2099:
committed the act, how were they able to make a determination with regard to the question why that person, whom they never identified and know nothing about, killed him? From a layman's perspective that claim looks at first glance like speculation or conjecture. So, did the police ever explain, why they are highly sure that the reason, why he was killed (or the circumstances under which he was killed), was a robbery gone wrong? I don't doubt that it was (in case anyone wants to accuse me of anything unsavoury), I'd just be curious to learn the basis of facts or the rationale on which they based the issuing of the rather definitive sounding claim "i was very likely a robbery gone wrong". Was it that the angle and distance from which he was shot was typical of a robbery that went differently than planned and very untypical of a targetted killing, or something like that? As I said, I would be eager to learn, how the criminological experts reached their conclusion without knowing anything about the person who comitted the act. If anyone knows newspaper articles etc. that cover that aspect and can integrate that IMHO salient information I'd appreciate it.
1133:
virtually meaningless. Instead of being 3 deep-state agents, there were only 2 deep-state agents could be an example of "backpedaling" that still retains the idea that the person believes "deep state" agents were involved. Or it might have been a complete refutation of the theory, i.e. "Well I thought it was x, y and z, but now that I've had time to reconsider it, I don't believe any of that was the case." When describing a conspiracy theory, the standard for language needs to be "tighter" and not more loose, in my opinion. As I see it, options include a) change the word to something more substantive, b) add details to describe the exact nature of the "backpedaling", or c) remove the statement entirely as it is extraneous and not encyclopedic.
201:
of 2016". Why irrelevant? Because you make too big a claim yourself. Whether he was or was not the leaker doesn't mean his death wasn't connected to the email leak. He may have been the leaker, or he may not have been, but a couple other possibilities are that someone may have considered him the leaker, or he may have known the leaker. Or some other angle. Not that those theories are true either. The point is that you don't know and can't prove it and therefore the use of the word "false" is false and illogical and not presently provable.
197:
the article, was the one who committed the murder? Sorry. That kind of intelligence is beneath you and the public. People make claims all the time. In the sentence itself, you said they were theories. Claims are by nature, theories. What makes the theory "false" is proof. You can't prove it's false unless you have proof of why it was committed and who committed it. The fact that the word "false" was inserted is proof of one thing though. It's proof that the article is biased.
1635:
It's interesting that the FBI has Rich's laptop, but there is no information about when and why they obtained it. It could be part of the review Trump asked them to undertake. We have to wait for this information to become available and covered in mainstream media. Knowledge isn't cutting edge journalism, but merely reflects what mainstream journalists and academics write. If they ignore information, it doesn't get put into
Knowledge articles.
31:
1482:
1531:
975:
I've also had a look at the discussion linked to above. That situation is different than this one, because identifiable people have been charged with that crime, and the requested move is based solely on the fear that calling that crime a murder would be a BLP violation on the people accused. That is
489:
The small little tidbit of info pertaining to
Assange "nodding" needs to be removed. It's very clear that Assange was nodding to the interviewer, but due to a lag (consistent in the rest of the video), it appears that he nodded to the claim presented. The source itself is unbound and clearly open to
200:
Now, I think I know what your reply may be. You might refer back to an earlier quote involving alleged email sent to WikiLeaks days after his death. That is quite irrelevant when compared to your comprehensive conclusion, that the 'false' claims that "his murder was connected to the DNC email leak
1132:
To be included in an encyclopedia, I think the word needs to be made of firmer stuff, like "retracted". Or additional information needs to be included, to give the Reader a clearer idea of exactly what the change was, i.e. from "x" to "y". There's so much room for interpretation that this word is
288:
There is a difference between saying there is no known evidence of a connection and saying that we know there is no connection. We should be careful to maintain that distinction. There is also a difference between saying that someone else said something and saying it ourselves. It is hypothetically
1634:
policy. The source btw doesn't say that the FBI has thousands of pages about Seth Rich, but that he is mentioned in a number of documents that contain thousands of pages. It's not surprising that Rich would be mentioned in passing since among other things Trump asked the FBI to look into the case.
514:
said his goal during the meeting was to find proof for a widely debunked conspiracy theory: that WikiLeaks’ real source for the DNC emails was not
Russian intelligence agents, as U.S. officials have since concluded, but former DNC staffer Seth Rich, who was murdered on the streets of Washington in
254:
Politfact rated the claim "Pants on fire" which is actually one step below "false" on their rating scale. Factcheck calls it a "conspiracy theory," which means that it is false. Maybe the sources could be updated. Here's the New York Times from last month: "In statements beginning that summer, Mr.
196:
The horrible and unsupportable claim here is the use of the word "false". It's way to obvious and to easy to debunk. The article itself acknowledged that there is no proof as to who or why he was killed. So how is it possible to already know that the claims are "false" unless you, the author of
123:
So far as I know, there has been no serious examination by any authorities of the possibility that it was Seth Rich who leaked and not Russia who hacked. The computer(s) were denied to the FBI and given to a privately DNC hired firm CrowdStrike, upon whose claims much of the Russia theory has been
1291:
The conspiracy theories being right wing is of the least concern, what is fact is that the source does not make this claim, simple as that! The term "right wing" or any similar terms is not mentioned once in the source! Stop making false claims! We can all see they're not true just by reading the
1651:
The FBI attorney's email also makes it clear that those thousands of pages are not from Seth Rich's private laptop, and that the FBI hasn't retrieved any files in a viewable format from it. The email also doesn't say how long the FBI has been in possession of it. It was returned to the family by
1610:
A post from Dec. 9, 2020 by
Attorney Ty Clevenger begins with this sentence: "After three years of claiming that it could not find any records about murdered Democratic National Committee employee Seth Rich, the FBI admitted today that it has thousands of pages of information about him, further
2098:
Hi, one detail I'm curious about that the article is unfortunately very vague about is, how the police did determine that Mr. Rich's death was probably a robbery that went wrong? I mean, if the authorities never caught the perpetrator who killed Mr. Rich, or at least identified the person, who
2050:
per
Rreagan007's reasoning. If there were any suspects, then BLP considerations should indeed take precedence over COMMONNAME and the name changed to avoid implications. However, as long as there is no living person who could be impacted by the current title, COMMONNAME should prevail. Regards
1826:
WP:DEATHS says if there is a common name we should use it. In this case it is murder. WP:DEATHS in any case is not a policy or guideline and has not been vetted by the community. There's very little doubt that it was a murder, that is, that the assailant had criminal intent, and none has been
168:
More than a dozen US intelligence agencies concluded that it was the
Russians. Repeating conspiracy points that are debunked by reliable sources cited in the article doesn't make them worthwhile for consideration as additions to the article. Seth Rich had been dead for several days before the
225:
First off, it doesn't matter what you or I think. What do reliable sources say? They say the claims are false. Second, there is zero evidence for any connection between the DNC hack and Rich's death and a lot of evidence against it. That means it's false by any useful definition of the word.
303:
All reliable sources have treated it as an absurdity, therefore it is false, whether or not anyone is ever convicted of the murder. By definition there's no such thing as a fringe theory that should be taken seriously, and conversations like this one should be beneath
Knowledge's dignity.
273:
artile is actually a direct quote from the
Mueller Report. All I am saying is that Knowledge articles should report information in the same way as reliable sources. When we misrepresent sources, it detracts from the credibility of the narrative that you think the article should support.
1914:. If there were any known suspects, then I would support the move, as the title does presume guilt in the absence of any conviction for murder. However, in this case, since there is no known suspect and since this is most commonly described as a murder, the current title is fine.
1676:"A post from Dec. 9, 2020 by Attorney Ty Clevenger" has no relevance to Knowledge. "This should be evaluated." -- not by Knowledge editors; that's disallowed original research or synthesis. "In this case, however, the files appear to be very real." -- no, really, they don't. --
322:
article, which says "the investigation did not establish that the campaign "coordinated or conspired with the
Russian government in its election-interference activities."" Well obviously if no evidence was found, then the claim is false, but sources do not phrase it that way.
93:, which I deem unlikely. But there is good evidence that Seth Rich was the probable Wikileaker, for at least some of which there are reliable sources -- not that there is absolute proof, but enough to merit erasing the slur word "conspiracy theory" on this POV.
255:
Assange and WikiLeaks 'implied falsely' that Mr. Rich had been the source of the emails, the special counsel’s report said." I don't think we need metaphysical certainty to say that the claim that Seth Rich was murdered because of the DNC leaks is false.
1897:, where a police officer shot her to prevent her from stabbing another girl she was attacking with a knife. This was ruled a justifiable homicide and the officer was not charged. This was also not a racially-motivated killing but a tragic event. --
1037:"A U.S. federal judge has asked the U.K. to assist in facilitating the testimony of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange in a civil suit against Fox News brought by the parents of slain Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich." Where is it?
189:
The article is intentionally biased and not comprehensive and with unsurprising blather. However, that, like the article itself, is an opinion. My edit recommendation is on this particular phrase used under "Conspiracy
Theories". As such:
355:
And I wish brand-new editors would take the time -- it doesn't take long -- to acquaint themselves with Knowledge's standards of evidence and inclusion instead of parachuting in and going by what think sounds good to themselves.
423:
And "remove false conspiracy theories"? Well, the following sources - Reuters News Service, CNN, Infowars, and the Washington Times - all state that claims about Seth Rich's supposed involvement in the leaks are false.
1396:
I don't see the problem with Vox, and now that I'm looking into it, I've found multiple sources that describe these conspiracy theories as being "far right". Maybe the article wording should be stronger.
1876:
The preponderance of reliable sources describe this as a murder, either in the headline, or in the body of the story. When "murdered" is not used, its close synonym "slain" is frequently used instead.
1007:, unless one is ignorant of the English language. Also, this article has nothing to do with he conditions at Tessa Majors, you can't apply a one-size-fits-all solution to this. 16:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
490:
interpretation (I know, this applies to me too). It should be worded to something else, such as "When asked directly whether Rich was a source, Assange said "we don't comment on who our sources are".
762:. As there is no identified suspect, there are no BLP concerns, so I think the current title is permissible. But if a suspect is ever identified and charged, the title should definitely be changed.
2140:
1038:
2100:
210:
1134:
1943:
common name is what takes precedence. A Google search for "Killing of Seth Rich" gives 2500 results, "Murder of Seth Rich" gives 14,000 - "murder" in this case does seem to be more common.
1107:
I didn't use that material to edit the article. Rather, I used that material to demonstrate how Knowledge has been taken over by biased thugs who want to conceal news from the public.
903:
refer to someone killed by manslaughter as "murdered" unless one is ignorant of the law; one simply refers to them as "killed". Murder is a specific legal term. Unlawful killing does
1320:
That source was there in the body of the article, and had been there all along. Not everything in the Lead has to be sourced, as long as the same information is sourced in the body.
885:
Even if a person is convicted of manslaughter in the death of another, one still phrases it as "they were murdered" when discussing the victim. It isn't "they were manslaughtered".
1513:
under the Lawsuit against Fox News section there was a misspelling of "Spicer" (as in Sean Spicer) Please change "and his meeting with Splicer" to "and his meeting with Spicer"
240:
Two sources that the claims are false, Factcheck.org and Politfact, use the terms unsubstantiated and baseless, but do not use the term false. Only Snopes uses the term false.
1696:
To add to this article: on July 9, 2021 the FBI released 137 pages of documents (which are extremely heavily redacted) about the murder of Seth Rich, at the following link:
428:
193:"Right-wing conspiracy theories began circulating in the days following Rich's death, including false claims that his murder was connected to the DNC email leak of 2016,"
2114:
I suggest you search the article for "robbery". Use Control-F. Then read the sources. Unless you have reliable sources that say otherwise, that's the best we've found. --
1091:
110:
4) William Binney, a man with US intelligence experience gave a technical argument that the DNC data was taken by physical access to the computer and not by internet hack.
1615:) This should be evaluated. The article in its current form lends support to ideas about a forgery of FBI files. In this case, however, the files appear to be very real.
520:
1090:
The Gateway Pundit is a garbage site I wouldn't trust to tell me if the Sun rose this morning -- and Knowledge editors overwhelmingly agree, as it's been marked as
1138:
574:
2070:
Ridiculous. He didn't shoot himself n the back 2 times. The absence of an identified perpetrator does not invalidate the nature of the death, which is a murder.
2019:. This was a criminal act, recognized universally as a murder. This ridiculous dance of first titling obvious criminal homicides as "Killing" and then, finally,
1156:
107:
he told the Riches that it was Seth Rich and his computer expert brother Aaron who had done the leaking, and that the Riches acknowledged the truth of that.
97:
1) SR had motive as a supporter of Bernie Sanders (both of same ethno-religous background) in that the DNC was exposed as favoring Hillary in the primaries.
1060:
1306:
Finally I see you put a source that actually makes this claim, isn't it easier to just do that than to say an untruth thinking people will believe you?
100:
2) SR was involved with computers himself and could have had access to the DNC computers, which could contain so simple an email password as PASSWORD.
420:? Where are they from? Who do they work for? What are their qualifications? Where has this been reported? What is the source or what are the sources?
1210:
1161:
1893:"Kill" is a neutral word, whereas "murder" indicates criminal intent. This was clearly a murder, in contrast to another place where we say "kill":
1355:
1129:"After Wheeler asserted links between Rich and Wikileaks in a Fox affiliate interview on May 15, 2017—an assertion he later backpedaled from"
1514:
1704:
495:
1939:
is an explanatory supplement and not WP:Policy or a guideline. The WP:Policy of COMMONNAME indicates that if there is a common name, then
1760:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
559:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
113:
5) Assange himself pointed to Seth Rich as their source, a pointing which Mueller acknowledged. Assange also denied Russia as the source.
1849:
1273:
1186:
816:
69:
64:
59:
2144:
1063:
on the Seth Rich case, if anyone wants to compare it to the article to see if there is any new information to be incorporated from it.
1042:
2104:
214:
1813:
1108:
1665:
1657:
2027:
proposing a rename to "Murder" is one of the more tediously pedantic practices on Knowledge. Just follow COMMONNAME already! --
1185:
I won't edit the article without consensus, but it seems clear that the conspiracy theories are predominately from the right –
1652:
MPDC, as far as I remember. The FBI may have obtained it from the family when they were sued by Clevenger's client under FOIA.
446:
1984:
848:. Clearly unlawfully killed, but without a conviction we cannot say whether it was murder or not. How about manslaughter? --
1968:
doesn't apply if the incident is universally considered a murder by sources long before the conviction could be attained. —
828:
The absense of a named suspect does not preclude the Wiki from saying he was murdered. Did he fire a gun into his own back?
2089:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1228:
1026:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
787:
407:
1856:
1809:
907:
equate to murder. On Knowledge we usually use "killing of Foo" unless someone has actually been convicted of murder. --
590:
1780:
1661:
1653:
936:
1102:
491:
1894:
1247:
38:
2161:
1832:
1751:
1640:
550:
328:
279:
245:
786:
since the form "Death of..." lacks specificity and is used for all manner of general historical events, such as
1708:
1518:
750:
403:
387:
Seth was the source of the leaks according to investigators. Its time we remove false conspiracy theories now.
47:
17:
1001:
One certainly does not refer to someone killed by manslaughter as "murdered" unless one is ignorant of the law
1292:
article! The fact this even has to be discussed is ridiculous, you shouldn't let POV pushers have their way!
1620:
1488:
812:
433:
1630:
We cannot add this information until it receives coverage in reliable sources, i.e., mainstream media per
1600:
1464:
681:
677:
441:
226:
Otherwise no rumors or claims could ever be considered "false"--for instance, your baseless speculation.
2154:
1761:
1616:
1112:
802:
791:
655:
560:
294:
159:
318:
You still have not explained why we should not use the phrasing in reliable sources. Compare with the
169:
Russians sent wikileaks the emails and being a young white male does not make him a Bernie supporter.
2157:
1948:
1932:
1919:
1828:
1786:
1636:
954:
944:
912:
874:
866:
853:
845:
767:
651:
628:
474:
346:
324:
275:
241:
206:
129:
1773:
With 11 opposes and no supports in just under three days, this page will obviously NOT be moved per
256:
227:
2075:
1881:
1795:
1764:
after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1732:
1595:
1567:
1542:
1492:
1012:
890:
833:
798:
779:
746:
689:
663:
603:
563:
after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
388:
260:
231:
2028:
1808:. There have been no murder convictions on this case, so it's inappropriate to label it a murder.
2125:
2004:
1979:
1069:
806:
783:
636:
617:
392:
1699:
2119:
2035:
1902:
1864:
1448:
1402:
1325:
1171:
981:
966:
926:
729:
521:
Rohrabacher confirms he offered Trump pardon to Assange for proof Russia didn't hack DNC email
309:
2165:
2153:
The police statements are quoted in Factcheck.org, which is used as a source in the article.
2148:
2131:
2108:
2079:
2062:
2042:
2008:
1996:
1988:
1965:
1961:
1952:
1936:
1923:
1906:
1885:
1868:
1836:
1817:
1805:
1789:
1737:
1712:
1685:
1669:
1644:
1624:
1572:
1546:
1522:
1467:
1406:
1391:
1387:
1373:
1346:
1342:
1329:
1315:
1311:
1301:
1297:
1278:
1191:
1175:
1142:
1116:
1099:
1076:
1046:
985:
970:
958:
948:
930:
916:
894:
878:
857:
837:
820:
771:
754:
733:
716:
713:
693:
667:
640:
621:
596:
585:
536:
511:
499:
478:
411:
396:
364:
361:
350:
332:
313:
298:
290:
283:
264:
249:
235:
218:
178:
174:
163:
155:
147:
133:
2057:
2016:
1944:
1915:
1853:
1681:
1094:. So no, their latest conspiracy theory isn't going into the article, period/full stop. --
940:
908:
870:
849:
763:
524:
470:
454:
So. The article's present information is truthful, factual, and verifiable. Seth Rich was
342:
151:
125:
976:
wrong, but it doesn't even apply in this case, because no suspects have been identified.
532:
2071:
1877:
1774:
1727:
1590:
1562:
1538:
1008:
886:
829:
685:
659:
569:
319:
2000:
1974:
1359:
1064:
632:
613:
465:
631:" better? But I agree that murder is a legal term and it hasn't been adjudicated. –
2115:
1898:
1860:
1631:
1398:
1335:
1321:
1288:
1269:
1167:
977:
962:
922:
742:
725:
469:
for the claims/assertions about these supposed "New Reports"? No? Didn't think so.
438:
305:
142:
1334:
Now theres the question, is the source you chose, (Vox) a credible, unbiased, and
1082:
December 9 2020 TheGatewayPundit News about Seth Rich's computer's hard drive.
141:
We are only supposed to use what the consensus of reliable sources say and avoid
1435:
1431:
1383:
1351:
1338:
1307:
1293:
1265:
1157:
Judge Orders Twitter To Unmask FBI Impersonator Who Set Off Seth Rich Conspiracy
1148:
Judge Orders Twitter To Unmask FBI Impersonator Who Set Off Seth Rich Conspiracy
1095:
709:
580:
357:
170:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
2052:
1677:
341:
I do so wish that people who don't know logic were not allowed to edit WP.
1447:
MJV479, FWIW, Calton did not break 1RR but you did. Please be more cautious.
528:
338:
103:
3) Ed Butowsky was officially helping the Rich family in the investigation.
805:
if consensus were to skew towards acceptance of such a main header form. —
1379:
1364:
2156:
That's all the information currently available to answer your question.
1999:
is ridiculous. And murder has nothing to do with convictions or trials.
1723:
1583:
1558:
658:. Plus, where is the BLP violation? There is no suspect for his murder.
339:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Argument_from_ignorance#Absence_of_evidence
1561:
relating to whether to include his criminal history in the infobox.
337:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Think about it.
1722:
There is an RfC related to Seth Rich and the Russian hacking at
2136:
Very good point. Good job staying neutral so they didn’t remove
124:
based -- no federal agency got a hold of the DNC computer(s). (
1612:
1476:
25:
1700:
https://vault.fbi.gov/seth-rich/seth-rich-part-01-of-01/view
1162:
Twitter Must Unmask User Tied to Seth Rich Murder Conspiracy
89:
Actually the probability of Seth Rich as the Wikileaker, is
1362:
provides a summary of past discussions of popular sources.
1152:
I'm not sure where this belongs, but it should be covered:
1033:
Seth Rich family subpoena for Julian Assange about DNC leak
1382:
That burden is on the provider of the source, not on me.
429:
2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan's decision
1848:
we discussed this, in 2020. And the same as when it was
289:
possible for a fringe conspiracy theory to be correct. —
1800:
1586:
1441:
608:
515:
July 2016 in what police believe was a botched robbery.
2023:
a suspect is found and a jury returns a verdict, only
937:
Talk:Murder of Tessa Majors#Requested move 2 June 2020
612:– As of May 2020, no one has been convicted of murder
85:
Reliable Sources for Seth Rich as DNC Email Wikileaker
2139:
your comment for “misinformation” or something else.
116:
6) Seymour Hersh, respected journalist made a report.
1211:"The bonkers Seth Rich conspiracy theory, explained"
684:. I would note both articles have possible suspects.
1578:
Please see this discussion of Assange's involvement
706:
As of May 2020, no one has been convicted of murder
568:The result of the move request was: Not moved per
1229:"The Origins Of The Seth Rich Conspiracy Theory"
91:not proof that Seth Rich was murdered by the DNC
1845:
1611:admitting that it has custody of his laptop." (
1473:Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2021
8:
427:Reuters news service in its report about a
1750:The following is a closed discussion of a
1358:is the forum for asking this question and
549:The following is a closed discussion of a
416:"according to investigators". Investigator
204:
119:7) Unrespected Kim Dotcom made some hints.
1248:"'Is This Even About Seth Rich at All?'"
935:No policy, but certainly consensus. See
2141:2600:1700:4BE0:4A30:70BB:2727:148C:9C37
1201:
1039:2A00:1370:812C:79E7:CD86:CF6A:828A:2620
146:. Many "theories" have very little due
2101:2001:9E8:263B:4900:34F6:518A:802E:9CB4
1356:Knowledge:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
1086:<BLP-violating garbage removed: -->
1081:
1000:
510:In a phone interview with Yahoo News,
211:2601:189:c47f:9010:d4ab:ea55:806a:6194
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
7:
1769:The result of the move request was:
1135:2605:6000:6FC0:25:70F7:DBF:A3F2:E86D
865:. Per the opposes above, especially
460:the source of the leaks. Are there
24:
1125:"Backpedaled" is not Encyclopedic
1022:The discussion above is closed.
2085:The discussion above is closed.
1529:
1480:
921:Can you cite a policy for that?
29:
1827:expressed in reliable sources.
1660:) 18:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
1585:. The disputed article edit is
402:Cite reliable sources, please.
1850:discussed before that, in 2017
1738:18:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
1181:"Right wing conspiracy theory"
1:
1553:RfC at Julian Assange article
1547:14:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
1523:13:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
1468:17:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
1117:19:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
1103:12:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
790:or celebrity deaths, such as
788:Death of Ludwig van Beethoven
537:22:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
527:Yahoo News February 20, 2020
479:23:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
412:23:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
397:22:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
269:The 'implied falsely' in the
1743:Requested move 26 March 2022
1724:the Julian Assange talk page
1670:18:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
1645:16:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
1625:14:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
1407:18:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
1392:13:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
1374:20:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
1347:19:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
1330:22:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
1316:22:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
1302:22:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
1279:18:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
1192:18:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
500:09:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
447:Washington Times' retraction
1970:Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung
1844:per TFD and WP:COMMONNAME,
1613:https://lawflog.com/?p=2410
1577:
1507:to reactivate your request.
1495:has been answered. Set the
1176:02:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
1143:04:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
1077:23:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
365:05:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
351:05:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
2182:
2132:19:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
2109:19:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
2080:13:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
2063:08:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
2043:20:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
2009:08:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
1989:05:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
1953:04:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
1924:02:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
1907:18:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
1886:05:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
1869:05:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
1837:03:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
1818:02:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
1790:18:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
1718:RfC you may wish to review
1686:04:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
1601:21:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
1559:the Julian Assange article
1047:17:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
542:Requested move 2 June 2020
492:Letmejustcorrectthatforyou
185:No proof of "false claims"
179:23:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
164:03:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
134:03:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
1895:Killing of Ma'Khia Bryant
1713:06:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
1573:18:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
1209:Guo, Jeff (24 May 2017).
676:Also matches the name in
2166:14:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
2149:06:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
2087:Please do not modify it.
1757:Please do not modify it.
1726:. Participation invited.
1024:Please do not modify it.
986:23:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
971:22:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
949:22:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
931:18:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
917:17:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
895:16:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
879:16:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
858:16:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
838:13:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
821:02:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
772:00:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
755:21:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
734:21:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
717:19:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
694:20:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
668:19:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
641:18:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
622:18:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
597:20:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
556:Please do not modify it.
333:16:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
314:03:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
299:04:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
284:17:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
265:15:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
250:15:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
236:13:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
219:04:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
18:Talk:Murder of Seth Rich
1960:even as a supporter of
1857:Iamreallygoodatcheckers
1810:Iamreallygoodatcheckers
1425:Ed Butowsky parentheses
953:The relevant policy is
1662:Space4Time3Continuum2x
1654:Space4Time3Continuum2x
682:Murder of XXXTentacion
678:Murder of Tupac Shakur
517:
485:Julian Assange nodding
442:retraction on Infowars
1052:Extensive new article
961:was to keep it here.
803:Shooting of Seth Rich
792:Death of Jimi Hendrix
656:Knowledge:NOTCENSORED
508:
150:. Let's try to avoid
105:Butowsky reports that
42:of past discussions.
2017:Call a spade a spade
1801:Killing of Seth Rich
1582:At Assange bio talk.
957:, and the consensus
846:Killing of Seth Rich
794:. I would, however,
652:Knowledge:COMMONNAME
629:Killing of Seth Rich
1796:Murder of Seth Rich
1557:There is an RfC at
1493:Murder of Seth Rich
939:, for instance. --
899:One certainly does
799:Murder of Seth Rich
780:Murder of Seth Rich
604:Murder of Seth Rich
404:NorthBySouthBaranof
1059:just published an
784:Death of Seth Rich
741:per Casprings and
609:Death of Seth Rich
2094:Attempted Robbery
1846:same as last time
1784:
1781:non-admin closure
1692:To add to article
1511:
1510:
819:
578:
575:non-admin closure
505:add Rohrabacher ?
221:
209:comment added by
82:
81:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
2173:
2060:
2055:
1803:
1778:
1759:
1632:reliable sources
1537:
1533:
1532:
1502:
1498:
1484:
1483:
1477:
1461:
1458:
1455:
1452:
1439:
1372:
1336:reliable source?
1276:
1256:
1255:
1243:
1237:
1236:
1225:
1219:
1218:
1206:
1189:
1074:
1067:
811:
627:I think I like "
611:
595:
572:
558:
466:reliable sources
78:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
2181:
2180:
2176:
2175:
2174:
2172:
2171:
2170:
2096:
2091:
2090:
2058:
2053:
1933:The Four Deuces
1799:
1755:
1745:
1720:
1694:
1608:
1580:
1555:
1530:
1528:
1515:118.208.211.150
1500:
1496:
1481:
1475:
1459:
1456:
1453:
1450:
1429:
1427:
1363:
1274:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1246:Nuzzi, Olivia.
1245:
1244:
1240:
1227:
1226:
1222:
1208:
1207:
1203:
1187:
1183:
1150:
1127:
1084:
1070:
1065:
1061:indepth feature
1054:
1035:
1030:
607:
579:
554:
544:
525:Michael Isikoff
507:
487:
385:
187:
87:
74:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2179:
2177:
2169:
2168:
2151:
2137:
2134:
2095:
2092:
2084:
2083:
2082:
2065:
2045:
2011:
1991:
1955:
1926:
1909:
1888:
1871:
1839:
1793:
1767:
1766:
1752:requested move
1746:
1744:
1741:
1719:
1716:
1705:173.88.246.138
1693:
1690:
1689:
1688:
1673:
1672:
1648:
1647:
1607:
1604:
1579:
1576:
1554:
1551:
1550:
1549:
1509:
1508:
1485:
1474:
1471:
1444:here please.
1426:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1349:
1282:
1281:
1258:
1257:
1238:
1220:
1200:
1199:
1195:
1182:
1179:
1165:
1164:
1159:
1149:
1146:
1126:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1083:
1080:
1053:
1050:
1034:
1031:
1029:
1028:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1003:One certainly
997:
996:
995:
994:
993:
992:
991:
990:
989:
988:
973:
882:
881:
860:
840:
823:
774:
757:
747:David Tornheim
736:
719:
699:
698:
697:
696:
671:
670:
644:
643:
602:
600:
566:
565:
551:requested move
545:
543:
540:
506:
503:
486:
483:
482:
481:
452:
451:
450:
444:
439:Jerome Corsi's
436:
431:
421:
414:
384:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
371:
370:
369:
368:
367:
320:Meuller Report
286:
267:
186:
183:
182:
181:
166:
121:
120:
117:
114:
111:
108:
101:
98:
86:
83:
80:
79:
72:
67:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2178:
2167:
2163:
2159:
2155:
2152:
2150:
2146:
2142:
2138:
2135:
2133:
2129:
2128:
2127:
2121:
2117:
2113:
2112:
2111:
2110:
2106:
2102:
2093:
2088:
2081:
2077:
2073:
2069:
2066:
2064:
2061:
2056:
2049:
2046:
2044:
2040:
2039:
2038:
2032:
2031:
2026:
2022:
2018:
2015:
2014:Strong oppose
2012:
2010:
2006:
2002:
1998:
1995:
1992:
1990:
1986:
1982:
1981:
1977:
1976:
1971:
1967:
1963:
1959:
1956:
1954:
1950:
1946:
1942:
1938:
1934:
1930:
1927:
1925:
1921:
1917:
1913:
1910:
1908:
1904:
1900:
1896:
1892:
1889:
1887:
1883:
1879:
1875:
1872:
1870:
1866:
1862:
1858:
1855:
1851:
1847:
1843:
1840:
1838:
1834:
1830:
1825:
1822:
1821:
1820:
1819:
1815:
1811:
1807:
1802:
1797:
1792:
1791:
1788:
1782:
1776:
1772:
1765:
1763:
1758:
1753:
1748:
1747:
1742:
1740:
1739:
1736:
1735:
1731:
1730:
1725:
1717:
1715:
1714:
1710:
1706:
1702:
1701:
1697:
1691:
1687:
1683:
1679:
1675:
1674:
1671:
1667:
1663:
1659:
1655:
1650:
1649:
1646:
1642:
1638:
1633:
1629:
1628:
1627:
1626:
1622:
1618:
1617:Niemandsbucht
1614:
1605:
1603:
1602:
1599:
1598:
1594:
1593:
1588:
1584:
1575:
1574:
1571:
1570:
1566:
1565:
1560:
1552:
1548:
1544:
1540:
1536:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1520:
1516:
1506:
1503:parameter to
1494:
1490:
1486:
1479:
1478:
1472:
1470:
1469:
1466:
1463:
1462:
1445:
1443:
1437:
1433:
1424:
1408:
1404:
1400:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1389:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1371:
1369:
1368:
1361:
1357:
1353:
1350:
1348:
1344:
1340:
1337:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1327:
1323:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1313:
1309:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1290:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1280:
1277:
1271:
1267:
1263:
1262:
1253:
1252:Intelligencer
1249:
1242:
1239:
1234:
1230:
1224:
1221:
1216:
1212:
1205:
1202:
1198:
1194:
1193:
1190:
1180:
1178:
1177:
1173:
1169:
1163:
1160:
1158:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1147:
1145:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1130:
1124:
1118:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1079:
1078:
1075:
1073:
1068:
1062:
1058:
1057:Rolling Stone
1051:
1049:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1032:
1027:
1025:
1020:
1019:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1002:
999:
998:
987:
983:
979:
974:
972:
968:
964:
960:
956:
955:WP:COMMONNAME
952:
951:
950:
946:
942:
938:
934:
933:
932:
928:
924:
920:
919:
918:
914:
910:
906:
902:
898:
897:
896:
892:
888:
884:
883:
880:
876:
872:
868:
867:WP:COMMONNAME
864:
861:
859:
855:
851:
847:
844:
841:
839:
835:
831:
827:
824:
822:
818:
814:
810:
809:
808:Roman Spinner
804:
800:
797:
793:
789:
785:
781:
778:
775:
773:
769:
765:
761:
758:
756:
752:
748:
744:
740:
737:
735:
731:
727:
723:
720:
718:
715:
711:
707:
704:
701:
700:
695:
691:
687:
683:
679:
675:
674:
673:
672:
669:
665:
661:
657:
653:
649:
646:
645:
642:
638:
634:
630:
626:
625:
624:
623:
619:
615:
610:
605:
599:
598:
594:
593:
589:
588:
584:
583:
576:
571:
564:
562:
557:
552:
547:
546:
541:
539:
538:
534:
530:
526:
522:
516:
513:
504:
502:
501:
497:
493:
484:
480:
476:
472:
468:
467:
463:
459:
458:
453:
448:
445:
443:
440:
437:
435:
432:
430:
426:
425:
422:
419:
415:
413:
409:
405:
401:
400:
399:
398:
394:
390:
382:
366:
363:
359:
354:
353:
352:
348:
344:
340:
336:
335:
334:
330:
326:
321:
317:
316:
315:
311:
307:
302:
301:
300:
296:
292:
287:
285:
281:
277:
272:
268:
266:
262:
258:
253:
252:
251:
247:
243:
239:
238:
237:
233:
229:
224:
223:
222:
220:
216:
212:
208:
202:
198:
194:
191:
184:
180:
176:
172:
167:
165:
161:
157:
153:
149:
145:
144:
139:
138:
137:
135:
131:
127:
118:
115:
112:
109:
106:
102:
99:
96:
95:
94:
92:
84:
77:
73:
71:
68:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
2124:
2123:
2097:
2086:
2067:
2047:
2036:
2034:
2029:
2024:
2020:
2013:
1993:
1978:
1973:
1969:
1957:
1940:
1928:
1911:
1890:
1873:
1841:
1823:
1794:
1770:
1768:
1756:
1749:
1733:
1728:
1721:
1703:
1698:
1695:
1609:
1596:
1591:
1581:
1568:
1563:
1556:
1534:
1512:
1504:
1489:edit request
1449:
1446:
1428:
1366:
1365:
1251:
1241:
1232:
1223:
1214:
1204:
1196:
1184:
1166:
1151:
1131:
1128:
1085:
1071:
1056:
1055:
1036:
1023:
1021:
1004:
904:
900:
862:
842:
825:
807:
795:
776:
759:
738:
724:per Calton.
721:
705:
702:
647:
601:
591:
586:
581:
567:
555:
548:
518:
509:
488:
464:
461:
456:
455:
417:
386:
270:
205:— Preceding
203:
199:
195:
192:
188:
140:
122:
104:
90:
88:
75:
43:
37:
2048:Weak oppose
1931:Agree with
1912:Weak oppose
1762:move review
1109:71.36.99.61
561:move review
512:Rohrabacher
383:New Reports
291:BarrelProof
36:This is an
1945:Shearonink
1916:Rreagan007
1787:Quiz shows
1497:|answered=
1197:References
941:Necrothesp
909:Necrothesp
871:Shearonink
850:Necrothesp
764:Rreagan007
471:Shearonink
343:Slyfox4908
126:PeacePeace
76:Archive 13
70:Archive 12
65:Archive 11
60:Archive 10
2072:ValarianB
1997:WP:DEATHS
1966:WP:DEATHS
1962:WP:DEATHS
1937:WP:DEATHS
1878:Cullen328
1806:WP:DEATHS
1771:not moved
1729:SPECIFICO
1592:SPECIFICO
1564:SPECIFICO
1539:Bennv3771
1442:this edit
1275:Anne drew
1188:Anne drew
1009:ValarianB
959:last time
887:ValarianB
830:ValarianB
817:contribs)
686:Casprings
660:Casprings
257:FatGandhi
228:FatGandhi
148:WP:WEIGHT
2001:Dimadick
1964:myself.
1440:Discuss
1092:unusable
1066:Schazjmd
708:. So? --
633:Muboshgu
614:Jax 0677
389:Heldjohn
207:unsigned
152:WP:SYNTH
2126:PING me
2116:Valjean
2030:Veggies
1899:Valjean
1861:Geogene
1775:WP:SNOW
1399:Geogene
1322:Geogene
1289:Geogene
1270:Geogene
1233:NPR.org
1168:Valjean
978:Geogene
963:Geogene
923:Geogene
843:Support
796:support
726:Geogene
570:WP:SNOW
306:Geogene
39:archive
2068:Oppose
1994:Oppose
1958:Oppose
1929:Oppose
1891:Oppose
1874:Oppose
1852:. And
1842:Oppose
1824:Oppose
1804:– Per
1465:(talk)
1436:Calton
1432:MJV479
1384:MJV479
1360:WP:RSP
1352:MJV479
1339:MJV479
1308:MJV479
1294:MJV479
1266:MJV479
1096:Calton
1072:(talk)
863:Oppose
826:Oppose
777:Oppose
760:Oppose
739:Oppose
722:Oppose
710:Calton
703:Oppose
648:Oppose
358:Calton
171:Opcnup
1975:mello
1854:trout
1678:Jibal
1501:|ans=
1487:This
813:(talk
745:. --
743:WP:RS
680:and
143:WP:OR
16:<
2162:talk
2145:talk
2120:talk
2105:talk
2076:talk
2037:talk
2025:then
2005:talk
1949:talk
1941:that
1920:talk
1903:talk
1882:talk
1865:talk
1833:talk
1814:talk
1777:...
1734:talk
1709:talk
1682:talk
1666:talk
1658:talk
1641:talk
1621:talk
1597:talk
1587:here
1569:talk
1543:talk
1535:Done
1519:talk
1434:and
1403:talk
1388:talk
1343:talk
1326:talk
1312:talk
1298:talk
1172:talk
1139:talk
1113:talk
1100:Talk
1043:talk
1013:talk
1005:does
982:talk
967:talk
945:talk
927:talk
913:talk
891:talk
875:talk
854:talk
834:talk
768:talk
751:talk
730:talk
714:Talk
690:talk
664:talk
654:and
650:Per
637:talk
618:talk
587:uidh
533:talk
519:per
496:talk
475:talk
408:talk
393:talk
362:Talk
347:talk
329:talk
310:talk
295:talk
280:talk
261:talk
246:talk
232:talk
215:talk
175:talk
160:talk
130:talk
2158:TFD
2122:) (
2059:Why
1980:hi!
1829:TFD
1637:TFD
1606:FBI
1499:or
1491:to
1460:Fir
1457:een
1454:rgr
1451:Eve
1380:Liz
1215:Vox
905:not
901:not
529:X1\
523:by
462:any
457:not
434:CNN
325:TFD
276:TFD
271:NYT
242:TFD
2164:)
2147:)
2130:)
2107:)
2078:)
2054:So
2041:)
2021:if
2007:)
1987:)
1985:投稿
1972:,
1951:)
1935:.
1922:)
1905:)
1884:)
1867:)
1859:.
1835:)
1816:)
1798:→
1785:--
1754:.
1711:)
1684:)
1668:)
1643:)
1623:)
1545:)
1521:)
1505:no
1405:)
1390:)
1370:iz
1354:,
1345:)
1328:)
1314:)
1300:)
1272:–
1250:.
1231:.
1213:.
1174:)
1141:)
1115:)
1098:|
1045:)
984:)
969:)
947:)
929:)
915:)
893:)
877:)
869:.
856:)
836:)
815:•
801:→
782:→
770:)
753:)
732:)
712:|
692:)
666:)
639:)
620:)
606:→
553:.
535:)
498:)
477:)
410:)
395:)
360:|
356:--
349:)
331:)
312:)
297:)
282:)
263:)
248:)
234:)
217:)
177:)
162:)
156:DN
154:.
136:)
132:)
2160:(
2143:(
2118:(
2103:(
2074:(
2033:(
2003:(
1983:(
1947:(
1918:(
1901:(
1880:(
1863:(
1831:(
1812:(
1783:)
1779:(
1707:(
1680:(
1664:(
1656:(
1639:(
1619:(
1589:.
1541:(
1517:(
1438::
1430:@
1401:(
1386:(
1378:@
1367:L
1341:(
1324:(
1310:(
1296:(
1287:@
1268:@
1264:@
1254:.
1235:.
1217:.
1170:(
1137:(
1111:(
1041:(
1015:)
1011:(
980:(
965:(
943:(
925:(
911:(
889:(
873:(
852:(
832:(
766:(
749:(
728:(
688:(
662:(
635:(
616:(
592:e
582:b
577:)
573:(
531:(
494:(
473:(
449:.
418:s
406:(
391:(
345:(
327:(
308:(
293:(
278:(
259:(
244:(
230:(
213:(
173:(
158:(
128:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.