Darknipples (talk | contribs) →Intent to distract: reply VM |
|||
Line 153: | Line 153: | ||
:Nip: No problem from last time, don't worry about it. I think this is going to be easier to deal within a week or two now that the story is receiving much more complete coverage by RS. We can start now, AND stuff like the Wired.com false equivalency snippet can be thrown out for starters. [[User:SPECIFICO |<font color ="0011FF"> '''SPECIFICO'''</font>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 18:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC) |
:Nip: No problem from last time, don't worry about it. I think this is going to be easier to deal within a week or two now that the story is receiving much more complete coverage by RS. We can start now, AND stuff like the Wired.com false equivalency snippet can be thrown out for starters. [[User:SPECIFICO |<font color ="0011FF"> '''SPECIFICO'''</font>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 18:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC) |
||
::SPEC: "AND stuff like the Wired.com false equivalency snippet can be thrown out for starters." - I disagree on the false equivalency bit, but I'm willing to let sleeping dogs lie, for now. [[User:Darknipples|DN]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 02:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC) |
::SPEC: "AND stuff like the Wired.com false equivalency snippet can be thrown out for starters." - I disagree on the false equivalency bit, but I'm willing to let sleeping dogs lie, for now. [[User:Darknipples|DN]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 02:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC) |
||
:::Actually I think the Americans don't have any hyper-partisan leftist media outlets. = [[User:SPECIFICO |<font color ="0011FF"> '''SPECIFICO'''</font>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 02:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:12, 3 August 2017
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Picture
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Seth_Rich_memorial.jpg
Put this in the "Aftermath" section which says "In October 2016, a plaque and bike rack outside the DNC headquarters were dedicated to Rich's memory."
Caption: "Bike rack (top) and plaque (bottom) outside the DNC headquaters" Johanna745 (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 05:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 July 2017
The second paragraph states that there is a "groundless claim" that Rich had been involved with the leaked DNC emails in 2016. That is an opinion and yet to be determined. I suggest removing the word 'groundless'. 98.117.55.213 (talk) 23:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- Until some evidence of the claim is produced, it is groundless by definition. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- Not done: per MPants jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Use of "debunked" in second paragraph
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Edit request. From the second paragraph: "These theories were debunked by law enforcement,[5][6]" According to https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/debunk "There are plenty of synonyms for "debunk," including "disprove," "rebut," "refute," and the somewhat rarer "confute." Even "falsify" can mean "prove something false," in addition to "make something false." "Debunk" itself often suggests that something is not merely untrue, but also a sham; one can simply disprove a myth, but if it is "debunked," the implication is that it was a grossly exaggerated or foolish claim." (end of quotation) I don't believe anyone has actually disproved that Rich was killed in retaliation for revealing various emails. The organizations listed can be correctly stated as having "denied" that idea, but to rise to the level of "debunk" would probably require some sort of proof that it isn't true, rather than a mere denial that it is true. If the actual murderer were caught and tried, that could easily amount to "debunking" the concept, for example. Also, the definition discussion from Merriam-Webster suggests that the allegation must actually be a "sham", a "grossly-exaggerated or foolish claim". Was the suggestion that Rich was murdered in retaliation "a sham"? Was it a "grossly-exaggerated or foolish claim"? Is it completely inconceivable that a person working for the DNC might have been killed for revealing emails? I don't see any elements of that idea which qualify under these labels. Also, much is made in the various cites of conclusions that Russia supplied "the emails" to Wikileaks. There's no proof supplied for this; and even if it is true that some emails were hacked by Russia's people, that does not automatically disprove the idea that emails were also obtained by other means (including by other hackers, or insiders?) and were themselves supplied to the media or Wikileaks, or both. The cites seemingly being used to "disprove" the Seth Rich connection imply that emails might have been obtained and released by Russia, or Seth Rich, but not by both. Since Russia's activities are claimed to be proven, this is used alone to disprove Seth Rich's involvement. That doesn't amount to "debunking" the retaliation story. 2601:1C2:4E01:CE00:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 01:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Reliable sources say otherwise, sorry. The text will not be changed. TheValeyard (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- You sound quite certain. But you don't prove your point. You need to show that "reliable sources" ACTUALLY "say otherwise". I've made a valid point, that the use of the word "debunked" is improper. This word is used in the voice of Wikipedia, not merely as a quote from a so-called "reliable source". And even if a "reliable source" actually used that word, it doesn't mean that it was a proper assertion. Go back and try to prove your point. Don't make it sound like a group of partisans control this article. Even if they think they do. 2601:1C2:4E01:CE00:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 02:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- OooOOoOOohhh. Scare quotes. You know, you could take the ten seconds (a lifetime, I know) it would take to click on some of those sources in the article and read for yourself. I'm just saying. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Agree that this was settled a long time ago; and there's no reason to argue it again. Enough editors are familiar with what the sources say to know that this objection doesn't have merit. Geogene (talk) 04:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'm glad to see you set a trap for yourself, and then jumped right in! I checked references 5, 6, and 7, 8, and 9, and in NONE of them did I find a single reference to the word "debunk", or "debunked" or "debunked". But I wasn't satisfied with that. I wanted to rub your collective noses in it. So I did a Google search for '"Seth Rich" debunk'. Remarkably, in the first page of the results, while I did find one relevant reference (the last on the first page) it didn't explain how the story was actually "debunked". Effectively, the story was not proven, not actually debunked. Clearly, the gang that believes they control this article feels entitled to throw around a word like "debunked" even though Reliable Sources don't seem to use it. So far, the two people who have responded don't feel the need to DISCUSS, the critical third component of WP:BRD. (Bold, Revert, and Discuss.) Try again, guys. You are just making evidence of your rude, dictatorial nature. Quite typical for Wikipedia. Also, Geogene, don't play games. I've just disproven the alleged source of the word "debunked". The fact that you merely assert "this was settled long time ago" doesn't mean it is. Keep in mind that one trick people use in WP to stifle discussion is to erase material on the Talk Page, as I suspect has been done. Any challenge is legitimate as if fresh; your attempt to control the forum is noted and rejected. Further, I note that on this Talk page as it currently stands, the word "debunk[]" only appears on the section I just added. It sure looks like those before me have been trying to conceal the "debunked" issue. If I check prior versions of this Talk page, will I see any references to the debate you imply previously happened? 2601:1C2:4E01:CE00:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 04:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- You sound quite certain. But you don't prove your point. You need to show that "reliable sources" ACTUALLY "say otherwise". I've made a valid point, that the use of the word "debunked" is improper. This word is used in the voice of Wikipedia, not merely as a quote from a so-called "reliable source". And even if a "reliable source" actually used that word, it doesn't mean that it was a proper assertion. Go back and try to prove your point. Don't make it sound like a group of partisans control this article. Even if they think they do. 2601:1C2:4E01:CE00:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 02:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- "if it is "debunked," the implication is that it was a grossly exaggerated or foolish claim." -- Exactly... "I don't believe anyone has actually disproved that Rich was killed in retaliation for revealing various emails." -- This is also known as Argument from ignorance..."the definition discussion from Merriam-Webster suggests that the allegation must actually be a "sham", a "grossly-exaggerated or foolish claim" -- Yes, that is what it means..."Is it completely inconceivable that a person working for the DNC might have been killed for revealing emails?" -- Irrelevant, as we do not use Original Research..."Since Russia's activities are claimed to be proven, this is used alone to disprove Seth Rich's involvement. That doesn't amount to "debunking" the retaliation story." -- Your issue is not WP:DUE, your issue is not WP:RS, your issue is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- DN (talk) 05:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- <sigh> You seem to grossly misunderstand or misrepresent what I just said. I meant that it is improper to claim that something about Rich's death was somehow "debunked" unless it was a "grossly exaggerated or foolish claim". So far, it isn't. Your claim of "Argument from ignorance" is similarly misguided. I didn't claim we knew the truth of the claim; instead, I was and am saying that it is quite improper to call something "debunking" unless we KNEW enough of the facts. Which we don't. You are also misguided for referring to "Original Research". I am, instead, challenging the foolish assertion that it is "debunked", because to do otherwise ITSELF must use "original research": A person must conclude that it is completely inconceivable that a person working for the DNC might have been killed for receiving emails. And I am genuinely pointing out valid defects in the use of the word "debunked", which none of you have yet shown was actually used by a Reliable Source. Try again. 2601:1C2:4E01:CE00:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 05:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Assange interview on Dutch TV
I disagree with Dlabtot removing unbidden in this diff [1]. The source given does support that content, in spite of their edit summary. Is there any reason we shouldn't say specifically how Assange fed speculation? That he was the one that brought it up is relevant. Geogene (talk) 17:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- This is what the source says: "Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks editor, further stoked speculation that Rich might have been involved in the DNC hack by referencing the murder, unprompted, on a Dutch news program." It doesn't say that he 'seemed to imply' anything. I would ask you, according to the source, to whom did it seem this way? Dlabtot (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that 'unbidden' is valid. A mistake on my part. Dlabtot (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- The source says
Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks editor, further stoked speculation that Rich might have been involved in the DNC hack by referencing the murder, unprompted, on a Dutch news program.
[2]. That is the semantic equivalent of "seemed to imply that". Geogene (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- The source says
- (edit conflict)The removal of "unbidden" removes important contextual information about the claim. "Unprompted" and "unbidden" carry the same meaning and implications here. That being said "fueled speculation" seems more accurate to me, as that was the result, according to both the source and my own read of events. The fact that that part of the sentence doesn't imply anything about Assange's intentions is nullified by the use of the word "unbidden", which implies that Assange intended to fuel speculation. So from where I sit, the best wording actually is a compromise version:
"Assistant Police Chief Peter Newsham said the police had no information suggesting a connection between Rich's death and data obtained by WikLeaks. Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, fueled speculation of a connection when, unbidden, he talked about the case on a Dutch news program.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
"Right-wing" removed again
The POV-push by Loyalmoonie also needs a revert, as it is non-neutral and against longstanding consensus. Geogene (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
The terms "right-wing" and "debunked" are non-neutral and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.135.189.50 (talk) 16:09 1 August 2017
- No. These are perfectly ordinary words/phrases, used by reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Behind Fox News' Baseless Seth Rich Story: The Untold Tale
Some important details. Need to be included. We also really need to rethink the title based on what this indicates. http://www.npr.org/2017/08/01/540783715/lawsuit-alleges-fox-news-and-trump-supporter-created-fake-news-story Casprings (talk) 12:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you, Casprings, for bringing this to our attention. If I may make a meta-comment, I hope that all the good faith editors here will reflect on the history of this article and what increasingly appears may have been a calculated dissemination of this story and production of fodder for unwitting carriers who did not realize their role in spreading it. SPECIFICO talk 13:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed.The production of the story is what is WP:N here. As such, we should again consider the title Seth Rich conspiracy Casprings (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- I would support a move to "Murder of Seth Rich (conspiracy theory)" which I believe is consistent with how other such matters are treated. SPECIFICO talk 14:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Would that not be a bit vague though, like it was calling to question whether he was murdered at all? The conspiracy theories are about the who, so the title would have to be explicit about that, esp. Fox News' complicity. ValarianB (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- (ec)It's not a conspiracy theory that Seth Rich was murdered. The conspiracy theory is that Rich was somehow involved in the DNC leak and was murdered for this alleged role. I'm not sure how we could handle that distinction in the title. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- I would support a move to "Murder of Seth Rich (conspiracy theory)" which I believe is consistent with how other such matters are treated. SPECIFICO talk 14:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed.The production of the story is what is WP:N here. As such, we should again consider the title Seth Rich conspiracy Casprings (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Just a reminder (I know we all know this, but it doesn't hurt to reiterate): The sourced content is that a lawsuit has been filed, not that the allegations in the lawsuit are true. We can't treat them as true until multiple RSes do, and even then, only if they're not being contested by multiple other RSes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Two months ago, the pro-Clinton editors were saying that Wheeler had no credibility. Now that he's switched sides, he becomes reliable. There was no reason to view his alleged allegations as fact then and even less now that he has allegedly changed them. Oddly, he seemed to support his original alleged allegations in interviews with non-mainstream media in the interim. TFD (talk) 04:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- I think that should be kept in mind. Geogene (talk) 06:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oh I agree, and my own personal opinion is that... 50% of this is a publicity stunt, specifically the part that tries to involve the WH. The non-publicity stunt part is the fact that Fox News and Butowsky used him and set him up, which is born out by the evidence he submitted. It is important that we only include what the lawsuit is about and are clear on the fact that these are allegations made by Wheeler.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- As an editor who is doubtlessly lumped in with the "pro-Clinton editors", I just want to point out that my comments above belie your claim. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Why is there not an Ed Butowsky article?
A success such as that; one would think.--Wikipietime (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Don't think he's notable at this point and there are BLP issues.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Why no references to the Seymour Hersh tape where he discusses the case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.37.97.8 (talk) 06:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Julian Assange
Is it just me, or is there a renewed effort (in the last 48 hours or so) to distance Assange from this mess? Geogene (talk) 06:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Not clear on what you're referring to.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Intent to distract
DrFleischman The Four Deuces SPECIFICO Volunteer Marek Please see our previous Talk Page section from the archive [7]. Given recent revelations, i.e. the Wheeler lawsuit, I think we should reconsider some of the cited content that was discussed, or at least revisit that discussion. If the consensus is to WP:DROP, no problem, I promise not to lose my s#!+ this time (wink), just as long as we don't go accidentally editorializing context on RSN (wink).
- "As the revelations about President Donald Trump and fired FBI Director James Comey exploded across all mainstream news outlets on Tuesday, conservative, pro-Trump outlets – from Breitbart and Fox News to Rush Limbaugh and InfoWars – operated on the other side of the looking glass. This is the bizarre story they told: That the entire Trump-Comey-Russia story is “fake news,” all manufactured by the crooked mainstream media to distract from the real story – that real proof was emerging that Rich, not Russia, had been the real source of WikiLeaks information that damaged the DNC." [8] - Haaretz - May 23 2017
- "The latest Seth Rich allegations became a welcome distraction from the constant revelations coming out of the Washington Post and the New York Times." - Vox - May 24th 2017 (under section "Conservative media has a field day") [9]
- "Hyper-partisan left-leaning outlets jumped in as well, alleging that their right-wing counterparts/enemies were using the Rich theory to distract everyone else from Trump's collusion with Russia. Much like the White House itself, the entire thing became one big finger-pointy mess." - Wired - May 18th 2017 [10] - DN (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, can you refresh my mind here. Are you saying the content regarding "distraction from Russia" should be put back in or remove? I can't remember what the eventual outcome was and, I admit, I'm a bit too lazy to go look right now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Nip: No problem from last time, don't worry about it. I think this is going to be easier to deal within a week or two now that the story is receiving much more complete coverage by RS. We can start now, AND stuff like the Wired.com false equivalency snippet can be thrown out for starters. SPECIFICO talk 18:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)