Talk:Murder of Seth Rich/Archive 1

Merge
This should be merged to 2016 Democratic National Committee email leakVolunteer Marek (talk) 00:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * You just deleted the stuff about the links to the email leak and now you want to merge it to that article? How does that work? TradingJihadist (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * See . You can't put speculation and conspiracy theories into an article about a recently deceased person, especially based on junk sources like the Daily Mail.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You are making false claims even after having this pointed out to you. Nowhere is the Daily Mail being used to support conspiracy theories. The content you are deleting is well sourced, and you can't give a reason to delete the content. Also, give a reason as to why it should be merged to that article. TradingJihadist (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The speculation in the first para was sourced to Daily Mail. The rest is not well sourced either. Also:
 * Family of slain DNC staffer: Those attempting to politicize death are 'causing more harm than good'
 * Family of slain DNC staffer Seth Rich blasts nutters for spreading ‘harmful’ WikiLeaks conspiracies
 * Wikipedia's not going to be a part of that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The stuff sourced to the Mail, I repeat, was not speculation. The stuff sourced to the Mail was about police suggesting attempted robbery, nothing was taken, and the reward. That's it. How does that information amount to conspiracy theory or speculation as you claim? (Nonetheless, the Mail has been removed completely from the article). Your claims about the other content not being well-sourced have no substance. You're just asserting a claim without foundation, otherwise you would be able to explain why. TradingJihadist (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Back to the discussion on the merge to 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak, which I'm against. This article has enough content for a standalone article. Redirecting it to the email leak article would suggest that Wikipedia believes that the murder of Seth Rich is strongly connected to the leak, which presumably we want to avoid. TradingJihadist (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As the person that wrote the original BLP for Seth Rich, I think merging this article with the DNC email leak does exactly what you don't want it to do, Volunteer Marek. At this point there is no denying Mr. Rich is notable enough, and citable enough, to, at the very least, have his own BLP page. Would,'t adding this as a mere footnote to the e-mail leaks page (which at this time, we still have no proof that the two incidents are connected in any way shape or form) only politicize this incident more? I think the bigger issue here is not merging, but making sure what goes on here is accurate and reliably sourced. Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro
 * I will also note after going through what has been added to what i originally created, the conspiracy tone is far too heavy in this article. The info either needs to be sectioned off (can't think of a decent subject line for the content atm) or trimmed down significantly. I removed one sentence that was completely unrelated to the subject. Cheers Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 03:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge. If there is a real link to the leak, then the murder is definitely notable. If there isn't, then the article should be simply deleted. StAnselm (talk) 03:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The fact that a worker for the DNC is murdered in the midst of the 2016 presidential election process is notable, regardless of a connection to the leaks. The fact that Wikileaks is offering now a reward for information on this further raises the murder to notability.  Perhaps also the Ontological Argument could be added. (PeacePeace (talk) 05:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC))

Drive-by citation needed tags
An editor just came adding random citation needed tags. The reference for those claims are in the next source, as can be easily seen. I suspect that person did not bother to check the source. TradingJihadist (talk) 01:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Never hurts to add more - i knocked out one of them with a new source. The more reliable sources we can pull out of the garbage that is on the web right now regarding all of this, the better. Cheers Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 02:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Has the Nomination for Deletion Been Settled? I Cannot Find the Discussion of the Nomination Anywhere
Can someone post how to get to the discussion of the nomination for deletion, if such still exists -- or remove that boiler plate? I spent quite a bit of time trying to find the discussion, but today could not find a trace of it. A few days ago I found the discussion without too much trouble. Thanks (PeacePeace (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC))
 * You can comment here. But don't use allcaps because people will ignore you.  Also, try to be calm, and explain yourself logically.  Thanks.  Also, if you would like to vote, do so at the bottom of that page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Affordable Care Act??? Robert Muise???
What the heck do these Seealso entries have to do with this article? I guess it's not a BLP violation, so 3RR prevents me from reverting, but WTF?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Think 1RR here. There's too much POV editing going on.  SPECIFICO  talk  18:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Biographical details section
Is it necessary to have this section entitled: "Early life, education, and employment"? This seems to have nothing to do with this incident. This article is about the incident and not this person imho. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it's necessary to give the reader some brief background information.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

According to Newsweek, he was not shot in the back of the head
According to this article in Newsweek he was not shot in the back of the head. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

This NBC source states that "Rich was shot multiple times" - but does not mention the head. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

According to another source it states that "Police have released little about their investigation, other than to say that Rich was fatally shot in the early hours of July 10" --- Let's discuss. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I toned this down before out of respect for the relatives per avoiding victimization and WP:BDP - but some editors prefer salacious details to an actual Wikipedia article. So, I support changing to neutral wording such as that he was simply shot. Also, I wouldn't care if you take it out completely. We're not in the business of supplying gory details for "click bait" and grabbing audience share. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I support just saying he was shot. The reports conflict anyway.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've updated the article. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Saying he was shot is enough.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Article name change
I would like to change the name of the article to something less gruesome. I mean like tone it down. Any suggestions are welcome, then we see what consensus prevails if any.---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with keeping the sensationalism out, but the current title seems objective enough. Geogene (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Page protection
I am the editor who reported the edit warring and got the page protected. See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I am giving everyone involved fair warning: if the edit war continues after the protection expires, I will start reporting individuals at WP:ANEW.

I strongly suggest that those who have recently been edit warring instead use Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, starting at WP:DRR. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding intoxication...
These 3 sources   say something different. I know The Daily Wire can't be used as a source, what about the other two? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

"The bar manager stated..."
The sentence in this Wikipedia article states, "The bar manager stated that Rich was not drunk or even tipsy" and is using this source (the material is near the end of this Newsweek article). But if you look at the Newsweek source, the general manager (Joe C.), is not speaking specifically about that night, he is making a generalization. It reads, "That was just not Seth. I never saw him drunk or even tipsy." Using the phrasing "just not Seth" and "I never saw him..." implies a history between the two. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * "Specifically about that night" is a subset of "never". If I say "I have never seen User:Somedifferentstuff climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man", I am also saying "I did not see User:Somedifferentstuff climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man on January 1st". --Guy Macon (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I can appreciate the further research into this matter. However, since there are conflicting reports about whether inebriated or not inebriated, this is all the more reason to simply remove it from the article. This is because it is not really relevant to the event (it appears to be a robbery gone bad). In other words, it is trivial, (WP:UNDUE). And as such, it appears to violate BLP, because it casts the victim in a negative light without any relevance to the topic and without sufficient reason for being in the article. As previously stated, this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or a current events magazine. Giving credence to one previously unknown person's statement(s) (the bartender) is also WP:UNDUE when taking into account BLP issues. Another issue is, we have no way to verify the veracity of any statement this person (the bartender) gives to the press. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2016


 * Can we merge the section above with this one (somehow) since they seem to be closely related? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC) --- Check -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The Fundamentalist approach to this debate
I note some arguments above supported by appealing to Wikipedia fundamentals. Can we all pause for a moment to lighten up? I didn't realize that Wikipedia encouraged fundamentalism. WP:5P5 "Wikipedia has no firm rules: Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; . . . . And do not agonize . . . . " Is there agonizing going on over this article? Has anyone other than myself noticed some similarity between a religion debate with proof texts like PS 5:55 and WikiLawyer debates citing rules like WP:5P5? LOL (PeacePeace (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC))

Job title correction needed?
The article currently says that Mr. Rich was the Deputy Director of "Data-for-Voter Protection/Expansion" which is an odd-sounding title with what appear to be random hyphens. According to Rollcall, he was the voter expansion data director which is also the job title he used on his LinkedIn page (I know - primary source). Some of the sources and all of the unreliable ones seem to think that he was involved in the programming, i.e., coding, but his education and work experience is researching and processing data for employers' customers and probably also for use in the DNC database. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Policy on adding info regarding information relating to the crime?
I wanted to get some feedback before adding anything to the page. When you do a quick search for Seth Rich on google, the majority of articles direct to the controversy surrounding Jullian Assange and his bounty for information on what happened. Consiparcy theories aside, this is an open homeicide investigation, would't it be worth adding the actual information to the local police for people to provide any information they might have? From NBC Washington:
 * Anyone with information on the shooting is asked to call police at 202-727-9099 or send a text message to 50411. A reward of as much as $25,000 is offered.

Let me know what you think. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 02:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not give this type of info. The mention of the reward is enough. TradingJihadist (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Understood, thank you for your feedback. Cheers Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 22:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Merge back to Seth Rich?
The conspiracy info was toned down quite a bit with the last round of edits. Wouldn't removing "Murder of" from the title help tone it down as well? It seems like there's enough RS's for him to qualify for a BLP. Let me know what you think. Cheers Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 18:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It's an 'incident'-type article, hence death/murder of Seth Rich would be appropriate. But it can be debated whether it should be death of or murder of. It seems from the circumstances that it's fairly likely to be murder and a number of sources do refer to it as murder, eg "Police in Washington have already offered a reward of $25,000 for information about Mr Rich’s death, something that is standard in all murder cases" . TradingJihadist (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that's a good idea, although I'm still not convinced that this article should exist at all.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Simply looking for a compromise here, figured removing "murder" might be a decent alternative to deleting the article entirely. Cheers Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 22:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * If a change of title would prevent deletion then surely "Death of Seth Rich" is a good compromise. 62.178.163.64 (talk) 10:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * There's no source that doubts this was a murder. He was shot twice in the back. The reason for deletion is that a lot of self-serving conspiracy narrative has been forced on the article with no independent RS to support the theory, only to report that Wikileaks is promulgating it.   SPECIFICO  talk  13:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

"Conspiracy Theory" is not NPOV, but Democrat Talking Point
To refer to eliminating "conspiracy theory" is obviously a democrat talking point, and a violation of NPOV. The correct term is "reasonable suspicion, common to normal police work in investigating a murder. If someone too conveniently dies, Wikileaks guru says "NO," to the question about it being a simple robbery, then there is a reasonable suspicion for police to investigate.  There is no wacko conspiracy theory, like landing on the moon was a fake.   That this murder is quite notable is proven by the abundance of google hits that it gets and YouTube hits.  The purpose of the article should be objective presentation of facts, not promulgation of any theory or talking points.  (PeacePeace (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC))
 * This article falls within the scope of Biographies of living persons if it adversely impacts surviving relatives, and in this instance the surviving relatives have made very clear that they find public speculation about conspiracy theories to be hurtful, so I support leaving that stuff out until it becomes much more credible.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The so-called Wikileaks guru has no more knowledge of this crime than any other. Nor does he have any more knowledge than any other observer.  By PeacePeace's logic could report the opion of any person in the world about every crime in the world.  This would give us on the order of 6,000,000,000*10,000,000 articles per day.   SPECIFICO  talk  16:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Sources that should be used if the article is not deleted
Seth Rich's Family Shoots Down Conspiracy Theories About DNC Staffer's Murder After Wikileaks Offer

