Talk:Murder of Seth Rich/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Jack Burkman reward money

See the RfC close below. Cunard (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

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 suggest re-adding the following text to the "Rewards for information" section:

In September, Republican lobbyist Jack Burkman stated that he is offering $100,000 additional reward money, which he later boosted to $105,000.

References

For one thing, the section already mentions the total $150,000 in reward money, which is partly what makes this murder so notable. Omitting information about how a large portion of that money came to be is pretty much censorship, especially since we have reliable sources that report on them. Those who believe that Seth Rich's parents object to Burkman's reward money are misguided, since Rich's parents held a press conference with Burkman on the murder, according to Fox News. ^Falling_Gravity 02:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I do not know why some editors object to providing reliably sourced and widely reported information to this article. TFD (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree, because we need the individual rewards to add up to $150,00 rather than $45,000 and because it's been widely reported, and because it's been in this Wikipedia article for months. But I would add a footnote (for a total of three):

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/295916-gop-lobbyist-offers-100k-reward-for-info-in-dnc-staffers-death

Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@FallingGravity: I see that you have readded this material with the comment "no objection on talk." When I reverted it I cited the long previous talk page that led to a consensus against it. I don't see any reason to think that has changed. I suggest that you undo your re-insertion and start an RfC if you wish to establish this as an enduring part of the article. SPECIFICO talk 23:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Yeah, I read that discussion, but I didn't see any "consensus against inclusion." There were two votes for inclusion, one neutral vote, and a few vocal opponents. I'd say there was no consensus. ^Falling_Gravity 23:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Well the point is that the WP:BURDEN is on those who advocate inclusion. So while you're perfectly correct that there was not unanimous sentiment against it, I believe you agree that there was no consensus for inclusion. I thought that my edit comment would have led readers to that conclusion, but at any rate I appreciate your having looked and I hope you will now see my point. I'd welcome an RfC (if you care to mount one) to see whether there's now a consensus so that your concern can be addressed. SPECIFICO talk 00:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

It appears that Burkman has been in this BLP for months, starting October 20 when SPECIFICO put him there.[1] The previous discussion was vague, inclusion was supported by Anythingyouwant, Guy Macon, and ZN3ukct, while others supporting exclusion were Geogene and Steve Quinn. Several further editors took no position, including Space4Time3Continuum2x ("I haven’t voted for inclusion, I haven’t voted at all"); Dennis Brown ("Speaking only as the admin that closed the previous RFC I would say that this is not directly tied to that RFC"); Snow ("I'm not sure what to make of Burkman's offer"); and Elvey ("Folks are free to argue"). Given that the material has been included for months, I think we would now need a new consensus to remove it, rather than the present consensus to include it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The material should remain in the article. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Why is that, Mr. Ernie? What does Burkman's statement have to do with this crime? SPECIFICO talk 16:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Part of what has made the crime notable have been the many rewards offered to help solve the case. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand that comment. "Notable" in the WP sense doesn't have to do with rewards. What do you think is the significance of Burkman's choice to "offer" a "reward" -- I put that in quotes because he, unlike the DC Police, is not known to have the cash ready to pay up. I put "reward" in quotes because unlike DC Police, Burkman has not specified the terms of the reward offer. The word Notable aside, what brought this to wide public attention was Assange's self-serving insinuation that Mr. Rich may have criminally violated his role as an employee and leaked information to Wikileaks. There is no evidence and no credible support for this insinuation. Burkman's "reward" further bolsters this unsubstantiated libel. SPECIFICO talk 18:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

If this is true, then why did Seth Rich's parents hold a press conference with Jack Burkman stating that the reward money was to find the truth behind the murder? Your assertion of a darker ulterior motive is itself an unsourced insinuation against Jack Burkman (in a press release he said he hopes the reward helps "get to the truth of what happened here and will either debunk the conspiracy theories or validate them.") Additionally, he has offered the terms of his "reward": see http://www.whokilledseth.com/reward ("providing information that leads to the arrest and conviction of the person(s) responsible for Seth Rich's murder.") ^Falling_Gravity 20:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

What if a well-known Democratic operative offered $1 million to recover the video tapes of Trump doing @(@)#(U! in the Moscow Hotel? I don't think that should be in an encyclopedia. To me it's the same thing. It's an independent party stepping into an event of which it has no knowledge or involvement. We do know that Trump has stayed in Moscow hotels, but we don't know anything more. If Burkman were routinely offering crimestoppers money, that would be a different story. SPECIFICO talk 21:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

