This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
The result of the move request was: Not moved as clear consensus to keep the article at it's current name based on the argument of WP:COMMONNAME has been established. ( non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 20:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Murder of Seth Rich →
Seth Rich homicide – Per reasoning by
Daniel Case at
"Per BLP and OR we cannot call a killing, at least a recent one, "murder" until a judge or jury has convicted someone of that charge or they have pled guilty to it." Hopefully as this is a more simpler proposal, should be a more straightforward discussion than the last one.
Sagecandor (
talk)
01:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.Oppose. It is fine the way it is. I see no material difference between "murder" and "homocide" in meaning. Murder by far is what people use in everyday language to describe homocides. The suggested title of "Death of Seth Rich" appears to be a politically motivated whitewash trying to cover up that there was foul play. There are no indications that Mr. Richard mistakenly shot himself twice. And there is no indication that the two torso shots (at least one of which was to his back) were suicidal in nature. Nobody is talking about his death being a suicide. In addition, the shots were fired around 4am which isn't a great time to be walking alone in a big city. Furthermore, you have the whole issue of Wikileaks and Mr. Assange offering a reward for information relating to his apparent murder. Knox490 ( talk) 16:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
As for COMMONNAME itself, firstly I should remind you that it is a permissive policy but not a prescriptive one, i.e. it allows us to use Amtrak and leave National Railroad Passenger Corporation a redirect because we are not bound to technical names; at the same time it does not require that we use "Amtrak" if for whatever reason consensus were to come down against it in favor of something else. Its language uses "generally, not always.
Everyone who has invoked COMMONNAME above seems not to have read further down the NC page to the next section, WP:NPOVTITLE, which discusses what should be an obvious limitation to COMMONNAME: the common name must be neutral. Calling an article about a recent homicide "Murder of ..." is essentially convicting someone of a crime before they have even been identified, much less arrested, which means such titling is very POV. In a time when the presumption of innocence is under such sustained attack from all sides, it is at the very least irresponsible of us to ignore the implications of NPOV in how we title this article.
And since, after all, those who killed Rich are not ideas or institutions but actual people, it is not just NPOV but BLP we must be heedful of. And indeed there is a BLP subsection that is most pertinent: WP:BLPCRIME, which reads, in relevant part: "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured". I submit that the article title must be considered to be "material" under this sentence.
"Seth Rich homicide" is an alternative that avoids all these issues (until, if ever, any suspects are charged and convicted) as well as fitting nicely with WP:NDESC. "Homicide" is a statistical category of deaths, those caused by the actions of another, that is sometimes but not always used in the names of criminal offenses covering the unlawful killing of another human being. It is descriptive but not judgemental. Daniel Case ( talk) 07:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
TL;DR: just because nothing says explicitly we should do it the way we're doing it doesn't mean that way isn't wrong.
Daniel Case ( talk) 07:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)More comments in response to !votes above:
And in any event, this is a homicide that occurred in the United States. Certainly that should be taken into consideration?
Daniel Case ( talk) 16:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)I understand how you may read this proposed title as suggesting that usage, but it does not. The article is about a homicide, an event, "Seth Rich" is the modifying descriptor. I prefer that usage to "Homicide of ..." because that's a rather awkward construction that almost no one uses in casual conversation; in fact it seems to me from experience that police officers, prosecutors and journalists generally use the construction in which the victims' name (or names) come first as a descriptor.
Daniel Case ( talk) 17:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)My argument would be under your number 2, as I've written in my response to Isaidnoway: BLP violation as to a yet-unidentified suspect's presumption of innocence. Daniel Case ( talk) 21:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
For the last four years, the AP Stylebook has admonished reporters thus: "Do not say that a victim was 'murdered' until someone has been convicted in court. Instead, say that a victim was 'killed' or 'slain.'," Emphasis in original.
I realize that the AP is not us, and we do not have to follow their stylebook (and in many cases we don't, and for good reason). But in matters relating to things that can possibly get you sued for defamation, the AP (and indeed all the respectable news outlets that use it) are bound by principles analogous to BLP and NPOV. If they came to this conclusion, certainly we should not be so dismissive of it or take cover under things like COMMONNAME and "that's what our sources say" (Especially not when we made the decision a few months ago to pretty much blacklist one of the English-speaking world's most widely read online newspapers for its callous indifference to these issues). Daniel Case ( talk) 21:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Strongly oppose changing the title. We know Seth was shot in the back multiple times, and was unarmed, and in a public place. It is irrational to think it an accidental shooting or a self-defense shooting. We simply do not need to know who did it to know he was murdered.
Many terms used in this article are strongly biased. Whether others hacked the DNC does not prove Mr. Rich did not leak material, claiming this is a "right wing conspiracy theory" is biased. It may be a pro-Sanders conspiracy theory, or for all you know it may be fact. Montestruc ( talk) 00:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC) Montestruc ( talk) 00:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Original
The Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia (MPDC) posted its customary reward of $25,000 for information about the death.[2][34]
Proposed Revision:
In addition to the $20,000 reward offered by Wikileaks [1], the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia (MPDC) posted its customary reward of $25,000 for information about the death.[2][34]
One America News Network [2] and Republican strategist Jack Burkman are offering rewards of $100,000 and $130,000 respectively [3] in connection with the Rich investigation.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohawk82 ( talk • contribs) 21:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
References
Shocking corroberation of the so-called 'conspiracy theories' by the GWU faculty in their recent publication. [1] [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.152.116 ( talk) 09:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
References
If this content does end up in the article in some fashion the Profiling Project needs to be to factually characterized.
This section title isn't completely correct...that's all. Shearonink ( talk) 23:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Okay, according to this [5] it is an organization that was founded and funded by Jack Burkman, specifically to investigate the Seth Rich murder. It's staffed by anonymous graduate students. They operate out of an "undisclosed location" in Arlington. They have no record of investigating any other crimes. They do not pay their staff (who are anonymous volunteer graduate students) but they did pay for an unusually photogenic office space, with a large professionally-done window logo, complete with a well-framed 'don't antagonize the family' mantra prominently and certainly not accidentally displayed on that website. And they have a PR firm publicizing their reports. None of that smells right to me. Wait and see if RS's other than Newsweek take the bait. Geogene ( talk) 00:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Their PR agency has a
"Team Bios" page: The two named leads, Kevin Doherty and Jennifer Rohrer, would appear to be not associated with GWU at all.
The GWU connection is the Project using "The Student Association for Forensic Psychology (SAFP)" ("a student organization comprised of graduate students pursuing a Master's in Forensic Psychology") at GWU as their staffers. There's no mention of "instructors" per se from GWU being involved other than these grad students.-- NapoliRoma ( talk) 02:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
James J. Lambden - Let's continue our discussion here. Feel free to ping VM, as you see fit. DN ( talk) 04:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I have removed content suggesting (with weasely attribution) that the conspiracy theory was intended to distract from the Trump-Russia investigation. This may be true, but the cited sources didn't say that. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 20:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
There's also other sources, which have been brought up before.
[11],
[12]. Also, the "failed verification" tag is inappropriate.
Volunteer Marek (
talk)
05:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Other sources that may help shed some light on this.
While I may believe my personal concerns were justified, I was wrong to use the article talk page as a personal space to vocalize said concerns. I apologize to the editors here, including The Four Deuces and DrFleischman, for putting my personal opinions about other editors on the article Talk Page space. It was improper of me to do so. I have had this experience, and should have realized that this type of behavior is unproductive and unwelcome on Wikipedia. DN ( talk) 05:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Sam Browning ( talk) 15:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)On June 20, 2017, the Profiling Project published a report which called the conspiracy theories surrounding the death unfounded, and speculated that it was caused by a serial killer.[50]
This is at the end of paragraph 3 in the aftermath section. Note 50 is to an article about the Profiling Project report and not the report itself which can be found here. [1]
I have read the Project Report and did not find where it called conspiracy theories "unfounded". They instead discussed various conspiracy theories and called them "not likely". They also used the term "serial murderer" though it is likely this is synonymous with the term "serial killer".
The Profiling Project attempted to profile this homicide without having access to the autopsy report, any related forensic testing, the police reports describing the crime scene, or photographs of the crime scene. According to FBI profilers these materials are needed to generate a reliable profile. See John Douglas and Mark Olshaker, Mind Hunter: Inside the FBI’s Elite Serial Crime Unit (Pocket Books, New York, 1995) pp.169-170. and John E. Douglas, Ann W. Burgess, Allen G. Burgess and Robert K. Ressler (Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, 1992), pp. 310-311. "The effectiveness of criminal investigative analysis is limited by the accuracy, completeness, and quality of material received from the submitting agency. . . A thorough written and pictorial description of the crime scene through 8-inch by 10-inch color photographs and a crime scene synopsis is essential for an optimum criminal investigative analysis. . . The autopsy report should include (if possible) toxicology, and serology results, autopsy photographs, photographs of the cleansed wounds, estimated time of death, type of weapon, and suspected sequence of attack."
I would suggest the following edit since I do not have the ability to edit this article.
"On June 20, 2017, the Profiling Project published a report describing some conspiracy theories surrounding the death as "not likely", and speculated that it "was more likely committed by a hired killer or serial murderer." [2] The Profiling Project's ability to accurately profile this crime without the autopsy report, forensic test results, crime scene photography, and the police crime scene reports, has been disputed. [3] Sam Browning ( talk) 15:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Geogene, the point is not that the police are expected to release such information, the point is that the Profiling Project went out and "profiled" a crime without the bare minimum of information that they needed to conduct such an activity, according to the guidelines used by the FBI, and the FBI is the institution who formalized profiling in the US in the 1970s and early 1980s.
− As far as Bullshido's reliability it is an electronic bulletin board and the comments by members are not screened for reliability however the investigative articles are. I would politely suggest that you review the article itself for reliability rather than the website which is a rather large and unwieldy entity. Sam Browning ( talk) 16:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
References
The only way to "debunk" the "conspiracy theories" is to find the killer. Who is he? Otherwise the conspiracies will only grow. People should not work for the DNC it's way too dangerous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.214.244.97 ( talk) 21:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
If Seth Rich's murder was "debunked" by law enforcement, that means he's still alive and well, right? The bias and skewed POV in this article are so obvious that it hurts. Wikipedia used to be a bastion of truth and unmolested knowledge. Now, it's a mouthpiece for the "liberal" establishment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.179.55 ( talk) 12:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
De-link "Brittany Pettibone", please. Article was deleted, no need to keep a red link in the article body. TheValeyard ( talk) 15:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Calton: Re [16] Care to explain why you don't think so? It's what the report says. Terrorist96 ( talk) 06:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
How many Talk Page sections do we need to discuss the same content? See [17]. This seems to add nothing to what has previously been presented. It's so little, in fact, that I can copy-edit ALL of it into a relatively short paragraph, here...
If anything from this is deemed WP:DUE, I agree with Shearonink [18] that it should be accompanied by an inline attribution to Jack Burkman..."GOP lobbyist Jack Burkman, who put up $105,000 of his own money as a reward to help solve Rich's murder, is also funding the Profiling Project -- DN ( talk) 10:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
This article is overblown with statements poisoning the well by mentioning pizzagate conspiracy theory all over the place. These references should be removed, or the entire article deleted. It doesn't read anything like a an unbiased encyclopedia entry, but an overly defensive propaganda piece. Squ1rr3l - Talk to me! 17:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
To: Those people who think they control this article. I've given you a couple of days to fix your obvious error of claiming that theories about Seth Rich's murder were "debunked". I explained, carefully, that they were certainly "denied", and some may have been false. But the word "debunked" does not merely imply falsity, it actually and forcefully claims that a given assertion was actually disproven. Its use also implies that the things claimed to be "debunked" were somehow implausible or preposterous. Since the actual murderer of Seth Rich has not been identified, let alone caught, let alone tried, let alone convicted, there are simply some things that are not known. Such things haven't been "debunked", they may have been denied. Check out Google Trends, say https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=debunk , over a time frame of 5 years, and we see that the word "debunk" has been recently subject to fad-type use. Notice the sudden peak at Oct-16-Oct 22. Why all the sudden use of the word "debunk"? The answer, apparently, is that some people had a powerful motivation to overstate the effectiveness of their arguments. No, they didn't merely "deny" somebody else's claim, they "debunked" it. Based on the definition from Merriam-Webster which I cited, above, by using the term "debunked" they were claiming that the contrary argument was not merely wrong, it was preposterous, probably a deliberate fraud. I urge the people who think they own this article to stop manipulating it for political purposes. We don't know that Seth Rich gave DNC emails to Wikileaks. But we also don't know that he didn't. So that idea hasn't been "debunked" yet. 2601:1C2:4E01:CE00:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 ( talk) 17:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Edit request. From the second paragraph: "These theories were debunked by law enforcement,[5][6]" According to https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/debunk "There are plenty of synonyms for "debunk," including "disprove," "rebut," "refute," and the somewhat rarer "confute." Even "falsify" can mean "prove something false," in addition to "make something false." "Debunk" itself often suggests that something is not merely untrue, but also a sham; one can simply disprove a myth, but if it is "debunked," the implication is that it was a grossly exaggerated or foolish claim." (end of quotation) I don't believe anyone has actually disproved that Rich was killed in retaliation for revealing various emails. The organizations listed can be correctly stated as having "denied" that idea, but to rise to the level of "debunk" would probably require some sort of proof that it isn't true, rather than a mere denial that it is true. If the actual murderer were caught and tried, that could easily amount to "debunking" the concept, for example. Also, the definition discussion from Merriam-Webster suggests that the allegation must actually be a "sham", a "grossly-exaggerated or foolish claim". Was the suggestion that Rich was murdered in retaliation "a sham"? Was it a "grossly-exaggerated or foolish claim"? Is it completely inconceivable that a person working for the DNC might have been killed for revealing emails? I don't see any elements of that idea which qualify under these labels. Also, much is made in the various cites of conclusions that Russia supplied "the emails" to Wikileaks. There's no proof supplied for this; and even if it is true that some emails were hacked by Russia's people, that does not automatically disprove the idea that emails were also obtained by other means (including by other hackers, or insiders?) and were themselves supplied to the media or Wikileaks, or both. The cites seemingly being used to "disprove" the Seth Rich connection imply that emails might have been obtained and released by Russia, or Seth Rich, but not by both. Since Russia's activities are claimed to be proven, this is used alone to disprove Seth Rich's involvement. That doesn't amount to "debunking" the retaliation story. 2601:1C2:4E01:CE00:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 ( talk) 01:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Article now exists at Ed Butowsky. This is otherwise becoming a magnet for salacious and BLP-violating accusations, and is off-topic as well. ValarianB ( talk) 13:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
A success such as that; one would think.-- Wikipietime ( talk) 16:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Why no references to the Seymour Hersh tape where he discusses the case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.37.97.8 ( talk) 06:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
|
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Seth_Rich_memorial.jpg
Put this in the "Aftermath" section which says "In October 2016, a plaque and bike rack outside the DNC headquarters were dedicated to Rich's memory."
Caption: "Bike rack (top) and plaque (bottom) outside the DNC headquaters" Johanna745 ( talk) 02:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
The POV-push by Loyalmoonie also needs a revert, as it is non-neutral and against longstanding consensus. Geogene ( talk) 17:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
The terms "right-wing" and "debunked" are non-neutral and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.135.189.50 ( talk) 16:09 1 August 2017
Is it just me, or is there a renewed effort (in the last 48 hours or so) to distance Assange from this mess? Geogene ( talk) 06:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Driveby SPA fakenews soapbox cloaked as editing proposal |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
On August 1, 2017 the audio recording of acclaimed journalist Seymour Hersh confirming Seth Rich as the Wikileaks source for the DNC emails was revealed by Cassandra Fairbanks in her article in BigLeaguePolitics. Soon after, Wikileaks linked to the recording on twitter, and while this can not be considered a confirmation of Seth Rich as the Wikileaks source for the DNC emails - as their policy prevents them from revealing their sources - it adds significant credibility to the tapes authenticity. Shouldn't this information in some form be added to the article? Given the sources, it also suggests a more careful approach to using labels like "debunking" and "false news" might be wise considering the increasing amount of factors implying that Seth Rich indeed was the actual DNC source. RedFireDragon ( talk) 14:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC) |
This
edit request to
Murder of Seth Rich has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The second paragraph states that there is a "groundless claim" that Rich had been involved with the leaked DNC emails in 2016. That is an opinion and yet to be determined. I suggest removing the word 'groundless'. 98.117.55.213 ( talk) 23:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Could someone please provide advice on how to properly suggest the addition of recent information related to this article? I made an attempt, but apparently failed miserably despite my best intentions. Constructive feedback would be very appreciated! RedFireDragon ( talk) 20:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I disagree with Dlabtot removing unbidden in this diff [21]. The source given does support that content, in spite of their edit summary. Is there any reason we shouldn't say specifically how Assange fed speculation? That he was the one that brought it up is relevant. Geogene ( talk) 17:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks editor, further stoked speculation that Rich might have been involved in the DNC hack by referencing the murder, unprompted, on a Dutch news program.[22]. That is the semantic equivalent of "seemed to imply that". Geogene ( talk) 18:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
"Assistant Police Chief Peter Newsham said the police had no information suggesting a connection between Rich's death and data obtained by WikLeaks. Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, fueled speculation of a connection when, unbidden, he talked about the case on a Dutch news program.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Some important details. Need to be included. We also really need to rethink the title based on what this indicates. http://www.npr.org/2017/08/01/540783715/lawsuit-alleges-fox-news-and-trump-supporter-created-fake-news-story Casprings ( talk) 12:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Malia Zimmerman’s lead story (the one FoxNews purged from their website a couple of days later) claimed in the second paragraph that Wheeler’s story "was corroborated by a federal investigator who spoke to Fox News" and, further down:
An FBI forensic report of Rich's computer -- generated within 96 hours after Rich's murder -- showed he made contact with WikiLeaks through Gavin MacFadyen, a now-deceased American investigative reporter, documentary filmmaker, and director of WikiLeaks who was living in London at the time, the federal source told Fox News.
“I have seen and read the emails between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks,” the federal investigator told Fox News, confirming the MacFadyen connection. He said the emails are in possession of the FBI, while the stalled case is in the hands of the Washington Police Department.
The revelation is consistent with the findings of Wheeler, whose private investigation firm was hired by a third party on behalf of Rich’s family to probe the case.
I amended the text accordingly. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 20:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Comment on removal of edit (it's been restored by another editor): Fox News is the secondary source, and the sentence reflects what they reported. I have now replaced "claimed" with "stated"; it might be construed as POV although it was unintentional. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 04:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
DrFleischman The Four Deuces SPECIFICO Volunteer Marek Please see our previous Talk Page section from the archive [25]. Given recent revelations, i.e. the Wheeler lawsuit, I think we should reconsider some of the cited content that was discussed, or at least revisit that discussion. If the consensus is to WP:DROP, no problem, I promise not to lose my s#!+ this time (wink), just as long as we don't go accidentally editorializing context on RSN (wink).
This discussion is supposed to be about the article, and the issues raised at it's inception, to a degree. See WP:NOTAFORUM -- DN ( talk) 05:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Now that page protection expired, new account Bobbysev1 is edit warring pro-conspiracy nonsense into the article, against sourcing. Who didn't see that coming? Geogene ( talk) 23:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
@Geogene, My edit was not pro-conspiracy as you assert. It was in fact a verbatim quote from the cited article that was misquoted by the previous writer of the quote. It would be greatly appreciated if you would fact-check your own edits instead of making claims against others when in fact the mistake was not on my part. Thank you, Bob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbysev1 ( talk • contribs) 23:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
The Seth Rich murder conspiracy is peddled by a lot of Berners on social media. I don't think this conspiracy is right-wing. More like left-wing Uncle J ( talk) 17:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
After the murder, Donna Brazille feared for her life and took measures against a sniper attack. She put the murder in context with the email hacking by Russians. This throws a bucket of cold water on the "right-wing conspiracy" meme as she apparently believed and recounted. [31] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:489:FCA0:E16:478C:3AAE ( talk) 19:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
This is the excerpt in context. Brazile describes her mounting anxiety about Russia’s theft of emails and other data from DNC servers, the slow process of discovering the full extent of the cyberattacks and the personal fallout. She likens the feeling to having rats in your basement: “You take measures to get rid of them, but knowing they are there, or have been there, means you never feel truly at peace.”
Brazile writes that she was haunted by the still-unsolved murder of DNC data staffer Seth Rich and feared for her own life, shutting the blinds to her office window so snipers could not see her and installing surveillance cameras at her home. She wonders whether Russians had placed a listening device in plants in the DNC executive suite.
At first, Brazile writes of the hacking, top Democratic officials were “encouraging us not to talk about it.” But she says a wake-up moment came when she visited the White House in August 2016, for President Obama’s 55th birthday party. National security adviser Susan E. Rice and former attorney general Eric Holder separately pulled her aside to urge her to take the Russian hacking seriously, which she did, she writes. Not sure what the BLP violation might be but feel free to point out the wording. She was obviously fearful at the time and took measures. This is a new book that again relates her fear and repeats that it was "serious," recalling a warning from Susan Rice. -- 2600:8800:1300:489:FCA0:E16:478C:3AAE ( talk) 20:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Given that he recently posted a $5000 reward for a strand of Hillary Clinton's hair [32] for some DNA work and is now claiming it's satire (the Secret Service didn't think it was funny), should this article continue to take his Seth Rich reward seriously? Existing sourcing looks like it's barely even notable. Geogene ( talk) 00:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikipedia clearly states that articles be impartial, there is nothing impartial about this article. Any article that refers to an opposing view point of the world we live in as if holding those view points is stupid is clearly both partial and partisan.
The fact that this article still sits here in its current form casts doubt on the reliability of Wikipedia as an information source. You can say that it is impartial because that is what the news articles say but that doesn't account for the authers bias. There is also the fact that information can be shared with out sharing the biases of the original authors.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
The result of the move request was: Not moved as clear consensus to keep the article at it's current name based on the argument of WP:COMMONNAME has been established. ( non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 20:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Murder of Seth Rich →
Seth Rich homicide – Per reasoning by
Daniel Case at
"Per BLP and OR we cannot call a killing, at least a recent one, "murder" until a judge or jury has convicted someone of that charge or they have pled guilty to it." Hopefully as this is a more simpler proposal, should be a more straightforward discussion than the last one.
Sagecandor (
talk)
01:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.Oppose. It is fine the way it is. I see no material difference between "murder" and "homocide" in meaning. Murder by far is what people use in everyday language to describe homocides. The suggested title of "Death of Seth Rich" appears to be a politically motivated whitewash trying to cover up that there was foul play. There are no indications that Mr. Richard mistakenly shot himself twice. And there is no indication that the two torso shots (at least one of which was to his back) were suicidal in nature. Nobody is talking about his death being a suicide. In addition, the shots were fired around 4am which isn't a great time to be walking alone in a big city. Furthermore, you have the whole issue of Wikileaks and Mr. Assange offering a reward for information relating to his apparent murder. Knox490 ( talk) 16:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
As for COMMONNAME itself, firstly I should remind you that it is a permissive policy but not a prescriptive one, i.e. it allows us to use Amtrak and leave National Railroad Passenger Corporation a redirect because we are not bound to technical names; at the same time it does not require that we use "Amtrak" if for whatever reason consensus were to come down against it in favor of something else. Its language uses "generally, not always.
Everyone who has invoked COMMONNAME above seems not to have read further down the NC page to the next section, WP:NPOVTITLE, which discusses what should be an obvious limitation to COMMONNAME: the common name must be neutral. Calling an article about a recent homicide "Murder of ..." is essentially convicting someone of a crime before they have even been identified, much less arrested, which means such titling is very POV. In a time when the presumption of innocence is under such sustained attack from all sides, it is at the very least irresponsible of us to ignore the implications of NPOV in how we title this article.
And since, after all, those who killed Rich are not ideas or institutions but actual people, it is not just NPOV but BLP we must be heedful of. And indeed there is a BLP subsection that is most pertinent: WP:BLPCRIME, which reads, in relevant part: "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured". I submit that the article title must be considered to be "material" under this sentence.
"Seth Rich homicide" is an alternative that avoids all these issues (until, if ever, any suspects are charged and convicted) as well as fitting nicely with WP:NDESC. "Homicide" is a statistical category of deaths, those caused by the actions of another, that is sometimes but not always used in the names of criminal offenses covering the unlawful killing of another human being. It is descriptive but not judgemental. Daniel Case ( talk) 07:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
TL;DR: just because nothing says explicitly we should do it the way we're doing it doesn't mean that way isn't wrong.
Daniel Case ( talk) 07:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)More comments in response to !votes above:
And in any event, this is a homicide that occurred in the United States. Certainly that should be taken into consideration?
Daniel Case ( talk) 16:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)I understand how you may read this proposed title as suggesting that usage, but it does not. The article is about a homicide, an event, "Seth Rich" is the modifying descriptor. I prefer that usage to "Homicide of ..." because that's a rather awkward construction that almost no one uses in casual conversation; in fact it seems to me from experience that police officers, prosecutors and journalists generally use the construction in which the victims' name (or names) come first as a descriptor.
Daniel Case ( talk) 17:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)My argument would be under your number 2, as I've written in my response to Isaidnoway: BLP violation as to a yet-unidentified suspect's presumption of innocence. Daniel Case ( talk) 21:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
For the last four years, the AP Stylebook has admonished reporters thus: "Do not say that a victim was 'murdered' until someone has been convicted in court. Instead, say that a victim was 'killed' or 'slain.'," Emphasis in original.
I realize that the AP is not us, and we do not have to follow their stylebook (and in many cases we don't, and for good reason). But in matters relating to things that can possibly get you sued for defamation, the AP (and indeed all the respectable news outlets that use it) are bound by principles analogous to BLP and NPOV. If they came to this conclusion, certainly we should not be so dismissive of it or take cover under things like COMMONNAME and "that's what our sources say" (Especially not when we made the decision a few months ago to pretty much blacklist one of the English-speaking world's most widely read online newspapers for its callous indifference to these issues). Daniel Case ( talk) 21:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Strongly oppose changing the title. We know Seth was shot in the back multiple times, and was unarmed, and in a public place. It is irrational to think it an accidental shooting or a self-defense shooting. We simply do not need to know who did it to know he was murdered.
Many terms used in this article are strongly biased. Whether others hacked the DNC does not prove Mr. Rich did not leak material, claiming this is a "right wing conspiracy theory" is biased. It may be a pro-Sanders conspiracy theory, or for all you know it may be fact. Montestruc ( talk) 00:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC) Montestruc ( talk) 00:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Original
The Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia (MPDC) posted its customary reward of $25,000 for information about the death.[2][34]
Proposed Revision:
In addition to the $20,000 reward offered by Wikileaks [1], the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia (MPDC) posted its customary reward of $25,000 for information about the death.[2][34]
One America News Network [2] and Republican strategist Jack Burkman are offering rewards of $100,000 and $130,000 respectively [3] in connection with the Rich investigation.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohawk82 ( talk • contribs) 21:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
References
Shocking corroberation of the so-called 'conspiracy theories' by the GWU faculty in their recent publication. [1] [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.152.116 ( talk) 09:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
References
If this content does end up in the article in some fashion the Profiling Project needs to be to factually characterized.
This section title isn't completely correct...that's all. Shearonink ( talk) 23:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Okay, according to this [5] it is an organization that was founded and funded by Jack Burkman, specifically to investigate the Seth Rich murder. It's staffed by anonymous graduate students. They operate out of an "undisclosed location" in Arlington. They have no record of investigating any other crimes. They do not pay their staff (who are anonymous volunteer graduate students) but they did pay for an unusually photogenic office space, with a large professionally-done window logo, complete with a well-framed 'don't antagonize the family' mantra prominently and certainly not accidentally displayed on that website. And they have a PR firm publicizing their reports. None of that smells right to me. Wait and see if RS's other than Newsweek take the bait. Geogene ( talk) 00:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Their PR agency has a
"Team Bios" page: The two named leads, Kevin Doherty and Jennifer Rohrer, would appear to be not associated with GWU at all.
The GWU connection is the Project using "The Student Association for Forensic Psychology (SAFP)" ("a student organization comprised of graduate students pursuing a Master's in Forensic Psychology") at GWU as their staffers. There's no mention of "instructors" per se from GWU being involved other than these grad students.-- NapoliRoma ( talk) 02:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
James J. Lambden - Let's continue our discussion here. Feel free to ping VM, as you see fit. DN ( talk) 04:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I have removed content suggesting (with weasely attribution) that the conspiracy theory was intended to distract from the Trump-Russia investigation. This may be true, but the cited sources didn't say that. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 20:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
There's also other sources, which have been brought up before.
[11],
[12]. Also, the "failed verification" tag is inappropriate.
Volunteer Marek (
talk)
05:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Other sources that may help shed some light on this.
While I may believe my personal concerns were justified, I was wrong to use the article talk page as a personal space to vocalize said concerns. I apologize to the editors here, including The Four Deuces and DrFleischman, for putting my personal opinions about other editors on the article Talk Page space. It was improper of me to do so. I have had this experience, and should have realized that this type of behavior is unproductive and unwelcome on Wikipedia. DN ( talk) 05:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Sam Browning ( talk) 15:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)On June 20, 2017, the Profiling Project published a report which called the conspiracy theories surrounding the death unfounded, and speculated that it was caused by a serial killer.[50]
This is at the end of paragraph 3 in the aftermath section. Note 50 is to an article about the Profiling Project report and not the report itself which can be found here. [1]
I have read the Project Report and did not find where it called conspiracy theories "unfounded". They instead discussed various conspiracy theories and called them "not likely". They also used the term "serial murderer" though it is likely this is synonymous with the term "serial killer".
The Profiling Project attempted to profile this homicide without having access to the autopsy report, any related forensic testing, the police reports describing the crime scene, or photographs of the crime scene. According to FBI profilers these materials are needed to generate a reliable profile. See John Douglas and Mark Olshaker, Mind Hunter: Inside the FBI’s Elite Serial Crime Unit (Pocket Books, New York, 1995) pp.169-170. and John E. Douglas, Ann W. Burgess, Allen G. Burgess and Robert K. Ressler (Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, 1992), pp. 310-311. "The effectiveness of criminal investigative analysis is limited by the accuracy, completeness, and quality of material received from the submitting agency. . . A thorough written and pictorial description of the crime scene through 8-inch by 10-inch color photographs and a crime scene synopsis is essential for an optimum criminal investigative analysis. . . The autopsy report should include (if possible) toxicology, and serology results, autopsy photographs, photographs of the cleansed wounds, estimated time of death, type of weapon, and suspected sequence of attack."
I would suggest the following edit since I do not have the ability to edit this article.
"On June 20, 2017, the Profiling Project published a report describing some conspiracy theories surrounding the death as "not likely", and speculated that it "was more likely committed by a hired killer or serial murderer." [2] The Profiling Project's ability to accurately profile this crime without the autopsy report, forensic test results, crime scene photography, and the police crime scene reports, has been disputed. [3] Sam Browning ( talk) 15:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Geogene, the point is not that the police are expected to release such information, the point is that the Profiling Project went out and "profiled" a crime without the bare minimum of information that they needed to conduct such an activity, according to the guidelines used by the FBI, and the FBI is the institution who formalized profiling in the US in the 1970s and early 1980s.
− As far as Bullshido's reliability it is an electronic bulletin board and the comments by members are not screened for reliability however the investigative articles are. I would politely suggest that you review the article itself for reliability rather than the website which is a rather large and unwieldy entity. Sam Browning ( talk) 16:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
References
The only way to "debunk" the "conspiracy theories" is to find the killer. Who is he? Otherwise the conspiracies will only grow. People should not work for the DNC it's way too dangerous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.214.244.97 ( talk) 21:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
If Seth Rich's murder was "debunked" by law enforcement, that means he's still alive and well, right? The bias and skewed POV in this article are so obvious that it hurts. Wikipedia used to be a bastion of truth and unmolested knowledge. Now, it's a mouthpiece for the "liberal" establishment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.179.55 ( talk) 12:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
De-link "Brittany Pettibone", please. Article was deleted, no need to keep a red link in the article body. TheValeyard ( talk) 15:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Calton: Re [16] Care to explain why you don't think so? It's what the report says. Terrorist96 ( talk) 06:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
How many Talk Page sections do we need to discuss the same content? See [17]. This seems to add nothing to what has previously been presented. It's so little, in fact, that I can copy-edit ALL of it into a relatively short paragraph, here...
If anything from this is deemed WP:DUE, I agree with Shearonink [18] that it should be accompanied by an inline attribution to Jack Burkman..."GOP lobbyist Jack Burkman, who put up $105,000 of his own money as a reward to help solve Rich's murder, is also funding the Profiling Project -- DN ( talk) 10:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
This article is overblown with statements poisoning the well by mentioning pizzagate conspiracy theory all over the place. These references should be removed, or the entire article deleted. It doesn't read anything like a an unbiased encyclopedia entry, but an overly defensive propaganda piece. Squ1rr3l - Talk to me! 17:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
To: Those people who think they control this article. I've given you a couple of days to fix your obvious error of claiming that theories about Seth Rich's murder were "debunked". I explained, carefully, that they were certainly "denied", and some may have been false. But the word "debunked" does not merely imply falsity, it actually and forcefully claims that a given assertion was actually disproven. Its use also implies that the things claimed to be "debunked" were somehow implausible or preposterous. Since the actual murderer of Seth Rich has not been identified, let alone caught, let alone tried, let alone convicted, there are simply some things that are not known. Such things haven't been "debunked", they may have been denied. Check out Google Trends, say https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=debunk , over a time frame of 5 years, and we see that the word "debunk" has been recently subject to fad-type use. Notice the sudden peak at Oct-16-Oct 22. Why all the sudden use of the word "debunk"? The answer, apparently, is that some people had a powerful motivation to overstate the effectiveness of their arguments. No, they didn't merely "deny" somebody else's claim, they "debunked" it. Based on the definition from Merriam-Webster which I cited, above, by using the term "debunked" they were claiming that the contrary argument was not merely wrong, it was preposterous, probably a deliberate fraud. I urge the people who think they own this article to stop manipulating it for political purposes. We don't know that Seth Rich gave DNC emails to Wikileaks. But we also don't know that he didn't. So that idea hasn't been "debunked" yet. 2601:1C2:4E01:CE00:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 ( talk) 17:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Edit request. From the second paragraph: "These theories were debunked by law enforcement,[5][6]" According to https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/debunk "There are plenty of synonyms for "debunk," including "disprove," "rebut," "refute," and the somewhat rarer "confute." Even "falsify" can mean "prove something false," in addition to "make something false." "Debunk" itself often suggests that something is not merely untrue, but also a sham; one can simply disprove a myth, but if it is "debunked," the implication is that it was a grossly exaggerated or foolish claim." (end of quotation) I don't believe anyone has actually disproved that Rich was killed in retaliation for revealing various emails. The organizations listed can be correctly stated as having "denied" that idea, but to rise to the level of "debunk" would probably require some sort of proof that it isn't true, rather than a mere denial that it is true. If the actual murderer were caught and tried, that could easily amount to "debunking" the concept, for example. Also, the definition discussion from Merriam-Webster suggests that the allegation must actually be a "sham", a "grossly-exaggerated or foolish claim". Was the suggestion that Rich was murdered in retaliation "a sham"? Was it a "grossly-exaggerated or foolish claim"? Is it completely inconceivable that a person working for the DNC might have been killed for revealing emails? I don't see any elements of that idea which qualify under these labels. Also, much is made in the various cites of conclusions that Russia supplied "the emails" to Wikileaks. There's no proof supplied for this; and even if it is true that some emails were hacked by Russia's people, that does not automatically disprove the idea that emails were also obtained by other means (including by other hackers, or insiders?) and were themselves supplied to the media or Wikileaks, or both. The cites seemingly being used to "disprove" the Seth Rich connection imply that emails might have been obtained and released by Russia, or Seth Rich, but not by both. Since Russia's activities are claimed to be proven, this is used alone to disprove Seth Rich's involvement. That doesn't amount to "debunking" the retaliation story. 2601:1C2:4E01:CE00:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 ( talk) 01:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Article now exists at Ed Butowsky. This is otherwise becoming a magnet for salacious and BLP-violating accusations, and is off-topic as well. ValarianB ( talk) 13:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
A success such as that; one would think.-- Wikipietime ( talk) 16:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Why no references to the Seymour Hersh tape where he discusses the case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.37.97.8 ( talk) 06:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
|
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Seth_Rich_memorial.jpg
Put this in the "Aftermath" section which says "In October 2016, a plaque and bike rack outside the DNC headquarters were dedicated to Rich's memory."
