Talk:Murder of Seth Rich/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Murder?

Like, why is it called "the murder of seth rich"? He wasn't murdered. Murder is a specific charge of pre-meditated, pre-planned killing. The police have specifically said it was not murder - it was a botched robbery. There's a 0% chance the pepertator would be charged for murder even if he was caught. It would be manslaughter 108.171.128.173 (talk) 09:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The vast majority of sources refer to it as murder. Some small few of those refer to the botched robbery and even then, killing someone during a robbery is still murder. WP:COMMONAME dictates what we call things. SPACKlick (talk) 10:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know the legalese, but from watching years of cop shows (which represent or actually create actual common lay use): pre-meditated, pre-planned killing is first-degree murder, yes, but unplanned but deliberate killing is second-degree murder. Only killing though accident (or negligence) is manslaughter rather than murder. We don't know what actually happened, and quite possibly the killing was accidental, but it's also reasonable to assume that it was deliberate at the moment, although not planned in advance. Herostratus (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

That's not actually where the divide lays in the American common law system, though I can understand how you might get that impression from procedural crime dramas these days! The first thing to understand is that American jurisdictions vary widely on how they demarcate crimes related to the death of an individual, including how many divisions there are and what level of intent/what kind of mental state is required (also known as the mens rea element) for each. Increasingly more and more states have adapted their statutes to conform with something close to the Model Penal Code, but about half still use their own idiosyncratic approaches. In addition to what the criminal statutes say on the matter though, some states have also adopted the common law principle of the felony murder rule, meaning that the OP is wrong--a death, even an accidental death, which results in the commission of certain inherently dangerous crimes may be considered murder, even if it would otherwise be lesser offense (but this is a complex issue that interfaces with mens rea in ways that are difficult to explain briefly). I'm not sure where DC falls regarding either the statutes or jurisprudence for murder and felony murder, but I think it's a somewhat incidental question anyway, as I tend to agree that this is a WP:COMMONNAME and WP:WEIGHT issue. If/when the murderer is brought to trial, we can discuss those particulars, but for the purposes of the article name, we should comport our approach with our sources. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a murder. This isn't a court. Geogene (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Alt Right

So we're in a situation now, where Wikipedia is just a place for political extremists to post their conspiracy theories? It's ridiculous that this page exists. It's ridiculous that a page on Seth Rich exists. People die every day. People are killed by muggers every day.

The Alt Right/Far right have been using Seth Rich to campaign for Trump. That's the only reason the page exists. And the edit wars will be due to them wanting to word the article in a certain way, that promotes Trump.

Seth Rich's parents are reportedly devestated that far-right groups have been using their son's death to campaign for Trump. And it's truly embarassing that Wikipedia is allowing itself to be a platform for the far-right to campaign.

108.171.128.173 (talk) 09:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Any source for your comments there or is this just opinion? SPACKlick (talk) 10:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, all of that is true, especially the last sentence. Geogene (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Moving forward

I'm almost afraid to broach this for fear of kicking off more disagreement and tension, but I do think this a point at which we might begin to reconcile some of the differences of opinion that plagued discussion here through the last RfC. Besides which, there are some pressing questions remaining regarding the content. So the main question I have, now that the decision has been established to mention the Wikileaks and Burkman rewards, is whether we go further to mention (as established in our sources) that these rewards seem to have been political motivated (or at least, have a political dimension) and that the parties putting them forward have been criticized for engaging in speculation. This would not necessarily have to impute any specifics regarding the "conspiracy theories" regarding possible motivations for Rich's death. Conspiracy theory is a term which does not appear in our sources, but rather has been put forward by some of our editors here, and I for one tend to agree that it aptly describes the circumstances, though I think we need to be careful about how we define these notions in the prose, if we discuss them at all.

But to the extent that our sources do discuss the notions that have been floated that Rich's death was connected to his work at the DNC, said sources have been incredibly critical of that idea, regarding it as baseless at possibly also manipulative--and I think it is fair to note that. Certainly it would become absolutely necessary to state that the metropolitan police and other law enforcement investigating the death have said that there is no indication that his death was connected to his work, nor any special political knowledge or activity. It might also be worth mentioning that Rich's family feel that the mere notion that there is a connection between his death and his work is a cynical and obscene effort to leverage his death as part of a political attack.

Can I get thoughts, ideally from both sides of the aisle of the recent and divisive RfC, as to how we might WP:weight our approach to this aspect of the story such as to not forward a theory that has been roundly criticized as speculative and/or absurd, but also provide enough context to explain why the rewards are seen as political in nature. My concern is that if we do not do this, and one of our readers follows one of our links to an earlier and less detailed source on this matter (or researches the matter themselves) that they may end up without appropriate context and walk away thinking that Rich's death really might have been connected to his work--which, at this time anyway, does not seem plausible if one has all of the facts. I did not support the complete removal of the rewards in the RfC, but I do agree with the oppose !votes from that discussion that we should do everything reasonable, while sticking to our sources, to make sure that this man is not maligned as a consequence of his untimely death. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• I request that you remove this section and all it's text. It violates Arbcom American Politics 2 sanctions and much of it is contradiction to BLP. Otherwise, unfortunately, I will have to go to the WP:ARE. Feel free to remove this as well with the other text. Steve Quinn (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
• Note: I decided reinsert the "hatting" above. (I forgot) I previously notified two admins about this and I prefer to let them handle it [1], [2], [3], [4]. I contacted two Admins about this approximately 21 hours ago and 10 hours ago respectively---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in these discussions, but I don't see what's so inflammatory about the above. But maybe the poster has a toxic history or there's other history I don't know.

Anyway, to take up what the poster was saying, here we have a quite odd little article. It's quite a poor article. It's certified to exist, but the reader coming here doesn't get much info. There's no mention that trolls have seized on this event to make it a (very minor and passing, but apparently sufficiently historically notable) cause célèbre as a conspiracy theory.

Why did the famous organization WikiLeaks offer a reward for information this event? What is the connection? The article doesn't say. The reader is left puzzled and hanging. Can this article not be improved by explaining to the reader what is going on?

Googling "seth rich conspiracy theories" gets me 390,000 hits. Isn't there something there that can be used? The fifth hit is NBC News, a large and respected news organization, at the article WikiLeaks Fuels Conspiracy Theories About DNC Staffer's Death, which says "Seth Rich... was shot and killed... Rich's murder quickly became a fascination of right-wing conspiracy theorists, including longtime informal Donald Trump adviser Roger Stone, who told NBC News that he has been in contact with WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange."

Can we not use material like this to explain to the reader the reason we consider this event sufficiently notable enough to have an article on it.

