Talk:Murder of Seth Rich: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:32, 21 February 2018 editMPants at work (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers11,602 edits →The Job Offer from the Hillary Clinton Campaign?← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:20, 22 February 2018 edit undoDrFleischman (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers25,325 edits →The Job Offer from the Hillary Clinton Campaign?: let an uninvolved editor close this - see WP:CLOSE Next edit →
Line 113:		Line 113:

	== The Job Offer from the Hillary Clinton Campaign? ==		== The Job Offer from the Hillary Clinton Campaign? ==
⚫	~~{{atop\|result=see~~ ] and ]. There's no chance in hell this gets anywhere, and the arguments have degenerated into conspiracy theories by this point. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 20:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)}}
	This article does not contain the fact that Seth Rich was offered a job by the Hillary Clinton Campaign just days before he was killed. It should. There are reports that Seth Rich supported Bernie Sanders, so that would be a significant change.		This article does not contain the fact that Seth Rich was offered a job by the Hillary Clinton Campaign just days before he was killed. It should. There are reports that Seth Rich supported Bernie Sanders, so that would be a significant change.

Line 165:		Line 164:

	::::It is best to print the truth, not to suppress the truth. If <insert name of other presidential candidate here> had offered Seth a job on the day he was murdered, and his parents had told the public and it was published in a newspaper, it would be in this article. No one from either political persuasion would object. Tell the truth in the article. Then we can all go our separate ways. Learn the lesson from the Lee Oswald disaster, don't create another one.] (]) 20:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)		::::It is best to print the truth, not to suppress the truth. If <insert name of other presidential candidate here> had offered Seth a job on the day he was murdered, and his parents had told the public and it was published in a newspaper, it would be in this article. No one from either political persuasion would object. Tell the truth in the article. Then we can all go our separate ways. Learn the lesson from the Lee Oswald disaster, don't create another one.] (]) 20:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

	{{abot}}
		⚫	* See ] and ]. There's no chance in hell this gets anywhere, and the arguments have degenerated into conspiracy theories by this point. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 20:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:20, 22 February 2018

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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:

Misplaced Pages policies about living persons apply across the entire encyclopedia.
Posts that are judged to be against Misplaced Pages policies will be removed.

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

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States: District of Columbia Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as Low-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Murder of Seth Rich article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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

General Political Bias in the Article to Discount Speculations are ill advised

WP:NOTFORUM --NeilN 00:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
The article tries very hard to paint any speculation that Seth Rich had involvement with the DNC email leaks as sociopathic or conspiracy theories that it uses very illogical assumptions. While it is true we don't know who killed Seth Rich the police cannot debunk the theories by stating it was a botched robbery. He was shot in the back indicating he never saw his attacker and several items of value and a wallet full of money were left on the scene. Since no one saw the murder or anyone fleeing the scene this is unlikely. Certainly this does not rule out the speculations. The article states Assange "fueled speculations" by his involvement. It fails to mention that the "involvement" was a $20,000 US reward. It is very difficult to believe Assange who gave the award within a month of his death would do so if he did not have any involvement. The article also mentions fact checkers, all known left wing activist sites, debunking the theories because their is no hard evidence to support them. A hypothesis is not debunked until evidence is shown to reject it. Having hot done this they cannot be stated to have debunked anything and only reiterati9ng what we all know. We don't know what happened. The article also tries to state Rich cannot have done this because he was only a programmer and not a hacker. Number one both roles require extensive programming skills. Second most hackers don't advertise that skill so how do we know Rich was not. Lastly and most important one does not need to be a hacker to download emails from an archived file. All one needs is proper administrative access which Rich working for the DNC may have had or knew people who did and could have acce4ssed and copied the information through legitimate accounts. If he was involved this is most likely. Assange's unwillingness to declare Rich's involvement but willingness to spend @20 grand to reveal his killer to the world is indicative this could be the case. This scenario is likely and possible and no one is a sociopath for considering it. Rather I would state the sociopoaths are the people, to protect their own left wing political party are trying to silence this. Lastly the article announces as proven fact that Russians were involved. Why? this narrative invented by Hillary Clinton's dirty tricks team from the Fusion GPS memo is tired by now. It has not shown evidence of anything and has been used to justify illegally obtained FISA warrants to spy on private American citizens just for being members of Trump's campaign. This is silly and certainly the speculation that Rich's death was something to do with the DNC is a more plausible allegation. In the end we don't know and you can say that but quit trying to dictate to people what they are allowed to think. It is crass and arrogant! Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.36.184.224 (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC) Your feedback is appreciated, but I think you'd benefit from reading our policies on verifiability and original research. Simply put, we're simply following the reliable sources, which contradict much of what you wrote. Sources are not rendered unreliable simply because of some alleged bias.. If you find content that doesn't reflect the cited sources, or you find other reliable sources that contradict the article, then please identify them here for discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC) It’s pointless getting into extended arguments like these on Misplaced Pages - like many technology groupings, Misplaced Pages is full of hard-left activists and their ilk. You’ll get ulcers for nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.120.68 (talk) 07:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM --NeilN 00:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The article tries very hard to paint any speculation that Seth Rich had involvement with the DNC email leaks as sociopathic or conspiracy theories that it uses very illogical assumptions.

