This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Crime and Criminal Biography Unassessed Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: District of Columbia Unassessed Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as Low-importance). Death Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

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)[reply]

See [1]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wikipedia does not give this type of info. The mention of the reward is enough. TradingJihadist (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thank you for your feedback. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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" [2]. TradingJihadist (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

There's still plenty of notable stuff that this article discusses, even without adding more refs.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I made a list at the ongoing AfD.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Think 1RR here. There's too much POV editing going on. SPECIFICO talk 18:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I removed the "none of his belongings were taken". Steve Quinn (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's still there and now it's also in a footnote. @Anythingyouwant: I think you are edit-warring this bit. You've reinserted it several times now, even after @Steve Quinn: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

OK. Just curious. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, I think it's necessary to give the reader some brief background information.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you for changing. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 19:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 [3]. 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)[reply]

Here is what we currently say about Clinton:

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)[reply]

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. ^Falling_Gravity 05:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

See closer's talk page on this. SPECIFICO talk 04:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Ultimately Wikipedia works by consensus, so you'll need to convince others of your view."Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. ^Falling_Gravity 04:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: 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. ^Falling_Gravity 19:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wikipedia has no policy against covering "conspiracy crap" if it passes WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:WEIGHT. The current version[4] (greatly improved since yesterday) looks pretty good, in my opinion. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• My similarly-named friend makes a good point. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been deleted (citations omitted):

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)[reply]

Please. This ignores everything that's been carefully explained by at least a dozen editors here and at AfD. Sincere about what? See [5] just for starters. Use Google. SPECIFICO talk 02:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous. We have the following sources in the references section...

• "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

...but no mention of WikiLeaks offering a reward in the article.

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)[reply]

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^[sarcasm]. ^Falling_Gravity 06:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 [6] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Anthingyouwant - sorry you lost me there - what do you mean? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Steve Quinn: 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)[reply]

@D.Creish: let me think about what this, thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Typo above? Feel free to remove this comment if you correct it. D.Creish (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@D.Creish: 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)[reply]

According to this article in Newsweek [7] he was not shot in the back of the head. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This NBC source [8] states that "Rich was shot multiple times" - but does not mention the head. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to another source [9] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I support just saying he was shot. The reports conflict anyway.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've updated the article. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saying he was shot is enough.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed trivia per UNDUE, NOTNEWS, and had to revert due to UNDUE, NOTNEWS, and WP:OWN [10], [11]. Please discuss Steve Quinn (talk) 08:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Volunteer Marek: Removing content "for BLP reasons" 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)[reply]

Steve Quinn has already articulated it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have requested administrator input here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Steve Quinn: 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)[reply]

@D.Creish: 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

I agree with keeping the sensationalism out, but the current title seems objective enough. Geogene (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Um, maybe I'm biased, but I don't an emerging consensus. I'm sensing an RFC, though. ^Falling_Gravity 21:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

User:Geogene, does the following really look PROFRINGE to you?

Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Except. That. This is being disputed. Geogene (talk) 01:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No eyewitnesses is OR and was not in any source. SPECIFICO talk 03:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Comatmebro: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@D.Creish: 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)[reply]

I am the editor who reported the edit warring and got the page protected. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit war at Murder of Seth Rich. 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)[reply]

These 3 sources [12] [13] [14] 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)[reply]

"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 [15] (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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[16]

2. A witness statement that Rich was sober when last seen alive.[17]

3. That nothing was stolen from Rich.[18]

4. How the police found out about the shooting.[19]

5. That the police offered a reward for information.[20]

6. That WikiLeaks offered an additional reward for information.[21]

7. That the victim's father expressed hope that the WikiLeaks reward would help find the perpetrators, but felt WikiLeaks was playing a game.[22]

8. That WikiLeaks put out a statement saying that it was not implying Rich was a source of leaks.[23]

Apparently, the plan is to strip this article of information like this, and then take another crack at AfD.[24]Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds nefarious and sinister to me (oh my!)---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Now we just need to decide which statements should be included and which should be excluded. ^Falling_Gravity 16:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anythingyouwant: 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)[reply]

Re: [3] Why do we need to say that? The article already says attempted robbery, the key word being attempted. According to this source [25] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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'sguy (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. ^Falling_Gravity 01:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have articles on run of the mill murders.

• There is no Murder of Karina Vetrano (but there are plenty of sources, like this NYT piece)
• There is no Murder of Dexter Hopkins but again there are RS about it like this.

I could go on and on; hundreds of people are murdered each year. There are hundreds of articles that don't exist.

So why this one?

It seems the reason why this article exists, is the speculation that his murder was connected to the DNC email leak. Nobody can say there is anything other than speculation about that.

The mission of WP is to provide readers with articles that communicate accepted knowledge, per WP:NOT.

We are not part of the echo chamber of speculation that rings endlessly through social media. This is all WP:RECENTISM malarky.

If his murder is ever actually linked to the DNC email leak, then sure there would be reason for this to exist. That has not happened yet. I suggest everybody walk away and when pp expires we delete this. Jytdog (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My take is that this article exists because enough reliable sources have written about it, it received mainstream coverage due to a possible link with Wikileaks, and the murder happened at a critical time in the US election cycle to cause many interested people (myself included) to want to read about it to try to learn more, hopefully on a website that is trusted to present readers with the notable facts. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article exists because its AfD was closed with no consensus -- no other reason. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are both dodging the point of what I wrote. The only reason anybody here cares about this, is because of speculation about why he was murdered; there are no notable facts about that - there is only speculation at this time. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any other murders that prompted a reward by WikiLeaks. Anyone know of any? Or any other murders of DNC employees that have prompted public statements by the DNC chair as well as DNC nominee for president. That doesn't make the article hugely notable, but perhaps enough.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the relevance. Is Wikileaks setting our notability standards? Geogene (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No more than the Moon is setting our notability standards by rewarding astronauts with a spot to land.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even Assange said he was making no claims about the relationship to the leak. Whatever else he is and whatever you may think of him, Assange is a provocateur first and foremost. And somebody's murder getting made into rhetoric about gun control does not make them notable - Clinton makes campaign speeches every day and you can bet she mentions local murder victims all the time related to gun control issues. Again - the only reason why anybody cares about this is speculative connection to the leak. None of the people arguing to keep this would be here or care about the details if it were not for that. Do not dodge the point. Really, what you all are after is for the comment section at Breitbart or Daily Kos. Not for a Wikipedia article; we are an encyclopedia not part of the internet rumor mill. Jytdog (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Off-base speculations about editor motivations aren't really relevant here. This event was notable enough to generate global press coverage, comments from many notable people, a reward from wikileaks, and yes it has fueled speculation that there is a deeper connection. So we need to do our job as editors and write about the event using reliable sources and the current facts. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per the essay WP:MURDEROF, "News of a murder just when it happens, no matter how many sources cover the case, may not be sufficient for notability. But if the aftermath receives significant amounts of coverage, this could make the case notable." P.S. Dexter Hopkins lives. P.P.S. Here's a list of Wikipedia articles beginning with "Murder of", which seems to suggest that the victims were not otherwise sufficiently notable for Wikipedia articles.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The simple fact that there is so much controversy over this article (look at the talk page and the AfD entry) seems like proof enough that this article is notable for inclusion (including the details omitted as written in the section right above). --1990'sguy (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. There is controversy because some people are interested in the email leak speculation and want to get it and all the tiny details that may or may not play into that nailed down, and mainstream WP editors view all this as a waste of time and keep removing TRIVIA. Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

btw, the opening statement in the DRN case says it all: "omit all facts about the manner and method of Rich's murder which might suggest a motive other than the police theory of a robbery." The people pushing for all the detail are doing a Breitbart/Kos scandal hunt for evidence of a relationship to the email leak. This is not what Wikiopedia is for. We communicate accepted knowledge, we do not participate in rumor mongering nor do we break news. We are an encyclopedia. 22:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the opening statement in the DRN, and have said so there.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. In a way, with their uncivil, aspersion casting, bad faithed statement, the filer of that request also pretty much gave away the game and true motive behind this article. I guess others are still trying to pretend that this is about something other than promulgating conspiracy theories.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one as far as I can see has proposed we include "conspiracy theories." Can you link a diff to support that claim or at least identify the conspiracy theory proposed for inclusion? D.Creish (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Jytdog. The reason why editors are interested in this article is because of the Wikileaks connection. And politics. Wikileaks is trying to insinuate that there is a connection between this murder and the DNC leak. That's the only purpose of this reward, sensationalism and rumor mongering. Of course no such connection actually exists, but for political reasons, Wikileaks wants people to think it does. And as far as the encyclopedia is concerned that is one huge BLP violation. It seems disingenuous to pretend that this isn't what this is about - creating an impression of some wrong doing but playing cute games to make it seem like BLP is not being violated.

And honestly, I was under the impression that "no consensus" on BLPs defers to "delete" but that might have been just a custom, not a set policy. Needless to say I disagree with the closer.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus default to delete for BLPs was something that was proposed and used a few times years ago, but the community rejected it pretty strongly as an accepted practice. Sometimes it still happens, but only with other mitigating circumstances. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog and Volunteer Marek: this talk page is not the place to relitigate the AfD. The result was keep, now the focus should be on improving the article. D.Creish (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The result was not keep. The result was "no consensus" which should've deferred to delete given BLP issues. And no one's "relitigating" anything - you're the one avoiding the issue rather than discussing it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. Jytdog (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What are these "other motivations" proposed for inclusion you refer you? Much like VM's claims about the insertion of "conspiracy theories" you're arguing against something that as far as I can see no one is arguing for. If you feel the details proposed for inclusion - none of which are either conspiracy theories or speculate as to motivation - are UNDUE, such an argument is at least applicable, but the weight of reliable sources stack against it. D.Creish (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not remotely scandal mongering to mention the he was last seen sober. I don't believe Newsweek was scandal-mongering or being trivial when it reported this. It's just a standard relevant fact, and (like the many other facts that I listed above), it should not be removed for fear of promoting a conspiracy theory, nor inserted to promote a conspiracy theory. Many editors believe this whole article is trivial, but that's no reason to substitute their own notion of triviality for the notions of the reliable sources. This whole section is all about relitigating the AfD, as indicated by the header.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is done for me. The folks trying to make WP into a scandal rag will not admit it, so the fake argument about details will just continue. So it goes. Jytdog (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for chiming in Jytdog. As of now this is just another DC murder, but as you may be aware, this is silly season here at WP and to be expected. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does "he was at a bar before he was killed" add to an encyclopedia article? What does "he was sober" add? Absolutely nothing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

• 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—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—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)

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—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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.”[26]. The family isn't happy about this Wikileaks stuff. Geogene (talk) 01:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Good. But it also prohibits merely insinuating them. Geogene (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. ^Falling_Gravity 02:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]