Talk:Murder of Seth Rich/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 13

Requested move 19 May 2017

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

The result of the move request was: not moved as there clearly isn't consensus in support of the proposal. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Murder of Seth Rich → Murder of Seth Rich conspiracy theory – 1. This is why this is WP:N. It is a debunked conspiracy theory. 2. It conforms with Pizzagate conspiracy theory 3. For BLP and WP:AVOIDVICTIM, I think this is how how the family would want this viewed as it helps debunk some of the BS around their son's death. There is no need for Wikipedia to further the victimization of the family and it should be a place for a reader to quickly understand the basic facts. Casprings (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I support the move. Sources overwhelmingly refer to this as a conspiracy theory. The murder is only notable due to the conspiracy theories it has given rise to. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose move. This article has existed for quite a while without turning into conspiracy-theory-central, and the several AfD's have emphasized the importance of keeping it that way. Arguably, this article still falls under WP:BLP which covers people after death for as much as two years. Rich's family stated: "We simply want to find his killers and grieve. Instead, we are stuck having to constantly fight against non-facts, baseless allegations, and general stupidity to defend my brother’s name and legacy." Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

As for pleasing Rich's family (while laudable, I'm not sure how it relates to Wiki policy), I can't think of a better way to "fight against non-facts, baseless allegations, and general stupidity" think having the first result from a Google Search leading to a Wikipedia page describing the theories surrounding his death as the conspiracy theories that RS say that they are and that his family says that they are. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, it's quite disingenuous to cite the family's wishes here when nobody seemed to have cared about those a month ago. Calling a spade (conspiracy theory) a spade (conspiracy theory) is the best way to respect the family's wishes. It's also what WP:BLP requires.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Wiki policy does not require everything Rich-related to be dumped here. We could just say, for example, "In May 2017 there was a controversial news report about the Rich murder that was later discredited". Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Support - Seems to be better compliance with WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Changing to oppose after considering other opposes. - - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Has the theory that Seth Rich was the DNC email leaker to wikileaks truly been debunked? Mr Ernie (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

That was never taken seriously by anyone outside of a very narrow political persuasion. Geogene (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

RS overwhelmingly describe it as a conspiracy theory. Do you contest that? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

And until the murderers are found and/or the DNC email leaker is revealed it is technically impossible to debunk this theory regardless of what the press reports of the family states. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

We already know who leaked the DNC emails: it was Fancy Bear, aka, the Russian Federation electronic warfare services. Geogene (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support in principle, but the suggested title is a bit of a clunker. ValarianB (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

That's why I have suggested "Seth Rich homicide". Much more compact. Daniel Case (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support Because the conspiracy theories are the only aspect of the murder that is notable, they, and the news article churn around them, are the reason the AfDs failed. Geogene (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support Reliable sources refer to it as that. It is a very sad fact, but the poor man's murder would have zero importance at all outside of his family and loved ones if it weren't for that. The title suggested is based on RS and conveys what is significant. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The topic is the murder. The aftermath, various Fox News controveries, and conspiracy theories are related "subtopics" covered in the article. Peacock (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Peacock. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Let's imagine in a couple weeks we suddenly learned who the actually killed Seth Rich, and for the sake of argument assume it was some wannabe robber. How would that fit into an article about conspiracy theories? The focus here should be on the actual murder, and the conspiracy theories should be treated as a sideshow. ^Falling_Gravity 19:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Not sure how this would matter. The conspiracy theories would still be a notable topic. If conclusive evidence turns up that it was a robbery that would be EVEN MORE of a reason to have an article on the notable conspiracy theories rather than the non-notable crime. So, uh, you're sort of making the case for "Support" here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

It used to be on this page that even describing the conspiracy theories was WP:PROFRINGE and a violation of WP:BLP. Now it's suddenly considered the only notable aspect of the article. The crime is easily notable without the current bloated conspiracy section, as demonstrated by TFD. ^Falling_Gravity 04:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose The murder meets "notablity" on its own. It received coverage in numerous media outlets at the time and continued to receive coverage before the media began covering the "conspiracy theories." The unsolved murders of middle class white people in otherwise safe neighborhoods tends to attract attention in the United States media. Also, this type of suggestion which was made on the pretext of respect for the victim's family merely provokes more discussion. The article should explain what mainstream media say and provide the same weight to different aspects of mainstream coverage. If editors think mainstream media is covering this case poorly, then complain to them. Or get Wikipedia's content policies changed. Discussions about whether or not we are following policy are difficult enough, without arguing about whether or not to follow them. TFD (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Besides local news coverage about the murder itself, what RS coverage was there of the murder unrelated to conspiracy theories? I'm genuinely curious. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Initially reported 11 July 2016 in the Washington Post,[1] FOX 5 DC,[2] CNN,[3] The Hill, [4] Politico,[5] WJLA/ABC7,[6] NBC Washington,[7] and you can find dozens more through Google.[8] 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.[9] Although there was both local and national coverage, notability does not require national coverage. The point of the policy is to ensure that there are adequate reliable sources to write a story, not the degree of interest to readers nationally or internationally. TFD (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. A lot of that seems local but definitely some nat news coverage. It strikes me as unlikely that this would ever merit a Wikipedia article on the basis of only the coverage related to the conspiracy theories though. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

There could be two separate articles--RandomUser3510 (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment The Black Knight satellite conspiracy theory is an article about a collection of conspiracy theories. In that case, there is no black knight satellite. It doesn't exist, so there's nothing to write about absent the conspiracy theories. So that makes sense.

The Pizzagate conspiracy theory is an another article purely about a conspiracy theory. Again, the subject doesn't exist. There is no sex ring operating out of the basement of a pizzaria in D.C. So there's nothing to write about factually (the real parties involved all either have articles or aren't notable, even with the bullshit about them).

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories is a case where the subject of the conspiracy theories is real. However, we also have an article about Barack Obama, and merging the two would make it, frankly, unreadable.

Now, I'm not saying that Seth Rich was a notable person. I'm not even saying that his murder was a notable event in and of itself. But it gave birth to all these conspiracy theories. That, in and of itself establishes notability. It is, thanks to the conspiracy theories, an event which has been discussed extensively in the RSes. To rename this article, we're shifting the focus from the facts to the bullshit. Is that really a very encyclopedic thing to do? I don't think so. I think we should write an article about the facts, which contains due information about the bullshit. We should, in all cases seek to avoid articles that focus on bullshit topics, unless we have no other choice. In this case, we certainly have a choice. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

His murder is notable BECAUSE of the conspiracy theories. That is the point. The article should provide the reader information for why this is WP:N. The murder itself is just a crime unless there are conspiracy theories developed.Casprings (talk) 22:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I agree with everything you said there. Yet my point stands. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The "General notability guideline" says, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." As I showed above, there was extensive on-going coverage of the subject long before mainstream media took notice of the conspiracy theories. These included a biography of the victim, a detailed recounting of the crime, information about the family, comments from police and Hillary Clinton, and reactions to the crime, including a vigil. One may question whether news media should cover criminal cases and perhaps they should not have reported it. Perhaps Wikipedia should not have articles about crimes. But clearly it is well justified by current policy. In fact, the conspiracy theories have only been covered in mainstream media because the event itself was notable. For example, the death of Shawn Lucas the following month also became the subject of conspiracy theories,[10] but they were not notable because the death itself was not. TFD (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment - the child sex ring in the Comet Ping Ping basement is not real, but Comet Ping Pong itself is. And it has an article which predates Pizzagate by several years. In this case, like the Obama citizenship conspiracy theory, merging would be unwieldy, so Pizzagate gets its own article. Would this be a notable murder if not for the conspiracy theories, or would it be a random mugging of some non-notable individual? Considering this is the very first version of the article, a full month after the murder, and it mentions the conspiracy theories, I'd say that's the only reason this is notable. Smartyllama (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support - otherwise non-notable murder in a town with a high murder rate; the murder is not notable, only the conspiracy theories are notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Peacock and TFD. It is notable without the conspiracy theories because it attracted widespread news coverage. Why would this high profile murder be less notable (and less worthy of its own wiki article) than other unsolved murders with their own wiki articles, such as the Murder of David Stack, the Murder of Michael Nigg, or the Murder of Betsy Aardsma?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 00:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Having researched and written the Nigg article, I now greatly regret having used "Murder" in the name for a case that remains unsolved and likely always will. Henryk Siwiak homicide is how it should be done, IMO. Daniel Case (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose – For better or for worse, this murder is notable. Conspiracy theories and other speculation about the circumstances and motive are just one part of the article subject. — JFG ^talk 01:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• support The only thing notable is the conspiracy theories that have been flogged since shortly after the murder. Most of the article is about the conspiracy theories as well. Jytdog (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

With the Russian Embassy in London now promoting the conspiracy theory on twitter, that section is likely to grow. 70.178.51.81 (talk)

References

There is only one "theory" - Rich was the DNC email leaker for Wikileaks and he was murdered as a result. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

That is untrue. There is a second conspiracy theory floating around out there that doesn't claim Rich as a source of the leak--quite the opposite--and people that are familiar with the sources will know what I'm talking about. But I'm not here to give conspiracy theorists a podium. Geogene (talk) 05:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support: Clear family preference and indeed, absent the conspiracy theory, this would just be a sad but ordinary and non-notable murder. Montanabw^(talk) 03:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support move -- the murder continues to be notable because of the conspiracy theories. Otherwise, it would be routine crime blotter. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants' analysis above. I'll add to that though to say that lengthening the title here would narrow the article's scope for reasons that should be probed. I understand the argument that there's no "there" there beyond a conspiracy theory. But I've got a philosophical objection to how that's established in the title which can't be footnoted as opposed to the body which can and it follows from the fact Wikipedia's epistemology is a posteriori as opposed to a priori. Apologies for getting abstract here but it's the difference between saying all observed ducks are white and saying, categorically, all ducks are white. It's one thing to say there is nothing to this and another thing to say there will never be anything to this. If we were to consider the 2012 Benghazi attack I understand that's different in that there would always still be an indisputably notable attack even if there were never any political controversy about the attack. But what if the attack was split off and the remainder subject to a retitling proposal as some sort of (right wing) manufactured conspiracy. That that would be contentious when we should look to create consensus would just be part of it. The other part is why do we have to have the title definitively settle what the matter was all about instead of just presenting the whole thing under the title of 2012 Benghazi attack? The editor proposing a move here has cited reasons like "helps debunk" that have the air of advocacy. Read the body of this article and it debunks the conspiracy theory; pushing for more than that doesn't help broaden editor consensus. "But it's true that it's just a conspiracy" is a problematic statement because of the sort of proofs involved with "just"; - we can go through those proofs in the body of the article but we can't in the title. I submit that Benghazi is the more similar case here than Pizzagate because Benghazi followed an actual event, like here, whereas Pizzagate basically invented the underlying event as well. I also note we don't have Murder of Vince Foster conspiracy theories we've got simply Suicide of Vince Foster. Again, adding "conspiracy" to the title is an unnecessary narrowing of scope (and the family's wishes are irrelevant, by the way).--Brian Dell (talk) 05:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose because:

1. Not inclusive
   The suggested new title is not inclusive of all views. It would risk to limit the views. I mean some contributors interested to add views might feel excluded :( In other words, the present title feels more inclusive, as it is more general and allow a wide range of views :) I strongly believe that diversity of views is a strength. Not a weakness. By keeping the present inclusive title it is more likely that contributors will feel the Wikipedia Love and might be interested to contribute news views or further expend existing views. Speaking for myself I enjoy listening and learning about new views. All views are valuable to me. Even if I disagree with some views ;) I'm really ok with any views to be included in the article. Assuming that all views are notable and comply with all Wikipedia agreements. Then that is good enough to me. In addition to all of the above points, the more notable views are included, the better the article is with Neutral Point of View (NPOV). Francewhoa (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
2. The primary topic of this article is the murder, not the conspiracy.
   While at the same time I agree to keep that already existing article section titled "Conspiracy theories". For the details about notable subtopics, such as conspiracy theories, controversies, and their related allegations. How about in the future, if that Conspiracy theories section become significantly large, and there is a general consensus, that section could be move to its own sub-article. Which could be titled "Murder of Seth Rich conspiracy theory". With links between both this primary article and its sub article.
3. According to Snopes the latest notable conspiracy is unproved. But the murder is proven.
   Snopes have done extensive digging about the latest notable and alleged conspiracy about Seth being the DNC insider source of Wikileaks, not Russia. As of May 19, 2017 Snopes' conclusion is that this relationship is "unproved". In other words, according to Snopes, neither "false" nor "true". Again I feel it's notable, but still not the primary topic of this Wikipedia article. Because that conspiracy is without evidence from independent source(s) and without public evidence for public review.

Francewhoa (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

References

• Oppose: The current title is the concise title - the who did it and why revolves round the murder. Also, 1) the proposal makes murder-during-robbery just another conspiracy theory, and 2) the proposal does politicize the murder. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: The title is fine as it is. ArniDagur (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose move. Seth Rich was murdered. That is a FACT. There may be conspiracy theories related to this fact,

but Rich's death is notable for reasons besides the conspiracy theories. Besides, it is not too much to ask that the facts in this article be separated from the unsubstantiated claims; just look at the article for Ahmed Mohamed clock incident. MagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

"Murder" as noted above, is a judicial verdict and a judicial verdict only. "Seth Rich was the victim of homicide" is the fact Wikipedia can state. "Seth Rich was murdered" will have to wait. Daniel Case (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• I just want to point out that WP:COMMONNAME is a thing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as too vague. The new title suggests that the murder itself is a conspiracy theory. Barring that, it's too long and unwieldy. I might support a new title shorter than that, though. epicgenius (talk) 05:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
• I support a move, but not to that title. Killing of Seth Rich or Homicide of Seth Rich would be better. Murder implies malice and forethought. All indications have been that this was a robbery that went wrong. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support move to Seth Rich homicide ("Homicide of ..." is a clunky title and awkward construction; usually the victim's name is used to modify "homicide") per all my arguments at the talk page. Per BLP and OR we cannot call a killing, at least a recent one, "murder" until a judge or jury has convicted someone of that charge or they have pled guilty to it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't get that justification. If you kill someone while robbing them, it's a murder. If you and your buddy are robbing a bank, and your pal is killed in the process, in many jurisdictions you will be charged with felony murder. So obviously what you're saying isn't strictly true. Geogene (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

In those circumstances you are talking about a known defendant and known circumstances. If charges were pending against someone, "Seth Rich murder case" would be justifiable. Without any charges, we do not know the circumstances under which Rich was killed. For all we know the killers could have done it in self-defense. The police and coroner can only reach "homicide", i.e. killed by someone else with no implication as to motive. And for now, per BLP and OR, that is the only word we can ethically use in the title. Daniel Case (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

We're relating what RS report, Mr. Case -- not what we know. I think that your comment about for all we know is gratuitous and offensive to the family and to the memory of the victim and it adds nothing to the policy-based sourcing discussion here. I hope we can all discuss things here without undue speculation or casual references to this troubling subject. SPECIFICO talk 18:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: If the RSes know enough about the crime to know who did it and what their motives were, then they should let the police know. Because when they describe it as "murder", they are in fact engaging in "undue speculation" about that exact subject.

The point about the killing being possibly self-defense was meant as a pure hypothetical, which apparently not everyone has been swift enough to grasp. I don't think it was—but what I or you think about the killers' possible motives or the lack thereof doesn't mean diddly about what we should name the article as long as the facts of the case remain as they are now. I brought up self-defense simply because it's the best-known explanation for a homicide not being a murder, or even manslaughter (ask Robert Durst about the Morris Black case, for one). Far too many people don't seem to understand, nor want to understand, that there is a crucial difference between those two terms, one our article naming needs to reflect if we mean OR and BLP be taken seriously.

To say it was offensive to the memory of the victim is a disingenuous attempt to divert this discussion from its real issue: that is so many different shades of wrong to use "murder" in the title of this article. Daniel Case (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Daniel's legal arguments are completely spurious, as one can see by reading Homicide and Murder and the sources used in them. Also, I repeat: WP:COMMONNAME is a thing. Finally, his argument about OR is completely backwards, as it's his original research being used to support his claims, not anything verifiable in reliable sources (meanwhile, "murder" is verifiable in virtually all sources, reliable or not). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: I don't see anything in Murder that would justify not making the distinction in an article title about an unsolved homicide. I assume you understood this when you typed it, or in addition to referencing "sources", you would have actually attempted to include some that could be perceived on a cursory glance as jutifying your position.

As for homicide, I note that the intro says:

Homicides can be divided into many overlapping legal categories, including murder, manslaughter, justifiable homicide, killing in war, euthanasia, and capital punishment, depending on the circumstances of the death. These different types of homicides are often treated very differently in human societies; some are considered crimes, while others are permitted or even ordered by the legal system.

Take heed of that last clause, please, as it clearly implies a distinction imposed the action of the legal system (And how many police departments have a detective branch called "Murder"?

As for OR, getting past your attempt to rework "I know you are, but what am I?" into a valid argument (and OR applies only to the content of articles, not policy interpretations), consider that by calling a killing "murder", we are doing the work properly restricted to a judge or trial jury. It is no different from how it would be if we stated a scientific hypothesis as if it were proven fact. Daniel Case (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Daniel, you provided an argument that was not sourced to any reliable source, but came from your own mind to support removing a term which is used frequently by RSes in favor of a term you prefer. Even if your argument were not based on a misrepresentation of law in the United States (the jurisdiction of this event), that would be WP:OR, unquestionably. This isn't rhetoric, this is the very definition of OR. The only thing rhetorical about my comment was the part I never actually typed about how unbelievably ridiculous it is to suggest that us preferring the term used by RS's is somehow OR and the link to WP:CIR that I didn't actually include in it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Our arguments about what to call our articles do not have to be "sourced to a reliable source"—only the facts stated within those articles do. I think you should take a break from editing; you're starting to apply Wikipedia editorial policy to the real world, which is a sure signpost on the route to madness.

How to implement policy in specific instances is as much a matter of consensus editorial judgement as it is of the wording of said policies ... and your own words are the only source for your judgement that matters. Calling someone's argument OR is kind of besides the point ... all arguments are OR.

You have yet to state in any coherent fashion how it possibly is that I am "misrepresenting" the law (Just so we get this out of the way, where did you go to law school? What state bars are you admitted to? What areas of law do you practice?). I can only charitably conclude that it is because you haven't yet grasped the difference between homicide and murder (let's try it one more time: all murders are homicides, but not all homicides are murders. Do you at least understand that? Say yes and we can get to how that difference operates, and maybe get along better).

You repeatedly say "but all the RSes use it". That does not necessarily mean we have use it. COMMONNAME isn't the only subsection of NC ... in this case I would also direct you to WP:NDESC, which to me weighs in favor of using "homicide" in the title. Daniel Case (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Daniel Case Please read WP:BLUDGEON and WP:1AM. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• Move to Death of Seth Rich, which would be simple and neutral. The title should not include "conspiracy theory" since his death is a real thing, not a conspiracy theory. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Make that Seth Rich homicide. There is no dispute that Rich died at the hands of another. Daniel Case (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

No thank you. I prefer simply "Death of Seth Rich", since to me that seems simpler and adequately descriptive. I don't think we need to put the cause of death in the title. Other homicides include Death of JonBenét Ramsey, Death of Caylee Anthony, Death of Osama bin Laden, Death of Muammar Gaddafi, Death of Joseph Smith, Death of Mark Duggan, Death of Jean Charles de Menezes, Death of Khaled Mohamed Saeed, Death of Neda Agha-Soltan, Death of Damilola Taylor, Death of Abdul Wali, Death of Keith Blakelock, Death of Kenneth Salvesen, Death of Benito Mussolini, Death of Yehuda Shoham, Death of Jennifer Laude, Death of Linda Norgrove, Death of Rigoberto Alpizar, Death of Jasmine Fiore, Death of Abdulredha Buhmaid, etc. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Death of JonBenét Ramsey: no charge ever filed. Death of Caylee Anthony: mother acquitted of the murder charge because the prosecution couldn't even prove the cause of death was homicide. Death of Jean Charles de Menezes: possibly a justified police use of force; see also Death of Eric Garner.

In other words, mostly not as clear cut a homicide as this. Daniel Case (talk) 06:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

You may be confusing homicide with murder. Homicide does not require charges to be filed (e.g., Death of JonBenét Ramsey and several – perhaps most – of those others did not involve any criminal charges), since homicide is not necessarily a crime. Justified use of police force (perhaps Death of Jean Charles de Menezes) is still homicide. Yes, I suppose the Death of Caylee Anthony might not have been firmly established as homicide (despite the body in the trash bag, the duct tape, and the smell in the car), so perhaps that one of my twenty examples might not have been homicide. If nineteen isn't enough, should I list another twenty? Why should I see Death of Eric Garner? Offhand, I don't think I would include that one in my next list of twenty. My point is that I see no obligation for us to include the cause of the death in a title. Many articles about deaths, whether homicide or not, do not put the cause of death in the title (even in cases where this would not be difficult). —BarrelProof (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@BarrelProof: Actually, confusing homicide with murder on the same grounds you cited is what I've been arguing against above, since no one has been convicted of murder in the present case. The JBR article excepted (and maybe not, since one theory is that she suffered the head blow accidentally and the family made it look like a homicide to avoid embarrassment, although I can't remember if that's in the article or not) from what I have been able to review, the "Death of ..." title is reserved for cases where there is an actual dispute as to what caused the death (such as Death of Gareth Williams, where two different official investigations came to differing conclusions) or where the officially determined cause is one thing but reliably sourced questions have been raised about that (there's a lot of this in Category:Death conspiracy theories, or the deaths of people who were already notable enough for separate articles).

In the instant case there is no dispute from any side that Seth Rich was killed by gunshots fired by another person. We have generally tried to take account of this when titling articles ... I think the exception whereby people killed by the police such as Garner or Menezes where no charges were brought against the officers involved seems to arise from those deaths being considered justifiable and thus not leading to charges after being investigated (Still, however, I think a more descriptive title for them would be warranted, like "Police killing of ...")

"Many articles about deaths, whether homicide or not, do not put the cause of death in the title". Our past inertia and incorrect titling on this matter do not justify present inaction on this matter. Daniel Case (talk) 01:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

You said "the 'Death of ...' title is reserved for cases where there is an actual dispute as to what caused the death". I don't think that's true. Can you point to any evidence for that statement, such as a pointer to a Wikipedia guideline? —BarrelProof (talk) 02:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

In the JBR case, the cause of death was strangulation, not the blow to the head, so even if the blow to the head was an accident (a possibility not directly discussed in the article except in relation to a false confession that makes it irrelevant), it was still a homicide. And even an accidental killing may be considered a homicide (or even a murder). —BarrelProof (talk) 02:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@BarrelProof:Yes, an accidental killing that resulted from someone else's action is included in homicide statistics in some jurisdictions, even if no criminal negligence was found on the actor's part. If a such a death results in no charges (even with civil liability), I am comfortable with us using "Death of ...".

As for the Ramsey article, this question has been much discussed over there as well of late.

I admit there is no guideline saying this. I think there should be. But even without that I think it's a matter of simple logic. Daniel Case (talk) 01:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose the current proposal. For one thing, it's a pretty awkward descriptive title, and for another, Rich's death itself is significant outside of the conspiracy theories that grew up around it. Death of Seth Rich would be a neutral alternative that's fairly widely used at many other articles on murders and homicides.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose this is a murder / death about which there is a conspiracy theory, not a conspiracy theory within which Seth Rich was murdered. It is independently notable, same as many other events about which there are FRINGE theories. Koncorde (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

No, actually that's incorrect. The conspiracy theory has nothing to do with Mr. Rich. It's part of a longstanding meme that the Clintons are murderers and another nonsense narrative, that the Russians did not hack the Dem's emails. This propaganda was hung on a random event. Just like when Hillary tripped getting into her car and Drumpf said she had a stroke, or countless other such pretexts. The conspiracy theory uses random (as in unrelated) events on which to hang the narrative. And nothing about the murder itself supports WP notability. That was conclusively demonstrated at the first AfD, when unfortunately there were many editors who hadn't figured out the ruse yet. SPECIFICO talk 01:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose As it stands, as a single article, the word controversy might be acceptable, but conspiracy theory is not as it suggests the murder itself were in dispute (the fact he was shot in the back twice and later died as a result has consensus). Spinning off the conspiracy theory portion into a separate article, with a portion embedded, could be acceptable as well. Replacing murder with death would be acceptable. UniversityofPi (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
• Move to Death of Seth Rich -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Do a word-count: The article has 900 words devoted to the conspiracy theory, and 950 words devoted to the non-conspiracy theory. I would support if the conspiracy section was significantly larger, but that hasn't happened yet. --Hirsutism (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm disputing your count as it is incorrect. I also did a word count using Wordcounttools.com, and after removing the citation #'s ([1][2][3] etc.), I found 1657 words related to the conspiracy theory, and only 495 words not related to the conspiracy theory. To be clear, the only content I found that was not related to the conspiracy were, 1. The first sentence in the lead, 2. Early life and career (section), 3. Death and aftermath (section). The rest is all tied to conspiracy theory, which is approximately 3/4ths of the entire article. Darknipples (talk) 03:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose He was murdered-no? There is more dedicated to his death than to a fringe conspiracy theory, changing the title would be a gross misappropriation of the page's content. PalmerTheGolfer (talk)PalmerTheGolfer

• Oppose This change-request is clearly politically motivated and would provide counter-factual information. A Fake News section could be added listing the claims of his murder debunked ending with citation of the D.C. police report concluding it was an attempted robbery and homicide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagmaiKH (talk • contribs) 22:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose The murder and its investigation are not conspiracy theories, but conspiracy theories have been latched on due to RS coverage of them. Also, even though a 'murder' hasn't been proven in a court of law, it is a reasonable conclusion no matter what tale one believes. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Murder of Seth Rich is not a conspiracy theory, it's a fact. I know the intended meaning but just wanted to point out the selected replacement is vague and someone may think from the title that Seth Rich is someone who is actually alive and there is a conspiracy theory going on that he is murdered and replaced by an imposter or something. Secondly, the murder itself is notable not just the conspiracy theories surrounding the murder. If the conspiracy theories are so extensive that it needs to be the focus of the article, it could be expanded into a separate article. Let's say "Conspiracy theories on the murder of Seth Rich" or something like that, but this article should not be renamed. Darwinian Ape ^talk 20:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think the first point should matter. See, for instance John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Kennedy was clearly assassinated, to my knowledge there's nobody claiming he's still secretly alive somewhere, but the article deals with conspiracy theories that the "official story" about the assassination (i.e. Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in killing Kennedy) is inaccurate, and there was some other plot responsible.

• Support Unfortunately, fake news has overtaken this topic and leaving as "Murder of Seth Rich" only adds fuel to the never ending conspiracy theories and creates an inaccurate/false depiction on Wikipedia. May I suggest changing the name to "Death of Seth Rich" instead? CloudKade11 (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Changing the name of the article because it "adds fuel" to conspiracy theories is not a valid argument, and I suspect this kind of Officer Barbrady-esque, move along nothing to see here, attitude actually adds much more fuel than a factual description.Darwinian Ape ^talk 00:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

It is a valid argument when Wikipedia becomes a factor in spreading these conspiracy theories. And I suggest changing it to "Death of Seth Rich" as many above have also suggested. CloudKade11 (talk) 00:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

No. Please read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS Darwinian Ape ^talk 08:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

How about you read WP:BLP and WP:HOAX. Also WP:PTOPIC.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:NPOV. We're not here to debunk fake news, we're here to build an encyclopedia from a neutral point of view. It's not our problem if our encyclopedic content "adds fuel to the fire." PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 01:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

What in the world does NOTCENSORED have to do with anything? What is being censored? And an encyclopedia written from a neutral point of view describes what is covered in reliable sources - THAT's NPOV. And source describe this as a conspiracy theory, hence that is what the article name should reflect.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

What in the world BLP, HOAX and PTOPIC have to do with my objection to the argument that we should change the name because it adds fuel to conspiracy theories? I don't care if it adds fuel or not, that's not our job or concern as Wikipedia volunteers. All I care is; does the title reflect the events and is it in accordance with WP policies. That's why the arguments such as "it adds fire" or "makes someone look bad" is irrelevant and is an example of tendentious editing. Darwinian Ape ^talk 22:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

NOTCENSORED applies because apparently you think Wikipedia needs to be a net-nanny for people who can't comprehend the details of the article as currently presented, and NPOV applies because you want to steer the article in a particular direction when sources are conflicting right now. A neutral encyclopedia based on reliable sources would present what the police are officially saying, what other branches of the government are officially saying, what the political parties are officially saying, what respectable left-wing sources are saying (CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, etc), and what respectable right-wing sources are saying (Fox News, Newsmax, Breitbart, etc) without adding any Wikipedian spin to the case. As for BLP, have you noticed the "living" part of that policy's title? PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 03:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Please actually read WP:NOTCENSORED. And no, "sources" are NOT "conflicting right now", that's ridiculous. All reliable sources are saying this is a bullshit conspiracy theory. Also, sorry, Bretibart and Newsmax are not "respectable" sources, whether left or right or any other kind. And Fox has pretty much lost all respectability by pushing this conspiracy theory in the first place. So please quit it with the "sources are conflicting right now" line.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Changing the title to include "conspiracy theory" itself is a non-neutral act. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. By dismissing it as a conspiracy theory, you're clearly taking a side. I think it is appropriate to have a section for the conspiracy theories, but to make the whole title of the case a "conspiracy" is again violating a core value of Wikipedia: neutrality. --Ashleyclairerovira (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

No, if it is widely regarged as a conspiracy theory in reliable sources, then wikipedia will reflect that. It is perfectly neutral to call a spade a spade. Darwinian Ape ^talk 00:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Um, you have three edits on this account.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Nope, it makes it clear that these are theories people have. And the fact that people have these theories (though not the truth of the theories themselves) is sourced to plenty of reliable sources. The theories clearly exist, whether they're true or not. If the article were called Democratic Party conspiracy to murder Seth Rich, that would be a clear violation of WP:NPOV. There are plenty of other articles with similar titles - John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, September 11 conspiracy theories, etc. But notice how those articles are not titled Secret CIA Plot to Assassinate JFK or September 11 False Flag Operation, which would, of course, be a WP:NPOV violation as well. Smartyllama (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support, as this whole entire article and the wider topic has been subsumed by this debunked conspiracy theory, as evidenced by PolitiFact. Sagecandor (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Per above--Valkyrie Red (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The title of the page was already changed from Seth Rich to it's current title early in on its creation, and I see no point in changing it again. Consensus was met that enough controversy surrounded the subject that, "the murder of" was OK to include in to the title taking into account the sources reporting on the subject.. There's no reason to narrowly construe the title of this page further. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 02:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support Anyone who is interested in making sure Wikipedia is an unbiased source of information has to support the move. We're here to debunk misinformation and conspiracy theories, right? I'm appalled by the conclusion-jumping and boldface innuendo surrounding the poor man's murder. In the interest of truth, we shouldn't lend credence to nonsense. Chisme (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm interested in making sure Wikipedia is an unbiased source of information and I DO NOT support the move. Wikipedia is not Snopes.com or Buzzfeed. --Chlorineer (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Per TFD. Additionally the article could use reorganization: focus on the murder with additional sections on: Rich's background, conspiracy theories, media controversy and response to media controversy. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support On its own the murder lacks any notability whatsoever. A person got murdered during a robbery in a big city. That's it. IT IS the conspiracy theories which make this topic notable and which justify us even having this article in the first place. Properly naming the article is policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

It's true. The very first revision of the article had more to say about the conspiracy theory than the actual murder. --Hirsutism (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, the article was actually created (by a now indef banned account) to spread the conspiracy theory. Of course, if your purpose is to spread a conspiracy theory you don't call it a "conspiracy theory" cuz that sort of gives the game away. It's amazing how many of the "oppose" votes above (including the numerous ones with just a handful of edits) are still trying to enable that approach.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

(and doesn't this mean you should change your !vote above?) Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually that's a pretty persuasive way to put things. Indeed the only notable thing was the conspiracy theory. I remember arguing against the deletion way back when because the topic was notable, but not the way our article read at the time (no mentions of the theory). I'll think about it and reconsider my vote. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

We didn't edit conflict, but I think we're on the same wavelength. See below.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

It's instructive to look at the original AFD of this article right after it was created. Here it is [11]. The one thing that stands out is that all the "delete" !votes are saying "there's nothing notable about this murder". All the "keep" !votes are saying "but he could've been the DNC leaker and was killed because of it". In other words, all the "keep" !votes wanted it kept because of the conspiracy theory (although of course they didn't call it that). So the only reason this article actually exists on Wikipedia is because of the conspiracy theory involved. The name of the article should properly reflect that, per WP:PTOPIC.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - This article does not need to be limited to the so-called conspiracy side. It can cover both sides fairly and honestly as the facts unfold. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 01:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support We need to do this because the crime itself is not notable and has not received coverage that would make it so. Thousands of murders are briefly covered in the media but do not pass WP:NOTABLE. But we also need to do it so that the focus of the article is on the perpetration and stoking of the conspiracy theory by partisans and some media. The crime is so clearly not NOTBABLE that the very fact some editors think otherwise only proves that we should be diving deep (as the Americans say) into the facts and dynamics of the conspiracy theory. SPECIFICO talk 01:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I know about WP:OTHERSTUFF, but since you state that thousands of murders are briefly covered in the media, what makes this murder less notable than Murder of Denise Amber Lee or countless other crimes covered in our encyclopedia? PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 03:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Whether Rich's killing was a political hit or not, the killer certainly does not want his identity known. He (or they) may even be working among us. The robbery theory is also unconfirmed and only speculative, but "murder" (rather than just "death") is applicable in either instance. However, the only way I would support a name change would be if and when the supposedly "debunked," "baseless," "discredited," "false," "stupid," "defamatory," "sociopathic," and "impossible" (it is in no way impossible) political theory is confirmed with solid, incontrovertible evidence, such as with further definitive leaks, a recorded telephone call, forensic analysis of Rich's computer, or a confession. In that case, I would support a name change to "Execution of Seth Rich." - JGabbard (talk) 03:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Please provide policy based reasons for your vote instead wacky as shit conspiracy theorizing. Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - The article had survived multiple AFD's before Fox promoted the conspiracy theory, the murder is primary and the theory is secondary, an article on the murder covers both, an article on the theory can only cover that. To those who use the parents wishes, i am sure they would be even more upset at an encyclopedia calling their sons death a "conspiracy theory". The conspiracy rests on who committed the murder, not that a murder did not take place, hence "Murder of Seth Rich Conspiracy" makes no valid sense as a murder did occur. GuzzyG (talk) 08:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

It survived these AfDs based solely on the rationale that there was a notable conspiracy theory out there. And it was out there even before Fox News reignited it. As has already been pointed out the only reason this article was started was as an attempt to spread the conspiracy theory.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - the article is about the murder of an individual - that there was a murder is undisputed. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

But the murder by itself is not notable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes it is notable: numerous sources have made it notable under Wikipedia's standards and three AfD decisions have decided that it is Wikipedia notable. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Seth Rich was murdered. There is a murderer out there. That is not a conspiracy theory. It's misleadin to claim the murder is a conspiracy theory. JFK was assassinated and there are conspiracy theories about the assassination but that doesn't change the fact that he was assassinated. Changing the title would e going against all the reliable sources to parrot the fringe view. Just no. --DHeyward (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Comparing Seth Rich to someone like JFK seems like quite a stretch IMO. Such a comparison might only be appropriate as a WP:CONTENTFORK via WP:SUBPOV (SEE John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories). However, Seth Rich is not really notable without the attached conspiracy theories surrounding his death, hence this article is titled "MURDER of Seth Rich", instead of just "Seth Rich". Close to 3/4ths of of this article is conspiracy related content, with the lead being around 80% conspiracy related content. As an un-involved editor here, and with the utmost respect for other editors also willing to put time and effort into controversial subjects on WP, I believe there needs to be much more "non-conspiracy" related content added in order to keep the words "conspiracy theory" out of the title. Best of luck. Darknipples (talk) 01:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose because of conciseness of current title. Strong Oppose for lack of clarity in the proposed title: i.e., He really was murdered. That isn't a conspiracy theory. Oppose because the murder was notable enough to survive at least two AfDs before the conspiracy theorists even jumped on board, so the main argument supporting the move is invalid. Strong oppose because the proposed new title is incredibly stupid for this topic. First Light (talk) 03:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support because, as other people have said, the only really notable thing about this murder is the conspiracy theories surrounding it. The only treatment that would not merit such a focus is a "Murder" section in the "Seth Rich" page, and that page doesn't exist because the guy is not notable enough. LahmacunKebab (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose A large section of the article is covering the murder. Stikkyy t/c 05:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. This page is about actual event, not about conspiracy theory. I do not think the conspiracy theory is notable enough to deserve another, additional page. My very best wishes (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose put it under a subsection. --Aleccat 14:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - If we had an article about Seth Rich, I would probably support this as the actual details about his killing could be in the other article. We don't have that. As it doesn't make sense to remove the non-conspiracy theory content in order to orient the article around the conspiracy theories. In the relationship between the two topics, the conspiracy theories are a subtopic of the event. It would not make sense to keep the content about the event as subordinate to the conspiracy theories, regardless of where the notability comes from. The murder doesn't have to be notable apart from the conspiracy theories for this to be the title that makes the most sense. We could call it "murder of Seth Rich and ensuing conspiracy theories" but that's awfully clunky. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, as the topic of the article appears to be the incident (in this case an unsolved death) in and of itself, rather than a theory - or theories, of which there appear to be several of varying detail - about said incident. --Katangais (talk) 03:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support Split into one article about the man & murder, and one about the conspiracy theories. The death should be covered in the first article. The conspiracy theories and fallout deserve their own. – SJ + 12:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
• CommentI already voted, but I thought I should point out that this investigation is still ongoing. How do we know that this won't become more notable beyond alleged conspiracies as the investigation unfolds? The guy was, after all, a DNC staff member. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 03:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTALBALL. Right now the primary topic is the conspiracy theories surrounding this murder, not the murder itself. If and when that changes, you can start another RM to move it back.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support This article deals with the conspiracy theories about the murder, not the murder itself. The murder itself would hardly be notable if not for the conspiracy theories surrounding it. Smartyllama (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Judicial Watch issues FOIA request

Judicial Watch, an influential non-partisan political watchdog group, has examined the circumstances of the murder of DNC IT staffer Seth Rich, and sees a lack of public evidence to support the DC Police Department's conclusion that this murder was a "robbery gone wrong". Judicial Watch has filed a Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request to discover all public information that is currently being withheld by the DC Police Department and the DC Mayor's Office. (1)(2)

In addition, the Rich family has also requested this information be made public. (3)

Seth Rich had been a computer programmer employed at the DNC since 2013. He worked on a computer program to allow voters to enter their name and generate a map of the nearest polling place. This program required access to data pulled from every voter precinct in the United States. (4)

47.198.220.193 (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Non-partisan? Are you kidding? -Location (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Added, from better source, The Washington Post, at [12]. Sagecandor (talk) 16:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Is The Washington Post your idea of a non-partisan source? If so that's pretty laughable. Display name 99 (talk) 01:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah. Somebody's going to have a frustrating time here. Geogene (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

"Groundless"

This word should be removed from the lead, per CitationKneaded here in the section "Left-leaning POV." Display name 99 (talk) 01:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

No. It's been debunked by multiple fact-checking organizations, including PolitiFact. Sagecandor (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

During the first 3 months of Obama's second term, Politifact rated claims made by Republicans as "false" 3 times more than it did claims made by Democrats. I really don't think that Republicans made 3 times as many false statements as Democrats during that time period. Politifact has a clear leftist bias, just like The Washington Post, The New York Times, and most other sources in this article that are cited over and over again. Display name 99 (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Without sources to back up your claims, they are just that, and nothing more. Sagecandor (talk) 01:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Until my claims are debunked, which has not fully happened yet, they should be treated as possibilities. Display name 99 (talk) 02:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Until someone has proven that I'm not the mastermind behind this murder and that it was done to cover up Seth's involvement in a secret crime-fighting ring of superpowered individuals who stand in the way of my plans for world domination, that should be treated as a possibility. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

As reliable sources have noted, not a single piece of credible evidence has been presented to support the claims, nor has any actual investigative or law enforcement agency given the slightest bit of credence to the theory. This makes the statement that the theory is "groundless" a simple statement of reliably-sourced fact. Your personal opinions about the Pulitzer Prize-winning Politifact organization are irrelevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Kim Dotcom claims to have proof. His statements have not been debunked. The initial report was of a botched robbery. That seems highly unlikely. His wallet and watch were still on him. So far, people seem to be ignoring the question of why Wikileaks offered a $20,000 reward for information about his death. Display name 99 (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Anything can say anything; that Kim Dotcom has not actually shown a single thing which can be called "evidence," much less "proof," is public record. Your personal opinion of what is or is not "unlikely" is irrelevant to the encyclopedia. We write articles based on reliable sources; your disagreement with those sources is irrelevant to the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't care who claims to have proof. I don't care how many of them there are. When reliable sources, also called the Mainstream Media start taking them seriously, then we can talk. Until then, this is a waste of time. Geogene (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Anyone can say anything is normally called direct evidence. TFD (talk) 05:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

That is called WP:WIKILAWYERING, and I recommend everyone here looks into why it is inappropriate, especially here. Darknipples (talk)...

• Using formal legal terms in an inappropriate way when discussing Wikipedia policy
• Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles
• Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express
• Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions

I don't know whether your comment was aimed at Geogene or at me, but my point is I think we should reflect what sources say rather than make legal arguments about the validity of evidence presented. TFD (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Left-leaning POV

It's extremely obvious that the article does not display a neutral point of view. While most information is factual, it reads like a chronological left-slanted news article rather than an encyclopedia. The NPOV concern tag should be added, as the current state of the article is an embarrassment and needs a lot of work to meet Wikipedia's standards.Computermichael (talk) 03:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

what's left-wing about it? It doesn't advocate the overthrow of the bourgeoisie or anything like that. TFD (talk) 01:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the OP. The article cites as sources a wide array of liberal media outlets, including the persistently inaccurate Washington Post. It gives minimal attention to covering the arguments in favor of the theory, and addresses its proponents using extremely condescending adjectives. But given my experience editing Wikipedia articles relating to politics I've come to realize that most WP editors, at least ones who edit in those areas, are liberal. Due to their superiority in number, they're able to insert their POV into articles freely. So I doubt much will be done about it. But somebody can always try. Display name 99 (talk) 02:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTAFORUM. Provide reliable sources for whatever it is you want to do. Also, you just violated the 1RR restriction on this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Here are some recent reliable right-wing sources that could be included: [13][14][15]. There might be some older stuff I'm not aware of. ^Falling_Gravity 19:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

There was actually an entire wiki-based encyclopedia created in response to the apparent liberal bias at Wikipedia, but it isn't nearly as subject-inclusive or as widely used as Wikipedia. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 03:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.69.1.119 (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree w/ OP, even skimming through this, it reads like a left-wing OP-ed. "The murder spawned several right-wing conspiracy theories about the crime, including the groundless claim that Rich had been involved with the leaked DNC emails in 2016" . "groundless"? That doesn't sound remotely academic - if I was a professor grading a paper, I'd flunk whoever wrote that garbage. How about just presenting the facts & letting the reader decide that for themselves instead of leading around by the nose to your desired opinion? But suuure, if all left-wing websites "debunk" it, then it must be a "conspiracy theory", b/c Snopes & Politifact are the unquestionable gatekeepers of all truth, apparently.(rolls eyes) Has Wikipedia turned into an extension of CNN & HuffPo now? Looks like I'll be taking my donations elsewhere. SAD! CitationKneaded (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Academic ???? WP? What? SPECIFICO talk 02:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

This comment reads more like a complaint, rather than an argument. If you have a problem with the sources take it to RSN, and I think the threat of taking away your "donations" from Wikipedia was also a nice touch/s. Stay classy!/s Darknipples (talk) 07:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

While the article should reflect mainstream sources, its tone is too emphatic and reads more like a polemic than an encyclopedia article. Notice the excesses use of negative terms in the lead: "right-wing conspiracy theories...groundless claim...contrary to U.S. intelligence...fomented the false Pizzagate conspiracy theory...murder conspiracy theories...debunked...fabrications...fake news...falsehoods...condemned the conspiracy theorists...exploiting their son's death for political gain..."sociopaths"..."disgusting"...no evidence." That's using the term "conspiracy theory" four times in the lead, in case the readers miss it the first, second or third time. Readers may think, "The lady doth protest too much. TFD (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• "I know there are some polls out there saying this man has a 32% approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in "reality." And reality has a well-known liberal bias." 2006. Stephen Colbert (character). Funny guy. Sagecandor (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Wasserman Schultz

Former Head of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, lost her position during the DNC Convention due to WikiLeaks emails being released that showed her efforts to enable Hillary Clinton to win the DNC nomination and steal the nomination from Bernie Sanders. Wasserman Schultz’s brother, Steven Wasserman, is the Assistant US Attorney at the Attorney’s office for the District of Columbia. Questions are arising whether Steven has played a part in burying the Seth Rich case in DC. --87.156.226.151 (talk) 06:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Aftermath section includes Conspiracy related content

The following content in the section titled Aftermath would seem more appropriate in the conspiracy section, or it's own section, whichever seems more appropriate to the community...

• The Rich family accepted the pro bono public relations services of Republican lobbyist Jack Burkman in September 2016.[8] The Rich family and Burkman held a joint press conference on the murder in November 2016.[8][46] In January 2017, Burkman launched an advertising campaign in Northwest D.C. searching for information regarding Seth Rich's death. This included billboard advertisements and canvassing with flyers.[47][48] In late February, Burkman told media outlets he had a lead that the Russian government was involved in Rich's death,[49] and the Rich family distanced itself from Burkman.[50] On March 19, 2017, Rich's brother, Aaron, started a GoFundMe campaign to try to raise $200,000 for private investigation, public outreach activities, and a reward fund.[51] On March 24, Burkman started "The Profiling Project" with some forensics students at George Washington University, an independent investigative attempt to solve the murder of Seth Rich.[52][53]

• According to pro bono Rich family spokesman Brad Bauman — Ed Butowsky, a Fox News contributor and financial adviser, contacted the Rich family and recommended having former homicide detective and Fox News contributor Rod Wheeler investigate Seth Rich's murder. Bauman said the family gave him permission to investigate, though they did not hire him.[18][54] Instead, Wheeler's investigation was financed by Butowsky himself.[11] NBC News reported that Butowsky initially denied involvement in the case, though he later told CNN he was involved in Wheeler's investigation by offering financial support.[55][56] Butowsky told Dallas News that he advised the Rich family to hire a private investigator, and that they then chose to hire Wheeler.[55] After Wheeler spread a discredited conspiracy theory regarding Seth Rich's death in a Fox News interview on May 15, 2017, Bauman said the family regretted working with Wheeler.[4] Darknipples (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the conspiracy section should be for describing the conspiracy theories around the murder of Seth Rich. Some of conspiracy-related content discussed in these paragraphs can be discussed more in depth in the Conspiracies section, like Burkman or Wheeler's comments; but other stuff (like a joint press conference, handing out flyers, or setting up a GoFundMe fundraiser), don't really fit unless we could guess their motives. Some of this stuff used to be in an "Independent investigations" sections, but most of it was deleted because it mentioned an interview Burkman did with the Daily Mail (it didn't cite the interview directly) and the sources allegedly made fun of Burkman (which sources were these?). ^Falling_Gravity 18:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Is this article about the "Person" or the "Event"?

This article seems to be written in part like a biographical article and in part as an article about his killing. I also see that it is proposed to change the name of the article from the "Murder of Seth Rich" to the "Homicide/Killing of Seth Rich", which might make sense as the motive of the person(s) who killed him are unknown. Still perhaps the title should just be "Seth Rich". I expect the quality of this article would be improved if we could decide whether this article about the man as a whole, or just the circumstances of his death and conspiracy theories about it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

3/4ths of the entire article is conspiracy theory related content about his death/murder, and about 1/4 about him. Draw your own conclusions if you like, but from where I sit, that is an undeniable fact. Darknipples (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not denying anything. I am asking the community here if we should be trying to write this as an article about a person or an event (his killing). If it is about a person the lede makes sense, but the title doesn't:

Murder of Seth Rich

Seth Conrad Rich (January 3, 1989 – July 10, 2016) was a 27-year-old Democratic National Committee (DNC) employee who was fatally shot in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington, D.C. The shooting is under investigation by the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department.

If it is about his killing and the theories about it, the title makes sense but the lede doesn't. I am just saying one way or the other we should correct this inconsistency. I figure the article will read better if we do.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, it all just depends on the content available from RS. Most of what has been found so far is focused on conspiracies. Looking at the lede, the only part that is not related to the killing (conspiracies etc.), is the first sentence. The rest of the lede (about 75%) is conspiracy related. Does that seem accurate? Darknipples (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Pretty much the only things driving RS coverage (and notability) are the conspiracy theories circulating about the murder. The article is not supposed to be a biography and some recent additions of that material were probably against consensus. Geogene (talk) 02:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the editing has been driven by the belief of some editors that while the attention given the murder is notable, the murder is not, and the editing was done to support a move. But the case received on going coverage in multiple news outlets and was picked up by wire services before any speculation. I suggest we follow how mainstream sources treat the case, which includes biographical information about the victim and the details of the crime, rather than let our own feelings dictate how it is written. TFD (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

TFD, that doesn't really answer the question about whether the article should be a biography or about the murder. Either way, there will be biographical information and information about the event, hopefully consistent with usage in mainstream sources. That goes without saying. But we still have to make an editorial decision about this article's type (about the person or the event). --В²C ☎ 15:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The article is not about Seth Rich, it is about his murder. However, that does not mean that there should be nothing about him in the article, but that we should "treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject," per NPOV. Articles about crimes routinely contain biographical information about victims, particularly when they are unsolved. Then they typically provide biographical information about the perpetrators as well. TFD (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The lead and most of the content is consistent with a biographical article. I think that's appropriate. The only thing wrong is the title, which should be simply Seth Rich. Looks like the current RM should be closed per SNOW, and another started proposing a move to Seth Rich. --В²C ☎ 15:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I've now removed the irrelevant material about summer camp and his grandparents founding a synagogue. That was a recent addition that was done without consensus. The thing about Wikipedia is that so many editors just don't understand what is and is not encyclopedic information. Geogene (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I've re-added basic information about his education, because he's listed in Omaha Central High School and he's listed as at "Creighton University alumni" in the Seth Rich redirect. ^Falling_Gravity 21:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

This has been rejected previously. Please undo and engage here. Content precedes categories and this is undue and off topic SPECIFICO talk 21:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Where was this previously rejected? The fact that he got a degree in political science from Creighton University helps the reader understand how he got a job in Washington, D.C. where he was shot, which happens to be the subject of this article. ^Falling_Gravity 15:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Employee or data analyst

Rich was not a simple "employee". He was a data analyst for the DNC! --87.156.226.151 (talk) 06:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

You should read the second to last sentence in the very first section of the article titled Seth Rich's early life and career, which says "In 2014 he began working for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) as the Voter Expansion Data Director." Darknipples (talk) 02:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 June 2017

Request add para as follows, after first para of current article--

In May 2017--in part due to the Fox News Channel host, Sean Hannity emphasizing the mysteries remaining in the investigation--the 2016 violent death of Seth Rich became a major topic of national and international debate. Under ensuing debate are the questions not only of whether the killing of Mr. Rich should be regarded as "Homicide, Murder or Assassination," but also the question of whether this is a valid area of rational discussion and public investigation, or merely a focus for conflicting partisan propaganda and ex-parte speculations. The matter, primarily engaged in social media such as @Twitter, became so embroiled in U.S. politics as to draw an intensive campaign against Mr. Hannity, nearly forcing his removal from the Fox News Channel, combated by a contrary campaign which as of June 1st 2017 seems to have prevailed. The substantial interests of the DNC, Wikileaks, the Trump administration, local DC politicians and polic officials, the FBI and US "Intelligence Community", and the Russian Federation have been implicated in the imbroglio--and in any prospective factual solution of the murder case. Cooler heads have recommended that discussions should focus on the evident that exists and as it may be discovered in future. FrancisJeffrey (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC) FrancisJeffrey (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Decline as puffery and POV. "Emphasizing the mysteries remaining in the investigation" is not a neutral summary of what Hannity did, "major topic of national and international debate" is a huge exaggeration--the debate is only being pushed by some far right conspiracy theorists in America. No idea of who the "cooler heads" are supposed to be, that's not in the source given either. The last sentence looks to be editor opinion. Geogene (talk) 01:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The people who are writing the article now are engaging in BLATENT political bias, by context they are associated with the DNC and Clinton faction of the democratic party, and make little or no effort to hide this. Any discussion of potential motives related to Mr Rich's work at the DNC are being attacked as "right wing conspiracy theory", never mind that it could be sanders supporters thinking that it was ordered by Clinton. This is blatent bias and an obvious attempt to spin the narrative.

