Talk:Murder of Seth Rich/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

I was wrong

Per consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Telegraph, the Daily Telegraph is considered a good and well-fact checked paper, and in particular for the statement "Police stated that he may have been killed in an attempted robbery but that his belongings were not taken" (that is, implying that this is unusual). Color me surprised, but that's why we have these discussions.

I'm pretty surprised because my layman assumption would be that a botched robbery would go down something like this:

1. You confront the victim at gunpoint and demand his valuables.
2. Victim stalls, refuses, or even tries to grab the gun (and who knows why a person would do this, but I'm sure it happens)
3. You shoot the victim dead (for whatever reason -- maybe he did try to grab your gun, or maybe you just don't like being told "no", or who knows)
4. You get the hell away as fast as you can (gunshots are heard for blocks, murders are investigated, and the penalty is high)

Apparently, though, the normal #4 is "quick go through the guy's pockets and take off his watch (rolling him over if necessary and probably getting his blood all over you, but whatever) and then take off".

Well boy howdy, butter my buns and call me a biscuit. Who knew? I guess I wouldn't make a good armed robber. But the RS Noticeboard tells us that the source is good.

And in addition, we have "Strangely, however, they found his wallet, credit cards and cellphone on his body" at Newsweek. This supports (in fact doubles down on) the assertion that what happened was odd. Newsweek, despite their reputation inherited from the 20th century, has fallen on hard times, but its still another source that's at least not just a blog or whatever.

On that basis, I've restored the "but" to "Police stated that he may have been killed in an attempted robbery but that his belongings were not taken". I don't think you can use the source at all if you remove this key word. That's the wrong way to use a source. And the source is good after.

Speaking as someone who who thought that this was not a good source but have learned otherwise, let's put this to rest and move forward. Herostratus (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Huh? This is starting to feel a little surreal, like a Monty Python sketch. Who did you count as being pro-reliable and pro-unreliable? I count a majority for unreliable, so the reference needs to be removed. (Besides, do the pro-reliable votes by the two editors who officially withdrew their participation from this article even count?) And restoring the sentence to its prior biased wording wasn't even subject to a vote; it has to neutral (not just my opinion, see also Neutrality's comment that use of the coordinating conjunction "but" is improper). And he and Martinevans are right about the entire second clause being redundant since the first one already says that the robbery was unsuccessful. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: I agree. Short of an RfC or other discussion closed by an uninvolved editor, RSN gives (sometimes spotty and biased) guidance -- preferably from editors not participating in the article talk page discussion. SPECIFICO talk 22:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Well let's see. Over at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Telegraph what I get was... four people saying that the Daily Telegraph is OK:

1. User:Ritchie333 "The Telegraph... is considered a broadsheet-style paper like the Times and Guardian with a solid reputation of fact-checking and minimum sensationalism" although granted some reservations about the one particular article
2. User:Martinevans123 "Quite agree that The Telegraph is one of the UK newspapers where one would least expect to see POV issues"
3. User:Jytdog "There is nothing wrong with the Telegraph as a source generally - they are a major news paper with a reputation for fact checking" and furthermore "There is nothing wrong with the specific content and the specific article used to source it"
4. User:Tiptoethrutheminefield I think he thinks the source is OK, but also maybe that all sources are OK ("sources can editorialize as much as they want") or maybe not in which I don't understand his position at all. But in any case he seems to think it's OK to use the source in the article. I think.

Sorry to interject in the middle here - I think the source is fine for the content it is being used for here (though, as suggested in the RS discussion, it seems to be not the only source saying this content). I would not use The Telegraph (aka Torygraph) as a source for controversial content or opinions related to politics in Britain unless other sources were saying similar things. However, there is not the slightest doubt that The Telegraph taken as a whole qualifies as a reliable source under Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Against 3 or maybe just 2 saying the Daily Telegraph is not OK:

1. User:Rhoark "Overall, its in a similar place as Fox News" which I take as meaning "no, not reliably neutral"
2. User:Space4Time3Continuum2x " Nick Allen is not a respected or reliable journalist... the Telegraph has lately been renowned for reporting several people dead who weren’t, it has several major conflicts of interest because of being paid large amounts of money by companies and a Russian government-owned newspaper, and so on. So no, not a reliable source per se"
3. User:SPECIFICO "...dicey Telegraph citation..." But note that User:SPECIFICO has been a regular at this article and was not coming virgin to the Notability board. I'm not familiar with his ouvere here but I discounted User:Guy Macon and User:Steve Quinn on that basis, so if one wanted discount User:SPECIFICO that might be defensible.

And then some other commentors that I couldn't categorize of discounted:

1. User:Neutrality doesn't seem to have an opinion one way or the other. He was in favor of removing the word "but", but: 1) that wasn't the question on the table, 2) we can't treat sources like that. We can't remove "not" to turn "he was not arrested" in a source into "he was arrested" in our article, and so forth. The article was making the claim (with "but") that the situation was unusual and we can either use the ref or we can't, period.
2. User:Guy Macon wanting to use the ref. But he's coming over from the article and IMO is too caught up in the moment to give a clear-headed disinterested assessment.
3. User:Steve Quinn not wanting to use the ref. But he's coming over from the article and IMO is too caught up in the moment to give a clear-headed disinterested assessment.
4. User:Herostratus. This is me and I'm not going to count myself.

So it's closer to a consensus that the Daily Telegraph is, in general, a reliable and neutral source. That's how I read it. Maybe the headcount is 4-2 or you could make it 5-3 or you could make it something else if you count it differently, but that's my best count. Futhermore, the editors supporting the Daily Telegraph seemed reasonably assured: it is apparently considered over in Britain to be as respectable as the LA Times or whatever. Herostratus (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't have a beef with the Telegraph, but I would not use the statement at issue (and certainly would not use the word "but") because "attempted robbery" already implies that the robbery was not consummated; i.e., adding that "nothing was taken" is redundant because we already say it was an attempted robbery. Neutrality^talk 23:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I said, "Overall, its in a similar place as Fox News, whatever that means to you," because it's a political Rorschach test. Rhoark (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@Rhoark, OK. My assumption is that Fox News is a political operation, just as The Nation or whatever is on the left. I thought that was common knowledge, and so that was what you were saying. But let me move you from "against the Daily Telegraph as a reliable source" to "neutral" which gives us only one disinterested voice against the paper. So that makes it 4-1 supporting the Daily Telegraph (or 5-2 or 3-1 or whatever).

@Neutrality, we don't need to be minimalist in our text. There's no reason not to add "but his belongings were not taken" if it helps clarify to the reader ""attempted robbery", even if it is redundant according to strict semantic logic. Most people don't parse sentences according to strict semantic logic. The source was telling something useful -- for a person to be killed in an attempted (rather than actual) robbery is unusual -- and the clause "but his belongings were not taken" makes that manifestly clear in a way that just the word "attempted" does not. Herostratus (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Helps to clarify what to the reader? What's noteworthy about whether his belongings were taken or any other detail of this crime? Can you say what is noteworthy about that so that, say, the Encyclpoedia Brittanica 2025 edition will inform its readers as to whether Mr. Rich's belongings were taken? Moreover, this leads to the next question. What is the editorial purpose of this thread? SPECIFICO talk 00:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It helps to clarify that:

1. The person was held up, but
2. he wasn't actually robbed, and
3. this is remarkable (according to the Daily Telegraph, and also Newsweek)

Which bears on the core point of why this article exists: that it's been mooted insinuated (by former Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Newt Gingrich and others) that he was maybe assassinated.

None of this means he was assassinated! For my part I think there's 0% chance that he was. I assume the robber was just nervous (or smart) and took off right away. For people like me who are certain that this was just a normal robbery, the fact that 1) he wasn't actually robbed and 2) that is unusual are inconvenient facts. But they're still facts. And they bear on the issue at the core of this article. Our job is to present the facts and let the reader decide for herself.

And the editorial purpose is to support the inclusion of the sentence "Police stated that he may have been killed in an attempted robbery, but his belongings were not taken", which I myself had challenged, and I'm explaining how and why my challenge fell short -- IMO. Herostratus (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I have to admit that I didn’t read up on noticeboards before posting there, and I’m not sure now that I should have posted there (as well as several other people who did). I found two answers a tad confusing and did not count them, and I think Martinevans has now come around to the view that the Allen article is not a reliable source. So where are we at now? Are opinions uttered on a noticeboard votes and, if so, is the vote - whatever it was - binding? And whose vote gets counted or discounted? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog:You don't have a problem with a source that claims someone was shot twice in the head when there is no basis for the claim, according to all other sources? I'm not starting an argument, just want to know. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• in my view the argument around the word "but" is not one that can be solved through discrediting any one source or relying on any one source. Some feel that the "but" implicitly puts a question mark on what really happened which of course is the kind of thread that conspiracy theorists want to see and follow. So this is really just an editing question - if I had to put it under any policy bucket it would be NPOV. We generally solve NPOV issues by looking at what the reliable sources say and avoid giving UNDUE weight to minority views. There are three sources currently cited in the part of our article describing the robbery - one dated after the reward offer, and two dated before it.

newsweek on 8/20 (post WikiLeaks reward) has this: "The cops suspected Rich was a victim of an attempted robbery, one of many that plague the neighborhood. Strangely, however, they found his wallet, credit cards and cellphone on his body. The band of his wristwatch was torn but not broken."

ABC news on 7/11 (pre Wikileaks reward) has this: " While police said there is no indication that robbery was a motive, it’s being considered."

NBC washington news on Aug 5 (pre reward) has this: "It is possible he was killed in an attempted robbery, Lanier said. The case remains under investigation. "

So the two pre-Wikileaks sources say the original motive was unclear, but robbery was suspected. Newsweek echoes the speculation that started after the Assange did his thing. I think reasonable content would be something like: "Immediately after the murder, the police did not have any suspects nor did they know the motive for the killing; robbery was suspected but there wasn evidence for that" That satisfies NPOV to me and is very close to the two pre-reward sources. Jytdog (talk) 00:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you mean "there was no evidence for that". But is it true? He was walking alone, very late at night, in a very sketchy area. He was shot. And he didn't have any known personal enemies or anything like that. So that alone is strong circumstantial evidence for robbery. And that's probably why as Newsweek says "The cops suspected Rich was a victim of an attempted robbery". Which, the considered belief of experienced professional lawmen is further evidence that it was a robbery. Herostratus (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I am wondering if these sources would be helpful and/or useful for this discussion? ([1], [2])The first source is the DC police statement, which is probably the epitome of neutral wording describing this incident - and how to characterize it. In this report they are calling it a fatal shooting first, and then a homicide. It would be my dream come true if this were all that were in the article. Because take away all the conjecture about a suspected robbery and this is the only fact you have left.

Detectives from the Metropolitan Police Department’s Homicide Branch are investigating a fatal shooting that occurred in the 2100 block of Flagler Place, Northwest on Sunday, July 10, 2016. At approximately 4:19 am, members of the Fifth District were patrolling the area when they heard gunshots. Upon arrival on the scene, members located an adult male victim conscious and breathing, and suffering from gunshot wounds. The victim was transported to an area hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries and was pronounced dead. The decedent has been identified as 27-year-old Seth Conrad Rich, of Northwest, DC. The Metropolitan Police Department currently offers a reward of up to $25,000 to anyone that provides information which leads to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons responsible for any homicide committed in the District of Columbia.

The second source is a local DC NBC affiliate and it is sparse on details, probably because this was based on initial reports (and this works for me). The only reference to the robbery is as follows: "'It is possible he was killed in an attempted robbery', (D.C. Police Chief) Lanier said. 'The case remains under investigation.'" I am assuming the second phrase is a quote, but in the article no quotation marks are used. Why not throw out "belongings not taken". I mean who cares, and because "nothing was taken" after a botched robbery, attracts sincere conspiracy theorists - and those want ammo for political fodder via conspiracy theory. Just say fatally shot or is factually determined to be a homicide. Just food for thought. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Although I like my own recommendation, I can see that it might not be realistic - because it might be commonly expected to maintain there was a suspected robbery and nothing was taken (or whatever the wording). Also, I can see that my second source was already mentioned and discussed. So, don't let me sidetrack the discussion - please continue.Steve Quinn (talk)

The "but" is expressed in the sources, so it is not an editing issue just about its retention or removal and it is not editorializing to retain that "but" (its use here is not making a connection that does not already exist in the sources). What is required is wording that accurately expresses what sources say. We have a primary source (police) saying that it was a suspected attempted robbery, we have other sources qualifying and yes implicitly questioning that statement by pointing out the incongruity that nothing appears to have been stolen, including not even the most obvious things that one would expect to be stolen in even the most rushed robbery. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

WP does not reproduce every fact that is stated in a reliable source. Even if the Telegraph were a strong source (which is moot, since there are stronger sources for all of the facts concerning the crime that is the topic of this article) the core of the police statement is that based on their experienced and expert assessment of all facts and circumstances, attempted robbery was the scenario. To single out any additional facts, even if reliably sourced, and there have been many peripheral facts inserted and removed already, is WP:UNDUE and violates numerous policies. Moreover, any speculation about the crime at this point fuels negative and conspiracy theory conjecture which constitutes BLP violation due to the libelous nature of the narratives suggested thereby. The facts will be determined by the authorities and courts at some point. Until then all this other stuff is not fit for an encyclopedia. SPECIFICO talk 19:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Trying to use the Telegraph to cast doubt on the police theory is like asking a janitor for medical advice. If some reading of policy makes it seem like that's a good idea, then IAR. Geogene (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Have you been living in a cave for the last 50 years? That is about how fay back you need to go to live in an era when a thing was considered to be absolutely and unarguably true merely on the strength of a policeman's say so. It was investigative media's exposure of police lies, corruption, and incompetence that helped end that era of unquestioned deference to police authority. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Except that this isn't about "police lies, corruption, and incompetence". It's about the cops' opinion on whether something was a botched robbery or not, the kind of thing that they have a good deal of experience with, and no evidence of any vested interest. Did you ever meet a conspiracy theory you didn't believe? Because you just made one up right here on the spot, by insinuating that the DC metropolitan police are in on it. To defend some other conspiracy theory. That's an example of pathological belief. That's also a BLP violation. Is it really a good idea for you to be editing in this subject area? Geogene (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

So you believe RS media sources that report police statements, and comment on incongruities within them, should be excluded from Wikipedia articles? What policy can you point to support that extreme position. Why don't you go the whole hog and say Wikipedia should be nothing but official statements, an online reborn Pravda, Radio Moscow, or VOA for the digital age. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

So far as I know, no reliable sources are "commenting on incongruities" in police statements, at least not beyond some wording that some would like to cherry pick and put into the article so as to imply that they are. If you've found something more substantive, then we need to know about it. As for what policy that verbiage violates, try WP:PLAGIARISM. A fundamental issue: you're trying to source wording and grammar whereas we're supposed to be sourcing information. I appreciate your stated desire to protect Wikipedia's credibility. Geogene (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:DENY SPECIFICO talk 21:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL--Elvey^(t•c) 19:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

New $100,000 reward

Info about a new $100,000 reward was deleted today, citing a recent RFC. I can't quite figure out what the following material has to do with the recent RFC:

“ In September 2016, lobbyist Jack Burkman offered an additional $100,000 reward, saying "the murder needs to be solved and those responsible held accountable.” ”

References

Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

We just finished an RfC about one "reward for information" (that stokes conspiracy theories). It should be fairly obvious to everyone that adding another reward identical to it (that stokes the same conspiracy theories) by a right-wing lobbyist and political talk show host would prove controversial. You should have asked first, and that you didn't seems like poor judgement. I had to call you out. Geogene (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Well I'd like to call you out for calling me out. 🙂 The material is very well-sourced, it doesn't mention or allude to any conspiracy, and I don't see why we (or potential informants) should care about the political affiliation of the person offering the 100K.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The first sentence of the first source mentions "Republican lobbyist", so I don't think it's accurate to say that we shouldn't care about political affiliation when the sources clearly do. The Newsweek source goes into the ugly background of conspiracy mongering that this all about. Geogene (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Right, so we could either include the bare details as I did, or also include the ugly background. I advise the former way. Maybe other editors will have an opinion about it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Speaking only as the admin that closed the previous RFC I would say that this is not directly tied to that RFC, however, it is similar enough in style that I would recommend a discussion before adding. An RFC isn't needed, but the last one had a lot of strong emotion, making it prudent to allow people to opine on the merits first. This is how we avoid drama. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I'm happy to hear people opine, and to heed the opinions. AFAIK, no one in this talk page section has yet objected to including the material quoted above with the three footnotes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The focus (and subject) of these articles is Jack Burkman. This has nothing to do with the murder of Seth Rich except tangentially. It's a way to hang the reward on Rich like a coat and then become newsworthy. For example, if these were articles about "case solved" I could see that. So, I object to including this in the article. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

If an anonymous donor offers a reward, it's about the victim and helping fo find out the truth. If a donor announces a reward through a public tweet or press release, it's about the publicity for the donor first and foremost, and publicity the now two donors got and are still getting. What would an RfC on the second reward bring? Your closing decision opened the door, and - as you said - "it is similar enough in style" that we have to let it in. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

IMO the wording of the sentence and the direct quote are not OK to include (lacking neutral point of view). No, I won't make a suggestion on how to improve it; whoever wants to include it, you think of an acceptable neutral phrasing. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad to remove "saying 'the murder needs to be solved and those responsible held accountable.'" I cannot address your other concern because it's too vague.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. Thinking that a 100K reward is not a basic fact about this case is...you don't want to know what I think it is. I hope that we are not going to have to have a long discussion followed by an RfC about every detail of this case. Talking this one over is fine, but eventually the minority who wish to exclude pretty much everything need to follow the consensus to treat this like any other crime. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  I never said anything about an RfC on this. This personal attack is noted. Geogene (talk) 01:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Support finding a source that describes the means of determining who qualifies for the award in what amount and verifying that the funds are guaranteed for the disposition of the administering agent. Just like with the police reward. Support Guy or others verifying this beyond the primary statement of the lobbyist. BTW I will pay $90000 to any person who provides information leading to the construction of a bridge from Cabo to Honolulu. SPECIFICO talk 01:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
• The closing of the RfC is very specific and very restrictive, i.e., restricted to “a single fact“, the bare fact of the 10K € reward offer. My first reaction to the second reward offer, 100K by a third party, was (string of special characters), but now I think that it may actually be a good thing because it diminishes the intended effect of the first one. And does anyone here have the energy or the stomach for another discussion like the RfC? Both reward mentions have to abide strictly by the RfC closing, i.e., basic bare facts (date, subject, verb, object, period). Anything beyond those boundaries is off-limits. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

"Anything beyond those boundaries is off-limits." Sorry, but that does not at all comport with the consensus above, nor is it at all reflected in Dennis' close: what he said is that there was clear consensus to mention the rewards in some form, but that the specifics as to how that is to be approached (how much contextualizing information to provide and which particular facts are pertinent) would require further discussion. But nothing in that close remotely suggests that we should shut-down any discussion of what those facts are before it even starts; in fact, it says explicitly the opposite--that such discussion has to take place if there is disagreement.

All of that said, I agree with you that, in practice, it would be nice if we could avoid another RfC (and then another and another) on every particular detail. Much better if we can start proposing some comprmise edits that might suite everyone's perspectives. I'm not sure what to make of Burkman's offer, and the sources don't seem certain how to view it either. On the one hand, he's a Republican lobbyist; on the other, he publicly opposes the notion of Trump presidency. He says that this offer is meant to get at the truth and that it may prove useful in debunking the conspiracy theories, but in the same breath he seems to suggest there's a chance the could "validate" them; so that leaves open the possibility, discussed by sources, that he is just playing lip service to the notion of debunking and just "wanting to do what is right for the family", but that his real aim is to prop up the conspiracy theory. It's really difficult to read and even Newsweek (who savaged Assange and the right wing media in an earlier article) don't quite seem to know how to deal with this offer: [3].

I tell you what, though, I kind of wish we had an independent article about the Clinton Body Count conspiracy theory; then we could just roll all of this mess into that article. The only thing inherently notable about this topic is the conspiracy theories, so if a merge (and then a deletion of this article) were an option, I'd support it. As it is, I think that this article will eventually end being the Seth Rich Murder Conspiracy Theory article, once some time has passed and many more neutral secondary sources have weighed in. Because, sadly, his death would not meet our notability standards if not for this salacious aspect. In other words, the murder is not really the notable topic here: the politicizing of the death is. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

It's been more than two days since I added this stuff to the article. Only one editor, User:Steve Quinn, has clearly argued for exclusion. For inclusion are User:Guy Macon, Anythingyouwant, and User:Space4Time3Continuum2x ("may actually be a good thing...."). Several other editors commented without expressing any clear view about including versus excluding: User:Dennis Brown, User:Geogene (says that adding this info is controversial but has not supported or opposed), User:SPECIFICO (wants evidence that Burkman's offer is serious but absent that evidence has expressed no opinion), and User:Snow Rise.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Anythingyouwant, but I don't agree with your assessment. I think Specifico's response indicates that they do not want this in the article as it is. And I think User:Geogene's response can be taken the same way. So, my opinion is -no clear consensus has emerged - although I no longer like to say "clear consensus" because that as a term has become contentious. So, OK, I am willing to say no rough consensus for this particular phrasing has emerged just yet. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with SPECIFICO that we should include any available information about whether Burkman's reward is guaranteed to be honored by Burkman. I also agree with Geogene that inserting a mention of Burkman's reward has become controversial. If they want to say anything more than that, I've pinged them. Steve, you haven't pointed to where they've said anything more than that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I don't know what you mean - pointing out where they've said anything more than that?

Where are the sources for the guarantee? And Specifico's statement in its entirety does not look like a statement of support. Also, I think the point of Geogene saying this is controversial is the phrasing is not in acceptable form just yet, not actually putting that in an article. This appears to be trying to cobble together consensus, piecemeal from statements which no support has emerged. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

You are filibustering. I agree that Specifico's statement in its entirety does not look like a statement of support. I never said it was a statement of support. As I already said, I agree with Geogene that the proposal has become controversial, so why don't you say that I think the phrasing is not yet acceptable? Anyway, I will leave this discussion overnight, and maybe other editors will comment. Good night.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Please do not attribute filibustering to me. Saying that, I have no idea to what you are referring. Also, from my perspective, you are not being clear at all. I asked you two questions for clarification and I didn't get an answer to either one. And then in your reply you ask, "so why don't "I" say that I think the phrasing is not yet acceptable? " I have no idea what you are talking about. It seems you are trying to speak for me, is the best that I can come up with. But still, no idea what you are talking about. Speak English, Man! (or Woman as the case may be) Steve Quinn (talk) 06:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• No, I haven’t voted for inclusion, I haven’t voted at all. I also think that Burkman is a publicity hound just like Assange. For the record, I still want this article gone, but I’m not sure that the second AfD at this time is a good idea – still processing.

Herostratus: We cannot proceed with this article like the one on Vince Foster for two reasons: Mr. Foster died 23 years ago while Mr. Rich died recently, and the cause of Mr. Foster’s death has been established beyond a reasonable doubt while the cause of Mr. Rich’s death has not. Excellent debunking on Snopes, though. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support inclusion This offer happened so it should be included with the others? ZN3ukct (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Which is one reason to oppose inclusion. If "because this offer happened" and "because we got the other offer in too" are the only reasons, then we're just going to make even more of a mockery of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and turn this into even more of a coatrack for right-wing conspiracy mongering. The Wikileaks reward actually had more going for it, which would be the absurd conspiracy theories that it started. That isn't much, but it's more than this. Geogene (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

---

I'm going to update the article to reflect the current total reward money available. With no mention (outside sources) of the person who offered it, etc. The family has said that they're glad there's more money available. We should not censor that. Folks are free to argue and/or RFC over including more than that, but i don't see any argument against an accurate total. Hope most folks go with this which I hope is a compromise that leaves most folks at least a little happier than having things go one way or the other. --Elvey^(t•c) 01:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted this change, for reasons amply stated in previous talk page threads. Among the many reasons: We do not even have RS documenting that funds are available for anything other than the police reward. SPECIFICO talk 01:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Huh? The revert claims to be per BRD but isn't, IMO. This "reason" SPECIFICO gives is plainly counter-factual: There are reliable sources for all the rewards. Well, there were; SPECIFICO has removed the ones for the most recent reward. AGAIN: I see no reasons in previous talk page threads for no accurate total. Do you think I see them and am lying? You claim that "documenting that funds are available" is a reason already stated above. Please prove it; quote or diff please.--Elvey^(t•c) 01:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Restored per lack of reply and per RS/N discussion Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_213#The_Telegraph - User:Tiptoethrutheminefield particularly.--Elvey^(t•c) 19:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing censorship despite RS/N conclusions

Stop censoring the (Redacted) and the $100,000 reward. It's not like there aren't other RS. https://www.thenation.com/article/is-julian-assange-exposing-innocent-people-to-persecution-with-reckless-leaks/: " Seth Rich, a 27-year-old DNC staffer who was felled by two gunshots (Redacted) on July 10."--Elvey^(t•c) 19:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Huh? SPECIFICO, who censored my comment above claims: "(This has been discussed at length it's a (Personal attack removed) and you may not (Personal attack removed) in article or talk.)". I don't understand. I have a personal connection to the deceased? No. It appears you have falsely accused me. Either retract, defend, or expect to be reported. URGENT: you need to link to discussion you think supports your redaction.--Elvey^(t•c) 20:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

You're lucky I haven't reported you, SPECIFICO. I looked, folks. Holy hot dogs there's been a lot of "discussion". There is no discussion approaching a consensus that supports the redaction. To the contrary, I find:

1. SPECIFICO saying "He was shot twice in the back."
2. User:Somedifferentstuff falsely asserting that an article in Newsweek says he was not shot in the back of the head. It actually says "He had multiple gunshot wounds in his back." It doesn't say anything about whether he was also shot in the back of the head or not.

Kudos for not re-censoring the $100,000 reward stuff, at least.--Elvey^(t•c) 21:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

"Shot in the back" and "shot in the back of the head" are not equivalent. Geogene (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you captain obvious, sir.--Elvey^(t•c) 22:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

And, does it seem at all likely that if he had been shot "multiple times" in the back of the head, that he would have still been conscious when police arrived? This is a "Captain Obvious" question, not a request for formal medical advice. Geogene (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Elvey: so why mention minority claims on where he was shot, but leave out the torn watchband? Both are reported in reliable sources. Geogene (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Was going to join HRC's campaign

Good article with lots of details: 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

seems unlikely he was WikiLeaks' source if he was invited to join HRC's campaign.  (Though I suppose conspiracy mongers may say he was trying to infiltrate it or something...)--Elvey(t•c) 22:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Means nothing. That still would not preclude him from being the source of the leaks.Nobs01 (talk) 01:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Appears to be written by the DNC; not even remotely npov

Bias in this article is absolutely staggering and sickening given we are talking about cold blooded murder.66.190.29.251 (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

requested edit

In the "Death and aftermath" section, it says

According to Newsweek, "that was enough to fire up the right-wing Twitterverse with yet another round of Clinton conspiracy theories", that were fanned by Julian Assange of Wikileaks. Rich's parents were "distressed" by the way that I'mRich's murder was apparently being politicized.

I'd like to expand a bit on the fired-upneess of the "right wing Twitterverse" (or whatever it is), by demonstrating with at least one example (rather than just using Newsweek's characterization of it), so I'd like to insert the following sentence (shown bolded; not to be actually bolded):

According to Newsweek, "that was enough to fire up the right-wing Twitterverse with yet another round of Clinton conspiracy theories", that were fanned by Julian Assange of Wikileaks. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, for instance, implied a possible deeper motive to the shooting when he said "If someone is gunned down in our national capital, we ought to have a pretty passionate interest in knowing why. And if it clearly wasn’t a mugging and it wasn’t for money, what was it for?" Rich's parents were "distressed" by the way that Rich's murder was apparently being politicized.

It seems that a former Speaker of the House (and presidential candidate, author, public figure) ought to have standing to be quoted on the matter, if he has something interesting to say. And he does. He's clearly at least raising the question that this event might not have been a normal robbery. Otherwise he wouldn't have raised the point. I don't see any other reasonable way to interpret what he said. If wasn't a normal robbery... "we ought to have a pretty passionate interest in knowing why" indicates that the Speaker doesn't think it was probably a jilted lover or disgruntled business partner or whatever using robbery as a cover. There's no reason for "we" (by which he means the American people I infer, or anyway some significant subset, such as the Republican Party) to have a passionate interest in uncovering something like that. So what question is he raising? That it was a political assassination. There just isn't any other reasonable interpretation.

I think my wording expresses this reasonably clearly and neutrally. I think the "for instance" is called for since Gingrich's speculation is just one example of a person making this point (as the Newsweek "Twitterverse" passage indicates). I chose him because he is prominent. The reference is <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-seth-rich_us_57b1ddede4b007c36e4f5ffa |title=Conspiracy Theorists Won’t Stop Accusing The Clintons Of Murder |author=Amanda Terkel |date=August 15, 2016 |work=Huffington Post |accessdate=October 23, 2016}}</ref>, although the quote is reported elsewhere also.

Any objection to adding this? Herostratus (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely there is objection, extensively discussed on the talk page and elsewhere. The DC Police are the authoritative and informed source for information related to this. Gingrich, Assange, and others are partisans with nothing other than casual and self-interested opinion on the subject. SPECIFICO talk 16:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Again, an objection. That language labels Gingrich a "conspiracy theorist" which has BLP implications. Nobs01 (talk) 10:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, @User:SPECIFICO, of course he's partisan. He's a politician. So? We are allowed to, and often do, quote partisan politicians on matters of politcs, history, and other public interest. Of course we do. Note that we are not saying "Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, for instance, said such-and-such, and he's got a good point" or anything even close to that. See the difference?

As I said, the person is a former Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, one of the most powerful and respected positions in the United States (and therefore, in the world). Not only that, but he was an especially significant one, leading the so-called "Gingrich Revolution" which overturned decades of Democratic control of the House and replaced it with decades of Republican control. Not only that, but he's also quite famous, an author of popular books, and ran a legitimate campaign for President. He was widely believed to be short-listed for the vice-presidential nomination of the Republican Party just this year.

You don't have like or respect him -- I sure don't! -- to agree that objectively he has to be one of the people on this planet most qualified to comment on American political matters. We're not considering whether you, or I, like or admire this person, but rather whether reporting what he said will help the reader take more sense out of the article.

@Nobs01, as a matter of objective fact Gingrich is 1) advancing a theory about 2) a conspiracy. What can I say? He did. It doesn't make him wrong, necessarily. We're just reporting what he said, as an example expanding on the previous sentence. (An excellent example IMO so Gingrich is prominent and not just a C-list pundit.) If the reader wants to take away the idea "oh, a paranoid nutcase" away from that, they are free to do so. If the reader wants to take away the idea "oh, a sharp observer and cogent analyst" away from that, they are free to do that. Or "partisan hack" or whatever else they want to.

However, if want to remove "implied a possible deeper motive to the shooting" (that is, just say "Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, for instance, said..."), then that would be OK. It makes the passage less useful to the reader IMO, but in the interest of getting some more explanation into the article, if that would remove your objection? Herostratus (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

You can put it in Gingrich's article that he's trying to libel an innocent victim by insinuating that he betrayed his employer and possibly committed a crime by sharing documents. It has nothing at all to do with Mr. Rich or with the crime that's the subject of this article, which is a crime, not a "political matter." Mr. Gingrich has no knowledge or expertise related to this crime. And I say this as one of his long term admirers, for all he's done for the Republican party and the causes he represents. SPECIFICO talk 16:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Herostratus, a conspiracy by definition implies two or more persons; Gingrich says nothing of the sort.Nobs01 (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry that Herostratus doesn't like the way reliable sources are characterizing this alt-right nonsense as being alt-right nonsense. But that doesn't mean this article is going to give them a microphone. Virtually every RS either denigrates these conspiracy theories, or doesn't think it's worthwhile even to comment. Newt Gingrich was once a great political leader, a long time ago, but the RS seem to think his opinion on this is worth nothing. I agree: it's worth nothing. Geogene (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

No, this is wrong. There seems to be two camps here:

• Editors who want us to say, more or less, "Some people have said or hinted that maybe he was assassinated, and that's nonsense -- either clinical paranoia or, more likely, egregious partisan trollery"
• A smaller camp, of editors who want us to say, more or less, "Some people have said or hinted that maybe he was assassinated, and that's reasonable."

But that's not how this project rolls. We do not tell readers "such and such is nonsense" or "such and such is reasonable". We give the facts and let the reader make up her own mind. For one thing, it doesn't even work to tell the reader "Here is the truth" on matters like this. It just makes us look incompetent. For another, it's not our remit. "You can put it in Gingrich's article that he's trying to libel an innocent victim..." No, no we can't, and you can't be a good editor here if you think that is how our articles should be.

The fact is that a former Speaker of the United States House of Representatives had something to say on the matter. Am I glad that he said it? No, I'm not. I think he should have kept his trap shut. Do I think he was right? No, I don't. Do I think that he even believes what he said? I don't. I think he was just engaging in partisan trollery. But that has nothing to do with the price of eggs. This is not What-Herostratus-Thinks-About-Stuff-opedia, or anything else of the sort. Our job is to report the facts and let the reader decide for herself what to think about contentious matters.

If the argument was "Well, but who cares what Newt Gingrich said? He's just a C-list talking head", that'd be very different. But nobody is making that argument (well, except Geogene) because it would be silly. Gingrich is a major figure in American political history and (to a fair degree) in the current political landscape, and no one can deny that. Geogene thinks that "the RS seem to think his opinion on this is worth nothing". But the Huffington Post reported the quote. It's a notable source.

So the arguments -- the ones I've seen so far -- come down to "But I don't like what he said. And he shouldn't have said it. So let's not report it". We cannot construct an encyclopedia on this basis.

I'd be like "Well, let's go to John F. Kennedy and remove the quote 'I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth'" because it was a boondoggle and waste of money and I wish he hadn't said that" or whatever.

We don't do that. It's as much a principle in this article as it is in John F. Kennedy or any other article. To inform and enlighten the reader is supposed to be our goal. Let's. Herostratus (talk) 01:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The idea that Rich was assassinated is nonsense. There are different levels of nonsense, from the merely wrong to the bizarrely wrong, UFO-chasing wrong. This is bordering on UFO-chasing wrong. Gingrich is a talking head that may or may not be trying to get somebody defeated in an election, and may or may not be concerned about telling the truth in that context. Just throwing his quotes in without completely denying it is WP:PROFRINGE, as well as a likely BLP violation. And @Herostratus:, I don't care about how you think Wikipedia works. I haven't forgotten certain remarks you made about me in this talk page earlier, and I consider you persona non grata. You're going to have to cite policies if you want to convince me your opinion is valid. Geogene (talk) 01:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Herostratus you are not stating an accurate summary of the arguments against these off-topic unencyclopedic BLP-violating libelous partisan smears. Please review all the talk page and AfD threads. SPECIFICO talk 02:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

(a) Gingrich spoke of motive, not conspiracy; (b) it's not possible to libel a dead person.Nobs01 (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree you can't slander the deceased. But local policy restricts what you can say about them if it causes harm or distress to the family. Geogene (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

... Herostratus (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Herostratus: the local policy is called "BLP", if that helps. Geogene (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Not everything "libelous" is "libel" in the legal sense. See my word "smear" -- do you have a legal definition for that as well?? SPECIFICO talk 23:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The Gingrich smear is out, as I understand; the problem here is the smear on Assange, which the underlying source goes out of its way to avoid calling him a conspiracy theorist, but this article takes liberties to attach his name to it in the same sentence. Nobs01 (talk) 02:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The whole business is not going in the article because there is no consensus for this stuff. Anyway there's a difference between "conspiracy theory" and "... theorist"— Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

Very good. Now the question is, if politicizing his death is causing Mr. Rich's survivors distress, why does Wikipedia mention the DNC dedicating a bike rack outside their headquarters to him? If that's not politicization, what is?Nobs01 (talk) 05:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• Nobs01: It's not possible to slander or libel a dead person? Read your source again; it even says in the title that you can! The conspiracy websites certainly did in this case, or what do you call claiming someone committed a crime against his employer and his fellow employees? And Assange presenting this slander to a much greater public by slyly insinuating/hinting while maintaing deniability, finding it "interesting", interestingly the same wording Gingrich used. Wikipedia isn't a court of law, this is Wikipedia policy that's been hashed out extensively in this Talk (see archives). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

ok, so to prove that living persons, Gingrich and Assange, are slanderous conspiracy theorists, Seth Rich would have to sue and win. Without that, you have BLP violations.

Now, please address the question: Is the DNC plaque and memorial politization of Seth Rich's death?Nobs01 (talk) 14:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The bar for Wikipedia BLP violations is much higher for public figures than for non-public figures like Seth Rich. And nobody accused Assange and Gingrich of committing a crime. Reliable sources reported what they said (in TV interviews, on Twitter, etc., i.e., very publicly), and the sources and their readers then formed and uttered their opinions. See also SPECIFICO’s comments, above. Being able to sue someone for a monetary compensation for slander or libel is a very different and separate issue.

IMO the plaque is similar, for example, to roadside markers for traffic fatalities or other memorials, i.e., families, friends, or co-workers commemorating a loved one or colleague who died unexpectedly. These often also receive local coverage. The damage, i.e., politicisation, had already been done, so this dedication may have received more attention that it otherwise might have. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

No, this article contributes to the politization and distress caused to the family by citing how the DNC has politicized his death, and the statement by Hillary Clinton.Nobs01 (talk) 02:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• Herostratus: I see this article is firmly headed down the conspiracy theory path, BLP etc. be d....d. This is not an "American political matter", it’s a crime committed by person(s) unkown in what in all likelihood was an attempted robbery. Gingrich a major political figure who has "standing"? When he was Speaker of the House he was reprimanded by the House in 1997 for using a tax-exempt organization for political purposes and lying to the House Ethics Committee about it; the following year his own party pressured him into resigning (NPR; WaPo). He just filed a debt settlement plan with the FEC indicating that he will be paying his small business creditors nothing of the $4,000,000 he owes them for their services rendered during his unsuccessful 2012 campaign for the Republican nomination, so get stuffed, little people. One of his current sources of income is "co-writing" alternative history novels, whatever that means. He said on a talk show: "And if Assange says he is the source, Assange may know." So we have Assange saying he didn’t say one way or the other, and Gingrich saying "if he says it, he may know"? As in "if it rains, there may be raindrops"? He knows nothing. Wikipedia does not have to give equal validity to every theory out there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Giving_.22equal_validity.22_can_create_a_false_balance. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Article appears to have been politicized.

References to a Newsweek article and Wikileaks bias the report on Rich's murder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcsak (talk • contribs) 14:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

It is misleading to fail to mention the information at the Newsweek wikipedia article, to wit: Newsweek is an on-line publication, not a paper magazine anymore. Newsweek was sold to the husband of Democratic Congresswoman Jane Harmon on August 2, 2010, for $1 and assumption of liabilities. At the end of 2010, Newsweek merged with the online publication The Daily Beast, then edited by Tina Brown (Lady Evans.) Not relying on the other article, but Newsweek bears very little resemblance to the magazine of the Watergate era and seems to be very tightly associated with the Democratic Party and the views of that party. I would never present it, as in the present article, in a way that suggested it to be an impartial or reliable source.Hypercallipygian (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

In reference to 'Death and aftermath', it is stated that Assange himself offered a reward. This is false. The offer was made by WikiLeaks - one or other individual who monitor the Twitter account. Assange later clarified what the organisation meant and did not mean, but it was the organisation WikiLeaks, and not Assange, who made the offer.

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2016

I view the following line as possible using too loaded words: According to Newsweek, "that was enough to fire up the right-wing Twitterverse with yet another round of Clinton conspiracy theories", later fanned by Julian Assange of Wikileaks., more specifically "later fanned by Julian Assange of Wikileaks."

The use of the word "fanned" suggests that Julian Assange meant to, on purpose,"...fire up the right-wing Twitterverse with yet another round of Clinton conspiracy theories". While this could have been Assange's intention, the source in question says nothing substantial about his motives and thus, one cannot assume that Assange intentionally "fanned" said theories, since there is no clear evidence that this was his intention.

