Talk:Murder of Seth Rich

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.

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)

"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)

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. Alfombra2013 (talk) 11:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. ^Falling_Gravity 06:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

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". ^Falling_Gravity 16:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

"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)

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. ^Falling_Gravity 16:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@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)

Because Rich's involvement is not "undetermined" but absurd, "alleged" is not appropriate here. Geogene (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

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. ^Falling_Gravity 00:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

You should not use those words on the talk page or anywhere else on WP. Thx. SPECIFICO talk 01:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not using those word, I'm quoting you. ^Falling_Gravity 01:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Revised Text (proposal)

• Rich's murder prompted conspiracy theories alleging he was involved in the 2016 leak of DNC internal emails. His parents said they were distressed by the politicization of his murder.

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

References

Survey

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

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)

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)

[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)

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)

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)

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

@James J. Lambden: Regarding left support of the conspiracy, I've found this article which discusses it. ^Falling_Gravity 04:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@FallingGravity: Although I lean towards not, opinions on the reliability of Thinkprogress at RSN are evenly divided. I'd feel more comfortable if we had more than one source; I'll see what I can find. About a week ago I evaluated the existing citations and fewer described the conspiracy theory as "right wing" than not. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I found this in Friday's Times: "So it made sense, when Mrs. Clinton’s win seemed assured, that supporters of both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders were convinced that Mr. Rich’s death showed ruthless corruption in the Democratic Party." James J. Lambden (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

• Wikileaks Bombshell: Guccifer 2.0 Admits “Seth” Rich Was DNC Leaker
• Did Julian Assange Hint that Seth Rich Was the Source of the Leaks?

Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I would just use the term conspiracy theories. TFD (talk) 04:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• If it's your intention to mount an RfC on this ugly smear, I suggest you follow the formal procedure. Otherwise nothing will be resolved. And no -- the Clinton-crazies bit is key to the meaning of the cited source, and yes: These Seth Rich smears are self-serving fake news narratives, which is why they're described in RS reporting as anti-Clinton propaganda. So it's not like the alleged Unabomber or the Osama the alleged mastermind of the 9-11 attacks. SPECIFICO talk 22:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support Been following this story on Twitter and elsewhere where it is/was a very popular conspiracy theory, looks like there are enough RS. Raquel Baranow (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Current wording is fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I think the reference to the 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak is more informative to the reader by describing how his death prompted these conspiracy theories. -Location (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support this is a key part of the story here. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

• Comment Currently I count 5 support and 2 oppose with stronger arguments for support. SPECIFICO: I take it from your critical replies you intend to !vote oppose. If you would like to change your comment to a !vote or add a !vote (making 3 opposes) please do. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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.” 72.228.136.47 (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

Oppose as inadequate... although I assume the rapid pace of events has rendered this RFC moot, given that both the proposal itself and many of the !votes are from before May 16th, when the article started to change drastically as a result of shifting events. Either way, in the most recent round (which attracted far more attention than earlier ones), the conspiracy theory has been clearly pushed by very specific people for very specific reasons; I feel that going by the bulk of the sources, that's the really important part of the article - not the murder (which would not even have an article if it weren't for the conspiracy theories), and not the conspiracy theories themselves (which attracted relatively little attention until recently - compare the article May 16th, when Fox first turned back to it, to now). The story is now primarily about Fox - the how and why of its involvement should be mentioned in the lead specifically, given that we have extensive sources for it and given that Fox News is the direct focus of nearly a third of the article's text. --Aquillion (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose, basically agree with comments by Volunteer Marek and by Aquillion, because the article and facts in reliable sources have developed significantly since this section started. Sagecandor (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Oppose Has the theory that Seth Rich was the DNC email leaker to wikileaks truly been debunked? Mr Ernie (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

That was never taken seriously by anyone outside of a very narrow political persuasion. Geogene (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

RS overwhelmingly describe it as a conspiracy theory. Do you contest that? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Support in principle, but the suggested title is a bit of a clunker. ValarianB (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

