Talk:Murder of Seth Rich

Whistleblower source claimed by Guccifer 2.0

I suggest to add the following section about Guccifer 2.0's claimed source being Seth Rich

On August 25, 2016 hacker(s) Guccifer 2.0 claimed that murdered Democratic National Committee (DNC) staff Seth Rich “was my whistleblower”. Rich was a data analyst staff with the DNC. The month before, Rich was killed in Washington DC on July 10, 2016 with multiple gun shots.

References

Francewhoa (talk) 02:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Hi @SPECIFICO:) About your 2017-04-30T18:58:46‎ edit, before removing a significant amount of content with reputable source, are you interested to join the discussion on the talk page to expend on your "Not RS" concern? Francewhoa (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Rms125a@hotmail.com:) Thanks for your contribution to this article section. You're welcome to join this discussion as well.

The last time we discussed this, it was WP:PROFRINGE as well as offensive to Rich's family, in that it claimed that he stole from his employer. It's also considered completely baseless by an overwhelming number of reliable sources. Geogene (talk) 03:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not a reputable source. It's a marginal and erratic source and not appropriate for this content. The content is UNDUE and somewhat of a smear on a recently deceased victim of a crime. SPECIFICO talk 03:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Francewhoa: It's pointless for you to edit-war your content back into the article after it's been challenged by reversion. I suggest you undo your reinsertion. The WP:BURDEN is on you to gain consensus for inclusion in the article. SPECIFICO talk 03:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The only purpose of the mentioned comment seems to be to lend credence to Guccifer's claims, especially by connecting Rich's job to the hacked emails. ^Falling_Gravity 06:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The International Business Times is certainly a reliable source. I think you may not appreciate the distinction between a claim made in a reliable source and a claim reported in a reliable source. If a claim is made in a reliable source then we report it as a fact with inline citation; if it is reported in a reliable source we report it as an opinion with intext citation. TFD (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The, certainly RSN does not agree with you. Anyway if this is DUE WEIGHT, it would be helpful if you could suggest 2-3 other sources for the proposed content. SPECIFICO talk 16:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

That Newsweek content

Seems important to have the actual content referenced directly here on this page.

• present sentence in article:

Newsweek reported that the murder stoked right-wing "Clinton conspiracy theories" and that Rich's parents were "distressed" by the politicization of his murder.

• Quotes from the article:

The slain man’s parents, Mary and Joel Rich of Omaha, Nebraska, are distressed by the apparent political exploitation of their son’s death by Clinton’s opponents.

And that was enough to fire up the right-wing Twitterverse with yet another round of Clinton conspiracy theories,

Shearonink (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Shearonink: Yes, that quote (at least part of it) is listed above along with others buried in a mountain of replies. Search "Please demonstrate widespread RS discussion" on this page. If you have an opinion on whether the revised text is an improvement, please comment. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 20:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I did attempt to read through the various statements/edits/reverts on the present page and am having trouble following the through-line of what the various choices are. To me a clearer statement of the Newsweek information would be something very close to:

Newsweek reported that right-wing accounts on Twitter posted various conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton and that Rich's parents were distressed by Clinton opponents politicizing their son's death.

It doesn't seem to me that Seth Rich's parents were as distressed by the general discussion of the circumstances of his murder so much as they were distressed by Hillary Clinton's opponents exploiting their son's death for political gain.

I know that numerous RFCs have been opened/closed etc and much discussion has taken place on this particular sentence/subject matter previously - I'm not quite sure what the argument is about at this point.

• Seth Rich was murdered.
• He was a DNC staffer
• People (just general unnamed people not necessarily experts or investigators having knowledge about the murder) made statements on social media that this murder happened because of [various conspiracy theories].

And Wikipedia editors are attempting to come to an editorial consensus on how to lay all that out, keeping in mind WP guidelines and policies. I wish you all well, this doesn't look like an easy fix.

Interesting that this all got started when an editor (with 3 previous edits - in 2013 & only sandbox content, written in Japanese - about Operation Condor) posted an edit request... Shearonink (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Shearonink, I think that your statement above is indeed clearer. The "proposal" that launched this thread is truncated in a way that misrepresents the source. Seeing your well-written alternative side by side with the "proposed" version makes that abundantly clear. Thank you for your suggestion. I hope that others will see it and realize the defects of the version proposed in this thread. SPECIFICO talk 23:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Lots of interesting things about this article. Like the fact that its creator was soon NOTHERE blocked. Geogene (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

If it wasn't the Russians that leaked/hacked the DNC emails, then who did it?! That's why this article interests me. Raquel Baranow (talk) 23:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, that would be an interesting question RB, but the problem is that this article actually has nothing at all to do with the hacked emails. Its only connection to the emails is the fake news or conspiracy theory stories that were planted in the media after Mr. Rich was a crime victim. There might be a place on WP to discuss alternative scenarios as to the DNC hack, but I don't think this article would be the place for it. SPECIFICO talk 23:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The specifics of the "conspiracy theories" should be mentioned in the article, as they are mentioned in the Newsweek article cited. Raquel Baranow (talk) 00:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The specifics that they're "far-fetched", "right-wing", and mostly found on Twitter. Geogene (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

New report about private investigator hired by Rich family

Family's private investigator: There is evidence Seth Rich had contact with WikiLeaks prior to death: BREAKING NEWS! Raquel Baranow (talk) 03:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no deadline. I suggest we wait until the additional info comes out tomorrow before updating the article. In the meantime, since there has been edit-warring over this, could the editor removing the material please explain. TFD (talk) 05:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Neither the primary nor the secondary source in this instance is reliable. In fact, if we gonna discuss this ... stupidity, then we'll have to discuss the "detective" who is making these half-assed claims and let's just say that's gonna be tricky from a BLP angle.

Anyway, this is just Fox News trying to deflect from the latest Trump-reveals-classified-info-to-Russians fall out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The story has been picked up by Fox network news, which is a reliable source, as is the local affiliate. People whose claims are picked up in reliable sources do not themselves have to be reliable. TFD (talk) 06:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Not really. Not for this info. Reliability is context specific.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

So you don't think the PI actually said that? TFD (talk) 06:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The PI is a contributor to Fox News and not close to reliable. Simplexion (talk) 08:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia has a policy against Fox News. That's fine, but some of the clearly judgmental language here suggests a bias in the editorial decisions made by wikipedia and that should concern the editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.215.113.195 (talk) 12:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

This has turned out to be a total bullshit story. The family has denounced the claims and completely refuted them - this "private investigator" has nothing to do with Seth Rich's family. The family of murdered Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich on Tuesday strongly rejected reports claiming he had been in contact with Wikileaks. "As we've seen through the past year of unsubstantiated claims, we see no facts, we have seen no evidence, we have been approached with no emails and only learned about this when contacted by the press," spokesperson Brad Bauman told BuzzFeed News in an emailed statement. [14] NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, a few mainstream sources are beginning to report on the Fox report: The Washington Post, U.S. News & World Report. -Location (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

We'll need to add this somehow into the article eventually. Currently the conspiracy theory section doesn't really make any sense nor describe any context about what the theory is. That's a disservice to our readers. I don't see a policy that prevents us from saying something like the theories involve claims that Rich was the DNC emails leaker for Wikileaks but have been widely criticized as false or etc etc...Numerous AFDs have shown this article is notable and enduring, but we currently don't have any of the pertinent info in the article. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Now that we have more than one source (Fox News and BuzzFeed) reporting the story, we can mention it. TFD (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The key part is "This has turned out to be a total bullshit story. The family has denounced the claims and completely refuted them". I think "do no harm", BLP (which applies to recently deceased) and UNDUE would suggest we simply ignore this malicious dumb-assery.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Though perhaps, if properly worded, in the Fox News article we could add something about "Fox news falsely reported that..." Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

A false report would be an inaccurate report. The PI did claim something and Fox News accurately reported what he claims. In my opinion, the ties of the PI to Fox News means that something outside of Fox News and their affiliates should report on it before it is included; this is also required per WP:REDFLAG. I don't think there is enough depth to the WaPo or USN@WR reports to get this into the article. -Location (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is that Fox changed the story several times, so, yeah, false report.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Changed or updated? -Location (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure "changed". Here is their current version [15] which has a different headline and has the stuff about family denying and debunking this nonsense on top, but everything below that is the original story. However, different versions (sometimes very different) have appeared in some local affiliates so I'm not 100% certain.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Independent reporting? Are either of them reporting all the reborn WP accounts and IP fly-by activity on this page? SPECIFICO talk 15:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks like Fox was had. The editors that fell for this nonsense need to be troutslapped. Geogene (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

NBC is reporting the third party was a Fox News/Breitbart Contributor who paid for a Fox News Contributor to "investigate" the murder. Froo (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC) [16]

Thanks for posting the link. Is anyone surprised? -Location (talk) 18:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: a couple disruptive accounts which are clearly WP:NOTHERE are trying to add this to WP:InTheNews [17]. This violates BOTH WP:HOAX and WP:BLP.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Citing reliable sources at the time of their posting does not equate to fly-by disruptive edits. It was best info we had at the time. All these statements about editors intentionally presenting false news, editors being stupid and being banned, it is mean-spirited. --RandomUser3510 (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC) WP:GOODFAITH

It's not "mean-spirited", it's accurate. These editors insist on reinserting this crap after it's been pointed out to them that it's a hoax and that it's causing real harm and grief to the family of the victim. I'm sorry, but where BLP is concerned, and you have something that has potential to cause real world harm you can take your "assume goodfaith" and shove it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have not seen information that indicates the Fox reports have been refuted. Fox based their article on two human sources: the PI and an unnamed federal investigator, the latter of whom claimed to have seen the emails between Rich and Wikileaks personally. The family's objections do not refute the article any more than your highly emotional reaction refutes it -- the family's position boils down to: "we don't know, we haven't heard that, and we didn't authorize the PI to speak about it". Hardly a refutation. Wookian (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Links have been provided. Fox originally claimed that the PI was "family's private investigator". The family unequivocally stated this was false. The "unnamed federal investigator" thing was added after the PI story turned out to be bullshit. And please, quit it with the condescending "emotional reaction" crap.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Not quite as simplistic as you suggest above. The links indicate that the family expected to retain control over the PI's release of information - i.e. none without their permission, which they complained that the PI reneged on. The family said that another party paid the PI's fee, so from that perspective you would be right. When you say "please, quit it with the condescending 'emotional reaction' crap" I think you are asking what I was referring to by mentioning your emotional reaction. Happy to explain: it's when you said above "you have something that has potential to cause real world harm you can take your "assume goodfaith" and shove it". Wookian (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The Fox News story isn't necessarily "false." A retired detective hired by a 3rd party to investigate said there was an email exchange between Rich and Wikileaks. The family says this is unsubstantiated. The family spokesman says even if true it doesn't mean what conspiracy theorists think. Fox news reported this. There's no doubt at this point there is a conspiracy theory that Rich was the source of the Wikileaks DNC emails. The family denies this and mainstream media seems to agree. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure originally they (possibly some other source) claimed the detective had been hired by the family and was speaking on their behalf. They changed it to "hired by a 3rd party" and threw him under the bus, trying to pin all the blame on him for the hoax, once it got exposed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Yup, originally Fox claimed Wheeler was "family's private investigator". It's fake news and now they're trying to cover it up by blaming it all on Wheeler.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Ernie, you recently came to me and Marek asking us to AGF with you and watch you get your ban lifted. Please consider whether this thread is currently the best use of your talents.

Wow, that sounds like a threat? What is this remark doing on this Talk page? If I misunderstood (hope I did) please explain relevance to the discussion about the article. Wookian (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Not in the slightest. SPECIFICO talk 18:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

If you have concerns about my conduct please use the appropriate noticeboard or my talk page. I find your comments here very chilling. This talk page should be used to improve the content of the article. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

It has now been reported in Business Insider, Fox 5 DC, Fox News, Washington Post, Haaretz, Buzzfeed and other sources. Maybe news media should not report this, but it is not our role as editors to decide what mainstream media report but to ensure that Wikipedia articles reflect it. Call up Correct the Record, get them to comment and we can put that in too. If we cannot resolve this, I will set up an RfC, but will wait to see what further coverage there is. Already though there are sufficient sources to mention the matter in a neutral manner. TFD (talk) 18:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I can see the importance of this. But given the serious BLP issues in play, the precise wording is crucial. I suggest that before adding anything to the article editors make proposals here. And make sure they accurately reflect the sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

But just for the record, Fox 5 DC and Fox News are not reliable here. Indeed, as far as this story goes, they are WP:PRIMARY since the other WP:SECONDARY sources are describing their fuck up (whether that was publishing the story in the first place or getting caught in a lie)Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

This new article appears credible and detailed: "Family of slain DNC staffer Seth Rich blasts detective over report of WikiLeaks link". Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I think that's their "updated" version after they removed the most blatant pieces of bullshit. Sorry, you don't get credibility back just cuz you start telling only half a lie and pretend you never told the other half to begin with.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

And to make matters worse, when you click on the story - which has been partly corrected - it automatically opens up a video from the previous report which still has all the hoax and nonsense. It's actually pretty damn shameless of them. Only way this makes it into this article is as a description of how Fox participated in spreading a hoax story.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

"I'm pretty sure originally they (possibly some other source) claimed the detective had been hired by the family and was speaking on their behalf. They changed it to "hired by a 3rd party" and threw him under the bus, trying to pin all the blame on him for the hoax, once it got exposed" and "But just for the record, Fox 5 DC and Fox News are not reliable here" -- @Volunteer Marek - make sure you don't carry any kind of partisan and political biases in your own editing. Using incendiary partisan rhetoric is not a sign of good faith. (Was Rachel Maddow lying when she claimed that Venezuelans are rioting because of an alleged CITGO (ironic, as CITGO was founded by Hugo Chavez and championed by Congressman Joseph Kennedy for providing heating oil to poor Americans) contribution to the Trump inaugural, rather than because the people of that country are living under a dictatorship and have no food, jobs or money?)

