![]() | 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 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
As related to Russian state-run media and the narratives they push [1]. Geogene ( talk) 17:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
As previously stated, and then deleted and locked as to remain unseen, I pointed out that this article references these theories being "debunked by law enforcement" but references nothing that shows this. I should also point out that fact checking web sites aren't themselves sources. The references listed do not show that law enforcement debunked the conspiracy theory. The police stated that these claims are unfounded. (Look for yourself, here http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/may/23/newt-gingrich/claim-slain-dnc-staffer-seth-rich-gave-emails-wiki/, and here https://www.factcheck.org/2017/05/gingrich-spreads-conspiracy-theory/.) That means that there is no evidence to support these claims. Debunked means its not true. No one knows why Seth Rich was murdered. Clearly this article doesn't reflect that Seth Rich's murderer's motive is unknown or that little to no evidence exists of why he was murdered. I would suggest that the article use language that actually reflects the statements of law enforcement and removes fact checking websites from its sources.
It should also be pointed out that an article titled the murder of Seth Rich should not have information about a law suit in its introduction. I would suggest that this be in the article rather than the introduction as well.
Furthermore, this article states in it's introduction that the DNC e-mails came from a hack, there is little more than speculation from either side regarding this. (As can be seen here https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/.) I would suggest that there is no reason to have a reference from either side on where these e-mails came from as it is currently unknown, or statements with references from both sides.
It should also be pointed out that an encyclopedia, with sources or not, should not be using citations to state that something is fake news. An encyclopedia shouldn't be making figurative statements. I would suggest that statements such as right-wing conspiracy theorists, and fake news be removed from the article as they are examples of biased language. An encyclopedia shouldn't be using inherently biased language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1800:e970:4403:344c:ae96:3770 ( talk • contribs)
What matters is whether the article is based on reliable sources. It is. Any claims of "bias" or whatever are not helpful absent bringing some new sources to the table. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 06:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I see two semi-concrete suggestions for actual changes from the IP. Quoting:
Any support for these suggestions? If not, move on. -- NeilN talk to me 21:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Stop. Fucking. Refactoring. This. Thread. You're making it impossible to comment because you're causing me multiple edit conflicts every time I try. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
The argument here is about meaning. "Debunk" is a strong word, more so than "dismissing" (minimal effort) or "rejecting" something. The dictionary.com link says "expose or excoriate" (my emphasis). The synonyms they give are "disparage, ridicule, lampoon". That's not a casual rebuttal, or even saying that something is not worth your time to look into. If you debunked something, you didn't say it was nonsense and leave it at that. Rhetorically, you tore into something. Geogene ( talk) 23:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Something like this in the lead? Law enforcement[5][6] stated that these theories were unfounded. Fact-checking websites like PolitiFact.com,[6][8] Snopes.com,[9] and FactCheck.org came to the conclusion that the theories were false and baseless,[5] and The New York Times,[10] Los Angeles Times,[11] and The Washington Post called them fabrications, fake news, and falsehoods.[12] And remove the first sentence of the "Debunking" subsection? It reads the same as the sentence in the lead that I changed. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 04:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
The lead section doesn't say anything about a lawsuit. Just a cease-and-desist letter. I see no basis for excluding this content. The lead is supposed to summarize prominent controversies. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 22:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
The contention that there is little more than speculation that the DNC e-mails came from a hack is laughable. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 22:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Murder of Seth Rich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Concerning my
recent edit removing a large paragraph copied and pasted from a Poynter article, I'd like to provide a reminder that this is the "Murder of Seth Rich" article, not the "
Criticism of Fox News Channel" or "
Fox News § Murder of Seth Rich conspiracy" articles. While I think that some media criticism should be included in this article to debunk Fox's original story, the lifted quote doesn't tell us anything about Seth Rich's murder or the conspiracy theories surrounding it. The paragraph could also constitute an
unacceptable use of non-free content because it is an Excessively long copyrighted excerpt
, in which case it should, at the very least, be trimmed down or summarized.
Falling
Gravity
08:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Media ethics writer Kelly McBride wrote that the retraction was "woefully inadequate", noting that it did not specify exactly what was inaccurate, or provide provide accurate information in place of the original story." Falling Gravity 02:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
The article tries very hard to paint any speculation that Seth Rich had involvement with the DNC email leaks as sociopathic or conspiracy theories that it uses very illogical assumptions. While it is true we don't know who killed Seth Rich the police cannot debunk the theories by stating it was a botched robbery. He was shot in the back indicating he never saw his attacker and several items of value and a wallet full of money were left on the scene. Since no one saw the murder or anyone fleeing the scene this is unlikely. Certainly this does not rule out the speculations. The article states Assange "fueled speculations" by his involvement. It fails to mention that the "involvement" was a $20,000 US reward. It is very difficult to believe Assange who gave the award within a month of his death would do so if he did not have any involvement. The article also mentions fact checkers, all known left wing activist sites, debunking the theories because their is no hard evidence to support them. A hypothesis is not debunked until evidence is shown to reject it. Having hot done this they cannot be stated to have debunked anything and only reiterati9ng what we all know. We don't know what happened. The article also tries to state Rich cannot have done this because he was only a programmer and not a hacker. Number one both roles require extensive programming skills. Second most hackers don't advertise that skill so how do we know Rich was not. Lastly and most important one does not need to be a hacker to download emails from an archived file. All one needs is proper administrative access which Rich working for the DNC may have had or knew people who did and could have acce4ssed and copied the information through legitimate accounts. If he was involved this is most likely. Assange's unwillingness to declare Rich's involvement but willingness to spend @20 grand to reveal his killer to the world is indicative this could be the case. This scenario is likely and possible and no one is a sociopath for considering it. Rather I would state the sociopoaths are the people, to protect their own left wing political party are trying to silence this. Lastly the article announces as proven fact that Russians were involved. Why? this narrative invented by Hillary Clinton's dirty tricks team from the Fusion GPS memo is tired by now. It has not shown evidence of anything and has been used to justify illegally obtained FISA warrants to spy on private American citizens just for being members of Trump's campaign. This is silly and certainly the speculation that Rich's death was something to do with the DNC is a more plausible allegation. In the end we don't know and you can say that but quit trying to dictate to people what they are allowed to think. It is crass and arrogant! Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.36.184.224 ( talk) 18:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
