Misplaced Pages

Talk:Murder of Seth Rich

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ValarianB (talk | contribs) at 15:09, 29 June 2017 (→Profiling Project report). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:09, 29 June 2017 by ValarianB (talk | contribs) (→Profiling Project report)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Murder of Seth Rich article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 15 days 
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Murder of Seth Rich. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Murder of Seth Rich at the Reference desk.
? view · edit Frequently asked questions This section is here to provide answers to some questions
that have been previously discussed on this talk page. Note: This FAQ is only here to let people know that these points have previously
been addressed, not to prevent any further discussion of these issues.


To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question.

General concerns and questions Q1: I have an issue with the name of this article. I think it should be something other than "Murder of..." A1: You can post a message on this page about your concern but please be aware that changing the title of this article has been discussed before. If you would like to see if the renaming you have in mind has already been suggested, you can search this talk page's archives for previous discussions, including Archive 9#Requested move 19 May 2017, Archive 10#Requested move 2 June 2017, Archive 11#Requested move 14 July 2018, and Archive 13#Requested move 2 June 2020. Q2: I heard about who supposedly could have some connection to the crime...why isn't this in the article? A2: Since the shooting occurred, news reports, blogs, and fringe sources have theorized about possible connections that various people maybe could have had with the crime, but these reports have not been borne out over time by reliable sources. If you have come to this talk page to post about or promulgate some theory that is not supported by multiple up-to-date reliable sources, please note the following:
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

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

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 19, 2016Articles for deletionNo consensus
September 15, 2016WikiProject approved revisionDiff to current version
October 4, 2016Articles for deletionNo consensus
January 21, 2017Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
February 26, 2017WikiProject approved revisionDiff to current version
May 30, 2017WikiProject approved revisionDiff to current version
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.
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUnited States: District of Columbia Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as Low-importance).
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconDeath Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Murder of Seth Rich article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 15 days 

Requested move 2 June 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 clear consensus to keep the article at it's current name based on the argument of WP:COMMONNAME has been established. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 20:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


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.
There is no reason to move the page, but I don't oppose "Killing of Seth Rich" or "Death of Seth Rich" because those aren't legal jargon. Geogene (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
It does sound like a new cop show. Seth Rich: Homicide. Lugnuts 14:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose per COMMONNAME. Support Death of Seth Rich. Secondary and primary sources use "murder" (presumably suspected/treated as). If that's out of line with current article titles shouldn't we add the preferred "Death of" to the guideline/policy? "Death" at least avoids the US centric "homicide". Agree with reasoning to change. Widefox; talk 15:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Per COMMONNAME, Death of Seth Rich would be preferable. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - I agree with the reasoning behind the proposed change. It is not appropriate to call this a murder, because we do not know who did it. Thus, we cannot know what their motives or intent was. Murder requires provable intent (which is why often people are convicted of manslaughter instead of murder. That said perhaps, the "Killing" or "Death" of Seth Rich would be more appropriate. The other option, which I allude to below, is that we could just call the article "Seth Rich". I am unclear whether this article is supposed to be a biography of the person, or an entry about the event. That may require further discussion.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Moot. The article should be moved to Seth Rich. It's clearly a biography. --В²C ☎ 23:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
How is WP:ONEEVENT basis for opposing Seth Rich? Have you read it? "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. " In this case the article is about the individual; the title should reflect that. --В²C ☎ 06:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per WP:TITLE, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV. No original research was conducted when the article was initially created/titled - it was based on what the subject of this article has been called in an overwhelming amount of reliable sources, and in the police report of this incident, the offense was listed as being Murder I (22DC2101-Y). Additionally, the rationale given by Daniel Case below for being in violation of BLP doesn't make sense to me, he quotes WP:BLPCRIME as the pertinent subsection: "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured". I interpret that passage to mean that an relatively uknown person is someone who has been named by the media, but would otherwise be viewed as relatively unknown if it wasn't for the recent media attention. Darren Wilson comes to mind as an example, he was relatively unknown until he shot Michael Brown and the media named him, in his case it would be a violation of BLP to imply that his actions were criminal. In this instance however, the person and/or persons are completely unknown, no one has been named by the media, so how are we causing harm to a living individual when that individual is not even known or hasn't been named or identified by any sourcing. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
@Isaidnoway: I will respond below. Daniel Case (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Rhododendrites, I get that a good deal of notability comes from conspiracy theories. I don't get how that's an argument against titling this biographical article by the subject of the biography. --В²C ☎ 18:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. It is fine the way it is. I see no material difference between "murder" and "homocide" in meaning. Murder by far is what people use in everyday language to describe homocides. The suggested title of "Death of Seth Rich" appears to be a politically motivated whitewash trying to cover up that there was foul play. There are no indications that Mr. Richard mistakenly shot himself twice. And there is no indication that the two torso shots (at least one of which was to his back) were suicidal in nature. Nobody is talking about his death being a suicide. In addition, the shots were fired around 4am which isn't a great time to be walking alone in a big city. Furthermore, you have the whole issue of Wikileaks and Mr. Assange offering a reward for information relating to his apparent murder.Knox490 (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose I agree that it should be left the way that it is. "Death of Seth Rich" is far too vague and broad, as it could refer to death from a serious illness or an accident. "Homicide of Seth Rich" is not sufficiently specific either, as his killing was obviously intentional, a murder, not, for example, an accidental homicide. 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Additionally, to someone unfamiliar with the topic, 'Seth Rich homicide' feels unclear (is Seth Rich the victim, the perpetrator, or tangentially involved?) --Aquillion (talk) 06:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • Nobody is searching for 'homicide of Seth Rich'. Well, the current title would redirect to the new one, so I don't see it mattering what people search for or don't search for. Daniel Case (talk) 07:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Well we may also name the article "Some sort of freak accident" and redirect the current title. WP:COMMONNAME is an objective arbiter in these cases. Sources mention it as murder of Seth Rich, so should we call it as such. Darwinian Ape 02:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • We may not know for sure who did it, but it definitely looks like a murder Saying it "looks like" murder is OR to anyone who understands the difference between murder and homicide. For the last week, I have been working on Murder of Dee Dee Blancharde—a homicide two years ago in which one of the two suspects arrested has already pleaded guilty to second-degree murder. Therefore, we can call the case a murder. While all murders are homicides, not all homicides are murders. Daniel Case (talk) 07:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Whatever good arguments are presented, we should follow policy and guidelines. Which are silent on this particular question. I agree that they should not be, and that a vast change in naming to a lot of pages would be a huge undertaking. But, were I to suggest a policy change (or, rather, a whole MOS page about writing about crimes, which would be the best place for this), I would have to concede that there are some exceptions—for instance, historical cases (such as, from my other work, historical crimes like Murder of Pamela Werner (80 years ago and half a world away ... this never was and never will be prosecuted; Gatton murders would be an even older example) or crimes more recent, usually multiple killings, that have acquired some popular sobriquet that does not use the victims' names (example: Oklahoma Girl Scout murders—this is the sort of case where I think COMMONNAME is most apropos) and frankly this would be best determined on a case by case basis.

