Talk:Murder of Seth Rich/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

fox news distraction

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

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

• CNN[1]: "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[2]: "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[3] about conservative media's, incl. Fox's, coverage and non-coverage of the Russia-Trump thing, with the WaPo piece noting that Fox chose to lead with Seth Rich during all of it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
• Haaretz[4]: "As the revelations about President Donald Trump and fired FBI Director James Comey exploded across all mainstream news outlets on Tuesday, conservative, pro-Trump outlets – from Breitbart and Fox News to Rush Limbaugh and InfoWars – operated on the other side of the looking glass. This is the bizarre story they told: That the entire Trump-Comey-Russia story is “fake news,” all manufactured by the crooked mainstream media to distract from the real story – that real proof was emerging that Rich, not Russia, had been the real source of WikiLeaks information that damaged the DNC."
• Vox[5]: "The past week of Trump scandals for people reading mainstream news outlets has gone something like this: President Trump fired the FBI director who was investigating his campaign’s connection with Russia — and then the next day, Trump shared classified information with Russian officials. But on conservative news outlets, the narrative was very different... While news was spreading about Trump sharing classified information with Russian officials, Fox News and Breitbart focused on a story about DNC staffer Seth Rich leaking material to WikiLeaks before he was killed — a story that Rich’s family refuted, and that other outlets didn’t cover."
• NPR[6]: "Within a day of the Fox 5 report, Google searches for Rich had overtaken searches for James Comey, even amid continuous news about the former FBI director's conversations with Trump."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

That's not equivalent because the family is involved in that controversy. That third parties also accuse Fox of this is more important. Geogene (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

phrasing needs to be changed

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2017

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

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

Non-neutral edits

New editor ArniDagur is making POV edits to the article [7] and needs to be re-reverted by someone. Geogene (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donald Trump and Russia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay. Would you agree to something like Conservative media, including Fox News, focused on this story instead of the Comey memos that mainstream sources were leading with on the same day. Using a source Snooganssnoogans provided below [8] Placement in the paragraph right before the "special place in hell" sentence? Geogene (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

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

More non-neutral edits

These by new user Icaidacmt. For example, [9], [10]. Some of that last bit is similar to content added by Zellfire999 [11] a few hours ago. Geogene (talk) 02:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cease and desist filed by the family

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

Weird. Yesterday, they released this youtube video. Is it not them? [12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.215.113.195 (talk) 11:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Can we rename this article?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fox News in the lead

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

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

1RR?

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

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

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

Oh, there are plenty of problems with this [13]. Beginning with the subheader, with "conspiracy theories" being promoted to "Controversy". Then there is the puffery "numerous media outlets". It was one media outlet as far as I know, a local Fox affiliate, which is now being commented on by other outlets. "Have confirmed" is attributing truth to the claims. "Contained numerous emails" seems to be an exaggeration, the original claim was that Rich and a Wikileaks operative in London had some level of email contact. "At present, formal requests to review the contents of Rich's computer have been denied" sources say that the FBI is denying all involvement, and at least one source says that Rich's family is still in possession of his computer [14]. And it's largely written as an endorsement that Wheeler's claims are true. Geogene (talk) 22:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It took only hours for one of the biggest stories in conservative media this week, which some outlets had chosen to focus on over news that President Trump disclosed classified information to senior Russian officials, to fall apart. ... Tuesday afternoon, Wheeler told CNN he had no evidence to suggest Rich had contacted Wikileaks before his death. Wheeler instead said he only learned about the possible existence of such evidence through the reporter he spoke to for the FoxNews.com story. He explained that the comments he made to WTTG-TV were intended to simply preview Fox News' Tuesday story. The WTTG-TV news director did not respond to multiple requests for comment. "I only got that [information] from the reporter at Fox News," Wheeler told CNN. [15]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

neutral POV is not maintained

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fox News Controversy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The content should be kept in this article, because it's the only thing notable about the topic, and because it's clearly educational for the readers, per Snooganssnoogans. That doesn't mean some of it can't be ported over to the Fox News, Sean Hannity, and New Gingrich articles. The previous version of the article that carefully avoided talking about this stuff might have just been giving readers a prompt to Google those conspiracy theories, and that may have been actively counterproductive. Geogene (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Debunked?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 May 2017

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

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

Reddit

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

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

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

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

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

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

Russian government

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

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

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

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

I added that in this edit [16]. But I feel that there is no practical distinction between what is said by an embassy and its government. Geogene (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

