Talk:Murder of Seth Rich/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Requested move 2 June 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved as clear consensus to keep the article at it's current name based on the argument of WP:COMMONNAME has been established. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 20:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Murder of Seth Rich → Seth Rich homicide – Per reasoning by Daniel Case at "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." Hopefully as this is a more simpler proposal, should be a more straightforward discussion than the last one. Sagecandor (talk) 01:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support, per reasoning by Daniel Case, at [1]. Sagecandor (talk) 01:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Nobody is searching for "homicide of Seth Rich". Geogene (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no reason to move the page, but I don't oppose "Killing of Seth Rich" or "Death of Seth Rich" because those aren't legal jargon. Geogene (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose-We may not know for sure who did it, but it definitely looks like a murder. Display name 99 (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per COMMONNAME. Whatever good arguments are presented, we should follow policy and guidelines. If you think they are wrong, then you should get them changed rather than argue in thousands of individual articles. TFD (talk) 06:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The reliable sources call it a murder, and there's nothing in BLP or OR that requires a court decision before using that title. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support per nom and my own reasoning. I will respond to the arguments so far presented below. Daniel Case (talk) 07:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose seems clumsy, but would support Death of Seth Rich, or better Killing of Seth Rich instead. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose but would support Death of Seth Rich -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The rationale given for this doesn't jive with policy or law. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

It does sound like a new cop show. Seth Rich: Homicide. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose per COMMONNAME. Support Death of Seth Rich. Secondary and primary sources use "murder" (presumably suspected/treated as). If that's out of line with current article titles shouldn't we add the preferred "Death of" to the guideline/policy? "Death" at least avoids the US centric "homicide". Agree with reasoning to change. Widefox; talk 15:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Per COMMONNAME, Death of Seth Rich would be preferable. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Weak Support - I agree with the reasoning behind the proposed change. It is not appropriate to call this a murder, because we do not know who did it. Thus, we cannot know what their motives or intent was. Murder requires provable intent (which is why often people are convicted of manslaughter instead of murder. That said perhaps, the "Killing" or "Death" of Seth Rich would be more appropriate. The other option, which I allude to below, is that we could just call the article "Seth Rich". I am unclear whether this article is supposed to be a biography of the person, or an entry about the event. That may require further discussion.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Moot. The article should be moved to Seth Rich. It's clearly a biography. --В²C ☎ 23:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose seems clumsy, but the current title is WP:OR so I would support Death of Seth Rich or another title without "murder". Oppose a move to Seth Rich per WP:ONEEVENT. —  AjaxSmack  00:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

How is WP:ONEEVENT basis for opposing Seth Rich? Have you read it? "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. " In this case the article is about the individual; the title should reflect that. --В²C ☎ 06:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - per WP:TITLE, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV. No original research was conducted when the article was initially created/titled - it was based on what the subject of this article has been called in an overwhelming amount of reliable sources, and in the police report of this incident, the offense was listed as being Murder I (22DC2101-Y). Additionally, the rationale given by Daniel Case below for being in violation of BLP doesn't make sense to me, he quotes WP:BLPCRIME as the pertinent subsection: "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured". I interpret that passage to mean that an relatively uknown person is someone who has been named by the media, but would otherwise be viewed as relatively unknown if it wasn't for the recent media attention. Darren Wilson comes to mind as an example, he was relatively unknown until he shot Michael Brown and the media named him, in his case it would be a violation of BLP to imply that his actions were criminal. In this instance however, the person and/or persons are completely unknown, no one has been named by the media, so how are we causing harm to a living individual when that individual is not even known or hasn't been named or identified by any sourcing. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway: I will respond below. Daniel Case (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME Darwinian Ape ^talk 02:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose as proposed. It can be treated as a "murder" (i.e. unlawful killing) by members of the justice system without there actually being a conviction. That said, it doesn't seem the most precise. Support renaming to Shooting of Seth Rich or Killing of Seth Rich, which do not come with legal implications. Oppose Death of Seth Rich as too vague. Oppose moving to the biographical title Seth Rich, as a good deal of notability comes from conspiracy theories surrounding the event and the circumstances about the event, rather than the actual person. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• Rhododendrites, I get that a good deal of notability comes from conspiracy theories. I don't get how that's an argument against titling this biographical article by the subject of the biography. --В²C ☎ 18:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. It is fine the way it is. I see no material difference between "murder" and "homocide" in meaning. Murder by far is what people use in everyday language to describe homocides. The suggested title of "Death of Seth Rich" appears to be a politically motivated whitewash trying to cover up that there was foul play. There are no indications that Mr. Richard mistakenly shot himself twice. And there is no indication that the two torso shots (at least one of which was to his back) were suicidal in nature. Nobody is talking about his death being a suicide. In addition, the shots were fired around 4am which isn't a great time to be walking alone in a big city. Furthermore, you have the whole issue of Wikileaks and Mr. Assange offering a reward for information relating to his apparent murder.Knox490 (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree that it should be left the way that it is. "Death of Seth Rich" is far too vague and broad, as it could refer to death from a serious illness or an accident. "Homicide of Seth Rich" is not sufficiently specific either, as his killing was obviously intentional, a murder, not, for example, an accidental homicide. 11 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Additionally, to someone unfamiliar with the topic, 'Seth Rich homicide' feels unclear (is Seth Rich the victim, the perpetrator, or tangentially involved?) --Aquillion (talk) 06:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Nobody is searching for 'homicide of Seth Rich'. Well, the current title would redirect to the new one, so I don't see it mattering what people search for or don't search for. Daniel Case (talk) 07:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Well we may also name the article "Some sort of freak accident" and redirect the current title. WP:COMMONNAME is an objective arbiter in these cases. Sources mention it as murder of Seth Rich, so should we call it as such. Darwinian Ape ^talk 02:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• We may not know for sure who did it, but it definitely looks like a murder Saying it "looks like" murder is OR to anyone who understands the difference between murder and homicide. For the last week, I have been working on Murder of Dee Dee Blancharde—a homicide two years ago in which one of the two suspects arrested has already pleaded guilty to second-degree murder. Therefore, we can call the case a murder. While all murders are homicides, not all homicides are murders. Daniel Case (talk) 07:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Whatever good arguments are presented, we should follow policy and guidelines. Which are silent on this particular question. I agree that they should not be, and that a vast change in naming to a lot of pages would be a huge undertaking. But, were I to suggest a policy change (or, rather, a whole MOS page about writing about crimes, which would be the best place for this), I would have to concede that there are some exceptions—for instance, historical cases (such as, from my other work, historical crimes like Murder of Pamela Werner (80 years ago and half a world away ... this never was and never will be prosecuted; Gatton murders would be an even older example) or crimes more recent, usually multiple killings, that have acquired some popular sobriquet that does not use the victims' names (example: Oklahoma Girl Scout murders—this is the sort of case where I think COMMONNAME is most apropos) and frankly this would be best determined on a case by case basis.

  As for COMMONNAME itself, firstly I should remind you that it is a permissive policy but not a prescriptive one, i.e. it allows us to use Amtrak and leave National Railroad Passenger Corporation a redirect because we are not bound to technical names; at the same time it does not require that we use "Amtrak" if for whatever reason consensus were to come down against it in favor of something else. Its language uses "generally, not always.

  Everyone who has invoked COMMONNAME above seems not to have read further down the NC page to the next section, WP:NPOVTITLE, which discusses what should be an obvious limitation to COMMONNAME: the common name must be neutral. Calling an article about a recent homicide "Murder of ..." is essentially convicting someone of a crime before they have even been identified, much less arrested, which means such titling is very POV. In a time when the presumption of innocence is under such sustained attack from all sides, it is at the very least irresponsible of us to ignore the implications of NPOV in how we title this article.

  And since, after all, those who killed Rich are not ideas or institutions but actual people, it is not just NPOV but BLP we must be heedful of. And indeed there is a BLP subsection that is most pertinent: WP:BLPCRIME, which reads, in relevant part: "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured". I submit that the article title must be considered to be "material" under this sentence.

  "Seth Rich homicide" is an alternative that avoids all these issues (until, if ever, any suspects are charged and convicted) as well as fitting nicely with WP:NDESC. "Homicide" is a statistical category of deaths, those caused by the actions of another, that is sometimes but not always used in the names of criminal offenses covering the unlawful killing of another human being. It is descriptive but not judgemental. Daniel Case (talk) 07:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• there's nothing in BLP or OR that requires a court decision before using that title First, see above. Second, because of the infinitude of possible subjects to write articles about that could variously inflect the application of those policies, they are not written with long lists of "for articles about X do it Y way". The assumption is that editors will internalize the principles in those policies and use them to make sensible editorial decisions, either when editing alone or in consensus with others, that will enjoy the respect of the community. We have policy we can derive more specific guidelines from, not rules.

  TL;DR: just because nothing says explicitly we should do it the way we're doing it doesn't mean that way isn't wrong.

  Daniel Case (talk) 07:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Daniel Case, what principle in WP:BLP or WP:OR are you pointing to as suggesting that we cannot call this death a killing? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: I would be OK with that if consensus supported it. Daniel Case (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand. OK with what? And what about my question? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: I thought you were suggesting retitling the article "Killing of Seth Rich", which would IMO be OK with WP:NDESC as well. Is that what you're doing? Daniel Case (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

More comments in response to !votes above:

• "Death of Seth Rich" is too vague. In my experience we have reserved that for cases where homicide is just one of several theories, or there is an official finding otherwise (I've long thought Jonathan Luna should be renamed to "Death of ..." since Luna was never notable during his life and we have conflicting findings on the case from the FBI and the local coroner). When someone was killed due to what is believed to be the action of another and there is no doubt about this, we should title the article to reflect that. There is absolutely no official doubt that person or persons unknown shot Rich and fatally wounded him. His death is a homicide. Daniel Case (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• @Widefox: Homicide is "US-centric"? Well, I give you credit ... that's a totally new argument against using it. I would like to read what you have to say by way of elaboration (seriously), because I think this is a matter that applies at least to all common law countries and probably quite a few civil law ones as well.

  And in any event, this is a homicide that occurred in the United States. Certainly that should be taken into consideration?

  Daniel Case (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: In the context of en.WP policy, I'd prefer a non-US centric engvar, yes. We don't use the term "homicide" in this policing context in the UK. See wikt:homicide #3 "US, police jargon". Of course this article is in the US, but my comment was about titling sitewide. Widefox; talk 16:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Widefox: Thank you for your swift response. If you look past that "US police jargon" in the wiktionary entry, you'll see that usage is in reference to a victim of a homicide. The usage of referring to the killing itself seems to be universal.

I understand how you may read this proposed title as suggesting that usage, but it does not. The article is about a homicide, an event, "Seth Rich" is the modifying descriptor. I prefer that usage to "Homicide of ..." because that's a rather awkward construction that almost no one uses in casual conversation; in fact it seems to me from experience that police officers, prosecutors and journalists generally use the construction in which the victims' name (or names) come first as a descriptor.

Daniel Case (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: I suggest looking at UK sources for common usage - "death", "killing" but rarely/never "homicide" (and as you say legal outcomes of "murder", "manslaughter", "death by misadventure", "unlawful killing", "lawful killing" etc). It is used, but more formal (e.g. stats including both murder and manslaughter [2]) than common language, despite legal use e.g. Homicide Act 1957 Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 and rare/possibly-MET-specific Homicide and Serious Crime Command (as well as their Murder Investigation Team).

• Searching BBC for "homicide":
  • "Man found beaten to death in Ilford car park" [3] ("homicide" hit is only due to the above mentioned unit).
  • [4] - a US case.
• WP example Talk:Murder_of_Lee_Rigby/Archive_3#Requested_move "Death.." -> "Murder..". Widefox; talk 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: my point being that either this is titled 1. per COMMONNAME in sources (which I believe is "murder") or 2. per site-wide policy (presumably BLP vio for currently unnamed perpetrator, or just correctness?) which is best to pick a neutral Engvar (which my argument above goes unchallenged, however astonishing British English Engvar is to others). Further, if "homicide" (which I agree per US Engvar, and Anglo legal systems perspective has merit, although not per common usage in British Engvar) is to be used, then it's trivial to see that when it's widely presumed to be murder, and treated as murder then concepts like unsolved murder (redirs to List of unsolved deaths not "homicides") but crucially lists List of unsolved deaths#Unsolved murders separate from List of unsolved deaths#unsolved deaths), List of unsolved murders in the United Kingdom makes sense and would need to be treated differently per the logic of this nom. Of course, as a US article then British English isn't too relevant, but per logic of decomposing into 1. and 2. this doesn't appear to be a strong case. Widefox; talk 14:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Widefox: Having worked quite a bit on list of unsolved deaths, I can offer some input. I've long thought the unsolved homicides should be spun off in a separate list, with the US ones like the British ones given their own list. When that list was started there was space enough to contain all those, but now that it's a) a lot longer and b) top-heavy with the homicides I think the list needs to be split for sanity's sake. When it is split I think we can rename all the split-off articles appropriately.

My argument would be under your number 2, as I've written in my response to Isaidnoway: BLP violation as to a yet-unidentified suspect's presumption of innocence. Daniel Case (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: There's two competing factors - 1. (a potential future) BLP vio / sub judice for any suspect(s) vs 2. NPOV for the topic. According to sub judice - prejudice is a problem only from charge/arrest in the UK, the US being less strict. WP:BLPCRIME only talks about protecting the suspect, so do we really need to stray from NPOV for the crime? I think that needs a policy level of consensus. A hypothetical BLP vio suppressing / WP:CENSORing NPOV. A 100 year or so wait so there's no living person seems excessive, surely we just say any named suspect is a suspect and keep titles per sources. I'm 100% against any UK death topics being titled "homicide" and for US ones that aren't so described per COMMONNAME. Widefox; talk 17:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

It could be that editors have been misinterpreting COMMONNAME. But the misinterpretation has been so consistent that the argument belongs in MOS instead of across thousands of articles. TFD (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• @Isaidnoway:: The damage would be done if the person were ever to be identified and arrested. Using "murder" implies a determination of criminal guilt; any suspects are presumed innocent until then.

  For the last four years, the AP Stylebook has admonished reporters thus: "Do not say that a victim was 'murdered' until someone has been convicted in court. Instead, say that a victim was 'killed' or 'slain.'," Emphasis in original.

  I realize that the AP is not us, and we do not have to follow their stylebook (and in many cases we don't, and for good reason). But in matters relating to things that can possibly get you sued for defamation, the AP (and indeed all the respectable news outlets that use it) are bound by principles analogous to BLP and NPOV. If they came to this conclusion, certainly we should not be so dismissive of it or take cover under things like COMMONNAME and "that's what our sources say" (Especially not when we made the decision a few months ago to pretty much blacklist one of the English-speaking world's most widely read online newspapers for its callous indifference to these issues). Daniel Case (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Daniel Case:. Thanks for the consulting the AP Stylebook. I would support creating policy per that wording "killed" (or "slain"). So presumably Killing of Seth Rich despite sources using "murder". Widefox; talk 17:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Widefox: As I've said above, I have no objection to a "Killing of ..." title if that's more likely to gain consensus. Daniel Case (talk) 05:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Support making this policy per AP wording. Widefox; talk 12:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Strongly oppose changing the title. We know Seth was shot in the back multiple times, and was unarmed, and in a public place. It is irrational to think it an accidental shooting or a self-defense shooting. We simply do not need to know who did it to know he was murdered.

Many terms used in this article are strongly biased. Whether others hacked the DNC does not prove Mr. Rich did not leak material, claiming this is a "right wing conspiracy theory" is biased. It may be a pro-Sanders conspiracy theory, or for all you know it may be fact. Montestruc (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC) Montestruc (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rewards

Original

The Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia (MPDC) posted its customary reward of $25,000 for information about the death.[2][34]

Proposed Revision:

In addition to the $20,000 reward offered by Wikileaks, the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia (MPDC) posted its customary reward of $25,000 for information about the death.[2][34]

One America News Network and Republican strategist Jack Burkman are offering rewards of $100,000 and $130,000 respectively in connection with the Rich investigation.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohawk82 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Seems fine, except the Wikileaks reward is in addition to the police reward. TFD (talk) 00:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a non-starter for reasons discussed extensively and conclusively in several talk page threads. Please review. SPECIFICO talk 03:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't remember any reasons presented, just a multitude of links to policies with no explanation of their relevance. TFD (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Burkman's reward is already in the article and Washington Times isn't a reliable source. Geogene (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it is rs although there are better newspapers. It's the type of source that is best for local news, which this is. TFD (talk) 04:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Profiling Project Findings 06/21/17

Shocking corroberation of the so-called 'conspiracy theories' by the GWU faculty in their recent publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.152.116 (talk) 09:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

References

• Newsweek: "As for the conspiracy theories, the Profiling Project says those are unfounded, given that Rich did not die immediately at the scene" ^Falling_Gravity 14:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I was referring to how 'conspiracy theories' (that any attempt to suggest the crime was any other than a robbery) were derided. Also, I am very surprised the findings have not been referred to in the article.

Why is "the faculty of George Washington University" using a Gmail contact address instead of an official university one? Geogene (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The report (from the scribd link above) says "An all-volunteer group of current and former George Washington University forensic psychology graduate students and instructors".

Since there's no actual list of participants it's hard to tell, but this sounds like a student club; "instructors" may in fact be synonymous with "graduate students", or I'd think they'd have said "professors". I'd be careful of overinflating this to "Faculty Findings". --NapoliRoma (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

It should be mentioned since it got coverage. There's nothing particularly unusual about the findings. TFD (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• As an administrative comment, this material falls well short of the sourcing bar set forth in WP:BLP in general, and all the more so given the extra circumspection and responsibility demanded when covering people who are "notable" primarily as the victim of someone else's actions. Please keep those policy requirements in mind. MastCell ^Talk 17:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • That is a bizarre interpretation of the policy. The report is about the possible perpetrator of the crime, not the victim. If you don't think Wikipedia should have articles about criminal cases, then get policy changed. TFD (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't think Wikipedia should play host to poorly-sourced speculation about the murders of otherwise low-profile private figures, particularly when such speculation has caused and continues to cause distress to the victim's family. Wikipedia policy, as well as basic human decency, pretty clearly backs me up on that, so I don't see a need to change policy, although I will enforce it. MastCell ^Talk 19:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
      • There is a distinction between reporting opinions and endorsing opinions. We have articles about anti-Semitic theories for example which are offensive and it is illegal to promote in many countries. In this case, the suggestion is to include what a reliable source says about the report. It may be that reliable sources report what is best left unreported, but policy says that we should "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources...." I did not see this level of concern by the way in the Trayvon Martin case or any other similar case. TFD (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
        • 'poorly sourced'? I'd hardly call Newsweek a poor source,. No, with respect, this is yet further evidence that some editors will go to any length to prevent source material being added to articles. With this in mind, if no-one else wishes to include the findings I will lay out the basics in a sensitive and impartial manner as possible tomorrow citing the Newsweek source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.152.116 (talk • contribs) 15:10, June 21, 2017 (UTC)
          • No offense (TFD?) or 81.106.152.116, but it's not that simple. Just because something gets coverage by a RS does not equal automatic inclusion. There needs to be a WP:Consensus. Not to mention, in reference to your statement, "this is yet further evidence that some editors will go to any length to prevent source material being added to articles", casting WP:ASPERSIONS on the editors here that disagree is not in line with WP:CIV. These editors may be apprehensive for a good reason, and jumping to conclusions like these will probably not help you build a consensus for inclusion. DN (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

If this content does end up in the article in some fashion the Profiling Project needs to be to factually characterized.

1. It is not a study group or group made up of George Washington University faculty.
2. It is a group of mostly anonymous volunteers (with the exception of publicly-identified Kevin Doherty, a recent George Washington University graduate and one of the volunteers) who are associated with GWU and its forensic-psychology department.
3. It is funded by GOP lobbyist Jack Burkina.
4. That the Rich family's spokesman is quoted as saying “The family hopes that the general public takes the findings at face value—valuable experience in research collection and report writing for students at George Washington University—but in no way should [it] take any findings contained within as new, credible or otherwise lending credence to conspiracy theories surrounding the circumstances of Seth’s death."