Conspiracy theories are real things. We report on them all the time. Some conspiracies are real so calling something a theory about a conspiracy does not mean it is false. We can present what notable, reliable, neutral sources say about the event and let the reader decide for herself.

At Vince Foster we say "Theories of a cover-up persisted, however, some of which were promulgated by the Arkansas Project. The speculation and conspiracy theories featured on talk radio and elsewhere..." and so on. These are all true statements backed by refs to respectable, notable, neutral sources. It's not so hard.

Are we not even allowed to discuss bringing this article up to bare acceptable standards, or at least making not outright weird? Will this post also be hatted? Will I be subject to sanctions for even discussing this matter? How can we move forward if we can't even discuss these matters? Herostratus (talk) 16:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Herostratus - Please go ahead put whatever you want in this article. And then if it gets removed, I recommend replacing it, either as soon as possible or wait 24 hours and one minute. (Redacted). Steve Quinn (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, OK. I'm not that involved in the article. But OK. But the rest of your advice seems rather cynical and I'm not interested in that. Herostratus (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I unhatted the section because I didn't see how it's inflammatory. I would say that Snow Rise is wrong about sources not mentioning "conspiracy theories". I'm in partial agreement that the article now needs expansion, because the RfC called for a at least a minimalist inclusion of the Wikileaks reward. Despite that, I don't believe that a minimalist inclusion is possible, I think it requires both context and debunking, and that anything else would not be neutral. I'm not in favor of just leaving WP:Profringe insinuations there by themselves. Geogene (talk) 23:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Geogene I don't agree with your action Geogene. It is possible to engage in the type of discussion that you describe without engaging in the disruptive editing that is being advocated by the material you unhatted. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you be more specific, without yourself running afoul of any rules? Geogene (talk) 00:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Geogene see my response to Herostratus just below:

@Herostratus: Perhaps I need to apologize because I need to take into account that perhaps you are a late arrival. Basically what the material above appears to be advocating is disruptive editing. It is promoting taking a giant step backward, and also goes way outside the scope of the RFC closing decision. The RFC decision does not include engaging in most everything that is written in that material. It is a forum for being argumentative and WP:IDHT. If you watch things unfold you will likely see this happen.

Policy and guidelines fall on deaf ears. And if you look at the above sections, you will notice the author of the above material "talking" circles around policy and guidelines with 500 word blocks of texts each time, and there is always a counter response. Just sit back and watch. Also, it is not the words this person is using - it is the substance of what they are advocating Steve Quinn (talk)

I'd like my thoughts regarding Steve's accusations (and behaviour with regard to the consensus discussions above) to be carefully considered by the two admins he has reached out to, as well as by any other interested party who comes to review this matter--and ideally Steve himself. But I am placing my comments in a collapsible format due to their length. I believe most of what I have to say is pretty readily apparent from the above, but I have lingering, if dim, hopes that I can convince him that the editors who disagree with him here and who endorsed the clear consensus above are not his enemies, and that we'd be thrilled to work with him on a middle-ground solution, if only he'd WP:Drop the stick on not wanting this article to exist at all. To the admins themselves, I apologize for the length of my comments, but as you begin to familiarize yourself with the consensus that was formed here as a result of the RfC (which I arrived at via bot notice) and with Steve's propensity for selectively reading the comments of others and interpreting them in the most negative/anti-AGF light possible, I hope you will appreciate why I felt the need to respond to these accusations of his at length. Snow let's rap 05:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Steve, you're free to ask for a review of the closure. I think it's a dead-on-arrival approach, given the clear consensus above and the fact that the closer was not just thoughtful in their consideration of the close, but also made a fair deal of concession to those who opposed the consensus view; those concessions were a consequence more of how vocal the minority were here than A) their relative representation amongst the editors who commented, B) how consistent those minority views were with community consensus on such matter, nor C) the strict reading of the relevant policies. Nevertheless, I respect Dennis Brown's effort to strike a balanced tone and move the issue along as civilly and smoothly as possible, and though I didn't agree with him word per word, I can accept his call as a reasonable interpretation of the consensus; I can almost guarantee a review will reach the same conclusion. What I object to much more strongly is your attempt to try to chill discussion of how to implement a clear consensus from a closed discussion, becuase you still just disagree with it. More specifically, I deeply object to the way you have selectively quoted me and misrepresented both my thoughts on this matter and my actions when you went looking to cherry pick an admin to try to frame this issue to in the hopes of once again trying to side-step process because you can't accept the clear consensus that has been established by the editors responding to the above RfC--most of whom, like me, came here with no previous involvement in the dispute and have just given their perspectives as they see them. Fortunately, I've long been familiar enough with MastCell that I can safely trust him to make a comprehensive review of the circumstances here and to understand the context of your request--and I'll trust the same to be true of Awilley. But more than anything I just object to massive collection of assumptions you made about my motivations trying to move things forward here. The way you twisted my comments in your mind to reach conclusions which are nowhere evidenced in my comments (which I don't think I could have made more civil or neutral or less predictive of a specific outcome) is not just a striking in its refusal to WP:Assume good faith--it is also, in my opinion, an indication that after a series of losses on consensus rulings here, you are seeing red and thus also seeing the worst in "opposition". You may choose not to believe this, but the above was a genuine effort to try to bridge the cap between the two sides that were clashing her before I even arrived for the RfC and which I hoped could be reconciled before I kicked off from this page. I made every effort I could think of to tailor my suggestions to give full effect to the concerns raised by you and SpaceTime as the most vocal of a small minority in that discussion. I had hoped that you would understand that we don't want to through the baby out with the bathwater and even though the include approach gained a consensus that couldn't be more clear, we don't dismiss your concerns in their entirety. You somehow found a way to see an enemy in those words, but I am confident that a review by most any experienced and uninvolved editor will find that I was being quite sincere when I said that we should be reaching towards reasonable, middle-ground solutions. I'm sorry that my approach failed to convince you of my sincerity, but that's the way things go on a project like this sometimes, and I feel I reached out in as friendly and collaborative a tone as I could possible render. So I must tell you that I feel like your reaction is way uncalled for, over-the-top, and reaching towards WP:Disruptive territory. Here's the situation as I see it: 1) You object to the existence of this article on WP:NOTNEWS grounds, but the vast majority of involved editors feel differently. 2) If you can't have article deleted outright, you oppose the inclusion of certain facts central to the coverage in our sources, on the argument that they violate aspects of BLP; the strong consensus of editors above disagrees that those principles apply as you want them to apply in this instance. Nor was the consensus even close to being cleanly split on the issue; the sum of the perspectives is clear to anybody who is looking at the above and just absolutely determined to not accept it. Now you want to label me as causing conflict for starting a thread which did absolutely nothing more than ask the question of "Ok, so given the close, how do we implement it in a way that maximizes addressing the concerns others have voiced here." That is not just an acceptable and appropriate question to be asking at this time, but indeed a necesary question in light of the close and the desire of other editors to move on. It was also crafted with an exceptional effort to invite input on your concerns and show that we (or at least I) had not forgotten them...you simply misread it as an attempt to brush them under the table, because your approach here has become so confrontational that you can't fathom someone "on the other side" is trying to reach out to you an incorporate your concerns. In any event, I'm not the one who is fighting against the consensus and refusing to WP:Drop the stick when I ask that question. The one refusing to accept consensus--the one who is attempting to stall it and drag it back despite the lack of any significant support, is you--and you're doing so through techniques that are, in my opinion, beginning to cross the threshold into truly WP:Disruptive (and increasingly uncivil]]) territory. Hatting the comments of other editors, moving the comments of other editors to new threads so that they appear less directly critical of you, and trying to drag admins in the frackus to try to prop up your rejected approach and stall the implementation of consensus are not going to get you the result you desire, I can fairly well guarantee that. And the irony is A) that I was just here for the RfC and the aftermath and was never going to play a strong role in the future direction of discussion, and B) more so than anyone who supported inclusion in the RfC, I really wanted to find a way to support that consensus and your concerns. But I suppose it didn't really matter who raised the question about how to approach the consensus--you were always going to attack the very notion on principle, because you are that vehemently opposed to the consensus view in general, and will not be swayed from your goal to Right this wrong, as you see it. TLDR: If you earn yourself a WP:BOOMERANG for refusing to drop the stick and accept consensus here, don't look to any of the rest of us to blame. There comes a time occasionally on this project when you have to accept that your argument did not win the day. I suggest to you that this time has come for you on this issue and that it's time to take a pause and reflect on whether your current approach is really going to get you any result that you want. As a last comment, I'd like request that you re-read the post with which I opened this thread--but without coming at them from a perspective where you assume you are going to see exactly the interpretation you most dislike. I think if you calm down and read my comments without that presumption colouring your vision, you will see that I am saying "I agree 90% with how you interpret the facts here, but I don't agree that this article should be expunged and I think we need to find a neutral, ENCYCLOPEDIC way of saying, "These ideas are nonsense." You and I are in agreement as to reality of these theories and how they came about--really, really, really, I promise you we are'. But we can't use language like that in our prose for an encyclopedic article and we can't ignore that this is an aspect of the story covered by our sources (who also think these notions are lunacy--something I made great efforts to emphasize above). So the best we can do is share the words of our sources that do, in a fashion that accurately reflects their sentiments and WP:WEIGHT. Snow let's rap 05:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Well all things considered I think that we should keep material in this article to the minimum that will serve our purpose, since it seems to be a contentious article and hammering out each new sentence would take time. To that end I'm proposing (at least for now) adding just one sentence. I suggest it as the second sentence of the lede (although it could go elsewhere):

A conspiracy theory was advanced that he was assassinated, although no evidence for that has been presented.

All four sources are respected and notable journalistic sources considered to be reliable and well with in the neutral area of the spectrum. All four sources support the first clause. The second clause is a negative, and the Snopes cite is particularly useful for supporting that. I think its a service to reader to include the second clause. It's not that we know that the conspiracy theory is false. Maybe it isn't. It's just there's no evidence, and that's useful information. Some readers will doubtless be of the mind "Well that proves nothing" and some won't, and that's fine: we're here to present the salient facts and let the reader make up her own mind.

So would this be useful forward movement here? Herostratus (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Herostratus - please see my above response Steve Quinn (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose The wording ("no evidence" and "insinuations") is nowhere near harsh enough. These conspiracy theories are disgusting, sources reflect that. I understand you want this to be encyclopedic, but this subject matter is not inherently encyclopedic. Geogene (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
• I also Oppose. This actually falls outside the scope of the RFC (similar to what I mentioned above). And I agree with Geogene, that it is insuations and no evidence and/or speculation. These only support conspiracy theorizing. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Well "insinuations were made" rather than "a conspiracy theory was advanced" is arguably more accurate. For instance here HuffPost has Newt Gingrich saying "If someone is gunned down in our national capital, we ought to have a pretty passionate interest in knowing why. And if it clearly wasn’t a mugging and it wasn’t for money, what was it for?" For my own part I personally would characterize that as insinuating something; a conspiracy theory would be more direct and overt about what was supposed to have happened. However, the source itself uses the term "conspiracy theory" and we go with the source, not what I would say.

As to the rest, @Geogene if everyone could curb their emotions. Opposing on the grounds of not being "harsh enough" (we are not here to be harsh we are writing encyclopedia articles) leave the article in its current poor state. This does not help the Wikipedia and so don't do that. @Steve Quinn this has little to do with the RfC. The RfC was passed and so Wikileaks and Julian Assange and their reward are now directly mentioned in the article. We are now on the next step.

If editors don't like my wording please suggest alternatives that might serve the purpose of making the article not, you know, suck. Herostratus (talk) 01:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey, @Herostratus:, read the sources. The idea is for the article to show that those claims are without merit, just as the sources show they are without merit. Your wording doesn't do that. If you can't agree to do that, then I won't be able to support any suggested wordings of yours. WP:NEUTRALITY is not open for negotiation. Further, what do you mean "the muggging wasn't for money"? That's not what the police think. By the way, people get gunned down in DC every day Geogene (talk) 01:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Well but we are not here to didactically tell the reader what is and what is not without merit. We are an encyclopedia not a radio talk show. Our mission is to present facts. Let the reader make up her own mind. Your militant-tendency nonsense -- "if the article can't be the way that pleases me, by taking a stand on a contentious subject, then I oppose any incremental improvements, and would prefer the article to suck" -- is so anti-Wikipedian that I feel justified and confident in discounting your voice altogether. Please leave space for editors who do have useful and cogent things to say. Herostratus (talk) 01:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Considering that you just insulted me, I don't appreciate your doubling down. Let me try to phrase this differently: your suggested wording would make the article suck more by being pro-fringe. Have you heard of "damning by faint praise", bro? This is an endorsement of a fringe position by not passing (reliably sourced) judgement on it. Geogene (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I just want to say - this has nothing to do with your wording. I was specifically referring to the sources. Sorry, if you read that as being emotional - I wasn't emotional at all about your proposal. I just don't agree with it, per WP:NPOV. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind - I misread two of the sources - I'll be back ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• How about this for wording "It has been established that multiple conspiracy theories pertaining to his death have no merit."Steve Quinn (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, I prefer to mention and debunk each particular conspiracy theory. Steve Quinn (talk)

By the way, the phrase "it has been established" of course correlates with the sources that you have provided. Kinda like our (Wikipedia"s) form of evidence. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't like "has no merit". "no evidence" is a statement of fact. "No merit" is a judgement of value. It's getting into the swamplands. Let the reader herself decide if "no evidence" == "no merit". All other factors aside, "no evidence" is also more likely to be accepted by consensus.

Colleague, I am trying to add one sentence here. You can go on a crusade to add a whole paragraph later. You are standing in the way of progress because my sentence doesn't do everything you want (which sounds like it would be contentious and possibly never get accepted) right away. This is mediocre. Don't be that. Have you heard the saying "perfect is the enemy of better". Herostratus (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Can that be, "multiple right-wing conspiracy theories pertaining to his death have no merit?" I believe most sources support that. Geogene (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with "no evidence" - to me this is fine and Herostratus makes a good point here. So let's continue building this sentence. I propose "It has been established that there is no evidence supporting the multiple conspiracy theories pertaining to the death of Seth Rich" (or murder of Seth Rich if that is preferred)". Steve Quinn (talk) 02:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, that seems kind of clunky to me. It might be OK to simply say, "There is no evidence supporting assertions of conspiracy theories pertaining to the death of Seth Rich." Steve Quinn (talk) 03:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, that's an apophasis. But I appreciate the good faith effort from all involved, and I'll give it some more thought. Geogene (talk) 03:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

WOW! Phew! OK! Yeah, Geogene, please give it a try. Thanks. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and uh... No "apophasis" intended. I didn't think I was capable of such a thing. I guess this why I don't work on conspiracy theories. Apparently it is too easy to be inexact, contradictory, and meely mouthed. Whoa! Steve Quinn (talk) 04:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion for lead

How about adding this to the lead: "Rich's death has led to the circulation of numerous partisan conspiracy theories, particularly among people that hate Hillary Clinton. Rich's family and the police reject all of them as being without merit." Sourced here: [5]. Geogene (talk) 02:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Per the recent RFC close, there is strong concern for the family as well as our WP:BLP policy, so the way information is included must be considered. For example, Wikipedia editors must not participate in or prolong victimization, and therefore I am reluctant to put into the lead any explicit information about anyone accusing Rich of possibly having been a spy. The Rich family has said that such theories are hurtful, so I am not convinced that they should be explicitly mentioned in the lead. On the other hand, the Rich family has said that it appreciates all rewards for information, so that ought to be included in this article (even if the rewards are actually motivated by the conspiracy theories).Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion the way that we "do not participate in prolonging the victimization" is by explicitly showing why these theories are nuts. Of course, we cannot do that in our own, subjective voices, per WP:NPOV, but we can use our sources to emphasize, as strongly as WP:WEIGHT will allow, that the reliable sources themselves think these theories are nuts. This story is already out there, and to the extent that this unfortunate young man is being "maligned" by them, we're doing him and his family no favours by trying to pretend that it's not in the press and that multiple people have offered rewards, apparently with an attempt to fuel these conspiracy theories.

We have an opportunity to do what an encyclopedia should here and give proper context to these rumors so that people are given the benefit of the facts--so they can see these tinfoil notions for what they are. Some readers might still be inclined to reject those facts (as we present them through our reliable sources) and continue believe the spin anyway--so be it, they were always going to buy the conspiracy theory, regardless. But pretending these rumors do not exist is not a viable option, and never was--and at least by acknowledging their existence we have a chance to educate some readers as to their lunacy, by showing what the secondary sources are saying about how crazy this spin/conspiracy theorizing is. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a little reductionist for my taste, but given the degree of intractability that has set in here, I'd be willing to support this as a reasonable middle-ground solution. I'd prefer a fuller discussion of our sources, which give a much cleaner and deeper repudiation of the conspiracy theories and make clear the political motivations that the sources feel are behind them, but this seems like a reasonable compromise. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, if people want to discuss conspiracy theories in this article, then I'd suggest appending a separate section for it, and merely saying something short and vague in the lead, like "Rich's murder has become fodder for conspiracy theorists".Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

In principal, I believe that's an approach that may work, though I think we'd need a little bit more context than that (2-3 sentences seems like a minimum to capture at least some of the nuance).

We'd also need to source it well; right now we have a disagreement between parties who want to ignore these aspects and others who want to cover it, but make clear that the notions are crazy. There's a third group which could manifest at any time: those who think these theories are not conspiracy theories and want them covered as reasonable speculation. We can head off another conflagration here before it happens if we carefully attribute a section like you are tentatively proposing. We can establish a stable version which leans on the WP:WEIGHT of our many sources that say these theories are political fiction of the most cynical and crass variety. Without mentioning the conspiracy theories now (as conspiracy theories, with the attribution to our sources defining them as such, or as close as they come to it), it will be much harder to fight off the inevitable calls (from IPs, if nowhere else) to have the conspiracy theories covered as fact, which would be the scenario most inconsistent with our sources and the one I think we'd all most like to avoid. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

You might want a different source. I just mentioned Newsweek above (#Is the Telegraph piece acceptable as a BLP ref for contentious facts?) and if Newsweek is any good anymore (don't know) then I pointed out that here they said "The cops suspected Rich was a victim of an attempted robbery, one of many that plague the neighborhood. Strangely, however, they found his wallet, credit cards and cellphone on his body." Since gooose sauce is gander sauce, Newsweek should be either in or out, maybe... Herostratus (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The police say they have more questions than answers. This being an open murder investigation, everyone is a suspect (you, me, everyone). So badmouthing conspiracy theorists may not be such a great idea, especially since they're living people too, and we probably shouldn't imply that Assange is just stirring up trouble and hurting the Rich family by a bogus and misleading interference in this case.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

False equivalence. They taught us about it once in my high school logic course. Thanks for the chuckle. SPECIFICO talk 19:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect application of the false equivalence principle. (Insert joke about the quality of high-school teaching here.) Anythingyouwant is correct. Anything we say or imply about Julian Assange is must follow our WP:BLP policy. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

If we are going to critique the possible reasons for Assange's reward, it might be better to put the critique at his BLP instead of here, though maybe a summary of the critique could go in this article. Right now, the Julian Assange BLP does not mention Rich.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Come on, let's keep this civil. AYW's concern is valid at least insofar as we shouldn't speculate on Assange's motives (or anyone's) beyond what our sources say. At the same time, we do have sources which describe Assange's actions in critical terms and (most germane to our consideration here) make a link between these actions and the conspiracy theories that followed. The Newsweek article, though perhaps not a paragon of objective journalism, is nevertheless on point here, but it's difficult to tell whether it is implying that Assange was actively trying to muddy the waters or if he was merely being irresponsible. For my part, it's hard to imagine why Assange would suggest that this death would be an issue of concern for Wikileaks sources unless he was trying to imply that the Rich was one of those sources. Given that Wikileaks' legal team later seemed to "clarify" that Rich was not a source, that puts Assange's actions in rather a negative light, but we're sill constrained by what the sources have to say about his actions directly--and they seem to be saying "Why the hell would he offer the reward in the first place?"

The Newsweek article is less equivocating when it comes to the various "right-wing media outlets" that began to take up the story and run with it on speculation alone; these are characterized as "apparent political exploitation". Actually, that characterization is made in such a way that it maybe was meant to include Assange's original comments too, but it's difficult to say. What is clear is that the source regards these theories as non-credible, a matter of political spin, and just generally not rooted in reality. Other sources take the same approach, characterizing the theories as a general product of political hatchet-work, but without laying it at the feet of anyone in particular. I'd say that's good for us, because it allows us to characterize the theories as such without getting mired in specific recriminations. But with a new reward offer now in play, that might not stay the state of affairs. I suspect Burkman's offer will be seen by sources as the most obviously transparent effort to try to prop up this theory yet. We can cover that, of course, if it becomes an issue of WP:WEIGHT, but for me, the most important task here is making the reader aware of how far-fetched the notions are regarded to be by sources; demonstrating who is behind the conspiracy theories and what their likely motives/biases are is perhaps relevant, but a somewhat subordinate issue. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Where did the Wikileaks' legal team "clarify" that Rich was not a source? I am pretty sure that they have always maintained that they will not say whether he or anyone else is or is not a source. (Excuse me a minute, I need to finish uploading documents to Wikileaks that will blow the lid off the Toynbee tiles mystery...) --Guy Macon (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct that they specifically said that Assange's statement should not be interpreted to suggest that [Rich] was a source for Wikileaks or that his death was in any way connected to the organization." or something to that effect; boiler-plate legalese that allows Assange to have plausible deniability as to whether he ever suggested Rich was a source in the first place. And indeed, as I understand it, this is their standard approach to all sources--it's just they are usually responding to outside speculation about sources, whereas in this case, Assange kicked off that speculation by hinting at the connection himself. In any event, the sources do seem to suggest that the later legal statement was the organization retreating from the implication. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

BLP says we don't drag a non-notable civilian into the fray here. Assange is known for his tactics and antics and hatred of Clinton. False equivalence, per BLP. Please review the policy. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 00:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Was that meant to respond to my post? Your comments don't seem to track from what I was talking about. As to the substance of your comments: Your reading of BLP has been rejected by most editors here (please read the above WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Cheers.) And ok, so "Assange is known for his tactics and antics and hatred of Clinton." Ok, if you say so, but we can't predicate our content on your WP:Original research as to Assange's character and motivations. We have to work with what the sources say about his conduct here. We do have some that are broadly critical of how he approached this situation, but I'm unclear as to exactly what your arguing for here in this regard. I get that you think this article is a coatrack and shouldn't exist. I get that you think we shouldn't be mentioning the rewards at all. But neither of those were the issue we were discussing... Snow ^{let's rap}

My response was to Guy and others, not to you, hence the od. It's incorrect to state that WP's BLP policy has been rejected here. It may have been misapplied to the facts and references relating to this article, but that does not validate the false equivalence, contrary to BLP, that Guy Macon presented. Hence my reply. It had nothing to do with the RfC. SPECIFICO talk 00:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: I suggest you read this talk page. I know you're a recent arrival here, but there's been ample documentation of Assange's modus operandi and it's hardly "OR" to refer to it. That charge has already been aired here. The AfD concluded some time ago, so my comments relate to the current thread, nothing more. SPECIFICO talk 00:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Wrong. There absolutely is not "ample documentation of Assange's modus operandi". It is OK for you to give us your personal (and completely unsourced) opinion of Julian Assange, but it cannot be inserted into the article without being immediately removed on BLP grounds. The same BLP policy that protects Seth Rich from unsubstantiated accusations protects Julian Assange from unsubstantiated accusations. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Please review the content of this talk page on the subject. SPECIFICO talk 02:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, but might you be willing to accept a much narrower and balanced comment about Assange's conduct here, if it involved full attribution to sources, and was either worded neutrally or consisted of a direct quote or two? If I may suggest, I think that there might be an unexplored middle-ground here that would satisfy the concerns of both of you. Specifico feels that there established cause for judging Assange's behaviour as political and biased (at the least). But of course, this isn't really the article to discuss Assange's reputation (be it positive or negative features), nor really even to discuss his relationship with the Clintons in particular. And you object that any characterization would need to be reflected in the WP:WEIGHT of sources anyway, and that it needs to meet a particularly high standard here, because this is a BLP context. To me, the way between these two extreme positions (both of which have some merit) is to narrowly craft the wording of any discussion of Assange to his activities relative to this specific context.

The starting point here would be to look at the sources; most of them seem to speak as to what he did, and some of them even classify those actions as inflammatory, having set off this furor. But not many of them so far have been long on speculating on his motivation here, and only a few have hinted at outright bad faith. How much discussion of Assange's role would you be willing to support, with ideal attribution and carefully-crafted prose? Any at all? Snow ^{let's rap} 02:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I have no basic problem with anything properly sourced that says "Mr X said that Assange's motivations were Y" as long as we don't imply that Mr X has some psychic ability to actually know what motivates another person. The problem is that both the opinion that Assange just did it for publicity and the theory that Assange did it because Seth Rich was one on his sources are equally unconfirmed speculations. You can't really allow one while excluding the other. My preference is to stick to verifiable facts like "Wikileaks offered a $20,000 reward." I am wary of something like "there are conspiracy theories about his death" unless very carefully worded. And given the reluctance of a vocal minority here to even allow a basic fact like "Wikileaks offered a $20,000 reward", you can count me out when it comes to trying to find wording that won't just cause another shitstorm. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you address the central point. If Guy Macon puts out a press release that he will pay $100,000 for the retrieval of an alien spaceship from Area 51, should that go in the Area 51 article? SPECIFICO talk 04:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The answer is, of course, yes but only if if the coverage of my reward in reliable sources satisfies WP:V and WP:WEIGHT. As an aside, I might point out that in the course of my work as a consultant I retain the services of a bonding agency, and they would be on the hook for the $100,000 if I made a bonded promise to pay such a reward. I wonder what they would charge me to bond the reward? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I am withdrawing from this discussion

I have given this a lot of thought, and I find myself no longer able to assume good faith from certain other individuals. First there was the battle to delete the page (the page was not deleted). Then there was the battle to keep out the Wikileaks reward, even after there was a clear consensus to include it. (the Wikileaks reward ended up being included). Then there was the battle to delete a citation that supports the claim the Wikileaks reward exists (the citation ended up being included). And now there is another battle to delete the page, which looks like it is going to go down in flames with the page retained. I am pretty sure that eventually an admin is going to step in and start sanctioning editors for refusing to accept consensus, and I don't want to be seen as having any involvement in that.

You can respond to this if you wish, but I will not see it. I am unwatching the page. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty much impossible to edit here. We can mention a 20K reward and a 25K reward, but a 100K reward requires the most elaborate deliberations. Oy. I'm de-watchlisting as well.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Is the Telegraph piece acceptable as a BLP ref for contentious facts?

From this

Police stated that he may have been killed in an attempted robbery but that his belongings were not taken

an editor wanted to delete "...but that his belongings were not taken" on the grounds that its misleading to the uninformed (the edit summary was "if you're going to say 'his belongings were not taken' you need to also say that this is common for botched robberies" which is common sense: if you confront a guy to rob him and it goes south you presumably have one thought: get the fuck away stat unless you're completely meth-addled)

Anyway an editor reverted this with summary of "No you don't. You need to say what the source cited says, without any WP:OR added." And indeed the Telegraph says this:

Seth Rich, 27, was shot twice in the head in what appeared to be an attempted robbery near his home in a suburb of the US capital on July 10, but his belongings were not taken.

However, the entire Telegraph article is, essentially, an editorial. The editorial opens

Speculation was swirling in Washington about whether the murder of a young Democratic Party worker could be linked to last month's leaking of internal party emails.

when of course there was no such speculation (there may have been a handful people who know perfectly well there was no connection talking it up; that is not speculation, which occurs when people have actual doubt about an event). The rest of the editorial -- I think that's a better description than "news article" -- goes on the arrange facts in such a was as to leave the impression that Rich was assassinated on political grounds.

Since we know that the editorial says false things on purpose, and goes out of its way to imply other false things, should we really be using it? How is that a service to the reader? Common sense tells us that when the victim is killed in a botcher robbery the murderer commonly high-tails it out of there without taking time to riffle the victim's dead body. I'm willing to be gainsaid if somebody has a good ref. I'd be willing to bet money there's no such ref. The burden is on the editor wanting to prove the highly counter-intuitive assertion.

Anyway, we don't want to be misleading the reader. There's no benefit to including"...but that his belongings were not taken" or "...but that he was wearing mismatched socks" or any other factoids presented in such a way as to mislead the reader as to their bearing on the main matter.

Anyway, since the Telegraph piece is not really a news piece in the normal sense, its not a good source for facts, and I've removed it a source, along with the material it was used to source. Herostratus (talk) 13:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Source that was removed by Herostratus:[6] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/10/wikileaks-offers-20000-reward-over-murder-of-democrat-staffer-se/

I have a problem with the above "Since we know that the editorial says false things on purpose, and goes out of its way to imply other false things, should we really be using it?" argument. First off, it isn't an editorial. Second, if we allow Herostratus to reject sources that he believes "say false things on purpose", do we allow the same kind of source removal from creationists, holocaust deniers, and other individuals who are convinced that the sources are lying? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Well the difference is between science-based, fact-based, logic-based material using the Reasonable person standard, and fringe nonsense where extremely unlikely conspiracies are promoted on no evidence.

Obviously, any thing can be included on the basis of "well, we can't draw the line. We can't make judgements about 'good' and 'bad' sources. If we allow any editor the right to reject any sources then we have to allow holocaust deniers etc. the same right".

But of course we do differentiate sources all the time, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources. This looks like a very poor source. For some reason you think that it's a good source. Let's let other editors weigh on that, and I've opened a thread over at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Telegraph and let's see how it shakes out. Herostratus (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

One of the things we know is false is the flat statement "Speculation was swirling in Washington..." when no such speculation was swirling. Words mean things. "Washington" is a synecdoche for "Government and media circles in the nation's capital". I challenge anyone to demonstrate that there is uncertainty, doubt, and speculation at all -- let alone "swirling" -- about this matter in circles Washington D.C. worthy of being mentioned in this context. It's false on it's face. Passing it along is essentially lying to the reader. Let's not.

The very clear implication of "but that his belongings were not taken" is that this is unusual enough to be worth remarking on, and casts doubt on the robbery-gone-bad theory. This is anther false thing; being cast in a "hey-just-sayin'" mode doesn't make it not false.

All I'm asking is that we not lie to the reader. Herostratus (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

You mean this Nick Allen, the so-called journalist who won’t let mere facts get in the way of a sensationalist piece of fiction he can sell to the likes of Matt Drudge? That Nick Allen? As for the particular piece of journalistic inferiority in question, more than half of it is a lengthy direct Assange quote, while the rest consists of rumors (swirling speculation), uncorroborated "facts" (shot in the head – get it (nudge, nudge), execution style?), i.e., otherwise known as totally made up, and innuendo by drawing a direct line from the shooting to the publication of the stolen emails (unsourced rumor-mongering). And, lest I forget the newspaper that employs this "journalist", the Telegraph has lately been renowned for reporting several people dead who weren’t, it has several major conflicts of interest because of being paid large amounts of money by companies and a Russian government-owned newspaper, and so on. Heck no, this prime example of an unreliable source ain’t acceptable! Thanks for taking out the trash, Herostratus.

As for the description of the shooting, it’s partially incorrect, according to the MPDC press release and all reliable sources from the days immediately following the homicide (police officers were patrolling in the area when they heard the shots). And the wording is slanted: Police stated that he may have been killed in an attempted robbery but that his belongings were not taken. Subtext: But we know bettter, don’t we? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Also strange that it doesn't say anything about the fact that police arrived almost immediately after the shooting (because of ShotSpotter) and that the strap Rich's watch was damaged, ie, as if somebody had just been trying to tear it off of him. I'm shocked about that, after weeks of pompous grandstanding about not censored and we have to include everything. Geogene (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Working on it, starting with the fuzzy Goofy slippers he loved wearing as a small child. For now, still trying to wrap my head around the concept of it being "permissible to includ[e] this singular fact, with some limitation." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 04:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 04:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

And we're certainly off to a good start with the next reward offer by this guy. Publicity stunts 'r' us! Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

But this is exactly the reason we couldn't ignore this aspect of the topic; it's a shame that this dog and pony show has gotten attached to death of someone who just wanted to serve the public interest--but unfortunately, that's the reality and the fact is that all of the national news coverage is, understandably and yet sadly, focused upon these actions. What that means in practical terms is that virtually every reader who comes to this page is doing so because they've heard about this weirdness and want further information. So we had a choice between A) abrogating our responsibility to provide a neutral and encyclopedic overview of the situation by pretending nothing happened (in which case our readers might go and read who knows what biased individual sources) and B) providing an encyclopedic summary of what happened--which, if we do our job and present the sources without bias, will reveal how crazy these publicity stunts (as you correctly frame them, I think) really are. Because, while we do have to keep an eye out for neutrality, we can cite and quote sources that view these theories as manipulative spin--and the balance of our sources lean in that direction.

To that end, I'm hoping people will start proposing some edits on how we present this story in a manner that is true to our sources and yet nuanced enough to impart how this all unfolded--and that even the normally shock-value-obsessed mainstream press views these notions as having a tinfoil hat quality. I'd like to propose that people be careful of WP:BOLD edits though; given the recent level of disagreement here, let's try to vet content in reasonable language here on the talk page first? Snow ^{let's rap} 10:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no "all this" that unfolded. There were a few days of media repetition of a typical self-motivated publicity stunt. Get a grip. SPECIFICO talk 15:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

This should all have been deleted per WP:NOTNEWS. Unfortunately, there is no consensus for that now. I look forward to working with anyone willing to ensure the article is presented neutrally. Geogene (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with User:Geogene - this should have been deleted per NOTNEWS. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Would you mind elaborating about your statement at the 3RR RSN. As an aside, Guy does not have consensus, and it he seems never did, by my tally, before I entered the fray. There were four sound arguments against one or two equal or lesser arguments. At best one could say "no consensus". So, it seems his rationale was incorrect. Now that I have changed my view, there are less arguments and Ivotes in his favor. He was out of line to revert three times - and only over a source? It doesn't make sense. Why not use the NYT, Washington Post, or New Yorker. Any of these is a much stronger source. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I did come up with another reference, Newsweek, for the statement "a robbery victim being shot and killed but not actually robbed is remarkable." However I don't know if it's usable either. Maybe.

Newsweek is a quite famous name in news and used to be similar to Time. But it feel on hard times, Tina Brown had it for a while, there was a scandal a few years back (can't recall the particulars) where it was made clear they no longer had a fact-checking operation, and I honestly don't know where they are now -- IBT Media owns them. Maybe they're good maybe not but they're not the same operation as the old news magazine. [7] here is what they had to say (emphasis added): "The cops suspected Rich was a victim of an attempted robbery, one of many that plague the neighborhood. Strangely, however, they found his wallet, credit cards and cellphone on his body. The band of his wristwatch was torn but not broken." The "strangely" is even more forceful than the Daily Telegraph's "but".

(And FWIW here, the Omaha paper has Rich's brother (emphasis added): "'There had been some kind of a struggle, but he also had all of his belongings with him' Aaron Rich said". The Omaha World-Herald is reliable for the quote I assume, but again Aaron Rich doesn't have standing as an expert on what usually happens in robberies, so I don't think that's usable.)

The police assume that Rich was a victim of an attempted robbery. They're the experts one would think. But you can add Newsweek to the Daily Telegraph on the other side, FWIW. Herostratus (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@Herostratus: What about these: [8], [9], and [10]. I will try to come up with more. I know these might be recognized from the other section (below). They cover the reward and more than that. Also, it seems these are more rigorous about fact checking than either the Telegraph or Newsweek. Yes, it is true that Newsweek has gone downhill somewhat. Steve Quinn (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I forgot one: [11] ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware of the RFC cullimination and the reliability of the Telegraph source. I saw these at the RFC and just wanted to keep them here [12], [13] I might add them to the article later. Steve Quinn (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Removal of sentence and source on 1 October 2016

BLP issue. Speculative wording. The source also contains mostly speculation. As much as I love NCIS, this is real life: Medical examiner and labs backed up, and it's not a high-priority case, never mind what the conspiracy mongers are saying. It’s been less than 3 months, the investigation is ongoing,there are no suspects, and all we know is that it was a shooting. How many open investigations on "unsolved" shootings in DC, dating back years?). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Moreover, the defective text was cited to a source which has been exhaustively considered and impeached here. Even if the text were appropriate, there is no need to insinuate the source into the narrative, thereby violating BLP. SPECIFICO talk 13:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, regardless of the dozens of defective RS saying it, it is indeed wild speculation to say that the murder remains unsolved. Furthermore, even the merest hint that would suggest that some fine uniformed gentlemen are not escorting the culprit(s) to a holding cell as we read this is clearly a serious BLP violation because relatives would be upset at any content suggesting this outcome was not happening. Wikipedia should have a font color indicating irony that can be used where appropriate. Let's make it green for now. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Without intending any comment on this dispute, I've changed the color to blue, per WP:Accessibility#Color, and because my eyes were pleading with me to do so. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. My optical nerve hasn't recovered yet. Anyway, I believe green is the color of envy. Irony would be gold lettering on a field of royal blue, like the Trump logo on the DC hotel. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Why does this article exist?

We don't have articles on run of the mill murders.

• There is no Murder of Karina Vetrano (but there are plenty of sources, like this NYT piece)
• There is no Murder of Dexter Hopkins but again there are RS about it like this.

I could go on and on; hundreds of people are murdered each year. There are hundreds of articles that don't exist.

So why this one?

It seems the reason why this article exists, is the speculation that his murder was connected to the DNC email leak. Nobody can say there is anything other than speculation about that.

The mission of WP is to provide readers with articles that communicate accepted knowledge, per WP:NOT.

We are not part of the echo chamber of speculation that rings endlessly through social media. This is all WP:RECENTISM malarky.

If his murder is ever actually linked to the DNC email leak, then sure there would be reason for this to exist. That has not happened yet. I suggest everybody walk away and when pp expires we delete this. Jytdog (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

My take is that this article exists because enough reliable sources have written about it, it received mainstream coverage due to a possible link with Wikileaks, and the murder happened at a critical time in the US election cycle to cause many interested people (myself included) to want to read about it to try to learn more, hopefully on a website that is trusted to present readers with the notable facts. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The article exists because its AfD was closed with no consensus -- no other reason. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

You are both dodging the point of what I wrote. The only reason anybody here cares about this, is because of speculation about why he was murdered; there are no notable facts about that - there is only speculation at this time. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know of any other murders that prompted a reward by WikiLeaks. Anyone know of any? Or any other murders of DNC employees that have prompted public statements by the DNC chair as well as DNC nominee for president. That doesn't make the article hugely notable, but perhaps enough.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance. Is Wikileaks setting our notability standards? Geogene (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

