Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Display name 99 (talk | contribs) at 02:14, 2 June 2017 (→"Groundless"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Before you edit this page: This page relates to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Your behaviour on this page is subject to special rules. You must follow: the purpose of Misplaced Pages, expected standards of behaviour, and Misplaced Pages policies and editorial norms. If you do not follow those rules then you may be banned from editing on the topic or blocked from editing entirely. This restriction is authorised by the Arbitration Committee. Before making edits in this topic area, please familiarise yourself with the contentious topics policy.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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: 4 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This 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. Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This 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 Low This 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. United States: District of Columbia Low‑importance This 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. 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. Death Low‑importance This 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article milestones Date Process Result August 19, 2016 Articles for deletion No consensus September 15, 2016 WikiProject approved revision Diff to current version October 4, 2016 Articles for deletion No consensus January 21, 2017 Articles for deletion Speedily kept February 26, 2017 WikiProject approved revision Diff to current version May 30, 2017 WikiProject approved revision Diff to current version

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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: 4 days

Requested move 19 May 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved as there clearly isn't consensus in support of the proposal. -- Tavix 01:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Murder of Seth Rich → Murder of Seth Rich conspiracy theory – 1. This is why this is WP:N. It is a debunked conspiracy theory. 2. It conforms with Pizzagate conspiracy theory 3. For BLP and WP:AVOIDVICTIM, I think this is how how the family would want this viewed as it helps debunk some of the BS around their son's death. There is no need for Misplaced Pages to further the victimization of the family and it should be a place for a reader to quickly understand the basic facts. Casprings (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I support the move. Sources overwhelmingly refer to this as a conspiracy theory. The murder is only notable due to the conspiracy theories it has given rise to. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose move. This article has existed for quite a while without turning into conspiracy-theory-central, and the several AfD's have emphasized the importance of keeping it that way. Arguably, this article still falls under WP:BLP which covers people after death for as much as two years. Rich's family stated: "We simply want to find his killers and grieve. Instead, we are stuck having to constantly fight against non-facts, baseless allegations, and general stupidity to defend my brother’s name and legacy." Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

As for pleasing Rich's family (while laudable, I'm not sure how it relates to Wiki policy), I can't think of a better way to "fight against non-facts, baseless allegations, and general stupidity" think having the first result from a Google Search leading to a Misplaced Pages page describing the theories surrounding his death as the conspiracy theories that RS say that they are and that his family says that they are. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, it's quite disingenuous to cite the family's wishes here when nobody seemed to have cared about those a month ago. Calling a spade (conspiracy theory) a spade (conspiracy theory) is the best way to respect the family's wishes. It's also what WP:BLP requires.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Wiki policy does not require everything Rich-related to be dumped here. We could just say, for example, "In May 2017 there was a controversial news report about the Rich murder that was later discredited". Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Support - Seems to be better compliance with WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Changing to oppose after considering other opposes. - - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Has the theory that Seth Rich was the DNC email leaker to wikileaks truly been debunked? Mr Ernie (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

That was never taken seriously by anyone outside of a very narrow political persuasion. Geogene (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

RS overwhelmingly describe it as a conspiracy theory. Do you contest that? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

And until the murderers are found and/or the DNC email leaker is revealed it is technically impossible to debunk this theory regardless of what the press reports of the family states. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

We already know who leaked the DNC emails: it was Fancy Bear, aka, the Russian Federation electronic warfare services. Geogene (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support in principle, but the suggested title is a bit of a clunker. ValarianB (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

That's why I have suggested "Seth Rich homicide". Much more compact. Daniel Case (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support Because the conspiracy theories are the only aspect of the murder that is notable, they, and the news article churn around them, are the reason the AfDs failed. Geogene (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support Reliable sources refer to it as that. It is a very sad fact, but the poor man's murder would have zero importance at all outside of his family and loved ones if it weren't for that. The title suggested is based on RS and conveys what is significant. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The topic is the murder. The aftermath, various Fox News controveries, and conspiracy theories are related "subtopics" covered in the article. Peacock (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Peacock. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Let's imagine in a couple weeks we suddenly learned who the actually killed Seth Rich, and for the sake of argument assume it was some wannabe robber. How would that fit into an article about conspiracy theories? The focus here should be on the actual murder, and the conspiracy theories should be treated as a sideshow. _Gravity 19:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Not sure how this would matter. The conspiracy theories would still be a notable topic. If conclusive evidence turns up that it was a robbery that would be EVEN MORE of a reason to have an article on the notable conspiracy theories rather than the non-notable crime. So, uh, you're sort of making the case for "Support" here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

It used to be on this page that even describing the conspiracy theories was WP:PROFRINGE and a violation of WP:BLP. Now it's suddenly considered the only notable aspect of the article. The crime is easily notable without the current bloated conspiracy section, as demonstrated by TFD. _Gravity 04:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose The murder meets "notablity" on its own. It received coverage in numerous media outlets at the time and continued to receive coverage before the media began covering the "conspiracy theories." The unsolved murders of middle class white people in otherwise safe neighborhoods tends to attract attention in the United States media. Also, this type of suggestion which was made on the pretext of respect for the victim's family merely provokes more discussion. The article should explain what mainstream media say and provide the same weight to different aspects of mainstream coverage. If editors think mainstream media is covering this case poorly, then complain to them. Or get Misplaced Pages's content policies changed. Discussions about whether or not we are following policy are difficult enough, without arguing about whether or not to follow them. TFD (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Besides local news coverage about the murder itself, what RS coverage was there of the murder unrelated to conspiracy theories? I'm genuinely curious. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Initially reported 11 July 2016 in the Washington Post, FOX 5 DC, CNN, The Hill, Politico, WJLA/ABC7, NBC Washington, and you can find dozens more through Google. Most of these articles are signed, that is unique reporting rather than off the wire, some have detailed biographical info, most include pictures, some extensive and there are television news clips. The following week there was coverage of the vigil, biographical notes, HRC's comments, and information about the family. Although there was both local and national coverage, notability does not require national coverage. The point of the policy is to ensure that there are adequate reliable sources to write a story, not the degree of interest to readers nationally or internationally. TFD (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. A lot of that seems local but definitely some nat news coverage. It strikes me as unlikely that this would ever merit a Misplaced Pages article on the basis of only the coverage related to the conspiracy theories though. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

There could be two separate articles--RandomUser3510 (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment The Black Knight satellite conspiracy theory is an article about a collection of conspiracy theories. In that case, there is no black knight satellite. It doesn't exist, so there's nothing to write about absent the conspiracy theories. So that makes sense.

The Pizzagate conspiracy theory is an another article purely about a conspiracy theory. Again, the subject doesn't exist. There is no sex ring operating out of the basement of a pizzaria in D.C. So there's nothing to write about factually (the real parties involved all either have articles or aren't notable, even with the bullshit about them).

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories is a case where the subject of the conspiracy theories is real. However, we also have an article about Barack Obama, and merging the two would make it, frankly, unreadable.

Now, I'm not saying that Seth Rich was a notable person. I'm not even saying that his murder was a notable event in and of itself. But it gave birth to all these conspiracy theories. That, in and of itself establishes notability. It is, thanks to the conspiracy theories, an event which has been discussed extensively in the RSes. To rename this article, we're shifting the focus from the facts to the bullshit. Is that really a very encyclopedic thing to do? I don't think so. I think we should write an article about the facts, which contains due information about the bullshit. We should, in all cases seek to avoid articles that focus on bullshit topics, unless we have no other choice. In this case, we certainly have a choice. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

His murder is notable BECAUSE of the conspiracy theories. That is the point. The article should provide the reader information for why this is WP:N. The murder itself is just a crime unless there are conspiracy theories developed.Casprings (talk) 22:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I agree with everything you said there. Yet my point stands. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The "General notability guideline" says, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." As I showed above, there was extensive on-going coverage of the subject long before mainstream media took notice of the conspiracy theories. These included a biography of the victim, a detailed recounting of the crime, information about the family, comments from police and Hillary Clinton, and reactions to the crime, including a vigil. One may question whether news media should cover criminal cases and perhaps they should not have reported it. Perhaps Misplaced Pages should not have articles about crimes. But clearly it is well justified by current policy. In fact, the conspiracy theories have only been covered in mainstream media because the event itself was notable. For example, the death of Shawn Lucas the following month also became the subject of conspiracy theories, but they were not notable because the death itself was not. TFD (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment - the child sex ring in the Comet Ping Ping basement is not real, but Comet Ping Pong itself is. And it has an article which predates Pizzagate by several years. In this case, like the Obama citizenship conspiracy theory, merging would be unwieldy, so Pizzagate gets its own article. Would this be a notable murder if not for the conspiracy theories, or would it be a random mugging of some non-notable individual? Considering this is the very first version of the article, a full month after the murder, and it mentions the conspiracy theories, I'd say that's the only reason this is notable. Smartyllama (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support - otherwise non-notable murder in a town with a high murder rate; the murder is not notable, only the conspiracy theories are notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Peacock and TFD. It is notable without the conspiracy theories because it attracted widespread news coverage. Why would this high profile murder be less notable (and less worthy of its own wiki article) than other unsolved murders with their own wiki articles, such as the Murder of David Stack, the Murder of Michael Nigg, or the Murder of Betsy Aardsma?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 00:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Having researched and written the Nigg article, I now greatly regret having used "Murder" in the name for a case that remains unsolved and likely always will. Henryk Siwiak homicide is how it should be done, IMO. Daniel Case (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose – For better or for worse, this murder is notable. Conspiracy theories and other speculation about the circumstances and motive are just one part of the article subject. — JFG 01:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• support The only thing notable is the conspiracy theories that have been flogged since shortly after the murder. Most of the article is about the conspiracy theories as well. Jytdog (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

With the Russian Embassy in London now promoting the conspiracy theory on twitter, that section is likely to grow. 70.178.51.81 (talk)

References

1. "Russia promotes conspiracy theory on DNC staffer's death".

There is only one "theory" - Rich was the DNC email leaker for Wikileaks and he was murdered as a result. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

That is untrue. There is a second conspiracy theory floating around out there that doesn't claim Rich as a source of the leak--quite the opposite--and people that are familiar with the sources will know what I'm talking about. But I'm not here to give conspiracy theorists a podium. Geogene (talk) 05:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support: Clear family preference and indeed, absent the conspiracy theory, this would just be a sad but ordinary and non-notable murder. Montanabw 03:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support move -- the murder continues to be notable because of the conspiracy theories. Otherwise, it would be routine crime blotter. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants' analysis above. I'll add to that though to say that lengthening the title here would narrow the article's scope for reasons that should be probed. I understand the argument that there's no "there" there beyond a conspiracy theory. But I've got a philosophical objection to how that's established in the title which can't be footnoted as opposed to the body which can and it follows from the fact Misplaced Pages's epistemology is a posteriori as opposed to a priori. Apologies for getting abstract here but it's the difference between saying all observed ducks are white and saying, categorically, all ducks are white. It's one thing to say there is nothing to this and another thing to say there will never be anything to this. If we were to consider the 2012 Benghazi attack I understand that's different in that there would always still be an indisputably notable attack even if there were never any political controversy about the attack. But what if the attack was split off and the remainder subject to a retitling proposal as some sort of (right wing) manufactured conspiracy. That that would be contentious when we should look to create consensus would just be part of it. The other part is why do we have to have the title definitively settle what the matter was all about instead of just presenting the whole thing under the title of 2012 Benghazi attack? The editor proposing a move here has cited reasons like "helps debunk" that have the air of advocacy. Read the body of this article and it debunks the conspiracy theory; pushing for more than that doesn't help broaden editor consensus. "But it's true that it's just a conspiracy" is a problematic statement because of the sort of proofs involved with "just"; - we can go through those proofs in the body of the article but we can't in the title. I submit that Benghazi is the more similar case here than Pizzagate because Benghazi followed an actual event, like here, whereas Pizzagate basically invented the underlying event as well. I also note we don't have Murder of Vince Foster conspiracy theories we've got simply Suicide of Vince Foster. Again, adding "conspiracy" to the title is an unnecessary narrowing of scope (and the family's wishes are irrelevant, by the way).--Brian Dell (talk) 05:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose because:

1. Not inclusive
   The suggested new title is not inclusive of all views. It would risk to limit the views. I mean some contributors interested to add views might feel excluded :( In other words, the present title feels more inclusive, as it is more general and allow a wide range of views :) I strongly believe that diversity of views is a strength. Not a weakness. By keeping the present inclusive title it is more likely that contributors will feel the Misplaced Pages Love and might be interested to contribute news views or further expend existing views. Speaking for myself I enjoy listening and learning about new views. All views are valuable to me. Even if I disagree with some views ;) I'm really ok with any views to be included in the article. Assuming that all views are notable and comply with all Misplaced Pages agreements. Then that is good enough to me. In addition to all of the above points, the more notable views are included, the better the article is with Neutral Point of View (NPOV). Francewhoa (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
2. The primary topic of this article is the murder, not the conspiracy.
   While at the same time I agree to keep that already existing article section titled "Conspiracy theories". For the details about notable subtopics, such as conspiracy theories, controversies, and their related allegations. How about in the future, if that Conspiracy theories section become significantly large, and there is a general consensus, that section could be move to its own sub-article. Which could be titled "Murder of Seth Rich conspiracy theory". With links between both this primary article and its sub article.
3. According to Snopes the latest notable conspiracy is unproved. But the murder is proven.
   Snopes have done extensive digging about the latest notable and alleged conspiracy about Seth being the DNC insider source of Wikileaks, not Russia. As of May 19, 2017 Snopes' conclusion is that this relationship is "unproved". In other words, according to Snopes, neither "false" nor "true". Again I feel it's notable, but still not the primary topic of this Misplaced Pages article. Because that conspiracy is without evidence from independent source(s) and without public evidence for public review.

Francewhoa (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

References

1. http://www.snopes.com/seth-rich-dnc-wikileaks-murder/

• Oppose: The current title is the concise title - the who did it and why revolves round the murder. Also, 1) the proposal makes murder-during-robbery just another conspiracy theory, and 2) the proposal does politicize the murder. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: The title is fine as it is. ArniDagur (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose move. Seth Rich was murdered. That is a FACT. There may be conspiracy theories related to this fact,

but Rich's death is notable for reasons besides the conspiracy theories. Besides, it is not too much to ask that the facts in this article be separated from the unsubstantiated claims; just look at the article for Ahmed Mohamed clock incident. MagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

"Murder" as noted above, is a judicial verdict and a judicial verdict only. "Seth Rich was the victim of homicide" is the fact Misplaced Pages can state. "Seth Rich was murdered" will have to wait. Daniel Case (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• I just want to point out that WP:COMMONNAME is a thing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as too vague. The new title suggests that the murder itself is a conspiracy theory. Barring that, it's too long and unwieldy. I might support a new title shorter than that, though. epicgenius (talk) 05:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
• I support a move, but not to that title. Killing of Seth Rich or Homicide of Seth Rich would be better. Murder implies malice and forethought. All indications have been that this was a robbery that went wrong. ~ Rob₁₃ 12:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support move to Seth Rich homicide ("Homicide of ..." is a clunky title and awkward construction; usually the victim's name is used to modify "homicide") per all my arguments at the talk page. Per BLP and OR we cannot call a killing, at least a recent one, "murder" until a judge or jury has convicted someone of that charge or they have pled guilty to it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't get that justification. If you kill someone while robbing them, it's a murder. If you and your buddy are robbing a bank, and your pal is killed in the process, in many jurisdictions you will be charged with felony murder. So obviously what you're saying isn't strictly true. Geogene (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

In those circumstances you are talking about a known defendant and known circumstances. If charges were pending against someone, "Seth Rich murder case" would be justifiable. Without any charges, we do not know the circumstances under which Rich was killed. For all we know the killers could have done it in self-defense. The police and coroner can only reach "homicide", i.e. killed by someone else with no implication as to motive. And for now, per BLP and OR, that is the only word we can ethically use in the title. Daniel Case (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

We're relating what RS report, Mr. Case -- not what we know. I think that your comment about for all we know is gratuitous and offensive to the family and to the memory of the victim and it adds nothing to the policy-based sourcing discussion here. I hope we can all discuss things here without undue speculation or casual references to this troubling subject. SPECIFICO talk 18:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: If the RSes know enough about the crime to know who did it and what their motives were, then they should let the police know. Because when they describe it as "murder", they are in fact engaging in "undue speculation" about that exact subject.

The point about the killing being possibly self-defense was meant as a pure hypothetical, which apparently not everyone has been swift enough to grasp. I don't think it was—but what I or you think about the killers' possible motives or the lack thereof doesn't mean diddly about what we should name the article as long as the facts of the case remain as they are now. I brought up self-defense simply because it's the best-known explanation for a homicide not being a murder, or even manslaughter (ask Robert Durst about the Morris Black case, for one). Far too many people don't seem to understand, nor want to understand, that there is a crucial difference between those two terms, one our article naming needs to reflect if we mean OR and BLP be taken seriously.

To say it was offensive to the memory of the victim is a disingenuous attempt to divert this discussion from its real issue: that is so many different shades of wrong to use "murder" in the title of this article. Daniel Case (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Daniel's legal arguments are completely spurious, as one can see by reading Homicide and Murder and the sources used in them. Also, I repeat: WP:COMMONNAME is a thing. Finally, his argument about OR is completely backwards, as it's his original research being used to support his claims, not anything verifiable in reliable sources (meanwhile, "murder" is verifiable in virtually all sources, reliable or not). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: I don't see anything in Murder that would justify not making the distinction in an article title about an unsolved homicide. I assume you understood this when you typed it, or in addition to referencing "sources", you would have actually attempted to include some that could be perceived on a cursory glance as jutifying your position.

As for homicide, I note that the intro says:

Homicides can be divided into many overlapping legal categories, including murder, manslaughter, justifiable homicide, killing in war, euthanasia, and capital punishment, depending on the circumstances of the death. These different types of homicides are often treated very differently in human societies; some are considered crimes, while others are permitted or even ordered by the legal system.

As for OR, getting past your attempt to rework "I know you are, but what am I?" into a valid argument (and OR applies only to the content of articles, not policy interpretations), consider that by calling a killing "murder", we are doing the work properly restricted to a judge or trial jury. It is no different from how it would be if we stated a scientific hypothesis as if it were proven fact. Daniel Case (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Daniel, you provided an argument that was not sourced to any reliable source, but came from your own mind to support removing a term which is used frequently by RSes in favor of a term you prefer. Even if your argument were not based on a misrepresentation of law in the United States (the jurisdiction of this event), that would be WP:OR, unquestionably. This isn't rhetoric, this is the very definition of OR. The only thing rhetorical about my comment was the part I never actually typed about how unbelievably ridiculous it is to suggest that us preferring the term used by RS's is somehow OR and the link to WP:CIR that I didn't actually include in it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Our arguments about what to call our articles do not have to be "sourced to a reliable source"—only the facts stated within those articles do. I think you should take a break from editing; you're starting to apply Misplaced Pages editorial policy to the real world, which is a sure signpost on the route to madness.

How to implement policy in specific instances is as much a matter of consensus editorial judgement as it is of the wording of said policies ... and your own words are the only source for your judgement that matters. Calling someone's argument OR is kind of besides the point ... all arguments are OR.

You have yet to state in any coherent fashion how it possibly is that I am "misrepresenting" the law (Just so we get this out of the way, where did you go to law school? What state bars are you admitted to? What areas of law do you practice?). I can only charitably conclude that it is because you haven't yet grasped the difference between homicide and murder (let's try it one more time: all murders are homicides, but not all homicides are murders. Do you at least understand that? Say yes and we can get to how that difference operates, and maybe get along better).

You repeatedly say "but all the RSes use it". That does not necessarily mean we have use it. COMMONNAME isn't the only subsection of NC ... in this case I would also direct you to WP:NDESC, which to me weighs in favor of using "homicide" in the title. Daniel Case (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Daniel Case Please read WP:BLUDGEON and WP:1AM. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• Move to Death of Seth Rich, which would be simple and neutral. The title should not include "conspiracy theory" since his death is a real thing, not a conspiracy theory. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Make that Seth Rich homicide. There is no dispute that Rich died at the hands of another. Daniel Case (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

No thank you. I prefer simply "Death of Seth Rich", since to me that seems simpler and adequately descriptive. I don't think we need to put the cause of death in the title. Other homicides include Death of JonBenét Ramsey, Death of Caylee Anthony, Death of Osama bin Laden, Death of Muammar Gaddafi, Death of Joseph Smith, Death of Mark Duggan, Death of Jean Charles de Menezes, Death of Khaled Mohamed Saeed, Death of Neda Agha-Soltan, Death of Damilola Taylor, Death of Abdul Wali, Death of Keith Blakelock, Death of Kenneth Salvesen, Death of Benito Mussolini, Death of Yehuda Shoham, Death of Jennifer Laude, Death of Linda Norgrove, Death of Rigoberto Alpizar, Death of Jasmine Fiore, Death of Abdulredha Buhmaid, etc. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Death of JonBenét Ramsey: no charge ever filed. Death of Caylee Anthony: mother acquitted of the murder charge because the prosecution couldn't even prove the cause of death was homicide. Death of Jean Charles de Menezes: possibly a justified police use of force; see also Death of Eric Garner.

In other words, mostly not as clear cut a homicide as this. Daniel Case (talk) 06:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

You may be confusing homicide with murder. Homicide does not require charges to be filed (e.g., Death of JonBenét Ramsey and several – perhaps most – of those others did not involve any criminal charges), since homicide is not necessarily a crime. Justified use of police force (perhaps Death of Jean Charles de Menezes) is still homicide. Yes, I suppose the Death of Caylee Anthony might not have been firmly established as homicide (despite the body in the trash bag, the duct tape, and the smell in the car), so perhaps that one of my twenty examples might not have been homicide. If nineteen isn't enough, should I list another twenty? Why should I see Death of Eric Garner? Offhand, I don't think I would include that one in my next list of twenty. My point is that I see no obligation for us to include the cause of the death in a title. Many articles about deaths, whether homicide or not, do not put the cause of death in the title (even in cases where this would not be difficult). —BarrelProof (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@BarrelProof: Actually, confusing homicide with murder on the same grounds you cited is what I've been arguing against above, since no one has been convicted of murder in the present case. The JBR article excepted (and maybe not, since one theory is that she suffered the head blow accidentally and the family made it look like a homicide to avoid embarrassment, although I can't remember if that's in the article or not) from what I have been able to review, the "Death of ..." title is reserved for cases where there is an actual dispute as to what caused the death (such as Death of Gareth Williams, where two different official investigations came to differing conclusions) or where the officially determined cause is one thing but reliably sourced questions have been raised about that (there's a lot of this in Category:Death conspiracy theories, or the deaths of people who were already notable enough for separate articles).

In the instant case there is no dispute from any side that Seth Rich was killed by gunshots fired by another person. We have generally tried to take account of this when titling articles ... I think the exception whereby people killed by the police such as Garner or Menezes where no charges were brought against the officers involved seems to arise from those deaths being considered justifiable and thus not leading to charges after being investigated (Still, however, I think a more descriptive title for them would be warranted, like "Police killing of ...")

"Many articles about deaths, whether homicide or not, do not put the cause of death in the title". Our past inertia and incorrect titling on this matter do not justify present inaction on this matter. Daniel Case (talk) 01:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

You said "the 'Death of ...' title is reserved for cases where there is an actual dispute as to what caused the death". I don't think that's true. Can you point to any evidence for that statement, such as a pointer to a Misplaced Pages guideline? —BarrelProof (talk) 02:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

In the JBR case, the cause of death was strangulation, not the blow to the head, so even if the blow to the head was an accident (a possibility not directly discussed in the article except in relation to a false confession that makes it irrelevant), it was still a homicide. And even an accidental killing may be considered a homicide (or even a murder). —BarrelProof (talk) 02:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@BarrelProof:Yes, an accidental killing that resulted from someone else's action is included in homicide statistics in some jurisdictions, even if no criminal negligence was found on the actor's part. If a such a death results in no charges (even with civil liability), I am comfortable with us using "Death of ...".

As for the Ramsey article, this question has been much discussed over there as well of late.

I admit there is no guideline saying this. I think there should be. But even without that I think it's a matter of simple logic. Daniel Case (talk) 01:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose the current proposal. For one thing, it's a pretty awkward descriptive title, and for another, Rich's death itself is significant outside of the conspiracy theories that grew up around it. Death of Seth Rich would be a neutral alternative that's fairly widely used at many other articles on murders and homicides.--Cúchullain /c 15:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose this is a murder / death about which there is a conspiracy theory, not a conspiracy theory within which Seth Rich was murdered. It is independently notable, same as many other events about which there are FRINGE theories. Koncorde (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

No, actually that's incorrect. The conspiracy theory has nothing to do with Mr. Rich. It's part of a longstanding meme that the Clintons are murderers and another nonsense narrative, that the Russians did not hack the Dem's emails. This propaganda was hung on a random event. Just like when Hillary tripped getting into her car and Drumpf said she had a stroke, or countless other such pretexts. The conspiracy theory uses random (as in unrelated) events on which to hang the narrative. And nothing about the murder itself supports WP notability. That was conclusively demonstrated at the first AfD, when unfortunately there were many editors who hadn't figured out the ruse yet. SPECIFICO talk 01:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose As it stands, as a single article, the word controversy might be acceptable, but conspiracy theory is not as it suggests the murder itself were in dispute (the fact he was shot in the back twice and later died as a result has consensus). Spinning off the conspiracy theory portion into a separate article, with a portion embedded, could be acceptable as well. Replacing murder with death would be acceptable. UniversityofPi (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
• Move to Death of Seth Rich -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Do a word-count: The article has 900 words devoted to the conspiracy theory, and 950 words devoted to the non-conspiracy theory. I would support if the conspiracy section was significantly larger, but that hasn't happened yet. --Hirsutism (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm disputing your count as it is incorrect. I also did a word count using Wordcounttools.com, and after removing the citation #'s ( etc.), I found 1657 words related to the conspiracy theory, and only 495 words not related to the conspiracy theory. To be clear, the only content I found that was not related to the conspiracy were, 1. The first sentence in the lead, 2. Early life and career (section), 3. Death and aftermath (section). The rest is all tied to conspiracy theory, which is approximately 3/4ths of the entire article. Darknipples (talk) 03:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose He was murdered-no? There is more dedicated to his death than to a fringe conspiracy theory, changing the title would be a gross misappropriation of the page's content. PalmerTheGolfer (talk)PalmerTheGolfer

• Oppose This change-request is clearly politically motivated and would provide counter-factual information. A Fake News section could be added listing the claims of his murder debunked ending with citation of the D.C. police report concluding it was an attempted robbery and homicide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagmaiKH (talk • contribs) 22:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose The murder and its investigation are not conspiracy theories, but conspiracy theories have been latched on due to RS coverage of them. Also, even though a 'murder' hasn't been proven in a court of law, it is a reasonable conclusion no matter what tale one believes. Stevie is the man! 17:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Murder of Seth Rich is not a conspiracy theory, it's a fact. I know the intended meaning but just wanted to point out the selected replacement is vague and someone may think from the title that Seth Rich is someone who is actually alive and there is a conspiracy theory going on that he is murdered and replaced by an imposter or something. Secondly, the murder itself is notable not just the conspiracy theories surrounding the murder. If the conspiracy theories are so extensive that it needs to be the focus of the article, it could be expanded into a separate article. Let's say "Conspiracy theories on the murder of Seth Rich" or something like that, but this article should not be renamed. Darwinian Ape 20:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think the first point should matter. See, for instance John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Kennedy was clearly assassinated, to my knowledge there's nobody claiming he's still secretly alive somewhere, but the article deals with conspiracy theories that the "official story" about the assassination (i.e. Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in killing Kennedy) is inaccurate, and there was some other plot responsible.

• Support Unfortunately, fake news has overtaken this topic and leaving as "Murder of Seth Rich" only adds fuel to the never ending conspiracy theories and creates an inaccurate/false depiction on Misplaced Pages. May I suggest changing the name to "Death of Seth Rich" instead? CloudKade11 (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Changing the name of the article because it "adds fuel" to conspiracy theories is not a valid argument, and I suspect this kind of Officer Barbrady-esque, move along nothing to see here, attitude actually adds much more fuel than a factual description.Darwinian Ape 00:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

It is a valid argument when Misplaced Pages becomes a factor in spreading these conspiracy theories. And I suggest changing it to "Death of Seth Rich" as many above have also suggested. CloudKade11 (talk) 00:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

No. Please read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS Darwinian Ape 08:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

How about you read WP:BLP and WP:HOAX. Also WP:PTOPIC.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:NPOV. We're not here to debunk fake news, we're here to build an encyclopedia from a neutral point of view. It's not our problem if our encyclopedic content "adds fuel to the fire." PCHS-NJROTC 01:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

What in the world does NOTCENSORED have to do with anything? What is being censored? And an encyclopedia written from a neutral point of view describes what is covered in reliable sources - THAT's NPOV. And source describe this as a conspiracy theory, hence that is what the article name should reflect.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

What in the world BLP, HOAX and PTOPIC have to do with my objection to the argument that we should change the name because it adds fuel to conspiracy theories? I don't care if it adds fuel or not, that's not our job or concern as Misplaced Pages volunteers. All I care is; does the title reflect the events and is it in accordance with WP policies. That's why the arguments such as "it adds fire" or "makes someone look bad" is irrelevant and is an example of tendentious editing. Darwinian Ape 22:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

NOTCENSORED applies because apparently you think Misplaced Pages needs to be a net-nanny for people who can't comprehend the details of the article as currently presented, and NPOV applies because you want to steer the article in a particular direction when sources are conflicting right now. A neutral encyclopedia based on reliable sources would present what the police are officially saying, what other branches of the government are officially saying, what the political parties are officially saying, what respectable left-wing sources are saying (CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, etc), and what respectable right-wing sources are saying (Fox News, Newsmax, Breitbart, etc) without adding any Wikipedian spin to the case. As for BLP, have you noticed the "living" part of that policy's title? PCHS-NJROTC 03:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Please actually read WP:NOTCENSORED. And no, "sources" are NOT "conflicting right now", that's ridiculous. All reliable sources are saying this is a bullshit conspiracy theory. Also, sorry, Bretibart and Newsmax are not "respectable" sources, whether left or right or any other kind. And Fox has pretty much lost all respectability by pushing this conspiracy theory in the first place. So please quit it with the "sources are conflicting right now" line.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Changing the title to include "conspiracy theory" itself is a non-neutral act. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be neutral. By dismissing it as a conspiracy theory, you're clearly taking a side. I think it is appropriate to have a section for the conspiracy theories, but to make the whole title of the case a "conspiracy" is again violating a core value of Misplaced Pages: neutrality. --Ashleyclairerovira (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

No, if it is widely regarged as a conspiracy theory in reliable sources, then wikipedia will reflect that. It is perfectly neutral to call a spade a spade. Darwinian Ape 00:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Um, you have three edits on this account.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Nope, it makes it clear that these are theories people have. And the fact that people have these theories (though not the truth of the theories themselves) is sourced to plenty of reliable sources. The theories clearly exist, whether they're true or not. If the article were called Democratic Party conspiracy to murder Seth Rich, that would be a clear violation of WP:NPOV. There are plenty of other articles with similar titles - John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, September 11 conspiracy theories, etc. But notice how those articles are not titled Secret CIA Plot to Assassinate JFK or September 11 False Flag Operation, which would, of course, be a WP:NPOV violation as well. Smartyllama (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support, as this whole entire article and the wider topic has been subsumed by this debunked conspiracy theory, as evidenced by PolitiFact. Sagecandor (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Per above--Valkyrie Red (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The title of the page was already changed from Seth Rich to it's current title early in on its creation, and I see no point in changing it again. Consensus was met that enough controversy surrounded the subject that, "the murder of" was OK to include in to the title taking into account the sources reporting on the subject.. There's no reason to narrowly construe the title of this page further. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 02:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support Anyone who is interested in making sure Misplaced Pages is an unbiased source of information has to support the move. We're here to debunk misinformation and conspiracy theories, right? I'm appalled by the conclusion-jumping and boldface innuendo surrounding the poor man's murder. In the interest of truth, we shouldn't lend credence to nonsense. Chisme (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm interested in making sure Misplaced Pages is an unbiased source of information and I DO NOT support the move. Misplaced Pages is not Snopes.com or Buzzfeed. --Chlorineer (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Per TFD. Additionally the article could use reorganization: focus on the murder with additional sections on: Rich's background, conspiracy theories, media controversy and response to media controversy. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support On its own the murder lacks any notability whatsoever. A person got murdered during a robbery in a big city. That's it. IT IS the conspiracy theories which make this topic notable and which justify us even having this article in the first place. Properly naming the article is policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

It's true. The very first revision of the article had more to say about the conspiracy theory than the actual murder. --Hirsutism (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, the article was actually created (by a now indef banned account) to spread the conspiracy theory. Of course, if your purpose is to spread a conspiracy theory you don't call it a "conspiracy theory" cuz that sort of gives the game away. It's amazing how many of the "oppose" votes above (including the numerous ones with just a handful of edits) are still trying to enable that approach.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

(and doesn't this mean you should change your !vote above?) Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually that's a pretty persuasive way to put things. Indeed the only notable thing was the conspiracy theory. I remember arguing against the deletion way back when because the topic was notable, but not the way our article read at the time (no mentions of the theory). I'll think about it and reconsider my vote. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

We didn't edit conflict, but I think we're on the same wavelength. See below.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - This article does not need to be limited to the so-called conspiracy side. It can cover both sides fairly and honestly as the facts unfold. PCHS-NJROTC 01:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support We need to do this because the crime itself is not notable and has not received coverage that would make it so. Thousands of murders are briefly covered in the media but do not pass WP:NOTABLE. But we also need to do it so that the focus of the article is on the perpetration and stoking of the conspiracy theory by partisans and some media. The crime is so clearly not NOTBABLE that the very fact some editors think otherwise only proves that we should be diving deep (as the Americans say) into the facts and dynamics of the conspiracy theory. SPECIFICO talk 01:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I know about WP:OTHERSTUFF, but since you state that thousands of murders are briefly covered in the media, what makes this murder less notable than Murder of Denise Amber Lee or countless other crimes covered in our encyclopedia? PCHS-NJROTC 03:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Whether Rich's killing was a political hit or not, the killer certainly does not want his identity known. He (or they) may even be working among us. The robbery theory is also unconfirmed and only speculative, but "murder" (rather than just "death") is applicable in either instance. However, the only way I would support a name change would be if and when the supposedly "debunked," "baseless," "discredited," "false," "stupid," "defamatory," "sociopathic," and "impossible" (it is in no way impossible) political theory is confirmed with solid, incontrovertible evidence, such as with further definitive leaks, a recorded telephone call, forensic analysis of Rich's computer, or a confession. In that case, I would support a name change to "Execution of Seth Rich." - JGabbard (talk) 03:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Please provide policy based reasons for your vote instead wacky as shit conspiracy theorizing. Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - The article had survived multiple AFD's before Fox promoted the conspiracy theory, the murder is primary and the theory is secondary, an article on the murder covers both, an article on the theory can only cover that. To those who use the parents wishes, i am sure they would be even more upset at an encyclopedia calling their sons death a "conspiracy theory". The conspiracy rests on who committed the murder, not that a murder did not take place, hence "Murder of Seth Rich Conspiracy" makes no valid sense as a murder did occur. GuzzyG (talk) 08:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

It survived these AfDs based solely on the rationale that there was a notable conspiracy theory out there. And it was out there even before Fox News reignited it. As has already been pointed out the only reason this article was started was as an attempt to spread the conspiracy theory.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - the article is about the murder of an individual - that there was a murder is undisputed. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

But the murder by itself is not notable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes it is notable: numerous sources have made it notable under Misplaced Pages's standards and three AfD decisions have decided that it is Misplaced Pages notable. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Seth Rich was murdered. There is a murderer out there. That is not a conspiracy theory. It's misleadin to claim the murder is a conspiracy theory. JFK was assassinated and there are conspiracy theories about the assassination but that doesn't change the fact that he was assassinated. Changing the title would e going against all the reliable sources to parrot the fringe view. Just no. --DHeyward (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Comparing Seth Rich to someone like JFK seems like quite a stretch IMO. Such a comparison might only be appropriate as a WP:CONTENTFORK via WP:SUBPOV (SEE John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories). However, Seth Rich is not really notable without the attached conspiracy theories surrounding his death, hence this article is titled "MURDER of Seth Rich", instead of just "Seth Rich". Close to 3/4ths of of this article is conspiracy related content, with the lead being around 80% conspiracy related content. As an un-involved editor here, and with the utmost respect for other editors also willing to put time and effort into controversial subjects on WP, I believe there needs to be much more "non-conspiracy" related content added in order to keep the words "conspiracy theory" out of the title. Best of luck. Darknipples (talk) 01:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose because of conciseness of current title. Strong Oppose for lack of clarity in the proposed title: i.e., He really was murdered. That isn't a conspiracy theory. Oppose because the murder was notable enough to survive at least two AfDs before the conspiracy theorists even jumped on board, so the main argument supporting the move is invalid. Strong oppose because the proposed new title is incredibly stupid for this topic. First Light (talk) 03:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support because, as other people have said, the only really notable thing about this murder is the conspiracy theories surrounding it. The only treatment that would not merit such a focus is a "Murder" section in the "Seth Rich" page, and that page doesn't exist because the guy is not notable enough. LahmacunKebab (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose A large section of the article is covering the murder. Stikkyy t/c 05:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. This page is about actual event, not about conspiracy theory. I do not think the conspiracy theory is notable enough to deserve another, additional page. My very best wishes (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose put it under a subsection. --Aleccat 14:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - If we had an article about Seth Rich, I would probably support this as the actual details about his killing could be in the other article. We don't have that. As it doesn't make sense to remove the non-conspiracy theory content in order to orient the article around the conspiracy theories. In the relationship between the two topics, the conspiracy theories are a subtopic of the event. It would not make sense to keep the content about the event as subordinate to the conspiracy theories, regardless of where the notability comes from. The murder doesn't have to be notable apart from the conspiracy theories for this to be the title that makes the most sense. We could call it "murder of Seth Rich and ensuing conspiracy theories" but that's awfully clunky. — Rhododendrites \\ 14:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, as the topic of the article appears to be the incident (in this case an unsolved death) in and of itself, rather than a theory - or theories, of which there appear to be several of varying detail - about said incident. --Katangais (talk) 03:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support Split into one article about the man & murder, and one about the conspiracy theories. The death should be covered in the first article. The conspiracy theories and fallout deserve their own. – SJ + 12:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
• CommentI already voted, but I thought I should point out that this investigation is still ongoing. How do we know that this won't become more notable beyond alleged conspiracies as the investigation unfolds? The guy was, after all, a DNC staff member. PCHS-NJROTC 03:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTALBALL. Right now the primary topic is the conspiracy theories surrounding this murder, not the murder itself. If and when that changes, you can start another RM to move it back.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support This article deals with the conspiracy theories about the murder, not the murder itself. The murder itself would hardly be notable if not for the conspiracy theories surrounding it. Smartyllama (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

No mention of Kim Dotcom?

See: http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/seth-rich-murder-conspiracy-theories-reemerge-as-kim-dotcom-weighs-in/news-story/f83799b656d13c98a6ad96e30a918178 Terrorist96 (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

No, per NOTNEWS. Geogene (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Also: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/20/the-seth-rich-conspiracy-shows-how-fake-news-still-works/?utm_term=.6c42452fd194. Blowhards are coming out of the woodwork, so this probably doesn't deserve more than a very brief mention... if anything. -Location (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Well we'll see how the Kim Dotcom story develops. Could be something major depending on whether or not he delivers evidence. 63.152.121.57 (talk) 06:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

A lot of new info regarding Kim Dotcom and Seth Rich's social media accounts, (Seth liked Pandas), in New Zealand Herald (a RS): Seth Rich murder conspiracy theories re-emerge as Kim Dotcom weighs in. Kim is going to make a statement Tuesday. Hannity has invited Kim to speak on his show. Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Fake news. Anybody with a Twitter account can claim to be connected to this. Geogene (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Now Washington Post is saying Newt Gingrich is questioning the murder Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

So yeah, Kim Dotcom released his "statement" and it's literally just him saying that some other anonymous dude told him something and that he's sure that anonymous dude was Seth Rich because reasons. So no, this doesn't belong in the article anywhere. It's a publicity stunt that we have no need of aiding. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans has added mentions of Kim Dotcom in the article now. I don't understand (and consensus doesn't support) how the article about the Murder of Seth Rich needs the following statements about Kim Dotcom - "sought by the United States on fraud charges," "made similarly grandiose claims," and "been found to have fabricated evidence." Snoogans there's a lot of attention on your selective editing to with regards to NPOV right now and I would advise you to revert this.

How do you suggest that I balance it and which RS should I use? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I would follow User:Geogene and User:NorthBySouthBaranof and say don't include it for now. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Update on the Kim Dotcom story. Apparently he tried to use Mega.nz to hack into Seth Rich's Gmail account, which ultimately failed. _Gravity 19:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm having trouble following the allegations in this article:

1. Someone setup a "fake" email account (confusing because if the account is fake no setup is involved)
2. A Mega.nz account was registered to the fake account
3. Rich's account received a welcome email when the Mega.nz account was registered (even though the welcome email should have gone to the fake account)
4. Experts concluded the link in the welcome email would have granted others access to Rich's account (despite reporting that the link was not clicked by Rich's family, no mention is made of others)
5. This leads the article's author? (it's unattributed) to conclude Kim Dotcom tried to hack Rich's account to create a fake archive of Rich's emails

If (3-5) are true why were (1) and (2) necessary, or are these two unrelated claims? Has this been confirmed independently? I can only find one other piece a Slate blog sourced to this (Weigel's) article. I have some serious BLP concerns and the author's history isn't reassuring. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Update: I haven't seen other outlets pick this up. May be fake news. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Washington Post is a reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

And what's so freakin' hard to understand? The article is pretty self explanatory.

Also, you might want to start watching BLP yourself with regard to Weigel.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I can't find independent confirmation, but nobody has refuted it, and it's also been referenced in Uproxx and Heat Street. _Gravity 03:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

So apparently Kim denies he tried to hack Seth's account. Whether or not this is true is anyone's guess. I'm not personally inclined to believe him, but I guess the best thing to do now is to wait for more sources to examine this before including the usual "WaPo reported this; Dotcom denied" spiel. _Gravity 07:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

WaPo has walked backed some claims by updating the article:

• "Dotcom, it seemed, may have been willing to create a fake archive of emails" was changed to "The family worried that Dotcom, or someone eager to prove him right, may have been willing to create a fake archive of emails from Rich"
• Their description of Dotcom as "a hacker from New Zealand" was removed
• "Dotcom had made similarly grandiose claims before and had been found to have fabricated evidence." was changed to "Dotcom had made similarly grandiose claims before."
• "Dotcom drew attention to the phony email." to "Dotcom drew attention to the email, which the studio decried as fake."

I am concerned none of these corrections were noted by the Washington Post; they are only discoverable by comparing an archived version of the original article to the current version. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't really get that concerned when news sources tweak their stories for accuracy's sake, because that's actually a sign of WP:RS. However, I do think this can be left out unless it becomes something bigger. According to The Verge: "anybody could go to Mega and create an account using Rich’s email address, prompting the service to auto-send an email to verify it. Conspiracy investigators have been randomly punching information about Rich into all kinds of sites and services, hoping to find new clues, so there’s no reason to think Dotcom is involved. But if anyone’s to blame, it’s the Post for not pointing this out." _Gravity 05:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

One America News Network is offering $100,000

One America News Network is offering $100,000: Read more Raquel Baranow (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

It was picked up on David Brock's Media Matters for America, (see: "One America News pushes shameful Seth Rich conspiracy theory"), so that should satisfy the pro-Clinton editors. TFD (talk) 00:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I think this needs more widespread coverage to get included. Media Matters is a blog and doesn't really count. _Gravity 04:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

No, it is a watchdog group employing professional journalists and researchers and is accepted as a reliable source. TFD (talk) 05:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Leave out unless picked up by mainstream sources. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Media Matters is quite within the mainstream, that's daft. Yes, this should be included. ValarianB (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

TFD, as the chief Clinton Contributor here, perhaps you can suggest some text. SPECIFICO talk 19:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

What about something like this in the lead: "There are currently rewards totallying $270,000 for information leading to solving the case." (Footnote can say who they are.) The reward has now been the subject of an article in the Washington Times. Or we can wait until the next time CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC the NYT or WaPo mention the case. TFD (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Well let's tuck our napkins under our chins and wait till it's covered by actual journalists and then you can carve the goose. SPECIFICO talk 21:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The Washington Times is not a reliable source for anything. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi @TFD, SPECIFICO, and ValarianB:) The notable Media Matters for America (MMfA) also reported on it at https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2017/05/19/seth-richs-family-sends-cease-and-desist-fox-news-contributor-behind-evidence-free-smears/216576

Here are two good news with MMfA as a source. First they are politically progressive so that source would further balance the article neutral point of view (NPOV). Second, MMfA are not-for-profit organization. The following sources also notable but are all for profit CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, NYT, WaPo. The bad news with MMfA is that it is blog not a news outlet. Blog are usually not reliable source according that Misplaced Pages agreement. Thus I vote to not accept that source. Unless there are no notable news outlet report, there is a general consensus among contributors to use MMfA, and their report complies with all Misplaced Pages agreements. Francewhoa (talk) 04:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

MMfA is not a blog, but a media watchdog. While it is partisan, it is reliable. (Lots of major media are partisan.) TFD (talk) 05:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it fits under WP:NEWSBLOG. You can even see the word "blog" in the URL. _Gravity 17:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Reward should be mentioned to incentivize finding the punk who allegedly killed him! You want them to find the murderer. Raquel Baranow (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure most editors here want better answers, but that's not really our job here. _Gravity 04:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

This should definetly be added ASAP. Its pretty shameful MMfA would be used as a reliable source anywhere else, except when it doesn't follow the agenda of some of the editors here. Plus, OAN themselves say they are offering an award, and clearly they are a reliable source. I don't know why people are objecting to add this. Itsclange (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Martin Shkreli offered $100,000 reward, I know Gateway Pundit is not a RS but what's the total now >$250K?, Read more Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

We’re Seth Rich’s parents. Stop politicizing our son’s murder.

• Rich, Mary; Rich, Joel (May 23, 2017), "We're Seth Rich's parents. Stop politicizing our son's murder.", The Washington Post, retrieved May 23, 2017, We ask those purveying falsehoods to give us peace, and to give law enforcement the time and space to do the investigation they need to solve our son's murder.

Sagecandor (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The parents' request should be disregarded because it is unreasonable, especially as compelling evidence continues to mount in that direction. The police still have nothing but implausible speculation that the murder was a robbery, and the parents certainly have no proof that the murder was apolitical. Podesta's statements, Kim DotCom's revelations, and Donna Brazile's actions are all moving attention, and thus media coverage of the investigation, in that very direction.-JGabbard (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox for spreading conspiracy theories. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

As noted above re the parents' request, that WP policy factoid is increasingly irrelevant as media coverage continues to move strongly in the 'conspiracy' direction and will alter the article's content accordingly. - JGabbard (talk) 03:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Your "media" must be different from what I follow. Geogene (talk) 03:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the media coverage is moving away from the "conspiracy" direction — as discussed above, FOX News retracted one of their stories as improperly written and edited, and Hannity announced on-air today that he would drop the entire issue. The only "direction" here is the widespread recognition by mainstream reliable sources that this entire mess is a despicable, false, evidence-free example of right-wing partisan derangement. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

For example, Fox News on Tuesday retracted a story linking the murder of a Democratic National Committee staff member with the email hacks that aided President Trump’s campaign, effectively quashing a conspiracy theory that had taken hold across the right-wing media. It was a rare acknowledgment of error by the cable channel. But it also underscored a schism between the network’s news-gathering operation and one of its biggest stars: the conservative commentator Sean Hannity, who has unapologetically promoted the theory and on Tuesday remained defiant. - from the nation's paper of record, The New York Times. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Let's just write the article based on reliable sources and not use the talk page as a soap box for scoring political points. TFD (talk) 03:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

"The parents' request should be disregarded because it is unreasonable" - uh, NO. Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The real reason it should be ignored is WP:NOTCENSORED. As harsh as this may sound, we should base our content on reliable sources, not the desires of the victim's family, the victim's friends, the police department, the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, Donald Trump, Russia, Anonymous, the victim in angel/ghost/zombie form, the man on the moon, or anyone else. PCHS-NJROTC 00:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Do we need more than three cites at the end of sentences?

Some sentences have upwards of seven cites at end of sentences.

Do we need more than 3 cites at end of sentences to back up the same information? Sagecandor (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Citation overkill applies here. Sagecandor (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

In general, I agree. However, I think it's a bad idea to remove them here. Overciting can actually be useful on highly contentious articles, as it changes a claim from "made by one reliable source" to "made by many reliable sources". It helps reduce the number of details that good-faith editors can argue over. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

That does make sense, but still more than three seems like WP:Citation overkill and too much, for readers also. Sagecandor (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Our job is not to beat home the point to people who are too thick to get it. For example, we do not need nine citations for "Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Geraldo Rivera took part in spreading the conspiracy." That particular point really isn't contentious, so I could deal with three but really only one high quality source is necessary. -Location (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Sagecandor (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Consider commenting out the additional refs (or moving the body to the next usage and commenting out the called ref). It would improve the readability of the pages, while still preserving the big club we can use to beat editors who insist that a non-contentious point is actually contentious. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Good idea. At this point in time it looks like all facts in the article are backed up by three cites. That should be sufficient. Sagecandor (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Another option (for contentious things that are frequently challenged) is to merge multiple citations into a single ref tag, so they're available for people who want to review them but don't take up huge amounts of space in the article text. --Aquillion (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Left-leaning POV

It's extremely obvious that the article does not display a neutral point of view. While most information is factual, it reads like a chronological left-slanted news article rather than an encyclopedia. The NPOV concern tag should be added, as the current state of the article is an embarrassment and needs a lot of work to meet Misplaced Pages's standards.Computermichael (talk) 03:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

what's left-wing about it? It doesn't advocate the overthrow of the bourgeoisie or anything like that. TFD (talk) 01:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the OP. The article cites as sources a wide array of liberal media outlets, including the persistently inaccurate Washington Post. It gives minimal attention to covering the arguments in favor of the theory, and addresses its proponents using extremely condescending adjectives. But given my experience editing Misplaced Pages articles relating to politics I've come to realize that most WP editors, at least ones who edit in those areas, are liberal. Due to their superiority in number, they're able to insert their POV into articles freely. So I doubt much will be done about it. But somebody can always try. Display name 99 (talk) 02:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTAFORUM. Provide reliable sources for whatever it is you want to do. Also, you just violated the 1RR restriction on this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Here are some recent reliable right-wing sources that could be included: . There might be some older stuff I'm not aware of. _Gravity 19:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

There was actually an entire wiki-based encyclopedia created in response to the apparent liberal bias at Misplaced Pages, but it isn't nearly as subject-inclusive or as widely used as Misplaced Pages. PCHS-NJROTC 03:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.69.1.119 (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree w/ OP, even skimming through this, it reads like a left-wing OP-ed. "The murder spawned several right-wing conspiracy theories about the crime, including the groundless claim that Rich had been involved with the leaked DNC emails in 2016" . "groundless"? That doesn't sound remotely academic - if I was a professor grading a paper, I'd flunk whoever wrote that garbage. How about just presenting the facts & letting the reader decide that for themselves instead of leading around by the nose to your desired opinion? But suuure, if all left-wing websites "debunk" it, then it must be a "conspiracy theory", b/c Snopes & Politifact are the unquestionable gatekeepers of all truth, apparently.(rolls eyes) Has Misplaced Pages turned into an extension of CNN & HuffPo now? Looks like I'll be taking my donations elsewhere. SAD! CitationKneaded (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

conspiracy theories prior to WikiLeaks reward?

The sources I'm reading say the $20k WikiLeaks reward stoked conspiracy theories, but they don't say, and our article doesn't say, where/when/how they started. Has anyone come across this? It would be helpful to add, even if it's just to say something like "soon after the murder, conspiracy theorists began...". — Rhododendrites \\ 21:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I do think they started before the Wikileaks reward, but not sure. Sources would be nice to see that. Sagecandor (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Use Google and youtube and search for the earliest possible dates. TFD (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Vox references a Reddit written on July 12, 2016 (about two days after the murder). According to Snopes, the conspiracy website WhatDoesItMean.com peddled a related conspiracy on July 13, 2016. _Gravity 20:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

New York Magazine: "The notion that his murder was a political hit job began to circulate even before his funeral. It started on Twitter before pinging to an obscure conspiracy site and then over to Reddit before vaulting to Heat Street and the Twitter feed of Roger Stone, a longtime adviser to President Trump and a frequent guest on Infowars, the radio show hosted by conspiracy theorist Alex Jones." _Gravity 19:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

VERY important to note this chronology. This means WikiLeaks was most likely advantageously responding to and fomenting an already existing conspiracy theory, rather than creating a new one out of whole cloth himself. Sagecandor (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

"Advantageously" implies an intention which we do not know. We do not even know if Wikileaks knows who their source was since it may have been passed through a third party, which is what U.S. intelligence says. (It would be unlikely that the source would have identified himself as a KGB agent, since they like to keep that secret.) TFD (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Could be. But now the article is much better with info on origins and chronology of the spread of the false claims and debunked conspiracy theories through social media. Sagecandor (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and the relevant essay here is WP:Let the reader decide. _Gravity 20:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Nice. Sagecandor (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

How can this be called a conspiracy theory?

Retrospective views questioning "case closed" situations should be called conspiracy theories. Suppose a shopkeeper is murdered during a robbery. The police investigate and notice the open cash register is full of cash, yet call it a murder/robbery. A person tells police that he knew of a long and serious dispute between the victim and a man who lives down the street who had a violent history. Should the police ignore that fact and call it a conspiracy theory because the local news said so, without any contradicting evidence?

It seems like there are a lot of people who arent interested in solving this murder... 71.90.209.64 (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately as was the case with Pizzagate conspiracy theory, unfortunately out there on the Internet there are a lot of people interested in fomenting unsourced unverifiable uncorroborated bullshit. Sagecandor (talk) 00:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a place in which to solve murder cases.Cpaaoi (talk) 11:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

It's a theory about a conspiracy. It's kind of the definition...50.185.85.209 (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

What the sources actually say

Re by User:Anythingyouwant. The text is being changed from " instead of reporting on new negative revelations about the Trump administration" to "instead of reporting on breaking negative news stories about the Trump administration". The edit summary is "rephrase per npov"

First, calling these "negative news stories" is actually POV, unless sources explicitly call them that. Second, changing "revelations" to "news stories" is WP:WEASEL if that's not how sources refer to these.

So, let's see...

This is the source. It says "However dubious the tale, it represented a specific tactic by all three – to put an alternative story in front of their readers, thus playing down the relevance of the latest Russian revelations."

Then it says:

" Jesse Watters, Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity variously dismissed the Comey revelations as “a boring scandal” "

Then it says:

"no Republicans had been willing to appear on Fox News to discuss the revelations"

On the other hand the word "negative" (as in "news stories") does NOT appear anywhere in the source.

Then we have this source. It says:

"As the revelations about President Donald Trump and fired FBI Director James Comey exploded across all mainstream news outlets

The word "negative" does NOT appear anywhere in the source.

Then we have this source. It says:

"First it was separate from the Russia revelations"

The word "negative" does NOT appear anywhere in the source.

So, as can be seen from the above, the edit does THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what it claims to do. Instead of fixing "per NPOV" it actually MAKES the text non-neutral. The edit also misrepresent the sources by trying to insinuate that the blame here lies with the media which reported "negative news stories" (bad media! bad media!") about Trump rather than the wacky conspiracy theories and fake news like Fox did.

User:Anythingyouwant, I'd appreciate it if you undid your edit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

No, I think "news" and "revelations" have similar meaning but the former sounds more neutral and encyclopedic. Shall I accuse you of being "POV" because your version omits the word "stories" while my version doesn't? The source says: "However dubious the tale, it represented a specific tactic by all three – to put an alternative story in front of their readers, thus playing down the relevance of the latest Russian revelations" (emphasis added). Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you think. What matters is what sources say. "Similar" can be quite different. "Revelations" is used throughout all the sources. We could go with "revelations and stories" if you'd like. But "negative news stories" is clearly POV. Your edit summary is misleading. Your edit misrepresents the sources. Please self-revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

(The purpose here appears to be cast doubt on the "revelations" and imply they may not be true - which they are - by recasting them as "negative news stories" (like "negative campaign adds")).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

"Negative news stories" is certainly no more POV than "negative revelations". If you don't believe me, go here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

No. We use the term that reliable sources use, not the term that you invented.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:PARAPHRASE, "Summarize in your own words instead of closely paraphrasing". I did nothing wrong here, this was a run-of-the-mill edit, and your attacks regarding "misrepresentation" are absurd. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Not when you "paraphrase" to change the meaning of the sources. "Revelations" and "negative news stories" are not the same thing, especially in this context.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Your two quotes ("Revelations" and "negative news stories") are misleading. The word "negative" was already in this article, and yet again you omit the word "story" in the source. Do we have to keep on like this? The word "negative" was added a week ago by User:PerfectlyIrrational and it seems apt. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

While the sources may not explicitly call the news stories negative, they implicitly do, and no reasonable reader would interpret it any other way. TFD (talk) 05:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

"Reliable sources include: • Mainstream newspapers." WP:V. (1) Stuff is published by Fairfax Media. "We attract an engaged and valuable audience right across Australia and New Zealand." It's mainstream in Australia and New Zealand. (2) The Guardian doesn't regard itself as mainstream media. Nor do mainstream survey respondents. (3) Re Haaretz: "In 2016, the newspaper's readership fell to an all-time low of 3.9% on weekdays, far behind other national newspapers in Israel: Israel Hayom had an exposure rate of 39.7%, Yedioth Ahronoth 34.9%, Israel Post 7.2%, and Globes 4.6%." --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

What? Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Pizzagate in the lead and article not supported by references

Pizzagate in the lead and article not supported by references, two of the refs do not mention Pizzagate, the other, by Anna Merlin, doesn't "purport a connection between the incident and the fictional Pizzagate conspiracy theory." Besides, the reference is in the opinion section too. Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

It is an op-ed hence fails reliable sources and don't forget WP:BLP and WP:HOAX. I will remove it. TFD (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Someone removed a mention of Pizzagate. Based on the sources, this seems like a good idea. I removed the other mention and the other use of the op-ed. — Rhododendrites \\ 05:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Re: Rich's parents calling individuals, 'sociopaths' and 'disgusting'

In the lead it states that: 'Rich's parents condemned the conspiracy theorists ... calling them "sociopaths" and "disgusting".'

But this was not actually said by Rich's parents, it was said by the 'family spokesman' Brad Bauman. In Mary and Joel Rich's own words:

'To those who sincerely want to get to the bottom of Seth’s murder, we don’t hold this against you. We don’t think you are monsters, and we don’t think you are terrible people. We know that so many people out there really do care, don’t know what to think and are angry at the lack of answers.

We also know that many people are angry at our government and want to see justice done in some way, somehow. We are asking you to please consider our feelings and words. There are people who are using our beloved Seth’s memory and legacy for their own political goals, and they are using your outrage to perpetuate our nightmare. We ask those purveying falsehoods to give us peace, and to give law enforcement the time and space to do the investigation they need to solve our son’s murder.'

125.168.153.139 (talk) 11:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

True. I've updated the lead to reflect the fact it was their spokesman who used the terms "disgusting" and "sociopaths" Marteau (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

A spokesperson speaks on behalf of the family. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a WP:BLP issue. Thanks to your revert, our lead currently incorrectly and directly attributes those words to family members when that is not in fact the case. It needs to be corrected. Being precise in attributing direct quotes in no way "feed(ing) into the conspiracy theory (the nuts claim" as your edit summary suggests, it is simply being encyclopedic and responsible. Marteau (talk) 12:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this needs to be in the article in any form. It would be encyclopedic to state that the family condemned the people who exploited their son's death for partisan purposes. SPECIFICO talk 14:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. If you rewrite it to make it more encyclopaedic, I would likely support your edit. But if you don't have the time to rewrite it, could you at least revert it to the previous edit by Marteau? 125.168.153.139 (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is this factually incorrect statement still in the lead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.168.153.139 (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I have raised my objection. I attempted to correct the article from its incorrect implication that the parents said the quoted text. I believe this is a BLP issue and is not trivial. The encyclopedia simply cannot allow such a thing to become standard operating procedure. If things like this are allowed, will we allow, for example, Trump to be said as saying an exact quote (i.e. in quotations) when in fact it was one of his spokesman? Of course not. This is no different. As none of the page watchers has corrected this, or has commented (besides SPECIFICO, who thinks it does not belong in any form) I will assume it has consensus, and I will therefore take this to the BLP notice board at first opportunity. Marteau (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Done. "with their spokesperson calling them...". Sagecandor (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Re: The Rich family had given permission to, but did not hire, ... Rod Wheeler

According to the New York Times the Rich family did hire Rod Wheeler, but now regret hiring him. It's unclear to me whether Wheeler's contract with the Rich family has now been terminated. With regards to who is paying Wheeler, Ed Butowsky had said that he offered to pay for Wheeler's services, but had not been billed by him.

Relevant passage from the buzzfeed article:

"They said they didn’t feel they were getting any answers," Butowsky said. "The investigation wasn’t going anywhere. I said, 'Why don’t you hire a private detective?' They said they didn’t have any money."

Butowsky said he offered to pay for a private investigator, and called Wheeler. There, he said, his involvement ended.

"They negotiated something," Butowsky said. "In their contract it said any money Rod is going to bill, Butowsky is going to pay. But Rod Wheeler has never billed me a penny. Nobody has ever paid anybody anything."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/us/seth-rich-dnc-wikileaks.html

https://www.buzzfeed.com/claudiakoerner/the-private-detective-who-ignited-a-clinton-conspiracy

125.168.153.139 (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The important point about this is that the family was duped and exploited by individuals who, unsolicited, presented these "investigators" to them. The article should reflect this, not whether they were "hired" or who was to pay for their involvement if indeed there are to be payments. SPECIFICO talk 14:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, you can rewrite it if you want to (I can't), but as it stands their are multiple factual errors in the article. That said, it doesn't sound like you would rewrite it from a neutral point of view, as you don't give any credence at all to Ed Butowsky's version of events.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/dallas/2017/05/19/dallas-financier-got-tangled-conspiracy-theories-slaying-dnc-staffer-seth-rich

125.168.153.139 (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

This section is a mess. It's now been reinserted after I challenged it by reverting it with many reasons stated in my edit comment. It should be removed until these issues can be resolved on talk in a policy-compliant manner. It's pointless to whittle away at the garbled version that's again in the article. SPECIFICO talk 17:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, just as a ferexample -- what does it mean to "give permission to" a person to "investigate" a crime. I personally have investigated the dead pigeons in Hyde Park, who may have been poisoned by the Tory fringe. SPECIFICO talk 17:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you that this section is a mess and should be removed until the problems with it are resolved. 125.168.153.139 (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Relevant quotes from The Daily Beast article: "Both have been given permission by the family to conduct independent investigations, but were not paid by the family, as other outlets reported, said Bauman." and, "...a war between two political consultants on opposite sides of the aisle to frame Rich’s death as part of a larger global conspiracy, according to the family’s spokesperson." _Gravity 20:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I listed many other problems with the text you've now edit-warred back into the article. WP is not a collection of everything that can possibly be culled from a published page. SPECIFICO talk 20:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

What's wrong with The Daily Beast? They're known to check their facts, even if their headlines are a bit sensational. _Gravity 21:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Since the sources do not say they were "duped and exploited by individuals who, unsolicited, presented these "investigators" to them," the article cannot say that either. When you demand your opinions be written into the article, you are encouraging other editors to do the same. I suggest we all agree to ensure the article follows content policy and you can argue your personal opinions elsewhere. Note too BLP applies. The person who recommended Wheeler is Ed Butowsky and you should not make accusations against him, although you are welcome to mention accusations that have been made against him and reported in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

TFD I don't disagree with what you have said but SPECIFICO hasn't tried to force their opinion into the article (from what I've seen), all SPECIFICO did was remove the first paragraph in the 'Independent Investigations' section because it was 'poorly sourced undue unencyclopedic and. SYNTHy', but then falling gravity reverted the edit instantly and left the one line comment that 'the daily beast is a reliable source' without even bothering to comment here. 125.168.153.139 (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear Strawman: Did anybody suggest that "duped and exploited whatnot etc." be inserted as article text? Yours, Dorothy. SPECIFICO talk 18:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO wrote, "The important point about this is that the family was duped and exploited by individuals who, unsolicited, presented these "investigators" to them. The article should reflect this (my emphasis) That means that view or opinion should be inserted into the article. TFD (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

No, it means we mustn't include article text that misrepresents what the sources say, i.e. we shouldn't insert content that adopts the POV insinuations of the conspiracists or the UNDUE and sparse press accounts that present them. It's pretty clear that reflect ≠ insert Call me crazy. SPECIFICO talk 19:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• I've removed the entire paragraph and replaced it with a small tweak slightly further down making it more clear how Wheeler was paid. My rationale: First, putting it at the top of the section is giving WP:UNDUE weight to something that is only a side-note in the source we use (which is... yes, the Daily Beast. It's usable, but there are better sources, which we do use further down.) Second, the paragraph lumped Burkman is as an 'investigator', which AFAIK no source describes him as - the immediate next paragraph makes his involvement more clear and makes it obvious that talking about him being 'hired' by the family makes no sense (his involvement was in offering a personal reward, after all.) With Wheeler, we go into detail on how he was paid (by Butowsky and not by the family); there's no particular advantage to repeating all this one paragraph earlier when giving the whole context and all the details takes exactly as much text. And the GoFundMe, the only other thing in that paragraph, doesn't seem to have been a private investigation at all (at least, the source doesn't say anything of that nature.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is the line 'The Rich family gave permission to, but did not hire, Rod Wheeler' still in the article? And why does the article now state that Butowsky recommended Rod Wheeler, when Butowsky has said that he did not know Rod Wheeler prior to the investigation and that Rod Wheeler was chosen by the Rich family?

"Rod's a great guy, a great PI, but it wasn't me who decided on him; the Riches did," Butowsky said. "I just agreed to pay the bill." Joel Rich had seen a story Wheeler had done about his son's death and liked him, according to Butowsky. "I said, 'OK, well, you want to hire him, go ahead; I'll pay the bill,' " Butowsky said.

125.168.153.139 (talk) 02:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

New York Times: "Ed Butowsky, a Dallas businessman who criticized Hillary Clinton last year, acknowledged to CNN that he helped connect the investigator with the Rich family after initially denying it to NBC." _Gravity 03:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Falling gravity your quote doesn't contradict anything that I've said, so what point are you trying to make? Did you even read the source I linked above? In it Butowsky explicitly states why he didn't talk to NBC, he apparently doesn't like/trust them. 125.168.153.139 (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I think both sides should be presented in the article, in accord with WP:NPOV. However, it should be noted Butowsky changed his story when talking with NBC and CNN. _Gravity 17:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

If you honestly want 'both sides to be presented in the article' then why haven't you edited it to include both sides? I don't oppose you noting that Butowsky initially denied playing any role at all in the Rich case to the NBC, as in his own words he 'doesn't like NBC', but what he said to CNN (hours after he refused to speak to NBC) doesn't contradict anything he said to dallas news. The dallas news source is much more detailed than the CNN article and provides multiple quotes from Butowsky on his version of events, which you and some of the other editors seem to want to ignore. 125.168.153.139 (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Have some patience, some of us have lives outside of Misplaced Pages, I know it's hard to imagine. _Gravity 03:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

They hired Wheeler, although he was paid by Butowsky or worked gratis. If he did not work for them, the "cease and desist" letter would make no sense. Let's stick with the facts and not use misleading wording. TFD (talk) 04:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

If he worked for them, there would be other remedies. Tortious behavior doesn't depend on an employment relationship. SPECIFICO talk 13:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no question that he was hired by them SPECIFICO, The New York Times, NBC and CNN all confirm this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.168.153.139 (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Wording looks good after change by FallingGravity , I did a minor copy edit. Sagecandor (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Nothe wording doesn't 'look good'. Bauman changed his story when talking to the New York Times. But regardless of what Bauman said, Wheeler was obviously hired by the Rich family, have you even read the C+D letter? 125.168.153.139 (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

They hired him regardless of who paid. Similarly we refer to Bauman as their spokesman when we do not know who is paying him. TFD (talk) 00:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, the cease and desist letter begins, "The Family has learned that you violated the Agreement." Even for non-lawyers, it should be clear that the basis of the complaint is alleged violation of Wheeler's agreement with the family, not "tortious behavior." TFD (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear TFD: As is obvious from my comment, I did not read the C+D letter, which is a primary source, of course. SPECIFICO talk 18:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

Please read WP:LEAD.

Please note this is inappropriate.

Stuff in lede MUST be in body text first.

Please read the edit-notice at Murder of Seth Rich.

Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: The body text discusses the two private investigators in this case, so why can't the lead mention theme? _Gravity 16:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

You just moved sourced info from body to the lead. Instead, the lead should be a SUMMARY of the entire article. Sagecandor (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Most importantly, it's not NPOV to call these two people "investigors" when RS have reported that they misled, exploited, and misrepresented the family and the circumstances surrounding the crime. SPECIFICO talk 17:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The article already applies that term to Rod Wheeler. Do you have an alternative word? _Gravity 19:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

If nothing else, I don't think we have a source to call Burkman an investigator (his involvement was in offering a reward); beyond that, that paragraph was redundant with the bit further down that goes into more detail on precisely how Burkman and Wheeler were involved, so I've removed it entirely. My problem is the way it highlighted that they initially had permission but were not paid - this is definitely true, and we mention it further down when discussing their investigations, but none of the sources highlight it as central (read eg. the Daily Beast article used as a source - it's mentioned waaaay down, after a lot more context about how they got in touch with the family and where they were coming from.) You effectively took the one side-note in the Daily Beast article and dropped it directly in the lead, with almost none of the context; when really, it shouldn't even be highlighted the way it was at the top of that section. We already make it clear how Burkman and Wheeler were involved and how Wheeler was paid; that paragraph failed to accurately summarize that and didn't really reflect the way the sources approached it. --Aquillion (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The statement is factually incorrect, Burkman is not an investigator and Wheeler was hired by the family. I do not think it belongs in the lead at this point. TFD (talk) 23:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Sagecandor (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

WikiLeaks statements

WikiLeaks statements

This section is only for statements made by WikiLeaks, not other unrelated rewards made by other persons. Sagecandor (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Rod Wheeler backtracks statements about Seth Rich investigation

• "Rod Wheeler backtracks statements about Seth Rich investigation", WTTG, Fox News, May 17, 2017, What he told FOX 5 DC on camera Monday regarding Seth Rich's murder investigation is in clear contrast to what he has said over the last 48 hours. Rod Wheeler has since backtracked.

We reached out once again to the Rich family, and through a spokesperson the Rich family tells FOX 5 DC, "The family has relayed their deep disappointment with Rod Wheeler's conduct over the last 48 hours, and is exploring legal avenues to the family."

Doesn't look like this is in the article yet ?

Sagecandor (talk) 23:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

It is. But this is an article not a drama and we don't need long quotes. TFD (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

LOL, not asking about long quotes, rather just the facts. Sagecandor (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Then stop advocating that we insert lengthy quotes, such as the one above. TFD (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Kind of hard to stop doing something he's not actually doing. Do have an answer to the question he actually asked, which he already clarified? --Calton | Talk 05:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I already replied above: "It is. But this is an article not a drama and we don't need long quotes." Do you have anything to add to this discussion thread? TFD (talk) 06:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Raw story a RS for details on this obscure death

While not directly related to this article, there is an inquiry in WP:RSN regarding the sourcing for Michael Connell which has a similar theme to this one. The loonies on the right have their counterparts on the left, however, this one occurred prior to all the mainstream discussion of fake news so there really isn't much in the mainstream news outlets. -Location (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

"Raw Story" fails as an unreliable source. Commented at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Raw story a RS for details on this obscure death. Sagecandor (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Judicial Watch issues FOIA request

Judicial Watch, an influential non-partisan political watchdog group, has examined the circumstances of the murder of DNC IT staffer Seth Rich, and sees a lack of public evidence to support the DC Police Department's conclusion that this murder was a "robbery gone wrong". Judicial Watch has filed a Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request to discover all public information that is currently being withheld by the DC Police Department and the DC Mayor's Office. (1)(2)

In addition, the Rich family has also requested this information be made public. (3)

Seth Rich had been a computer programmer employed at the DNC since 2013. He worked on a computer program to allow voters to enter their name and generate a map of the nearest polling place. This program required access to data pulled from every voter precinct in the United States. (4)

47.198.220.193 (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Non-partisan? Are you kidding? -Location (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Added, from better source, The Washington Post, at . Sagecandor (talk) 16:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

References

1. https://www.judicialwatch.org/jw-files-foia-request-police-fbi-seth-rich-murder/
2. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/05/judicial-watch-files-foia-requests-dc-police-dc-mayor-seth-rich-murder-investigation-docs-video/
3. http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/24/family-of-seth-rich-demands-that-police-release-information-to-the-public/
4. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/police-identify-man-fatally-shot-in-bloomingdale/2016/07/11/4236fd1a-4754-11e6-90a8-fb84201e0645_story.html?utm_term=.97b785fcb3fd

Is The Washington Post your idea of a non-partisan source? If so that's pretty laughable. Display name 99 (talk) 01:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 2 June 2017

It has been proposed in this section that Murder of Seth Rich be renamed and moved to Seth Rich homicide. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Murder of Seth Rich → Seth Rich homicide – Per reasoning by Daniel Case at "Per BLP and OR we cannot call a killing, at least a recent one, "murder" until a judge or jury has convicted someone of that charge or they have pled guilty to it." Hopefully as this is a more simpler proposal, should be a more straightforward discussion than the last one. Sagecandor (talk) 01:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Misplaced Pages's policy on article titles.

• Support, per reasoning by Daniel Case, at . Sagecandor (talk) 01:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

"Groundless"

This word should be removed from the lead, per CitationKneaded here in the section "Left-leaning POV." Display name 99 (talk) 01:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

No. It's been debunked by multiple fact-checking organizations, including PolitiFact. Sagecandor (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

During the first 3 months of Obama's second term, Politifact rated claims made by Republicans as "false" 3 times more than it did claims made by Democrats. I really don't think that Republicans made 3 times as many false statements as Democrats during that time period. Politifact has a clear leftist bias, just like The Washington Post, The New York Times, and most other sources in this article that are cited over and over again. Display name 99 (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Without sources to back up your claims, they are just that, and nothing more. Sagecandor (talk) 01:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Until my claims are debunked, which has not fully happened yet, they should be treated as possibilities. Display name 99 (talk) 02:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

As reliable sources have noted, not a single piece of credible evidence has been presented to support the claims, nor has any actual investigative or law enforcement agency given the slightest bit of credence to the theory. This makes the statement that the theory is "groundless" a simple statement of reliably-sourced fact. Your personal opinions about the Pulitzer Prize-winning Politifact organization are irrelevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Kim Dotcom claims to have proof. His statements have not been debunked. The initial report was of a botched robbery. That seems highly unlikely. His wallet and watch were still on him. So far, people seem to be ignoring the question of why Wikileaks offered a $20,000 reward for information about his death. Display name 99 (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class Crime-related articles
• Low-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• C-Class District of Columbia articles
• Low-importance District of Columbia articles
• WikiProject District of Columbia articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class Death articles
• Low-importance Death articles
• Requested moves