![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
I removed the info about fox news being accused of running this story as a distraction about the other Trump news events of the day. It does not belong in this article for a number of reasons. Please justify why this should be added. Mr Ernie ( talk) 13:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
References
Include it's well sourced and if true it's a pretty big deal. Geogene ( talk) 17:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
It's in the sources and it's important so needs to be included. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
It's already kind of included in the article: "The spokesperson for the family criticized Fox News for its reporting, alleging that the outlet was motivated by a desire to deflect attention from the Trump-Russia story
." I suggest adding a sentence before this to clarify what the "Trump-Russia story" is, using some of the sources mentioned above.
Falling
Gravity
19:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
"Fox News and other conservative media have been accused of giving these conspiracy theories air time in order to distract from embarrassing news stories about the Trump administration"
The phrasing "distract from embarrassing news stories about the Trump administration" implies that the news stories were embarrassing. This is an opinion and does not maintain neutral POV. It should be changed to:
"Fox News and other conservative media have been accused of giving these conspiracy theories air time in order to distract from news stories about the Trump administration deemed embarrassing by some."
There is no objectivity in making the claim that those news stories are "embarrassing" as this is wholly a subjective partisan claim.
A77B ( talk) 03:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Murder of Seth Rich has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove "The crime was used as a pretext for right-wing conspiracy theories about Rich which were later debunked". The sources clearly state "Police investigating the matter have said that they believe Mr Rich was killed during a botched burglary but have not closed the case. The deceased was found with his wallet, credit cards, and phone still on him. His watch band had been torn but not broken." How can you consider that debunked? Is this a propaganda site? And no I'm not a right wing conspiracy theorist as the inflammatory sources claim. I'm an Obama and Sanders supporter. 2601:542:C480:C5BD:4D8B:CA1B:69BD:9EE2 ( talk) 00:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC) ""SO, you're just an anti-Hillary conspiracy theorist? 74.70.146.1 ( talk) 01:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. The three sources cited at the end of the sentence in question appear to support the text as written. It makes absolutely no difference where your political allegiances lie.
Rivertorch
FIRE
WATER
05:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)New editor ArniDagur is making POV edits to the article [7] and needs to be re-reverted by someone. Geogene ( talk) 21:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Of the three sources in the lede only one (Independent) uses right-wing <-- that's only because we don't overcite in the lede. And that's the only reason. We have:
Ok that should be enough. Now - find me a single source which says it was "left wing conspiracy theory". Volunteer Marek ( talk) 22:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
"The next day, while other news organizations were extensively covering Donald Trump' revelation of classified information to Russia, Fox News published a lead story on its website and provided extensive coverage on its cable news channel about what it said were Wheeler's uncorroborated claims about the murder of Seth Rich." Fox's report on Seth Rich murder came out several hours before media began reporting Donald Trump and Russia story. 72.53.146.173 ( talk) 04:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Conservative media, including Fox News, focused on this story instead of the Comey memos that mainstream sources were leading with on the same day.Using a source Snooganssnoogans provided below [8] Placement in the paragraph right before the "special place in hell" sentence? Geogene ( talk) 20:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree this sounds extremely biased Allanana79 ( talk) 06:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
These by new user Icaidacmt. For example, [9], [10]. Some of that last bit is similar to content added by Zellfire999 [11] a few hours ago. Geogene ( talk) 02:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Geogene I am describing what the theory is, it is under the "conspiracy theories" section. Many Wikipedia pages on conspiracy theories describe the topic. I fail to see how this is "non-neutral". Section should be deleted if the conspiracy theory should not be discussed in even the most basic way. Icaidacmt ( talk) 02:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Right-wing is mentioned twice, as in the previous sentence, I removed the second mention of it for grammatical reasons. It seems you are accusing me of being political which I find ironic, however I suppose I will not edit further if it is not welcome. Icaidacmt ( talk) 04:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
As reported by Media Matters, https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2017/05/19/seth-richs-family-sends-cease-and-desist-fox-news-contributor-behind-evidence-free-smears/216576 the family has filed a cease and desist. I'm not sure how to integrate this into the article, so I'm bringing it up here in hopes others can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.36.161 ( talk) 07:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Aside from all the other back and forth on this article, I find its name misleading and POV.
"Murder" can only be used after a trier of fact has heard the case and come back with a guilty verdict indicating that the victim was intentionally killed by someone who planned to do so ("malice aforethought", "prior calculation and design", whatever statutory language you like). All the police and the coroner can say, even if the press uses the M-word, is "homicide": someone else killed the victim, for reasons yet unknown.
This is where it stands with Seth Rich (and also should with another unsolved D.C. killing, Murder of Robert Wone, especially since in that case the possible suspects' identities are known). We don't know who killed him. We have no idea who it could be. Until they are arrested and either plead guilty or get convicted this cannot be called a murder.
I propose renaming this to Seth Rich homicide, per another article where I've used this sort of nomenclature, about an unsolved street killing in Brooklyn. Should I make a a formal request, or are enough people OK with this? Daniel Case ( talk) 02:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
"If they didn't consider it a murder, why would they investigate?" Because it's a homicide, and homicides have to be investigated to see if the law has been broken, as it usually has (I mean, it is entirely possible that the perpetrators in this case, if they are ever arrested, could claim self-defense, or mental defect, both defenses that would negate a murder charge while not denying the act). Without knowing the perpetrators' state of mind, it cannot legally be called a murder.
As I noted below, the AP advises reporters not to do this. We should consider this very strongly as we are a lot of people's de facto news source for stuff like this as much as the AP, if not more. I think applying COMMONNAME here so blindly is irresponsible.
I agree that the guidelines should be updated, but that doesn't mean we can't do this here and now. Daniel Case ( talk) 04:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
But AP style, as well as other style manuals, has become pretty clear on this point:"A 'homicide' should not be described as 'murder' unless a person has been convicted of that charge ... Do not say that a victim was 'murdered' until someone has been convicted in court. Instead, say that a victim was 'killed' or 'slain.'"
When we move it, there will still be a redirect when people type "Murder of Seth Rich" into the search field that brings them here. I don't see why people have such a hard time understanding this and living with it.
Now, should someone be arrested and charged with murder in the case, I'd be OK with renaming it Seth Rich murder case (see the naming history of Murder of Ramona Moore, where after creating the article under that name someone else wanted to move it, and eventually I came to agree with the rationale I put forth above, COMMONNAME notwithstanding, and it took that format until the defendant was convicted last year of manslaughter, after which I reverted it to "homicide" since the jury acquitted him on the murder charge).
I do agree, however, that given how much hot editing there is on this one an RM will be necessary. I will open it later today. Daniel Case ( talk) 04:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I was going to wait till after the weekend to start an RM discussion, but I see that someone else (ahem) jumped the gun. Daniel Case ( talk) 16:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Since the article talks about the Fox News controversy, so should the lead. Unfortunately PerfectlyIrrational just removed that and replaced it with "members of the alt right" which is not accurate to sourcing. Geogene ( talk) 17:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
It appears we have had a couple violations of 1RR (and one editor has already been blocked). The edits were incorrectly reverted per BLP and HOAX. One last request to everyone to use the talk page for discussion before reverting. This material is relevant and now well sourced (thanks to the WaPo article). Mr Ernie ( talk) 21:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
These were correctly reverted per WP:HOAX and definitely per WP:BLP. No way you can put potentially damaging nonsense like this into an article and not expect to get reverted. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 22:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Here is a small list of new sources that have been created in the past 24 hours.