No more than the Moon is setting our notability standards by rewarding astronauts with a spot to land.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Even Assange said he was making no claims about the relationship to the leak. Whatever else he is and whatever you may think of him, Assange is a provocateur first and foremost. And somebody's murder getting made into rhetoric about gun control does not make them notable - Clinton makes campaign speeches every day and you can bet she mentions local murder victims all the time related to gun control issues. Again - the only reason why anybody cares about this is speculative connection to the leak. None of the people arguing to keep this would be here or care about the details if it were not for that. Do not dodge the point. Really, what you all are after is for the comment section at Breitbart or Daily Kos. Not for a Wikipedia article; we are an encyclopedia not part of the internet rumor mill. Jytdog (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Off-base speculations about editor motivations aren't really relevant here. This event was notable enough to generate global press coverage, comments from many notable people, a reward from wikileaks, and yes it has fueled speculation that there is a deeper connection. So we need to do our job as editors and write about the event using reliable sources and the current facts. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Per the essay WP:MURDEROF, "News of a murder just when it happens, no matter how many sources cover the case, may not be sufficient for notability. But if the aftermath receives significant amounts of coverage, this could make the case notable." P.S. Dexter Hopkins lives. P.P.S. Here's a list of Wikipedia articles beginning with "Murder of", which seems to suggest that the victims were not otherwise sufficiently notable for Wikipedia articles.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The simple fact that there is so much controversy over this article (look at the talk page and the AfD entry) seems like proof enough that this article is notable for inclusion (including the details omitted as written in the section right above). --1990'sguy (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

No. There is controversy because some people are interested in the email leak speculation and want to get it and all the tiny details that may or may not play into that nailed down, and mainstream WP editors view all this as a waste of time and keep removing TRIVIA. Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

btw, the opening statement in the DRN case says it all: "omit all facts about the manner and method of Rich's murder which might suggest a motive other than the police theory of a robbery." The people pushing for all the detail are doing a Breitbart/Kos scandal hunt for evidence of a relationship to the email leak. This is not what Wikiopedia is for. We communicate accepted knowledge, we do not participate in rumor mongering nor do we break news. We are an encyclopedia. 22:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the opening statement in the DRN, and have said so there.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Yup. In a way, with their uncivil, aspersion casting, bad faithed statement, the filer of that request also pretty much gave away the game and true motive behind this article. I guess others are still trying to pretend that this is about something other than promulgating conspiracy theories.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

No one as far as I can see has proposed we include "conspiracy theories." Can you link a diff to support that claim or at least identify the conspiracy theory proposed for inclusion? D.Creish (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Jytdog. The reason why editors are interested in this article is because of the Wikileaks connection. And politics. Wikileaks is trying to insinuate that there is a connection between this murder and the DNC leak. That's the only purpose of this reward, sensationalism and rumor mongering. Of course no such connection actually exists, but for political reasons, Wikileaks wants people to think it does. And as far as the encyclopedia is concerned that is one huge BLP violation. It seems disingenuous to pretend that this isn't what this is about - creating an impression of some wrong doing but playing cute games to make it seem like BLP is not being violated.

And honestly, I was under the impression that "no consensus" on BLPs defers to "delete" but that might have been just a custom, not a set policy. Needless to say I disagree with the closer.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

No consensus default to delete for BLPs was something that was proposed and used a few times years ago, but the community rejected it pretty strongly as an accepted practice. Sometimes it still happens, but only with other mitigating circumstances. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog and Volunteer Marek: this talk page is not the place to relitigate the AfD. The result was keep, now the focus should be on improving the article. D.Creish (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The result was not keep. The result was "no consensus" which should've deferred to delete given BLP issues. And no one's "relitigating" anything - you're the one avoiding the issue rather than discussing it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The immediate point is not re-litigating the AfD. The immediate point is that everybody is clear what this article will not do, and that is do anything related to scandal mongering. The details are TRIVIA and are not going to be litigated endlessly - our mission is not to "suggest other motivations" for the killing. Content about those "other motivations" is conspiracy theorizing and rumor mongering, at this point. As I wrote in my opening note, if - and only if it turns out that (gasp) that Rich was offed by the DNC or some thug working for Hillary etc, then the article talks about that. Only then, and we won't need to argue over whether he was drunk or not or why that matters; we will have accepted knowledge of the salient facts. Jytdog (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

What are these "other motivations" proposed for inclusion you refer you? Much like VM's claims about the insertion of "conspiracy theories" you're arguing against something that as far as I can see no one is arguing for. If you feel the details proposed for inclusion - none of which are either conspiracy theories or speculate as to motivation - are UNDUE, such an argument is at least applicable, but the weight of reliable sources stack against it. D.Creish (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

It is not remotely scandal mongering to mention the he was last seen sober. I don't believe Newsweek was scandal-mongering or being trivial when it reported this. It's just a standard relevant fact, and (like the many other facts that I listed above), it should not be removed for fear of promoting a conspiracy theory, nor inserted to promote a conspiracy theory. Many editors believe this whole article is trivial, but that's no reason to substitute their own notion of triviality for the notions of the reliable sources. This whole section is all about relitigating the AfD, as indicated by the header.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

This thread is done for me. The folks trying to make WP into a scandal rag will not admit it, so the fake argument about details will just continue. So it goes. Jytdog (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in Jytdog. As of now this is just another DC murder, but as you may be aware, this is silly season here at WP and to be expected. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

What does "he was at a bar before he was killed" add to an encyclopedia article? What does "he was sober" add? Absolutely nothing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The alt-right/white nationalist/Trump movements are using the death of Seth Rich to campaign for Donald Trump. I imagine the page was created as part of that campaign. And I imagine the edit warring relates to that campaign also - they probably want things worded that are damaging to Clinton.

You're right though - I have no idea why this page exists. He's not remotely famous or well known 108.171.128.173 (talk) 08:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

"Of course no such connection actually exists" Really? You know that for a fact do you? This article exists to quash speculation. By not including the fact that nothing was taken in the article, you steer people away from doubting the "botched robbery" narrative fed to you by the mass media. Jimmy Wales should be in tears. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.218.192 (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion - Murder of Seth Rich (Second nomination)

Currently, there is a second nomination for deletion discussion (an AfD) pertaining to this article taking place here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Seth Rich (2nd nomination) ----Steve Quinn (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

You are spamming an article talk page. I wonder what game you are playing - the AfD is mentioned at the top of the article, the AfD has been running for ages without you feeling the "need" to post a talk page announcement about its existance, and the deadline for closing it is probably today. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Did you mean to link to the first nomination? Geogene (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Geogene Steve Quinn (talk)

Resolved

FYI: The AFD has been closed as no consensus.--Elvey^(t•c) 01:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)