A less biased way of stating the actions of Assange and the resulting aftermath would be: According to Newsweek, "that was enough to fire up the right-wing Twitterverse with yet another round of Clinton conspiracy theories", which later intensified, partially or completely due to, the actions and statements made by Julian Assange of Wikileaks. 85.224.141.216 (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is very helpful. The present wording implies Assange "fired up conspiracy theories", when clearly Twitterverse was on fire weeks before Assange spoke, and Assange was very careful to deny he was stoking conspiracy theories. Nobs01 (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree. We should not use pejorative language. TFD (talk) 02:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that the request has been filled. ? Geogene (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Done This appears to have been done already. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Parents distressed by politicization

I disagree with your revert; the Newsweek article says the family is distressed about speculation of their sons activities that night, not politicization or speculatuon on activities before hand.Nobs01 (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Source [4] says The slain man’s parents,

Mary and Joel Rich of Omaha, Nebraska, are distressed by the apparent political exploitation of their son’s death by Clinton’s opponents. Article says Rich's parents were "distressed" by the way that Rich's murder was apparently being politicized Geogene (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, you got me there (I missed the word 'apparently' in the WP article), Sorry. The problem may be the way Newsweek slyly accuses Assange of fostering a conspiracy theory, which this WP article exploits, and may have BLP problems. But I'm not suggesting any big changes at this time.Nobs01 (talk) 21:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

"slyly accuses Assange of fostering a conspiracy theory" Gee. I wonder why they would accuse him of doing such a thing. I mean, it's the only such reward WikiLeaks has ever offered, and Assange, in reference to Rich, merely said that sources "take risks". No implications there. None at all. 108.34.151.139 (talk) 06:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

re: politicization

I agree with the theory that this article has been obviously politicized. This is further evident by the deletion efforts. The article is a valid historical event which was in the public view and should not be deleted. To do so is harmful to the researchers in future generations. We cannot have a party dictate narratives on Wikipedia only to delete when challenged and forced to show an unbiased representation of events.

The chosen Newsweek quote provides little context and is concentrated on the source's hate speech. If this charged quote from a left-wing outlet remains it must be accompanied with a charged-quote from a credible right-wing journal's quote about the suspicions. Otherwise it is sufficient to replace:

"His watch strap was torn, but nothing had been taken.[7] According to Newsweek, "that was enough to fire up the right-wing Twitterverse with yet another round of Clinton conspiracy theories,"[7] which later intensified after the offering of a reward made by WikiLeaks.[7]"

with:

"His watch strap was torn, but nothing had been taken. This ignited an uproar of speculation in social media [7] which later intensified after the offering of a reward made by WikiLeaks. [*]"

• [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:283:C001:3FBF:A9AA:9D82:2FB8:9310 (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Nah Let's leave bad enough alone. SPECIFICO talk 01:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Oppose Proposal is a POV-push away from reliable sources. Geogene (talk) 03:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Endorse but good luck getting it to stick. It reads much better, provides more information, and is generally more encyclopedic. Be WP:BOLD and add it. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Indecisive To me, the quote very much has the context "Mr Gingrinch says we should want to know what happened" (ie fell or was pushed) and then 'newsweek' (not saying they did this purposely because they know full well Wikipedia has a policy that says if we say parents are distressed, you better shup up about it right quick) says if you 'politicize' (presumably meaning blame his employer, but also arguably might mean blame the competing party, or the libertarians maybe or even the colorados for all we know, or maybe even mention it at all) this thing it will distress the parents, which as we all know is worse even than being appointed representative to the UN and not paying your parking tickets. It almost has me so distressed I want to erase it from my brain somehow. However, I think theres concern here because if Mr. Gingrinch is saying we better worry about this, or were going to be next that theres some context for his statement. Are the parents distressed because theyre afraid theyll be next? That would imply they know who did it. And how do we know newsweek isnt lying, that the parents arent reading that and going 'what?! we never said that!' My point is, unless the parents corroborate this 'distressed' allegation, we dont know really what exactly newsweek is trying to achieve. Theres two more things that really disturb me about this: I know real life isnt like csi ok three things that disturb me. 1) shouldnt I mean I could see why you wouldnt do an autopsy, but shouldnt it be at least possible to discern whether the gentleman was shot by a metal bullet or an ice projectile? 2) what if someone shot him to take his laptop, say one with account info that eased getting in to the emails and 3) how do we know this guy wasnt shot by a drone? It happened across from a convenience store. Theres no camera? He gets shot by the drone, the organ harvest team deploys to recover the goods and in the process maybe theres two teams, and they end up fighting over the body? I dont know. Awful lot of questions. Almost forgot the main point I was trying to make. I know Wikipedia solicits donations, any chance he was shot by a .357 colt python? Lets not politicize this, so we dont end up next. And how sure a thing are those state department rewards anyway. Id hate to be sitting on 3 million bucks and have this a****** flee the coop. - 55378008a (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

References

BLPN

I've started a new discussion here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Correcting factual errors in article

According to Burkman's press releases, his total reward offer as of Dec 5, 2016, is $105,000. Adding the $25,000 reward offered by MPDC, the total is $130,000, not 150,000. Rich's family does not include WikiLeaks/Assange's tweeted "reward offer" (self-touted on every media venue that would have him), saying that they cannot "verify its validity", and neither does the Burkman press release which is the only source for the WJLA (ABC7) report. The same press release is also the only source for our article erroneously stating for a fact: "A total of more than $150,000 in reward money is being offered for information, the largest murder reward in the history of Washington D.C." The source merely says: "Now at $130,000, the reward is believed to be the largest in D.C. history", i.e., nobody knows what the largest is or was. The WaPo "Style" opinion article obviously misread the press release $130,000 total of Burkman's $105,000 + MPDC's $25,000, added MPDC's $25,000 for a second time, and then added WikiLeaks's disputed $20,000; ergo, grand total: $175,000. Coming to the point after this long-winded excursion into fourth-grade addition: I removed everything that's not supported by RS and math and added references supporting the available facts. Not sure what to do about the original source for the secondary sources:

References

Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm cool with just presenting the numbers as is. No need for us to do simple arithmetic on behalf of the reader. ^Falling_Gravity 01:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Especially since the little baby steps up in the bounty appear to be for the sole purpose of generating another round of google hits or filler pieces in the local community tabloid. SPECIFICO talk 02:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

A recent article mentions Burkman's reward offer an campaign.[6] TFD (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)