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

More POV editing

We've got edit warring by Malerooster who appears to not know why they do what they do [17], and we have BobNesh shamelessly censoring Mother Russia out of the article. [18] Geogene (talk) 03:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

See Also

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

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

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

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

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

Background on the DNC hacks

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

Between March and April 2016, 108 members of Hillary Clinton's campaign staff and 20 people that work for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) received spearphishing emails that claimed to be from Google's Gmail service, alleging that their accounts had been compromised and that they should change their passwords immediately. The emails contained shortened Bit.ly link to spoof URLs such as "accoounts-google.com" where the hackers had set up identical copies of the Gmail login page. These pages not only harvested passwords entered by fooled users, but also deposited extremely sophisticated malware onto their computers, which was then used to gain remote access to the DNC's network.[19] Soon thereafter, thousands of stolen emails appeared on WikiLeaks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The hacking

@BarrelProof: regarding [20] The conspiracy theories all revolve around the hacking, so as long as they're in, the hacking is relevant to the article. If we were going to go back to a stripped down version that mentions only the murder, you'd have a point. But since there's a lot of insinuation about this, because Rich was a computer guy, and his employer got hacked, you have a lot of fairly idiotic ideas asserting some kind of connection based on that. Not discussing it is just a way to lie to the readers by insinuating something and then omitting the full truth. The article must describe the hack to some extent. Geogene (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

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

You don't get the concept of background? How about I add this source [21] which explicitly makes that connection and mentions phishing as well? Geogene (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Ambiguous pronoun

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

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

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

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

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

Incorrect quote attribution in 3rd paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jack Burkman's reward money

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nobody's trying to add that to the article, but I do know zebra finches can dance[23]. ^Falling_Gravity 18:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Excessive personal & biographical detail?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're the editor here so letters to the editor are addressed "dear TFD". Please be mindful of the subject of this article it's not a biography. SPECIFICO talk 14:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Newt Gingrich

The family's spokesperson has had some very choice words for Gingrich [24]. I'm not sure if this should be included. On one hand, he has chosen to do this and his actions are obviously causing the family grief. On the other hand, the statement is pretty harsh and I'm sure someone will cry "BLP!". At any rate, it's well sourced so I'd be inclined to putting it in, but haven't done so at this point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

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

I have a simple request: Replace "Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich took also part in spreading the conspiracy." with "also took" as the correct word order. JeanEva Rose (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC) JeanEva

WTTG

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

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

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

I have truncated the material at WTTG (referred to in the present article as "Fox 5 DC") given the lack of support here for putting the bulk of material at that article and summarizing here in this article. I still disagree with putting all this material here rather than there, because the material is not about Rich's life or death but rather about journalistic error, not to mention journalistic error that the Rich family believes tarnished his legacy. If consensus changes, as it ought to, I'll be glad to restore the material at WTTG and summarize here in this BLP-like BDP. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Fox News: Statement on coverage of Seth Rich murder investigation

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

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

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

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

Full cite with archived link:

• "Statement on coverage of Seth Rich murder investigation", Fox News, May 23, 2017, archived from the original on May 23, 2017, On May 16, a story was posted on the Fox News website on the investigation into the 2016 murder of DNC Staffer Seth Rich. The article was not initially subjected to the high degree of editorial scrutiny we require for all our reporting. Upon appropriate review, the article was found not to meet those standards and has since been removed. We will continue to investigate this story and will provide updates as warranted.

Sagecandor (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Good source for this article = PolitiFact

• Carroll, Lauren (May 23, 2017), Sanders, Katie (ed.), "The baseless claim that slain DNC staffer Seth Rich gave emails to WikiLeaks", PolitiFact, Tampa Bay Times

Already cited once with reference name as "politifact".

Good source for lots of more info on this topic. Sagecandor (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Politifact is politifalse it is a biased source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactFinder1 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

That's an interesting perspective for your first edit on Wikipedia; unfortunately for you, PolitiFact is considered a reliable secondary source on this encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Whether my perspective is interesting or not ought to be judged independently of my edit count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactFinder1 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, it won't be. Wikipedia is a community-driven, collaborative project to develop an Internet encyclopedia. New users who make their first edits in controversial topic areas suggesting that we ignore our foundational policies such as reliable sourcing, verifiability and sensitivity to living people are viewed with skepticism by many other members of the community, because you may be a single-purpose account or a sockpuppet. That's simply the way of the world. Now, assuming good faith that you are a new user, I strongly suggest that you become familiar with our policies before suggesting or making edits to controversial, sensitive topic areas such as this one. Abiding by them is not optional. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

User:Volunteer Marek removed the infobox I added with the notation "rmv infobox which does not summarize or capture the nature of the article."[25] The populated fields were title (Murder of Seth Rich"), map, date ("July 10, 2016"), time ("4:19 a.m. EST (approximate)"), place ("Bloomingdale (Washington, D.C.)"), cause ("Shooting"), participants ("Unknown"), inquiries ("Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia"), awards = ("$270,000").

These are standard fields for infoboxes (see for example "Shooting of Trayvon Martin," and I ask that it be restored. If Volunteer Marek thinks that different fields should be completed, he is free to add them.

TFD (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

It's a different sort of article, especially with the developments of the past couple weeks. The RfC on the proper name is also still open.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you provide an example of the sort of article you think it is, and we can populate the fields accordingly. And could you also explain which of the currently used fields is irrelevant. Do you think for example that time and place of the crime are irrelevant? In the Trayvon Martin case, Fox News Channel also became part of the story,[26] there are 21 pages of discussion, three move requests and a lot of speculation both in the echo chamber and discussion pages blaming the victim. TFD (talk) 07:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Someone getting murdered while walking home late from a pub doesn't require an infobox. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I reverted. Per BRD, please gain consensus here to remove the long standing infobox. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Long Standing? Tried and True? True Blue? It was in the article for 17 hours. Or was it 19? This "infobox" adds nothing to the information in the article and it's off-topic for the information in this article. And even if this were an article about a notable crime, this map is about as useful as google earth zooming in from space. SPECIFICO talk 11:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

No infobox adds anything to an article which can't be found in the body normally. It's meant to be a quick summary of some facts. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

When in doubt, leave it out. SPECIFICO talk 11:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, SPECIFICO, but you have not provided any policy based reasons. Infoxes are not supposed to add anything to the article, they are supposed to "summarize[] key features of the page's subject." And if it "adds nothing to the information in the article," it cannot at the same time be "off-topic for the information in the article." You have not explained how this case is any different from the Shooting of Trayvon Martin, who was also shot while returning home. TFD (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

As always, the consensus needs to be FOR inclusion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Right, so does locating the scene on a vast map of Virginia and Maryland summarize a key point related to the article? Do we put an aerial map of New Jersey on the pages of Thomas Alva Edison or Christopher James Christie? Maybe find the infobox template for conspiracy theories or some other more appropriate infobox. SPECIFICO talk 14:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The reason we don't have maps for Edison or Chris Christie is that those articles are not about homicides. The events in both articles occurred in many places, not just in one place. If you think that the map should be omitted or another image used, then change it. Why do you not think that the other information (such as when it occurred) is not relevant? And you still have not explained how this case differs from the Shooting of Trayvon Martin. I would be very interested to hear your explanation. Incidentally, Seth Rich's brother has a GoFundMe page set up last month,[27] which could be linked in the infobox. TFD (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is about conspiracy theories. The crime is not notable. Find the appropriate infobox. This is like when they put "economist" infoboxes on articles about the Monster of Jezebel Island Federal Reserve conspiracy theories. Find the right box, you can do it. I know. SPECIFICO talk 14:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

No this article is about the Murder of Seth Rich. There is a very notable conspiracy theory that has received widespread coverage in the past few days, but the article has been around a lot longer than that. Please self-revert your removal of the infobox. You've not supported the removal with any policy and there was no consensus to remove it. BRD says Bold (Marek's removal), Revert (mine), Discuss. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, could you please explain how this article differs from the Shooting of Trayvon Martin. TFD (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Please explain any similarity between the factors that contribute to the notability of those two events. TIA. SPECIFICO talk 16:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Personally I like infoboxes. It would make a good addition and provide a quick summation for the reader of key events and places and such. The one at the Trayvon Martin page looks good. ValarianB (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO has always been a minimalist and a deletionist on this article, and has been standing guard over it ever since it was just a few hours old. He never even wanted it to exist in the first place, so he really should have no say in its content. He is overruled, period. This article has averaged 50,000 views a day this past week, and it certainly merits an infobox to provide an easy index of fast facts. Just restore it already! - JGabbard (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The article is about the murder and includes information about the conspiracy theory; it is not about the conspiracy theory. Restored. James J. Lambden (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

That is being discussed right now. As always, consensus needs to be FOR inclusion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote, it's about the strength of the arguments – nowhere in this discussion do I see a policy-based objection. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Concur with SPECIFICO .and others Info box adds little and it takes attention off of the main substance of the article.Casprings (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

You could say that about any infobox. The point is if there's even a few readers who appreciate an infobox then we should give them one. This talk page is not the right place to discuss the specifics of infoboxes in general. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok. For starters, that map adds absolutely nothing to the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Whatever spin you want to place on this article, certainly the basic information I put into the info-box would be relevant. Can you name one field you would omit in your preferred version? I suggest we restore the infobox, remove any irrelevant fields and use relevant ones I did not include. Volunteer Marek, so remove the image. TFD (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the map for starters.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

TFD there's a whole happy rainbow of infoboxes to choose from. Find one that's appropriate, or roll your own. It's fun and easy. Then you'll summarize relevant points and add useful information to the experience of casual users whose gaze may fall upon your work. SPECIFICO talk 17:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Are there any fields you think should be used that are not included in the infobox template I selected? (Click on my link above to see what the fields are.) TFD (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't see any problem with the infobox. I have yet to read the extensive discussions above though. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Scrubbed lead

Ryubyss you should discuss first before you scrub the lead and re-write (whitewash) the article. Geogene (talk) 02:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ryubyss:Seriously? [28]. Geogene (talk) 02:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

James J. Lambden just tried doing the exact same thing. This is WP:TENDENTIOUS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with his edits. How does "However, the network did not issue an apology to the victim's family and their retraction has been called "woefully inadequate" by the Poynter Institute" belong in the lead? Mr Ernie (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. 80% of the lede covered media reaction and the response to media reaction. Appropriate if the article were Media Response to the Murder of Seth Rich - it is not. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

VM: Your claim is inaccurate. I have reviewed Ryubyss' edit to the lede which removed all mention of media coverage and the Rich family's response: (link). My edit preserved all the major points save the conspiracy theory Fox used it to distract from news about Trump. These are not "the exact same thing." Please correct your statement. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

You scrubbed the lede in a POV way. Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Your statement was inaccurate. Please correct it. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

My statement was perfectly fine. You scrubbed the lede in a POV way, just ike Ryubyss. I'm not interest in semantic "gotcha" games.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The tactic here seems to be remove stuff about the conspiracy theory because "this is an article about the murder of Seth Rich", then come to the talk page and argue against changing the name because "the text is about the murder of Seth Rich".Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The "tactic" is to align the article's content with its title?

Primary is: the murder of Seth Rich

1. step removed is: conspiracy theories surrounding the murder
2. steps removed is: Fox's promotion of conspiracy theories surrounding the murder
3. steps removed is: Fox's retraction of their promotion of conspiracy theories
4. steps removed is: media response to Fox's retraction of their promotion of conspiracy theories

Four steps removed does not belong in the lede. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

There's obviously a discussion about the scope. Removing information in a strategic manner to change the scope in midst of an ongoing discussion is disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not neutral as to whether the lede should mention what Poynter Institute says. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The absurdity of the conspiracy theory and the nonsensical behavior of various right-wing groups and people towards it is now the dominant aspect of the event. The murder itself is of no real notability, and none at all if people would quit telling lies about it. Geogene (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Daily Mail as a source

@Francewhoa: Regarding this edit [29] the Daily Mail is generally not a reliable source, please self revert. Since that is already sourced, there is no real need for more anyway. Geogene (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Geogene:) Good point. Thanks for flagging it. I agree there was occasions when the Daily Mail was not a reliable source. How about the notable The Independent at https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/seth-rich-washington-dc-murder-victim-political-meme-weirdest-presidential-election-a7535856.html Francewhoa (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Fine with that source. Could you replace Daily Mail with that one? Geogene (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@Geogene:) Done. And thanks for your Wikipedia contributions. Francewhoa (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Geogene (talk) 00:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Add time of shooting 4:19am to "Death and aftermath" section

I suggest to add the exact time of the shooting into the main article. Under "Death and aftermath" section. Which is 4:19 a.m. The article read "Police were alerted to gunfire at 4:20 am" but as you know that is the time they were alerted, not the shooting time. Both information are valuable though. That article is primarily about the murder of Rich, usually among the first questions the readers have is when was he murder? The answer is ~4:19 a.m. That information is already in the infobox. But the infobox is usually a secondary section to the main article. Some might miss it. For easier reading and chronological order of the events, I see value in adding the shooting time 4:19 a.m. to the main article including his sister statement about "Rich was on the phone with his girlfriend, minutes before his shooting at 4:19 a.m.". I suggest that notable source https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/seth-rich-washington-dc-murder-victim-political-meme-weirdest-presidential-election-a7535856.html Yes it's just one minute difference but one minute is usually significant for the authorities and potential investigators. That's a very fast response time from the authorities. Impressive :) Also Rich's father stated in that exclusive video interview that the police arrived on at the shooting scene within one minute after the gun shoots at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4516416/DNC-staffer-Seth-Rich-family-demand-answers-cops.html I suggest to use the notable The Independent source instead of Dailymail though as they have a better track record with being reliable. Francewhoa (talk) 01:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The police say "approximately 4:19." [30] TFD (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi @The Four Deuces:) Thanks. Interesting read. I found another official public statement from DC Police at https://mpdc.dc.gov/release/homicide-2100-block-flagler-place-northwest

Is this topic notable if not for the false and debunked conspiracy theory?

Right-wing conspiracy theories spread about the crime, and they were debunked by law enforcement, as well as by fact-checking websites including FactCheck.org, Snopes.com, and PolitiFact.

Question:

Is this topic notable if not for the false and debunked conspiracy theory? Sagecandor (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Other editors have, in my view, convincingly made the case that murders that get modest amounts of news coverage are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia pages, e.g. this[31]. So this page could very well have been created and been allowed to stand, even without the conspiracy stuff. That said, this page should be renamed the Murder of Seth Rich Conspiracy Theory, because the conspiracy theory aspect is so so so much more notable, and the reason why 99% of people come here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans:Are there sources that exist prior to the false debunked conspiracy theory that demonstrate notability independent of the false debunked conspiracy theory? Sagecandor (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

There is further up on the talk page, look for TFD's replies. Mostly local news coverage but some national news coverage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Regardless, WP:PTOPIC applies, which means that if 90% of stories are about the conspiracy theory and 10% are just about the murder, and if that 10% would be enough to have an article (I disagree), we still call it "Murder of Seth Rich Conspiracy Theory".Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

That makes sense. I'm just not sure whether any sources establish independent notability without discussing the conspiracy theory? Perhaps before the conspiracy theory arose? Sagecandor (talk) 00:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Initially reported 11 July 2016 in the Washington Post,[32] FOX 5 DC,[33] CNN,[34] The Hill, [35] Politico,[36] WJLA/ABC7,[37] NBC Washington,[38] and you can find dozens more through Google.[39] Most of these articles are signed, that is unique reporting rather than off the wire, some have detailed biographical info, most include pictures, some extensive and there are television news clips. The following week there was coverage of the vigil, biographical notes, HRC's comments, and information about the family.[40] Although there was both local and national coverage, notability does not require national coverage. The point of the policy is to ensure that there are adequate reliable sources to write a story, not the degree of interest to readers nationally or internationally.

No doubt the story has received additional attention because of speculation based on the victim's employment with the DNC. The disappearance of Chandra Levy in 2001, D.C. woman employed by a Democratic congressman, dominated the news cycle until the 9/11 attacks. No doubt that was fueled by her connection to the congressman, but the reason the media decide to cover a story is irrelevant to establishing notability. We leave that to news media.

TFD (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

No. This was a tragic murder in a city known to have a crime problem. The media churn that makes this different from other WP:MILL murders that basically happen every day is entirely caused by the absurd conspiracy theories around it. Geogene (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

That's how some rural people who have never traveled may see things. In fact, cities have high crime and low crime areas, which correlate to the social and economic status of the residents. That unsolved murders of middle class people by strangers in middle class neighborhoods is rare as can been seen in "Tracking D.C.-area homicides" in the Washington Post. TFD (talk) 01:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Obviously Mr. TFD you have not been to DC. What makes you call this neighborhood a middle class neighborhood. Did you see all the police statements about how it's a high crime area? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 02:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I watched Chief Lanier saying it was a low crime area and read the Washington Post profile of the neighborhood. Look at the map I linked to. TFD (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Debunked. RS says there's been a spate of robberies. 10 years from now they may marvel at the gentrification. SPECIFICO talk 03:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

You should have told the local news that and maybe they would have ignored the story. TFD (talk) 05:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't get it. This is an unsolved murder, right? People come forward with possible information to solve said murder and the police and media call them liars? I could understand calling it a conspiracy theory if theorists claimed police arrested a "patsy" who really didnt commit the crime. Why does this treat it like a closed case? 71.90.209.64 (talk) 03:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

We call it a conspiracy theory because that's what reliable sources are calling it. And just because a murder isn't solved does not mean that potentially anyone could have done it, or that any theory out there on the Internet is potentially correct. Some make more assumptions than others, and in this case many of those assumptions are unreasonable and/or require other evidence to be ignored. Such as the fact that it was Russia that hacked the DNC. But the most important thing is that since reliable sources call this a conspiracy theory, so will this article, and this is a core content policy that is not negotiable, and not something that will change if only enough people "vote" for it on this page. There is really no point in asking us to do otherwise unless you can also get the mainstream media to stop doing that. Geogene (talk) 06:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Autopsy reports

I suggest to add the following draft phrase about the autopsy reports. Including notable source and Washington D.C. Medical Examiner’s office's official reported statement.

Same about the autopsy reports, as according to Washington D.C. Medical Examiner’s office autopsy reports are not publicly released to the news media in D.C.

All are welcome to contribute notable and reliable source(s) with more information about reported public and legal autopsy reports. Anyone? Francewhoa (talk) 07:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

References

I'm not sure how helpful it is to the reader to inform them of what is unknown. ValarianB (talk)

This should not be in the article. SPECIFICO talk 13:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Primary sources

Should we use primary sources in this article? Can we instead stick to only secondary sources so as to avoid violating WP:No original research ? Sagecandor (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Many copyedits. Improvement?

@Sagecandor:I see that you have made a large number of recent copyedits. Thank you for your efforts, however in some cases I find the revised text is less clear or less informative than the longstanding versions you replaced. I think it's rarely the case that so large a number of copyedits would be necessary at any given time. Perhaps we could all compare the recent edited version with the article as it stood a few days ago and see whether some of the former text should be reinstated. SPECIFICO talk 13:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific? What is a specific example of something you would like improved? Sagecandor (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Here are a few of them. [41] [42][43][44][45]. There are others, such as around the area where the conspiracy theories are mentioned in the lede where I think the "right wing" meaning is weakened and obscured. I acknowledge your effort, but I think that some of these did not result in better text for the article. SPECIFICO talk 14:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Please don't read things into my intent that are not there. There is zero intent to "weaken" the "right wing" in the intro. My intent is to make it a bit more succinct. Sagecandor (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

No concern about your intent. Just that some of the prose seemed stronger/clearer previously. Others will have a look. SPECIFICO talk 15:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay thank you. I'm just trying to get across the facts to our readers. Sagecandor (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Members of the alt-right and certain commentators on Fox News, featured coverage ...

Members of the alt-right and certain commentators on Fox News, featured coverage of the conspiracy theories instead of reporting on new negative revelations about the Trump administration which other media outlets covered on that day.

---

Does this belong in the intro?

Doesn't the intro need to only be stuff that then appears later on in the article body text?

Is this later also in the article body text ? Sagecandor (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

At one point it was, I believe, though of course somebody could've removed it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I moved it down into body. Too detailed for intro. Sagecandor (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Heavy.com source added by Francewhoa ?

[46]

Is Heavy.com a reliable source ? Sagecandor (talk) 12:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I have asked at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Sagecandor (talk) 13:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

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

No.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Murder_of_Seth_Rich_article_and_source_Heavy.com Sagecandor (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

They accused conspiracy theorists of politicizing their son's death...

They accused conspiracy theorists of politicizing their son's death for political gain, and called posters of the debunked conspiracy theories "sociopaths" and "disgusting".

---

Do we really need the phrase "conspiracy theorists" ... followed by "conspiracy theories" = in same sentence?

Isn't that a bit redundant?

Can't we please simplify this sentence a bit ? Sagecandor (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

If you can think of a better way to word it, be my guest. But sometimes repeating the same noun in a sentence adds to clarity, which I think is the case here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

1. They accused conspiracy theorists of politicizing their son's death for political gain, and called posters of the debunked conspiracy theories "sociopaths" and "disgusting".
2. They accused conspiracy theorists of politicizing their son's death for political gain, and them "sociopaths" and "disgusting".

Can we please use number 2, please ? Sagecandor (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps for number 2, a little CE They accused conspiracy theorists of politicizing their son's death for political gain, and calling them "sociopaths" and "disgusting". PackMecEng (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The first is really much better clearer and more intelligible prose. Except for the comma before the and which can be removed. BTW don't the RS citations support something different, like

• Conspiracy theorists politicized Seth Rich's death for political gain, and Rich's parents called posters of the debunked conspiracy theories "sociopaths" and "disgusting."
  

SPECIFICO talk 18:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• • No need to mention same phrase twice. That is bad writing. It is lazy and sloppy. Maybe for a 2nd grade paper. Sagecandor (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

No it's stylish. Like a Missoni scarf in the summertime. SPECIFICO talk 18:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I've taken another look. How about

• Rich's parents condemned the conspiracy theorists who exploited their son's death for political gain and called them "sociopaths" and "disgusting" for continuing to post the debunked theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

Better. Sentence is a bit long and could be chopped in two. Sagecandor (talk) 18:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I read it over again and I like it a lot. Thank you ! Used version suggestion at [47] as suggested by SPECIFICO. Thanks for your helpful suggestion! Sagecandor (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Sean Hannity goes on vacation as advertisers drop out of his show

Sean Hannity goes on vacation as advertisers drop out of his show, Los Angeles Times.

Might want to update the article with this and add it to section: Fox News retracted reporting.

Appears the false conspiracy theory is having a direct financial impact on those that fraudulently report it as if it were true. Sagecandor (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The crime was used as the pretext for...

The crime was used as the pretext for...

Do we really need this wording in the 2nd paragraph?

Isn't this superfluous text that can be easier said by starting the 2nd paragraph with:

Right-wing conspiracy theories...

?

Sagecandor (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

1. The crime was used as the pretext for right-wing conspiracy theories, which were then debunked by law enforcement agencies in their official statements about the case.
2. Right wing conspiracy theories spread about the crime, which were debunked by law enforcement.

Isn't number 2 much simpler and better ? Sagecandor (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it's simpler and much worse and completely omits the key point of the whole article, which is that the conspiracy theories were opportunistically and willfully (hence pretext) attached to a random event wholly unrelated to the conspiracy theories. SPECIFICO talk 17:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The 2nd sentence has the same meaning. If there were no crime, there would be no conspiracy theories about the crime. Sagecandor (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support 2 Seems to be the most concise. PackMecEng (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Sagecandor (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@PackMecEng:Is this better [48] ? Sagecandor (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks to the point while still covering the bases. Though right-wing should be capitalized. PackMecEng (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@PackMecEng:See [49], better? Sagecandor (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I would support that as opposed to the previous entry. PackMecEng (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay great, thank you PackMecEng ! Sagecandor (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

None of the sources say that "law enforcement authorities" have debunked the claims. In fact none of the sources provided say that they have even mentioned the claims. "Law enforcement authorities" is a vague term. If it means the DC police, then we should mention them. If it means the CIA, etc., they are not law enforcement authorities. TFD (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

But, as we have already noted, the Fox 5 story quickly unraveled. The Washington Metropolitan Police Department issued a statement the same day saying that “the assertions put forward by Mr. Wheeler are unfounded.” Sagecandor (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

TFD -- man of straw. CIA? What? SPECIFICO talk 19:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO:I've added quotes to the cites to make it harder for bogus claims in the future. Sagecandor (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if I seem pedantic, but the police in this case were responding to "assertions put forward by Mr. Wheeler." Wheeler asserted there were emails on Rich's laptop computer. And AFAIK that is the first time they have mentioned the Wikileaks aspect. "Debunked" seems the wrong word too; it should be refuted. I have mentioned this to you on pseudoscience talk pages: overstatement in Wikipedia articles or anywhere else, while it may be intended to be persuasive, can have the reverse effect if it is taken as condescending or disingenuous. It may however re-enforce commitment among the already converted. TFD (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

It has been both debunked and refuted. Debunk. To discredit, or expose to ridicule the falsehood or the exaggerated claims of something. Sagecandor (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Option 1 (status quo) These conspiracy theories didn't spontaneously arise as if they are a natural phenomenon. They were created to serve a partisan agenda during an election year. Geogene (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • That is already clear with option 2, as noted by myself and by PackMecEng, above. Sagecandor (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)