|
![]() | This
edit request to
Murder of Seth Rich has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
where are the evidence of saying bots spread the information? just because you have 100 twitter accounts with no profile does not mean you are a bot, just that you like annonymity, like how this ip will claim in from sweden... 81.234.198.202 ( talk) 10:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
The Wheeler lawsuit is now going through the courts: https://www.courthousenews.com/fox-news-fights-defamation-claim-over-seth-rich-story/
Once a ruling is decided, the article should be updated. Falling Gravity 02:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
The editors who have weighed in on this discussion have deemed it to be not relevant to the article topic, i.e. the murder of Seth Rich. Those who want to take this tidbit and make it relevant are promoting a conspiracy theory that Rich's death is connected to the DNC and Wikileaks. You're trying to get a toehold for that conspiracy theory into this article, and it just ain't gonna happen. Your entire (literally) Wikipedia editing career is to this talk page, that is not going to bode well if this matter escalates to one of the complaint forums here. TheValeyard ( talk) 02:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||
"He had just been asked to join the Clinton campaign, four days before he was murdered." (and then later) "He had just found out that they wanted him." Add this to the previously documented: His parents informed The Washington Post: "On the day he was murdered, Seth was excited about a new job he had been offered on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign." and continued "To those who sincerely want to get to the bottom of Seth’s murder, we don’t hold this against you." and this fact was then reported on CNN: "Before Rich died, he had been offered a new job on Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign" reference: https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/24/us/seth-rich-dnc-wikileaks-theories/index.html I don't believe that you can suppress this indefinitely. Just the facts. StreetSign ( talk) 02:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
The Daily Mail is not an acceptable source on Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC) I did not know that. I would like to use the video of Seth Rich's father as the reference, and not The Daily Mail. Does that mean that the video of Seth Rich's father is not an acceptable source? Any help or clarification would be appreciated. StreetSign ( talk) 02:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
|
Done: in the absence of any feedback or discussion, I went ahead and made this change.
K zorn (
talk)
23:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi,
There were a couple sections here that I think could be tightened up, but I'm assuming this is a pretty closely watched page, so I want to propose my edits here for consensus. In particular, the paragraph "WikiLeaks statements" is disorganized and does not actually match its title. I would rewrite the paragraph to actually focus on Assange's Nieuwsuur interview and other WikiLeaks statements, which lie at the heart of these persistent conspiracy claims. Any debunking in this paragraph should focus specifically on the contradictory statements by WikiLeaks and on the context of Assange's possible motivations for making them. My goal here is to give the key claim a full airing while also providing the context of Assange's words and actions, and placing it within the timeline of the developing hysteria (i.e., Assange made these claims several months later, after the hype had been built).
Before (omitting refs):
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 brought up the case. People who worked with Rich said he was not an expert computer hacker helping to leak information to foreigners. Andrew Therriault, a data scientist who had mentored Rich, said although he had recently been working as a programmer, this "wasn't his background", and another co-worker said Rich was very upset when he heard hackers associated with Russian intelligence services had broken into the DNC computers and could be interfering with the election.
After:
Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, fueled the speculation in an interview with Nieuwsuur published on August 9, 2016, which touched on the topic of risks faced by WikiLeaks' sources. [1]. Unbidden, Assange brought up the case of Seth Rich. When asked directly whether Rich was a source, Assange nodded, then said "we don't comment on who our sources are". [2]. Subsequent statements by WikiLeaks emphasized that the organization was not naming Rich as a source. [3] For context, Assange was well known as a longtime critic of Clinton [4] , and it subsequently came to light that WikiLeaks communicated with the Trump campaign over other issues, casting doubt on Assange's motivation [5].
Move these 2 sentences to the "Debunking" section:
Assistant Police Chief Peter Newsham said the police had no information suggesting a connection between Rich's death and data obtained by WikLeaks. [3]
People who worked with Rich said he was not an expert computer hacker helping to leak information to foreigners. Andrew Therriault, a data scientist who had mentored Rich, said although he had recently been working as a programmer, this "wasn't his background", and another co-worker said Rich was very upset when he heard hackers associated with Russian intelligence services had broken into the DNC computers and could be interfering with the election. [2]
Further suggestions
I haven't completely thought this through, but the "Debunking" section is a little bit long & unstructured (especially if the sentences above are added). It might be a good idea to break it into sections -- something like: debunking claims about the murder itself; debunking Rich's alleged connection to Wikileaks; debunking claims that the FBI was investigating...this could be tough because many of the sources debunked in several of those categories, but I think something could be done.
In any case, how does the first part look to y'all?
K zorn ( talk) 03:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
References
courtesy pings to all editors involved, directly or not, in the recent revert cycle: @ Wesley Craig:, @ SPECIFICO:, @ Netoholic:, @ Snooganssnoogans:, @ FallingGravity:. Geogene ( talk) 04:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Should we still include Jack Burkman and his Profiling Project in the article? Some interesting things have happened there since we last discussed the issue, and I think they cast some doubt on the organization's credibility. Last month, the Chief Investigator of the Profiling Project [3], [4], who was fired in July shortly after their preliminary report was released, allegedly shot Burkman and tried to run him over with his SUV. [5]. He was arrested and charged with malicious wounding and "use of a firearm in commission of a felony". His next court appearance is listed for April 19th [6]. According to the Post's mugshot caption, he has no fixed address. Is this someone we should consider an expert in criminal profiling?
There are questions in some of the more partisan sources about whether Burkman/PP should be considered reliable at all. For example, the Washingtonian: When Jack Burkman, the Republican lobbyist best known for pushing conspiracy theories about the death last year of Democratic National Committee employee Seth Rich, stages a press conference, he usually only draws out one or two reporters. [7] Also, Mother Jones [8], "eccentric" according to the Huffington Post [9], "sketchy" according to the Daily Beast [10]. Is Burkman credible enough for this?
Last summer, Newsweek seemed to take this stuff seriously [11], but today, I think it's clear-cut pro fringe to even mention it. Geogene ( talk) 04:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
dissembling, politically-motivated conspiracy theorist", unless they have a thin line between their reporting and editorial departments, like the ones you appear to be citing. Falling Gravity 02:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Murder of Seth Rich has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
there is a "on March 2018" that should be "on March 2018" 104.35.236.49 ( talk) 10:20, 1 June 2018 (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.
