StreetSign (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
MPants at work (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 167: | Line 167: | ||
Yes. You have described the situation concisely. Any addition to the article would need to be both noteworthy and neutral. Identifying accurate sources by Wikipedia standards is one step in that process. [[User:StreetSign|StreetSign]] ([[User talk:StreetSign|talk]]) 11:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC) |
Yes. You have described the situation concisely. Any addition to the article would need to be both noteworthy and neutral. Identifying accurate sources by Wikipedia standards is one step in that process. [[User:StreetSign|StreetSign]] ([[User talk:StreetSign|talk]]) 11:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC) |
||
:What you are doing here is akin to drawing a stick figure in preparation for a an exhibition on the human body at the [[Louvre]]: Yes, you fulfilled one of the requirements, but your content is still shit. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">[[User:MPants at work|<span style="color:green;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] [[User_talk:MPants at work|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 13:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:55, 21 June 2018
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Proposal to tighten up unfocused paragraph on WikiLeaks Statements
Done: in the absence of any feedback or discussion, I went ahead and made this change. K zorn (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi,
There were a couple sections here that I think could be tightened up, but I'm assuming this is a pretty closely watched page, so I want to propose my edits here for consensus. In particular, the paragraph "WikiLeaks statements" is disorganized and does not actually match its title. I would rewrite the paragraph to actually focus on Assange's Nieuwsuur interview and other WikiLeaks statements, which lie at the heart of these persistent conspiracy claims. Any debunking in this paragraph should focus specifically on the contradictory statements by WikiLeaks and on the context of Assange's possible motivations for making them. My goal here is to give the key claim a full airing while also providing the context of Assange's words and actions, and placing it within the timeline of the developing hysteria (i.e., Assange made these claims several months later, after the hype had been built).
Before (omitting refs):
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 brought up the case. People who worked with Rich said he was not an expert computer hacker helping to leak information to foreigners. Andrew Therriault, a data scientist who had mentored Rich, said although he had recently been working as a programmer, this "wasn't his background", and another co-worker said Rich was very upset when he heard hackers associated with Russian intelligence services had broken into the DNC computers and could be interfering with the election.
After:
Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, fueled the speculation in an interview with Nieuwsuur published on August 9, 2016, which touched on the topic of risks faced by WikiLeaks' sources.[1]. Unbidden, Assange brought up the case of Seth Rich. When asked directly whether Rich was a source, Assange nodded, then said "we don't comment on who our sources are".[2]. Subsequent statements by WikiLeaks emphasized that the organization was not naming Rich as a source.[3] For context, Assange was well known as a longtime critic of Clinton [4] , and it subsequently came to light that WikiLeaks communicated with the Trump campaign over other issues, casting doubt on Assange's motivation [5].
Move these 2 sentences to the "Debunking" section:
Assistant Police Chief Peter Newsham said the police had no information suggesting a connection between Rich's death and data obtained by WikLeaks.[3]
People who worked with Rich said he was not an expert computer hacker helping to leak information to foreigners. Andrew Therriault, a data scientist who had mentored Rich, said although he had recently been working as a programmer, this "wasn't his background", and another co-worker said Rich was very upset when he heard hackers associated with Russian intelligence services had broken into the DNC computers and could be interfering with the election.[2]
Further suggestions
I haven't completely thought this through, but the "Debunking" section is a little bit long & unstructured (especially if the sentences above are added). It might be a good idea to break it into sections -- something like: debunking claims about the murder itself; debunking Rich's alleged connection to Wikileaks; debunking claims that the FBI was investigating...this could be tough because many of the sources debunked in several of those categories, but I think something could be done.
In any case, how does the first part look to y'all?
K zorn (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ Nieuwsuur (August 9, 2016). "Assange belooft nieuwe onthullingen over Clinton" (in Dutch). Nieuwsuur – via YouTube.
- ^ a b Nieuwsuur (August 9, 2016). "Julian Assange on Seth Rich" – via YouTube.
