Talk:Murder of Seth Rich/Archive 12
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
Off-topic conspiracy theories! Only a nickle! Get your piping hot off-topic conspiracy theories right here!
Per WP:TPOC; Off-Topic: A waste of time and a magnet for unsourced claims. The only way we will ever treat conspiracy theories as truth is when reliable sources start doing so. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Then your statement about false dichotomy makes no sense. I have taken the matter to BLPN. TFD (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
The first comment I posted was, "There is a clear implication that the people named in the indictment, which is a matter of public record are responsible." You then launched into an argument I cannot understand saying that changing the wording would turns it into a false dichotomy. Excuse me for digressing by addressing your comments. TFD (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
|
More Off-Topic Conspiracy Theories
Per WP:TPOC; Off-Topic: No, we are NOT going to allow page after page of conspiracy theories sourced to the banned-on-Wikipedia Daily Mail |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Some facts that are not yet included in the Wikipedia article, which would improve it significantly: The location of the Seth Rich murder: It has been precisely documented as the southwest corner of Flagler Place and W Street Northwest. Currently only described as “Bloomingdale neighborhood". The hospital where Seth Rich was treated and died. MedStar Washington Hospital Center or Howard University Hospital. Currently only described as “a nearby hospital”. Statements made by Seth Rich after the shooting. His brother is quoted as saying “They were very surprised he didn’t make it,” “He was very aware, very talkative. Yep, that was 100 percent my brother.” “He wasn’t in pain, they were told,” according to the paper. “But he was confused. When Seth Rich was asked where he lived, he gave a previous address …” The caliber of the weapon (or weapons) used to shoot Seth Rich in the back twice. The job offer to Seth Rich from the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, days before the murder. Existing in published statements from his parents, and even a video of his father talking about it. The known email accounts, social media accounts, and posts of Seth Rich, reported as MeGrimlock4 panda4progress pandas4bernie A photo or video of the “glimpse of the legs of two people who could possibly be the killers” Some of these are well documented, but described as "irrelevant". StreetSign (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC) ... Additional facts that would improve the article significantly: The name and badge number of the responding officer. The names and badge numbers of the assisting officers. The body worn camera video from the three assisting officers who wore them. Information that Shotspotter was used by the Metropolitan Police Department to detect and locate the gunshots that killed Seth Rich. Recorded as 5D67055 Multiple_Gunshots 10-Jul-16 0:04:18 Washington DC5D (latitude) 38.922 (longitude) -76.979 "rounded to three (3) decimal places" and 5D67057 Multiple_Gunshots 10-Jul-16 0:04:23 Washington DC5D (latitude) 38.922 (longitude) -76.979 "rounded to three (3) decimal places" (and gunshots (or "firecracker") at the same location minutes earlier) StreetSign (talk) 02:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC) (talk • contribs) 02:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC) at https://mpdc.dc.gov/publication/shotspotter-data-disclaimer-and-dictionary The photo taken at the scene of the shooting, showing the police and EMTs. A copy of Metropolitan Police Department Public Incident Report CCN #16113797 StreetSign (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I see that StreetSign has added a bunch more "facts that would improve the article significantly", and now it's bordering on the ridiculous: responding officer badge numbers? Bodycam footage? How is the HELL would things like this improve the article even marginally? If conspiracy theorists want to legitimize the factual pieces they use to cobble together their nutty hall of mirrors, let them try elsewhere. --Calton | Talk 06:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Why do you continue to hide all discussions on this Talk page of the factual and well documented statements by Seth's father (Washington Post, CNN, and Seth Rich's father on video) about the Clinton campaign job offer to Seth Rich four days before he was murdered? "On the day he was murdered, Seth was excited about a new job he had been offered on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign." "The young DNC staffer died just as he was on the cusp of starting a dream job" And here is Joel Rich on video telling us about the Clinton Job offer. I have never attempted to unilaterally put the job offer in the article, but just discuss it here, which is clearly appropriate. You continue to hide it from editors who might agree with me that it is relevant. StreetSign (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC) |
Even More Off-Topic Conspiracy Theories
Per WP:TPOC; Off-Topic: No, we are NOT going to allow page after page of conspiracy theories. | |||
---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||
What is good for the goose, is good for the gander. FrogCast (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC) Neither of those apply.
FrogCast (talk) 11:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Just because russians are accused, does not contradict the conspiracy theory. Even if they were convicted, it would be hard to say they were. Also, Russia is a conspiracy theory. It has all the markings. Please make arguments, not ipse dixit emotional outbursts. FrogCast (talk) 12:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Why would you ask for a source for a logical argument? It is not hard to understand. If you are accused of something, that does not make you guilty. FrogCast (talk) 12:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
You did not address my argument. Being accused is different than being guilty. Ergo, accused russians is not a contradiction to the conspiracy. FrogCast (talk) 12:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
FrogCast, you fail to recognize the difference between (1) exposing a real conspiracy, and (2) conspiracy theories designed to cover-up that conspiracy. That confusion is common among people and editors who read unreliable sources, such as Sputnik, RT, Fox News (for politics, they are extremely partisan), Breitbart, Daily Caller, etc. Here is a fully referenced explanation of the actual conspiracy theories, especially those related to the Trump–Russia dossier and the FISA warrant and surveillance of Carter Page after he left the Trump campaign. This is all reliably sourced. I think ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants and Nil Einne will also appreciate this (and all my hard work). Any comments should be added below the hatted content, and below my signature.
That should help you understand how this works. Don't call the investigation a "conspiracy". -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC) |
Off-topic complaint about other users
Per WP:TPOC; Off-Topic: Take it to ANI. It doesn't belong here. This page is for discussing improvements to the Seth Rich article only. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
A Veritable Plethora Of Unsourced Conspiracy Theories
Per WP:TPOC; Off-Topic: More conspiracy theories, still no reliable source. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The Seth Rich murder remains unsolved. This Newsweek article states about the Seth Rich murder, “death does not appear to be a random homicide” or “a robbery gone bad,” as police had suggested. Instead, the report says, the “death was more likely committed by a hired killer or serial murderer,” Newsweek The Profiling Project does not subscribe to conspiracy theories. There may be something that we can include to improve the article. I am working on a proposal. StreetSign (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
|
Washington Times retraction
Looks like the Washington Times has had to eat some crow:
- "The Washington Times Retracts Column About Seth Rich’s Killing" - New York Times, Oct 1, 2018
- "The Washington Times settles lawsuit with Seth Rich's brother, issues retraction and apology for its coverage" - CNN, Oct 1, 2018
The actual retraction: "Retraction: Aaron Rich and the murder of Seth Rich"
--Calton | Talk 03:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- I opened up that first link with my jaw hanging down, thinking that it was the Washington Post who retracted the story. But no, it was the Times. No big surprise there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:TPOC; Off-Topic. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Since the retraction was covered in the NYT and CNN, I agree we should add it to this article. TFD (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
edit warring
@Connor Behan: If you're just going to edit war instead of taking it to talk, could you save the rest of us the trouble and just go report yourself? Thanks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- If you compare my two edits, you will see that they are different. Specifically I tried to take your point of view into account. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the malicious intent of the conspiracy theory is the main thing you want to get across. The fact that detectives investigating the murder of Seth Rich know more about Seth Rich than the CIA is the main point I want to get across. There is plenty of room for us both to be happy and there is no need for that tone. Connor Behan (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- The difference between them is minor; much less than the difference between the established text and either of them. This is edit warring and your argument is just as smokescreen for it. If you really cared about finding a consensus, you'd stop reverting at the article and let it sit in the stable version while discussing it here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- Let's try adding them in smaller chunks, OK? I just reverted be`cause you removed this reference:[16] could you explain why?
- Related: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Russia indictment --Guy Macon (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- Good catch. I didn't realize that I removed that. I don't have a preference for which version stays up during the discussion. But so far I have heard no arguments that the "stable" version is better. Most people seem to prefer the re-ordered one. Connor Behan (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- I don't know which is better. It's too much information to take in at once. Can you make one change so we can discuss it? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- Sure. The edit I just made changes the one thing that seems most important. The police investigation of the murder contradicts the conspiracy theory very strongly. The US investigation of Russia contradicts the conspiracy theory quite weakly. The order in which we mention things should reflect that. Connor Behan (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- I like it. Let's see if anyone doesn't, so I can
kick their asspolitely ask them to explain why. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2018 (UTC)- Yes, the current change is a good one. Sorry Guy, but if you really want to kick some ass, I'm sure some IP will come along sooner or later to bitch that the police investigation doesn't prove anything. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- I like it. Let's see if anyone doesn't, so I can
- Sure. The edit I just made changes the one thing that seems most important. The police investigation of the murder contradicts the conspiracy theory very strongly. The US investigation of Russia contradicts the conspiracy theory quite weakly. The order in which we mention things should reflect that. Connor Behan (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- I don't know which is better. It's too much information to take in at once. Can you make one change so we can discuss it? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- Good catch. I didn't realize that I removed that. I don't have a preference for which version stays up during the discussion. But so far I have heard no arguments that the "stable" version is better. Most people seem to prefer the re-ordered one. Connor Behan (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- The difference between them is minor; much less than the difference between the established text and either of them. This is edit warring and your argument is just as smokescreen for it. If you really cared about finding a consensus, you'd stop reverting at the article and let it sit in the stable version while discussing it here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I think we are ready for Connor Behan to make another change -- or even two or three in rapid succession, which would still make it easy to focus on one if it causes a disagreement. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- I'd prefer one or two. All things considered, Connor has given me reason to doubt his neutrality. So I'd like to examine the edits in detail, without having to balance one change against the other too much. I can do two easily enough, but I don't want to take the time and energy to weigh three. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- I am good with that. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Seth Rich involvement
"the false claim that Rich had been involved with the leaked DNC emails in 2016," This statement is itself false. Although Craig Murray and Julian Assange have avoided directly disclosing him as the source, it is quite clear that that "law enforcement" sources that deny Rich's involvement are unreliable -- especially the Mueller indictment. https://consortiumnews.com/2019/03/13/vips-muellers-forensics-free-findings/ https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/17/seth-rich-the-dnc-and-wikileaks-the-plot-thickens/ A much better wording would be to say that "certain law enforcement officials deny that Rich had been involved with the leaked DNC emails in 2016." It is probably worth pointing out that while right-wing media has run with this story, left wing media takes the same line -- it is only the "extreme center" (Tariq Ali's term) media that takes a different approach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.197.154 (talk) 13:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- That would be misleading. The proposed revision, "certain law enforcement officials deny", would imply that it's actually believed by law enforcement officials somewhere, if not everywhere, that Rich was somehow involved in the leak, which is not the case. Geogene (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Describing a federal indictment of foreign intelligence agents by a duly-appointed special counsel as "unreliable" while hoisting up "ConsortiumNews"... is not indicative of a good understanding of our sourcing standards. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that indictments are not reliable sources and that's why they have trials. But there is no evidence that Rich was involved in the emails leak or that he had the motive, technical skills or opportunity to do so. In fact the Consortium article does not mention him. TFD (talk) 02:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
The main article contains the statement: "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 that Rich had been involved with the leaked DNC emails in 2016, contradicted by the law enforcement branches that investigated the murder.[3][4]" By declaring this a "false claim", it overstates the case. It may very well be the fact that some people have not presented any evidence of a connection between Rich and leaked DNC emails. But that, alone, doesn't provably make it a "false claim". It's an unproven claim, not a "false claim". 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:2423:80AA:C732:430F (talk) 09:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- Since the article is locked (why?), I request that somebody who can do so make some edits to this portion of the text. "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 that Rich had been involved with the leaked DNC emails in 2016, contradicted by the law enforcement branches that investigated the murder.[3][4]" First, the word 'false" should be removed from "false claim", because the claim (while unproven) nevertheless hasn't been disproven. The voice of Wikipedia shouldn't be used to vouch for one side of a dispute. Secondly, the reference to "right-wing" should be removed: It hasn't been established that only "right wing" people might be interested in the suspicion that Seth Rich had something to do with the DNC emails. It may be, alternatively, that "left-wing" people have an interest in discrediting the possibility of Seth Rich's involvement, wanting to push the "Russia did it" idea. (Which, by the way, are not mutually exclusive: The Russians may have hacked emails, and Seth Rich may have leaked emails. The claimed truth of either one does not disprove the other.) Third, the portion which states, "contradicted by law enforcement branches that investigated the murder" is false. A check of the content referred to by the two footnotes ([3] and [4]) repeatedly refers to the lack of evidence, which I do not dispute: However, they do not claim that Seth Rich's involvement has been proved false. To say otherwise amounts to Original Research. In fact, a sentence within the article pointed to by footnote 4 says: "Contrary to Gingrich’s statement, the thin case that Rich was the DNC leaker is in no way substantial enough to outweigh ample evidence that Russia was the culprit." The writer of that is falsely implying that the truth of one would completely disprove the other. It doesn't. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:2423:80AA:C732:430F (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm declining the request because it's easy to find reliable sources that state that the conspiracy theories are both right-wing and false, for example [17]. Regarding:
the voice of Wikipedia shouldn't be used to vouch for one side of a dispute
, there is no dispute here, all reliable sources say that the conspiracy theories are false. Per WP:FALSEBALANCE, it would be misleading to imply something else to the readers by pretending otherwise. We've debated whether "debunked by law enforcement" is literally true or not before, but I don't think a definite consensus was reached. Geogene (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm declining the request because it's easy to find reliable sources that state that the conspiracy theories are both right-wing and false, for example [17]. Regarding:
- The problem with referring to claims made with zero supporting evidence as simply "unproven" is that it can be construed as giving credence to those claims even if they are made in bad faith. One could conceivably concoct a claim that Donald Trump keeps 37 Koala Bears imprisoned in Trump Tower. There is no evidence it is true, but you can't prove it false, can you? Calling the koala claim "unproven" would imply that it needs investigation or that it was made with some sort of merit or justification in the first place. Claims made with misleading evidence or no evidence whatsoever--especially in political contexts--should always be referred to as "false" when they are utterly unfounded. If any evidence ever emerges for Seth Rich's involvement--or for any captive koalas--then another term should be considered. FatGandhi (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- There's an episode in "Yes, Prime Minister" where Sir Humphrey tells the PM it might be true the Employment Secretary was considering resigning. While the PM thinks that it is a valid claim, Humphrey was just made it up.[18] It is misleading to provide the same credence to wild guesses and reasoned speculation. However I think the tone of this article is over-emphatic which ironically creates doubt in the mind of readers. ("The lady doth protest too much, methinks.") We don't say in Moon landing article for example, "This really happened and anyone who questions it is lying." The emphatic language could make readers question its validity. TFD (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- We don't? "Many Moon-landing conspiracy theories have been put forward, claiming either that the landings did not happen and that NASA employees have lied, or that the landings did happen but not in the way that has been told...Vince Calder and Andrew Johnson, scientists from Argonne National Laboratory, have given detailed answers to conspiracists' claims on the laboratory's website. They show that NASA's portrayal of the Moon landing is fundamentally accurate, allowing for such common mistakes as mislabeled photos and imperfect personal recollections.". --Moon landing conspiracy theories
- --Guy Macon (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Look, I think most political opinionating is equivalent to pushing tumbleweeds with one's farts, but it's clear that wikipedia leans quite left. Spare me the whole "Well, we're just so much smarter! Smarter perspectives means your views are more likely to be represented." No. Not even close. It's a matter of donorism, litigiousness, sophistry, and most of all, intellectual fashion. Right now, the left are better at all of these things.
Sometimes, you list sources that blow my mind. Five minutes of cursory investigation often reveals obvious bias -- humorous, almost. Factcheck.org, for example, compulsively targets conservatives. Why? Do liberals not bullshit? Is there not a similar onslaught of mendacity coming from the left? And if there is, why doesn't it seem to pop up on here? 71.255.93.231 (talk) 04:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2019
![]() | This edit request to Murder of Seth Rich has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Seth Rich murder story implies that there is evidence and proof -- there is not -- that any questioning of this unexplained death is thereby a "right wing conspiracy theory". This is not a factual observation but a political one. I insist that this biased characterization of an unsolved murder that was quickly brushed aside by what we now know was a very compromised FBI headed by McCabe and Strzok and the inept Comey. I am not asking that you confer some evidence of a legitimate hit job by the DNC on Seth Rich for releasing Podesta emails to Wikileaks, but I am requesting that you remove the clearly left-leaning analysis designed to cash aspersions on the murder's cause or its perpetrator.
I would not say this if evidence of the murderer was present and the case was solved. But until that time, you have no authority to claim that any questioning of the Seth Rich murder is thereby a "right-wing conspiracy" when it is not. GideonMarx (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Not done - You propose to ignore reliable sources, so no, we're not going to do that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Does EVERY "Reliable Source" say that? If not, then clearly there are SOME "Reliable Sources" which DON'T say that. Thus, you are cherry-picking reliable sources because you like what they say, and you are ignoring other reliable sources because of what they don't say. Thanks for admitting your obvious bias. Slyfox4908 (talk) 05:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- There's nothing in this article that states that "any questioning of this unexplained death is thereby a 'right wing conspiracy theory'..." The article merely details the fact that many right-wing conspiracies have sprung from Rich's death. Your personal feelings on the FBI--who was not even involved in the investigation--are not relevant here.FatGandhi (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Bogus reference to "conspiracy theories"
The murder of Seth Rich is a fact, not a theory. Apparently the murder of Seth Rich by 2 assailants is also a fact, not a theory. So the murder would qualify as a conspiracy, but not as a theory. The attempt to dismiss theories you oppose by labeling them like with some magic pejorative phrase like "conspiracy theory" here is really an attempt to win a debate by slur word. Thus I propose deleting the phrase as propagandistic and a violation of NPOV. BTW, I don't believe the murder of Seth Rich was a hit by the DNC; my best hypothesis is that it was a couple of street thugs from nearby Le Droit, thinking of it as a ghetto. But I don't try to establish my opinion by a slur word. (PeacePeace (talk) 02:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC))
Include more from now-released Mueller report
https://www.thedailybeast.com/mueller-report-julian-assange-smeared-seth-rich-to-cover-for-russians points to some items on Seth Rich in the Mueller report. I see in the talk page that even recently there seems to be disagreement about whether the conspiracy theories are true or not. The linked article should point to more strong evidence of where the hacks actually came from (through twitter DMs between wikileaks and non-Rich sources), as well as that wikileaks was provided with data days after Rich died - throwing more cold water on the theory that Rich was the source. 2405:9800:BA11:3122:C511:A1B6:9E4:9FA0 (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- It seems to be already covered in Murder of Seth Rich#WikiLeaks statements. I don't think the Daily Beast article provides any information not already available. I don't think that conspiracy theorists ever questioned that DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 provided the emails to Wikileaks. TFD (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- I added a mention, using the Daily Beast as well as the Mueller report as sources. Although I agree with TFD that the article already says this, it makes it a little more explicit. And since Mueller does mention Rich, it might as well be in the article somewhere. Question: when using the rp template to give a page number, should the page number be the one in the written document (shown on the bottom of the page), or should it be the page in the PDF document? Geogene (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- IMHO the Mueller Report on Seth Rich would be inappropriate as Mueller's speculation is not a reliable source. Mueller speculates on the motive of Assange, who pointed at Seth Rich as the Wikileaks source of the DNC emails. But so far as I know, neither Mueller nor his team ever interviewed Assange. And labeling Assange as a fabricator seems inconsistent with his Wikileaks history. (PeacePeace (talk) 03:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC))
- A simple attribution would suffice if anyone feels inclusion is warranted. DN (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2019
![]() | This edit request to Murder of Seth Rich has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I am requesting that new information be added to the website concerning the new FOIA information about his communication with Wikileaks. 97.71.139.178 (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- You can suggest such a change here on the form of "please change X to Y", citing reliable sources – Þjarkur (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- According to Bill Binney, he applied to the NSA under the Freedom of Information Act for any documents that mentioned both Assange and Seth Rich. The NSA said they had 15 documents consisting of 32 pages but could not release any of them due to national security. We cannot include this because we do not know if Binney's account is accurate, the story has not been covered in reliable sources and we have no information about what the documents say. It could be something as mundane as NSA agents mentioning the claim that Rich was the source of the DNC emails.
- Also, please don't use the template, just add a new discussion. The template is for changes that do not require discussion, such as spelling mistakes.
- TFD (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Appropriateness of Including Isikoff Russian Origin Theory
With the usual speed of WP, the story published today on Yahoo! News by Michael Isikoff has been added to the page in sev. It has taken a tone of authoritativeness regarding this article, but I am unsure appropriate weight is being given to the Isikoff story, which relies on a couple unsupported claims, most prominently that whatdoesitmean.com is a front for Russian propaganda and that the conspiracy theory was not previously published on social media. (I'm not a journalist and I'm not going to try to dig up twitter/4chan/reddit threads as some kind of original research, which would obviously trigger another stupid political editor war.) Isikoff also asks readers to take his word that the SVR document is authentic, but Isikoff has a personal history of publishing articles based on Russian government material he had not actually seen, did not actually verify, and ultimately turned out to be manufactured for the express purpose of feeding to journalists like himself for political purposes (the Russia collusion conspiracy theory).
It does not strike me as appropriate to naively accept the article as fact, especially before there are any other sources from anyone else to corroborate it.2603:3004:6B6:F800:614E:D51:371F:F5F (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- OK. Noted. Separate topic, but the Missus and I were thinking of visiting Petersburg this month. How's the weather this time of year? Herostratus (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- Isn't what he said similar to what Mueller said, that the Russians promoted the theory that Rich was behind the DNC leaks in order to take the heat off themselves? We don't actually need to know the claim is true in order to include it, just that it has become part of the reporting of the case. TFD (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- So let's see. According to his article Michael Isikoff is the head journalis at Yahoo! News. Before that he was the national investigative correspondent for NBC News (it says "the" and not "a" so I suppose he was top (or only) investigator at NBC, at least for United States matter. Before that he worked for Newsweek. He's has a master's degree from the Medill School of Journalism, has written three books, and has done other journalisty stuff such as winning the 2005 award from the Society of Professional Journalists for best investigative reporting online and the 2001 Ed Cunningham Memorial Award for best magazine reporting from abroad. It also says "A September 23, 2016 Yahoo News article written by Isikoff was used by Federal authorities in a FISA warrant application to justify the surveillance of the foreign policy Trump adviser, Carter Page's alleged connection to Russian authorities during the 2016 presidential campaign."
- I mean, whom better do you want? Ed Murrow? Walter Cronkite? They're not available. If one wants to make the point "enh, those are B-list credentials, Isikoff is a junior-level journalist" or whatever, I suppose you can try.
- The question would be if he's a partisan or a partisan hack. If he is a partisan, that's not necessarily a deal killer -- most everyone has opinions, and partisans are motivated to get their facts right too -- but it's a red flag. If he's a partisan hack like someone at Briebart or the Daily Worker or whatever, that would be a more serious problem. Doesn't look he is. I mean Ed Murrow and his boys certainly had strong opinions about things... I mean, he's not Sean Hannity or something. He looks legit to me.
- I don't know about Yahoo! News. They have a silly name and started as a mere aggregator, but that was a while back. They are one of the most viewed news website. So... they almost certainly want to keep it that way, and have the means to employ fact checkers. I don't know their business model, but until shown otherwise I would assume that it would be getting their facts right, so as to maintain the trust of their readers.
- Looking at their site, they don't look like sensationalists, but they do seem to be still mostly an aggregator. Would like to know more. Media Matters has them as "left-center bias", but that's the same as they have the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, CBS News, Spiegel Online, and so on, all of which are good sources. And to the right of HuffPost, New York Magazine, Slate, and the New Yorker (which is among the most reliable of sources), all of whom are tagged as "left bias". So I don't see them as overly partisan.
- As to this being the only source, well of course it's the only source. It's an exclusive. It's the result of Yahoo's investigation. I don't think we want to be throwing out exclusives from reliable sources. (FWIW it's been picked up by major news sources, so its not like it is unnotable either.)
