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)

@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)

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)

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)