![]() | 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 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Per consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Telegraph, the Daily Telegraph is considered a good and well-fact checked paper, and in particular for the statement "Police stated that he may have been killed in an attempted robbery but that his belongings were not taken" (that is, implying that this is unusual). Color me surprised, but that's why we have these discussions.
I'm pretty surprised because my layman assumption would be that a botched robbery would go down something like this:
Apparently, though, the normal #4 is "quick go through the guy's pockets and take off his watch (rolling him over if necessary and probably getting his blood all over you, but whatever) and then take off".
Well boy howdy, butter my buns and call me a biscuit. Who knew? I guess I wouldn't make a good armed robber. But the RS Noticeboard tells us that the source is good.
And in addition, we have "Strangely, however, they found his wallet, credit cards and cellphone on his body" at Newsweek. This supports (in fact doubles down on) the assertion that what happened was odd. Newsweek, despite their reputation inherited from the 20th century, has fallen on hard times, but its still another source that's at least not just a blog or whatever.
On that basis, I've restored the "but" to "Police stated that he may have been killed in an attempted robbery but that his belongings were not taken". I don't think you can use the source at all if you remove this key word. That's the wrong way to use a source. And the source is good after.
Speaking as someone who who thought that this was not a good source but have learned otherwise, let's put this to rest and move forward. Herostratus ( talk) 17:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Detectives from the Metropolitan Police Department’s Homicide Branch are investigating a fatal shooting that occurred in the 2100 block of Flagler Place, Northwest on Sunday, July 10, 2016. At approximately 4:19 am, members of the Fifth District were patrolling the area when they heard gunshots. Upon arrival on the scene, members located an adult male victim conscious and breathing, and suffering from gunshot wounds. The victim was transported to an area hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries and was pronounced dead. The decedent has been identified as 27-year-old Seth Conrad Rich, of Northwest, DC. The Metropolitan Police Department currently offers a reward of up to $25,000 to anyone that provides information which leads to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons responsible for any homicide committed in the District of Columbia.
Info about a new $100,000 reward was deleted today, citing a recent RFC. I can't quite figure out what the following material has to do with the recent RFC:
“ | In September 2016, lobbyist
Jack Burkman offered an additional $100,000 reward |
” |
References
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Speaking only as the admin that closed the previous RFC I would say that this is not directly tied to that RFC, however, it is similar enough in style that I would recommend a discussion before adding. An RFC isn't needed, but the last one had a lot of strong emotion, making it prudent to allow people to opine on the merits first. This is how we avoid drama. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
It's been more than two days since I added this stuff to the article. Only one editor, User:Steve Quinn, has clearly argued for exclusion. For inclusion are User:Guy Macon, Anythingyouwant, and User:Space4Time3Continuum2x ("may actually be a good thing...."). Several other editors commented without expressing any clear view about including versus excluding: User:Dennis Brown, User:Geogene (says that adding this info is controversial but has not supported or opposed), User:SPECIFICO (wants evidence that Burkman's offer is serious but absent that evidence has expressed no opinion), and User:Snow Rise. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Herostratus: We cannot proceed with this article like the one on Vince Foster for two reasons: Mr. Foster died 23 years ago while Mr. Rich died recently, and the cause of Mr. Foster’s death has been established beyond a reasonable doubt while the cause of Mr. Rich’s death has not. Excellent debunking on Snopes, though. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 06:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to update the article to reflect the current total reward money available. With no mention (outside sources) of the person who offered it, etc. The family has said that they're glad there's more money available. We should not censor that. Folks are free to argue and/or RFC over including more than that, but i don't see any argument against an accurate total. Hope most folks go with this which I hope is a compromise that leaves most folks at least a little happier than having things go one way or the other. -- Elvey( t• c) 01:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Stop censoring the (Redacted) and the $100,000 reward. It's not like there aren't other RS. https://www.thenation.com/article/is-julian-assange-exposing-innocent-people-to-persecution-with-reckless-leaks/: " Seth Rich, a 27-year-old DNC staffer who was felled by two gunshots (Redacted) on July 10."-- Elvey( t• c) 19:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Good article with lots of details: 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