What you're describing actually already is included in this encyclopedia (in some form) in the article Correct the Record, a Super PAC owned by well-known Democratic operative David Brock, which says: "Correct the Record said it would pay anonymous tipsters for unflattering scoops about Donald Trump, including audio and video recordings and internal documents." While I don't think they were looking for sex tapes, this was also before the Trump tapes dropped (don't know if there was any connection or reward money doled out). However, everything in Wikipedia isn't set in stone, so if you think that that somehow violates BLP, feel free to gain consensus to remove it. ^Falling_Gravity 22:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi thanks for your reply. I think there are a few points of WP policy that you're overlooking. First, just because something is done in one article does not mean that it should be done in other articles. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. That's well established. Second, the two examples are not similar because in the case of Mr. Rich's murder there is a specific libelous insinuation, namely that he violated his duty to his employer and possibly the law as well. Third, The WP:BURDEN is on you to establish consensus to include the content. There is no burden on editors who challenge content, particularly in the case of a BLP violation such as this one. SPECIFICO talk 22:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The relevant policy is "Balancing aspects": does mainstream media mention Burman's reward? They do. Should they? Fortunately that is not an issue that concerns us. BTW we should never use unreliable sources such as The Daily Caller. TFD (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand what is happening here - in this thread. Falling Gravity linked to a Fox news video [2] in which Rich's parents are actually standing with Jack Burkman and it looks like the mother gets on the microphone and asks for help. To me, this looks like support by the parents for Jack Burkman and his help, which probably includes the reward money. It is hard for me to argue with a recorded video on a news station. If the parents support Jack Burkman helping them, then, at the moment, I have no problem adding his offered reward money to this article - unless someone can give me a reasonable rationale why this shouldn't be in this article. Also, Burkman stipulated the amount he is offering and the reasons why he is offering it in a Newsweek article here. I am guessing there are other sources that cover his reward money and its purpose. This may have been a PR stunt, but I haven't come across any sources that says this is a PR stunt or that say his motives are questionable. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Show me the money? We can't speculate about his parents, who might understandably endorse any publicity at all -- even publicity primarily intended to benefit Burkman or Assange. There's been very little coverage of this crime recently (outside of Daily Caller/Newsmax type stuff.) The article will eventually be deleted. The Assange/Burkman rewards may however endure in various articles about fake news, the 2016 election, Clinton Conspiracies, etc. SPECIFICO talk 23:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

First, I stipulate that I do not watch Fox news, nor do I like the tenor of Fox news. However, the video in this instance speaks for itself. Moving on - I don't understand what you mean by show me the money? If this case ever gets resolved then I assume Burkman will pay the money. Are you saying he doesn't have the money? As far as I know he is a big star in conservative circles and I don't think forking over $105,000 (or whatever) is going to hurt him. Unless I am wrong about his big star status. Maybe he is gambling that he won't ever have to pay. I can buy that. But, I don't know of any sources that say this is the case. I can think that he is taking a gamble if I want, but I have nothing to back that up. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, "very little coverage" outside of rightwing websites and blogs. Of course that's if you ignore the very recent coverage by WJLA (an ABC News affiliate). ^Falling_Gravity 00:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

OK and this is looking like some mainstream coverage of the reward money. Again, if the parents don't have a problem with the reward money from Burkman and the police, then I am not seeing a BLP issue with this. They were the main issue during the RFC. Also, the ABC affiliate mentioned that Burkman is a DC attorney - so I sincerely doubt the $105,000 would be a problem for him. --Steve Quinn (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

If you take the view that the crime is not notable, then nothing about it has weight. However, it meets notability and therefore the significant aspects of the case as reported in reliable sources should be mentioned. Notability is not by the way about what is important but is created by reliable sources. BTW this article receives and average of 3,133 views per day. It has received 322,732 views in total. A lot of interest in what you consider a non-notable subject.TFD (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

TFD, right now I am speaking specifically about the reward money. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

In any case, to me this latest stuff in the news about the reward money seems like a lot of overblown drama (at the moment). Steve Quinn (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO thinks the reward money is unimportant because the topic itself is not notable. TFD (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's possible to evaluate those two matters separately. One doesn't entail the other. We have no reason to believe that Burkman has or is in fact prepared to pay the reward money. This has been discussed before, and the archived discussion shows that several editors agree on that point. DCPD is in the business of paying rewards upon certain terms and conditions. They are good for the dough, and they have a history of paying out under standard DCPD conditions. Would you buy a $1000000 lottery ticket from the local church? Maybe. Would you get paid if your number comes up? Maybe. Burkman, a Newsmax personality and GOP lobbyist, is an advocate and promoter, not in the business or with the capitalization to be offering credible rewards. He might have the money. He might pay the money. What are the terms and conditions of his offer? As to the local TV station sourcing -- that's pretty close to the bottom of the barrel. They report on cats in trees, trees falling on cars, cats in cars, cars in the street, and trees falling on cats in the street. That page link doesn't really address the editorial and WP policy issues at hand. SPECIFICO talk 01:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Local media tend to give more coverage to local stories than does national media. Note that Rob Ford, the late mayor of Toronto, received no coverage in international media until he was accused of smoking crack cocaine, and the articles about him are based primarily on Toronto media. So WJLA-TV, the local ABC affiliate, Fox 5 TV, NBC4 (Washington, D.C.) and the Washington City Paper seem fine. It was also covered by Fox News and Newsweek and a number of lesser-known national news sites. I don't know whether Burman will pay out, but he is a multi-millionaire and it is a binding contract. But that sort of speculation is supposed to be left to reliable sources. TFD (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

TFD, it has none of the elements of a "binding contract". I think that your comment about local stations supports my view rather than yours. I have seen no ongoing coverage in the national outlets like Fox and Newsweek. If there were ongoing coverage of Burkman in national press that would be a strong point for inclusion. In that regard, the video on Newsmax didn't look too hot to me. SPECIFICO talk 02:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

There was never consensus for inclusion of these spurious rewards, except maybe for the Wikileaks one and even that one was borderline. It got put in without consensus and then it just managed to slip under the radar for a bit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

See West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2 (2008): "In legal terms, the person promising a reward is offering to enter into a contract with the person who performs the requested action, that is, turning in a criminal or returning a lost pet. Performance will be rewarded with money or some other compensation. Therefore, the legal concepts involving rewards are derived from the law of contracts."[3] It is the same principle as Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, which is one of the first cases taught in introductory law courses. Ergo, not "spurious." Where are you getting your legal opinions? TFD (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Newsmax? :) -- btw I disagree. Moot now, but the terms were never set nor is their any reason to anticipate performance. Where can we read the terms and conditions. It's not like a reward for returning my lost bowling ball. That's easy to adjudicate. SPECIFICO talk 02:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Not Newsmax, Newsweek. Newsweek, founded in 1933, is one of the two major weekly news magazines in the U.S. The other is Time. And if you think that criminal rewards are not binding contracts, and all the legal experts and courts are wrong, then argue with them, not me. This is not a forum for arguing your own pet fringe theory. And your moot point is moot. The offer of a reward is a offer. TFD (talk) 03:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Haha. Not Newsweek, Newsmax the inimitable purveyor of reliable and pertinent information for the informed electorate of the USA. I don't have any pet fringes, as you know. "Just the facts ma'am." Do check out some of the Newsmax broadcasts. They're very informative. In all seriousness, an unsubstantiated claim is not credible and the unsubstantiated and unspecified reward offer is not specific enough to be an offer. As the court will no doubt agree if it comes to that. SPECIFICO talk 03:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

BTW, didja see how Burkman added 5 G's to the reward kitty in December so he'd bump the stale story up for more coverage on local TV with the other kitty news? How cool is that? SPECIFICO talk 03:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hahaha. Not Newsmax, Newsweek. See: "SETH RICH’S DEATH: WHY A GOP LOBBYIST WILL PAY $100,000 TO LEARN WHO KILLED THE DNC STAFFER" BY MAX KUTNER, 9/16/16 AT 3:10 PM. The webiste says www.newsweek.com. TFD (talk) 04:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

No really -- did you look on Newsmax? That's where Burkman discusses his efforts wrt the reward. He's doing it as a public service. Also I am offering $450,000 for anyone who can bring me the petticoat and garter belt that J. Edgar Hoover used to wear late at night. SPECIFICO talk 04:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

No I did not look at Newsmax because I was replying to your comment that it had not been reported in reliable sources by saying that it was reported in Newsweek. The two publications are entirely separate. Why do you want me to look at Newsmax? Are you saying it is a reliable source? If not, I see no reason why I should read it. And your argument against Burkman's offer being binding was used by the defendants in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (Read it.) Their offer was that they would pay 100 pounds sterling to anyone who used their product and contracted influenza. They said it was "mere puff." TFD (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I've started an RfC on the subject. Anyone is welcome to comment. ^Falling_Gravity 03:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC on Burkman's reward money

There is a clear consensus that the $105,000 in reward money offered by Jack Burkman should be mentioned in the article under the "Rewards for information" section.

Editors noted that Burkman's reward money was widely covered by reliable sources, Seth Rich's parents appeared at a news conference with Burkman after he announced the reward money, and an earlier RfC about the Wikileaks reward concluded that the Wikileaks reward should be mentioned in the article.

Cunard (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

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.

---

Should the $105,000 in reward money offered by Jack Burkman be mentioned in the article under the "Rewards for information" section? Refs:WJLA Newsweek NBC The Hill ^Falling_Gravity 03:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Include: The reward money has been cited in numerous reliable sources as linked in the refs. Attempts to discredit the reward money are based on unsourced speculation, and he says he has pledged the required money. Trying to make this into a BLP issue completely ignore the fact that Seth Rich's parents held a press conference with Burkman after he offered the reward money. ^Falling_Gravity 03:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• Omit BLP violation insinuating criminal misconduct. Published sources are a necessary but not a sufficient condition for content to appear on WP. Anyone who comments on a crime gets their words in an encyclopedia? No. SPECIFICO talk 04:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• Include Has been reported in local and national media. Rewards are an important aspect of any unsolved crime and we already report other rewards offered in this case. TFD (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• Include given that reliable sources are deeming this reward to put the total award at the highest in D.C. history for a homicide case.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• Include Rich's parents appear to support Burkman's reward offer and the offer by the DC police [4]; [5]. Hence, there doesn't seem to be a BLP issue because the parents don't have a problem with this. My previous BLP concern, months ago, pertained to parents and relatives. Also, this is not speculation about the parents, as was previously characterized. No sources claim that Burkman has questionable motives, so again, I see no BLP concerns. The reward money and its purpose(s) are covered in reliable sources. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

"Rich's parents appear to support Burkman's reward offer" - umm, what the source actually says is: "Rich family spokesman Brad Bauman says by email that the family welcomes contributions and information that could move the case forward. “That said, we want to be clear that some have attempted to politicize Seth’s murder and forward bizarre conspiracy theories,”" That's not actually "support Burkman's reward offer", that's just "we hope the case gets solved". The family also said: "“It’s unfortunate and hurtful that at the moment a murderer remains at large, there remains unfounded press speculation about the activities of our son that night" and "unfounded speculation" is exactly what Burkman is doing. So no, the parents aren't ok with this, at least not according to this source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

VM although I agree with you 99.99% of the time, we are not in agreement on this. In any case, the first source clearly states in the text [6] "The parents of murdered Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich are back in D.C. in hopes of turning up new leads in the case...They [Joel and Mary Rich] stood with Washington republican lobbyist Jack Burkman and asked for help...The Rich's...are in D.C. to bring attention to a $125,000 reward. $100,000 of that reward has been put up by Burkman", This is a direct connection to Jack Burkman and shows support of Burkman's reward offer. Also, there is a video of them standing with Jack Burkman.

I hate to say this, but it appears you have picked only the second source, with a quote from Rich family spokesman Brad Bauman [7]. But, there is nothing in that second source that directly says Burkman has been engaging in the unfounded speculation and conspiracy theories that was going on. Of course that wouldn't make sense since Burkman and the Parents appear to be in agreement in the first source. And your quote supports this desire for support "Rich family spokesman Brad Bauman says by email that the family welcomes contributions and information that could move the case forward." Contributions and information equals support. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Include. I was also initially opposed to including mention of the reward, but Rich's parents recently made some public appearances with Burkman in D.C., so in this respect - and only in this respect! - BLP would not appear to apply any longer. Just in case: It still applies to insinuations and speculations by Wikileaks/conspiracy fringe. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• Obvious Include. Relevancy is demonstrated by the subjects (his parents) and more importantly coverage in RS. There was a similar attempt to exclude information about Wikileak's reward, which also failed. D.Creish (talk) 07:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• Very very obvious exclude - as pointed out above the claim that "Rich's parents support this" is based on a misrepresentation of the source (a general statement that they welcome help and contributions is being twisted into them saying "we support this"). So in a way this is actually a double BLP vio. And since it is a BLP vio it should remain until consensus is established.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

  The fliers they're circulating with the reward money say "This flier was created in cooperation with the Rich family and Jack Burkman." If that's not an endorsement of the reward money then I don't know what is. ^Falling_Gravity 17:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

That's hard for WP editors to accept. You mean that a printed piece of paper, unvetted by any publisher -- let alone a RS, is airtight proof of an OR inference by an anonymous editor (you) here? SPECIFICO talk 18:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Include I'm not sure why there's an issue here; there are numerous sources saying this, and it doesn't violate WP:WEIGHT. Instaurare (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• Absolutely include. As TFD said, this is an important aspect of the case and is widely reported in reliable sources. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Include – This documented and significant reward is an element of notability for the crime. Dissenters' circular arguments for exclusion sound like they just don't like it. — JFG ^talk 08:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• include, well sourced and notable, no reason not to include it. MB298 (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• include notable and has RS / summoned here by bot LavaBaron (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Include Per MB298 above. I see no reason not to include it. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 01:29, 8 February 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.

Threaded discussion

@FallingGravity: -- You can't be serious? He "pledged" so what? I'll see his $105 and pledge you +20. Pledge doesn't mean he placed it in escrow with an award trustee. I pledge you pledge we all pledge. SPECIFICO talk 04:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am serious, because when a lawyer pledges reward money and mounts an advertising campaign based on that reward money do you expect hot air? Please provide one reliable source that proves your pet fringe theory. ^Falling_Gravity 04:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

A lawyer? You mean like the Clintons? "lawyer pledges reward money and buys billboards..." Meaningless. Didn't you see the billboard where Nixon said "I am not a crook"? SPECIFICO talk 04:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The offer of a reward is legally binding and Burman has substantial wealth with which to pay it. Furthermore as a lawyer he should be aware of that. And there is nothing in reliable secondary sources to suggest that his offer is insincere. If he refuses to pay, he can be sued through the civil courts. TFD (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Also he'd be sued for false advertising. And if that did happen then that would also be notable. ^Falling_Gravity 04:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

TFD, please state the terms of the offer. What do I have to do to get my $$$? Thx. SPECIFICO talk 04:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

FG, this has nothing to do with "false advertising" SPECIFICO talk 04:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I know. It has to do with your complete failure to produce reliable sources that support your claims of a Assange/Burkman alliance to accuse Seth Rich of leaking DNC emails via false reward money. ^Falling_Gravity 05:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

"[P]rovide[] information that leads to the arrest and conviction of the person(s) responsible Seth Rich's murder."[8] The same as what you have to do to collect the D.C. police or Wikileaks reward. TFD (talk) 07:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Editor speculation on the validity of the reward is irrelevant to policy. This discussion should be closed. D.Creish (talk) 08:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Can't take the heat, eh? SPECIFICO talk 09:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I think what D.Creish is saying that you should drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. ^Falling_Gravity 16:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

You can enjoy some snark camaraderie in your spare moments, but the burden is on you for inclusion and let's be frank -- while his parents have nothing to lose in playing along with the publicity-seeking strategies relating to the announced rewards, they are not the ones being libeled. Life is unfair and full of bad choices, but encyclopedias are not. SPECIFICO talk 16:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Note - there's no deadline for this info and it's of marginal encyclopedic interest. So there's nothing wrong with keeping it out of the article until the RfC is concluded. Indeed, that would be the policy under BLP.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• My change of opinion concerning the Burkman offer, regardless of what I still of think of it (publicity stunt), is based on this Nov 23 article in the parents' hometown paper, the Omaha World Herald. They appear to be satisfied that Burkman’s reward offer is bona fide while they could not verify the validity of the WikiLeaks reward offer. I have added that to the article (i.e., parents' opinion on validity). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it's impossible to compare statements made at two different times in two different contexts. SPECIFICO talk 18:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)bra

Self-reverted. I see what you mean - I proceeded from the info in the Nov 23 Omaha World Herald article. There's a new article in the WaPo "Style" section (STYLE presents a unique blend of news and features with timely and factual articles offering readers a more descriptive, informal “behind the scenes” coverage of the arts, personalities and lifestyles, as well as social trends, interviews, previews and reviews — all in one concise section. Add to the mix highlights and grids on broadcast (TV and radio).) I'm not sure what to make of it, whether the journalist is detailing what he read elsewhere or whether he interviewed any of the people mentioned himself. I'm also not sure what to make of Burkman at this point. Does he canvass the neighborhood when there are no cameras and reporters around, i.e. not just for the publicity? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is at AfD again - for third time [9].Steve Quinn (talk) 09:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Someone added Burkman's name to the article. Is the RfC concluded? Doesn't look that way to me. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Guys, WP:NOTABLE is not the test for including text in an article. Please review WP:WEIGHT and WP:V and WP:BLP. And please review WP:BURDEN. Saying you can't see why not goes against site policy. You must affirmatively demonstrate your case for inclusion. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 02:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Some editors confuse notability, which determines whether an article should be written, with weight, which determines what should be in it. That policy says, "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." A good way to do that is to look at what articles about the subject published in respectable sources report. Policy also says, "Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." So we can look at an article in The Independent summarizing the case.[10] It says Burkman has offered a $130,000 reward. The onus on you is to show why information the media routinely reports when covering the case should be excluded from the article. TFD (talk) 04:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

You want to trade your burden for my onus? No thanks. Actually, according to your welcome but somewhat shaky summary of policy, we should discuss only the attempts to use this crime as anti-Clintonian fodder and leave out the non-notable murder story. SPECIFICO talk 04:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing shaky about my grasp of policy. An article "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." If you think that policy does not apply then you need to provide policy based reasons to exclude material. If you think the mainstream media is fakenews, then get the policies changed. TFD (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Whoa horsie! I said your summary was a bit wobbly. Obviously the pro-inclusion folks who keep calling this stuff "notable" instead of DUE have not understood, and I was concerned that your pithy explanation would not penetrate their insistence. But they do need to give reasons why the putative unverified and unsecured so-called "awards" (aka clickbait) are significant facts about the murder -- which I think they're not. What do you think of a merge with Fake news? SPECIFICO talk 21:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

When you start calling mainstream news media, such as the Independant, NBC, Newsweek, the New York Times, all of whom reported the "unverified" reward, "fake news," what are you left with? What news media if any do you consider reliable? Is there a pro-Democrat version of Prison Planet out there to provide us with alternative facts which you can accept? TFD (talk) 04:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I am surprised you would twist my words, TFD. I did not say that those publications are fake news. I am saying that the only notable event described in this article is the fake news insinuation that Mr. Rich was a criminal who betrayed his employer. You knew that, didn't you? I don't know what's prison planet, but I suppose the flipside of the Seth Rich murder story would be some of the Trump sexually assaults women nonsense, when all he said was that they don't prevent him from touching their otherwise private parts, provided he has popped a tic-tac. The current article is a WP:COATRACK - under the guise of a murder story it is insinuating the anti-Clinton conspiracy theory that Mr. Rich was a turncoat. SPECIFICO talk 04:13, 9 February 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.

Speedy Close of AfD

FYI everyone, I have commented on the page of the Admin who Speedy Closed the AfD right here SPECIFICO talk 19:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Valid snowy keep. Two days and was not heading for deletion, in the third AfD. Also, an abuse of WP:ANI. Stop wasting time. Ribbet32 (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• This was a curious AfD from the start. The editor (@Ryk72:) who nominated the article for deletion had previously been involved neither in editing the article nor in the numerous discussions on the Talk page (I checked Archives 1-5, just to make sure). Hokay. So, the editor nominated the article without stating his/her reasons for the nomination other than referring to "concerns ... [about] WP:EVENTCRITERIA, WP:LASTING and WP:NOTNEWS", "as described at 2nd nomination". The main concern from the start has been and still is "WP:BLP1E and WP:1E" which were also mentioned in the second nomination but not by the nominating editor. It also seems to me that the editor (@Tedder:) who closed the AfD after a mere 43 hours (5 hours less than two full days) didn't even read the second nomination. What was the rush, Wikipedia running out of server capacity? Making sure that any future AfD would be unsuccessful? Timing the AfD so that the whole world was otherwise occupied (that inauguration thang, women's march, etc.)? So, placing my subsequent comments, on this, "the appropriate discussion page", per the archived debate? Comments, anyone else? My apologies if my suspicions on ulterior motive(s) are unfounded; feel free to rebut. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

There might be foul play. I'm not saying there is foul play -- I'm just trying to get the facts in case there was foul play. I am offering a $100,000 reward for information that uncovers paid editing, meatpuppetry, hanky-panky, and the Namby-pamby fake news reddit types on articles related to Wikileaks. SPECIFICO talk 15:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

If you think there could have been foul play, just report it to WP:ANI or WP:SPI. ^Falling_Gravity 22:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I said I didn't say there's foul play, that's what I said.

I am hoping that SPECIFICO is making an allusion to some of the statements made in relation to the event described in the article; perhaps with the intent of removing some possible heat from the discussion. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

100% correct, @Ryk72:. It's not as if folks are compelled to waste their time at an AfD if they are sure it will be closed to keep per snow. I believe in freedom and voluntarism and liberty when it comes to messageboards -- so long as it's not disruptive and doesn't violate policy or Discretionary Sanctions posted on the talk page. (I hope I put this in the right location?) SPECIFICO talk 23:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Space4Time3Continuum2x: I believe that your concerns are indeed unfounded. Please see my comments at the WP:BLPN discussion linked in the section above. I do not believe that Wikipedia is well served by articles like this one. I firmly believe that we would be better served by placing details on the impact of events such as this one in articles which cover the events & notable people upon which they impacted (in this case in articles discussing the election and surrounding events & notable persons). My personal inclination is that this article should be merged elsewhere. I was moved to make the nomination by the comment immediately preceding my final comment in that BLPN discussion - If you were to ask yourselves "why does this article on a sad but routine crime exist" you'd be led, as if by magic, to the right actions. I reviewed the previous AfDs & closes, and noted "no consensus" and a recommendation that the article be submitted after the US Election. I am, likewise, disappointed to see a Speedy Keep; I am disappointed to see a Speedy result of either kind. I believe that we would have been better with a longer discussion which would have allowed the editors here to weigh in. I am also disappointed that I did not make a better and more cogent argument for deletion, and that (prior to the close) no other editors had joined to support deletion or merge (bearing WP:REQUIRED in mind, of course). I do not believe, however, that a WP:BLP1E argument would have held sway; my experience has been that, when desired, BLP1E is "resolved" by moving to an "event" based article (a ridiculousness), which we already have. I, similarly, do not believe that much success would be had at DRV; but am happy to comment there if it would be useful. Hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any further questions. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 16:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: I just noticed the concerns around the timing of the AfD. I am not American, and while, in hindsight, I am now certain that the inauguration & march would have occupied the attentions of that nation, the wider world did not find itself diverted to the same extent; and carried on much the same as normal. If I had considered the events at the time, rather than "this is probably not a great article for Wikipedia to have" and the no consensus previous results, I would likely not have nominated. I also had not anticipated that the AfD would close so quickly. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ryk72: Sorry about jumping to conclusions. Was feeling grouchy and more than a little paranoid after that uplifting inauguration speech (I used to associate "American carnage" with the Battle of Antietam, I stand corrected, and whoever heard of a sore winner) and watching Kellyanne Conway unhinging her lower jaw and swallowing a live rodent. Either that or explaining "alternative facts". You’re right, the closer of the second AfD recommended "to revisit this after the election when people will perhaps be a little bit less excitable about all this." Hah! After the one in 2020, maybe. Welcome to the fray discussion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Space4Time3Continuum2x: WP:1E ("People notable for only one event") says, "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 considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered....The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person." That is not a reason to delete an article, but a guideline for writing one, which has been followed in this case. TFD (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you think this article currently conveys that which is notable about the event? SPECIFICO talk 02:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Notability relates to subjects, not to the specific aspects, which is governed by "Balancing aspects." I suppose the bare bones are covered, but there has been more extensive detail that should be mentioned. And as new information it should be published without claims of WP:THIS and WP:THAT. TFD (talk) 06:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

TFD, you forgot to mention the all important policy - WP:TheOtherThing. Also, I want to add $110,000 to SPECIFICO's reward money. I'm not gonna' let Jack Burkman outdo me!. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@TFD:Bonne Annee, chéri. I think you and I pretty much agree on this one. To your point, however, it is I who always must clarify the application of WP:NOTABLE on these politics pages when the young Americans try to say that some internet punditry is a "notable" indictment of the US National Intelligence Estimate or whatnot. At any rate, the subject of this article is an event. Therefore what I meant to be asking you was really the never-ending AfD question. And I suppose you're right that the notability question strictly speaking was off-topic for this thread. However the fact remains that if we strip away the BLP violations insinuated against Rich and Hillary and the COATRACK and all the other policy violations, there is nothing left here other than the police blotter -- which according to policy is not sufficient to establish notability. I even think that on the next AfD you may come down in favor of delete, or at least merge to some Trump campaign article. SPECIFICO talk 15:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Even if there were not political aspect to the crime, it would still meet notability because it received on-going in-depth coverage. The unsolved murders of middle class people always attract media attention which provides sufficient information beyond the police blotter to write detailed articles. The Daily Mail for example featured an extensive article the day after the murder, before there was any speculation about the motives.[11] All it says is, "His death comes after a spate of robberies in the neighborhood and DC police are now investigating if the murder is connected to those." There are lots of articles on Wikipedia by the murder of otherwise non-notable people by other otherwise non-notable people: "Disappearance of Natalee Holloway," the "Shooting of Trayvon Martin," the "Murder of Laci Peterson," "Jack the Ripper." You might want to get "Jack the Ripper suspects" deleted because it is entirely about unproved accusations against people. TFD (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

