Misplaced Pages

Talk:Murder of Seth Rich

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 05:19, 18 February 2017 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Murder of Seth Rich/Archive 5) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 05:19, 18 February 2017 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Murder of Seth Rich/Archive 5) (bot)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Murder of Seth Rich article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUnited States: District of Columbia Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as Low-importance).
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconDeath Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Murder of Seth Rich article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 30 days 

Jack Burkman reward money

I suggest re-adding the following text to the "Rewards for information" section:

In September, Republican lobbyist Jack Burkman stated that he is offering $100,000 additional reward money, which he later boosted to $105,000.

References

  1. Kutner, Max (September 16, 2016). "Seth Rich's Death: Why a GOP Lobbyist Will Pay $100,000 To Learn Who Killed the DNC Staffer". Newsweek. Retrieved January 7, 2017.
  2. "Republican Lobbyist Increases Reward for Information in Slain DNC Staffer's Case". NBC4 Washington. December 6, 2016. Retrieved January 7, 2017.

For one thing, the section already mentions the total $150,000 in reward money, which is partly what makes this murder so notable. Omitting information about how a large portion of that money came to be is pretty much censorship, especially since we have reliable sources that report on them. Those who believe that Seth Rich's parents object to Burkman's reward money are misguided, since Rich's parents held a press conference with Burkman on the murder, according to Fox News. Gravity 02:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I do not know why some editors object to providing reliably sourced and widely reported information to this article. TFD (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree, because we need the individual rewards to add up to $150,00 rather than $45,000 and because it's been widely reported, and because it's been in this Misplaced Pages article for months. But I would add a footnote (for a total of three):

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/295916-gop-lobbyist-offers-100k-reward-for-info-in-dnc-staffers-death

Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@FallingGravity: I see that you have readded this material with the comment "no objection on talk." When I reverted it I cited the long previous talk page that led to a consensus against it. I don't see any reason to think that has changed. I suggest that you undo your re-insertion and start an RfC if you wish to establish this as an enduring part of the article. SPECIFICO talk 23:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Yeah, I read that discussion, but I didn't see any "consensus against inclusion." There were two votes for inclusion, one neutral vote, and a few vocal opponents. I'd say there was no consensus. Gravity 23:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Well the point is that the WP:BURDEN is on those who advocate inclusion. So while you're perfectly correct that there was not unanimous sentiment against it, I believe you agree that there was no consensus for inclusion. I thought that my edit comment would have led readers to that conclusion, but at any rate I appreciate your having looked and I hope you will now see my point. I'd welcome an RfC (if you care to mount one) to see whether there's now a consensus so that your concern can be addressed. SPECIFICO talk 00:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
It appears that Burkman has been in this BLP for months, starting October 20 when SPECIFICO put him there. The previous discussion was vague, inclusion was supported by Anythingyouwant, Guy Macon, and ZN3ukct, while others supporting exclusion were Geogene and Steve Quinn. Several further editors took no position, including Space4Time3Continuum2x ("I haven’t voted for inclusion, I haven’t voted at all"); Dennis Brown ("Speaking only as the admin that closed the previous RFC I would say that this is not directly tied to that RFC"); Snow ("I'm not sure what to make of Burkman's offer"); and Elvey ("Folks are free to argue"). Given that the material has been included for months, I think we would now need a new consensus to remove it, rather than the present consensus to include it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree. The material should remain in the article. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Why is that, Mr. Ernie? What does Burkman's statement have to do with this crime? SPECIFICO talk 16:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Part of what has made the crime notable have been the many rewards offered to help solve the case. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand that comment. "Notable" in the WP sense doesn't have to do with rewards. What do you think is the significance of Burkman's choice to "offer" a "reward" -- I put that in quotes because he, unlike the DC Police, is not known to have the cash ready to pay up. I put "reward" in quotes because unlike DC Police, Burkman has not specified the terms of the reward offer. The word Notable aside, what brought this to wide public attention was Assange's self-serving insinuation that Mr. Rich may have criminally violated his role as an employee and leaked information to Wikileaks. There is no evidence and no credible support for this insinuation. Burkman's "reward" further bolsters this unsubstantiated libel. SPECIFICO talk 18:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
If this is true, then why did Seth Rich's parents hold a press conference with Jack Burkman stating that the reward money was to find the truth behind the murder? Your assertion of a darker ulterior motive is itself an unsourced insinuation against Jack Burkman (in a press release he said he hopes the reward helps "get to the truth of what happened here and will either debunk the conspiracy theories or validate them.") Additionally, he has offered the terms of his "reward": see http://www.whokilledseth.com/reward ("providing information that leads to the arrest and conviction of the person(s) responsible for Seth Rich's murder.") Gravity 20:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
What if a well-known Democratic operative offered $1 million to recover the video tapes of Trump doing @(@)#(U! in the Moscow Hotel? I don't think that should be in an encyclopedia. To me it's the same thing. It's an independent party stepping into an event of which it has no knowledge or involvement. We do know that Trump has stayed in Moscow hotels, but we don't know anything more. If Burkman were routinely offering crimestoppers money, that would be a different story. SPECIFICO talk 21:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
What you're describing actually already is included in this encyclopedia (in some form) in the article Correct the Record, a Super PAC owned by well-known Democratic operative David Brock, which says: "Correct the Record said it would pay anonymous tipsters for unflattering scoops about Donald Trump, including audio and video recordings and internal documents." While I don't think they were looking for sex tapes, this was also before the Trump tapes dropped (don't know if there was any connection or reward money doled out). However, everything in Misplaced Pages isn't set in stone, so if you think that that somehow violates BLP, feel free to gain consensus to remove it. Gravity 22:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi thanks for your reply. I think there are a few points of WP policy that you're overlooking. First, just because something is done in one article does not mean that it should be done in other articles. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. That's well established. Second, the two examples are not similar because in the case of Mr. Rich's murder there is a specific libelous insinuation, namely that he violated his duty to his employer and possibly the law as well. Third, The WP:BURDEN is on you to establish consensus to include the content. There is no burden on editors who challenge content, particularly in the case of a BLP violation such as this one. SPECIFICO talk 22:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The relevant policy is "Balancing aspects": does mainstream media mention Burman's reward? They do. Should they? Fortunately that is not an issue that concerns us. BTW we should never use unreliable sources such as The Daily Caller. TFD (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm trying to understand what is happening here - in this thread. Falling Gravity linked to a Fox news video in which Rich's parents are actually standing with Jack Burkman and it looks like the mother gets on the microphone and asks for help. To me, this looks like support by the parents for Jack Burkman and his help, which probably includes the reward money. It is hard for me to argue with a recorded video on a news station. If the parents support Jack Burkman helping them, then, at the moment, I have no problem adding his offered reward money to this article - unless someone can give me a reasonable rationale why this shouldn't be in this article. Also, Burkman stipulated the amount he is offering and the reasons why he is offering it in a Newsweek article here. I am guessing there are other sources that cover his reward money and its purpose. This may have been a PR stunt, but I haven't come across any sources that says this is a PR stunt or that say his motives are questionable. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Show me the money? We can't speculate about his parents, who might understandably endorse any publicity at all -- even publicity primarily intended to benefit Burkman or Assange. There's been very little coverage of this crime recently (outside of Daily Caller/Newsmax type stuff.) The article will eventually be deleted. The Assange/Burkman rewards may however endure in various articles about fake news, the 2016 election, Clinton Conspiracies, etc. SPECIFICO talk 23:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
First, I stipulate that I do not watch Fox news, nor do I like the tenor of Fox news. However, the video in this instance speaks for itself. Moving on - I don't understand what you mean by show me the money? If this case ever gets resolved then I assume Burkman will pay the money. Are you saying he doesn't have the money? As far as I know he is a big star in conservative circles and I don't think forking over $105,000 (or whatever) is going to hurt him. Unless I am wrong about his big star status. Maybe he is gambling that he won't ever have to pay. I can buy that. But, I don't know of any sources that say this is the case. I can think that he is taking a gamble if I want, but I have nothing to back that up. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, "very little coverage" outside of rightwing websites and blogs. Of course that's if you ignore the very recent coverage by WJLA (an ABC News affiliate). Gravity 00:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
OK and this is looking like some mainstream coverage of the reward money. Again, if the parents don't have a problem with the reward money from Burkman and the police, then I am not seeing a BLP issue with this. They were the main issue during the RFC. Also, the ABC affiliate mentioned that Burkman is a DC attorney - so I sincerely doubt the $105,000 would be a problem for him. --Steve Quinn (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
If you take the view that the crime is not notable, then nothing about it has weight. However, it meets notability and therefore the significant aspects of the case as reported in reliable sources should be mentioned. Notability is not by the way about what is important but is created by reliable sources. BTW this article receives and average of 3,133 views per day. It has received 322,732 views in total. A lot of interest in what you consider a non-notable subject.TFD (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
TFD, right now I am speaking specifically about the reward money. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
In any case, to me this latest stuff in the news about the reward money seems like a lot of overblown drama (at the moment). Steve Quinn (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
SPECIFICO thinks the reward money is unimportant because the topic itself is not notable. TFD (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I think it's possible to evaluate those two matters separately. One doesn't entail the other. We have no reason to believe that Burkman has or is in fact prepared to pay the reward money. This has been discussed before, and the archived discussion shows that several editors agree on that point. DCPD is in the business of paying rewards upon certain terms and conditions. They are good for the dough, and they have a history of paying out under standard DCPD conditions. Would you buy a $1000000 lottery ticket from the local church? Maybe. Would you get paid if your number comes up? Maybe. Burkman, a Newsmax personality and GOP lobbyist, is an advocate and promoter, not in the business or with the capitalization to be offering credible rewards. He might have the money. He might pay the money. What are the terms and conditions of his offer? As to the local TV station sourcing -- that's pretty close to the bottom of the barrel. They report on cats in trees, trees falling on cars, cats in cars, cars in the street, and trees falling on cats in the street. That page link doesn't really address the editorial and WP policy issues at hand. SPECIFICO talk 01:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Local media tend to give more coverage to local stories than does national media. Note that Rob Ford, the late mayor of Toronto, received no coverage in international media until he was accused of smoking crack cocaine, and the articles about him are based primarily on Toronto media. So WJLA-TV, the local ABC affiliate, Fox 5 TV, NBC4 (Washington, D.C.) and the Washington City Paper seem fine. It was also covered by Fox News and Newsweek and a number of lesser-known national news sites. I don't know whether Burman will pay out, but he is a multi-millionaire and it is a binding contract. But that sort of speculation is supposed to be left to reliable sources. TFD (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