Which of these are valid references?
The Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/were-seth-richs-parents-stop-politicizing-our-sons-murder/2017/05/23/164cf4dc-3fee-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html?utm_term=.c5b01406666e"Our beloved son Seth Rich was gunned down in the early hours of July 10, 2016, in his Washington, D.C., neighborhood of Bloomingdale. On the day he was murdered, Seth was excited about a new job he had been offered on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Seth had dedicated his life to public service, and he told us that he wanted to work on the campaign’s effort to expand voter participation because he loved our country dearly and believed deeply in the promise of democratic engagement. Seth had been walking around, calling friends, family and his girlfriend, pondering the broader picture of what the job change would mean."
CNN:
"Before Rich died, he had been offered a new job on Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign"
reference:
https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/24/us/seth-rich-dnc-wikileaks-theories/index.html
There is also a video interview of Seth Rich's father clearly showing him saying:
"He had just been asked to join the Clinton campaign, four days before he was murdered." (and) "He had just found out that they wanted him."
Live video of Seth Rich's father speaking:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3741754/Father-murdered-DNC-staffer-reveals-son-join-Hillary-Clinton-presidential-campaign-punching-hole-ugly-rumor-Wikileaks-source.html
The paradox is that Daily Mail is not considered by Wikipedia to be a reliable source, but it is the only one with the video showing Seth Rich's father revealing what the campaign has not acknowledged. The other two sources (CNN and Washington Post) quote him in writing.
Are any of them valid references? Is it permissible to discuss them on the Talk page? StreetSign ( talk) 14:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I thought it was best to find out if the sources themselves were acceptable, before going any further. StreetSign ( talk) 02:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
My goal is to propose an accurate addition to the article that is acceptable.
StreetSign (
talk)
02:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes. You have described the situation concisely. Any addition to the article would need to be both noteworthy and neutral. Identifying accurate sources by Wikipedia standards is one step in that process. StreetSign ( talk) 11:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I do not understand the rude behavior. StreetSign ( talk) 17:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Fully 2/3rds of the text of the Lede is dedicated to debunking the "right wing conspiracy theories", and virtually the entire of the body is about the conspiracy theories and their debunkment. But buried in the body is the fact that the Rich families' own publicist found a "lead" on the murder that points to Russians, which lends credibility to the theory that this was not simply a standard grade robbery. Also the fact that nothing was apparently stolen from Rich supports the idea that he was killed for reasons other than (non-political) robbery. I believe the Lede is at least twice as long as it should be, given that, from an "overview" perspective, there really isn't much to say. Rich was not noteworthy, except for the fact that he was killed and the conspiracy theories. I think two or three sentences for each side of the issue (conspiracy vs. not conspiracy) should be mentioned in the Lede, plus whatever other information is appropriate, and all of the other information regarding the theories, their condemnations, "fake news" etc... should be put into the body. The whole situation is a mass of details, but the Lede at least should be short and to the point. Most of what is currently included in the Lede should be moved elsewhere.
If you analyze the article on a sentence-by-sentence basis, and classify each sentence as either A) "Information about the Murder of Seth Rich" (the article's title), or B) "Information about the conspiracy theories surrounding the murder of Seth Rich", you'll find that easily 90% of the sentences are best categorized as "B" and not "A". The article should clearly differentiate between "A" and "B", and not mash them all up into the current mess that it's in right now.
Also in the Lede it talks about "conspiracies" as a plural, and then later refers to "conspiracy" as if there is only one, which I think should be resolved. If 90% of the article is going to be about the conspiracy theories, then at the very least they should be presented in a more logical and structured form. Example, Fox News' participation should have it's own separate section. In it's current form, the Article seems to convey the message that 1) Seth Rich was murdered either for unknown reasons, or a robbery, and 2) Anyone that believes there was some kind of a conspiracy is wrong, and believes in "fake news". It reads more like a narrative that condemns conspiracy theorists, and not like an encyclopedic article about "The Murder of Seth Rich". Note I'm not advocating that anything be excluded, but rather the information in the article needs to be restructured and clarified so as to differentiate between the murder, and the conspiracy theories surrounding it. 2605:6000:6947:AB00:D54F:D719:F9A0:A888 ( talk) 09:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Fully 2/3rds of the text of the Lede is dedicated to debunking the "right wing conspiracy theories", and virtually the entire of the body is about the conspiracy theories and their debunkment.That is because the conspiracy theories are what made this crime notable.
But buried in the body is the fact that the Rich families' own publicist found a "lead" on the murder that points to Russians, which lends credibility to the theory that this was not simply a standard grade robbery.It would be to your advantage to read the debunkings instead of merely complaining about them.
I think two or three sentences for each side of the issue (conspiracy vs. not conspiracy) should be mentioned in the Lede,See False balance. We do not give equal weight to conspiracy theories. Also see Guide to addressing bias for more about the weaknesses of "telling both sides".
The whole situation is a mass of details, but the Lede at least should be short and to the point.The purpose of the lede is to define the subject and summarize the body. The first sentence is used to that purpose. The second sentence points out that it was never solved; one of the most important points about the subject. Following that, the next two paragraphs summarize the narrative of events surrounding the murder, highlighting only the most important details. That is exactly what a lede should be.
Allow me to join this discussion. What do you mean by "The murder stuff falls squarely into fringe theory territory and must be treated as such." What "murder stuff" are you referring to? StreetSign ( talk) 21:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
OK. The murder remains unsolved. StreetSign ( talk) 22:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
The Gateway Pundit published a story 3 days ago that a "creditable" witness "has conclusive evidence that will bring Rich’s killers to justice within a month". The story states that "two employees of the United States government killed Seth". The story states they were an "ATF agent and the DEA agent". Is the Gateway Pundit considered to be a reliable publication by Wikipedia editors? StreetSign ( talk) 16:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Update: I see that the "creditable witness" did not come forward in person. He phoned anonymously to a press conference. So there is no credibility. StreetSign ( talk) 16:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
You guys are good at separating the wheat from the chaff. StreetSign ( talk) 17:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the Lede is too long and delves into too much about the conspiracy theories. The third paragraph itself almost looks like it could have been cut and pasted from the "debunking" section instead of written as part of the Lede. Et0048 ( talk) 03:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 21:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Murder of Seth Rich → Seth Rich murder conspiracy theories – I think it it time to redo this discussion, given the recent news about the DNC hack and Russia. It is more clear today then it was when this was discussed before. However, the same rationale remains. I made a small change and I am using the plural for theory, as it better reflects what is going on here. 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) 20:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Murder of Seth Rich has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
PLEASE DELETE "RIGHT-WING" IN FIRST SENTENCE BELOW. THIS IS AN INACCURATE CHARACTERIZATION OF THESE THEORIES.
The murder spawned several right-wing conspiracy theories, including the false claim that Rich had been involved with the leaked DNC emails in 2016, contradicted by the July 2018 indictment of 12 Russian military intelligence agents for hacking the e-mail accounts and networks of Democratic Party officials[5] and by the U.S. intelligence community's conclusion the leaked DNC emails were part of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.[6][7][8] Law enforcement[6][7] as well as fact-checking websites like PolitiFact.com,[7][9] Snopes.com,[10] and FactCheck.org stated that these theories were false and unfounded.[6] The New York Times,[11] Los Angeles Times,[12] and The Washington Post called the fabrications fake news and falsehoods.[13] 2600:1702:31B0:64E0:4574:A446:67D2:EB2A ( talk) 00:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Judge Rejects Suit by Parents of Slain Democratic Staffer]
Also dismissed was a related suit by private investigator Rod Wheeler. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Fox News DID promote Seth Rich conspiracy theories per countless RS. An editor just inserted WP:WEASEL text that the network was "accused" of doing so. [14] This edit followed an edit which sought to whitewash Fox News' role in promoting the conspiracy theories out of the lede. I reverted the first edit, but I'm now prevented by 1RR from reverting the other edit. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 01:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
US intelligence falsified WMD to get US into Iraq, organized fake testimony about Iraqi soldiers killing babies in incubators, lied to congress about mass surveillance, funded Islamist extremists. Assange has never been proven guilty of spreading fake documents. If you are gonna turn Wikipedia into Pravda do it less obviously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.217.24.239 ( talk) 20:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Per the lengthy requested move discussion, and per WP:ONEWAY, I propose creating a new, separate article about the conspiracy theories specifically. I have not prepared a title for the article, but it should contain "conspiracy theories". wumbolo ^^^ 20:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
No. The only reason this article exists is because of the conspiracy theories. -- Calton | Talk 07:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
19 July 2016 washingtonpost story on murder of Seth Rich When do you think the earliest Seth Rich conspiracy story appeared? StreetSign ( talk) 00:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
News media have written extensively on the case, publishing extensive details on the biography of the victim, his activities immediately before the shooting, time and cause of death, medical treatment, statements by DNC and family members, police press conference, etc. The only reason the conspiracy theories have attracted attention is that the homicide was extensively covered. In the JonBenet Ramsey case, there was in fact a great deal of unwarranted speculation in tabloids and police were never able to uncover any useful evidence. And see "5 JonBenet Conspiracy Theories That Are As Confusing As They Are Fascinating". That was written 20 years after the murder. TFD ( talk) 04:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
I think that the case would have received attention regardless.It might have, we can't ever really know. I just briefly got the impression you were arguing for the split, even though you'd already said quite clearly above that you didn't support it. That was just me being being a dumbass, so don't pay too much heed to it.
I oppose the creation of a separate article. I don't want a fork. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 16:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I also oppose the creation of a separate article on the conspiracy theories. There is already excessive space given to the conspiracy theories in this article, to the point that it makes it more difficult to identify the facts. The Murder of Seth Rich article should instead focus primarily on the facts. To simultaneously exclude facts while including conspiracy theories is not justifiable. StreetSign ( talk) 20:13, 27 August 2018 (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.
From a conspiracy site:
Collection of Democratic National Committee (DNC) internal emails published (leaked) by DCLeaks and WikiLeaks during the 2016 Democratic National Convention. Seth Rich was the source leaks, miffed that the DNC railroaded Barry Sanders. Seth Rich was subsequently murdered by MS-13 hitmen. DNC had CrowdStrike investigate their servers and falsely claim that Russian hackers were behind the leak. Meanwhile, neither the FBI nor CIA ever examined the servers.
It says that "Neither the FBI nor CIA ever examined the servers"... is that true? If so it seems relevant since according to the conspiracy Seth Rich and not Russian hackers were involved with the servers. BTW I know that there were "12 Russians indicted in Mueller investigation".
So if it's true about the FBI and CIA then I think that should be mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legowolf3d ( talk • contribs)
edit: a related page: /info/en/?search=2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak
Seth Conrad Rich (January 3, 1989 – July 10, 2016) was an American employee of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) who was fatally shot in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington, D.C.[1][2][3]
That's the lede to a biography, not to an event, and certainly doesn't summarize what the article is about. So, how about a change?-- Calton | Talk 09:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Just for the record, I originally picked up the term "lede" (and "graf") from a couple of college journalism classes in the late 80s -- and which I've used since then -- so being in use for at least 40 years is no-way "newfangled" as far as I'm concerned. I have to say, it's a strange hill to want to die on.
Meanwhile: the lede for this article? -- Calton | Talk 03:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Nope. This is about a crime: what does Rich having been an employee of a particular organization have to do with anything? -- Calton | Talk 02:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
So, about that biographical-style lead? Still there. I'm not changing anything unless I'm absolutely sure there's consensus. Hell, the damned thing doesn't even mention the DATE of the event except by inference. -- Calton | Talk 23:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Right now there is a category for "Denialism" on the article. Does that really belong? I didn't want to remove it without a discussion since this article seems to be so sensitive. PopSci ( talk) 23:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
All right, I got tired of waiting for a change (see "Lede", above), and changed the lede. Let me know if it's acceptable:
The murder of Seth Rich occurred on Sunday, July 10, 2016, at 4:20 a.m. in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington, D.C. [1] Rich died from two shots to the back.
The 27-year-old Rich was an employee of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and his murder spawned several right-wing conspiracy theories [2], including the false claim...