- ^ a b Morton, Joseph (August 10, 2016). "WikiLeaks offers $20,000 reward for help finding Omaha native Seth Rich's killer". Omaha World-Herald. Retrieved February 11, 2018.
- ^ Epstein, Jennifer (November 30, 2010). "Assange: Clinton should quit". Politico.
- ^ Mackey, Robert (November 17, 2016). "Julian Assange's Hatred of Hillary Clinton Was No Secret. His Advice to Donald Trump Was". The Intercept.
Revisiting the Profiling Project
courtesy pings to all editors involved, directly or not, in the recent revert cycle: @Wesley Craig:, @SPECIFICO:, @Netoholic:, @Snooganssnoogans:, @FallingGravity:. Geogene (talk) 04:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Should we still include Jack Burkman and his Profiling Project in the article? Some interesting things have happened there since we last discussed the issue, and I think they cast some doubt on the organization's credibility. Last month, the Chief Investigator of the Profiling Project [1], [2], who was fired in July shortly after their preliminary report was released, allegedly shot Burkman and tried to run him over with his SUV. [3]. He was arrested and charged with malicious wounding and "use of a firearm in commission of a felony". His next court appearance is listed for April 19th [4]. According to the Post's mugshot caption, he has no fixed address. Is this someone we should consider an expert in criminal profiling?
There are questions in some of the more partisan sources about whether Burkman/PP should be considered reliable at all. For example, the Washingtonian: When Jack Burkman, the Republican lobbyist best known for pushing conspiracy theories about the death last year of Democratic National Committee employee Seth Rich, stages a press conference, he usually only draws out one or two reporters. [5] Also, Mother Jones [6], "eccentric" according to the Huffington Post [7], "sketchy" according to the Daily Beast [8]. Is Burkman credible enough for this?
Last summer, Newsweek seemed to take this stuff seriously [9], but today, I think it's clear-cut pro fringe to even mention it. Geogene (talk) 04:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- The fact that the Profiling Project existed should be mentioned in the article, and the article does not label it an "expert in criminal profiling", but a group of college students. Whether or not their findings should be mentioned in the article is a different question (I think sourcing it to just one Newsweek article is pretty thin, so I left it out). FallingGravity 04:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Calton: How does the content you deleted "help out" the conspiracy nuts? Are you arguing that even mentioning the mere existence of The Profiling Project somehow enables conspiracy theorists? FallingGravity 05:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- In my opinion, yes. Conspiracy theorists rarely have more than a fringe appeal, so they crave publicity in order to reach as many people as possible, and even negative publicity sometimes helps them. Even mentioning something in passing here implies some significance, and therefore a tinge of credibility. Also, when you restored the mention of PP, you left out the Newsweek part about PP's report claiming that it wasn't a hired killer--based largely on their interview with the former chief investigator, the one who was fired soon after, supposedly for talking too much to the media without Burkman's oversight. PP's report didn't contribute any new conclusions of their own beyond casting doubt on the police theory, but everyone seemed to read into it whatever they wanted. Newsweek's interpretation seemed like the most mainstream, and was the best source covering it. Geogene (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- I have no opinion on this subject except to say that the material should stay in the article until a consensus forms to remove it. That's the status quo ante as well as the result of the previous discussion(s). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Well no. It's promoting a BLP-smear, and also a deceased person falsehood, that Mr. Rich was a criminal who stole privileged documents from his employer and illegally provided them to a publisher. SPECIFICO talk 18:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- That seems like WP:CRYBLP to me. The content currently being edit warred over is reliably sourced and doesn't reflect on Rich. And beyond that there's been a longstanding consensus to include the material. Nothing in WP:BLP, WP:NOCONSENSUS, or WP:3RRNO allows editors to remove BLP material added by talk page consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Well no. It's promoting a BLP-smear, and also a deceased person falsehood, that Mr. Rich was a criminal who stole privileged documents from his employer and illegally provided them to a publisher. SPECIFICO talk 18:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Agree with Geogene that this material doesn't belong; this "Project" is apparently made up of volunteers who are current and recent students, funded by an obscure Republican lobbyist. It's not an academic or expert enterprise, nor has it received significant press attention. It's more analogous to an online petition or user-generated content. And Specifico, no need to notify me of pending discussions here - this talk page is on my watchlist. Neutralitytalk 18:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- I believe this material should not be included in the article, per my edit summary, as well as Geogene's and Neutrality's cogent arguments.