This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
POV/Original research problems in second paragraph.
"The murder spawned several right-wing conspiracy theories, including the false claim that Rich had been involved with the leaked DNC emails in 2016, contradicted by the July 2018 indictment of 12 Russian military intelligence agents for hacking the e-mail accounts and networks of Democratic Party officials[5] and by the U.S. intelligence community's conclusion the leaked DNC emails were part of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections." Calling that a "false claim" is, itself, false. It's not proven to be true, but it's also not proven to be false. This material should not be placed in the voice of WP. The indictment of the Russians, for whatever they did, does not in itself somehow prove that Seth Rich was not involved with the leaked DNC emails in 2016. The Russians might plausibly have hacked, while independently some insiders within DNC leaked. It's also POV-pushing to label that a "right wing" or a "conspiracy theory". While certainly not yet proven, people from virtually any political stripe might find Seth Rich's murder suspicious. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:9514:B185:897C:47B8 (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
It's not proven to be true, but it's also not proven to be false.
[citation needed] ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)- Yes, and that's exactly what I said, above. That's why it's improper to call this, in the voice of WP, "false". This bias continues throughout the article. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:9514:B185:897C:47B8 (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- You missed the tag I responded with. We have numerous reliable sources claiming it's been proven false. We also have enough publicly available evidence to ensure that anyone who has even the slightest inkling of what they're talking about understands that the notion Rich leaked the emails is laughably ignorant. So yes: it's been proven false. Your own personal views about it are completely immaterial. On WP, we follow the sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- Paragraphs 2 and 3, and elsewhere in this article, remain biased. For instance, paragraph 2 refers to "theories", but does not even identify them! This is clearly trying to use WP to push POV. Show us exactly what theories have been proven false, to begin with. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:9514:B185:897C:47B8 (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- It's all right there in the article, if you'd just read it absent any preconception about the conclusions. But if you're reading it secure in your (demonstrably false) views that Rich was the leaker and the conspiracy theories are true, then of course it's going to look biased and POV pushing to you. That doesn't mean it is, though. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- In WHICH article?!? There are many cites in this, and any other article. Stop playing games! WP is suppose to be neutral. It's always possible to seek out sources which come to the specific conclusions you'd like to see. That, you and others have already done. You seek to keep this article biased. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:9514:B185:897C:47B8 (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- Untwist your tits: no-one is playing games with you here. Here on WP "article" means "Wikipedia article" not "source". Read this article to answer all your questions. And if you still have any, read the sources. There's a reason we hyperlink our inline citations. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- You're obviously not willing to discuss the problems with the article. They are quite numerous. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:F488:1F31:2B0C:F76A (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- You're obviously incapable of understanding that the problems only exist in your head. Oh well, not my problem. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- You're obviously not willing to discuss the problems with the article. They are quite numerous. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:F488:1F31:2B0C:F76A (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- Untwist your tits: no-one is playing games with you here. Here on WP "article" means "Wikipedia article" not "source". Read this article to answer all your questions. And if you still have any, read the sources. There's a reason we hyperlink our inline citations. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- In WHICH article?!? There are many cites in this, and any other article. Stop playing games! WP is suppose to be neutral. It's always possible to seek out sources which come to the specific conclusions you'd like to see. That, you and others have already done. You seek to keep this article biased. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:9514:B185:897C:47B8 (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- It's all right there in the article, if you'd just read it absent any preconception about the conclusions. But if you're reading it secure in your (demonstrably false) views that Rich was the leaker and the conspiracy theories are true, then of course it's going to look biased and POV pushing to you. That doesn't mean it is, though. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- Paragraphs 2 and 3, and elsewhere in this article, remain biased. For instance, paragraph 2 refers to "theories", but does not even identify them! This is clearly trying to use WP to push POV. Show us exactly what theories have been proven false, to begin with. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:9514:B185:897C:47B8 (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- You missed the tag I responded with. We have numerous reliable sources claiming it's been proven false. We also have enough publicly available evidence to ensure that anyone who has even the slightest inkling of what they're talking about understands that the notion Rich leaked the emails is laughably ignorant. So yes: it's been proven false. Your own personal views about it are completely immaterial. On WP, we follow the sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, and that's exactly what I said, above. That's why it's improper to call this, in the voice of WP, "false". This bias continues throughout the article. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:9514:B185:897C:47B8 (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- It seems to go against People accused of crime: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction." We cannot say that Viktor Borisovich Netyksho and eleven other people named in the D.C. indictment hacked the e-mails until they are convicted. TFD (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- This article doesn't name anyone. And what is it with people forgetting to sign today? (I'm not berating you, just noting that I've seen an unusual number of times today). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, now signed. There is a clear implication that the people named in the indictment, which is a matter of public record are responsible. In any case, I'll raise it a BLPN and see what other editors think. TFD (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- I think you're going to run smack into a wall of false dichotomy links, if you do. Because that's what you're doing by suggesting it was either Rich or the indicted parties. And remember; the end result if changed would be to imply a BLP vio against Rich (who still qualified for BLP protections as recently deceased AFAIK), as well as to contradict the RSes based on some editor's interpretation of a policy. I can't see any way that a proposal of that sort gains any traction. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- That's disingenuous because it is the text and your statement that assumes it is either/or. The president opined that it could have been a freelance hacker for example, which is neither/nor. Your argument seems to be that if we do not state as fact that twelve known Russians broke the law, the only conclusion is that Seth Rich leaked the emails. TFD (talk) 04:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
That's disingenuous because it is the text and your statement that assumes it is either/or.
Again: the text doesn't name anyone and; No, my statement absolutely does not assume it is either or. A suspect can easily be ruled out (as Rich has been) without it implicating a particular person. The closest thing to naming anyone is the claim in the lede, which is a simple statement of fact: The indictment absolutely does contradict the claim that Rich was involved. You are reading that as being the only evidence against Rich's involvement, which is never stated nor even hinted by the text.The president opined that it could have been a freelance hacker for example
And the president is possibly the single most unreliable source for any claim of fact ever to grace the pages of WP.Your argument seems to be that if we do not state as fact that twelve known Russians broke the law, the only conclusion is that Seth Rich leaked the emails.
That is a gross mischaracterization of what I've said. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- That's disingenuous because it is the text and your statement that assumes it is either/or. The president opined that it could have been a freelance hacker for example, which is neither/nor. Your argument seems to be that if we do not state as fact that twelve known Russians broke the law, the only conclusion is that Seth Rich leaked the emails. TFD (talk) 04:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- I think you're going to run smack into a wall of false dichotomy links, if you do. Because that's what you're doing by suggesting it was either Rich or the indicted parties. And remember; the end result if changed would be to imply a BLP vio against Rich (who still qualified for BLP protections as recently deceased AFAIK), as well as to contradict the RSes based on some editor's interpretation of a policy. I can't see any way that a proposal of that sort gains any traction. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, now signed. There is a clear implication that the people named in the indictment, which is a matter of public record are responsible. In any case, I'll raise it a BLPN and see what other editors think. TFD (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- This article doesn't name anyone. And what is it with people forgetting to sign today? (I'm not berating you, just noting that I've seen an unusual number of times today). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Then your statement about false dichotomy makes no sense. I have taken the matter to BLPN. TFD (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- I think you should read my comments more carefully because it's clear that you're not understanding me. My point is that saying that Rich did not do it does not imply that the Russians are guilty, nor does the text you quoted. They have been indicted, not convicted. It may turn out that Russian FSB agents are responsible, or even private parties. But it is clear, both by a literal reading of the sources and an honest reflection upon the evidence cited by those sources, that Rich is not the responsible party. Your argument seems to be that as long as we insist that Rich is not guilty (which we do because the RSes do), then we're strongly implying that the Russians did. That is a false dichotomy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- No I am saying the opposite of that. You said above I was "suggesting it was either Rich or the indicted parties." I said nothing of the kind and challenge to to show where I did. TFD (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- If your contention is not that it's binary, then your objection to the bit about the indictment is nonsensical. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- My complaint is that, per BLP, articles should not imply that people not convicted of crimes are guilty. Nothing binary about that. TFD (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Given the history of this thread, that's hardly a compelling argument against the assertion that you implied a false dichotomy. But presuming that you were ignoring the IP (which would be completely justified considering the IP's poor argument) and merely opining about the Russian individuals: I've addressed that at BLPN. Given that it bears upon both politics and conspiracy theories, it's likely only a matter of time before some new voices are heard. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- I certainly did not imply that there is a dichotomy, as an reasonable reading of my postings clearly shows. You will find that discussions can be considerably shortened if you don't misrepresent other editors' comments. Anyway, lets get back to the point. How does removing the wording "contradicted by" create a false dichotomy, violate BLP or V or constitute OR or violate any other policy or guideline or common sense that you may raise? TFD (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sitting here wondering how long it will be before you realize that this is literally the first time you mentioned removing those words, and that the only proposed change in this thread until your most recent comment had been to remove "false" from "...the false claim that Rich had been involved..." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- My complaint is that, per BLP, articles should not imply that people not convicted of crimes are guilty. Nothing binary about that. TFD (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- If your contention is not that it's binary, then your objection to the bit about the indictment is nonsensical. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- No I am saying the opposite of that. You said above I was "suggesting it was either Rich or the indicted parties." I said nothing of the kind and challenge to to show where I did. TFD (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
The first comment I posted was, "There is a clear implication that the people named in the indictment, which is a matter of public record are responsible." You then launched into an argument I cannot understand saying that changing the wording would turns it into a false dichotomy. Excuse me for digressing by addressing your comments. TFD (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- You jumped in the middle of a discussion to insert your own arguments. The discussion was on whether the word "false" should be removed. Your argument doesn't oppose the removal (but rather, supports it). Since I opposed the removal, I responded to your comment in the context in which they were made. In that context (whether or not to remove "false"), your argument that the Russians may not be guilty is one which relies upon a false dichotomy, by implying that if the Russians did not do it, then Rich did.
- If you had intended from the get-go not to support removing the word "false", then you should have started a new discussion, or at the very least made it clear what you were proposing, instead of waiting until after you'd made 8 comments over the course of 4 days to finally admit to what you wanted to do. Even then, I fail to see how the current content is a policy problem. The content does not insist that the Russians did it, merely that they are the only parties suspected by authorities, a fact that absolutely contradicts the conspiracy theory. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- That is disingenuous. The clear implication is that the Russians are guilty, which is why the curious phrasing was adopted. If you do not want to make that implication then you should agree to an unambigous wordking. TFD (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- I've already address this at the BLPN thread. I'm not repeating myself here. Your repeated accusations of dishonesty are nothing but uncivil bullshit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- That is disingenuous. The clear implication is that the Russians are guilty, which is why the curious phrasing was adopted. If you do not want to make that implication then you should agree to an unambigous wordking. TFD (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- Agree with OP and The Four Deuces. We should be vary cautious in use of phrases like "conspiracy theory" in a Wiki-voice. It is fine to say that various sources call it that. Although there are allegations without strong evidence and numerous reliable mainstream sources throwing around the term "conspiracy theory", that does not mean we should.
- In particular, stating that "the false claim that Rich had been involved with the leaked DNC emails in 2016" is a conspiracy theory goes too far. It's true that the Intelligence community and a number of cyber experts allege the Russians caused the DNC email hack. Yet, Wikileaks offered a $20,000 award [1] to solve the murder, which is yet unsolved. On August 11, 2016, the New Zeland Herald said "Julian Assange hints murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich was source of damaging email leaks." [2] (Note: same paper later publishes [3]). Patrick Lawrence at the Nation reported on August 9, 2017 [4] that the email was leaked and was "an inside job" rather than the Russians (Note: two weeks later Bob Dreyfuss also at The Nation called it a conspiracy theory [5]). The book "What Happened to Bernie?" (c) 2018 by Jared Beck, all of page 280 (note 116) talks about the possibility that Guccifer 2.0 as not being Russian but as an insider at the DNC.
- It is true that a number of media sites have retracted coverage after a lawsuit by the family. But can we really call a claim (that it was an "inside job") that was circulated in the mainstream media a "conspiracy theory" in a wiki voice? I say no. We should report exactly what happened, that they claimed it was possibly an inside job, and later retracted their claims or later referred to claims they had made as conspiracy theories. To ignore this history and call the "inside job" theory a conspiracy theory in wiki-voice goes too far. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- The OP was engaged in blatantly obvious political/fringe POV pushing. You agree with them? Good, then I don't need to bother reading whatever you have to say, as it's bound to be bullshit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- If you disagree, that's fine. But please refrain from calling my (or any other editor's) writing "bullshit". --David Tornheim (talk) 03:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- Sure thing. As soon as you stop writing bullshit. Becasue, as I said, if you agree with the OP, then you're here for POV pushing and thus your arguments are bullshit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- <shrug>. Do you require a fainting couch? --Calton | Talk 06:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- David Tornheim, Wikileaks, Julian Assange, and Washington Times are not RS. Wikileaks and Assange were engaged in damage control and a cover-up of their involvement as spreaders of the stolen emails. Jared Beck is a known enemy of Clinton, so be careful there. His fraud lawsuit against the DNC was dismissed. BTW, the theory that Rich was murdered to prevent him from testifying is nonsense, since the suit was non-existent at the time he was killed. That a few mainstream media sites mentioned a conspiracy theory doesn't mean there's any truth to it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- If you disagree, that's fine. But please refrain from calling my (or any other editor's) writing "bullshit". --David Tornheim (talk) 03:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- As far as using the term "conspiracy theory" goes, we should follow the lead of reliable sources. They overwhelmingly refer to claims that Seth Rich leaked the DNC emails as a conspiracy theory.
- As for whether it is, in fact, a conspiracy theory--of course it is. There is zero evidence that Seth Rich or anyone else at the DNC leaked the emails. Julian Assange and Patrick Lawrence both have long histories with Russia--both have taken money either from the government or from oligarchs close to Putin. All public evidence points to Russia. All US intelligence agencies are in agreement. All private cyber security firms that have looked at the issue agree that Russia is responsible. If evidence ever emerges that Seth Rich leaked the emails, then reliable sources will report it and the references to conspiracy theories can be removed. Until then, a "conspiracy theory" it shall stay. FatGandhi (talk) 03:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- The OP was engaged in blatantly obvious political/fringe POV pushing. You agree with them? Good, then I don't need to bother reading whatever you have to say, as it's bound to be bullshit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Washington Times retraction
Looks like the Washington Times has had to eat some crow:
- "The Washington Times Retracts Column About Seth Rich’s Killing" - New York Times, Oct 1, 2018
- "The Washington Times settles lawsuit with Seth Rich's brother, issues retraction and apology for its coverage" - CNN, Oct 1, 2018
The actual retraction: "Retraction: Aaron Rich and the murder of Seth Rich"
--Calton | Talk 03:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- I opened up that first link with my jaw hanging down, thinking that it was the Washington Post who retracted the story. But no, it was the Times. No big surprise there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- I also was relieved to see that Washington Times was not forced to retract the story that contained the revelation that "On the day he was murdered, Seth was excited about a new job he had been offered on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign". That would be more difficult, since there is video of him saying it. "Seth was excited about a new job he had been offered on Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign" But a vocal few still claim it is not worthy of being included in the Wikipedia article. StreetSign (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- I opened up that first link with my jaw hanging down, thinking that it was the Washington Post who retracted the story. But no, it was the Times. No big surprise there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- Since the retraction was covered in the NYT and CNN, I agree we should add it to this article. TFD (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
More Off-Topic Conspiracy Theories