This section title isn't completely correct...that's all. Shearonink (talk) 23:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, according to this [5] it is an organization that was founded and funded by Jack Burkman, specifically to investigate the Seth Rich murder. It's staffed by anonymous graduate students. They operate out of an "undisclosed location" in Arlington. They have no record of investigating any other crimes. They do not pay their staff (who are anonymous volunteer graduate students) but they did pay for an unusually photogenic office space, with a large professionally-done window logo, complete with a well-framed 'don't antagonize the family' mantra prominently and certainly not accidentally displayed on that website. And they have a PR firm publicizing their reports. None of that smells right to me. Wait and see if RS's other than Newsweek take the bait. Geogene (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

DN, "Consensus" means other editors agree. Since their agreement is supposed to be based on interpretation of policy, presenting policy based reasons for inclusion seems sensible. Geogene, your concerns are only relevant if editors are suggesting we use the Project as a source - we are not. The source is Newsweek and we can rely on them to determine the credibility of the Project. ABC News affiliate WJLA-TV,[6] Heavy.com[7] the Washingtonian,[8] and WFXL Fox 31[9] have covered it, which is sufficient for inclusion. TFD (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

What do you want to say about it? Geogene (talk) 01:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

"DN, "Consensus" means other editors agree. Since their agreement is supposed to be based on interpretation of policy, presenting policy based reasons for inclusion seems sensible." - IMO This is an appeal to the letter, and not the spirit. Editors need time to read and process the claims and accusations made by all of us here, and make a decision, just as you have made yours. Your interpretation and tenacity regarding this particular reference, and Geogene's position, is notable. My advice is to tread more lightly. Work towards consensus and re-evaluate your dispute. DN (talk) 06:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Their PR agency has a "Team Bios" page: The two named leads, Kevin Doherty and Jennifer Rohrer, would appear to be not associated with GWU at all.

The GWU connection is the Project using "The Student Association for Forensic Psychology (SAFP)" ("a student organization comprised of graduate students pursuing a Master's in Forensic Psychology") at GWU as their staffers. There's no mention of "instructors" per se from GWU being involved other than these grad students.--NapoliRoma (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The report from the Profiling Project says "Who The Profiling Project is – An all-volunteer group of current and former George Washington University forensic psychology graduate students and instructors." More importantly, the reliable source we are using, Newsweek, also says, "instructors." If you think you are right and Newsweek is wrong, write to them and demand a retraction. Or write to Correct the Record. But Wikipedia would not work if every fact reported in every source was challenged by editors who who thought the sources got it wrong. TFD (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

wp:blp SPECIFICO talk 02:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Providing links to policy without explaining how they relate is as senseless as chanting magical incantations. TFD (talk) 04:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree here (Please explain). Not all of us have the policies and guidelines memorized, no offense, SPECIFICO- DN (talk) 06:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

TFD, I am reporting what The Profiling Project (through its PR agency) says about its own project. I know secondary sources are preferred in many cases, but I think the Project's own roster should stand as a canonical source.--NapoliRoma (talk) 04:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

There's a reason reliable secondary sources are preferred. They tell us what in primary sources is factual, what is opinion and what is relevant. If all editors would follow guidelines and policy then we could avoid all these unproductive discussions. TFD (talk) 04:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Not associated with GWU at all? The linked PDF says Doherty "is completing his masters at the George Washington University in forensic psychology," and Rohrer "later joined the George Washington University's Forensic Psychology program as a Visiting Assistant Professor in 2015." Is there a reason we should doubt these claims? ^Falling_Gravity 06:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@FallingGravity: Yes. DN (talk) 06:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay. ^Falling_Gravity 07:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Argh, you're absolutely right, of course. Very simply: I did not read to the bottom of each of their bios, assuming their association with GWU would be front-loaded. A terrible assumption on my part, and I apologize.--NapoliRoma (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I would just accept what reliable secondary sources say. I don't think it is outrageous to assume that the people who prepared the report probably had some knowledge of investigation methods. TFD (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

We don't assume, we don't evaluate evidence, we just look for reliable sources to try and come to a WP:Consensus. DN (talk) 06:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Aftermath

James J. Lambden - Let's continue our discussion here. Feel free to ping VM, as you see fit. DN (talk) 04:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Re: this edit, as I tried to explain, the second sentence introduces "Bauman" without explaining who he is or in what way he's connected to the Rich family; this is the first mention of Bauman in our article. Rather than write my own description I copied our description from later in the article: "Brad Bauman, a communications professional and pro bono spokesman for the Rich family."

The supposedly improved version removes mention of Bauman but refers to "the Rich family spokesman", who is Bauman, which is not explained until later in the article. This is not an improvement. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

For now I will refer to Volunteer Marek, as your edit summary stated "unexplained revert; can't reference Bauman before explaining who he is". VM's edit summary stated "Nah, those are POV edits and poisoning the well not based on RS." - VM's edit seemed to properly attribute statements from the cited material in a way that did not present POV issues. DN (talk) 06:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Honestly I don't know how I can be any clearer. I'll leave this to others to sort out. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Intent to distract

I have removed content suggesting (with weasely attribution) that the conspiracy theory was intended to distract from the Trump-Russia investigation. This may be true, but the cited sources didn't say that. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Haaretz [10] is pretty explicit about it. Also, this was discussed before, you can type in "Russia" into the archive box.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

You must have misread the source. It actually says something quite different. It says that the right-wing media was accusing the mainstream media of using the Trump-Comey-Russia story to distract from the "real" story, which was Seth Rich. This "bizarre story" was aimed at undermining the credibility of the Russia story. But nothing in the source says it was intended as a distraction. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The story is entitled "'Alt-right' Using Cruel Seth Rich Conspiracy Theory to Deflect From Trump’s Russia Scandal". It actually says both. The conspiracy theory was used to deflect from the Russia scandal AND they were being doubly dishonest by pretending that the Russia scandal was being used to deflect from the conspiracy theory. If you want to add that second part in there that's fine. But I don't see a reason to remove the first part.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The headline's not reliable. It wasn't written by the journalist, it's not supported by the article, and it probably wasn't fact checked. Fails verification. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

DrFleischman - Actually, you are only partially quoting...Here it is in full.

• "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.

I'm confused as to why the headline is not reliable as part of the cited material? In the meantime, I will add an attribution, as to eliminate the possibility of someone reading this in WP's voice. DN (talk) 05:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Where in that passage does it indicate that the Seth Rich story was intended as a distraction from the Russia investigation? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

DrFleischman It's not in that passage, it's in the title, which I already asked you, "why the headline is unreliable?", especially now that there is an attribution to the source in the context. I am unaware of any policy or guideline in that regard. If there explicitly is, then I will happily revert. DN (talk) 05:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

As I said earlier - It wasn't written by the journalist, it's not supported by the article, and it probably wasn't fact checked. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The first and third claims are speculations and irrelevant. The second one is just not true.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

DrFleischman I'm trying to AGF, but repeating yourself is not answering my questions. DN (talk) 05:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I thought I was answering your question? You asked me why the headline was unreliable, and my answer was "It wasn't written by the journalist, it's not supported by the article, and it probably wasn't fact checked." How is that not answering your question? Am I missing something? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that it wasn't? As far as it not being supported by the article, I could add some more quotes from it, but I think I'll let you answer first, as to avoid any confusion. DN (talk) 05:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about "evidence," but I have a basic understanding of how headlines get written in most newsrooms. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm...Is there a WP policy or guideline explicitly saying not to use what is in the title? DN (talk) 05:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I vaguely remember editors pointing to something along those lines in the past, though I don't know what. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I just gave a good look to see if there was anything, and even if there was something to that affect, it's been removed. It's a safe call to leave it as is for now. Good looking out, though. DN (talk) 09:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we'd need a policy or guideline specifically saying that headlines aren't reliable before we avoid relying on them? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

It certainly wouldn't hurt, but I believe consensus is more or less the deciding factor. DN (talk) 03:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok well so far, you haven't expressed any opinion, so it's just VM and me disagreeing over whether the Haaretz headline is reliable. Don't forget WP:BURDEN. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

There's also other sources, which have been brought up before. [11], [12]. Also, the "failed verification" tag is inappropriate.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

No, neither of these verifies the content as currently written. The NPR source comes the closest. It says the Fox News Seth Rich story was used by Trump supporters to defect concern among intelligence officials about Trump-Russia connections. That's a far cry from saying the Seth Rich story was intended by right-wing media to distract from Trump-Russia connections. Let's try to stick to the sources, and keep the tag until this discussion is resolved. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Just a follow-on observation, in general in Wikipedia it's a good idea to read the sources and then add content based on them. This is a classic case of doing the opposite. Content was drafted and then semi-applicable sources were shoehorned in afterwards. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• I have started a discussion at WP:RSN#Haaretz headlines on this. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

DrFleischman I have some serious issues with the way you posed this topic at RSN [13]. You left out my attribution edit, which is extremely misleading, and emboldened the parts that were edited. You also decided not to ping myself or Volunteer Marek for some reason. DN (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

My apologies on your first concern, which was very legitimate. It was an error on my part and I believe I've corrected it. As for your second concern, RSN is not an administrator noticeboard and there's no requirement to ping specific editors or give formal notification. That said, I did leave the notice here, which I knew would alert both you and VM (and did), so I honestly don't understand what the problem is. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

My first concern is directly related to the second. Posing misleading context like that to RSN would probably invalidate any consensus that could have been reached, and wasted a lot of time for the editors kind enough to participate. Not to mention, it will be even harder to AGF regarding your edits moving forward. DN (talk) 19:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Other sources that may help shed some light on this.

• "The latest Seth Rich allegations became a welcome distraction from the constant revelations coming out of the Washington Post and the New York Times." - Vox - May 24th 2017 (under section "Conservative media has a field day") [14]
• "Hyper-partisan left-leaning outlets jumped in as well, alleging that their right-wing counterparts/enemies were using the Rich theory to distract everyone else from Trump's collusion with Russia. Much like the White House itself, the entire thing became one big finger-pointy mess." - Wired - May 18th 2017 [15] - DN (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The challenged text says, "Several observers noted that the timing of the these broadcasts...as most likely intended as a distraction." That means that it was most likely intended as a distraction, as several observers noted. But the Wired article says that these were "allegations" made by "[h]yper-partisan left-leaning outlets." So the challenged phrasing presents the allegations from a "hyper-partisan left-leaning" view. BTW, the article does not identify these news outlets. I don't think we can use the description without knowing that. I assume she means Democrat-leaning. TFD (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

False. Don't ignore the ENTIRE THREAD of this discussion in the same way DrFleischman did on his post to RSN. The current form reads "According to Haaretz, the timing of the these broadcasts about the Seth Rich conspiracy theory was most likely intended by Pro-Trump outlets as a distraction from the negative news concerning President Trump." The excerpt from WIRED is ITSELF an allegation. Meanwhile, you have chosen not to comment on the quote from Vox, which is also telling... DN (talk) 02:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Whoa there. Let's try to keep the tension level down and try a little harder to assume good faith please. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Faith/Trust is also earned, and as I look at your edits here, DrFleischman, you have done little to warrant what good faith I had before this discussion. DN (talk) 04:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The issue of using headlines as sources was discussed in a 2014 RfC, see "Add something about never using headlines as sources?". While there is no policy against it, I don't see reputable publications using headlines as sources, particularly when they do not reflect what is in the source. Note too that headline is "Alt-right' Using Cruel Seth Rich Conspiracy Theory to Deflect From Trump’s Russia Scandal." It does not say "Conservatives and members of the alt-right, along with certain commentators on Fox News." Can Richard Spencer and David Duke really deflect from Russiagate? Do you think their supporters would be talking about Russiagate if their fuehrers didn't decide to talk about Seth Rich, or would they be talking about whatever far right people talk about?

The Vox article says, "To Trump supporters, the claim that Rich had been murdered by the Clintons...distracted from [Russiagate]." It doesn't say that their news media was using the issue as a distraction.

TFD (talk) 04:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

"I don't see reputable publications using headlines as sources" - Well, that makes two of us. I posed a question as to why THIS publication's "headline" is in no way acceptable as context, or as DrF put it, "fails verification". I have tried to make suitable adjustments by changing the wording, including an attribution, to ensure NPOV. I am not here to argue justification as to their choice of headline, only as to whether or not it is WP:DUE in any way. I am not saying it belongs in the lead, and seeing as it is on the topic of Conspiracy Theories in a section that is titled Spread by social media and right wing I find this amount of resistance concerning, to say the least. DN (talk) 05:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

While I may believe my personal concerns were justified, I was wrong to use the article talk page as a personal space to vocalize said concerns. I apologize to the editors here, including The Four Deuces and DrFleischman, for putting my personal opinions about other editors on the article Talk Page space. It was improper of me to do so. I have had this experience, and should have realized that this type of behavior is unproductive and unwelcome on Wikipedia. DN (talk) 05:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

It was even wronger to delete this well-sourced content and to use the quick midnight jog to RSN and use the first reactions of a few editors, including some based on misinformation and one famous TBANned personality, to justify the blanking. Believe it or not, the personnel issue as to who wrote the headline is not the main WP sourcing policy, especially for reputable papers who believe it or not do supervise and set standards for their headline scribes. SPECIFICO talk 13:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The Profiling Project report has reliability issues.

Sam Browning (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)On June 20, 2017, the Profiling Project published a report which called the conspiracy theories surrounding the death unfounded, and speculated that it was caused by a serial killer.[50]

This is at the end of paragraph 3 in the aftermath section. Note 50 is to an article about the Profiling Project report and not the report itself which can be found here.

I have read the Project Report and did not find where it called conspiracy theories "unfounded". They instead discussed various conspiracy theories and called them "not likely". They also used the term "serial murderer" though it is likely this is synonymous with the term "serial killer".

The Profiling Project attempted to profile this homicide without having access to the autopsy report, any related forensic testing, the police reports describing the crime scene, or photographs of the crime scene. According to FBI profilers these materials are needed to generate a reliable profile. See John Douglas and Mark Olshaker, Mind Hunter: Inside the FBI’s Elite Serial Crime Unit (Pocket Books, New York, 1995) pp.169-170. and John E. Douglas, Ann W. Burgess, Allen G. Burgess and Robert K. Ressler (Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, 1992), pp. 310-311. "The effectiveness of criminal investigative analysis is limited by the accuracy, completeness, and quality of material received from the submitting agency. . . A thorough written and pictorial description of the crime scene through 8-inch by 10-inch color photographs and a crime scene synopsis is essential for an optimum criminal investigative analysis. . . The autopsy report should include (if possible) toxicology, and serology results, autopsy photographs, photographs of the cleansed wounds, estimated time of death, type of weapon, and suspected sequence of attack."

I would suggest the following edit since I do not have the ability to edit this article.

"On June 20, 2017, the Profiling Project published a report describing some conspiracy theories surrounding the death as "not likely", and speculated that it "was more likely committed by a hired killer or serial murderer." The Profiling Project's ability to accurately profile this crime without the autopsy report, forensic test results, crime scene photography, and the police crime scene reports, has been disputed. Sam Browning (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• Decline. Bullshido.net appears not to be a reliable source. Of the reliable secondary sources that cover the report, Newsweek is probably the best of them, and it does say that the report calls those unfounded. In my opinion, we should be much harsher on Burkman's report than we currently are and I note that there are reliable sources out there (including Washingtonian) that would allow us to be. Geogene (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

On second thought, I have changed "unfounded" to "unlikely" because there are some differences of meaning there, and I added a bare citation to the report itself behind the Newsweek reference. I didn't add anything about the police not releasing autopsy data, etc, because it would be weird if they had actually done so. From my perspective, it's like asking why they don't post all of their autopsy reports and all of their crime scene investigations to 4chan as a matter of principle, and then implying some misconduct on their part for not having done so. Even though nobody does things like that, drawing attention to the fact that police do keep sensitive information under wraps as part of their job feeds conspiracy theories by insinuating doubt into the official investigation, and encouraging that here is irresponsible. Geogene (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the part about the conspiracy theories being "unfounded" was from statements from the Profiling Project to the press to accompany its report. ^Falling_Gravity 04:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Geogene, the point is not that the police are expected to release such information, the point is that the Profiling Project went out and "profiled" a crime without the bare minimum of information that they needed to conduct such an activity, according to the guidelines used by the FBI, and the FBI is the institution who formalized profiling in the US in the 1970s and early 1980s.

− As far as Bullshido's reliability it is an electronic bulletin board and the comments by members are not screened for reliability however the investigative articles are. I would politely suggest that you review the article itself for reliability rather than the website which is a rather large and unwieldy entity. Sam Browning (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Who killed him?

The only way to "debunk" the "conspiracy theories" is to find the killer. Who is he? Otherwise the conspiracies will only grow. People should not work for the DNC it's way too dangerous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.214.244.97 (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

If Seth Rich's murder was "debunked" by law enforcement, that means he's still alive and well, right? The bias and skewed POV in this article are so obvious that it hurts. Wikipedia used to be a bastion of truth and unmolested knowledge. Now, it's a mouthpiece for the "liberal" establishment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.179.55 (talk) 12:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

De-link "Brittany Pettibone", please. Article was deleted, no need to keep a red link in the article body. TheValeyard (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Profiling Project report

@Calton: Re[16] Care to explain why you don't think so? It's what the report says.Terrorist96 (talk) 06:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Not my job, yours: if you want to add material, you have to explain why. Particularly if you want to shoehorn in some drivel propping up a conspiracy theory. --Calton | Talk 06:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I thought I did a pretty good job explaining with my edit summary. Doesn't seem like you even looked at it based on the knee-jerked revert (one minute after my edit). Please actually look at the edit summary, the DC ABC article and the actual report itself (all linked in my edit). The report mentions it on page 2 under the executive summary (#3 under "what we found"). And I'd like to remind you to AGF.Terrorist96 (talk) 06:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

You appear to not understand how a talk page works. Do you need advice? --Calton | Talk 07:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Umm... I don't even understand your objection to begin talking about it. I've been on Wikipedia for 10 years, so no, I don't need advice on how a talk page works. Please drop the snark. All I did was add information, included two sources for it (the primary source and a secondary source reporting on it) and you just came in and said "No, I don't think so" without explaining what was wrong with my edit and why you saw fit to revert it without even looking at it. If we're going to mention the Profiling Project report, it's important not to WP:CHERRYPICK.Terrorist96 (talk) 07:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Umm... I don't even understand your objection to begin talking about it Since I've made no such objection, I can see why you're confused. And referring to an edit summary -- not even quoting it, even -- is not "talking about it". Which, once again, is YOUR job, as someone who claims to have been editing Wikipedia for ten years should be familiar with. And since you also invoke WP:AGF, perhaps you should have some understanding of, given YOUR immediate assumption of bad faith a couple of sentences previous to that.

Are you SURE you don't want some pointers? --Calton | Talk 07:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Dude, you're going in circles. I described my edit summary to you. But here it is again: All I did was add information, included two sources for it (the primary source and a secondary source reporting on it) and here is the actual edit summary, since you didn't read it before reverting (otherwise why are you asking me for it?) Noted that the report says his "death was more likely committed by a hired killer or serial murderer" and included link to local DC ABC news story plus the report itself for verification Now stop being difficult and tell me what is your objection. The only assumption I made was that you knew what your were reverting.Terrorist96 (talk) 07:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

That this "Profiling Project" exists and has conducted its own investigation is of slight relevance to the article, so it got a brief mention in the "Aftermath" section. Their findings, whatever they may be, are not really relevant. They are not an investigative body, they are just a group of fans, onlookers, busybodies, what term you'd prefer. This is like 4chan"investigating" the Boston Marathon Bombing; somewhat mention-worthy that the case attracted internet sleuths, but their "findings"? Not important. ValarianB (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of conspiracy theories, is there any reason why the term is used in this article twice as often as in "911 Truth" or "Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories?" It seems that the emphasis is so shrill it weakens the case we want to make. TFD (talk) 07:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theory/theories/theorists" is mentioned 28 times in the article body by my count. What some elements of the right-wing have done regarding this case is certainly conspiracy theorizing, but we could be a less wordy about it. ValarianB (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• If we're going to include the Profiling Project report--I take no position on that at this time--then we should accurately reflect what the report says according to reliable sources. Terrorist96 has provided what appears to be a reliable source saying that the report concluded that the murder was "more likely committed by a hired killer." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Which is misleading because the report also rules out assassination by both Democrats and the Russians, favoring a serial killer instead. Yet, it also considers a "hired killer", which is why the report is going viral in right-wing sources: because it blows a dogwhistle for conspiracy theorists while ostensibly running away from their conspiracy theories. You should read the report for yourself, you'll find that it adds absolutely nothing useful to the discussion. Reliable sources or not, I don't knowingly add stuff to articles that is false or misleading. Others may have no problem with that. Geogene (talk) 05:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure your ability to hear high-pitched whistles is a verifiable thing. The quotation within the report-- as reported by Newsweek-- says "[D]eath was more likely committed by a hired killer or serial murderer." That is the quotation. As noted elsewhere, a preceding clause that makes clear their belief that conspiracy theories are unfounded is perfectly appropriate. Seeing how they are hypotheses. But omitting their own language about a hired killer is clear bias based on the auditory powers of particular editors.--72.94.247.243 (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

How many Talk Page sections do we need to discuss the same content? See [17]. This seems to add nothing to what has previously been presented. It's so little, in fact, that I can copy-edit ALL of it into a relatively short paragraph, here...

• WASHINGTON (ABC7) — The investigation into the death of Democratic National Committee worker Seth Rich is still an open homicide case 10 months after he was murdered in the District's Bloomingdale neighborhood. A group of George Washington University graduate students have spent the past few months probing into Rich's death. Only on ABC7 News, I-Team Investigator Scott Taylor takes us inside the Profiling Project for an exclusive look. A group of GWU grad students are taking a forensic look through link analysis in the murder of Rich at an undisclosed location. "We are trying to figure out persons of interest in any areas that the police may have overlooked," Kevin Zhang, a volunteer with the Profiling Project, said. GOP lobbyist Jack Burkman, who put up $105,000 of his own money as a reward to help solve Rich's murder, is also funding the Profiling Project and made the announcement of its creation months ago. The students working on the project are volunteers, studying criminal investigation and forensics. "This is a skill set that they have. These folks are going to become profilers. They are going to become Lead Investigative Agents," Kevin Doherty, who’s also a volunteer, said. They are developing a profile of Rich in three stages like any other murder investigation. The first stage is to identify the Seth Rich people know. The second stage is to discover the private side of Seth Rich and the last stage is to discover if there is any secret side to the murder victim. All the while, making sure they respect the wishes of his family. "It's very important to remember as an outcome of this whole situation. We want to kind of keep his family in mind and give his family some closure," Volunteer Sarah Tahmourpour said. The Profiling Project's main goal is to find at least one piece of new information that has practical value to the murder investigation. "What we found is there actually is possibly another surveillance camera that may have been missed in the initial investigation so we have turned that over to the police," Zhang said. The reward for solving Rich's murder is now up to $250,000. ABC7 News reached out to D.C. Police. Detectives on the case are in contact with the Profiling Project.

If anything from this is deemed WP:DUE, I agree with Shearonink [18] that it should be accompanied by an inline attribution to Jack Burkman..."GOP lobbyist Jack Burkman, who put up $105,000 of his own money as a reward to help solve Rich's murder, is also funding the Profiling Project" -- DN (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Needs serous POV fixes

This article is overblown with statements poisoning the well by mentioning pizzagate conspiracy theory all over the place. These references should be removed, or the entire article deleted. It doesn't read anything like a an unbiased encyclopedia entry, but an overly defensive propaganda piece. Squ1rr3l - Talk to me! 17:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

If there's passages that you find problematic, by all means present them here for analysis, waving a casual hand at the article and declaring "it is all biased!" is unhelpful and off-putting. Make sure to check through the talk page archives though and see if your complaints have been raised before, as this article follows what reliable news sources have to say, and does not and cannot include material from unreliable sources, such as the Breitbarts of the world. ValarianB (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I thought I explained the issue very well - there are lots of references to pizzagate and theorists promoting it that really have nothing to do with the alleged murder or the conspiracy theories that have grown up around it. But, if you want details, I will reference the specifics of the article and where it goes off the rails, and clearly violate POV by poisoning the well. Soon. Squ1rr3l - Talk to me! 20:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

In fact there are not, just a few passing references in opinion pieces. It is presented as an ad hominem argument: Alex Jones is talking about Seth Rich, he also talked about Pizzagate, which was a hoax, therefore anyone who questions the circumstances of Rich's death is promoting a hoax. We should not be presenting explicit arguments without intext attribution. TFD (talk) 00:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Is that what the sources say, or not? DN (talk) 05:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not understand your question. Is what what the sources say? TFD (talk) 04:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Here is the section I assume you are referring to, please point out which portions have been editorialized or presented without intext attribution...

• The same venues that fomented the false Pizzagate conspiracy theory helped to promulgate the Seth Rich murder conspiracy theories,[69][70][11] and each shared similar features.[71][72][73] Both were promoted by individuals ascribing to far-right politics,[74] and by campaign officials and individuals appointed to senior-level national security roles by Donald Trump.[75][76][77] After prior coordination on Facebook, each theory was spread on Twitter by automated bots using a branded hashtag, with the goal of becoming a trending topic.[69] Both the Pizzagate conspiracy theory and the Seth Rich murder conspiracy theory were spread in the sub reddit forum promoting Donald Trump, called "The Donald".[78] In both conspiracy theories, the promoters attempted to shift the burden of proof — asking others to attempt to disprove their claims, without citing substantiated evidence.[52] Slate called the claims about Seth Rich: a "PizzaGate-like conspiracy theory surrounding Rich’s death",[79] The Huffington Post described it as "the 'alt-right' idiocy of Pizzagate all over again",[73] NPR's David Folkenflik said Fox News coverage of it "evokes the pizza-gate terrible allegations utterly unfounded",[80] and Margaret Sullivan wrote for The Washington Post: "The Seth Rich lie has become the new Comet Ping Pong ... Crazy, baseless and dangerous."[81] --DN (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

At first glance, it seems like someone mashed together a bunch of op eds and wrote a paragraph mostly in Wikipedia's voice. The sources do make the connection between pizzagate and this article, so we should definitely have a paragraph or a section devoted to that. But the tone of the paragraph is indeed POV'ish, that is, it treats opinion pieces as facts. Also, is this really a RS? person who wrote it goes unnecessarily (and unironically) biblical on conspiracy theorists, in any case it's completely POV, just as all the other sources cited for that paragraph. These opinions should be attributed and it'd be ok I reckon. Darwinian Ape ^talk 15:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are not reliable sources of facts (even if the facts are true) and therefore we cannot use them to source facts. The first source used for example is an opinion piece by Farhood Manjoo. Note that facts may be assembled in a way to lead a reader to a conclusion, which is what opinion pieces and the segment in Wikipedia do. What the article is saying is: The people who pushed Pizzagate are pushing this narrative. Pizzagate is a proven hoax, therefore any narrative that departs from the robbery-gone-wrong position is false. Wikipedia articles should not contain implicit arguments, although we of course can and should present opinions, provided they are sourced in-text.

I should mention too that this type of argument is only persuasive to people who are already sympathetic to the DNC, it's preaching to the choir. It's better to present the facts, explain the degree of acceptance of the major explanation, and avoid the polemics.

TFD (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

You still haven't justified the use of the word "debunked" in the first paragraph.

To: Those people who think they control this article. I've given you a couple of days to fix your obvious error of claiming that theories about Seth Rich's murder were "debunked". I explained, carefully, that they were certainly "denied", and some may have been false. But the word "debunked" does not merely imply falsity, it actually and forcefully claims that a given assertion was actually disproven. Its use also implies that the things claimed to be "debunked" were somehow implausible or preposterous. Since the actual murderer of Seth Rich has not been identified, let alone caught, let alone tried, let alone convicted, there are simply some things that are not known. Such things haven't been "debunked", they may have been denied. Check out Google Trends, say https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=debunk , over a time frame of 5 years, and we see that the word "debunk" has been recently subject to fad-type use. Notice the sudden peak at Oct-16-Oct 22. Why all the sudden use of the word "debunk"? The answer, apparently, is that some people had a powerful motivation to overstate the effectiveness of their arguments. No, they didn't merely "deny" somebody else's claim, they "debunked" it. Based on the definition from Merriam-Webster which I cited, above, by using the term "debunked" they were claiming that the contrary argument was not merely wrong, it was preposterous, probably a deliberate fraud. I urge the people who think they own this article to stop manipulating it for political purposes. We don't know that Seth Rich gave DNC emails to Wikileaks. But we also don't know that he didn't. So that idea hasn't been "debunked" yet. 2601:1C2:4E01:CE00:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Use of "debunked" in second paragraph

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is there not an Ed Butowsky article?

Article now exists at Ed Butowsky. This is otherwise becoming a magnet for salacious and BLP-violating accusations, and is off-topic as well. ValarianB (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A success such as that; one would think.--Wikipietime (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC) Don't think he's notable at this point and there are BLP issues.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC) Why no references to the Seymour Hersh tape where he discusses the case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.37.97.8 (talk) 06:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC) Do you have any sources for this point? Mr Ernie (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Picture

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

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

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

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

"Right-wing" removed again

The POV-push by Loyalmoonie also needs a revert, as it is non-neutral and against longstanding consensus. Geogene (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Already done. Geogene (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The terms "right-wing" and "debunked" are non-neutral and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.135.189.50 (talk) 16:09 1 August 2017

No. These are perfectly ordinary words/phrases, used by reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Julian Assange

Is it just me, or is there a renewed effort (in the last 48 hours or so) to distance Assange from this mess? Geogene (talk) 06:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Not clear on what you're referring to.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Two different editors have tried to "clarify" Assange's interview with Dutch TV [19] and [20]. Not the first time, but that had been pretty stable lately. Probably just the article getting more hits than usual. Geogene (talk) 06:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Audio recording of Seymour Hersh confirming Seth Rich as Wikileaks source

Driveby SPA fakenews soapbox cloaked as editing proposal
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
On August 1, 2017 the audio recording of acclaimed journalist Seymour Hersh confirming Seth Rich as the Wikileaks source for the DNC emails was revealed by Cassandra Fairbanks in her article in BigLeaguePolitics. Soon after, Wikileaks linked to the recording on twitter, and while this can not be considered a confirmation of Seth Rich as the Wikileaks source for the DNC emails - as their policy prevents them from revealing their sources - it adds significant credibility to the tapes authenticity. Shouldn't this information in some form be added to the article? Given the sources, it also suggests a more careful approach to using labels like "debunking" and "false news" might be wise considering the increasing amount of factors implying that Seth Rich indeed was the actual DNC source. RedFireDragon (talk) 14:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 July 2017

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

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

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

Could someone please provide advice on how to properly suggest the addition of recent information related to this article? I made an attempt, but apparently failed miserably despite my best intentions. Constructive feedback would be very appreciated! RedFireDragon (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Redfiredragon: Sure thing. First, find a source meeting all of the standards at WP:IRS which has information which is WP:DUE (which boils down to: it's important to the subject). Then, provide that source along with your edit request.

If your request is to remove information from the article, be prepared to give a good reason (for an example of a shit-poor reason, see above) why that information should be removed. Charges of bias are generally considered bad reasons, because the pure ideals of any given ideology rarely line in perfectly with reality, and so factual information (such as, returning the example above, the fact that the cited claim is groundless) can often appear to be biased when it is not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@MPants: Thank you for clarifying. From what I can tell, the addition I suggested would be refused because it is on one hand too recent and the both author of the article and the website that published it is known for being politically biased. Further more, a leaked recording of a well known (living) person stating relevant information, even if the authenticity is undenied and links to the actual audio is provided, can not be included unless widely reported and/or the original source for the recording goes public. Is this correct? RedFireDragon (talk) 07:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, first off let me give you a couple technical and "good practice" points. When you reply to someone, start a new line and add one additions colon (:) to the beginning of each new line in your comment. So if the person started their reply with one colon, you should add two. This indents the comments, as you can see from this. Second, when you want to ping someone, you must use their full user name (in this case: MPants at work) with capitalization intact, else it won't work. Finally, you generally don't have to ping someone once they know there's a threaded discussion taking place. :)

Now, the issue with sources is not bias. In fact, you can read WP:YESPOV to see that we explicitly permit biased and non-neutral sources. This includes a very large percentage of modern media. What matters is the reliability of the source. Do they have a reputation for fact checking? When they do make errors, do they publish corrections? When they publish corrections, do they obscure them, or make them easy to find? Do they have an editorial policy? etc, etc. Whether or not the source is biased is pretty low down the list of things to check for, and while it plays a part (we trust more partisan sources less than less partisan sources, all other things being equal), it's usually not enough to make or break anything.

You are -more or less- correct about the "leaked recording". It may be that the reason no-one is disputing it is because no-one seriously believes that it is that person. If someone with a high-pitched voice and a New York accent were to release a recording claiming to be me, my family wouldn't bother telling everyone it was fake because anyone who'd heard my voice would immediately know it was fake. But also bear in mind that even if they are inarguably authentic those recordings would be primary sources. We could only use that as a source to support statements along the lines of "in a recorded session, so-and-so said such-and-such", preferably with "such-and-such" being a direct quote. We can't state that the recordings were leaked without a good source saying they were leaked.

My advice to you is: present your source and proposed change. If it's good, someone will add it. If not, someone will tell you why it's not good. That someone may be terse, or even seem rude (remember: you can't read tone in text, so seeming rude and intentionally being rude aren't necessarily the same thing), but you should read their response and give it serious thought. We have a principle here called Assume good faith. Part of that means even if someone seems to be flippant with you, you should assume they are being completely earnest and are open to having their mind changed if you present the right evidence. Look at this edit request above: My response could come across as very flippant. But if you take the time to think, you will realize that the IP (you?) was requesting that we intentionally alter our article so as to make it unclear whether those allegations have supporting evidence. Which would make our article less accurate, as we know there is no such evidence. So my response, while very short and able to be read as dismissive, is in fact, an earnest response that should explain the problem with the request. The reason I don't spell it all out is that assuming good faith is something I have to do, as well: I assume that the IP will read, think about, and understand my response. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

That wasn't me. ;) I registered because I thought it would be rude to suggest a change and not stand for it, and my first and only suggestion (below) was instantly labelled "Driveby SPA fakenews soapbox cloaked as editing proposal", so I admit I felt the "Assume Good Faith" part didn't apply to me... Let the steam out through a rant on my user page though, and you've pretty much restored my faith in the system already. I'll take appropriate care in the future, perhaps first asking whether a reporter or journal can be used as source before mentioning the topic, nature or implications of the content. If there is more than the current circumstantial evidence behind this case it will emerge eventually anyway so it's better to keep a good tone and err on the side of caution than to embarrass oneself with bombastic statemens. RedFireDragon (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Ahhh. For the record, none of the links you provided below are reliable sources. Hence the reference to fake news. It's also pushing a conspiracy theory, something which is frequently done here by IP editors and editors with few or no other edits. Hence the reference to "drive by SPA". (SPA refers to a single purpose account, a type of editor who generally have to work harder to earn any respect around here, due to the large percentage of disruptive editors who are also SPAs.) The "leaked audio" posted to youtube cannot be shown to actually be Hersh's voice (many people could sound very similar) without Hersh confirming that it was him, or an expert voice analysis. The interpretation of what he meant to say cannot be given without also being confirmed by Hersh. The blog you posted is, well, a blog. Blogs are never reliable for anything except what the blog said. Finally, even overcoming those hurdles, we cannot say something is true on Wikipedia merely because Seymour Hersh said it was so. Hersh could be lying, mistaken, or joking. At this point, to put forward the claim as fact that Rich was the leak, we would need multiple reliable sources discrediting the theory that Russia was behind it (because that is the current dominant theory), and multiple reliable sources claiming that Rich was behind it, including some who had previously stated that the Russians were behind it, claiming to have revised their view in the face of new information. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I get it. :) No interest in pushing theories or claims either way, just contribute with something relevant and potentially significant I thought was missing. But I agree, it's too early, too thin and Wikipedia isn't a news outlet. The story can be written when it's over. :) RedFireDragon (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Assange interview on Dutch TV

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

---

I disagree with Dlabtot removing unbidden in this diff [21]. The source given does support that content, in spite of their edit summary. Is there any reason we shouldn't say specifically how Assange fed speculation? That he was the one that brought it up is relevant. Geogene (talk) 17:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

This is what the source says: "Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks editor, further stoked speculation that Rich might have been involved in the DNC hack by referencing the murder, unprompted, on a Dutch news program." It doesn't say that he 'seemed to imply' anything. I would ask you, according to the source, to whom did it seem this way? Dlabtot (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that 'unbidden' is valid. A mistake on my part. Dlabtot (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The source says Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks editor, further stoked speculation that Rich might have been involved in the DNC hack by referencing the murder, unprompted, on a Dutch news program. [22]. That is the semantic equivalent of "seemed to imply that". Geogene (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, obviously, no. There is a clear difference in meaning, which I will again highlight by repeating the question you ignored. I ask you: To whom does it seem that way? According to the source. Dlabtot (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

No, there is no difference in meaning. If you like, another source can always be added [23]. Geogene (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)The removal of "unbidden" removes important contextual information about the claim. "Unprompted" and "unbidden" carry the same meaning and implications here. That being said "fueled speculation" seems more accurate to me, as that was the result, according to both the source and my own read of events. The fact that that part of the sentence doesn't imply anything about Assange's intentions is nullified by the use of the word "unbidden", which implies that Assange intended to fuel speculation. So from where I sit, the best wording actually is a compromise version:

"Assistant Police Chief Peter Newsham said the police had no information suggesting a connection between Rich's death and data obtained by WikLeaks. Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, fueled speculation of a connection when, unbidden, he talked about the case on a Dutch news program. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Geogene (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I am not. "Unbidden" suggests that his remarks were out of place/unwanted/unwelcome (=Assange imposed them), whereas "unprompted" stands for a spontaneous comment. Why don't you just use the original expression and prevent attributing a new (=your own) meaning? AllIC (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Julian Assange is a man in some disrepute these days, as he has been cast in a negative light by most sources that discuss issues of Russian interference in the US elections, the Seth Rich case, and so on. "Unbidden" aptly and succinctly describes his standing and how his views on this matter are considered. TheValeyard (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I wonder what Seth Rich's family would say about that. Geogene (talk) 00:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@AllIC: "unbidden" is supported by the source, so if it makes implications... That's the whole point. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@TheValeyard: The reputation of Julian Assange is not the current topic. But since you brought it up: if it is your SOP to connote the standing (from your perception) of people to everything you write about them, you should have a look at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view @Geogene: Of what relevance is this at this point? @MjolnirPants: ""unbidden" is supported by the source" No, it is not. That's the whole point. You are not familiar with your own language. Please reread my entry. "Unprompted" is supported by the source, because "unprompted" is stated by the source. What is your rationale to insist on differing from the original wording? AllIC (talk) 02:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The source specifically uses the word "unprompted" which is synonymous with "unbidden" in this context. It would help you make some headway if you would actually read the source before trying to tell those of us who have read it what it actually says. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

All of 3 edits and knows about the ping template, how curious Mr. AllIC. The reputation of Assange is quite on topic; as he is not an expert in the field of...well, pretty much anything, his opinions on the conspiracy theory du jour is at best suspect, at worst off-topic and irrelevant to anything apart from the articles Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Unbidden is apropos. TheValeyard (talk) 02:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants:What are you talking about? I know the source says unprompted, and I wrote it in all of my 3 edits. I also explained the difference between unprompted and unbidden, which all of you fail to understand and/or address. AllIC (talk) 03:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I thought about changing "unbidden" to "unprompted" the other day, for my own reasons. I thought about it again today. I'm not going to do it just now because a quacking account that has been sleeping since February asked me to. I'm going to make a point of not doing so if "unbidden" seems to have support from others. Not going to oppose it either though if somebody changes it, as long it isn't copyvio or close paraphrase from the source. Geogene (talk) 03:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

AllIC, are you seriously unaware of what synonymous means? Oh, for fuck's sake... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

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

Behind Fox News' Baseless Seth Rich Story: The Untold Tale

Some important details. Need to be included. We also really need to rethink the title based on what this indicates. http://www.npr.org/2017/08/01/540783715/lawsuit-alleges-fox-news-and-trump-supporter-created-fake-news-story Casprings (talk) 12:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Casprings, for bringing this to our attention. If I may make a meta-comment, I hope that all the good faith editors here will reflect on the history of this article and what increasingly appears may have been a calculated dissemination of this story and production of fodder for unwitting carriers who did not realize their role in spreading it. SPECIFICO talk 13:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed.The production of the story is what is WP:N here. As such, we should again consider the title Seth Rich conspiracy Casprings (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I would support a move to "Murder of Seth Rich (conspiracy theory)" which I believe is consistent with how other such matters are treated. SPECIFICO talk 14:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Would that not be a bit vague though, like it was calling to question whether he was murdered at all? The conspiracy theories are about the who, so the title would have to be explicit about that, esp. Fox News' complicity. ValarianB (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

(ec)It's not a conspiracy theory that Seth Rich was murdered. The conspiracy theory is that Rich was somehow involved in the DNC leak and was murdered for this alleged role. I'm not sure how we could handle that distinction in the title. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Just a reminder (I know we all know this, but it doesn't hurt to reiterate): The sourced content is that a lawsuit has been filed, not that the allegations in the lawsuit are true. We can't treat them as true until multiple RSes do, and even then, only if they're not being contested by multiple other RSes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• The NPR article uses the lawsuit, but it does have more sources in the story.Casprings (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

See WAPO [24] SPECIFICO talk 23:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Two months ago, the pro-Clinton editors were saying that Wheeler had no credibility. Now that he's switched sides, he becomes reliable. There was no reason to view his alleged allegations as fact then and even less now that he has allegedly changed them. Oddly, he seemed to support his original alleged allegations in interviews with non-mainstream media in the interim. TFD (talk) 04:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I think that should be kept in mind. Geogene (talk) 06:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh I agree, and my own personal opinion is that... 50% of this is a publicity stunt, specifically the part that tries to involve the WH. The non-publicity stunt part is the fact that Fox News and Butowsky used him and set him up, which is born out by the evidence he submitted. It is important that we only include what the lawsuit is about and are clear on the fact that these are allegations made by Wheeler.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

As an editor who is doubtlessly lumped in with the "pro-Clinton editors", I just want to point out that my comments above belie your claim. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Uncorroborated story?

Malia Zimmerman’s lead story (the one FoxNews purged from their website a couple of days later) claimed in the second paragraph that Wheeler’s story "was corroborated by a federal investigator who spoke to Fox News" and, further down:

An FBI forensic report of Rich's computer -- generated within 96 hours after Rich's murder -- showed he made contact with WikiLeaks through Gavin MacFadyen, a now-deceased American investigative reporter, documentary filmmaker, and director of WikiLeaks who was living in London at the time, the federal source told Fox News.

“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.

I amended the text accordingly. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: Was it clear from my edit summary why I removed the content? The article in this case is the subject; coverage of what the article contained should come from secondary sources to establish weight. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

You reverted because an editor summarized a secondary source, and you took that to mean the editor somehow cited a primary source? The subject of the article is what sources need to be secondary to. By that rationale, every cited claim on the entire encyclopedia is a WP:PRIMARY vio. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The subject is the removal of Fox's article and the content of that article prior to removal. For that the removed article is primary. If it is significant and notable, secondary articles should cover the removal (they do) and the significant aspects of the article prior to removal (which they might.) James J. Lambden (talk) 05:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The "subject" in the sense used in our policy is the Murder of Seth Rich; this is made quite clear in the way policy is written. The fact that the subject of a sentence, or even a paragraph is some aspect of that doesn't change our policies. Your interpretation is truly bizarre, and -as I already said- would discourage virtually every bit of text on the entire project, were it widely held. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment on removal of edit (it's been restored by another editor): Fox News is the secondary source, and the sentence reflects what they reported. I have now replaced "claimed" with "stated"; it might be construed as POV although it was unintentional. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 04:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you explain what "Comment on removal of edit" means? James J. Lambden (talk) 05:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Huh? My opinion which I started writing down before you posted yours at 04:29 in response to MPants? Didn't see your post until I had saved mine - got sidetracked, so sue me. When I did see it, I figured my comment pretty much covered that, as well. As for your primary/secondary source argument - what MPants wrote.

As an aside: If you knew that secondary sources meeting your standards were available "(they do)", why didn't you just add them instead of reverting my edit (rhetorical question)? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Intent to distract

DrFleischman The Four Deuces SPECIFICO Volunteer Marek Please see our previous Talk Page section from the archive [25]. Given recent revelations, i.e. the Wheeler lawsuit, I think we should reconsider some of the cited content that was discussed, or at least revisit that discussion. If the consensus is to WP:DROP, no problem, I promise not to lose my s#!+ this time (wink), just as long as we don't go accidentally editorializing context on RSN (wink).

• "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." [26] - Haaretz - May 23 2017
• "The latest Seth Rich allegations became a welcome distraction from the constant revelations coming out of the Washington Post and the New York Times." - Vox - May 24th 2017 (under section "Conservative media has a field day") [27]
• "Hyper-partisan left-leaning outlets jumped in as well, alleging that their right-wing counterparts/enemies were using the Rich theory to distract everyone else from Trump's collusion with Russia. Much like the White House itself, the entire thing became one big finger-pointy mess." - Wired - May 18th 2017 [28] - DN (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, can you refresh my mind here. Are you saying the content regarding "distraction from Russia" should be put back in or remove? I can't remember what the eventual outcome was and, I admit, I'm a bit too lazy to go look right now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek; Nevermind, if it's not still on anyone's mind it's not worth bringing it up again, IMO. No worries. DN (talk) 02:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Nip: No problem from last time, don't worry about it. I think this is going to be easier to deal within a week or two now that the story is receiving much more complete coverage by RS. We can start now, and stuff like the Wired.com false equivalency snippet can be thrown out for starters. SPECIFICO talk 18:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

SPEC: "AND stuff like the Wired.com false equivalency snippet can be thrown out for starters." - I disagree on the false equivalency bit, but I'm willing to let sleeping dogs lie, for now. DN (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually I think the Americans don't have any hyper-partisan leftist media outlets. = SPECIFICO talk 02:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Left-wing extremism is more present in the blogosphere and in individual op-eds in otherwise-middling left-wing outlets like NYT and WaPo. There's just as much of it, though. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Pants, I didn't mean to say there's not copious amounts of such opinion, however I think the American left has not been as industrious as the right in institutionalizing or giving corporate structure and platform to its views. NYT, WaPo are centrist, left-wing is off the wall for them, and their reporting of events is not ideologically slanted, even if the range of their reporting could be modeled by a frequency distribution on the progressive side of the see-saw. They may publish more stories on melting icebergs and hungry orphans, but that's doesn't justify "leftist media outlet" imo. The reporting itself is of the highest standard. Not perfect, but of course "not perfect" has been used by the right-wing media outlets [29] to equivocate and raise the strawman assertion that it's not the best we have because it's not perfect. SPECIFICO talk 12:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your assesement in the first sentence. What I see as an issue is that America doesn't really have much of a political left, but tends to refer to it's (quite popular) centrist political component as "the left". So the truth of other statements you made, such as that NYT and WaPo aren't left is somewhat subjective. Yes, they're not left-wing in an international sense, but they are by American standards. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Well 2 things. a) Do you think that their reporting on any given article is left slanted? I do not. b) Part of why folks get away with calling neutral journalism "radical left" is because the agenda-driven interests on the right have been successful in executing a calculated strategy to supplant the center with reporting which is presenting a biased view, not journalistic in the accepted historical tradition of journalism. This has only recently been discussed in public, e.g. in Jane Mayer's recent book, Dark Money, which is a journalistically rigorous treatment of a subject that folks to the right of center might not report. SPECIFICO talk 14:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, to answer your question: Yes, if you're using "left" in the American sense. Also "for any given article" is a somewhat vague term; I interpret it as "in your average article" or "in your typical article". I would also add, however, that the "left" media tends to have a larger proportion of unbiased articles. Finally, there's my typical caveat: reality has a well-known liberal bias (for the record; I hold this "left" to be the American left, not the international left). This is to say that many "left" leaning articles are factual and representative of reality. I opine that they still manage to convey a bias holding to their over-use of rhetoric, compared to a more disinterested expression.

We should probably take this to user talk space if you wish to continue. I'm certainly up for it, so if you want to respond, feel free to do so at my talk page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah, but you are so much better read than I, "a little old lady from Positano" - I'll pay you a visit or you could come see my pitiful little shooting gallerytalk page. But as the pithy old goat said, "The world is everything that is the case" so I don't think one could ever conclude that reality has a bias. Only a misapprehension of reality could reflect an observer's bias. And there's plenty of that floating around the internet -- WP much less than average. SPECIFICO talk 16:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

When the Wired article discussed hyper-partisanship, they rolled off 3 quick examples for the far right, and that was just selecting 3 prominent ones from the multitudes. When they touched on the left", it was a single link to the Daily Banter...which amusingly enough has an article on the front page titled "When A Far Left Lunatic Tried to Sue The Daily Banter, The Whole Hilarious Story", which seems to hint that they aren't so "hyper" after all. I believe Specifico honed in on that nailhead perfectly by pointing out the false equivalency aspect at play. TheValeyard (talk) 03:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

In my reading by "hyper-partisan left-leaning" they mean support the centrist Democrats. The Daily Banter is indeed hyper-partisan against both Republicans and progressive Democrats. The most scathing attacks on Trump's alleged Russia connections primarily comes from centrist Democrats and media, as well as a section of the Republican Party, rather than from "the Left." TFD (talk) 14:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

That lines up exactly with what I've seen. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

This discussion is supposed to be about the article, and the issues raised at it's inception, to a degree. See WP:NOTAFORUM -- DN (talk) 05:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Page protection and edit warring

Now that page protection expired, new account ‎Bobbysev1 is edit warring pro-conspiracy nonsense into the article, against sourcing. Who didn't see that coming? Geogene (talk) 23:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Geogene, My edit was not pro-conspiracy as you assert. It was in fact a verbatim quote from the cited article that was misquoted by the previous writer of the quote. It would be greatly appreciated if you would fact-check your own edits instead of making claims against others when in fact the mistake was not on my part. Thank you, Bob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbysev1 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

We [don't] need to include every piece of speculation put out by self-declared independent investigation groups, especially if such speculation could be WP:PROFRINGE. The serial killer bit is plenty for this article. ^Falling_Gravity 05:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We ↓^don't need to include every piece of speculation put out by self-declared independent investigation groups...

I'm hoping this correction is accurate. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you did not cherry-pick and distort a single line from the source.

• • "A serial killer is likely behind the murder of North Carolina Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich, according to forensic-psychology students and instructors..."
  • “A professional killer, whose sole job would have been to terminate Seth, did not accomplish their mission prior to escaping.”
  • “If this were a professional hit person, they failed,” says Doherty, the team member. “Nothing we’ve seen supports [the theory of] an assassin.”

The Project's chief "conclusion" as it were is that they do not believe it was a robbery, and that a serial killer is the most likely. The phrase "hired killer" only appears once in the Newsweek article and in the the official report, and the report goes on to discount the possibility as the victim survived the initial attack and only died later. As I said before on this, the Profiling Project is a group anonymous armchair detectives who did not have access to autopsy reports or photos, having more in common with the upcoming CBS drama Wisdom of the Crowd than a legitimate investigative body. That they exist and conducted an "investigation" is worth mentioning, but their conclusions are not all that relevant to the article. ValarianB (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

If you mention an investigation was concluded you also need to mention its findings. Per weight, they received extensive media coverage which allows us to present them in a fair way, including criticism of them. TFD (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The findings themselves haven't gotten that much reliable coverage beyond the Newsweek article, and even then they aren't covered that deeply. The group itself has garnered extensive media coverage, so that's why it's mentioned in the article. ^Falling_Gravity 23:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK, all the news sources that mentioned the report mentioned its findings. It is a bizarre idea that the release of a report would be newsworthy but not its findings. TFD (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Right-Wing Conspiracy?

The Seth Rich murder conspiracy is peddled by a lot of Berners on social media. I don't think this conspiracy is right-wing. More like left-wing Uncle J (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this is as much a leftwing conspiracy theory, as it is a rightwing conspiracy theory. However, I'm not a reliable source, and text on Wikipedia needs to be based on reliable sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources say it's a right-wing conspiracy theory. Or in this case, "far right-wing" [30]. Geogene (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Donna Brazille feared for her life

After the murder, Donna Brazille feared for her life and took measures against a sniper attack. She put the murder in context with the email hacking by Russians. This throws a bucket of cold water on the "right-wing conspiracy" meme as she apparently believed and recounted. [31] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:489:FCA0:E16:478C:3AAE (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

This is the excerpt in context.

Brazile describes her mounting anxiety about Russia’s theft of emails and other data from DNC servers, the slow process of discovering the full extent of the cyberattacks and the personal fallout. She likens the feeling to having rats in your basement: “You take measures to get rid of them, but knowing they are there, or have been there, means you never feel truly at peace.”

Brazile writes that she was haunted by the still-unsolved murder of DNC data staffer Seth Rich and feared for her own life, shutting the blinds to her office window so snipers could not see her and installing surveillance cameras at her home. She wonders whether Russians had placed a listening device in plants in the DNC executive suite.

At first, Brazile writes of the hacking, top Democratic officials were “encouraging us not to talk about it.” But she says a wake-up moment came when she visited the White House in August 2016, for President Obama’s 55th birthday party. National security adviser Susan E. Rice and former attorney general Eric Holder separately pulled her aside to urge her to take the Russian hacking seriously, which she did, she writes.

Not sure what the BLP violation might be but feel free to point out the wording. She was obviously fearful at the time and took measures. This is a new book that again relates her fear and repeats that it was "serious," recalling a warning from Susan Rice. --2600:8800:1300:489:FCA0:E16:478C:3AAE (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Accusing a Democrat of spreading conspiracy theories, based on your reading of a primary source, is not sufficient to overrule the secondary sources that say this is an inherently right-wing conspiracy theory. It's also a BLP violation since nowhere in that article is Brazile accused of spreading conspiracy theories, but I'm not going to revert you twice. The point is that having been hacked by the Russians was enough to raise Brazile's anxiety, which seems like a reasonable response. Not like the people that sit around all day inventing bullshit like Pizzagate because that is what they do. Geogene (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not accusing anyone of "spreading conspiracy theories." Quite the opposite. It is in the WaPo, so not a primary source. Brazille feared for her life after the Seth Rich murder as they both worked for the DNC as summarized by WaPo. It is obviously not just a right-wing conspiracy theory if the head of the DNC took measures to protect herself after an employee was murdered. It appears that the person most familiar with Rich, the murder, Russian hacking and the DNC thought it was prudent to install security systems and take anti-sniper tactics. The BLP violation would be to assert that she was acting irrationally or that she is furthering a conspiracy theory by publishing the account in a book. In fact, the reality is that it wasn't a conspiracy theory but was a reasoned belief based on the knowledge that Brazille had regarding Rich, the DNC, the murder, DNC hacking and Russian involvement. --2600:8800:1300:489:FCA0:E16:478C:3AAE (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I think you're reading things into the Washington Post that aren't there. And as I said, since secondary sources call this a right-wing conspiracy theory, you can't overrule that by interpreting a primary source. Geogene (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

We need to wait until it has wider coverage. TFD (talk) 00:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Since I don't have the book, I am only relying on secondary sources, namely the Washington Post. The WaPo. in the most recent coverage of the Seth Rich murder (11/2017), they note that Brazille was fearful of snipers after the murder and revelations of hacking, Russians and the DNC. She relayed that as genuine and as valid. The head of the DNC at the time of a DNC staffer's murder believing it might be connected to hacks and Russians is an angle not covered by VRWC theories. In Pizzagate, there is no indication that anyone, outside the CTers, exhibited concern that there was ever a child-traficking ring. Here we have the head of the DNC validating the concern that there might have been a connection between Seth Rich's murder and his work at the DNC. It's not CTers making the connection, it's the DNC chair making it and taking action based on it. There's no indication that hr concern was based on anything except the knowledge and belief that she obtained as the head of the DNC. The WaPo said part of her concern was based on conversations with Susan Rice and Eric Holder. Regardless of the CT part of the story, the Donna Brazille part of the story needs to be added as a substantial and credible account of concerns by the head of the DNC - Seth Rich's ultimate boss. --2600:8800:1300:489:FCA0:E16:478C:3AAE (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I won't respond unless you sign your postings. TFD (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Pharma Bro's reward offer (the one involving Seth Rich)

Given that he recently posted a $5000 reward for a strand of Hillary Clinton's hair [32] for some DNA work and is now claiming it's satire (the Secret Service didn't think it was funny), should this article continue to take his Seth Rich reward seriously? Existing sourcing looks like it's barely even notable. Geogene (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I would not have put it in in the first place, since the source was an article about the Pharma Bro and so does not establish relevance to this story. TFD (talk) 01:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. That content should be deleted. Shearonink (talk) 04:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Done. Geogene (talk) 05:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

This article in its current form is inappropriate for a website that represents itself as an encyclopedia

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

---

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

---

Wikipedia clearly states that articles be impartial, there is nothing impartial about this article. Any article that refers to an opposing view point of the world we live in as if holding those view points is stupid is clearly both partial and partisan.

The fact that this article still sits here in its current form casts doubt on the reliability of Wikipedia as an information source. You can say that it is impartial because that is what the news articles say but that doesn't account for the authers bias. There is also the fact that information can be shared with out sharing the biases of the original authors.

Note this is not about the content of the article. This is about the impartiality of this article and does belong here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1800:E970:2433:B3F1:6391:92F6 (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

it's exactly because "this is not about the content of the article" that it does NOT belong here. See WP:TALK and WP:SOAPBOX. But whatever. Yawn. Volunteer Marek 02:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I think you may be confused about what constitutes a soap box. This article in it's current form is a soapbox. It needs to be fixed so it's impartial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1800:E970:2433:B3F1:6391:92F6 (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Please suggest specific changes you'd like to see. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Editors (even editors without an account) making POV complaints about an article would do very well to read WP:IRS, and using that as a guide, present reliable sources that explicitly disagree with statements made in the article. Without such sources, complaints about the POV of an article look like nothing more that ignorant, partisan whining. Such whining is unlikely to result in anything except a block of accounts (and yes, IPs without accounts can be blocked from editing just like logged-in users) that continue to engage in it. If you cannot find such sources, then please reflect personally on whether there is any merit to your complaints, instead of forging ahead and complaining here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Specifically referring to people who disagree as right wing conspiracy theorists is partial. That has nothing to do with the reliability of the source. How something is wrote is as important as what it says. This article shouldn't have an opening that insinuates that anyone who disagrees with law enforcement's guess that this was a botched robbery, based on nothing more than there being other robberies, is crazy. As an example of what an almost impartial coverage of the available information looks like refer here http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/05/is-this-even-about-seth-rich-at-all.html. The Wikipedia article screams left wing bias author. You don't need more references to make something unbiased.

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

• Don't early archive. This is the sort of stupidity that happens when you early-archive talk page discussions. Instead of hiding the stupid rants, address then patiently and reasonably and leave the discussion up for the normal length of time. Not only does that cut off complaints of censorship, but it also reduces the chance that another newcomer will come along with the same sort of rant. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

If the objection was from someone other than the OP, I'd agree. But since the OP is the one objection, it's just a continuation of the disruption. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Archive soon; archive often - There is absolutely no reason to give airplay to this sort of nonsense. The OP should be referred to WP:VP or Jimbo's talk page. Also, what EvergreenFir said.- MrX 00:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not condone the OP's conduct in any way. But it doesn't matter who's being disruptive. Early archiving leads to more disruption than regular archiving. It's that simple. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I've early archived hundreds of discussions, and almost never is there a complaint except from people who are plainly using Wikipedia as their soapbox. Why reward users who are obviously WP:NOTHERE to help build an encyclopedia?- MrX 00:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I am here to build an encyclopedia, this article in its current form doesn't belong as part of an "encyclopedia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1800:E970:4403:344C:AE96:3770 (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

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