- MrX 🖋 22:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Don't include; it’s not encyclopedic. The "Profiling Project" volunteers are members of the general public who had as much access to the evidence as I, another member of the general public, had, i.e., none. They had a few minutes of local fame last year because Burkman (a "notorious Seth Rich-conspiracy pushing, lobbyist troll", no less) made grand announcements and then proceeded to sue the police, the DC mayor, Hillary Clinton, the DNC, Donna Brazile, etc. for access, testimony, etc., but all of that appears to have fizzled and died. No further news reports until Burkman was allegedly assaulted in January and in March 2018 (see links in Geogene’s edit - "Police would not comment on Burkman’s account of the incident"). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- Include, but with different wording. Instead of saying "independent" it should say it's a "private" investigation to show it's unrelated to the official investigation by the D.C. police. The Profiling Project has been given in-depth coverage by WJLA, and continued coverage by none other than The Washington Post (see: [10][11]). A factual mention of the group is not an endorsement of their reputation, anymore than mentioning the debunked conspiracy theories should be considered an endorsement of those theories. FallingGravity 22:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- One "source" from before Burkman was exposed for what he is. One about man and dog attacked, not about Rich murder. Weakly related -- they don't make the cut. SPECIFICO talk 23:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- The "source" is The Washington Post, which is still significant coverage even if you don't like it. And he's been "exposed for what he is" ever since he told the Daily Mail he thought Russia was somehow behind the murder, which happened before the Profiling Project was formed, so your logic doesn't make any sense. He later got coverage for trying to tell Robert Mueller the same thing. FallingGravity 01:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- No. Sources can be superseded by more recent knowledge, with our without quotes. Not all quotes are scare quotes, just like not all crows are scarecrows. SPECIFICO talk 01:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, so what part of the WaPo source has since been disproven? FallingGravity 01:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- RS now view Burkman as a dissembling, politically-motivated conspiracy theorist. That was not part of the old coverage. SPECIFICO talk 01:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- Most sources try to be neutral and avoid labels such "
dissembling, politically-motivated conspiracy theorist
", unless they have a thin line between their reporting and editorial departments, like the ones you appear to be citing. FallingGravity 02:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)- Oh my oh dear. I am not citing anything. I'm characterizing everything said about him, except by co-conspirator Fox. SPECIFICO talk 02:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, and I cited an actual RS, unlike you and your "characterizations". FallingGravity 04:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- WaPo explicitly refers to Burkman as believing in conspiracy theories "...a saga stranger than Burkman’s own conspiracy theories."FatGandhi (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Whether or not Burkman believes in conspiracy theories (involving Seth Rich and Russia) is beside the point, in much same way it's beside the point that Sean Hannity believes in conspiracy theories involving Seth Rich and the DNC. What's important for inclusion in this article is that their views and actions are covered by multiple RS, even if sometimes viewed with skepticism. FallingGravity 08:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- WaPo explicitly refers to Burkman as believing in conspiracy theories "...a saga stranger than Burkman’s own conspiracy theories."FatGandhi (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, and I cited an actual RS, unlike you and your "characterizations". FallingGravity 04:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oh my oh dear. I am not citing anything. I'm characterizing everything said about him, except by co-conspirator Fox. SPECIFICO talk 02:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- Most sources try to be neutral and avoid labels such "
- RS now view Burkman as a dissembling, politically-motivated conspiracy theorist. That was not part of the old coverage. SPECIFICO talk 01:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, so what part of the WaPo source has since been disproven? FallingGravity 01:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- No. Sources can be superseded by more recent knowledge, with our without quotes. Not all quotes are scare quotes, just like not all crows are scarecrows. SPECIFICO talk 01:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- The "source" is The Washington Post, which is still significant coverage even if you don't like it. And he's been "exposed for what he is" ever since he told the Daily Mail he thought Russia was somehow behind the murder, which happened before the Profiling Project was formed, so your logic doesn't make any sense. He later got coverage for trying to tell Robert Mueller the same thing. FallingGravity 01:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- Nope, don't include. See WP:DUE: promoting garbage above its actual importance helps out" the conspiracy nuts. --Calton | Talk 03:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- Agree that it's garbage.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- Good call, Geogene. It's inconsequential trivia. Leave it out. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2018
there is a "on March 2018" that should be "on March 2018" 104.35.236.49 (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Not done - This request makes no sense.- MrX 🖋 11:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Done Looking at the edit history it's clear they meant to write that it should be "in March 2018." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Which of These are Valid References?