WikiLeaks Is Fanning a Conspiracy Theory

Right-Wing Media Run With Conspiracy

DNC Staffer's Murder Unleashed a Perfect Storm of Right-Wing Conspiracy Theories

SPECIFICO talk  15:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The family has asked that conspiracy-talk be avoided. So I support keeping conspiracy theories out of this article, at least until something becomes credible.  Accordingly, if we keep out the conspiracy stuff, I'm not sure that's consistent with inserting articles that reject the conspiracies, because those articles discuss the conspiracy theories, right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. There is no NPOV reporting that supports the narratives of the self-motivated conspiracy theorists and innuendo gossip. The only RS mentions of these threads is to describe them for what they are.  If there's ever an article about Clinton Conspiracy Theories perhaps this will be mentioned.  Otherwise, this is not a notable event in the context of the thousands of such crimes every year in the US.  SPECIFICO  talk  16:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There's still plenty of notable stuff that this article discusses, even without adding more refs.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What is WP-notable about this crime? I don't see anything, the mention in Clinton's speech notwithstanding.   SPECIFICO  talk  17:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I made a list at the ongoing AfD.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * All the items on your list have been refuted by various editors on the AfD. Murder victim in his 20's -- WP:NOTABLE?  Millions of those, etc.  Any wikileaks stuff is unrelated to the subject of the article and is self-promoted innuendo from an avowed opponent of Clinton that's been conveniently taken up by other avowed opponents.  Not RS, and clearly a BLP violation.  SPECIFICO  talk  17:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Hilary Clinton blurb
I don't see a need to have the Hilary Clinton blurb in this article. She made her comments over a month ago, probably as part of her political campaign, and I am not sure it is relevant. She mentions Rich in passing along with a "list of mass" shootings: "From Sandy Hook to Orlando to Dallas, and so many other places, these tragedies tear at our soul,” Clinton said in Portsmouth, N.H. “And so do the incidents that don’t even dominate the headlines. Just this past Sunday, a young man, Seth Rich, who worked for the Democratic National Committee to expand voting rights, was shot and killed in his neighborhood in Washington. He was just 27 years old." The rest of this article has the same info that other media outlets have - so there is nothing remarkable there. I think having this blurb is WP:UNDUE.

As an aside the first cited reference for this blurb is not the correct one. If you look it has nothing about Clinton's comment. The one at the end of the blurb appears to be the correct reference - if anyone wants to correct this. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC) Here is what we currently say about Clinton: Hillary Clinton spoke of this fatality during a speech advocating limiting the availability of guns. She added, "Surely we can agree that weapons of war have no place on the streets of America".

The entire second reference is about Clinton's discussion of Rich, so this is highly noteworthy. And the first cited reference certainly does discuss Clinton too: "Hillary Clinton, before she became the Democratic presidential nominee, evoked his name during a speech in which she advocated for limiting the availability of guns". So I think our very brief material is okay.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that she lists Seth Rich's case among other shootings is important. I haven't seen the speech WaPo is referencing, but it could be that by "weapons of war" she was referring to the semiautomatic weapons used in some previous mass shootings. FallingGravity 05:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * OK I missed that in the first reference - so I stand corrected. In second reference, I don't agree that it is entirely about Rich. I see that the headline is, and there is some mention, but there is also recounting about mass shootings. The info at the end has been repeated by other news sources. Anyway, that is just my take on the matter. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Subsection Tilte
Does "Apparently not a robbery" seem like an appropriate title for the only subsection in the article? Seems somewhat tabloid-y to me. I can't think of a better one off the top of my head, but if it apparently isn't a robbery, why is that the title of the largest subsection in the article? Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The header was "Apparently an attempted robbery". This header was chosen because a cited source says "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".  The header has since been changed to simply "Death".Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for changing. Cheers Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 19:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion split off from previous section
Now that consensus appears to favor removal of all the WP:COATRACK nonsense, it's likely the article will be deleted soon enough. SPECIFICO talk  21:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Um, maybe I'm biased, but I don't an emerging consensus. I'm sensing an RFC, though. FallingGravity 21:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The word "coatrack" was not used at this talk page until this talk page section, and without any explanation. I too am not seeing any emerging consensus.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's used correctly. This is currently an article about a murder, not a coatrack about Wikileaks. And if the reward is mentioned, that would be PROFRINGE unless a lot of space goes into reliably sourced speculations about ulterior motives of Wikileaks, background of the DNC hack, etc. We'd have to follow the email hack all the way to Moscow to get the full story. The end result wouldn't be much about Seth Rich, and it wouldn't flatter Assange/Wikileaks either. This is why the thing should have deleted. Geogene (talk) 01:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Geogene, does the following really look PROFRINGE to you? WikiLeaks later announced a reward of $20,000 for information leading to a conviction for the killing. After receiving the news of WikiLeaks' reward, the victim's father, Joel Rich, said, "I hope the additional money helps find out who did this." He also said WikiLeaks was "playing a game". WikiLeaks stated: "this should not be taken to imply that Seth Rich was a source for Wikileaks or to imply that his murder is connected to our publications".Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you're interpreting Assange's Wikileaks' remarks more literally than Assange Wikileaks may have intended them to be taken; but there is no way to be sure. Suffice to say I read this completely differently that you do. And I see it as PROFRINGE. Geogene (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:Preserve, I think we should all be reluctant to completely bar particular factual information from all articles throughout Wikipedia if the information is undisputed and has been widely reported in reliable sources. You're basically arguing that we cannot say in the body of this article what is already said in the footnoted headlines.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Except. That. This is being disputed. Geogene (talk) 01:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I meant there's no dispute that the information is factual and well-sourced. Entirely removing such material from the encyclopedia should never be done lightly (in view of WP:Preserve), and some policy-based reasons ought to be given beyond a naked claim of no consensus (see WP:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus").Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Anythingyouwant, these straw man arguments are not constructive. BLP, UNDUE, ONUS and other reasons have been made abundantly clear.  SPECIFICO  talk  02:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The BLP argument was specifically disclaimed regarding the automatic gunfire detector. That aspect was covered by reliable sources including the Washington Post, and no reliable source has been mentioned that contradicts the view that the police were alerted by an automatic system rather than by an eyewitness to the murder, or by a subsequent passerby.  The ONUS may be on me to get consensus for insertion, but any opposition to insertion still has to be based in policy, and you cannot just say that information is undue if you just want to keep it out of the article; some more substantial reason is necessary.  As to the BLP objection that Rich is somehow negatively impacted by noting he was characterized as sober when last seen alive does not pass any threshhold of plausibility, as far as I can tell.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You forgot UNDUE. This is an encyclopedia. A detector was used.  Is that a noteworthy fact about the crime?  Maybe it was interesting to those who were unaware that this technology has been in use for years.  The police also used many other devices.  They wore shoes. They spoke quickly but clearly among themselves, as they had been trained to do at crime scenes.  Etc. usw.  SPECIFICO  talk  02:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Look, this is my last comment about this for the time being because we're not getting anywhere. I already explained that there is no remotely plausible undue weight issue regarding the gunfire locater for several reasons. First, the principle is "undue weight", and here no reliable source has stated that the victim wasn't found using the automated system.  Second, the finding of Rich using an automated system was reported by very reliable and widely-circulated sources including the Washington Post, raising a strong presumption that it's not trivia.  Third, it should be obviously very significant that the shooting of Rich was not reported by an eyewitness, and that is conveyed by the gunfire locater information.  So that's all I want to say about Mr. Rich for now.  I wish you had followed the AfD closer's suggestion to just let the matter rest for awhile, instead of using every avenue available (and unavailable) to trim the article down to the point where it can be AfD'ed again.  I don't really care nearly as much about this little article as I care about the tactics used to edit it away.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No eyewitnesses is OR and was not in any source. SPECIFICO  talk  03:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've noted in the past that I would prefer to have the name changed as well. I would be up for an RfC if anyone is willing to step up and create one. I noticed the AfD link was gone from the page today and wasn't sure if that conversation was still going on or if we needed to start a whole new one. Cheers Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 02:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am going to look at what it takes to put together an RFC - thanks for the suggestion Steve Quinn (talk) 03:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Anythiingyouwant, the only reason to feel like no progress is being made ("not getting anywhere") is because your editing style is to argue endlessly even after you have been presented with policy, guidelines, and consensus. Just an observation ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Recap:
 * Police were alerted to gunfire at 4:20 am by an automated gunfire locator called ShotSpotter - well-sourced, considered relevant by major publications, not even arguably a BLP violation.
 * WikiLeaks later announced a reward of $20,000 for information leading to a conviction for the killing - well-sourced, considered relevant by major publications, not even arguably a BLP violation.
 * There may be policy-based arguments for excluding these as one can argue by policy to include or exclude almost anything. What's relevant is the weight of the respective policies and excepting BLP, no policies compel us to are strong enough to suggest we exclude well-sourced (WP:RS), undisputed information considered relevant by most major publications. (WP:WEIGHT) D.Creish (talk) 03:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ, D.Creish. The heavy, inordinate attention being paid to this article by obstructionists and the straitjacket imposed upon the editing of this article are irrational.  Since its inception, this article has averaged 1500 daily views, and yet some are even advocating its deletion.  And the acrimony on this talk page carries a foul odor.  Restricting the free exchange of information about Seth Rich's murder lends additional credence to so-called 'conspiracy theory' actually having some substance behind it. - JGabbard (talk) 04:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if I understand what you mean by "compel us to exclude..." - but, I wonder if you think this WP:ONUS is interesting based on your comment. I don't know if it compels us, but it gives editors permission. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Removal of trivia minutiae
I removed trivia per UNDUE, NOTNEWS, and had to revert due to UNDUE, NOTNEWS, and WP:OWN,. Please discuss Steve Quinn (talk) 08:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Newsweek reported that he was sober when he left the bar according to the bar manager, and Newsweek is a major reliable source, so I don't see the problem. Newsweek obviously didn't think it was trivial, and of course a drunk person is much more likely to get in trouble and/or be taken advantage of.  As for the automatic gunfire locater, multiple sources reported about that too, including the Washington Post.  When someone is murdered, it's almost always of interest to know how the police found out about it, because when humans make such reports they are often witnesses.  Anyway, for people who have never heard of gunfire locaters, this info may be intriguing for that reason as well.  I object to the whittling away of this article, as if it had failed AfD. Regarding WP:OWN, watchfulness is not the same thing as possessiveness.  I read your edit summary and found it unpersuasive and nonsensical: "Remove trivial details (not drunk?) (gunfire spotter?) that have noting to do with Wikipedia coverage of this event WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS".  As I explained in my own edit summary, "items do not 'have nothing to do with Wikipedia coverage of this event' if they are included in the Wikipedia article."Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Just because Newsweek reported the bar manager said he was sober - a trivial detail - that has no bearing on this event. We are not Newsweek and we are not a newspaper. We are an encyclopedia. The same goes for the other minutiae - a "gunfire locator". So, not seeing a problem has no bearing on this issue. Also, having it in this article I belatedly realized presents a negative view of the subject without good reason and appears to be another BLP violation. On the one hand, to me this demonstrates a lack of sensitivity to the family and the victim. I am guessing User:Volunteer Marek, User:SPECIFICO and User:JzG and others might agree, but of course I cannot speak for them. I apologize for saying WP:OWN. My emotions got carried away with me. Occasionally I get frustrated with certain types of editing. Most of the time I don't Steve Quinn (talk)
 * To be clear, I am talking about the bar manager comment as possibly BLP, not the "gunfire locator" (which I still think is trivial). Steve Quinn (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, a bartender is hardly a notable person and his comments should not be given the same weight as someone notable such as Hilary or the former DNC chairwomen, Wassermann. That's like me going over to a random guy on the corner and saying "Hey, what is your take on this?" In the world of notoriety, it wouldn't matter. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Re: "notable" bartender, notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. Eye witness accounts of events preceding a crime seem relevant to an article about that crime. So far I only see the bartender's comment covered in the Newsweek source - are there others? D.Creish (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Who the f cares. It's not essential details and it stays out for BLP reasons. And UNDUEVolunteer Marek (talk) 22:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There's not the slightest hint of a suggestion of a shadow of a BLP issue regarding the bartender's statement that Rich was not drunk or even tipsy when he left the bar. Take it to an RFC or BLPN if you disagree.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Marek: Removing content requires you articulate the BLP reasons. This talk page isn't a locker room, please keep your language civil. D.Creish (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Steve Quinn has already articulated it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And it's up to those who wish to include this nonsense to "take it to RfC or BLPN".Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Quinn said "To be clear, I am talking about the bar manager comment as possibly BLP". That's both equivocal and unexplained.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Steve also said "Just because Newsweek reported the bar manager said he was sober - a trivial detail - that has no bearing on this event. We are not Newsweek and we are not a newspaper. We are an encyclopedia. The same goes for the other minutiae - a "gunfire locator". So, not seeing a problem has no bearing on this issue. Also, having it in this article I belatedly realized presents a negative view of the subject without good reason and appears to be another BLP violation. On the one hand, to me this demonstrates a lack of sensitivity to the family and the victim.", or did you not read that part?
 * Can you please self-revert since that's your third revert in 24hrs and this is indeed a BLP issue? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Saying the gunfire was heard by an automatic gunfire locator does not in any way present a negative view of the subject. Likewise, saying he was sober when he left the location where he was last seen does not remotely present a negative view of the subject.  There's not even anything to argue about, as far as I can tell.  Even if it did present a negative view of the subject, BLPs do that all the time.  I am not even convinced that WP:BLP even applies here given that it wasn't a suicide, and no gruesomeness is in the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have requested administrator input here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Anythingyouwant, I clarified that the BLP is specifically the bartender comment. Seeming to be "literal" or producing an inaccurate restatement is not helpful. I did not consider the gunfire locator to be part of the BLP issue, only the bartender comment. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * But you have still been deleting the gunfire locator information, right? And have you explained why it's a BLP violation to say Rich was characterized as sober when last seen alive?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, in fact I did delete and was correct to do so and clarified the BLP. It seems your editing style is to argue endlessly, while seeming to miss the point, so please continue to do so. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * can you clarify (again) please. You say you "clarified that the BLP is specifically the bartender comment." Anythingyouwant asks why then did you delete the gunfire locator information and you reply that you were "correct to do so and clarified the BLP." Are you saying the locator is a BLP issue? If so, both statements (BLP is specifically bartender) and (locator removed per BLP) cannot be true. D.Creish (talk) 03:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I deleted the "gunfire location" information because it is trivial, has no bearing on this event and appears to be WP:UNDUE, which, by the way, is on a policy page WP:NEUTRAL. And, as far as I am concerned, this is not BLP. The bartender statement is BLP. If you are interested I discussed some of this in the above in my second comment which is the third paragraph in this section. Then there is other commentary by other editors. So, you are correct, it seems both cannot be BLP. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I disagree but your argument is clear. D.Creish (talk) 05:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice
I just placed the DS alert on this talk page and probably will eventually put them on people's talk pages. The relevant arbcom case is Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons. We have these DS for situations like this - where folks are told repeatedly that there are BLP issues and will not listen. Jytdog (talk) 02:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you mean to say we have DS for all BLP or only selective ones and if the latter, who has applied them to this article? D.Creish (talk) 02:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I will reply on your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 02:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Jytdog you have made unfounded statements as to editor motivations on this talk page. That doesn't give you the right to apply DS because you have disagreements with the content. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Nobody is "applying" anything. Those sanctions already apply to everything involving BLPs. Everyone's just been made aware of that now. Geogene (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * DS aren't meant to be used as a bludgeon when good faith discussions are occurring. There is a group of editors deleting content without citing any relevant policy and hoping that DS backs them up. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a good reason to remove sourced content. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not applying them. They apply.  I am just reminding everyone of that.  You are of course free to ignore the reminder.  You should know that MastCell, who left the message above with regard to how BLP applies generally and to this article, is an admin who works at AE, which is where editors bring other editors to have  DS apply.  Any admin can take action under DS whenever they like.   You should mind what he wrote.  Jytdog (talk) 03:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * All I have done is engage in good faith collaboration according to our policies. I read what he wrote and believe we all are here to improve this page. So let's do just that. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

