Talk:Murder of Seth Rich

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KHarbaugh (talk | contribs) at 23:40, 6 September 2017 (→‎Why the "conspiracy theory" pejorative?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 19, 2016Articles for deletionNo consensus
September 15, 2016WikiProject approved revisionDiff to current version
October 4, 2016Articles for deletionNo consensus
January 21, 2017Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
February 26, 2017WikiProject approved revisionDiff to current version
May 30, 2017WikiProject approved revisionDiff to current version

Assange interview on Dutch TV

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


I disagree with Dlabtot removing unbidden in this diff [1]. The source given does support that content, in spite of their edit summary. Is there any reason we shouldn't say specifically how Assange fed speculation? That he was the one that brought it up is relevant. Geogene (talk) 17:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the source says: "Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks editor, further stoked speculation that Rich might have been involved in the DNC hack by referencing the murder, unprompted, on a Dutch news program." It doesn't say that he 'seemed to imply' anything. I would ask you, according to the source, to whom did it seem this way? Dlabtot (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that 'unbidden' is valid. A mistake on my part. Dlabtot (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The source says Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks editor, further stoked speculation that Rich might have been involved in the DNC hack by referencing the murder, unprompted, on a Dutch news program. [2]. That is the semantic equivalent of "seemed to imply that". Geogene (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, obviously, no. There is a clear difference in meaning, which I will again highlight by repeating the question you ignored. I ask you: To whom does it seem that way? According to the source. Dlabtot (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no difference in meaning. If you like, another source can always be added [3]. Geogene (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)The removal of "unbidden" removes important contextual information about the claim. "Unprompted" and "unbidden" carry the same meaning and implications here. That being said "fueled speculation" seems more accurate to me, as that was the result, according to both the source and my own read of events. The fact that that part of the sentence doesn't imply anything about Assange's intentions is nullified by the use of the word "unbidden", which implies that Assange intended to fuel speculation. So from where I sit, the best wording actually is a compromise version:
"Assistant Police Chief Peter Newsham said the police had no information suggesting a connection between Rich's death and data obtained by WikLeaks. Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, fueled speculation of a connection when, unbidden, he talked about the case on a Dutch news program. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that. Geogene (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not. "Unbidden" suggests that his remarks were out of place/unwanted/unwelcome (=Assange imposed them), whereas "unprompted" stands for a spontaneous comment. Why don't you just use the original expression and prevent attributing a new (=your own) meaning? AllIC (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Julian Assange is a man in some disrepute these days, as he has been cast in a negative light by most sources that discuss issues of Russian interference in the US elections, the Seth Rich case, and so on. "Unbidden" aptly and succinctly describes his standing and how his views on this matter are considered. TheValeyard (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what Seth Rich's family would say about that. Geogene (talk) 00:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AllIC: "unbidden" is supported by the source, so if it makes implications... That's the whole point. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TheValeyard: The reputation of Julian Assange is not the current topic. But since you brought it up: if it is your SOP to connote the standing (from your perception) of people to everything you write about them, you should have a look at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view @Geogene: Of what relevance is this at this point? @MjolnirPants: ""unbidden" is supported by the source" No, it is not. That's the whole point. You are not familiar with your own language. Please reread my entry. "Unprompted" is supported by the source, because "unprompted" is stated by the source. What is your rationale to insist on differing from the original wording? AllIC (talk) 02:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The source specifically uses the word "unprompted" which is synonymous with "unbidden" in this context. It would help you make some headway if you would actually read the source before trying to tell those of us who have read it what it actually says. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All of 3 edits and knows about the ping template, how curious Mr. AllIC. The reputation of Assange is quite on topic; as he is not an expert in the field of...well, pretty much anything, his opinions on the conspiracy theory du jour is at best suspect, at worst off-topic and irrelevant to anything apart from the articles Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Unbidden is apropos. TheValeyard (talk) 02:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MjolnirPants:What are you talking about? I know the source says unprompted, and I wrote it in all of my 3 edits. I also explained the difference between unprompted and unbidden, which all of you fail to understand and/or address. AllIC (talk) 03:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about changing "unbidden" to "unprompted" the other day, for my own reasons. I thought about it again today. I'm not going to do it just now because a quacking account that has been sleeping since February asked me to. I'm going to make a point of not doing so if "unbidden" seems to have support from others. Not going to oppose it either though if somebody changes it, as long it isn't copyvio or close paraphrase from the source. Geogene (talk) 03:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
AllIC, are you seriously unaware of what synonymous means? Oh, for fuck's sake... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Behind Fox News' Baseless Seth Rich Story: The Untold Tale

Some important details. Need to be included. We also really need to rethink the title based on what this indicates. http://www.npr.org/2017/08/01/540783715/lawsuit-alleges-fox-news-and-trump-supporter-created-fake-news-story Casprings (talk) 12:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Casprings, for bringing this to our attention. If I may make a meta-comment, I hope that all the good faith editors here will reflect on the history of this article and what increasingly appears may have been a calculated dissemination of this story and production of fodder for unwitting carriers who did not realize their role in spreading it. SPECIFICO talk 13:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed.The production of the story is what is WP:N here. As such, we should again consider the title Seth Rich conspiracy Casprings (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a move to "Murder of Seth Rich (conspiracy theory)" which I believe is consistent with how other such matters are treated. SPECIFICO talk 14:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would that not be a bit vague though, like it was calling to question whether he was murdered at all? The conspiracy theories are about the who, so the title would have to be explicit about that, esp. Fox News' complicity. ValarianB (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)It's not a conspiracy theory that Seth Rich was murdered. The conspiracy theory is that Rich was somehow involved in the DNC leak and was murdered for this alleged role. I'm not sure how we could handle that distinction in the title. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a reminder (I know we all know this, but it doesn't hurt to reiterate): The sourced content is that a lawsuit has been filed, not that the allegations in the lawsuit are true. We can't treat them as true until multiple RSes do, and even then, only if they're not being contested by multiple other RSes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The NPR article uses the lawsuit, but it does have more sources in the story.Casprings (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See WAPO [4] SPECIFICO talk 23:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Two months ago, the pro-Clinton editors were saying that Wheeler had no credibility. Now that he's switched sides, he becomes reliable. There was no reason to view his alleged allegations as fact then and even less now that he has allegedly changed them. Oddly, he seemed to support his original alleged allegations in interviews with non-mainstream media in the interim. TFD (talk) 04:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that should be kept in mind. Geogene (talk) 06:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I agree, and my own personal opinion is that... 50% of this is a publicity stunt, specifically the part that tries to involve the WH. The non-publicity stunt part is the fact that Fox News and Butowsky used him and set him up, which is born out by the evidence he submitted. It is important that we only include what the lawsuit is about and are clear on the fact that these are allegations made by Wheeler.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As an editor who is doubtlessly lumped in with the "pro-Clinton editors", I just want to point out that my comments above belie your claim. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uncorroborated story?

Malia Zimmerman’s lead story (the one FoxNews purged from their website a couple of days later) claimed in the second paragraph that Wheeler’s story "was corroborated by a federal investigator who spoke to Fox News" and, further down:

An FBI forensic report of Rich's computer -- generated within 96 hours after Rich's murder -- showed he made contact with WikiLeaks through Gavin MacFadyen, a now-deceased American investigative reporter, documentary filmmaker, and director of WikiLeaks who was living in London at the time, the federal source told Fox News.

“I have seen and read the emails between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks,” the federal investigator told Fox News, confirming the MacFadyen connection. He said the emails are in possession of the FBI, while the stalled case is in the hands of the Washington Police Department.

The revelation is consistent with the findings of Wheeler, whose private investigation firm was hired by a third party on behalf of Rich’s family to probe the case.

I amended the text accordingly. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: Was it clear from my edit summary why I removed the content? The article in this case is the subject; coverage of what the article contained should come from secondary sources to establish weight. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted because an editor summarized a secondary source, and you took that to mean the editor somehow cited a primary source? The subject of the article is what sources need to be secondary to. By that rationale, every cited claim on the entire encyclopedia is a WP:PRIMARY vio. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is the removal of Fox's article and the content of that article prior to removal. For that the removed article is primary. If it is significant and notable, secondary articles should cover the removal (they do) and the significant aspects of the article prior to removal (which they might.) James J. Lambden (talk) 05:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "subject" in the sense used in our policy is the Murder of Seth Rich; this is made quite clear in the way policy is written. The fact that the subject of a sentence, or even a paragraph is some aspect of that doesn't change our policies. Your interpretation is truly bizarre, and -as I already said- would discourage virtually every bit of text on the entire project, were it widely held. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on removal of edit (it's been restored by another editor): Fox News is the secondary source, and the sentence reflects what they reported. I have now replaced "claimed" with "stated"; it might be construed as POV although it was unintentional. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 04:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what "Comment on removal of edit" means? James J. Lambden (talk) 05:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? My opinion which I started writing down before you posted yours at 04:29 in response to MPants? Didn't see your post until I had saved mine - got sidetracked, so sue me. When I did see it, I figured my comment pretty much covered that, as well. As for your primary/secondary source argument - what MPants wrote.
As an aside: If you knew that secondary sources meeting your standards were available "(they do)", why didn't you just add them instead of reverting my edit (rhetorical question)? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intent to distract

DrFleischman The Four Deuces SPECIFICO Volunteer Marek Please see our previous Talk Page section from the archive [5]. Given recent revelations, i.e. the Wheeler lawsuit, I think we should reconsider some of the cited content that was discussed, or at least revisit that discussion. If the consensus is to WP:DROP, no problem, I promise not to lose my s#!+ this time (wink), just as long as we don't go accidentally editorializing context on RSN (wink).

  • "As the revelations about President Donald Trump and fired FBI Director James Comey exploded across all mainstream news outlets on Tuesday, conservative, pro-Trump outlets – from Breitbart and Fox News to Rush Limbaugh and InfoWars – operated on the other side of the looking glass. This is the bizarre story they told: That the entire Trump-Comey-Russia story is “fake news,” all manufactured by the crooked mainstream media to distract from the real story – that real proof was emerging that Rich, not Russia, had been the real source of WikiLeaks information that damaged the DNC." [6] - Haaretz - May 23 2017
  • "The latest Seth Rich allegations became a welcome distraction from the constant revelations coming out of the Washington Post and the New York Times." - Vox - May 24th 2017 (under section "Conservative media has a field day") [7]
  • "Hyper-partisan left-leaning outlets jumped in as well, alleging that their right-wing counterparts/enemies were using the Rich theory to distract everyone else from Trump's collusion with Russia. Much like the White House itself, the entire thing became one big finger-pointy mess." - Wired - May 18th 2017 [8] - DN (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, can you refresh my mind here. Are you saying the content regarding "distraction from Russia" should be put back in or remove? I can't remember what the eventual outcome was and, I admit, I'm a bit too lazy to go look right now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Marek; Nevermind, if it's not still on anyone's mind it's not worth bringing it up again, IMO. No worries. DN (talk) 02:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nip: No problem from last time, don't worry about it. I think this is going to be easier to deal within a week or two now that the story is receiving much more complete coverage by RS. We can start now, and stuff like the Wired.com false equivalency snippet can be thrown out for starters. SPECIFICO talk 18:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SPEC: "AND stuff like the Wired.com false equivalency snippet can be thrown out for starters." - I disagree on the false equivalency bit, but I'm willing to let sleeping dogs lie, for now. DN (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think the Americans don't have any hyper-partisan leftist media outlets. = SPECIFICO talk 02:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Left-wing extremism is more present in the blogosphere and in individual op-eds in otherwise-middling left-wing outlets like NYT and WaPo. There's just as much of it, though. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pants, I didn't mean to say there's not copious amounts of such opinion, however I think the American left has not been as industrious as the right in institutionalizing or giving corporate structure and platform to its views. NYT, WaPo are centrist, left-wing is off the wall for them, and their reporting of events is not ideologically slanted, even if the range of their reporting could be modeled by a frequency distribution on the progressive side of the see-saw. They may publish more stories on melting icebergs and hungry orphans, but that's doesn't justify "leftist media outlet" imo. The reporting itself is of the highest standard. Not perfect, but of course "not perfect" has been used by the right-wing media outlets [9] to equivocate and raise the strawman assertion that it's not the best we have because it's not perfect. SPECIFICO talk 12:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your assesement in the first sentence. What I see as an issue is that America doesn't really have much of a political left, but tends to refer to it's (quite popular) centrist political component as "the left". So the truth of other statements you made, such as that NYT and WaPo aren't left is somewhat subjective. Yes, they're not left-wing in an international sense, but they are by American standards. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well 2 things. a) Do you think that their reporting on any given article is left slanted? I do not. b) Part of why folks get away with calling neutral journalism "radical left" is because the agenda-driven interests on the right have been successful in executing a calculated strategy to supplant the center with reporting which is presenting a biased view, not journalistic in the accepted historical tradition of journalism. This has only recently been discussed in public, e.g. in Jane Mayer's recent book, Dark Money, which is a journalistically rigorous treatment of a subject that folks to the right of center might not report. SPECIFICO talk 14:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to answer your question: Yes, if you're using "left" in the American sense. Also "for any given article" is a somewhat vague term; I interpret it as "in your average article" or "in your typical article". I would also add, however, that the "left" media tends to have a larger proportion of unbiased articles. Finally, there's my typical caveat: reality has a well-known liberal bias (for the record; I hold this "left" to be the American left, not the international left). This is to say that many "left" leaning articles are factual and representative of reality. I opine that they still manage to convey a bias holding to their over-use of rhetoric, compared to a more disinterested expression.
We should probably take this to user talk space if you wish to continue. I'm certainly up for it, so if you want to respond, feel free to do so at my talk page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but you are so much better read than I, "a little old lady from Positano" - I'll pay you a visit or you could come see my pitiful little shooting gallerytalk page. But as the pithy old goat said, "The world is everything that is the case" so I don't think one could ever conclude that reality has a bias. Only a misapprehension of reality could reflect an observer's bias. And there's plenty of that floating around the internet -- WP much less than average. SPECIFICO talk 16:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When the Wired article discussed hyper-partisanship, they rolled off 3 quick examples for the far right, and that was just selecting 3 prominent ones from the multitudes. When they touched on the left", it was a single link to the Daily Banter...which amusingly enough has an article on the front page titled "When A Far Left Lunatic Tried to Sue The Daily Banter, The Whole Hilarious Story", which seems to hint that they aren't so "hyper" after all. I believe Specifico honed in on that nailhead perfectly by pointing out the false equivalency aspect at play. TheValeyard (talk) 03:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In my reading by "hyper-partisan left-leaning" they mean support the centrist Democrats. The Daily Banter is indeed hyper-partisan against both Republicans and progressive Democrats. The most scathing attacks on Trump's alleged Russia connections primarily comes from centrist Democrats and media, as well as a section of the Republican Party, rather than from "the Left." TFD (talk) 14:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That lines up exactly with what I've seen. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is supposed to be about the article, and the issues raised at it's inception, to a degree. See WP:NOTAFORUM -- DN (talk) 05:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection should be extended indefinitely

Now that page protection expired, new account ‎Bobbysev1 is edit warring pro-conspiracy nonsense into the article, against sourcing. Who didn't see that coming? Geogene (talk) 23:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Geogene, My edit was not pro-conspiracy as you assert. It was in fact a verbatim quote from the cited article that was misquoted by the previous writer of the quote. It would be greatly appreciated if you would fact-check your own edits instead of making claims against others when in fact the mistake was not on my part. Thank you, Bob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbysev1 (talkcontribs) 23:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why the "conspiracy theory" pejorative?

We (the general public) do not know why Rich was killed. The DC MPD may speculate that this was a botched robbery, but they provide NO hard evidence that it was so. Any assertions on why he was killed are, at this point, speculation. If anyone can contradict that, please do so in a reply. So why give the pejorative "conspiracy theory" appellation to those who speculate that his murder might be linked to his job? (It seems to me that that appellation is being applied to any theory the left does not like.)

And as to the basis for the DC MPD's claims, note that, per http://www.factcheck.org/2017/05/gingrich-spreads-conspiracy-theory/, they have said:

Washington Post, July 11: Acting D.C. Police Capt. Anthony Haythe, head of the homicide unit, said detectives are examining several recent robberies in the area to determine whether any can be linked. There were two robberies in the city in the hour preceding the shooting, both more than one mile away. Three people were robbed at gunpoint and another person was carjacked within four days in June on Flagler Place, near where Rich was shot. Police report 20 armed holdups in Bloomingdale so far this year, compared with eight at this time in 2015.

None of these other incidents evidently involved the victim being murdered, let alone shot in the back.

So those incidents do not provide any precedent for murder, and thus any attempt to link them to the murder of Rich seems speculation. The bottom line: The "conspiracy theory" appellation is NOT a neutral POV. KHarbaugh (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]