Which of these are valid references?
The Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/were-seth-richs-parents-stop-politicizing-our-sons-murder/2017/05/23/164cf4dc-3fee-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html?utm_term=.c5b01406666e"Our beloved son Seth Rich was gunned down in the early hours of July 10, 2016, in his Washington, D.C., neighborhood of Bloomingdale. On the day he was murdered, Seth was excited about a new job he had been offered on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Seth had dedicated his life to public service, and he told us that he wanted to work on the campaign’s effort to expand voter participation because he loved our country dearly and believed deeply in the promise of democratic engagement. Seth had been walking around, calling friends, family and his girlfriend, pondering the broader picture of what the job change would mean."
CNN:
"Before Rich died, he had been offered a new job on Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign"
reference: https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/24/us/seth-rich-dnc-wikileaks-theories/index.html
There is also a video interview of Seth Rich's father clearly showing him saying:
"He had just been asked to join the Clinton campaign, four days before he was murdered." (and) "He had just found out that they wanted him."
Live video of Seth Rich's father speaking:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3741754/Father-murdered-DNC-staffer-reveals-son-join-Hillary-Clinton-presidential-campaign-punching-hole-ugly-rumor-Wikileaks-source.html
The paradox is that Daily Mail is not considered by Wikipedia to be a reliable source, but it is the only one with the video showing Seth Rich's father revealing what the campaign has not acknowledged. The other two sources (CNN and Washington Post) quote him in writing.
Are any of them valid references? Is it permissible to discuss them on the Talk page? StreetSign (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- All but the daily mail are valid. Please make at least a token effort to familiarize yourself with our policies and practices before asking such off-topic, generalized questions here. The relevant policy in this particular case is WP:IRS. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- MjolnirPants is correct. A video published by The Daily Mail may be used as a primary source. However I suspect that whatever you wish to use that video for wouldn't belong in the article. Why don't you propose some content? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Dr.Fleischman, StreetSign has already had this argument and been shot down by the wider community, as well as watchers of this page. See here and here. I'm sure you'll remember our friend here once you've started on the latter of those two links. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.
- Ah yes, I didn't realize this was the same person. StreetSign, I suggest you drop the stick. It's time to move on to something else. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Dr.Fleischman, StreetSign has already had this argument and been shot down by the wider community, as well as watchers of this page. See here and here. I'm sure you'll remember our friend here once you've started on the latter of those two links. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.
I thought it was best to find out if the sources themselves were acceptable, before going any further. StreetSign (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter whether they're good references. This has already been explained to you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
My goal is to propose an accurate addition to the article that is acceptable. StreetSign (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- You're missing the point. The consensus is that the content you want added isn't acceptable because it's not sufficiently noteworthy, and its inclusion creates a non-neutral presentation. None of that depends on the accuracy of the information. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes. You have described the situation concisely. Any addition to the article would need to be both noteworthy and neutral. Identifying accurate sources by Wikipedia standards is one step in that process. StreetSign (talk) 11:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- What you are doing here is akin to drawing a stick figure in preparation for a an exhibition on the human body at the Louvre: Yes, you fulfilled one of the requirements, but your content is still shit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)