- And finally, the material does say "according to Michael Isikoff and Yahoo! News", so the reader is certainly able to say "enh, hack journalist, lying website" and discount the whole paragraph if that's how she rolls. Herostratus (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- One, it should not be the reader's responsibility to vet each and every source. It's unreasonable and counter to the basic philosophy of wikipedia. Two, Isikoff's page also shows he wrote a sensationally titled book advancing the Russia collusion conspiracy theory. Our personal opinion of a person's believability is irrelevant, only whether the facts show they may not be impartial. Three, it's not our job to decide whether two unrelated sources talking about two tangentially related events somehow directly corroborate each other (the Mueller Report says Assange advanced the Seth Rich conspiracy theory, Isikoff says Russian intelligence created the Seth Rich; the latter is clearly to be included somewhere in the article, the latter is just a data point), that would be original research. Four, it is our job to add information that is directly corroborated by multiple sources. As of yesterday and today, Isikoff's claims are uncorroborated. Once more articles are published, we should go for it. Five, how do you report editors like the guy who chose to approach the talk page as a place to accuse editors of being Russian spies? It's grossly inappropriate and speaks to judgement. I've contributed to Wikipedia less than a dozen times in my lifetime, so if I need to register an account to do so, I would kindly ask any editors to talk the appropriate steps against paranoid bullies. 2603:3004:6B6:F800:11C6:A14A:9652:CCA1 (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- FWIW, there's this piece [19] in the Washington Post that casts doubt on the Seth Rich conspiracy theories having a Russian origin. Apparently there's still a case to be made that right-wing propagandists in the U.S. got there first. Geogene (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- That's right. It's not yet fully knowable. A lot of things never are, in which case we usually mention various theories, giving proper background and weight to each. Herostratus (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- FWIW, there's this piece [19] in the Washington Post that casts doubt on the Seth Rich conspiracy theories having a Russian origin. Apparently there's still a case to be made that right-wing propagandists in the U.S. got there first. Geogene (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
@2603:3004:6B6:F800:11C6:A14A:9652:CCA1:, It's not exactly the reader's job to vet sources, but we do provide sources for the reader to vet if she wants. And readers should -- I mean many people say "Don't take Wikipedia at its word, check the sources" and in fact we ourselves do this (we don't use Wikipedia as a source). We are fine with reporting the material cited as factual, to a sufficient degree of confidence that we include it. The reader can check the footnote. I'm just saying we're also providing the ref in the text as an extra protection so its clearly obvious where the material is coming from.
Every person has opinions and biases. This is called "being a human being". It's worth being aware of, but its not a deal-killer. The question is whether the person is a partisan hack. Is he? Is he someone like Sean Hannity, or he more like... I dunno, Bob Woodward or whomever. I don't really know; I'd be willing to hear evidence. So far, it doesn't look like it to me. The title of his books seems reasonable, for a book about current events. If it's an accurate title for what's in the book, what is he supposed to call it? The book was covered by the New York Times and NPR and the Los Angeles Times and so on, which I think most hack polemics aren't. I haven't read it tho.
Not sure exactly what is meant by your reference to the "Russia collusion conspiracy theory". Is that something like the "Earth is round conspiracy theory"?
"Not liking Donald Trump" is about the most anodyne bias anyone can have. In America, a lot of people don't like to Donald Trump, to an I think unprecedented degree for a sitting President. He's even more unpopular overseas. It's kind of like "is opposed to smoking" or whatever. It's fairly common and unexceptionable. That is why objections to sources such as "This guy doesn't seem to much like Mussolini, should not be allowed as a source" or whatever don't usually get much traction either. And I mean most Americans at this point have an opinion on Donald Trump. "Donald who?" and "Haven't really thought about it much" are not responses you are going to get from very many journalists. So unless we want to limit our sources to hermits, we have to go with what we have.
"It is our job to add information that is directly corroborated by multiple sources" isn't true and isn't something I have heard before I don't think. We do not have to corroborate material with multiple sources. If you look thru the Wikipedia, you will see that most statements of fact have a single ref given. A lot of refs are to book pages. We don't require two or more books saying the same thing, provided that the book used is considered reliable. (I understand your not knowing this stuff, since this is your first edit, as near as I can tell. It's alright; it takes time to learn these things. I can help.)
The place to report me is WP:ANI. However, 2603:3004:6B6:F800:614E:D51:371F:F5F should be the person to make the complaint. You are 2603:3004:6B6:F800:11C6:A14A:9652:CCA1, which is an entirely different person altogether. Right? Unless you are using a dynamic IP, which is confusing to say the least. I'm not sure if its allowed or what the rule is, but if you're going to use terms like "we" and "us" and lecture about how the project should work, you maybe want to get an account. Maybe you are also 2601:189:C47F:9010:D4AB:EA55:806A:6194, in which case you seem to be WP:NOTHERE to make an encyclopedia -- no article edits yet -- but to bother us with your talking points on this talk page, in which case the "we" and "us" rather sticks in my craw. But whatever. I'll be here. Herostratus (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Why is "Yahoo! New investigation" separate from the section on the theory's origins? Why is the theory's "Russian origin" treated as fact when sources are divided as to whether or not the theory actually originated in Russia? FallingGravity 04:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
- The fact given is "On July 9, 2019, Michael Isikoff of Yahoo! News reported the results of a journalistic investigation...". And he did, and indeed on that date and that publication. And the reader can verify this by looking at the ref. Herostratus (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
- That doesn't answer any of my two questions. FallingGravity 20:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
- The fact given is "On July 9, 2019, Michael Isikoff of Yahoo! News reported the results of a journalistic investigation...". And he did, and indeed on that date and that publication. And the reader can verify this by looking at the ref. Herostratus (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I think that weird rant by Herostratus settles it. I am the same person who started this discussion and listed several reasons to not give the Isikoff article undue prominence. Sorry, I am posting from a work computer that I assumed had a static IP. Apparently this page doesn't allow public edits, so I hope this is the proper way to ask for revisions:
- MOTION TO REMOVE HEROSTRATUS ADDITIONS FROM JULY 9, 2019 AND REPLACE WITH REFERENCES TO WAPO ARTICLE ON SAME TOPIC SHARED BY USER GEOGENES
Grounds for removal: 1) Source is uncorroborated and based on non-public, unverifiable information 2) Source is potentially biased (see Wiki page for author Michael Isikoff, list of works) 3) Editors' opinions about the likability of Donald Trump is irrelevant generally and in particular to the Seth Rich murder and related conspiracy theories 4) Additional articles have since been published casting doubt on claims in source 5) Replacement source discusses source to be removed's 6) Replacement source relies on public and corroborated information 67.171.187.173 (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
- It makes sense to me to start with Isikoff and then follow up with the WaPo response. Something like "Isikoff said it was the Russians, Bump (in the WaPo), on the other hand, claims it didn't originate with the Russians (though he doesn't refute that they tried to exploit the story), rather, he said it was Bannon, Hannity, Jones and Assange." Of course I'm not proposing this exact language, just roughing it in here. DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'd support this general proposal, making it a paragraph in the "Origin" section. The sources don't totally disagree, but some points are disputed. FallingGravity 20:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
- It makes sense to me to start with Isikoff and then follow up with the WaPo response. Something like "Isikoff said it was the Russians, Bump (in the WaPo), on the other hand, claims it didn't originate with the Russians (though he doesn't refute that they tried to exploit the story), rather, he said it was Bannon, Hannity, Jones and Assange." Of course I'm not proposing this exact language, just roughing it in here. DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
- It belongs in the "Origins" section as a theory, along with WaPo’s analysis disputing Isikoff's conclusion. At least one of the sources already used in the section points out the progression from a July 11, 2016, tweet connecting the shooting to the lawsuit (one day later the tweet chain enters "clinton body count" territory) via whatdoesitmean and a few others (including Infowars) to WikiLeaks’s reward offer and Assange’s interview on Dutch TV on August 9, 2016. Unless
#ET’SForBernie2020@relombardo3 is also a Russian account, the bogus July 13 SVR bulletin jumped on the conspiracy band wagon two days after it started rolling, inconspicuously until Assange got on the bullhorn. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- Just had it pointed out to me that the WaPo analysis links to six July 12 tweets like this one from accounts other than @relombardo3; all the Russian trolls, if it was them, had to do was flesh it out some. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)