The real question is are the people doing this actually Clinton supportes, who are not bright enough to realize that this sort of thing is likely to backfire on them, or are they operatives of other agendas? We cannot say, but we can say that stifling debate is not good for democracy. As it says on the Washington Post, democracy dies in darkness, and you fellows are part of it. Montestruc (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC) Montestruc (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Montestruc: You should read this WP:AGF Darknipples (talk) 01:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Right-wing conspiracy theorists are going to hate this article. That's just how it goes. Geogene (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I read it. Could you please provide a plain English translation of it? Montestruc (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

If it's too difficult for you to read or understand, you can ask someone at the Wikipedia:Teahouse to explain it to you. Darknipples (talk) 05:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

So when you deliberately prevent any discussion other than the Pravda or "official truth" promelgated by the Clinton faction of the DNC, we are supposed to assume you act in good faith?

I've done no such thing. This type of accusation is a perfect example of why you should probably go spend some time at the Wikipedia:Teahouse so that you can learn about AGF before commenting any further. Darknipples (talk) 05:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

That any possible question that the approved Clinton DNC version is not correct means it must be part of the "vast right wing conspiracy"? Montestruc (talk) 04:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Is this a question or a rhetorical statement? Wikipedia:Rhetoric has little use anywhere in Wikipedia, and should always be used with extreme caution, so that it is not misconstrued as Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Darknipples (talk) 05:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Role of pizzagate in the lead

A little while ago I had altered the lead to briefly mention a connection to Pizzagate given it appears in a few sources along these lines: "The murder spawned several right-wing conspiracy theories about the crime, including the groundless claim that Rich had been involved with the leaked DNC emails in 2016, and purporting a connection between the incident and the fictional Pizzagate conspiracy theory. These claims have been debunked by..."

Since then it has been changed to say "The murder spawned several right-wing conspiracy theories about the crime, including the groundless claim that Rich had been involved with the leaked DNC emails in 2016, which runs contrary to U.S. intelligence that concluded the leaked DNC emails were part of 2016 U.S. elections interference.[5][6][7] The same sources that fomented the false Pizzagate conspiracy theory publicized the murder conspiracy theories,[8][9] and each shared similar features.[10][11] These theories were debunked by..."

I've underlined the part I want to address. To me, pizzagate shouldn't be given any more mention in the lead than the first bit of text -- that a connection to it was another (less prominent) conspiracy theory involved. The important part for the lead is the gist of the conspiracy theories about this subject, not past activities of people who spread the conspiracy. That's not to say the same content can't go elsewhere in the article, but I'd prefer to see a return to wording along the lines of the first text above. (only for the underlined parts) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you can propose an example tweak that might maybe make it a bit better? Sagecandor (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Not all of the same sources "fomented the false Pizzagate conspiracy". Pizzagate shouldn't be in the lede, it's various journalist's opinion to discredit the Seth Rich conspiracy theory. Assange and Hannity did not "foment" the Pizzagate conspiracy, neither did Kim Dotcom. Raquel Baranow (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

it's various journalist's opinion to discredit the Seth Rich conspiracy theory - this is POV and unsourced claims. Sagecandor (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Weight applies. While it is certainly true that "the rumor spread within the same circles that churned out the bogus “PizzaGate” story," we would have to show that this is a common observation. It is equally true for example that "the rumor spread within the same circles that churned out the bogus story that Saddam Hussein had WMDs." But both statements are misleading, because both the Seth Rich and WMDs stories reached a wider audience than Pizzagate. I suggest we remove it as undue. TFD (talk) 00:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Weight is given per the multiple sources cited. It is equally true for example that "the rumor spread within the same circles that churned out the bogus story that Saddam Hussein had WMDs." Where is this said? Is this an unsourced claim? Sagecandor (talk) 00:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I have sources for that and you know that Fox News and right-wing media were big backers of the Saddam Hussein conspiracy theories. The point is though that you need to establish the degree to which the Pizzagate connection has been made in order to show it has sufficient weight for inclusion in the lead. None of the three sources used in the lead to say the theory was debunked (Politifact, Snopes, FactCheck.org) connect the theory with Pizzagate. Neutrality means that we provide the same weight to facts and opinions as appear in reliable sources, it does not mean we pick and choose what we like.

You have not btw provided "multiple sources," you have provided two, one of which is from the entertainment news. In any case "Seth Rich" now returns 161,000 hits on google news so you need to show that it is routinely mentioned in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 02:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Assange, Hannity, Ginrich and Geraldo Rivera should be in the lede too! Raquel Baranow (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

This talk page discussion is moot unless users are willing to provide reliable sources, here, to back up their claims. Unfortunately, so far they have not done so. Sagecandor (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• Pizzagate should not be in the lede. Mentioning it in the body (I've seen several sources comparing them and stating that they come from the same core political group) is perfectly fine by me, but the heuristic for ledes should be something like "What would I say if someone asked me to explain this subject on 30 seconds?" In such a case, Pizzagate wouldn't merit a mention. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  • They use the same circles to spread the same false debunked bullshit. This has been reported in multiple reliable sources. Sagecandor (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I haven't argued that point, nor even implied any disagreement with it. In fact, I explicitly agreed with it in the comment you replied to. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure about mentioning it in the either, both of the sources, LATimes and IB Times, mention the connection almost in passing. If a source has a more in-depth analysis on the similarities of who is pushing these false narratives, ten it might e lead-worthy. ValarianB (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

There are more sources than Sage has used: the New York Times, Newsweek, the Washington Post and others. Admittedly, most sources don't spend much time comparing the two, but it's an extremely common thread. Common enough to, IMHO, justify inclusion in the bodies of the articles. The problem comes when we give it too much weight, which Sage seems to be doing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for providing those sources the New York Times, Newsweek, the Washington Post ! If it's an "extremely common thread", it merits a brief mention in the lede. Maybe we can trim the size of the lede mention down some. Sagecandor (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

But the lead summarizes the rest of the content, are you really saying that Pizzagate is important enough to the narration of the Seth Rich murder to introduce it within the first lines/paragraphs? Is the reverse true, should the murder of Seth Rich be mentioned in the lead of Pizzagate conspiracy theory? ValarianB (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

If it's an "extremely common thread", it merits a brief mention in the lede. No. For example, it is "extremely common" for sources discussing the Lord of the Rings to call it "Masterful", or to point out that they are frequently at the top of "greatest film ever" lists, but we don't do that in the lede of that article. Remember, the comparison is something which is done by the authors of the sources used. Except for a few fringe cases, the CSists aren't themselves linking the two, so the comparison is quite immaterial for a brief description of the subject, which is what the lede should be (which, as Valerian points out, we accomplish by summarizing the body). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

They may not have said they are linking the two, but the same people are pushing the two. Sagecandor (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I've removed it from the lede, pending consensus on talk page [16]. Sagecandor (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I notice that the Newsweek story says conspiracy theorists suspect Rich "was murdered by Democratic operatives for leaking emails that harmed the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton." I think that should be in the article. It does not make sense to refer to a conspiracy theory dozens of times without explaining what it is. TFD (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, should only include that if directly afterwards in the article, it says it is bullshit. Sagecandor (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with both of you; That's the claim that belongs (briefly) in the article, but we should state that it's untrue. To that end, we should be sure to use a source that supports both assertions: Many sources will assume that the reader already knows it's BS and not assert it directly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with this assessment by MjolnirPants. Sagecandor (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I would remind you that "Vulgarities, obscenities, and profanities" applies: "Quoted words should appear exactly as in the original source. But language that is vulgar, obscene, or profane should be used only if its omission would make the article less accurate or relevant and there is no suitable alternative." I do not think that the phrasing "it's bullshit!" meets Manual of Style guidelines. If that is not your intention, it would be helpful if you used the exact terminology you think would be approprate. TFD (talk) 21:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was suggesting we use the word "bullshit" literally. It's just a convenient shorthand for "there is no evidence to support it and plenty of evidence to discredit it" which you have to admit is a mouthful. Furthermore, I don't find it very easy to believe that an intelligent, experienced editor such as yourself cannot tell the difference. Come on now, no-one can be expected to always write with perfect precision and avoid idiomatic and hyperbolic phrasings at all times. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I find that using terms such as "it's bullshit" moves the discussion from a dispassionate one about improving the article into a political debate between editors. We should not be trying to prove or debunk conspiracy theories, but should just outline what has been said about them. TFD (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I find that using terms such as "it's bullshit" moves the discussion from a dispassionate one about improving the article into a political debate between editors.I find that the reaction of editors who can't simply let such an affront to their closely held beliefs slide are the actual responsible parties for such debates, and that the editors using such terms usually make at least some minor efforts to avoid being drawn into such debates.

