Talk:Murder of Seth Rich

Requested move 2 June 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved as clear consensus to keep the article at it's current name based on the argument of WP:COMMONNAME has been established. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 20:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Murder of Seth Rich → Seth Rich homicide – Per reasoning by Daniel Case at "Per BLP and OR we cannot call a killing, at least a recent one, "murder" until a judge or jury has convicted someone of that charge or they have pled guilty to it." Hopefully as this is a more simpler proposal, should be a more straightforward discussion than the last one. Sagecandor (talk) 01:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support, per reasoning by Daniel Case, at [1]. Sagecandor (talk) 01:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Nobody is searching for "homicide of Seth Rich". Geogene (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no reason to move the page, but I don't oppose "Killing of Seth Rich" or "Death of Seth Rich" because those aren't legal jargon. Geogene (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose-We may not know for sure who did it, but it definitely looks like a murder. Display name 99 (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per COMMONNAME. Whatever good arguments are presented, we should follow policy and guidelines. If you think they are wrong, then you should get them changed rather than argue in thousands of individual articles. TFD (talk) 06:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The reliable sources call it a murder, and there's nothing in BLP or OR that requires a court decision before using that title. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support per nom and my own reasoning. I will respond to the arguments so far presented below. Daniel Case (talk) 07:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose seems clumsy, but would support Death of Seth Rich, or better Killing of Seth Rich instead. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose but would support Death of Seth Rich -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The rationale given for this doesn't jive with policy or law. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

It does sound like a new cop show. Seth Rich: Homicide. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose per COMMONNAME. Support Death of Seth Rich. Secondary and primary sources use "murder" (presumably suspected/treated as). If that's out of line with current article titles shouldn't we add the preferred "Death of" to the guideline/policy? "Death" at least avoids the US centric "homicide". Agree with reasoning to change. Widefox; talk 15:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Per COMMONNAME, Death of Seth Rich would be preferable. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Weak Support - I agree with the reasoning behind the proposed change. It is not appropriate to call this a murder, because we do not know who did it. Thus, we cannot know what their motives or intent was. Murder requires provable intent (which is why often people are convicted of manslaughter instead of murder. That said perhaps, the "Killing" or "Death" of Seth Rich would be more appropriate. The other option, which I allude to below, is that we could just call the article "Seth Rich". I am unclear whether this article is supposed to be a biography of the person, or an entry about the event. That may require further discussion.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Moot. The article should be moved to Seth Rich. It's clearly a biography. --В²C ☎ 23:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose seems clumsy, but the current title is WP:OR so I would support Death of Seth Rich or another title without "murder". Oppose a move to Seth Rich per WP:ONEEVENT. —  AjaxSmack  00:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

How is WP:ONEEVENT basis for opposing Seth Rich? Have you read it? "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. " In this case the article is about the individual; the title should reflect that. --В²C ☎ 06:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - per WP:TITLE, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV. No original research was conducted when the article was initially created/titled - it was based on what the subject of this article has been called in an overwhelming amount of reliable sources, and in the police report of this incident, the offense was listed as being Murder I (22DC2101-Y). Additionally, the rationale given by Daniel Case below for being in violation of BLP doesn't make sense to me, he quotes WP:BLPCRIME as the pertinent subsection: "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured". I interpret that passage to mean that an relatively uknown person is someone who has been named by the media, but would otherwise be viewed as relatively unknown if it wasn't for the recent media attention. Darren Wilson comes to mind as an example, he was relatively unknown until he shot Michael Brown and the media named him, in his case it would be a violation of BLP to imply that his actions were criminal. In this instance however, the person and/or persons are completely unknown, no one has been named by the media, so how are we causing harm to a living individual when that individual is not even known or hasn't been named or identified by any sourcing. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway: I will respond below. Daniel Case (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME Darwinian Ape ^talk 02:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose as proposed. It can be treated as a "murder" (i.e. unlawful killing) by members of the justice system without there actually being a conviction. That said, it doesn't seem the most precise. Support renaming to Shooting of Seth Rich or Killing of Seth Rich, which do not come with legal implications. Oppose Death of Seth Rich as too vague. Oppose moving to the biographical title Seth Rich, as a good deal of notability comes from conspiracy theories surrounding the event and the circumstances about the event, rather than the actual person. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• Rhododendrites, I get that a good deal of notability comes from conspiracy theories. I don't get how that's an argument against titling this biographical article by the subject of the biography. --В²C ☎ 18:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. It is fine the way it is. I see no material difference between "murder" and "homocide" in meaning. Murder by far is what people use in everyday language to describe homocides. The suggested title of "Death of Seth Rich" appears to be a politically motivated whitewash trying to cover up that there was foul play. There are no indications that Mr. Richard mistakenly shot himself twice. And there is no indication that the two torso shots (at least one of which was to his back) were suicidal in nature. Nobody is talking about his death being a suicide. In addition, the shots were fired around 4am which isn't a great time to be walking alone in a big city. Furthermore, you have the whole issue of Wikileaks and Mr. Assange offering a reward for information relating to his apparent murder.Knox490 (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree that it should be left the way that it is. "Death of Seth Rich" is far too vague and broad, as it could refer to death from a serious illness or an accident. "Homicide of Seth Rich" is not sufficiently specific either, as his killing was obviously intentional, a murder, not, for example, an accidental homicide. 11 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Additionally, to someone unfamiliar with the topic, 'Seth Rich homicide' feels unclear (is Seth Rich the victim, the perpetrator, or tangentially involved?) --Aquillion (talk) 06:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Nobody is searching for 'homicide of Seth Rich'. Well, the current title would redirect to the new one, so I don't see it mattering what people search for or don't search for. Daniel Case (talk) 07:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Well we may also name the article "Some sort of freak accident" and redirect the current title. WP:COMMONNAME is an objective arbiter in these cases. Sources mention it as murder of Seth Rich, so should we call it as such. Darwinian Ape ^talk 02:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• We may not know for sure who did it, but it definitely looks like a murder Saying it "looks like" murder is OR to anyone who understands the difference between murder and homicide. For the last week, I have been working on Murder of Dee Dee Blancharde—a homicide two years ago in which one of the two suspects arrested has already pleaded guilty to second-degree murder. Therefore, we can call the case a murder. While all murders are homicides, not all homicides are murders. Daniel Case (talk) 07:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Whatever good arguments are presented, we should follow policy and guidelines. Which are silent on this particular question. I agree that they should not be, and that a vast change in naming to a lot of pages would be a huge undertaking. But, were I to suggest a policy change (or, rather, a whole MOS page about writing about crimes, which would be the best place for this), I would have to concede that there are some exceptions—for instance, historical cases (such as, from my other work, historical crimes like Murder of Pamela Werner (80 years ago and half a world away ... this never was and never will be prosecuted; Gatton murders would be an even older example) or crimes more recent, usually multiple killings, that have acquired some popular sobriquet that does not use the victims' names (example: Oklahoma Girl Scout murders—this is the sort of case where I think COMMONNAME is most apropos) and frankly this would be best determined on a case by case basis.

  As for COMMONNAME itself, firstly I should remind you that it is a permissive policy but not a prescriptive one, i.e. it allows us to use Amtrak and leave National Railroad Passenger Corporation a redirect because we are not bound to technical names; at the same time it does not require that we use "Amtrak" if for whatever reason consensus were to come down against it in favor of something else. Its language uses "generally, not always.

  Everyone who has invoked COMMONNAME above seems not to have read further down the NC page to the next section, WP:NPOVTITLE, which discusses what should be an obvious limitation to COMMONNAME: the common name must be neutral. Calling an article about a recent homicide "Murder of ..." is essentially convicting someone of a crime before they have even been identified, much less arrested, which means such titling is very POV. In a time when the presumption of innocence is under such sustained attack from all sides, it is at the very least irresponsible of us to ignore the implications of NPOV in how we title this article.

  And since, after all, those who killed Rich are not ideas or institutions but actual people, it is not just NPOV but BLP we must be heedful of. And indeed there is a BLP subsection that is most pertinent: WP:BLPCRIME, which reads, in relevant part: "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured". I submit that the article title must be considered to be "material" under this sentence.

  "Seth Rich homicide" is an alternative that avoids all these issues (until, if ever, any suspects are charged and convicted) as well as fitting nicely with WP:NDESC. "Homicide" is a statistical category of deaths, those caused by the actions of another, that is sometimes but not always used in the names of criminal offenses covering the unlawful killing of another human being. It is descriptive but not judgemental. Daniel Case (talk) 07:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• there's nothing in BLP or OR that requires a court decision before using that title First, see above. Second, because of the infinitude of possible subjects to write articles about that could variously inflect the application of those policies, they are not written with long lists of "for articles about X do it Y way". The assumption is that editors will internalize the principles in those policies and use them to make sensible editorial decisions, either when editing alone or in consensus with others, that will enjoy the respect of the community. We have policy we can derive more specific guidelines from, not rules.

  TL;DR: just because nothing says explicitly we should do it the way we're doing it doesn't mean that way isn't wrong.

  Daniel Case (talk) 07:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Daniel Case, what principle in WP:BLP or WP:OR are you pointing to as suggesting that we cannot call this death a killing? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: I would be OK with that if consensus supported it. Daniel Case (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand. OK with what? And what about my question? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: I thought you were suggesting retitling the article "Killing of Seth Rich", which would IMO be OK with WP:NDESC as well. Is that what you're doing? Daniel Case (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

More comments in response to !votes above:

• "Death of Seth Rich" is too vague. In my experience we have reserved that for cases where homicide is just one of several theories, or there is an official finding otherwise (I've long thought Jonathan Luna should be renamed to "Death of ..." since Luna was never notable during his life and we have conflicting findings on the case from the FBI and the local coroner). When someone was killed due to what is believed to be the action of another and there is no doubt about this, we should title the article to reflect that. There is absolutely no official doubt that person or persons unknown shot Rich and fatally wounded him. His death is a homicide. Daniel Case (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• @Widefox: Homicide is "US-centric"? Well, I give you credit ... that's a totally new argument against using it. I would like to read what you have to say by way of elaboration (seriously), because I think this is a matter that applies at least to all common law countries and probably quite a few civil law ones as well.

  And in any event, this is a homicide that occurred in the United States. Certainly that should be taken into consideration?

  Daniel Case (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: In the context of en.WP policy, I'd prefer a non-US centric engvar, yes. We don't use the term "homicide" in this policing context in the UK. See wikt:homicide #3 "US, police jargon". Of course this article is in the US, but my comment was about titling sitewide. Widefox; talk 16:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Widefox: Thank you for your swift response. If you look past that "US police jargon" in the wiktionary entry, you'll see that usage is in reference to a victim of a homicide. The usage of referring to the killing itself seems to be universal.

I understand how you may read this proposed title as suggesting that usage, but it does not. The article is about a homicide, an event, "Seth Rich" is the modifying descriptor. I prefer that usage to "Homicide of ..." because that's a rather awkward construction that almost no one uses in casual conversation; in fact it seems to me from experience that police officers, prosecutors and journalists generally use the construction in which the victims' name (or names) come first as a descriptor.

Daniel Case (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: I suggest looking at UK sources for common usage - "death", "killing" but rarely/never "homicide" (and as you say legal outcomes of "murder", "manslaughter", "death by misadventure", "unlawful killing", "lawful killing" etc). It is used, but more formal (e.g. stats including both murder and manslaughter [2]) than common language, despite legal use e.g. Homicide Act 1957 Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 and rare/possibly-MET-specific Homicide and Serious Crime Command (as well as their Murder Investigation Team).

• Searching BBC for "homicide":
  • "Man found beaten to death in Ilford car park" [3] ("homicide" hit is only due to the above mentioned unit).
  • [4] - a US case.
• WP example Talk:Murder_of_Lee_Rigby/Archive_3#Requested_move "Death.." -> "Murder..". Widefox; talk 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: my point being that either this is titled 1. per COMMONNAME in sources (which I believe is "murder") or 2. per site-wide policy (presumably BLP vio for currently unnamed perpetrator, or just correctness?) which is best to pick a neutral Engvar (which my argument above goes unchallenged, however astonishing British English Engvar is to others). Further, if "homicide" (which I agree per US Engvar, and Anglo legal systems perspective has merit, although not per common usage in British Engvar) is to be used, then it's trivial to see that when it's widely presumed to be murder, and treated as murder then concepts like unsolved murder (redirs to List of unsolved deaths not "homicides") but crucially lists List of unsolved deaths#Unsolved murders separate from List of unsolved deaths#unsolved deaths), List of unsolved murders in the United Kingdom makes sense and would need to be treated differently per the logic of this nom. Of course, as a US article then British English isn't too relevant, but per logic of decomposing into 1. and 2. this doesn't appear to be a strong case. Widefox; talk 14:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Widefox: Having worked quite a bit on list of unsolved deaths, I can offer some input. I've long thought the unsolved homicides should be spun off in a separate list, with the US ones like the British ones given their own list. When that list was started there was space enough to contain all those, but now that it's a) a lot longer and b) top-heavy with the homicides I think the list needs to be split for sanity's sake. When it is split I think we can rename all the split-off articles appropriately.

My argument would be under your number 2, as I've written in my response to Isaidnoway: BLP violation as to a yet-unidentified suspect's presumption of innocence. Daniel Case (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: There's two competing factors - 1. (a potential future) BLP vio / sub judice for any suspect(s) vs 2. NPOV for the topic. According to sub judice - prejudice is a problem only from charge/arrest in the UK, the US being less strict. WP:BLPCRIME only talks about protecting the suspect, so do we really need to stray from NPOV for the crime? I think that needs a policy level of consensus. A hypothetical BLP vio suppressing / WP:CENSORing NPOV. A 100 year or so wait so there's no living person seems excessive, surely we just say any named suspect is a suspect and keep titles per sources. I'm 100% against any UK death topics being titled "homicide" and for US ones that aren't so described per COMMONNAME. Widefox; talk 17:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

It could be that editors have been misinterpreting COMMONNAME. But the misinterpretation has been so consistent that the argument belongs in MOS instead of across thousands of articles. TFD (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• @Isaidnoway:: The damage would be done if the person were ever to be identified and arrested. Using "murder" implies a determination of criminal guilt; any suspects are presumed innocent until then.

  For the last four years, the AP Stylebook has admonished reporters thus: "Do not say that a victim was 'murdered' until someone has been convicted in court. Instead, say that a victim was 'killed' or 'slain.'," Emphasis in original.

  I realize that the AP is not us, and we do not have to follow their stylebook (and in many cases we don't, and for good reason). But in matters relating to things that can possibly get you sued for defamation, the AP (and indeed all the respectable news outlets that use it) are bound by principles analogous to BLP and NPOV. If they came to this conclusion, certainly we should not be so dismissive of it or take cover under things like COMMONNAME and "that's what our sources say" (Especially not when we made the decision a few months ago to pretty much blacklist one of the English-speaking world's most widely read online newspapers for its callous indifference to these issues). Daniel Case (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Daniel Case:. Thanks for the consulting the AP Stylebook. I would support creating policy per that wording "killed" (or "slain"). So presumably Killing of Seth Rich despite sources using "murder". Widefox; talk 17:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Widefox: As I've said above, I have no objection to a "Killing of ..." title if that's more likely to gain consensus. Daniel Case (talk) 05:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Support making this policy per AP wording. Widefox; talk 12:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Strongly oppose changing the title. We know Seth was shot in the back multiple times, and was unarmed, and in a public place. It is irrational to think it an accidental shooting or a self-defense shooting. We simply do not need to know who did it to know he was murdered.

Many terms used in this article are strongly biased. Whether others hacked the DNC does not prove Mr. Rich did not leak material, claiming this is a "right wing conspiracy theory" is biased. It may be a pro-Sanders conspiracy theory, or for all you know it may be fact. Montestruc (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC) Montestruc (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 June 2017

Request add para as follows, after first para of current article--

In May 2017--in part due to the Fox News Channel host, Sean Hannity emphasizing the mysteries remaining in the investigation--the 2016 violent death of Seth Rich became a major topic of national and international debate. Under ensuing debate are the questions not only of whether the killing of Mr. Rich should be regarded as "Homicide, Murder or Assassination," but also the question of whether this is a valid area of rational discussion and public investigation, or merely a focus for conflicting partisan propaganda and ex-parte speculations. The matter, primarily engaged in social media such as @Twitter, became so embroiled in U.S. politics as to draw an intensive campaign against Mr. Hannity, nearly forcing his removal from the Fox News Channel, combated by a contrary campaign which as of June 1st 2017 seems to have prevailed. The substantial interests of the DNC, Wikileaks, the Trump administration, local DC politicians and polic officials, the FBI and US "Intelligence Community", and the Russian Federation have been implicated in the imbroglio--and in any prospective factual solution of the murder case. Cooler heads have recommended that discussions should focus on the evident that exists and as it may be discovered in future. FrancisJeffrey (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC) FrancisJeffrey (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Decline as puffery and POV. "Emphasizing the mysteries remaining in the investigation" is not a neutral summary of what Hannity did, "major topic of national and international debate" is a huge exaggeration--the debate is only being pushed by some far right conspiracy theorists in America. No idea of who the "cooler heads" are supposed to be, that's not in the source given either. The last sentence looks to be editor opinion. Geogene (talk) 01:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The people who are writing the article now are engaging in BLATENT political bias, by context they are associated with the DNC and Clinton faction of the democratic party, and make little or no effort to hide this. Any discussion of potential motives related to Mr Rich's work at the DNC are being attacked as "right wing conspiracy theory", never mind that it could be sanders supporters thinking that it was ordered by Clinton. This is blatent bias and an obvious attempt to spin the narrative.

The real question is are the people doing this actually Clinton supportes, who are not bright enough to realize that this sort of thing is likely to backfire on them, or are they operatives of other agendas? We cannot say, but we can say that stifling debate is not good for democracy. As it says on the Washington Post, democracy dies in darkness, and you fellows are part of it. Montestruc (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC) Montestruc (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Montestruc: You should read this WP:AGF Darknipples (talk) 01:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Right-wing conspiracy theorists are going to hate this article. That's just how it goes. Geogene (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I read it. Could you please provide a plain English translation of it? Montestruc (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

If it's too difficult for you to read or understand, you can ask someone at the Wikipedia:Teahouse to explain it to you. Darknipples (talk) 05:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

So when you deliberately prevent any discussion other than the Pravda or "official truth" promelgated by the Clinton faction of the DNC, we are supposed to assume you act in good faith?

I've done no such thing. This type of accusation is a perfect example of why you should probably go spend some time at the Wikipedia:Teahouse so that you can learn about AGF before commenting any further. Darknipples (talk) 05:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

That any possible question that the approved Clinton DNC version is not correct means it must be part of the "vast right wing conspiracy"? Montestruc (talk) 04:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Is this a question or a rhetorical statement? Wikipedia:Rhetoric has little use anywhere in Wikipedia, and should always be used with extreme caution, so that it is not misconstrued as Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Darknipples (talk) 05:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Role of pizzagate in the lead

A little while ago I had altered the lead to briefly mention a connection to Pizzagate given it appears in a few sources along these lines: "The murder spawned several right-wing conspiracy theories about the crime, including the groundless claim that Rich had been involved with the leaked DNC emails in 2016, and purporting a connection between the incident and the fictional Pizzagate conspiracy theory. These claims have been debunked by..."

Since then it has been changed to say "The murder spawned several right-wing conspiracy theories about the crime, including the groundless claim that Rich had been involved with the leaked DNC emails in 2016, which runs contrary to U.S. intelligence that concluded the leaked DNC emails were part of 2016 U.S. elections interference.[5][6][7] The same sources that fomented the false Pizzagate conspiracy theory publicized the murder conspiracy theories,[8][9] and each shared similar features.[10][11] These theories were debunked by..."

I've underlined the part I want to address. To me, pizzagate shouldn't be given any more mention in the lead than the first bit of text -- that a connection to it was another (less prominent) conspiracy theory involved. The important part for the lead is the gist of the conspiracy theories about this subject, not past activities of people who spread the conspiracy. That's not to say the same content can't go elsewhere in the article, but I'd prefer to see a return to wording along the lines of the first text above. (only for the underlined parts) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you can propose an example tweak that might maybe make it a bit better? Sagecandor (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Not all of the same sources "fomented the false Pizzagate conspiracy". Pizzagate shouldn't be in the lede, it's various journalist's opinion to discredit the Seth Rich conspiracy theory. Assange and Hannity did not "foment" the Pizzagate conspiracy, neither did Kim Dotcom. Raquel Baranow (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

it's various journalist's opinion to discredit the Seth Rich conspiracy theory - this is POV and unsourced claims. Sagecandor (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Weight applies. While it is certainly true that "the rumor spread within the same circles that churned out the bogus “PizzaGate” story," we would have to show that this is a common observation. It is equally true for example that "the rumor spread within the same circles that churned out the bogus story that Saddam Hussein had WMDs." But both statements are misleading, because both the Seth Rich and WMDs stories reached a wider audience than Pizzagate. I suggest we remove it as undue. TFD (talk) 00:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Weight is given per the multiple sources cited. It is equally true for example that "the rumor spread within the same circles that churned out the bogus story that Saddam Hussein had WMDs." Where is this said? Is this an unsourced claim? Sagecandor (talk) 00:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I have sources for that and you know that Fox News and right-wing media were big backers of the Saddam Hussein conspiracy theories. The point is though that you need to establish the degree to which the Pizzagate connection has been made in order to show it has sufficient weight for inclusion in the lead. None of the three sources used in the lead to say the theory was debunked (Politifact, Snopes, FactCheck.org) connect the theory with Pizzagate. Neutrality means that we provide the same weight to facts and opinions as appear in reliable sources, it does not mean we pick and choose what we like.

You have not btw provided "multiple sources," you have provided two, one of which is from the entertainment news. In any case "Seth Rich" now returns 161,000 hits on google news so you need to show that it is routinely mentioned in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 02:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Assange, Hannity, Ginrich and Geraldo Rivera should be in the lede too! Raquel Baranow (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

This talk page discussion is moot unless users are willing to provide reliable sources, here, to back up their claims. Unfortunately, so far they have not done so. Sagecandor (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• Pizzagate should not be in the lede. Mentioning it in the body (I've seen several sources comparing them and stating that they come from the same core political group) is perfectly fine by me, but the heuristic for ledes should be something like "What would I say if someone asked me to explain this subject on 30 seconds?" In such a case, Pizzagate wouldn't merit a mention. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  • They use the same circles to spread the same false debunked bullshit. This has been reported in multiple reliable sources. Sagecandor (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I haven't argued that point, nor even implied any disagreement with it. In fact, I explicitly agreed with it in the comment you replied to. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure about mentioning it in the either, both of the sources, LATimes and IB Times, mention the connection almost in passing. If a source has a more in-depth analysis on the similarities of who is pushing these false narratives, ten it might e lead-worthy. ValarianB (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

There are more sources than Sage has used: the New York Times, Newsweek, the Washington Post and others. Admittedly, most sources don't spend much time comparing the two, but it's an extremely common thread. Common enough to, IMHO, justify inclusion in the bodies of the articles. The problem comes when we give it too much weight, which Sage seems to be doing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for providing those sources the New York Times, Newsweek, the Washington Post ! If it's an "extremely common thread", it merits a brief mention in the lede. Maybe we can trim the size of the lede mention down some. Sagecandor (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

But the lead summarizes the rest of the content, are you really saying that Pizzagate is important enough to the narration of the Seth Rich murder to introduce it within the first lines/paragraphs? Is the reverse true, should the murder of Seth Rich be mentioned in the lead of Pizzagate conspiracy theory? ValarianB (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

If it's an "extremely common thread", it merits a brief mention in the lede. No. For example, it is "extremely common" for sources discussing the Lord of the Rings to call it "Masterful", or to point out that they are frequently at the top of "greatest film ever" lists, but we don't do that in the lede of that article. Remember, the comparison is something which is done by the authors of the sources used. Except for a few fringe cases, the CSists aren't themselves linking the two, so the comparison is quite immaterial for a brief description of the subject, which is what the lede should be (which, as Valerian points out, we accomplish by summarizing the body). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

They may not have said they are linking the two, but the same people are pushing the two. Sagecandor (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I've removed it from the lede, pending consensus on talk page [5]. Sagecandor (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I notice that the Newsweek story says conspiracy theorists suspect Rich "was murdered by Democratic operatives for leaking emails that harmed the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton." I think that should be in the article. It does not make sense to refer to a conspiracy theory dozens of times without explaining what it is. TFD (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, should only include that if directly afterwards in the article, it says it is bullshit. Sagecandor (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with both of you; That's the claim that belongs (briefly) in the article, but we should state that it's untrue. To that end, we should be sure to use a source that supports both assertions: Many sources will assume that the reader already knows it's BS and not assert it directly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with this assessment by MjolnirPants. Sagecandor (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I would remind you that "Vulgarities, obscenities, and profanities" applies: "Quoted words should appear exactly as in the original source. But language that is vulgar, obscene, or profane should be used only if its omission would make the article less accurate or relevant and there is no suitable alternative." I do not think that the phrasing "it's bullshit!" meets Manual of Style guidelines. If that is not your intention, it would be helpful if you used the exact terminology you think would be approprate. TFD (talk) 21:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was suggesting we use the word "bullshit" literally. It's just a convenient shorthand for "there is no evidence to support it and plenty of evidence to discredit it" which you have to admit is a mouthful. Furthermore, I don't find it very easy to believe that an intelligent, experienced editor such as yourself cannot tell the difference. Come on now, no-one can be expected to always write with perfect precision and avoid idiomatic and hyperbolic phrasings at all times. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I find that using terms such as "it's bullshit" moves the discussion from a dispassionate one about improving the article into a political debate between editors. We should not be trying to prove or debunk conspiracy theories, but should just outline what has been said about them. TFD (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I find that using terms such as "it's bullshit" moves the discussion from a dispassionate one about improving the article into a political debate between editors.I find that the reaction of editors who can't simply let such an affront to their closely held beliefs slide are the actual responsible parties for such debates, and that the editors using such terms usually make at least some minor efforts to avoid being drawn into such debates.

We should not be trying to prove or debunk conspiracy theories, but should just outline what has been said about them. And thus we prove my point above. So do you have any feedback on the actual content discussion, such as by proposing some actual copy for us to review? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The reason I think the article should reflect what appears in reliable sources using phrasing consistent with guidelines is not that mainstream media reflects my "closely held beliefs," but because by editing we agree to abide by policy and guidelines. This is not a forum for advocacy. In reply to your question whether I have any feedback into the contact, I do. Let's leave Pizzagate out of the lead, because reliable sources do not give it major significance. Furthermore it actually weakens the impact that you want, because it overstates your case. Subtlety is more effective. TFD (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

You can continue to preach a message that no-one is disputing in the hopes that others will assume we are disputing it (at least, that's the only reason I can think of for you to continue harping on like this), or you can participate in the discussion of what, exactly, to include wrt this content. I might point out that one of those options is in keeping with policy, and the other not. I'm glad to hear that you agree with me (and apparently, with all others here as of Sage's last comment) on leaving this out of the lede. So what about "The various conspiracy theories surrounding Rich's death were promulgated by many of the same sources as those pushing the "Pizzagate" theory. Neither has been supported by evidence."? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Slate called the claims about Seth Rich: a "PizzaGate-like conspiracy theory surrounding Rich’s death", NPR's David Folkenflik said Fox News coverage of it "evokes the pizza-gate terrible allegations utterly unfounded", and Margaret Sullivan wrote for The Washington Post: "The Seth Rich lie has become the new Comet Ping Pong ... Crazy, baseless and dangerous."

These seem like noteworthy comparisons. Sagecandor (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not a description by the Huffington Post but by Eric Boehlert, who is a senior fellow at the pro-Democratic Party media watchdog Media Matters for America. As I said above, none of the neutral fact-checking sites (FactCheck.org, PolitiFact or Snopes) mention Pizzagate. TFD (talk) 05:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The sources are notable. And reliable. The fact-checking sites are great. But we can't have the entire Wikipedia article only be based solely on those three sources. Sagecandor (talk) 12:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Sage is absolutely right. He presented three sources which aren't questionable at all already. The statements he posted would make for text which is a bit longer than I'm comfortable with, but that's a preference thing. To quibble because one of the sources who's made this comparison might be biased is not a valid objection. And the implication that we can only use fact checking sites is just spurious.

Sage, the slate quote you give doesn't say anything about being false, and the quote from the Buzzfeed interview is difficult to read. I think the WaPo source would be good for making the comparison and claiming both are false. I think if we source the claim to both the Newsweek and WaPo source, that'd be enough to make the statements that the two are pushed by the same group and both are false. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds like a good idea, can you draft a suggested sample? Sagecandor (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

An observation made by an officer of an organization set up by a close Clinton associate (David Brock) whose primary objective is to support her is questionable as an unbiased source. Ironically Brock himself has been accused of spreading anti-Clinton conspiracy theories, before his road to Damascus conversion. I imagine it is noteworthy that Clinton supporters choose to compare it to a hoax rather than more broadly covered conspiracy theories such as 9/11 truth, but we would need a reliable secondary source that made that observation. TFD (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

We're not quoting Brock. We're not discussing any HuffPo sources here. I don't know where you're getting this notion from, but you're not engaged in the same discussion Sage and I are. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with MjolnirPants. This is off-topic distraction. Sagecandor (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe an RfC could actually get us somewhere beyond these circular arguments. ^Falling_Gravity 19:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

We are discussing among other things, an op-ed by Eric Boehlert who is a writer working for David Brock. Another Brock organ, Correct the Record, ironically paid online trolls to discredit Clinton opponents in social media, according to an article in The Atlantic.[6] it does not mean that MMfA is unreliable, I have argued the opposite, but it is partisan. It's OK to present the views of Clinton supporters, but they should be identified as such. TFD (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

You may be discussing that op-ed, but neither me nor Sage are. Neither of us is proposing to use it to source the content we are discussing. You are either confused or attempting to confuse us. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, Sage removed that source from the list without telling me.[7] Good editors identify the best sources and ensure that articles reflect what they say. It is tendentious editing to decide what one wants to be in an article, then Google mines for sources and presents them without checking them first. Lot's of bad sources don't compensate for lack of good sources. I will look at the four remaining sources and report back. TFD (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

It is tendentious editing to decide what one wants to be in an article, then Google mines for sources and presents them without checking them first.

1. No, it is bad editing to do that, more specifically, it is POV pushing to do that. However;
2. It is tendentious editing to accuse others of basing content on their opinions without good reason.
3. It is tendentious editing to accuse others of cherry picking sources without good reason.
4. It is tendentious editing to accuse others of not checking their sources without good reason.

So please, stop. Try reading through this thread. You can skip to my first comment, after which the direction of the discussion changed. But continually opposing everything being discussed here based on your own preconceptions of what we might be saying without making any visible effort to compare those preconceptions to what we have actually said is very disruptive and is quite off-putting. The only thing you have accomplished is a demonstration of your own failings thus far. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Proposed wording of this material for use in the body

The various conspiracy theories surrounding Rich's murder have been espoused by many of the same sources pushing "Pizzagate", a debunked rumor about a child-sex ring operating out of a pizza restaurant. Both sets of rumors have been discredited.

I have seen the claim repeated in several non-RSes that Rich was killed because he helped "expose" Pizzagate. Does anyone have a reliable source for this? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The first source, "Margaret Sullivan: The Seth Rich lie, and how the corrosion of reality should worry every American" is a opinion piece and therefore is a "primary source[] for statements attributed to that editor or author, but...rarely reliable for statements of fact," per "News organizations." Sullivan is expressing an opinion that the Seth Rich conspiracy theory is a danger by comparing it in passing with Pizzagate. There was a similar discussion at Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center/Archive 10#Some concrete proposals and later about a person who read on the SPLC website that the Family Research Council as a "hate group" and carried out an armed attack on them. Various opinion pieces were presented that called the SPLC "reckless." In presenting opinions we need to explain who presented them and should only mention them if they have received attention in secondary sources.

Regarding your second point, I do not think we should look for sources for what we want to add to articles but should identify the best sources and put in what they report.

TFD (talk) 07:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

1. Your objection can be overcome by simply leaving out that piece. The other source supports the entire statement.
2. Seeking sources is absolutely required for building an encyclopedia like this. Seriously, do you think the sources are going to come to us? I know for a fact this claim (that Rich 'exposed' Pizzagate and was killed for it) is being made, what I don't know is whether it's notable or widespread. Trying to determine that with the help of my fellow editors is exactly the sort of thing I'm supposed to be doing here, and if you just can't help but whine about me doing that, then you should really go edit somewhere else because you're really getting disruptive here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

It is questionable whether the remaining source should been seen as a news article or an opinion piece, since it was written by a "senior writer" who provides opinion and analysis. In any case, the article is about the death of a federal prosecutor. After saying there is no evidence his death was the result of a conspiracy, he writes, "there was no evidence to support the Rich conspiracy theory, Pizzagate (which implicated the Clinton campaign in a child pornography ring) or the Obama “birther” movement." Not really a strong connection. I added the SPLC's list of conspiracy theories of the U.S. radical right to that article, see Radical right (United States)#Conspiracism. But it would have been tendentious to repeat it across every article about every conspiracy theory mentioned.

Certainly we should seek sources. As I wrote, "we should look for sources for what we want to add to articles but should identify the best sources and put in what they report." Instead of following neutrality, you seek to insert what you think is important rather than what sources do.

TFD (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

It is questionable whether the remaining source should been seen as a news article or an opinion piece It's a news article. It's written without pushing an opinion and it is, in no way, presented as an opinion piece. It's only questionable if one has preconceptions that any such statements must be opinions.

Instead of following neutrality, you seek to insert what you think is important rather than what sources do. Forgetting for the moment the amazing stupidity of dictating to a stranger on the internet what that stranger's thought processes are, I've asked you several times to stop personalizing this. You are nothing but a disruption in this thread so far, so I think I'll be treating you with the appropriate level of attention and consideration from now on. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

You want to put Pizzagate into the lead despite my attempts to explain why it violates policy and guidelines. Instead of thanking me for my patience, you call me stupid. I have done my best. TFD (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

You are so completely full of shit right now. Seriously, read the thread. Go back. It'll take less than ten minutes to read the whole thing. This isn't even close to your best, this is possibly you at your most ignorant worst. Read. The. Fucking. Thread. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Employee or data analyst

Rich was not a simple "employee". He was a data analyst for the DNC! --87.156.226.151 (talk) 06:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

You should read the second to last sentence in the very first section of the article titled Seth Rich's early life and career, which says "In 2014 he began working for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) as the Voter Expansion Data Director." Darknipples (talk) 02:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

conspiracy theories?

it seems completely incorrect to describe the theory that seth rich leaked the DNC emails as a "conspiracy theory" since a conspiracy theory means "a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for an unexplained event", seth rich is not a covert influential organization and the DNC leaks are not an unexplained event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.71.88 (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The murder was an unexplained event and the conspiracy theory is that it was carried out by a covert but influential organization. TFD (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

While that definition is correct, a conspiracy theory can also just be a claim of wikt:conspiracy between interested parties (like Rich and Wikileaks). At any rate, the claim that Rich was connected to the leaks is only described in this article as a conspiracy theory in a direct quote from PolitiFact.com. The rest of the article describes it as part of the murder conspiracy theory as TFD says. clpo13_(talk) 19:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree, but a conspiracy theory is not just a theory but the implication is that it is false, irrationally held and is a symptom of a world-view where evil and powerful actors secretly control major world events. Certainly some if not most supporters of the murder conspiracy theory were truthers or birthers fell for the Pizzagate hoax. TFD (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I should have made that clear. clpo13_(talk) 21:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

George Washington University Faculty Findings 06/21/17

Shocking corroberation of the so-called 'conspiracy theories' by the GWU faculty in their recent publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.152.116 (talk) 09:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

References

• Newsweek: "As for the conspiracy theories, the Profiling Project says those are unfounded, given that Rich did not die immediately at the scene" ^Falling_Gravity 14:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I was referring to how 'conspiracy theories' (that any attempt to suggest the crime was any other than a robbery) were derided. Also, I am very surprised the findings have not been referred to in the article.

Why is "the faculty of George Washington University" using a Gmail contact address instead of an official university one? Geogene (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The report (from the scribd link above) says "An all-volunteer group of current and former George Washington University forensic psychology graduate students and instructors".

Since there's no actual list of participants it's hard to tell, but this sounds like a student club; "instructors" may in fact be synonymous with "graduate students", or I'd think they'd have said "professors". I'd be careful of overinflating this to "Faculty Findings". --NapoliRoma (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

It should be mentioned since it got coverage. There's nothing particularly unusual about the findings. TFD (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• As an administrative comment, this material falls well short of the sourcing bar set forth in WP:BLP in general, and all the more so given the extra circumspection and responsibility demanded when covering people who are "notable" primarily as the victim of someone else's actions. Please keep those policy requirements in mind. MastCell ^Talk 17:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • That is a bizarre interpretation of the policy. The report is about the possible perpetrator of the crime, not the victim. If you don't think Wikipedia should have articles about criminal cases, then get policy changed. TFD (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't think Wikipedia should play host to poorly-sourced speculation about the murders of otherwise low-profile private figures, particularly when such speculation has caused and continues to cause distress to the victim's family. Wikipedia policy, as well as basic human decency, pretty clearly backs me up on that, so I don't see a need to change policy, although I will enforce it. MastCell ^Talk 19:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
      • There is a distinction between reporting opinions and endorsing opinions. We have articles about anti-Semitic theories for example which are offensive and it is illegal to promote in many countries. In this case, the suggestion is to include what a reliable source says about the report. It may be that reliable sources report what is best left unreported, but policy says that we should "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources...." I did not see this level of concern by the way in the Trayvon Martin case or any other similar case. TFD (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
        • 'poorly sourced'? I'd hardly call Newsweek a poor source,. No, this is yet further evidence that some editors will go to any length to circumvent source material being added to the article.

Rewards

Original

The Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia (MPDC) posted its customary reward of $25,000 for information about the death.[2][34]

Proposed Revision:

In addition to the $20,000 reward offered by Wikileaks, the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia (MPDC) posted its customary reward of $25,000 for information about the death.[2][34]

One America News Network and Republican strategist Jack Burkman are offering rewards of $100,000 and $130,000 respectively in connection with the Rich investigation.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohawk82 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)