-- Calton | Talk 03:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
References
![]() | 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 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
As related to Russian state-run media and the narratives they push [1]. Geogene ( talk) 17:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
As previously stated, and then deleted and locked as to remain unseen, I pointed out that this article references these theories being "debunked by law enforcement" but references nothing that shows this. I should also point out that fact checking web sites aren't themselves sources. The references listed do not show that law enforcement debunked the conspiracy theory. The police stated that these claims are unfounded. (Look for yourself, here http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/may/23/newt-gingrich/claim-slain-dnc-staffer-seth-rich-gave-emails-wiki/, and here https://www.factcheck.org/2017/05/gingrich-spreads-conspiracy-theory/.) That means that there is no evidence to support these claims. Debunked means its not true. No one knows why Seth Rich was murdered. Clearly this article doesn't reflect that Seth Rich's murderer's motive is unknown or that little to no evidence exists of why he was murdered. I would suggest that the article use language that actually reflects the statements of law enforcement and removes fact checking websites from its sources.
It should also be pointed out that an article titled the murder of Seth Rich should not have information about a law suit in its introduction. I would suggest that this be in the article rather than the introduction as well.
Furthermore, this article states in it's introduction that the DNC e-mails came from a hack, there is little more than speculation from either side regarding this. (As can be seen here https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/.) I would suggest that there is no reason to have a reference from either side on where these e-mails came from as it is currently unknown, or statements with references from both sides.
It should also be pointed out that an encyclopedia, with sources or not, should not be using citations to state that something is fake news. An encyclopedia shouldn't be making figurative statements. I would suggest that statements such as right-wing conspiracy theorists, and fake news be removed from the article as they are examples of biased language. An encyclopedia shouldn't be using inherently biased language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1800:e970:4403:344c:ae96:3770 ( talk • contribs)
What matters is whether the article is based on reliable sources. It is. Any claims of "bias" or whatever are not helpful absent bringing some new sources to the table. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 06:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I see two semi-concrete suggestions for actual changes from the IP. Quoting:
Any support for these suggestions? If not, move on. -- NeilN talk to me 21:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Stop. Fucking. Refactoring. This. Thread. You're making it impossible to comment because you're causing me multiple edit conflicts every time I try. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
The argument here is about meaning. "Debunk" is a strong word, more so than "dismissing" (minimal effort) or "rejecting" something. The dictionary.com link says "expose or excoriate" (my emphasis). The synonyms they give are "disparage, ridicule, lampoon". That's not a casual rebuttal, or even saying that something is not worth your time to look into. If you debunked something, you didn't say it was nonsense and leave it at that. Rhetorically, you tore into something. Geogene ( talk) 23:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Something like this in the lead? Law enforcement[5][6] stated that these theories were unfounded. Fact-checking websites like PolitiFact.com,[6][8] Snopes.com,[9] and FactCheck.org came to the conclusion that the theories were false and baseless,[5] and The New York Times,[10] Los Angeles Times,[11] and The Washington Post called them fabrications, fake news, and falsehoods.[12] And remove the first sentence of the "Debunking" subsection? It reads the same as the sentence in the lead that I changed. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 04:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
The lead section doesn't say anything about a lawsuit. Just a cease-and-desist letter. I see no basis for excluding this content. The lead is supposed to summarize prominent controversies. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 22:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
The contention that there is little more than speculation that the DNC e-mails came from a hack is laughable. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 22:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Murder of Seth Rich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Concerning my
recent edit removing a large paragraph copied and pasted from a Poynter article, I'd like to provide a reminder that this is the "Murder of Seth Rich" article, not the "
Criticism of Fox News Channel" or "
Fox News § Murder of Seth Rich conspiracy" articles. While I think that some media criticism should be included in this article to debunk Fox's original story, the lifted quote doesn't tell us anything about Seth Rich's murder or the conspiracy theories surrounding it. The paragraph could also constitute an
unacceptable use of non-free content because it is an Excessively long copyrighted excerpt
, in which case it should, at the very least, be trimmed down or summarized.
Falling
Gravity
08:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Media ethics writer Kelly McBride wrote that the retraction was "woefully inadequate", noting that it did not specify exactly what was inaccurate, or provide provide accurate information in place of the original story." Falling Gravity 02:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
The article tries very hard to paint any speculation that Seth Rich had involvement with the DNC email leaks as sociopathic or conspiracy theories that it uses very illogical assumptions. While it is true we don't know who killed Seth Rich the police cannot debunk the theories by stating it was a botched robbery. He was shot in the back indicating he never saw his attacker and several items of value and a wallet full of money were left on the scene. Since no one saw the murder or anyone fleeing the scene this is unlikely. Certainly this does not rule out the speculations. The article states Assange "fueled speculations" by his involvement. It fails to mention that the "involvement" was a $20,000 US reward. It is very difficult to believe Assange who gave the award within a month of his death would do so if he did not have any involvement. The article also mentions fact checkers, all known left wing activist sites, debunking the theories because their is no hard evidence to support them. A hypothesis is not debunked until evidence is shown to reject it. Having hot done this they cannot be stated to have debunked anything and only reiterati9ng what we all know. We don't know what happened. The article also tries to state Rich cannot have done this because he was only a programmer and not a hacker. Number one both roles require extensive programming skills. Second most hackers don't advertise that skill so how do we know Rich was not. Lastly and most important one does not need to be a hacker to download emails from an archived file. All one needs is proper administrative access which Rich working for the DNC may have had or knew people who did and could have acce4ssed and copied the information through legitimate accounts. If he was involved this is most likely. Assange's unwillingness to declare Rich's involvement but willingness to spend @20 grand to reveal his killer to the world is indicative this could be the case. This scenario is likely and possible and no one is a sociopath for considering it. Rather I would state the sociopoaths are the people, to protect their own left wing political party are trying to silence this. Lastly the article announces as proven fact that Russians were involved. Why? this narrative invented by Hillary Clinton's dirty tricks team from the Fusion GPS memo is tired by now. It has not shown evidence of anything and has been used to justify illegally obtained FISA warrants to spy on private American citizens just for being members of Trump's campaign. This is silly and certainly the speculation that Rich's death was something to do with the DNC is a more plausible allegation. In the end we don't know and you can say that but quit trying to dictate to people what they are allowed to think. It is crass and arrogant! Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.36.184.224 ( talk) 18:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