That's why I have suggested "Seth Rich homicide". Much more compact. Daniel Case (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support Because the conspiracy theories are the only aspect of the murder that is notable, they, and the news article churn around them, are the reason the AfDs failed. Geogene (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support Reliable sources refer to it as that. It is a very sad fact, but the poor man's murder would have zero importance at all outside of his family and loved ones if it weren't for that. The title suggested is based on RS and conveys what is significant. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The topic is the murder. The aftermath, various Fox News controveries, and conspiracy theories are related "subtopics" covered in the article. Peacock (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Peacock. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Let's imagine in a couple weeks we suddenly learned who the actually killed Seth Rich, and for the sake of argument assume it was some wannabe robber. How would that fit into an article about conspiracy theories? The focus here should be on the actual murder, and the conspiracy theories should be treated as a sideshow. ^Falling_Gravity 19:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

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. ^Falling_Gravity 04:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Yes. I agree with everything you said there. Yet my point stands. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

• Support - otherwise non-notable murder in a town with a high murder rate; the murder is not notable, only the conspiracy theories are notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Peacock and TFD. It is notable without the conspiracy theories because it attracted widespread news coverage. Why would this high profile murder be less notable (and less worthy of its own wiki article) than other unsolved murders with their own wiki articles, such as the Murder of David Stack, the Murder of Michael Nigg, or the Murder of Betsy Aardsma?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 00:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

With the Russian Embassy in London now promoting the conspiracy theory on twitter, that section is likely to grow. 70.178.51.81 (talk)

References

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
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. 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)

References

• 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)
• Oppose: The title is fine as it is. ArniDagur (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• 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)

"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)

• I just want to point out that WP:COMMONNAME is a thing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as too vague. The new title suggests that the murder itself is a conspiracy theory. Barring that, it's too long and unwieldy. I might support a new title shorter than that, though. epicgenius (talk) 05:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
• I support a move, but not to that title. Killing of Seth Rich or Homicide of Seth Rich would be better. Murder implies malice and forethought. All indications have been that this was a robbery that went wrong. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support move to Seth Rich homicide ("Homicide of ..." is a clunky title and awkward construction; usually the victim's name is used to modify "homicide") per all my arguments at the talk page. 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. Daniel Case (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

Daniel Case Please read WP:BLUDGEON and WP:1AM. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• Move to Death of Seth Rich, which would be simple and neutral. The title should not include "conspiracy theory" since his death is a real thing, not a conspiracy theory. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

• 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)
• 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)

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 Drumpf 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)

• 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)
• Move to Death of Seth Rich -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
• 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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

No. Please read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS Darwinian Ape ^talk 08:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

How about you read WP:BLP and WP:HOAX. Also WP:PTOPIC.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

Um, you have three edits on this account.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• 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)
• Oppose Per above--Valkyrie Red (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

(and doesn't this mean you should change your !vote above?) Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

Please provide policy based reasons for your vote instead wacky as shit conspiracy theorizing. Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

• Oppose - the article is about the murder of an individual - that there was a murder is undisputed. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

But the murder by itself is not notable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Oppose A large section of the article is covering the murder. Stikkyy t/c 05:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. This page is about actual event, not about conspiracy theory. I do not think the conspiracy theory is notable enough to deserve another, additional page. My very best wishes (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose put it under a subsection. --Aleccat 14:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - If we had an article about Seth Rich, I would probably support this as the actual details about his killing could be in the other article. We don't have that. As it doesn't make sense to remove the non-conspiracy theory content in order to orient the article around the conspiracy theories. In the relationship between the two topics, the conspiracy theories are a subtopic of the event. It would not make sense to keep the content about the event as subordinate to the conspiracy theories, regardless of where the notability comes from. The murder doesn't have to be notable apart from the conspiracy theories for this to be the title that makes the most sense. We could call it "murder of Seth Rich and ensuing conspiracy theories" but that's awfully clunky. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, as the topic of the article appears to be the incident (in this case an unsolved death) in and of itself, rather than a theory - or theories, of which there appear to be several of varying detail - about said incident. --Katangais (talk) 03:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support Split into one article about the man & murder, and one about the conspiracy theories. The death should be covered in the first article. The conspiracy theories and fallout deserve their own. – SJ + 12:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

No, per NOTNEWS. Geogene (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Fake news. Anybody with a Twitter account can claim to be connected to this. Geogene (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Now Washington Post is saying Newt Gingrich is questioning the murder Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Update: I haven't seen other outlets pick this up. May be fake news. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Washington Post is a reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

I can't find independent confirmation, but nobody has refuted it, and it's also been referenced in Uproxx and Heat Street. ^Falling_Gravity 03:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

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. ^Falling_Gravity 07:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

WaPo has walked backed some claims by updating the article:

• "Dotcom, it seemed, may have been willing to create a fake archive of emails" was changed to "The family worried that Dotcom, or someone eager to prove him right, may have been willing to create a fake archive of emails from Rich"
• Their description of Dotcom as "a hacker from New Zealand" was removed
• "Dotcom had made similarly grandiose claims before and had been found to have fabricated evidence." was changed to "Dotcom had made similarly grandiose claims before."
• "Dotcom drew attention to the phony email." to "Dotcom drew attention to the email, which the studio decried as fake."

I am concerned none of these corrections were noted by the Washington Post; they are only discoverable by comparing an archived version of the original article to the current version. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't really get that concerned when news sources tweak their stories for accuracy's sake, because that's actually a sign of WP:RS. However, I do think this can be left out unless it becomes something bigger. According to The Verge: "anybody could go to Mega and create an account using Rich’s email address, prompting the service to auto-send an email to verify it. Conspiracy investigators have been randomly punching information about Rich into all kinds of sites and services, hoping to find new clues, so there’s no reason to think Dotcom is involved. But if anyone’s to blame, it’s the Post for not pointing this out." ^Falling_Gravity 05:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

I think this needs more widespread coverage to get included. Media Matters is a blog and doesn't really count. ^Falling_Gravity 04:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

Leave out unless picked up by mainstream sources. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Media Matters is quite within the mainstream, that's daft. Yes, this should be included. ValarianB (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

TFD, as the chief Clinton Contributor here, perhaps you can suggest some text. SPECIFICO talk 19:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

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[25]. 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)

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)

The Washington Times is not a reliable source for anything. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

I think it fits under WP:NEWSBLOG. You can even see the word "blog" in the URL. ^Falling_Gravity 17:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

I'm pretty sure most editors here want better answers, but that's not really our job here. ^Falling_Gravity 04:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

Martin Shkreli offered $100,000 reward, I know Gateway Pundit is not a RS but what's the total now >$250K?, Read more Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

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

• Rich, Mary; Rich, Joel (May 23, 2017), "We're Seth Rich's parents. Stop politicizing our son's murder.", The Washington Post, retrieved May 23, 2017, We ask those purveying falsehoods to give us peace, and to give law enforcement the time and space to do the investigation they need to solve our son's murder.

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

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)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox for spreading conspiracy theories. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

Your "media" must be different from what I follow. Geogene (talk) 03:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

The real reason it should be ignored is WP:NOTCENSORED. As harsh as this may sound, we should base our content on reliable sources, not the desires of the victim's family, the victim's friends, the police department, the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, Donald Trump, Russia, Anonymous, the victim in angel/ghost/zombie form, the man on the moon, or anyone else. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 00:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

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.[26]

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)

---

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.

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

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

Bare hyperlink added directly into body text by Francewhoa ?

[27]

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

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)

This should not be in the article. SPECIFICO talk 13:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

Wikipedia:Citation overkill applies here. Sagecandor (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Thank you. Sagecandor (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Consider commenting out the additional refs (or moving the body to the next usage and commenting out the called ref). It would improve the readability of the pages, while still preserving the big club we can use to beat editors who insist that a non-contentious point is actually contentious. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

• Another option (for contentious things that are frequently challenged) is to merge multiple citations into a single ref tag, so they're available for people who want to review them but don't take up huge amounts of space in the article text. --Aquillion (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

This is likely to result in a POV fork. Geogene (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Then why is that exact same material not POV, in this article? Sagecandor (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Compare:

1. Moon landing
2. Moon landing conspiracy theories

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

• 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)
  • Right now the main topic of the article is getting subsumed by the bogus conspiracy theory topic. That means the article should either be renamed, or subject to WP:SPINOFF. Sagecandor (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
    • It should be consumed by it, because that's its main claim to notability. How much press is the murder of Seth Rich getting these days independent of the conspiracy theories? None as far as I can tell. Geogene (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Agreed. Then that should be in the title. Sagecandor (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

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. ^Falling_Gravity 22:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

That's under discussion. Geogene (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

A discussion dominated by conspiracists who appear to be new users landing to this page. Sagecandor (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

P.S. WP:OSE SPECIFICO talk 20:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

what's left-wing about it? It doesn't advocate the overthrow of the bourgeoisie or anything like that. TFD (talk) 01:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the OP. The article cites as sources a wide array of liberal media outlets, including the persistently inaccurate Washington Post. It gives minimal attention to covering the arguments in favor of the theory, and addresses its proponents using extremely condescending adjectives. But given my experience editing Wikipedia articles relating to politics I've come to realize that most WP editors, at least ones who edit in those areas, are liberal. Due to their superiority in number, they're able to insert their POV into articles freely. So I doubt much will be done about it. But somebody can always try. Display name 99 (talk) 02:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTAFORUM. Provide reliable sources for whatever it is you want to do. Also, you just violated the 1RR restriction on this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Here are some recent reliable right-wing sources that could be included: [28][29][30]. There might be some older stuff I'm not aware of. ^Falling_Gravity 19:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

Disagree with [31]. Will add it back later. People need to understand and read WP:LEAD. Sagecandor (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Is there a direct quote or statement somewhere from the company? Sagecandor (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

[32] Seems they did terminate ads in the wake of the controversy. Sagecandor (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

Done. [33] Sagecandor (talk) 01:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

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

Listverse as source ?

Really ?

Can we not get better sources here ?

Especially for this controversial topic ?

Please see this edit [34].

Is this source [35] Listverse.com a reliable source, especially with regards to this controversial topic ? Sagecandor (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

"Listverse.com", site that takes "list" submissions [36] from literally anyone [37]. Site fails WP:RS. Site should not be used. Sagecandor (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

[38] [39]. Sagecandor (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

Use Google and youtube and search for the earliest possible dates. TFD (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Vox references a Reddit written on July 12, 2016 (about two days after the murder). According to Snopes, the conspiracy website WhatDoesItMean.com peddled a related conspiracy on July 13, 2016. ^Falling_Gravity 20:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

New York Magazine: "The notion that his murder was a political hit job began to circulate even before his funeral. It started on Twitter before pinging to an obscure conspiracy site and then over to Reddit before vaulting to Heat Street and the Twitter feed of Roger Stone, a longtime adviser to President Trump and a frequent guest on Infowars, the radio show hosted by conspiracy theorist Alex Jones." ^Falling_Gravity 19:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

VERY important to note this chronology. This means WikiLeaks was most likely advantageously responding to and fomenting an already existing conspiracy theory, rather than creating a new one out of whole cloth himself. Sagecandor (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

"Advantageously" implies an intention which we do not know. We do not even know if Wikileaks knows who their source was since it may have been passed through a third party, which is what U.S. intelligence says. (It would be unlikely that the source would have identified himself as a KGB agent, since they like to keep that secret.) TFD (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Could be. But now the article is much better with info on origins and chronology of the spread of the false claims and debunked conspiracy theories through social media. Sagecandor (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and the relevant essay here is WP:Let the reader decide. ^Falling_Gravity 20:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Nice. Sagecandor (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

Unfortunately as was the case with Pizzagate conspiracy theory, unfortunately out there on the Internet there are a lot of people interested in fomenting unsourced unverifiable uncorroborated bullshit. Sagecandor (talk) 00:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place in which to solve murder cases.Cpaaoi (talk) 11:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

What the sources actually say

Re [40] by User:Anythingyouwant. The text is being changed from " instead of reporting on new negative revelations about the Trump administration" to "instead of reporting on breaking negative news stories about the Trump administration". The edit summary is "rephrase per npov"

First, calling these "negative news stories" is actually POV, unless sources explicitly call them that. Second, changing "revelations" to "news stories" is WP:WEASEL if that's not how sources refer to these.

So, let's see...

This is the source. It says "However dubious the tale, it represented a specific tactic by all three – to put an alternative story in front of their readers, thus playing down the relevance of the latest Russian revelations."

Then it says:

" Jesse Watters, Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity variously dismissed the Comey revelations as “a boring scandal” "

Then it says:

"no Republicans had been willing to appear on Fox News to discuss the revelations"

On the other hand the word "negative" (as in "news stories") does NOT appear anywhere in the source.

Then we have this source. It says:

"As the revelations about President Donald Trump and fired FBI Director James Comey exploded across all mainstream news outlets

The word "negative" does NOT appear anywhere in the source.

Then we have this source. It says:

"First it was separate from the Russia revelations"

The word "negative" does NOT appear anywhere in the source.

So, as can be seen from the above, the edit does THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what it claims to do. Instead of fixing "per NPOV" it actually MAKES the text non-neutral. The edit also misrepresent the sources by trying to insinuate that the blame here lies with the media which reported "negative news stories" (bad media! bad media!") about Trump rather than the wacky conspiracy theories and fake news like Fox did.

User:Anythingyouwant, I'd appreciate it if you undid your edit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

No, I think "news" and "revelations" have similar meaning but the former sounds more neutral and encyclopedic. Shall I accuse you of being "POV" because your version omits the word "stories" while my version doesn't? The source says: "However dubious the tale, it represented a specific tactic by all three – to put an alternative story in front of their readers, thus playing down the relevance of the latest Russian revelations" (emphasis added). Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you think. What matters is what sources say. "Similar" can be quite different. "Revelations" is used throughout all the sources. We could go with "revelations and stories" if you'd like. But "negative news stories" is clearly POV. Your edit summary is misleading. Your edit misrepresents the sources. Please self-revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

(The purpose here appears to be cast doubt on the "revelations" and imply they may not be true - which they are - by recasting them as "negative news stories" (like "negative campaign adds")).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

"Negative news stories" is certainly no more POV than "negative revelations". If you don't believe me, go here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

No. We use the term that reliable sources use, not the term that you invented.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:PARAPHRASE, "Summarize in your own words instead of closely paraphrasing". I did nothing wrong here, this was a run-of-the-mill edit, and your attacks regarding "misrepresentation" are absurd. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Not when you "paraphrase" to change the meaning of the sources. "Revelations" and "negative news stories" are not the same thing, especially in this context.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Your two quotes ("Revelations" and "negative news stories") are misleading. The word "negative" was already in this article, and yet again you omit the word "story" in the source. Do we have to keep on like this? The word "negative" was added a week ago by User:PerfectlyIrrational and it seems apt.[41] Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

While the sources may not explicitly call the news stories negative, they implicitly do, and no reasonable reader would interpret it any other way. TFD (talk) 05:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

"Reliable sources include: • Mainstream newspapers." WP:V. (1) Stuff is published by Fairfax Media. "We attract an engaged and valuable audience right across Australia and New Zealand." It's mainstream in Australia and New Zealand. (2) The Guardian doesn't regard itself as mainstream media. Nor do mainstream survey respondents. (3) Re Haaretz: "In 2016, the newspaper's readership fell to an all-time low of 3.9% on weekdays, far behind other national newspapers in Israel: Israel Hayom had an exposure rate of 39.7%, Yedioth Ahronoth 34.9%, Israel Post 7.2%, and Globes 4.6%." --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

What? Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Pizzagate in the lead and article not supported by references

Pizzagate in the lead and article not supported by references, two of the refs do not mention Pizzagate, the other, by Anna Merlin, doesn't "purport a connection between the incident and the fictional Pizzagate conspiracy theory." Besides, the reference is in the opinion section too. Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

It is an op-ed hence fails reliable sources and don't forget WP:BLP and WP:HOAX. I will remove it. TFD (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Someone removed a mention of Pizzagate. Based on the [lack of] sources, this seems like a good idea. I removed the other mention and the other use of the op-ed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Re: Rich's parents calling individuals, 'sociopaths' and 'disgusting'

In the lead it states that: 'Rich's parents condemned the conspiracy theorists ... calling them "sociopaths" and "disgusting".'

But this was not actually said by Rich's parents, it was said by the 'family spokesman' Brad Bauman. In Mary and Joel Rich's own words:

'To those who sincerely want to get to the bottom of Seth’s murder, we don’t hold this against you. We don’t think you are monsters, and we don’t think you are terrible people. We know that so many people out there really do care, don’t know what to think and are angry at the lack of answers.

We also know that many people are angry at our government and want to see justice done in some way, somehow. We are asking you to please consider our feelings and words. There are people who are using our beloved Seth’s memory and legacy for their own political goals, and they are using your outrage to perpetuate our nightmare. We ask those purveying falsehoods to give us peace, and to give law enforcement the time and space to do the investigation they need to solve our son’s murder.'

125.168.153.139 (talk) 11:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

True. I've updated the lead to reflect the fact it was their spokesman who used the terms "disgusting" and "sociopaths" Marteau (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

A spokesperson speaks on behalf of the family. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a WP:BLP issue. Thanks to your revert, our lead currently incorrectly and directly attributes those words to family members when that is not in fact the case. It needs to be corrected. Being precise in attributing direct quotes in no way "feed(ing) into the conspiracy theory (the nuts claim" as your edit summary suggests, it is simply being encyclopedic and responsible. Marteau (talk) 12:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this needs to be in the article in any form. It would be encyclopedic to state that the family condemned the people who exploited their son's death for partisan purposes. SPECIFICO talk 14:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. If you rewrite it to make it more encyclopaedic, I would likely support your edit. But if you don't have the time to rewrite it, could you at least revert it to the previous edit by Marteau? 125.168.153.139 (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Re: The Rich family had given permission to, but did not hire, ... Rod Wheeler

According to the New York Times[1] the Rich family did hire Rod Wheeler, but now regret hiring him. It's unclear to me whether Wheeler's contract with the Rich family has now been terminated. With regards to who is paying Wheeler, Ed Butowsky had said that he offered to pay for Wheeler's services, but had not been billed by him.[2]

Relevant passage from the buzzfeed article:

"They said they didn’t feel they were getting any answers," Butowsky said. "The investigation wasn’t going anywhere. I said, 'Why don’t you hire a private detective?' They said they didn’t have any money."

Butowsky said he offered to pay for a private investigator, and called Wheeler. There, he said, his involvement ended.

"They negotiated something," Butowsky said. "In their contract it said any money Rod is going to bill, Butowsky is going to pay. But Rod Wheeler has never billed me a penny. Nobody has ever paid anybody anything."

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/us/seth-rich-dnc-wikileaks.html

[2] https://www.buzzfeed.com/claudiakoerner/the-private-detective-who-ignited-a-clinton-conspiracy

125.168.153.139 (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The important point about this is that the family was duped and exploited by individuals who, unsolicited, presented these "investigators" to them. The article should reflect this, not whether they were "hired" or who was to pay for their involvement if indeed there are to be payments. SPECIFICO talk 14:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, you can rewrite it if you want to (I can't), but as it stands their are multiple factual errors in the article. That said, it doesn't sound like you would rewrite it from a neutral point of view, as you don't give any credence at all to Ed Butowsky's version of events.[1]

[1] https://www.dallasnews.com/news/dallas/2017/05/19/dallas-financier-got-tangled-conspiracy-theories-slaying-dnc-staffer-seth-rich

125.168.153.139 (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

This section is a mess. It's now been reinserted after I challenged it by reverting it with many reasons stated in my edit comment. It should be removed until these issues can be resolved on talk in a policy-compliant manner. It's pointless to whittle away at the garbled version that's again in the article. SPECIFICO talk 17:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, just as a ferexample -- what does it mean to "give permission to" a person to "investigate" a crime. I personally have investigated the dead pigeons in Hyde Park, who may have been poisoned by the Tory fringe. SPECIFICO talk 17:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you that this section is a mess and should be removed until the problems with it are resolved. 125.168.153.139 (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Relevant quotes from The Daily Beast article: "Both have been given permission by the family to conduct independent investigations, but were not paid by the family, as other outlets reported, said Bauman." and, "...a war between two political consultants on opposite sides of the aisle to frame Rich’s death as part of a larger global conspiracy, according to the family’s spokesperson." ^Falling_Gravity 20:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I listed many other problems with the text you've now edit-warred back into the article. WP is not a collection of everything that can possibly be culled from a published page. SPECIFICO talk 20:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

What's wrong with The Daily Beast? They're known to check their facts, even if their headlines are a bit sensational. ^Falling_Gravity 21:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Since the sources do not say they were "duped and exploited by individuals who, unsolicited, presented these "investigators" to them," the article cannot say that either. When you demand your opinions be written into the article, you are encouraging other editors to do the same. I suggest we all agree to ensure the article follows content policy and you can argue your personal opinions elsewhere. Note too BLP applies. The person who recommended Wheeler is Ed Butowsky and you should not make accusations against him, although you are welcome to mention accusations that have been made against him and reported in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

TFD I don't disagree with what you have said but SPECIFICO hasn't tried to force their opinion into the article (from what I've seen), all SPECIFICO did was remove the first paragraph in the 'Independent Investigations' section because it was 'poorly sourced undue unencyclopedic and. SYNTHy', but then falling gravity reverted the edit instantly and left the one line comment that 'the daily beast is a reliable source' without even bothering to comment here. 125.168.153.139 (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear Strawman: Did anybody suggest that "duped and exploited whatnot etc." be inserted as article text? Yours, Dorothy. SPECIFICO talk 18:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO wrote, "The important point about this is that the family was duped and exploited by individuals who, unsolicited, presented these "investigators" to them. The article should reflect this (my emphasis) That means that view or opinion should be inserted into the article. TFD (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

No, it means we mustn't include article text that misrepresents what the sources say, i.e. we shouldn't insert content that adopts the POV insinuations of the conspiracists or the UNDUE and sparse press accounts that present them. It's pretty clear that reflect ≠ insert Call me crazy. SPECIFICO talk 19:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• I've removed the entire paragraph and replaced it with a small tweak slightly further down making it more clear how Wheeler was paid. My rationale: First, putting it at the top of the section is giving WP:UNDUE weight to something that is only a side-note in the source we use (which is... yes, the Daily Beast. It's usable, but there are better sources, which we do use further down.) Second, the paragraph lumped Burkman is as an 'investigator', which AFAIK no source describes him as - the immediate next paragraph makes his involvement more clear and makes it obvious that talking about him being 'hired' by the family makes no sense (his involvement was in offering a personal reward, after all.) With Wheeler, we go into detail on how he was paid (by Butowsky and not by the family); there's no particular advantage to repeating all this one paragraph earlier when giving the whole context and all the details takes exactly as much text. And the GoFundMe, the only other thing in that paragraph, doesn't seem to have been a private investigation at all (at least, the source doesn't say anything of that nature.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is the line 'The Rich family gave permission to, but did not hire, Rod Wheeler' still in the article? And why does the article now state that Butowsky recommended Rod Wheeler, when Butowsky has said that he did not know Rod Wheeler prior to the investigation and that Rod Wheeler was chosen by the Rich family?

"Rod's a great guy, a great PI, but it wasn't me who decided on him; the Riches did," Butowsky said. "I just agreed to pay the bill." Joel Rich had seen a story Wheeler had done about his son's death and liked him, according to Butowsky. "I said, 'OK, well, you want to hire him, go ahead; I'll pay the bill,' " Butowsky said.

125.168.153.139 (talk) 02:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

New York Times: "Ed Butowsky, a Dallas businessman who criticized Hillary Clinton last year, acknowledged to CNN that he helped connect the investigator with the Rich family after initially denying it to NBC." ^Falling_Gravity 03:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Falling gravity your quote doesn't contradict anything that I've said, so what point are you trying to make? Did you even read the source I linked above, it explicitly discusses the NBC, CNN discrepancy...

They hired Wheeler, although he was paid by Butowsky or worked gratis. If he did not work for them, the "cease and desist" letter would make no sense. Let's stick with the facts and not use misleading wording. TFD (talk) 04:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

If he worked for them, there would be other remedies. Tortious behavior doesn't depend on an employment relationship. SPECIFICO talk 13:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

Please read WP:LEAD.

Please note this [42] is inappropriate.

Stuff in lede MUST be in body text first.

Please read the edit-notice at Murder of Seth Rich.

Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: The body text discusses the two private investigators in this case, so why can't the lead mention theme? ^Falling_Gravity 16:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

You just moved sourced info from body to the lead. Instead, the lead should be a SUMMARY of the entire article. Sagecandor (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Most importantly, it's not NPOV to call these two people "investigors" when RS have reported that they misled, exploited, and misrepresented the family and the circumstances surrounding the crime. SPECIFICO talk 17:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The article already applies that term to Rod Wheeler. Do you have an alternative word? ^Falling_Gravity 19:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

If nothing else, I don't think we have a source to call Burkman an investigator (his involvement was in offering a reward); beyond that, that paragraph was redundant with the bit further down that goes into more detail on precisely how Burkman and Wheeler were involved, so I've removed it entirely. My problem is the way it highlighted that they initially had permission but were not paid - this is definitely true, and we mention it further down when discussing their investigations, but none of the sources highlight it as central (read eg. the Daily Beast article used as a source - it's mentioned waaaay down, after a lot more context about how they got in touch with the family and where they were coming from.) You effectively took the one side-note in the Daily Beast article and dropped it directly in the lead, with almost none of the context; when really, it shouldn't even be highlighted the way it was at the top of that section. We already make it clear how Burkman and Wheeler were involved and how Wheeler was paid; that paragraph failed to accurately summarize that and didn't really reflect the way the sources approached it. --Aquillion (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The statement is factually incorrect, Burkman is not an investigator and Wheeler was hired by the family. I do not think it belongs in the lead at this point. TFD (talk) 23:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Sagecandor (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

WikiLeaks statements

WikiLeaks statements

This section is only for statements made by WikiLeaks, not other unrelated rewards made by other persons. Sagecandor (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Rod Wheeler backtracks statements about Seth Rich investigation

• "Rod Wheeler backtracks statements about Seth Rich investigation", WTTG, Fox News, May 17, 2017, What he told FOX 5 DC on camera Monday regarding Seth Rich's murder investigation is in clear contrast to what he has said over the last 48 hours. Rod Wheeler has since backtracked.

We reached out once again to the Rich family, and through a spokesperson the Rich family tells FOX 5 DC, "The family has relayed their deep disappointment with Rod Wheeler's conduct over the last 48 hours, and is exploring legal avenues to the family."

Doesn't look like this is in the article yet ?

Sagecandor (talk) 23:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

It is. But this is an article not a drama and we don't need long quotes. TFD (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

LOL, not asking about long quotes, rather just the facts. Sagecandor (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Raw story a RS for details on this obscure death

While not directly related to this article, there is an inquiry in WP:RSN regarding the sourcing for Michael Connell which has a similar theme to this one. The loonies on the right have their counterparts on the left, however, this one occurred prior to all the mainstream discussion of fake news so there really isn't much in the mainstream news outlets. -Location (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

"Raw Story" fails as an unreliable source. Commented at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Raw story a RS for details on this obscure death. Sagecandor (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)