Caption: "Bike rack (top) and plaque (bottom) outside the DNC headquaters" Johanna745 ( talk) 02:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
The POV-push by Loyalmoonie also needs a revert, as it is non-neutral and against longstanding consensus. Geogene ( talk) 17:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
The terms "right-wing" and "debunked" are non-neutral and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.135.189.50 ( talk) 16:09 1 August 2017
Is it just me, or is there a renewed effort (in the last 48 hours or so) to distance Assange from this mess? Geogene ( talk) 06:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Driveby SPA fakenews soapbox cloaked as editing proposal |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
On August 1, 2017 the audio recording of acclaimed journalist Seymour Hersh confirming Seth Rich as the Wikileaks source for the DNC emails was revealed by Cassandra Fairbanks in her article in BigLeaguePolitics. Soon after, Wikileaks linked to the recording on twitter, and while this can not be considered a confirmation of Seth Rich as the Wikileaks source for the DNC emails - as their policy prevents them from revealing their sources - it adds significant credibility to the tapes authenticity. Shouldn't this information in some form be added to the article? Given the sources, it also suggests a more careful approach to using labels like "debunking" and "false news" might be wise considering the increasing amount of factors implying that Seth Rich indeed was the actual DNC source. RedFireDragon ( talk) 14:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC) |
This
edit request to
Murder of Seth Rich has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The second paragraph states that there is a "groundless claim" that Rich had been involved with the leaked DNC emails in 2016. That is an opinion and yet to be determined. I suggest removing the word 'groundless'. 98.117.55.213 ( talk) 23:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Could someone please provide advice on how to properly suggest the addition of recent information related to this article? I made an attempt, but apparently failed miserably despite my best intentions. Constructive feedback would be very appreciated! RedFireDragon ( talk) 20:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I disagree with Dlabtot removing unbidden in this diff [21]. The source given does support that content, in spite of their edit summary. Is there any reason we shouldn't say specifically how Assange fed speculation? That he was the one that brought it up is relevant. Geogene ( talk) 17:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks editor, further stoked speculation that Rich might have been involved in the DNC hack by referencing the murder, unprompted, on a Dutch news program.[22]. That is the semantic equivalent of "seemed to imply that". Geogene ( talk) 18:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
"Assistant Police Chief Peter Newsham said the police had no information suggesting a connection between Rich's death and data obtained by WikLeaks. Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, fueled speculation of a connection when, unbidden, he talked about the case on a Dutch news program.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Some important details. Need to be included. We also really need to rethink the title based on what this indicates. http://www.npr.org/2017/08/01/540783715/lawsuit-alleges-fox-news-and-trump-supporter-created-fake-news-story Casprings ( talk) 12:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Malia Zimmerman’s lead story (the one FoxNews purged from their website a couple of days later) claimed in the second paragraph that Wheeler’s story "was corroborated by a federal investigator who spoke to Fox News" and, further down:
An FBI forensic report of Rich's computer -- generated within 96 hours after Rich's murder -- showed he made contact with WikiLeaks through Gavin MacFadyen, a now-deceased American investigative reporter, documentary filmmaker, and director of WikiLeaks who was living in London at the time, the federal source told Fox News.
“I have seen and read the emails between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks,” the federal investigator told Fox News, confirming the MacFadyen connection. He said the emails are in possession of the FBI, while the stalled case is in the hands of the Washington Police Department.
The revelation is consistent with the findings of Wheeler, whose private investigation firm was hired by a third party on behalf of Rich’s family to probe the case.
I amended the text accordingly. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 20:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Comment on removal of edit (it's been restored by another editor): Fox News is the secondary source, and the sentence reflects what they reported. I have now replaced "claimed" with "stated"; it might be construed as POV although it was unintentional. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 04:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
DrFleischman The Four Deuces SPECIFICO Volunteer Marek Please see our previous Talk Page section from the archive [25]. Given recent revelations, i.e. the Wheeler lawsuit, I think we should reconsider some of the cited content that was discussed, or at least revisit that discussion. If the consensus is to WP:DROP, no problem, I promise not to lose my s#!+ this time (wink), just as long as we don't go accidentally editorializing context on RSN (wink).
This discussion is supposed to be about the article, and the issues raised at it's inception, to a degree. See WP:NOTAFORUM -- DN ( talk) 05:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Now that page protection expired, new account Bobbysev1 is edit warring pro-conspiracy nonsense into the article, against sourcing. Who didn't see that coming? Geogene ( talk) 23:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
@Geogene, My edit was not pro-conspiracy as you assert. It was in fact a verbatim quote from the cited article that was misquoted by the previous writer of the quote. It would be greatly appreciated if you would fact-check your own edits instead of making claims against others when in fact the mistake was not on my part. Thank you, Bob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbysev1 ( talk • contribs) 23:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
The Seth Rich murder conspiracy is peddled by a lot of Berners on social media. I don't think this conspiracy is right-wing. More like left-wing Uncle J ( talk) 17:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
After the murder, Donna Brazille feared for her life and took measures against a sniper attack. She put the murder in context with the email hacking by Russians. This throws a bucket of cold water on the "right-wing conspiracy" meme as she apparently believed and recounted. [31] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:489:FCA0:E16:478C:3AAE ( talk) 19:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
This is the excerpt in context. Brazile describes her mounting anxiety about Russia’s theft of emails and other data from DNC servers, the slow process of discovering the full extent of the cyberattacks and the personal fallout. She likens the feeling to having rats in your basement: “You take measures to get rid of them, but knowing they are there, or have been there, means you never feel truly at peace.”
Brazile writes that she was haunted by the still-unsolved murder of DNC data staffer Seth Rich and feared for her own life, shutting the blinds to her office window so snipers could not see her and installing surveillance cameras at her home. She wonders whether Russians had placed a listening device in plants in the DNC executive suite.
At first, Brazile writes of the hacking, top Democratic officials were “encouraging us not to talk about it.” But she says a wake-up moment came when she visited the White House in August 2016, for President Obama’s 55th birthday party. National security adviser Susan E. Rice and former attorney general Eric Holder separately pulled her aside to urge her to take the Russian hacking seriously, which she did, she writes. Not sure what the BLP violation might be but feel free to point out the wording. She was obviously fearful at the time and took measures. This is a new book that again relates her fear and repeats that it was "serious," recalling a warning from Susan Rice. -- 2600:8800:1300:489:FCA0:E16:478C:3AAE ( talk) 20:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Given that he recently posted a $5000 reward for a strand of Hillary Clinton's hair [32] for some DNA work and is now claiming it's satire (the Secret Service didn't think it was funny), should this article continue to take his Seth Rich reward seriously? Existing sourcing looks like it's barely even notable. Geogene ( talk) 00:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikipedia clearly states that articles be impartial, there is nothing impartial about this article. Any article that refers to an opposing view point of the world we live in as if holding those view points is stupid is clearly both partial and partisan.
The fact that this article still sits here in its current form casts doubt on the reliability of Wikipedia as an information source. You can say that it is impartial because that is what the news articles say but that doesn't account for the authers bias. There is also the fact that information can be shared with out sharing the biases of the original authors.