List of excluded items
I think it will be helpful to make a list of things that several editors would like this article to omit:

1. The time and location where Rich was last seen alive.

2. A witness statement that Rich was sober when last seen alive.

3. That nothing was stolen from Rich.

4. How the police found out about the shooting.

5. That the police offered a reward for information.

6. That WikiLeaks offered an additional reward for information.

7. That the victim's father expressed hope that the WikiLeaks reward would help find the perpetrators, but felt WikiLeaks was playing a game.

8. That WikiLeaks put out a statement saying that it was not implying Rich was a source of leaks.

Apparently, the plan is to strip this article of information like this, and then take another crack at AfD.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This sounds nefarious and sinister to me (oh my!)---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It appears to be a conspiracy theory (this set of editors) within a conspiracy theory (think Assange). It is a tangled web that has been woven. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Now we just need to decide which statements should be included and which should be excluded. FallingGravity 16:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Please stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)


 * Re: [1] I don't know who removed this information but I personally don't have an issue with including it. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Re: [3] Why do we need to say that? The article already says attempted robbery, the key word being attempted. According to this source his mother stated: "There had been a struggle. His hands were bruised, his knees are bruised, his face is bruised, and yet he had two shots to his back, and yet they never took anything ... They took his life for literally no reason. They didn't finish robbing him, they just took his life." -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Re: [5] Why do we need to include this trivia? It's not super uncommon for the police to offer a reward. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

In lieu of deleting this article entirely, a clear effort exists to sanitize it by minimizing its content, thereby frustrating contributing editors. That's a lot of effort for a supposedly 'non-notable' article and is inconsistent with the spirit of collaboration. - JGabbard


 * I support including all the info listed above. I see no reason not to do so. In all honesty, it seems to me that the editors opposing the inclusion of this info are doing so more because of their strong and (apparently) ideological dislike for "conspiracy theories" rather than for actual article improvement. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have any problem with editors removing some details, the problem I do have is editors removing reliable sources and then using that to claim the article's non-notability. FallingGravity 01:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * NOTE: I the collapse of the above section per TPO (the link in my edit summary didn't work.) If that was incorrect please let me know and I'll self-revert. If the above were a BLP violation, which I'd dispute, it seems the correct course would be to remove it entirely. In either case collapsing is inappropriate. D.Creish (talk) 03:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Key issues?
So we have 4 days of page protection left. How about we just start with a list, with no commentary yet. Then maybe we can prioritize and tackle them one by one. What are the key issues to resolve? I'll kick it off...Jytdog (talk) 03:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) whether to mention WikiLeaks reward for information. Jytdog (talk) 03:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) "Police were alerted to gunfire at 4:20 am by an automated gunfire locator called ShotSpotter". Steve Quinn (talk) 05:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) "Rich left the Lou's City Bar in Columbia Heights at 1:45 am and told the bar manager he would go to a nearby bar". Steve Quinn (talk) 05:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) "The bar manager stated that Rich was not drunk or even tipsy."Steve Quinn (talk) 05:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikileaks reward offer is bogus
They didn’t even bother to tweet their so-called reward offer to MPDC, they tweeted it to themselves because - well - publicity stunt? Why hasn’t MPDC increased their customary reward offer of up to $25.000 to $45.000 and issued the usual press release about the donation of "donor (name here)"  or  "an anonymous donor" (fat chance of that happening)? No, the reward is still $25.000. Check it out online, there are plenty of examples for bonafide reward offers by (usually) "anonymous donors" via the investigating police department. Of course, that would mean paperwork and a bank guarantee, bond, promissory note or whatever so that the MPDC will be able to collect if and when. So, how exactly is this so-called reward supposed to work? You tweet the name of the perpetrator(s) to Wikileaks, they tweet it to MPDC, perpetrator is arrested and sentenced, Wikileaks sends you an electronic check for Bitcoins worth $20.000? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am personally offering 120,000 Bitcoins for information leading to a successful sockpuppet investigation related to this article. I cannot confirm or deny anything. My goal is to protect Wikipedia.  SPECIFICO  talk  18:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I would love to chip in a few bars of latinum, but someone just offered me a very nice-looking suspension bridge in Brooklyn, an absolute occasion that I just can’t pass up. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if the conversation is too elliptical for your taste, but this is about WP:V and WP:BLP and seeks to suggest how tenuous the arguments "for inclusion" have been. Hats off! SPECIFICO talk  19:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Wrong section? Was this meant for Mmyers1976? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes thanks it was a reply to MMeyers, copying now.  SPECIFICO  talk  21:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Why this article should be deleted at the next AfD
Per WP:BLPNOTE, the subject of this article is not notable. Specifically, WP:VICTIM states:

For victims, and those wrongly convicted of crime 
 * 1) The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with WP:BLP1E had a large role within a well-documented  historic event . The historic significance is indicated by  persistent coverage  of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role.

Let's break it down. First, before this man was killed there wasn't an article on him (which makes sense because he wasn't a notable figure). Then, according to sources used in the present article, he is killed, around 4 AM about a block from his house. Now shifting back to the guideline presented above, a non-notable man getting killed in DC at 4 AM is not considered a historic event; as stated above, the historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage. Is this event receiving persistent coverage? According to Google it's not substantial -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Somedifferentstuff, thanks for the update. Sunny days to you! ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPNOTE let's us know we are ok with this article, as it is not a biography (Rich is non-notable), but his murder was notable. I would make the same argument in the AFD, as I believe the coverage that RS gave this event and the timing of the event in an election season in the US warrant a stand alone article. The BLPNOTE guideline refers several times to the Steve Bartman incident, which is somewhat similar to this in that nobody really writes RS about the Steve Bartman incident anymore, but it was notable enough at the time it occurred. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Fly in Ointment: There is no connection whatsoever between the crime and Assange/Wikileaks other than his unguaranteed promise to pay $25,000.  There's no connection at all.  Anyone in the world can refer to any event in the world.  That doesn't make the speaker a part of the event. He didn't even put up $25,000 in custody.  He showed up for reasons unrelated to the event.  It's as if you or I were to sue a guy in Gander, Newfoundland because his dog barks all night. Whatever our private thought process about barking, dogs, or that one dog, we do not have standing relative to that barking, in the eyes of society. Take a look at Assange/Wikileaks' twitter fead RE: Hillary Clinton, by the way -- oh my!   SPECIFICO  talk  20:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you or I were to sue a guy in Gander, Newfoundland because his dog barks all night and multiple reliable sources thought it to be significant enough to cover -- in other words, if it met the requirements of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT -- then it would be covered in Wikipedia. It isn't our place to disagree with what the sources report as being significant. This has been explained to you before. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ackshully not. BLP poor guy the victim of his dog. Deserves privacy. What's good for the goose... What if I start tweeting that the dog's barking because his owner is from the Martian Invasion Army? ("MIA")  Does WP start an article about the dog's owner just cause I called him a Martian and it was in the press for 7-10 days?  No.  SPECIFICO  talk  02:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Is there a need for three separate informal AfDs on this talk page? D.Creish (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Was there a need for you to write that? (real question - answer it, and your question is answered) Jytdog (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was a need for him to write that, since the Guideline on Talk pages directs us to "Ensure there is not already an existing section on the same topic before starting a new discussion. " Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Removed Category: Living people
I removed (obviously unsourced) Category:Living people per WP:BLPCAT. I understand the logic behind adding it, but it is just improper to categorize Rich as a living person. As a side note, I have edited multiple controversial Death_of_* articles and I don't ever remember seeing edit notices there. Politrukki (talk) 07:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * BLP applies to the recently deceased. I think the category is appropriate here, and if the point is to show the right notice when someone clicks into the edit box, then I'd urge it be restored.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * BLP does indeed apply here (WP:BDP), however we wouldn't keep the article in the category. Category:Living People explicitly states that the recently deceased should not be included. Please see this current AN/I thread -- samtar talk or stalk 16:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Per the discussion above, I added that category because it makes Template:BLP_editintro appear at the top of the page when you edit the article.  Without that category, the notice doesn't appear. Jytdog (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We need to have the powers that be create a way to get that template to show up for articles with contentious BLP/BDP issues without making them be in the LP category. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Hmm, a good point Jytdog - I would suggest the use of a category (perhaps Category:BDP?) which a modification to MW:Common.js. Pretty sure that'd need a village pump discussion etc, so in the meantime I've requested a standalone edit notice for this article -- samtar talk or stalk 17:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * FYI, the code to make Template:BLP editintro show up with the category is coded in JavaScript at MediaWiki:Common.js as far as I know (search "Magic editintros"). If you're proposing a new category, perhaps make a request for the js to be updated. — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 18:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe a category, ;Category:Recently dead that explains that BLP applies and has the javascript load... Jytdog (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Collapsing preceding section
The !vote discussion is about excluding or including the purported reward offer in the article. How is mentioning that said reward offer is not a bonafide reward offer but a publicity stunt not discussing an improvement to the article, i.e., keep garbage out? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * First, yes, the !vote discussion is about whether the offer should be included, and that hinges on the notability of the offer as determined by the amount of coverage it has received in reliable sources, and whether or not mention of the offer might further victimize the victim and his family per BLP and VICTIM, not on whether the offer is sincere or not. If reliable sources are available that verify the offer is not sincere, that raises the issue of stating that the offer is not sincere in the article rather than excluding mention of the offer. Second, if the purported bogusness of the offer is so germane to the RfC as you two claim, then why was a separate discussion created instead of bringing this up in the RfC? Third, the comments by you two provided no proposals of how to edit the article or any citations of policy as why the purported bogusness of the offer must exclude mention that Wikileaks made the offer from the article. Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah we should be more disciplined and on topic per TPG. Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * MMeyers, I forget where I previously pointed this out, here or on one of the related noticeboard threads, but "notability" is not the standard we consider when we decide what text to include within articles. Please read the whole page of  WP:N], including [[WP:N. the reward discussion is about WP:V and WP:BLP and seeks to suggest how tenuous the arguments "for inclusion" have been.  It is not constructive to misreresent policy.  SPECIFICO  talk  21:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Right you are, so noted, but replace "notability" with "due weight"or whatever else you like, and my comment still stands, you guys weren't discussing the article, you were discussing the topic. Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The topic? I'm not being facetious here, I'm confused. The topic of the article is the murder and/or victim, not the WL reward offer we were discussing, whether bogus or otherwise?  Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If RfC is the !vote discussion, I thought about putting it in there but it didn't quite seem to fit. The discussion is whether or not the reward offer should be included or excluded in the article. I have already voted nay, but now it looks as though there never was an offer.  Newsmedia didn't pick up on this; I didn't think about it until Specifico posed the question.  So what's the proper way to proceed here?  As for the section I entitled "Why this article shouldn't exist", that was a request for an extension of the protection status, not a nomination for AfD because I didn't think that was a possibility.  Could have been worded better.  Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * On the one hand you're a stickler for talk page guidelines, although the unintended result is that you twice hide discussion of an important article content and sourcing discussion. On the other hand, you pledge allegiance to the notability guideline, although that issue was adjudicated at the AfC.  Meanwhile, you reassert your comment, without any basis in policy, and you say -- I'm paraphrasing to see if I understand -- "the proof is left to the reader" in other words you have no policy basis to offer. There is no reward. Sources describe a publicity stunt and a lot of coy, disingenuous, and rather ineffective sparring with the Dutch TV host. How can we mention a reward when there is no reward?   SPECIFICO  talk  22:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you think I'm "edit warring" as you've accused me of on your user page, then by all means report me to AN/3RR, and/or if the collapsed off-topic discussion between you and Space is that important to you, you can always unhat it and we can take it to AN/I and the nice people there can see how it stands up to WP:TALKNO, and how helpful your vague sockpuppetry accusations were, but I really have no interest in partaking in the pissing contest you're trying to throw down the gauntlet for here, so this will be my last comment to you here. Mmyers1976 (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Someone changed the title of this section to "Discussing the !vote discussion", and I'm changing it back to my original title. The section was and is a discussion - closed, as far as I'm concerned - about the collapsing of the preceding section. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Quoting Assange
I haven't been following all the drama that has been going on here that much, but I just read this Fox 5 DC article which kind of follows up on the original "WikiLeaks offers reward" story. Of particular note is the following quote from Assange:
 * "We have received a variety of information. We will be forwarding that information to the police. I don't think the information so far is enough to start pointing a direct finger. We don't want to compromise the police investigation."

If the reward is mentioned then I think this quote could also be added. FallingGravity 07:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

And so can this Aug 25 broadcast on eminently reliable Fox News (which I normally don’t consider a reliable source but going with the flow here) when the famous and notable one slithered and slimed hisssss way through another interview; they thoughtfully provided a full transcript. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is the transcript of the interview, but we don't have to include all of it. The part regarding the reward money is reported by an article about the interview and is relevant to the ongoing discussion. FallingGravity 18:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you'll need to start another RfC if you want to include a quote from Assange. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Per the OP there is no point starting another RfC until the ongoing one is finished; if we are not going to mention the Wikileaks reward then there is no point quoting Assange.  If we are going to mention WikiLeaks then this becomes an actual question... Jytdog (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

This stuff should not be published here on the talk page, per BLP. I'd like to ask an editor who agrees to collapse or archive this section. SPECIFICO talk  23:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've removed the transcript, which is unnecessary with the link and a potential copyright violation. FallingGravity 23:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Admittedly, I did not consider whether copying a small part of a much longer transcript of interviews with 4 or 5 people might be a copyright violation. I don't think it is but I wouldn't want to take this to court.  (IMO, it's still poor form to edit another editor's edit.)   I should have preceded my comment with "Warning - snark ahead!" because a) I'm opposed to mentioning the WL reward offer at all, and b) I only used the longer excerpt to point out to you that your short excerpt is out of context and misleading without the rest, starting with Kelly's attempt at mind reading and Assange's undulating avoidance of answering her yes or no question.  Anyway,  the RfC has not been closed so any discussion of additional WL is premature. Also, someone changed the title of the preceding section to "Discussing the !vote discussion", and I'm changing it back to my original title. The section was and is a discussion - closed, as far as I'm concerned - about the collapsing of the preceding section. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Request DS template
Anyone know how to do this? I request a Discretionary sanctions template be affixed in this article for when people open it to edit. Then they can see that this article is subject to discretionary sanctions and what type of editing is permitted Steve Quinn (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I am on it. I have put in a request to have an involved administrator decide whether DS applies here. If he/she decides that it does, I will make sure that the proper notice gets posted. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The DS template with regard to BLP is already there. I put it there in this dif on Aug 24 and gave notice that I did that in the section above. If what you are asking is that more admins start paying attention and enforce the DS that are applicable to any BLP subject matter anywhere in WP that is a different matter. Jytdog (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't an WP:EDITNOTICE be the way to do this?Mmyers1976 (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * and . Yes, I think that is it - WP:EDITNOTICE. This is what is looks like when you open up the H.Clinton page: ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * OH, I see. Do you mean the general BLP notice at the very top  - Template:BLP_editintro -  or the specific sanction - one revert per editor per day - Template:Editnotices/Page/Hillary_Clinton - that was enacted by Coffee, an admin?  If the former, I just made that happen by placing the category Category:Living people  on the article, per the instructions in Template:BLP_editintro.  If you meant the latter, as admin would have to come up with a sanction first and he or she would then place the notice about that. Jytdog (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please note that this page may or may nor be under discretionary sanctions. I asked for clarification (See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents) and got the following answer:
 * " If you don't include the Wikileaks stuff, it's not an ARBAP2 issue – it's another unsolved crime where the victim was employed by a political group. If you do include it, it is an ARBAP2 issue because you've brought the email leak into it, and discretionary sanctions apply. "
 * I am still waiting for clarification as to whether including the bare fact that Wikileaks offered a reward with no mention of any of the email leak or any of the other online speculation concerning Seth Rich would make it an ARBAP2 issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Guy Macon I am really surprised that you don't understand DS after all the time you have been here. DS are authorized by Arbcom for all BLP content anywhere in WP, and also for all content about American politics after 1932.  That means DS are already authorized for this page;  sometimes it is unclear if subject matter in an article is really within the scope of a DS authorized by arbcom; that is not the case here)  No specific DS have been applied yet (in other words, there is nothing like "1 revert per day per editor" in place), and as far as I know no one has been brought to AE under DS related to this article yet.  The purpose of DS alerts is to make editors aware that DS sanctions are authorized.   That is how DS work.  With respect to the answer you got:  1) you didn't ask about BLP DS, and 2) Wikileaks is one of the key issues here.   Jytdog (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC) redacted Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * yes I am referring to the latter. I will seek out an Admin who will do this. Thanks for your help and for clarifying this for me. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, Never mind - I'll let the Admins decide what to do Steve Quinn (talk) 03:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Steve Quinn in my view the disruption at this article has not reached the point yet where we need any specific DS applied. It may get there, but I doubt any admin will take action at this time. I could be wrong and it doesn't hurt to ask, i guess. Jytdog (talk) 03:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Jytdog I would be interested to know - mostly curious - so I will find someone to ask. Thanks again very much for your help. Have a good evening. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well generally what happens in my experience (roughly in this order of frequency), is that disagreement at an article within the scope of some DS 1) gets to ANI enough times that an admin just gets sick of it and steps up and applies some specific sanction relevant to whatever the disruption has been; or 2) some admin who is watching the article (and in this case we have at least two who might be watching it) sees disruption and steps up and applies some specific DS; or 3) somebody goes to AN or ANI or AE and asks for a specific DS to be imposed.  I am not aware of somebody going to an admins Talk page and asking them to impose some specific DS, but that could happen I guess.    In general the desire of the community is that people are free to edit and that people exercise self-restraint and use the WP:DR mechanisms when there are disagreements; nobody likes it when specific sanctions (which are always restrictions of some kind) get imposed on an article.Jytdog (talk) 03:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, I apologize for being unclear. I should have specified that I was talking about WP:ARBAP2 and I should have made it clear that this page is already under WP:NEWBLPBAN. I sort of assumed that we all knew this already. My fault entirely for not being clear. Sorry about that. And yes, I understand DS quite well. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * OK< sorry for misinterpreting you. Striking above. Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This has already been to AE over ARBAP 2. Geogene (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)