TFD, it has none of the elements of a "binding contract". I think that your comment about local stations supports my view rather than yours. I have seen no ongoing coverage in the national outlets like Fox and Newsweek. If there were ongoing coverage of Burkman in national press that would be a strong point for inclusion. In that regard, the video on Newsmax didn't look too hot to me. SPECIFICO talk 02:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

There was never consensus for inclusion of these spurious rewards, except maybe for the Wikileaks one and even that one was borderline. It got put in without consensus and then it just managed to slip under the radar for a bit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

See West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2 (2008): "In legal terms, the person promising a reward is offering to enter into a contract with the person who performs the requested action, that is, turning in a criminal or returning a lost pet. Performance will be rewarded with money or some other compensation. Therefore, the legal concepts involving rewards are derived from the law of contracts." It is the same principle as Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, which is one of the first cases taught in introductory law courses. Ergo, not "spurious." Where are you getting your legal opinions? TFD (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Newsmax? :) -- btw I disagree. Moot now, but the terms were never set nor is their any reason to anticipate performance. Where can we read the terms and conditions. It's not like a reward for returning my lost bowling ball. That's easy to adjudicate. SPECIFICO talk 02:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Not Newsmax, Newsweek. Newsweek, founded in 1933, is one of the two major weekly news magazines in the U.S. The other is Time. And if you think that criminal rewards are not binding contracts, and all the legal experts and courts are wrong, then argue with them, not me. This is not a forum for arguing your own pet fringe theory. And your moot point is moot. The offer of a reward is a offer. TFD (talk) 03:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Haha. Not Newsweek, Newsmax the inimitable purveyor of reliable and pertinent information for the informed electorate of the USA. I don't have any pet fringes, as you know. "Just the facts ma'am." Do check out some of the Newsmax broadcasts. They're very informative. In all seriousness, an unsubstantiated claim is not credible and the unsubstantiated and unspecified reward offer is not specific enough to be an offer. As the court will no doubt agree if it comes to that. SPECIFICO talk 03:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
BTW, didja see how Burkman added 5 G's to the reward kitty in December so he'd bump the stale story up for more coverage on local TV with the other kitty news? How cool is that? SPECIFICO talk 03:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Hahaha. Not Newsmax, Newsweek. See: "SETH RICH’S DEATH: WHY A GOP LOBBYIST WILL PAY $100,000 TO LEARN WHO KILLED THE DNC STAFFER" BY MAX KUTNER, 9/16/16 AT 3:10 PM. The webiste says www.newsweek.com. TFD (talk) 04:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
No really -- did you look on Newsmax? That's where Burkman discusses his efforts wrt the reward. He's doing it as a public service. Also I am offering $450,000 for anyone who can bring me the petticoat and garter belt that J. Edgar Hoover used to wear late at night. SPECIFICO talk 04:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

No I did not look at Newsmax because I was replying to your comment that it had not been reported in reliable sources by saying that it was reported in Newsweek. The two publications are entirely separate. Why do you want me to look at Newsmax? Are you saying it is a reliable source? If not, I see no reason why I should read it. And your argument against Burkman's offer being binding was used by the defendants in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (Read it.) Their offer was that they would pay 100 pounds sterling to anyone who used their product and contracted influenza. They said it was "mere puff." TFD (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I've started an RfC on the subject. Anyone is welcome to comment. Gravity 03:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


RfC on Burkman's reward money

Should the $105,000 in reward money offered by Jack Burkman be mentioned in the article under the "Rewards for information" section? Refs:WJLA Newsweek NBC The Hill Gravity 03:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Survey

  • Include: The reward money has been cited in numerous reliable sources as linked in the refs. Attempts to discredit the reward money are based on unsourced speculation, and he says he has pledged the required money. Trying to make this into a BLP issue completely ignore the fact that Seth Rich's parents held a press conference with Burkman after he offered the reward money. Gravity 03:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Omit BLP violation insinuating criminal misconduct. Published sources are a necessary but not a sufficient condition for content to appear on WP. Anyone who comments on a crime gets their words in an encyclopedia? No. SPECIFICO talk 04:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Include Has been reported in local and national media. Rewards are an important aspect of any unsolved crime and we already report other rewards offered in this case. TFD (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Include given that reliable sources are deeming this reward to put the total award at the highest in D.C. history for a homicide case.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Include Rich's parents appear to support Burkman's reward offer and the offer by the DC police ; . Hence, there doesn't seem to be a BLP issue because the parents don't have a problem with this. My previous BLP concern, months ago, pertained to parents and relatives. Also, this is not speculation about the parents, as was previously characterized. No sources claim that Burkman has questionable motives, so again, I see no BLP concerns. The reward money and its purpose(s) are covered in reliable sources. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
"Rich's parents appear to support Burkman's reward offer" - umm, what the source actually says is: "Rich family spokesman Brad Bauman says by email that the family welcomes contributions and information that could move the case forward. “That said, we want to be clear that some have attempted to politicize Seth’s murder and forward bizarre conspiracy theories,”" That's not actually "support Burkman's reward offer", that's just "we hope the case gets solved". The family also said: "“It’s unfortunate and hurtful that at the moment a murderer remains at large, there remains unfounded press speculation about the activities of our son that night" and "unfounded speculation" is exactly what Burkman is doing. So no, the parents aren't ok with this, at least not according to this source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
VM although I agree with you 99.99% of the time, we are not in agreement on this. In any case, the first source clearly states in the text "The parents of murdered Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich are back in D.C. in hopes of turning up new leads in the case...They stood with Washington republican lobbyist Jack Burkman and asked for help...The Rich's...are in D.C. to bring attention to a $125,000 reward. $100,000 of that reward has been put up by Burkman", This is a direct connection to Jack Burkman and shows support of Burkman's reward offer. Also, there is a video of them standing with Jack Burkman.
I hate to say this, but it appears you have picked only the second source, with a quote from Rich family spokesman Brad Bauman . But, there is nothing in that second source that directly says Burkman has been engaging in the unfounded speculation and conspiracy theories that was going on. Of course that wouldn't make sense since Burkman and the Parents appear to be in agreement in the first source. And your quote supports this desire for support "Rich family spokesman Brad Bauman says by email that the family welcomes contributions and information that could move the case forward." Contributions and information equals support. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Include. I was also initially opposed to including mention of the reward, but Rich's parents recently made some public appearances with Burkman in D.C., so in this respect - and only in this respect! - BLP would not appear to apply any longer. Just in case: It still applies to insinuations and speculations by Wikileaks/conspiracy fringe. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Obvious Include. Relevancy is demonstrated by the subjects (his parents) and more importantly coverage in RS. There was a similar attempt to exclude information about Wikileak's reward, which also failed. D.Creish (talk) 07:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Very very obvious exclude - as pointed out above the claim that "Rich's parents support this" is based on a misrepresentation of the source (a general statement that they welcome help and contributions is being twisted into them saying "we support this"). So in a way this is actually a double BLP vio. And since it is a BLP vio it should remain until consensus is established.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    The fliers they're circulating with the reward money say "This flier was created in cooperation with the Rich family and Jack Burkman." If that's not an endorsement of the reward money then I don't know what is. Gravity 17:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
That's hard for WP editors to accept. You mean that a printed piece of paper, unvetted by any publisher -- let alone a RS, is airtight proof of an OR inference by an anonymous editor (you) here? SPECIFICO talk 18:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

@FallingGravity: -- You can't be serious? He "pledged" so what? I'll see his $105 and pledge you +20. Pledge doesn't mean he placed it in escrow with an award trustee. I pledge you pledge we all pledge. SPECIFICO talk 04:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am serious, because when a lawyer pledges reward money and mounts an advertising campaign based on that reward money do you expect hot air? Please provide one reliable source that proves your pet fringe theory. Gravity 04:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
A lawyer? You mean like the Clintons? "lawyer pledges reward money and buys billboards..." Meaningless. Didn't you see the billboard where Nixon said "I am not a crook"? SPECIFICO talk 04:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
The offer of a reward is legally binding and Burman has substantial wealth with which to pay it. Furthermore as a lawyer he should be aware of that. And there is nothing in reliable secondary sources to suggest that his offer is insincere. If he refuses to pay, he can be sued through the civil courts. TFD (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Also he'd be sued for false advertising. And if that did happen then that would also be notable. Gravity 04:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
TFD, please state the terms of the offer. What do I have to do to get my $$$? Thx. SPECIFICO talk 04:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
FG, this has nothing to do with "false advertising" SPECIFICO talk 04:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I know. It has to do with your complete failure to produce reliable sources that support your claims of a Assange/Burkman alliance to accuse Seth Rich of leaking DNC emails via false reward money. Gravity 05:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
"rovide information that leads to the arrest and conviction of the person(s) responsible Seth Rich's murder." The same as what you have to do to collect the D.C. police or Wikileaks reward. TFD (talk) 07:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Editor speculation on the validity of the reward is irrelevant to policy. This discussion should be closed. D.Creish (talk) 08:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Can't take the heat, eh? SPECIFICO talk 09:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I think what D.Creish is saying that you should drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Gravity 16:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
You can enjoy some snark camaraderie in your spare moments, but the burden is on you for inclusion and let's be frank -- while his parents have nothing to lose in playing along with the publicity-seeking strategies relating to the announced rewards, they are not the ones being libeled. Life is unfair and full of bad choices, but encyclopedias are not. SPECIFICO talk 16:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Note - there's no deadline for this info and it's of marginal encyclopedic interest. So there's nothing wrong with keeping it out of the article until the RfC is concluded. Indeed, that would be the policy under BLP.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

  • My change of opinion concerning the Burkman offer, regardless of what I still of think of it (publicity stunt), is based on this Nov 23 article in the parents' hometown paper, the Omaha World Herald. They appear to be satisfied that Burkman’s reward offer is bona fide while they could not verify the validity of the WikiLeaks reward offer. I have added that to the article (i.e., parents' opinion on validity). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I think it's impossible to compare statements made at two different times in two different contexts. SPECIFICO talk 18:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
What do you mean? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)bra
Self-reverted. I see what you mean - I proceeded from the info in the Nov 23 Omaha World Herald article. There's a new article in the WaPo "Style" section (STYLE presents a unique blend of news and features with timely and factual articles offering readers a more descriptive, informal “behind the scenes” coverage of the arts, personalities and lifestyles, as well as social trends, interviews, previews and reviews — all in one concise section. Add to the mix highlights and grids on broadcast (TV and radio).) I'm not sure what to make of it, whether the journalist is detailing what he read elsewhere or whether he interviewed any of the people mentioned himself. I'm also not sure what to make of Burkman at this point. Does he canvass the neighborhood when there are no cameras and reporters around, i.e. not just for the publicity? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
This article is at AfD again - for third time .Steve Quinn (talk) 09:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Guys, WP:NOTABLE is not the test for including text in an article. Please review WP:WEIGHT and WP:V and WP:BLP. And please review WP:BURDEN. Saying you can't see why not goes against site policy. You must affirmatively demonstrate your case for inclusion. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 02:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Some editors confuse notability, which determines whether an article should be written, with weight, which determines what should be in it. That policy says, "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." A good way to do that is to look at what articles about the subject published in respectable sources report. Policy also says, "Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." So we can look at an article in The Independent summarizing the case. It says Burkman has offered a $130,000 reward. The onus on you is to show why information the media routinely reports when covering the case should be excluded from the article. TFD (talk) 04:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
You want to trade your burden for my onus? No thanks. Actually, according to your welcome but somewhat shaky summary of policy, we should discuss only the attempts to use this crime as anti-Clintonian fodder and leave out the non-notable murder story. SPECIFICO talk 04:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
There is nothing shaky about my grasp of policy. An article "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." If you think that policy does not apply then you need to provide policy based reasons to exclude material. If you think the mainstream media is fakenews, then get the policies changed. TFD (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Whoa horsie! I said your summary was a bit wobbly. Obviously the pro-inclusion folks who keep calling this stuff "notable" instead of DUE have not understood, and I was concerned that your pithy explanation would not penetrate their insistence. But they do need to give reasons why the putative unverified and unsecured so-called "awards" (aka clickbait) are significant facts about the murder -- which I think they're not. What do you think of a merge with Fake news? SPECIFICO talk 21:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
When you start calling mainstream news media, such as the Independant, NBC, Newsweek, the New York Times, all of whom reported the "unverified" reward, "fake news," what are you left with? What news media if any do you consider reliable? Is there a pro-Democrat version of Prison Planet out there to provide us with alternative facts which you can accept? TFD (talk) 04:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I am surprised you would twist my words, TFD. I did not say that those publications are fake news. I am saying that the only notable event described in this article is the fake news insinuation that Mr. Rich was a criminal who betrayed his employer. You knew that, didn't you? I don't know what's prison planet, but I suppose the flipside of the Seth Rich murder story would be some of the Trump sexually assaults women nonsense, when all he said was that they don't prevent him from touching their otherwise private parts, provided he has popped a tic-tac. The current article is a WP:COATRACK - under the guise of a murder story it is insinuating the anti-Clinton conspiracy theory that Mr. Rich was a turncoat. SPECIFICO talk 04:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy Close of AfD