|
![]() | This
edit request to
Murder of Seth Rich has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
where are the evidence of saying bots spread the information? just because you have 100 twitter accounts with no profile does not mean you are a bot, just that you like annonymity, like how this ip will claim in from sweden... 81.234.198.202 ( talk) 10:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
The Wheeler lawsuit is now going through the courts: https://www.courthousenews.com/fox-news-fights-defamation-claim-over-seth-rich-story/
Once a ruling is decided, the article should be updated. Falling Gravity 02:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
The editors who have weighed in on this discussion have deemed it to be not relevant to the article topic, i.e. the murder of Seth Rich. Those who want to take this tidbit and make it relevant are promoting a conspiracy theory that Rich's death is connected to the DNC and Wikileaks. You're trying to get a toehold for that conspiracy theory into this article, and it just ain't gonna happen. Your entire (literally) Wikipedia editing career is to this talk page, that is not going to bode well if this matter escalates to one of the complaint forums here. TheValeyard ( talk) 02:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||
"He had just been asked to join the Clinton campaign, four days before he was murdered." (and then later) "He had just found out that they wanted him." Add this to the previously documented: His parents informed The Washington Post: "On the day he was murdered, Seth was excited about a new job he had been offered on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign." and continued "To those who sincerely want to get to the bottom of Seth’s murder, we don’t hold this against you." and this fact was then reported on CNN: "Before Rich died, he had been offered a new job on Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign" reference: https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/24/us/seth-rich-dnc-wikileaks-theories/index.html I don't believe that you can suppress this indefinitely. Just the facts. StreetSign ( talk) 02:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
The Daily Mail is not an acceptable source on Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC) I did not know that. I would like to use the video of Seth Rich's father as the reference, and not The Daily Mail. Does that mean that the video of Seth Rich's father is not an acceptable source? Any help or clarification would be appreciated. StreetSign ( talk) 02:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
|
Done: in the absence of any feedback or discussion, I went ahead and made this change.
K zorn (
talk)
23:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi,
There were a couple sections here that I think could be tightened up, but I'm assuming this is a pretty closely watched page, so I want to propose my edits here for consensus. In particular, the paragraph "WikiLeaks statements" is disorganized and does not actually match its title. I would rewrite the paragraph to actually focus on Assange's Nieuwsuur interview and other WikiLeaks statements, which lie at the heart of these persistent conspiracy claims. Any debunking in this paragraph should focus specifically on the contradictory statements by WikiLeaks and on the context of Assange's possible motivations for making them. My goal here is to give the key claim a full airing while also providing the context of Assange's words and actions, and placing it within the timeline of the developing hysteria (i.e., Assange made these claims several months later, after the hype had been built).
Before (omitting refs):
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 brought up the case. People who worked with Rich said he was not an expert computer hacker helping to leak information to foreigners. Andrew Therriault, a data scientist who had mentored Rich, said although he had recently been working as a programmer, this "wasn't his background", and another co-worker said Rich was very upset when he heard hackers associated with Russian intelligence services had broken into the DNC computers and could be interfering with the election.
After:
Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, fueled the speculation in an interview with Nieuwsuur published on August 9, 2016, which touched on the topic of risks faced by WikiLeaks' sources. [1]. Unbidden, Assange brought up the case of Seth Rich. When asked directly whether Rich was a source, Assange nodded, then said "we don't comment on who our sources are". [2]. Subsequent statements by WikiLeaks emphasized that the organization was not naming Rich as a source. [3] For context, Assange was well known as a longtime critic of Clinton [4] , and it subsequently came to light that WikiLeaks communicated with the Trump campaign over other issues, casting doubt on Assange's motivation [5].
Move these 2 sentences to the "Debunking" section:
Assistant Police Chief Peter Newsham said the police had no information suggesting a connection between Rich's death and data obtained by WikLeaks. [3]
People who worked with Rich said he was not an expert computer hacker helping to leak information to foreigners. Andrew Therriault, a data scientist who had mentored Rich, said although he had recently been working as a programmer, this "wasn't his background", and another co-worker said Rich was very upset when he heard hackers associated with Russian intelligence services had broken into the DNC computers and could be interfering with the election. [2]
Further suggestions
I haven't completely thought this through, but the "Debunking" section is a little bit long & unstructured (especially if the sentences above are added). It might be a good idea to break it into sections -- something like: debunking claims about the murder itself; debunking Rich's alleged connection to Wikileaks; debunking claims that the FBI was investigating...this could be tough because many of the sources debunked in several of those categories, but I think something could be done.
In any case, how does the first part look to y'all?
K zorn ( talk) 03:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
References
courtesy pings to all editors involved, directly or not, in the recent revert cycle: @ Wesley Craig:, @ SPECIFICO:, @ Netoholic:, @ Snooganssnoogans:, @ FallingGravity:. Geogene ( talk) 04:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Should we still include Jack Burkman and his Profiling Project in the article? Some interesting things have happened there since we last discussed the issue, and I think they cast some doubt on the organization's credibility. Last month, the Chief Investigator of the Profiling Project [3], [4], who was fired in July shortly after their preliminary report was released, allegedly shot Burkman and tried to run him over with his SUV. [5]. He was arrested and charged with malicious wounding and "use of a firearm in commission of a felony". His next court appearance is listed for April 19th [6]. According to the Post's mugshot caption, he has no fixed address. Is this someone we should consider an expert in criminal profiling?
There are questions in some of the more partisan sources about whether Burkman/PP should be considered reliable at all. For example, the Washingtonian: When Jack Burkman, the Republican lobbyist best known for pushing conspiracy theories about the death last year of Democratic National Committee employee Seth Rich, stages a press conference, he usually only draws out one or two reporters. [7] Also, Mother Jones [8], "eccentric" according to the Huffington Post [9], "sketchy" according to the Daily Beast [10]. Is Burkman credible enough for this?
Last summer, Newsweek seemed to take this stuff seriously [11], but today, I think it's clear-cut pro fringe to even mention it. Geogene ( talk) 04:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
dissembling, politically-motivated conspiracy theorist", unless they have a thin line between their reporting and editorial departments, like the ones you appear to be citing. Falling Gravity 02:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Murder of Seth Rich has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
there is a "on March 2018" that should be "on March 2018" 104.35.236.49 ( talk) 10:20, 1 June 2018 (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.
Which of these are valid references?
The Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/were-seth-richs-parents-stop-politicizing-our-sons-murder/2017/05/23/164cf4dc-3fee-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html?utm_term=.c5b01406666e"Our beloved son Seth Rich was gunned down in the early hours of July 10, 2016, in his Washington, D.C., neighborhood of Bloomingdale. On the day he was murdered, Seth was excited about a new job he had been offered on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Seth had dedicated his life to public service, and he told us that he wanted to work on the campaign’s effort to expand voter participation because he loved our country dearly and believed deeply in the promise of democratic engagement. Seth had been walking around, calling friends, family and his girlfriend, pondering the broader picture of what the job change would mean."
CNN:
"Before Rich died, he had been offered a new job on Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign"
reference:
https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/24/us/seth-rich-dnc-wikileaks-theories/index.html
There is also a video interview of Seth Rich's father clearly showing him saying:
"He had just been asked to join the Clinton campaign, four days before he was murdered." (and) "He had just found out that they wanted him."
Live video of Seth Rich's father speaking:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3741754/Father-murdered-DNC-staffer-reveals-son-join-Hillary-Clinton-presidential-campaign-punching-hole-ugly-rumor-Wikileaks-source.html
The paradox is that Daily Mail is not considered by Wikipedia to be a reliable source, but it is the only one with the video showing Seth Rich's father revealing what the campaign has not acknowledged. The other two sources (CNN and Washington Post) quote him in writing.
Are any of them valid references? Is it permissible to discuss them on the Talk page? StreetSign ( talk) 14:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I thought it was best to find out if the sources themselves were acceptable, before going any further. StreetSign ( talk) 02:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
My goal is to propose an accurate addition to the article that is acceptable.
StreetSign (
talk)
02:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes. You have described the situation concisely. Any addition to the article would need to be both noteworthy and neutral. Identifying accurate sources by Wikipedia standards is one step in that process. StreetSign ( talk) 11:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I do not understand the rude behavior. StreetSign ( talk) 17:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Fully 2/3rds of the text of the Lede is dedicated to debunking the "right wing conspiracy theories", and virtually the entire of the body is about the conspiracy theories and their debunkment. But buried in the body is the fact that the Rich families' own publicist found a "lead" on the murder that points to Russians, which lends credibility to the theory that this was not simply a standard grade robbery. Also the fact that nothing was apparently stolen from Rich supports the idea that he was killed for reasons other than (non-political) robbery. I believe the Lede is at least twice as long as it should be, given that, from an "overview" perspective, there really isn't much to say. Rich was not noteworthy, except for the fact that he was killed and the conspiracy theories. I think two or three sentences for each side of the issue (conspiracy vs. not conspiracy) should be mentioned in the Lede, plus whatever other information is appropriate, and all of the other information regarding the theories, their condemnations, "fake news" etc... should be put into the body. The whole situation is a mass of details, but the Lede at least should be short and to the point. Most of what is currently included in the Lede should be moved elsewhere.
If you analyze the article on a sentence-by-sentence basis, and classify each sentence as either A) "Information about the Murder of Seth Rich" (the article's title), or B) "Information about the conspiracy theories surrounding the murder of Seth Rich", you'll find that easily 90% of the sentences are best categorized as "B" and not "A". The article should clearly differentiate between "A" and "B", and not mash them all up into the current mess that it's in right now.
Also in the Lede it talks about "conspiracies" as a plural, and then later refers to "conspiracy" as if there is only one, which I think should be resolved. If 90% of the article is going to be about the conspiracy theories, then at the very least they should be presented in a more logical and structured form. Example, Fox News' participation should have it's own separate section. In it's current form, the Article seems to convey the message that 1) Seth Rich was murdered either for unknown reasons, or a robbery, and 2) Anyone that believes there was some kind of a conspiracy is wrong, and believes in "fake news". It reads more like a narrative that condemns conspiracy theorists, and not like an encyclopedic article about "The Murder of Seth Rich". Note I'm not advocating that anything be excluded, but rather the information in the article needs to be restructured and clarified so as to differentiate between the murder, and the conspiracy theories surrounding it. 2605:6000:6947:AB00:D54F:D719:F9A0:A888 ( talk) 09:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Fully 2/3rds of the text of the Lede is dedicated to debunking the "right wing conspiracy theories", and virtually the entire of the body is about the conspiracy theories and their debunkment.That is because the conspiracy theories are what made this crime notable.
But buried in the body is the fact that the Rich families' own publicist found a "lead" on the murder that points to Russians, which lends credibility to the theory that this was not simply a standard grade robbery.It would be to your advantage to read the debunkings instead of merely complaining about them.
I think two or three sentences for each side of the issue (conspiracy vs. not conspiracy) should be mentioned in the Lede,See False balance. We do not give equal weight to conspiracy theories. Also see Guide to addressing bias for more about the weaknesses of "telling both sides".
The whole situation is a mass of details, but the Lede at least should be short and to the point.The purpose of the lede is to define the subject and summarize the body. The first sentence is used to that purpose. The second sentence points out that it was never solved; one of the most important points about the subject. Following that, the next two paragraphs summarize the narrative of events surrounding the murder, highlighting only the most important details. That is exactly what a lede should be.
Allow me to join this discussion. What do you mean by "The murder stuff falls squarely into fringe theory territory and must be treated as such." What "murder stuff" are you referring to? StreetSign ( talk) 21:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
OK. The murder remains unsolved. StreetSign ( talk) 22:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
The Gateway Pundit published a story 3 days ago that a "creditable" witness "has conclusive evidence that will bring Rich’s killers to justice within a month". The story states that "two employees of the United States government killed Seth". The story states they were an "ATF agent and the DEA agent". Is the Gateway Pundit considered to be a reliable publication by Wikipedia editors? StreetSign ( talk) 16:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Update: I see that the "creditable witness" did not come forward in person. He phoned anonymously to a press conference. So there is no credibility. StreetSign ( talk) 16:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
You guys are good at separating the wheat from the chaff. StreetSign ( talk) 17:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the Lede is too long and delves into too much about the conspiracy theories. The third paragraph itself almost looks like it could have been cut and pasted from the "debunking" section instead of written as part of the Lede. Et0048 ( talk) 03:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 21:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Murder of Seth Rich → Seth Rich murder conspiracy theories – I think it it time to redo this discussion, given the recent news about the DNC hack and Russia. It is more clear today then it was when this was discussed before. However, the same rationale remains. I made a small change and I am using the plural for theory, as it better reflects what is going on here. 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) 20:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Murder of Seth Rich has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
PLEASE DELETE "RIGHT-WING" IN FIRST SENTENCE BELOW. THIS IS AN INACCURATE CHARACTERIZATION OF THESE THEORIES.
