Jump to content

Talk:Murder of Seth Rich/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13

Interesting mention in the news today

As related to Russian state-run media and the narratives they push [1]. Geogene (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The only mention of Seth Rich is that a former Sputnik journalist said his employers asked him to put a question about Rich to Sean Spicer. TFD (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
And that that was the last straw, and he quit because of it. It's about 1/3 of the article. It goes into Fox News, Rod Wheeler, and his lawsuit. And "The Investigation Project" or whatever it's called is conspicuously absent. I find all of that very telling as far as WP:WEIGHT is concerned. Geogene (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
And that he was fired for refusing to do so. Jeez TFD. Choose your battles. :) SPECIFICO talk 00:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
We don't need this article to mention the Wheeler story, which has already been reported by other sources and is already in the article (See: Murder of Seth Rich#Wheeler lawsuit.) I would remind SPECIFICO not to repeat unsubstantiated claims, which in this case have been denied, as facts. Ironically, that is what you are accusing conspiracy theorists of doing. TFD (talk) 02:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Specific Content Issues

As previously stated, and then deleted and locked as to remain unseen, I pointed out that this article references these theories being "debunked by law enforcement" but references nothing that shows this. I should also point out that fact checking web sites aren't themselves sources. The references listed do not show that law enforcement debunked the conspiracy theory. The police stated that these claims are unfounded. (Look for yourself, here http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/may/23/newt-gingrich/claim-slain-dnc-staffer-seth-rich-gave-emails-wiki/, and here https://www.factcheck.org/2017/05/gingrich-spreads-conspiracy-theory/.) That means that there is no evidence to support these claims. Debunked means its not true. No one knows why Seth Rich was murdered. Clearly this article doesn't reflect that Seth Rich's murderer's motive is unknown or that little to no evidence exists of why he was murdered. I would suggest that the article use language that actually reflects the statements of law enforcement and removes fact checking websites from its sources.

It should also be pointed out that an article titled the murder of Seth Rich should not have information about a law suit in its introduction. I would suggest that this be in the article rather than the introduction as well.

Furthermore, this article states in it's introduction that the DNC e-mails came from a hack, there is little more than speculation from either side regarding this. (As can be seen here https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/.) I would suggest that there is no reason to have a reference from either side on where these e-mails came from as it is currently unknown, or statements with references from both sides.

It should also be pointed out that an encyclopedia, with sources or not, should not be using citations to state that something is fake news. An encyclopedia shouldn't be making figurative statements. I would suggest that statements such as right-wing conspiracy theorists, and fake news be removed from the article as they are examples of biased language. An encyclopedia shouldn't be using inherently biased language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1800:e970:4403:344c:ae96:3770 (talk • contribs)

The truth isn't biased; it is just the truth. If the sources describe it as fake news, so does the Wikipedia, to reflect that. TheValeyard (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I refer you to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. Whenever possible an article is to use a neutral point of view and the policy is non-negotiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1800:E970:4403:344C:AE96:3770 (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
IP, you may have located the neutrality policy, but you don't understand it. TheValeyard just summarized it correctly: Wikipedia articles are neutral towards sourcing, not neutral between different sides in a controversy. That's why what you're trying to do is going to fail. If the article were to fail to mention that the conspiracy theories about Rich's death are right-wing fake news, then the article would no longer be neutral toward the sourcing. You can complain as long as they will allow you to, I guess, but it's a waste of time because you're arguing from a false understanding of policy. As you said, NPOV is not negotiable. What you want will never happen. Geogene (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Your statement is kind of true, the neutral point of view article states that if a neutral point of view hasn't been taken then articles from the other side should be found and used to correct the bias. Clearly this article is biased, there are sources to counter balance it, and as such the article is required to have both sides. Or at minimum the article is suppose to use less biased sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1800:E970:4403:344C:AE96:3770 (talk) 01:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
It's not correct that we automatically mention all competing viewpoints after we state a majority viewpoint in an article. The idea that an article must cover all sides is the "False Balance" misinterpretation of the Neutrality policy. We only discuss viewpoints in proportion to how prevalent they are in the bulk of the sourcing. Significant minority viewpoints are mentioned only if there's enough reliable sourcing discussing them. All other (non-significant) minority viewpoints are ignored, because this is a general reference encyclopedia and not a textbook or other exhaustive treatment. The Nation piece on the VIPS report, for example, is one out of many tens of thousands of sources discussing the DNC hack. That makes it microscopic. There were a handful of other articles about the Nation piece, but all of them were critical. In other words, the news was not the VIPS report, the news was that The Nation decided to report on the VIPS report without vetting it as much as they should have. In the big picture view, this is nothing in relation to the DNC hacks (and completely irrelevant to Seth Rich). Inclusion of (in the DNC hack) article would magnify it out of proportion in the sourcing, that would violate NPOV. And even if it were included, it would be a few sentences criticizing the Nation for taking VIPS seriously. So I think that this discussion is a dead end. Geogene (talk) 02:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • There are NO reliable sources claiming that the conspiracy theories surrounding this death are plausible. There's nothing we can do to correct any such bias, even if we agree that it exists. And except for those editors with strong right-wing (or conspiracist) leanings, we don't agree that this article is biased. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It is not however written in encyclopedic tone. "It is not Wikipedia's role to try to convince the reader of anything, only to provide the salient facts as best they can be determined, and the reliable sources for them." There is no need to use the term fake news seven times or conspiracy theory thirty-one times. Ironically it's written in the same tone one would expect conspiracy theorists to use. TFD (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
As the primary author of this article (I mostly stopped editing in May 2017, so there have been some tweaks by others since then), I think the article looks amazing and serves as an example of how Wikipedia articles ought to be written. The language is clear, precise and mirrors that of the sources. Every use of "fake news" and "conspiracy theory" is warranted. We should not WP:WEASEL the language and WP:FALSEBALANCE the content to make the Seth Rich conspiracy theorists feel better. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
It really should have nothing to do with what side anyone is on. Sometimes articles are written more like propaganda pieces, more meant to push a belief than information and judging by your comments here in the talk and the biases displayed in the article, it is clear what side you fall on. It should never be clear to the reader of an encyclopedia article what the authors political views are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1800:E970:4403:344C:AE96:3770 (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with Geogene, MjolnirPants and Snooganssnoogans. It is not Wikipedia editors' fault that so much conspiracy theory and fake news has evolved from a murder of a relatively unknown DNC employee. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say. This article is remarkably well balanced. Covering the conspiracy theories and fake news that traveled far and wide in such a manner is very helpful to our audience, the general reader. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm a bit curious how an article that pushes either a right wing or left wing perspective helps anyone? The only way I can imagine it helping anyone is if your goal for the general reader is to support what you believe. As previously stated tone of a Wikipedia article should match that of an encyclopedia and articles should be written from a neutral point of view. It should also be noted that a neutral point of view according to individuals herein means no fringe beliefs, their support of what is fringe seems rather lacking though. Impartiality means looking out side your comfort zones, and not searching for ways to make an encyclopedia article match what you want people to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1800:E970:4403:344C:AE96:3770 (talk) 05:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
You're assuming that you're the neutral party, and that this disagreement is being caused by everyone else here being politically biased. I doubt anyone else is going to be willing to make that assumption, so progress from here looks limited. Geogene (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I am not saying everyone here is biased but if you can read this article in its current form and can convince yourself it is unbiased, there is no doubt that you are biased.
I.E. don't listen to the "conspiracy theorists", "I wrote the article", my statements show that I believe that believing in conspiracy theories is wrong as I referred to conspiracy theorists in negative manner herein, and I made sure to refer to conspiracy theory 31 times in the article.(Snooganssnoogans)
The Seth Rich murder article is "unbiased" though.

What matters is whether the article is based on reliable sources. It is. Any claims of "bias" or whatever are not helpful absent bringing some new sources to the table.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources)
The significant minority view points are not covered in this article. For example, I see no mention of the research being conducted at the Seth Rich Center for Investigations.
WP:RSOPINION
Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion.
There are very few facts in this article. The facts are: Seth Rich was murdered, no one has anything more than speculation as to why, Fox News was sued for pushing an unsubstantiated claim, Seth Rich's family don't want any conspiracy theories pushed (not just the right-wing ones), the cops have stated that what fox news claimed is unfounded, and that is basically it. Everything else is speculation (the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence), which amounts to nothing more than opinion. If the article is going to be filled with all these opinions Wikipedia clearly says they need to be marked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1800:E970:54C8:94EB:182D:8DF6 (talk) 07:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
The "Seth Rich Center for Investigation" is not itself a reliable source, so if none of its claims have been discussed in reliable sources, we cannot discuss it either. You need to either present reliable sources which can be used to support the changes you wish to make, or move on. All content on Wikipedia - but particularly sensitive claims about people - must be reliably sourced. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I think we just have another confused ip address editor who thinks that covering all sides in a controversy equates to a neutral article, but it really doesn't appear to work that way here. Some big-controversy topics like the war on terror or abortion, there is content from all points-of-view represented fairly, as those views can be found in a variety of quality sources. Here, one finds a fringe, manic point of view regarding Rich being assassinated as part of some grand X-Files-like coverup. That has been consistently and thoroughly debunked by cited sources, so that is what the article represents. See also, Pizzagate, a thoroughly debunked right-wing conspiracy. TheValeyard (talk) 13:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The phrase "conspiracy theory" is used so many times because the conspiracy theories are so prominant. The phrase "fake news" is used so many times because fakes news was so instrumental in those conspiracy theories.
Anyone reading this article and concluding based on it that the authors are liberal is strongly biased against liberals, and largely ignorant of the issues in question. I will happily say that without reservation, and stand by it. Feel free to quote me. Take it to WP:AN/I and complain if you like, or maybe just write another blog post whining about me as "one of the worst" of whatever group you hate. I don't care, because I have not a single shred of doubt in my mind that everyone pushing complaints about bias in any article covering right-wing conspiracy theories or right-wing propaganda outlets is a dyed-in-the-wool right-wing conspiracy theorist who hasn't got half the political, economic, sociological or psychological acumen they think they have.
I didn't used to think this. I used to think there was something to this. But I've been looking into this "WP has a left wing bias" complaint for literally years now, and I've yet to find a shred of evidence that this "bias" is anything but a reflection of popular consensus, combined with the disconnect from reality which is so prominent in far-right-wing thought. Even the most insightful, thoughtful, intelligent and experienced Wikipedia editors agreeing with this notion have failed to provide a shred of evidence, suggest a single reasonable solution or posit a single believable mechanism to explain it. These are not people whose opinions I dismiss lightly, or who demonstrate any lack of ability to make convincing arguments, yet they've been unable to prevent me from slowly changing my way of thinking about this from "Maybe there's something to it, it feels like it makes sense " to "shenanigans" as I've examined the issue more and more. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • If I may add my 2 cents as an editor who rarely participates here... As others have noted, the IP misunderstands how our neutrality policy works. We describe all significant minority viewpoints, true, but they must be expressed by reliable sources. The IP does not seem to understand that collectively we haven't identified a single reliable source that supports the theory. As far as I know, there is 100% unanimity among the reliable sources that the theory is unsubstantiated. If the IP or some other editor brings forward a reliable source contradicting that, then we have something to talk about. (TFD raises a different concern about tone. That may or may not be valid but it doesn't appear to be the same as the IP's concern.) (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
What TFD has stated isn't really different than what I stated. I am saying that the article should be written from a neutral point of view, or with an impartial tone as stated on the neutral point of view page.
Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.
The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone.
This has nothing to do with pizza gate, it has nothing to do with supporting right wing conspiracy theory, it has to do with actually displaying the facts as they exist as this is an encyclopedia after all.
I don't think what I said got through to you. We are not going to describe a viewpoint with equal validity if it's not supported by reliable sources. If an unsubstantiated fringe theory has received a lot of attention, then we'll describe it, but we will be sure to make crystal clear that that's what it is, an unsubstantiated fringe theory. Now, if your beef is with tone then you'd better identify some specific language right quick before NeilN notices that you haven't followed his instruction. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
(I stand corrected, you did raise concerns about specific language. My general comment still stands.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I see two semi-concrete suggestions for actual changes from the IP. Quoting:

