Talk:Murder of Seth Rich

Picture

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Seth_Rich_memorial.jpg

Put this in the "Aftermath" section which says "In October 2016, a plaque and bike rack outside the DNC headquarters were dedicated to Rich's memory."

Caption: "Bike rack (top) and plaque (bottom) outside the DNC headquaters" Johanna745 (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 05:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 July 2017

The second paragraph states that there is a "groundless claim" that Rich had been involved with the leaked DNC emails in 2016. That is an opinion and yet to be determined. I suggest removing the word 'groundless'. 98.117.55.213 (talk) 23:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Until some evidence of the claim is produced, it is groundless by definition. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Have you ever heard the saying, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"? That is effectively what you just claimed. Ever taken a Debate class in your life? Hint: If there is a statement that something is a "groundless claim", to be correct that statement must be KNOWN to be true: The speaker must know, for sure, that no evidence exists anywhere supporting that claim. And merely because a person isn't aware of such evidence, that is not the same as being aware that no such evidence exists anywhere. I will give you an example: Suppose I said, "there is no other life in our Galaxy than here on Earth". There is certainly no evidence of such life, but there is also no evidence of the lack of such life. 2601:1C2:4E01:CE00:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 06:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: per MPants jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

USE OF "DEBUNKED" IN SECOND PARAGRAPH IS UNWARRANTED

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

---

Edit request. From the second paragraph: "These theories were debunked by law enforcement,[5][6]" According to https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/debunk "There are plenty of synonyms for "debunk," including "disprove," "rebut," "refute," and the somewhat rarer "confute." Even "falsify" can mean "prove something false," in addition to "make something false." "Debunk" itself often suggests that something is not merely untrue, but also a sham; one can simply disprove a myth, but if it is "debunked," the implication is that it was a grossly exaggerated or foolish claim." (end of quotation) I don't believe anyone has actually disproved that Rich was killed in retaliation for revealing various emails. The organizations listed can be correctly stated as having "denied" that idea, but to rise to the level of "debunk" would probably require some sort of proof that it isn't true, rather than a mere denial that it is true. If the actual murderer were caught and tried, that could easily amount to "debunking" the concept, for example. Also, the definition discussion from Merriam-Webster suggests that the allegation must actually be a "sham", a "grossly-exaggerated or foolish claim". Was the suggestion that Rich was murdered in retaliation "a sham"? Was it a "grossly-exaggerated or foolish claim"? Is it completely inconceivable that a person working for the DNC might have been killed for revealing emails? I don't see any elements of that idea which qualify under these labels. Also, much is made in the various cites of conclusions that Russia supplied "the emails" to Wikileaks. There's no proof supplied for this; and even if it is true that some emails were hacked by Russia's people, that does not automatically disprove the idea that emails were also obtained by other means (including by other hackers, or insiders?) and were themselves supplied to the media or Wikileaks, or both. The cites seemingly being used to "disprove" the Seth Rich connection imply that emails might have been obtained and released by Russia, or Seth Rich, but not by both. Since Russia's activities are claimed to be proven, this is used alone to disprove Seth Rich's involvement. That doesn't amount to "debunking" the retaliation story. 2601:1C2:4E01:CE00:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 01:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources say otherwise, sorry. The text will not be changed. TheValeyard (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

You sound quite certain. But you don't prove your point. You need to show that "reliable sources" ACTUALLY "say otherwise". I've made a valid point, that the use of the word "debunked" is improper. This word is used in the voice of Wikipedia, not merely as a quote from a so-called "reliable source". And even if a "reliable source" actually used that word, it doesn't mean that it was a proper assertion. Go back and try to prove your point. Don't make it sound like a group of partisans control this article. Even if they think they do. 2601:1C2:4E01:CE00:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 02:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

OooOOoOOohhh. Scare quotes. You know, you could take the ten seconds (a lifetime, I know) it would take to click on some of those sources in the article and read for yourself. I'm just saying. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree that this was settled a long time ago; and there's no reason to argue it again. Enough editors are familiar with what the sources say to know that this objection doesn't have merit. Geogene (talk) 04:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you set a trap for yourself, and then jumped right in! I checked references 5, 6, and 7, 8, and 9, and in NONE of them did I find a single reference to the word "debunk", or "debunked" or "debunked". But I wasn't satisfied with that. I wanted to rub your collective noses in it. So I did a Google search for '"Seth Rich" debunk'. Remarkably, in the first page of the results, while I did find one relevant reference (the last on the first page) it didn't explain how the story was actually "debunked". Effectively, the story was not proven, not actually debunked. Clearly, the gang that believes they control this article feels entitled to throw around a word like "debunked" even though Reliable Sources don't seem to use it. So far, the two people who have responded don't feel the need to DISCUSS, the critical third component of WP:BRD. (Bold, Revert, and Discuss.) Try again, guys. You are just making evidence of your rude, dictatorial nature. Quite typical for Wikipedia. Also, Geogene, don't play games. I've just disproven the alleged source of the word "debunked". The fact that you merely assert "this was settled long time ago" doesn't mean it is. Keep in mind that one trick people use in WP to stifle discussion is to erase material on the Talk Page, as I suspect has been done. Any challenge is legitimate as if fresh; your attempt to control the forum is noted and rejected. Further, I note that on this Talk page as it currently stands, the word "debunk[]" only appears on the section I just added. It sure looks like those before me have been trying to conceal the "debunked" issue. If I check prior versions of this Talk page, will I see any references to the debate you imply previously happened? 2601:1C2:4E01:CE00:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 04:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

"if it is "debunked," the implication is that it was a grossly exaggerated or foolish claim." -- Exactly... "I don't believe anyone has actually disproved that Rich was killed in retaliation for revealing various emails." -- This is also known as Argument from ignorance..."the definition discussion from Merriam-Webster suggests that the allegation must actually be a "sham", a "grossly-exaggerated or foolish claim" -- Yes, that is what it means..."Is it completely inconceivable that a person working for the DNC might have been killed for revealing emails?" -- Irrelevant, as we do not use Original Research..."Since Russia's activities are claimed to be proven, this is used alone to disprove Seth Rich's involvement. That doesn't amount to "debunking" the retaliation story." -- Your issue is not WP:DUE, your issue is not WP:RS, your issue is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- DN (talk) 05:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

<sigh> You seem to grossly misunderstand or misrepresent what I just said. I meant that it is improper to claim that something about Rich's death was somehow "debunked" unless it was a "grossly exaggerated or foolish claim". So far, it isn't. Your claim of "Argument from ignorance" is similarly misguided. I didn't claim we knew the truth of the claim; instead, I was and am saying that it is quite improper to call something "debunking" unless we KNEW enough of the facts. Which we don't. You are also misguided for referring to "Original Research". I am, instead, challenging the foolish assertion that it is "debunked", because to do otherwise ITSELF must use "original research": A person must conclude that it is completely inconceivable that a person working for the DNC might have been killed for receiving emails. And I am genuinely pointing out valid defects in the use of the word "debunked", which none of you have yet shown was actually used by a Reliable Source. Try again. 2601:1C2:4E01:CE00:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 05:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Aren't you tired of trying to manipulate Wikipedia to silence contrary opinions?

I'm going to re-add this section, since the instructions clearly told me to. It said: "The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion."

It sure looks to me like you have just established that some of you feel like you control this article, and contrary ideas and opinions are quite unwelcome. The fact that the article itself is write-protected is a large clue. The fact that I disproved the presence of the word "debunked" in the relevant citations that were apparently being used to support the reference to "debunked" should be quite embarrassing to you. The fact that some jerk decided to block off all further discussions about a legitimate issue regarding the use of the word "debunk" is enormously revealing to everyone how low the WP cabal can and has gone. Your discussion "muscles" have clearly atrophied, and you are terrified of actually supporting your false claims. 2601:1C2:4E01:CE00:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 05:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I should also add that the trick of doing an archive in the extraordinary low time of 15 days is a truly embarrassing (to you) fact. "Sweeping under the rug" is a classic explanation for what you are trying to do. 2601:1C2:4E01:CE00:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 06:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)