While it is true we don't know who killed Seth Rich the police cannot debunk the theories by stating it was a botched robbery. He was shot in the back indicating he never saw his attacker and several items of value and a wallet full of money were left on the scene. Since no one saw the murder or anyone fleeing the scene this is unlikely. Certainly this does not rule out the speculations.

The article states Assange "fueled speculations" by his involvement. It fails to mention that the "involvement" was a $20,000 US reward. It is very difficult to believe Assange who gave the award within a month of his death would do so if he did not have any involvement.

The article also mentions fact checkers, all known left wing activist sites, debunking the theories because their is no hard evidence to support them. A hypothesis is not debunked until evidence is shown to reject it. Having hot done this they cannot be stated to have debunked anything and only reiterati9ng what we all know. We don't know what happened.

The article also tries to state Rich cannot have done this because he was only a programmer and not a hacker. Number one both roles require extensive programming skills. Second most hackers don't advertise that skill so how do we know Rich was not. Lastly and most important one does not need to be a hacker to download emails from an archived file. All one needs is proper administrative access which Rich working for the DNC may have had or knew people who did and could have acce4ssed and copied the information through legitimate accounts. If he was involved this is most likely. Assange's unwillingness to declare Rich's involvement but willingness to spend @20 grand to reveal his killer to the world is indicative this could be the case. This scenario is likely and possible and no one is a sociopath for considering it. Rather I would state the sociopoaths are the people, to protect their own left wing political party are trying to silence this.

Lastly the article announces as proven fact that Russians were involved. Why? this narrative invented by Hillary Clinton's dirty tricks team from the Fusion GPS memo is tired by now. It has not shown evidence of anything and has been used to justify illegally obtained FISA warrants to spy on private American citizens just for being members of Trump's campaign. This is silly and certainly the speculation that Rich's death was something to do with the DNC is a more plausible allegation.

In the end we don't know and you can say that but quit trying to dictate to people what they are allowed to think. It is crass and arrogant!

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.36.184.224 (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback is appreciated, but I think you'd benefit from reading our policies on verifiability and original research. Simply put, we're simply following the reliable sources, which contradict much of what you wrote. Sources are not rendered unreliable simply because of some alleged bias.. If you find content that doesn't reflect the cited sources, or you find other reliable sources that contradict the article, then please identify them here for discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

It’s pointless getting into extended arguments like these on Misplaced Pages - like many technology groupings, Misplaced Pages is full of hard-left activists and their ilk. You’ll get ulcers for nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.120.68 (talk) 07:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Murder of Seth Rich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Long quote from Poynter

Concerning my recent edit removing a large paragraph copied and pasted from a Poynter article, I'd like to provide a reminder that this is the "Murder of Seth Rich" article, not the "Criticism of Fox News Channel" or "Fox News § Murder of Seth Rich conspiracy" articles. While I think that some media criticism should be included in this article to debunk Fox's original story, the lifted quote doesn't tell us anything about Seth Rich's murder or the conspiracy theories surrounding it. The paragraph could also constitute an unacceptable use of non-free content because it is an Excessively long copyrighted excerpt, in which case it should, at the very least, be trimmed down or summarized. _Gravity 08:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it is relevant because news coverage is an important aspect of the subject. I would prefer however that we summarize the comments rather than use a lengthy quote. Note that it is incorrectly attributed to the Poynter Institute, when in fact it was made by Kelly McBride, who works for the Institute. Also, when we mention someone's opinions, we should briefly explain who that person is, if it is not obvious to readers. TFD (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the source is worth using but its current treatment is undue. I'd go even further than TFD. It would be perfectly adequate to summarize the source (without a quote) in a single sentence that says so-and-so said the retraction was inadequate and explain why. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe something like "Media ethics writer Kelly McBride wrote that the retraction was "woefully inadequate", noting that it did not specify exactly what was inaccurate, or provide provide accurate information in place of the original story." _Gravity 02:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

That's the sort of thing I was talking about, thanks. Minor quibbles but those can be fixed afterwards. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2018

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

where are the evidence of saying bots spread the information? just because you have 100 twitter accounts with no profile does not mean you are a bot, just that you like annonymity, like how this ip will claim in from sweden... 81.234.198.202 (talk) 10:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Before asked for an edit, unless it is uncontroversial, you need to get support for it. You may set up a new discussion thread for that. However, note that this article merely reports what reliable sources say, which is that automated bots were used. Whether or not that is true is not a question that we can determine, unless there are reliable sources that refute it. TFD (talk) 12:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The Job Offer from the Hillary Clinton Campaign?

This article does not contain the fact that Seth Rich was offered a job by the Hillary Clinton Campaign just days before he was killed. It should. There are reports that Seth Rich supported Bernie Sanders, so that would be a significant change.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/were-seth-richs-parents-stop-politicizing-our-sons-murder/2017/05/23/164cf4dc-3fee-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html?utm_term=.c5b01406666e "Our beloved son Seth Rich was gunned down in the early hours of July 10, 2016, in his Washington, D.C., neighborhood of Bloomingdale. On the day he was murdered, Seth was excited about a new job he had been offered on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Seth had dedicated his life to public service, and he told us that he wanted to work on the campaign’s effort to expand voter participation because he loved our country dearly and believed deeply in the promise of democratic engagement. Seth had been walking around, calling friends, family and his girlfriend, pondering the broader picture of what the job change would mean."

(It was during this walking around and calling friends that he was killed)

How was the job offer communicated to Seth Rich? Was it in writing? What was the date of the offer? Who made the job offer?

StreetSign (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

If you want this information included, you must find a reliable secondary source that not only says that he was offered the job, but ties it in with his death. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

This is not a biography of Seth Rich, but rather an article about his murder. Content in this article (other than a brief overview of who the victim was) should be clearly related to his murder, according to reliable sources. Otherwise, the fact that a young Democratic political operative was offered a Democratic political job in the midst of a presidential campaign season is of no significance. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

As for the Bernie Sanders connection, there is also nothing unusual there. I do not know or care whether Rich supported Sanders. At the time of Rich's murder on July 10, 2016, Clinton was the presumptive nominee and Sanders was openly negotiating to endorse her. Sanders formally endorsed Clinton on July 12, and large numbers of Sanders supporters switched to the Clinton campaign at that time, which is completely normal. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

There is a connection between these biographical facts and his death if the reliable independent secondary sources say there is a connection. If they don't, then there isn't. There's no need to go into any deeper analysis than that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I continue to think it's best to hat this kind of disruptive edit when it first appears rather than give air time and waste editor resources. It was obvious where this thread was headed and I see no reason hard-working volunteer editors should play the willing victims or accomplices where article improvement is not in prospect. Especially on articles like this where there's a long history of such disruption. Of course I could be wrong, but I don't see it. SPECIFICO talk 14:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

In general, I agree with this, but this is a borderline case (IE, it's not one of the "Why doesn't this article take the conspiracy theories seriously?" ones), so it's probably best to give the OP a little slack. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

That's why I hatted it instead of deleting or archiving. This one had 3 independent red flags, so I concluded about a 1/1000 chance hatting was incorrect. SPECIFICO talk 15:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Most likely, this is just a better-phrased version of those drive-by "This article sucks because the conspiracy theories are troooo!!!" comments, but the OP provided a factual claim with a reliable source to back it up. They're either a well-intentioned new editor who hasn't quite grasped the meaning of WP:WEIGHT, or a POV pusher who's slicker than most. In the former case, it's best to help them understand how things are done here, in the latter, it's best to give them a chance to say something really stupid so as to make later admin involvement easier. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

But the claim it wanted in the article was SYNTH not supported by the source. And that's exactly the kind of disruption we've seen here for 18 months. My goal is never to build a file for some kind of Admin or community action, it's just to keep our work environment safe and productive. SPECIFICO talk 16:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

No, the claim the OP suggested for the article was "...the fact that Seth Rich was offered a job by the Hillary Clinton Campaign just days before he was killed..." which is confirmed explicitly by the source. Now, the rest of the comment (except for the quote, of course) was absolutely a mix of OR and OR-disguised-as-leading-questions, but there's a nugget of legitimate proposal in there. Remember to WP:AGF. I know it's hard, but it's expected. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

As for "waste editor resources", I decide on my own as a volunteer where I want to comment and where I want to observe or ignore. Hasn't this back-and-forth gone on long enough? Cullen Let's discuss it 16:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me respond. I do appreciate that. The article is missing one fact that is well documented. It does correctly state that he was "an American employee of the Democratic National Committee (DNC)" but the complete sentence might continue with "and was recently offered a job in the Clinton campaign". This is according to his parents (who spoke with him, and were allowed to see his computer), as published in the washingtonpost, CNN, and other publications. It is inappropriate to exclude this fact.