There are many more. At this point the article is outdated because it doesn't even mention this at all. Hoax or not is not what is going on: there has been a new claim about the death of Seth Rich and the media is reporting it. These are major media outlets ranging widely in their political leanings. It is not a hoax that a claim has been made. Future edits could include at least that there has been a new claim and the surrounding myriad of major media outlets reporting on it. That is not smear or hoax or conspiracy, that is just what has happened in the past 24 hours.-- RandomUser3510 ( talk) 00:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
It took only hours for one of the biggest stories in conservative media this week, which some outlets had chosen to focus on over news that President Trump disclosed classified information to senior Russian officials, to fall apart. ... Tuesday afternoon, Wheeler told CNN he had no evidence to suggest Rich had contacted Wikileaks before his death. Wheeler instead said he only learned about the possible existence of such evidence through the reporter he spoke to for the FoxNews.com story. He explained that the comments he made to WTTG-TV were intended to simply preview Fox News' Tuesday story. The WTTG-TV news director did not respond to multiple requests for comment. "I only got that [information] from the reporter at Fox News," Wheeler told CNN.
[15]
The total, complete debunking and collapse of this fake-news "story" is an abject lesson in why we are not a news outlet and why we need to be sensitive about reporting fringe, dubious and outlandish claims about living or recently-deceased people. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 01:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Are there any sources you consider not fakenews/conspiracy theorists. Name one and we can use it as a source for this article. TFD ( talk) 02:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
This section does not maintain neutral POV. "The crime was used as a pretext for right-wing conspiracy theories about Rich which were later debunked"
The term "debunked" implies a proof of a negative. Because conspiracy theories are based on lack of evidence, it's impossible to "debunk" it. "Debunk" carries a tone of absolute certainty, and a tone that such a conspiracy is wholly impossible. Moreover, the term "ring wing" implies the entire right embraces these conspiracy theories. This is a partisan term that would not pass the neutral POV. Talking about "right wing" and "left wing" as a whole is political jargon, not a place for an encyclopedia.
In addition, there are reports that some conspiracies are invented by those identifying themselves on the left: http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503146770/npr-finds-the-head-of-a-covert-fake-news-operation-in-the-suburbs. Term "right-wing conspiracy theory" is ambiguous. Was the conspiracy invented by those affiliated with the right? Or is it embraced by those on the right? In either case, this phrasing should be changed.
Suggested change: "The crime was used as a pretext for conspiracy theories about Rich embraced mainly by the far right, which were not supported by evidence."
I included "far right" because figures like Alex Jones push these conspiracy theories. I see no evidence that this is accepted by the mainstream republican as fact. It would be just as dishonest to credit Antifa violence to "left wing" as it is to credit this conspiracy theory to "right wing", regardless if a significant minority on that political spectrum supports it.
A77B ( talk) 03:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
This section belongs in the Fox article, not in the article on Fox’s victim. A grieving family being victimized all over again: An entirely Fox-generated, Fox-propagated "alternative fact" at a time when they have lost their biggest generator of ad dollars, O’Reilly; when Fox News ratings have fallen to third place behind MSNBC and CNN; and when a yuge breaking news distraction was needed, coming right on the heels of WaPo’s report on Trump revealing classified information to Lavrov and Kislyak. The actors:
“I have seen and read the emails between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks,” the federal investigator told Fox News, confirming the MacFadyen connection. He said the emails are in possession of the FBI, while the stalled case is in the hands of the Washington Police Department.
The revelation is consistent with the findings of Wheeler, whose private investigation firm was hired by a third party on behalf of Rich’s family to probe the case.
A short sentence in the "Conspiracy theories" section with a cross-reference to the Fox News article should suffice. All updates on this need to be done in the Fox News article, not here! If there are no objections in the next few days, I will go ahead with the changes. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
None of the three articles linked in the lead 'debunk' the 'conspiracy theory' that Seth Rich gave emails to Wikileaks. You could write that there is 'no evidence' that Seth was in contact with Wikileaks, but when you say that the 'conspiracy theory' that Seth was in contact with Wikileaks has been 'debunked', it leads those that read it to believe that either, investigators had been able to verify that Seth had not been in contact with Wikileaks via email, or that Wikileaks had stated that Seth Rich was not in contact with them, neither of which are true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.168.153.139 ( talk) 07:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, Snopes being used as a reliable source is frankly laughable.Take it to RSN and see if that position gets you anywhere. Not only has RSN repeatedly found Snopes to be reliable, other impeccably reliable sources have stated that Snopes was among the most reliable sources. I've seen multiple accusations of inaccuracy in Snopes, and every single one has turned out one of two ways; Snopes corrected itself or the accuser turned out to be making stuff up. Without fail. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
This conspiracy theory can not be debunked until the leaker of the DNC emails is finally revealed, or until the killers of Mr Rich are found. I will be amending this in the article. Alternatively I would be ok with the point the IP makes about "no evidence." Mr Ernie ( talk) 23:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Murder of Seth Rich has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article needs to include how the conspiracy theories are most popular on Reddit (subreddit the_donald) as well as 4chan. (This could be added underneath 'conspiracy theories'. Vhalan ( talk) 21:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Maybe this is relevant to the article? https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/someone-just-edited-seth-richs-reddit-posts-b5f185b0aab 87.142.103.242 ( talk) 18:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I notice that non-neutral wording, the Russian government, which had been blamed for being the leak source by the DNC, endorsed the conspiracy theory. was just added by Wikinium. Of course everyone knows it was the Russian government, not just the DNC. Should the article mention Fancy Bear and the associated evidence, since they were the ones that really did it? Geogene ( talk) 15:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
We've got edit warring by Malerooster who appears to not know why they do what they do [17], and we have BobNesh shamelessly censoring Mother Russia out of the article. [18] Geogene ( talk) 03:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
My additions to the See Also, "Fake News" and "Fox News controversies" were reverted by Malerooster. They cited BRD but did not give an actual justification. Here is an opportunity for them to do so. Geogene ( talk) 05:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm thinking about putting a background section in there somewhere about how the DNC hacks actually happened. Starting with:
Between March and April 2016, 108 members of Hillary Clinton's campaign staff and 20 people that work for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) received spearphishing emails that claimed to be from Google's Gmail service, alleging that their accounts had been compromised and that they should change their passwords immediately. The emails contained shortened Bit.ly link to spoof URLs such as "accoounts-google.com" where the hackers had set up identical copies of the Gmail login page. These pages not only harvested passwords entered by fooled users, but also deposited extremely sophisticated malware onto their computers, which was then used to gain remote access to the DNC's network. [19] Soon thereafter, thousands of stolen emails appeared on WikiLeaks.
