Talk:Murder of Seth Rich

Interesting mention in the news today

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

The only mention of Seth Rich is that a former Sputnik journalist said his employers asked him to put a question about Rich to Sean Spicer. TFD (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

And that that was the last straw, and he quit because of it. It's about 1/3 of the article. It goes into Fox News, Rod Wheeler, and his lawsuit. And "The Investigation Project" or whatever it's called is conspicuously absent. I find all of that very telling as far as WP:WEIGHT is concerned. Geogene (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

And that he was fired for refusing to do so. Jeez TFD. Choose your battles. :) SPECIFICO talk 00:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

We don't need this article to mention the Wheeler story, which has already been reported by other sources and is already in the article (See: Murder of Seth Rich#Wheeler lawsuit.) I would remind SPECIFICO not to repeat unsubstantiated claims, which in this case have been denied, as facts. Ironically, that is what you are accusing conspiracy theorists of doing. TFD (talk) 02:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

This article in its current form is inappropriate for a website that represents itself as an encyclopedia

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

---

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

---

Wikipedia clearly states that articles be impartial, there is nothing impartial about this article. Any article that refers to an opposing view point of the world we live in as if holding those view points is stupid is clearly both partial and partisan.

The fact that this article still sits here in its current form casts doubt on the reliability of Wikipedia as an information source. You can say that it is impartial because that is what the news articles say but that doesn't account for the authers bias. There is also the fact that information can be shared with out sharing the biases of the original authors.

Note this is not about the content of the article. This is about the impartiality of this article and does belong here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1800:E970:2433:B3F1:6391:92F6 (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

it's exactly because "this is not about the content of the article" that it does NOT belong here. See WP:TALK and WP:SOAPBOX. But whatever. Yawn. Volunteer Marek 02:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I think you may be confused about what constitutes a soap box. This article in it's current form is a soapbox. It needs to be fixed so it's impartial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1800:E970:2433:B3F1:6391:92F6 (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Please suggest specific changes you'd like to see. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Editors (even editors without an account) making POV complaints about an article would do very well to read WP:IRS, and using that as a guide, present reliable sources that explicitly disagree with statements made in the article. Without such sources, complaints about the POV of an article look like nothing more that ignorant, partisan whining. Such whining is unlikely to result in anything except a block of accounts (and yes, IPs without accounts can be blocked from editing just like logged-in users) that continue to engage in it. If you cannot find such sources, then please reflect personally on whether there is any merit to your complaints, instead of forging ahead and complaining here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Specifically referring to people who disagree as right wing conspiracy theorists is partial. That has nothing to do with the reliability of the source. How something is wrote is as important as what it says. This article shouldn't have an opening that insinuates that anyone who disagrees with law enforcement's guess that this was a botched robbery, based on nothing more than there being other robberies, is crazy. As an example of what an almost impartial coverage of the available information looks like refer here http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/05/is-this-even-about-seth-rich-at-all.html. The Wikipedia article screams left wing bias author. You don't need more references to make something unbiased.

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

• Don't early archive. This is the sort of stupidity that happens when you early-archive talk page discussions. Instead of hiding the stupid rants, address then patiently and reasonably and leave the discussion up for the normal length of time. Not only does that cut off complaints of censorship, but it also reduces the chance that another newcomer will come along with the same sort of rant. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

If the objection was from someone other than the OP, I'd agree. But since the OP is the one objection, it's just a continuation of the disruption. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Archive soon; archive often - There is absolutely no reason to give airplay to this sort of nonsense. The OP should be referred to WP:VP or Jimbo's talk page. Also, what EvergreenFir said.- MrX 00:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not condone the OP's conduct in any way. But it doesn't matter who's being disruptive. Early archiving leads to more disruption than regular archiving. It's that simple. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I've early archived hundreds of discussions, and almost never is there a complaint except from people who are plainly using Wikipedia as their soapbox. Why reward users who are obviously WP:NOTHERE to help build an encyclopedia?- MrX 00:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I am here to build an encyclopedia, this article in its current form doesn't belong as part of an "encyclopedia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1800:E970:4403:344C:AE96:3770 (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Specific Content Issues

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

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

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

It should also be pointed out that an encyclopedia, with sources or not, should not be using citations to state that something is fake news. An encyclopedia shouldn't be making figurative statements. I would suggest that statements such as right-wing conspiracy theorists, and fake news be removed from the article as they are examples of bias language. An encyclopedia shouldn't be using inherently biased language.