Talk:Murder of Seth Rich

Denialism category

Right now there is a category for "Denialism" on the article. Does that really belong? I didn't want to remove it without a discussion since this article seems to be so sensitive.PopSci (talk) 23:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, it fits perfectly per the definition given at Denialism as it 's a conspiracy theory which denies the actual evidence of the DNC leak as well as at least some of the findings of the police investigation. But it fits those because it's a conspiracy theory, and it's already in two conspiracy theory categories (which is proper), but Category:Conspiracy theories is not a subcat of Category:Denialism, which, to my way of thinking, it should be. So I think this is a category problem, not a "categories of this page" problem. But that means wading into the tenebrous -and possibly bottomless- pit that is category space; haunted by lost souls and humorless automatons who pretend to be editors. So that's all on you, buddy. I ain't going no-where near that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Using that reasoning, we could add thousands of articles to the category and thousands of categories to this article. Categories are a navigation device. It is unlikely that someone interested in denialism will find this a must read article or that anyone interested in this article will be interested in denialism. TFD (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I highly doubt we could add thousands using that logic: "This article is an X and X is a Y" is as far as it goes. You might push things and find a couple dozen categories, but not thousands, or even hundreds. And the vast majority of those would be of the "Why the hell is this article in that category?!" variety, and not of the "Hmm, I see where it's coming from but this seems a bit off..." sort. Regardless, I'm not opposed to removing this article from the cat; I'm just saying that it fits. Whether that's a useful navigational aid is debatable, and the proper applicability of categories is something I'm uninterested in debating for much the same reason that I rarely turn off the lights and whisper "Bloody Mary" into the bathroom mirror. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

POV/Original research problems in second paragraph.

"The murder spawned several right-wing conspiracy theories, including the false claim that Rich had been involved with the leaked DNC emails in 2016, contradicted by the July 2018 indictment of 12 Russian military intelligence agents for hacking the e-mail accounts and networks of Democratic Party officials[5] and by the U.S. intelligence community's conclusion the leaked DNC emails were part of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections." Calling that a "false claim" is, itself, false. It's not proven to be true, but it's also not proven to be false. This material should not be placed in the voice of WP. The indictment of the Russians, for whatever they did, does not in itself somehow prove that Seth Rich was not involved with the leaked DNC emails in 2016. The Russians might plausibly have hacked, while independently some insiders within DNC leaked. It's also POV-pushing to label that a "right wing" or a "conspiracy theory". While certainly not yet proven, people from virtually any political stripe might find Seth Rich's murder suspicious. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:9514:B185:897C:47B8 (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not proven to be true, but it's also not proven to be false. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and that's exactly what I said, above. That's why it's improper to call this, in the voice of WP, "false". This bias continues throughout the article. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:9514:B185:897C:47B8 (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

You missed the tag I responded with. We have numerous reliable sources claiming it's been proven false. We also have enough publicly available evidence to ensure that anyone who has even the slightest inkling of what they're talking about understands that the notion Rich leaked the emails is laughably ignorant. So yes: it's been proven false. Your own personal views about it are completely immaterial. On WP, we follow the sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Paragraphs 2 and 3, and elsewhere in this article, remain biased. For instance, paragraph 2 refers to "theories", but does not even identify them! This is clearly trying to use WP to push POV. Show us exactly what theories have been proven false, to begin with. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:9514:B185:897C:47B8 (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

It's all right there in the article, if you'd just read it absent any preconception about the conclusions. But if you're reading it secure in your (demonstrably false) views that Rich was the leaker and the conspiracy theories are true, then of course it's going to look biased and POV pushing to you. That doesn't mean it is, though. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

In WHICH article?!? There are many cites in this, and any other article. Stop playing games! WP is suppose to be neutral. It's always possible to seek out sources which come to the specific conclusions you'd like to see. That, you and others have already done. You seek to keep this article biased. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:9514:B185:897C:47B8 (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Untwist your tits: no-one is playing games with you here. Here on WP "article" means "Wikipedia article" not "source". Read this article to answer all your questions. And if you still have any, read the sources. There's a reason we hyperlink our inline citations. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

You're obviously not willing to discuss the problems with the article. They are quite numerous. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:F488:1F31:2B0C:F76A (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

You're obviously incapable of understanding that the problems only exist in your head. Oh well, not my problem. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems to go against People accused of crime: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction." We cannot say that Viktor Borisovich Netyksho and eleven other people named in the D.C. indictment hacked the e-mails until they are convicted. TFD (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

This article doesn't name anyone. And what is it with people forgetting to sign today? (I'm not berating you, just noting that I've seen an unusual number of times today). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, now signed. There is a clear implication that the people named in the indictment, which is a matter of public record are responsible. In any case, I'll raise it a BLPN and see what other editors think. TFD (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I think you're going to run smack into a wall of false dichotomy links, if you do. Because that's what you're doing by suggesting it was either Rich or the indicted parties. And remember; the end result if changed would be to imply a BLP vio against Rich (who still qualified for BLP protections as recently deceased AFAIK), as well as to contradict the RSes based on some editor's interpretation of a policy. I can't see any way that a proposal of that sort gains any traction. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

That's disingenuous because it is the text and your statement that assumes it is either/or. The president opined that it could have been a freelance hacker for example, which is neither/nor. Your argument seems to be that if we do not state as fact that twelve known Russians broke the law, the only conclusion is that Seth Rich leaked the emails. TFD (talk) 04:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

That's disingenuous because it is the text and your statement that assumes it is either/or. Again: the text doesn't name anyone and; No, my statement absolutely does not assume it is either or. A suspect can easily be ruled out (as Rich has been) without it implicating a particular person. The closest thing to naming anyone is the claim in the lede, which is a simple statement of fact: The indictment absolutely does contradict the claim that Rich was involved. You are reading that as being the only evidence against Rich's involvement, which is never stated nor even hinted by the text.

The president opined that it could have been a freelance hacker for example And the president is possibly the single most unreliable source for any claim of fact ever to grace the pages of WP.

Your argument seems to be that if we do not state as fact that twelve known Russians broke the law, the only conclusion is that Seth Rich leaked the emails. That is a gross mischaracterization of what I've said. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Then your statement about false dichotomy makes no sense. I have taken the matter to BLPN. TFD (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I think you should read my comments more carefully because it's clear that you're not understanding me. My point is that saying that Rich did not do it does not imply that the Russians are guilty, nor does the text you quoted. They have been indicted, not convicted. It may turn out that Russian FSB agents are responsible, or even private parties. But it is clear, both by a literal reading of the sources and an honest reflection upon the evidence cited by those sources, that Rich is not the responsible party. Your argument seems to be that as long as we insist that Rich is not guilty (which we do because the RSes do), then we're strongly implying that the Russians did. That is a false dichotomy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

No I am saying the opposite of that. You said above I was "suggesting it was either Rich or the indicted parties." I said nothing of the kind and challenge to to show where I did. TFD (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

If your contention is not that it's binary, then your objection to the bit about the indictment is nonsensical. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

My complaint is that, per BLP, articles should not imply that people not convicted of crimes are guilty. Nothing binary about that. TFD (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Given the history of this thread, that's hardly a compelling argument against the assertion that you implied a false dichotomy. But presuming that you were ignoring the IP (which would be completely justified considering the IP's poor argument) and merely opining about the Russian individuals: I've addressed that at BLPN. Given that it bears upon both politics and conspiracy theories, it's likely only a matter of time before some new voices are heard. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I certainly did not imply that there is a dichotomy, as an reasonable reading of my postings clearly shows. You will find that discussions can be considerably shortened if you don't misrepresent other editors' comments. Anyway, lets get back to the point. How does removing the wording "contradicted by" create a false dichotomy, violate BLP or V or constitute OR or violate any other policy or guideline or common sense that you may raise? TFD (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm sitting here wondering how long it will be before you realize that this is literally the first time you mentioned removing those words, and that the only proposed change in this thread until your most recent comment had been to remove "false" from "...the false claim that Rich had been involved..." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Washington Times retraction

Looks like the Washington Times has had to eat some crow:

• "The Washington Times Retracts Column About Seth Rich’s Killing" - New York Times, Oct 1, 2018
• "The Washington Times settles lawsuit with Seth Rich's brother, issues retraction and apology for its coverage" - CNN, Oct 1, 2018

The actual retraction: "Retraction: Aaron Rich and the murder of Seth Rich"

--Calton | Talk 03:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I opened up that first link with my jaw hanging down, thinking that it was the Washington Post who retracted the story. But no, it was the Times. No big surprise there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I also was relieved to see that Washington Times was not forced to retract the story that contained the revelation that "On the day he was murdered, Seth was excited about a new job he had been offered on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign". That would be more difficult, since there is video of him saying it. "Seth was excited about a new job he had been offered on Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign" But a vocal few still claim it is not worthy of being included in the Wikipedia article. StreetSign (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Since the retraction was covered in the NYT and CNN, I agree we should add it to this article. TFD (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

New lede

All right, I got tired of waiting for a change (see "Lede", above), and changed the lede. Let me know if it's acceptable:

The murder of Seth Rich occurred on Sunday, July 10, 2016, at 4:20 a.m. in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington, D.C. Rich died from two shots to the back.

The 27-year-old Rich was an employee of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and his murder spawned several right-wing conspiracy theories, including the false claim...

--Calton | Talk 03:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Approved by ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Some facts that are not yet included, which would improve article significantly

Some facts that are not yet included in the Wikipedia article, which would improve it significantly:

The location of the Seth Rich murder: It has been precisely documented as the southwest corner of Flagler Place and W Street Northwest. Currently only described as “Bloomingdale neighborhood".

The hospital where Seth Rich was treated and died. MedStar Washington Hospital Center or Howard University Hospital. Currently only described as “a nearby hospital”.

Statements made by Seth Rich after the shooting. His brother is quoted as saying “They were very surprised he didn’t make it,” “He was very aware, very talkative. Yep, that was 100 percent my brother.” “He wasn’t in pain, they were told,” according to the paper. “But he was confused. When Seth Rich was asked where he lived, he gave a previous address …”

The caliber of the weapon (or weapons) used to shoot Seth Rich in the back twice.

The job offer to Seth Rich from the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, days before the murder. Existing in published statements from his parents, and even a video of his father talking about it.

The known email accounts, social media accounts, and posts of Seth Rich, reported as MeGrimlock4 panda4progress pandas4bernie

A photo or video of the “glimpse of the legs of two people who could possibly be the killers”

Some of these are well documented, but described as "irrelevant". StreetSign (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Nice trick, starting with the innocuous though irrelevant before trying to sneak in the nutty and insinuating so you can pretend they're on the same level. How about: no? --Calton | Talk 22:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Why in the hell would we give out his online handle? That's about as unencyclopedic as possible. We're not suppose to be that comprehensive. None of these details would satisfy the principle of some astonishment except for the job offer one, which we've already established is being pushed as a wedge to support the conspiracy theories. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Labelling this a conspiracy, it is only fair to label the Russia Hack narrative as a conspiracy theory as well.

What is good for the goose, is good for the gander.

FrogCast (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)