Talk:Murder of Seth Rich/Archive 2

Deletion of rewards
This edit removed WikiLeaks and their reward from this article, and also deleted the police reward. I strongly disagree with these removals of longstanding content from this article. How about we just follow the advice of the AfD closer and wait awhile, instead of trying to delete the article by gradually chipping away at it? The reward information has been as highly publicized as any aspect of the case.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * See closer's talk page on this. SPECIFICO  talk  04:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Ultimately Wikipedia works by consensus, so you'll need to convince others of your view."Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "consensus..." referred to seeking sanctions at AE for Anythingyouwant and/or others. Too bad if it comes to that. SPECIFICO  talk  00:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * How is stating that WikiLeaks offered reward money libelous? If we included Assange's fringe claims about Seth Rich's alleged connections to the DNC email leak, then I would understand, but that's not what I see. FallingGravity 04:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Can anyone provide any policy-based reason (and not some response like see WP:BLP why the Wikileaks reward should not be mentioned? If not it should be kept.  TFD (talk) 05:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll reply in a few hours, however please remember that the burden is on the proposal to include, not to delete.  SPECIFICO  talk  11:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Here’s a thought experiment: Recall that Sony Pictures’ computers were hacked by the Guardians of Peace “GOP” around the time that the film “The Interview” was released. The film mocked and vilified the leadership of North Korea. Suppose that your son was the executive chef of the Sony Pictures commissary. Shortly after the Sony hack, your son is brutally murdered in the middle of the night walking on the streets of Los Angeles. The GOP announces a reward for information leading to the conviction of the killer. As his parent you decry this phony insinuation. It gets temporary blip in media coverage and then fades to nothing. Do you think WP should report it in an article about your son’s murder? Do you think there’s any reason for an article about your son’s murder in the first place? SPECIFICO talk  15:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In this particular case involving Seth Rich, the parents specifically requested that people cut out the conspiracy theorizing. They did not request that the WikiLeaks reward not be mentioned or discussed, and in fact the father said he hopes the reward helps.  I'm reinserting this longstanding material per consensus here in this talk page section, and firm consensus would be needed to remove it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Why open a talk thread without letting the discussion last even a day? Looks like premature evisceration to me. I posed that thought experiment so that editors could benefit from your analysis without letting any politics enter the discussion.  Citing an imaginary "consensus" with no discussion is not constructive. Anyway most of the editors who were pushing the conspiracy theory have been blocked or mysteriously disappeared.  Perhaps Wilileaks will post a reward for them too.
 * There are ample sources that report on the family's reaction, which you've misrepresented with a stale snippet from an old version of the article. e.g...
 * Here is their statement to the press after Wikileaks began insinuating that Mr, Rich had betrayed his employer: “The entire Rich family is so heartened by the outpouring of support and love that they have felt over the past few weeks as they continue to come to terms with this terrible tragedy. The family is in constant contact with authorities and thank them for their extremely thorough investigation. The family believes this matter is being handled professionally and with the seriousness that it requires. The family welcomes any and all information that could lead to the identification of the individuals responsible, and certainly welcomes contributions that could lead to new avenues of investigation. That said, some are attempting to politicize this horrible tragedy, and in their attempts to do so, are actually causing more harm that good and impeding on the ability for law enforcement to properly do their job. For the sake of finding Seth’s killer, and for the sake of giving the family the space they need at this terrible time, they are asking for the public to refrain from pushing unproven and harmful theories about Seth’s murder.”
 * See also typical RS coverage: Omaha World-Herald
 * And The Washinton Post
 * Rich’s father, Joel I. Rich, said he was offended by what he termed “bizarre” reports that are circulating on Internet discussion and message boards. Rich and his wife, Mary Ann, who live in Nebraska where their son grew up, visited the location of the shooting last week and appealed for help in finding the killer. On Tuesday, Joel Rich said that the WikiLeaks reward seemed to legitimize the rumor mill. “I don’t think I want to comment,” he said at first, then added, “I hope the additional money helps find out who did this.” But, he said, “I don’t want to play WikiLeaks’ game.” Assistant D.C. Police Chief Peter Newsham said that “at this time we don’t have any information to suggest” a connection between Rich’s killing and the WikiLeaks data or other theories raised online. SPECIFICO  talk  17:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't close this discussion. All I did was restore longstanding material because there is no consensus yet for removing it.  This discussion can continue.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is like two weeks old, so how about you drop this "long standing" nonsense? I mean, unless that is suppose to be tongue in cheek or something. Anyway, there is no consensus for including it and it's a BLP issue, so it stays out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree there's any plausible BLP issue, and by longstanding I meant the info has been in the article for weeks, since it was created, and throughout the AfD proceedings, but it's true the article was created earlier this month.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you're enmeshing two different things that WikiLeaks/Assange did. The first was WikiLeaks officially offering a lot of money if anyone could find evidence regarding Seth's death. The second is Assange spreading rumors that Seth was connected to the DNC email leak. I believe it is possible to report the first thing without stepping onto the second to conform with BLP. FallingGravity 19:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Consider my imaginary example. Now, I think that Wikileaks does not have any interest in this particular crime above all others.  Unlike the DC Police, Wikileaks is not responsible for bringing murderers to justice.  The only reason reported in RS for this reward is the one cited by the victim's family.  Wikileaks knows perfectly well that it can stoke fringe media coverage by its behavior. WP must not be complicit in that.  SPECIFICO  talk  20:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * By design, we are neither complicit or noncomplicit. We simply report what is in the sources, following our policies at WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:WEIGHT. It is not our place to decide what should or should not be allowed in an article on moral or ethical grounds. See WP:NOTCENSORED. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Strawman alert. There is no appeal to moral or ethical grounds. Wikileaks is using this tragic senseless crime to promote its agenda, which has nothing to do with Mr. Rich or the crime. To validate this utterly unfounded insinuation is to promote a false assertion that Mr. Rich betrayed his employer and possibly broke the law, by leaking emails to Wikileaks, whose founder is an avowed foe of Sec'y Clinton. It has nothing to do with censorship or morals. The only coverage of Wikileaks' involvement by RS calls it conspiracy crap.    SPECIFICO  talk  21:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has no policy against covering "conspiracy crap" if it passes WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:WEIGHT. The current version (greatly improved since yesterday) looks pretty good, in my opinion. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Obviously as disputed material it stays out until there's consensus to add it, and that requires reliable independent sources that contextualise it - for example identifying whether it's a blatant publicity stunt, and establishing its actual significance. Assange appears to be engaging in a bit of grief vampirism, which reflects poorly on him, so I think we should not include it unless its a slam-dunk. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * My similarly-named friend makes a good point. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

This has now been deleted (citations omitted): 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". Since the motives of WikiLeaks are unknown, this is probably all we can say. Either WikiLeaks is sincere or they're not. Reliable sources do not speculate about it, as far as I know, and yet dozens of reliable sources do mention WikiLeaks in connection with Seth Rich. Are User:JzG and User:Guy Macon saying therefore that WikiLeaks should not be mentioned in this article?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please. This ignores everything that's been carefully explained by at least a dozen editors here and at AfD. Sincere about what?  See  just for starters.  Use Google.  SPECIFICO  talk  02:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: "Are User:JzG and User:Guy Macon saying therefore that WikiLeaks should not be mentioned in this article?", my position is that [A] in my considered opinion it definitely should be included, [B] again in my opinion the reasons given for exclusion are, for the most part, not based upon any Wikipedia policy or guideline, and [C] my opinions are just a small part of the consensus and User:JzG AKA "Guy" (no relation) makes a good point about leaving out material until there is a clear consensus for inclusion. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. I think any consensus would need to be policy-based rather than censorship-based, in order to be valid.  Maybe we need an RFC.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's start with an informal head count. Who here, other than specifico, would !vote against inclusion if an RfC were posted? Note that this is not the same as being against inclusion if there is currently a lack of consensus to include. If so, what Wikipedia policy or guideline do you believe calls for exclusion? Specifico, please give people a chance to answer. Your replying to most comments is getting into WP:BLUDGEONING territory. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think that this is something that's to be decided by a "headcount" but yeah, I'm against including it based on BLP, including the fact that the subject's parents have made pleas to the press to stop spreading conspiracy theories.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you explain how simply stating that WikiLeaks offered reward money is a BLP violation? And how, exactly, stating that WikiLeaks offered reward money is spreading conspiracy theories? I just don't see the connection. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. My issue is with its significance, and with the conspiracist bullshit that others will layer onto it. X happened is not grounds for including X in Wikipedia. X happened and it was significant because Y, with independent commentators noting Z, is. Guy (Help!) 10:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As above, I don't think we should count heads, instead we should clarify what text would have consensus. The removed paragraph does not incude as yet any independent analysis of why Assange might have done this. I am inclined to e cynical, given his history. Guy (Help!) 09:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * User:JzG, the independent analysts speculate that Assange may have done this (1) because Rich was a WikiLeaks source; or, (2) because Rich was not a source but WikiLeaks has a policy of not confirming or denying such things, and treats "threats toward any suspected source of WikiLeaks with extreme gravity"; or, (3) because Rich was not a source but WikiLeaks wants people to suspect he was in order to deflect attention from the real source(s). All of this is speculation by independent analysts, and I am not convinced that it really tells us much, or that it belongs in this article even if it does tell us much.  I don't think the quoted material that was removed from this article ought to stay removed based upon whether this (1)(2)(3) speculation is included.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. Stating that WikiLeaks offered reward money should stay in. Any speculation about whether Seth Rich was or was not a WikiLeaks source should stay out. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Also agree. Wikileaks offering a reward is well-reported and in no way a BLP violation. Its relevance is established by coverage - RS think it's relevant, we reflect that. As long as we don't draw a connection between the reward and the DNC leaks (which the sources don't) it's not within our mandate to protect or prevent the reader from a drawing connection. D.Creish (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Concur with User:Guy Macon, the three editors directly above, et al., that the Wikileaks reference should be restored posthaste. Pertinent facts have been systematically disappearing from this article over the last several days, such as the part of the body on which Rich was shot, the number of shots, the fact that his belongings were not taken, as well as the Wikileaks reward. This needs to stop!  It is in no way the prerogative of any self-appointed 'guardian editor(s)' of a given article to unobtrusively and arbitrarily censor facts about the case or its surrounding circumstances simply because some of them might lend themselves to speculation, whether unwarranted or not.  Rather, it is incumbent upon the reader to analyze those facts for themselves, and they must be allowed to do so. - JGabbard (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. We have the following sources in the references section... ...but no mention of WikiLeaks offering a reward in the article.
 * "WikiLeaks offers $20,000 reward for help finding Omaha native Seth Rich's killer" --Omaha World-Herald
 * "WikiLeaks offers $20,000 reward over murder of Democrat staffer Seth Rich" --The Daily Telegraph
 * "WikiLeaks offers reward for help finding DNC staffer's killer" -- Washington Post

Can we just put it back, or must I post an RfC? --Guy Macon (talk)
 * As best I can tell, we have SPECIFICO, Volunteer Marek, and JzG (Guy) against inclusion; for inclusion are Guy Macon, Anythingyouwant, JGabbard, D.Creish, and Falling Gravity. So that's 62.5% for inclusion.  That strikes me as a consensus, but feel free to start an RFC if you prefer.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Apparently those headlines violate our BLP policy. Perhaps there's a way we could cover them up so our sensitive readers don't have to be exposed to any trace of WikiLeaks' reckless conspiracy-mongering. FallingGravity 06:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is obvious that Assange has an ax to grind, as pointed out above in a reliable source "Avowed Foe of Clinton, Timed Email Release for Democratic Convention" This is a NYT article in which he openly "made it clear that he hoped to harm Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning the presidency" releasing the DNC emails. And "He also suggested that he not only opposed her candidacy on policy grounds, but also saw her as a personal foe".
 * He also expresses a non-neutral view of Hilary on his website cherry picking circumstances to support that view. So far, this is the only independent analysis  - and Assange has openly stated he has an agenda. So, no, the material should not be restored. All Assange has done is use innuendo to connect conspiracy theories to Seth's death, which has impeded the police investigation, as shown by the sources presented in this discussion. This is all happening against the parents' wishes, This is BLP - which discourages tabloid journalism coverage - such as coverage of innuendos and speculation by the Wikileaks founder - who has implied this source, that source, and Seth Rich - but no hard evidence. And the following applies (per WP:AVOIDVICTIM)"Avoid victimization. When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems – even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."
 * And WP:BDP This applies "particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime". ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You lost me. How is Seth Rich victimized by mentioning that WikiLeaks offered a $20,000 reward which Rich's father hopes will help solve the case?Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Anthingyouwant - sorry you lost me there - what do you mean? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You just spoke at length about victimization but you didn't say how Rich is allegedly being victimized. You mean the reward suggests Rich was a spy?  We included the explicit denial by WikiLeaks that it was implying Rich was a spy.  I don't see how someone can victimize someone else by saying something if the person who allegedly said it expressly denied saying it or even implying it.  Anyway, Rich's father said he hopes the reward will help solve the case, and certainly the reward is significant in that way.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Anythingyouwant - It has been shown that Assange has an agenda. That makes any actions he engages in suspect. It appears he offered the reward to stir the pot of conspiracy theories, and perhaps even give himself, his situation, and Wikileaks free publicity. As noted by the article, he has said himself anytime there is a Wikileaks release they have to gear up the PR machine (so to speak). He also said that this time he didn't have to, given that this release was scheduled during the presidential campaign and the DNC hack already had wall to wall coverage. He has done nothing but mislead the public and the press. So, why should Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, and which also has guidelines and policies, jump on the bandwagon? That's a rhetorical question, not requiring an answer. What I mean is, I don't see that it is appropriate for Wikipedia to also jump on the bandwagon.Steve Quinn (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Your unsupportable comment ("nothing but mislead") about Assange doesn't bolster the argument for strict observance of BLP guidelines. D.Creish (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Your argument would apply if anyone were proposing we include innuendos and speculation by the Wikileaks founder ... but no one is, as far as I can tell. Any objections to including strictly facts confirmed by multiple, reputable RS? D.Creish (talk) 08:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * let me think about what this, thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Typo above? Feel free to remove this comment if you correct it. D.Creish (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Strike thru typo. I was trying to say that I need to think about this. No need to remove your "typo" inquiry, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Semiprotection
I have semiprotected this article due to the persistent issue of anonymous edits which immediately have to be reverted by experienced Wikipedians due to policy failures. Guy (Help!) 18:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 11:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The Biography needs more information about Brzezinski's ethnic background, religion being the most important one. He was from the area of the Pale of Settlement. The Radio Free Europe information is an example of globalution i.e. outside born revolution that is part of United States' foreign policy even today, connected to Brzezinski participated organizations promoting fundamental global capitalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dancing Mickey Mouse (talk • contribs) 19:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

none of his belongings were taken
Please undo your second reinsertion of this material and respond to my repeated policy-based statement of the reason for its removal. In the context of this article, these words are SYNTH and a BLP insinuation regarding the victim. We don't use everything that is in a source. Your rational for repeated reinsertion is specious. The article must reflect the weight of RS coverage. WP:BRD please. This article is under Discretionary Sanctions. SPECIFICO talk
 * I don't get it. It's a standard description of a murder to say that nothing was stolen.  There are dozens of reliable sources about this particular murder that do the same.  The fact that nothing was stolen helps explain why the word "botched" is used.  The father of the victim has asked people to avoid discussion of conspiracy theories, and we do avoid that.  He didn't ask that no one discuss the murder at all.  There's no tag atop this talk page, and I'm not persuaded that 1RR and discretionary sanctions apply.  If you revert me again on this, I won't put it back without talk page consensus, but I think you're mistaken.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you or anyone else can do the honors. I am away on a mission for the balance of the day here.   SPECIFICO  talk  18:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed the "none of his belongings were taken". Steve Quinn (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's still there and now it's also in a footnote.  I think you are edit-warring this bit. You've reinserted it several times now, even after  has now joined my concern.  I'm going to hold you to your word above that you wouldn't reinsert this bit.  Please get it out of the article and engage on talk. I really don't want to go the enforcement route here.
 * I see you've also copied the "shot in the head" thing to the footnote. This is not supported by Washington Post, NY Times and other sources more reliable than Telegraph for this content.  It's a BLP violation.  Please get that out of there too.  SPECIFICO  talk  02:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I put a quote in the footnote to establish that it was apparently an attempted robbery, and that quote happened to also say that he was shot in the head, and I've happily shortened the quote to remove the shot-in-head part. Also, I have removed at your request the uncontradicted and innocuous fact that no belongings were taken, and I continue to object to removing that material because it's standard descriptive language for such a crime, and otherwise readers will think stuff was stolen.  As for your removal of the uncontradicted description of Wikileaks' statement as neither confirming nor denying a connection with Rich, that removal puzzles me as well because it's in lots of reliable sources and without it readers will assume there was an association between Rich and WikiLeaks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Anythingyouwant - I don't see why you changed the section title from "Botched robbery" - which is highly descriptive and very effectively encapsulates this situation. The only benefit that I can see for changing it to "Apparently an attempted robbery" is that you authored it. I read one or two other accounts that used the word "botched" which is a much more descriptive word. I don't see any authority designated to decide which sources prevail. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Steve Quinn I changed it for several reasons. First, "botched robbery" is not well-supported by the sources, which say only that it might have been a botched robbery; so, we should not say in Wikipedia's voice that it was a botched robbery (not even the police are sure at this point).  "Apparently an attempted robbery" includes the word "apparently" meaning that we don't know for sure, and this header is strongly supported by the reliable sources, one of which says "appeared to be an attempted robbery near his home in a suburb of the US capital on July 10...."  A further reason why I changed it because the word "attempted" indicates that nothing was actually stolen, whereas the word "botched" suggests that something might have been stolen which is false.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. Just curious. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The alt-right/white nationalists are using Seth Rich death to campaign for Trump. That's why they're trying to add specific phrases — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.128.173 (talk) 08:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Administrative reminder re: BLP policy
Having seen the discussion here, by way of the post requesting additional input at WP:BLP/N, I want to emphasize a few points, in an administrative capacity, about the biographies of living people policy as it applies to this article and this talkpage discussion. In this case, the subject's notability stems entirely from being a victim of murder. We therefore need to be very careful not to act in ways which participate in or exacerbate the victimization. Specifically, it would appear quite clear that the subject's family has expressed distress at the involvement of Wikileaks in the murder investigation. A lot of the activity here boils down to prolonging or worsening that distress by trying to amplify the Wikileaks angle. While this material is arguably well-sourced, WP:BLP is very clear that sourcing alone is not enough ("including every detail can lead to problems&mdash;even when the material is well-sourced"). The decision to include or exclude this material needs to encompass not only whether the material is well-sourced, but whether its inclusion is of sufficient global encyclopedic merit to outweigh the associated potential harm and victimization. It is, of course, fine to have ongoing discussions about whether to include this material in the article. But those discussions need to explicitly acknowledge and conform to WP:BLP, especially WP:AVOIDVICTIM, as quoted above. Furthermore, as in any contentious BLP issue, the burden is on those wishing to add or restore contentious material to demonstrate that it complies with all relevant policies. If the material is added back without demonstrable consensus, or if there is edit-warring to re-insert the material without complying with these policies, then I or another admin is likely to intervene to uphold WP:BLP. MastCell Talk 00:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The subject of this article falls under Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy, which explicitly covers "people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death&mdash;six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends". Some editors have suggested incorrectly, here and elsewhere, that WP:BLP may not apply to this article subject.
 * WP:BLP contains explicit instructions regarding private figures and those whose notability stems from being victims of someone else's actions: "When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems&mdash;even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." (emphasis mine)
 * The family has indicated mixed feeling about WikiLeaks, not categorical distress. For example, the victim's father was not indicating distress when he said this about the WikiLeaks reward: "I hope the additional money helps find out who did this."  Since that is the opposite of distress, I don't see why it should be construed as distress.  And of course the family didn't indicate any distress about other aspects of the case that have been deleted from this article, such as the fact that the murder was reported by an automatic gunfire detector (why would they?).Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The family has retained a spokesman, Brad Bauman, who said: “That said, some are attempting to politicize this horrible tragedy, and in their attempts to do so are actually causing more harm than good and impeding on the ability for law enforcement to properly do their job,” Bauman said. “For the sake of finding Seth’s killer, and for the sake of giving the family the space they need at this terrible time, they are asking for the public to refrain from pushing unproven and harmful theories about Seth’s murder.”. The family isn't happy about this Wikileaks stuff. Geogene (talk) 01:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If anyone were to suggest inserting "unproven and harmful theories" about Mr. Rich's death in the article I hope everyone here would support their removal. Thankfully I haven't seen that.
 * The policy guideline Mastcell quotes above seems reasonable and well thought out. If someone can demonstrate reasonably that details such as the method of discovery (ShotSpotter) or the existence of the Wikileaks reward "participate in or prolong the subject's victimization" by policy then they should be removed. That has not been argued as far as I can tell.
 * Regarding the removal of content citing BLP, the following sentence on the policy page states: When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. Good-faith objections assume the ability to articulate the objection either in an edit-summary or talk page note. Simply typing the letters "B" "L" "P" seems insufficient - but I'd appreciate clarification on that point. D.Creish (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Good. But it also prohibits merely insinuating them. Geogene (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If details of a crime, neutrally presented and with due weight, draw conspiracy theorists towards conspiracy theories, it's not our responsibility to exclude or alter those details - at least as far as I'm aware. Can you point me to the section of BLP that addresses insinuations or demonstrate in what way these details would prolong the subject's victimization? D.Creish (talk) 02:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Can you point me to the section of BLP that addresses insinuations" <-- you know, that's sort of an admittance that your purpose on this article is to make insinuations. About a subject covered by BLP. You just happen to think that BLP doesn't "cover" insinuations. Which is classic WP:GAME and WP:WIKILAWYER.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you continue to make unsupported allegations about my motivations I will pursue sanctions against you. Keep talk page discussion to article content and not editor motivation. D.Creish (talk) 02:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am commenting on your comment. What was the purpose for asking, quote, "Can you point me to the section of BLP that addresses insinuations"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Marek, If you don't stop writing things like "you know, that's sort of an admittance that your purpose on this article is to make insinuations", I will take you to ANI. Knock it off, please. To everyone, more light and less heat, please. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You've forgotten WP:PROFRINGE. There is no way to mention the Wikileaks reward without unduly serving the narrative that Rich (and not Russian intelligence agencies) was the source for the hacked DNC emails. With that in mind, you need a thoroughly compelling (and BLP compliant) reason to mention Wikileaks in this article. Nobody has produced one, except that "reliable sources have mentioned it", which basically means nothing. (see WP:NOTNEWS). Geogene (talk) 02:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:PROFRINGE, which I've just read, deals with the inclusion of conspiracy or fringe theories. That does not apply unless the existence of the Wikileaks reward is a fringe theory, which clearly it isn't.
 * WP:NOTNEWS concerns original reporting (not applicable) and the notability of people or events. It doesn't, as far as I can see, apply to the details of any particular event. WP:WEIGHT offers guidance on that however, which is why I believe several editors have mentioned the widespread coverage of these details in reliable sources.
 * Which of these policies were you suggesting addresses "insinuations"? D.Creish (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It obviously is a fringe theory, I doubt you will find any reliable sources that take it seriously. It's only found in a few dark corners of the right-wing blogosphere, and perhaps in Russian state-sponsored media. And frankly, if it is included over my objections, then it will have to be presented neutrally, and that is going to entail a LOT of reliably sourced Wikileaks bashing. At which point this would become a WP:COATRACK, destined for another AfD. And this will all waste a lot of our time. Geogene (talk) 02:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Let us be absolutely clear: no one is suggesting we include fringe theories about Mr. Rich's death Please stop suggesting they are because it makes discussion more difficult. D.Creish (talk) 02:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It's actually pretty easy to mention the WikiLeaks reward without mentioning the DNC email leak. It just takes one sentence (maybe two). I personally see the dispute over adding or removing certain details as a sideshow. What matters is we include the reliable sources that allow the reader to research these details. FallingGravity 02:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there meaningful reason to add it? Is there some logical connection between Rich's murder and Wikileaks that isn't tainted by fringe? Geogene (talk) 02:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The logical connection is that WikiLeaks tweeted about offering a reward for info on Rich's murder, giving the case more media exposure. Now we can stop there and leave it at that. Easy. (Actually, we don't even have to mention the extra media exposure because it's pretty much a given.) FallingGravity 03:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

"Let us be absolutely clear: no one is suggesting we include fringe theories about Mr. Rich's death". No, let us be absolutely clear. You *are* suggesting that we include fringe theories about Mr. Rich's death. Just in a sneaky way. Including the fact that Wikileaks is offering a reward for details about this guy's death IS including a fringe conspiracy theory. It's a wink-wink nudge-nudge kind of way of including a fringe conspiracy theory but it's still including a fringe conspiracy theory. Why do we want to include it? If it was, say, David Icke who offered the reward, any person who read that in an article who has some minimal background knowledge would reasonably infer "oh Icke is offering a reward, he thinks aliens did it". Same thing here. Any person with a minimal background knowledge who reads about the Wikileaks reward will think "oh Wikileaks is offering a reward, Rich's death is connected to the DNC email leak". So yes, you are not spelling out and connecting the dots for the reader but the only reason why we would include this info is to *suggest* to the reader that there's some conspiracy afoot. So not only are these attempts to include this info BLP violating conspiracy theory mongering, but they're also very bad-faithed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's the kind of speculation we cannot by policy engage in. There's a basic logical problem in the repeated arguments for exclusion of well-reported, uncontested details on conspiracy or FRINGE grounds:
 * Either inclusion would lead a reasonable reader to a fringe conclusion, in which case the conclusion by definition can not be fringe
 * Or inclusion would not lead a reasonable reader to a fringe conclusion, in which case the objection on FRINGE grounds is moot
 * Either way FRINGE would not apply. It applies (assuming this page is the extent of it: Fringe theories) only to theories, not factual, uncontested claims. D.Creish (talk) 05:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice try but your conclusion does not follow from the premise. If inclusion leads someone to a fringe conclusion, then it's a fringe inclusion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Good faith BLP objections
In answer to good faith BLP objections not being articulated is the following:
 * The reasons for the removed BLP related materials have been presented repeatedly in other sections on this talk page. In other words, over and over again. This includes specific sections of the BLP policy. Claiming this has not been previously presented or not discussed is simply not true. A good example is User:Geogene's contributions just above this section. There are other examples in other previous sections.


 * Continuously challenging others to point out the specific section on BLP, after these have already been presented, does not appear to be effective for the collaboration process. Another way to put this is - good faith BLP objections have been articulated repeatedly on this talk page - which I assume are meant to back up brief edit history commentary - which does not provide space for the in-depth discussions that have already taken place. Likewise, the proposals to remove trivial material have been repeatedly discussed, in other sections of this talk page. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to Geogene's objection to the inclusion of fringe theories, the logical next question is: which fringe theory? That can't go unanswered only to have subsequent comments claim it's already been discussed. D.Creish (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The purpose of including the info about Wikileaks reward is to suggest to the reader the fringe theory that there is a connection between Rich's death and the DNC email leak. That is what Wikileaks is trying to do, and this is an attempt to use Wikipedia to further that purpose.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * D.Creish. Would you please read what MastCell wrote above specifically with regard to BLP and including the WikiLeaks content, and respond?  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've re-read it and the page on WP:AVOIDVICTIM and my earlier response (echoed by a number of editors) stands: If someone can demonstrate reasonably that details such as the method of discovery (ShotSpotter) or the existence of the Wikileaks reward "participate in or prolong the subject's victimization" by policy then they should be removed. What followed were arguments on WP:FRINGE grounds, which don't appear to apply. If there's another policy or I'm focused on the wrong objection, please direct me.
 * To respond to your earlier comment: I have no objection to an RFC. I was disappointed to see the DRN filing closed because it appears we're at an impasse. If my objections and arguments weren't shared by a number of editors I'd defer to the majority, but that is not the case. D.Creish (talk) 06:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * MastCell spoke very specifically about mentioning WikiLeaks. Would you please speak to what he actually said about that - he said nothing about FRINGE. Not a word.  Jytdog (talk) 06:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not imply Mastcell mentioned FRINGE, please re-read my comment. The sequence I illustrate is 1. AVOIDVICTIM (Mastcell) - > 2. In what way does this information victimize? (Myself) -> 3. FRINGE (others) D.Creish (talk) 08:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * MastCell explained how the information continues the victimization simply and clearly. I don't know what else to say to you. Jytdog (talk) 09:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I should have mentioned User MastCell specifically as well - THAT is pretty clear. There was a lot going on at the time. I recommend becoming familiar with that post. As stated above and above and above - the policy regarding mentioning Wikileaks reward is BLP including AVOIDVICTIM. This has been explained in detail here:.


