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 118.92.120.68 (talk) at 07:53, 19 February 2018 (→‎General Political Bias in the Article to Discount Speculations are ill advised). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 19, 2016Articles for deletionNo consensus
September 15, 2016WikiProject approved revisionDiff to current version
October 4, 2016Articles for deletionNo consensus
January 21, 2017Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
February 26, 2017WikiProject approved revisionDiff to current version
May 30, 2017WikiProject approved revisionDiff to current version

General Political Bias in the Article to Discount Speculations are ill advised

The article tries very hard to paint any speculation that Seth Rich had involvement with the DNC email leaks as sociopathic or conspiracy theories that it uses very illogical assumptions.

While it is true we don't know who killed Seth Rich the police cannot debunk the theories by stating it was a botched robbery. He was shot in the back indicating he never saw his attacker and several items of value and a wallet full of money were left on the scene. Since no one saw the murder or anyone fleeing the scene this is unlikely. Certainly this does not rule out the speculations.

The article states Assange "fueled speculations" by his involvement. It fails to mention that the "involvement" was a $20,000 US reward. It is very difficult to believe Assange who gave the award within a month of his death would do so if he did not have any involvement.

The article also mentions fact checkers, all known left wing activist sites, debunking the theories because their is no hard evidence to support them. A hypothesis is not debunked until evidence is shown to reject it. Having hot done this they cannot be stated to have debunked anything and only reiterati9ng what we all know. We don't know what happened.

The article also tries to state Rich cannot have done this because he was only a programmer and not a hacker. Number one both roles require extensive programming skills. Second most hackers don't advertise that skill so how do we know Rich was not. Lastly and most important one does not need to be a hacker to download emails from an archived file. All one needs is proper administrative access which Rich working for the DNC may have had or knew people who did and could have acce4ssed and copied the information through legitimate accounts. If he was involved this is most likely. Assange's unwillingness to declare Rich's involvement but willingness to spend @20 grand to reveal his killer to the world is indicative this could be the case. This scenario is likely and possible and no one is a sociopath for considering it. Rather I would state the sociopoaths are the people, to protect their own left wing political party are trying to silence this.

Lastly the article announces as proven fact that Russians were involved. Why? this narrative invented by Hillary Clinton's dirty tricks team from the Fusion GPS memo is tired by now. It has not shown evidence of anything and has been used to justify illegally obtained FISA warrants to spy on private American citizens just for being members of Trump's campaign. This is silly and certainly the speculation that Rich's death was something to do with the DNC is a more plausible allegation.

In the end we don't know and you can say that but quit trying to dictate to people what they are allowed to think. It is crass and arrogant!

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.36.184.224 (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is appreciated, but I think you'd benefit from reading our policies on verifiability and original research. Simply put, we're simply following the reliable sources, which contradict much of what you wrote. Sources are not rendered unreliable simply because of some alleged bias.. If you find content that doesn't reflect the cited sources, or you find other reliable sources that contradict the article, then please identify them here for discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It’s pointless getting into extended arguments like these on Wikipedia - like many technology groupings, Wikipedia is full of hard-left activists and their ilk. You’ll get ulcers for nothing.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Murder of Seth Rich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Long quote from Poynter

Concerning my recent edit removing a large paragraph copied and pasted from a Poynter article, I'd like to provide a reminder that this is the "Murder of Seth Rich" article, not the "Criticism of Fox News Channel" or "Fox News § Murder of Seth Rich conspiracy" articles. While I think that some media criticism should be included in this article to debunk Fox's original story, the lifted quote doesn't tell us anything about Seth Rich's murder or the conspiracy theories surrounding it. The paragraph could also constitute an unacceptable use of non-free content because it is an Excessively long copyrighted excerpt, in which case it should, at the very least, be trimmed down or summarized. FallingGravity 08:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is relevant because news coverage is an important aspect of the subject. I would prefer however that we summarize the comments rather than use a lengthy quote. Note that it is incorrectly attributed to the Poynter Institute, when in fact it was made by Kelly McBride, who works for the Institute. Also, when we mention someone's opinions, we should briefly explain who that person is, if it is not obvious to readers. TFD (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the source is worth using but its current treatment is undue. I'd go even further than TFD. It would be perfectly adequate to summarize the source (without a quote) in a single sentence that says so-and-so said the retraction was inadequate and explain why. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe something like "Media ethics writer Kelly McBride wrote that the retraction was "woefully inadequate", noting that it did not specify exactly what was inaccurate, or provide provide accurate information in place of the original story." FallingGravity 02:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's the sort of thing I was talking about, thanks. Minor quibbles but those can be fixed afterwards. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Seth_Rich&oldid=826465194"