  1. It should also be pointed out that an article titled the murder of Seth Rich should not have information about a law suit in its introduction. I would suggest that this be in the article rather than the introduction as well.
  2. Furthermore, this article states in it's introduction that the DNC e-mails came from a hack, there is little more than speculation from either side regarding this. (As can be seen here https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/.) I would suggest that there is no reason to have a reference from either side on where these e-mails came from as it is currently unknown, or statements with references from both sides.

Any support for these suggestions? If not, move on. --NeilN talk to me 21:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Debunked

Throw the IP a bone. There is merit to some (but not all) of their concerns. The "has been debunked" language isn't verifiable. "Has been described as unsubstantiated and baseless" is closer. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it is verifiable. The fact that the sources don't use the word "debunked" doesn't mean shit, because they define the CSes the same way the dictionary defines debunked: shown to have no evidence. "unsubstantiated and baseless" = debunked. The time sink that these thread create is becoming a serious problem on any article that addresses a political conspiracy theory. We need to shut these threads down faster, not waste our time engaging more with IPs who refuse to listen to anything that's said to them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
No you're mistaken. Certainly unsubstantiated is quite different from debunked. Unsubstantiated means no evidence, but it leaves open the possibility that the theory could be true if evidence came to light. Debunked means exposed or proven to be false. A theory could even have some evidence going for it and it could still be debunked. Baseless is a bit ambiguous; literally "without foundation," it could mean lacking evidence or it could simply mean false in this context. Either way, I do not believe we have any sources saying that this theory was debunked or exposed or proven to be false. Notice how sources used different language for this theory than they did for Pizzagate (which was explicitly described as "debunked" by a zillion sources). Also notice how Snopes.com describes some memes as "proven false" and others as "unproven." (I believe those are the terms they use?) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
See the definition of debunked. If there's no evidence for it, it's not true. The claims of evidence have all been shown to be false. When and if actual evidence appears, we can change the text in the article, until then, it's been debunked. Now can we put this shit to bed and move on to something that's actually productive? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Stop. Fucking. Refactoring. This. Thread. You're making it impossible to comment because you're causing me multiple edit conflicts every time I try. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Now look at the definition of "unsubstantiated." They mean two quite different things. One roughly means unproven. The other roughly means proven false. Different. Not the same. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Is the theory of gravitation "unsubstantiated"? It's certain unproven, as all are physical theories. What you're suggesting is akin to suggesting you all must do as I say because you have no proof that I'm not God, and I plan to send to hell anyone who doesn't do as I say. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
What? There's plenty of evidence for the theory of gravitation. And yes, you all must do as I say, and yes, I do have evidence. Does my mighty prose not reflect my godliness? But in all serious, no, that's a totally inappropriate analogy. I'm not suggesting that we say the conspiracy theory is true. I'm just suggesting that perhaps we... stick to the sources? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not going around in a circle with you because this whole fucking thread is a waste of time. Note the consensus and move the fuck on, please. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree that "debunked", as the word is actually being used by most people, gives the impression that the DC police deliberately set out to investigate this absurd conspiracy theory; because they have unlimited resources, because right-wing social media memes are just so damn credible, and because they had nothing better to do that day. That's what many readers will understand that statement to mean, that the police did investigate and actually proved it false. On the other hand, "unsubstantiated and baseless" by itself fails to do justice to this nonsense. "Has been described" exacerbates that problem. Described by whom? Everyone but fairly serious conspiracy theorists? The current wording may have consensus, but it's not ideal. Geogene (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
We don't have all the facts as to the event, but given the intense ignorant nonsense that the Fox camp spread, I think we can certainly say that was debunked. SPECIFICO talk 02:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Geogene that the "has been described as" language isn't ideal (which is why I said my proposal was "closer"). And I agree with Specifico that the Fox News bullshit has been debunked. Those things do not change the fact that the current language isn't verifiable. As the article is currently written, we need to be able to point the True Believers to specific language in the cited sources saying that the theory has been debunked by law enforcement, PolitiFact.com, Snopes, and FactCheck.org. We can't do that. The content has to reflect the cited sources. It doesn't. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
As the DC Metro Police have put out a statement which contains bits like "The assertions put forward by Mr. Wheeler are unfounded", that is by any reasonable interpretation a debunked claim. The wording should be restored and the needles "failed verification" tag removed. ValarianB (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes. I thought that had already been done. It doesn't take much to debunk these particular conspiracy theories. Unlike some of the better JFK and 911 conspiracy theories, these were created on the fly by and for fairly ignorant folks. Haste makes waste. SPECIFICO talk 18:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
As explained immediately above, saying something is unfounded is not the same thing as debunking it. I'd be ok with language that goes somethign like "the DC Metro Police concluded ..." It would not only be verifiable but also more informative to readers. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Actually, it kind of is. You're basically playing a big game of Pedantry Police here. ValarianB (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
You're kind of not reading or assuming good faith. (Do you seriously think I'm one of the conspiracy theorists? My goal here is to address the IP's concerns so that we can defend the article without having to resort to ad hominem attacks.) Not directed specifically at you Valarian, but what's our obsession with using language that doesn't appear in any of the sources? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
This exact same argument recently came up on another page (Alex Jones or Pizzagate conspiracy theory I think) and the clear and obvious consensus was that unfounded == debunked. DrFleischmann, by your standards, it would be impossible to debunk anything, because nothing can be proven false. Things can only be shown to be highly likely to be true. The CSes here have been examined by the police and numerous RSes, who have all found that every single claim of evidence for them has been false. It does not get more debunked than that, literally. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't know about Alex Jones, but you know I was deeply involved in those discussions at Pizzagate, where I have strongly supported using the "debunked" language, and while that might be your personal gloss on those discussions, it is definitely not the basis for the consensus there. We use the word "debunked" to describe Pizzagate because the reliable sources use the word "debunked" to describe Pizzagate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
By that logic, we should just aggregate quotes from RSes, instead of writing articles ourselves. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Straw man. I didn't say we have to use the exact same words. Please try a little harder harder to understand other editors' arguments. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
You just said we can't use a word because the sources don't use it, and now you're claiming you never said we couldn't use a word the sourced don't use? It has been investigated and found to be false. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The argument here is about meaning. "Debunk" is a strong word, more so than "dismissing" (minimal effort) or "rejecting" something. The dictionary.com link says "expose or excoriate" (my emphasis). The synonyms they give are "disparage, ridicule, lampoon". That's not a casual rebuttal, or even saying that something is not worth your time to look into. If you debunked something, you didn't say it was nonsense and leave it at that. Rhetorically, you tore into something. Geogene (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

So your argument is that you don't like the word. I think we're done here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, because usage of the word "debunked" is what is being debated in this thread. I don't like it because it fails verification. Your own link shows that. Geogene (talk) 03:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
MjolnirPants, I think we all understand your position. This ad hominem straw man stuff is repetitive and disruptive. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I cannot believe I am about to say this but clearly people here like this article. I do not understand why. I did however find a source for the debunked language if you insist on using it. It was already in the article but the article will still likely need changes. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/20/the-seth-rich-conspiracy-shows-how-fake-news-still-works/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1800:E970:5188:E469:E18D:B817 (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Is this discussion about the use of "debunked" in the lead or in the "Debunking" subsection? I’m fine with "debunked" in either one. IMO the conspiracy theorists have to present proof/evidence, not the other way around; how do you even disprove something that did not happen? I substituted "stated" and "called" for "described". The cited sources said that the theories were baseless, unfounded etc. That's not a description, it's a statement of their belief, as in "to the best of my knowledge and belief". As for the subsection, does it even need the first sentence? It reads like a lead-in to the details that follow, using the same sources. Since "Debunking" is a subsection to "Conspiracy theories", the sentence seems a bit redundant. Removing it would also take care of the d.d flag. As for the verb (today’s exercise in nitpicking), depending on which dictionary you use, you get fairly different definitions. (Its origin supposedly is de + bunk, take the bunk (bunkum, nonsense) out of things.)
Cambridge Dictionary: to show that something is less important, less good, or less true than it has been made to appear. Example in a sentence: The writer's aim was to debunk the myth that had grown up around the actress.
Merriam Webster: to expose the sham or falseness of · debunk a legend. Example: The article debunks the notion that life exists on Mars.
Thesaurus.com: to expose or excoriate (a claim, assertion, sentiment, etc.) as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated. Example: to debunk advertising slogans. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm opposed to the phrase "debunked by law enforcement" because that appears not to have happened, sort of depending on your personal definition of debunked. I'm fine with calling it a "debunked conspiracy theory", having a subsection titled "Debunked", and using phrases like "debunked by fact-checking websites and/or the media" because all of those are objectively true. But saying that it was debunked specifically by the police fails verification for many people, including myself, and gives critics of the article a free talking point. Geogene (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I support saying that the theory has been "debunked" by NBC News, CNN and The Washington Post per the WaPo source recently provided by the IP. And therefore I'm fine saying the theory has been "debunked" without qualification. What I do not support is saying that the theory has been "debunked" by law enforcement (per Geogene's reasoning) or by fact checkers. Technically speaking the way the article is currently written, the fact checkers are being used improperly as primary sources. Policy: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." If we stick with the words actually used by these sources then there's no need to do any interpretation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Something like this in the lead? Law enforcement[5][6] stated that these theories were unfounded. Fact-checking websites like PolitiFact.com,[6][8] Snopes.com,[9] and FactCheck.org came to the conclusion that the theories were false and baseless,[5] and The New York Times,[10] Los Angeles Times,[11] and The Washington Post called them fabrications, fake news, and falsehoods.[12] And remove the first sentence of the "Debunking" subsection? It reads the same as the sentence in the lead that I changed. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 04:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with that for the body, thank you. The lead seems like overkill. There should be a way to summarize the news media response in the lead section without listing them all out like that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Lawsuit

The lead section doesn't say anything about a lawsuit. Just a cease-and-desist letter. I see no basis for excluding this content. The lead is supposed to summarize prominent controversies. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The current lede is fine. This is a waste of time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

DNC hack

The contention that there is little more than speculation that the DNC e-mails came from a hack is laughable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Murder of Seth Rich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Long quote from Poynter

Concerning my recent edit removing a large paragraph copied and pasted from a Poynter article, I'd like to provide a reminder that this is the "Murder of Seth Rich" article, not the "Criticism of Fox News Channel" or "Fox News § Murder of Seth Rich conspiracy" articles. While I think that some media criticism should be included in this article to debunk Fox's original story, the lifted quote doesn't tell us anything about Seth Rich's murder or the conspiracy theories surrounding it. The paragraph could also constitute an unacceptable use of non-free content because it is an Excessively long copyrighted excerpt, in which case it should, at the very least, be trimmed down or summarized. FallingGravity 08:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it is relevant because news coverage is an important aspect of the subject. I would prefer however that we summarize the comments rather than use a lengthy quote. Note that it is incorrectly attributed to the Poynter Institute, when in fact it was made by Kelly McBride, who works for the Institute. Also, when we mention someone's opinions, we should briefly explain who that person is, if it is not obvious to readers. TFD (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I think the source is worth using but its current treatment is undue. I'd go even further than TFD. It would be perfectly adequate to summarize the source (without a quote) in a single sentence that says so-and-so said the retraction was inadequate and explain why. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Maybe something like "Media ethics writer Kelly McBride wrote that the retraction was "woefully inadequate", noting that it did not specify exactly what was inaccurate, or provide provide accurate information in place of the original story." FallingGravity 02:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
That's the sort of thing I was talking about, thanks. Minor quibbles but those can be fixed afterwards. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

General Political Bias in the Article to Discount Speculations are ill advised

The article tries very hard to paint any speculation that Seth Rich had involvement with the DNC email leaks as sociopathic or conspiracy theories that it uses very illogical assumptions.

While it is true we don't know who killed Seth Rich the police cannot debunk the theories by stating it was a botched robbery. He was shot in the back indicating he never saw his attacker and several items of value and a wallet full of money were left on the scene. Since no one saw the murder or anyone fleeing the scene this is unlikely. Certainly this does not rule out the speculations.

The article states Assange "fueled speculations" by his involvement. It fails to mention that the "involvement" was a $20,000 US reward. It is very difficult to believe Assange who gave the award within a month of his death would do so if he did not have any involvement.

The article also mentions fact checkers, all known left wing activist sites, debunking the theories because their is no hard evidence to support them. A hypothesis is not debunked until evidence is shown to reject it. Having hot done this they cannot be stated to have debunked anything and only reiterati9ng what we all know. We don't know what happened.

The article also tries to state Rich cannot have done this because he was only a programmer and not a hacker. Number one both roles require extensive programming skills. Second most hackers don't advertise that skill so how do we know Rich was not. Lastly and most important one does not need to be a hacker to download emails from an archived file. All one needs is proper administrative access which Rich working for the DNC may have had or knew people who did and could have acce4ssed and copied the information through legitimate accounts. If he was involved this is most likely. Assange's unwillingness to declare Rich's involvement but willingness to spend @20 grand to reveal his killer to the world is indicative this could be the case. This scenario is likely and possible and no one is a sociopath for considering it. Rather I would state the sociopoaths are the people, to protect their own left wing political party are trying to silence this.

Lastly the article announces as proven fact that Russians were involved. Why? this narrative invented by Hillary Clinton's dirty tricks team from the Fusion GPS memo is tired by now. It has not shown evidence of anything and has been used to justify illegally obtained FISA warrants to spy on private American citizens just for being members of Trump's campaign. This is silly and certainly the speculation that Rich's death was something to do with the DNC is a more plausible allegation.

In the end we don't know and you can say that but quit trying to dictate to people what they are allowed to think. It is crass and arrogant!

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.36.184.224 (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback is appreciated, but I think you'd benefit from reading our policies on verifiability and original research. Simply put, we're simply following the reliable sources, which contradict much of what you wrote. Sources are not rendered unreliable simply because of some alleged bias.. If you find content that doesn't reflect the cited sources, or you find other reliable sources that contradict the article, then please identify them here for discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
It’s pointless getting into extended arguments like these on Wikipedia - like many technology groupings, Wikipedia is full of hard-left activists and their ilk. You’ll get ulcers for nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.120.68 (talk) 07:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2018

where are the evidence of saying bots spread the information? just because you have 100 twitter accounts with no profile does not mean you are a bot, just that you like annonymity, like how this ip will claim in from sweden... 81.234.198.202 (talk) 10:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Before asked for an edit, unless it is uncontroversial, you need to get support for it. You may set up a new discussion thread for that. However, note that this article merely reports what reliable sources say, which is that automated bots were used. Whether or not that is true is not a question that we can determine, unless there are reliable sources that refute it. TFD (talk) 12:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Update on the Wheeler lawsuit

The Wheeler lawsuit is now going through the courts: https://www.courthousenews.com/fox-news-fights-defamation-claim-over-seth-rich-story/

Once a ruling is decided, the article should be updated. FallingGravity 02:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The Job Offer from the Hillary Clinton Campaign?

The editors who have weighed in on this discussion have deemed it to be not relevant to the article topic, i.e. the murder of Seth Rich. Those who want to take this tidbit and make it relevant are promoting a conspiracy theory that Rich's death is connected to the DNC and Wikileaks. You're trying to get a toehold for that conspiracy theory into this article, and it just ain't gonna happen. Your entire (literally) Wikipedia editing career is to this talk page, that is not going to bode well if this matter escalates to one of the complaint forums here. TheValeyard (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
see WP:THETRUTH and WP:SNOW. There's no chance in hell this gets anywhere, and the arguments have degenerated into conspiracy theories by this point. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This article does not contain the fact that Seth Rich was offered a job by the Hillary Clinton Campaign just days before he was killed. It should. There are reports that Seth Rich supported Bernie Sanders, so that would be a significant change.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/were-seth-richs-parents-stop-politicizing-our-sons-murder/2017/05/23/164cf4dc-3fee-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html?utm_term=.c5b01406666e "Our beloved son Seth Rich was gunned down in the early hours of July 10, 2016, in his Washington, D.C., neighborhood of Bloomingdale. On the day he was murdered, Seth was excited about a new job he had been offered on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Seth had dedicated his life to public service, and he told us that he wanted to work on the campaign’s effort to expand voter participation because he loved our country dearly and believed deeply in the promise of democratic engagement. Seth had been walking around, calling friends, family and his girlfriend, pondering the broader picture of what the job change would mean."

(It was during this walking around and calling friends that he was killed)

How was the job offer communicated to Seth Rich? Was it in writing? What was the date of the offer? Who made the job offer?

StreetSign (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

If you want this information included, you must find a reliable secondary source that not only says that he was offered the job, but ties it in with his death. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
This is not a biography of Seth Rich, but rather an article about his murder. Content in this article (other than a brief overview of who the victim was) should be clearly related to his murder, according to reliable sources. Otherwise, the fact that a young Democratic political operative was offered a Democratic political job in the midst of a presidential campaign season is of no significance. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
As for the Bernie Sanders connection, there is also nothing unusual there. I do not know or care whether Rich supported Sanders. At the time of Rich's murder on July 10, 2016, Clinton was the presumptive nominee and Sanders was openly negotiating to endorse her. Sanders formally endorsed Clinton on July 12, and large numbers of Sanders supporters switched to the Clinton campaign at that time, which is completely normal. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
There is a connection between these biographical facts and his death if the reliable independent secondary sources say there is a connection. If they don't, then there isn't. There's no need to go into any deeper analysis than that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I continue to think it's best to hat this kind of disruptive edit when it first appears rather than give air time and waste editor resources. It was obvious where this thread was headed and I see no reason hard-working volunteer editors should play the willing victims or accomplices where article improvement is not in prospect. Especially on articles like this where there's a long history of such disruption. Of course I could be wrong, but I don't see it. SPECIFICO talk 14:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
In general, I agree with this, but this is a borderline case (IE, it's not one of the "Why doesn't this article take the conspiracy theories seriously?" ones), so it's probably best to give the OP a little slack. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
That's why I hatted it instead of deleting or archiving. This one had 3 independent red flags, so I concluded about a 1/1000 chance hatting was incorrect. SPECIFICO talk 15:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Most likely, this is just a better-phrased version of those drive-by "This article sucks because the conspiracy theories are troooo!!!" comments, but the OP provided a factual claim with a reliable source to back it up. They're either a well-intentioned new editor who hasn't quite grasped the meaning of WP:WEIGHT, or a POV pusher who's slicker than most. In the former case, it's best to help them understand how things are done here, in the latter, it's best to give them a chance to say something really stupid so as to make later admin involvement easier. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
But the claim it wanted in the article was SYNTH not supported by the source. And that's exactly the kind of disruption we've seen here for 18 months. My goal is never to build a file for some kind of Admin or community action, it's just to keep our work environment safe and productive. SPECIFICO talk 16:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
No, the claim the OP suggested for the article was "...the fact that Seth Rich was offered a job by the Hillary Clinton Campaign just days before he was killed..." which is confirmed explicitly by the source. Now, the rest of the comment (except for the quote, of course) was absolutely a mix of OR and OR-disguised-as-leading-questions, but there's a nugget of legitimate proposal in there. Remember to WP:AGF. I know it's hard, but it's expected. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
As for "waste editor resources", I decide on my own as a volunteer where I want to comment and where I want to observe or ignore. Hasn't this back-and-forth gone on long enough? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me respond. I do appreciate that. The article is missing one fact that is well documented. It does correctly state that he was "an American employee of the Democratic National Committee (DNC)" but the complete sentence might continue with "and was recently offered a job in the Clinton campaign". This is according to his parents (who spoke with him, and were allowed to see his computer), as published in the washingtonpost, CNN, and other publications. It is inappropriate to exclude this fact.

StreetSign (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I can see how someone might think this was relevant to his murder, but I fail to see how it is actually relevant. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
You could ask why this article even exists. I would argue that it is not just the murder (there are many of those), it is that an employee of the presidential political election process was murdered. It is only through the statement of his parents that we know that he was offered the job. We would not know it otherwise. It has been documented in reputable publications. It relates to the reason that there is an article on Seth Rich at all. He was a political consultant who was murdered during a presidential campaign.StreetSign (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Per DrFleischman, are there reliable sources that directly link the job offer to the murder? Geogene (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
It relates to the reason that there is an article on Seth Rich at all. As does the definition, history and study of murder. Should we then merge the murder article into this one? I should add that this reasoning applies equally well to a very wide swathe of other articles, such as human, crime, politics, conspiracy theories, etc, etc, etc. Should we then merge all of those articles into this one in order to be thorough, or should we use a common sense and reliable criteria to judge what we include? Before you answer, understand that this is an open book test, so there's no excuse for giving a wrong answer. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
We should mention that Rich was going to join the Clinton campaign, since in all articles about crimes it is important to provide information about the victims. There is as far as I know no evidence that he supported Sanders and it would be unlikely that a DNC employee would openly support any candidate. TFD (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
No. This article is about the murder of Seth Rich, it is not a biography of Rich himself. Apart from the conspiracy theorists trying to tack this on to the end of their "Clinton Hit List" theories, it has nothing to do with this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheValeyard (talk • contribs)
This article is not about a crime. It's about a conspiracy theory. SPECIFICO talk 01:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
"Crime victims and perpetrators" says, "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." So the guidelines say that biographical information should be included. What guidelines are you following? TFD (talk) 04:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
So articles about crimes are now biographies? I don't think the guideline was meant to imply that. Geogene (talk) 05:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The guideline was meant to imply that biographical information should be included for victims. See for example CNN's article on the Seth Rich murder: "Before Rich died, he had been offered a new job on Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, and was getting ready to move to New York, his parents wrote in an opinion piece for The Washington Post."[2] CNN is not implying that his employment had any relevance to the murder, however it has relevance to why the story received publicity. Can you point to any alternative guidelines that say this information should be excluded? TFD (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I would point to common sense and at not giving undue weight to an alt-right conspiracy theory. ValarianB (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Seconded. The usual rule of thumb I use for details is "does it change the narrative?" In this case, the RS supported narrative would not change at all if we included this detail, but the conspiracy theory narrative would be reinforced. That's a net negative, so no. Don't include it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

This is the proposed change (to the third paragraph): "Rich's parents revealed that he had recently received a job offer from the Clinton campaign, and then condemned the conspiracy theorists and said that these individuals were exploiting their son's death for political gain, and their spokesperson called the conspiracy theorists "disgusting sociopaths"." StreetSign (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The sources are not discussing a link from the job offer to the murder; you're setting up your own conspiracy here. ValarianB (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I do not believe in the conspiracy theories. The parents thought the job offer was significant enough to include in their statement. To exclude it from the article is deceptive. Putting it in with the statements about the exploitation and "disgusting sociopaths" is the appropriate place for it. All are statements by the parents or their representative. StreetSign (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Seven experienced editors are all telling you the same exact thing: No, this is undue for the article. It's time to drop the stick. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
It is best to print the truth, not to suppress the truth. If <insert name of other presidential candidate here> had offered Seth a job on the day he was murdered, and his parents had told the public and it was published in a newspaper, it would be in this article. No one from either political persuasion would object. Tell the truth in the article. Then we can all go our separate ways. Learn the lesson from the Lee Oswald disaster, don't create another one.StreetSign (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
To provide justification and documentation for including the truth about the job offer from the Clinton Presidential Campaign to Seth Rich, I remind editors that his parents informed The Washington Post "On the day he was murdered, Seth was excited about a new job he had been offered on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign." and continued "To those who sincerely want to get to the bottom of Seth’s murder, we don’t hold this against you."

reference: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/were-seth-richs-parents-stop-politicizing-our-sons-murder/2017/05/23/164cf4dc-3fee-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html?utm_term=.c5b01406666e

and this fact was then reported on CNN "Before Rich died, he had been offered a new job on Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign" reference: https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/24/us/seth-rich-dnc-wikileaks-theories/index.html

The post to this Talk page by MjolnirPants on 20:14, 21 February 2018 is in particularly bad taste in a discussion of the Seth Rich Murder, since his post deliberately contains a link to a photo of a dead horse in the middle of the street. I ask him to remove it immediately. Please. StreetSign (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

For shame! —Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC
This is a new source for me, a video from Seth Rich's father:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3741754/Father-murdered-DNC-staffer-reveals-son-join-Hillary-Clinton-presidential-campaign-punching-hole-ugly-rumor-Wikileaks-source.html

"He had just been asked to join the Clinton campaign, four days before he was murdered." (and then later) "He had just found out that they wanted him."

Add this to the previously documented:

His parents informed The Washington Post:

"On the day he was murdered, Seth was excited about a new job he had been offered on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign." and continued "To those who sincerely want to get to the bottom of Seth’s murder, we don’t hold this against you."

reference: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/were-seth-richs-parents-stop-politicizing-our-sons-murder/2017/05/23/164cf4dc-3fee-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html?utm_term=.c5b01406666e

and this fact was then reported on CNN:

"Before Rich died, he had been offered a new job on Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign"

reference: https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/24/us/seth-rich-dnc-wikileaks-theories/index.html

I don't believe that you can suppress this indefinitely. Just the facts. StreetSign (talk) 02:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I have just been informed that:
The Daily Mail is not an acceptable source on Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I did not know that. I would like to use the video of Seth Rich's father as the reference, and not The Daily Mail. Does that mean that the video of Seth Rich's father is not an acceptable source? Any help or clarification would be appreciated. StreetSign (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The editors who have weighed in on this discussion have deemed it to be not relevant to the article topic, i.e. the murder of Seth Rich. Those who want to take this tidbit and make it relevant are promoting a conspiracy theory that Rich's death is connected to the DNC and Wikileaks. You're trying to get a toehold for that conspiracy theory into this article, and it just ain't gonna happen. Your entire (literally) Wikipedia editing career is to this talk page, that is not going to bode well if this matter escalates to one of the complaint forums here. TheValeyard (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to tighten up unfocused paragraph on WikiLeaks Statements

 Done: in the absence of any feedback or discussion, I went ahead and made this change. K zorn (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

There were a couple sections here that I think could be tightened up, but I'm assuming this is a pretty closely watched page, so I want to propose my edits here for consensus. In particular, the paragraph "WikiLeaks statements" is disorganized and does not actually match its title. I would rewrite the paragraph to actually focus on Assange's Nieuwsuur interview and other WikiLeaks statements, which lie at the heart of these persistent conspiracy claims. Any debunking in this paragraph should focus specifically on the contradictory statements by WikiLeaks and on the context of Assange's possible motivations for making them. My goal here is to give the key claim a full airing while also providing the context of Assange's words and actions, and placing it within the timeline of the developing hysteria (i.e., Assange made these claims several months later, after the hype had been built).

Before (omitting refs):

Assistant Police Chief Peter Newsham said the police had no information suggesting a connection between Rich's death and data obtained by WikLeaks. Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, fueled speculation of a connection when, unbidden, he brought up the case. People who worked with Rich said he was not an expert computer hacker helping to leak information to foreigners. Andrew Therriault, a data scientist who had mentored Rich, said although he had recently been working as a programmer, this "wasn't his background", and another co-worker said Rich was very upset when he heard hackers associated with Russian intelligence services had broken into the DNC computers and could be interfering with the election.

After:

Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, fueled the speculation in an interview with Nieuwsuur published on August 9, 2016, which touched on the topic of risks faced by WikiLeaks' sources.[1]. Unbidden, Assange brought up the case of Seth Rich. When asked directly whether Rich was a source, Assange nodded, then said "we don't comment on who our sources are".[2]. Subsequent statements by WikiLeaks emphasized that the organization was not naming Rich as a source.[3] For context, Assange was well known as a longtime critic of Clinton [4] , and it subsequently came to light that WikiLeaks communicated with the Trump campaign over other issues, casting doubt on Assange's motivation [5].


Move these 2 sentences to the "Debunking" section:

Assistant Police Chief Peter Newsham said the police had no information suggesting a connection between Rich's death and data obtained by WikLeaks.[3]

People who worked with Rich said he was not an expert computer hacker helping to leak information to foreigners. Andrew Therriault, a data scientist who had mentored Rich, said although he had recently been working as a programmer, this "wasn't his background", and another co-worker said Rich was very upset when he heard hackers associated with Russian intelligence services had broken into the DNC computers and could be interfering with the election.[2]

Further suggestions

I haven't completely thought this through, but the "Debunking" section is a little bit long & unstructured (especially if the sentences above are added). It might be a good idea to break it into sections -- something like: debunking claims about the murder itself; debunking Rich's alleged connection to Wikileaks; debunking claims that the FBI was investigating...this could be tough because many of the sources debunked in several of those categories, but I think something could be done.