There has never been a media outlet anywhere that hasn't screwed up or provided erroneous information. It should be acknowledged and disclaimed, and then we should move on unless it proves to be a permanent situation. No one's forgiveness, except perhaps that of the injured party and/or his immediate family, need be sought out. Quis separabit? 19:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh please, pointing out that Fox News printed a HOAX story is not "incendiary partisan rhetoric" it's WP:DUCK or WP:SPADE or whatever. I don't give a flip about Rachel Maddow and have no idea why you're bring her up. Whataboutismmuch? Bottom line, this is a no-go as far as Seth-Rich-sent-Wikileaks goes. You might as well go with the Russians-killed-Seth-Rich story that's going around the crazy-left twitter. Or go back to claiming that Sandy Hook massacre was a hoax. The only way this can be included is as a "Fox news published fake news" text.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Several places above @Volunteer Marek refers to Fox being "caught in a lie" and says that if their reporting is mentioned at all, it should only be in the context of them spreading a "hoax story". As far as I can tell, Marek says that Fox lied about the PI working for the Rich family. This appears to be based on the Rich family saying that the PI (Wheeler) was not authorized to speak for the family. However, Fox is now reporting the following: Although Bauman said Wheeler was paid by a third party, the family is named as clients of Wheeler's Capitol Investigations on a contract signed by Rich's father, Joel Rich.. Perhaps the point has escaped Marek that even if the PI was not authorized to speak for the family and was paid by someone else, he could still be said to be "working for" the family in a very real sense. In any case, the significant, notable, and well sourced information I think people would like to see added to the article is the disclosure that Seth Rich engaged in communications with Wikileaks, and not the apparently ambiguous particulars of the PI's hiring. Repeated and unsubstantiated accusations that Fox was lying is unhelpful to this Talk consensus process. Wookian (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Ok, so "foxnews says" in their corrected version of a fake story... how do you know this version isn't fake either? Per WP:REDFLAG until actually reliable sources confirm this, it's a no go.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me, Wookian, but, just to be careful, anyone who cites this new news article ought to give inline attribution, like "According to Fox News...." because inline attribution never hurts, and readers (like Marek) who disparage Fox News can discount the information accordingly. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

No. We do not spread bullshit rumors or fake news or hoaxes. You should know better. And per WP:BLP and WP:REDFLAG higher standards apply (not that even the usual standards have been met).Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The Washington Post has a good article here summarizing the situation. With this I believe we can formulate the right wording. Just a gentle reminder to everyone to please focus on the content. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

This appears to be an allegation, claimed by one person, without corroborating evidence. This is not a "disclosure" because that implies it's true. Geogene (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The WAPO article describes the situation pretty accurately in my opinion. It describes a bit about the conspiracy theory and how the Rich family refutes it and a little about Fox News bad reporting. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Probably Geogene was referencing my statement above that people on this Talk page are interested in adding the new "disclosure" that Seth Rich communicated with Wikileaks. That was a bad word choice on my part, and since it's pretty heavily disputed, I agree with Geogene that a word like "claim" is better. Wookian (talk) 21:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks for clearing that up. Mr. Ernie: If consensus is to include, I have no problem with WaPo as a source. Geogene (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

As already discussed Fox News has a lot of detail, but some editors tend to think that Fox is only okay if the "F" is replaced with a "V". No problem, because the article in U.S. News and World Report has much of the detail that's in the Fox report: "A federal investigator who reviewed an FBI forensic report, which was written within 96 hours of Rich's murder and examined the deceased's computer, told Fox Rich had made contact with the major hacktivist group. Rich was 27 when he was killed. It is alleged his point of contact was Gavin MacFadyen, a now-deceased American investigative reporter and director of WikiLeaks who was living in London at the time." Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Your snarky comment about the F and V is neither here nor there and is non-constructive. The US News and World Report source was published before the story got debunked so it's actually irrelevant.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

USNWR has not apparently corrected much. Their update says: "Corrected on May 16, 2017: This story has been updated to reflect that Rod Wheeler has not been hired by Seth Rich's family." Do you think that they should correct what I quoted in my previous comment? Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Revert vandalism only.

Please revert only edits that does not link to a credible source. Conspiracy or not whatever news/information that concerns this, should be added to the page. Thank you. CoolGin (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

That's not Wikipedia policy. WP:HOAX, WP:BLP.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

1RR?

It appears we have had a couple violations of 1RR (and one editor has already been blocked). The edits were incorrectly reverted per BLP and HOAX. One last request to everyone to use the talk page for discussion before reverting. This material is relevant and now well sourced (thanks to the WaPo article). Mr Ernie (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Neither of those directions are relevant. Information does not have to be true to mention it, provided it has received widespread coverage in mainstream media. The existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) in Iraq for example turned out to false, but we mention it in articles because it had widespread coverage. TFD (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you. I don't think the material should have been initially reverted, but it was, and then 1RR was broken. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, there are plenty of problems with this [18]. Beginning with the subheader, with "conspiracy theories" being promoted to "Controversy". Then there is the puffery "numerous media outlets". It was one media outlet as far as I know, a local Fox affiliate, which is now being commented on by other outlets. "Have confirmed" is attributing truth to the claims. "Contained numerous emails" seems to be an exaggeration, the original claim was that Rich and a Wikileaks operative in London had some level of email contact. "At present, formal requests to review the contents of Rich's computer have been denied" sources say that the FBI is denying all involvement, and at least one source says that Rich's family is still in possession of his computer [19]. And it's largely written as an endorsement that Wheeler's claims are true. Geogene (talk) 22:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

These were correctly reverted per WP:HOAX and definitely per WP:BLP. No way you can put potentially damaging nonsense like this into an article and not expect to get reverted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

So in the meantime BLP and HOAX are not valid reasons to exceed 1RR. I suggested we delay adding the material until the story had received wider coverage, which it now has. The respected newspaper, The Independent has an article in today's edition, "Who is Seth Rich – and was his death really connected to Hillary Clinton?" It says "Seth Rich's murder is once again making headlines." I see no reason why we should not report information that is widely covered in mainstream sources. Any issue of accuracy and fairness in reporting can be resolved by using respected publications such as The Independent or the Washington Post as sources. Note that both papers consistently have favored Clinton over Trump, so there is no issue of bias with them.

Volunteer Marek, I suggest you read the directions that you link to. Articles can write about living people and may mention widely reported hoaxes, as indeed we mention the fictitious WMDs in articles about the War in Iraq, because mainstream media covered them.

TFD (talk) 22:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Here is a small list of new sources that have been created in the past 24 hours.

"Family of slain DNC staffer Seth Rich criticizes right-wing media's role in igniting new conspiracy in murder case" - Business Insider

"DNC Staffer’s Murder Draws Fresh Conspiracy Theories" - NBC News

"Who is Seth Rich – and was his death really connected to Hillary Clinton?" - The Independent.co.uk

"Family of slain Seth Rich says reports that he fed DNC info to WikiLeaks are untrue - Washington Post

"Seth Rich murder theories resurface as Fox News report draws family’s ire" - MarketWatch

"Seth Rich, killed DNC staffer, emailed WikiLeaks? Ruh-roh" - Washington Times

"The Family Of A Murdered DNC Staffer Has Rejected A Report Linking His Death To WikiLeaks" - Buzzfeed

"New Information on Slain DNC Staffer Seth Rich Ignites Further Hack Skepticism" - The Observer

"Report: Murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich likely talked to WikiLeaks" - AOL News

There are many more. At this point the article is outdated because it doesn't even mention this at all. Hoax or not is not what is going on: there has been a new claim about the death of Seth Rich and the media is reporting it. These are major media outlets ranging widely in their political leanings. It is not a hoax that a claim has been made. Future edits could include at least that there has been a new claim and the surrounding myriad of major media outlets reporting on it. That is not smear or hoax or conspiracy, that is just what has happened in the past 24 hours.--RandomUser3510 (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Like I said, yeah, the hoax nature of this topic may possibly be included in this article but due to BLP concerns, editors should suggest text on talk first.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

All your claiM of calling it a "hoax," but where are YOUR sources for making such claims? 12.154.13.242 (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I do not see any BLP objections and if you think they are could you please point out why you think it violates it. I notice you edit the article Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, which is about allegations that living persons leaked the DNC emails to Wikileaks (you even object to the term alleged), while refusing to allow any mention of similar allegations in this article. I realize the Russian story has been given more credence, but I don't see how you can interpret BLP differently. TFD (talk) 01:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what one has to do with the other. As for the BLP objections - it's been repeatedly given. This hoax and spreading of these idiotic conspiracy theories is harming (some crazy people out there are now claiming that Rich's parents "have been paid off" and other atrocious and vile nonsense) and causing grief to the victim's family.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

It took only hours for one of the biggest stories in conservative media this week, which some outlets had chosen to focus on over news that President Trump disclosed classified information to senior Russian officials, to fall apart. ... Tuesday afternoon, Wheeler told CNN he had no evidence to suggest Rich had contacted Wikileaks before his death. Wheeler instead said he only learned about the possible existence of such evidence through the reporter he spoke to for the FoxNews.com story. He explained that the comments he made to WTTG-TV were intended to simply preview Fox News' Tuesday story. The WTTG-TV news director did not respond to multiple requests for comment. "I only got that [information] from the reporter at Fox News," Wheeler told CNN. [20]

The total, complete debunking and collapse of this fake-news "story" is an abject lesson in why we are not a news outlet and why we need to be sensitive about reporting fringe, dubious and outlandish claims about living or recently-deceased people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

As an immigrant to USA, I find the loyalty of whiteskinned Democrats to their political overlords to be amazing! You can never think for yourself. You clearly have low IQ and all your political views are just the party line. You don't even know the political issues of the world and parrot whatever your masters tell you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.5.186.176 (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Whoa, so Fox News basically told Wheeler something then reported that Wheeler told them something, effectively fabricating a news story. No wonder they were trying to throw him under the boss. Fuck, time to go through and remove Fox News as a source from most Wikipedia articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The Fox article's source for the Wikileaks-Rich communication claim is an unnamed federal investigator, though their repeated updates referencing Wheeler certainly have muddied this critical detail. Do you have information that this claim from the unnamed federal investigator has been withdrawn? If not, you both seem to be jumping the gun. Wookian (talk) 02:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Given that half of that story has already been debunked as, at best, having misled the only named source and having falsely claimed that said source was in possession of evidence, I'm not sure the rest of it can be considered to have any credibility whatsoever. The story has gone from "named private investigator goes on record with evidence of Wikileaks contact" to "named private investigator says news outlet's reporter told him that an unnamed source had evidence of Wikileaks contact." We're not going to play Telephone with the reputation of a dead man. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Unnamed Federal Investigator? Really? Really? SPECIFICO talk 02:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

A leaked Russian send him a memo.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not fond of anonymous sources either, and skepticism is always warranted, anonymous or not. This is the way journalism is often done today, Fox is not alone in that. Wookian (talk) 02:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Wait what? A journalist tells a guy that they're about to do a story on something, tells him what the story will be about, asks him to repeat it, then writes a story about the man saying what he just told him to repeat. That's how "journalism is done"??? Oh, please stop with this nonsense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I will "assume good faith" that you didn't realize I was talking about the use of an unnamed source, which is how journalism is done at both Fox and the NYT. Wookian (talk) 02:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

There is a difference between a journalist using an unnamed source, and a journalist giving air time to someone claiming to have an unnamed source. I'm not sure how Marraco was arranged to interview Wheeler, but she should have told him to go F himself. -Location (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

In one case, we have a wide variety of generally-accepted non-ideological sources (NYT, Reuters, WaPo, WSJ, etc.) reporting something (Comey memo re: Trump), including a story by the same reporter who first revealed the Clinton e-mails story. In the other case, we have a single story from an outlet (FOX) which is demonstrably in the tank for Donald Trump (Seth Rich conspiracy). We are not required to treat dissimilar things as the same, and the false equivalency here is rather obvious. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I guess that really is how "journalism" is done at Fox News. Which is exactly why we can't use them as a reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Rod Wheeler is clearly flip-flopping, so I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for the smoking gun he seems to have promised. Marina Marraco initially reported that there would be more details tomorrow morning, so I hope everyone has their story straight by then! I bet she thought she was about to be mentioned in the same breath as Bob Woodward or Carl Bernstein with that report. -Location (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Or at least Miller & Jaffe.... Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Are there any sources you consider not fakenews/conspiracy theorists. Name one and we can use it as a source for this article. TFD (talk) 02:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The claims are now extensively discussed in the article, so I think we're good from that standpoint. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Yep. Nice job Snoogans^2.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

One of the current problems with this section is that it's copied from the Fox News article, meaning it focuses more on Fox News instead of the murder investigation. I think the section should be more about Rod Wheeler's role as "investigator" rather than just Fox News's shoddy reporting. ^Falling_Gravity 03:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Rod Wheeler is a nobody, and per his own words, he is the one taken advantage of here by Fox (though far from clear). The story here is that the country's largest cable network is legitimizing and promoting this absurd conspiracy theory, setting the whole conservative media-sphere on blaze, and bringing more harassment upon the family. All on the same day that the President that they have been propping up is having the worst news day of his presidency, this phony story happens to be the lead on its website and be the core of its cable news coverage. I encourage someone to revert many of the edits that occurred over the night, which have removed Fox News' negligence and turned the story into a nutjob investigator's negligence. The story about Fox is notable and due, but turning it into a story about an investigator pushing conspiracy theories is not. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no evidence Brad Bauman was hired by the Seth Rich family, he was obviously hired by DNC to prevent anyone from talking to the Seth Rich family.72.53.146.173 (talk) 04:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Rich's computer