Per WP:TPOC; Off-Topic: No, we are NOT going to allow page after page of conspiracy theories sourced to the banned-on-Wikipedia Daily Mail |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Some facts that are not yet included in the Wikipedia article, which would improve it significantly: The location of the Seth Rich murder: It has been precisely documented as the southwest corner of Flagler Place and W Street Northwest. Currently only described as “Bloomingdale neighborhood". The hospital where Seth Rich was treated and died. MedStar Washington Hospital Center or Howard University Hospital. Currently only described as “a nearby hospital”. Statements made by Seth Rich after the shooting. His brother is quoted as saying “They were very surprised he didn’t make it,” “He was very aware, very talkative. Yep, that was 100 percent my brother.” “He wasn’t in pain, they were told,” according to the paper. “But he was confused. When Seth Rich was asked where he lived, he gave a previous address …” The caliber of the weapon (or weapons) used to shoot Seth Rich in the back twice. The job offer to Seth Rich from the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, days before the murder. Existing in published statements from his parents, and even a video of his father talking about it. The known email accounts, social media accounts, and posts of Seth Rich, reported as MeGrimlock4 panda4progress pandas4bernie A photo or video of the “glimpse of the legs of two people who could possibly be the killers” Some of these are well documented, but described as "irrelevant". StreetSign (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC) ... Additional facts that would improve the article significantly: The name and badge number of the responding officer. The names and badge numbers of the assisting officers. The body worn camera video from the three assisting officers who wore them. Information that Shotspotter was used by the Metropolitan Police Department to detect and locate the gunshots that killed Seth Rich. Recorded as 5D67055 Multiple_Gunshots 10-Jul-16 0:04:18 Washington DC5D (latitude) 38.922 (longitude) -76.979 "rounded to three (3) decimal places" and 5D67057 Multiple_Gunshots 10-Jul-16 0:04:23 Washington DC5D (latitude) 38.922 (longitude) -76.979 "rounded to three (3) decimal places" (and gunshots (or "firecracker") at the same location minutes earlier) StreetSign (talk) 02:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC) (talk • contribs) 02:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC) at https://mpdc.dc.gov/publication/shotspotter-data-disclaimer-and-dictionary The photo taken at the scene of the shooting, showing the police and EMTs. A copy of Metropolitan Police Department Public Incident Report CCN #16113797 StreetSign (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I see that StreetSign has added a bunch more "facts that would improve the article significantly", and now it's bordering on the ridiculous: responding officer badge numbers? Bodycam footage? How is the HELL would things like this improve the article even marginally? If conspiracy theorists want to legitimize the factual pieces they use to cobble together their nutty hall of mirrors, let them try elsewhere. --Calton | Talk 06:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Why do you continue to hide all discussions on this Talk page of the factual and well documented statements by Seth's father (Washington Post, CNN, and Seth Rich's father on video) about the Clinton campaign job offer to Seth Rich four days before he was murdered? "On the day he was murdered, Seth was excited about a new job he had been offered on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign." "The young DNC staffer died just as he was on the cusp of starting a dream job" And here is Joel Rich on video telling us about the Clinton Job offer. I have never attempted to unilaterally put the job offer in the article, but just discuss it here, which is clearly appropriate. You continue to hide it from editors who might agree with me that it is relevant. StreetSign (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC) |
Even More Off-Topic Conspiracy Theories
Per WP:TPOC; Off-Topic: No, we are NOT going to allow page after page of conspiracy theories. | |||
---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||
What is good for the goose, is good for the gander. FrogCast (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Neither of those apply.
FrogCast (talk) 11:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Just because russians are accused, does not contradict the conspiracy theory. Even if they were convicted, it would be hard to say they were. Also, Russia is a conspiracy theory. It has all the markings. Please make arguments, not ipse dixit emotional outbursts. FrogCast (talk) 12:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Why would you ask for a source for a logical argument? It is not hard to understand. If you are accused of something, that does not make you guilty. FrogCast (talk) 12:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
You did not address my argument. Being accused is different than being guilty. Ergo, accused russians is not a contradiction to the conspiracy. FrogCast (talk) 12:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
FrogCast, you fail to recognize the difference between (1) exposing a real conspiracy, and (2) conspiracy theories designed to cover-up that conspiracy. That confusion is common among people and editors who read unreliable sources, such as Sputnik, RT, Fox News (for politics, they are extremely partisan), Breitbart, Daily Caller, etc. Here is a fully referenced explanation of the actual conspiracy theories, especially those related to the Trump–Russia dossier and the FISA warrant and surveillance of Carter Page after he left the Trump campaign. This is all reliably sourced. I think ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants and Nil Einne will also appreciate this (and all my hard work). Any comments should be added below the hatted content, and below my signature.
That should help you understand how this works. Don't call the investigation a "conspiracy". -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC) |
Off-topic complaint about other users
Per WP:TPOC; Off-Topic: Take it to ANI. It doesn't belong here. This page is for discussing improvements to the Seth Rich article only. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|