his stories and thereby gain fame. STB didn't report these merely as "tall tales" but as fact, not a mere possibility. While it is hard to nail down an "admission" from STB, the position of TNR is that post-publication and in the middle of the controversy, STB agreed to provide corroboration, strung TNR along, and then ultimately failed to do so over several months. Chris, Calbaer stipulates that TNR was misled, do you? patsw (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Calbaer's statement was clear enough already without being paraphrased into something stronger. I don't support the hoax category because untruths are not necessarily hoaxes. Chris Cunningham (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Because Beauchamp maintained over an extended period that he could and would provide corroboration for his stories and didn't. TNR's conclusion that it was misled is correct. Had Beauchamp held doubts that the stories were accurate he could have indicated that months ago and ended the controversy before it started.

1. What reason do you have to believe that Beauchamp lacked intent to deceive TNR and its readers?

2. Do you have reason to believe that TNR is itself untruthful in claiming that Beauchamp maintained that he could and would provide corroboration for his stories, and its conclusion that it was deceived by Beauchamp is incorrect?

3. Are you making distinctions among the words: untruth, deception, and hoax? patsw (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Read Thumperward's previous statement. Repeat. --Eleemosynary (talk) 04:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

A hoax is begun with an intent to dupe, which I don't necessarily see here. Yes, Beauchamp kept promising corroboration he failed to deliver. But was his initial intent to mislead, or just to further his career through telling stories he didn't observe first-hand? Beauchamp, from what I can see, was not motivated by making the military look bad (though he did to those who believed what he wrote), but was instead motivated by a desire to break into journalism. So he told stories, but we can't know whether or not he believed they were accurate. For TNR, any of these explanations is equally bad, so it really doesn't add much to call this a "hoax." Calbaer (talk) 05:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Even if the first word of the first story was not written with the intention to deceive, there was an intention to deceive TNR which Beauchamp manifested in not being truthful with TNR when first challenged on the accuracy and sourcing of the stories. It is accurate for the Wikipedia to label this a hoax as the secondary sources commenting on this have. It is only speculation on your part he might have initially believed them. Even granting that, Beauchamp later intentionally deceived TNR. If you have an alternate explanation of the facts in which Beauchamp is truthful after questions were raised regarding the veracity of the stories, what is it? patsw (talk) 13:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It is only speculation on your part that my speculation might be wrong. Given the absence of definitive evidence, we can't merely take the word of a biased source calling this a hoax to call this a hoax. Since there's (appropriately) no category for "This is probably a hoax, but it might not be, although certainly some deception was involved at some point," we have to settle for not calling it a hoax.

Again, let's be conservative about this; enough facts are definitive to tell the story of the scandal in an impartial manner. If we, in the article, label it a hoax, condemn Foer's weaselly ways, declare Beauchamp morally bankrupt, etc., not only would this be a POV problem, but it would also lead your average anti-war person to conclude that this article is dominated by pro-war folk who've just told their side of the story. By sourcing the facts and giving them in an impartial fashion — e.g., using TNR's words for their retraction rather than just calling it "a retraction" — hopefully readers will see what the facts are. Yes, there will always be those who assume that this was a grand conspiracy by the military to skillfully manipulate and discredit Beauchamp, but there are also those who believe that the moon landing didn't happen. Wikipedia should provide information about known facts about such events, not try to convince the unconvinceable by simplistically saying, "This is a hoax." Calbaer (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that it is very difficult for a deception to turn into a hoax at some later point, actually. Chris Cunningham (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Calbaer, how far are you pushing the goalposts now? Is there anything short of an admission by Beauchamp that would allow you to conclude that this was a deception on his part? Or any indication that he has replied to the accusations against him? Where is this Wikipedia "definitive evidence" standard given? The controversy is termed a hoax by a consensus of secondary sources on journalism, it is not a personal judgment by me on Beauchamp's character but an article on the controversy started by his reporting. Are there any secondary sources covering the field of journalism that have concluded that it is plausible (or possible) that Beauchamp was truthful? patsw (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Chris, I can't find a dictionary or usage book which requires that before one writes the first word that one must intend to deceive. What makes this a hoax as I understand the dictionary is that this deception had him reporting the Baghdad Diaries as "true" and then he intentionally misled TNR to cover it up when challenged over their truth over several weeks. It's not a simple, singular lie but a sustained one. You and I can't mind read Beauchamp's mind to ascertain exactly when he decided that merely reporting the truth would be insufficient for his purpose, or for what reason he started the deception. patsw (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

And neither can you. I am very hesitant to declare that something is a "hoax" before a confession to this effect has been made. I've also been hesitant to bring up analogies here for fear of upsetting what I feel is a fragile state of co-operation, but one could also say that the Bush administration's WMD talk was a sustained campaign of disinformation, yet I doubt many people would use the word "hoax" to desribe it. (insert your own choice of political disinformation campaign in place of said analogy as you see fit.) There's a difference between this and Paul is dead and I don't see that it's one of minor semantics. Chris Cunningham (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

My limited contribution to this is only to state that if we have reliable sources stating it is a hoax, we should label it so. Arkon (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Beauchamp is not a hoax, he probably just exaggerated. Foer's the hoax. Matt Sanchez (talk) 13:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The coverup after he was challenged after publication of the stories is the sustained deception. That is the hoax. Whether he wrote the first word of the first story fully intending to report the truth or to tell a lie is irrelevant and unencyclopedic speculation. What reliable sources today assert that Beauchamp is truthful and TNR is deceitful? patsw (talk) 04:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

People don't talk about the "Watergate hoax" or the "Iran-Contra hoax." A person being deceitful does not a hoax make. In any event, seeing as there are various opinions here, it would be wrong to say that calling it a "hoax" isn't controversial, as per the original assertion. Calbaer (talk) 06:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, with a little perspective, people do talk about the "Beauchamp hoax." I note that "Jayson Blair hoax" gets 6,000 Google hits and "Beauchamp hoax" gets 16,000 Google hits. The difference between the Jayson Blair journalistic hoax and the Beauchamp journalistic hoax is the presence here editors with an anti-Iraq War agenda to push by claiming the original Beauchamp accounts of atrocities which he and other American soldiers committed

Google hits aren't conclusive evidence of anything, especially considering the likelihood that the hits in question are heavily weighted towards right-wing opinion pieces. It's quite possible to hold the position that the original stories were exaggerations and yet that the controversy is not an example of a "hoax". There's still no consensus to add this cat at this time. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you make the point for me. There just isn't any expressions of support for the truthfulness of the original Beauchamp stories anywhere except for the self-described consensus here of editors who maintain that there is evidence of a "controversy". There isn't. There isn't any dispute the conclusion reached in all the media that I read that labels this a hoax as much as that of other Wikipedia-consensus labeled hoaxes by fabrication of stories by Jayson Blair, Jack Kelley, Mike Barnicle, Stephen Glass, and of course, Janet Cooke. The one thing Beauchamp doesn't share with these five is if true the Beauchamp stories of atrocities committed by himself and other American soldiers would have served a specific political agenda of opposition to the war in Iraq.

The idea that in journalism there lies a neutral zone between truth and fabrication (i.e. lies) called exaggeration is a new one to me. Were not the stories of the fabrication five in the previous paragraph plausible exaggerations of something real? What separates them from Beauchamp? Where are there reliable sources describing the Beauchamp stories as neither true nor false but in the new category called exaggerations. patsw (talk) 13:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

As argued above, the term "hoax" is not simply an establishment of truthfulness (or the lack of); it ascribes certain motives, which are clearly present in cases where the guilt of the subject has been confessed but less clear otherwise. The "self-described consensus here" is all that is required when considering how the article is to be edited. Bringing the subject up again on a monthly basis with no new arguments obvious isn't going to effect a change in consensus. Chris Cunningham (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

My arguments are new in that they now reflect a consensus of judgments made by reliable sources regarding whether Beauchamp was truthful and whether he deliberately misled his publisher by fabricating stories. His motive is transparent: accounts of the ordinary life of a soldier honorably serving in Iraq would not attract national attention. Stories of atrocities would. This template of fabricating stories in order to be more famous is what we call a journalistic hoax. Certainly a confession is not a prerequisite for the Wikipedia certification of a hoax. Mike Barnicle has never confessed to fabricating stories. Short of a confession, what is Thumperward's criterion for "hoax" in the Beauchamp case?

Oh! How quickly we move from "This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses" to it now being set in Wikipedia concrete for eternity. If Thumperward doesn't want to engage me on the question of why story fabricators like Bliar, Barnicle, Cooke, Kelley and others are hoaxers yet 2007's story fabricator Beauchamp is not, please attempt "to effect a change" in my view while I attempt to effect a change in your view. patsw (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Am I the only one reminded by this affair of

) 05:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This might be an apt point. Münchhausen doesn't belong in the category in question either, despite being a fibber. Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Unlike Bliar, Barnicle, Cooke, Glass, and Kelley, Münchhausen's tales contained elements of implausible fantasy. When the question of plausibility was first raised, there were counter-charges that the Beauchamp stories were plausible because there was an audience for them prepared to believe that cruel Bradley drivers could and would kill dogs if given the chance, and all it took for it to be proven would be a witness to the event. Among the TNR editors, TNR fact-checkers, and pre-December supporters of Beauchamp, the stories were plausible and definitely not in the Münchhausen category. What makes Bliar, Barnicle, Cooke, Glass, and Kelley stories hoaxes and Beauchamp not a hoax? patsw (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

See Calbaer's first reply to this thread. Chris Cunningham (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

See my reply above. I disagree with Calbaer's opinion that either "malice" or "entertainment" are necessary elements of a hoax. I asked for support of that opinion in reliable sources and didn't get a response. The motivation either confessed to, or imputed in the hoaxes of Blair, Barnicle, Cooke, Glass, and Kelley is a desire for fame derived from their false reporting. What makes the Blair, Barnicle, Cooke, Glass, and Kelley stories hoaxes and the Beauchamp accounts not a hoax? patsw (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

See Thumperward's comment immediately above. --Eleemosynary (talk) 06:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This might explain why Foer is simply not to be believed.

The Lying Dogs of War ^[10] Matt Sanchez (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Please keep this about the article, e.g., reliable sources, content, etc. Informed opinion pieces about the scandal are interesting, but they don't really help with the development of the article, as they cannot be considered reliable sources. Besides, it's better to let Foer's own words make the case against him. Calbaer (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

All due respect... Maybe you should reconsider what Eleemosynary said about Matt Sanchez and

WP:COI in the "Proposed Re-Write in light of 'Fog of War'" thread. JMarkievicz2 (talk

) 07:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Although I give an opinion, The "Lying Dogs of War" also directly contradicts, in detail, Foer's account, which is precisely what's fueling the entire controversy surrounding Foer. The article is in fact, not about Foer, but Beauchamp.

The fact that an editor made a mistake of judgement is not the problem here, the controversy and polemic comes from Foer's evasion and selective memory. Let's not forget, "The Fog of War" has much of Foer's opinions. The fact is that his side of the Beauchamp saga was contradicted by people on the ground who directly contradicted what both Beauchamp and Foer reported. Matt Sanchez (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If the article goes into details about Foer's opinions, then balance is needed. However, the article doesn't go into those details, and, if it did, this balance should be provided by mainstream media sources. Although your take is interesting and — for those following every twist and turn of the story — valuable, I don't think it's relevant to the article, which provides a summary of events. As I indicated before, there's plenty to be proud of in your role and there's plenty of shame in those who would attack you for it (especially in the ways those attacks have taken place), but there's a problem with using sources such as blogs or WorldNetDaily, and in using opinion pieces worded as strongly as yours.

WP:V problems should be avoided, if at all possible. Calbaer (talk

) 18:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You should note that The New Republic is not a mainstream media source, TNR is ideologically driven and should be subjected to those same forces for the sake of balance. This controversy is ideologically driven. This is perhaps best described as an appeal for diversity of opinion.Matt Sanchez (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

TNR is a primary source. The controversy is about TNR, so clearly its contents are a reliable source for what its contents are. Calbaer (talk) 06:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The controversy is not exclusively about TNR, it's about Beauchamp and the polemic surrounding the original publication of the stories. Matt Sanchez (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

But TNR is involved, so denying it as a primary source would be silly. Likewise, Beauchamp's blog would be acceptable (as a primary source), but someone else's blog might not if it's a secondary source. Calbaer (talk) 05:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Even though the reverters seem only willing to, well, revert, I'm going to try to begin a discussion on Category:Journalism ethics and Category:Scandals. Contrary to claim in the most recent edit summary reversion, these have not been discussed here, aside from Thumperward's remark that "journalism ethics" applies more to this than "hoax" does (not exactly a thorough discussion). Perhaps "scandals" might be avoided since it's a very broad and POV category, but "journalism ethics" seems appropriate for this, as it's an instance involving journalism ethics. Granted, other instances, e.g., Centennial Olympic Park bombing, have not been included in this category, but we should include or exclude the article based on its own merits, and, by that measurement, it belongs there. Calbaer (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with ethics. I think "scandal" implies wider implications in the aftermath, which I don't see happening (no resignations, prosecutions etc.) right now. Chris Cunningham (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Is the culture war a category? Matt Sanchez (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of ethics (determining what is right and wrong in principle and applying it to a specific situation). It's wrong for an author to deceive a publisher. Always wrong and never right. It was a deception over published items sustained over several weeks, that is a hoax. patsw (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you object to "journalism ethics" as a category for this or just to "hoax" not being a category for this? Calbaer (talk) 06:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)