Talk:Murder of Seth Rich

Merge

This should be merged to 2016 Democratic National Committee email leakVolunteer Marek (talk) 00:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

You just deleted the stuff about the links to the email leak and now you want to merge it to that article? How does that work? TradingJihadist (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

See [1]. You can't put speculation and conspiracy theories into an article about a recently deceased person, especially based on junk sources like the Daily Mail.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

You are making false claims even after having this pointed out to you. Nowhere is the Daily Mail being used to support conspiracy theories. The content you are deleting is well sourced, and you can't give a reason to delete the content. Also, give a reason as to why it should be merged to that article. TradingJihadist (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The speculation in the first para was sourced to Daily Mail. The rest is not well sourced either. Also:

Family of slain DNC staffer: Those attempting to politicize death are 'causing more harm than good'

Family of slain DNC staffer Seth Rich blasts nutters for spreading ‘harmful’ WikiLeaks conspiracies

Wikipedia's not going to be a part of that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The stuff sourced to the Mail, I repeat, was not speculation. The stuff sourced to the Mail was about police suggesting attempted robbery, nothing was taken, and the reward. That's it. How does that information amount to conspiracy theory or speculation as you claim? (Nonetheless, the Mail has been removed completely from the article). Your claims about the other content not being well-sourced have no substance. You're just asserting a claim without foundation, otherwise you would be able to explain why. TradingJihadist (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Back to the discussion on the merge to 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak, which I'm against. This article has enough content for a standalone article. Redirecting it to the email leak article would suggest that Wikipedia believes that the murder of Seth Rich is strongly connected to the leak, which presumably we want to avoid. TradingJihadist (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

As the person that wrote the original BLP for Seth Rich, I think merging this article with the DNC email leak does exactly what you don't want it to do, Volunteer Marek. At this point there is no denying Mr. Rich is notable enough, and citable enough, to, at the very least, have his own BLP page. Would,'t adding this as a mere footnote to the e-mail leaks page (which at this time, we still have no proof that the two incidents are connected in any way shape or form) only politicize this incident more? I think the bigger issue here is not merging, but making sure what goes on here is accurate and reliably sourced. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro

I will also note after going through what has been added to what i originally created, the conspiracy tone is far too heavy in this article. The info either needs to be sectioned off (can't think of a decent subject line for the content atm) or trimmed down significantly. I removed one sentence that was completely unrelated to the subject. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. If there is a real link to the leak, then the murder is definitely notable. If there isn't, then the article should be simply deleted. StAnselm (talk) 03:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The fact that a worker for the DNC is murdered in the midst of the 2016 presidential election process is notable, regardless of a connection to the leaks. The fact that Wikileaks is offering now a reward for information on this further raises the murder to notability. Perhaps also the Ontological Argument could be added. (PeacePeace (talk) 05:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC))

Drive-by citation needed tags

An editor just came adding random citation needed tags. The reference for those claims are in the next source, as can be easily seen. I suspect that person did not bother to check the source. TradingJihadist (talk) 01:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Never hurts to add more - i knocked out one of them with a new source. The more reliable sources we can pull out of the garbage that is on the web right now regarding all of this, the better. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 02:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Policy on adding info regarding information relating to the crime?

I wanted to get some feedback before adding anything to the page. When you do a quick search for Seth Rich on google, the majority of articles direct to the controversy surrounding Jullian Assange and his bounty for information on what happened. Consiparcy theories aside, this is an open homeicide investigation, would't it be worth adding the actual information to the local police for people to provide any information they might have? From NBC Washington:

Anyone with information on the shooting is asked to call police at 202-727-9099 or send a text message to 50411. A reward of as much as $25,000 is offered.

Let me know what you think. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 02:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not give this type of info. The mention of the reward is enough. TradingJihadist (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Understood, thank you for your feedback. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Merge back to Seth Rich?

The conspiracy info was toned down quite a bit with the last round of edits. Wouldn't removing "Murder of" from the title help tone it down as well? It seems like there's enough RS's for him to qualify for a BLP. Let me know what you think. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

It's an 'incident'-type article, hence death/murder of Seth Rich would be appropriate. But it can be debated whether it should be death of or murder of. It seems from the circumstances that it's fairly likely to be murder and a number of sources do refer to it as murder, eg "Police in Washington have already offered a reward of $25,000 for information about Mr Rich’s death, something that is standard in all murder cases" [2]. TradingJihadist (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea, although I'm still not convinced that this article should exist at all.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Simply looking for a compromise here, figured removing "murder" might be a decent alternative to deleting the article entirely. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

If a change of title would prevent deletion then surely "Death of Seth Rich" is a good compromise. 62.178.163.64 (talk) 10:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

There's no source that doubts this was a murder. He was shot twice in the back. The reason for deletion is that a lot of self-serving conspiracy narrative has been forced on the article with no independent RS to support the theory, only to report that Wikileaks is promulgating it. SPECIFICO talk 13:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Sources that should be used if the article is not deleted

Seth Rich's Family Shoots Down Conspiracy Theories About DNC Staffer's Murder After Wikileaks Offer

WikiLeaks Is Fanning a Conspiracy Theory

Right-Wing Media Run With Conspiracy

DNC Staffer's Murder Unleashed a Perfect Storm of Right-Wing Conspiracy Theories

SPECIFICO talk 15:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The family has asked that conspiracy-talk be avoided. So I support keeping conspiracy theories out of this article, at least until something becomes credible. Accordingly, if we keep out the conspiracy stuff, I'm not sure that's consistent with inserting articles that reject the conspiracies, because those articles discuss the conspiracy theories, right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with that. There is no NPOV reporting that supports the narratives of the self-motivated conspiracy theorists and innuendo gossip. The only RS mentions of these threads is to describe them for what they are. If there's ever an article about Clinton Conspiracy Theories perhaps this will be mentioned. Otherwise, this is not a notable event in the context of the thousands of such crimes every year in the US. SPECIFICO talk 16:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

There's still plenty of notable stuff that this article discusses, even without adding more refs.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

What is WP-notable about this crime? I don't see anything, the mention in Clinton's speech notwithstanding. SPECIFICO talk 17:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I made a list at the ongoing AfD.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

All the items on your list have been refuted by various editors on the AfD. Murder victim in his 20's -- WP:NOTABLE? Millions of those, etc. Any wikileaks stuff is unrelated to the subject of the article and is self-promoted innuendo from an avowed opponent of Clinton that's been conveniently taken up by other avowed opponents. Not RS, and clearly a BLP violation. SPECIFICO talk 17:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

collapsing WP:SOAPBOX
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Conspiracy Theory" is not NPOV, but Democrat Talking Point To refer to eliminating "conspiracy theory" is obviously a democrat talking point, and a violation of NPOV. The correct term is "reasonable suspicion, common to normal police work in investigating a murder. If someone too conveniently dies, Wikileaks guru says "NO," to the question about it being a simple robbery, then there is a reasonable suspicion for police to investigate. There is no wacko conspiracy theory, like landing on the moon was a fake. That this murder is quite notable is proven by the abundance of google hits that it gets and YouTube hits. The purpose of the article should be objective presentation of facts, not promulgation of any theory or talking points. (PeacePeace (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)) This article falls within the scope of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons if it adversely impacts surviving relatives, and in this instance the surviving relatives have made very clear that they find public speculation about conspiracy theories to be hurtful, so I support leaving that stuff out until it becomes much more credible.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC) The so-called Wikileaks guru has no more knowledge of this crime than any other. Nor does he have any more knowledge than any other observer. By PeacePeace's logic could report the opion of any person in the world about every crime in the world. This would give us on the order of 6,000,000,000*10,000,000 articles per day. SPECIFICO talk 16:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Has the Nomination for Deletion Been Settled? I Cannot Find the Discussion of the Nomination Anywhere

Can someone post how to get to the discussion of the nomination for deletion, if such still exists -- or remove that boiler plate? I spent quite a bit of time trying to find the discussion, but today could not find a trace of it. A few days ago I found the discussion without too much trouble. Thanks (PeacePeace (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC))

You can comment here. But don't use allcaps because people will ignore you. Also, try to be calm, and explain yourself logically. Thanks. Also, if you would like to vote, do so at the bottom of that page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Affordable Care Act??? Robert Muise???

What the heck do these Seealso entries have to do with this article? I guess it's not a BLP violation, so 3RR prevents me from reverting, but WTF?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Think 1RR here. There's too much POV editing going on. SPECIFICO talk 18:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

none of his belongings were taken

Please undo your second reinsertion of this material and respond to my repeated policy-based statement of the reason for its removal. In the context of this article, these words are SYNTH and a BLP insinuation regarding the victim. We don't use everything that is in a source. Your rational for repeated reinsertion is specious. The article must reflect the weight of RS coverage. WP:BRD please. This article is under Discretionary Sanctions. SPECIFICO talk

I don't get it. It's a standard description of a murder to say that nothing was stolen. There are dozens of reliable sources about this particular murder that do the same. The fact that nothing was stolen helps explain why the word "botched" is used. The father of the victim has asked people to avoid discussion of conspiracy theories, and we do avoid that. He didn't ask that no one discuss the murder at all. There's no tag atop this talk page, and I'm not persuaded that 1RR and discretionary sanctions apply. If you revert me again on this, I won't put it back without talk page consensus, but I think you're mistaken.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, you or anyone else can do the honors. I am away on a mission for the balance of the day here. SPECIFICO talk 18:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I removed the "none of his belongings were taken". Steve Quinn (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

It's still there and now it's also in a footnote. @Anythingyouwant: I think you are edit-warring this bit. You've reinserted it several times now, even after @Steve Quinn: has now joined my concern. I'm going to hold you to your word above that you wouldn't reinsert this bit. Please get it out of the article and engage on talk. I really don't want to go the enforcement route here.

I see you've also copied the "shot in the head" thing to the footnote. This is not supported by Washington Post, NY Times and other sources more reliable than Telegraph for this content. It's a BLP violation. Please get that out of there too. SPECIFICO talk 02:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I put a quote in the footnote to establish that it was apparently an attempted robbery, and that quote happened to also say that he was shot in the head, and I've happily shortened the quote to remove the shot-in-head part. Also, I have removed at your request the uncontradicted and innocuous fact that no belongings were taken, and I continue to object to removing that material because it's standard descriptive language for such a crime, and otherwise readers will think stuff was stolen. As for your removal of the uncontradicted description of Wikileaks' statement as neither confirming nor denying a connection with Rich, that removal puzzles me as well because it's in lots of reliable sources and without it readers will assume there was an association between Rich and WikiLeaks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant - I don't see why you changed the section title from "Botched robbery" - which is highly descriptive and very effectively encapsulates this situation. The only benefit that I can see for changing it to "Apparently an attempted robbery" is that you authored it. I read one or two other accounts that used the word "botched" which is a much more descriptive word. I don't see any authority designated to decide which sources prevail. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Steve Quinn I changed it for several reasons. First, "botched robbery" is not well-supported by the sources, which say only that it might have been a botched robbery; so, we should not say in Wikipedia's voice that it was a botched robbery (not even the police are sure at this point). "Apparently an attempted robbery" includes the word "apparently" meaning that we don't know for sure, and this header is strongly supported by the reliable sources, one of which says "appeared to be an attempted robbery near his home in a suburb of the US capital on July 10...." A further reason why I changed it because the word "attempted" indicates that nothing was actually stolen, whereas the word "botched" suggests that something might have been stolen which is false.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

OK. Just curious. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Biographical details section

Is it necessary to have this section entitled: "Early life, education, and employment"? This seems to have nothing to do with this incident. This article is about the incident and not this person imho. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's necessary to give the reader some brief background information.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Subsection Tilte

Does "Apparently not a robbery" seem like an appropriate title for the only subsection in the article? Seems somewhat tabloid-y to me. I can't think of a better one off the top of my head, but if it apparently isn't a robbery, why is that the title of the largest subsection in the article? Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The header was "Apparently an attempted robbery". This header was chosen because a cited source says "appeared to be an attempted robbery near his home in a suburb of the US capital on July 10, but his belongings were not taken". The header has since been changed to simply "Death".Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for changing. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 19:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Hilary Clinton blurb

I don't see a need to have the Hilary Clinton blurb in this article. She made her comments over a month ago, probably as part of her political campaign, and I am not sure it is relevant [3]. She mentions Rich in passing along with a "list of mass" shootings:

From Sandy Hook to Orlando to Dallas, and so many other places, these tragedies tear at our soul,” Clinton said in Portsmouth, N.H. “And so do the incidents that don’t even dominate the headlines. Just this past Sunday, a young man, Seth Rich, who worked for the Democratic National Committee to expand voting rights, was shot and killed in his neighborhood in Washington. He was just 27 years old.

The rest of this article has the same info that other media outlets have - so there is nothing remarkable there. I think having this blurb is WP:UNDUE.

As an aside the first cited reference for this blurb is not the correct one. If you look it has nothing about Clinton's comment. The one at the end of the blurb appears to be the correct reference - if anyone wants to correct this. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is what we currently say about Clinton:

“ Hillary Clinton spoke of this fatality during a speech advocating limiting the availability of guns. She added, "Surely we can agree that weapons of war have no place on the streets of America". ”

References

The entire second reference is about Clinton's discussion of Rich, so this is highly noteworthy. And the first cited reference certainly does discuss Clinton too: "Hillary Clinton, before she became the Democratic presidential nominee, evoked his name during a speech in which she advocated for limiting the availability of guns". So I think our very brief material is okay.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the fact that she lists Seth Rich's case among other shootings is important. I haven't seen the speech WaPo is referencing, but it could be that by "weapons of war" she was referring to the semiautomatic weapons used in some previous mass shootings. ^Falling_Gravity 05:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

OK I missed that in the first reference - so I stand corrected. In second reference, I don't agree that it is entirely about Rich. I see that the headline is, and there is some mention, but there is also recounting about mass shootings. The info at the end has been repeated by other news sources. Anyway, that is just my take on the matter. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of rewards

This edit removed WikiLeaks and their reward from this article, and also deleted the police reward. I strongly disagree with these removals of longstanding content from this article. How about we just follow the advice of the AfD closer and wait awhile, instead of trying to delete the article by gradually chipping away at it? The reward information has been as highly publicized as any aspect of the case.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

See closer's talk page on this. SPECIFICO talk 04:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

"Ultimately Wikipedia works by consensus, so you'll need to convince others of your view."Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

How is stating that WikiLeaks offered reward money libelous? If we included Assange's fringe claims about Seth Rich's alleged connections to the DNC email leak, then I would understand, but that's not what I see. ^Falling_Gravity 04:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Can anyone provide any policy-based reason (and not some response like see WP:BLP why the Wikileaks reward should not be mentioned? If not it should be kept. TFD (talk) 05:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll reply in a few hours, however please remember that the burden is on the proposal to include, not to delete. SPECIFICO talk 11:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Here’s a thought experiment: Recall that Sony Pictures’ computers were hacked by the Guardians of Peace “GOP” around the time that the film “The Interview” was released. The film mocked and vilified the leadership of North Korea.

Suppose that your son was the executive chef of the Sony Pictures commissary. Shortly after the Sony hack, your son is brutally murdered in the middle of the night walking on the streets of Los Angeles. The GOP announces a reward for information leading to the conviction of the killer. As his parent you decry this phony insinuation. It gets temporary blip in media coverage and then fades to nothing. Do you think WP should report it in an article about your son’s murder? Do you think there’s any reason for an article about your son’s murder in the first place? SPECIFICO talk 15:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

In this particular case involving Seth Rich, the parents specifically requested that people cut out the conspiracy theorizing. They did not request that the WikiLeaks reward not be mentioned or discussed, and in fact the father said he hopes the reward helps. I'm reinserting this longstanding material per consensus here in this talk page section, and firm consensus would be needed to remove it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Why open a talk thread without letting the discussion last even a day? Looks like premature evisceration to me. I posed that thought experiment so that editors could benefit from your analysis without letting any politics enter the discussion. Citing an imaginary "consensus" with no discussion is not constructive. Anyway most of the editors who were pushing the conspiracy theory have been blocked or mysteriously disappeared. Perhaps Wilileaks will post a reward for them too.

There are ample sources that report on the family's reaction, which you've misrepresented with a stale snippet from an old version of the article. e.g...

Here is their statement to the press after Wikileaks began insinuating that Mr, Rich had betrayed his employer: “The entire Rich family is so heartened by the outpouring of support and love that they have felt over the past few weeks as they continue to come to terms with this terrible tragedy. The family is in constant contact with authorities and thank them for their extremely thorough investigation. The family believes this matter is being handled professionally and with the seriousness that it requires. The family welcomes any and all information that could lead to the identification of the individuals responsible, and certainly welcomes contributions that could lead to new avenues of investigation. That said, some are attempting to politicize this horrible tragedy, and in their attempts to do so, are actually causing more harm that good and impeding on the ability for law enforcement to properly do their job. For the sake of finding Seth’s killer, and for the sake of giving the family the space they need at this terrible time, they are asking for the public to refrain from pushing unproven and harmful theories about Seth’s murder.”

See also typical RS coverage: Omaha World-Herald

And The Washinton Post

Rich’s father, Joel I. Rich, said he was offended by what he termed “bizarre” reports that are circulating on Internet discussion and message boards. Rich and his wife, Mary Ann, who live in Nebraska where their son grew up, visited the location of the shooting last week and appealed for help in finding the killer. On Tuesday, Joel Rich said that the WikiLeaks reward seemed to legitimize the rumor mill. “I don’t think I want to comment,” he said at first, then added, “I hope the additional money helps find out who did this.” But, he said, “I don’t want to play WikiLeaks’ game.” Assistant D.C. Police Chief Peter Newsham said that “at this time we don’t have any information to suggest” a connection between Rich’s killing and the WikiLeaks data or other theories raised online. SPECIFICO talk 17:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't close this discussion. All I did was restore longstanding material because there is no consensus yet for removing it. This discussion can continue.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The article is like two weeks old, so how about you drop this "long standing" nonsense? I mean, unless that is suppose to be tongue in cheek or something. Anyway, there is no consensus for including it and it's a BLP issue, so it stays out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree there's any plausible BLP issue, and by longstanding I meant the info has been in the article for weeks, since it was created, and throughout the AfD proceedings, but it's true the article was created earlier this month.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I think you're enmeshing two different things that WikiLeaks/Assange did. The first was WikiLeaks officially offering a lot of money if anyone could find evidence regarding Seth's death. The second is Assange spreading rumors that Seth was connected to the DNC email leak. I believe it is possible to report the first thing without stepping onto the second to conform with BLP. ^Falling_Gravity 19:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Consider my imaginary example. Now, I think that Wikileaks does not have any interest in this particular crime above all others. Unlike the DC Police, Wikileaks is not responsible for bringing murderers to justice. The only reason reported in RS for this reward is the one cited by the victim's family. Wikileaks knows perfectly well that it can stoke fringe media coverage by its behavior. WP must not be complicit in that. SPECIFICO talk 20:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

By design, we are neither complicit or noncomplicit. We simply report what is in the sources, following our policies at WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:WEIGHT. It is not our place to decide what should or should not be allowed in an article on moral or ethical grounds. See WP:NOTCENSORED. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Strawman alert. There is no appeal to moral or ethical grounds. Wikileaks is using this tragic senseless crime to promote its agenda, which has nothing to do with Mr. Rich or the crime. To validate this utterly unfounded insinuation is to promote a false assertion that Mr. Rich betrayed his employer and possibly broke the law, by leaking emails to Wikileaks, whose founder is an avowed foe of Sec'y Clinton. It has nothing to do with censorship or morals. The only coverage of Wikileaks' involvement by RS calls it conspiracy crap. SPECIFICO talk 21:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no policy against covering "conspiracy crap" if it passes WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:WEIGHT. The current version[4] (greatly improved since yesterday) looks pretty good, in my opinion. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Obviously as disputed material it stays out until there's consensus to add it, and that requires reliable independent sources that contextualise it - for example identifying whether it's a blatant publicity stunt, and establishing its actual significance. Assange appears to be engaging in a bit of grief vampirism, which reflects poorly on him, so I think we should not include it unless its a slam-dunk. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• My similarly-named friend makes a good point. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

This has now been deleted (citations omitted):

“ WikiLeaks later announced a reward of $20,000 for information leading to a conviction for the killing. After receiving the news of WikiLeaks' reward, the victim's father, Joel Rich, said, "I hope the additional money helps find out who did this." He also said WikiLeaks was "playing a game". WikiLeaks stated: "this should not be taken to imply that Seth Rich was a source for Wikileaks or to imply that his murder is connected to our publications". ”

Since the motives of WikiLeaks are unknown, this is probably all we can say. Either WikiLeaks is sincere or they're not. Reliable sources do not speculate about it, as far as I know, and yet dozens of reliable sources do mention WikiLeaks in connection with Seth Rich. Are User:JzG and User:Guy Macon saying therefore that WikiLeaks should not be mentioned in this article?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Please. This ignores everything that's been carefully explained by at least a dozen editors here and at AfD. Sincere about what? See [5] just for starters. Use Google. SPECIFICO talk 02:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: "Are User:JzG and User:Guy Macon saying therefore that WikiLeaks should not be mentioned in this article?", my position is that
[A] in my considered opinion it definitely should be included,
[B] again in my opinion the reasons given for exclusion are, for the most part, not based upon any Wikipedia policy or guideline, and
[C] my opinions are just a small part of the consensus and User:JzG AKA "Guy" (no relation) makes a good point about leaving out material until there is a clear consensus for inclusion. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I think any consensus would need to be policy-based rather than censorship-based, in order to be valid. Maybe we need an RFC.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Let's start with an informal head count. Who here, other than specifico, would !vote against inclusion if an RfC were posted? Note that this is not the same as being against inclusion if there is currently a lack of consensus to include. If so, what Wikipedia policy or guideline do you believe calls for exclusion? Specifico, please give people a chance to answer. Your replying to most comments is getting into WP:BLUDGEONING territory. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that this is something that's to be decided by a "headcount" but yeah, I'm against including it based on BLP, including the fact that the subject's parents have made pleas to the press to stop spreading conspiracy theories.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Could you explain how simply stating that WikiLeaks offered reward money is a BLP violation? And how, exactly, stating that WikiLeaks offered reward money is spreading conspiracy theories? I just don't see the connection. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. My issue is with its significance, and with the conspiracist bullshit that others will layer onto it. X happened is not grounds for including X in Wikipedia. X happened and it was significant because Y, with independent commentators noting Z, is. Guy (Help!) 10:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

As above, I don't think we should count heads, instead we should clarify what text would have consensus. The removed paragraph does not incude as yet any independent analysis of why Assange might have done this. I am inclined to e cynical, given his history. Guy (Help!) 09:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

User:JzG, the independent analysts speculate that Assange may have done this (1) because Rich was a WikiLeaks source; or, (2) because Rich was not a source but WikiLeaks has a policy of not confirming or denying such things, and treats "threats toward any suspected source of WikiLeaks with extreme gravity"; or, (3) because Rich was not a source but WikiLeaks wants people to suspect he was in order to deflect attention from the real source(s). All of this is speculation by independent analysts, and I am not convinced that it really tells us much, or that it belongs in this article even if it does tell us much. I don't think the quoted material that was removed from this article ought to stay removed based upon whether this (1)(2)(3) speculation is included.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Stating that WikiLeaks offered reward money should stay in. Any speculation about whether Seth Rich was or was not a WikiLeaks source should stay out. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Also agree. Wikileaks offering a reward is well-reported and in no way a BLP violation. Its relevance is established by coverage - RS think it's relevant, we reflect that. As long as we don't draw a connection between the reward and the DNC leaks (which the sources don't) it's not within our mandate to protect or prevent the reader from a drawing connection. D.Creish (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Concur with User:Guy Macon, the three editors directly above, et al., that the Wikileaks reference should be restored posthaste. Pertinent facts have been systematically disappearing from this article over the last several days, such as the part of the body on which Rich was shot, the number of shots, the fact that his belongings were not taken, as well as the Wikileaks reward. This needs to stop! It is in no way the prerogative of any self-appointed 'guardian editor(s)' of a given article to unobtrusively and arbitrarily censor facts about the case or its surrounding circumstances simply because some of them might lend themselves to speculation, whether unwarranted or not. Rather, it is incumbent upon the reader to analyze those facts for themselves, and they must be allowed to do so. - JGabbard (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. We have the following sources in the references section...

• "WikiLeaks offers $20,000 reward for help finding Omaha native Seth Rich's killer" --Omaha World-Herald
• "WikiLeaks offers $20,000 reward over murder of Democrat staffer Seth Rich" --The Daily Telegraph
• "WikiLeaks offers reward for help finding DNC staffer's killer" -- Washington Post

...but no mention of WikiLeaks offering a reward in the article.

Can we just put it back, or must I post an RfC? --Guy Macon (talk)

As best I can tell, we have SPECIFICO, Volunteer Marek, and JzG (Guy) against inclusion; for inclusion are Guy Macon, Anythingyouwant, JGabbard, D.Creish, and Falling Gravity. So that's 62.5% for inclusion. That strikes me as a consensus, but feel free to start an RFC if you prefer.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Apparently those headlines violate our BLP policy. Perhaps there's a way we could cover them up so our sensitive readers don't have to be exposed to any trace of WikiLeaks' reckless conspiracy-mongering. ^Falling_Gravity 06:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

It is obvious that Assange has an ax to grind, as pointed out above in a reliable source "Avowed Foe of Clinton, Timed Email Release for Democratic Convention" This is a NYT article in which he openly "made it clear that he hoped to harm Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning the presidency" releasing the DNC emails. And "He also suggested that he not only opposed her candidacy on policy grounds, but also saw her as a personal foe".

He also expresses a non-neutral view of Hilary on his website [6] cherry picking circumstances to support that view. So far, this is the only independent analysis - and Assange has openly stated he has an agenda. So, no, the material should not be restored. All Assange has done is use innuendo to connect conspiracy theories to Seth's death, which has impeded the police investigation, as shown by the sources presented in this discussion. This is all happening against the parents' wishes, This is BLP - which discourages tabloid journalism coverage - such as coverage of innuendos and speculation by the Wikileaks founder - who has implied this source, that source, and Seth Rich - but no hard evidence. And the following applies (per WP:AVOIDVICTIM)

Avoid victimization. When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems – even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.

And WP:BDP This applies "particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime". ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

You lost me. How is Seth Rich victimized by mentioning that WikiLeaks offered a $20,000 reward which Rich's father hopes will help solve the case?Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Anthingyouwant - sorry you lost me there - what do you mean? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

You just spoke at length about victimization but you didn't say how Rich is allegedly being victimized. You mean the reward suggests Rich was a spy? We included the explicit denial by WikiLeaks that it was implying Rich was a spy. I don't see how someone can victimize someone else by saying something if the person who allegedly said it expressly denied saying it or even implying it. Anyway, Rich's father said he hopes the reward will help solve the case, and certainly the reward is significant in that way.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant - It has been shown that Assange has an agenda. That makes any actions he engages in suspect. It appears he offered the reward to stir the pot of conspiracy theories, and perhaps even give himself, his situation, and Wikileaks free publicity. As noted by the article, he has said himself anytime there is a Wikileaks release they have to gear up the PR machine (so to speak). He also said that this time he didn't have to, given that this release was scheduled during the presidential campaign and the DNC hack already had wall to wall coverage. He has done nothing but mislead the public and the press. So, why should Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, and which also has guidelines and policies, jump on the bandwagon? That's a rhetorical question, not requiring an answer. What I mean is, I don't see that it is appropriate for Wikipedia to also jump on the bandwagon.Steve Quinn (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Your unsupportable comment ("nothing but mislead") about Assange doesn't bolster the argument for strict observance of BLP guidelines. D.Creish (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: Your argument would apply if anyone were proposing we include innuendos and speculation by the Wikileaks founder ... but no one is, as far as I can tell. Any objections to including strictly facts confirmed by multiple, reputable RS? D.Creish (talk) 08:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@D.Creish: let me think about what this, thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Typo above? Feel free to remove this comment if you correct it. D.Creish (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@D.Creish: Strike thru typo. I was trying to say that I need to think about this. No need to remove your "typo" inquiry, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

According to Newsweek, he was not shot in the back of the head

According to this article in Newsweek [7] he was not shot in the back of the head. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

This NBC source [8] states that "Rich was shot multiple times" - but does not mention the head. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

According to another source [9] it states that "Police have released little about their investigation, other than to say that Rich was fatally shot in the early hours of July 10" --- Let's discuss. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I toned this down before out of respect for the relatives per avoiding victimization and WP:BDP - but some editors prefer salacious details to an actual Wikipedia article. So, I support changing to neutral wording such as that he was simply shot. Also, I wouldn't care if you take it out completely. We're not in the business of supplying gory details for "click bait" and grabbing audience share. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I support just saying he was shot. The reports conflict anyway.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I've updated the article. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Saying he was shot is enough.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Removal of trivia minutiae

I removed trivia per UNDUE, NOTNEWS, and had to revert due to UNDUE, NOTNEWS, and WP:OWN [10], [11]. Please discuss Steve Quinn (talk) 08:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Newsweek reported that he was sober when he left the bar according to the bar manager, and Newsweek is a major reliable source, so I don't see the problem. Newsweek obviously didn't think it was trivial, and of course a drunk person is much more likely to get in trouble and/or be taken advantage of. As for the automatic gunfire locater, multiple sources reported about that too, including the Washington Post. When someone is murdered, it's almost always of interest to know how the police found out about it, because when humans make such reports they are often witnesses. Anyway, for people who have never heard of gunfire locaters, this info may be intriguing for that reason as well. I object to the whittling away of this article, as if it had failed AfD. Regarding WP:OWN, watchfulness is not the same thing as possessiveness. I read your edit summary and found it unpersuasive and nonsensical: "Remove trivial details (not drunk?) (gunfire spotter?) that have noting to do with Wikipedia coverage of this event WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS". As I explained in my own edit summary, "items do not 'have nothing to do with Wikipedia coverage of this event' if they are included in the Wikipedia article."Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Just because Newsweek reported the bar manager said he was sober - a trivial detail - that has no bearing on this event. We are not Newsweek and we are not a newspaper. We are an encyclopedia. The same goes for the other minutiae - a "gunfire locator". So, not seeing a problem has no bearing on this issue. Also, having it in this article I belatedly realized presents a negative view of the subject without good reason and appears to be another BLP violation. On the one hand, to me this demonstrates a lack of sensitivity to the family and the victim. I am guessing User:Volunteer Marek, User:SPECIFICO and User:JzG and others might agree, but of course I cannot speak for them. I apologize for saying WP:OWN. My emotions got carried away with me. Occasionally I get frustrated with certain types of editing. Most of the time I don't Steve Quinn (talk)

To be clear, I am talking about the bar manager comment as possibly BLP, not the "gunfire locator" (which I still think is trivial). Steve Quinn (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, a bartender is hardly a notable person and his comments should not be given the same weight as someone notable such as Hilary or the former DNC chairwomen, Wassermann. That's like me going over to a random guy on the corner and saying "Hey, what is your take on this?" In the world of notoriety, it wouldn't matter. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: "notable" bartender, notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. Eye witness accounts of events preceding a crime seem relevant to an article about that crime. So far I only see the bartender's comment covered in the Newsweek source - are there others? D.Creish (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Who the f cares. It's not essential details and it stays out for BLP reasons. And UNDUEVolunteer Marek (talk) 22:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

There's not the slightest hint of a suggestion of a shadow of a BLP issue regarding the bartender's statement that Rich was not drunk or even tipsy when he left the bar. Take it to an RFC or BLPN if you disagree.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek: Removing content "for BLP reasons" requires you articulate the BLP reasons. This talk page isn't a locker room, please keep your language civil. D.Creish (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Steve Quinn has already articulated it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

And it's up to those who wish to include this nonsense to "take it to RfC or BLPN".Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Quinn said "To be clear, I am talking about the bar manager comment as possibly BLP". That's both equivocal and unexplained.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Steve also said "Just because Newsweek reported the bar manager said he was sober - a trivial detail - that has no bearing on this event. We are not Newsweek and we are not a newspaper. We are an encyclopedia. The same goes for the other minutiae - a "gunfire locator". So, not seeing a problem has no bearing on this issue. Also, having it in this article I belatedly realized presents a negative view of the subject without good reason and appears to be another BLP violation. On the one hand, to me this demonstrates a lack of sensitivity to the family and the victim.", or did you not read that part?

Can you please self-revert since that's your third revert in 24hrs and this is indeed a BLP issue? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Saying the gunfire was heard by an automatic gunfire locator does not in any way present a negative view of the subject. Likewise, saying he was sober when he left the location where he was last seen does not remotely present a negative view of the subject. There's not even anything to argue about, as far as I can tell. Even if it did present a negative view of the subject, BLPs do that all the time. I am not even convinced that WP:BLP even applies here given that it wasn't a suicide, and no gruesomeness is in the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I have requested administrator input here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, I clarified that the BLP is specifically the bartender comment. Seeming to be "literal" or producing an inaccurate restatement is not helpful. I did not consider the gunfire locator to be part of the BLP issue, only the bartender comment. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

But you have still been deleting the gunfire locator information, right? And have you explained why it's a BLP violation to say Rich was characterized as sober when last seen alive?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, in fact I did delete and was correct to do so and clarified the BLP. It seems your editing style is to argue endlessly, while seeming to miss the point, so please continue to do so. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: can you clarify (again) please. You say you "clarified that the BLP is specifically the bartender comment." Anythingyouwant asks why then did you delete the gunfire locator information and you reply that you were "correct to do so and clarified the BLP." Are you saying the locator is a BLP issue? If so, both statements (BLP is specifically bartender) and (locator removed per BLP) cannot be true. D.Creish (talk) 03:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@D.Creish: I deleted the "gunfire location" information because it is trivial, has no bearing on this event and appears to be WP:UNDUE, which, by the way, is on a policy page WP:NEUTRAL. And, as far as I am concerned, this is not BLP. The bartender statement is BLP. If you are interested I discussed some of this in the above in my second comment which is the third paragraph in this section. Then there is other commentary by other editors. So, you are correct, it seems both cannot be BLP. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I disagree but your argument is clear. D.Creish (talk) 05:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Article name change

I would like to change the name of the article to something less gruesome. I mean like tone it down. Any suggestions are welcome, then we see what consensus prevails if any.---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with keeping the sensationalism out, but the current title seems objective enough. Geogene (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion split off from previous section

Now that consensus appears to favor removal of all the WP:COATRACK nonsense, it's likely the article will be deleted soon enough. SPECIFICO talk 21:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Um, maybe I'm biased, but I don't an emerging consensus. I'm sensing an RFC, though. ^Falling_Gravity 21:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The word "coatrack" was not used at this talk page until this talk page section, and without any explanation. I too am not seeing any emerging consensus.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

It's used correctly. This is currently an article about a murder, not a coatrack about Wikileaks. And if the reward is mentioned, that would be PROFRINGE unless a lot of space goes into reliably sourced speculations about ulterior motives of Wikileaks, background of the DNC hack, etc. We'd have to follow the email hack all the way to Moscow to get the full story. The end result wouldn't be much about Seth Rich, and it wouldn't flatter Assange/Wikileaks either. This is why the thing should have deleted. Geogene (talk) 01:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Geogene, does the following really look PROFRINGE to you?

“ WikiLeaks later announced a reward of $20,000 for information leading to a conviction for the killing. After receiving the news of WikiLeaks' reward, the victim's father, Joel Rich, said, "I hope the additional money helps find out who did this." He also said WikiLeaks was "playing a game". WikiLeaks stated: "this should not be taken to imply that Seth Rich was a source for Wikileaks or to imply that his murder is connected to our publications". ”

Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you're interpreting Assange's Wikileaks' remarks more literally than Assange Wikileaks may have intended them to be taken; but there is no way to be sure. Suffice to say I read this completely differently that you do. And I see it as PROFRINGE. Geogene (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:Preserve, I think we should all be reluctant to completely bar particular factual information from all articles throughout Wikipedia if the information is undisputed and has been widely reported in reliable sources. You're basically arguing that we cannot say in the body of this article what is already said in the footnoted headlines.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Except. That. This is being disputed. Geogene (talk) 01:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I meant there's no dispute that the information is factual and well-sourced. Entirely removing such material from the encyclopedia should never be done lightly (in view of WP:Preserve), and some policy-based reasons ought to be given beyond a naked claim of no consensus (see WP:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus").Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, these straw man arguments are not constructive. BLP, UNDUE, ONUS and other reasons have been made abundantly clear. SPECIFICO talk 02:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The BLP argument was specifically disclaimed regarding the automatic gunfire detector. That aspect was covered by reliable sources including the Washington Post, and no reliable source has been mentioned that contradicts the view that the police were alerted by an automatic system rather than by an eyewitness to the murder, or by a subsequent passerby. The ONUS may be on me to get consensus for insertion, but any opposition to insertion still has to be based in policy, and you cannot just say that information is undue if you just want to keep it out of the article; some more substantial reason is necessary. As to the BLP objection that Rich is somehow negatively impacted by noting he was characterized as sober when last seen alive does not pass any threshhold of plausibility, as far as I can tell.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

You forgot UNDUE. This is an encyclopedia. A detector was used. Is that a noteworthy fact about the crime? Maybe it was interesting to those who were unaware that this technology has been in use for years. The police also used many other devices. They wore shoes. They spoke quickly but clearly among themselves, as they had been trained to do at crime scenes. Etc. usw. SPECIFICO talk 02:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Look, this is my last comment about this for the time being because we're not getting anywhere. I already explained that there is no remotely plausible undue weight issue regarding the gunfire locater for several reasons. First, the principle is "undue weight", and here no reliable source has stated that the victim wasn't found using the automated system. Second, the finding of Rich using an automated system was reported by very reliable and widely-circulated sources including the Washington Post, raising a strong presumption that it's not trivia. Third, it should be obviously very significant that the shooting of Rich was not reported by an eyewitness, and that is conveyed by the gunfire locater information. So that's all I want to say about Mr. Rich for now. I wish you had followed the AfD closer's suggestion to just let the matter rest for awhile, instead of using every avenue available (and unavailable) to trim the article down to the point where it can be AfD'ed again. I don't really care nearly as much about this little article as I care about the tactics used to edit it away.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

No eyewitnesses is OR and was not in any source. SPECIFICO talk 03:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I've noted in the past that I would prefer to have the name changed as well. I would be up for an RfC if anyone is willing to step up and create one. I noticed the AfD link was gone from the page today and wasn't sure if that conversation was still going on or if we needed to start a whole new one. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 02:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Comatmebro: I am going to look at what it takes to put together an RFC - thanks for the suggestion Steve Quinn (talk) 03:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Anythiingyouwant, the only reason to feel like no progress is being made ("not getting anywhere") is because your editing style is to argue endlessly even after you have been presented with policy, guidelines, and consensus. Just an observation ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Recap:

• Police were alerted to gunfire at 4:20 am by an automated gunfire locator called ShotSpotter - well-sourced, considered relevant by major publications, not even arguably a BLP violation.
• WikiLeaks later announced a reward of $20,000 for information leading to a conviction for the killing - well-sourced, considered relevant by major publications, not even arguably a BLP violation.

There may be policy-based arguments for excluding these as one can argue by policy to include or exclude almost anything. What's relevant is the weight of the respective policies and excepting BLP, no policies compel us to are strong enough to suggest we exclude well-sourced (WP:RS), undisputed information considered relevant by most major publications. (WP:WEIGHT) D.Creish (talk) 03:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I beg to differ, D.Creish. The heavy, inordinate attention being paid to this article by obstructionists and the straitjacket imposed upon the editing of this article are irrational. Since its inception, this article has averaged 1500 daily views, and yet some are even advocating its deletion. And the acrimony on this talk page carries a foul odor. Restricting the free exchange of information about Seth Rich's murder lends additional credence to so-called 'conspiracy theory' actually having some substance behind it. - JGabbard (talk) 04:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@D.Creish: I am not sure if I understand what you mean by "compel us to exclude..." - but, I wonder if you think this WP:ONUS is interesting based on your comment. I don't know if it compels us, but it gives editors permission. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Page protection

I am the editor who reported the edit warring and got the page protected. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit war at Murder of Seth Rich. I am giving everyone involved fair warning: if the edit war continues after the protection expires, I will start reporting individuals at WP:ANEW.

I strongly suggest that those who have recently been edit warring instead use Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, starting at WP:DRR. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding intoxication...

These 3 sources [12] [13] [14] say something different. I know The Daily Wire can't be used as a source, what about the other two? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

"The bar manager stated..."

The sentence in this Wikipedia article states, "The bar manager stated that Rich was not drunk or even tipsy" and is using this source [15] (the material is near the end of this Newsweek article). But if you look at the Newsweek source, the general manager (Joe C.), is not speaking specifically about that night, he is making a generalization. It reads, "That was just not Seth. I never saw him drunk or even tipsy." Using the phrasing "just not Seth" and "I never saw him..." implies a history between the two. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

"Specifically about that night" is a subset of "never". If I say "I have never seen User:Somedifferentstuff climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man", I am also saying "I did not see User:Somedifferentstuff climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man on January 1st". --Guy Macon (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I can appreciate the further research into this matter. However, since there are conflicting reports about whether inebriated or not inebriated, this is all the more reason to simply remove it from the article. This is because it is not really relevant to the event (it appears to be a robbery gone bad). In other words, it is trivial, (WP:UNDUE). And as such, it appears to violate BLP, because it casts the victim in a negative light without any relevance to the topic and without sufficient reason for being in the article. As previously stated, this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or a current events magazine. Giving credence to one previously unknown person's statement(s) (the bartender) is also WP:UNDUE when taking into account BLP issues. Another issue is, we have no way to verify the veracity of any statement this person (the bartender) gives to the press. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2016

Can we merge the section above with this one (somehow) since they seem to be closely related? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC) --- Check -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

List of excluded items

I think it will be helpful to make a list of things that several editors would like this article to omit:

1. The time and location where Rich was last seen alive.[16]

2. A witness statement that Rich was sober when last seen alive.[17]

3. That nothing was stolen from Rich.[18]

4. How the police found out about the shooting.[19]

5. That the police offered a reward for information.[20]

6. That WikiLeaks offered an additional reward for information.[21]

7. That the victim's father expressed hope that the WikiLeaks reward would help find the perpetrators, but felt WikiLeaks was playing a game.[22]

8. That WikiLeaks put out a statement saying that it was not implying Rich was a source of leaks.[23]

Apparently, the plan is to strip this article of information like this, and then take another crack at AfD.[24]Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

This sounds nefarious and sinister to me (oh my!)---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

It appears to be a conspiracy theory (this set of editors) within a conspiracy theory (think Assange). It is a tangled web that has been woven. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Now we just need to decide which statements should be included and which should be excluded. ^Falling_Gravity 16:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: Please stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

Re: [1] I don't know who removed this information but I personally don't have an issue with including it. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: [3] Why do we need to say that? The article already says attempted robbery, the key word being attempted. According to this source [25] his mother stated: "There had been a struggle. His hands were bruised, his knees are bruised, his face is bruised, and yet he had two shots to his back, and yet they never took anything ... They took his life for literally no reason. They didn't finish robbing him, they just took his life." -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: [5] Why do we need to include this trivia? It's not super uncommon for the police to offer a reward. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

In lieu of deleting this article entirely, a clear effort exists to sanitize it by minimizing its content, thereby frustrating contributing editors. That's a lot of effort for a supposedly 'non-notable' article and is inconsistent with the spirit of collaboration. - JGabbard

I support including all the info listed above. I see no reason not to do so. In all honesty, it seems to me that the editors opposing the inclusion of this info are doing so more because of their strong and (apparently) ideological dislike for "conspiracy theories" rather than for actual article improvement. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with editors removing some details, the problem I do have is editors removing reliable sources and then using that to claim the article's non-notability. ^Falling_Gravity 01:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: I reverted the collapse of the above section per Wikipedia:TPO#Others.27_comments (the link in my edit summary didn't work.) If that was incorrect please let me know and I'll self-revert. If the above were a BLP violation, which I'd dispute, it seems the correct course would be to remove it entirely. In either case collapsing is inappropriate. D.Creish (talk) 03:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Why does this article exist?

We don't have articles on run of the mill murders.

• There is no Murder of Karina Vetrano (but there are plenty of sources, like this NYT piece)
• There is no Murder of Dexter Hopkins but again there are RS about it like this.

I could go on and on; hundreds of people are murdered each year. There are hundreds of articles that don't exist.

So why this one?

It seems the reason why this article exists, is the speculation that his murder was connected to the DNC email leak. Nobody can say there is anything other than speculation about that.

The mission of WP is to provide readers with articles that communicate accepted knowledge, per WP:NOT.

We are not part of the echo chamber of speculation that rings endlessly through social media. This is all WP:RECENTISM malarky.

If his murder is ever actually linked to the DNC email leak, then sure there would be reason for this to exist. That has not happened yet. I suggest everybody walk away and when pp expires we delete this. Jytdog (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

My take is that this article exists because enough reliable sources have written about it, it received mainstream coverage due to a possible link with Wikileaks, and the murder happened at a critical time in the US election cycle to cause many interested people (myself included) to want to read about it to try to learn more, hopefully on a website that is trusted to present readers with the notable facts. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The article exists because its AfD was closed with no consensus -- no other reason. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

You are both dodging the point of what I wrote. The only reason anybody here cares about this, is because of speculation about why he was murdered; there are no notable facts about that - there is only speculation at this time. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know of any other murders that prompted a reward by WikiLeaks. Anyone know of any? Or any other murders of DNC employees that have prompted public statements by the DNC chair as well as DNC nominee for president. That doesn't make the article hugely notable, but perhaps enough.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance. Is Wikileaks setting our notability standards? Geogene (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

No more than the Moon is setting our notability standards by rewarding astronauts with a spot to land.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Even Assange said he was making no claims about the relationship to the leak. Whatever else he is and whatever you may think of him, Assange is a provocateur first and foremost. And somebody's murder getting made into rhetoric about gun control does not make them notable - Clinton makes campaign speeches every day and you can bet she mentions local murder victims all the time related to gun control issues. Again - the only reason why anybody cares about this is speculative connection to the leak. None of the people arguing to keep this would be here or care about the details if it were not for that. Do not dodge the point. Really, what you all are after is for the comment section at Breitbart or Daily Kos. Not for a Wikipedia article; we are an encyclopedia not part of the internet rumor mill. Jytdog (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Off-base speculations about editor motivations aren't really relevant here. This event was notable enough to generate global press coverage, comments from many notable people, a reward from wikileaks, and yes it has fueled speculation that there is a deeper connection. So we need to do our job as editors and write about the event using reliable sources and the current facts. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Per the essay WP:MURDEROF, "News of a murder just when it happens, no matter how many sources cover the case, may not be sufficient for notability. But if the aftermath receives significant amounts of coverage, this could make the case notable." P.S. Dexter Hopkins lives. P.P.S. Here's a list of Wikipedia articles beginning with "Murder of", which seems to suggest that the victims were not otherwise sufficiently notable for Wikipedia articles.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The simple fact that there is so much controversy over this article (look at the talk page and the AfD entry) seems like proof enough that this article is notable for inclusion (including the details omitted as written in the section right above). --1990'sguy (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

No. There is controversy because some people are interested in the email leak speculation and want to get it and all the tiny details that may or may not play into that nailed down, and mainstream WP editors view all this as a waste of time and keep removing TRIVIA. Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

btw, the opening statement in the DRN case says it all: "omit all facts about the manner and method of Rich's murder which might suggest a motive other than the police theory of a robbery." The people pushing for all the detail are doing a Breitbart/Kos scandal hunt for evidence of a relationship to the email leak. This is not what Wikiopedia is for. We communicate accepted knowledge, we do not participate in rumor mongering nor do we break news. We are an encyclopedia. 22:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the opening statement in the DRN, and have said so there.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Yup. In a way, with their uncivil, aspersion casting, bad faithed statement, the filer of that request also pretty much gave away the game and true motive behind this article. I guess others are still trying to pretend that this is about something other than promulgating conspiracy theories.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

No one as far as I can see has proposed we include "conspiracy theories." Can you link a diff to support that claim or at least identify the conspiracy theory proposed for inclusion? D.Creish (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Jytdog. The reason why editors are interested in this article is because of the Wikileaks connection. And politics. Wikileaks is trying to insinuate that there is a connection between this murder and the DNC leak. That's the only purpose of this reward, sensationalism and rumor mongering. Of course no such connection actually exists, but for political reasons, Wikileaks wants people to think it does. And as far as the encyclopedia is concerned that is one huge BLP violation. It seems disingenuous to pretend that this isn't what this is about - creating an impression of some wrong doing but playing cute games to make it seem like BLP is not being violated.

And honestly, I was under the impression that "no consensus" on BLPs defers to "delete" but that might have been just a custom, not a set policy. Needless to say I disagree with the closer.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

No consensus default to delete for BLPs was something that was proposed and used a few times years ago, but the community rejected it pretty strongly as an accepted practice. Sometimes it still happens, but only with other mitigating circumstances. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog and Volunteer Marek: this talk page is not the place to relitigate the AfD. The result was keep, now the focus should be on improving the article. D.Creish (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The result was not keep. The result was "no consensus" which should've deferred to delete given BLP issues. And no one's "relitigating" anything - you're the one avoiding the issue rather than discussing it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The immediate point is not re-litigating the AfD. The immediate point is that everybody is clear what this article will not do, and that is do anything related to scandal mongering. The details are TRIVIA and are not going to be litigated endlessly - our mission is not to "suggest other motivations" for the killing. Content about those "other motivations" is conspiracy theorizing and rumor mongering, at this point. As I wrote in my opening note, if - and only if it turns out that (gasp) that Rich was offed by the DNC or some thug working for Hillary etc, then the article talks about that. Only then, and we won't need to argue over whether he was drunk or not or why that matters; we will have accepted knowledge of the salient facts. Jytdog (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

What are these "other motivations" proposed for inclusion you refer you? Much like VM's claims about the insertion of "conspiracy theories" you're arguing against something that as far as I can see no one is arguing for. If you feel the details proposed for inclusion - none of which are either conspiracy theories or speculate as to motivation - are UNDUE, such an argument is at least applicable, but the weight of reliable sources stack against it. D.Creish (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

It is not remotely scandal mongering to mention the he was last seen sober. I don't believe Newsweek was scandal-mongering or being trivial when it reported this. It's just a standard relevant fact, and (like the many other facts that I listed above), it should not be removed for fear of promoting a conspiracy theory, nor inserted to promote a conspiracy theory. Many editors believe this whole article is trivial, but that's no reason to substitute their own notion of triviality for the notions of the reliable sources. This whole section is all about relitigating the AfD, as indicated by the header.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

This thread is done for me. The folks trying to make WP into a scandal rag will not admit it, so the fake argument about details will just continue. So it goes. Jytdog (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in Jytdog. As of now this is just another DC murder, but as you may be aware, this is silly season here at WP and to be expected. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

What does "he was at a bar before he was killed" add to an encyclopedia article? What does "he was sober" add? Absolutely nothing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Administrative reminder re: BLP policy

Having seen the discussion here, by way of the post requesting additional input at WP:BLP/N, I want to emphasize a few points, in an administrative capacity, about the biographies of living people policy as it applies to this article and this talkpage discussion.

• The subject of this article falls under Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy, which explicitly covers "people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends". Some editors have suggested incorrectly, here and elsewhere, that WP:BLP may not apply to this article subject.
• WP:BLP contains explicit instructions regarding private figures and those whose notability stems from being victims of someone else's actions: "When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." (emphasis mine)

In this case, the subject's notability stems entirely from being a victim of murder. We therefore need to be very careful not to act in ways which participate in or exacerbate the victimization. Specifically, it would appear quite clear that the subject's family has expressed distress at the involvement of Wikileaks in the murder investigation. A lot of the activity here boils down to prolonging or worsening that distress by trying to amplify the Wikileaks angle. While this material is arguably well-sourced, WP:BLP is very clear that sourcing alone is not enough ("including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well-sourced"). The decision to include or exclude this material needs to encompass not only whether the material is well-sourced, but whether its inclusion is of sufficient global encyclopedic merit to outweigh the associated potential harm and victimization.

It is, of course, fine to have ongoing discussions about whether to include this material in the article. But those discussions need to explicitly acknowledge and conform to WP:BLP, especially WP:AVOIDVICTIM, as quoted above. Furthermore, as in any contentious BLP issue, the burden is on those wishing to add or restore contentious material to demonstrate that it complies with all relevant policies. If the material is added back without demonstrable consensus, or if there is edit-warring to re-insert the material without complying with these policies, then I or another admin is likely to intervene to uphold WP:BLP. MastCell ^Talk 00:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The family has indicated mixed feeling about WikiLeaks, not categorical distress. For example, the victim's father was not indicating distress when he said this about the WikiLeaks reward: "I hope the additional money helps find out who did this." Since that is the opposite of distress, I don't see why it should be construed as distress. And of course the family didn't indicate any distress about other aspects of the case that have been deleted from this article, such as the fact that the murder was reported by an automatic gunfire detector (why would they?).Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The family has retained a spokesman, Brad Bauman, who said: “That said, some are attempting to politicize this horrible tragedy, and in their attempts to do so are actually causing more harm than good and impeding on the ability for law enforcement to properly do their job,” Bauman said. “For the sake of finding Seth’s killer, and for the sake of giving the family the space they need at this terrible time, they are asking for the public to refrain from pushing unproven and harmful theories about Seth’s murder.”[26]. The family isn't happy about this Wikileaks stuff. Geogene (talk) 01:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

If anyone were to suggest inserting "unproven and harmful theories" about Mr. Rich's death in the article I hope everyone here would support their removal. Thankfully I haven't seen that.

The policy guideline Mastcell quotes above seems reasonable and well thought out. If someone can demonstrate reasonably that details such as the method of discovery (ShotSpotter) or the existence of the Wikileaks reward "participate in or prolong the subject's victimization" by policy then they should be removed. That has not been argued as far as I can tell.

Regarding the removal of content citing BLP, the following sentence on the policy page states: When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. Good-faith objections assume the ability to articulate the objection either in an edit-summary or talk page note. Simply typing the letters "B" "L" "P" seems insufficient - but I'd appreciate clarification on that point. D.Creish (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Good. But it also prohibits merely insinuating them. Geogene (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

If details of a crime, neutrally presented and with due weight, draw conspiracy theorists towards conspiracy theories, it's not our responsibility to exclude or alter those details - at least as far as I'm aware. Can you point me to the section of BLP that addresses insinuations or demonstrate in what way these details would prolong the subject's victimization? D.Creish (talk) 02:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

"Can you point me to the section of BLP that addresses insinuations" <-- you know, that's sort of an admittance that your purpose on this article is to make insinuations. About a subject covered by BLP. You just happen to think that BLP doesn't "cover" insinuations. Which is classic WP:GAME and WP:WIKILAWYER.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

If you continue to make unsupported allegations about my motivations I will pursue sanctions against you. Keep talk page discussion to article content and not editor motivation. D.Creish (talk) 02:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I am commenting on your comment. What was the purpose for asking, quote, "Can you point me to the section of BLP that addresses insinuations"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, If you don't stop writing things like "you know, that's sort of an admittance that your purpose on this article is to make insinuations", I will take you to ANI. Knock it off, please. To everyone, more light and less heat, please. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

You've forgotten WP:PROFRINGE. There is no way to mention the Wikileaks reward without unduly serving the narrative that Rich (and not Russian intelligence agencies) was the source for the hacked DNC emails. With that in mind, you need a thoroughly compelling (and BLP compliant) reason to mention Wikileaks in this article. Nobody has produced one, except that "reliable sources have mentioned it", which basically means nothing. (see WP:NOTNEWS). Geogene (talk) 02:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:PROFRINGE, which I've just read, deals with the inclusion of conspiracy or fringe theories. That does not apply unless the existence of the Wikileaks reward is a fringe theory, which clearly it isn't.

WP:NOTNEWS concerns original reporting (not applicable) and the notability of people or events. It doesn't, as far as I can see, apply to the details of any particular event. WP:WEIGHT offers guidance on that however, which is why I believe several editors have mentioned the widespread coverage of these details in reliable sources.

Which of these policies were you suggesting addresses "insinuations"? D.Creish (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It obviously is a fringe theory, I doubt you will find any reliable sources that take it seriously. It's only found in a few dark corners of the right-wing blogosphere, and perhaps in Russian state-sponsored media. And frankly, if it is included over my objections, then it will have to be presented neutrally, and that is going to entail a LOT of reliably sourced Wikileaks bashing. At which point this would become a WP:COATRACK, destined for another AfD. And this will all waste a lot of our time. Geogene (talk) 02:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Let us be absolutely clear: no one is suggesting we include fringe theories about Mr. Rich's death Please stop suggesting they are because it makes discussion more difficult. D.Creish (talk) 02:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It's actually pretty easy to mention the WikiLeaks reward without mentioning the DNC email leak. It just takes one sentence (maybe two). I personally see the dispute over adding or removing certain details as a sideshow. What matters is we include the reliable sources that allow the reader to research these details. ^Falling_Gravity 02:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Is there meaningful reason to add it? Is there some logical connection between Rich's murder and Wikileaks that isn't tainted by fringe? Geogene (talk) 02:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The logical connection is that WikiLeaks tweeted about offering a reward for info on Rich's murder, giving the case more media exposure. Now we can stop there and leave it at that. Easy. (Actually, we don't even have to mention the extra media exposure because it's pretty much a given.) ^Falling_Gravity 03:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

"Let us be absolutely clear: no one is suggesting we include fringe theories about Mr. Rich's death". No, let us be absolutely clear. You *are* suggesting that we include fringe theories about Mr. Rich's death. Just in a sneaky way. Including the fact that Wikileaks is offering a reward for details about this guy's death IS including a fringe conspiracy theory. It's a wink-wink nudge-nudge kind of way of including a fringe conspiracy theory but it's still including a fringe conspiracy theory. Why do we want to include it? If it was, say, David Icke who offered the reward, any person who read that in an article who has some minimal background knowledge would reasonably infer "oh Icke is offering a reward, he thinks aliens did it". Same thing here. Any person with a minimal background knowledge who reads about the Wikileaks reward will think "oh Wikileaks is offering a reward, Rich's death is connected to the DNC email leak". So yes, you are not spelling out and connecting the dots for the reader but the only reason why we would include this info is to *suggest* to the reader that there's some conspiracy afoot. So not only are these attempts to include this info BLP violating conspiracy theory mongering, but they're also very bad-faithed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

That's the kind of speculation we cannot by policy engage in. There's a basic logical problem in the repeated arguments for exclusion of well-reported, uncontested details on conspiracy or FRINGE grounds:

• Either inclusion would lead a reasonable reader to a fringe conclusion, in which case the conclusion by definition can not be fringe
• Or inclusion would not lead a reasonable reader to a fringe conclusion, in which case the objection on FRINGE grounds is moot

Either way FRINGE would not apply. It applies (assuming this page is the extent of it: Wikipedia:Fringe theories) only to theories, not factual, uncontested claims. D.Creish (talk) 05:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Nice try but your conclusion does not follow from the premise. If inclusion leads someone to a fringe conclusion, then it's a fringe inclusion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Good faith BLP objections

In answer to good faith BLP objections not being articulated is the following:

The reasons for the removed BLP related materials have been presented repeatedly in other sections on this talk page. In other words, over and over again. This includes specific sections of the BLP policy. Claiming this has not been previously presented or not discussed is simply not true. A good example is User:Geogene's contributions just above this section. There are other examples in other previous sections.

Continuously challenging others to point out the specific section on BLP, after these have already been presented, does not appear to be effective for the collaboration process. Another way to put this is - good faith BLP objections have been articulated repeatedly on this talk page - which I assume are meant to back up brief edit history commentary - which does not provide space for the in-depth discussions that have already taken place. Likewise, the proposals to remove trivial material have been repeatedly discussed, in other sections of this talk page. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

If you're referring to Geogene's objection to the inclusion of fringe theories, the logical next question is: which fringe theory? That can't go unanswered only to have subsequent comments claim it's already been discussed. D.Creish (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of including the info about Wikileaks reward is to suggest to the reader the fringe theory that there is a connection between Rich's death and the DNC email leak. That is what Wikileaks is trying to do, and this is an attempt to use Wikipedia to further that purpose.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

D.Creish. Would you please read what MastCell wrote above specifically with regard to BLP and including the WikiLeaks content, and respond? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I've re-read it and the page on WP:AVOIDVICTIM and my earlier response (echoed by a number of editors) stands: If someone can demonstrate reasonably that details such as the method of discovery (ShotSpotter) or the existence of the Wikileaks reward "participate in or prolong the subject's victimization" by policy then they should be removed. What followed were arguments on WP:FRINGE grounds, which don't appear to apply. If there's another policy or I'm focused on the wrong objection, please direct me.

To respond to your earlier comment: I have no objection to an RFC. I was disappointed to see the DRN filing closed because it appears we're at an impasse. If my objections and arguments weren't shared by a number of editors I'd defer to the majority, but that is not the case. D.Creish (talk) 06:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

MastCell spoke very specifically about mentioning WikiLeaks. Would you please speak to what he actually said about that - he said nothing about FRINGE. Not a word. Jytdog (talk) 06:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I did not imply Mastcell mentioned FRINGE, please re-read my comment. The sequence I illustrate is 1. AVOIDVICTIM (Mastcell) - > 2. In what way does this information victimize? (Myself) -> 3. FRINGE (others) D.Creish (talk) 08:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

MastCell explained how the information continues the victimization simply and clearly. I don't know what else to say to you. Jytdog (talk) 09:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I should have mentioned User MastCell specifically as well - THAT is pretty clear. There was a lot going on at the time. I recommend becoming familiar with that post. As stated above and above and above - the policy regarding mentioning Wikileaks reward is BLP including AVOIDVICTIM. This has been explained in detail here: [27].

The policy regarding alerting police with shotpotter gunfire locator is WP:UNDUE. This has already been discussed. Also, D.Creish acknowledged that I sufficiently explained about the shopspotter gunfire locator in a previous section [28]. So why repeat it here?. Also, I don't know why D.Creish is mixing this with prolonging the families distress. D.Creish basically just made up an issue that didn't exist.

And User:Geogene already gave specifics on WikiLeaks and fringe theories as related to this article [29], [30]. So, ALL of this has been more than sufficiently explained to all of us. Conflating issues to make-up issues that don't exist won't help or make any difference - it will only alienate other editors. It is getting to the point that if D.Creish is not clear on the issues then I recommend not editing this article at all.

One more thing regarding fringe theorizing, which seems to be synonymous with conspiracy theorizing - Jaydog has specifically addressed the issue and I quote:

"The immediate point is not re-litigating the AfD. The immediate point is that everybody is clear what this article will not do, and that is do anything related to scandal mongering. The details are TRIVIA and are not going to be litigated endlessly - our mission is not to "suggest other motivations" for the killing. Content about those "other motivations" is conspiracy theorizing and rumor mongering, at this point. As I wrote in my opening note, if - and only if it turns out that (gasp) that Rich was offed by the DNC or some thug working for Hillary etc, then the article talks about that. Only then, and we won't need to argue over whether he was drunk or not or why that matters; we will have accepted knowledge of the salient facts." Steve Quinn (talk) 07:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

My response specifically addressed the AVOIDVICTIM claim. As I said previously, a reasonable argument may be made the ShotSpotter detail is UNDUE. I attempted here to understand the case for AVOIDVICTIM which Mastcell appeared to make. Your "recommendations" are irrelevant. D.Creish (talk) 08:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice

I just placed the DS alert on this talk page and probably will eventually put them on people's talk pages. The relevant arbcom case is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons. We have these DS for situations like this - where folks are told repeatedly that there are BLP issues and will not listen. Jytdog (talk) 02:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean to say we have DS for all BLP or only selective ones and if the latter, who has applied them to this article? D.Creish (talk) 02:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I will reply on your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 02:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Jytdog you have made unfounded statements as to editor motivations on this talk page. That doesn't give you the right to apply DS because you have disagreements with the content. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Nobody is "applying" anything. Those sanctions already apply to everything involving BLPs. Everyone's just been made aware of that now. Geogene (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

DS aren't meant to be used as a bludgeon when good faith discussions are occurring. There is a group of editors deleting content without citing any relevant policy and hoping that DS backs them up. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a good reason to remove sourced content. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not applying them. They apply. I am just reminding everyone of that. You are of course free to ignore the reminder. You should know that MastCell, who left the message above with regard to how BLP applies generally and to this article, is an admin who works at AE, which is where editors bring other editors to have DS apply. Any admin can take action under DS whenever they like. You should mind what he wrote. Jytdog (talk) 03:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

All I have done is engage in good faith collaboration according to our policies. I read what he wrote and believe we all are here to improve this page. So let's do just that. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Key issues?

So we have 4 days of page protection left. How about we just start with a list, with no commentary yet. Then maybe we can prioritize and tackle them one by one. What are the key issues to resolve? I'll kick it off...Jytdog (talk) 03:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

1) whether to mention WikiLeaks reward for information. Jytdog (talk) 03:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

2) "Police were alerted to gunfire at 4:20 am by an automated gunfire locator called ShotSpotter". Steve Quinn (talk) 05:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

3) "Rich left the Lou's City Bar in Columbia Heights at 1:45 am and told the bar manager he would go to a nearby bar". Steve Quinn (talk) 05:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

4) "The bar manager stated that Rich was not drunk or even tipsy."Steve Quinn (talk) 05:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Why this article shouldn’t exist

and, if it can’t be deleted outright or renominated for deletion immediately, why it should be protected from any further editing for a lengthy period of time and why the title should be changed to just the name without "murder of":

1. The article was clearly written by the Wikipedia equivalent of the ubiquitous Internet troll for the sole purpose of starting an edit-war and sitting back and enjoying the show. Setting up an account with a provocative name like SomethingJihadist? Putting a Trump quote from his "When Mexico sends its people … they’re rapists" speech in the edit summary? Oh puh-lease. He’s pulling Wikipedia’s collective leg and yet here we are, an AfD no-consensus, an edit-war, and a lengthy Talk discussion later.
2. The shooting was one of 41 unsolved homicides in the District of Columbia so far this year and more likely than not an attempted robbery gone awry.
3. The fact that a ShotSpotter is located in the area where it happened is an indication that the Metro Police Department considers it to be a high-crime area. The use of ShotSpotters is widely known, so the potential robber was likely aware of them and unlikely to stay around after the shooting to search the victim for valuables.
4. This homicide is no more and no less notable than the other 40, and the victim is no more and no less notable than any of the others. The only difference to the others is that conspiracy theorists from the "Hillary/The Clintons/DNC - root of all evil" camp latched onto this one, then Wikipedia/Assange latched onto the conspiracy theories to further their own agenda, and now, thanks to TrollingJihadist, Wikipedia got sucked in. Beam me up, Scotty, I need a sonic sanity shower!
5. It's been said before, and I'll say it again: WP:BDP - contentious or questionable material having implications for living and grieving relatives and friends. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 03:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: I only wish this insightful commentary could be used as a reliable source - excellent! ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Why this article has to exist

We been there & done that. The issue has been debated and settled on the motion to delete. The decision was that the article stays. So now it would seem improper to try to reverse that decision here on this talk page by a new demand for deletion or by debating every sentence edited onto this article or by continually taking bites out of the article. What will we have, a temporary lock & another page filling debate on every sentence added no matter how matter of fact the addition to the article is? Could we not spend our life time in some more fruitful manner? (PeacePeace (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC))

Should the WikiLeaks reward be mentioned in the article?

Should this article mention the fact that WikiLeaks offered $20,000 in reward money for providing information regarding the perpetrator of this crime? ^Falling_Gravity 06:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

!Votes and comments

• Comment I have started this RfC because the previous discussion has mostly been going in circles. I'm mostly seeing the same group of editors disagreeing with each other (myself included). ^Falling_Gravity 06:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
• No.Comment We have an official announcement above from a Wikipedia administrator acting in his administrative capacity: "Specifically, it would appear quite clear that the subject's family has expressed distress at the involvement of Wikileaks in the murder investigation." Obviously, if that factual statement by the Wikipedia administrator is true, then we cannot and should not mention the WikiLeaks reward in this article, no matter how well-sourced it is. I believe the official announcement above from a Wikipedia administrator to be an incorrect oversimplification, given the following statement from the victim's father: "I hope the additional money helps find out who did this." However, it would appear that the official announcement above from a Wikipedia administrator takes precedence over what mere editors think, and I am in no mood to get topic-banned for defying that defective official announcement.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• no, we should not per BLP. As quoted above; see full comments here: Talk:Murder_of_Seth_Rich#Administrative_reminder_re:_BLP_policy And the family has said that they do not want their son's death dragged into this political conspiracy theorizing, as was already provided above, here. Jytdog (talk) 06:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
• No per BLP It has already been made clear that this would be unacceptable - per MastCell [31] ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes per WP:CRYBLP. To quote D.Creish, several editors have asked in what way could simply mentioning "WikiLeaks offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to a conviction" violate BLP. No one has offered a succinct, rational explanation. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

MastCell did provide a succinct, rational explanation that also articulates the heart of the policy. You can disagree with it, but please don't represent that it wasn't provided. Jytdog (talk) 10:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes it is well sourced, received notable coverage, and was a unique factor about this murder. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
• Include The information is covered in a huge array of reliable sources and has been the subject of significant analysis in the press. We cannot censor it because it is a "conspiracy theory". Wikipedia has hundreds of articles about conspiracy theories and other fringe theories, many of them involving living people. The fact that it is relevant to the current US Presidential election has no bearing on this any more than it prevents us from publishing Hillary Clinton email controversy or the vague conspiracy theory alleging a connection Between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Coverage in reliable sources is a necessary not a sufficient condition for inclusion. Especially in a BLP. This is a conspiracy theory which has the potential of victimizing living people. And it's been included in a way which insinuates that it's true (as others pointed out, if we were to try and include the conspiracy theory which makes it explicit that it's a conspiracy theory, we would get off topic and it would violate WP:UNDUE).Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The core purpose of BLP (which I firmly believe in) is to keep out unsourced or poorly sourced contentious information about living persons. Basically every major media outlet has given in-depth coverage to this event, and many have specifically made a point of mentioning the Wikileaks reward. While Wikipedia should not be the primary vehicle of gossip, the wide coverage in RS precludes the possibility of that. The BLP policy was never intended to be used to keep well-sourced information that has been given significant coverage by RS as one of the most significant facts about an incident out of an article on that incident. The fact that a reward was offered is not ambiguous and its significance in the context of this topic has been stressed by our sources. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The Wordsmith; I framed my !vote above carefully. This is not about what we can do, it is about what we should do. The heart of BLP goes beyond "well-sourced or not" and calls for editors to be... well, sensitive. In this case, we have parents whose son's murder is being dragged into the muck of dirty politics in an election year, and the parents having said that this is terrible to them. So BLP says we should leave this out. We do this in WP all the time - for example we don't include every well-sourced factoid in WP; we consider if something is UNDUE. We use judgement all the time. This is like that. Do you at least see that line of reasoning and if so would you address it? Jytdog (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Yes, I understand your reasoning. I don't dispute your !vote, you have every right to a different interpretation of policies and community norms than I have. My interpretation is that the prominence of this fact in the RS presented give it due weight to be included here. I understand that we need to be sensitive to Seth Rich's family, which is why I don't suggest including allegations regarding the "DNC leak source"/"assassination" theory that many sources are running with. Including the simple fact that the reward offer was made, without giving credence to the conspiracy theory, is in my opinion the best way to reflect the weighting that sources have given while balancing with the letter and spirit of policy. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikileaks announced the reward for the sole purpose of stoking the so-called "theory" to pursue its acknowledged vendetta against Sec'y Clinton. This has nothing to do with the crime any more than the statement that it's raining in Washington has to do with the pandas in the National Zoo. SPECIFICO talk 18:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

While that panda is adorable (though it seems to be taking a nap at the moment), that doesn't change the fact your assertion is original research/synthesis. If dozens of articles about the National Zoo pandas all gave prominence to the weather, then it would be a violation of NPOV to deliberately omit it. WP:WEIGHT specifically says "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." Even if we don't like the fact that a reward was issued, or we think there's an agenda here, the fact of its coverage in reliable, third-party sources means we should mention the existence of the reward in the article. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Ordinarily that is how things work here, but WP:BLP specifically states that when it comes to non-public figures, there are other considerations besides just sourcing. Reliably sourced coverage is necessary, but not sufficient, in this particular setting—all the more so when the subject is notable solely for being a crime victim. It's odd to have to keep saying this, because it's a fundamental part of a fundamental policy, but it really doesn't seem to be sinking in. That's not to say that we should or should not include the material, but any serious discussion needs to take into account WP:BLP and WP:AVOIDVICTIM, and not just devolve into repeating "but it's sourced!" MastCell ^Talk 04:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Wordsmith. I hear you. Jytdog (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

From a policy perspective, there seems to be a misunderstanding in the initial comment from this thread. It's inappropriate to apply the same standards here as we would with Hillary Clinton's or Vladimir Putin's biography. WP:BLP contains explicit protections for private/non-public figures, especially those whose notability stems entirely from being the victim of a crime. Clinton and Putin are public figures; Rich was not. That distinction is essential to applying WP:BLP here. MastCell ^Talk 19:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the private vs public aspect. Jytdog (talk) 10:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Exclude obvious BLP vio per MastCell [32].Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It is simply not a BLP violation to write that Wikileaks offered a reward for information about his murder. It would be a violation (and conspiracy theory) to link this reward to any implication of the source of the Wikileaks. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

And could you explain why else an unrelated fugitive in a foreign land would offer such a reward on this, of all the thousands of crimes committed on earth in recent days? Rhetorical. SPECIFICO talk 16:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I won't speculate about anything. I'll just stick to what's reliably sourced and notable. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Rhetorical...I didn't ask for your comment. I was demonstrating that your statement is absurd. BTW "notable" is not the test as to what we include within an article. The applicable policies and guidelines have been discussed at length on this page. I suggest you review them. SPECIFICO talk

You have failed to demonstrate that Mr Ernie's statement is absurd. Instead you have elevated your completely unsourced personal opinions ("Wikileaks announced the reward for the sole purpose of stoking the so-called 'theory' to pursue its acknowledged vendetta against Sec'y Clinton.") above what is contained in multiple reliable sources. One might even you doing that "absurd"... --Guy Macon (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: [33]. Geogene (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

More about Assange's agenda: [34], [35], "A scan of its Twitter feed shows a preoccupation with Clinton and the Democrats, with nary a word concerning Trump or the GOP. Founder Julian Assange, who remains housed in the Ecudorean embassy in London, recently told HBO's Bill Maher that he's "super happy" over the fallout from the DNC leaks, which are searchable on the Wikileaks website, and has recently been insinuating that Democratic officials could have been involved in the death of DNC staffer Seth Rich. [36]. Understand, if you mention the reward, all of this will be necessary for context. That's unfortunate that you're insisting on it, per WP:COATRACK. Geogene (talk) 00:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: "if you mention the reward, all of this will be necessary for context", [ Citation Needed ]. Not a single editor has advocated putting in the material that you claim "will be necessary". Could you please respond to what some of us actually want to put in the page instead of responding some made-up thing that you imagine to be at the bottom of a slippery slope? --Guy Macon (talk)

No, you missed it. If the RfC is for include, I will be adding that stuff to the article myself, per WP:N. After all, I have enough reliable sources, apparently, per the RfC. Geogene (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

No. RS makes clear that this "offer" is unrelated to the event which is the subject of the article and is entirely a ploy by Wikileaks to smear the Democratic candidate and Democratic Party pursuant to Assange's vendetta reported by RS. Wikileaks' insinuation about Mr. Rich is tantamount to a libelous assertion that Mr. Rich betrayed his employer. Also, please stop citing a single cherry-picked spontaneous comment that Mr. Rich's father gave under duress (and in a larger context) shortly after the event. The family's later definitive statement through its spokesman is amply reported in RS. SPECIFICO talk 16:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• No. Besides being against BLP (as clearly stated above), it's not notable. Anyone can offer anything as a reward for publicity reasons; it confers no meaning by itself. Even if we stated this, the reader would respond with "so what?". Maybe it implies some meaning or significance, but we cannot go about hinting at things per SYNTH and UNDUE. It's just meaningless (and against BLP policy, essentially for that reason). We cannot do this. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
• No. The problems have been well documented, the only inclusion rationale I'm seeing is that reliable sources mention it. Which is not a suitable rationale, because it's not the policy to slavishly repeat every factoid available in newspapers. It's not even accurate to call it a "viewpoint", it's only a snippet of information with no logical connection to the subject. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts; content must be educational or at least encyclopedic. There needs to a reason to include this. Because of all the BLP issues, that reason should be compelling. It has to add enough value to outweigh victimization and the inevitable profringe insinuations associated with it. I see no value in it at all. Geogene (talk) 20:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
• Strong include per Mr Ernie and The Wordsmith. Even conspiracy theories can be notable enough to include on Wikipedia. The WikiLeaks thing has received notable coverage in reliable sources, in connection to the Seth Rich murder. It seems that there is an almost ideological opposition to including this fact here from some editors. We should clearly include it for obvious reasons. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

If those reasons are "obvious", why is it so hard to produce them? Geogene (talk) 00:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Who said it was hard to do so? The WikiLeaks offer was covered in major, reliable sources in connection to the murder, and yet, some editors still want to keep this info out. Just because this topic wades into the realm of conspiracy theories doesn't mean we have to keep it out. If major, reliable sources cover this info in connection to the murder, and if editors still want to keep this info out, I think it's either a great misunderstanding or censorship. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

That argument isn't going anywhere. There is no policy-based reason to slavishly repeat everything in newspapers. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, not a tabloid. Repeating that misunderstanding of policy will not make it true. And I'd like you to refrain from speculating about other editors' ideology or motivation. Geogene (talk) 03:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not repeating everything in newspapers. We decided not to delete this article, and if we are going to keep this article, there is no reason not to keep the WikiLeaks offer, as it was reported by major reliable sources in direct connection to the incident. There is nothing "newsy" or tabloid-ish in informing readers that the WikiLeaks reward was made (didn't it receive significant coverage?). I don't think you can keep the article and not the reward offer. Both have to be included. There is nothing wrong with covering a conspiracy theory if it is covered in reliable sources. And for what it's worth, there are plenty of conspiracy theory articles on Wikipedia. Also, when I referred to the ideology of editors, this was based off of comments from editors that basically said, at least to me, that they opposed keeping this article (or the offer) because it was a conspiracy theory. At the least, it doesn't seem like very good reasoning to me, but yes, I'll try to AGF better in the future. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

No. The AfD result was No Consensus, not Keep. And, if we're going to write about conspiracy theories, we're going to write about them from a mainstream perspective. Which means that when I'm doing making this neutral, some that voted Keep might wish that this had been deleted. Geogene (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

When I said "We decided not to delete this article" I meant "No Consensus". Also, because major, reliable sources cover the WikiLeaks offer, wouldn't citing those sources give a "mainstream perspective" to this event by default? It's not like we're citing blogs or anything like that. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

There were some RS that mentioned it a manner that was very negative towards Wikileaks. Newsweek and Time both come to mind there. That should be in the article as well, if there are RS, per the RfC. You can't argue that we *must* mention this because "reliable sources exist" and then turn around and say that we *can't* mention something else, if reliable sources also exist for that. And we can't just mention the reward exists without mentioning it in its complete context. I still wish we were above this kind of thing, but the way things are going it seems not. Geogene (talk) 22:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I just don't see how you can include information about the murder and not include information about the WikiLeaks information. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Include Why censor the reliable information established by reliable sources? (PeacePeace (talk) 23:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC))

Just cuz yer mistakened doesn't mean yer censored. SPECIFICO talk 01:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

It is true that reliable sources have covered this in connection to the Murder. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

"In connection to" is not the standard WP policy prescribes for editorial content decisions. This is fundamental. SPECIFICO talk 03:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Include With the amount of reliable sources covering the reward, it is at the very least worth mentioning in the article. If this were simply the BLP for Seth Rich and not "Murder of Seth Rich" I might feel differently. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 00:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

From the perspective of BLP policy there's no difference between an article on Seth Rich and "Murder of Seth Rich". BLP applies to recently deceased, especially those who died in circumstances like these.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• It's complicated WP:AVOIDVICTIM says, "Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." This claim may contribute to prolonging victimization. However, BLP is ultimately just an elaboration of WP:V, and emotional sensitivity is not a carte blanche to ignore WP:NPOV. The marginal prolongation of victimization from a WP article is minimal compared to the prominent media attention making the reward WP:DUE. I suggest as a compromise that the offer be noted at Wikileaks, but not pages that are primarily about the victim, as long as his decease is considered "recent". Rhoark (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

But that is not a compromise. This behavior of Assange's may well be appropriate for his/Wikileaks articles but it has nothing to do with the crime that's the subject on this page. SPECIFICO talk 03:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

So now you have worked yourself around to claiming that someone offering a $25,000 reward for the perpetrator of the crime that's the subject of this page has nothing to do with the crime that's the subject of this page? Do you have any idea how silly that sounds? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• No per MastCell, Specifico and others. Family is clearly distressed by coverage; Aug 20 Newsweek article on an interview with parents’ spokesman:

The slain man’s parents, Mary and Joel Rich of Omaha, Nebraska, were distressed by the apparent political exploitation of their son’s death by Clinton’s opponents. Seth Rich had just accepted a promotion from the DNC to a position in her campaign, they said, and he was devoted to getting her elected.

“It’s unfortunate and hurtful,” Rich’s parents said, in a statement to Newsweek through family spokesman Brad Bauman, “that at the moment a murderer remains at large, there remains unfounded press speculation about the activities of our son that night. We should be focusing on the perpetrator at large.” Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 03:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

In what way, exactly, is simply mentioning the reward "unfounded press speculation about the activities of their son that night"? Please explain in detail how you get from one to the other. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Since you want to add material to the article, you need to convince me that it is relevant to the topic and that its inclusion would not violate Wikipedia policies. (Reminder: I'm one of the users who want to get rid of the article altogether. Since it doesn't look like that's going to happen, this is just damage control on my part.) My question for you: What is the relevance of any action by an uninvolved third party without any prior involvement in the event itself or with the people involved in the event? The sentence (WL offers reward) seems innocuous enough, but most people reading it will ask themselves why this particular homicide and not any of the others in DC/the US/all over the world, and then they'll look at the references. (This has been brought up by other editors in this Talk, but I don't have the time right now to look it up.) I haven't seen a single reliable source where you're not confronted immediately with Wikileaks/Assange's insinuations and sly hints. It smacks of character assassination, even though it probably was just their usual disregard for the consequences of their publications and announcements. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• No I also agree with MastCell (see here). According to the cited policy, which I agree is relevant to this mattter, if there are doubts (even though some editors think it is ok, many other editors do not) it should not be included. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• Include per WP:NPOV, and per MastCell. Content adheres to WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:BLP policies. Omitting the content – which is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic – would be WP:UNDUE. Subject's father has wished that the reward would help to find the murderer, so it's not clear how including the reward would cause distress. Moreover, I would argue that WP:AVOIDVICTIM should not be applied at all. It seems that WP:AVOIDVICTIM only applies to living individuals ([37]). Secondly WP:AVOIDVICTIM is closely related to WP:BLP1E which is applied only to biographies of living people and to biographies of low-profile individuals. Politrukki (talk) 11:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC); edited 10:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Politrukki - you just changed your !vote to add "and per MastCell" but what you write here, doesn't heed MastCell at all. When a victim says "X distresses me", writing "I don't see why X would cause distress" is exactly ignoring BLP. This is what MastCell was calling us to grapple with - what they actually are going through. I'm not looking to change your !vote but I am looking for you to actually deal with the BLP Issue, as will the closers. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 10:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Since MastCell has clarified that they didn't opine whether material should be included or not, I just wanted to use this opportunity to endorse upholding BLP. Part of that is not deleting content which is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. See my comment below. Politrukki (talk) 10:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Include it is well referenced, and in fact comes directly from julian assange. Iazyges (talk) 12:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

So, Iazyges, if Assange announces that he is betting on the Red Sox to win it all this year, should we add that to the Baseball article? PS, do we know whether Wikileaks has $25,000 to its name? SPECIFICO talk 13:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Specifico this is not a forum to badger other opinions. You're making quite the leap with your comments regarding what User:Iazyges said. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

If the Sports section of every major newspaper wrote articles about Assange's bet, then yes. We need to accurately reflect the weighting our RS give to various aspects of the story. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, now do you think that the RS description of the crime has reached that level of prominence? Not coverage of Assange's behavior, but of the crime that is the topic here. The analogous article topic would be "baseball", not the 2016 season. SPECIFICO talk 16:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Specifico, you do ask questions. How dare you question the integrity of St. Julian? And the answer to your question is: You do not need money for bogus reward offers. See section "Wikileaks reward offer is bogus", below. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• That is not helping. Geogene (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Include. Imminently citable completely non-contentious fact that received sufficient, indeed significant, coverage. I think it would be remiss not to mention it. Just don't emphasize it in any way -- make it as brief and neutral as possible; a tiny brief passing aside in a paragraph (and not at all in the lede). The gist of MastCell's post seemed to be the family doesn't want it mentioned, but that's not what Wikipedia yields to. We base decisions on the reader, and on what is encyclopedic. We also base content to reflect the weight that reliable sources give each element. Softlavender (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Two Questions to Provoke Thought: 1) Does anyone besides me opine that this BLP business has nothing to do with including a sentence on the reward offered? 2) And does anyone besides myself think that (for those who think BLP might be relevant) the following statement might have some significance?

"The family welcomes any and all information that could lead to the identification of the individuals responsible, and certainly welcomes contributions that could lead to new avenues of investigation, . . . " -- Brad Bauman, an alleged spokesman for the family, said to the International Business Times. (PeacePeace (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC))

• Include, conditional on highly reliable sources covering the award. I can't find any given in this discussion, but I read people above saying that they exist. If they don't exist, don't include. If they do, do. --GRuban (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• Include: The two strongest arguments for exclusion are:

1. WP:AVOIDVICTIM - which requires we demonstrate inclusion of the reward's existence would promote victimization; that hasn't been demonstrated despite repeated requests.
2. WP:FRINGE - which requires we show the existence of the reward is itself a conspiracy theory (rather than, as others have suggested might, combined with additional unincluded information, potentially lead a subset of readers to assume a conspiracy); this also has not been done.

In conclusion: I find the strongest arguments for exclusion unsubstantiated. D.Creish (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Include. WP:BLP weakens somewhat when we are talking about dead people. And we're not dragging him through the mud, here. If there was an allegation that he was killed because in a drug deal gone bad or something, that might be different. But its not like that. Some people are claiming that he is a heroic political martyr. An extremely famous and notable person (Julian Assange) thinks it was maybe a political hit. And a lot of other people are agree. And if it is, the implications are far-reaching in a couple of ways, and even if its not the fact that people believe it matters. And it's a non-trivial element in the campaign for President of the United States, a large and important country. And that is why the article exists. SOrry, but this person is a political figure now. Anyway it's silly to have an article but not to include what the article is really about -- "This event was notable, but you have to guess why!". Herostratus (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Nah, we’re not dragging anyone through the mud, the "extremely famous and notable" person merely opened the coffin and spit on the body. Geogene already posted this quote somewhere in this Talk, but since you obviously haven’t read it, I’m repeating it here for your convenience. Please read it! "That said, some are attempting to politicize this horrible tragedy, and in their attempts to do so are actually causing more harm than good and impeding on the ability for law enforcement to properly do their job,” Bauman (editor's note: family spokesman) said. “For the sake of finding Seth’s killer, and for the sake of giving the family the space they need at this terrible time, they are asking for the public to refrain from pushing unproven and harmful theories about Seth’s murder."Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Include. I'm no fan of Wikileaks, but I don't see why this comment shouldn't be included. I read MastCell's warning about victimizing the victim further, causing distress to his loved ones, but I don't think he makes a compelling argument that mentioning on this project that the reward was offered would do so. It's a statement of uncontroversial fact that Wikileaks did so, it does not cast the victim in any kind of negative light or violate his privacy, nor cast any suspects in a positive light, and repeating that the reward is out there does not itself politicize the murder. The victim's family obviously already knows the offer exists so seeing it here again wouldn't do anything, and the victim's father has made statements about hoping the money is helpful, which doesn't sound very distressed about it. Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Inadvertent casting of (what some interpret as) a supervote

To the multiple editors who believe that administrator MastCell has made a declaration in his official capacity as an administrator that one side of this policy-based content dispute is is right and the other side is wrong, he almost certainly did not intend his comments to be interpreted that way. See discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Inadvertent casting of (what some interpret as) a supervote: how to fix? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Did I miss something? I'm not aware that MastCell voted one way or the other. I for one arrived at the same conclusions from reading up on WP rules, but since MastCell and other editors had already presented my arguments - and probably better than I could have - why repeat them in my own words? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Let's just take Mastcell's comment to be a warning to adhere closely to BLP. I don't think it advocates one way or another for inclusion of the Wikileaks info. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Nothing Mastcell wrote was incorrect or in any way supported either side of this dispute. The problem is that some here think it did. Please look at the second !vote in the RfC above: " We have an official announcement above from a Wikipedia administrator acting in his administrative capacity:" That's one example of someone (wrongly) thinking that Mastcell made a ruling on the content dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• What MastCell did, was provide a clueful and therefore authoritative perspective on how BLP reads on the decision. !votes that fail to take BLP into account at all as many above do, are likely to be given less weight by a clueful closer and if the closer doesn't take BLP into account, the close will be liable to be overturned (not necessarily overturned, but open to be overturned). Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• As far as I can tell, Mastcell did not cast a vote - so the section title appears to be incorrect. Also, his announcement was not about choosing sides. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not clear on where the line is draw between administrative and editor involvement but considering an RfC vote is clearly on the editor side of the line, it's troubling to see so many votes citing an administrator's comment as justification ("obvious BLP vio per MastCell", "No per MastCell", "No I also agree with MastCell".) That to me isn't meaningfully different than including the administrator's comment and vote directly. D.Creish (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

When people make strong arguments they are cited all the time by others. This is entirely common. The RfC did not even exist when MastCell made their comment; MastCell has no involvement with this RfC. Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Has it been your experience that when these strong arguments are cited they are accompanied by statements like "we have an official announcement above from a Wikipedia administrator acting in his administrative capacity"? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The person you're quoting is User:Anythingyouwant, and he was being passive-aggressive and WP:POINTy; he believes the material should be included, but has a chip on his shoulder for reasons that are too tiresome to rehash in detail. I'd suggest that you reconsider whether to take him seriously in the future.

Separately, I think you need to re-read what I wrote. I don't have an opinion on whether the material belongs in the article or not—that is a matter to be resolved by discussion. But the discussion has to be grounded in policy, and right now it's mostly being conducted in utter ignorance of WP:BLP. Any !vote that says "Include: well-sourced", or some variant of that, should be discounted (and will be discounted, if the closing admin is conversant with policy). There isn't really any dispute that the material is well-sourced. But WP:AVOIDVICTIM says that in these specific situations, sourcing alone is not enough, and sourcing is not the only bar to consider for inclusion. The material's encyclopedic value also needs to be weighed against the harm it might cause. I see a lot of editors—including some quite experienced ones—who either don't understand or don't acknowledge this policy requirement. If the discussion here is conducted without reference to WP:BLP and WP:AVOIDVICTIM, then it's not very helpful in resolving the question of whether to include this material.

As a separate matter, WP:BLP requires an affirmative consensus to include this kind of material, and the burden of demonstrating that consensus lies upon those who wish to include it. That was the other aspect of policy that I re-affirmed. I see that my comment has been cited by a number of people who favor excluding the material in question. I would take that to mean that they believe the BLP considerations, and the ethical requirement to avoid contributing to the subject's victimization, is the primary consideration and outweighs the benefit of including the material. That's a valid position, although not one I formally endorse. I don't see a lot of people on the "inclusion" side trying to engage with it, which is disappointing. MastCell ^Talk 00:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I strongly support "acknowledging and conforming to WP:BLP" and "upholding WP:BLP". I don't know about others, but that is why I have supplemented my comment with "per MastCell". Since you have clarified that you "don't have an opinion on whether the material belongs in the article or not", if everybody just added "per MastCell", that would demonstrate that they have at least implicitly acknowledged your concerns (even if they don't explicitly touch WP:BLP and WP:AVOIDVICTIM), I believe. Politrukki (talk) 10:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

What you have done is given lip service. Your rationale for your !vote flies in the face of BLP as I noted above. Jytdog (talk) 10:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Personally, I going to AGF and say this is a new editor who is confused. Even his or her last Ivote is almost a mish-mash. I enjoyed his or her response to Mastcell. Also, because this is a new editor I proclaim that he or she can have two Ivotes (which I believe they already did) Steve Quinn (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The Fundamentalist approach to this debate

I note some arguments above supported by appealing to Wikipedia fundamentals. Can we all pause for a moment to lighten up? I didn't realize that Wikipedia encouraged fundamentalism. WP:5P5 "Wikipedia has no firm rules: Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; . . . . And do not agonize . . . . " Is there agonizing going on over this article? Has anyone other than myself noticed some similarity between a religion debate with proof texts like PS 5:55 and WikiLawyer debates citing rules like WP:5P5? LOL (PeacePeace (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC))

Why this article should be deleted at the next AfD

Per WP:BLPNOTE, the subject of this article is not notable. Specifically, WP:VICTIM states:

For victims, and those wrongly convicted of crime

1. The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with WP:BLP1E had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role.

Let's break it down. First, before this man was killed there wasn't an article on him (which makes sense because he wasn't a notable figure). Then, according to sources used in the present article, he is killed, around 4 AM about a block from his house. Now shifting back to the guideline presented above, a non-notable man getting killed in DC at 4 AM is not considered a historic event; as stated above, the historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage. Is this event receiving persistent coverage? According to Google it's not substantial [38] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Somedifferentstuff, thanks for the update. Sunny days to you! ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLPNOTE let's us know we are ok with this article, as it is not a biography (Rich is non-notable), but his murder was notable. I would make the same argument in the AFD, as I believe the coverage that RS gave this event and the timing of the event in an election season in the US warrant a stand alone article. The BLPNOTE guideline refers several times to the Steve Bartman incident, which is somewhat similar to this in that nobody really writes RS about the Steve Bartman incident anymore, but it was notable enough at the time it occurred. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Fly in Ointment: There is no connection whatsoever between the crime and Assange/Wikileaks other than his unguaranteed promise to pay $25,000. There's no connection at all. Anyone in the world can refer to any event in the world. That doesn't make the speaker a part of the event. He didn't even put up $25,000 in custody. He showed up for reasons unrelated to the event. It's as if you or I were to sue a guy in Gander, Newfoundland because his dog barks all night. Whatever our private thought process about barking, dogs, or that one dog, we do not have standing relative to that barking, in the eyes of society. Take a look at Assange/Wikileaks' twitter fead RE: Hillary Clinton, by the way -- oh my! SPECIFICO talk 20:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Is there a need for three separate informal AfDs on this talk page? D.Creish (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Was there a need for you to write that? (real question - answer it, and your question is answered) Jytdog (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there was a need for him to write that, since the Guideline on Talk pages directs us to "Ensure there is not already an existing section on the same topic before starting a new discussion. " Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikileaks reward offer is bogus

Per WP:TALK#USE guideline, Talk pages are places to discuss improvements to the article, NOT for general conversations about the article's topic

They didn’t even bother to tweet their so-called reward offer to MPDC, they tweeted it to themselves because - well - publicity stunt? Why hasn’t MPDC increased their customary reward offer of up to $25.000 to $45.000 and issued the usual press release about the donation of "donor (name here)" or "an anonymous donor" (fat chance of that happening)? No, the reward is still $25.000. Check it out online, there are plenty of examples for bonafide reward offers by (usually) "anonymous donors" via the investigating police department. Of course, that would mean paperwork and a bank guarantee, bond, promissory note or whatever so that the MPDC will be able to collect if and when. So, how exactly is this so-called reward supposed to work? You tweet the name of the perpetrator(s) to Wikileaks, they tweet it to MPDC, perpetrator is arrested and sentenced, Wikileaks sends you an electronic check for Bitcoins worth $20.000? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC) I am personally offering 120,000 Bitcoins for information leading to a successful sockpuppet investigation related to this article. I cannot confirm or deny anything. My goal is to protect Wikipedia. SPECIFICO talk 18:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC) I would love to chip in a few bars of latinum, but someone just offered me a very nice-looking suspension bridge in Brooklyn, an absolute occasion that I just can’t pass up. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC) Sorry if the conversation is too elliptical for your taste, but this is about WP:V and WP:BLP and seeks to suggest how tenuous the arguments "for inclusion" have been. Hats off! SPECIFICO talk 19:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC) Wrong section? Was this meant for Mmyers1976? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)|} Collapsing preceding section The !vote discussion is about excluding or including the purported reward offer in the article. How is mentioning that said reward offer is not a bonafide reward offer but a publicity stunt not discussing an improvement to the article, i.e., keep garbage out? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC) First, yes, the !vote discussion is about whether the offer should be included, and that hinges on the notability of the offer as determined by the amount of coverage it has received in reliable sources, and whether or not mention of the offer might further victimize the victim and his family per BLP and VICTIM, not on whether the offer is sincere or not. If reliable sources are available that verify the offer is not sincere, that raises the issue of stating that the offer is not sincere in the article rather than excluding mention of the offer. Second, if the purported bogusness of the offer is so germane to the RfC as you two claim, then why was a separate discussion created instead of bringing this up in the RfC? Third, the comments by you two provided no proposals of how to edit the article or any citations of policy as why the purported bogusness of the offer must exclude mention that Wikileaks made the offer from the article. Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC) Yeah we should be more disciplined and on topic per TPG. Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)