In any case, how does the first part look to y'all?

K zorn (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Nieuwsuur (August 9, 2016). "Assange belooft nieuwe onthullingen over Clinton" (in Dutch). Nieuwsuur – via YouTube.
  2. ^ a b Nieuwsuur (August 9, 2016). "Julian Assange on Seth Rich" – via YouTube.
  3. ^ a b Morton, Joseph (August 10, 2016). "WikiLeaks offers $20,000 reward for help finding Omaha native Seth Rich's killer". Omaha World-Herald. Retrieved February 11, 2018.
  4. ^ Epstein, Jennifer (November 30, 2010). "Assange: Clinton should quit". Politico.
  5. ^ Mackey, Robert (November 17, 2016). "Julian Assange's Hatred of Hillary Clinton Was No Secret. His Advice to Donald Trump Was". The Intercept.

Revisiting the Profiling Project

courtesy pings to all editors involved, directly or not, in the recent revert cycle: @Wesley Craig:, @SPECIFICO:, @Netoholic:, @Snooganssnoogans:, @FallingGravity:. Geogene (talk) 04:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Should we still include Jack Burkman and his Profiling Project in the article? Some interesting things have happened there since we last discussed the issue, and I think they cast some doubt on the organization's credibility. Last month, the Chief Investigator of the Profiling Project [3], [4], who was fired in July shortly after their preliminary report was released, allegedly shot Burkman and tried to run him over with his SUV. [5]. He was arrested and charged with malicious wounding and "use of a firearm in commission of a felony". His next court appearance is listed for April 19th [6]. According to the Post's mugshot caption, he has no fixed address. Is this someone we should consider an expert in criminal profiling?

There are questions in some of the more partisan sources about whether Burkman/PP should be considered reliable at all. For example, the Washingtonian: When Jack Burkman, the Republican lobbyist best known for pushing conspiracy theories about the death last year of Democratic National Committee employee Seth Rich, stages a press conference, he usually only draws out one or two reporters. [7] Also, Mother Jones [8], "eccentric" according to the Huffington Post [9], "sketchy" according to the Daily Beast [10]. Is Burkman credible enough for this?

Last summer, Newsweek seemed to take this stuff seriously [11], but today, I think it's clear-cut pro fringe to even mention it. Geogene (talk) 04:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The fact that the Profiling Project existed should be mentioned in the article, and the article does not label it an "expert in criminal profiling", but a group of college students. Whether or not their findings should be mentioned in the article is a different question (I think sourcing it to just one Newsweek article is pretty thin, so I left it out). FallingGravity 04:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
@Calton: How does the content you deleted "help out" the conspiracy nuts? Are you arguing that even mentioning the mere existence of The Profiling Project somehow enables conspiracy theorists? FallingGravity 05:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion, yes. Conspiracy theorists rarely have more than a fringe appeal, so they crave publicity in order to reach as many people as possible, and even negative publicity sometimes helps them. Even mentioning something in passing here implies some significance, and therefore a tinge of credibility. Also, when you restored the mention of PP, you left out the Newsweek part about PP's report claiming that it wasn't a hired killer--based largely on their interview with the former chief investigator, the one who was fired soon after, supposedly for talking too much to the media without Burkman's oversight. PP's report didn't contribute any new conclusions of their own beyond casting doubt on the police theory, but everyone seemed to read into it whatever they wanted. Newsweek's interpretation seemed like the most mainstream, and was the best source covering it. Geogene (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I have no opinion on this subject except to say that the material should stay in the article until a consensus forms to remove it. That's the status quo ante as well as the result of the previous discussion(s). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Well no. It's promoting a BLP-smear, and also a deceased person falsehood, that Mr. Rich was a criminal who stole privileged documents from his employer and illegally provided them to a publisher. SPECIFICO talk 18:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
That seems like WP:CRYBLP to me. The content currently being edit warred over is reliably sourced and doesn't reflect on Rich. And beyond that there's been a longstanding consensus to include the material. Nothing in WP:BLP, WP:NOCONSENSUS, or WP:3RRNO allows editors to remove BLP material added by talk page consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
You are smarter than to claim consensus just cuz it is somewhere on the page. C'mon. SPECIFICO talk 16:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Geogene that this material doesn't belong; this "Project" is apparently made up of volunteers who are current and recent students, funded by an obscure Republican lobbyist. It's not an academic or expert enterprise, nor has it received significant press attention. It's more analogous to an online petition or user-generated content. And Specifico, no need to notify me of pending discussions here - this talk page is on my watchlist. Neutralitytalk 18:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
That seems like WP:CRYBLP to me. Only if hold it up in a certain way and squint. --Calton | Talk 03:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I believe this material should not be included in the article, per my edit summary, as well as Geogene's and Neutrality's cogent arguments.- MrX 🖋 22:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Don't include; it’s not encyclopedic. The "Profiling Project" volunteers are members of the general public who had as much access to the evidence as I, another member of the general public, had, i.e., none. They had a few minutes of local fame last year because Burkman (a "notorious Seth Rich-conspiracy pushing, lobbyist troll", no less) made grand announcements and then proceeded to sue the police, the DC mayor, Hillary Clinton, the DNC, Donna Brazile, etc. for access, testimony, etc., but all of that appears to have fizzled and died. No further news reports until Burkman was allegedly assaulted in January and in March 2018 (see links in Geogene’s edit - "Police would not comment on Burkman’s account of the incident"). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Include, but with different wording. Instead of saying "independent" it should say it's a "private" investigation to show it's unrelated to the official investigation by the D.C. police. The Profiling Project has been given in-depth coverage by WJLA, and continued coverage by none other than The Washington Post (see: [12][13]). A factual mention of the group is not an endorsement of their reputation, anymore than mentioning the debunked conspiracy theories should be considered an endorsement of those theories. FallingGravity 22:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
The "source" is The Washington Post, which is still significant coverage even if you don't like it. And he's been "exposed for what he is" ever since he told the Daily Mail he thought Russia was somehow behind the murder, which happened before the Profiling Project was formed, so your logic doesn't make any sense. He later got coverage for trying to tell Robert Mueller the same thing. FallingGravity 01:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
No. Sources can be superseded by more recent knowledge, with our without quotes. Not all quotes are scare quotes, just like not all crows are scarecrows. SPECIFICO talk 01:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Okay, so what part of the WaPo source has since been disproven? FallingGravity 01:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
RS now view Burkman as a dissembling, politically-motivated conspiracy theorist. That was not part of the old coverage. SPECIFICO talk 01:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Most sources try to be neutral and avoid labels such "dissembling, politically-motivated conspiracy theorist", unless they have a thin line between their reporting and editorial departments, like the ones you appear to be citing. FallingGravity 02:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh my oh dear. I am not citing anything. I'm characterizing everything said about him, except by co-conspirator Fox. SPECIFICO talk 02:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and I cited an actual RS, unlike you and your "characterizations". FallingGravity 04:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
WaPo explicitly refers to Burkman as believing in conspiracy theories "...a saga stranger than Burkman’s own conspiracy theories."FatGandhi (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Whether or not Burkman believes in conspiracy theories (involving Seth Rich and Russia) is beside the point, in much same way it's beside the point that Sean Hannity believes in conspiracy theories involving Seth Rich and the DNC. What's important for inclusion in this article is that their views and actions are covered by multiple RS, even if sometimes viewed with skepticism. FallingGravity 08:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2018

there is a "on March 2018" that should be "on March 2018" 104.35.236.49 (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done - This request makes no sense.- MrX 🖋 11:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 Done Looking at the edit history it's clear they meant to write that it should be "in March 2018." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Which of These are Valid References?

Yup! They're good! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Which of these are valid references?

The Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/were-seth-richs-parents-stop-politicizing-our-sons-murder/2017/05/23/164cf4dc-3fee-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html?utm_term=.c5b01406666e"Our beloved son Seth Rich was gunned down in the early hours of July 10, 2016, in his Washington, D.C., neighborhood of Bloomingdale. On the day he was murdered, Seth was excited about a new job he had been offered on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Seth had dedicated his life to public service, and he told us that he wanted to work on the campaign’s effort to expand voter participation because he loved our country dearly and believed deeply in the promise of democratic engagement. Seth had been walking around, calling friends, family and his girlfriend, pondering the broader picture of what the job change would mean."


CNN: "Before Rich died, he had been offered a new job on Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign" reference: https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/24/us/seth-rich-dnc-wikileaks-theories/index.html


There is also a video interview of Seth Rich's father clearly showing him saying: "He had just been asked to join the Clinton campaign, four days before he was murdered." (and) "He had just found out that they wanted him." Live video of Seth Rich's father speaking: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3741754/Father-murdered-DNC-staffer-reveals-son-join-Hillary-Clinton-presidential-campaign-punching-hole-ugly-rumor-Wikileaks-source.html

The paradox is that Daily Mail is not considered by Wikipedia to be a reliable source, but it is the only one with the video showing Seth Rich's father revealing what the campaign has not acknowledged. The other two sources (CNN and Washington Post) quote him in writing.

Are any of them valid references? Is it permissible to discuss them on the Talk page? StreetSign (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Dr.Fleischman, StreetSign has already had this argument and been shot down by the wider community, as well as watchers of this page. See here and here. I'm sure you'll remember our friend here once you've started on the latter of those two links. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.
Ah yes, I didn't realize this was the same person. StreetSign, I suggest you drop the stick. It's time to move on to something else. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I thought it was best to find out if the sources themselves were acceptable, before going any further. StreetSign (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether they're good references. This has already been explained to you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


My goal is to propose an accurate addition to the article that is acceptable. StreetSign (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The consensus is that the content you want added isn't acceptable because it's not sufficiently noteworthy, and its inclusion creates a non-neutral presentation. None of that depends on the accuracy of the information. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes. You have described the situation concisely. Any addition to the article would need to be both noteworthy and neutral. Identifying accurate sources by Wikipedia standards is one step in that process. StreetSign (talk) 11:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

What you are doing here is akin to drawing a stick figure in preparation for a an exhibition on the human body at the Louvre: Yes, you fulfilled one of the requirements, but your content is still shit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I do not understand the rude behavior. StreetSign (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

It's just MjolnirPants being MjolnirPants. I think we can end this discussion now that we're all in agreement about the sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lede Needs Balance

Fully 2/3rds of the text of the Lede is dedicated to debunking the "right wing conspiracy theories", and virtually the entire of the body is about the conspiracy theories and their debunkment. But buried in the body is the fact that the Rich families' own publicist found a "lead" on the murder that points to Russians, which lends credibility to the theory that this was not simply a standard grade robbery. Also the fact that nothing was apparently stolen from Rich supports the idea that he was killed for reasons other than (non-political) robbery. I believe the Lede is at least twice as long as it should be, given that, from an "overview" perspective, there really isn't much to say. Rich was not noteworthy, except for the fact that he was killed and the conspiracy theories. I think two or three sentences for each side of the issue (conspiracy vs. not conspiracy) should be mentioned in the Lede, plus whatever other information is appropriate, and all of the other information regarding the theories, their condemnations, "fake news" etc... should be put into the body. The whole situation is a mass of details, but the Lede at least should be short and to the point. Most of what is currently included in the Lede should be moved elsewhere.

If you analyze the article on a sentence-by-sentence basis, and classify each sentence as either A) "Information about the Murder of Seth Rich" (the article's title), or B) "Information about the conspiracy theories surrounding the murder of Seth Rich", you'll find that easily 90% of the sentences are best categorized as "B" and not "A". The article should clearly differentiate between "A" and "B", and not mash them all up into the current mess that it's in right now.

Also in the Lede it talks about "conspiracies" as a plural, and then later refers to "conspiracy" as if there is only one, which I think should be resolved. If 90% of the article is going to be about the conspiracy theories, then at the very least they should be presented in a more logical and structured form. Example, Fox News' participation should have it's own separate section. In it's current form, the Article seems to convey the message that 1) Seth Rich was murdered either for unknown reasons, or a robbery, and 2) Anyone that believes there was some kind of a conspiracy is wrong, and believes in "fake news". It reads more like a narrative that condemns conspiracy theorists, and not like an encyclopedic article about "The Murder of Seth Rich". Note I'm not advocating that anything be excluded, but rather the information in the article needs to be restructured and clarified so as to differentiate between the murder, and the conspiracy theories surrounding it.2605:6000:6947:AB00:D54F:D719:F9A0:A888 (talk) 09:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Fully 2/3rds of the text of the Lede is dedicated to debunking the "right wing conspiracy theories", and virtually the entire of the body is about the conspiracy theories and their debunkment. That is because the conspiracy theories are what made this crime notable.
But buried in the body is the fact that the Rich families' own publicist found a "lead" on the murder that points to Russians, which lends credibility to the theory that this was not simply a standard grade robbery. It would be to your advantage to read the debunkings instead of merely complaining about them.
I think two or three sentences for each side of the issue (conspiracy vs. not conspiracy) should be mentioned in the Lede, See False balance. We do not give equal weight to conspiracy theories. Also see Guide to addressing bias for more about the weaknesses of "telling both sides".
The whole situation is a mass of details, but the Lede at least should be short and to the point. The purpose of the lede is to define the subject and summarize the body. The first sentence is used to that purpose. The second sentence points out that it was never solved; one of the most important points about the subject. Following that, the next two paragraphs summarize the narrative of events surrounding the murder, highlighting only the most important details. That is exactly what a lede should be.
Now, we have a policy here called Assume good faith which I hold to very tightly. However, you should understand that AGF is not a suicide pact and using common sense is one of the core pillars of this project. So while I'm assuming your motivations are to improve this project, I'm not required or even expected to ignore the obvious due to those assumptions.
With that in mind, it is quite clear to me that you are suggesting that we re-work the article to give more credence to the conspiracy theories. That is not going to happen, primarily because the conspiracy theories are complete and utter bullshit. The reason this article reads to you like "a narrative that condemns conspiracy theorists" is because most people marginally familiar with this subject are familiar with the bullshit, and the primary duty of an encyclopedia is to inform. To that end, informing our readers about what commonly-repeated claims about the subject are false and explaining what those claims are, why they are false, who invented them, where and when they appeared; and how they spread. Recall that the conspiracy theories are what made this crime notable; they are thus not unimportant, merely wrong. In order to be a good encyclopedia, we must then give all pertinent facts, and emphasize them according to their weight in the reliable sources. I hope this helps. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
The murder stuff falls squarely into fringe theory territory and must be treated as such. This means, we must avoid the false balance you're proposing. A comment from a political lobbyist about an unspecified lead is less than evidence. It would be excluded if it wasn't the reason why the Riches repudiated him. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Allow me to join this discussion. What do you mean by "The murder stuff falls squarely into fringe theory territory and must be treated as such." What "murder stuff" are you referring to? StreetSign (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The theory that Rich's murder was related to politics. Maybe I should have said "political murder stuff." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

OK. The murder remains unsolved. StreetSign (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, and the political theory has been debunked, so it must be described as such. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The Gateway Pundit published a story 3 days ago that a "creditable" witness "has conclusive evidence that will bring Rich’s killers to justice within a month". The story states that "two employees of the United States government killed Seth". The story states they were an "ATF agent and the DEA agent". Is the Gateway Pundit considered to be a reliable publication by Wikipedia editors? StreetSign (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Update: I see that the "creditable witness" did not come forward in person. He phoned anonymously to a press conference. So there is no credibility. StreetSign (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Gateway Pundit is about as far as you can get from a credible source and still be on this planet. Acroterion (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
+1 --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

You guys are good at separating the wheat from the chaff. StreetSign (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the Lede is too long and delves into too much about the conspiracy theories. The third paragraph itself almost looks like it could have been cut and pasted from the "debunking" section instead of written as part of the Lede. Et0048 (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

As has already been said: The conspiracy theories are the only reason this crime is notable. Without significant coverage of them, this article would be a stub at best, and a fading memory of some AfD regular at worst. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that it not be included. I think the second paragraph does a great job of introducing the material by saying "there are these conspiracy theories, but they have been largely debunked." But the paragraph beyond that starts going into the timeline and specific quotes and involves a lot more details. The actual who-said-what-and-when and retractions and the stuff in the third paragraph has a place in the article, but putting it in the Lede makes it sound cluttered and over-detailed. I think all the extra stuff beyond the second paragraph should go in the article itself, not in the Lede. Et0048 (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
The spread of the CSes by Fox News and the ensuing fallout was the single most noteworthy event surrounding the murder. I have a hard time thinking of a brief outline of that as being undue for the lede. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Just for my edification: what are "CSes"? Thanks, NapoliRoma (talk) 05:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't disagree. Nonetheless, the article is named "Murder of Seth Rich" and not "Conspiracy theories regarding the murder of Seth Rich." Et0048 (talk) 07:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Et0048. The third paragraph should be bumped down to the article, or the article renamed. It’s that simple. Jusdafax (talk) 07:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Disagree. The third paragraph summarizes the most notable info about this whole thing. And the lede is not too long.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
This murder is unsolved. This article should follow a format similar to the other unsolved murder articles on Wikipedia. [Unsolved Murder Articles on Wikipedia] The "Murder of Seth Rich" article mixes some facts with much opinion, while simultaneously omitting other facts because they are inconvenient. I assume it is done in good faith. StreetSign (talk) 11:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @Et0048: That's a better argument for renaming the article. Of course, the counterargument is that we don't call out the conspiracy theories unless we're 1) making it clear that the subject is fictional, e.g. Black Knight satellite conspiracy theory or to differentate it from an article about the (real) base subject, e.g. John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories being contrasted to Assassination of John F. Kennedy. Finally, if we did follow the latter route, we'd have to create a separate article for the murder, which would get deleted and the contents merged into the CS article. Which would then get renamed back to this.
@NapoliRoma:Conspiracy Theories.
@StreetSign: Point out one of those that's only notable for the CSes surrounding it, and then explain why you think that one is better written. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants:"ConSpiracy Theories", I guess? I mean, shouldn't it be "CTs"? (Sorry for the digression, but you can see why I was confused...)--NapoliRoma (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
lol Yes, it should have been "CTs". I'm not sure why I went with CSes. Acute dyslexia, I guess. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
@ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants: I believe that the Seth Rich Murder was noteworthy before the CSes. This murder is notable not because of the CSes. I believe the following are facts and not CSs: Seth Rich was an employee of the DNC, and was killed during a contentious presidential campaign. Seth Rich was said, by his father, to have received a job offer from the Hillary Clinton Campaign just days before his murder. The timeline from when Seth Rich left the bar is long. All this coincided and overlapped with the publication of DNC emails by Wikileaks that resulted in resignations within the DNC. The search for the "leaker" abruptly ended after Seth Rich was killed. The Hillary Clinton Campaign has never acknowledged the job offer to Seth Rich. Neither the Hillary Clinton Campaign nor the DNC has offered a monetary reward for information leading to an arrest or conviction. The email accounts used by Seth Rich have been forensically identified, and the emails have been published. The murder is unsolved, and undisputed, and documented facts (most notably the job offer from the Hillary Clinton Campaign just days before his murder) belongs in the article. I have not made any edits to the article, but have been subjected to unnecessary rudeness by a small number of editors who are determined to prevent discussion of the facts. StreetSign (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
You appear to be attempting to assemble a series of unrelated facts into some sort of sinister plot; this article is not the place for conspiracy theorizing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
By the way, there was no "DNC leaker." Those were GRU agents spearphishing and malware-attacking DNC employees. You should probably keep up on the actual news, as evidenced by the indictments of 12 Russian military intelligence agents by Robert Mueller. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Indictments are not evidence, and they are not proof. They are accusations needing to be proved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.242.187.159 (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
The third paragraph should stay in the lead as is. As was stated before, the conspiracy theories were what made the murder notable, there's no reason to rename the article, and I agree with those editors that have pointed out the obvious: that there's people coming here to try and give equal weight to the conspiracy theories as fact, which (as has also been pointed out) is not appropriate in an encyclopedia. Amsgearing (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
StreetSign, you have been pushing conspiracy theories as fact at this article for months now. If you don't stop, "rudeness" will be the least of your concerns. I'm being completely serious: I'm very close to dragging you to WP:AE and asking for a topic ban if you don't pick another subject to edit on WP. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
@ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants My objective was to obtain consensus for including the Hillary Clinton campaign job offer to Seth Rich in the article. That is it. Nothing else. That is not a conspiracy theory. I know you disagree with putting it in the article. That is OK. No hard feelings on my part. I hope that we can agree to discuss ways to improve the article on the Talk page without threats and insults. StreetSign (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
You've been pushing us to highlight or include various details that support the conspiracy theories, but otherwise do not matter to the subject one bit. If you're not pushing conspiracy theories, then your thought process about this subject (literally the only subject you have ever edited about on this project) is so bizarre that you probably have no business writing anything meant to be read by the kind of readership WP has. My advice to you is to go edit another subject quick, one of the dozen or so people who have told you to back off run out of patience and file an ANI or AE action with your name in it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • StreetSign, you have been making the same point over and over and over again. It is not gaining consensus. It's time to move on, unless you have something new to add. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Dr. Fleischman, I appreciate your constructive advice and tone. I will let this issue marinate until there is new information available. StreetSign (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think the lead has a balance problem. However I think the list of organizations that rejected the theories can be trimmed down for readability. The second paragraph can simply say, "Law enforcement, fact-checking websites, and various newspapers have all deemded these theories to be false," or something like that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 14 July 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 21:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Murder of Seth Rich → Seth Rich murder conspiracy theories – I think it it time to redo this discussion, given the recent news about the DNC hack and Russia. It is more clear today then it was when this was discussed before. However, the same rationale remains. I made a small change and I am using the plural for theory, as it better reflects what is going on here. 1. This is why this is WP:N. It is a debunked conspiracy theory. 2. It conforms with Pizzagate conspiracy theory 3. For BLP and WP:AVOIDVICTIM, I think this is how how the family would want this viewed as it helps debunk some of the BS around their son's death. There is no need for Wikipedia to further the victimization of the family and it should be a place for a reader to quickly understand the basic facts. Casprings (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I supported the move in the last discussion but I'm neutral now. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Why?Casprings (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
No - completely unnecessary. Per WP:CONCISE, keep it short unless there's a compelling reason to make it longer. Amsgearing (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
No The murder actually occurred. The fact that it became notable due to the conspiracy theories doesn't change the fact that these CTs surround a real event. Pizzagate was bullshit down to it's core. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
No The murder actually occurred, and remains unsolved. Stay with the facts. StreetSign (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Support, but recommend "Seth Rich murder conspiracy theories" for brevity.
A parallel example would be "Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories". It's known that Barack Obama professes a religion, but that's not what the article is about—it's about the CTs surrounding his religion. His religion gets mention in his primary article, but there is no separate article "Religion of Barack Obama", as it wouldn't be sufficiently noteworthy if not for the CTs surrounding it.
Similarly, it's known that Seth Rich was murdered, but the article is primarily about the CTs surrounding the event. An unsolved street shooting in a major city would be otherwise non-notable.--NapoliRoma (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
You are the first support vote so I sent ahead and changed it. That is a better suggestion.Casprings (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
In the last vote, Ieditors convincingly made the argument that all kinds of murders get their own article so long as there is some news coverage of them, and it's likely that Seth Rich murder would have gotten even if there were no conspiracy theories attached to it. If I recall correctly, the murder did get coverage that was independent of the conspiracy theories (for instance, in the first few days after the murder). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Support with shorter title. C0dd (talk) 12:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose not idiomatic English. Geogene (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2018

PLEASE DELETE "RIGHT-WING" IN FIRST SENTENCE BELOW. THIS IS AN INACCURATE CHARACTERIZATION OF THESE THEORIES.

The murder spawned several right-wing conspiracy theories, including the false claim that Rich had been involved with the leaked DNC emails in 2016, contradicted by the July 2018 indictment of 12 Russian military intelligence agents for hacking the e-mail accounts and networks of Democratic Party officials[5] and by the U.S. intelligence community's conclusion the leaked DNC emails were part of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.[6][7][8] Law enforcement[6][7] as well as fact-checking websites like PolitiFact.com,[7][9] Snopes.com,[10] and FactCheck.org stated that these theories were false and unfounded.[6] The New York Times,[11] Los Angeles Times,[12] and The Washington Post called the fabrications fake news and falsehoods.[13] 2600:1702:31B0:64E0:4574:A446:67D2:EB2A (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Please read the sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

More on Fox News lawsuit

Judge Rejects Suit by Parents of Slain Democratic Staffer]

Also dismissed was a related suit by private investigator Rod Wheeler. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Fox News wasn't "accused" of promoting conspiracy theories

Fox News DID promote Seth Rich conspiracy theories per countless RS. An editor just inserted WP:WEASEL text that the network was "accused" of doing so.[14] This edit followed an edit which sought to whitewash Fox News' role in promoting the conspiracy theories out of the lede. I reverted the first edit, but I'm now prevented by 1RR from reverting the other edit. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Why are lying intelligence agencies considered credible and Assange is not

US intelligence falsified WMD to get US into Iraq, organized fake testimony about Iraqi soldiers killing babies in incubators, lied to congress about mass surveillance, funded Islamist extremists. Assange has never been proven guilty of spreading fake documents. If you are gonna turn Wikipedia into Pravda do it less obviously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.217.24.239 (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


Proposal

Per the lengthy requested move discussion, and per WP:ONEWAY, I propose creating a new, separate article about the conspiracy theories specifically. I have not prepared a title for the article, but it should contain "conspiracy theories". wumbolo ^^^ 20:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I do not see the point. The "conspiracy theories" are an important part of the subject and should be mentioned here. Even the Assassination of John F. Kennedy has a conspiracies section and that case was conclusively solved. On the other hand, there is very little detail about these theories in reliable sources, so it would be hard to expand the material. TFD (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
That article has only three paragraphs on conspiracy theories. See WP:ONEWAY. wumbolo ^^^ 00:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
WP:ONEWAY says nothing about whether we should break conspiracy theories off into their own articles. I do not support this, because it's really only the conspiracy theories that made this event notable. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

No. The only reason this article exists is because of the conspiracy theories. --Calton | Talk 07:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

That does not appear to be true. The early news stories that reported the murder of Seth Rich did not contain any conspiracy theories, yet it was still news.

19 July 2016 washingtonpost story on murder of Seth Rich When do you think the earliest Seth Rich conspiracy story appeared? StreetSign (talk) 00:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

WaPo is local to Washington D.C. The murder occurred in Washinton D.C. Does that make every murder reported on by local newspapers notable? I don't think so. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia, Washinton Post "has a particular emphasis on national politics", and "has won 47 Pulitzer Prizes". Its slogan is "Democracy Dies in Darkness". Your attempt to classify it as a local newspaper is unsuccessful. The Murder of Seth Rich has been reported by CNN, Foxnews, Newsweek, and many others. Does it seem unusual for a robbery victim to be shot in the back (twice), and have nothing taken? StreetSign (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Your attempt to classify it as a local newspaper is unsuccessful
No, the term you're looking for is "factual": whatever coverage the Post does on its political and national pages, it is, when it comes to events in the Metro Washington area, a local paper covering purely local events. The Sports section, for example, doesn't cover the LA Dodgers or the Seattle Seahawks; it covers the Washington Nationals and the Washington Redskins. The Post doesn't review concerts in Denver or restaurants in Santa Fe, attend city council meetings in Austin, report on traffic accidents in Miami, or cover public transit issues in San Jose. And WTF does Pulitzer Prizes have to do with whether a paper covers local news? The Point Reyes Light won a damned Pulitzer Prize.
Oh, and nice try of trying to slip in the same JAQing off conspiracy-theory tropes. --Calton | Talk 07:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
It was also picked up by CNN[15] and Fox News,[16] and People Magazine covered the funeral.[17] This is the type of case that draws attention in crime news reporting: middle class person killed by a person or persons unknown. TFD (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)-
Those are better, but I don't think there's enough there to build an article on. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
It's the same with any unsolved crime or other unpredictable event. Whether or not they become notable depends on ongoing news coverage. There would be no article about the Shooting of Trayvon Martin for example had news media decided not to follow up on the original story. Whether or not they should provide any coverage at all to these cases is irrelevant. TFD (talk) 02:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
That seems to confirm what Calton said above. All the ongoing coverage seemed to focus on the conspiracy theories. This wasn't something like the murder of JonBenet Ramsey, where there was persistent focus on the investigation and surrounding events. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

News media have written extensively on the case, publishing extensive details on the biography of the victim, his activities immediately before the shooting, time and cause of death, medical treatment, statements by DNC and family members, police press conference, etc. The only reason the conspiracy theories have attracted attention is that the homicide was extensively covered. In the JonBenet Ramsey case, there was in fact a great deal of unwarranted speculation in tabloids and police were never able to uncover any useful evidence. And see "5 JonBenet Conspiracy Theories That Are As Confusing As They Are Fascinating". That was written 20 years after the murder. TFD (talk) 04:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Make a draft then, if you think there's enough coverage. If you can fill out a couple sections with material without relying on CS coverage, that'd be a step towards proving me wrong. (Try to avoid using any articles that focus on the CSes, as well.) Otherwise, I'm going to stand by my statement that there's not enough info to justify an article just on the murder. Unlike JonBenet, there hasn't been a pair of perennial prime suspects, a revolving door of secondary suspects, false confessions, etc, etc. Even if there is enough info to justify a full article, then you'd have to show that this info would have been published even if the conspiracy theories hadn't hit mainstream news coverage. Hence why I suggested avoiding using sources that focus on the CSs, because sources that ignore them or barely mention them are more likely to have been published regardless of the conspiracy theories. But sources on the CSs that happen to mention real details would quite obviously not have been published were it not for the CSs.
I would also point out that your link still evinced my point: It took 20 years to build up enough conspiracy theories around JonBenet's murder to merit an article on them. Now, if you find a source like that dated to within 2 years of the murder, you're making a point. Find 20 or so (we have way more than that on the Seth Rich CSs, but the internet was in it's infancy at the time of JonBenet's death) and you're making a really compelling point. But absent that, there's a clear difference in how these two murders came to public attention. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't need to draft an article since it already exists. The first four sections are about the murder and the fifth about conspiracy theories. However much of the fifth section is inseparable from the first four. We cannot for example expunge the information that Wheeler investigated the case on behalf of the family just because of his findings and we cannot remove the fact the family sued Fox. TFD (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't really disagree with that. Just so we're clear: I'm still opposed to forking this article into a "murder" and "conspiracy theories" pair of articles. I suspect you are, too. Is that correct? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants: just to make it clear, if the conspiracy theories are taken out of this article, we would still talk about their consequences and impact on the investigation process. wumbolo ^^^ 21:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Wumbolo, this proposal has only gotten support from a single account with a history of pushing conspiracy theories. I don't think that it's likely to happen. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants:, I agree the facts and the conspiracy theories at this point cannot be separated out into two distinct articles. While I agree that conspiracy theorizing has been the major reason for extensive coverage of the case, I think that the case would have received attention regardless. If the case is solved, i.e., the actual killer or killers are identified, we can review splitting the article. TFD (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I think that the case would have received attention regardless. It might have, we can't ever really know. I just briefly got the impression you were arguing for the split, even though you'd already said quite clearly above that you didn't support it. That was just me being being a dumbass, so don't pay too much heed to it.
If the passage of time and future developments result in more attention being paid to the murder/investigation/aftermath, then I'm open to revisiting this question at that time. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I oppose the creation of a separate article. I don't want a fork. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I also oppose the creation of a separate article on the conspiracy theories. There is already excessive space given to the conspiracy theories in this article, to the point that it makes it more difficult to identify the facts. The Murder of Seth Rich article should instead focus primarily on the facts. To simultaneously exclude facts while including conspiracy theories is not justifiable. StreetSign (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

"Neither the FBI nor CIA ever examined the servers"?

This is not a page for Q&A about the article subject. If the information you seek is not in the article, then you may as at the reference desk. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

From a conspiracy site:

Collection of Democratic National Committee (DNC) internal emails published (leaked) by DCLeaks and WikiLeaks during the 2016 Democratic National Convention. Seth Rich was the source leaks, miffed that the DNC railroaded Barry Sanders. Seth Rich was subsequently murdered by MS-13 hitmen. DNC had CrowdStrike investigate their servers and falsely claim that Russian hackers were behind the leak. Meanwhile, neither the FBI nor CIA ever examined the servers.

It says that "Neither the FBI nor CIA ever examined the servers"... is that true? If so it seems relevant since according to the conspiracy Seth Rich and not Russian hackers were involved with the servers. BTW I know that there were "12 Russians indicted in Mueller investigation".

So if it's true about the FBI and CIA then I think that should be mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Legowolf3d (talk • contribs)

edit: a related page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lede

Seth Conrad Rich (January 3, 1989 – July 10, 2016) was an American employee of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) who was fatally shot in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington, D.C.[1][2][3]

That's the lede to a biography, not to an event, and certainly doesn't summarize what the article is about. So, how about a change?--Calton | Talk 09:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Calton makes a good point. The lead (I am old school and refuse to use that newfangled spelling -- get off my lawn, you damn kids!) should be in the form of an event. how about:
"The murder of Seth Rich occurred on Sunday, July 10, 2016, at 4:20 a.m. in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington, D.C. Rich died from two shots to the back. Rich was an employee of the Democratic National Committee (DNC)."
That's just off the top of my head and could be improved. in particular, I lost the middle name, which is undesirable. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I like Guy's version. There's only one problem: "Lede" is not a particularly new term, dating back to the 50's, when it was used to differentiate the lead paragraph from the leading. It doesn't make one whit of difference on WP which spelling you use, but I actually worked a summer in print as a teen, and learned to spell it like that from there. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
It appears that "lede" was never used to differentiate the lead paragraph from the leading. It's fake retro-nostalgia.
  • From Merriam Webster:[18] "Although evidence dates the spelling to the 1970s, we didn't enter lede in our dictionaries until 2008. For much of that time, it was mostly kept under wraps as in-house newsroom jargon."
  • From Wictionary:[19] "Usage seems mostly confined to the U.S. Originally only journalistic usage that is now so common in general US English that it is no longer labeled as jargon by major US dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster and American Heritage. Noted as 'sometimes spelled' in 1959, 'often spelled' in 1969, and asserted in the 1979 reprint of a 1974 book (see Citations page). In 1990, William Safire was still able to say that 'lede' was jargon not listed in regular dictionaries."
  • From Howard Owens:[20][21] "Early in my career somebody I obviously respected — can’t remember who now — told me the correct newspaper spelling of the opening of a newspaper story is 'lede.' There’s lot of romanticism and nostalgia in the newspaper industry for 'lede'... Today, our collection [of old journalism books] exceeds 400 titles. About 100 of the best of them are sitting at the moment immediately to my left. Some years ago, researching the evolution of 'objective journalism,' I cracked open many of these old books, and something struck me — in none of these old books did any author spell the word 'lede.' They all spell it 'lead.' It was then I realized, there is no historic basis for the spelling of a lead as 'lede.' 'Lede' is an invention of linotype romanticists, not something used in newsrooms of the linotype era. It’s really emblematic of today’s print nostalgia, too — like Desi and Lucy sleeping in separate beds — a longing for an America that never was, or wasn’t quite what you thought it was."
Also see Lead vs. lede and tradition vs. substance. [22] --Guy Macon (talk) 02:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Our article claims the oldest use was in '59, which matches what I was told way back when (my teen years were in the '90's). But apparently, both were wrong. I'm off to make a certain edit, but thanks for looking that up! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Just for the record, I originally picked up the term "lede" (and "graf") from a couple of college journalism classes in the late 80s -- and which I've used since then -- so being in use for at least 40 years is no-way "newfangled" as far as I'm concerned. I have to say, it's a strange hill to want to die on.

Meanwhile: the lede for this article? --Calton | Talk 03:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Support: "The murder of Seth Rich occurred on Sunday, July 10, 2016, at 4:20 a.m. in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington, D.C. Rich died from two shots to the back. Rich was an employee of the Democratic National Committee (DNC)." StreetSign (talk) 11:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Nope. This is about a crime: what does Rich having been an employee of a particular organization have to do with anything? --Calton | Talk 02:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Although I had that in my original top-of-my-head proposal above, now that you bring it up, where he was employed is irrelevant. I say take it out. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
What facts belong in the article is determined by what reliable sources decide is relevant, per Balancing aspects. Incidentally, biographical information about crime victims is always included in crime stories, whether or not it was known by the perpetrator[s]. Otherwise, I agree with the change in phrasing. I don't see though why we should mention he was an American, since the assumption is that people born in and living in the U.S. are U.S. citizens. TFD (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
What facts belong in the article is determined by what reliable sources decide is relevant...
That's nice. Also irrelevant, since what's being discussed is the lede, not the article overall. --Calton | Talk 14:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
News media routinely say that Seth Rich was employed by the DNC when they first mention him. See for example, the first sentence in this recent article from CBS: "A judge in the Southern District of New York dismissed a lawsuit against Fox News by parents of murdered Democratic National Committee employee Seth Rich...."[23] Neutrality requires us to use the same emphasis on facts as reliable sources. TFD (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

So, about that biographical-style lead? Still there. I'm not changing anything unless I'm absolutely sure there's consensus. Hell, the damned thing doesn't even mention the DATE of the event except by inference. --Calton | Talk 23:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Denialism category

Right now there is a category for "Denialism" on the article. Does that really belong? I didn't want to remove it without a discussion since this article seems to be so sensitive.PopSci (talk) 23:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, it fits perfectly per the definition given at Denialism as it 's a conspiracy theory which denies the actual evidence of the DNC leak as well as at least some of the findings of the police investigation. But it fits those because it's a conspiracy theory, and it's already in two conspiracy theory categories (which is proper), but Category:Conspiracy theories is not a subcat of Category:Denialism, which, to my way of thinking, it should be. So I think this is a category problem, not a "categories of this page" problem. But that means wading into the tenebrous -and possibly bottomless- pit that is category space; haunted by lost souls and humorless automatons who pretend to be editors. So that's all on you, buddy. I ain't going no-where near that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Using that reasoning, we could add thousands of articles to the category and thousands of categories to this article. Categories are a navigation device. It is unlikely that someone interested in denialism will find this a must read article or that anyone interested in this article will be interested in denialism. TFD (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I highly doubt we could add thousands using that logic: "This article is an X and X is a Y" is as far as it goes. You might push things and find a couple dozen categories, but not thousands, or even hundreds. And the vast majority of those would be of the "Why the hell is this article in that category?!" variety, and not of the "Hmm, I see where it's coming from but this seems a bit off..." sort. Regardless, I'm not opposed to removing this article from the cat; I'm just saying that it fits. Whether that's a useful navigational aid is debatable, and the proper applicability of categories is something I'm uninterested in debating for much the same reason that I rarely turn off the lights and whisper "Bloody Mary" into the bathroom mirror. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

New lede

All right, I got tired of waiting for a change (see "Lede", above), and changed the lede. Let me know if it's acceptable:

The murder of Seth Rich occurred on Sunday, July 10, 2016, at 4:20 a.m. in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington, D.C.[1] Rich died from two shots to the back.

The 27-year-old Rich was an employee of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and his murder spawned several right-wing conspiracy theories[2], including the false claim...

--Calton | Talk 03:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Approved by ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ Morton, Joseph (August 4, 2016). "D.C. police, family of slain DNC staffer Seth Rich urge anyone with information about murder to come forward". Omaha World-Herald. Retrieved February 11, 2018.
  2. ^ Bromwich, Jonah Engel (May 17, 2017). "How the Murder of a D.N.C. Staffer Fueled Conspiracy Theories". The New York Times. Retrieved May 17, 2017.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Seth_Rich/Archive_11&oldid=1087969847"