 * The policy regarding alerting police with shotpotter gunfire locator is WP:UNDUE. This has already been discussed. Also, D.Creish acknowledged that I sufficiently explained about the shopspotter gunfire locator in a previous section . So why repeat it here?. Also, I don't know why  D.Creish is mixing this with prolonging the families distress.  D.Creish basically just made up an issue that didn't exist.


 * And User:Geogene already gave specifics on WikiLeaks and fringe theories as related to this article, . So, ALL of this has been more than sufficiently explained to all of us. Conflating issues to make-up issues that don't exist won't help or make any difference - it will only alienate other editors. It is getting to the point that if D.Creish is not clear on the issues then I recommend not editing this article at all.


 * One more thing regarding fringe theorizing, which seems to be synonymous with conspiracy theorizing - Jaydog has specifically addressed the issue and I quote:
 * "The immediate point is not re-litigating the AfD. The immediate point is that everybody is clear what this article will not do, and that is do anything related to scandal mongering.  The details are TRIVIA and are not going to be litigated endlessly - our mission is not to "suggest other motivations" for the killing.  Content about those "other motivations" is conspiracy theorizing and rumor mongering, at this point.  As I wrote in my opening note, if - and only if it turns out that (gasp) that Rich was offed by the DNC or some thug working for Hillary etc, then the article talks about that. Only then, and we won't need to argue over whether he was drunk or not or why that matters;  we will have accepted knowledge of the salient facts." Steve Quinn (talk) 07:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * My response specifically addressed the AVOIDVICTIM claim. As I said previously, a reasonable argument may be made the ShotSpotter detail is UNDUE. I attempted here to understand the case for AVOIDVICTIM which Mastcell appeared to make. Your "recommendations" are irrelevant. D.Creish (talk) 08:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Julian Assange has also stated that he thinks Clinton secretly has Altzheimers. Would you add that to the Clinton page, just because he said it. Assange is an unhinged, untrusted guy. He can't be used as a source, for anything 108.171.128.173 (talk) 08:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Why this article shouldn’t exist
and, if it can’t be deleted outright or renominated for deletion immediately, why it should be protected from any further editing for a lengthy period of time and why the title should be changed to just the name without "murder of":
 * 1) The article was clearly written by the Wikipedia equivalent of the ubiquitous Internet troll for the sole purpose of starting an edit-war and sitting back and enjoying the show. Setting up an account with a provocative name like SomethingJihadist?  Putting a Trump quote from his "When Mexico sends its people … they’re rapists" speech in the edit summary?  Oh puh-lease.  He’s pulling Wikipedia’s collective leg and yet here we are, an AfD no-consensus, an edit-war, and a lengthy Talk discussion later.
 * 2) The shooting was one of 41 unsolved homicides in the District of Columbia so far this year and more likely than not an attempted robbery gone awry.
 * 3) The fact that a ShotSpotter is located in the area where it happened is an indication that the Metro Police Department considers it to be a high-crime area. The use of ShotSpotters is widely known, so the potential robber was likely aware of them and unlikely to stay around after the shooting to search the victim for valuables.
 * 4) This homicide is no more and no less notable than the other 40, and the victim is no more and no less notable than any of the others. The only difference to the others is that conspiracy theorists from the "Hillary/The Clintons/DNC - root of all evil" camp latched onto this one, then Wikipedia/Assange latched onto the conspiracy theories to further their own agenda, and now, thanks to TrollingJihadist, Wikipedia got sucked in.  Beam me up, Scotty, I need a sonic sanity shower!
 * 5) It's been said before, and I'll say it again: WP:BDP - contentious or questionable material having implications for living and grieving relatives and friends.  Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 03:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I only wish this insightful commentary could be used as a reliable source - excellent! ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Seth Rich is being used by the alt-right/Trump movement, to campaign for Donald Trump. They will be keen to have certain things in the article, to maximize this. You're right - it's ridiculous this article exists. It's ridiculous that a Seth Rich page even exists. 108.171.128.173 (talk) 08:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)