The murder spawned several right-wing conspiracy theories, including the false claim that Rich had been involved with the leaked DNC emails in 2016, contradicted by the July 2018 indictment of 12 Russian military intelligence agents for hacking the e-mail accounts and networks of Democratic Party officials[5] and by the U.S. intelligence community's conclusion the leaked DNC emails were part of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.[6][7][8] Law enforcement[6][7] as well as fact-checking websites like PolitiFact.com,[7][9] Snopes.com,[10] and FactCheck.org stated that these theories were false and unfounded.[6] The New York Times,[11] Los Angeles Times,[12] and The Washington Post called the fabrications fake news and falsehoods.[13] 2600:1702:31B0:64E0:4574:A446:67D2:EB2A ( talk) 00:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Judge Rejects Suit by Parents of Slain Democratic Staffer]
Also dismissed was a related suit by private investigator Rod Wheeler. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Fox News DID promote Seth Rich conspiracy theories per countless RS. An editor just inserted WP:WEASEL text that the network was "accused" of doing so. [14] This edit followed an edit which sought to whitewash Fox News' role in promoting the conspiracy theories out of the lede. I reverted the first edit, but I'm now prevented by 1RR from reverting the other edit. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 01:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
US intelligence falsified WMD to get US into Iraq, organized fake testimony about Iraqi soldiers killing babies in incubators, lied to congress about mass surveillance, funded Islamist extremists. Assange has never been proven guilty of spreading fake documents. If you are gonna turn Wikipedia into Pravda do it less obviously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.217.24.239 ( talk) 20:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Per the lengthy requested move discussion, and per WP:ONEWAY, I propose creating a new, separate article about the conspiracy theories specifically. I have not prepared a title for the article, but it should contain "conspiracy theories". wumbolo ^^^ 20:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
No. The only reason this article exists is because of the conspiracy theories. -- Calton | Talk 07:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
19 July 2016 washingtonpost story on murder of Seth Rich When do you think the earliest Seth Rich conspiracy story appeared? StreetSign ( talk) 00:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
News media have written extensively on the case, publishing extensive details on the biography of the victim, his activities immediately before the shooting, time and cause of death, medical treatment, statements by DNC and family members, police press conference, etc. The only reason the conspiracy theories have attracted attention is that the homicide was extensively covered. In the JonBenet Ramsey case, there was in fact a great deal of unwarranted speculation in tabloids and police were never able to uncover any useful evidence. And see "5 JonBenet Conspiracy Theories That Are As Confusing As They Are Fascinating". That was written 20 years after the murder. TFD ( talk) 04:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
I think that the case would have received attention regardless.It might have, we can't ever really know. I just briefly got the impression you were arguing for the split, even though you'd already said quite clearly above that you didn't support it. That was just me being being a dumbass, so don't pay too much heed to it.
I oppose the creation of a separate article. I don't want a fork. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 16:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I also oppose the creation of a separate article on the conspiracy theories. There is already excessive space given to the conspiracy theories in this article, to the point that it makes it more difficult to identify the facts. The Murder of Seth Rich article should instead focus primarily on the facts. To simultaneously exclude facts while including conspiracy theories is not justifiable. StreetSign ( talk) 20:13, 27 August 2018 (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.
From a conspiracy site:
Collection of Democratic National Committee (DNC) internal emails published (leaked) by DCLeaks and WikiLeaks during the 2016 Democratic National Convention. Seth Rich was the source leaks, miffed that the DNC railroaded Barry Sanders. Seth Rich was subsequently murdered by MS-13 hitmen. DNC had CrowdStrike investigate their servers and falsely claim that Russian hackers were behind the leak. Meanwhile, neither the FBI nor CIA ever examined the servers.
It says that "Neither the FBI nor CIA ever examined the servers"... is that true? If so it seems relevant since according to the conspiracy Seth Rich and not Russian hackers were involved with the servers. BTW I know that there were "12 Russians indicted in Mueller investigation".
So if it's true about the FBI and CIA then I think that should be mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legowolf3d ( talk • contribs)
edit: a related page: /info/en/?search=2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak
Seth Conrad Rich (January 3, 1989 – July 10, 2016) was an American employee of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) who was fatally shot in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington, D.C.[1][2][3]
That's the lede to a biography, not to an event, and certainly doesn't summarize what the article is about. So, how about a change?-- Calton | Talk 09:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Just for the record, I originally picked up the term "lede" (and "graf") from a couple of college journalism classes in the late 80s -- and which I've used since then -- so being in use for at least 40 years is no-way "newfangled" as far as I'm concerned. I have to say, it's a strange hill to want to die on.
Meanwhile: the lede for this article? -- Calton | Talk 03:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Nope. This is about a crime: what does Rich having been an employee of a particular organization have to do with anything? -- Calton | Talk 02:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
So, about that biographical-style lead? Still there. I'm not changing anything unless I'm absolutely sure there's consensus. Hell, the damned thing doesn't even mention the DATE of the event except by inference. -- Calton | Talk 23:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Right now there is a category for "Denialism" on the article. Does that really belong? I didn't want to remove it without a discussion since this article seems to be so sensitive. PopSci ( talk) 23:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
All right, I got tired of waiting for a change (see "Lede", above), and changed the lede. Let me know if it's acceptable:
The murder of Seth Rich occurred on Sunday, July 10, 2016, at 4:20 a.m. in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington, D.C. [1] Rich died from two shots to the back.
The 27-year-old Rich was an employee of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and his murder spawned several right-wing conspiracy theories [2], including the false claim...
-- Calton | Talk 03:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
References