The FBI never had it [21], so "anonymous FBI agent" claims are hot air. Geogene (talk) 04:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Who said they dont have it? Let me guess the FBI. If they dont have it, why dont they have it? Did his computer vanish? 72.53.146.173 (talk) 04:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

According to that source, the family says they have it, and the FBI never saw it because it's not the FBI's case. Which makes sense; most murders are a local police issue and not the FBI's jurisdiction. Geogene (talk) 04:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Geogene, thanks for this info. I had not realized that a former law enforcement official quoted by NBC News has contradicted the federal investigator quoted by U.S. News and World Report. By the way, I'm not sure about jurisdiction, because technically Congress has "exclusive" jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, and local control is delegated at the option of Congress. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, that was just speculation on my part. Geogene (talk) 04:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I read somewhere that the police department is in possession of it. Nikolai Romanov (talk) 04:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

We should avoid including anonymously-sourced uncorroborated claims about Seth Rich in this encyclopedia article. We are not news reporters and we can afford to wait before breathlessly racing to add the latest claims from one side or the other, particularly when these claims are hotly-contested and entirely unconfirmed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof, you have removed the following material from the controversy section:

“ According to both Fox News and U.S. News and World Report, an anonymous federal investigator has said that he saw an FBI forensic report of Rich's computer, written less than 96 hours after Rich's murder, indicating that Rich had contacted Wikileaks via Gavin MacFadyen, an American living in London who is now deceased. However, NBC News has reported that a former law enforcement official familiar with the matter says Rich’s computer "never contained any e-mails related to WikiLeaks, and the FBI never had it". ”

References

According to your edit summary, "We're not going to run with uncorrorborated [sic] anonymously-sourced claims here per BDP". Indeed, WP:BLP says: "Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources." Here, we do warily explain that the two anonymous law enforcement officers contradict each other, so I don't see a problem with providing readers with this info in the controversy section. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Why would we include any of it? We are not a news outlet and we are not required to include speculative claims and what amounts to anonymously-sourced gossip about a dead person in our encyclopedia. There is no deadline and we can afford to wait to see what, if anything, shakes out of these anonymous claims. If they disappear and are never seen or heard from again, then we were right in our decision to exclude them because they have ultimately amounted to nothing. If they later become of significance or importance, we can always add them at the point at which they gain such significance. We are not writing a "true crime" novel and we are not required to include every salacious and lurid twist or turn in the "plotline" of a tragic murder. Seth Rich may have become a political football to a lot of people on the right, but Wikipedia is under no obligation to treat him as such. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed we are not a news outlet and we do not get to determine editorial policy, but have to follow Wikipedia policies which require, per weight, that we present what the news outlets decide is important. TFD (talk) 06:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

My opinion, judging from the three cited sources, is that we have reached the point at which this material has gained significance and importance. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump and Russia

"The next day, while other news organizations were extensively covering Donald Trump' revelation of classified information to Russia, Fox News published a lead story on its website and provided extensive coverage on its cable news channel about what it said were Wheeler's uncorroborated claims about the murder of Seth Rich." Fox's report on Seth Rich murder came out several hours before media began reporting Donald Trump and Russia story.72.53.146.173 (talk) 04:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

If anything the Russia theory is being used to distract from Seth Rich. If he was indeed the leaker and got murdered then the whole "Russian hacking" narrative would unravel. Nikolai Romanov (talk) 04:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

That is implicit synthesis. It implies that Fox News ignored important news for something trivial and even that it did so in order to detract from a story prejudicial to Trump, since Fox News is biased. Of course we can cite people who have made that inference but cannot make it ourselves. I should point out too that this type of biased writing is only effective for people already converted and tends to alienate the uncommitted, so it doesn't actually help the DNC. TFD (talk) 04:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Fox News? The entire mainstream media is extremely biased. Nikolai Romanov (talk) 04:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not just about media bias being implied; the wording is incredibly biased. It reads like something on RationalWiki. It's a textbook example of implicit synthesis and should immediately be reworded/removed. --Club Soda (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces:That's not synthesis because one of the sources given explicitly says that Fox News did ignore important news for this. As I've already pointed in an edit summary to the last person that removed it. Please self-revert your removal. Geogene (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Please note my comments at 04:55, 17 May 2017. If the source explicitly said Fox News ignored important news for this, then we also need to explicitly state Fox News ignored important news for this or that a source made this observation. When we juxtapose the fact that Fox News was covering this story, while other media were covering important news, we are implying that Fox ignored important news, without explicitly saying so. That's not encyclopedic writing. If you re-write the passage according to policy, then I will put it in. TFD (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Would you agree to something like Conservative media, including Fox News, focused on this story instead of the Comey memos that mainstream sources were leading with on the same day. Using a source Snooganssnoogans provided below [22] Placement in the paragraph right before the "special place in hell" sentence? Geogene (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree this sounds extremely biased Allanana79 (talk) 06:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Fox News vs Huffpo

" On May 15, 2017, Wheeler falsely told Fox 5 DC there was evidence Seth Rich had contacted WikiLeaks;[26][27] a claim which was never independently verified by Fox." This doesn't seem right. From the Fox news source: "Rod Wheeler, a retired Washington homicide detective and Fox News contributor investigating the case on behalf of the Rich family, made the WikiLeaks claim, which was corroborated by a federal investigator who spoke to Fox News." The HuffPo source cited doesn't disagree, noting that Wheeler is the only *named* source. I think this needs to be altered in order to be true to the specific sources.

 -- Proposed wording: "On May 15, 2017, Wheeler falsely told Fox 5 DC there was evidence Seth Rich had contacted WikiLeaks;[26][27] a claim which Fox News claims to have verified with an anonymous federal investigator.  This has been disputed by the family and by Travis Waldron from the Huffington Post."

"Falsely told"? When we see something like "falsely told" without offering any evidence, we know Wikipedia is being used by some special interest for propaganda. We do not know if what he said was true or false until there is a proper investigation, court trial, and judgement by a jury and judge. We do know that Mr Wheeler told, but it is unacceptable to say "falsely told". 2601:14D:8000:6956:9442:12D5:E846:BC4D (talk) 08:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree - I've removed "falsely." The sentence goes on to describe how the remarks were unsubstantiated by fox which is what we need. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

What about this wording: "On May 15, 2017, Wheeler falsely told Fox 5 DC there was evidence Seth Rich had contacted WikiLeaks;[26][27] a claim which Fox News claims to have said it had verified with an anonymous federal investigator. This claim has been was disputed by the family and by Travis Waldron from the Huffington Post." I thought we should not repeat the word "claim" and it was unclear what "This" in the second sentence referred to. TFD (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The focus shouldn't be Rod Wheeler, but Fox News and ITS role in re-igniting wackjob conspiracy theories

Rod Wheeler is a nobody, and per his own words, he is the one taken advantage of here by Fox (though this is far from clear, there are good reasons to believe this is the case given the atrocious journalistic practices that led to this news report in the first place). The story here is that the country's largest cable network is legitimizing and promoting this absurd conspiracy theory, setting the whole conservative media-sphere on blaze, and bringing more harassment upon the family. All on the same day that the President that they have been propping up is having the worst news day of his presidency, this phony story happens to be the lead on its website and be the core of its cable news coverage. I encourage someone to revert many of the edits that occurred over the night, which have removed Fox News' negligence and turned the story into a nutjob investigator's negligence. The story about Fox is notable and due, but turning it into a story about an investigator pushing conspiracy theories is not. When I originally added the Fox News sub-section, I did so with trepidation, because it could be problematic to overly focus on crazy conspiracy theories, but I added it because this was such an atrocious and reckless piece of journalism by such a large and semi-legitimate news outlet. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Where did Rod Wheeler say Fox was taking advantage of him? Both of Fox's reports relied on Wheeler's negligent "investigation," and Wheeler himself is a Fox News contributor. The subject of this article is "Murder of Seth Rich", and Wheeler appears to have closer ties to this subject than Fox News. ^Falling_Gravity 14:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

According to Wheeler, Fox reporters fed him information (that evidence existed) which he then repeated back to the Fox reporters. The Fox reporters then run with a story saying that Wheeler claimed to have seen the evidence, which Wheeler rejected when approached by CNN. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm gonna go out on a (very short) limb here and speculate that they were in on it together but when the story started unraveling Fox tried to throw Wheeler under the bus, so he struck back.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Either way, the lies and conspiracy theories of a single man don't belong in the Seth Rich article. We wouldn't, for instance, extensively document each and every fringe nutjob's feverish theorizing on his death, so why document Rod Wheeler's nuttiness? To be honest, I don't think we should even name Wheeler, just call him a private investigator. What's notable here is the grotesque journalistic malpractice of Fox and the role that the news network played in legitimizing this conspiracy theory. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

IF this story is going to be included in the article, then Wheeler should be named. He is central to the story in that all of the brouhaha is because of something he claimed and then retracted. I don't think we should portray him to be an unwitting pawn in a grand scheme by Marina Marraco or some other Fox5 producer. Right now the only evidence that Wheeler was coerced or manipulated by Fox 5 is from... Wheeler. -Location (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The difference is that mainstream media have decided to provide considerable coverage to this aspect of the story. David Brock's Media Matters for America has now published four articles on the topic in two days,[23] so the new party line is to debunk rather than ignore the story. TFD (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a clue what you're trying to say and what it has to do with the points I'm making. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

You said, "the lies and conspiracy theories of a single man don't belong in the Seth Rich article." However, the policy "Neutral point of view" "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." It is not up to Wikipedia editors to question what reliable sources choose to publish. Even sources you agree with have chosen to write about the claims. TFD (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The mainstream media is checking the claims made in the Fox News reporting, nobody gives a crap about the investigator per se. Nobody would give a crap about this had this investigator been interviewed on Breitbart or Gateway Pundit. The investigator is not notable enough, it's when the largest news network in the country picks it up that makes it notable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Right. The media is covering it so it belongs in the article. If you don't like what the media is reporting, tell them to knock it off, get the policy changed, or tell the DNC to and its staff to follow standard IT security procedures. TFD (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Incomprehensible ramblings. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

That Fox ran with the BS story as its lead on the same day as the Russia-Trump thing dominated coverage is mentioned in both RS and extremely relevant

This text[24] ("The next day, while other news organizations were extensively covering Donald Trump's revelation of classified information to Russia, Fox News published a lead story on its website and provided extensive coverage on its cable news channel about what it said were Wheeler's uncorroborated claims about the murder of Seth Rich.") has now twice been removed, with users claiming it's synthesis. It's not synthesis, this is mentioned by several of the reliable sources cited. This is a case of several editors removing information that they deem inconvenient and tangential when RS deem it noteworthy. We go by reliable sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I second that. Geogene (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you list some of the sources here that are making the link between the Fox News article and the Russia Trump thing? As it stands there's no real evidence that Fox did this on purpose, and a few news outlets speculating about it in the news cycle really isn't encyclopedic. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

CNN[25]: "It took only hours for one of the biggest stories in conservative media this week, which some outlets had chosen to focus on over news that President Trump disclosed classified information to senior Russian officials, to fall apart... Fox News on Tuesday morning joined in the chorus, publishing a lead story on its website... "

Snopes[26]: "The Fox News story about Rich came one day after a report by the Washington Post accused President Donald Trump of spilling classified information to Russian envoys during their visit to the Oval Office on 10 May 2017. Brad Bauman, a spokesperson for Rich’s family, told us he believed the Fox story was motivated by a desire to deflect attention away from the Post report: 'I think there’s a very special place in hell for people that would use the memory of a murder victim in order to pursue a political agenda'."

WaPo piece[27] about conservative media's, incl. Fox's, coverage and non-coverage of the Russia-Trump thing, with the WaPo piece noting that Fox chose to lead with Seth Rich during all of it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

More: Haaretz[28]: "As the revelations about President Donald Trump and fired FBI Director James Comey exploded across all mainstream news outlets on Tuesday, conservative, pro-Trump outlets – from Breitbart and Fox News to Rush Limbaugh and InfoWars – operated on the other side of the looking glass. This is the bizarre story they told: That the entire Trump-Comey-Russia story is “fake news,” all manufactured by the crooked mainstream media to distract from the real story – that real proof was emerging that Rich, not Russia, had been the real source of WikiLeaks information that damaged the DNC." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The source listed [29] makes no mention of "while other news organizations were extensively covering Donald Trump revelation of classified information". I would suspect that would be why its being removed as synth. I would suggest removing the information until a source is added that makes said connection. I am sure one could easily be found. PackMecEng (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

There are several sources cited there, not just the one you picked out. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

My mistake, I only read the first one in the dif. I withdraw my comment. PackMecEng (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Fox's report on Seth Rich murder came out several hours before media began reporting Donald Trump and Russia story 72.53.146.173 (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Nobody has said otherwise. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

But I will. This is yet another falsehood/fake news being spread around by low lives who are seeking to exploit this tragedy for political gain. The Fox News story was posted May 15 at 10:41 PM Eastern Time. I'm not exactly sure what time the original WaPo Trump/Russia story was posted, but the first comment on it appeared (as can be easily verified) at 4:04 PM Central Time (5:04 PM Eastern Time), also on May 15. So I'm calling bullshit on this too.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

So actually it's backwards. WaPo broke the Trump-Russia story. Fox News scrambled to come up with something to take away the people's attention from it, and this crap is what they came up with six hours later.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

What's the evidence for the "Russia collusion" thing again? Oh right, there isn't any. Anyway, it has pretty obvious as to who is responsible for Seth Rich's murder since it first happened. Man who probably was the leaker and could cause the end of Hillary's bullshit claim that she was hacked by the Russians ends up very conveniently dying in a "robbery" where nothing was taken from his body. But apparently coming to the logical conclusion is "exploiting the tragedy for political gain." And not pointing out who is probably responsible isn't? Nikolai Romanov (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

BLP applies to talk pages. Idiotic and unsubstantiated accusations that someone committed murder violate BLP. So here's some advice - drop this now and go back to Info Wars or whatever and leave this alone.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks like Fox broke at 6:48 [30] on the 15th and Washington Post at 2:02 [31] for breaking on both. Not that it makes much difference. PackMecEng (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Wapo published story at 7:45pm https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html 72.53.146.173 (talk) 09:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Riiiiiiigggghhhhhhtttttt, so people were leaving comments on a story that didn't exist and twitter is in on the cover up! Gimme a break. WaPo story was first, Fox News story was quickly scrambled together as a response to it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Nobody here really knows if the two stories are related, except maybe Marina Marraco or the folks at Fox News. The sources quoted above provide editorial observations, which can be included if they're presented as such. Maybe something could be include like: "Fox 5 DC published the story after the Washington Post published a story concerning Donald Trump revealing classified information to Russia. Some reporters/media outlets believe the story on Seth Rich was meant to deflect from this story." This could be paired with the statement by Rich's family making pretty much the same observation. ^Falling_Gravity 01:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

BLP concerns: Assange's BS equivocations about Seth Rich being a Wikileaks source. Please remove.

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Murder_of_Seth_Rich&type=revision&diff=780859891&oldid=780859237 Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. That doesn't belong here. -Location (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps "disputed" -- perhaps too early to say "debunked"

The murderer(s) haven't been found, so it would seem that no news outlet can truly debunk anything that connects facts and reasonable suspicions in any particular manner. Wouldn't an actual completed murder investigation and trial do that? This is why I normally appreciate that Wikipedia has a WP:NOTNEWS requirement, as it normally keeps us from writing conclusions before the story has played out. We know these conspiracies are disputed based on RS. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

NPR just published a story for you: "As with many other conspiracy theories, like the assertion that a Washington pizza restaurant was at the center of a child sex ring tied to top Democrats, this kind of assertion in part functions by trying to shift the burden of proof."[32] "Reasonable suspicions" are based on evidence are credible testimony. There is certainly none of that here. -Location (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Sources treat these conspiracy theories as an absurdity. And just because someone makes a claim about something, doesn't mean you should call it "disputed". That implies the possibility it's correct. Geogene (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Gawd, not the "disputed" nonsense again. People tried that with Pizzagate too and it's really time we just nip this kind of attempts at fake news advocacy in the butt. It's disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the margin that separates this from "unsubstantiated conspiracy theory" is the reliability of Fox's anonymous federal investigator. Wheeler by his own admission is a spectator and has no new information to contribute. So I agree with "disputed, not debunked", and I also agree with those who are suspicious of anonymous sources, whether for Fox or for the NYT. Wookian (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

But... you're not suspicious of the fact that the Fox News reported made it all up then fed it to Wheeler then reported it as if Wheeler had told him these things independently? I mean, that right there pretty much shoots down anything else they might claim, anonymous sources or not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

"Fake news advocacy" Yet there's a whole article about the Russia collusion claims even though no evidence has been presented besides the oh-so reliable CIA's assertions. Nikolai Romanov (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM (and you might want to actually bother reading that article before criticizing it. Hell, you might at least bother reading it's title as it doesn't say crap about it's "collusion") Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

My point is that this article seems to be striving to make a political point rather than sticking to facts. We could say what RS says, that various forms of speculation as to what happened with regards to his death has been disputed by the police and Rich's family. 'Debunked' in the sense that it's being used appears to leave the impression that all speculation is a conspiracy theory and all it is disproven. It's not encyclopedic as presented. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

It's nonsense that nobody ever should have believed. Reliable sources have been saying that since the beginning. There are growing numbers of people that believe that the Earth is flat. We don't coddle them by pretending there is a "dispute" about it. Tired of seeing people on this Talk page trying to make Wikipedia safe for fools and liars. This looks like a WP:CIR issue to me. Geogene (talk) 13:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

There are parts of the speculation that are bound in reason, such as the discussion over whether Rich leaked to Wikileaks or not. It's playing politics with an article to go beyond saying that various forms of speculation have surfaced, but with no hard evidence and disputes from police and the guy's family. Also, I have been a Wikipedian since 2004 and am firmly competent here. The real problem is that people from both the left and right are striving to insert their personal politics here (the real WP:CIR problem). I'm trying to get everyone to stop doing that. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, as someone with 20 times more edits than you, maybe you could hold off on applying WP:CIR to me, hmmm? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I've had this discussion with you before, Stevie. You lost that one too. Geogene (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Why do you feel the need to make other editors losers? We're here to build an encyclopedia, not engage in attacks on other editors. I don't recall any such discussion. We need to stick to facts from RS, not pushing our personal conclusions. 'Debunked' is being used for political purposes. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Because you continue to wander around Wikipedia preaching your mistaken ideas about false balance. Then you brag about the fact that you have wasted thirteen years of your life doing this, and yet you are still clueless about how Wikipedia works. This is annoying, unnecessary, and counterproductive. Geogene (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, your silly personal attack notwithstanding, that is not based on anything I've ever said or done. I'll stack my experience against anyone's, and for you to reduce my contributions to Wikipedia that way is pathetic. I am not seeking "false balance" at all. The problem is people like you hiding behind a political shield and pretending it's about policies/guidelines, when I am the one actually defending these things. We need to more strictly follow RS, especially in these cases. You would prefer to make editorial declarations in our encyclopedic text. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I am "hiding behind a political shield"? That doesn't even make rhetorical sense. Geogene (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Misunderstanding or misconstruing what I say seems to be a special interest of yours. It's clear that any hope for constructive discussion of this with you isn't possible. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• Conspiracy theorists politicized this murder. Now, I'm seeing the claim that not lending undue credence to the conspiracy theories is somehow politicizing this murder. No. Not for a single second would anyone who isn't married to the conspiracy theories think there was the slightest shred of reasonableness in that argument. It's pure bollocks. The only way the CSes should be given any weight is for reliable sources to advocate for them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

General notice

This article covers the murder of a young person whose family are still grieving, and who has unfortunately become the epicenter of a series of partisan conspiracy theories. While much of the discussion on this talkpage is appropriate, I'd like to encourage everyone to review their participation here in light of Wikipedia policies on the ethical aspects of coverage of living and recently deceased people, especially those whose notability stems from being the victim of someone else's actions (as in Rich's case). We have a responsibility to avoid acting, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization. Some contributors here are falling short of this expectation.

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." Obviously, we can't keep Fox News or other partisan media from stoking conspiracy theories and making up phony "scoops", but we can exercise discretion over whether Wikipedia amplifies their nonsense. To the extent that editors here are using Wikipedia as a platform to disseminate "non-facts, baseless allegations, and general stupidity", whether intentionally or unintentionally, it needs to stop. I'll appeal first to your basic human decency; and failing that, to your respect for Wikipedia policy. MastCell ^Talk 00:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I really wish the officials would find the murderers so we can put an end to this conspiracy theory stuff one way or the other. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

This right here: "non-facts, baseless allegations, and general stupidity".Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

"non-facts, baseless allegations" like the mainstream media's Russia collusion narrative. Understood. Nikolai Romanov (talk) 02:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The same can be said for your original comment. Nikolai Romanov (talk) 03:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Original comment was by MastCell. Please try to keep it straight. Even "I know you are but what am I" requires some effort.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that we could have reduced a lot of discussion on this page had some editors not nominated the article for deletion three times and never missed an opportunity to shout BLP and HOAX. We should proceed by accurately and proportionately including the information reported in mainstream media, such as CNN, the Washington Post and The Independent. I don't accept the argument that mainstream media should not have provided coverage to the case, therefore we should not have an article or report what appears in mainstream media. This article should provide a summary of what one would find by reading all the articles in those sources, providing the same weight to various people and theories reported. TFD (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

(NPR: Unproved Claims Re-Emerge Around DNC Staffer's Death: Here's What You Should Know)[33] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.215.113.195 (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Moving Fox News controversy stuff

I have a simple request: Replace "Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich took also part in spreading the conspiracy." with "also took" as the correct word order. JeanEva Rose (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC) JeanEva I suggest we move some or all of the stuff in the "Fox News controversy" section to WTTG. It's not about Rich as much as it is about WTTG and its parent company. There may be a few factoids worth retaining here from the recent kerfuffle, such as the news that the D.C. Police never had the FBI take a look at Rich's computer. But 99% of this stuff is just not descriptive of Rich's life or death. Per WP:Preserve I will move it to WTTG if there are not too many objections. And then maybe WTTG can go in the "see also" section for anyone seeking that info. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Nope. You guys wanted this story in the article. It's in the article. Now you want to remove it because it didn't turn out the way you thought it was going to turn out. Tough noogies. There are objections, don't move it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Kudos for finding the "most obscure but still just relevant enough to justify it" article to hide this stuff in though. That does take a certain level of skill.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't put one bit of this stuff in. If you want to continue defacing the page of a recently-deceased young man, it's on you, not me, Volunteer Marek. Your battleground editing style continues to amaze me. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

You agitated for inclusion of WP:BLP and WP:HOAX info, presenting it as if it was true. Remember this? You put that one bit in. And oh yeah, you might wanna hold off from casting WP:ASPERSIONS about WP:BATTLEGROUND at least until the ink is dry on the closure of your spurious battleground-y ANI report. At least I don't go running to the drama boards over every little bit of trivial crap to try and get my way. And even non-trivial crap too, though perhaps I should.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Nothing in the section now was put it in by me. I did at one point attempt to put in material that seemed to be reliably sourced to U.S. News and World Report. I really do encourage you, VM, to rethink your approach. Making a family suffer over the crap in this article, in order for you to carry out some kind of tit-for-tat against people you think are unfriendly is really beneath any further comments from me. P.S. I have got better things to do with my time than pursue a perfectly valid action at AE, so I let it drop, you're welcome. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, yeah, cuz the stuff you tried to put in then was WP:HOAX, so it's a good thing that nothing in the now version was put in by you. And seriously, I can't believe (well, no, I can) that you're trying to turn this around on me (and presumably others, who wrote the relevant section). I was removing this hoax crap - the stuff that actually is "making family suffer" while *YOU* were putting it in. And now you're gonna try to claim some moral high ground? Listen buddy, let's get this straight. YOU put in fake news that violated BLP and had the potential to cause harm and grief to the family. *I* repeatedly removed it. Only now, that the original story has been exposed as a nasty scam by people on your side of the political aisle, you come here with these crocodile tears and pretend to give a shit about Rich's family and demand that we remove the fact that it was, in fact, a nasty scam. You were quite happy to pile on Rich family and didn't give an iota of thought to their feelings when you thought the fake news story could score political points. Sorry, not gonna sit here and let you besmirch me, let this hypocrisy fly, and not gonna let you scam the article with this crock.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

This is my last comment in this very repugnant discussion. I properly relied upon an article in U.S. News and World Report. User:Geogene kindly informed me that it had been contradicted by an NBC report. I said above: "Geogene, thanks for this info. I had not realized that a former law enforcement official quoted by NBC News has contradicted the federal investigator quoted by U.S. News and World Report." I did nothing inappropriate. You, on the other hand, are objecting to removal of scads of crud on the basis that "You guys wanted this story in the article.... Tough noogies." Take the last word pal, because I am through. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

See ya.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: I realize this can be a very emotional topic, but I suggest you calm down, step back, and try to assume good faith. For example, attacking another editor because of his/her apparent political leanings is not good practice. I don't want to take this to the "drama boards", but this is troubling behavior, to say the least. ^Falling_Gravity 06:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't "attack" him for his/her political leanings. I responded to his disgusting smear against me (the hypocritical sleazy part about "defacing the page of a recently deceased young man", the "Making the family suffer...") If he's gonna dish out those kind of grossly insulting and obnoxious attacks, then he should expect an appropriate response. *Shrug*.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

"the original story has been exposed as a nasty scam by people on your side of the political aisle," and "you thought the fake news story could score political points". Yeah, this discussion is going nowhere. ^Falling_Gravity 06:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

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." I suggest we get rid of the material that is about debunked stories. That's all there is to it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

What happened to "last word"? And no, that's not "all there is to it". Here is the other part: NOW you want to "get rid of the material that is about debunked stories". BEFORE you wanted the debunked stories IN THE ARTICLE. Where the fuck was your consideration for Rich's family then???????? You don't get to play the good guy here now Anythingyouwant, not after your previous behavior. I suggest you walk away. Maybe other editors will decide to remove the material, maybe they won't, but your continued presence, and these continuing deeply hypocritical claims about you pretending to do it "for the family" have ZERO credibility after your earlier comments and edits. Let others handle this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Your unsubstantiated comments are grossly inappropriate for an article talk page, and would be even if you could substantiate them. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

You want substantiation? Well, I already provided one diff. Here it is again:

• You adding in fake news [34] without any consideration for the family's feelings.

And then:

• Here is you calling the fake news HOAX "credible and detailed" (sic) [35] without any consideration for the family's feelings.
• Here you agree with another user that the HOAX about Rich "being in touch with Wikileaks" should be added to the article [36] without any consideration for the family's feelings.
• Here you push the HOAX by saying the HOAX story "has lots of detail" and oh yeah, "attack" me for my (imagined) "political leanings" [37] without any consideration for the family's feelings.
• Here you are adding the same HOAX bullshit [38] without any consideration for the family's feelings.