seems unlikely he was WikiLeaks' source if he was invited to join HRC's campaign. (Though I suppose conspiracy mongers may say he was trying to infiltrate it or something...)-- Elvey( t• c) 22:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Bias in this article is absolutely staggering and sickening given we are talking about cold blooded murder. 66.190.29.251 ( talk) 05:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
In the "Death and aftermath" section, it says
I'd like to expand a bit on the fired-upneess of the "right wing Twitterverse" (or whatever it is), by demonstrating with at least one example (rather than just using Newsweek's characterization of it), so I'd like to insert the following sentence (shown bolded; not to be actually bolded):
It seems that a former Speaker of the House (and presidential candidate, author, public figure) ought to have standing to be quoted on the matter, if he has something interesting to say. And he does. He's clearly at least raising the question that this event might not have been a normal robbery. Otherwise he wouldn't have raised the point. I don't see any other reasonable way to interpret what he said. If wasn't a normal robbery... "we ought to have a pretty passionate interest in knowing why" indicates that the Speaker doesn't think it was probably a jilted lover or disgruntled business partner or whatever using robbery as a cover. There's no reason for "we" (by which he means the American people I infer, or anyway some significant subset, such as the Republican Party) to have a passionate interest in uncovering something like that. So what question is he raising? That it was a political assassination. There just isn't any other reasonable interpretation.
I think my wording expresses this reasonably clearly and neutrally. I think the "for instance" is called for since Gingrich's speculation is just one example of a person making this point (as the Newsweek "Twitterverse" passage indicates). I chose him because he is prominent. The reference is <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-seth-rich_us_57b1ddede4b007c36e4f5ffa |title=Conspiracy Theorists Won’t Stop Accusing The Clintons Of Murder |author=Amanda Terkel |date=August 15, 2016 |work=Huffington Post |accessdate=October 23, 2016}}</ref>, although the quote is reported elsewhere also.
Any objection to adding this? Herostratus ( talk) 15:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
No, this is wrong. There seems to be two camps here:
But that's not how this project rolls. We do not tell readers "such and such is nonsense" or "such and such is reasonable". We give the facts and let the reader make up her own mind. For one thing, it doesn't even work to tell the reader "Here is the truth" on matters like this. It just makes us look incompetent. For another, it's not our remit. "You can put it in Gingrich's article that he's trying to libel an innocent victim..." No, no we can't, and you can't be a good editor here if you think that is how our articles should be.
The fact is that a former Speaker of the United States House of Representatives had something to say on the matter. Am I glad that he said it? No, I'm not. I think he should have kept his trap shut. Do I think he was right? No, I don't. Do I think that he even believes what he said? I don't. I think he was just engaging in partisan trollery. But that has nothing to do with the price of eggs. This is not What-Herostratus-Thinks-About-Stuff-opedia, or anything else of the sort. Our job is to report the facts and let the reader decide for herself what to think about contentious matters.
If the argument was "Well, but who cares what Newt Gingrich said? He's just a C-list talking head", that'd be very different. But nobody is making that argument (well, except Geogene) because it would be silly. Gingrich is a major figure in American political history and (to a fair degree) in the current political landscape, and no one can deny that. Geogene thinks that "the RS seem to think his opinion on this is worth nothing". But the Huffington Post reported the quote. It's a notable source.
So the arguments -- the ones I've seen so far -- come down to "But I don't like what he said. And he shouldn't have said it. So let's not report it". We cannot construct an encyclopedia on this basis.
I'd be like "Well, let's go to John F. Kennedy and remove the quote 'I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth'" because it was a boondoggle and waste of money and I wish he hadn't said that" or whatever.