We should not be trying to prove or debunk conspiracy theories, but should just outline what has been said about them. And thus we prove my point above. So do you have any feedback on the actual content discussion, such as by proposing some actual copy for us to review? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The reason I think the article should reflect what appears in reliable sources using phrasing consistent with guidelines is not that mainstream media reflects my "closely held beliefs," but because by editing we agree to abide by policy and guidelines. This is not a forum for advocacy. In reply to your question whether I have any feedback into the contact, I do. Let's leave Pizzagate out of the lead, because reliable sources do not give it major significance. Furthermore it actually weakens the impact that you want, because it overstates your case. Subtlety is more effective. TFD (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

You can continue to preach a message that no-one is disputing in the hopes that others will assume we are disputing it (at least, that's the only reason I can think of for you to continue harping on like this), or you can participate in the discussion of what, exactly, to include wrt this content. I might point out that one of those options is in keeping with policy, and the other not. I'm glad to hear that you agree with me (and apparently, with all others here as of Sage's last comment) on leaving this out of the lede. So what about "The various conspiracy theories surrounding Rich's death were promulgated by many of the same sources as those pushing the "Pizzagate" theory. Neither has been supported by evidence."? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Slate called the claims about Seth Rich: a "PizzaGate-like conspiracy theory surrounding Rich’s death", NPR's David Folkenflik said Fox News coverage of it "evokes the pizza-gate terrible allegations utterly unfounded", and Margaret Sullivan wrote for The Washington Post: "The Seth Rich lie has become the new Comet Ping Pong ... Crazy, baseless and dangerous."

These seem like noteworthy comparisons. Sagecandor (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not a description by the Huffington Post but by Eric Boehlert, who is a senior fellow at the pro-Democratic Party media watchdog Media Matters for America. As I said above, none of the neutral fact-checking sites (FactCheck.org, PolitiFact or Snopes) mention Pizzagate. TFD (talk) 05:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The sources are notable. And reliable. The fact-checking sites are great. But we can't have the entire Wikipedia article only be based solely on those three sources. Sagecandor (talk) 12:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Sage is absolutely right. He presented three sources which aren't questionable at all already. The statements he posted would make for text which is a bit longer than I'm comfortable with, but that's a preference thing. To quibble because one of the sources who's made this comparison might be biased is not a valid objection. And the implication that we can only use fact checking sites is just spurious.

Sage, the slate quote you give doesn't say anything about being false, and the quote from the Buzzfeed interview is difficult to read. I think the WaPo source would be good for making the comparison and claiming both are false. I think if we source the claim to both the Newsweek and WaPo source, that'd be enough to make the statements that the two are pushed by the same group and both are false. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds like a good idea, can you draft a suggested sample? Sagecandor (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

An observation made by an officer of an organization set up by a close Clinton associate (David Brock) whose primary objective is to support her is questionable as an unbiased source. Ironically Brock himself has been accused of spreading anti-Clinton conspiracy theories, before his road to Damascus conversion. I imagine it is noteworthy that Clinton supporters choose to compare it to a hoax rather than more broadly covered conspiracy theories such as 9/11 truth, but we would need a reliable secondary source that made that observation. TFD (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

We're not quoting Brock. We're not discussing any HuffPo sources here. I don't know where you're getting this notion from, but you're not engaged in the same discussion Sage and I are. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with MjolnirPants. This is off-topic distraction. Sagecandor (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe an RfC could actually get us somewhere beyond these circular arguments. ^Falling_Gravity 19:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

We are discussing among other things, an op-ed by Eric Boehlert who is a writer working for David Brock. Another Brock organ, Correct the Record, ironically paid online trolls to discredit Clinton opponents in social media, according to an article in The Atlantic.[17] it does not mean that MMfA is unreliable, I have argued the opposite, but it is partisan. It's OK to present the views of Clinton supporters, but they should be identified as such. TFD (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

You may be discussing that op-ed, but neither me nor Sage are. Neither of us is proposing to use it to source the content we are discussing. You are either confused or attempting to confuse us. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, Sage removed that source from the list without telling me.[18] Good editors identify the best sources and ensure that articles reflect what they say. It is tendentious editing to decide what one wants to be in an article, then Google mines for sources and presents them without checking them first. Lot's of bad sources don't compensate for lack of good sources. I will look at the four remaining sources and report back. TFD (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

It is tendentious editing to decide what one wants to be in an article, then Google mines for sources and presents them without checking them first.

1. No, it is bad editing to do that, more specifically, it is POV pushing to do that. However;
2. It is tendentious editing to accuse others of basing content on their opinions without good reason.
3. It is tendentious editing to accuse others of cherry picking sources without good reason.
4. It is tendentious editing to accuse others of not checking their sources without good reason.

So please, stop. Try reading through this thread. You can skip to my first comment, after which the direction of the discussion changed. But continually opposing everything being discussed here based on your own preconceptions of what we might be saying without making any visible effort to compare those preconceptions to what we have actually said is very disruptive and is quite off-putting. The only thing you have accomplished is a demonstration of your own failings thus far. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Proposed wording of this material for use in the body

The various conspiracy theories surrounding Rich's murder have been espoused by many of the same sources pushing "Pizzagate", a debunked rumor about a child-sex ring operating out of a pizza restaurant. Both sets of rumors have been discredited.

I have seen the claim repeated in several non-RSes that Rich was killed because he helped "expose" Pizzagate. Does anyone have a reliable source for this? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The first source, "Margaret Sullivan: The Seth Rich lie, and how the corrosion of reality should worry every American" is a opinion piece and therefore is a "primary source[] for statements attributed to that editor or author, but...rarely reliable for statements of fact," per "News organizations." Sullivan is expressing an opinion that the Seth Rich conspiracy theory is a danger by comparing it in passing with Pizzagate. There was a similar discussion at Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center/Archive 10#Some concrete proposals and later about a person who read on the SPLC website that the Family Research Council as a "hate group" and carried out an armed attack on them. Various opinion pieces were presented that called the SPLC "reckless." In presenting opinions we need to explain who presented them and should only mention them if they have received attention in secondary sources.

Regarding your second point, I do not think we should look for sources for what we want to add to articles but should identify the best sources and put in what they report.

TFD (talk) 07:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

1. Your objection can be overcome by simply leaving out that piece. The other source supports the entire statement.
2. Seeking sources is absolutely required for building an encyclopedia like this. Seriously, do you think the sources are going to come to us? I know for a fact this claim (that Rich 'exposed' Pizzagate and was killed for it) is being made, what I don't know is whether it's notable or widespread. Trying to determine that with the help of my fellow editors is exactly the sort of thing I'm supposed to be doing here, and if you just can't help but whine about me doing that, then you should really go edit somewhere else because you're really getting disruptive here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

It is questionable whether the remaining source should been seen as a news article or an opinion piece, since it was written by a "senior writer" who provides opinion and analysis. In any case, the article is about the death of a federal prosecutor. After saying there is no evidence his death was the result of a conspiracy, he writes, "there was no evidence to support the Rich conspiracy theory, Pizzagate (which implicated the Clinton campaign in a child pornography ring) or the Obama “birther” movement." Not really a strong connection. I added the SPLC's list of conspiracy theories of the U.S. radical right to that article, see Radical right (United States)#Conspiracism. But it would have been tendentious to repeat it across every article about every conspiracy theory mentioned.

Certainly we should seek sources. As I wrote, "we should look for sources for what we want to add to articles but should identify the best sources and put in what they report." Instead of following neutrality, you seek to insert what you think is important rather than what sources do.

TFD (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

It is questionable whether the remaining source should been seen as a news article or an opinion piece It's a news article. It's written without pushing an opinion and it is, in no way, presented as an opinion piece. It's only questionable if one has preconceptions that any such statements must be opinions.

Instead of following neutrality, you seek to insert what you think is important rather than what sources do. Forgetting for the moment the amazing stupidity of dictating to a stranger on the internet what that stranger's thought processes are, I've asked you several times to stop personalizing this. You are nothing but a disruption in this thread so far, so I think I'll be treating you with the appropriate level of attention and consideration from now on. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

You want to put Pizzagate into the lead despite my attempts to explain why it violates policy and guidelines. Instead of thanking me for my patience, you call me stupid. I have done my best. TFD (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

You are so completely full of shit right now. Seriously, read the thread. Go back. It'll take less than ten minutes to read the whole thing. This isn't even close to your best, this is possibly you at your most ignorant worst. Read. The. Fucking. Thread. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

References

conspiracy theories?

it seems completely incorrect to describe the theory that seth rich leaked the DNC emails as a "conspiracy theory" since a conspiracy theory means "a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for an unexplained event", seth rich is not a covert influential organization and the DNC leaks are not an unexplained event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.71.88 (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The murder was an unexplained event and the conspiracy theory is that it was carried out by a covert but influential organization. TFD (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

While that definition is correct, a conspiracy theory can also just be a claim of wikt:conspiracy between interested parties (like Rich and Wikileaks). At any rate, the claim that Rich was connected to the leaks is only described in this article as a conspiracy theory in a direct quote from PolitiFact.com. The rest of the article describes it as part of the murder conspiracy theory as TFD says. clpo13_(talk) 19:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree, but a conspiracy theory is not just a theory but the implication is that it is false, irrationally held and is a symptom of a world-view where evil and powerful actors secretly control major world events. Certainly some if not most supporters of the murder conspiracy theory were truthers or birthers fell for the Pizzagate hoax. TFD (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I should have made that clear. clpo13_(talk) 21:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)