I think that's substantiation enough. You're not weaseling out of this. You did it - advocated including BLP violating HOAX fake news without regard to the family's situation (even as I ran around Wikipedia yelling for admins to protect this page from obnoxious IPs and the like because it had potential to cause real harm and grief to the family) and then turned around and demanded the info that this was fake news be removed from the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

No, I did not ask for substantiation; I specifically said your comments would be inappropriate "even if you could substantiate them". Meaning you should give it a rest. The only two article diffs that you offer cite U.S. News and Workd Report. I rejoined this horrible discussion after "Falling Gravity" chimed in, and see now that it was a bad decision on my part. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

It should stay, although it could be titled differently. TFD (talk) 04:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Why should it stay? It's all about a news story that turned out to be wrong, and never would have been a news story but for false facts. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

It should stay. Here's a tragic fact: these conspiracy theories are the only notable aspect of the murder. They're the only reason for ongoing news coverage. This Fox mess is the biggest thing that has happened in the subject area in months, possibly since the murder itself. Geogene (talk) 05:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The article went through AfD multiple times without all this new crud. And, like I said, there are some factoids from this new kerfuffle that can appropriately remain or be included. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I wanted it deleted. Still do. For BLP reasons. It's not going to happen though because Fox News and various scumbags on the internet turned this non-story into a story with their "notable" conspiracy theories.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

the fact the murder is unsolved debunks the "non story" claim. Until perpetrator is caught, no one can claim that it was a botched robbery.72.53.146.173 (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it needs a standalone article - "Fox News Hoax Story" or something. Then this article could simply address the murder circumstances, the current progress of the investigation, and the conspiracy theory allegations that Rich was the Wikileaks DNC leaker. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not long enough or interesting enough for a standalone article. Better to put it at WTTG per WP:Preserve (or just delete it from WIkipedia). Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The only way you're deleting it from this article is if the entire article gets deleted (as I think it should).Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Why? The hoax story isn't a key point about this murder. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Mr Ernie The most newsworthy thing about his murder has been the subsequent conspiracies that spread online. —PermStrump(talk) 15:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Exactly! But until the past week this information was not presented in our article. That Fox appears to have fabricated a story is notable enough for its own article. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• It is OK to have conspiracy theories on pages if they are notable conspiracy theories. That one is notable - based on the coverage in press. But it is important to describe them exactly as they have been described in RS, i.e. as something which is most certainly not true. I think this paragraph comply with such requirements. My very best wishes (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• ANI report led me here since I have some other BLPs that have been vandalized with conspiracy theories about this murder on my watchlist. The Fox coverage is very much related to the murder, has been covered by reliable sources, and as a separate article would be a content fork (who is actually going to type in something like Fox News Story about Seth Rich Murder into the search bar? It would have to be summarized here and linked to in order for anyone to find it. At this time, there isn't cause for a split. If it becomes more a mess and there is enough content for a new article, it can be split at that time. Right now, it is very much relevant to this article and a manageable enough size, so should be included. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Debunked?

None of the three articles linked in the lead 'debunk' the 'conspiracy theory' that Seth Rich gave emails to Wikileaks. You could write that there is 'no evidence' that Seth was in contact with Wikileaks, but when you say that the 'conspiracy theory' that Seth was in contact with Wikileaks has been 'debunked', it leads those that read it to believe that either, investigators had been able to verify that Seth had not been in contact with Wikileaks via email, or that Wikileaks had stated that Seth Rich was not in contact with them, neither of which are true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.168.153.139 (talk) 07:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. There has been so much RS discussion about whether he leaked or not, but with no evidence presented, that this is the non-political, fact-based way to present it. "Debunked" is an editorial conclusion when we're far away from knowing the whole story. I'm no fan of either the political left or political right spinning this their way. We all need to detach ourselves better. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

This WaPo article very clearly debunks it. So does Snopes. Fox News and Wheeler both recanted their stories within hours and blamed each other for misrepesenting what was said, so there aren't any reliable sources to support a claim that he leaked emails. —PermStrump(talk) 14:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Snopes says the central claim is "unproven" which is different from other claims that have been proven "false". Of course, you are right that there are no reliable sources supporting this claim. ^Falling_Gravity 16:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I construed the IP's position to not necessarily point to yesterday's back-and-forth nuttiness but the speculations that go further back. Also, Snopes being used as a reliable source is frankly laughable. WaPo themselves have seemed to lower the bar on journalistic integrity since last year, but I don't wish to debate their use as an RS. Generally, I find 'debunk' to be an editorial phrasing rather than encyclopedic language, especially when the sources are so few and partially questionable. At any rate, I'm not going to change the language in the article in this regard, because I have quickly given up on this article having much usefulness until the murder is actually solved. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, Snopes being used as a reliable source is frankly laughable. Take it to RSN and see if that position gets you anywhere. Not only has RSN repeatedly found Snopes to be reliable, other impeccably reliable sources have stated that Snopes was among the most reliable sources. I've seen multiple accusations of inaccuracy in Snopes, and every single one has turned out one of two ways; Snopes corrected itself or the accuser turned out to be making stuff up. Without fail. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

This conspiracy theory can not be debunked until the leaker of the DNC emails is finally revealed, or until the killers of Mr Rich are found. I will be amending this in the article. Alternatively I would be ok with the point the IP makes about "no evidence." Mr Ernie (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

You are presuming that there is a leaker. Even if there is, this is still wrong on multiple levels. There are lots of things that could debunk this conspiracy theory. Like a police officer who was involved in the investigation insisting that the FBI never handled Rich's computer in the first place, and that the police (who did) found no evidence whatsoever that there were ever any such emails on it. Or by various federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies announcing that Russia was responsible for the "leaked" emails. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality of "conspiracy theorists"

RE: ValarianB's edit reverting mine, I think it's important not to use the phrase "conspiracy theorists", especially in the lead, because it's considered an ad hominem and a WP:Weasel word. If you take a closer look at the reliable sources (ex.), they refer to "conspiracy theories", but don't call people "conspiracy theorist". It's hard to argue it's a neutral description, when the intention is clearly to delegitimize the person spreading them. The hoax isn't legitimate, which can easily be stated clearly without name-calling. —PermStrump(talk) 15:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you because that is how it was described in quoted sources: The parents of slain Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich are speaking out against yet another conspiracy theory surrounding their son’s death. My very best wishes (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Those out there who are promulgating the Wikileaks angle in the subject's death are being described as conspiracy theorists by reliable sources. If most editors here think it's too over-the-top to describe them as such, then remove it I guess. ValarianB (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I thought that people that create and/or spread conspiracy theories are, by definition, conspiracy theorists. But I will try to give more thought to any potential distinctions there since it has been brought up. Geogene (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The articles I've seen talk about the hoax as a conspiracy theory without labeling any people as conspiracy theorists, per se. I know it's a minor detail, but people who believe conspiracy theories consider it inflammatory and then automatically reject whatever comes next, citing the ad hominem fallacy (fallacy), thus reinforcing their original belief the conspiracy. —PermStrump(talk) 06:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

But we're not catering to conspiracy readers here, this is a general-audience encyclopedia, what they feel is inflammatory is not a consideration. Looks at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories for example, where even the title comes out boldly and says "this is what the critics are". ValarianB (talk) 11:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

"Fake news" link

I reverted my second revert. I humbly apologize for breaking the 1RR and I corrected that. Anyway, when a reader see Fake news as a related subject, that may construe to some readers that the murder of Seth Rich was fake. If this is going to be included, at least put it in better context for readers than just having a flat link. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

They should know better, having just read the article. But if readers are that stupid, it can't be helped. The fake news article gives excellent context for this mess. Thank you for self-reverting though. Geogene (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not about readers being stupid, per se, but about the integrity of the article. The topic is "murder of Seth Rich" and a related topic is "fake news". I'm sure many will go, "Huh??". Like I said, it shouldn't just be a flat entry but have some context with it. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

That's somewhat vague, so I'm going to cite your edit summaries [39], [40] where you gave your justification as being that if we link to the fake news articles, our stupid readers will in fact believe that the murder itself was fake. Yet, they would have just read the article. This is a ridiculous suggestion. And the conspiracy theories surrounding it are textbook fake news. Geogene (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Can we rename this article?

Aside from all the other back and forth on this article, I find its name misleading and POV.

"Murder" can only be used after a trier of fact has heard the case and come back with a guilty verdict indicating that the victim was intentionally killed by someone who planned to do so ("malice aforethought", "prior calculation and design", whatever statutory language you like). All the police and the coroner can say, even if the press uses the M-word, is "homicide": someone else killed the victim, for reasons yet unknown.

This is where it stands with Seth Rich (and also should with another unsolved D.C. killing, Murder of Robert Wone, especially since in that case the possible suspects' identities are known). We don't know who killed him. We have no idea who it could be. Until they are arrested and either plead guilty or get convicted this cannot be called a murder.

I propose renaming this to Seth Rich homicide, per another article where I've used this sort of nomenclature, about an unsolved street killing in Brooklyn. Should I make a a formal request, or are enough people OK with this? Daniel Case (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• This would need to go through a formal RM given how controversial the topic is. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

COMMONNAME appears to be "murder". If anything, "Killing of Seth Rich" would be closer to what you're aiming for. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

No. Because nobody is searching for "Seth Rich homicide", they're searching for "Seth Rich murder", or "murder of Seth Rich". That's also what sources are calling it. It's what people call it in everyday English. I'm troubled that you have managed to move other pages, please read WP:COMMONAME and avoid doing that again. Geogene (talk) 03:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that COMMONNAME applies. This is probably the type of discussion that belongs in the guideline pages, because there is no consistency across articles. TFD (talk) 03:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• The description of what constitutes a murder above is inaccurate. "Murder" does not require intent in the US legal system (see Murder#Degrees_of_murder). Furthermore, murder is a form of homicide that would almost certainly be used to charge any suspect in this case (as opposed tp manslaughter). There is no current (and likely never was, though not being a legal scholar I can't say for certain) any requirement that a person be convicted of a murder before it can be considered a murder. It's nonsensical. If they didn't consider it a murder, why would they investigate? I also agree with using the common name, and our policy is extremely clear on that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

See my argument and xlink below. Just because people colloquially call it "a murder" does not make it something we should use.

"If they didn't consider it a murder, why would they investigate?" Because it's a homicide, and homicides have to be investigated to see if the law has been broken, as it usually has (I mean, it is entirely possible that the perpetrators in this case, if they are ever arrested, could claim self-defense, or mental defect, both defenses that would negate a murder charge while not denying the act). Without knowing the perpetrators' state of mind, it cannot legally be called a murder.

As I noted below, the AP advises reporters not to do this. We should consider this very strongly as we are a lot of people's de facto news source for stuff like this as much as the AP, if not more. I think applying COMMONNAME here so blindly is irresponsible.

I agree that the guidelines should be updated, but that doesn't mean we can't do this here and now. Daniel Case (talk) 04:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLP and WP:NPOV trump (ahem) COMMONNAME here. I accept its use for historical cases like Murder of Pamela Werner where it is pretty much likely that all possible suspects are long dead and the case could no longer be legally prosecuted anyway, or multiple-victim murders that have acquired a popular sobriquet like Oklahoma Girl Scout murders or are named after when and/or where they occurred like 1991 Austin yogurt shop murders.

But AP style, as well as other style manuals, has become pretty clear on this point:"A 'homicide' should not be described as 'murder' unless a person has been convicted of that charge ... Do not say that a victim was 'murdered' until someone has been convicted in court. Instead, say that a victim was 'killed' or 'slain.'"

When we move it, there will still be a redirect when people type "Murder of Seth Rich" into the search field that brings them here. I don't see why people have such a hard time understanding this and living with it.

Now, should someone be arrested and charged with murder in the case, I'd be OK with renaming it Seth Rich murder case (see the naming history of Murder of Ramona Moore, where after creating the article under that name someone else wanted to move it, and eventually I came to agree with the rationale I put forth above, COMMONNAME notwithstanding, and it took that format until the defendant was convicted last year of manslaughter, after which I reverted it to "homicide" since the jury acquitted him on the murder charge).

I do agree, however, that given how much hot editing there is on this one an RM will be necessary. I will open it later today. Daniel Case (talk) 04:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

"Just because people colloquially call it "a murder" does not make it something we should use." Yes it does, see WP:COMMOMNAME. If you don't like that policy, get it changed instead of arguing across hundreds of articles that follow that policy rather than the AP stylebook. TFD (talk) 05:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

For reasons that should have been abundantly clear to you by now without having to state it outright, when you call an unsolved killing a "murder" you are engaging in original research (See here, where I came to understand this point, as you eventually will). That takes precedence over our naming policies. Daniel Case (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

You are making arguments about legal definitions, except that you are misrepresenting the legal definitions you are using. Also, not all homicides are investigated, in either a pragmatic or technical sense. There are cases where the "investigation" consists of one uniformed officer asking a few questions, then writing it up as self-defense, or an accident. There are cases where a party will be arrested, questioned and released within a matter of hours (remember George Zimmerman?) with no effort made to confirm or refute their story. And of course, there are cases where the police body lacks the resources or jurisdiction to pursue an investigation. In the latter two cases, it would still be considered a murder, still be considered a homicide, and yet lack an investigation in any sense.

That's why the article about what made George Zimmerman notable is titled Shooting of Trayvon Martin. The only thing that should matter to us is what the coroner and police say. No, not all homicides are investigated ... what bearing does that have on whether someone's death was brought about by the action of another? Daniel Case (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

From the get-go, your reference to a "trier of fact" is erroneous. Grand juries are not even remotely considered triers of fact as their purpose is not to make any determination of fact, yet they have the power to have murder charges be brought against a suspect. Judges are triers of fact, yet they lack the ability to have murder charges brought against a suspect. I strongly recommend that you research this matter further before attempting to pursue this line of reasoning.

