2601:1c2:4e02:3020:f488:1f31:2b0c:f76a (talk) |
MPants at work (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 133: | Line 133: | ||
::::::::Untwist your tits: no-one is playing games with you here. Here on WP "article" means "Wikipedia article" not "source". Read [[Murder of Seth Rich|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. <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> 18:55, 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 [[Murder of Seth Rich|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. <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> 18:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::You're obviously not willing to discuss the problems with the article. They are quite numerous. [[Special:Contributions/2601:1C2:4E02:3020:F488:1F31:2B0C:F76A|2601:1C2:4E02:3020:F488:1F31:2B0C:F76A]] ([[User talk:2601:1C2:4E02:3020:F488:1F31:2B0C:F76A|talk]]) 20:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC) |
:::::::::You're obviously not willing to discuss the problems with the article. They are quite numerous. [[Special:Contributions/2601:1C2:4E02:3020:F488:1F31:2B0C:F76A|2601:1C2:4E02:3020:F488:1F31:2B0C:F76A]] ([[User talk: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. <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> 21:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:07, 1 October 2018
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lede
Seth Conrad Rich (January 3, 1989 – July 10, 2016) was an American employee of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) who was fatally shot in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington, D.C.[1][2][3]
That's the lede to a biography, not to an event, and certainly doesn't summarize what the article is about. So, how about a change?--Calton | Talk 09:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Calton makes a good point. The lead (I am old school and refuse to use that newfangled spelling -- get off my lawn, you damn kids!) should be in the form of an event. how about:
- "The murder of Seth Rich occurred on Sunday, July 10, 2016, at 4:20 a.m. in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington, D.C. Rich died from two shots to the back. Rich was an employee of the Democratic National Committee (DNC)."
- That's just off the top of my head and could be improved. in particular, I lost the middle name, which is undesirable. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- I like Guy's version. There's only one problem: "Lede" is not a particularly new term, dating back to the 50's, when it was used to differentiate the lead paragraph from the leading. It doesn't make one whit of difference on WP which spelling you use, but I actually worked a summer in print as a teen, and learned to spell it like that from there. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- It appears that "lede" was never used to differentiate the lead paragraph from the leading. It's fake retro-nostalgia.
- From Merriam Webster:[1] "Although evidence dates the spelling to the 1970s, we didn't enter lede in our dictionaries until 2008. For much of that time, it was mostly kept under wraps as in-house newsroom jargon."
- From Wictionary:[2] "Usage seems mostly confined to the U.S. Originally only journalistic usage that is now so common in general US English that it is no longer labeled as jargon by major US dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster and American Heritage. Noted as 'sometimes spelled' in 1959, 'often spelled' in 1969, and asserted in the 1979 reprint of a 1974 book (see Citations page). In 1990, William Safire was still able to say that 'lede' was jargon not listed in regular dictionaries."
- From Howard Owens:[3][4] "Early in my career somebody I obviously respected — can’t remember who now — told me the correct newspaper spelling of the opening of a newspaper story is 'lede.' There’s lot of romanticism and nostalgia in the newspaper industry for 'lede'... Today, our collection [of old journalism books] exceeds 400 titles. About 100 of the best of them are sitting at the moment immediately to my left. Some years ago, researching the evolution of 'objective journalism,' I cracked open many of these old books, and something struck me — in none of these old books did any author spell the word 'lede.' They all spell it 'lead.' It was then I realized, there is no historic basis for the spelling of a lead as 'lede.' 'Lede' is an invention of linotype romanticists, not something used in newsrooms of the linotype era. It’s really emblematic of today’s print nostalgia, too — like Desi and Lucy sleeping in separate beds — a longing for an America that never was, or wasn’t quite what you thought it was."
- Also see Lead vs. lede and tradition vs. substance. [5] --Guy Macon (talk) 02:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Our article claims the oldest use was in '59, which matches what I was told way back when (my teen years were in the '90's). But apparently, both were wrong. I'm off to make a certain edit, but thanks for looking that up! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Also see Lead vs. lede and tradition vs. substance. [5] --Guy Macon (talk) 02:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Just for the record, I originally picked up the term "lede" (and "graf") from a couple of college journalism classes in the late 80s -- and which I've used since then -- so being in use for at least 40 years is no-way "newfangled" as far as I'm concerned. I have to say, it's a strange hill to want to die on.
Meanwhile: the lede for this article? --Calton | Talk 03:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support: "The murder of Seth Rich occurred on Sunday, July 10, 2016, at 4:20 a.m. in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington, D.C. Rich died from two shots to the back. Rich was an employee of the Democratic National Committee (DNC)." StreetSign (talk) 11:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Nope. This is about a crime: what does Rich having been an employee of a particular organization have to do with anything? --Calton | Talk 02:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Although I had that in my original top-of-my-head proposal above, now that you bring it up, where he was employed is irrelevant. I say take it out. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- What facts belong in the article is determined by what reliable sources decide is relevant, per Balancing aspects. Incidentally, biographical information about crime victims is always included in crime stories, whether or not it was known by the perpetrator[s]. Otherwise, I agree with the change in phrasing. I don't see though why we should mention he was an American, since the assumption is that people born in and living in the U.S. are U.S. citizens. TFD (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- What facts belong in the article is determined by what reliable sources decide is relevant...
- That's nice. Also irrelevant, since what's being discussed is the lede, not the article overall. --Calton | Talk 14:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- News media routinely say that Seth Rich was employed by the DNC when they first mention him. See for example, the first sentence in this recent article from CBS: "A judge in the Southern District of New York dismissed a lawsuit against Fox News by parents of murdered Democratic National Committee employee Seth Rich...."[6] Neutrality requires us to use the same emphasis on facts as reliable sources. TFD (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
So, about that biographical-style lead? Still there. I'm not changing anything unless I'm absolutely sure there's consensus. Hell, the damned thing doesn't even mention the DATE of the event except by inference. --Calton | Talk 23:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
"Neither the FBI nor CIA ever examined the servers"?
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.
From a conspiracy site:
Collection of Democratic National Committee (DNC) internal emails published (leaked) by DCLeaks and WikiLeaks during the 2016 Democratic National Convention. Seth Rich was the source leaks, miffed that the DNC railroaded Barry Sanders. Seth Rich was subsequently murdered by MS-13 hitmen. DNC had CrowdStrike investigate their servers and falsely claim that Russian hackers were behind the leak. Meanwhile, neither the FBI nor CIA ever examined the servers.
It says that "Neither the FBI nor CIA ever examined the servers"... is that true? If so it seems relevant since according to the conspiracy Seth Rich and not Russian hackers were involved with the servers. BTW I know that there were "12 Russians indicted in Mueller investigation".
So if it's true about the FBI and CIA then I think that should be mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legowolf3d (talk • contribs)
edit: a related page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak
Denialism category
Right now there is a category for "Denialism" on the article. Does that really belong? I didn't want to remove it without a discussion since this article seems to be so sensitive.PopSci (talk) 23:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- Well, it fits perfectly per the definition given at Denialism as it 's a conspiracy theory which denies the actual evidence of the DNC leak as well as at least some of the findings of the police investigation. But it fits those because it's a conspiracy theory, and it's already in two conspiracy theory categories (which is proper), but Category:Conspiracy theories is not a subcat of Category:Denialism, which, to my way of thinking, it should be. So I think this is a category problem, not a "categories of this page" problem. But that means wading into the tenebrous -and possibly bottomless- pit that is category space; haunted by lost souls and humorless automatons who pretend to be editors. So that's all on you, buddy. I ain't going no-where near that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- Using that reasoning, we could add thousands of articles to the category and thousands of categories to this article. Categories are a navigation device. It is unlikely that someone interested in denialism will find this a must read article or that anyone interested in this article will be interested in denialism. TFD (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- I highly doubt we could add thousands using that logic: "This article is an X and X is a Y" is as far as it goes. You might push things and find a couple dozen categories, but not thousands, or even hundreds. And the vast majority of those would be of the "Why the hell is this article in that category?!" variety, and not of the "Hmm, I see where it's coming from but this seems a bit off..." sort. Regardless, I'm not opposed to removing this article from the cat; I'm just saying that it fits. Whether that's a useful navigational aid is debatable, and the proper applicability of categories is something I'm uninterested in debating for much the same reason that I rarely turn off the lights and whisper "Bloody Mary" into the bathroom mirror. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- Using that reasoning, we could add thousands of articles to the category and thousands of categories to this article. Categories are a navigation device. It is unlikely that someone interested in denialism will find this a must read article or that anyone interested in this article will be interested in denialism. TFD (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
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)