It could be my failing eyesight in my old age, but I don't see that the crime itself received very much coverage at all, beyond the usual crime coverage that all murders get. The Trayvon Martin case is a perfect example that can be used to differentiate the factors that are nowhere to be found in the case of Mr. Rich, a low-level staffer at some political project. If this hadn't happened in a presidential election year, they might not even have mentioned where he worked. It could just as well have been an employment agency or one of the hundreds of lobbyist offices or haberdasheries in DC. SPECIFICO talk 23:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

It received sufficient coverage to write a detailed article. Part of the reason you have not seen much coverage is selection bias. If you were interested in true crime you have read about it. There are no doubt lots of subjects that do not interest you. How probably skip over U.S. cricket articles, but that does not mean everyone does or that we should not have articles about it. TFD (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, Rich's murder obviously carries much more significance than just that of "a low-level staffer at some political project," especially to you, or you would not have spent the last seven months of your life obsessing over its every detail. Besides the fact that this article averages 70,000 hits per month, its intense scrutiny and acrimonious edit discussions are proof plenty that it carries an electrifying political charge, and you know it. This is still true even four months post-election; its notoriety has only increased. - JGabbard (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

So the first day after your TBAN on ARBAP2 expires, you think it's clever to re-boot with a personal attack? Risky behaviour. But to your points: "Loch Ness monster" gets 194,000 page views. "Area 51" gets 329100. Too bad "electrifying political charge" is not related to our notability standard here. Heck, we even deleted an article about Donald Trump's h**r, and that's easily as electrifying as this non-notable crime. SPECIFICO talk 19:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I have simply made an objective observation on your ubiquitous presence here since day one, often in the seeming role of an arbiter, which even just a casual peruser of this article and its talk page cannot miss. Even if consensus were with you, which it is not, your activities themselves belie your claim about the (lack of) notability of this article and the event it represents. You are apparently here to stay, but so is this article. -- JGabbard (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC) -- (P.S. - Is h**r a bad word??)

It was Pütin, again

In an interview with the Daily Mail Burkaman, a GOP lobbyist, said he was a approached by a former U.S. intelligence officer, a 65-70 years oldman, who claims to have been a contractor in Iraq in the 1970s, claimed “that it [the murder] was arranged by the Russian government at a very high level.” Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4264558/GOP-lobbyist-claims-Russia-murder-Seth-Rich.html - --87.159.125.95 (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Daily Mail is not a reliable source, it's actually the first source to be banned from Wikipedia by community consensus (as of January). And this is a particularly extraordinary claim that would need excellent sourcing. Geogene (talk)

The Daily Mail isn't banned despite the press headlines, it's "generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist." DCist has covered this, and it appears that the Rich family isn't impressed with Burkman's latest antics, to say the least. ^Falling_Gravity 08:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Even if the Daily Mail were not banned, we would have to show that this theory had received coverage in other sources. So far I have only seen it in a D.C. Fox News affiliate.[12] TFD (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 17:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

DNC users policing article?

I guess this should not surprise me, but why is the news from today's headlines about Rich's Wikileaks emails being suppressed by certain editors? It's legitimate news, and it's not "biased," it's a report of claims by the family's private investigator. Some people have rightly noted that the family has expressed disappointment at the investigator's findings, but nowhere have they denied (nor would they be able to deny, given their lack of access to the evidence) the existence of the WikiLeaks emails.

It's being removed because it's a fucking hoax, which is causing grief for the family. This is the Sandy-Hook-didn't-happen bullshit again. Stop putting this idiotic nonsense into the article. And your section title is ridiculous as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Whistleblower source claimed by Guccifer 2.0

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

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

References

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My opinion is that this presentation is deliberately and extremely biased. It's entirely plausible that Seth Rich is Wikileaks source for the DNC email leaks and the Russia collusion narrative a fabricated hoax being pushed by the left for political reasons. I suspect with Kim Dotcom and his lawyers now working to give sworn testimony on U.S. soil to Robert Mueller and the special investigation that Seth Rich was the source, this blatantly biased presentation will have to be completely rewritten at some point in the future since the Democrats who wrote and protect it cannot bring themselves to be unbiased with respect to it at this time.

That Newsweek content

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

• present sentence in article:

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

• Quotes from the article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revert vandalism only.

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

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

New report about private investigator hired by Rich family

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This has turned out to be a total bullshit story. The family has denounced the claims and completely refuted them - this "private investigator" has nothing to do with Seth Rich's family. The family of murdered Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich on Tuesday strongly rejected reports claiming he had been in contact with Wikileaks. "As we've seen through the past year of unsubstantiated claims, we see no facts, we have seen no evidence, we have been approached with no emails and only learned about this when contacted by the press," spokesperson Brad Bauman told BuzzFeed News in an emailed statement. [13] NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm pretty sure "changed". Here is their current version [14] which has a different headline and has the stuff about family denying and debunking this nonsense on top, but everything below that is the original story. However, different versions (sometimes very different) have appeared in some local affiliates so I'm not 100% certain.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

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

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

NBC is reporting the third party was a Fox News/Breitbart Contributor who paid for a Fox News Contributor to "investigate" the murder. Froo (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC) [15]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich's computer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fox News vs Huffpo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The difference is that mainstream media have decided to provide considerable coverage to this aspect of the story. David Brock's Media Matters for America has now published four articles on the topic in two days,[18] so the new party line is to debunk rather than ignore the story. TFD (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CNN[20]: "It took only hours for one of the biggest stories in conservative media this week, which some outlets had chosen to focus on over news that President Trump disclosed classified information to senior Russian officials, to fall apart... Fox News on Tuesday morning joined in the chorus, publishing a lead story on its website... "

Snopes[21]: "The Fox News story about Rich came one day after a report by the Washington Post accused President Donald Trump of spilling classified information to Russian envoys during their visit to the Oval Office on 10 May 2017. Brad Bauman, a spokesperson for Rich’s family, told us he believed the Fox story was motivated by a desire to deflect attention away from the Post report: 'I think there’s a very special place in hell for people that would use the memory of a murder victim in order to pursue a political agenda'."

WaPo piece[22] about conservative media's, incl. Fox's, coverage and non-coverage of the Russia-Trump thing, with the WaPo piece noting that Fox chose to lead with Seth Rich during all of it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

More: Haaretz[23]: "As the revelations about President Donald Trump and fired FBI Director James Comey exploded across all mainstream news outlets on Tuesday, conservative, pro-Trump outlets – from Breitbart and Fox News to Rush Limbaugh and InfoWars – operated on the other side of the looking glass. This is the bizarre story they told: That the entire Trump-Comey-Russia story is “fake news,” all manufactured by the crooked mainstream media to distract from the real story – that real proof was emerging that Rich, not Russia, had been the real source of WikiLeaks information that damaged the DNC." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The source listed [24] makes no mention of "while other news organizations were extensively covering Donald Trump revelation of classified information". I would suspect that would be why its being removed as synth. I would suggest removing the information until a source is added that makes said connection. I am sure one could easily be found. PackMecEng (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looks like Fox broke at 6:48 [25] on the 15th and Washington Post at 2:02 [26] for breaking on both. Not that it makes much difference. PackMecEng (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

General notice

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

Rich's family stated: "We simply want to find his killers and grieve. Instead, we are stuck having to constantly fight against non-facts, baseless allegations, and general stupidity to defend my brother’s name and legacy." Obviously, we can't keep Fox News or other partisan media from stoking conspiracy theories and making up phony "scoops", but we can exercise discretion over whether Wikipedia amplifies their nonsense. To the extent that editors here are using Wikipedia as a platform to disseminate "non-facts, baseless allegations, and general stupidity", whether intentionally or unintentionally, it needs to stop. I'll appeal first to your basic human decency; and failing that, to your respect for Wikipedia policy. MastCell ^Talk 00:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(NPR: Unproved Claims Re-Emerge Around DNC Staffer's Death: Here's What You Should Know)[27] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.215.113.195 (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

"Fake news" link

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

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

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

That's somewhat vague, so I'm going to cite your edit summaries [28], [29] where you gave your justification as being that if we link to the fake news articles, our stupid readers will in fact believe that the murder itself was fake. Yet, they would have just read the article. This is a ridiculous suggestion. And the conspiracy theories surrounding it are textbook fake news. Geogene (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Moving Fox News controversy stuff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich's family stated: "We simply want to find his killers and grieve. Instead, we are stuck having to constantly fight against non-facts, baseless allegations, and general stupidity to defend my brother’s name and legacy." I suggest we get rid of the material that is about debunked stories. That's all there is to it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

• You adding in fake news [30] without any consideration for the family's feelings.

And then:

• Here is you calling the fake news HOAX "credible and detailed" (sic) [31] without any consideration for the family's feelings.
• Here you agree with another user that the HOAX about Rich "being in touch with Wikileaks" should be added to the article [32] without any consideration for the family's feelings.
• Here you push the HOAX by saying the HOAX story "has lots of detail" and oh yeah, "attack" me for my (imagined) "political leanings" [33] without any consideration for the family's feelings.
• Here you are adding the same HOAX bullshit [34] without any consideration for the family's feelings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NPR just published a story for you: "As with many other conspiracy theories, like the assertion that a Washington pizza restaurant was at the center of a child sex ring tied to top Democrats, this kind of assertion in part functions by trying to shift the burden of proof."[35] "Reasonable suspicions" are based on evidence are credible testimony. There is certainly none of that here. -Location (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neutrality of "conspiracy theorists"

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

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

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

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

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

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