StreetSign (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I can see how someone might think this was relevant to his murder, but I fail to see how it is actually relevant. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

You could ask why this article even exists. I would argue that it is not just the murder (there are many of those), it is that an employee of the presidential political election process was murdered. It is only through the statement of his parents that we know that he was offered the job. We would not know it otherwise. It has been documented in reputable publications. It relates to the reason that there is an article on Seth Rich at all. He was a political consultant who was murdered during a presidential campaign.StreetSign (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Per DrFleischman, are there reliable sources that directly link the job offer to the murder? Geogene (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

It relates to the reason that there is an article on Seth Rich at all. As does the definition, history and study of murder. Should we then merge the murder article into this one? I should add that this reasoning applies equally well to a very wide swathe of other articles, such as human, crime, politics, conspiracy theories, etc, etc, etc. Should we then merge all of those articles into this one in order to be thorough, or should we use a common sense and reliable criteria to judge what we include? Before you answer, understand that this is an open book test, so there's no excuse for giving a wrong answer. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

We should mention that Rich was going to join the Clinton campaign, since in all articles about crimes it is important to provide information about the victims. There is as far as I know no evidence that he supported Sanders and it would be unlikely that a DNC employee would openly support any candidate. TFD (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

No. This article is about the murder of Seth Rich, it is not a biography of Rich himself. Apart from the conspiracy theorists trying to tack this on to the end of their "Clinton Hit List" theories, it has nothing to do with this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheValeyard (talk • contribs)

This article is not about a crime. It's about a conspiracy theory. SPECIFICO talk 01:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

"Crime victims and perpetrators" says, "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Misplaced Pages article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." So the guidelines say that biographical information should be included. What guidelines are you following? TFD (talk) 04:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

So articles about crimes are now biographies? I don't think the guideline was meant to imply that. Geogene (talk) 05:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The guideline was meant to imply that biographical information should be included for victims. See for example CNN's article on the Seth Rich murder: "Before Rich died, he had been offered a new job on Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, and was getting ready to move to New York, his parents wrote in an opinion piece for The Washington Post." CNN is not implying that his employment had any relevance to the murder, however it has relevance to why the story received publicity. Can you point to any alternative guidelines that say this information should be excluded? TFD (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I would point to common sense and at not giving undue weight to an alt-right conspiracy theory. ValarianB (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Seconded. The usual rule of thumb I use for details is "does it change the narrative?" In this case, the RS supported narrative would not change at all if we included this detail, but the conspiracy theory narrative would be reinforced. That's a net negative, so no. Don't include it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

This is the proposed change (to the third paragraph): "Rich's parents revealed that he had recently received a job offer from the Clinton campaign, and then condemned the conspiracy theorists and said that these individuals were exploiting their son's death for political gain, and their spokesperson called the conspiracy theorists "disgusting sociopaths"." StreetSign (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The sources are not discussing a link from the job offer to the murder; you're setting up your own conspiracy here. ValarianB (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I do not believe in the conspiracy theories. The parents thought the job offer was significant enough to include in their statement. To exclude it from the article is deceptive. Putting it in with the statements about the exploitation and "disgusting sociopaths" is the appropriate place for it. All are statements by the parents or their representative. StreetSign (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Seven experienced editors are all telling you the same exact thing: No, this is undue for the article. It's time to drop the stick. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

It is best to print the truth, not to suppress the truth. If <insert name of other presidential candidate here> had offered Seth a job on the day he was murdered, and his parents had told the public and it was published in a newspaper, it would be in this article. No one from either political persuasion would object. Tell the truth in the article. Then we can all go our separate ways. Learn the lesson from the Lee Oswald disaster, don't create another one.StreetSign (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

See WP:THETRUTH and WP:SNOW. There's no chance in hell this gets anywhere, and the arguments have degenerated into conspiracy theories by this point. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Categories: