Jump to content

Talk:Murder of Seth Rich

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.90.209.64 (talk) at 00:31, 28 May 2017 (→‎How can this be called a conspiracy theory?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2017

The following sentence is very vague and it fails to describe what are the alleged "conspiracy theories" about, and falsely frames them as "right-wing", so (keeping the same source) please change this:

Conspiracy theories

Newsweek reported that the murder stoked right-wing "Clinton conspiracy theories" and that Rich's parents were "distressed" by the politicization of his murder.[1]

to this:

Conspiracy theories

Why is the page locked from editing? Afraid of letting the truth get out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.79.225 (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"It has been requested that the title of this article be changed to Murder of Seth Rich conspiracy theory."
  • It was suggested, by the moderator, that there was ample evidence to suggest that Seth Conrad Rich was, indeed, murdered and the verifiable and sourced facts should reflect those details related to his murder. Perhaps a subtitle of "Conspiracy Theories" should follow the main, substantiated, article. It is also recommended that we refrain from labeling these conspiracy theories as only "right wing" because considerable Bernie Sanders supporters also promulgate this theory. If the main title is "Murder of Seth Rich conspiracy theory", not only would the title be misleading, but would engage in fallacious reasoning of poisoning the well and casting a shadow of doubt on the factual article.Brett Gasper (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Newsweek reported that the murder fired up "Clinton conspiracy theories" claiming that Rich was murdered due to his alleged implication in the leak of internal DNC emails and that Rich's parents were "distressed" by the politicization of his murder.[1] Alfombra2013 (talk) 11:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline We've discussed this extensively, to the point it's not particularly helpful to continue to revisit the issue. Suffice to say that the source made it clear that the conspiracy theories are right-wing; the allegations themselves are so absurd that including them would be WP:PROFRINGE, that this proposal doesn't thoroughly debunk them the way that would be required for a neutral article, and that any effort to do so in an article of this size would result in a WP:COATRACK. Geogene (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The editor's confusion is understandable. We don't explain why it stoked right-wing conspiracy theories (in particular) or how they were related to Clinton. This is a disservice to the reader. It should be summarized and the dozen words suggested seem appropriate. I'm not aware of any articles where we refer to a conspiracy theory without ever describing it. To TFD's point, we can describe the theory without endorsing it. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is being proposed is to mention the conspiracy theory in passing and leave it at that, as if it were something that a reasonable person might believe, and that is not neutral and therefore is not an option here. Geogene (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC
As long as we continue to describe it as a conspiracy theory we are not suggesting it's something a "reasonable person might believe." What's being proposed is to treat this conspiracy theory the way we treat all other conspiracy theories. I'm having difficulty understanding your objection. Can you explain why you believe this article should be a special case? James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't put straw men in Geogene's mouth. Please demonstrate widespread RS discussion of the details of this alleged conspiracy theory. From RS reporting, it can't really be dignified with the tag "theory" -- more like a calculated insinuation. SPECIFICO talk 21:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO: Re: Please demonstrate widespread RS discussion of the details of this alleged conspiracy theory. We can start with the existing Newsweek source:
  • And that was enough to fire up the right-wing Twitterverse with yet another round of Clinton conspiracy theories, this one claiming that Rich was murdered—at dawn—as he was on his way to sing to the FBI about damning internal DNC emails.
and Washington Post [1]
  • the allegations getting more and more far-fetched: Seth was ordered killed by Hillary Clinton because he knew something about her email scandal.
and NY Daily News [2]
  • Assange suggested this week, without evidence, that Rich played a role in leaking emails that showed DNC officials disparaging the presidential campaign of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders
and Newsweek again [3]
  • conspiracy theorists later suggested DNC officials were behind it and that Rich played a role in leaking party emails.
and Financial Times [4]
  • Another claimed that the Clinton campaign had assassinated Seth Rich, a Democratic National Committee employee, as revenge for supposedly leaking DNC emails to WikiLeaks
Every article I found describes it and dismisses it as a conspiracy theory, which is what the edit request suggests we do. Do you have other objections? James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so what text would you propose based on these -- keep in mind that we can't offer our own interpretation or synthesis about the list. What you're showing is very different than what the SPA requested. SPECIFICO talk 22:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the excerpts from the quotes above, in order:
  1. claiming that Rich was murdered ... on his way to sing to the FBI about damning internal DNC emails
  2. killed by Hillary Clinton because he knew something about her email scandal
  3. Rich played a role in leaking emails that showed DNC officials disparaging the presidential campaign of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders
  4. suggested DNC officials were behind it and that Rich played a role in leaking party emails.
  5. as revenge for supposedly leaking DNC emails to WikiLeaks
Here is the proposed addition:
  • that Rich was murdered due to his alleged implication in the leak of internal DNC emails
It's difficult to think of a way to phrase it that could be more similar to the quotes. Perhaps change "alleged implication" with "alleged role"? What would you suggest? James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for reasons given above. Again: The sources all treat this disparagingly. This should too, or else it should stay out. Words like "alleged" and "claim" are inadequate in this case. Some quotes from the Newsweek article [5] to show what I mean
  1. a wild election-year conspiracy theory that once again portrays Hillary Clinton and the Democrats as murderous criminals
  2. And that was enough to fire up the right-wing Twitterverse with yet another round of Clinton conspiracy theories, this one claiming that Rich was murdered—at dawn—as he was on his way to sing to the FBI about damning internal DNC emails
  3. What are you suggesting?” a startled interviewer from Dutch television asked him.
  4. Right-wing media outlets continued to churn up sludge from the tragedy.
Just saying deadpan that right wing conspiracy theorists "alleged" this stuff isn't doing it justice. Geogene (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that proposed edit is not how one would refer to nonsense. It's more like mentioning the underground colony of Martians allegedly living undetected beneath Mar a Lago. SPECIFICO talk 02:14, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your responses contain no meaningful objections.
@Geogene: The conspiracy theory is already described as a conspiracy theory. Preserving that and adding "alleged" does not enhance the credibility of the claim. If it's not clear why, WP:CIR.
@SPECIFICO: I asked you a direct question in response to your comment. Rather than respond directly you ramble about martians. The talk page of a contentious article is no place for that.
I will give others time to respond then proceed with the requested edit (with some minor copy edits) barring new and reasonably articulated objections. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 03:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You do that without consensus, I'll file an AE on you for edit warring. We've discussed, as in WP:BRD.Geogene (talk) 03:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uninvolved editors dismissed these same arguments from you and Specifico in two of two RfCs (1, 2.) We can go for three of three if necessary but it would be a shame if you choose once again to waste community time. Either way the text will be included because it makes sense to include, in the most basic sense. As I said, I will give others time to respond. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 04:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, they didn't. This is the longstanding version of the article, and if you want to change it, the burden of proof is on you to substantiate those changes. You have failed to do that. I'd rather not have to seek sanctions on you, but if you try to edit war this on over my objections, that's what will have to be done. And yes, I agree that there are CIR issues at play in this discussion. Geogene (talk) 04:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The policy |"Due and undue weight" and the guideline of "Fringe theories" both require that we provide the same relative level of coverage to the fringe stories as does the media. I am willing to compromise and provide less. The only proviso is that we do not present them as having more acceptance then they actually do. We should also mention the Russia connection allegations, which is an extension of the theory that they hacked into the DNC servers. TFD (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think "alleged role" is good wording for briefly describe the conspiracy theories. I don't think we need to include the version spread by Jack Burkman since it doesn't appear to have taken off in conspiracy circles, at least from what I can tell from the sources. Overall, the sources reporting on the conspiracies discuss the DNC emails. FallingGravity 06:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Conspiracy theories are not the same thing as allegations. Fakes news is not an allegation. See the article about the alleged moon landing. There has been no coverage of these fake news theories as 'allegations'. SPECIFICO talk 11:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reading the article you mentioned and there's a section titled "Alleged Stanley Kubrick involvement". It appears that "alleged" is used to describe one facet of this conspiracy theory regarding Kubrick's involvement. I think the word "alleged" is appropriate here per WP:ALLEGED, or maybe even "claim". FallingGravity 16:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Alleged" is the same word being used to describe Russian interference in the presidential election. Do you think that that "allegation" and this "allegation" are on equal footing? I do not. Geogene (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ALLEGED: alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined. In this case, Seth Rich's wrongdoing has been asserted, but whether he had any role in DNC email leak is highly unlikely at best. Whether or not Russian interference has been determined conclusively is beyond the scope of this article and is still under heavy discussion. I believe some allegations can be true while other allegations can be false, and that trying to conflate similar words in these articles is false equivalence. FallingGravity 16:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@FallingGravity: Really, the words "Seth Rich's wrongdoing" should not appear anywhere on this website. I don't care what you're trying to say -- there's an much more appropriate way to say it. SPECIFICO talk 22:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because Rich's involvement is not "undetermined" but absurd, "alleged" is not appropriate here. Geogene (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not proposing adding the words "Seth Rich's wrongdoing," and I'm not sure how the adjective "absurd" can be added in Wikipedia's voice. FallingGravity 00:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You should not use those words on the talk page or anywhere else on WP. Thx. SPECIFICO talk 01:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not using those word, I'm quoting you. FallingGravity 01:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Allegations can be reasonable or unreasonable, true or false, just as accusations, statements, beliefs, assumptions, assertions and theories can be. No one confuses the theory of gravity with a conspiracy theory, because they are both theories. By calling them "conspiracy theories," the assumption is they are unreasonable and false. Conspiracy theories are of course always wrong and always unreasonable. The National Enquirer ran a story Apr. 19 claiming Russian involvement in this case. It fits in with theories that the Russians hacked into the DNC and that they have political enemies killed. If more reputable media report on it, then we should include it. TFD (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Addition of something like "baseless" or "far-fetched", in accordance with some of the source quotes given above, would address many of my concerns. Geogene (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the sentence that alleges his involvement describes that allegation as a conspiracy theory (as is proposed) further qualification is unnecessary and discouraged by policy. With the recent comments by TFD and FallingGravity we have a reasonable consensus for inclusion. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The current article is unsatisfactory in its omission of factual, notable, and well sourced details. Rich's murder may have been a "botched robbery", however it is OK to tell people that Rich is known to have been in contact with Wikileaks before he died, and that valuable items on Rich's person were not removed after he was shot. Some editors seem oddly adamant that readers should not be exposed to information that may lead them to conclusions other than the editors evidently want them to believe. What's wrong with "just the facts, ma'am" here? Wookian (talk) 13:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revised Text (proposal)

I removed the mention of Clinton and split the text into two sentences. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference newsweek was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ http://www.newsweek.com/gop-lobbyist-reward-seth-rich-dnc-499653
  3. ^ https://www.ft.com/content/cc311e58-264f-11e7-8691-d5f7e0cd0a16
  4. ^ http://www.newsweek.com/seth-rich-murder-dnc-hack-julian-assange-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-492084

Survey

Support As nominator. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose POV push. Sources go much further than simply calling it a conspiracy theory. Examples are posted in the thread above. Removal of sourced "right-wing" designation in this proposal is also problematic. Geogene (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I debated including "right-wing" but after reviewing the sources I found the majority did not describe it as right-wing. Have you found otherwise? It seems reasonable that some on the left (particularly fringe Sanders supporters) might also be inclined to believe the conspiracy theory. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Some of those are better than others, and some may not even be reliable, but let's not pretend it's not the far right (most say "alt-right") that's pushing this stuff. It's the same old Clinton Body Count meme that has been running amok for decades. Geogene (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When I surveyed sources for "right-wing" I surveyed only RS: sources that would be usable for statements fact or attributed opinion. If your comparison involves non-RS (as above) I don't think we can reach an agreement. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, I don't need a majority of reliable sources for this, just one. The existing Newsweek article is fine for that. The others I referred to are there to show it isn't just Newsweek that calls it that. I can't rationalize your removing "right wing" from the proposal, and my supply of good faith is just about out. This will reflect poorly on you in any behavioral reviews later. Geogene (talk) 02:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a summary and link to this discussion at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard [13]. Geogene (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

@James J. Lambden: Regarding left support of the conspiracy, I've found this article which discusses it. FallingGravity 04:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support although I would ask Geogene to explain their objection. "Right-wing conspiracy theory" is a redundancy and I don't see how something can be further than a conspiracy theory. I note though the reference to the Clinton Body Count and suggest we include a link to it. TFD (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused by your question. Do you consider conspiracy theory, right-wing conspiracy theory, and far-fetched conspiracy theory to be equivalent in meaning? I don't. I'm not opposed to linking to the Clinton Body Count article though. Geogene (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All conspiracy theories are far-fetched by definition. They describe things that could not possibly be true, otherwise it would be reasonable speculation. And while they can get traction beyond the extreme right, conspiracy theories originate with them. They see the problems of the world as caused by secret manipulation between the elites, foreigners and minorities. TFD (talk) 04:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not all conspiracy theories are equally far-fetched. There are some casual ones that many otherwise reasonable people believe in, such as the ones around the John F. Kennedy assassination and some light claimed UFO sightings. There are some that are less socially acceptable but whose adherents can still function in society, like the 9/11 "truthers" and some hard UFO theorists. And then there are the ones that are so out there that their only adherents are people that live in survivalist compounds in the wilderness. It's not a compliment to tell someone that their ideas constitute a "conspiracy theory", but not all conspiracy theories are equally implausible. I don't believe in any of the JFK conspiracy theories, but I recognize that there is a world of difference in the claim that a president was assassinated by the CIA, and the claim (for example) the world is secretly governed by aliens. In other words, to simply claim that two statements are probably false does not make the statements equally ridiculous. This particular conspiracy theory has been described as baseless and far fetched by the sources, my reading of the Neutrality policy is that the article should convey that. Geogene (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you stop to evaluate the evidence, the idea that Kennedy was assassinated by the CIA is vastly more far-fetched than this one. First of all, one has to ignore the mountains of evidence that Oswald killed Kennedy. Contrast that with the murder of Seth Rich which is unsolved. Second, one has to accept with the CIA theory that vasts numbers of people were involved in killing the President of the United States in plain view of hundreds of other people... and that they successfully managed to hide their tracks. You don't have to believe that craziness with this one. It only gets crazy when you put it in the context of people who actually believe the Clinton Body Count. -Location (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This conspiracy theory is more far-fetched than the murder alone-which is really only constrained by Occam's Razor-it also deals with the supposed motivation. It claims that Seth Rich was, or was indistinguishable from, Advanced Persistent Threat 28. That in addition to his job at the DNC, which by all accounts he was proud of, and which appears to have had nothing to do with IT security, he was trying to hack their servers by sending about 20,000-30,000 spearphishing emails a day, along with multiple zero day exploits of the commercial software they were using. But mainly he would have been doing all this between 9 AM and 5 PM Moscow time, of course. This insinuation plays on the 400-pound-hacker theory, that the hacking of the DNC was something that anybody with a computer science background and a grudge could have pulled off. That's a narrative that Trump has historically pushed, and which is apparently believed by the alt-right, but it's not at all consistent with sources. Geogene (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In one theory, you are expected to believe the claims AND ignore mountains of evidence. In the other, you are only expected to believe the claims. In the end, none of this matters as we are quibbling over degrees of far-fetchedness. -Location (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is "far-fetched," "could not possibly be true" and is beyond "reasonable speculation". Julian Assange / Wikileaks comes pretty close to saying he got the DNC emails from an insider, that they were leaked. Seth was certainly capable of leaking them.
Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, those are not reliable sources. In fact that first one comes pretty close to being outright fake news.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It might be premature to call it a conspiracy theory, since the case is unsolved, but that's what the term means. TFD (talk) 05:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TFD, I'm not opposed to including the mention. How do you suggest we incorporate it in the text? James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 05:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would just use the term conspiracy theories. TFD (talk) 04:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ernie, that's not really the issue here. The issue is whether the alternate language proposed here accurately reflects the source which clearly reports these "theories" as being politically motivated drivel. SPECIFICO talk 16:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an election and as I said at the outset, it's not a properly formatted RfC. There's clearly no consensus to add your POV wording (my opinion) so this is kind of a pointless exercise. SPECIFICO talk 18:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not every edit requires an RfC. If it did we wouldn't have much of an encyclopedia. For the purpose of consensus I will count you as oppose. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It looks preposterous to read an editor stating that he will count votes on a malformed proposal he is promoting on the talk page. Please reflect. The only change that I can see in your proposed text is to give legitimacy to these "theories" as if they were alternative scenarios for the crime, when in fact RS unanimously characterize them as disingenuous promotion of fake news propaganda to promote certain interests of the perpetrators of the alleged "theories" which are not theories. There's no consensus to adopt the removal of RS characterization of these crazy insinuations, and nothing in this malformed thread is going to change that. SPECIFICO talk 19:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disingenuous promotion of fake news propaganda to promote certain interests of the perpetrators of the alleged "theories" which are not theories is unencyclopedic. Consensus suggests "conspiracy theories" conveys the same information more appropriately and succinctly but your objection is noted. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "my" objection. It's WP policy that we accurately convey what's said by the cited source and the cited source is succinct and crystalline in its clarity. Crazy anti-Clintonian rubbish. And a very rude and brutal smear on the victim and his family. As noted repeatedly on this page. Check the archives if you are new to the neighborhood. SPECIFICO talk 20:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Reading this passage in the article only left me thoroughly confused and forced me to start googling around. This short amendment doesn't carry water for the conspiracy theory, and clearly labels it as such, but it does give us the minimum needed for context. This isn't really a content question, IMO, but a question of basic, coherent writing. Burley22 (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this is an overt politicization of wikipedia to assert that the murder is not a conspiracy. It is a fact that Seth Rich was murdered, it is a fact that Wikileaks has offered a reward for the conviction of his murderer, it is a fact that he was not robbed, and it is a fact that people have claimed he was the source of the DNC leaks. That this tends to cause some to suspect he was murdered over the leak is is not our problem. I also ask on having read news articles on this recently that reference a "Rich Family Spokesman", the Rich family did not seem wealthy, who is paying for the "Rich Family Spokesman"? Montestruc (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose If you were the victim of a crime, and the police could not even INVESTIGATE a suspect without iron clad EVIDENCE? Innocent until PROVEN guilty doesn't mean that you can't look for proof unless you HAVE proof. There is a lot of suspicion in this case and many allegations. If an investigation were to prove him guilty of leaking information, it would support claims made by the Republicans. If he were to be proven innocent, it would support denial by the Democrats. But, since nothing has been proven, how can either side's attempt to find answers be referred to as a "conspiracy theory?" Once this has been fully investigated and the case has been officially closed, then, hopefully, everyone will accept the answers. But, at the very least, Seth Rich was shot twice in the head with a gun. How can that be labeled as anything other than murder EVEN IF it was a random robbery? When a cop shoots an unarmed suspect, the same people calling this story a conspiracy theory are the same ones to call it a MURDER, not a "death."NashvilleKJH (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)NashvilleKJH (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose It could be just a coincidence, However the latest Breaking: ‘Complete Panic’ at Highest Levels of DNC Over Kim DotCom’s Seth Rich Announcement - It wasn’t the Russians. Saturday, an anonymous person who works in Washington DC, alleged on 4Chan’s /pol/ subgroup that high-ranking current and former Democratic Party officials are terrified of the Seth Rich murder investigation. This comes after internet entrepreneur and hacker, Kim DotCom, admitted on Saturday that he was part of an operation along with Seth Rich to get stolen DNC emails to Wikileaks. “The behavior is near open panic. To even mention this name in D.C. Circles [sic] will bring you under automatic scrutiny. To even admit that you have knowledge of this story puts you in immediate danger. If there was no smoke there would be no fire. I have never, in my 20 years of working in D.C. Seen [sic] such a panicked reaction from anyone. I have strong reason to believe that the smoking gun in this case is out o [sic] the hands of the conspirators, and will be discovered by anon. I know for certain that Podesta is deeply concerned. He’s been receiving anonymous calls and emails from people saying they know the truth. Same with Hillary.” [1] 72.228.136.47 (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose If the murder had already been "solved" i.e. they already had a suspect and were charging them, etc. then could call it a conspiracy theory. But the murder is suspicious. He was a robbery victim supposedly, but nothing was taken. And to infer that there is no connection to Clinton when he worked at the DNC is also clearly biased considering it is common knowledge that she is one of the most corrupt persons ever to run for the office. For the record, I am not a Trump, Clinton, RNC or DNC supporter, and while I don't believe yet that Clinton did kill Seth Rich, I wouldn't be surprised by it. I would not be opposed to some kind of edit to reference that this is just a theory, but it is clear to me that the person proposing the change to say "conspiracy theory" is trying to discredit an idea that has not be proven to be wrong yet. If we're being honest, using the term "conspiracy theory" is not being "accurate" or "helpful to the reader", it is essentially name-calling and demeaning of those you disagree with. Also, citing what an intelligence agency may have said without any evidence is not proof. If you do want to label anything a theory, it should be everything on this page, because it is all opinion, including everything saying it was "the Russians". There is no evidence that any of this is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.5.224 (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WTTG

I have copied the "Fox News controversy" section and pasted it at WTTG. We can either keep all of it here too, or instead replace it here with a sentence like "In May 2017, there was a controversial news report about the Rich murder that was subsequently discredited." I would think the latter approach more appropriate, since this is more about screwy reporting than about Seth Rich's life or death (but I will not myself remove any of this material from the present article at this time). Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more appropriate to have a brief mention at the local Fox article that points to the larger coverage here. The thrust of the story is conservative media pushing a fringe conspiracy theory regarding the death of a DNC staffer, trying to tie it to the larger Clinton murder conspiracies. Which local Fox affiliate did the actual initial reporting is at best a mildly informative data point. ValarianB (talk) 11:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have truncated the material at WTTG (referred to in the present article as "Fox 5 DC") given the lack of support here for putting the bulk of material at that article and summarizing here in this article. I still disagree with putting all this material here rather than there, because the material is not about Rich's life or death but rather about journalistic error, not to mention journalistic error that the Rich family believes tarnished his legacy. If consensus changes, as it ought to, I'll be glad to restore the material at WTTG and summarize here in this BLP-like BDP. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anythingyouwant - why did you do this? There's clearly no consensus for such an action AND you said you'd back away from this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I said I wanted to back out of a previous conversation with you. No consensus is needed here to edit a totally different article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 May 2017

Murder of Seth Rich → Murder of Seth Rich conspiracy theory – 1. This is why this is WP:N. It is a debunked conspiracy theory. 2. It conforms with Pizzagate conspiracy theory 3. For BLP and WP:AVOIDVICTIM, I think this is how how the family would want this viewed as it helps debunk some of the BS around their son's death. There is no need for Wikipedia to further the victimization of the family and it should be a place for a reader to quickly understand the basic facts. Casprings (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I support the move. Sources overwhelmingly refer to this as a conspiracy theory. The murder is only notable due to the conspiracy theories it has given rise to. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move. This article has existed for quite a while without turning into conspiracy-theory-central, and the several AfD's have emphasized the importance of keeping it that way. Arguably, this article still falls under WP:BLP which covers people after death for as much as two years. Rich's family stated: "We simply want to find his killers and grieve. Instead, we are stuck having to constantly fight against non-facts, baseless allegations, and general stupidity to defend my brother’s name and legacy." Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As for pleasing Rich's family (while laudable, I'm not sure how it relates to Wiki policy), I can't think of a better way to "fight against non-facts, baseless allegations, and general stupidity" think having the first result from a Google Search leading to a Wikipedia page describing the theories surrounding his death as the conspiracy theories that RS say that they are and that his family says that they are. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it's quite disingenuous to cite the family's wishes here when nobody seemed to have cared about those a month ago. Calling a spade (conspiracy theory) a spade (conspiracy theory) is the best way to respect the family's wishes. It's also what WP:BLP requires.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki policy does not require everything Rich-related to be dumped here. We could just say, for example, "In May 2017 there was a controversial news report about the Rich murder that was later discredited". Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Support - Seems to be better compliance with WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Changing to oppose after considering other opposes. - - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was never taken seriously by anyone outside of a very narrow political persuasion. Geogene (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RS overwhelmingly describe it as a conspiracy theory. Do you contest that? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And until the murderers are found and/or the DNC email leaker is revealed it is technically impossible to debunk this theory regardless of what the press reports of the family states. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We already know who leaked the DNC emails: it was Fancy Bear, aka, the Russian Federation electronic warfare services. Geogene (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I have suggested "Seth Rich homicide". Much more compact. Daniel Case (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how this would matter. The conspiracy theories would still be a notable topic. If conclusive evidence turns up that it was a robbery that would be EVEN MORE of a reason to have an article on the notable conspiracy theories rather than the non-notable crime. So, uh, you're sort of making the case for "Support" here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It used to be on this page that even describing the conspiracy theories was WP:PROFRINGE and a violation of WP:BLP. Now it's suddenly considered the only notable aspect of the article. The crime is easily notable without the current bloated conspiracy section, as demonstrated by TFD. FallingGravity 04:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The murder meets "notablity" on its own. It received coverage in numerous media outlets at the time and continued to receive coverage before the media began covering the "conspiracy theories." The unsolved murders of middle class white people in otherwise safe neighborhoods tends to attract attention in the United States media. Also, this type of suggestion which was made on the pretext of respect for the victim's family merely provokes more discussion. The article should explain what mainstream media say and provide the same weight to different aspects of mainstream coverage. If editors think mainstream media is covering this case poorly, then complain to them. Or get Wikipedia's content policies changed. Discussions about whether or not we are following policy are difficult enough, without arguing about whether or not to follow them. TFD (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Besides local news coverage about the murder itself, what RS coverage was there of the murder unrelated to conspiracy theories? I'm genuinely curious. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Initially reported 11 July 2016 in the Washington Post,[14] FOX 5 DC,[15] CNN,[16] The Hill, [17] Politico,[18] WJLA/ABC7,[19] NBC Washington,[20] and you can find dozens more through Google.[21] Most of these articles are signed, that is unique reporting rather than off the wire, some have detailed biographical info, most include pictures, some extensive and there are television news clips. The following week there was coverage of the vigil, biographical notes, HRC's comments, and information about the family.[22] Although there was both local and national coverage, notability does not require national coverage. The point of the policy is to ensure that there are adequate reliable sources to write a story, not the degree of interest to readers nationally or internationally. TFD (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. A lot of that seems local but definitely some nat news coverage. It strikes me as unlikely that this would ever merit a Wikipedia article on the basis of only the coverage related to the conspiracy theories though. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There could be two separate articles--RandomUser3510 (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Black Knight satellite conspiracy theory is an article about a collection of conspiracy theories. In that case, there is no black knight satellite. It doesn't exist, so there's nothing to write about absent the conspiracy theories. So that makes sense.
The Pizzagate conspiracy theory is an another article purely about a conspiracy theory. Again, the subject doesn't exist. There is no sex ring operating out of the basement of a pizzaria in D.C. So there's nothing to write about factually (the real parties involved all either have articles or aren't notable, even with the bullshit about them).
Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories is a case where the subject of the conspiracy theories is real. However, we also have an article about Barack Obama, and merging the two would make it, frankly, unreadable.
Now, I'm not saying that Seth Rich was a notable person. I'm not even saying that his murder was a notable event in and of itself. But it gave birth to all these conspiracy theories. That, in and of itself establishes notability. It is, thanks to the conspiracy theories, an event which has been discussed extensively in the RSes. To rename this article, we're shifting the focus from the facts to the bullshit. Is that really a very encyclopedic thing to do? I don't think so. I think we should write an article about the facts, which contains due information about the bullshit. We should, in all cases seek to avoid articles that focus on bullshit topics, unless we have no other choice. In this case, we certainly have a choice. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
His murder is notable BECAUSE of the conspiracy theories. That is the point. The article should provide the reader information for why this is WP:N. The murder itself is just a crime unless there are conspiracy theories developed.Casprings (talk) 22:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I agree with everything you said there. Yet my point stands. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "General notability guideline" says, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." As I showed above, there was extensive on-going coverage of the subject long before mainstream media took notice of the conspiracy theories. These included a biography of the victim, a detailed recounting of the crime, information about the family, comments from police and Hillary Clinton, and reactions to the crime, including a vigil. One may question whether news media should cover criminal cases and perhaps they should not have reported it. Perhaps Wikipedia should not have articles about crimes. But clearly it is well justified by current policy. In fact, the conspiracy theories have only been covered in mainstream media because the event itself was notable. For example, the death of Shawn Lucas the following month also became the subject of conspiracy theories,[23] but they were not notable because the death itself was not. TFD (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Having researched and written the Nigg article, I now greatly regret having used "Murder" in the name for a case that remains unsolved and likely always will. Henryk Siwiak homicide is how it should be done, IMO. Daniel Case (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – For better or for worse, this murder is notable. Conspiracy theories and other speculation about the circumstances and motive are just one part of the article subject. — JFG talk 01:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • support The only thing notable is the conspiracy theories that have been flogged since shortly after the murder. Most of the article is about the conspiracy theories as well. Jytdog (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With the Russian Embassy in London now promoting the conspiracy theory on twitter[2], that section is likely to grow. 70.178.51.81 (talk)

References

  1. ^ Carter | thegatewaypundit, May 21st, 2017
  2. ^ "Russia promotes conspiracy theory on DNC staffer's death".
There is only one "theory" - Rich was the DNC email leaker for Wikileaks and he was murdered as a result. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is untrue. There is a second conspiracy theory floating around out there that doesn't claim Rich as a source of the leak--quite the opposite--and people that are familiar with the sources will know what I'm talking about. But I'm not here to give conspiracy theorists a podium. Geogene (talk) 05:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Clear family preference and indeed, absent the conspiracy theory, this would just be a sad but ordinary and non-notable murder. Montanabw(talk) 03:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move -- the murder continues to be notable because of the conspiracy theories. Otherwise, it would be routine crime blotter. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree with ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants' analysis above. I'll add to that though to say that lengthening the title here would narrow the article's scope for reasons that should be probed. I understand the argument that there's no "there" there beyond a conspiracy theory. But I've got a philosophical objection to how that's established in the title which can't be footnoted as opposed to the body which can and it follows from the fact Wikipedia's epistemology is a posteriori as opposed to a priori. Apologies for getting abstract here but it's the difference between saying all observed ducks are white and saying, categorically, all ducks are white. It's one thing to say there is nothing to this and another thing to say there will never be anything to this. If we were to consider the 2012 Benghazi attack I understand that's different in that there would always still be an indisputably notable attack even if there were never any political controversy about the attack. But what if the attack was split off and the remainder subject to a retitling proposal as some sort of (right wing) manufactured conspiracy. That that would be contentious when we should look to create consensus would just be part of it. The other part is why do we have to have the title definitively settle what the matter was all about instead of just presenting the whole thing under the title of 2012 Benghazi attack? The editor proposing a move here has cited reasons like "helps debunk" that have the air of advocacy. Read the body of this article and it debunks the conspiracy theory; pushing for more than that doesn't help broaden editor consensus. "But it's true that it's just a conspiracy" is a problematic statement because of the sort of proofs involved with "just"; - we can go through those proofs in the body of the article but we can't in the title. I submit that Benghazi is the more similar case here than Pizzagate because Benghazi followed an actual event, like here, whereas Pizzagate basically invented the underlying event as well. I also note we don't have Murder of Vince Foster conspiracy theories we've got simply Suicide of Vince Foster. Again, adding "conspiracy" to the title is an unnecessary narrowing of scope (and the family's wishes are irrelevant, by the way).--Brian Dell (talk) 05:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because:
  1. Not inclusive
    The suggested new title is not inclusive of all views. It would risk to limit the views. I mean some contributors interested to add views might feel excluded :( In other words, the present title feels more inclusive, as it is more general and allow a wide range of views :) I strongly believe that diversity of views is a strength. Not a weakness. By keeping the present inclusive title it is more likely that contributors will feel the Wikipedia Love and might be interested to contribute news views or further expend existing views. Speaking for myself I enjoy listening and learning about new views. All views are valuable to me. Even if I disagree with some views ;) I'm really ok with any views to be included in the article. Assuming that all views are notable and comply with all Wikipedia agreements. Then that is good enough to me. In addition to all of the above points, the more notable views are included, the better the article is with Neutral Point of View (NPOV). Francewhoa (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The primary topic of this article is the murder, not the conspiracy.
    While at the same time I agree to keep that already existing article section titled "Conspiracy theories". For the details about notable subtopics, such as conspiracy theories, controversies, and their related allegations. How about in the future, if that Conspiracy theories section become significantly large, and there is a general consensus, that section could be move to its own sub-article. Which could be titled "Murder of Seth Rich conspiracy theory". With links between both this primary article and its sub article.
  3. According to Snopes the latest notable conspiracy is unproved.[1] But the murder is proven.
    Snopes have done extensive digging about the latest notable and alleged conspiracy about Seth being the DNC insider source of Wikileaks, not Russia. As of May 19, 2017 Snopes' conclusion is that this relationship is "unproved". In other words, according to Snopes, neither "false" nor "true". Again I feel it's notable, but still not the primary topic of this Wikipedia article. Because that conspiracy is without evidence from independent source(s) and without public evidence for public review.
Francewhoa (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.snopes.com/seth-rich-dnc-wikileaks-murder/
  • Oppose: The current title is the concise title - the who did it and why revolves round the murder. Also, 1) the proposal makes murder-during-robbery just another conspiracy theory, and 2) the proposal does politicize the murder. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The title is fine as it is. ArniDagur (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move. Seth Rich was murdered. That is a FACT. There may be conspiracy theories related to this fact,

but Rich's death is notable for reasons besides the conspiracy theories. Besides, it is not too much to ask that the facts in this article be separated from the unsubstantiated claims; just look at the article for Ahmed Mohamed clock incident. MagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Murder" as noted above, is a judicial verdict and a judicial verdict only. "Seth Rich was the victim of homicide" is the fact Wikipedia can state. "Seth Rich was murdered" will have to wait. Daniel Case (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get that justification. If you kill someone while robbing them, it's a murder. If you and your buddy are robbing a bank, and your pal is killed in the process, in many jurisdictions you will be charged with felony murder. So obviously what you're saying isn't strictly true. Geogene (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In those circumstances you are talking about a known defendant and known circumstances. If charges were pending against someone, "Seth Rich murder case" would be justifiable. Without any charges, we do not know the circumstances under which Rich was killed. For all we know the killers could have done it in self-defense. The police and coroner can only reach "homicide", i.e. killed by someone else with no implication as to motive. And for now, per BLP and OR, that is the only word we can ethically use in the title. Daniel Case (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We're relating what RS report, Mr. Case -- not what we know. I think that your comment about for all we know is gratuitous and offensive to the family and to the memory of the victim and it adds nothing to the policy-based sourcing discussion here. I hope we can all discuss things here without undue speculation or casual references to this troubling subject. SPECIFICO talk 18:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO: If the RSes know enough about the crime to know who did it and what their motives were, then they should let the police know. Because when they describe it as "murder", they are in fact engaging in "undue speculation" about that exact subject.

The point about the killing being possibly self-defense was meant as a pure hypothetical, which apparently not everyone has been swift enough to grasp. I don't think it was—but what I or you think about the killers' possible motives or the lack thereof doesn't mean diddly about what we should name the article as long as the facts of the case remain as they are now. I brought up self-defense simply because it's the best-known explanation for a homicide not being a murder, or even manslaughter (ask Robert Durst about the Morris Black case, for one). Far too many people don't seem to understand, nor want to understand, that there is a crucial difference between those two terms, one our article naming needs to reflect if we mean OR and BLP be taken seriously.

To say it was offensive to the memory of the victim is a disingenuous attempt to divert this discussion from its real issue: that is so many different shades of wrong to use "murder" in the title of this article. Daniel Case (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel's legal arguments are completely spurious, as one can see by reading Homicide and Murder and the sources used in them. Also, I repeat: WP:COMMONNAME is a thing. Finally, his argument about OR is completely backwards, as it's his original research being used to support his claims, not anything verifiable in reliable sources (meanwhile, "murder" is verifiable in virtually all sources, reliable or not). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MjolnirPants: I don't see anything in Murder that would justify not making the distinction in an article title about an unsolved homicide. I assume you understood this when you typed it, or in addition to referencing "sources", you would have actually attempted to include some that could be perceived on a cursory glance as jutifying your position.

As for homicide, I note that the intro says:

Homicides can be divided into many overlapping legal categories, including murder, manslaughter, justifiable homicide, killing in war, euthanasia, and capital punishment, depending on the circumstances of the death. These different types of homicides are often treated very differently in human societies; some are considered crimes, while others are permitted or even ordered by the legal system.

Take heed of that last clause, please, as it clearly implies a distinction imposed the action of the legal system (And how many police departments have a detective branch called "Murder"?

As for OR, getting past your attempt to rework "I know you are, but what am I?" into a valid argument (and OR applies only to the content of articles, not policy interpretations), consider that by calling a killing "murder", we are doing the work properly restricted to a judge or trial jury. It is no different from how it would be if we stated a scientific hypothesis as if it were proven fact. Daniel Case (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, you provided an argument that was not sourced to any reliable source, but came from your own mind to support removing a term which is used frequently by RSes in favor of a term you prefer. Even if your argument were not based on a misrepresentation of law in the United States (the jurisdiction of this event), that would be WP:OR, unquestionably. This isn't rhetoric, this is the very definition of OR. The only thing rhetorical about my comment was the part I never actually typed about how unbelievably ridiculous it is to suggest that us preferring the term used by RS's is somehow OR and the link to WP:CIR that I didn't actually include in it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MjolnirPants: Our arguments about what to call our articles do not have to be "sourced to a reliable source"—only the facts stated within those articles do. I think you should take a break from editing; you're starting to apply Wikipedia editorial policy to the real world, which is a sure signpost on the route to madness.

How to implement policy in specific instances is as much a matter of consensus editorial judgement as it is of the wording of said policies ... and your own words are the only source for your judgement that matters. Calling someone's argument OR is kind of besides the point ... all arguments are OR.

You have yet to state in any coherent fashion how it possibly is that I am "misrepresenting" the law (Just so we get this out of the way, where did you go to law school? What state bars are you admitted to? What areas of law do you practice?). I can only charitably conclude that it is because you haven't yet grasped the difference between homicide and murder (let's try it one more time: all murders are homicides, but not all homicides are murders. Do you at least understand that? Say yes and we can get to how that difference operates, and maybe get along better).

You repeatedly say "but all the RSes use it". That does not necessarily mean we have use it. COMMONNAME isn't the only subsection of NC ... in this case I would also direct you to WP:NDESC, which to me weighs in favor of using "homicide" in the title. Daniel Case (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case Please read WP:BLUDGEON and WP:1AM. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Make that Seth Rich homicide. There is no dispute that Rich died at the hands of another. Daniel Case (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No thank you. I prefer simply "Death of Seth Rich", since to me that seems simpler and adequately descriptive. I don't think we need to put the cause of death in the title. Other homicides include Death of JonBenét Ramsey, Death of Caylee Anthony, Death of Osama bin Laden, Death of Muammar Gaddafi, Death of Joseph Smith, Death of Mark Duggan, Death of Jean Charles de Menezes, Death of Khaled Mohamed Saeed, Death of Neda Agha-Soltan, Death of Damilola Taylor, Death of Abdul Wali, Death of Keith Blakelock, Death of Kenneth Salvesen, Death of Benito Mussolini, Death of Yehuda Shoham, Death of Jennifer Laude, Death of Linda Norgrove, Death of Rigoberto Alpizar, Death of Jasmine Fiore, Death of Abdulredha Buhmaid, etc. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Death of JonBenét Ramsey: no charge ever filed. Death of Caylee Anthony: mother acquitted of the murder charge because the prosecution couldn't even prove the cause of death was homicide. Death of Jean Charles de Menezes: possibly a justified police use of force; see also Death of Eric Garner.

In other words, mostly not as clear cut a homicide as this. Daniel Case (talk) 06:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be confusing homicide with murder. Homicide does not require charges to be filed (e.g., Death of JonBenét Ramsey and several – perhaps most – of those others did not involve any criminal charges), since homicide is not necessarily a crime. Justified use of police force (perhaps Death of Jean Charles de Menezes) is still homicide. Yes, I suppose the Death of Caylee Anthony might not have been firmly established as homicide (despite the body in the trash bag, the duct tape, and the smell in the car), so perhaps that one of my twenty examples might not have been homicide. If nineteen isn't enough, should I list another twenty? Why should I see Death of Eric Garner? Offhand, I don't think I would include that one in my next list of twenty. My point is that I see no obligation for us to include the cause of the death in a title. Many articles about deaths, whether homicide or not, do not put the cause of death in the title (even in cases where this would not be difficult). —BarrelProof (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BarrelProof: Actually, confusing homicide with murder on the same grounds you cited is what I've been arguing against above, since no one has been convicted of murder in the present case. The JBR article excepted (and maybe not, since one theory is that she suffered the head blow accidentally and the family made it look like a homicide to avoid embarrassment, although I can't remember if that's in the article or not) from what I have been able to review, the "Death of ..." title is reserved for cases where there is an actual dispute as to what caused the death (such as Death of Gareth Williams, where two different official investigations came to differing conclusions) or where the officially determined cause is one thing but reliably sourced questions have been raised about that (there's a lot of this in Category:Death conspiracy theories, or the deaths of people who were already notable enough for separate articles).

In the instant case there is no dispute from any side that Seth Rich was killed by gunshots fired by another person. We have generally tried to take account of this when titling articles ... I think the exception whereby people killed by the police such as Garner or Menezes where no charges were brought against the officers involved seems to arise from those deaths being considered justifiable and thus not leading to charges after being investigated (Still, however, I think a more descriptive title for them would be warranted, like "Police killing of ...")

"Many articles about deaths, whether homicide or not, do not put the cause of death in the title". Our past inertia and incorrect titling on this matter do not justify present inaction on this matter. Daniel Case (talk) 01:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You said "the 'Death of ...' title is reserved for cases where there is an actual dispute as to what caused the death". I don't think that's true. Can you point to any evidence for that statement, such as a pointer to a Wikipedia guideline? —BarrelProof (talk) 02:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the JBR case, the cause of death was strangulation, not the blow to the head, so even if the blow to the head was an accident (a possibility not directly discussed in the article except in relation to a false confession that makes it irrelevant), it was still a homicide. And even an accidental killing may be considered a homicide (or even a murder). —BarrelProof (talk) 02:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BarrelProof:Yes, an accidental killing that resulted from someone else's action is included in homicide statistics in some jurisdictions, even if no criminal negligence was found on the actor's part. If a such a death results in no charges (even with civil liability), I am comfortable with us using "Death of ...".

As for the Ramsey article, this question has been much discussed over there as well of late.

I admit there is no guideline saying this. I think there should be. But even without that I think it's a matter of simple logic. Daniel Case (talk) 01:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose the current proposal. For one thing, it's a pretty awkward descriptive title, and for another, Rich's death itself is significant outside of the conspiracy theories that grew up around it. Death of Seth Rich would be a neutral alternative that's fairly widely used at many other articles on murders and homicides.--Cúchullain t/c 15:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this is a murder / death about which there is a conspiracy theory, not a conspiracy theory within which Seth Rich was murdered. It is independently notable, same as many other events about which there are FRINGE theories. Koncorde (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually that's incorrect. The conspiracy theory has nothing to do with Mr. Rich. It's part of a longstanding meme that the Clintons are murderers and another nonsense narrative, that the Russians did not hack the Dem's emails. This propaganda was hung on a random event. Just like when Hillary tripped getting into her car and Trump said she had a stroke, or countless other such pretexts. The conspiracy theory uses random (as in unrelated) events on which to hang the narrative. And nothing about the murder itself supports WP notability. That was conclusively demonstrated at the first AfD, when unfortunately there were many editors who hadn't figured out the ruse yet. SPECIFICO talk 01:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As it stands, as a single article, the word controversy might be acceptable, but conspiracy theory is not as it suggests the murder itself were in dispute (the fact he was shot in the back twice and later died as a result has consensus). Spinning off the conspiracy theory portion into a separate article, with a portion embedded, could be acceptable as well. Replacing murder with death would be acceptable. UniversityofPi (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Death of Seth Rich -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Do a word-count: The article has 900 words devoted to the conspiracy theory, and 950 words devoted to the non-conspiracy theory. I would support if the conspiracy section was significantly larger, but that hasn't happened yet. --Hirsutism (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm disputing your count as it is incorrect. I also did a word count using Wordcounttools.com, and after removing the citation #'s ([1][2][3] etc.), I found 1657 words related to the conspiracy theory, and only 495 words not related to the conspiracy theory. To be clear, the only content I found that was not related to the conspiracy were, 1. The first sentence in the lead, 2. Early life and career (section), 3. Death and aftermath (section). The rest is all tied to conspiracy theory, which is approximately 3/4ths of the entire article. Darknipples (talk) 03:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose He was murdered-no? There is more dedicated to his death than to a fringe conspiracy theory, changing the title would be a gross misappropriation of the page's content. PalmerTheGolfer (talk)PalmerTheGolfer
  • Oppose This change-request is clearly politically motivated and would provide counter-factual information. A Fake News section could be added listing the claims of his murder debunked ending with citation of the D.C. police report concluding it was an attempted robbery and homicide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagmaiKH (talk • contribs) 22:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The murder and its investigation are not conspiracy theories, but conspiracy theories have been latched on due to RS coverage of them. Also, even though a 'murder' hasn't been proven in a court of law, it is a reasonable conclusion no matter what tale one believes. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Murder of Seth Rich is not a conspiracy theory, it's a fact. I know the intended meaning but just wanted to point out the selected replacement is vague and someone may think from the title that Seth Rich is someone who is actually alive and there is a conspiracy theory going on that he is murdered and replaced by an imposter or something. Secondly, the murder itself is notable not just the conspiracy theories surrounding the murder. If the conspiracy theories are so extensive that it needs to be the focus of the article, it could be expanded into a separate article. Let's say "Conspiracy theories on the murder of Seth Rich" or something like that, but this article should not be renamed. Darwinian Ape talk 20:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Unfortunately, fake news has overtaken this topic and leaving as "Murder of Seth Rich" only adds fuel to the never ending conspiracy theories and creates an inaccurate/false depiction on Wikipedia. May I suggest changing the name to "Death of Seth Rich" instead? CloudKade11 (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changing the name of the article because it "adds fuel" to conspiracy theories is not a valid argument, and I suspect this kind of Officer Barbrady-esque, move along nothing to see here, attitude actually adds much more fuel than a factual description.Darwinian Ape talk 00:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is a valid argument when Wikipedia becomes a factor in spreading these conspiracy theories. And I suggest changing it to "Death of Seth Rich" as many above have also suggested. CloudKade11 (talk) 00:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. Please read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS Darwinian Ape talk 08:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about you read WP:BLP and WP:HOAX. Also WP:PTOPIC.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:NPOV. We're not here to debunk fake news, we're here to build an encyclopedia from a neutral point of view. It's not our problem if our encyclopedic content "adds fuel to the fire." PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 01:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What in the world does NOTCENSORED have to do with anything? What is being censored? And an encyclopedia written from a neutral point of view describes what is covered in reliable sources - THAT's NPOV. And source describe this as a conspiracy theory, hence that is what the article name should reflect.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What in the world BLP, HOAX and PTOPIC have to do with my objection to the argument that we should change the name because it adds fuel to conspiracy theories? I don't care if it adds fuel or not, that's not our job or concern as Wikipedia volunteers. All I care is; does the title reflect the events and is it in accordance with WP policies. That's why the arguments such as "it adds fire" or "makes someone look bad" is irrelevant and is an example of tendentious editing. Darwinian Ape talk 22:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Changing the title to include "conspiracy theory" itself is a non-neutral act. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. By dismissing it as a conspiracy theory, you're clearly taking a side. I think it is appropriate to have a section for the conspiracy theories, but to make the whole title of the case a "conspiracy" is again violating a core value of Wikipedia: neutrality. --Ashleyclairerovira (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, if it is widely regarged as a conspiracy theory in reliable sources, then wikipedia will reflect that. It is perfectly neutral to call a spade a spade. Darwinian Ape talk 00:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Um, you have three edits on this account.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as this whole entire article and the wider topic has been subsumed by this debunked conspiracy theory, as evidenced by PolitiFact. Sagecandor (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per above--Valkyrie Red (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The title of the page was already changed from Seth Rich to it's current title early in on its creation, and I see no point in changing it again. Consensus was met that enough controversy surrounded the subject that, "the murder of" was OK to include in to the title taking into account the sources reporting on the subject.. There's no reason to narrowly construe the title of this page further. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 02:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Anyone who is interested in making sure Wikipedia is an unbiased source of information has to support the move. We're here to debunk misinformation and conspiracy theories, right? I'm appalled by the conclusion-jumping and boldface innuendo surrounding the poor man's murder. In the interest of truth, we shouldn't lend credence to nonsense. Chisme (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm interested in making sure Wikipedia is an unbiased source of information and I DO NOT support the move. Wikipedia is not Snopes.com or Buzzfeed. --Chlorineer (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per TFD. Additionally the article could use reorganization: focus on the murder with additional sections on: Rich's background, conspiracy theories, media controversy and response to media controversy. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support On its own the murder lacks any notability whatsoever. A person got murdered during a robbery in a big city. That's it. IT IS the conspiracy theories which make this topic notable and which justify us even having this article in the first place. Properly naming the article is policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's true. The very first revision of the article had more to say about the conspiracy theory than the actual murder. --Hirsutism (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the article was actually created (by a now indef banned account) to spread the conspiracy theory. Of course, if your purpose is to spread a conspiracy theory you don't call it a "conspiracy theory" cuz that sort of gives the game away. It's amazing how many of the "oppose" votes above (including the numerous ones with just a handful of edits) are still trying to enable that approach.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(and doesn't this mean you should change your !vote above?) Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that's a pretty persuasive way to put things. Indeed the only notable thing was the conspiracy theory. I remember arguing against the deletion way back when because the topic was notable, but not the way our article read at the time (no mentions of the theory). I'll think about it and reconsider my vote. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We didn't edit conflict, but I think we're on the same wavelength. See below.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's instructive to look at the original AFD of this article right after it was created. Here it is [24]. The one thing that stands out is that all the "delete" !votes are saying "there's nothing notable about this murder". All the "keep" !votes are saying "but he could've been the DNC leaker and was killed because of it". In other words, all the "keep" !votes wanted it kept because of the conspiracy theory (although of course they didn't call it that). So the only reason this article actually exists on Wikipedia is because of the conspiracy theory involved. The name of the article should properly reflect that, per WP:PTOPIC.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

  • Oppose - This article does not need to be limited to the so-called conspiracy side. It can cover both sides fairly and honestly as the facts unfold. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 01:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support We need to do this because the crime itself is not notable and has not received coverage that would make it so. Thousands of murders are briefly covered in the media but do not pass WP:NOTABLE. But we also need to do it so that the focus of the article is on the perpetration and stoking of the conspiracy theory by partisans and some media. The crime is so clearly not NOTBABLE that the very fact some editors think otherwise only proves that we should be diving deep (as the Americans say) into the facts and dynamics of the conspiracy theory. SPECIFICO talk 01:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Whether Rich's killing was a political hit or not, the killer certainly does not want his identity known. He (or they) may even be working among us. The robbery theory is also unconfirmed and only speculative, but "murder" (rather than just "death") is applicable in either instance. However, the only way I would support a name change would be if and when the supposedly "debunked," "baseless," "discredited," "false," "stupid," "defamatory," "sociopathic," and "impossible" (it is in no way impossible) political theory is confirmed with solid, incontrovertible evidence, such as with further definitive leaks, a recorded telephone call, forensic analysis of Rich's computer, or a confession. In that case, I would support a name change to "Execution of Seth Rich." - JGabbard (talk) 03:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide policy based reasons for your vote instead wacky as shit conspiracy theorizing. Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The article had survived multiple AFD's before Fox promoted the conspiracy theory, the murder is primary and the theory is secondary, an article on the murder covers both, an article on the theory can only cover that. To those who use the parents wishes, i am sure they would be even more upset at an encyclopedia calling their sons death a "conspiracy theory". The conspiracy rests on who committed the murder, not that a murder did not take place, hence "Murder of Seth Rich Conspiracy" makes no valid sense as a murder did occur. GuzzyG (talk) 08:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It survived these AfDs based solely on the rationale that there was a notable conspiracy theory out there. And it was out there even before Fox News reignited it. As has already been pointed out the only reason this article was started was as an attempt to spread the conspiracy theory.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But the murder by itself is not notable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is notable: numerous sources have made it notable under Wikipedia's standards and three AfD decisions have decided that it is Wikipedia notable. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Seth Rich was murdered. There is a murderer out there. That is not a conspiracy theory. It's misleadin to claim the murder is a conspiracy theory. JFK was assassinated and there are conspiracy theories about the assassination but that doesn't change the fact that he was assassinated. Changing the title would e going against all the reliable sources to parrot the fringe view. Just no. --DHeyward (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comparing Seth Rich to someone like JFK seems like quite a stretch IMO. Such a comparison might only be appropriate as a WP:CONTENTFORK via WP:SUBPOV (SEE John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories). However, Seth Rich is not really notable without the attached conspiracy theories surrounding his death, hence this article is titled "MURDER of Seth Rich", instead of just "Seth Rich". Close to 3/4ths of of this article is conspiracy related content, with the lead being around 80% conspiracy related content. As an un-involved editor here, and with the utmost respect for other editors also willing to put time and effort into controversial subjects on WP, I believe there needs to be much more "non-conspiracy" related content added in order to keep the words "conspiracy theory" out of the title. Best of luck. Darknipples (talk) 01:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because of conciseness of current title. Strong Oppose for lack of clarity in the proposed title: i.e., He really was murdered. That isn't a conspiracy theory. Oppose because the murder was notable enough to survive at least two AfDs before the conspiracy theorists even jumped on board, so the main argument supporting the move is invalid. Strong oppose because the proposed new title is incredibly stupid for this topic. First Light (talk) 03:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because, as other people have said, the only really notable thing about this murder is the conspiracy theories surrounding it. The only treatment that would not merit such a focus is a "Murder" section in the "Seth Rich" page, and that page doesn't exist because the guy is not notable enough. LahmacunKebab (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A large section of the article is covering the murder. Stikkyy t/c 05:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of Kim Dotcom?

See: http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/seth-rich-murder-conspiracy-theories-reemerge-as-kim-dotcom-weighs-in/news-story/f83799b656d13c98a6ad96e30a918178 Terrorist96 (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, per NOTNEWS. Geogene (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/20/the-seth-rich-conspiracy-shows-how-fake-news-still-works/?utm_term=.6c42452fd194. Blowhards are coming out of the woodwork, so this probably doesn't deserve more than a very brief mention... if anything. -Location (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well we'll see how the Kim Dotcom story develops. Could be something major depending on whether or not he delivers evidence. 63.152.121.57 (talk) 06:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of new info regarding Kim Dotcom and Seth Rich's social media accounts, (Seth liked Pandas), in New Zealand Herald (a RS): Seth Rich murder conspiracy theories re-emerge as Kim Dotcom weighs in. Kim is going to make a statement Tuesday. Hannity has invited Kim to speak on his show. Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fake news. Anybody with a Twitter account can claim to be connected to this. Geogene (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now Washington Post is saying Newt Gingrich is questioning the murder Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So yeah, Kim Dotcom released his "statement" and it's literally just him saying that some other anonymous dude told him something and that he's sure that anonymous dude was Seth Rich because reasons. So no, this doesn't belong in the article anywhere. It's a publicity stunt that we have no need of aiding. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Snooganssnoogans has added mentions of Kim Dotcom in the article now. I don't understand (and consensus doesn't support) how the article about the Murder of Seth Rich needs the following statements about Kim Dotcom - "sought by the United States on fraud charges," "made similarly grandiose claims," and "been found to have fabricated evidence." Snoogans there's a lot of attention on your selective editing to with regards to NPOV right now and I would advise you to revert this.

How do you suggest that I balance it and which RS should I use? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would follow User:Geogene and User:NorthBySouthBaranof and say don't include it for now. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update on the Kim Dotcom story. Apparently he tried to use Mega.nz to hack into Seth Rich's Gmail account, which ultimately failed. FallingGravity 19:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble following the allegations in this article:
  1. Someone setup a "fake" email account (confusing because if the account is fake no setup is involved)
  2. A Mega.nz account was registered to the fake account
  3. Rich's account received a welcome email when the Mega.nz account was registered (even though the welcome email should have gone to the fake account)
  4. Experts concluded the link in the welcome email would have granted others access to Rich's account (despite reporting that the link was not clicked by Rich's family, no mention is made of others)
  5. This leads the article's author? (it's unattributed) to conclude Kim Dotcom tried to hack Rich's account to create a fake archive of Rich's emails
If (3-5) are true why were (1) and (2) necessary, or are these two unrelated claims? Has this been confirmed independently? I can only find one other piece a Slate blog sourced to this (Weigel's) article. I have some serious BLP concerns and the author's history isn't reassuring. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I haven't seen other outlets pick this up. May be fake news. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Washington Post is a reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And what's so freakin' hard to understand? The article is pretty self explanatory.
Also, you might want to start watching BLP yourself with regard to Weigel.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find independent confirmation, but nobody has refuted it, and it's also been referenced in Uproxx and Heat Street. FallingGravity 03:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So apparently Kim denies he tried to hack Seth's account. Whether or not this is true is anyone's guess. I'm not personally inclined to believe him, but I guess the best thing to do now is to wait for more sources to examine this before including the usual "WaPo reported this; Dotcom denied" spiel. FallingGravity 07:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Newt Gingrich

The family's spokesperson has had some very choice words for Gingrich [25]. I'm not sure if this should be included. On one hand, he has chosen to do this and his actions are obviously causing the family grief. On the other hand, the statement is pretty harsh and I'm sure someone will cry "BLP!". At any rate, it's well sourced so I'd be inclined to putting it in, but haven't done so at this point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given his larger-than-life and aggressively promoted public persona, I don't think "Gingrich" and "BLP concern" can be used in the same sentence. Put it in. SPECIFICO talk 20:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have a simple request: Replace "Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich took also part in spreading the conspiracy." with "also took" as the correct word order. JeanEva Rose (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC) JeanEva[reply]


The lead

"The crime was used as the basis for right-wing conspiracy theories, which have since been debunked in statements by law enforcement agencies. These theories falsely stated that Rich was the source of the 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak. In reality, Russian intelligence services are most likely responsible for the hacking and the leak."

This is the lead as it currently stands. Debunked should be changed to maybe criticized or denied, falsely should be removed, and the "In reality" sentence is really bad, weakly sourced, and just plain editorializing. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see no basis for either suggestion. This is no different than the President and the birth certificate issue, a demonstrably false narrative pushed by some minor conservative sites and persons. ValarianB (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about the "In reality" part being bad writing. But "debunked" is fine. I mean, it's not like you can "prove" that aliens didn't kill JFK. But it's not inaccurate to say that the "aliens killed JFK" theory has been debunked.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)If it is demonstrably false please show me the sources. There's no way to debunk that Rich was the leaker and was killed for it without knowing conclusively who the leaker was or who the murderers were. The theory should of course be described as denied by the family and as having no evidence, but it is still an ongoing theory. User:Volunteer Marek I may have missed something in that Economist article, but to my reading it doesn't attribute anything to intelligence sources. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is the whole "demanding someone prove a negative" thing. You can't prove that I'm not really a slice of intelligent cheese which has developed consciousness and shape shifting abilities. Debunked is fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I've responded to this very assertion above. You are wrong. There is no requirement, either grammatically nor practically that a debunking be unassailable in its conclusion of falsehood. Indeed, the debunking need only show that the CS is highly unlikely, which has been done in spades in this case. That being said, the "in reality" sentence can go the way of the dodo. It's not encyclopedic and it's speculative. Instead, we should say what the article says, which is that the CIA concluded that is was Russian state-sponsored hacking, not that it's "most likely". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) And if you want to remove the "According to US intelligence" part and just go with "Russian intelligence did it" that's fine. I was trying to attribute (and there's a ton of sources to back it up) in the interest of neutrality.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanations. I'm still not convinced about the wording there, but hopefully others can add some improvements. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The wording contains false assertions and original research. And we can prove JFK was not killed by aliens because reliable sources say Oswald killed him acting alone. Why not just put in what mainstream media say about the case? TFD (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
he wording contains false assertions and original research. Summation is not original research. Saying "debunked" is the semantically equivalent to saying "the conspiracy theories have been shown to be highly unlikely due to statements by law enforcement agents who have worked on the case which directly contradict the assertions of these theories, as well as the overall lack of evidence to support any assertions of these theories." It's also a lot shorter and easier to parse. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, there's no reason why the article can't be more descriptive like that. That's the basic point of not using 'debunked', which can imply there's no possibility to the evidence-based speculations (not talking about wild speculations, but those who look at facts and explore possible explanations) of some. Also, I don't think the word of law enforcement folks at this point are absolute and final -- after all, the murder hasn't been solved and law enforcement agencies aren't immune from political pressures. On top of all this, there are separate aspects to the conspiracy theories: (a) Rich leaked to Wikileaks; (b) He was murdered for leaking. (a) is plausible given current facts. (b) is murky but not outside of possibility. At best one can say (b) has been contradicted by authorities who say, as far as they know right now, they don't see evidence for it. There are increasing credible pointers to (a), though, that calling that 'debunked' is a stretch. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, there's no reason why the article can't be more descriptive like that. I literally just gave a reason why the article shouldn't be as verbose as I said and you respond by saying "of course there's no reason" why the article shouldn't be that verbose?
(not talking about wild speculations, but those who look at facts and explore possible explanations) I've yet to see a Seth Rich CS that wasn't wild speculation. Not only have all of them claimed an improbable party to be responsible, but they've all completely fabricated an improbable motive for that party, which hinges upon an improbable claim about the email hacks.
Also, I don't think the word of law enforcement folks at this point are absolute and final No-one has suggested that they were. That being said, the word of law enforcement is as final as it is possible to get. Nor is that the extent of the problem; there is no evidence to support the conspiracy theories. None whatsoever.
(a) Rich leaked to Wikileaks; (b) He was murdered for leaking. (a) is plausible given current facts. No, it is not. The CIA concluded that the email leaks were the result of state-sponsored hacking by Russia. No evidence has emerged to contradict this, and indeed, new evidence has appeared supporting this since the announcement. Numerous other intelligence agencies supported the CIA's conclusion. Numerous cybersecurity groups have also endorsed the CIA's conclusion. In addition, an independent hacker has also claimed credit for it, and numerous authorities have examined this claim and concluded it to be plausible-if-unlikely at worst. What is not plausible at this point is the presumption that 1) a DNC insider leaked the emails; and 2) that the specific insider in question was Seth Rich.
At best one can say (b) has been contradicted by authorities No, that's an "at least", not an "at best". This is equivalent to saying that "At best, WMF doesn't think MjolnirPants has hacked WP's servers." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive personal & biographical detail?

@BarrelProof:, while I appreciate the amount of effort you've put into your extensive recent edits to this article, I am concerned that they are taking large parts of it in the wrong direction and reinstating personal and biographical detail about the victim which WP takes care to avoid. If it were not for the conspiracy theories promulgated by the victim's political adversaries, this crime and Mr. Rich himself would not be WP:NOTABLE. In such cases we have elements of our core BLP policy that instruct us not to add undue personal narrative to an article. This is not a biography about the victim, and his identity and personal details are incidental to the crime and the subsequent public attention to the matter. We have WP:AVOIDVICTIM and PUBLICFIGURE and other principles that apply here.

Earlier versions of this article incorporated much of the personal and circumstantial content about Mr. Rich that you have recently added. Over a period of time, a consensus developed to remove these statements. There was extensive relevant discussion on the article talk page and also in the first two of three AfD discussions. While the ongoing and renewed coverage of the conspiracy theories and exploitation of Mr. Rich and his family have now made the exploitation WP:NOTABLE, the detail that you've recently reinserted in the article is in my opinion irrelevant to the crime and the exploitation that have made the subject notable. I would be more comfortable with this article with most of the recently-added personal and behavioral detail removed. SPECIFICO talk 23:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think this is getting way into the weeds. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give it a rest and think about it. In the meantime, I removed the following two sentences, which is probably much of what generated the negative reaction: "The manager of the bar had offered to call him a cab, but he said he preferred to walk and was thinking about stopping by another nearby night spot called the Wonderland Ballroom. He had been talking at the bar about how hard it was to balance his 12-hour-a-day job and an offer to join the Clinton presidential campaign with his relationship with his girlfriend, and some reports said he was highly intoxicated.<ref name=meme/><ref name=WhoIs/>" —BarrelProof (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there was discussion about some of this material and how much to include when the article was first started, and the consensus then was to keep most of it out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Including ordinary biographical detail. Major in school, first career moves, etc. Just about every ordinary detail is irrelevant here. The point of this event is that a person has been objectified and used as an excuse for fake news. All the detail should be removed. Just about everything personal. SPECIFICO talk 02:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not supposed to be a biography. If it were, it would fall under WP:BLP1E Geogene (talk) 02:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rather surprised by that reaction, and I disagree. I think the article should include a reasonable amount of summary biographical information (e.g., major in school and basics of career path). WP:BLP1E actually does not apply, as it says it applies "only to biographies of living people". What does apply is WP:BIO1E, but neither one of them say we should omit ordinary biographical information about a crime victim whose death is the topic of an article. I agree that the article shouldn't become a pseudo-biography, but we're only talking about a few sentences, not a huge amount of detail. I also haven't managed to find evidence of the prior consensus to leave out such information that was referred to by Volunteer Marek, although there's a lot of prior commentary to sort through when looking for that. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A WP:WORDSALAD is unpersuasive. In reporting stories about crimes, the details of victims and their activities preceding the crime are usually mentioned and they have been in this case. If you think content policies should be changed because you don't like how mainstream media report cases, then get the policy changed. TFD (talk) 05:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And it adds to the encyclopedia what? He liked penguins and pandas so Fox News blah blah? SPECIFICO talk 11:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What goes into articles is determined by policy. It should "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." If you think that mainstream media are giving the wrong proportion in their coverage then you should write a letter to the editors, or get the policy changed. If you don't think this article contributes anything then work on something else. TFD (talk) 12:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're the editor here so letters to the editor are addressed "dear TFD". Please be mindful of the subject of this article it's not a biography. SPECIFICO talk 14:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One America News Network is offering $100,000

One America News Network is offering $100,000: Read more Raquel Baranow (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was picked up on David Brock's Media Matters for America, (see: "One America News pushes shameful Seth Rich conspiracy theory"), so that should satisfy the pro-Clinton editors. TFD (talk) 00:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think this needs more widespread coverage to get included. Media Matters is a blog and doesn't really count. FallingGravity 04:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is a watchdog group employing professional journalists and researchers and is accepted as a reliable source. TFD (talk) 05:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Leave out unless picked up by mainstream sources. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Media Matters is quite within the mainstream, that's daft. Yes, this should be included. ValarianB (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TFD, as the chief Clinton Contributor here, perhaps you can suggest some text. SPECIFICO talk 19:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What about something like this in the lead: "There are currently rewards totallying $270,000 for information leading to solving the case." (Footnote can say who they are.) The reward has now been the subject of an article in the Washington Times[26]. Or we can wait until the next time CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC the NYT or WaPo mention the case. TFD (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well let's tuck our napkins under our chins and wait till it's covered by actual journalists and then you can carve the goose. SPECIFICO talk 21:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington Times is not a reliable source for anything. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @TFD, SPECIFICO, and ValarianB:) The notable Media Matters for America (MMfA) also reported on it at https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2017/05/19/seth-richs-family-sends-cease-and-desist-fox-news-contributor-behind-evidence-free-smears/216576
Here are two good news with MMfA as a source. First they are politically progressive so that source would further balance the article neutral point of view (NPOV). Second, MMfA are not-for-profit organization. The following sources also notable but are all for profit CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, NYT, WaPo. The bad news with MMfA is that it is blog not a news outlet. Blog are usually not reliable source according that Wikipedia agreement. Thus I vote to not accept that source. Unless there are no notable news outlet report, there is a general consensus among contributors to use MMfA, and their report complies with all Wikipedia agreements. Francewhoa (talk) 04:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MMfA is not a blog, but a media watchdog. While it is partisan, it is reliable. (Lots of major media are partisan.) TFD (talk) 05:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it fits under WP:NEWSBLOG. You can even see the word "blog" in the URL. FallingGravity 17:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reward should be mentioned to incentivize finding the punk who allegedly killed him! You want them to find the murderer. Raquel Baranow (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure most editors here want better answers, but that's not really our job here. FallingGravity 04:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This should definetly be added ASAP. Its pretty shameful MMfA would be used as a reliable source anywhere else, except when it doesn't follow the agenda of some of the editors here. Plus, OAN themselves say they are offering an award, and clearly they are a reliable source. I don't know why people are objecting to add this. Itsclange (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News: Statement on coverage of Seth Rich murder investigation

Needs to be placed into article: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/23/statement-on-coverage-seth-rich-murder-investigation.html

Casprings (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But we need to clarify that this refers to the May 19 (or whatever day it was) report, and not to all the subsequent coverage that the channel has given to the story (e.g. Sean Hannity has not copped to any mistakes). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There will undoubtedly be RS reporting on that statement per se since it 1) makes the contradictory claim that it always scrutinizes its stories whilst simultaneously stating that it did not scrutinize this story, and 2) it says that Fox will continue to work on the story when it's been reliably reported that Fox fabricated this narrative and that there in fact is no story to report. SPECIFICO talk 18:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Full cite with archived link:

  • "Statement on coverage of Seth Rich murder investigation", Fox News, May 23, 2017, archived from the original on May 23, 2017, On May 16, a story was posted on the Fox News website on the investigation into the 2016 murder of DNC Staffer Seth Rich. The article was not initially subjected to the high degree of editorial scrutiny we require for all our reporting. Upon appropriate review, the article was found not to meet those standards and has since been removed. We will continue to investigate this story and will provide updates as warranted.

Sagecandor (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good source for this article = PolitiFact

Already cited once with reference name as "politifact".

Good source for lots of more info on this topic. Sagecandor (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Politifact is politifalse it is a biased source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactFinder1 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting perspective for your first edit on Wikipedia; unfortunately for you, PolitiFact is considered a reliable secondary source on this encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whether my perspective is interesting or not ought to be judged independently of my edit count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactFinder1 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it won't be. Wikipedia is a community-driven, collaborative project to develop an Internet encyclopedia. New users who make their first edits in controversial topic areas suggesting that we ignore our foundational policies such as reliable sourcing, verifiability and sensitivity to living people are viewed with skepticism by many other members of the community, because you may be a single-purpose account or a sockpuppet. That's simply the way of the world. Now, assuming good faith that you are a new user, I strongly suggest that you become familiar with our policies before suggesting or making edits to controversial, sensitive topic areas such as this one. Abiding by them is not optional. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We’re Seth Rich’s parents. Stop politicizing our son’s murder.

Sagecandor (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The parents' request should be disregarded because it is unreasonable, especially as compelling evidence continues to mount in that direction. The police still have nothing but implausible speculation that the murder was a robbery, and the parents certainly have no proof that the murder was apolitical. Podesta's statements, Kim DotCom's revelations, and Donna Brazile's actions are all moving attention, and thus media coverage of the investigation, in that very direction.-JGabbard (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a soapbox for spreading conspiracy theories. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above re the parents' request, that WP policy factoid is increasingly irrelevant as media coverage continues to move strongly in the 'conspiracy' direction and will alter the article's content accordingly. - JGabbard (talk) 03:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your "media" must be different from what I follow. Geogene (talk) 03:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the media coverage is moving away from the "conspiracy" direction — as discussed above, FOX News retracted one of their stories as improperly written and edited, and Hannity announced on-air today that he would drop the entire issue. The only "direction" here is the widespread recognition by mainstream reliable sources that this entire mess is a despicable, false, evidence-free example of right-wing partisan derangement. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For example, Fox News on Tuesday retracted a story linking the murder of a Democratic National Committee staff member with the email hacks that aided President Trump’s campaign, effectively quashing a conspiracy theory that had taken hold across the right-wing media. It was a rare acknowledgment of error by the cable channel. But it also underscored a schism between the network’s news-gathering operation and one of its biggest stars: the conservative commentator Sean Hannity, who has unapologetically promoted the theory and on Tuesday remained defiant. - from the nation's paper of record, The New York Times. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just write the article based on reliable sources and not use the talk page as a soap box for scoring political points. TFD (talk) 03:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The parents' request should be disregarded because it is unreasonable" - uh, NO. Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scrubbed lead

Ryubyss you should discuss first before you scrub the lead and re-write (whitewash) the article. Geogene (talk) 02:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryubyss:Seriously? [27]. Geogene (talk) 02:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James J. Lambden just tried doing the exact same thing. This is WP:TENDENTIOUS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with his edits. How does "However, the network did not issue an apology to the victim's family and their retraction has been called "woefully inadequate" by the Poynter Institute" belong in the lead? Mr Ernie (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. 80% of the lede covered media reaction and the response to media reaction. Appropriate if the article were Media Response to the Murder of Seth Rich - it is not. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
VM: Your claim is inaccurate. I have reviewed Ryubyss' edit to the lede which removed all mention of media coverage and the Rich family's response: (link). My edit preserved all the major points save the conspiracy theory Fox used it to distract from news about Trump. These are not "the exact same thing." Please correct your statement. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You scrubbed the lede in a POV way. Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement was inaccurate. Please correct it. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My statement was perfectly fine. You scrubbed the lede in a POV way, just ike Ryubyss. I'm not interest in semantic "gotcha" games.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The tactic here seems to be remove stuff about the conspiracy theory because "this is an article about the murder of Seth Rich", then come to the talk page and argue against changing the name because "the text is about the murder of Seth Rich".Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "tactic" is to align the article's content with its title?
Primary is: the murder of Seth Rich
  1. step removed is: conspiracy theories surrounding the murder
  2. steps removed is: Fox's promotion of conspiracy theories surrounding the murder
  3. steps removed is: Fox's retraction of their promotion of conspiracy theories
  4. steps removed is: media response to Fox's retraction of their promotion of conspiracy theories
Four steps removed does not belong in the lede. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's obviously a discussion about the scope. Removing information in a strategic manner to change the scope in midst of an ongoing discussion is disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not neutral as to whether the lede should mention what Poynter Institute says. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The absurdity of the conspiracy theory and the nonsensical behavior of various right-wing groups and people towards it is now the dominant aspect of the event. The murder itself is of no real notability, and none at all if people would quit telling lies about it. Geogene (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

User:Volunteer Marek removed the infobox I added with the notation "rmv infobox which does not summarize or capture the nature of the article."[28] The populated fields were title (Murder of Seth Rich"), map, date ("July 10, 2016"), time ("4:19 a.m. EST (approximate)"), place ("Bloomingdale (Washington, D.C.)"), cause ("Shooting"), participants ("Unknown"), inquiries ("Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia"), awards = ("$270,000").

These are standard fields for infoboxes (see for example "Shooting of Trayvon Martin," and I ask that it be restored. If Volunteer Marek thinks that different fields should be completed, he is free to add them.

TFD (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a different sort of article, especially with the developments of the past couple weeks. The RfC on the proper name is also still open.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide an example of the sort of article you think it is, and we can populate the fields accordingly. And could you also explain which of the currently used fields is irrelevant. Do you think for example that time and place of the crime are irrelevant? In the Trayvon Martin case, Fox News Channel also became part of the story,[29] there are 21 pages of discussion, three move requests and a lot of speculation both in the echo chamber and discussion pages blaming the victim. TFD (talk) 07:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Someone getting murdered while walking home late from a pub doesn't require an infobox. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted. Per BRD, please gain consensus here to remove the long standing infobox. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Long Standing? Tried and True? True Blue? It was in the article for 17 hours. Or was it 19? This "infobox" adds nothing to the information in the article and it's off-topic for the information in this article. And even if this were an article about a notable crime, this map is about as useful as google earth zooming in from space. SPECIFICO talk 11:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No infobox adds anything to an article which can't be found in the body normally. It's meant to be a quick summary of some facts. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When in doubt, leave it out. SPECIFICO talk 11:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, SPECIFICO, but you have not provided any policy based reasons. Infoxes are not supposed to add anything to the article, they are supposed to "summarize[] key features of the page's subject." And if it "adds nothing to the information in the article," it cannot at the same time be "off-topic for the information in the article." You have not explained how this case is any different from the Shooting of Trayvon Martin, who was also shot while returning home. TFD (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As always, the consensus needs to be FOR inclusion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so does locating the scene on a vast map of Virginia and Maryland summarize a key point related to the article? Do we put an aerial map of New Jersey on the pages of Thomas Alva Edison or Christopher James Christie? Maybe find the infobox template for conspiracy theories or some other more appropriate infobox. SPECIFICO talk 14:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason we don't have maps for Edison or Chris Christie is that those articles are not about homicides. The events in both articles occurred in many places, not just in one place. If you think that the map should be omitted or another image used, then change it. Why do you not think that the other information (such as when it occurred) is not relevant? And you still have not explained how this case differs from the Shooting of Trayvon Martin. I would be very interested to hear your explanation. Incidentally, Seth Rich's brother has a GoFundMe page set up last month,[30] which could be linked in the infobox. TFD (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This article is about conspiracy theories. The crime is not notable. Find the appropriate infobox. This is like when they put "economist" infoboxes on articles about the Monster of Jezebel Island Federal Reserve conspiracy theories. Find the right box, you can do it. I know. SPECIFICO talk 14:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No this article is about the Murder of Seth Rich. There is a very notable conspiracy theory that has received widespread coverage in the past few days, but the article has been around a lot longer than that. Please self-revert your removal of the infobox. You've not supported the removal with any policy and there was no consensus to remove it. BRD says Bold (Marek's removal), Revert (mine), Discuss. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

SPECIFICO, could you please explain how this article differs from the Shooting of Trayvon Martin. TFD (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Please explain any similarity between the factors that contribute to the notability of those two events. TIA. SPECIFICO talk 16:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I like infoboxes. It would make a good addition and provide a quick summation for the reader of key events and places and such. The one at the Trayvon Martin page looks good. ValarianB (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO has always been a minimalist and a deletionist on this article, and has been standing guard over it ever since it was just a few hours old. He never even wanted it to exist in the first place, so he really should have no say in its content. He is overruled, period. This article has averaged 50,000 views a day this past week, and it certainly merits an infobox to provide an easy index of fast facts. Just restore it already! - JGabbard (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about the murder and includes information about the conspiracy theory; it is not about the conspiracy theory. Restored. James J. Lambden (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is being discussed right now. As always, consensus needs to be FOR inclusion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not a vote, it's about the strength of the arguments – nowhere in this discussion do I see a policy-based objection. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with SPECIFICO .and others Info box adds little and it takes attention off of the main substance of the article.Casprings (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could say that about any infobox. The point is if there's even a few readers who appreciate an infobox then we should give them one. This talk page is not the right place to discuss the specifics of infoboxes in general. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. For starters, that map adds absolutely nothing to the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever spin you want to place on this article, certainly the basic information I put into the info-box would be relevant. Can you name one field you would omit in your preferred version? I suggest we restore the infobox, remove any irrelevant fields and use relevant ones I did not include. Volunteer Marek, so remove the image. TFD (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the map for starters.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TFD there's a whole happy rainbow of infoboxes to choose from. Find one that's appropriate, or roll your own. It's fun and easy. Then you'll summarize relevant points and add useful information to the experience of casual users whose gaze may fall upon your work. SPECIFICO talk 17:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any fields you think should be used that are not included in the infobox template I selected? (Click on my link above to see what the fields are.) TFD (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any problem with the infobox. I have yet to read the extensive discussions above though. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about whether or not to have an infobox

Should there be an infobox for this article? TFD (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Please be brief and do not use this section to reply to individual votes, but put your responses into the "Threaded discussion" section below.

Threaded discussion

Please replace the map with the Fox News logo and see whether you get more support for this. Of course this RfC is a straw man. You can have an infobox, just not one that misleads the reader into thinking that this subject is notable for the crime rather than for the conspiracy theories. SPECIFICO talk 17:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I might be ok with it w/o the map. Anyone interested in that compromise? Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In place of the map it could be associated with WP American Politics. Infoboxes are easy to edit, so I hope TFD will consider the comments of the many editors who disliked the infobox and edit it to reflect the comments. Removal of the map is a good start. SPECIFICO talk 17:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of other WP pages about fringe and conspiracy theories. Some of them may have come up with good solutions. Many, I suspect have found no good solution and have omitted the infobox. SPECIFICO talk 18:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this topic notable if not for the false and debunked conspiracy theory?

Right-wing conspiracy theories spread about the crime, and they were debunked by law enforcement,[1][2][3] as well as by fact-checking websites including FactCheck.org,[1] Snopes.com,[4] and PolitiFact.[2]

Question:

Is this topic notable if not for the false and debunked conspiracy theory? Sagecandor (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors have, in my view, convincingly made the case that murders that get modest amounts of news coverage are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia pages, e.g. this[31]. So this page could very well have been created and been allowed to stand, even without the conspiracy stuff. That said, this page should be renamed the Murder of Seth Rich Conspiracy Theory, because the conspiracy theory aspect is so so so much more notable, and the reason why 99% of people come here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Snooganssnoogans:Are there sources that exist prior to the false debunked conspiracy theory that demonstrate notability independent of the false debunked conspiracy theory? Sagecandor (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is further up on the talk page, look for TFD's replies. Mostly local news coverage but some national news coverage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, WP:PTOPIC applies, which means that if 90% of stories are about the conspiracy theory and 10% are just about the murder, and if that 10% would be enough to have an article (I disagree), we still call it "Murder of Seth Rich Conspiracy Theory".Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. I'm just not sure whether any sources establish independent notability without discussing the conspiracy theory? Perhaps before the conspiracy theory arose? Sagecandor (talk) 00:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Initially reported 11 July 2016 in the Washington Post,[32] FOX 5 DC,[33] CNN,[34] The Hill, [35] Politico,[36] WJLA/ABC7,[37] NBC Washington,[38] and you can find dozens more through Google.[39] Most of these articles are signed, that is unique reporting rather than off the wire, some have detailed biographical info, most include pictures, some extensive and there are television news clips. The following week there was coverage of the vigil, biographical notes, HRC's comments, and information about the family.[40] Although there was both local and national coverage, notability does not require national coverage. The point of the policy is to ensure that there are adequate reliable sources to write a story, not the degree of interest to readers nationally or internationally.
No doubt the story has received additional attention because of speculation based on the victim's employment with the DNC. The disappearance of Chandra Levy in 2001, D.C. woman employed by a Democratic congressman, dominated the news cycle until the 9/11 attacks. No doubt that was fueled by her connection to the congressman, but the reason the media decide to cover a story is irrelevant to establishing notability. We leave that to news media.
TFD (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. This was a tragic murder in a city known to have a crime problem. The media churn that makes this different from other WP:MILL murders that basically happen every day is entirely caused by the absurd conspiracy theories around it. Geogene (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's how some rural people who have never traveled may see things. In fact, cities have high crime and low crime areas, which correlate to the social and economic status of the residents. That unsolved murders of middle class people by strangers in middle class neighborhoods is rare as can been seen in "Tracking D.C.-area homicides" in the Washington Post. TFD (talk) 01:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously Mr. TFD you have not been to DC. What makes you call this neighborhood a middle class neighborhood. Did you see all the police statements about how it's a high crime area? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 02:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I watched Chief Lanier saying it was a low crime area and read the Washington Post profile of the neighborhood. Look at the map I linked to. TFD (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Debunked. RS says there's been a spate of robberies. 10 years from now they may marvel at the gentrification. SPECIFICO talk 03:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should have told the local news that and maybe they would have ignored the story. TFD (talk) 05:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

I don't get it. This is an unsolved murder, right? People come forward with possible information to solve said murder and the police and media call them liars? I could understand calling it a conspiracy theory if theorists claimed police arrested a "patsy" who really didnt commit the crime. Why does this treat it like a closed case? 71.90.209.64 (talk) 03:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We call it a conspiracy theory because that's what reliable sources are calling it. And just because a murder isn't solved does not mean that potentially anyone could have done it, or that any theory out there on the Internet is potentially correct. Some make more assumptions than others, and in this case many of those assumptions are unreasonable and/or require other evidence to be ignored. Such as the fact that it was Russia that hacked the DNC. But the most important thing is that since reliable sources call this a conspiracy theory, so will this article, and this is a core content policy that is not negotiable, and not something that will change if only enough people "vote" for it on this page. There is really no point in asking us to do otherwise unless you can also get the mainstream media to stop doing that. Geogene (talk) 06:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail as a source

@Francewhoa: Regarding this edit [41] the Daily Mail is generally not a reliable source, please self revert. Since that is already sourced, there is no real need for more anyway. Geogene (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Geogene:) Good point. Thanks for flagging it. I agree there was occasions when the Daily Mail was not a reliable source. How about the notable The Independent at https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/seth-rich-washington-dc-murder-victim-political-meme-weirdest-presidential-election-a7535856.html Francewhoa (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with that source. Could you replace Daily Mail with that one? Geogene (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Geogene:) Done. And thanks for your Wikipedia contributions. Francewhoa (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Geogene (talk) 00:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add time of shooting 4:19am to "Death and aftermath" section

I suggest to add the exact time of the shooting into the main article. Under "Death and aftermath" section. Which is 4:19 a.m. The article read "Police were alerted to gunfire at 4:20 am" but as you know that is the time they were alerted, not the shooting time. Both information are valuable though. That article is primarily about the murder of Rich, usually among the first questions the readers have is when was he murder? The answer is ~4:19 a.m. That information is already in the infobox. But the infobox is usually a secondary section to the main article. Some might miss it. For easier reading and chronological order of the events, I see value in adding the shooting time 4:19 a.m. to the main article including his sister statement about "Rich was on the phone with his girlfriend, minutes before his shooting at 4:19 a.m.". I suggest that notable source https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/seth-rich-washington-dc-murder-victim-political-meme-weirdest-presidential-election-a7535856.html Yes it's just one minute difference but one minute is usually significant for the authorities and potential investigators. That's a very fast response time from the authorities. Impressive :) Also Rich's father stated in that exclusive video interview that the police arrived on at the shooting scene within one minute after the gun shoots at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4516416/DNC-staffer-Seth-Rich-family-demand-answers-cops.html I suggest to use the notable The Independent source instead of Dailymail though as they have a better track record with being reliable. Francewhoa (talk) 01:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The police say "approximately 4:19." [42] TFD (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @The Four Deuces:) Thanks. Interesting read. I found another official public statement from DC Police at https://mpdc.dc.gov/release/homicide-2100-block-flagler-place-northwest

Weapon(s) & caliber(s)

I suggest to add the following draft phrase about the weapon. Including NBC notable source and DC Police's official public statement.

No information about the type of weapon or caliber the shooter(s) may have used was release by the police department.[5][6][43]

Anyone knows other notable and reliable source(s) with more information about weapon(s) and or caliber(s)? Francewhoa (talk) 07:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updated suggested draft. With notable NBC source.

No information about the type of weapon the shooter(s) may have used was release by the police department.[7]

Francewhoa (talk) 08:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's no information I don't see the point of adding this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Autopsy reports

I suggest to add the following draft phrase about the autopsy reports. Including notable source and Washington D.C. Medical Examiner’s office's official reported statement.

Same about the autopsy reports, as according to Washington D.C. Medical Examiner’s office autopsy reports are not publicly released to the news media in D.C.[8]

All are welcome to contribute notable and reliable source(s) with more information about reported public and legal autopsy reports. Anyone? Francewhoa (talk) 07:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Kiely, Eugene (May 22, 2017). "Gingrich Spreads Conspiracy Theory". FactCheck.org. Annenberg Public Policy Center. Retrieved May 23, 2017.
  2. ^ a b Carroll, Lauren (May 23, 2017). Sanders, Katie (ed.). "The baseless claim that slain DNC staffer Seth Rich gave emails to WikiLeaks". PolitiFact. Tampa Bay Times.
  3. ^ Adams, Becket. "One last time: That Seth Rich story is garbage". The Washington Examiner. Retrieved 2017-05-17.
  4. ^ "FACT CHECK: Did DNC Staffer Seth Rich Send 'Thousands of E-Mails' to WikiLeaks Before He Was Murdered?". Snopes.com. May 16, 2017. Retrieved May 16, 2017.
  5. ^ Collins, Pat; Andrea, Swalec (2016-07-11). "DNC Staffer Shot, Killed in Northwest DC". WRC-TV. Retrieved 2017-05-25. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference :13 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Collins, Pat; Andrea, Swalec (2016-07-11). "DNC Staffer Shot, Killed in Northwest DC". NBC. Retrieved 2017-05-25. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  8. ^ McBride, Jessica (2017-05-16). "Seth Rich & WikiLeaks: PI Recants Allegations". Heavy.com. Retrieved 2017-05-25. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
I'm not sure how helpful it is to the reader to inform them of what is unknown. ValarianB (talk)
This should not be in the article. SPECIFICO talk 13:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy.com source added by Francewhoa ?

[44]

Is Heavy.com a reliable source ? Sagecandor (talk) 12:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Sagecandor (talk) 13:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This should not be in the article. SPECIFICO talk 13:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Murder_of_Seth_Rich_article_and_source_Heavy.com Sagecandor (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bare hyperlink added directly into body text by Francewhoa ?

[45]

Is it acceptable to add a bare link directly into article body text ? Sagecandor (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that and the heavy.com link. Heavy is not reliable, and the information is useless. ValarianB (talk) 12:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This should not be in the article. SPECIFICO talk 13:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Sagecandor, SPECIFICO, and ValarianB:) Thanks for your Wikipedia contributions. Here is a May 27th updated suggested draft with notable NBC source. Which was in the original draft. Anyone interest to suggest another draft? Francewhoa (talk) 09:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many copyedits. Improvement?

@Sagecandor:I see that you have made a large number of recent copyedits. Thank you for your efforts, however in some cases I find the revised text is less clear or less informative than the longstanding versions you replaced. I think it's rarely the case that so large a number of copyedits would be necessary at any given time. Perhaps we could all compare the recent edited version with the article as it stood a few days ago and see whether some of the former text should be reinstated. SPECIFICO talk 13:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please be more specific? What is a specific example of something you would like improved? Sagecandor (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Here are a few of them. [46] [47][48][49][50]. There are others, such as around the area where the conspiracy theories are mentioned in the lede where I think the "right wing" meaning is weakened and obscured. I acknowledge your effort, but I think that some of these did not result in better text for the article. SPECIFICO talk 14:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't read things into my intent that are not there. There is zero intent to "weaken" the "right wing" in the intro. My intent is to make it a bit more succinct. Sagecandor (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No concern about your intent. Just that some of the prose seemed stronger/clearer previously. Others will have a look. SPECIFICO talk 15:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thank you. I'm just trying to get across the facts to our readers. Sagecandor (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources

Should we use primary sources in this article? Can we instead stick to only secondary sources so as to avoid violating WP:No original research ? Sagecandor (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need more than three cites at the end of sentences?

Some sentences have upwards of seven cites at end of sentences.

Do we need more than 3 cites at end of sentences to back up the same information? Sagecandor (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Citation overkill applies here. Sagecandor (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I agree. However, I think it's a bad idea to remove them here. Overciting can actually be useful on highly contentious articles, as it changes a claim from "made by one reliable source" to "made by many reliable sources". It helps reduce the number of details that good-faith editors can argue over. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That does make sense, but still more than three seems like WP:Citation overkill and too much, for readers also. Sagecandor (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Our job is not to beat home the point to people who are too thick to get it. For example, we do not need nine citations for "Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Geraldo Rivera took part in spreading the conspiracy." That particular point really isn't contentious, so I could deal with three but really only one high quality source is necessary. -Location (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Sagecandor (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. At this point in time it looks like all facts in the article are backed up by three cites. That should be sufficient. Sagecandor (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wheeler's prior claim

@FallingGravity: [51] About lesbian rape gangs carrying pink pistols. Cited to this [52] as well as NBC News. That magnificent fact belongs in the article in its entirety. It's widely covered in reliable sources, and it helps to provide important context about the Seth Rich conspiracy theories. It does belong in the article. Geogene (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. It is tangential and too much detail about a minor point about a WP:BLP. IFF this were an article about the conspiracy theories, I could see going into more detail. Sagecandor (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the RS coverage is about the conspiracy theories. Much more than the murder itself. And Wheeler's past is widely covered [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58]. As for BLP, Wheeler is a TV personality, and he made his rape gang claim on primetime Fox News program (O'Reilly). There is no BLP issue here. Geogene (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. But the title of the article for the time being does not focus on that. It should. But it doesn't. Sagecandor (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone is welcome to contribute to the move discussion above. "Outlandish claims" is enough detail in an already bloated section. FallingGravity 16:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with FallingGravity. Bloated and unnecessary detail. Sagecandor (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Geogene. There's a good reason why reliable sources include this info.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do we want the article to be a service to our readers or to be so bloated and bogged down that readers just leave ? Sagecandor (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind that the purpose of the article is to inform readers. They need to know that Wheeler has made less than credible claims in the past because it is relevant to his credibility now. But if they want to read about him in detail, then they can click on his article. TFD (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Members of the alt-right and certain commentators on Fox News, featured coverage of the conspiracy theories instead of reporting on new negative revelations about the Trump administration which other media outlets covered on that day.

Does this belong in the intro?

Doesn't the intro need to only be stuff that then appears later on in the article body text?

Is this later also in the article body text ? Sagecandor (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At one point it was, I believe, though of course somebody could've removed it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it down into body. Too detailed for intro. Sagecandor (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The crime was used as the pretext for...

The crime was used as the pretext for...

Do we really need this wording in the 2nd paragraph?

Isn't this superfluous text that can be easier said by starting the 2nd paragraph with:

Right-wing conspiracy theories...

?

Sagecandor (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The crime was used as the pretext for right-wing conspiracy theories, which were then debunked by law enforcement agencies in their official statements about the case.
  2. Right wing conspiracy theories spread about the crime, which were debunked by law enforcement.

Isn't number 2 much simpler and better ? Sagecandor (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's simpler and much worse and completely omits the key point of the whole article, which is that the conspiracy theories were opportunistically and willfully (hence pretext) attached to a random event wholly unrelated to the conspiracy theories. SPECIFICO talk 17:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The 2nd sentence has the same meaning. If there were no crime, there would be no conspiracy theories about the crime. Sagecandor (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Sagecandor (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@PackMecEng:Is this better [59] ? Sagecandor (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks to the point while still covering the bases. Though right-wing should be capitalized. PackMecEng (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@PackMecEng:See [60], better? Sagecandor (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I would support that as opposed to the previous entry. PackMecEng (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay great, thank you PackMecEng ! Sagecandor (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources say that "law enforcement authorities" have debunked the claims. In fact none of the sources provided say that they have even mentioned the claims. "Law enforcement authorities" is a vague term. If it means the DC police, then we should mention them. If it means the CIA, etc., they are not law enforcement authorities. TFD (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But, as we have already noted, the Fox 5 story quickly unraveled. The Washington Metropolitan Police Department issued a statement the same day saying that “the assertions put forward by Mr. Wheeler are unfounded.” Sagecandor (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TFD -- man of straw. CIA? What? SPECIFICO talk 19:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO:I've added quotes to the cites to make it harder for bogus claims in the future. Sagecandor (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I seem pedantic, but the police in this case were responding to "assertions put forward by Mr. Wheeler." Wheeler asserted there were emails on Rich's laptop computer. And AFAIK that is the first time they have mentioned the Wikileaks aspect. "Debunked" seems the wrong word too; it should be refuted. I have mentioned this to you on pseudoscience talk pages: overstatement in Wikipedia articles or anywhere else, while it may be intended to be persuasive, can have the reverse effect if it is taken as condescending or disingenuous. It may however re-enforce commitment among the already converted. TFD (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It has been both debunked and refuted. Debunk. To discredit, or expose to ridicule the falsehood or the exaggerated claims of something. Sagecandor (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They accused conspiracy theorists of politicizing their son's death...

They accused conspiracy theorists of politicizing their son's death for political gain, and called posters of the debunked conspiracy theories "sociopaths" and "disgusting".

Do we really need the phrase "conspiracy theorists" ... followed by "conspiracy theories" = in same sentence?

Isn't that a bit redundant?

Can't we please simplify this sentence a bit ? Sagecandor (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you can think of a better way to word it, be my guest. But sometimes repeating the same noun in a sentence adds to clarity, which I think is the case here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. They accused conspiracy theorists of politicizing their son's death for political gain, and called posters of the debunked conspiracy theories "sociopaths" and "disgusting".
  2. They accused conspiracy theorists of politicizing their son's death for political gain, and them "sociopaths" and "disgusting".

Can we please use number 2, please ? Sagecandor (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps for number 2, a little CE They accused conspiracy theorists of politicizing their son's death for political gain, and calling them "sociopaths" and "disgusting". PackMecEng (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The first is really much better clearer and more intelligible prose. Except for the comma before the and which can be removed. BTW don't the RS citations support something different, like
  • Conspiracy theorists politicized Seth Rich's death for political gain, and Rich's parents called posters of the debunked conspiracy theories "sociopaths" and "disgusting."

SPECIFICO talk 18:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No it's stylish. Like a Missoni scarf in the summertime. SPECIFICO talk 18:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken another look. How about
  • Rich's parents condemned the conspiracy theorists who exploited their son's death for political gain and called them "sociopaths" and "disgusting" for continuing to post the debunked theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)
Better. Sentence is a bit long and could be chopped in two. Sagecandor (talk) 18:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I read it over again and I like it a lot. Thank you ! Used version suggestion at [61] as suggested by SPECIFICO. Thanks for your helpful suggestion! Sagecandor (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Hannity goes on vacation as advertisers drop out of his show

Sean Hannity goes on vacation as advertisers drop out of his show, Los Angeles Times.

Might want to update the article with this and add it to section: Fox News retracted reporting.

Appears the false conspiracy theory is having a direct financial impact on those that fraudulently report it as if it were true. Sagecandor (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Enough material now for two articles

There is enough material now for two articles.

One on the Murder of Seth Rich.

And another on the Murder of Seth Rich conspiracy theories.

This would help this one particular article not get over bloated with stuff tangentially related to, you know, facts. Sagecandor (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is likely to result in a POV fork. Geogene (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then why is that exact same material not POV, in this article? Sagecandor (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Compare:

  1. Moon landing
  2. Moon landing conspiracy theories

Two separate articles. Sagecandor (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • No reason for separate articles. It's an event with multiple aspects but only a single event. It's an unsolved murder with unknown assailant or motive. If the conspiracy theories persist after it's solved, a la Moon Landing, that may merit a separate article but right now it does not. --DHeyward (talk) 20:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The murder is notable because it passes WP:EVENT, or more specifically WP:PERSISTENCE: "Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle." Also it doesn't say that coverage doesn't count if it's connected to something else, in this case conspiracy theories. As for whether this article should be split, I note that in Category:Death conspiracy theories, the only articles that have "conspiracy theories" in their title also have an article devoted to the subject's death. FallingGravity 22:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things I'd like to point out about this comparison. One is that nobody doubts that the Moon landing is notable independent of the conspiracy theories that have grown up around it. Two, is that there is no doubt that there is enough material out there about the Moon landing that that article could be expanded effectively forever. Geogene (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this topic is not notable independent of the conspiracy theories then it should reflect that in the title. Sagecandor (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's under discussion. Geogene (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion dominated by conspiracists who appear to be new users landing to this page. Sagecandor (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was what I suggested in the move request above. If the conspiracy theories are too extensive, it should be discussed further in a separate article dedicated to the conspiracy theories. That being said, it is far more preferable to keep it in a single article because it is clearly a controversial topic and a spinoff may cause a POVFORK. As far as I can see, the huge chunk of the article is about the conspiracy theories and that aspect of the article seems to be developing still, that is an indication that we may need a spinoff article. However, in my opinion the article hasn't reached to that point yet and it can contain the conspiracy theories as a section still. Furthermore, the move request is likely to be declined, and creating a new article so soon after the move request will inevitably look like gaming the system. Darwinian Ape talk 22:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You make some good points, and yet they don't address the article being titled as to presumably be primarily about the actual factual murder, whereas the content and sources are all about the bogus conspiracy theories. Sagecandor (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I actually don't understand why we should add "conspiracy theory" to the title and what that will accomplish. The main event is the murder of Seth Rich and conspiracy theories are secondary to that, even if they surpass the murder in regards to notability. Because there wouldn't be conspiracy theories without the murder and not vice versa. In fact, an argument can be made that the conspiracy aspect only gives more notability to the murder itself, so even if the murder was only notable because of the conspiracy theories, it would not be right to discuss it solely under a title of "conspiracy theories" Conspiracy theory section, however prominent, is the subtopic here and will always remain a subtopic. Darwinian Ape talk 14:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The main event is the murder of Seth Rich and conspiracy theories are secondary to that" - no, that's backward. The murder by itself is non-notable. It's the conspiracy theories that are notable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is premature. Articles get spun out when they become too large. I don't know however if that is the best way to divide the article. It could be better to separate police investigation and media coverage. TFD (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's split it in 2 articles and then we can delete the one that's confined to the non-notable crime. SPECIFICO talk 01:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

I think splitting it might make sense. The deletion of one or the other can be decided at AFD.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we do that when the case is solved. Not that Jack the Ripper, which has been subject to more books than any other unsolved crime, has not been split, even though some of the theories, such as Stephen Knight's which was the subject of two major motion pictures, are clearly conspiracy theories. TFD (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you find us major US media outlets claiming that Jack was working for the Clintons, I will personally fork that article. SPECIFICO talk 18:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop feigning stupidity. It wastes everyone's time and it is insulting, since you are asking me to explain something you understand already. You should only ask questions when you do not understand what other editors have said. If you don't have any reasonable arguments, better not to say anything. TFD (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking you to explain something. That would be trolling. I am reiterating by analogy a distinction that's been made very clear on numerous occasions by numerous editors here and at the AfD pages. Please consider whether it adds anything to repeat those same arguments against splitting. SPECIFICO talk 20:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. WP:OSE SPECIFICO talk 20:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Left-leaning POV

It's extremely obvious that the article does not display a neutral point of view. While most information is factual, it reads like a chronological left-slanted news article rather than an encyclopedia. The NPOV concern tag should be added, as the current state of the article is an embarrassment and needs a lot of work to meet Wikipedia's standards.Computermichael (talk) 03:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not just repeated info

[62] Ummm, ok, I can see the removal of repeated info but where is this being repeated: " Dotcom provided no evidence for his claims and has in the past "made similarly grandiose claims" and "been found to have fabricated evidence"?

Likewise, the fact that they eventually issued a retraction does not change the fact that "Over the course of the day, Fox News altered the contents of the story and the headline" so I'm not sure why this is being removed either.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The repeated info I was talking about was the family calling for a retraction. I added "without evidence" to show how dubious Kim's claims were. I recently added Kim's past forgery behavior in his own article. As for the "Fox New changed its article" factoid, this struck me as non-remarkable because news organizations do tend to change their articles after being published. What matters is that they removed it, which is already covered extensively. FallingGravity 04:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: New reports or details should go in the article text, not the lede

Reminder: New reports or details should go in the article text, not the lede

PLEASE DO NOT ADD NEW INFO DIRECTLY INTO THE INTRO SECTION.

ADD FIRST TO THE ARTICLE BODY.

ALL INFO IN THE INTRO SECTION SHOULD ONLY BE A SUMMARY OF THE ARTICLE ITSELF.

Please read WP:LEAD.

Thanks! Sagecandor (talk) 11:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with [63]. Will add it back later. People need to understand and read WP:LEAD. Sagecandor (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow five million other articles get by without text that YELLS AT YOU IN ALL CAPS at the top. It's okay if new stuff first arrives in the lead. It's not the optimal practice, but eventually it gets sorted out. Geogene (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not okay to put new stuff in the lede. We can tweak the notification wording to not use caps. Sagecandor (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff.co.nz

Stuff.co.nz as a source, discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Stuff.co.nz_at_Murder_of_Seth_Rich. Sagecandor (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crowne Plaza ads

https://nyti.ms/2r32hQh quotes a Crowne Plaza Hotels spokesman as saying, basically, that their ads previously appeared in error (contrary to policy) and had been withdrawn before the controversy:

A spokesman for Crowne Plaza Hotels & Resorts said some news outlets had characterized the company as pulling ads from Mr. Hannity’s show this week, but he said that the brand already had a policy against advertising on any political commentary shows. Before this week, the company cut ties with a third-party agency that had violated that policy by running an ad on Mr. Hannity’s program on May 11, the spokesman said.

I'd say they should be removed from the list of companies pulling their ads. Paleolith (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a direct quote or statement somewhere from the company? Sagecandor (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[64] Seems they did terminate ads in the wake of the controversy. Sagecandor (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We can add a sentence saying something like, "Crown Plaza later said that it was not their policy to advertise on political commentary shows, and had not been aware of their sponsorship of the show." TFD (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. [65] Sagecandor (talk) 01:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding his bruises

The article currently says his girlfriend mentioned his bruises. This is incorrect. It was his mother.

The linked News report makes this clear

Rich's mother, Mary Rich, said by phone. Mary Rich said police told her family her son may have been the victim of an attempted robbery. He was talking on the phone with his girlfriend when she heard noise on Rich's end of the line, Mary Rich said. Her son told his girlfriend not to worry about it. "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," she said.


Source: 27-Year-Old DNC Staffer Seth Rich Shot, Killed in Northwest DC | NBC4 Washington http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Man-Shot-Killed-in-Northwest-DC-386316391.html#ixzz4iF9S8kyC Follow us: @nbcwashington on Twitter | NBCWashington on Facebook — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.35.65 (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks Anon. Geogene (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Listverse as source ?

Really ?

Can we not get better sources here ?

Especially for this controversial topic ?

Please see this edit [66].

Is this source [67] Listverse.com a reliable source, especially with regards to this controversial topic ? Sagecandor (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Listverse.com", site that takes "list" submissions [68] from literally anyone [69]. Site fails WP:RS. Site should not be used. Sagecandor (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[70] [71]. Sagecandor (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

conspiracy theories prior to WikiLeaks reward?

The sources I'm reading say the $20k WikiLeaks reward stoked conspiracy theories, but they don't say, and our article doesn't say, where/when/how they started. Has anyone come across this? It would be helpful to add, even if it's just to say something like "soon after the murder, conspiracy theorists began...". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do think they started before the Wikileaks reward, but not sure. Sources would be nice to see that. Sagecandor (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Use Google and youtube and search for the earliest possible dates. TFD (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How can this be called a conspiracy theory?

Retrospective views questioning "case closed" situations should be called conspiracy theories. Suppose a shopkeeper is murdered during a robbery. The police investigate and notice the open cash register is full of cash, yet call it a murder/robbery. A person tells police that he knew of a long and serious dispute between the victim and a man who lives down the street who had a violent history. Should the police ignore that fact and call it a conspiracy theory because the local news said so, without any contradicting evidence?

It seems like there are a lot of people who arent interested in solving this murder... 71.90.209.64 (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Seth_Rich&oldid=782604454"