We don't do that. It's as much a principle in this article as it is in John F. Kennedy or any other article. To inform and enlighten the reader is supposed to be our goal. Let's. Herostratus ( talk) 01:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
References to a Newsweek article and Wikileaks bias the report on Rich's murder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcsak ( talk • contribs) 14:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
It is misleading to fail to mention the information at the Newsweek wikipedia article, to wit: Newsweek is an on-line publication, not a paper magazine anymore. Newsweek was sold to the husband of Democratic Congresswoman Jane Harmon on August 2, 2010, for $1 and assumption of liabilities. At the end of 2010, Newsweek merged with the online publication The Daily Beast, then edited by Tina Brown (Lady Evans.) Not relying on the other article, but Newsweek bears very little resemblance to the magazine of the Watergate era and seems to be very tightly associated with the Democratic Party and the views of that party. I would never present it, as in the present article, in a way that suggested it to be an impartial or reliable source. Hypercallipygian ( talk) 23:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
In reference to 'Death and aftermath', it is stated that Assange himself offered a reward. This is false. The offer was made by WikiLeaks - one or other individual who monitor the Twitter account. Assange later clarified what the organisation meant and did not mean, but it was the organisation WikiLeaks, and not Assange, who made the offer.
![]() | This
edit request to
Murder of Seth Rich has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I view the following line as possible using too loaded words: [1] According to Newsweek, "that was enough to fire up the right-wing Twitterverse with yet another round of Clinton conspiracy theories", [1] later fanned by Julian Assange of Wikileaks. [1], more specifically "later fanned by Julian Assange of Wikileaks."
The use of the word "fanned" suggests that Julian Assange meant to, on purpose,"...fire up the right-wing Twitterverse with yet another round of Clinton conspiracy theories". While this could have been Assange's intention, the source in question says nothing substantial about his motives and thus, one cannot assume that Assange intentionally "fanned" said theories, since there is no clear evidence that this was his intention.
A less biased way of stating the actions of Assange and the resulting aftermath would be: [1] According to Newsweek, "that was enough to fire up the right-wing Twitterverse with yet another round of Clinton conspiracy theories", [1] which later intensified, partially or completely due to, the actions and statements made by Julian Assange of Wikileaks. [1] 85.224.141.216 ( talk) 00:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
References
I disagree with your revert; the Newsweek article says the family is distressed about speculation of their sons activities that night, not politicization or speculatuon on activities before hand. Nobs01 ( talk) 21:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Mary and Joel Rich of Omaha, Nebraska, are distressed by the apparent political exploitation of their son’s death by Clinton’s opponents. Article says Rich's parents were "distressed" by the way that Rich's murder was apparently being politicized Geogene ( talk) 21:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the theory that this article has been obviously politicized. This is further evident by the deletion efforts. The article is a valid historical event which was in the public view and should not be deleted. To do so is harmful to the researchers in future generations. We cannot have a party dictate narratives on Wikipedia only to delete when challenged and forced to show an unbiased representation of events.
The chosen Newsweek quote provides little context and is concentrated on the source's hate speech. If this charged quote from a left-wing outlet remains it must be accompanied with a charged-quote from a credible right-wing journal's quote about the suspicions. Otherwise it is sufficient to replace:
"His watch strap was torn, but nothing had been taken.[7] According to Newsweek, "that was enough to fire up the right-wing Twitterverse with yet another round of Clinton conspiracy theories,"[7] which later intensified after the offering of a reward made by WikiLeaks.[7]"
with:
"His watch strap was torn, but nothing had been taken. This ignited an uproar of speculation in social media [7] which later intensified after the offering of a reward made by WikiLeaks. [*]"
References
I've started a new discussion here. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
According to Burkman's press releases, his total reward offer as of Dec 5, 2016, is $105,000. Adding the $25,000 reward offered by MPDC, the total is $130,000, not 150,000. Rich's family does not include WikiLeaks/Assange's tweeted "reward offer" (self-touted on every media venue that would have him), saying that they cannot "verify its validity", and neither does the Burkman press release which is the only source for the WJLA (ABC7) report. The same press release is also the only source for our article erroneously stating for a fact: "A total of more than $150,000 in reward money is being offered for information, the largest murder reward in the history of Washington D.C." The source merely says: "Now at $130,000, the reward is believed to be the largest in D.C. history", i.e., nobody knows what the largest is or was. The WaPo "Style" opinion article obviously misread the press release $130,000 total of Burkman's $105,000 + MPDC's $25,000, added MPDC's $25,000 for a second time, and then added WikiLeaks's disputed $20,000; ergo, grand total: $175,000. Coming to the point after this long-winded excursion into fourth-grade addition: I removed everything that's not supported by RS and math and added references supporting the available facts. Not sure what to do about the original source for the secondary sources:
References
Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | 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 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Per consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Telegraph, the Daily Telegraph is considered a good and well-fact checked paper, and in particular for the statement "Police stated that he may have been killed in an attempted robbery but that his belongings were not taken" (that is, implying that this is unusual). Color me surprised, but that's why we have these discussions.
