Talk:Murder of Seth Rich

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

Requested move 26 March 2022[edit]

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved With 11 opposes and no supports in just under three days, this page will obviously NOT be moved per WP:SNOW... (non-admin closure) --Quiz shows 18:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Murder of Seth RichKilling of Seth Rich – Per WP:DEATHS. There have been no murder convictions on this case, so it's inappropriate to label it a murder. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose WP:DEATHS says if there is a common name we should use it. In this case it is murder. WP:DEATHS in any case is not a policy or guideline and has not been vetted by the community. There's very little doubt that it was a murder, that is, that the assailant had criminal intent, and none has been expressed in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 03:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per TFD and WP:COMMONNAME, same as last time we discussed this, in 2020. And the same as when it was discussed before that, in 2017. And trout Iamreallygoodatcheckers. Geogene (talk) 05:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose The preponderance of reliable sources describe this as a murder, either in the headline, or in the body of the story. When "murdered" is not used, its close synonym "slain" is frequently used instead. Cullen328 (talk) 05:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose "Kill" is a neutral word, whereas "murder" indicates criminal intent. This was clearly a murder, in contrast to another place where we say "kill": Killing of Ma'Khia Bryant, where a police officer shot her to prevent her from stabbing another girl she was attacking with a knife. This was ruled a justifiable homicide and the officer was not charged. This was also not a racially-motivated killing but a tragic event. -- Valjean (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak oppose. If there were any known suspects, then I would support the move, as the title does presume guilt in the absence of any conviction for murder. However, in this case, since there is no known suspect and since this is most commonly described as a murder, the current title is fine. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Agree with The Four Deuces. WP:DEATHS is an explanatory supplement and not WP:Policy or a guideline. The WP:Policy of COMMONNAME indicates that if there is a common name, then that common name is what takes precedence. A Google search for "Killing of Seth Rich" gives 2500 results, "Murder of Seth Rich" gives 14,000 - "murder" in this case does seem to be more common. Shearonink (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose even as a supporter of WP:DEATHS myself. WP:DEATHS doesn't apply if the incident is universally considered a murder by sources long before the conviction could be attained. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose WP:DEATHS is ridiculous. And murder has nothing to do with convictions or trials. Dimadick (talk) 08:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong oppose Call a spade a spade. This was a criminal act, recognized universally as a murder. This ridiculous dance of first titling obvious criminal homicides as "Killing" and then, finally, if a suspect is found and a jury returns a verdict, only then proposing a rename to "Murder" is one of the more tediously pedantic practices on Wikipedia. Just follow COMMONNAME already! -- Veggies (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak oppose per Rreagan007's reasoning. If there were any suspects, then BLP considerations should indeed take precedence over COMMONNAME and the name changed to avoid implications. However, as long as there is no living person who could be impacted by the current title, COMMONNAME should prevail. Regards SoWhy 08:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Ridiculous. He didn't shoot himself n the back 2 times. The absence of an identified perpetrator does not invalidate the nature of the death, which is a murder. ValarianB (talk) 13:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.

Attempted Robbery[edit]

Hi, one detail I'm curious about that the article is unfortunately very vague about is, how the police did determine that Mr. Rich's death was probably a robbery that went wrong? I mean, if the authorities never caught the perpetrator who killed Mr. Rich, or at least identified the person, who committed the act, how were they able to make a determination with regard to the question why that person, whom they never identified and know nothing about, killed him? From a layman's perspective that claim looks at first glance like speculation or conjecture. So, did the police ever explain, why they are highly sure that the reason, why he was killed (or the circumstances under which he was killed), was a robbery gone wrong? I don't doubt that it was (in case anyone wants to accuse me of anything unsavoury), I'd just be curious to learn the basis of facts or the rationale on which they based the issuing of the rather definitive sounding claim "i was very likely a robbery gone wrong". Was it that the angle and distance from which he was shot was typical of a robbery that went differently than planned and very untypical of a targetted killing, or something like that? As I said, I would be eager to learn, how the criminological experts reached their conclusion without knowing anything about the person who comitted the act. If anyone knows newspaper articles etc. that cover that aspect and can integrate that IMHO salient information I'd appreciate it.2001:9E8:263B:4900:34F6:518A:802E:9CB4 (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest you search the article for "robbery". Use Control-F. Then read the sources. Unless you have reliable sources that say otherwise, that's the best we've found. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very good point. Good job staying neutral so they didn’t remove
your comment for “misinformation” or something else. 2600:1700:4BE0:4A30:70BB:2727:148C:9C37 (talk) 06:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The police statements are quoted in, which is used as a source in the article.[1] That's all the information currently available to answer your question. TFD (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]