By "trier of fact", I meant a judge or trial jury. I don't know where you're getting all this about grand juries since I never mentioned them. Daniel Case (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I got it from my knowledge of the US legal system. Grand juries decide whether to prosecute. Whether, in the eyes of the law, a murder has taken place. I was informing you about how the system works, correcting your mistake. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I accept that you might have been arguing in a WP policy context about the trier of fact reference. But as you have yet to cite any such policy, I have presumed you were arguing in the legal context and responded accordingly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I just cited OR above. I think the matter is settled. Daniel Case (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

So long as you don't consider it settled in favor of your proposal, as no-one has agreed with you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

What I mean is that anyone with a thorough understanding of policy would realize that there's valid counterargument.

I was going to wait till after the weekend to start an RM discussion, but I see that someone else (ahem) jumped the gun. Daniel Case (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

WTTG

I have copied the "Fox News controversy" section and pasted it at WTTG. We can either keep all of it here too, or instead replace it here with a sentence like "In May 2017, there was a controversial news report about the Rich murder that was subsequently discredited." I would think the latter approach more appropriate, since this is more about screwy reporting than about Seth Rich's life or death (but I will not myself remove any of this material from the present article at this time). Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

It would be more appropriate to have a brief mention at the local Fox article that points to the larger coverage here. The thrust of the story is conservative media pushing a fringe conspiracy theory regarding the death of a DNC staffer, trying to tie it to the larger Clinton murder conspiracies. Which local Fox affiliate did the actual initial reporting is at best a mildly informative data point. ValarianB (talk) 11:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Per above, trimming this article at this time in favour of copying to a more obscure article would constitute content forking. The content should stay, currently. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant - why did you do this? There's clearly no consensus for such an action AND you said you'd back away from this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I said I wanted to back out of a previous conversation with you. No consensus is needed here to edit a totally different article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

fox news distraction

I removed the info about fox news being accused of running this story as a distraction about the other Trump news events of the day. It does not belong in this article for a number of reasons. Please justify why this should be added. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Because multiple reliable sources find this notable enough to bring up:

• CNN[41]: "It took only hours for one of the biggest stories in conservative media this week, which some outlets had chosen to focus on over news that President Trump disclosed classified information to senior Russian officials, to fall apart... Fox News on Tuesday morning joined in the chorus, publishing a lead story on its website... "
• Snopes[42]: "The Fox News story about Rich came one day after a report by the Washington Post accused President Donald Trump of spilling classified information to Russian envoys during their visit to the Oval Office on 10 May 2017. Brad Bauman, a spokesperson for Rich’s family, told us he believed the Fox story was motivated by a desire to deflect attention away from the Post report: 'I think there’s a very special place in hell for people that would use the memory of a murder victim in order to pursue a political agenda'."
• WaPo piece[43] about conservative media's, incl. Fox's, coverage and non-coverage of the Russia-Trump thing, with the WaPo piece noting that Fox chose to lead with Seth Rich during all of it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
• Haaretz[44]: "As the revelations about President Donald Trump and fired FBI Director James Comey exploded across all mainstream news outlets on Tuesday, conservative, pro-Trump outlets – from Breitbart and Fox News to Rush Limbaugh and InfoWars – operated on the other side of the looking glass. This is the bizarre story they told: That the entire Trump-Comey-Russia story is “fake news,” all manufactured by the crooked mainstream media to distract from the real story – that real proof was emerging that Rich, not Russia, had been the real source of WikiLeaks information that damaged the DNC."
• Vox[45]: "The past week of Trump scandals for people reading mainstream news outlets has gone something like this: President Trump fired the FBI director who was investigating his campaign’s connection with Russia — and then the next day, Trump shared classified information with Russian officials. But on conservative news outlets, the narrative was very different... While news was spreading about Trump sharing classified information with Russian officials, Fox News and Breitbart focused on a story about DNC staffer Seth Rich leaking material to WikiLeaks before he was killed — a story that Rich’s family refuted, and that other outlets didn’t cover."
• NPR[46]: "Within a day of the Fox 5 report, Google searches for Rich had overtaken searches for James Comey, even amid continuous news about the former FBI director's conversations with Trump."

Also, I prefer my text, which just read "The next day, while other news organizations were extensively covering Donald Trump' revelation of classified information to Russia, Fox News published a lead story on its website and provided extensive coverage on its cable news channel about what it said were Wheeler's uncorroborated claims about the murder of Seth Rich" over the "Fox News has been accused..." text. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

And how is this encyclopedic and WP:NOTNEWS? This is just standard news that left leaning sources are using to seemingly get a hit in on fox. It doesn't belong in the article about the "Murder of Seth Rich." If it's got consensus to go back in (I don't see this yet) then I also prefer your wording. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

You don't think it's relevant context to note that this sloppily put-together BS story (it would literally have fallen apart if the "journalists" behind it would have placed a few phone calls to verify the outlandish claims that were being made) was the lead story on the Fox News website and extensively covered on its cable news shows on arguably the most news-intensive day of the Trump presidency? Also, CNN, WaPo and NPR are not left-leaning sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)With the sources provided above, I say we leave it in, but put it in source voice. Pick one, write a single short sentence (e.g. "The Washington Post noted that Fox News chose to lead with this story at a time when most other media outlets were covering allegations that president Trump leaked intelligence to Russian officials.) and be done with it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

No I don't think it's relevant to note in the article. It's media finger pointing and not encyclopedic. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

You've said that twice now, but you have yet to make a case for it. I don't see anything to suggest that my version is un-encyclopedic. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm all about NOTNEWS (we don't enforce it nearly enough.) The commentary by reliable sources is clearlynot news, it is critical analysis of a major component of the case, namely the media's coverage of it. Critical commentary is the exact opposite of news, it is analysis, which we should be summarizing in an encyclopedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to accept that consensus is against me here. In my opinion this looked like an attempt by other news organizations to get a dig in at fox. User:TonyBallioni thanks for your summary - I can understand it when you put it like that. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I have absolutely no doubt that they took the opportunity to have a dig at fox. I would even accept that this was the lion's share of their motivation for writing these stories. But that doesn't make it less notable, or reduce the amount of RS coverage it has got. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Include it's well sourced and if true it's a pretty big deal. Geogene (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

It's in the sources and it's important so needs to be included.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

It's already kind of included in the article: "The spokesperson for the family criticized Fox News for its reporting, alleging that the outlet was motivated by a desire to deflect attention from the Trump-Russia story." I suggest adding a sentence before this to clarify what the "Trump-Russia story" is, using some of the sources mentioned above. ^Falling_Gravity 19:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

That's not equivalent because the family is involved in that controversy. That third parties also accuse Fox of this is more important. Geogene (talk) 19:23, 19 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)

• 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,[47] FOX 5 DC,[48] CNN,[49] The Hill, [50] Politico,[51] WJLA/ABC7,[52] NBC Washington,[53] and you can find dozens more through Google.[54] 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.[55] 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,[56] 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)
• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2017

Remove "The crime was used as a pretext for right-wing conspiracy theories about Rich which were later debunked". The sources clearly state "Police investigating the matter have said that they believe Mr Rich was killed during a botched burglary but have not closed the case. The deceased was found with his wallet, credit cards, and phone still on him. His watch band had been torn but not broken." How can you consider that debunked? Is this a propaganda site? And no I'm not a right wing conspiracy theorist as the inflammatory sources claim. I'm an Obama and Sanders supporter. 2601:542:C480:C5BD:4D8B:CA1B:69BD:9EE2 (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC) ""SO, you're just an anti-Hillary conspiracy theorist? 74.70.146.1 (talk) 01:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The three sources cited at the end of the sentence in question appear to support the text as written. It makes absolutely no difference where your political allegiances lie. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

neutral POV is not maintained

This section does not maintain neutral POV. "The crime was used as a pretext for right-wing conspiracy theories about Rich which were later debunked"

The term "debunked" implies a proof of a negative. Because conspiracy theories are based on lack of evidence, it's impossible to "debunk" it. "Debunk" carries a tone of absolute certainty, and a tone that such a conspiracy is wholly impossible. Moreover, the term "ring wing" implies the entire right embraces these conspiracy theories. This is a partisan term that would not pass the neutral POV. Talking about "right wing" and "left wing" as a whole is political jargon, not a place for an encyclopedia.

In addition, there are reports that some conspiracies are invented by those identifying themselves on the left: http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503146770/npr-finds-the-head-of-a-covert-fake-news-operation-in-the-suburbs. Term "right-wing conspiracy theory" is ambiguous. Was the conspiracy invented by those affiliated with the right? Or is it embraced by those on the right? In either case, this phrasing should be changed.

Suggested change: "The crime was used as a pretext for conspiracy theories about Rich embraced mainly by the far right, which were not supported by evidence."

I included "far right" because figures like Alex Jones push these conspiracy theories. I see no evidence that this is accepted by the mainstream republican as fact. It would be just as dishonest to credit Antifa violence to "left wing" as it is to credit this conspiracy theory to "right wing", regardless if a significant minority on that political spectrum supports it.

A77B (talk) 03:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this analysis and support the proposed rephrase. "[N]ot supported by the evidence" is a bit redundant but I understand the interest in pushing the conspiracy theories down a little further with a statement about their evidence while not piling on with the stronger "debunked". Having said that, while I think "'debunked' implies a proof of a negative" is a good argument (I allude to the proof of a negative idea above where I oppose having "conspiracy" in the article title) I don't think it's categorical that Wikipedia can never say a conspiracy theory has been debunked. I think conspiracy theories are on something of a continuum in terms of their "respectability" and this one isn't the most outrageous, not least because the competing generally accepted theory is more "we don't know who killed him or had him killed" than "we know exactly what did happen and by virtue of that can exclude that much more convincingly a lot of what did not happen".--Brian Dell (talk) 04:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be "debunked", but sources have been making it clear all along, even before the Fox News nonsense, that these conspiracy theories have been worthy of derision even beyond that normally associated with the "conspiracy theory" label. I've seen modifiers like "far-fetched", "baseless", more recently ranging all the way to "ghoulish". I'll be content as long as the article makes it clear that they're Out There and not to be taken seriously. Geogene (talk) 05:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree that "implies proof of a negative" is a good argument. The American Heritage Dictionary defines "debunk" as "To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of". Random House (unabridged) says it's "to expose or excoriate (a claim, assertion, sentiment, etc.) as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated". Webster's New World: "to expose the false or exaggerated claims, pretensions, glamour, etc. of". Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the change of wording to include "far-right", because even though Fox News has traditionally been part of the mainstream right, this is still not something that's being pushed by individual mainstream right writers/commentators. It's mainly the far-right pushing it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

phrasing needs to be changed

"Fox News and other conservative media have been accused of giving these conspiracy theories air time in order to distract from embarrassing news stories about the Trump administration"

The phrasing "distract from embarrassing news stories about the Trump administration" implies that the news stories were embarrassing. This is an opinion and does not maintain neutral POV. It should be changed to:

"Fox News and other conservative media have been accused of giving these conspiracy theories air time in order to distract from news stories about the Trump administration deemed embarrassing by some."

There is no objectivity in making the claim that those news stories are "embarrassing" as this is wholly a subjective partisan claim.

A77B (talk) 03:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I have to disagree with this one. The pushback against the stories from team Trump hasn't been "these allegations are not embarrassing" or an implied version of that, it's been "these allegations are mere allegations." Maybe "embarrassing" isn't the best word but the general idea that they are a problem for Trump IF they are proven to be accurate in all respects is widely accepted.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Non-neutral edits

New editor ArniDagur is making POV edits to the article [57] and needs to be re-reverted by someone. Geogene (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects and is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. The language I adjusted clearly violated that fundamental principle. ArniDagur (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it is non-negotiable, and that's why your non-neutral edits are problematic. In short, sources say that the conspiracy theories are right-wing, so should the article. Taking that out is removing significant information. Note that you have already violated the 1RR restriction. Geogene (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories, like any other theories, can and are held by people on all sides of the political compass. Saying that the death was used as a "pretext" for this conspiracy theory is not only unsourced and problematic but also highly biased; the same goes for saying that the theory is exclusive to a single political group. I am by no stretch of the imagination right-wing myself, but it is mentally painful to read the article in its current state. The term "conspiracy theory" is very loaded and has a very negative connotation; I get the feeling that some editors are trying to mix their political beliefs into the article and making a particular political group sound like they are all crazies. The word is also unnecessary and does nothing to improve the article. ArniDagur (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

As we discussed above the majority of RS do not describe the conspiracy theories as as ring-wing. Of the three sources in the lede only one (Independent) uses right-wing. The NY Times, the best of the them, does not. Almost all sources identify Wikileaks as helping to promote the conspiracy theories and no sources call Wikileaks "right-wing." James J. Lambden (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the rfc you started, so why don't you wait for it to conclude.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The RfC was started prior to the recent coverage. Including these sources the overwhelming consensus does not now support right wing . James J. Lambden (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Separately, @ArniDagur: See the notice at the top of this page: this article is under a 1RR restriction, not the standard 3RR. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Done. ArniDagur (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Of the three sources in the lede only one (Independent) uses right-wing <-- that's only because we don't overcite in the lede. And that's the only reason. We have:

• "has given fuel to right-wing conspiracy theories "
• "has long been a popular right-wing theory"
• "conspiracy theories already swirling through tabloid newspapers and right-wing circles" (that's also about Vince Foster, but the point of the article is to compare the two)
• Alt-right' Using Cruel Seth Rich Conspiracy Theory to Deflect From Trump’s Russia Scandal
• "conspiracy theories floated since then by far-right activists", "Following suit were other right-wing news outlets"
• "it was the “alt-right” idiocy of Pizzagate all over again. "Conservatives, and specifically right-wing media, have been sponsoring these occasional campaigns for decades."
• "conservative news outlets filled the gap with an outrageous story of their own", "and other right-wing sites were all leading their home pages with a story from Fox News"
• "Right-wing websites churned out headlines like this one"

Ok that should be enough. Now - find me a single source which says it was "left wing conspiracy theory".Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• Whomever is arguing that these CSes aren't right-wing is so completely wrong that I say without reservation that they lack the requirements for editing politicized articles. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Left-wingers do promote the conspiracy theory (e.g. disgruntled Bernie supporters, Jill Stein supporters) but it does seem more prominent on the right-wing. My sense of things is irrelevant though: we go with reliable sources and they overwhelmingly describe it as rightwing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing stopping left-wing people from repeating a right-wing CS. That doesn't make the theory left-wing. But yes, most of the problem is that we don't have any sources claiming it's not a right-wing CS. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Why does a conspiracy theory need to be politically labeled? I fail to see the point. ArniDagur (talk) 04:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Um, because it's a political conspiracy theory. Obviously. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Because sources make it clear that is a "right-wing" theory, as well as "far-fetched", "baseless", "ghoulish", etc, and there's no reason not to, except a profound misunderstanding of the Neutrality policy, or perhaps, a desire to censor the article. I saw something on a conservative Reddit where this article was being complained about. Wikipedia policies mean I can't link to it directly, but I'll summarize: they don't care about Wikipedia themselves but they don't like the "right-wing" tag because it makes it harder to wake the sheeple or something. I do not doubt for a minute that all these red-linked accounts are now edit warring that out of the article because of an illegal off-site canvass. Geogene (talk) 05:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

More non-neutral edits

These by new user Icaidacmt. For example, [58], [59]. Some of that last bit is similar to content added by Zellfire999 [60] a few hours ago. Geogene (talk) 02:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Geogene I am describing what the theory is, it is under the "conspiracy theories" section. Many Wikipedia pages on conspiracy theories describe the topic. I fail to see how this is "non-neutral". Section should be deleted if the conspiracy theory should not be discussed in even the most basic way. Icaidacmt (talk) 02:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

And in addition to sourcing some garbage to Twitter, you also just deleted "right-wing", which is clearly against consensus. Geogene (talk) 02:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The claims you included are not discussed in the reliable source cited, therefore I have removed them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Right-wing is mentioned twice, as in the previous sentence, I removed the second mention of it for grammatical reasons. It seems you are accusing me of being political which I find ironic, however I suppose I will not edit further if it is not welcome. Icaidacmt (talk) 04:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

You can edit if you can edit neutrally, or you can choose not to edit. I'm fine with either. Geogene (talk) 05:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is being discussed on several off-wiki forums, with users there encouraging others to come here and "fix" this article. Hence the recent influx of all the suspicious sleeper accounts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen one of them that's publicly viewable. They're particularly unhappy about the "right-wing" verbiage. Geogene (talk) 05:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

At the very least it should be mentioned somewhere in the article that no suspects have been officially named Icaidacmt (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

See Also

My additions to the See Also, "Fake News" and "Fox News controversies" were reverted by Malerooster. They cited BRD but did not give an actual justification. Here is an opportunity for them to do so. Geogene (talk) 05:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

BRD is a justification to come here and seek consensus. You were reverted by two editors so here we are. Links in the see also should ideally be worked into the article if applicable. I would not include these links. --Malerooster (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Which is still not a justification. Who cares if you would or not, you're not giving a reason not to. Geogene (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I do. --Malerooster (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Malerooster give a reason or self-revert. Geogene (talk) 03:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Cease and desist filed by the family

As reported by Media Matters, https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2017/05/19/seth-richs-family-sends-cease-and-desist-fox-news-contributor-behind-evidence-free-smears/216576 the family has filed a cease and desist. I'm not sure how to integrate this into the article, so I'm bringing it up here in hopes others can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.36.161 (talk) 07:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Weird. Yesterday, they released this youtube video. Is it not them? [61] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.215.113.195 (talk) 11:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

It's them, but it's not from yesterday, and they weren't the ones who posted it to YouTube. It's a thank-you video they posted to a GoFundMe set up by Seth Rich's brother, several weeks ago, which someone has put up again to stir the pot.--NapoliRoma (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Just for completeness' sake: here's where the video was actually posted by the family, on April 24th: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbCMS8dMRlY --NapoliRoma (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Fox News Controversy

This section belongs in the Fox article, not in the article on Fox’s victim. A grieving family being victimized all over again: An entirely Fox-generated, Fox-propagated "alternative fact" at a time when they have lost their biggest generator of ad dollars, O’Reilly; when Fox News ratings have fallen to third place behind MSNBC and CNN; and when a yuge breaking news distraction was needed, coming right on the heels of WaPo’s report on Trump revealing classified information to Lavrov and Kislyak. The actors:

• (Fox News crime analyst (a paid position) and former MPDC detective) Rod Wheeler, retained by the family on the advice of
• (Fox Business Financial Advisor, Breitbart author, Republican, Trump supporter) Ed Butowsky "who offered to pay for the investigator’s services" (NY Times, May 17, 2017); and
• an alleged anonymous FBI source allegedly claiming that an alleged "… FBI forensic report of Rich's computer -- generated within 96 hours after Rich's murder -- showed he made contact with WikiLeaks …", and that "… 44,053 emails and 17,761 attachments between Democratic National Committee leaders, spanning from January 2015 through late May 2016, were transferred from Rich to MacFadyen before May 21" (Fox News, May 16, 2017). Fox News did not get this via Wheeler but allegedly directly from the alleged anonymous "federal investigator" (alleging where alleging is due!) :

  “I have seen and read the emails between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks,” the federal investigator told Fox News, confirming the MacFadyen connection. He said the emails are in possession of the FBI, while the stalled case is in the hands of the Washington Police Department.

  The revelation is consistent with the findings of Wheeler, whose private investigation firm was hired by a third party on behalf of Rich’s family to probe the case.

A short sentence in the "Conspiracy theories" section with a cross-reference to the Fox News article should suffice. All updates on this need to be done in the Fox News article, not here! If there are no objections in the next few days, I will go ahead with the changes. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonable approach. For the same reason, we have avoided stating the details behind the Assange connection. Fake news works by repetition of what appear to be detailed accounts and in this case, none of the conspiracy theories are related to the topic of this article (which may yet be AfD'd again). SPECIFICO talk 16:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the section thoroughly and concisely debunks the conspiracy theory - it leaves no doubt that the conspiracy theory is evidence-free and by all accounts debunked. Lack of coverage on Wikipedia amplifies the uncertainty and doubts about the "official narrative" in my view - that this Wikipedia article is the first thing that pops up on a Google Search will no doubt settle this issue to any individuals who find the case fishy but are nonetheless persuadable and open to changing their minds when presented with evidence. Conspiracy theorists are super-upset about this Wikipedia page, which indicates that we're on right track:

• • https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/6bp118/they_did_this_with_pizzagate_too_the_sjw_editors/
  • https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/6c45y1/read_this_wikipedia_article_theyve_literally/
  • https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/6c4urg/wikipedia_editor_snoogansnoogans_has_been/
  • https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/6c5jpl/afternoon_magathread_its_been_a_rough_couple_of/dhs1n9m/?context=3 Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory can't be debunked until the DNC email leaker is revealed and Rich's murderers are found. A conspiracy theory by nature does not require facts. Please do not make comments about editor motivations. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The DNC leaker was Fancy Bear. Good grief. Geogene (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

the Wikipedia articles about those topics don't seem to agree with you. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• The content should be kept in this article, because it's the only thing notable about the topic, and because it's clearly educational for the readers, per Snooganssnoogans. That doesn't mean some of it can't be ported over to the Fox News, Sean Hannity, and New Gingrich articles. The previous version of the article that carefully avoided talking about this stuff might have just been giving readers a prompt to Google those conspiracy theories, and that may have been actively counterproductive. Geogene (talk) 19:46, 21 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)

Russian government

I notice that non-neutral wording, the Russian government, which had been blamed for being the leak source by the DNC, endorsed the conspiracy theory. was just added by Wikinium. Of course everyone knows it was the Russian government, not just the DNC. Should the article mention Fancy Bear and the associated evidence, since they were the ones that really did it? Geogene (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

We should only go by what RS say about the Russian government in the context of this particular conspiracy theory. Your last edit was original research. Use whatever language existed in the pre-existing sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

As long as I'm talking about the DNC hacks, and the sources I'm using are talking about the same DNC hacks, it's okay. Those sources don't have to also talk about Seth Rich conspiracy theories. It's not OR until you take a source and try to twist it around to say something it doesn't reasonably apply to. Geogene (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

It is helpful to provide links to edits when you discuss them. Here's the link. My objection is the use of the term "Russian government," when sources refer to the Russian embassy in the UK. I realize that ambassadors speak for their governments, but it is unusual for them to do so through one in a third country. TFD (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I added that in this edit [62]. But I feel that there is no practical distinction between what is said by an embassy and its government. Geogene (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there is. Note that what Trump and his ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, say is often in conflict. TFD (talk) 02:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Fox News in the lead

Since the article talks about the Fox News controversy, so should the lead. Unfortunately PerfectlyIrrational just removed that and replaced it with "members of the alt right" which is not accurate to sourcing. Geogene (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll re-add it. It's been promoted by both, but mainly the alt-right. PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Reddit

Maybe this is relevant to the article? https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/someone-just-edited-seth-richs-reddit-posts-b5f185b0aab 87.142.103.242 (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't look reliable to me. Geogene (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Nope. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Ditto the above. Same as a blog. -Location (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Seth Rich's Reddit profile was saved in archive.org before editing, edits are very visible and are proof. That blog has just put it into words for you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.90.148.242 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Even this was his Reddit account, it could be his family now controls the account and they don't want the email addresses disclosed. ^Falling_Gravity 01:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Newt Gingrich

The family's spokesperson has had some very choice words for Gingrich [63]. I'm not sure if this should be included. On one hand, he has chosen to do this and his actions are obviously causing the family grief. On the other hand, the statement is pretty harsh and I'm sure someone will cry "BLP!". At any rate, it's well sourced so I'd be inclined to putting it in, but haven't done so at this point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Given his larger-than-life and aggressively promoted public persona, I don't think "Gingrich" and "BLP concern" can be used in the same sentence. Put it in. SPECIFICO talk 20:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 May 2017

The article needs to include how the conspiracy theories are most popular on Reddit (subreddit the_donald) as well as 4chan. (This could be added underneath 'conspiracy theories'. Vhalan (talk) 21:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

It can only be added if there are reliable secondary sources. TFD (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Jack Burkman's reward money

Claims that Jack Burkman's reward money is unverified are unsupported by the sources and constitute WP:OR. Plus, reward money itself isn't a conspiracy theory, unlike the theory that some powerful actor (Putin or Hillary) carried out the murder. ^Falling_Gravity 00:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me, that's ridiculous. Show me where any independent verification of the money and the terms on which it is to be paid. These factors are both known for the police reward. They are merely the statements of Burkman and Assange, much like if I were to say I can read the minds of large animals and trees. There's been discussion of this on talk. The "reward" can be mentioned in the article but we cannot suggest that it is genuine nor that it is similar in any respect to the reward offered by the DCPD. Please undo your rv of the move. SPECIFICO talk 01:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The text is sourced to WJLA and the Washington Post: "Republican lobbyist Jack Burkman then stated that he was offering a $105,000 reward in addition to those announced by the DCPD and WikiLeaks."[64] There is no doubt the offers were made and original research to question it. This is not the place to discuss your personal conspiracy theories. TFD (talk) 01:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Shame on you sweetheart. You know very well I stated no conspiracy theory. Care to respond to the issue? You don't have to, it's up to you. SPECIFICO talk 02:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Please provide a source stating that this widely reported reward has not been verified. ^Falling_Gravity 15:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Please provide a source stating that zebras do not dance. SPECIFICO talk 16:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Nobody's trying to add that to the article, but I do know zebra finches can dance[65]. ^Falling_Gravity 18:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

OK then. Please prove that "Please provide a source stating that this widely reported reward has not been verified" is not a red herring. SPECIFICO talk 19:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Sigh, this is turning into such a childish argument. The bottom line is that we have a source saying the WikiLeaks reward is unverified, and no source that Burkman's reward is unverified. Thus, we can't assert that Burkman's reward is unverified. Capiche? ^Falling_Gravity 20:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, you are questioning what the papers are saying about the case, which is conspiracism. You cannot ask other editors to stop unwarranted speculation then do it yourself. Maybe the media is controlled by the New World Order and is lying to us about Burkman offering the reward money. But this is not the place to determine that. We are supposed to ensure the article reflects what mainstream sources say in their coverage. TFD (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

It's a matter of WEIGHT. I am not saying this should not be told in the article. However there is a difference between an official routine reward and an individual stating that he's personally putting up a large sum of mazoola (thereby generating media coverage for the whole bit) and then strangely making a subsequent offer of an additional small amount +$5 tomatoes, which again bumped the media coverage of his unverified offer. I'm sure you understand the difference, and I'm sure you understand that this is the sort of thing we need to parse as editors. I'm simply saying that this and the Assange "reward" should not be associated in our narrative with the real-life official reward. Maybe you can also comment on Mr. Gravity's logical error in demanding proof of the nonexistence of icicles in the desert. SPECIFICO talk 19:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

WEIGHT says that the weight should reflect prominence in reliable sources. If as you say the reward generated media coverage, then it is noteworthy. While people may manipulate the media, it is not the role of editors to develop independent criteria for what goes into articles. If that were allowed, then we would have arguments about what criteria to use. We would not have any disputes on this talk page if you and other editors unwilling to accept media coverage of this story would agree to follow policy or take your disputes with the mainstream media to the policy pages. TFD (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

More POV editing

We've got edit warring by Malerooster who appears to not know why they do what they do [66], and we have BobNesh shamelessly censoring Mother Russia out of the article. [67] Geogene (talk) 03:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Background on the DNC hacks

I'm thinking about putting a background section in there somewhere about how the DNC hacks actually happened. Starting with:

Between March and April 2016, 108 members of Hillary Clinton's campaign staff and 20 people that work for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) received spearphishing emails that claimed to be from Google's Gmail service, alleging that their accounts had been compromised and that they should change their passwords immediately. The emails contained shortened Bit.ly link to spoof URLs such as "accoounts-google.com" where the hackers had set up identical copies of the Gmail login page. These pages not only harvested passwords entered by fooled users, but also deposited extremely sophisticated malware onto their computers, which was then used to gain remote access to the DNC's network.[68] Soon thereafter, thousands of stolen emails appeared on WikiLeaks.

This background would better educate the readers so they will be less likely to think that this was the work of one rogue programmer or something. Geogene (talk) 05:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

This is not the article for it and you would need to show that the sources were writing about the subject of this article. Also, check your spam folder. Do you think it's all coming from the KGB? TFD (talk) 06:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

If I were causing problems for the Kremlin and had been getting thousands of phishing emails obscured as Bit.ly links, I'd have good reason to be suspicious. Geogene (talk) 14:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

If I read your proposed text I would infer that these phishing scams were the source of the Wikileaks dump. However Julian Assange has stated that they didn't come from Russian hackers. I can't support adding this text to this article. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes. That's what actually happened according to RS. If it's different from what Assange is saying, tough. Geogene (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe something about the background but a whole para is probably too much.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect quote attribution in 3rd paragraph

Posting in the talk page because I am unable to edit extended protected pages. In the third paragraph, it reads:

"They[The Seth Rich family] accused conspiracy theorists of politicizing his death for political gain, and called posters of the debunked conspiracy theory "sociopaths" and "disgusting""

The source cited for this states that it was the Seth Rich family spokesperson, Brad Bauman, who said posters of the conspiracy theory were sociopaths. Noah1831 (talk) 10:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

That was my original wording. I guess somebody changed it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh I see, this is about the lede. I think it's fine, since a "spokesperson" .... "speaks" for the family.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not really doing any harm, but the problem is that it is not technically correct to quote the family itself as saying that. 173.23.14.73 (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

He's a DNC-assigned crisis communications PR agent. He's not speaking for the family, he's covering the DNC's behind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.16.235 (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The lead

"The crime was used as the basis for right-wing conspiracy theories, which have since been debunked in statements by law enforcement agencies. These theories falsely stated that Rich was the source of the 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak. In reality, Russian intelligence services are most likely responsible for the hacking and the leak."

This is the lead as it currently stands. Debunked should be changed to maybe criticized or denied, falsely should be removed, and the "In reality" sentence is really bad, weakly sourced, and just plain editorializing. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I see no basis for either suggestion. This is no different than the President and the birth certificate issue, a demonstrably false narrative pushed by some minor conservative sites and persons. ValarianB (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

You're right about the "In reality" part being bad writing. But "debunked" is fine. I mean, it's not like you can "prove" that aliens didn't kill JFK. But it's not inaccurate to say that the "aliens killed JFK" theory has been debunked.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

(ec)If it is demonstrably false please show me the sources. There's no way to debunk that Rich was the leaker and was killed for it without knowing conclusively who the leaker was or who the murderers were. The theory should of course be described as denied by the family and as having no evidence, but it is still an ongoing theory. User:Volunteer Marek I may have missed something in that Economist article, but to my reading it doesn't attribute anything to intelligence sources. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, this is the whole "demanding someone prove a negative" thing. You can't prove that I'm not really a slice of intelligent cheese which has developed consciousness and shape shifting abilities. Debunked is fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've responded to this very assertion above. You are wrong. There is no requirement, either grammatically nor practically that a debunking be unassailable in its conclusion of falsehood. Indeed, the debunking need only show that the CS is highly unlikely, which has been done in spades in this case. That being said, the "in reality" sentence can go the way of the dodo. It's not encyclopedic and it's speculative. Instead, we should say what the article says, which is that the CIA concluded that is was Russian state-sponsored hacking, not that it's "most likely". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

(ec) And if you want to remove the "According to US intelligence" part and just go with "Russian intelligence did it" that's fine. I was trying to attribute (and there's a ton of sources to back it up) in the interest of neutrality.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations. I'm still not convinced about the wording there, but hopefully others can add some improvements. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The wording contains false assertions and original research. And we can prove JFK was not killed by aliens because reliable sources say Oswald killed him acting alone. Why not just put in what mainstream media say about the case? TFD (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

he wording contains false assertions and original research. Summation is not original research. Saying "debunked" is the semantically equivalent to saying "the conspiracy theories have been shown to be highly unlikely due to statements by law enforcement agents who have worked on the case which directly contradict the assertions of these theories, as well as the overall lack of evidence to support any assertions of these theories." It's also a lot shorter and easier to parse. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course, there's no reason why the article can't be more descriptive like that. That's the basic point of not using 'debunked', which can imply there's no possibility to the evidence-based speculations (not talking about wild speculations, but those who look at facts and explore possible explanations) of some. Also, I don't think the word of law enforcement folks at this point are absolute and final -- after all, the murder hasn't been solved and law enforcement agencies aren't immune from political pressures. On top of all this, there are separate aspects to the conspiracy theories: (a) Rich leaked to Wikileaks; (b) He was murdered for leaking. (a) is plausible given current facts. (b) is murky but not outside of possibility. At best one can say (b) has been contradicted by authorities who say, as far as they know right now, they don't see evidence for it. There are increasing credible pointers to (a), though, that calling that 'debunked' is a stretch. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course, there's no reason why the article can't be more descriptive like that. I literally just gave a reason why the article shouldn't be as verbose as I said and you respond by saying "of course there's no reason" why the article shouldn't be that verbose?

(not talking about wild speculations, but those who look at facts and explore possible explanations) I've yet to see a Seth Rich CS that wasn't wild speculation. Not only have all of them claimed an improbable party to be responsible, but they've all completely fabricated an improbable motive for that party, which hinges upon an improbable claim about the email hacks.

Also, I don't think the word of law enforcement folks at this point are absolute and final No-one has suggested that they were. That being said, the word of law enforcement is as final as it is possible to get. Nor is that the extent of the problem; there is no evidence to support the conspiracy theories. None whatsoever.

(a) Rich leaked to Wikileaks; (b) He was murdered for leaking. (a) is plausible given current facts. No, it is not. The CIA concluded that the email leaks were the result of state-sponsored hacking by Russia. No evidence has emerged to contradict this, and indeed, new evidence has appeared supporting this since the announcement. Numerous other intelligence agencies supported the CIA's conclusion. Numerous cybersecurity groups have also endorsed the CIA's conclusion. In addition, an independent hacker has also claimed credit for it, and numerous authorities have examined this claim and concluded it to be plausible-if-unlikely at worst. What is not plausible at this point is the presumption that 1) a DNC insider leaked the emails; and 2) that the specific insider in question was Seth Rich.

At best one can say (b) has been contradicted by authorities No, that's an "at least", not an "at best". This is equivalent to saying that "At best, WMF doesn't think MjolnirPants has hacked WP's servers." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The hacking

@BarrelProof: regarding [69] The conspiracy theories all revolve around the hacking, so as long as they're in, the hacking is relevant to the article. If we were going to go back to a stripped down version that mentions only the murder, you'd have a point. But since there's a lot of insinuation about this, because Rich was a computer guy, and his employer got hacked, you have a lot of fairly idiotic ideas asserting some kind of connection based on that. Not discussing it is just a way to lie to the readers by insinuating something and then omitting the full truth. The article must describe the hack to some extent. Geogene (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

As written, that material showed no relevance to the death of Seth Rich, and I just looked at the article cited in it, and did not find any mention of Seth Rich in that article either. There is also nothing in this Wikipedia article that describes any relationship between the particular methods employed in the hacking and the death of Seth Rich. We shouldn't put stuff into the Wikipedia article about the death of Seth Rich that has no apparent relevance to Seth Rich. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

You don't get the concept of background? How about I add this source [70] which explicitly makes that connection and mentions phishing as well? Geogene (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not background if it has no apparent relevance. At the moment, I see nothing in the Wikipedia article that suggests that the methods employed by the hackers have any relationship (whether real or imagined) with the death of Seth Rich. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Postscript: The second sentence of your above remark was added after I had already formulated my reply. I hadn't noticed it, and have not yet had time to review that article. Please do not wait for me to complete that review – I think you understand my concern, and I invite you to proceed as you think best. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Ambiguous pronoun

The article currently has a paragraph toward the end that says:

On 19 May 2017, an attorney for the Rich family transmitted a letter to Rod Wheeler, a former homicide detective who had been hired at one time to investigate their son's murder. He later told an affiliate of Fox News that he believed police were covering up results of their investigation

The subject of the first sentence is "an attorney for the Rich family." The next sentence begins "He later told." Wheeler is the last noun before the "He", but Wheeler is mentioned in the past tense. It sounds like it was the lawyer that "later told," which doesn't make any sense. If it was Wheeler who "later told" - either while he was employed by the family this should be reworded. Use name rather pronoun. "Without the Rich family's permission, Wheeler had told ...".

Ileanadu (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Good point. Change "He" to "Wheeler." Also, the expression "had been hired" without saying who hired him is weasel-wording. He "was employed by the family," according to the source, which is why their lawyer was able to claim that he was not authorized to speak about the case without their permission. TFD (talk) 17:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Excessive personal & biographical detail?

@BarrelProof:, while I appreciate the amount of effort you've put into your extensive recent edits to this article, I am concerned that they are taking large parts of it in the wrong direction and reinstating personal and biographical detail about the victim which WP takes care to avoid. If it were not for the conspiracy theories promulgated by the victim's political adversaries, this crime and Mr. Rich himself would not be WP:NOTABLE. In such cases we have elements of our core BLP policy that instruct us not to add undue personal narrative to an article. This is not a biography about the victim, and his identity and personal details are incidental to the crime and the subsequent public attention to the matter. We have WP:AVOIDVICTIM and PUBLICFIGURE and other principles that apply here.

Earlier versions of this article incorporated much of the personal and circumstantial content about Mr. Rich that you have recently added. Over a period of time, a consensus developed to remove these statements. There was extensive relevant discussion on the article talk page and also in the first two of three AfD discussions. While the ongoing and renewed coverage of the conspiracy theories and exploitation of Mr. Rich and his family have now made the exploitation WP:NOTABLE, the detail that you've recently reinserted in the article is in my opinion irrelevant to the crime and the exploitation that have made the subject notable. I would be more comfortable with this article with most of the recently-added personal and behavioral detail removed. SPECIFICO talk 23:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is getting way into the weeds. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll give it a rest and think about it. In the meantime, I removed the following two sentences, which is probably much of what generated the negative reaction: "The manager of the bar had offered to call him a cab, but he said he preferred to walk and was thinking about stopping by another nearby night spot called the Wonderland Ballroom. He had been talking at the bar about how hard it was to balance his 12-hour-a-day job and an offer to join the Clinton presidential campaign with his relationship with his girlfriend, and some reports said he was highly intoxicated.<ref name=meme/><ref name=WhoIs/>" —BarrelProof (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe there was discussion about some of this material and how much to include when the article was first started, and the consensus then was to keep most of it out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Including ordinary biographical detail. Major in school, first career moves, etc. Just about every ordinary detail is irrelevant here. The point of this event is that a person has been objectified and used as an excuse for fake news. All the detail should be removed. Just about everything personal. SPECIFICO talk 02:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is not supposed to be a biography. If it were, it would fall under WP:BLP1E Geogene (talk) 02:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm rather surprised by that reaction, and I disagree. I think the article should include a reasonable amount of summary biographical information (e.g., major in school and basics of career path). WP:BLP1E actually does not apply, as it says it applies "only to biographies of living people". What does apply is WP:BIO1E, but neither one of them say we should omit ordinary biographical information about a crime victim whose death is the topic of an article. I agree that the article shouldn't become a pseudo-biography, but we're only talking about a few sentences, not a huge amount of detail. I also haven't managed to find evidence of the prior consensus to leave out such information that was referred to by Volunteer Marek, although there's a lot of prior commentary to sort through when looking for that. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

A WP:WORDSALAD is unpersuasive. In reporting stories about crimes, the details of victims and their activities preceding the crime are usually mentioned and they have been in this case. If you think content policies should be changed because you don't like how mainstream media report cases, then get the policy changed. TFD (talk) 05:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

And it adds to the encyclopedia what? He liked penguins and pandas so Fox News blah blah? SPECIFICO talk 11:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

What goes into articles is determined by policy. It should "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." If you think that mainstream media are giving the wrong proportion in their coverage then you should write a letter to the editors, or get the policy changed. If you don't think this article contributes anything then work on something else. TFD (talk) 12:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

You're the editor here so letters to the editor are addressed "dear TFD". Please be mindful of the subject of this article it's not a biography. SPECIFICO talk 14:38, 23 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)

Fox News: Statement on coverage of Seth Rich murder investigation

Needs to be placed into article: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/23/statement-on-coverage-seth-rich-murder-investigation.html

Casprings (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes. But we need to clarify that this refers to the May 19 (or whatever day it was) report, and not to all the subsequent coverage that the channel has given to the story (e.g. Sean Hannity has not copped to any mistakes). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

There will undoubtedly be RS reporting on that statement per se since it 1) makes the contradictory claim that it always scrutinizes its stories whilst simultaneously stating that it did not scrutinize this story, and 2) it says that Fox will continue to work on the story when it's been reliably reported that Fox fabricated this narrative and that there in fact is no story to report. SPECIFICO talk 18:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)