I'm pretty surprised because my layman assumption would be that a botched robbery would go down something like this:
Apparently, though, the normal #4 is "quick go through the guy's pockets and take off his watch (rolling him over if necessary and probably getting his blood all over you, but whatever) and then take off".
Well boy howdy, butter my buns and call me a biscuit. Who knew? I guess I wouldn't make a good armed robber. But the RS Noticeboard tells us that the source is good.
And in addition, we have "Strangely, however, they found his wallet, credit cards and cellphone on his body" at Newsweek. This supports (in fact doubles down on) the assertion that what happened was odd. Newsweek, despite their reputation inherited from the 20th century, has fallen on hard times, but its still another source that's at least not just a blog or whatever.
On that basis, I've restored the "but" to "Police stated that he may have been killed in an attempted robbery but that his belongings were not taken". I don't think you can use the source at all if you remove this key word. That's the wrong way to use a source. And the source is good after.
Speaking as someone who who thought that this was not a good source but have learned otherwise, let's put this to rest and move forward. Herostratus ( talk) 17:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Detectives from the Metropolitan Police Department’s Homicide Branch are investigating a fatal shooting that occurred in the 2100 block of Flagler Place, Northwest on Sunday, July 10, 2016. At approximately 4:19 am, members of the Fifth District were patrolling the area when they heard gunshots. Upon arrival on the scene, members located an adult male victim conscious and breathing, and suffering from gunshot wounds. The victim was transported to an area hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries and was pronounced dead. The decedent has been identified as 27-year-old Seth Conrad Rich, of Northwest, DC. The Metropolitan Police Department currently offers a reward of up to $25,000 to anyone that provides information which leads to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons responsible for any homicide committed in the District of Columbia.
Info about a new $100,000 reward was deleted today, citing a recent RFC. I can't quite figure out what the following material has to do with the recent RFC:
“ | In September 2016, lobbyist
Jack Burkman offered an additional $100,000 reward |
” |
References
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Speaking only as the admin that closed the previous RFC I would say that this is not directly tied to that RFC, however, it is similar enough in style that I would recommend a discussion before adding. An RFC isn't needed, but the last one had a lot of strong emotion, making it prudent to allow people to opine on the merits first. This is how we avoid drama. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
It's been more than two days since I added this stuff to the article. Only one editor, User:Steve Quinn, has clearly argued for exclusion. For inclusion are User:Guy Macon, Anythingyouwant, and User:Space4Time3Continuum2x ("may actually be a good thing...."). Several other editors commented without expressing any clear view about including versus excluding: User:Dennis Brown, User:Geogene (says that adding this info is controversial but has not supported or opposed), User:SPECIFICO (wants evidence that Burkman's offer is serious but absent that evidence has expressed no opinion), and User:Snow Rise. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Herostratus: We cannot proceed with this article like the one on Vince Foster for two reasons: Mr. Foster died 23 years ago while Mr. Rich died recently, and the cause of Mr. Foster’s death has been established beyond a reasonable doubt while the cause of Mr. Rich’s death has not. Excellent debunking on Snopes, though. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 06:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to update the article to reflect the current total reward money available. With no mention (outside sources) of the person who offered it, etc. The family has said that they're glad there's more money available. We should not censor that. Folks are free to argue and/or RFC over including more than that, but i don't see any argument against an accurate total. Hope most folks go with this which I hope is a compromise that leaves most folks at least a little happier than having things go one way or the other. -- Elvey( t• c) 01:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Stop censoring the (Redacted) and the $100,000 reward. It's not like there aren't other RS. https://www.thenation.com/article/is-julian-assange-exposing-innocent-people-to-persecution-with-reckless-leaks/: " Seth Rich, a 27-year-old DNC staffer who was felled by two gunshots (Redacted) on July 10."-- Elvey( t• c) 19:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Good article with lots of details: 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
seems unlikely he was WikiLeaks' source if he was invited to join HRC's campaign. (Though I suppose conspiracy mongers may say he was trying to infiltrate it or something...)-- Elvey( t• c) 22:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Bias in this article is absolutely staggering and sickening given we are talking about cold blooded murder. 66.190.29.251 ( talk) 05:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
In the "Death and aftermath" section, it says
I'd like to expand a bit on the fired-upneess of the "right wing Twitterverse" (or whatever it is), by demonstrating with at least one example (rather than just using Newsweek's characterization of it), so I'd like to insert the following sentence (shown bolded; not to be actually bolded):
It seems that a former Speaker of the House (and presidential candidate, author, public figure) ought to have standing to be quoted on the matter, if he has something interesting to say. And he does. He's clearly at least raising the question that this event might not have been a normal robbery. Otherwise he wouldn't have raised the point. I don't see any other reasonable way to interpret what he said. If wasn't a normal robbery... "we ought to have a pretty passionate interest in knowing why" indicates that the Speaker doesn't think it was probably a jilted lover or disgruntled business partner or whatever using robbery as a cover. There's no reason for "we" (by which he means the American people I infer, or anyway some significant subset, such as the Republican Party) to have a passionate interest in uncovering something like that. So what question is he raising? That it was a political assassination. There just isn't any other reasonable interpretation.
I think my wording expresses this reasonably clearly and neutrally. I think the "for instance" is called for since Gingrich's speculation is just one example of a person making this point (as the Newsweek "Twitterverse" passage indicates). I chose him because he is prominent. The reference is <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-seth-rich_us_57b1ddede4b007c36e4f5ffa |title=Conspiracy Theorists Won’t Stop Accusing The Clintons Of Murder |author=Amanda Terkel |date=August 15, 2016 |work=Huffington Post |accessdate=October 23, 2016}}</ref>, although the quote is reported elsewhere also.
Any objection to adding this? Herostratus ( talk) 15:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
No, this is wrong. There seems to be two camps here:
But that's not how this project rolls. We do not tell readers "such and such is nonsense" or "such and such is reasonable". We give the facts and let the reader make up her own mind. For one thing, it doesn't even work to tell the reader "Here is the truth" on matters like this. It just makes us look incompetent. For another, it's not our remit. "You can put it in Gingrich's article that he's trying to libel an innocent victim..." No, no we can't, and you can't be a good editor here if you think that is how our articles should be.
The fact is that a former Speaker of the United States House of Representatives had something to say on the matter. Am I glad that he said it? No, I'm not. I think he should have kept his trap shut. Do I think he was right? No, I don't. Do I think that he even believes what he said? I don't. I think he was just engaging in partisan trollery. But that has nothing to do with the price of eggs. This is not What-Herostratus-Thinks-About-Stuff-opedia, or anything else of the sort. Our job is to report the facts and let the reader decide for herself what to think about contentious matters.
If the argument was "Well, but who cares what Newt Gingrich said? He's just a C-list talking head", that'd be very different. But nobody is making that argument (well, except Geogene) because it would be silly. Gingrich is a major figure in American political history and (to a fair degree) in the current political landscape, and no one can deny that. Geogene thinks that "the RS seem to think his opinion on this is worth nothing". But the Huffington Post reported the quote. It's a notable source.
So the arguments -- the ones I've seen so far -- come down to "But I don't like what he said. And he shouldn't have said it. So let's not report it". We cannot construct an encyclopedia on this basis.
I'd be like "Well, let's go to John F. Kennedy and remove the quote 'I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth'" because it was a boondoggle and waste of money and I wish he hadn't said that" or whatever.
We don't do that. It's as much a principle in this article as it is in John F. Kennedy or any other article. To inform and enlighten the reader is supposed to be our goal. Let's. Herostratus ( talk) 01:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
References to a Newsweek article and Wikileaks bias the report on Rich's murder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcsak ( talk • contribs) 14:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
It is misleading to fail to mention the information at the Newsweek wikipedia article, to wit: Newsweek is an on-line publication, not a paper magazine anymore. Newsweek was sold to the husband of Democratic Congresswoman Jane Harmon on August 2, 2010, for $1 and assumption of liabilities. At the end of 2010, Newsweek merged with the online publication The Daily Beast, then edited by Tina Brown (Lady Evans.) Not relying on the other article, but Newsweek bears very little resemblance to the magazine of the Watergate era and seems to be very tightly associated with the Democratic Party and the views of that party. I would never present it, as in the present article, in a way that suggested it to be an impartial or reliable source. Hypercallipygian ( talk) 23:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
In reference to 'Death and aftermath', it is stated that Assange himself offered a reward. This is false. The offer was made by WikiLeaks - one or other individual who monitor the Twitter account. Assange later clarified what the organisation meant and did not mean, but it was the organisation WikiLeaks, and not Assange, who made the offer.
![]() | This
edit request to
Murder of Seth Rich has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I view the following line as possible using too loaded words: [1] According to Newsweek, "that was enough to fire up the right-wing Twitterverse with yet another round of Clinton conspiracy theories", [1] later fanned by Julian Assange of Wikileaks. [1], more specifically "later fanned by Julian Assange of Wikileaks."
The use of the word "fanned" suggests that Julian Assange meant to, on purpose,"...fire up the right-wing Twitterverse with yet another round of Clinton conspiracy theories". While this could have been Assange's intention, the source in question says nothing substantial about his motives and thus, one cannot assume that Assange intentionally "fanned" said theories, since there is no clear evidence that this was his intention.
A less biased way of stating the actions of Assange and the resulting aftermath would be: [1] According to Newsweek, "that was enough to fire up the right-wing Twitterverse with yet another round of Clinton conspiracy theories", [1] which later intensified, partially or completely due to, the actions and statements made by Julian Assange of Wikileaks. [1] 85.224.141.216 ( talk) 00:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
References
I disagree with your revert; the Newsweek article says the family is distressed about speculation of their sons activities that night, not politicization or speculatuon on activities before hand. Nobs01 ( talk) 21:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Mary and Joel Rich of Omaha, Nebraska, are distressed by the apparent political exploitation of their son’s death by Clinton’s opponents. Article says Rich's parents were "distressed" by the way that Rich's murder was apparently being politicized Geogene ( talk) 21:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the theory that this article has been obviously politicized. This is further evident by the deletion efforts. The article is a valid historical event which was in the public view and should not be deleted. To do so is harmful to the researchers in future generations. We cannot have a party dictate narratives on Wikipedia only to delete when challenged and forced to show an unbiased representation of events.
The chosen Newsweek quote provides little context and is concentrated on the source's hate speech. If this charged quote from a left-wing outlet remains it must be accompanied with a charged-quote from a credible right-wing journal's quote about the suspicions. Otherwise it is sufficient to replace:
"His watch strap was torn, but nothing had been taken.[7] According to Newsweek, "that was enough to fire up the right-wing Twitterverse with yet another round of Clinton conspiracy theories,"[7] which later intensified after the offering of a reward made by WikiLeaks.[7]"
with:
"His watch strap was torn, but nothing had been taken. This ignited an uproar of speculation in social media [7] which later intensified after the offering of a reward made by WikiLeaks. [*]"
References
I've started a new discussion here. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
According to Burkman's press releases, his total reward offer as of Dec 5, 2016, is $105,000. Adding the $25,000 reward offered by MPDC, the total is $130,000, not 150,000. Rich's family does not include WikiLeaks/Assange's tweeted "reward offer" (self-touted on every media venue that would have him), saying that they cannot "verify its validity", and neither does the Burkman press release which is the only source for the WJLA (ABC7) report. The same press release is also the only source for our article erroneously stating for a fact: "A total of more than $150,000 in reward money is being offered for information, the largest murder reward in the history of Washington D.C." The source merely says: "Now at $130,000, the reward is believed to be the largest in D.C. history", i.e., nobody knows what the largest is or was. The WaPo "Style" opinion article obviously misread the press release $130,000 total of Burkman's $105,000 + MPDC's $25,000, added MPDC's $25,000 for a second time, and then added WikiLeaks's disputed $20,000; ergo, grand total: $175,000. Coming to the point after this long-winded excursion into fourth-grade addition: I removed everything that's not supported by RS and math and added references supporting the available facts. Not sure what to do about the original source for the secondary sources:
References
Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)