This background would better educate the readers so they will be less likely to think that this was the work of one rogue programmer or something. Geogene ( talk) 05:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@ BarrelProof: regarding [20] The conspiracy theories all revolve around the hacking, so as long as they're in, the hacking is relevant to the article. If we were going to go back to a stripped down version that mentions only the murder, you'd have a point. But since there's a lot of insinuation about this, because Rich was a computer guy, and his employer got hacked, you have a lot of fairly idiotic ideas asserting some kind of connection based on that. Not discussing it is just a way to lie to the readers by insinuating something and then omitting the full truth. The article must describe the hack to some extent. Geogene ( talk) 14:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
The article currently has a paragraph toward the end that says:
The subject of the first sentence is "an attorney for the Rich family." The next sentence begins "He later told." Wheeler is the last noun before the "He", but Wheeler is mentioned in the past tense. It sounds like it was the lawyer that "later told," which doesn't make any sense. If it was Wheeler who "later told" - either while he was employed by the family this should be reworded. Use name rather pronoun. "Without the Rich family's permission, Wheeler had told ...".
Ileanadu ( talk) 16:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Posting in the talk page because I am unable to edit extended protected pages. In the third paragraph, it reads:
"They[The Seth Rich family] accused conspiracy theorists of politicizing his death for political gain, and called posters of the debunked conspiracy theory "sociopaths" and "disgusting""
The source cited for this states that it was the Seth Rich family spokesperson, Brad Bauman, who said posters of the conspiracy theory were sociopaths. Noah1831 ( talk) 10:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Claims that Jack Burkman's reward money is unverified are unsupported by the sources and constitute WP:OR. Plus, reward money itself isn't a conspiracy theory, unlike the theory that some powerful actor (Putin or Hillary) carried out the murder. Falling Gravity 00:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@ BarrelProof:, while I appreciate the amount of effort you've put into your extensive recent edits to this article, I am concerned that they are taking large parts of it in the wrong direction and reinstating personal and biographical detail about the victim which WP takes care to avoid. If it were not for the conspiracy theories promulgated by the victim's political adversaries, this crime and Mr. Rich himself would not be WP:NOTABLE. In such cases we have elements of our core BLP policy that instruct us not to add undue personal narrative to an article. This is not a biography about the victim, and his identity and personal details are incidental to the crime and the subsequent public attention to the matter. We have WP:AVOIDVICTIM and PUBLICFIGURE and other principles that apply here.
Earlier versions of this article incorporated much of the personal and circumstantial content about Mr. Rich that you have recently added. Over a period of time, a consensus developed to remove these statements. There was extensive relevant discussion on the article talk page and also in the first two of three AfD discussions. While the ongoing and renewed coverage of the conspiracy theories and exploitation of Mr. Rich and his family have now made the exploitation WP:NOTABLE, the detail that you've recently reinserted in the article is in my opinion irrelevant to the crime and the exploitation that have made the subject notable. I would be more comfortable with this article with most of the recently-added personal and behavioral detail removed. SPECIFICO talk 23:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I believe there was discussion about some of this material and how much to include when the article was first started, and the consensus then was to keep most of it out. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 02:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
"The crime was used as the basis for right-wing conspiracy theories, which have since been debunked in statements by law enforcement agencies. These theories falsely stated that Rich was the source of the 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak. In reality, Russian intelligence services are most likely responsible for the hacking and the leak."
This is the lead as it currently stands. Debunked should be changed to maybe criticized or denied, falsely should be removed, and the "In reality" sentence is really bad, weakly sourced, and just plain editorializing. Mr Ernie ( talk) 12:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
he wording contains false assertions and original research.Summation is not original research. Saying "debunked" is the semantically equivalent to saying "the conspiracy theories have been shown to be highly unlikely due to statements by law enforcement agents who have worked on the case which directly contradict the assertions of these theories, as well as the overall lack of evidence to support any assertions of these theories." It's also a lot shorter and easier to parse. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Of course, there's no reason why the article can't be more descriptive like that.I literally just gave a reason why the article shouldn't be as verbose as I said and you respond by saying "of course there's no reason" why the article shouldn't be that verbose?
(not talking about wild speculations, but those who look at facts and explore possible explanations)I've yet to see a Seth Rich CS that wasn't wild speculation. Not only have all of them claimed an improbable party to be responsible, but they've all completely fabricated an improbable motive for that party, which hinges upon an improbable claim about the email hacks.
Also, I don't think the word of law enforcement folks at this point are absolute and finalNo-one has suggested that they were. That being said, the word of law enforcement is as final as it is possible to get. Nor is that the extent of the problem; there is no evidence to support the conspiracy theories. None whatsoever.
(a) Rich leaked to Wikileaks; (b) He was murdered for leaking. (a) is plausible given current facts.No, it is not. The CIA concluded that the email leaks were the result of state-sponsored hacking by Russia. No evidence has emerged to contradict this, and indeed, new evidence has appeared supporting this since the announcement. Numerous other intelligence agencies supported the CIA's conclusion. Numerous cybersecurity groups have also endorsed the CIA's conclusion. In addition, an independent hacker has also claimed credit for it, and numerous authorities have examined this claim and concluded it to be plausible-if-unlikely at worst. What is not plausible at this point is the presumption that 1) a DNC insider leaked the emails; and 2) that the specific insider in question was Seth Rich.
At best one can say (b) has been contradicted by authoritiesNo, that's an "at least", not an "at best". This is equivalent to saying that "At best, WMF doesn't think MjolnirPants has hacked WP's servers." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
The family's spokesperson has had some very choice words for Gingrich [24]. I'm not sure if this should be included. On one hand, he has chosen to do this and his actions are obviously causing the family grief. On the other hand, the statement is pretty harsh and I'm sure someone will cry "BLP!". At any rate, it's well sourced so I'd be inclined to putting it in, but haven't done so at this point. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I have a simple request: Replace "Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich took also part in spreading the conspiracy." with "also took" as the correct word order. JeanEva Rose ( talk) 19:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC) JeanEva
I have copied the "Fox News controversy" section and pasted it at WTTG. We can either keep all of it here too, or instead replace it here with a sentence like "In May 2017, there was a controversial news report about the Rich murder that was subsequently discredited." I would think the latter approach more appropriate, since this is more about screwy reporting than about Seth Rich's life or death (but I will not myself remove any of this material from the present article at this time). Anythingyouwant ( talk) 09:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Needs to be placed into article: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/23/statement-on-coverage-seth-rich-murder-investigation.html
Casprings ( talk) 18:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Full cite with archived link:
On May 16, a story was posted on the Fox News website on the investigation into the 2016 murder of DNC Staffer Seth Rich. The article was not initially subjected to the high degree of editorial scrutiny we require for all our reporting. Upon appropriate review, the article was found not to meet those standards and has since been removed. We will continue to investigate this story and will provide updates as warranted.
Sagecandor ( talk) 00:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Already cited once with reference name as "politifact".
Good source for lots of more info on this topic. Sagecandor ( talk) 00:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Politifact is politifalse it is a biased source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactFinder1 ( talk • contribs) 06:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
User:Volunteer Marek removed the infobox I added with the notation "rmv infobox which does not summarize or capture the nature of the article." [25] The populated fields were title (Murder of Seth Rich"), map, date ("July 10, 2016"), time ("4:19 a.m. EST (approximate)"), place ("Bloomingdale (Washington, D.C.)"), cause ("Shooting"), participants ("Unknown"), inquiries (" Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia"), awards = ("$270,000").
These are standard fields for infoboxes (see for example " Shooting of Trayvon Martin," and I ask that it be restored. If Volunteer Marek thinks that different fields should be completed, he is free to add them.
TFD ( talk) 05:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I reverted. Per BRD, please gain consensus here to remove the long standing infobox.
Mr Ernie (
talk)
11:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
The reason we don't have maps for Edison or Chris Christie is that those articles are not about homicides. The events in both articles occurred in many places, not just in one place. If you think that the map should be omitted or another image used, then change it. Why do you not think that the other information (such as when it occurred) is not relevant? And you still have not explained how this case differs from the Shooting of Trayvon Martin. I would be very interested to hear your explanation. Incidentally, Seth Rich's brother has a GoFundMe page set up last month, [27] which could be linked in the infobox. TFD ( talk) 14:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
No this article is about the Murder of Seth Rich. There is a very notable conspiracy theory that has received widespread coverage in the past few days, but the article has been around a lot longer than that. Please self-revert your removal of the infobox. You've not supported the removal with any policy and there was no consensus to remove it. BRD says Bold (Marek's removal), Revert (mine), Discuss. Mr Ernie ( talk) 14:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, could you please explain how this article differs from the Shooting of Trayvon Martin. TFD ( talk) 15:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Personally I like infoboxes. It would make a good addition and provide a quick summation for the reader of key events and places and such. The one at the Trayvon Martin page looks good. ValarianB ( talk) 15:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Concur with SPECIFICO .and others Info box adds little and it takes attention off of the main substance of the article. Casprings ( talk) 16:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Ok. For starters, that map adds absolutely nothing to the article. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 17:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I didn't see any problem with the infobox. I have yet to read the extensive discussions above though. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 17:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Ryubyss you should discuss first before you scrub the lead and re-write (whitewash) the article. Geogene ( talk) 02:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
James J. Lambden just tried doing the exact same thing. This is WP:TENDENTIOUS. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 17:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not neutral as to whether the lede should mention what Poynter Institute says. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 17:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
The absurdity of the conspiracy theory and the nonsensical behavior of various right-wing groups and people towards it is now the dominant aspect of the event. The murder itself is of no real notability, and none at all if people would quit telling lies about it. Geogene ( talk) 22:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
@ Francewhoa: Regarding this edit [29] the Daily Mail is generally not a reliable source, please self revert. Since that is already sourced, there is no real need for more anyway. Geogene ( talk) 00:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I suggest to add the exact time of the shooting into the main article. Under " Death and aftermath" section. Which is 4:19 a.m. The article read "Police were alerted to gunfire at 4:20 am" but as you know that is the time they were alerted, not the shooting time. Both information are valuable though. That article is primarily about the murder of Rich, usually among the first questions the readers have is when was he murder? The answer is ~4:19 a.m. That information is already in the infobox. But the infobox is usually a secondary section to the main article. Some might miss it. For easier reading and chronological order of the events, I see value in adding the shooting time 4:19 a.m. to the main article including his sister statement about "Rich was on the phone with his girlfriend, minutes before his shooting at 4:19 a.m.". I suggest that notable source https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/seth-rich-washington-dc-murder-victim-political-meme-weirdest-presidential-election-a7535856.html Yes it's just one minute difference but one minute is usually significant for the authorities and potential investigators. That's a very fast response time from the authorities. Impressive :) Also Rich's father stated in that exclusive video interview that the police arrived on at the shooting scene within one minute after the gun shoots at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4516416/DNC-staffer-Seth-Rich-family-demand-answers-cops.html I suggest to use the notable The Independent source instead of Dailymail though as they have a better track record with being reliable. Francewhoa ( talk) 01:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Right-wing conspiracy theories spread about the crime, and they were debunked by law enforcement, [1] [2] [3] as well as by fact-checking websites including FactCheck.org, [1] Snopes.com, [4] and PolitiFact. [2]
Question:
Is this topic notable if not for the false and debunked conspiracy theory? Sagecandor ( talk) 23:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Regardless, WP:PTOPIC applies, which means that if 90% of stories are about the conspiracy theory and 10% are just about the murder, and if that 10% would be enough to have an article (I disagree), we still call it "Murder of Seth Rich Conspiracy Theory". Volunteer Marek ( talk) 00:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
You should have told the local news that and maybe they would have ignored the story. TFD ( talk) 05:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't get it. This is an unsolved murder, right? People come forward with possible information to solve said murder and the police and media call them liars? I could understand calling it a conspiracy theory if theorists claimed police arrested a "patsy" who really didnt commit the crime. Why does this treat it like a closed case? 71.90.209.64 ( talk) 03:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I suggest to add the following draft phrase about the autopsy reports. Including notable source and Washington D.C. Medical Examiner’s office's official reported statement.
Same about the autopsy reports, as according to Washington D.C. Medical Examiner’s office autopsy reports are not publicly released to the news media in D.C.
[5]
All are welcome to contribute notable and reliable source(s) with more information about reported public and legal autopsy reports. Anyone? Francewhoa ( talk) 07:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
Should we use primary sources in this article? Can we instead stick to only secondary sources so as to avoid violating WP:No original research ? Sagecandor ( talk) 14:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
@ Sagecandor:I see that you have made a large number of recent copyedits. Thank you for your efforts, however in some cases I find the revised text is less clear or less informative than the longstanding versions you replaced. I think it's rarely the case that so large a number of copyedits would be necessary at any given time. Perhaps we could all compare the recent edited version with the article as it stood a few days ago and see whether some of the former text should be reinstated. SPECIFICO talk 13:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Members of the alt-right and certain commentators on Fox News, featured coverage of the conspiracy theories instead of reporting on new negative revelations about the Trump administration which other media outlets covered on that day.
Does this belong in the intro?
Doesn't the intro need to only be stuff that then appears later on in the article body text?
Is this later also in the article body text ? Sagecandor ( talk) 15:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Is Heavy.com a reliable source ? Sagecandor ( talk) 12:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Murder_of_Seth_Rich_article_and_source_Heavy.com Sagecandor ( talk) 16:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
They accused conspiracy theorists of politicizing their son's death for political gain, and called posters of the debunked conspiracy theories "sociopaths" and "disgusting".
Do we really need the phrase "conspiracy theorists" ... followed by "conspiracy theories" = in same sentence?
Isn't that a bit redundant?
Can't we please simplify this sentence a bit ? Sagecandor ( talk) 17:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Can we please use number 2, please ? Sagecandor ( talk) 17:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
SPECIFICO talk 18:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Sean Hannity goes on vacation as advertisers drop out of his show, Los Angeles Times.
Might want to update the article with this and add it to section: Fox News retracted reporting.
Appears the false conspiracy theory is having a direct financial impact on those that fraudulently report it as if it were true. Sagecandor ( talk) 19:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
The crime was used as the pretext for...
Do we really need this wording in the 2nd paragraph?
Isn't this superfluous text that can be easier said by starting the 2nd paragraph with:
Right-wing conspiracy theories...
?
Sagecandor ( talk) 16:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Isn't number 2 much simpler and better ? Sagecandor ( talk) 16:46, 25 May 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
I removed the info about fox news being accused of running this story as a distraction about the other Trump news events of the day. It does not belong in this article for a number of reasons. Please justify why this should be added. Mr Ernie ( talk) 13:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
References
Include it's well sourced and if true it's a pretty big deal. Geogene ( talk) 17:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
It's in the sources and it's important so needs to be included. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
It's already kind of included in the article: "The spokesperson for the family criticized Fox News for its reporting, alleging that the outlet was motivated by a desire to deflect attention from the Trump-Russia story
." I suggest adding a sentence before this to clarify what the "Trump-Russia story" is, using some of the sources mentioned above.
Falling
Gravity
19:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
"Fox News and other conservative media have been accused of giving these conspiracy theories air time in order to distract from embarrassing news stories about the Trump administration"
The phrasing "distract from embarrassing news stories about the Trump administration" implies that the news stories were embarrassing. This is an opinion and does not maintain neutral POV. It should be changed to:
"Fox News and other conservative media have been accused of giving these conspiracy theories air time in order to distract from news stories about the Trump administration deemed embarrassing by some."
There is no objectivity in making the claim that those news stories are "embarrassing" as this is wholly a subjective partisan claim.
A77B ( talk) 03:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Murder of Seth Rich has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove "The crime was used as a pretext for right-wing conspiracy theories about Rich which were later debunked". The sources clearly state "Police investigating the matter have said that they believe Mr Rich was killed during a botched burglary but have not closed the case. The deceased was found with his wallet, credit cards, and phone still on him. His watch band had been torn but not broken." How can you consider that debunked? Is this a propaganda site? And no I'm not a right wing conspiracy theorist as the inflammatory sources claim. I'm an Obama and Sanders supporter. 2601:542:C480:C5BD:4D8B:CA1B:69BD:9EE2 ( talk) 00:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC) ""SO, you're just an anti-Hillary conspiracy theorist? 74.70.146.1 ( talk) 01:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. The three sources cited at the end of the sentence in question appear to support the text as written. It makes absolutely no difference where your political allegiances lie.
Rivertorch
FIRE
WATER
05:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)New editor ArniDagur is making POV edits to the article [7] and needs to be re-reverted by someone. Geogene ( talk) 21:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Of the three sources in the lede only one (Independent) uses right-wing <-- that's only because we don't overcite in the lede. And that's the only reason. We have:
Ok that should be enough. Now - find me a single source which says it was "left wing conspiracy theory". Volunteer Marek ( talk) 22:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
"The next day, while other news organizations were extensively covering Donald Trump' revelation of classified information to Russia, Fox News published a lead story on its website and provided extensive coverage on its cable news channel about what it said were Wheeler's uncorroborated claims about the murder of Seth Rich." Fox's report on Seth Rich murder came out several hours before media began reporting Donald Trump and Russia story. 72.53.146.173 ( talk) 04:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Conservative media, including Fox News, focused on this story instead of the Comey memos that mainstream sources were leading with on the same day.Using a source Snooganssnoogans provided below [8] Placement in the paragraph right before the "special place in hell" sentence? Geogene ( talk) 20:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree this sounds extremely biased Allanana79 ( talk) 06:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
These by new user Icaidacmt. For example, [9], [10]. Some of that last bit is similar to content added by Zellfire999 [11] a few hours ago. Geogene ( talk) 02:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Geogene I am describing what the theory is, it is under the "conspiracy theories" section. Many Wikipedia pages on conspiracy theories describe the topic. I fail to see how this is "non-neutral". Section should be deleted if the conspiracy theory should not be discussed in even the most basic way. Icaidacmt ( talk) 02:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Right-wing is mentioned twice, as in the previous sentence, I removed the second mention of it for grammatical reasons. It seems you are accusing me of being political which I find ironic, however I suppose I will not edit further if it is not welcome. Icaidacmt ( talk) 04:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
As reported by Media Matters, https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2017/05/19/seth-richs-family-sends-cease-and-desist-fox-news-contributor-behind-evidence-free-smears/216576 the family has filed a cease and desist. I'm not sure how to integrate this into the article, so I'm bringing it up here in hopes others can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.36.161 ( talk) 07:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Aside from all the other back and forth on this article, I find its name misleading and POV.
"Murder" can only be used after a trier of fact has heard the case and come back with a guilty verdict indicating that the victim was intentionally killed by someone who planned to do so ("malice aforethought", "prior calculation and design", whatever statutory language you like). All the police and the coroner can say, even if the press uses the M-word, is "homicide": someone else killed the victim, for reasons yet unknown.
This is where it stands with Seth Rich (and also should with another unsolved D.C. killing, Murder of Robert Wone, especially since in that case the possible suspects' identities are known). We don't know who killed him. We have no idea who it could be. Until they are arrested and either plead guilty or get convicted this cannot be called a murder.
I propose renaming this to Seth Rich homicide, per another article where I've used this sort of nomenclature, about an unsolved street killing in Brooklyn. Should I make a a formal request, or are enough people OK with this? Daniel Case ( talk) 02:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
"If they didn't consider it a murder, why would they investigate?" Because it's a homicide, and homicides have to be investigated to see if the law has been broken, as it usually has (I mean, it is entirely possible that the perpetrators in this case, if they are ever arrested, could claim self-defense, or mental defect, both defenses that would negate a murder charge while not denying the act). Without knowing the perpetrators' state of mind, it cannot legally be called a murder.
As I noted below, the AP advises reporters not to do this. We should consider this very strongly as we are a lot of people's de facto news source for stuff like this as much as the AP, if not more. I think applying COMMONNAME here so blindly is irresponsible.
I agree that the guidelines should be updated, but that doesn't mean we can't do this here and now. Daniel Case ( talk) 04:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
But AP style, as well as other style manuals, has become pretty clear on this point:"A 'homicide' should not be described as 'murder' unless a person has been convicted of that charge ... Do not say that a victim was 'murdered' until someone has been convicted in court. Instead, say that a victim was 'killed' or 'slain.'"
When we move it, there will still be a redirect when people type "Murder of Seth Rich" into the search field that brings them here. I don't see why people have such a hard time understanding this and living with it.
Now, should someone be arrested and charged with murder in the case, I'd be OK with renaming it Seth Rich murder case (see the naming history of Murder of Ramona Moore, where after creating the article under that name someone else wanted to move it, and eventually I came to agree with the rationale I put forth above, COMMONNAME notwithstanding, and it took that format until the defendant was convicted last year of manslaughter, after which I reverted it to "homicide" since the jury acquitted him on the murder charge).
I do agree, however, that given how much hot editing there is on this one an RM will be necessary. I will open it later today. Daniel Case ( talk) 04:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I was going to wait till after the weekend to start an RM discussion, but I see that someone else (ahem) jumped the gun. Daniel Case ( talk) 16:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Since the article talks about the Fox News controversy, so should the lead. Unfortunately PerfectlyIrrational just removed that and replaced it with "members of the alt right" which is not accurate to sourcing. Geogene ( talk) 17:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
It appears we have had a couple violations of 1RR (and one editor has already been blocked). The edits were incorrectly reverted per BLP and HOAX. One last request to everyone to use the talk page for discussion before reverting. This material is relevant and now well sourced (thanks to the WaPo article). Mr Ernie ( talk) 21:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
These were correctly reverted per WP:HOAX and definitely per WP:BLP. No way you can put potentially damaging nonsense like this into an article and not expect to get reverted. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 22:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Here is a small list of new sources that have been created in the past 24 hours.
There are many more. At this point the article is outdated because it doesn't even mention this at all. Hoax or not is not what is going on: there has been a new claim about the death of Seth Rich and the media is reporting it. These are major media outlets ranging widely in their political leanings. It is not a hoax that a claim has been made. Future edits could include at least that there has been a new claim and the surrounding myriad of major media outlets reporting on it. That is not smear or hoax or conspiracy, that is just what has happened in the past 24 hours.-- RandomUser3510 ( talk) 00:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
It took only hours for one of the biggest stories in conservative media this week, which some outlets had chosen to focus on over news that President Trump disclosed classified information to senior Russian officials, to fall apart. ... Tuesday afternoon, Wheeler told CNN he had no evidence to suggest Rich had contacted Wikileaks before his death. Wheeler instead said he only learned about the possible existence of such evidence through the reporter he spoke to for the FoxNews.com story. He explained that the comments he made to WTTG-TV were intended to simply preview Fox News' Tuesday story. The WTTG-TV news director did not respond to multiple requests for comment. "I only got that [information] from the reporter at Fox News," Wheeler told CNN.
[15]
The total, complete debunking and collapse of this fake-news "story" is an abject lesson in why we are not a news outlet and why we need to be sensitive about reporting fringe, dubious and outlandish claims about living or recently-deceased people. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 01:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Are there any sources you consider not fakenews/conspiracy theorists. Name one and we can use it as a source for this article. TFD ( talk) 02:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
This section does not maintain neutral POV. "The crime was used as a pretext for right-wing conspiracy theories about Rich which were later debunked"
The term "debunked" implies a proof of a negative. Because conspiracy theories are based on lack of evidence, it's impossible to "debunk" it. "Debunk" carries a tone of absolute certainty, and a tone that such a conspiracy is wholly impossible. Moreover, the term "ring wing" implies the entire right embraces these conspiracy theories. This is a partisan term that would not pass the neutral POV. Talking about "right wing" and "left wing" as a whole is political jargon, not a place for an encyclopedia.
In addition, there are reports that some conspiracies are invented by those identifying themselves on the left: http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503146770/npr-finds-the-head-of-a-covert-fake-news-operation-in-the-suburbs. Term "right-wing conspiracy theory" is ambiguous. Was the conspiracy invented by those affiliated with the right? Or is it embraced by those on the right? In either case, this phrasing should be changed.
Suggested change: "The crime was used as a pretext for conspiracy theories about Rich embraced mainly by the far right, which were not supported by evidence."
I included "far right" because figures like Alex Jones push these conspiracy theories. I see no evidence that this is accepted by the mainstream republican as fact. It would be just as dishonest to credit Antifa violence to "left wing" as it is to credit this conspiracy theory to "right wing", regardless if a significant minority on that political spectrum supports it.
A77B ( talk) 03:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
This section belongs in the Fox article, not in the article on Fox’s victim. A grieving family being victimized all over again: An entirely Fox-generated, Fox-propagated "alternative fact" at a time when they have lost their biggest generator of ad dollars, O’Reilly; when Fox News ratings have fallen to third place behind MSNBC and CNN; and when a yuge breaking news distraction was needed, coming right on the heels of WaPo’s report on Trump revealing classified information to Lavrov and Kislyak. The actors:
“I have seen and read the emails between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks,” the federal investigator told Fox News, confirming the MacFadyen connection. He said the emails are in possession of the FBI, while the stalled case is in the hands of the Washington Police Department.
The revelation is consistent with the findings of Wheeler, whose private investigation firm was hired by a third party on behalf of Rich’s family to probe the case.
A short sentence in the "Conspiracy theories" section with a cross-reference to the Fox News article should suffice. All updates on this need to be done in the Fox News article, not here! If there are no objections in the next few days, I will go ahead with the changes. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
None of the three articles linked in the lead 'debunk' the 'conspiracy theory' that Seth Rich gave emails to Wikileaks. You could write that there is 'no evidence' that Seth was in contact with Wikileaks, but when you say that the 'conspiracy theory' that Seth was in contact with Wikileaks has been 'debunked', it leads those that read it to believe that either, investigators had been able to verify that Seth had not been in contact with Wikileaks via email, or that Wikileaks had stated that Seth Rich was not in contact with them, neither of which are true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.168.153.139 ( talk) 07:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, Snopes being used as a reliable source is frankly laughable.Take it to RSN and see if that position gets you anywhere. Not only has RSN repeatedly found Snopes to be reliable, other impeccably reliable sources have stated that Snopes was among the most reliable sources. I've seen multiple accusations of inaccuracy in Snopes, and every single one has turned out one of two ways; Snopes corrected itself or the accuser turned out to be making stuff up. Without fail. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
This conspiracy theory can not be debunked until the leaker of the DNC emails is finally revealed, or until the killers of Mr Rich are found. I will be amending this in the article. Alternatively I would be ok with the point the IP makes about "no evidence." Mr Ernie ( talk) 23:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Murder of Seth Rich has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article needs to include how the conspiracy theories are most popular on Reddit (subreddit the_donald) as well as 4chan. (This could be added underneath 'conspiracy theories'. Vhalan ( talk) 21:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Maybe this is relevant to the article? https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/someone-just-edited-seth-richs-reddit-posts-b5f185b0aab 87.142.103.242 ( talk) 18:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I notice that non-neutral wording, the Russian government, which had been blamed for being the leak source by the DNC, endorsed the conspiracy theory. was just added by Wikinium. Of course everyone knows it was the Russian government, not just the DNC. Should the article mention Fancy Bear and the associated evidence, since they were the ones that really did it? Geogene ( talk) 15:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
We've got edit warring by Malerooster who appears to not know why they do what they do [17], and we have BobNesh shamelessly censoring Mother Russia out of the article. [18] Geogene ( talk) 03:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
My additions to the See Also, "Fake News" and "Fox News controversies" were reverted by Malerooster. They cited BRD but did not give an actual justification. Here is an opportunity for them to do so. Geogene ( talk) 05:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm thinking about putting a background section in there somewhere about how the DNC hacks actually happened. Starting with:
Between March and April 2016, 108 members of Hillary Clinton's campaign staff and 20 people that work for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) received spearphishing emails that claimed to be from Google's Gmail service, alleging that their accounts had been compromised and that they should change their passwords immediately. The emails contained shortened Bit.ly link to spoof URLs such as "accoounts-google.com" where the hackers had set up identical copies of the Gmail login page. These pages not only harvested passwords entered by fooled users, but also deposited extremely sophisticated malware onto their computers, which was then used to gain remote access to the DNC's network. [19] Soon thereafter, thousands of stolen emails appeared on WikiLeaks.
This background would better educate the readers so they will be less likely to think that this was the work of one rogue programmer or something. Geogene ( talk) 05:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@ BarrelProof: regarding [20] The conspiracy theories all revolve around the hacking, so as long as they're in, the hacking is relevant to the article. If we were going to go back to a stripped down version that mentions only the murder, you'd have a point. But since there's a lot of insinuation about this, because Rich was a computer guy, and his employer got hacked, you have a lot of fairly idiotic ideas asserting some kind of connection based on that. Not discussing it is just a way to lie to the readers by insinuating something and then omitting the full truth. The article must describe the hack to some extent. Geogene ( talk) 14:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
The article currently has a paragraph toward the end that says:
The subject of the first sentence is "an attorney for the Rich family." The next sentence begins "He later told." Wheeler is the last noun before the "He", but Wheeler is mentioned in the past tense. It sounds like it was the lawyer that "later told," which doesn't make any sense. If it was Wheeler who "later told" - either while he was employed by the family this should be reworded. Use name rather pronoun. "Without the Rich family's permission, Wheeler had told ...".
Ileanadu ( talk) 16:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Posting in the talk page because I am unable to edit extended protected pages. In the third paragraph, it reads:
"They[The Seth Rich family] accused conspiracy theorists of politicizing his death for political gain, and called posters of the debunked conspiracy theory "sociopaths" and "disgusting""
The source cited for this states that it was the Seth Rich family spokesperson, Brad Bauman, who said posters of the conspiracy theory were sociopaths. Noah1831 ( talk) 10:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Claims that Jack Burkman's reward money is unverified are unsupported by the sources and constitute WP:OR. Plus, reward money itself isn't a conspiracy theory, unlike the theory that some powerful actor (Putin or Hillary) carried out the murder. Falling Gravity 00:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@ BarrelProof:, while I appreciate the amount of effort you've put into your extensive recent edits to this article, I am concerned that they are taking large parts of it in the wrong direction and reinstating personal and biographical detail about the victim which WP takes care to avoid. If it were not for the conspiracy theories promulgated by the victim's political adversaries, this crime and Mr. Rich himself would not be WP:NOTABLE. In such cases we have elements of our core BLP policy that instruct us not to add undue personal narrative to an article. This is not a biography about the victim, and his identity and personal details are incidental to the crime and the subsequent public attention to the matter. We have WP:AVOIDVICTIM and PUBLICFIGURE and other principles that apply here.
Earlier versions of this article incorporated much of the personal and circumstantial content about Mr. Rich that you have recently added. Over a period of time, a consensus developed to remove these statements. There was extensive relevant discussion on the article talk page and also in the first two of three AfD discussions. While the ongoing and renewed coverage of the conspiracy theories and exploitation of Mr. Rich and his family have now made the exploitation WP:NOTABLE, the detail that you've recently reinserted in the article is in my opinion irrelevant to the crime and the exploitation that have made the subject notable. I would be more comfortable with this article with most of the recently-added personal and behavioral detail removed. SPECIFICO talk 23:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I believe there was discussion about some of this material and how much to include when the article was first started, and the consensus then was to keep most of it out. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 02:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
"The crime was used as the basis for right-wing conspiracy theories, which have since been debunked in statements by law enforcement agencies. These theories falsely stated that Rich was the source of the 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak. In reality, Russian intelligence services are most likely responsible for the hacking and the leak."
This is the lead as it currently stands. Debunked should be changed to maybe criticized or denied, falsely should be removed, and the "In reality" sentence is really bad, weakly sourced, and just plain editorializing. Mr Ernie ( talk) 12:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
he wording contains false assertions and original research.Summation is not original research. Saying "debunked" is the semantically equivalent to saying "the conspiracy theories have been shown to be highly unlikely due to statements by law enforcement agents who have worked on the case which directly contradict the assertions of these theories, as well as the overall lack of evidence to support any assertions of these theories." It's also a lot shorter and easier to parse. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Of course, there's no reason why the article can't be more descriptive like that.I literally just gave a reason why the article shouldn't be as verbose as I said and you respond by saying "of course there's no reason" why the article shouldn't be that verbose?
(not talking about wild speculations, but those who look at facts and explore possible explanations)I've yet to see a Seth Rich CS that wasn't wild speculation. Not only have all of them claimed an improbable party to be responsible, but they've all completely fabricated an improbable motive for that party, which hinges upon an improbable claim about the email hacks.
Also, I don't think the word of law enforcement folks at this point are absolute and finalNo-one has suggested that they were. That being said, the word of law enforcement is as final as it is possible to get. Nor is that the extent of the problem; there is no evidence to support the conspiracy theories. None whatsoever.
(a) Rich leaked to Wikileaks; (b) He was murdered for leaking. (a) is plausible given current facts.No, it is not. The CIA concluded that the email leaks were the result of state-sponsored hacking by Russia. No evidence has emerged to contradict this, and indeed, new evidence has appeared supporting this since the announcement. Numerous other intelligence agencies supported the CIA's conclusion. Numerous cybersecurity groups have also endorsed the CIA's conclusion. In addition, an independent hacker has also claimed credit for it, and numerous authorities have examined this claim and concluded it to be plausible-if-unlikely at worst. What is not plausible at this point is the presumption that 1) a DNC insider leaked the emails; and 2) that the specific insider in question was Seth Rich.
At best one can say (b) has been contradicted by authoritiesNo, that's an "at least", not an "at best". This is equivalent to saying that "At best, WMF doesn't think MjolnirPants has hacked WP's servers." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
The family's spokesperson has had some very choice words for Gingrich [24]. I'm not sure if this should be included. On one hand, he has chosen to do this and his actions are obviously causing the family grief. On the other hand, the statement is pretty harsh and I'm sure someone will cry "BLP!". At any rate, it's well sourced so I'd be inclined to putting it in, but haven't done so at this point. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I have a simple request: Replace "Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich took also part in spreading the conspiracy." with "also took" as the correct word order. JeanEva Rose ( talk) 19:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC) JeanEva
I have copied the "Fox News controversy" section and pasted it at WTTG. We can either keep all of it here too, or instead replace it here with a sentence like "In May 2017, there was a controversial news report about the Rich murder that was subsequently discredited." I would think the latter approach more appropriate, since this is more about screwy reporting than about Seth Rich's life or death (but I will not myself remove any of this material from the present article at this time). Anythingyouwant ( talk) 09:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Needs to be placed into article: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/23/statement-on-coverage-seth-rich-murder-investigation.html
Casprings ( talk) 18:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Full cite with archived link:
On May 16, a story was posted on the Fox News website on the investigation into the 2016 murder of DNC Staffer Seth Rich. The article was not initially subjected to the high degree of editorial scrutiny we require for all our reporting. Upon appropriate review, the article was found not to meet those standards and has since been removed. We will continue to investigate this story and will provide updates as warranted.
Sagecandor ( talk) 00:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Already cited once with reference name as "politifact".
Good source for lots of more info on this topic. Sagecandor ( talk) 00:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Politifact is politifalse it is a biased source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactFinder1 ( talk • contribs) 06:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
User:Volunteer Marek removed the infobox I added with the notation "rmv infobox which does not summarize or capture the nature of the article." [25] The populated fields were title (Murder of Seth Rich"), map, date ("July 10, 2016"), time ("4:19 a.m. EST (approximate)"), place ("Bloomingdale (Washington, D.C.)"), cause ("Shooting"), participants ("Unknown"), inquiries (" Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia"), awards = ("$270,000").
These are standard fields for infoboxes (see for example " Shooting of Trayvon Martin," and I ask that it be restored. If Volunteer Marek thinks that different fields should be completed, he is free to add them.
TFD ( talk) 05:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I reverted. Per BRD, please gain consensus here to remove the long standing infobox.
Mr Ernie (
talk)
11:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
The reason we don't have maps for Edison or Chris Christie is that those articles are not about homicides. The events in both articles occurred in many places, not just in one place. If you think that the map should be omitted or another image used, then change it. Why do you not think that the other information (such as when it occurred) is not relevant? And you still have not explained how this case differs from the Shooting of Trayvon Martin. I would be very interested to hear your explanation. Incidentally, Seth Rich's brother has a GoFundMe page set up last month, [27] which could be linked in the infobox. TFD ( talk) 14:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
No this article is about the Murder of Seth Rich. There is a very notable conspiracy theory that has received widespread coverage in the past few days, but the article has been around a lot longer than that. Please self-revert your removal of the infobox. You've not supported the removal with any policy and there was no consensus to remove it. BRD says Bold (Marek's removal), Revert (mine), Discuss. Mr Ernie ( talk) 14:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, could you please explain how this article differs from the Shooting of Trayvon Martin. TFD ( talk) 15:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Personally I like infoboxes. It would make a good addition and provide a quick summation for the reader of key events and places and such. The one at the Trayvon Martin page looks good. ValarianB ( talk) 15:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Concur with SPECIFICO .and others Info box adds little and it takes attention off of the main substance of the article. Casprings ( talk) 16:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Ok. For starters, that map adds absolutely nothing to the article. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 17:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I didn't see any problem with the infobox. I have yet to read the extensive discussions above though. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 17:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Ryubyss you should discuss first before you scrub the lead and re-write (whitewash) the article. Geogene ( talk) 02:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
James J. Lambden just tried doing the exact same thing. This is WP:TENDENTIOUS. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 17:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not neutral as to whether the lede should mention what Poynter Institute says. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 17:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
The absurdity of the conspiracy theory and the nonsensical behavior of various right-wing groups and people towards it is now the dominant aspect of the event. The murder itself is of no real notability, and none at all if people would quit telling lies about it. Geogene ( talk) 22:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
@ Francewhoa: Regarding this edit [29] the Daily Mail is generally not a reliable source, please self revert. Since that is already sourced, there is no real need for more anyway. Geogene ( talk) 00:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I suggest to add the exact time of the shooting into the main article. Under " Death and aftermath" section. Which is 4:19 a.m. The article read "Police were alerted to gunfire at 4:20 am" but as you know that is the time they were alerted, not the shooting time. Both information are valuable though. That article is primarily about the murder of Rich, usually among the first questions the readers have is when was he murder? The answer is ~4:19 a.m. That information is already in the infobox. But the infobox is usually a secondary section to the main article. Some might miss it. For easier reading and chronological order of the events, I see value in adding the shooting time 4:19 a.m. to the main article including his sister statement about "Rich was on the phone with his girlfriend, minutes before his shooting at 4:19 a.m.". I suggest that notable source https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/seth-rich-washington-dc-murder-victim-political-meme-weirdest-presidential-election-a7535856.html Yes it's just one minute difference but one minute is usually significant for the authorities and potential investigators. That's a very fast response time from the authorities. Impressive :) Also Rich's father stated in that exclusive video interview that the police arrived on at the shooting scene within one minute after the gun shoots at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4516416/DNC-staffer-Seth-Rich-family-demand-answers-cops.html I suggest to use the notable The Independent source instead of Dailymail though as they have a better track record with being reliable. Francewhoa ( talk) 01:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Right-wing conspiracy theories spread about the crime, and they were debunked by law enforcement, [1] [2] [3] as well as by fact-checking websites including FactCheck.org, [1] Snopes.com, [4] and PolitiFact. [2]
Question:
Is this topic notable if not for the false and debunked conspiracy theory? Sagecandor ( talk) 23:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Regardless, WP:PTOPIC applies, which means that if 90% of stories are about the conspiracy theory and 10% are just about the murder, and if that 10% would be enough to have an article (I disagree), we still call it "Murder of Seth Rich Conspiracy Theory". Volunteer Marek ( talk) 00:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
You should have told the local news that and maybe they would have ignored the story. TFD ( talk) 05:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't get it. This is an unsolved murder, right? People come forward with possible information to solve said murder and the police and media call them liars? I could understand calling it a conspiracy theory if theorists claimed police arrested a "patsy" who really didnt commit the crime. Why does this treat it like a closed case? 71.90.209.64 ( talk) 03:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I suggest to add the following draft phrase about the autopsy reports. Including notable source and Washington D.C. Medical Examiner’s office's official reported statement.
Same about the autopsy reports, as according to Washington D.C. Medical Examiner’s office autopsy reports are not publicly released to the news media in D.C.
[5]
All are welcome to contribute notable and reliable source(s) with more information about reported public and legal autopsy reports. Anyone? Francewhoa ( talk) 07:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
Should we use primary sources in this article? Can we instead stick to only secondary sources so as to avoid violating WP:No original research ? Sagecandor ( talk) 14:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
@ Sagecandor:I see that you have made a large number of recent copyedits. Thank you for your efforts, however in some cases I find the revised text is less clear or less informative than the longstanding versions you replaced. I think it's rarely the case that so large a number of copyedits would be necessary at any given time. Perhaps we could all compare the recent edited version with the article as it stood a few days ago and see whether some of the former text should be reinstated. SPECIFICO talk 13:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Members of the alt-right and certain commentators on Fox News, featured coverage of the conspiracy theories instead of reporting on new negative revelations about the Trump administration which other media outlets covered on that day.
Does this belong in the intro?
Doesn't the intro need to only be stuff that then appears later on in the article body text?
Is this later also in the article body text ? Sagecandor ( talk) 15:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Is Heavy.com a reliable source ? Sagecandor ( talk) 12:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Murder_of_Seth_Rich_article_and_source_Heavy.com Sagecandor ( talk) 16:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
They accused conspiracy theorists of politicizing their son's death for political gain, and called posters of the debunked conspiracy theories "sociopaths" and "disgusting".
Do we really need the phrase "conspiracy theorists" ... followed by "conspiracy theories" = in same sentence?
Isn't that a bit redundant?
Can't we please simplify this sentence a bit ? Sagecandor ( talk) 17:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Can we please use number 2, please ? Sagecandor ( talk) 17:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
SPECIFICO talk 18:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Sean Hannity goes on vacation as advertisers drop out of his show, Los Angeles Times.
Might want to update the article with this and add it to section: Fox News retracted reporting.
Appears the false conspiracy theory is having a direct financial impact on those that fraudulently report it as if it were true. Sagecandor ( talk) 19:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
The crime was used as the pretext for...
Do we really need this wording in the 2nd paragraph?
Isn't this superfluous text that can be easier said by starting the 2nd paragraph with:
Right-wing conspiracy theories...
?
Sagecandor ( talk) 16:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Isn't number 2 much simpler and better ? Sagecandor ( talk) 16:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)