FYI everyone, I have commented on the page of the Admin who Speedy Closed the AfD right here SPECIFICO talk 19:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Valid snowy keep. Two days and was not heading for deletion, in the third AfD. Also, an abuse of WP:ANI. Stop wasting time. Ribbet32 (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This was a curious AfD from the start. The editor (@Ryk72:) who nominated the article for deletion had previously been involved neither in editing the article nor in the numerous discussions on the Talk page (I checked Archives 1-5, just to make sure). Hokay. So, the editor nominated the article without stating his/her reasons for the nomination other than referring to "concerns ... WP:EVENTCRITERIA, WP:LASTING and WP:NOTNEWS", "as described at 2nd nomination". The main concern from the start has been and still is "WP:BLP1E and WP:1E" which were also mentioned in the second nomination but not by the nominating editor. It also seems to me that the editor (@Tedder:) who closed the AfD after a mere 43 hours (5 hours less than two full days) didn't even read the second nomination. What was the rush, Misplaced Pages running out of server capacity? Making sure that any future AfD would be unsuccessful? Timing the AfD so that the whole world was otherwise occupied (that inauguration thang, women's march, etc.)? So, placing my subsequent comments, on this, "the appropriate discussion page", per the archived debate? Comments, anyone else? My apologies if my suspicions on ulterior motive(s) are unfounded; feel free to rebut. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
There might be foul play. I'm not saying there is foul play -- I'm just trying to get the facts in case there was foul play. I am offering a $100,000 reward for information that uncovers paid editing, meatpuppetry, hanky-panky, and the Namby-pamby fake news reddit types on articles related to Wikileaks. SPECIFICO talk 15:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
If you think there could have been foul play, just report it to WP:ANI or WP:SPI. Gravity 22:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I said I didn't say there's foul play, that's what I said.
I am hoping that SPECIFICO is making an allusion to some of the statements made in relation to the event described in the article; perhaps with the intent of removing some possible heat from the discussion. - Ryk72 22:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
100% correct, @Ryk72:. It's not as if folks are compelled to waste their time at an AfD if they are sure it will be closed to keep per snow. I believe in freedom and voluntarism and liberty when it comes to messageboards -- so long as it's not disruptive and doesn't violate policy or Discretionary Sanctions posted on the talk page. (I hope I put this in the right location?) SPECIFICO talk 23:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Space4Time3Continuum2x: I believe that your concerns are indeed unfounded. Please see my comments at the WP:BLPN discussion linked in the section above. I do not believe that Misplaced Pages is well served by articles like this one. I firmly believe that we would be better served by placing details on the impact of events such as this one in articles which cover the events & notable people upon which they impacted (in this case in articles discussing the election and surrounding events & notable persons). My personal inclination is that this article should be merged elsewhere. I was moved to make the nomination by the comment immediately preceding my final comment in that BLPN discussion - If you were to ask yourselves "why does this article on a sad but routine crime exist" you'd be led, as if by magic, to the right actions. I reviewed the previous AfDs & closes, and noted "no consensus" and a recommendation that the article be submitted after the US Election. I am, likewise, disappointed to see a Speedy Keep; I am disappointed to see a Speedy result of either kind. I believe that we would have been better with a longer discussion which would have allowed the editors here to weigh in. I am also disappointed that I did not make a better and more cogent argument for deletion, and that (prior to the close) no other editors had joined to support deletion or merge (bearing WP:REQUIRED in mind, of course). I do not believe, however, that a WP:BLP1E argument would have held sway; my experience has been that, when desired, BLP1E is "resolved" by moving to an "event" based article (a ridiculousness), which we already have. I, similarly, do not believe that much success would be had at DRV; but am happy to comment there if it would be useful. Hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any further questions. - Ryk72 16:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@Space4Time3Continuum2x: I just noticed the concerns around the timing of the AfD. I am not American, and while, in hindsight, I am now certain that the inauguration & march would have occupied the attentions of that nation, the wider world did not find itself diverted to the same extent; and carried on much the same as normal. If I had considered the events at the time, rather than "this is probably not a great article for Misplaced Pages to have" and the no consensus previous results, I would likely not have nominated. I also had not anticipated that the AfD would close so quickly. - Ryk72 22:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ryk72: Sorry about jumping to conclusions. Was feeling grouchy and more than a little paranoid after that uplifting inauguration speech (I used to associate "American carnage" with the Battle of Antietam, I stand corrected, and whoever heard of a sore winner) and watching Kellyanne Conway unhinging her lower jaw and swallowing a live rodent. Either that or explaining "alternative facts". You’re right, the closer of the second AfD recommended "to revisit this after the election when people will perhaps be a little bit less excitable about all this." Hah! After the one in 2020, maybe. Welcome to the fray discussion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Space4Time3Continuum2x: WP:1E ("People notable for only one event") says, "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered....The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person." That is not a reason to delete an article, but a guideline for writing one, which has been followed in this case. TFD (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Do you think this article currently conveys that which is notable about the event? SPECIFICO talk 02:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Notability relates to subjects, not to the specific aspects, which is governed by "Balancing aspects." I suppose the bare bones are covered, but there has been more extensive detail that should be mentioned. And as new information it should be published without claims of WP:THIS and WP:THAT. TFD (talk) 06:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
TFD, you forgot to mention the all important policy - WP:TheOtherThing. Also, I want to add $110,000 to SPECIFICO's reward money. I'm not gonna' let Jack Burkman outdo me!. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
@TFD:Bonne Annee, chéri. I think you and I pretty much agree on this one. To your point, however, it is I who always must clarify the application of WP:NOTABLE on these politics pages when the young Americans try to say that some internet punditry is a "notable" indictment of the US National Intelligence Estimate or whatnot. At any rate, the subject of this article is an event. Therefore what I meant to be asking you was really the never-ending AfD question. And I suppose you're right that the notability question strictly speaking was off-topic for this thread. However the fact remains that if we strip away the BLP violations insinuated against Rich and Hillary and the COATRACK and all the other policy violations, there is nothing left here other than the police blotter -- which according to policy is not sufficient to establish notability. I even think that on the next AfD you may come down in favor of delete, or at least merge to some Trump campaign article. SPECIFICO talk 15:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Even if there were not political aspect to the crime, it would still meet notability because it received on-going in-depth coverage. The unsolved murders of middle class people always attract media attention which provides sufficient information beyond the police blotter to write detailed articles. The Daily Mail for example featured an extensive article the day after the murder, before there was any speculation about the motives. All it says is, "His death comes after a spate of robberies in the neighborhood and DC police are now investigating if the murder is connected to those." There are lots of articles on Misplaced Pages by the murder of otherwise non-notable people by other otherwise non-notable people: "Disappearance of Natalee Holloway," the "Shooting of Trayvon Martin," the "Murder of Laci Peterson," "Jack the Ripper." You might want to get "Jack the Ripper suspects" deleted because it is entirely about unproved accusations against people. TFD (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
It could be my failing eyesight in my old age, but I don't see that the crime itself received very much coverage at all, beyond the usual crime coverage that all murders get. The Trayvon Martin case is a perfect example that can be used to differentiate the factors that are nowhere to be found in the case of Mr. Rich, a low-level staffer at some political project. If this hadn't happened in a presidential election year, they might not even have mentioned where he worked. It could just as well have been an employment agency or one of the hundreds of lobbyist offices or haberdasheries in DC. SPECIFICO talk 23:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
It received sufficient coverage to write a detailed article. Part of the reason you have not seen much coverage is selection bias. If you were interested in true crime you have read about it. There are no doubt lots of subjects that do not interest you. How probably skip over U.S. cricket articles, but that does not mean everyone does or that we should not have articles about it. TFD (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Correcting factual errors in article

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

  1. "Republican lobbyist ups reward another $5K for killer of democratic D.C. staffer Seth Rich to reported largest in D.C. history". PR NewsChannel. December 5, 2016. Retrieved January 23, 2017.

Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm cool with just presenting the numbers as is. No need for us to do simple arithmetic on behalf of the reader. Gravity 01:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Especially since the little baby steps up in the bounty appear to be for the sole purpose of generating another round of google hits or filler pieces in the local community tabloid. SPECIFICO talk 02:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
A recent article mentions Burkman's reward offer an campaign. TFD (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Categories: