Talk:Murder of Seth Rich/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Off-topic conspiracy theories! Only a nickle! Get your piping hot off-topic conspiracy theories right here!

Per WP:TPOC; Off-Topic: A waste of time and a magnet for unsourced claims. The only way we will ever treat conspiracy theories as truth is when reliable sources start doing so.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"The murder spawned several right-wing conspiracy theories, including the false claim that Rich had been involved with the leaked DNC emails in 2016, contradicted by the July 2018 indictment of 12 Russian military intelligence agents for hacking the e-mail accounts and networks of Democratic Party officials[5] and by the U.S. intelligence community's conclusion the leaked DNC emails were part of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections." Calling that a "false claim" is, itself, false. It's not proven to be true, but it's also not proven to be false. This material should not be placed in the voice of WP. The indictment of the Russians, for whatever they did, does not in itself somehow prove that Seth Rich was not involved with the leaked DNC emails in 2016. The Russians might plausibly have hacked, while independently some insiders within DNC leaked. It's also POV-pushing to label that a "right wing" or a "conspiracy theory". While certainly not yet proven, people from virtually any political stripe might find Seth Rich's murder suspicious. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:9514:B185:897C:47B8 (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC) It's not proven to be true, but it's also not proven to be false. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC) Yes, and that's exactly what I said, above. That's why it's improper to call this, in the voice of WP, "false". This bias continues throughout the article. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:9514:B185:897C:47B8 (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC) You missed the tag I responded with. We have numerous reliable sources claiming it's been proven false. We also have enough publicly available evidence to ensure that anyone who has even the slightest inkling of what they're talking about understands that the notion Rich leaked the emails is laughably ignorant. So yes: it's been proven false. Your own personal views about it are completely immaterial. On WP, we follow the sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC) Paragraphs 2 and 3, and elsewhere in this article, remain biased. For instance, paragraph 2 refers to "theories", but does not even identify them! This is clearly trying to use WP to push POV. Show us exactly what theories have been proven false, to begin with. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:9514:B185:897C:47B8 (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC) It's all right there in the article, if you'd just read it absent any preconception about the conclusions. But if you're reading it secure in your (demonstrably false) views that Rich was the leaker and the conspiracy theories are true, then of course it's going to look biased and POV pushing to you. That doesn't mean it is, though. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC) In WHICH article?!? There are many cites in this, and any other article. Stop playing games! WP is suppose to be neutral. It's always possible to seek out sources which come to the specific conclusions you'd like to see. That, you and others have already done. You seek to keep this article biased. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:9514:B185:897C:47B8 (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC) Untwist your tits: no-one is playing games with you here. Here on WP "article" means "Wikipedia article" not "source". Read this article to answer all your questions. And if you still have any, read the sources. There's a reason we hyperlink our inline citations. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC) You're obviously not willing to discuss the problems with the article. They are quite numerous. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:F488:1F31:2B0C:F76A (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC) You're obviously incapable of understanding that the problems only exist in your head. Oh well, not my problem. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC) I just want to chime in hear and state that Mr. Pants is arguing in bad faith and he knows exactly what he's doing. This claim that it's "false" is clearly editorializing, given the content of the sources cited. No conclusion was ever reached on the subject of the emails, however unlikely and unsavory the idea is to Mr. Pants personal views on this subject, claiming that it's false because it's unlikely, as he has said, is by definition original research User:neuroelectronic 27 October 2018 Bullshit Every law enforcement agency involved as well as fact-checking websites like PolitiFact Snopes, and FactCheck has concluded these conspiracy theories are totally lacking in evidence. The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and The Washington Post have called them fabrications, fake news, and falsehoods. Go away, conspiracy theorist. You aren't welcome here. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC) It seems to go against People accused of crime: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction." We cannot say that Viktor Borisovich Netyksho and eleven other people named in the D.C. indictment hacked the e-mails until they are convicted. TFD (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC) This article doesn't name anyone. And what is it with people forgetting to sign today? (I'm not berating you, just noting that I've seen an unusual number of times today). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC) Sorry, now signed. There is a clear implication that the people named in the indictment, which is a matter of public record are responsible. In any case, I'll raise it a BLPN and see what other editors think. TFD (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC) I think you're going to run smack into a wall of false dichotomy links, if you do. Because that's what you're doing by suggesting it was either Rich or the indicted parties. And remember; the end result if changed would be to imply a BLP vio against Rich (who still qualified for BLP protections as recently deceased AFAIK), as well as to contradict the RSes based on some editor's interpretation of a policy. I can't see any way that a proposal of that sort gains any traction. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC) That's disingenuous because it is the text and your statement that assumes it is either/or. The president opined that it could have been a freelance hacker for example, which is neither/nor. Your argument seems to be that if we do not state as fact that twelve known Russians broke the law, the only conclusion is that Seth Rich leaked the emails. TFD (talk) 04:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC) That's disingenuous because it is the text and your statement that assumes it is either/or. Again: the text doesn't name anyone and; No, my statement absolutely does not assume it is either or. A suspect can easily be ruled out (as Rich has been) without it implicating a particular person. The closest thing to naming anyone is the claim in the lede, which is a simple statement of fact: The indictment absolutely does contradict the claim that Rich was involved. You are reading that as being the only evidence against Rich's involvement, which is never stated nor even hinted by the text. The president opined that it could have been a freelance hacker for example And the president is possibly the single most unreliable source for any claim of fact ever to grace the pages of WP. Your argument seems to be that if we do not state as fact that twelve known Russians broke the law, the only conclusion is that Seth Rich leaked the emails. That is a gross mischaracterization of what I've said. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC) Then your statement about false dichotomy makes no sense. I have taken the matter to BLPN. TFD (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC) I think you should read my comments more carefully because it's clear that you're not understanding me. My point is that saying that Rich did not do it does not imply that the Russians are guilty, nor does the text you quoted. They have been indicted, not convicted. It may turn out that Russian FSB agents are responsible, or even private parties. But it is clear, both by a literal reading of the sources and an honest reflection upon the evidence cited by those sources, that Rich is not the responsible party. Your argument seems to be that as long as we insist that Rich is not guilty (which we do because the RSes do), then we're strongly implying that the Russians did. That is a false dichotomy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC) No I am saying the opposite of that. You said above I was "suggesting it was either Rich or the indicted parties." I said nothing of the kind and challenge to to show where I did. TFD (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC) If your contention is not that it's binary, then your objection to the bit about the indictment is nonsensical. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC) My complaint is that, per BLP, articles should not imply that people not convicted of crimes are guilty. Nothing binary about that. TFD (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC) Given the history of this thread, that's hardly a compelling argument against the assertion that you implied a false dichotomy. But presuming that you were ignoring the IP (which would be completely justified considering the IP's poor argument) and merely opining about the Russian individuals: I've addressed that at BLPN. Given that it bears upon both politics and conspiracy theories, it's likely only a matter of time before some new voices are heard. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC) I certainly did not imply that there is a dichotomy, as an reasonable reading of my postings clearly shows. You will find that discussions can be considerably shortened if you don't misrepresent other editors' comments. Anyway, lets get back to the point. How does removing the wording "contradicted by" create a false dichotomy, violate BLP or V or constitute OR or violate any other policy or guideline or common sense that you may raise? TFD (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC) I'm sitting here wondering how long it will be before you realize that this is literally the first time you mentioned removing those words, and that the only proposed change in this thread until your most recent comment had been to remove "false" from "...the false claim that Rich had been involved..." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC) The first comment I posted was, "There is a clear implication that the people named in the indictment, which is a matter of public record are responsible." You then launched into an argument I cannot understand saying that changing the wording would turns it into a false dichotomy. Excuse me for digressing by addressing your comments. TFD (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC) You jumped in the middle of a discussion to insert your own arguments. The discussion was on whether the word "false" should be removed. Your argument doesn't oppose the removal (but rather, supports it). Since I opposed the removal, I responded to your comment in the context in which they were made. In that context (whether or not to remove "false"), your argument that the Russians may not be guilty is one which relies upon a false dichotomy, by implying that if the Russians did not do it, then Rich did. If you had intended from the get-go not to support removing the word "false", then you should have started a new discussion, or at the very least made it clear what you were proposing, instead of waiting until after you'd made 8 comments over the course of 4 days to finally admit to what you wanted to do. Even then, I fail to see how the current content is a policy problem. The content does not insist that the Russians did it, merely that they are the only parties suspected by authorities, a fact that absolutely contradicts the conspiracy theory. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC) That is disingenuous. The clear implication is that the Russians are guilty, which is why the curious phrasing was adopted. If you do not want to make that implication then you should agree to an unambigous wordking. TFD (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC) I've already address this at the BLPN thread. I'm not repeating myself here. Your repeated accusations of dishonesty are nothing but uncivil bullshit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC) Agree with OP and The Four Deuces. We should be vary cautious in use of phrases like "conspiracy theory" in a Wiki-voice. It is fine to say that various sources call it that. Although there are allegations without strong evidence and numerous reliable mainstream sources throwing around the term "conspiracy theory", that does not mean we should. In particular, stating that "the false claim that Rich had been involved with the leaked DNC emails in 2016" is a conspiracy theory goes too far. It's true that the Intelligence community and a number of cyber experts allege the Russians caused the DNC email hack. Yet, Wikileaks offered a $20,000 award [1] to solve the murder, which is yet unsolved. On August 11, 2016, the New Zeland Herald said "Julian Assange hints murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich was source of damaging email leaks." [2] (Note: same paper later publishes [3]). Patrick Lawrence at the Nation reported on August 9, 2017 [4] that the email was leaked and was "an inside job" rather than the Russians (Note: two weeks later Bob Dreyfuss also at The Nation called it a conspiracy theory [5]). The book "What Happened to Bernie?" (c) 2018 by Jared Beck, all of page 280 (note 116) talks about the possibility that Guccifer 2.0 as not being Russian but as an insider at the DNC. It is true that a number of media sites have retracted coverage after a lawsuit by the family. But can we really call a claim (that it was an "inside job") that was circulated in the mainstream media a "conspiracy theory" in a wiki voice? I say no. We should report exactly what happened, that they claimed it was possibly an inside job, and later retracted their claims or later referred to claims they had made as conspiracy theories. To ignore this history and call the "inside job" theory a conspiracy theory in wiki-voice goes too far. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC) The OP was engaged in blatantly obvious political/fringe POV pushing. You agree with them? Good, then I don't need to bother reading whatever you have to say, as it's bound to be bullshit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC) If you disagree, that's fine. But please refrain from calling my (or any other editor's) writing "bullshit". --David Tornheim (talk) 03:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC) Sure thing. As soon as you stop writing bullshit. Becasue, as I said, if you agree with the OP, then you're here for POV pushing and thus your arguments are bullshit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC) <shrug>. Do you require a fainting couch? --Calton | Talk 06:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC) David Tornheim, Wikileaks, Julian Assange, and Washington Times are not RS. Wikileaks and Assange were engaged in damage control and a cover-up of their involvement as spreaders of the stolen emails. Jared Beck is a known enemy of Clinton, so be careful there. His fraud lawsuit against the DNC was dismissed. BTW, the theory that Rich was murdered to prevent him from testifying is nonsense, since the suit was non-existent at the time he was killed. That a few mainstream media sites mentioned a conspiracy theory doesn't mean there's any truth to it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC) As far as using the term "conspiracy theory" goes, we should follow the lead of reliable sources. They overwhelmingly refer to claims that Seth Rich leaked the DNC emails as a conspiracy theory. As for whether it is, in fact, a conspiracy theory--of course it is. There is zero evidence that Seth Rich or anyone else at the DNC leaked the emails. Julian Assange and Patrick Lawrence both have long histories with Russia--both have taken money either from the government or from oligarchs close to Putin. All public evidence points to Russia. All US intelligence agencies are in agreement. All private cyber security firms that have looked at the issue agree that Russia is responsible. If evidence ever emerges that Seth Rich leaked the emails, then reliable sources will report it and the references to conspiracy theories can be removed. Until then, a "conspiracy theory" it shall stay. FatGandhi (talk) 03:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC) I agree with other editors who conclude that the second paragraph is a very blunt instrument that is inappropriately used to discredit facts that are not being included in the Wikipedia Murder of Seth Rich article. It overwhelms the one undisputed fact in the paragraph of "The 27-year-old Rich was an employee of the Democratic National Committee (DNC)", and does not allow room for the other undisputed fact (which is not included) of "Seth Rich's father stated that Seth Rich received a job offer from the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign four days before the murder". The second paragraph is highly editorial. StreetSign (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC) I'm not sure how it's possible to "discredit facts that are not being included," but in any case Seth Rich's job offer doesn't appear to be relevant, while his employment at the DNC is, since that is what sparked the conspiracy theories regarding his death. FatGandhi (talk) 14:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

More Off-Topic Conspiracy Theories

Per WP:TPOC; Off-Topic: No, we are NOT going to allow page after page of conspiracy theories sourced to the banned-on-Wikipedia Daily Mail
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Some facts that are not yet included in the Wikipedia article, which would improve it significantly: The location of the Seth Rich murder: It has been precisely documented as the southwest corner of Flagler Place and W Street Northwest. Currently only described as “Bloomingdale neighborhood". The hospital where Seth Rich was treated and died. MedStar Washington Hospital Center or Howard University Hospital. Currently only described as “a nearby hospital”. Statements made by Seth Rich after the shooting. His brother is quoted as saying “They were very surprised he didn’t make it,” “He was very aware, very talkative. Yep, that was 100 percent my brother.” “He wasn’t in pain, they were told,” according to the paper. “But he was confused. When Seth Rich was asked where he lived, he gave a previous address …” The caliber of the weapon (or weapons) used to shoot Seth Rich in the back twice. The job offer to Seth Rich from the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, days before the murder. Existing in published statements from his parents, and even a video of his father talking about it. The known email accounts, social media accounts, and posts of Seth Rich, reported as MeGrimlock4 panda4progress pandas4bernie A photo or video of the “glimpse of the legs of two people who could possibly be the killers” Some of these are well documented, but described as "irrelevant". StreetSign (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC) ... Additional facts that would improve the article significantly: The name and badge number of the responding officer. The names and badge numbers of the assisting officers. The body worn camera video from the three assisting officers who wore them. Information that Shotspotter was used by the Metropolitan Police Department to detect and locate the gunshots that killed Seth Rich. Recorded as 5D67055 Multiple_Gunshots 10-Jul-16 0:04:18 Washington DC5D (latitude) 38.922 (longitude) -76.979 "rounded to three (3) decimal places" and 5D67057 Multiple_Gunshots 10-Jul-16 0:04:23 Washington DC5D (latitude) 38.922 (longitude) -76.979 "rounded to three (3) decimal places" (and gunshots (or "firecracker") at the same location minutes earlier) StreetSign (talk) 02:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC) (talk • contribs) 02:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC) at https://mpdc.dc.gov/publication/shotspotter-data-disclaimer-and-dictionary The photo taken at the scene of the shooting, showing the police and EMTs. A copy of Metropolitan Police Department Public Incident Report CCN #16113797 StreetSign (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC) Nice trick, starting with the innocuous though irrelevant before trying to sneak in the nutty and insinuating so you can pretend they're on the same level. How about: no? --Calton | Talk 22:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC) Why in the hell would we give out his online handle? That's about as unencyclopedic as possible. We're not suppose to be that comprehensive. None of these details would satisfy the principle of some astonishment except for the job offer one, which we've already established is being pushed as a wedge to support the conspiracy theories. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC) I see that StreetSign has added a bunch more "facts that would improve the article significantly", and now it's bordering on the ridiculous: responding officer badge numbers? Bodycam footage? How is the HELL would things like this improve the article even marginally? If conspiracy theorists want to legitimize the factual pieces they use to cobble together their nutty hall of mirrors, let them try elsewhere. --Calton | Talk 06:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC) I don't expect you to like all the suggestions. StreetSign (talk) 06:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC) I hope you don;'t expect this section to accomplish anything except reducing the amount of respect you're shown on this site, because that's all it's likely to do. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC) Re: "I don't expect you to like all the suggestions", good thing, because I don't like any of them, and I am not alone. StreetSign, if there was any actual evidence published in reliable secondary sources supporting the conspiracy theory, I would be glad to include it. But there isn't.[6][7][8][9] --Guy Macon (talk) 12:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC) I don't subscribe to any conspiracy theories. I do believe that some additional published facts should eventually be included in the article, regardless of whose theories those facts support or refute. A consensus is always required, and my list is just an early and partial effort to reach one. StreetSign (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC) So? Nobody cares if you believe the conspiracy theories or not. Your push to have this article document every minor detail and stress the ones that the conspiracy theorist most latch onto is still not gonna fly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC) I understand that not all the facts will be included. It is not uncommon for editors to disagree. Discussion and attempts to reach consensus should take place. StreetSign (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC) You've had three editors tell you "no", so that discussion and consensus has already taken place. --Calton | Talk 15:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)h So "three editors" would be you and two others, out of 130,675 active Wikipedia editors. This is where we are supposed to discuss improvements to the article. Why would you object to including the name of the hospital where Seth Rich was transported? Have you ever heard of Parkland Hospital? We all have. It is named in the Wikipedia articles for JFK and Lee Oswald. When Wendy Karina Martinez was stabbed seven times in Washington D.C. the news reported "She was taken to a nearby Medstar Washington Hospital Center, where she was pronounced dead". Why are you objecting so vehemently in this case? StreetSign (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC) News flash: those 130,675 active Wikipedians ain't here clamoring to add this shit to the article. Only you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC) You and your buddy appear to be very sensitive about adding facts to the Seth Rich article. StreetSign (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC) I'm sure it appears that way to you. I'm also sure it would appear to at least 65,338 Wikipedians that you seem strangely keen on adding pointless trivia to it. Because literally every non-POV pusher who watches this page has butted heads with you over your ceaseless attempts to do so, thus far. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC) That is not correct. Discussions on this Talk page to include the factual and well documented statements by Seth's father (Washington Post, CNN, and Seth Rich's father on video) about the Clinton campaign job offer to Seth Rich four days before he was murdered is not pointless trivia. "On the day he was murdered, Seth was excited about a new job he had been offered on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign." "The young DNC staffer died just as he was on the cusp of starting a dream job" And here is Joel Rich on video telling us about the Clinton Job offer. The 65,338 Wikipedians are mostly not aware of your repeated rude and obstructive behavior here. They would question your reasons for blocking this well-documented fact. I have never attempted to unilaterally put the job offer in the article, but just to discuss the addition here, which is clearly appropriate. StreetSign (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC) You have two RS to use (not the video) for inclusion of the Clinton campaign job offer to Seth Rich four days before he was murdered: "On the day he was murdered, Seth was excited about a new job he had been offered on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign."[10] "The young DNC staffer died just as he was on the cusp of starting a dream job."[11]. How would you word the inclusion? Any decision has to be based on the actual proposal. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:20, 14 October 2018 (UTC) BullRangifer, I would word it as neutral as possible. How about, "Seth Rich's father stated that Seth Rich received a job offer from the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign four days before the murder". StreetSign (talk) 17:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC) The ACTUAL relevance of this is...what, again? And no, I don't want to hear the mindless invocation of "it's factual!": why THIS fact? --Calton | Talk 17:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC) Yes, good question. If we had a biography article for him, it might be okay, but this article is about his murder and the conspiracy theory. What relevance does this factoid have to the subject? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC) Because his father was describing what Seth was doing, and why it took so long for him to walk home at night. "Pondering" "Seth had been walking around, calling friends, family and his girlfriend, pondering the broader picture of what the job change would mean,". Walking the 1.8 miles from the bar to his apartment took him over two hours. The bar closed "at about 1:30 or 1:45 a.m." Police were alerted to gunfire at "4:20 a.m." Because he talked to his father (and others) on the phone, and was pondering the job offer. Do not deliberately exclude, "Seth Rich's father stated that Seth Rich received a job offer from the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign four days before the murder". StreetSign (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC) So you aren't even going to attempt to explain why you think this is relevant? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC) Notice in the "Shooting and death" section of the article that the quotes from his mother are included. It is equally relevant to include these quotes from his father, since the quotes describe that Seth was "walking around" "calling friends, family and his girlfriend" and "pondering the broader picture of what the job change would mean". There is no other source of information about what was happening in the two to three hours before he was killed. If you exclude the father's statement, you are cherry picking and excluding the only documented fact about the job offer, and the reason he was walking, talking, and pondering for hours in the early morning. StreetSign (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC) An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. TFD (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC) There is no other source of information about what was happening in the two to three hours before he was killed. Right. And, again, how the mother-loving HELL is that relevant to his murder? The ONLY way it's relevant is if you start with the assumption that he was targeted and stalked deliberately -- the same conspiracy garbage you've been trying to somehow shoehorn in as if it were real. --Calton | Talk 20:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC) This proposal has no support. Why is it still being argued? Streetsign, read WP:1AM instead of wasting our time and further. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC) I'm hatting this as it has zero traction here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC) Why do you continue to hide all discussions on this Talk page of the factual and well documented statements by Seth's father (Washington Post, CNN, and Seth Rich's father on video) about the Clinton campaign job offer to Seth Rich four days before he was murdered? "On the day he was murdered, Seth was excited about a new job he had been offered on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign." "The young DNC staffer died just as he was on the cusp of starting a dream job" And here is Joel Rich on video telling us about the Clinton Job offer. I have never attempted to unilaterally put the job offer in the article, but just discuss it here, which is clearly appropriate. You continue to hide it from editors who might agree with me that it is relevant. StreetSign (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Even More Off-Topic Conspiracy Theories

Per WP:TPOC; Off-Topic: No, we are NOT going to allow page after page of conspiracy theories.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What is good for the goose, is good for the gander. FrogCast (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC) See WP:WHATABOUTX and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC) Neither of those apply. You wrote "What is good for the goose, is good for the gander." You just AGREED that they applied. --Calton | Talk 12:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC) FrogCast (talk) 11:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC) WP doesn't care about "fair". WP cares about reliably sourced info, and your edit made our article say very different things than the sources, so hell no. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:08, 5 October 2018 (UTC) Just because russians are accused, does not contradict the conspiracy theory. Even if they were convicted, it would be hard to say they were. Also, Russia is a conspiracy theory. It has all the markings. Please make arguments, not ipse dixit emotional outbursts. FrogCast (talk) 12:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC) Sources or STFU. Also, if you think my comment was an "emotional outburst" then you have absolutely no idea what an emotional outburst (or an argument) is. I know your little friends over on /pol/ might have told you that saying that will "trigger" people and make it easier to argue, but they were wrong. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC) Why would you ask for a source for a logical argument? It is not hard to understand. If you are accused of something, that does not make you guilty. FrogCast (talk) 12:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC) Your argument is extraordinarily illogical. Hell, your final sentence was a perfect example of a non sequitur. And if you can't find WP:RS reliable sources to support what you want the article to say, you're shit out of luck, even if you actually have a logical argument. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC) You did not address my argument. Being accused is different than being guilty. Ergo, accused russians is not a contradiction to the conspiracy. FrogCast (talk) 12:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC) Your conclusion does not follow from your premise, even though you used the word "Ergo". Logic is not about semantics, I'm afraid, and I have no interest in addressing your argument, as you've yet to provide a source making the same claims you made in the argument. If it were so logical, that should be trivial to find. But without sources, you could make the best argument in the world and you'll still be wrong. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC) You will need sources because that is how wikipedia works. See WP:5P2 and then follow up with Wikipedia:No original research and WP:RS. If you want an encyclopaedia where you don't need sources for "a logical argument", you're at the wrong place. Nil Einne (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC) FrogCast, you fail to recognize the difference between (1) exposing a real conspiracy, and (2) conspiracy theories designed to cover-up that conspiracy. That confusion is common among people and editors who read unreliable sources, such as Sputnik, RT, Fox News (for politics, they are extremely partisan), Breitbart, Daily Caller, etc. Here is a fully referenced explanation of the actual conspiracy theories, especially those related to the Trump–Russia dossier and the FISA warrant and surveillance of Carter Page after he left the Trump campaign. This is all reliably sourced. I think ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants and Nil Einne will also appreciate this (and all my hard work). Any comments should be added below the hatted content, and below my signature. Conspiracy theories related to Trump–Russia dossier and surveillance of Carter Page The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. The Trump–Russia dossier has both friends and foes who react for or against the dossier. Therefore we find two main types of Trump-Russia "conspiracies" whenever the dossier is mentioned. One conspiracy is the one alleged in the dossier, and the other "conspiracy" are various right-wing conspiracy theories designed to cover-up that alleged conspiracy and undermine the dossier and investigations. Those conspiracy theories contain one or both of these fundamental components: the dossier and sometimes the FBI surveillance of Carter Page. Without those components the conspiracy theories fall apart as defenses of the Trump campaign, and the Russia investigation would still be underway without the dossier or the surveillance. The first reaction is held by those siding with the investigators of the alleged Trump-Russia criminal conspiracy involving the Trump campaign, as described in the dossier. They tend to consider the dossier a serious work worthy of investigation, and believe it would be a dereliction of duty to not follow its leads, and that Mueller has "an obligation to examine it". Those who believe Steele consider him a hero who tried to warn about the Kremlin's meddling in the election, and people who distrust him consider him a "hired gun" used to attack Trump. The second reaction is held by those siding with the Trump campaign, the alleged conspirators. It's an attitude also held by Congressional Republicans defending Donald Trump. They all respond with counterattacks and real conspiracy theories about the origins, backers, and intentions of the dossier. In the first, the dossier alleges that there was a years-long and "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation" between the Trump campaign and Russian officials for the purposes of harming Clinton's electoral chances and swaying the election in Trump's favor. It also alleges: that Putin possesses kompromat about Trump's alleged "large bribes and kickbacks" and "perverted sexual acts" and is blackmailing him with it; that the Russians have assured Trump that the kompromat will not be used against him on condition that Trump's campaign continues to cooperate with them; that Russia would interfere in the election to harm Clinton's chances and help Trump win; that the help was partially conditioned on Trump ignoring or downplaying Russian aggression in Ukraine, and then lifting the Magnitsky Act and Ukraine-related sanctions against Russia after his election, for which he would be richly rewarded with a 19 per cent (privatised) stake (about $11 billion) in Rosneft. In the second, Trump and his supporters devised a counterattack, described by Natasha Bertrand as a "war on the FBI" and media, using a "deep state" conspiracy theory which alleges that his foes—Clinton, the DNC, Steele, the FBI, and intelligence agencies—conspired with Russia to undermine his election and presidency. The theory's purpose is to undermine the dossier and his foes, thus interfering with investigations into his alleged conspiracy with Russia. Trump has even suggested, as described by Chris Cillizza, that "the FBI, Democrats and Russia might all be co-conspirators". BBC correspondent Paul Wood has summarized the two "conspiracies": "There are two Trump-Russia 'conspiracies'. In one, the US President is bought or blackmailed by the Kremlin. In the other, the FBI and the intelligence agencies — the 'deep state' — commit a monstrous abuse of power to try to overturn the election result. The first conspiracy is described in the 'dossier' written by a former British intelligence officer, Christopher Steele; the second, in a series of memos and leaks over the past week, from Congressional Republicans defending Donald Trump." The distinction between the two sides is explained by Steven L. Hall, former CIA chief of Russia operations, who views Steele's investigative project favorably, as opposed to the actions of Donald Trump Jr., who sought information from a Russian attorney at a meeting in Trump Tower in June 2016: "The distinction: Steele spied against Russia to get info Russia did not want released; Don Jr took a mtg to get info Russians wanted to give." One side discovered a possible international criminal conspiracy and took all its findings to the FBI for further investigation. The other side kept a meeting about lifting the Magnitsky Act sanctions against Russia secret for more than a year, and then kept changing its story when the meeting was discovered. National security expert Juliette Kayyem explained that "testimony shows the Trump team 'did not tell the FBI; they did not alert anyone; they did not say 'no' to offers of information from Russian operatives. We don't have to look for conspiracies anymore. This is a campaign that knew it was meeting with people who had compromised information about Hillary Clinton, and those people were Russians." Trump's conspiracy theory is broad, coming in many formulations, and alleges that "the whole Russia thing" is a "witch hunt", a "hoax", and a "deep state conspiracy". It alleges that Russia was behind Steele's dossier, and that Clinton, with the help of an alleged "deep state" conspiracy involving the FBI and intelligence agencies, is trying to "overturn the election result". This theory has been described by Abigail Tracy as a "conspiracy theory born out of the far-right fringe", a "counter-narrative that has grown... from a conspiratorial whisper on the far-right fringe into the official position of Trumpworld." Trump's false "Spygate" conspiracy theory is part of this counter-narrative. In January 2018, Trump tweeted his conspiracy theory about the dossier and Clinton: "Disproven and paid for by Democrats 'Dossier used to spy on Trump Campaign. Did FBI use Intel tool to influence the Election?' @foxandfriends Did Dems or Clinton also pay Russians? Where are hidden and smashed DNC servers? Where are Crooked Hillary Emails? What a mess!" In August 2018, Trump approvingly tweeted a version of the conspiracy theory formulated by Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch: "You had Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party try to hide the fact that they gave money to GPS Fusion to create a Dossier which was used by their allies in the Obama Administration to convince a Court misleadingly, by all accounts, to spy on the Trump Team." Sarah Huckabee Sanders has worded it this way: "There is clear evidence of the Clinton campaign colluding with Russian intelligence to spread disinformation and smear the president to influence the election." Tracy has noted that Sanders' "real collusion scandal" isn't "particularly elegant: if the Democrats were working with the Russians, via Steele, to tarnish Trump, they probably should have leaked the dossier before the election", but that it still, even after the election, serves the purpose of "discrediting special counsel Robert Mueller". Another conspiracy theory related to the dossier is the "Trump-Comey briefing conspiracy theory", alluding to the January 6, 2017, briefing Comey and Clapper gave to Trump about the dossier. Its development has been traced by Matt Ford in his New Republic article "Anatomy of a Pro-Trump Conspiracy Theory". It alleges that "the FBI colluded with CNN to damage the president". It started with Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson. Then conservative media and personalities picked it up and ran with it, in this order: The Federalist, Ari Fleischer, Donald Trump Jr., The Washington Times, and Townhall. There are two main investigations into Trump-Russia matters: one deals with the proven Russian interference in the election to aid Trump, and the other is Mueller's Special Counsel investigation into the alleged conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russians. Trump's response has been to undermine and interfere with these investigations by siding with Putin and Russian intelligence agencies and attacking American intelligence agencies, Mueller, and the FBI, actions which, after the Helsinki Summit, were termed "treasonous" by former CIA Director John O. Brennan. Greg Miller, journalist and National Security Correspondent for The Washington Post, sees an "irony" in how Trump views Putin and Mueller: "President Trump appears to view the ex-KGB chief as an ally and the ex-director of the FBI as an adversary." Trump is aided in his undermining efforts by GOP Congress members like Devin Nunes, Chuck Grassley, Paul Ryan, and Matt Gaetz. Tracy has mentioned others who help spread this "far-right fringe" "counter-narrative" to undermine the dossier and other investigations: Fox News, The Federalist, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Kellyanne Conway, Corey Lewandowski, and Sebastian Gorka. Sean Hannity and Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch, a strong Trump defender and "anti-Mueller ally", also push anti-dossier conspiracy theories. While referring to the FISA wiretap application, Trump tweeted that the dossier was "a Clinton Campaign document". His claim was fact checked by the AP, with CBS News reporting: "It's also not correct to call the Steele dossier a 'Clinton Campaign document'.... But Clinton's closest aides said they didn't learn about the research until after the election, which is probable considering they never raised the allegations publicly." Mayer has stated that "the Clinton campaign never learned that Christopher Steele was on their payroll until [the dossier] was in the press." Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse has stated: "To impeach Steele's dossier is to impeach Mueller's investigation... It's to recast the focus back on Hillary", with the Republicans' aim to "create a false narrative saying this is all a political witch hunt". Jane Mayer tied his view directly to the Nunes memo, a report "purporting to show that the real conspiracy revolved around Hillary Clinton", falsely alleging that Clinton "colluded with the Russians to get dirt on Trump to feed it to the FBI to open up an investigation into the other campaign." The claim was debunked by Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler, who explained that Clinton wasn't involved in Steele's work, nor did she work with Russian sources. He gave Nunes "four Pinocchios". The conservative Weekly Standard wrote that Nunes' conspiracy "theory is utterly bunk" and that "Devin Nunes [has] spun a crazy conspiracy narrative". The Nunes memo has undermined Nunes' own conspiracy theory, as well as allied conspiracy theories that are also based on false assertions about the roles of the dossier and the surveillance of Carter Page, an important figure in the dossier. The Nunes memo showed that, even without them, the Trump campaign would still be under investigation for possible conspiracy with Russia. Contrary to the Nunes memo's conspiratorial assertion that the FBI investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 elections was triggered by the dossier, the Nunes memo actually confirmed the investigation began because of a tip from Australian diplomat Alexander Downer, thus undermining "the right's Trump-Russia conspiracy theory". Robert Litt, the former general counsel for the DNI has stated that "the dossier 'played absolutely no role' in the intelligence community's assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. 'That assessment... was based entirely on other sources and analysis'." The Democrats have asserted that the Nunes memo "shows the Russia investigation would be underway with or without the surveillance of Page, and—more critically—even if the government had never seen the dossier of information about Trump that was compiled by Christopher Steele." References That should help you understand how this works. Don't call the investigation a "conspiracy". -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic complaint about other users

Per WP:TPOC; Off-Topic: Take it to ANI. It doesn't belong here. This page is for discussing improvements to the Seth Rich article only.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have just restored a comment on this page by user:StreetSign which was removed by Mpants at work in violation of WP:TPG. [12] Mpants at work was recently warned by user:Ritchie333 about removing others' talk page posts [13] [14] but his similar removal here brought it to my attention that he has no intention of stopping this behaviour. If he continues it, I encourage StreetSign (or anyone else) to file a WP:AN report. 46.243.232.34 (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC) I also encourage anyone reading this to file an ANI report. Seriously. Let's get ANI involved and we'll see who comes out ahead in the community's eyes: the POV pushers or the editors aware of WP:TPG. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

A Veritable Plethora Of Unsourced Conspiracy Theories

Per WP:TPOC; Off-Topic: More conspiracy theories, still no reliable source.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Seth Rich murder remains unsolved. This Newsweek article states about the Seth Rich murder, “death does not appear to be a random homicide” or “a robbery gone bad,” as police had suggested. Instead, the report says, the “death was more likely committed by a hired killer or serial murderer,” Newsweek The Profiling Project does not subscribe to conspiracy theories. There may be something that we can include to improve the article. I am working on a proposal. StreetSign (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC) "The Profiling Project is funded by GOP lobbyist Jack Burkman, who last September announced he was offering a $100,000 reward for information into Rich’s death."[15] -- Not a reliable source. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Washington Times retraction

Looks like the Washington Times has had to eat some crow:

• "The Washington Times Retracts Column About Seth Rich’s Killing" - New York Times, Oct 1, 2018
• "The Washington Times settles lawsuit with Seth Rich's brother, issues retraction and apology for its coverage" - CNN, Oct 1, 2018

The actual retraction: "Retraction: Aaron Rich and the murder of Seth Rich"

--Calton | Talk 03:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I opened up that first link with my jaw hanging down, thinking that it was the Washington Post who retracted the story. But no, it was the Times. No big surprise there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:TPOC; Off-Topic.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I also was relieved to see that Washington Times was not forced to retract the story that contained the revelation that "On the day he was murdered, Seth was excited about a new job he had been offered on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign". That would be more difficult, since there is video of him saying it. "Seth was excited about a new job he had been offered on Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign" But a vocal few still claim it is not worthy of being included in the Wikipedia article. StreetSign (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC) Still having trouble with the difference between "it happened" and "it is worthy of being included in the Wikipedia article", I see. WP:IDHT, WP:CIR. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC) I certainly understand that there is a difference between "it happened" and "it is worthy of being included". It goes to (among other things) Seth's "state of mind" when he was shot twice in the back. According to his father, Seth was walking, talking, and pondering the job offer when he was killed. StreetSign (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC) Seth Rich's state of mind is irrelevant. If he had been discussing the works of Dostoevsky on the phone it would be irrelevant, so why would a job offer be relevant? It seems you need to accept some aspect of the conspiracy to make that leap. FatGandhi (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Since the retraction was covered in the NYT and CNN, I agree we should add it to this article. TFD (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

edit warring

@Connor Behan: If you're just going to edit war instead of taking it to talk, could you save the rest of us the trouble and just go report yourself? Thanks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

If you compare my two edits, you will see that they are different. Specifically I tried to take your point of view into account. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the malicious intent of the conspiracy theory is the main thing you want to get across. The fact that detectives investigating the murder of Seth Rich know more about Seth Rich than the CIA is the main point I want to get across. There is plenty of room for us both to be happy and there is no need for that tone. Connor Behan (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The difference between them is minor; much less than the difference between the established text and either of them. This is edit warring and your argument is just as smokescreen for it. If you really cared about finding a consensus, you'd stop reverting at the article and let it sit in the stable version while discussing it here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Let's try adding them in smaller chunks, OK? I just reverted be`cause you removed this reference:[16] could you explain why?

Related: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Russia indictment --Guy Macon (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Good catch. I didn't realize that I removed that. I don't have a preference for which version stays up during the discussion. But so far I have heard no arguments that the "stable" version is better. Most people seem to prefer the re-ordered one. Connor Behan (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't know which is better. It's too much information to take in at once. Can you make one change so we can discuss it? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure. The edit I just made changes the one thing that seems most important. The police investigation of the murder contradicts the conspiracy theory very strongly. The US investigation of Russia contradicts the conspiracy theory quite weakly. The order in which we mention things should reflect that. Connor Behan (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I like it. Let's see if anyone doesn't, so I can kick their ass politely ask them to explain why. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the current change is a good one. Sorry Guy, but if you really want to kick some ass, I'm sure some IP will come along sooner or later to bitch that the police investigation doesn't prove anything. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I think we are ready for Connor Behan to make another change -- or even two or three in rapid succession, which would still make it easy to focus on one if it causes a disagreement. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd prefer one or two. All things considered, Connor has given me reason to doubt his neutrality. So I'd like to examine the edits in detail, without having to balance one change against the other too much. I can do two easily enough, but I don't want to take the time and energy to weigh three. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I am good with that. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Seth Rich involvement

"the false claim that Rich had been involved with the leaked DNC emails in 2016," This statement is itself false. Although Craig Murray and Julian Assange have avoided directly disclosing him as the source, it is quite clear that that "law enforcement" sources that deny Rich's involvement are unreliable -- especially the Mueller indictment. https://consortiumnews.com/2019/03/13/vips-muellers-forensics-free-findings/ https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/17/seth-rich-the-dnc-and-wikileaks-the-plot-thickens/ A much better wording would be to say that "certain law enforcement officials deny that Rich had been involved with the leaked DNC emails in 2016." It is probably worth pointing out that while right-wing media has run with this story, left wing media takes the same line -- it is only the "extreme center" (Tariq Ali's term) media that takes a different approach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.197.154 (talk) 13:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

That would be misleading. The proposed revision, "certain law enforcement officials deny", would imply that it's actually believed by law enforcement officials somewhere, if not everywhere, that Rich was somehow involved in the leak, which is not the case. Geogene (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Describing a federal indictment of foreign intelligence agents by a duly-appointed special counsel as "unreliable" while hoisting up "ConsortiumNews"... is not indicative of a good understanding of our sourcing standards. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that indictments are not reliable sources and that's why they have trials. But there is no evidence that Rich was involved in the emails leak or that he had the motive, technical skills or opportunity to do so. In fact the Consortium article does not mention him. TFD (talk) 02:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

The main article contains the statement: "The 27-year-old Rich was an employee of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and his murder spawned several right-wing conspiracy theories,[2] including the false claim that Rich had been involved with the leaked DNC emails in 2016, contradicted by the law enforcement branches that investigated the murder.[3][4]" By declaring this a "false claim", it overstates the case. It may very well be the fact that some people have not presented any evidence of a connection between Rich and leaked DNC emails. But that, alone, doesn't provably make it a "false claim". It's an unproven claim, not a "false claim". 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:2423:80AA:C732:430F (talk) 09:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Since the article is locked (why?), I request that somebody who can do so make some edits to this portion of the text. "The 27-year-old Rich was an employee of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and his murder spawned several right-wing conspiracy theories,[2] including the false claim that Rich had been involved with the leaked DNC emails in 2016, contradicted by the law enforcement branches that investigated the murder.[3][4]" First, the word 'false" should be removed from "false claim", because the claim (while unproven) nevertheless hasn't been disproven. The voice of Wikipedia shouldn't be used to vouch for one side of a dispute. Secondly, the reference to "right-wing" should be removed: It hasn't been established that only "right wing" people might be interested in the suspicion that Seth Rich had something to do with the DNC emails. It may be, alternatively, that "left-wing" people have an interest in discrediting the possibility of Seth Rich's involvement, wanting to push the "Russia did it" idea. (Which, by the way, are not mutually exclusive: The Russians may have hacked emails, and Seth Rich may have leaked emails. The claimed truth of either one does not disprove the other.) Third, the portion which states, "contradicted by law enforcement branches that investigated the murder" is false. A check of the content referred to by the two footnotes ([3] and [4]) repeatedly refers to the lack of evidence, which I do not dispute: However, they do not claim that Seth Rich's involvement has been proved false. To say otherwise amounts to Original Research. In fact, a sentence within the article pointed to by footnote 4 says: "Contrary to Gingrich’s statement, the thin case that Rich was the DNC leaker is in no way substantial enough to outweigh ample evidence that Russia was the culprit." The writer of that is falsely implying that the truth of one would completely disprove the other. It doesn't. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:2423:80AA:C732:430F (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm declining the request because it's easy to find reliable sources that state that the conspiracy theories are both right-wing and false, for example [17]. Regarding: the voice of Wikipedia shouldn't be used to vouch for one side of a dispute, there is no dispute here, all reliable sources say that the conspiracy theories are false. Per WP:FALSEBALANCE, it would be misleading to imply something else to the readers by pretending otherwise. We've debated whether "debunked by law enforcement" is literally true or not before, but I don't think a definite consensus was reached. Geogene (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The problem with referring to claims made with zero supporting evidence as simply "unproven" is that it can be construed as giving credence to those claims even if they are made in bad faith. One could conceivably concoct a claim that Donald Trump keeps 37 Koala Bears imprisoned in Trump Tower. There is no evidence it is true, but you can't prove it false, can you? Calling the koala claim "unproven" would imply that it needs investigation or that it was made with some sort of merit or justification in the first place. Claims made with misleading evidence or no evidence whatsoever--especially in political contexts--should always be referred to as "false" when they are utterly unfounded. If any evidence ever emerges for Seth Rich's involvement--or for any captive koalas--then another term should be considered. FatGandhi (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

There's an episode in "Yes, Prime Minister" where Sir Humphrey tells the PM it might be true the Employment Secretary was considering resigning. While the PM thinks that it is a valid claim, Humphrey was just made it up.[18] It is misleading to provide the same credence to wild guesses and reasoned speculation. However I think the tone of this article is over-emphatic which ironically creates doubt in the mind of readers. ("The lady doth protest too much, methinks.") We don't say in Moon landing article for example, "This really happened and anyone who questions it is lying." The emphatic language could make readers question its validity. TFD (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

We don't? "Many Moon-landing conspiracy theories have been put forward, claiming either that the landings did not happen and that NASA employees have lied, or that the landings did happen but not in the way that has been told...Vince Calder and Andrew Johnson, scientists from Argonne National Laboratory, have given detailed answers to conspiracists' claims on the laboratory's website. They show that NASA's portrayal of the Moon landing is fundamentally accurate, allowing for such common mistakes as mislabeled photos and imperfect personal recollections.". --Moon landing conspiracy theories

--Guy Macon (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Look, I think most political opinionating is equivalent to pushing tumbleweeds with one's farts, but it's clear that wikipedia leans quite left. Spare me the whole "Well, we're just so much smarter! Smarter perspectives means your views are more likely to be represented." No. Not even close. It's a matter of donorism, litigiousness, sophistry, and most of all, intellectual fashion. Right now, the left are better at all of these things.

Sometimes, you list sources that blow my mind. Five minutes of cursory investigation often reveals obvious bias -- humorous, almost. Factcheck.org, for example, compulsively targets conservatives. Why? Do liberals not bullshit? Is there not a similar onslaught of mendacity coming from the left? And if there is, why doesn't it seem to pop up on here? 71.255.93.231 (talk) 04:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2019

The Seth Rich murder story implies that there is evidence and proof -- there is not -- that any questioning of this unexplained death is thereby a "right wing conspiracy theory". This is not a factual observation but a political one. I insist that this biased characterization of an unsolved murder that was quickly brushed aside by what we now know was a very compromised FBI headed by McCabe and Strzok and the inept Comey. I am not asking that you confer some evidence of a legitimate hit job by the DNC on Seth Rich for releasing Podesta emails to Wikileaks, but I am requesting that you remove the clearly left-leaning analysis designed to cash aspersions on the murder's cause or its perpetrator.

I would not say this if evidence of the murderer was present and the case was solved. But until that time, you have no authority to claim that any questioning of the Seth Rich murder is thereby a "right-wing conspiracy" when it is not. GideonMarx (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done - You propose to ignore reliable sources, so no, we're not going to do that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Does EVERY "Reliable Source" say that? If not, then clearly there are SOME "Reliable Sources" which DON'T say that. Thus, you are cherry-picking reliable sources because you like what they say, and you are ignoring other reliable sources because of what they don't say. Thanks for admitting your obvious bias. Slyfox4908 (talk) 05:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing in this article that states that "any questioning of this unexplained death is thereby a 'right wing conspiracy theory'..." The article merely details the fact that many right-wing conspiracies have sprung from Rich's death. Your personal feelings on the FBI--who was not even involved in the investigation--are not relevant here.FatGandhi (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Bogus reference to "conspiracy theories"

The murder of Seth Rich is a fact, not a theory. Apparently the murder of Seth Rich by 2 assailants is also a fact, not a theory. So the murder would qualify as a conspiracy, but not as a theory. The attempt to dismiss theories you oppose by labeling them like with some magic pejorative phrase like "conspiracy theory" here is really an attempt to win a debate by slur word. Thus I propose deleting the phrase as propagandistic and a violation of NPOV. BTW, I don't believe the murder of Seth Rich was a hit by the DNC; my best hypothesis is that it was a couple of street thugs from nearby Le Droit, thinking of it as a ghetto. But I don't try to establish my opinion by a slur word. (PeacePeace (talk) 02:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC))

Include more from now-released Mueller report

https://www.thedailybeast.com/mueller-report-julian-assange-smeared-seth-rich-to-cover-for-russians points to some items on Seth Rich in the Mueller report. I see in the talk page that even recently there seems to be disagreement about whether the conspiracy theories are true or not. The linked article should point to more strong evidence of where the hacks actually came from (through twitter DMs between wikileaks and non-Rich sources), as well as that wikileaks was provided with data days after Rich died - throwing more cold water on the theory that Rich was the source. 2405:9800:BA11:3122:C511:A1B6:9E4:9FA0 (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

It seems to be already covered in Murder of Seth Rich#WikiLeaks statements. I don't think the Daily Beast article provides any information not already available. I don't think that conspiracy theorists ever questioned that DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 provided the emails to Wikileaks. TFD (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I added a mention, using the Daily Beast as well as the Mueller report as sources. Although I agree with TFD that the article already says this, it makes it a little more explicit. And since Mueller does mention Rich, it might as well be in the article somewhere. Question: when using the rp template to give a page number, should the page number be the one in the written document (shown on the bottom of the page), or should it be the page in the PDF document? Geogene (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

IMHO the Mueller Report on Seth Rich would be inappropriate as Mueller's speculation is not a reliable source. Mueller speculates on the motive of Assange, who pointed at Seth Rich as the Wikileaks source of the DNC emails. But so far as I know, neither Mueller nor his team ever interviewed Assange. And labeling Assange as a fabricator seems inconsistent with his Wikileaks history. (PeacePeace (talk) 03:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC))

A simple attribution would suffice if anyone feels inclusion is warranted. DN (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2019

I am requesting that new information be added to the website concerning the new FOIA information about his communication with Wikileaks. 97.71.139.178 (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

You can suggest such a change here on the form of "please change X to Y", citing reliable sources – Þjarkur (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

According to Bill Binney, he applied to the NSA under the Freedom of Information Act for any documents that mentioned both Assange and Seth Rich. The NSA said they had 15 documents consisting of 32 pages but could not release any of them due to national security. We cannot include this because we do not know if Binney's account is accurate, the story has not been covered in reliable sources and we have no information about what the documents say. It could be something as mundane as NSA agents mentioning the claim that Rich was the source of the DNC emails.

Also, please don't use the template, just add a new discussion. The template is for changes that do not require discussion, such as spelling mistakes.

TFD (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Appropriateness of Including Isikoff Russian Origin Theory

With the usual speed of WP, the story published today on Yahoo! News by Michael Isikoff has been added to the page in sev. It has taken a tone of authoritativeness regarding this article, but I am unsure appropriate weight is being given to the Isikoff story, which relies on a couple unsupported claims, most prominently that whatdoesitmean.com is a front for Russian propaganda and that the conspiracy theory was not previously published on social media. (I'm not a journalist and I'm not going to try to dig up twitter/4chan/reddit threads as some kind of original research, which would obviously trigger another stupid political editor war.) Isikoff also asks readers to take his word that the SVR document is authentic, but Isikoff has a personal history of publishing articles based on Russian government material he had not actually seen, did not actually verify, and ultimately turned out to be manufactured for the express purpose of feeding to journalists like himself for political purposes (the Russia collusion conspiracy theory).

It does not strike me as appropriate to naively accept the article as fact, especially before there are any other sources from anyone else to corroborate it.2603:3004:6B6:F800:614E:D51:371F:F5F (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

OK. Noted. Separate topic, but the Missus and I were thinking of visiting Petersburg this month. How's the weather this time of year? Herostratus (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Isn't what he said similar to what Mueller said, that the Russians promoted the theory that Rich was behind the DNC leaks in order to take the heat off themselves? We don't actually need to know the claim is true in order to include it, just that it has become part of the reporting of the case. TFD (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

So let's see. According to his article Michael Isikoff is the head journalis at Yahoo! News. Before that he was the national investigative correspondent for NBC News (it says "the" and not "a" so I suppose he was top (or only) investigator at NBC, at least for United States matter. Before that he worked for Newsweek. He's has a master's degree from the Medill School of Journalism, has written three books, and has done other journalisty stuff such as winning the 2005 award from the Society of Professional Journalists for best investigative reporting online and the 2001 Ed Cunningham Memorial Award for best magazine reporting from abroad. It also says "A September 23, 2016 Yahoo News article written by Isikoff was used by Federal authorities in a FISA warrant application to justify the surveillance of the foreign policy Trump adviser, Carter Page's alleged connection to Russian authorities during the 2016 presidential campaign."

I mean, whom better do you want? Ed Murrow? Walter Cronkite? They're not available. If one wants to make the point "enh, those are B-list credentials, Isikoff is a junior-level journalist" or whatever, I suppose you can try.

The question would be if he's a partisan or a partisan hack. If he is a partisan, that's not necessarily a deal killer -- most everyone has opinions, and partisans are motivated to get their facts right too -- but it's a red flag. If he's a partisan hack like someone at Briebart or the Daily Worker or whatever, that would be a more serious problem. Doesn't look he is. I mean Ed Murrow and his boys certainly had strong opinions about things... I mean, he's not Sean Hannity or something. He looks legit to me.

I don't know about Yahoo! News. They have a silly name and started as a mere aggregator, but that was a while back. They are one of the most viewed news website. So... they almost certainly want to keep it that way, and have the means to employ fact checkers. I don't know their business model, but until shown otherwise I would assume that it would be getting their facts right, so as to maintain the trust of their readers.

Looking at their site, they don't look like sensationalists, but they do seem to be still mostly an aggregator. Would like to know more. Media Matters has them as "left-center bias", but that's the same as they have the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, CBS News, Spiegel Online, and so on, all of which are good sources. And to the right of HuffPost, New York Magazine, Slate, and the New Yorker (which is among the most reliable of sources), all of whom are tagged as "left bias". So I don't see them as overly partisan.

As to this being the only source, well of course it's the only source. It's an exclusive. It's the result of Yahoo's investigation. I don't think we want to be throwing out exclusives from reliable sources. (FWIW it's been picked up by major news sources, so its not like it is unnotable either.)

And finally, the material does say "according to Michael Isikoff and Yahoo! News", so the reader is certainly able to say "enh, hack journalist, lying website" and discount the whole paragraph if that's how she rolls. Herostratus (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

One, it should not be the reader's responsibility to vet each and every source. It's unreasonable and counter to the basic philosophy of wikipedia. Two, Isikoff's page also shows he wrote a sensationally titled book advancing the Russia collusion conspiracy theory. Our personal opinion of a person's believability is irrelevant, only whether the facts show they may not be impartial. Three, it's not our job to decide whether two unrelated sources talking about two tangentially related events somehow directly corroborate each other (the Mueller Report says Assange advanced the Seth Rich conspiracy theory, Isikoff says Russian intelligence created the Seth Rich; the latter is clearly to be included somewhere in the article, the latter is just a data point), that would be original research. Four, it is our job to add information that is directly corroborated by multiple sources. As of yesterday and today, Isikoff's claims are uncorroborated. Once more articles are published, we should go for it. Five, how do you report editors like the guy who chose to approach the talk page as a place to accuse editors of being Russian spies? It's grossly inappropriate and speaks to judgement. I've contributed to Wikipedia less than a dozen times in my lifetime, so if I need to register an account to do so, I would kindly ask any editors to talk the appropriate steps against paranoid bullies. 2603:3004:6B6:F800:11C6:A14A:9652:CCA1 (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, there's this piece [19] in the Washington Post that casts doubt on the Seth Rich conspiracy theories having a Russian origin. Apparently there's still a case to be made that right-wing propagandists in the U.S. got there first. Geogene (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

That's right. It's not yet fully knowable. A lot of things never are, in which case we usually mention various theories, giving proper background and weight to each. Herostratus (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@2603:3004:6B6:F800:11C6:A14A:9652:CCA1:, It's not exactly the reader's job to vet sources, but we do provide sources for the reader to vet if she wants. And readers should -- I mean many people say "Don't take Wikipedia at its word, check the sources" and in fact we ourselves do this (we don't use Wikipedia as a source). We are fine with reporting the material cited as factual, to a sufficient degree of confidence that we include it. The reader can check the footnote. I'm just saying we're also providing the ref in the text as an extra protection so its clearly obvious where the material is coming from.

Every person has opinions and biases. This is called "being a human being". It's worth being aware of, but its not a deal-killer. The question is whether the person is a partisan hack. Is he? Is he someone like Sean Hannity, or he more like... I dunno, Bob Woodward or whomever. I don't really know; I'd be willing to hear evidence. So far, it doesn't look like it to me. The title of his books seems reasonable, for a book about current events. If it's an accurate title for what's in the book, what is he supposed to call it? The book was covered by the New York Times and NPR and the Los Angeles Times and so on, which I think most hack polemics aren't. I haven't read it tho.

Not sure exactly what is meant by your reference to the "Russia collusion conspiracy theory". Is that something like the "Earth is round conspiracy theory"?

"Not liking Donald Trump" is about the most anodyne bias anyone can have. In America, a lot of people don't like to Donald Trump, to an I think unprecedented degree for a sitting President. He's even more unpopular overseas. It's kind of like "is opposed to smoking" or whatever. It's fairly common and unexceptionable. That is why objections to sources such as "This guy doesn't seem to much like Mussolini, should not be allowed as a source" or whatever don't usually get much traction either. And I mean most Americans at this point have an opinion on Donald Trump. "Donald who?" and "Haven't really thought about it much" are not responses you are going to get from very many journalists. So unless we want to limit our sources to hermits, we have to go with what we have.

"It is our job to add information that is directly corroborated by multiple sources" isn't true and isn't something I have heard before I don't think. We do not have to corroborate material with multiple sources. If you look thru the Wikipedia, you will see that most statements of fact have a single ref given. A lot of refs are to book pages. We don't require two or more books saying the same thing, provided that the book used is considered reliable. (I understand your not knowing this stuff, since this is your first edit, as near as I can tell. It's alright; it takes time to learn these things. I can help.)

The place to report me is WP:ANI. However, 2603:3004:6B6:F800:614E:D51:371F:F5F should be the person to make the complaint. You are 2603:3004:6B6:F800:11C6:A14A:9652:CCA1, which is an entirely different person altogether. Right? Unless you are using a dynamic IP, which is confusing to say the least. I'm not sure if its allowed or what the rule is, but if you're going to use terms like "we" and "us" and lecture about how the project should work, you maybe want to get an account. Maybe you are also 2601:189:C47F:9010:D4AB:EA55:806A:6194, in which case you seem to be WP:NOTHERE to make an encyclopedia -- no article edits yet -- but to bother us with your talking points on this talk page, in which case the "we" and "us" rather sticks in my craw. But whatever. I'll be here. Herostratus (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• Why is "Yahoo! New investigation" separate from the section on the theory's origins? Why is the theory's "Russian origin" treated as fact when sources are divided as to whether or not the theory actually originated in Russia? ^Falling_Gravity 04:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The fact given is "On July 9, 2019, Michael Isikoff of Yahoo! News reported the results of a journalistic investigation...". And he did, and indeed on that date and that publication. And the reader can verify this by looking at the ref. Herostratus (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't answer any of my two questions. ^Falling_Gravity 20:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that weird rant by Herostratus settles it. I am the same person who started this discussion and listed several reasons to not give the Isikoff article undue prominence. Sorry, I am posting from a work computer that I assumed had a static IP. Apparently this page doesn't allow public edits, so I hope this is the proper way to ask for revisions:

MOTION TO REMOVE HEROSTRATUS ADDITIONS FROM JULY 9, 2019 AND REPLACE WITH REFERENCES TO WAPO ARTICLE ON SAME TOPIC SHARED BY USER GEOGENES

Grounds for removal: 1) Source is uncorroborated and based on non-public, unverifiable information 2) Source is potentially biased (see Wiki page for author Michael Isikoff, list of works) 3) Editors' opinions about the likability of Donald Trump is irrelevant generally and in particular to the Seth Rich murder and related conspiracy theories 4) Additional articles have since been published casting doubt on claims in source 5) Replacement source discusses source to be removed's 6) Replacement source relies on public and corroborated information 67.171.187.173 (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

It makes sense to me to start with Isikoff and then follow up with the WaPo response. Something like "Isikoff said it was the Russians, Bump (in the WaPo), on the other hand, claims it didn't originate with the Russians (though he doesn't refute that they tried to exploit the story), rather, he said it was Bannon, Hannity, Jones and Assange." Of course I'm not proposing this exact language, just roughing it in here. DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd support this general proposal, making it a paragraph in the "Origin" section. The sources don't totally disagree, but some points are disputed. ^Falling_Gravity 20:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• It belongs in the "Origins" section as a theory, along with WaPo’s analysis disputing Isikoff's conclusion. At least one of the sources already used in the section points out the progression from a July 11, 2016, tweet connecting the shooting to the lawsuit (one day later the tweet chain enters "clinton body count" territory) via whatdoesitmean and a few others (including Infowars) to WikiLeaks’s reward offer and Assange’s interview on Dutch TV on August 9, 2016. Unless #ET’SForBernie2020 @relombardo3 is also a Russian account, the bogus July 13 SVR bulletin jumped on the conspiracy band wagon two days after it started rolling, inconspicuously until Assange got on the bullhorn. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Just had it pointed out to me that the WaPo analysis links to six July 12 tweets like this one from accounts other than @relombardo3; all the Russian trolls, if it was them, had to do was flesh it out some. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)