| 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 |
Latest revision as of 14:09, 12 November 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,834,231 editsm →top: blpo=yes + blp=no/null → blp=other; cleanupTag: AWB |
| (697 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 3: |
Line 3: |
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}} |
|
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}} |
|
|
{{American English}} |
|
{{Ds/talk notice|restriction=1RR|topic=blp|style=long}} |
|
|
{{BLP others}} |
|
|
{{Article history |
|
{{Article history |
|
| action1 = AFD |
|
| action1 = AFD |
| Line 44: |
Line 43: |
|
| topic = socsci |
|
| topic = socsci |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C|blp=other|listas=Rich, Seth|1= |
|
{{WikiProject Biography |living=no |class=C |listas=Rich, Seth |blpo=y}} |
|
{{WikiProject Biography}} |
|
{{WikiProject Crime |class=C |importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States |class=C |importance=low |DC=Yes |DC-importance=Low |listas=Rich, Seth}} |
|
{{WikiProject Death|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Death |class=C |importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=low|American=yes|American-importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=low|DC=yes|DC-importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Journalism|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Alternative views|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=low}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=ap}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|1RR=yes|topic=blp|style=long}} |
|
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|counter = 11 |
|
|counter = 13 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
|algo = old(15d) |
|
|algo = old(60d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Murder of Seth Rich/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Murder of Seth Rich/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=lowercase sigmabot III |age= |units= 15 days}} |
|
|
== General Political Bias in the Article to Discount Speculations are ill advised == |
|
|
{{ctop|] --] <sup>]</sup> 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 <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:Your feedback is appreciated, but I think you'd benefit from reading our policies on ] and ]. Simply put, we're simply following the ], which contradict much of what you wrote. ]. 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. --] (]) 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. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
{{cbot}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== External links modified (February 2018) == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|
|
|
|
|
I have just modified 4 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: |
|
|
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161003165726/http://dcist.com/2016/10/seth_rich_family_interview.php to http://dcist.com/2016/10/seth_rich_family_interview.php |
|
|
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170714232639/http://dcist.com/2017/03/seth_rich_russian_conspiracy_burkman.php to http://dcist.com/2017/03/seth_rich_russian_conspiracy_burkman.php |
|
|
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170408204900/http://dcist.com/2017/03/seth_rich_war_room.php to http://dcist.com/2017/03/seth_rich_war_room.php |
|
|
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/16/slain-dnc-staffer-had-contact-with-wikileaks-investigator-says.html |
|
|
|
|
|
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. |
|
|
|
|
|
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 16:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Long quote from Poynter == |
|
|
|
|
|
Concerning my 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 "]" or "{{section link|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 ] because it is an {{tq|Excessively long copyrighted excerpt}}, in which case it should, at the very least, be trimmed down or summarized. <em><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></em> 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 ], when in fact it was made by ], 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. ] (]) 13:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:I think the source is worth using but its current treatment is ]. 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. --] (]) 01:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::Maybe something like "{{tq|Media ethics writer ] 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.}}" <em><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></em> 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. --] (]) 02:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2018 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Murder of Seth Rich|answered=yes}} |
|
|
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... ] (]) 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. ] (]) 12:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 20:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:If you want this information included, you must find a ] ] source that not only says that he was offered the job, but ties it in with his death. --] (]) 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. ] ] 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. ] ] 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. --] (]) 06:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od}}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.]] 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 ]. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 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. ]] 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 ], 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. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 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. ]] 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 ]. I know it's hard, but it's expected. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 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? ] ] 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. |
|
|
] (]) 20:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:] how someone might ''think'' this was relevant to his murder, but I fail to see how it is ''actually'' relevant. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 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.] (]) 21:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Per DrFleischman, are there reliable sources that directly link the job offer to the murder? ] (]) 22:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::{{tq| It relates to the reason that there is an article on Seth Rich at all.}} As does the definition, history and study of ]. 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 ], ], ], ], 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 ], so there's no excuse for giving a wrong answer. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 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. ] (]) 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.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> |
|
|
::This article is not about a crime. It's about a conspiracy theory. ]] 01:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::] says, "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a ] ''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? ] (]) 04:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::So articles about crimes are now biographies? I don't think the guideline was meant to imply that. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 11:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::I would point to common sense and at not giving undue weight to an alt-right conspiracy theory. ] (]) 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. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 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"." ] (]) 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. ] (]) 18:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== poor quality == |
|
::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. ] (]) 20:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{hat|Not a forum for gripes about media coverage that you don't like}} |
|
:::Seven experienced editors are all telling you the same exact thing: No, this is undue for the article. It's time to ]. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 20:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
The amount of conjecture in this article is astounding. "3 websites say something is true, so that means something is true." ] (]) 16:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:{{u|Jawz101}}, what are you referring to? Because if it's {{tq|The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post wrote that the promotion of these conspiracy theories was an example of fake news}}, those "3 websites" are ], which means it is ]. – ] (]) 17:00, 23 March 2024 (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) |
|
|
|
::"If enough for-profit rags repeat the same trash, it's indisputably true." What a fucking nightmare. ] (]) 22:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
{{abot}} |
|
|
|
:::If you don't like the way mainstream media report news, then you need to get policy changed. ] (]) 16:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hab}} |
view · edit Frequently asked questions
This section is here to provide answers to some questions