    As for COMMONNAME itself, firstly I should remind you that it is a permissive policy but not a prescriptive one, i.e. it allows us to use Amtrak and leave National Railroad Passenger Corporation a redirect because we are not bound to technical names; at the same time it does not require that we use "Amtrak" if for whatever reason consensus were to come down against it in favor of something else. Its language uses "generally, not always.

    Everyone who has invoked COMMONNAME above seems not to have read further down the NC page to the next section, WP:NPOVTITLE, which discusses what should be an obvious limitation to COMMONNAME: the common name must be neutral. Calling an article about a recent homicide "Murder of ..." is essentially convicting someone of a crime before they have even been identified, much less arrested, which means such titling is very POV. In a time when the presumption of innocence is under such sustained attack from all sides, it is at the very least irresponsible of us to ignore the implications of NPOV in how we title this article.

    And since, after all, those who killed Rich are not ideas or institutions but actual people, it is not just NPOV but BLP we must be heedful of. And indeed there is a BLP subsection that is most pertinent: WP:BLPCRIME, which reads, in relevant part: "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured". I submit that the article title must be considered to be "material" under this sentence.

    "Seth Rich homicide" is an alternative that avoids all these issues (until, if ever, any suspects are charged and convicted) as well as fitting nicely with WP:NDESC. "Homicide" is a statistical category of deaths, those caused by the actions of another, that is sometimes but not always used in the names of criminal offenses covering the unlawful killing of another human being. It is descriptive but not judgemental. Daniel Case (talk) 07:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

  • there's nothing in BLP or OR that requires a court decision before using that title First, see above. Second, because of the infinitude of possible subjects to write articles about that could variously inflect the application of those policies, they are not written with long lists of "for articles about X do it Y way". The assumption is that editors will internalize the principles in those policies and use them to make sensible editorial decisions, either when editing alone or in consensus with others, that will enjoy the respect of the community. We have policy we can derive more specific guidelines from, not rules.

    TL;DR: just because nothing says explicitly we should do it the way we're doing it doesn't mean that way isn't wrong.

    Daniel Case (talk) 07:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Daniel Case, what principle in WP:BLP or WP:OR are you pointing to as suggesting that we cannot call this death a killing? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@DrFleischman: I would be OK with that if consensus supported it. Daniel Case (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't understand. OK with what? And what about my question? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
@DrFleischman: I thought you were suggesting retitling the article "Killing of Seth Rich", which would IMO be OK with WP:NDESC as well. Is that what you're doing? Daniel Case (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

More comments in response to !votes above:

  • "Death of Seth Rich" is too vague. In my experience we have reserved that for cases where homicide is just one of several theories, or there is an official finding otherwise (I've long thought Jonathan Luna should be renamed to "Death of ..." since Luna was never notable during his life and we have conflicting findings on the case from the FBI and the local coroner). When someone was killed due to what is believed to be the action of another and there is no doubt about this, we should title the article to reflect that. There is absolutely no official doubt that person or persons unknown shot Rich and fatally wounded him. His death is a homicide. Daniel Case (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @Widefox: Homicide is "US-centric"? Well, I give you credit ... that's a totally new argument against using it. I would like to read what you have to say by way of elaboration (seriously), because I think this is a matter that applies at least to all common law countries and probably quite a few civil law ones as well.

    And in any event, this is a homicide that occurred in the United States. Certainly that should be taken into consideration?

    Daniel Case (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
@Daniel Case: In the context of en.WP policy, I'd prefer a non-US centric engvar, yes. We don't use the term "homicide" in this policing context in the UK. See wikt:homicide #3 "US, police jargon". Of course this article is in the US, but my comment was about titling sitewide. Widefox; talk 16:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
@Widefox: Thank you for your swift response. If you look past that "US police jargon" in the wiktionary entry, you'll see that usage is in reference to a victim of a homicide. The usage of referring to the killing itself seems to be universal.

I understand how you may read this proposed title as suggesting that usage, but it does not. The article is about a homicide, an event, "Seth Rich" is the modifying descriptor. I prefer that usage to "Homicide of ..." because that's a rather awkward construction that almost no one uses in casual conversation; in fact it seems to me from experience that police officers, prosecutors and journalists generally use the construction in which the victims' name (or names) come first as a descriptor.

Daniel Case (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
@Daniel Case: I suggest looking at UK sources for common usage - "death", "killing" but rarely/never "homicide" (and as you say legal outcomes of "murder", "manslaughter", "death by misadventure", "unlawful killing", "lawful killing" etc). It is used, but more formal (e.g. stats including both murder and manslaughter ) than common language, despite legal use e.g. Homicide Act 1957 Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 and rare/possibly-MET-specific Homicide and Serious Crime Command (as well as their Murder Investigation Team).
@Daniel Case: my point being that either this is titled 1. per COMMONNAME in sources (which I believe is "murder") or 2. per site-wide policy (presumably BLP vio for currently unnamed perpetrator, or just correctness?) which is best to pick a neutral Engvar (which my argument above goes unchallenged, however astonishing British English Engvar is to others). Further, if "homicide" (which I agree per US Engvar, and Anglo legal systems perspective has merit, although not per common usage in British Engvar) is to be used, then it's trivial to see that when it's widely presumed to be murder, and treated as murder then concepts like unsolved murder (redirs to List of unsolved deaths not "homicides") but crucially lists List of unsolved deaths#Unsolved murders separate from List of unsolved deaths#unsolved deaths), List of unsolved murders in the United Kingdom makes sense and would need to be treated differently per the logic of this nom. Of course, as a US article then British English isn't too relevant, but per logic of decomposing into 1. and 2. this doesn't appear to be a strong case. Widefox; talk 14:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
@Widefox: Having worked quite a bit on list of unsolved deaths, I can offer some input. I've long thought the unsolved homicides should be spun off in a separate list, with the US ones like the British ones given their own list. When that list was started there was space enough to contain all those, but now that it's a) a lot longer and b) top-heavy with the homicides I think the list needs to be split for sanity's sake. When it is split I think we can rename all the split-off articles appropriately.

My argument would be under your number 2, as I've written in my response to Isaidnoway: BLP violation as to a yet-unidentified suspect's presumption of innocence. Daniel Case (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: There's two competing factors - 1. (a potential future) BLP vio / sub judice for any suspect(s) vs 2. NPOV for the topic. According to sub judice - prejudice is a problem only from charge/arrest in the UK, the US being less strict. WP:BLPCRIME only talks about protecting the suspect, so do we really need to stray from NPOV for the crime? I think that needs a policy level of consensus. A hypothetical BLP vio suppressing / WP:CENSORing NPOV. A 100 year or so wait so there's no living person seems excessive, surely we just say any named suspect is a suspect and keep titles per sources. I'm 100% against any UK death topics being titled "homicide" and for US ones that aren't so described per COMMONNAME. Widefox; talk 17:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
It could be that editors have been misinterpreting COMMONNAME. But the misinterpretation has been so consistent that the argument belongs in MOS instead of across thousands of articles. TFD (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @Isaidnoway:: The damage would be done if the person were ever to be identified and arrested. Using "murder" implies a determination of criminal guilt; any suspects are presumed innocent until then.

    For the last four years, the AP Stylebook has admonished reporters thus: "Do not say that a victim was 'murdered' until someone has been convicted in court. Instead, say that a victim was 'killed' or 'slain.'," Emphasis in original.

    I realize that the AP is not us, and we do not have to follow their stylebook (and in many cases we don't, and for good reason). But in matters relating to things that can possibly get you sued for defamation, the AP (and indeed all the respectable news outlets that use it) are bound by principles analogous to BLP and NPOV. If they came to this conclusion, certainly we should not be so dismissive of it or take cover under things like COMMONNAME and "that's what our sources say" (Especially not when we made the decision a few months ago to pretty much blacklist one of the English-speaking world's most widely read online newspapers for its callous indifference to these issues). Daniel Case (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Daniel Case:. Thanks for the consulting the AP Stylebook. I would support creating policy per that wording "killed" (or "slain"). So presumably Killing of Seth Rich despite sources using "murder". Widefox; talk 17:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
@Widefox: As I've said above, I have no objection to a "Killing of ..." title if that's more likely to gain consensus. Daniel Case (talk) 05:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Support making this policy per AP wording. Widefox; talk 12:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Strongly oppose changing the title. We know Seth was shot in the back multiple times, and was unarmed, and in a public place. It is irrational to think it an accidental shooting or a self-defense shooting. We simply do not need to know who did it to know he was murdered.

Many terms used in this article are strongly biased. Whether others hacked the DNC does not prove Mr. Rich did not leak material, claiming this is a "right wing conspiracy theory" is biased. It may be a pro-Sanders conspiracy theory, or for all you know it may be fact. Montestruc (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC) Montestruc (talk) 00:33, 8 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.

Profiling Project Findings 06/21/17

Shocking corroberation of the so-called 'conspiracy theories' by the GWU faculty in their recent publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.152.116 (talk) 09:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. http://www.newsweek.com/seth-rich-murder-report-profiling-project-627634
  2. https://www.scribd.com/document/351805646/The-Profiling-Project-Seth-Rich-Report
  • Newsweek: "As for the conspiracy theories, the Profiling Project says those are unfounded, given that Rich did not die immediately at the scene" Gravity 14:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
    • I was referring to how 'conspiracy theories' (that any attempt to suggest the crime was any other than a robbery) were derided. Also, I am very surprised the findings have not been referred to in the article.
Why is "the faculty of George Washington University" using a Gmail contact address instead of an official university one? Geogene (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The report (from the scribd link above) says "An all-volunteer group of current and former George Washington University forensic psychology graduate students and instructors".
Since there's no actual list of participants it's hard to tell, but this sounds like a student club; "instructors" may in fact be synonymous with "graduate students", or I'd think they'd have said "professors". I'd be careful of overinflating this to "Faculty Findings". --NapoliRoma (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
It should be mentioned since it got coverage. There's nothing particularly unusual about the findings. TFD (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • As an administrative comment, this material falls well short of the sourcing bar set forth in WP:BLP in general, and all the more so given the extra circumspection and responsibility demanded when covering people who are "notable" primarily as the victim of someone else's actions. Please keep those policy requirements in mind. MastCell  17:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
    • That is a bizarre interpretation of the policy. The report is about the possible perpetrator of the crime, not the victim. If you don't think Misplaced Pages should have articles about criminal cases, then get policy changed. TFD (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
      • I don't think Misplaced Pages should play host to poorly-sourced speculation about the murders of otherwise low-profile private figures, particularly when such speculation has caused and continues to cause distress to the victim's family. Misplaced Pages policy, as well as basic human decency, pretty clearly backs me up on that, so I don't see a need to change policy, although I will enforce it. MastCell  19:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
        • There is a distinction between reporting opinions and endorsing opinions. We have articles about anti-Semitic theories for example which are offensive and it is illegal to promote in many countries. In this case, the suggestion is to include what a reliable source says about the report. It may be that reliable sources report what is best left unreported, but policy says that we should "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources...." I did not see this level of concern by the way in the Trayvon Martin case or any other similar case. TFD (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
          • 'poorly sourced'? I'd hardly call Newsweek a poor source,. No, with respect, this is yet further evidence that some editors will go to any length to prevent source material being added to articles. With this in mind, if no-one else wishes to include the findings I will lay out the basics in a sensitive and impartial manner as possible tomorrow citing the Newsweek source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.152.116 (talk • contribs) 15:10, June 21, 2017 (UTC)
            • No offense (TFD?) or 81.106.152.116, but it's not that simple. Just because something gets coverage by a RS does not equal automatic inclusion. There needs to be a WP:Consensus. Not to mention, in reference to your statement, "this is yet further evidence that some editors will go to any length to prevent source material being added to articles", casting WP:ASPERSIONS on the editors here that disagree is not in line with WP:CIV. These editors may be apprehensive for a good reason, and jumping to conclusions like these will probably not help you build a consensus for inclusion. DN (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

If this content does end up in the article in some fashion the Profiling Project needs to be to factually characterized.

  1. It is not a study group or group made up of George Washington University faculty.
  2. It is a group of mostly anonymous volunteers (with the exception of publicly-identified Kevin Doherty, a recent George Washington University graduate and one of the volunteers) who are associated with GWU and its forensic-psychology department.
  3. It is funded by GOP lobbyist Jack Burkina.
  4. That the Rich family's spokesman is quoted as saying “The family hopes that the general public takes the findings at face value—valuable experience in research collection and report writing for students at George Washington University—but in no way should take any findings contained within as new, credible or otherwise lending credence to conspiracy theories surrounding the circumstances of Seth’s death."

This section title isn't completely correct...that's all. Shearonink (talk) 23:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, according to this it is an organization that was founded and funded by Jack Burkman, specifically to investigate the Seth Rich murder. It's staffed by anonymous graduate students. They operate out of an "undisclosed location" in Arlington. They have no record of investigating any other crimes. They do not pay their staff (who are anonymous volunteer graduate students) but they did pay for an unusually photogenic office space, with a large professionally-done window logo, complete with a well-framed 'don't antagonize the family' mantra prominently and certainly not accidentally displayed on that website. And they have a PR firm publicizing their reports. None of that smells right to me. Wait and see if RS's other than Newsweek take the bait. Geogene (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

DN, "Consensus" means other editors agree. Since their agreement is supposed to be based on interpretation of policy, presenting policy based reasons for inclusion seems sensible. Geogene, your concerns are only relevant if editors are suggesting we use the Project as a source - we are not. The source is Newsweek and we can rely on them to determine the credibility of the Project. ABC News affiliate WJLA-TV, Heavy.com the Washingtonian, and WFXL Fox 31 have covered it, which is sufficient for inclusion. TFD (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
What do you want to say about it? Geogene (talk) 01:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
"DN, "Consensus" means other editors agree. Since their agreement is supposed to be based on interpretation of policy, presenting policy based reasons for inclusion seems sensible." - IMO This is an appeal to the letter, and not the spirit. Editors need time to read and process the claims and accusations made by all of us here, and make a decision, just as you have made yours. Your interpretation and tenacity regarding this particular reference, and Geogene's position, is notable. My advice is to tread more lightly. Work towards consensus and re-evaluate your dispute. DN (talk) 06:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Their PR agency has a "Team Bios" page: The two named leads, Kevin Doherty and Jennifer Rohrer, would appear to be not associated with GWU at all.

The GWU connection is the Project using "The Student Association for Forensic Psychology (SAFP)" ("a student organization comprised of graduate students pursuing a Master's in Forensic Psychology") at GWU as their staffers. There's no mention of "instructors" per se from GWU being involved other than these grad students.--NapoliRoma (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The report from the Profiling Project says "Who The Profiling Project is – An all-volunteer group of current and former George Washington University forensic psychology graduate students and instructors." More importantly, the reliable source we are using, Newsweek, also says, "instructors." If you think you are right and Newsweek is wrong, write to them and demand a retraction. Or write to Correct the Record. But Misplaced Pages would not work if every fact reported in every source was challenged by editors who who thought the sources got it wrong. TFD (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
wp:blp SPECIFICO talk 02:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Providing links to policy without explaining how they relate is as senseless as chanting magical incantations. TFD (talk) 04:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Agree here (Please explain). Not all of us have the policies and guidelines memorized, no offense, SPECIFICO- DN (talk) 06:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
TFD, I am reporting what The Profiling Project (through its PR agency) says about its own project. I know secondary sources are preferred in many cases, but I think the Project's own roster should stand as a canonical source.--NapoliRoma (talk) 04:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
There's a reason reliable secondary sources are preferred. They tell us what in primary sources is factual, what is opinion and what is relevant. If all editors would follow guidelines and policy then we could avoid all these unproductive discussions. TFD (talk) 04:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Not associated with GWU at all? The linked PDF says Doherty "is completing his masters at the George Washington University in forensic psychology," and Rohrer "later joined the George Washington University's Forensic Psychology program as a Visiting Assistant Professor in 2015." Is there a reason we should doubt these claims? Gravity 06:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
@FallingGravity: Yes. DN (talk) 06:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Okay. Gravity 07:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Argh, you're absolutely right, of course. Very simply: I did not read to the bottom of each of their bios, assuming their association with GWU would be front-loaded. A terrible assumption on my part, and I apologize.--NapoliRoma (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I would just accept what reliable secondary sources say. I don't think it is outrageous to assume that the people who prepared the report probably had some knowledge of investigation methods. TFD (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
We don't assume, we don't evaluate evidence, we just look for reliable sources to try and come to a WP:Consensus. DN (talk) 06:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Rewards

Original

The Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia (MPDC) posted its customary reward of $25,000 for information about the death.

Proposed Revision:

In addition to the $20,000 reward offered by Wikileaks, the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia (MPDC) posted its customary reward of $25,000 for information about the death.

One America News Network and Republican strategist Jack Burkman are offering rewards of $100,000 and $130,000 respectively in connection with the Rich investigation.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohawk82 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/wikileaks-offers-reward-in-killing-of-dnc-staffer-in-washington/2016/08/09/f84fcbf4-5e5b-11e6-8e45-477372e89d78_story.html?utm_term=.10367336c9dd
  2. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/23/oan-offers-100k-reward-for-details-leading-to-arre/
  3. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/23/oan-offers-100k-reward-for-details-leading-to-arre/
Seems fine, except the Wikileaks reward is in addition to the police reward. TFD (talk) 00:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
This is a non-starter for reasons discussed extensively and conclusively in several talk page threads. Please review. SPECIFICO talk 03:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't remember any reasons presented, just a multitude of links to policies with no explanation of their relevance. TFD (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Burkman's reward is already in the article and Washington Times isn't a reliable source. Geogene (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I think it is rs although there are better newspapers. It's the type of source that is best for local news, which this is. TFD (talk) 04:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Intent to distract

I have removed content suggesting (with weasely attribution) that the conspiracy theory was intended to distract from the Trump-Russia investigation. This may be true, but the cited sources didn't say that. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Haaretz is pretty explicit about it. Also, this was discussed before, you can type in "Russia" into the archive box.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
You must have misread the source. It actually says something quite different. It says that the right-wing media was accusing the mainstream media of using the Trump-Comey-Russia story to distract from the "real" story, which was Seth Rich. This "bizarre story" was aimed at undermining the credibility of the Russia story. But nothing in the source says it was intended as a distraction. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
The story is entitled "'Alt-right' Using Cruel Seth Rich Conspiracy Theory to Deflect From Trump’s Russia Scandal". It actually says both. The conspiracy theory was used to deflect from the Russia scandal AND they were being doubly dishonest by pretending that the Russia scandal was being used to deflect from the conspiracy theory. If you want to add that second part in there that's fine. But I don't see a reason to remove the first part.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
The headline's not reliable. It wasn't written by the journalist, it's not supported by the article, and it probably wasn't fact checked. Fails verification. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
DrFleischman - Actually, you are only partially quoting...Here it is in full.
  • "As the revelations about President Donald Trump and fired FBI Director James Comey exploded across all mainstream news outlets on Tuesday, conservative, pro-Trump outlets – from Breitbart and Fox News to Rush Limbaugh and InfoWars – operated on the other side of the looking glass. This is the bizarre story they told: That the entire Trump-Comey-Russia story is “fake news,” all manufactured by the crooked mainstream media to distract from the real story – that real proof was emerging that Rich, not Russia, had been the real source of WikiLeaks information that damaged the DNC."
I'm confused as to why the headline is not reliable as part of the cited material? In the meantime, I will add an attribution, as to eliminate the possibility of someone reading this in WP's voice. DN (talk) 05:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Where in that passage does it indicate that the Seth Rich story was intended as a distraction from the Russia investigation? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
DrFleischman It's not in that passage, it's in the title, which I already asked you, "why the headline is unreliable?", especially now that there is an attribution to the source in the context. I am unaware of any policy or guideline in that regard. If there explicitly is, then I will happily revert. DN (talk) 05:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
As I said earlier - It wasn't written by the journalist, it's not supported by the article, and it probably wasn't fact checked. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
The first and third claims are speculations and irrelevant. The second one is just not true.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
DrFleischman I'm trying to AGF, but repeating yourself is not answering my questions. DN (talk) 05:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I thought I was answering your question? You asked me why the headline was unreliable, and my answer was "It wasn't written by the journalist, it's not supported by the article, and it probably wasn't fact checked." How is that not answering your question? Am I missing something? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
What evidence do you have that it wasn't? As far as it not being supported by the article, I could add some more quotes from it, but I think I'll let you answer first, as to avoid any confusion. DN (talk) 05:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't know about "evidence," but I have a basic understanding of how headlines get written in most newsrooms. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm...Is there a WP policy or guideline explicitly saying not to use what is in the title? DN (talk) 05:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I vaguely remember editors pointing to something along those lines in the past, though I don't know what. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I just gave a good look to see if there was anything, and even if there was something to that affect, it's been removed. It's a safe call to leave it as is for now. Good looking out, though. DN (talk) 09:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that we'd need a policy or guideline specifically saying that headlines aren't reliable before we avoid relying on them? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
It certainly wouldn't hurt, but I believe consensus is more or less the deciding factor. DN (talk) 03:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Ok well so far, you haven't expressed any opinion, so it's just VM and me disagreeing over whether the Haaretz headline is reliable. Don't forget WP:BURDEN. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


There's also other sources, which have been brought up before. , . Also, the "failed verification" tag is inappropriate.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

No, neither of these verifies the content as currently written. The NPR source comes the closest. It says the Fox News Seth Rich story was used by Trump supporters to defect concern among intelligence officials about Trump-Russia connections. That's a far cry from saying the Seth Rich story was intended by right-wing media to distract from Trump-Russia connections. Let's try to stick to the sources, and keep the tag until this discussion is resolved. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Just a follow-on observation, in general in Misplaced Pages it's a good idea to read the sources and then add content based on them. This is a classic case of doing the opposite. Content was drafted and then semi-applicable sources were shoehorned in afterwards. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
DrFleischman I have some serious issues with the way you posed this topic at RSN . You left out my attribution edit, which is extremely misleading, and emboldened the parts that were edited. You also decided not to ping myself or Volunteer Marek for some reason. DN (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
My apologies on your first concern, which was very legitimate. It was an error on my part and I believe I've corrected it. As for your second concern, RSN is not an administrator noticeboard and there's no requirement to ping specific editors or give formal notification. That said, I did leave the notice here, which I knew would alert both you and VM (and did), so I honestly don't understand what the problem is. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
My first concern is directly related to the second. Posing misleading context like that to RSN would probably invalidate any consensus that could have been reached, and wasted a lot of time for the editors kind enough to participate. Not to mention, it will be even harder to AGF regarding your edits moving forward. DN (talk) 19:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Other sources that may help shed some light on this.

  • "The latest Seth Rich allegations became a welcome distraction from the constant revelations coming out of the Washington Post and the New York Times." - Vox - May 24th 2017 (under section "Conservative media has a field day")
  • "Hyper-partisan left-leaning outlets jumped in as well, alleging that their right-wing counterparts/enemies were using the Rich theory to distract everyone else from Trump's collusion with Russia. Much like the White House itself, the entire thing became one big finger-pointy mess." - Wired - May 18th 2017 - DN (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
The challenged text says, "Several observers noted that the timing of the these broadcasts...as most likely intended as a distraction." That means that it was most likely intended as a distraction, as several observers noted. But the Wired article says that these were "allegations" made by "yper-partisan left-leaning outlets." So the challenged phrasing presents the allegations from a "hyper-partisan left-leaning" view. BTW, the article does not identify these news outlets. I don't think we can use the description without knowing that. I assume she means Democrat-leaning. TFD (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
False. Don't ignore the ENTIRE THREAD of this discussion in the same way DrFleischman did on his post to RSN. The current form reads "According to Haaretz, the timing of the these broadcasts about the Seth Rich conspiracy theory was most likely intended by Pro-Trump outlets as a distraction from the negative news concerning President Trump." The excerpt from WIRED is ITSELF an allegation. Meanwhile, you have chosen not to comment on the quote from Vox, which is also telling... DN (talk) 02:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Whoa there. Let's try to keep the tension level down and try a little harder to assume good faith please. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Faith/Trust is also earned, and as I look at your edits here, DrFleischman, you have done little to warrant what good faith I had before this discussion. DN (talk) 04:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
The issue of using headlines as sources was discussed in a 2014 RfC, see "Add something about never using headlines as sources?". While there is no policy against it, I don't see reputable publications using headlines as sources, particularly when they do not reflect what is in the source. Note too that headline is "Alt-right' Using Cruel Seth Rich Conspiracy Theory to Deflect From Trump’s Russia Scandal." It does not say "Conservatives and members of the alt-right, along with certain commentators on Fox News." Can Richard Spencer and David Duke really deflect from Russiagate? Do you think their supporters would be talking about Russiagate if their fuehrers didn't decide to talk about Seth Rich, or would they be talking about whatever far right people talk about?
The Vox article says, "To Trump supporters, the claim that Rich had been murdered by the Clintons...distracted from ." It doesn't say that their news media was using the issue as a distraction.
TFD (talk) 04:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
"I don't see reputable publications using headlines as sources" - Well, that makes two of us. I posed a question as to why THIS publication's "headline" is in no way acceptable as context, or as DrF put it, "fails verification". I have tried to make suitable adjustments by changing the wording, including an attribution, to ensure NPOV. I am not here to argue justification as to their choice of headline, only as to whether or not it is WP:DUE in any way. I am not saying it belongs in the lead, and seeing as it is on the topic of Conspiracy Theories in a section that is titled Spread by social media and right wing I find this amount of resistance concerning, to say the least. DN (talk) 05:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Aftermath

James J. Lambden - Let's continue our discussion here. Feel free to ping VM, as you see fit. DN (talk) 04:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Re: this edit, as I tried to explain, the second sentence introduces "Bauman" without explaining who he is or in what way he's connected to the Rich family; this is the first mention of Bauman in our article. Rather than write my own description I copied our description from later in the article: "Brad Bauman, a communications professional and pro bono spokesman for the Rich family."
The supposedly improved version removes mention of Bauman but refers to "the Rich family spokesman", who is Bauman, which is not explained until later in the article. This is not an improvement. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
For now I will refer to Volunteer Marek, as your edit summary stated "unexplained revert; can't reference Bauman before explaining who he is". VM's edit summary stated "Nah, those are POV edits and poisoning the well not based on RS." - VM's edit seemed to properly attribute statements from the cited material in a way that did not present POV issues. DN (talk) 06:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Honestly I don't know how I can be any clearer. I'll leave this to others to sort out. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Profiling Project report

@Calton: Re Care to explain why you don't think so? It's what the report says.Terrorist96 (talk) 06:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Not my job, yours: if you want to add material, you have to explain why. Particularly if you want to shoehorn in some drivel propping up a conspiracy theory. --Calton | Talk 06:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I thought I did a pretty good job explaining with my edit summary. Doesn't seem like you even looked at it based on the knee-jerked revert (one minute after my edit). Please actually look at the edit summary, the DC ABC article and the actual report itself (all linked in my edit). The report mentions it on page 2 under the executive summary (#3 under "what we found"). And I'd like to remind you to AGF.Terrorist96 (talk) 06:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
You appear to not understand how a talk page works. Do you need advice? --Calton | Talk 07:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Umm... I don't even understand your objection to begin talking about it. I've been on Misplaced Pages for 10 years, so no, I don't need advice on how a talk page works. Please drop the snark. All I did was add information, included two sources for it (the primary source and a secondary source reporting on it) and you just came in and said "No, I don't think so" without explaining what was wrong with my edit and why you saw fit to revert it without even looking at it. If we're going to mention the Profiling Project report, it's important not to WP:CHERRYPICK.Terrorist96 (talk) 07:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Umm... I don't even understand your objection to begin talking about it Since I've made no such objection, I can see why you're confused. And referring to an edit summary -- not even quoting it, even -- is not "talking about it". Which, once again, is YOUR job, as someone who claims to have been editing Misplaced Pages for ten years should be familiar with. And since you also invoke WP:AGF, perhaps you should have some understanding of, given YOUR immediate assumption of bad faith a couple of sentences previous to that.
Are you SURE you don't want some pointers? --Calton | Talk 07:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Dude, you're going in circles. I described my edit summary to you. But here it is again: All I did was add information, included two sources for it (the primary source and a secondary source reporting on it) and here is the actual edit summary, since you didn't read it before reverting (otherwise why are you asking me for it?) Noted that the report says his "death was more likely committed by a hired killer or serial murderer" and included link to local DC ABC news story plus the report itself for verification Now stop being difficult and tell me what is your objection. The only assumption I made was that you knew what your were reverting.Terrorist96 (talk) 07:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
That this "Profiling Project" exists and has conducted its own investigation is of slight relevance to the article, so it got a brief mention in the "Aftermath" section. Their findings, whatever they may be, are not really relevant. They are not an investigative body, they are just a group of fans, onlookers, busybodies, what term you'd prefer. This is like 4chan"investigating" the Boston Marathon Bombing; somewhat mention-worthy that the case attracted internet sleuths, but their "findings"? Not important. ValarianB (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Speaking of conspiracy theories, is there any reason why the term is used in this article twice as often as in "911 Truth" or "Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories?" It seems that the emphasis is so shrill it weakens the case we want to make. TFD (talk) 07:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
"Conspiracy theory/theories/theorists" is mentioned 28 times in the article body by my count. What some elements of the right-wing have done regarding this case is certainly conspiracy theorizing, but we could be a less wordy about it. ValarianB (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Categories: