Talk:Ghislaine Maxwell/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Proposed split

I propose to split out the section on her arrest, arraignment, trial, and conviction, to a separate article titled Trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (or perhaps Sex-trafficking trial of Ghislaine Maxwell). The trial garnered substantial additional coverage not yet contained in the article, and can be expanded. BD2412 T 06:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I support this. Article is getting cluttered Kuhnaims (talk) 12:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

What about her incarceration?24.213.230.170 (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

That can be added too! Kuhnaims (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but you might need something like "Ghislaine Maxwell sexual abuse criminal trial", which is wordy, but we need to distinguish it from the civil cases and her pending trial for perjury. PatGallacher (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Strongly oppose the split. The content should simply be covered in a section or sections within this article. Look at the existing article on Epstein . . . it covers a lot of ground including his numerous civil and criminal trials. Maxwell's case certainly isn't any more complicated than Epstein's. Cedar777 (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Circumstances vary, of course, but O. J. Simpson murder case, Trial of Michael Jackson, Trial of Susan B. Anthony, and Trial of Saddam Hussein are all separate articles. BD2412 T 07:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Might be a good idea. The criminal proceedings are not over, although her life essentially is. For readers the basic bio article might be a good "jumping off point", as it were, for the legal narrative. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

No role for the family, in regard to her appeal

"Her family said they had commenced the appeal process". Comment: The family is not her guardians (or at least the article does not say that much); there is no reason to b believe that her family can act on her behalf while she is in jail or prison. Either it is family lawyers who have "commenced the appeal process" or it is Maxwell herself who has put the wheels in motion. (Of course, from a PR point of view, it is always good to mention - thruout the article - that Maxwell has a family.) 62.92.158.53 (talk) 08:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, if we want to be pendantic here, we should write: "Her family announced that Mexwell's lawyers had begun the appeal process"? Yes, only she can instruct her lawyers. But the current sources say: "Ghislaine Maxwell’s family begin appeal process after sex abuse verdict" and "Ghislaine Maxwell’s family begin appeal process after sex abuse verdict". Martinevans123 (talk) 10:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Please change the article to say: "The appeal process has commenced, media said in 2021." (Wikipedia articles about a person, are not a play-by-play about how their families are seeing current events.) 89.8.133.5 (talk) 07:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I've changed the wording to "Her family said the appeal process had begun", which I think is a fair paraphrase. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Identity of eight johns

Have the identities of the eight johns suspected to have had sexual relations with underage females assisted by Ghislaine Maxwell, a subject which came up in January 2022 in Maxwell's trial, been revealed? If not, why? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 04:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Don't know,but if they have not been revealed elsewhere by reliable sources,and possibly even if they have, this is not the place to do it. Britmax (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

"business woman"?

Mawwell was never a businesswoman, the little work she ever did was as an employee. Rustygecko (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. Uncited, and mention or hint of it in the article itself, so deleted from infobox. Davidships (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Image

Why is an image of 15 years ago used rather than one of the hundreds of more up-to-date images available? Rustygecko (talk) 03:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Rustygecko, we have to use images that are free for use in wikimedia. So we have more limited choices. You could look through wikimedia and see if you can find something. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Corrected occupation

Maxwell’s “occupation” left out the fact the she was convicted of grooming and trafficking minors specifically (resulting in misinformation). The info box has been corrected. petrarchan47คุก 17:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Is "child sex trafficker" a recognised occupation? Jimmy Savile is just "DJ, television personality, radio personality, dance hall manager" and Gary Glitter is just "Singer, songwriter, record producer", etc., etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

"child sex trafficker" is an important distinction. It intensifies the level of criminal behavior worthy of conviction.―Buster7 ☎ 20:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Well sure, maybe. But I mean I've not seen it advertised down at the Job Centre lately. We Brits must live such dull lives. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Did she pay tax on her child sex trafficking income? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 10:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I've heard that some food items may be tax-deductable, but only in Woking. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Al Capone's occupation is listed as "Gangster, bootlegger, racketeer, boss of Chicago Outfit" because that's what he did, independently from whether that is considered a common job Cortador (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't really seem like an "occupation" persay. It's already covered in the infobox under Convictions, so is a repetition under occupation necessary? Certainly, it's a thing she is/was, but I don't know if it really fits as an occupation. However, it does fit somewhat, as it's related to her socialite status. I guess at least it's not "Occupation: Murderer". ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that, for the purposes of the 2021 United Kingdom census, criminal convictions were not eligible as entries for "occupation" or "employment" (see [1]). Perhaps things are different in the US. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this was not her "occupation"; as noted, this criminal activity is already noted in the infobox in the appropriate field. How much it went on beyond the cases for which she was convicted is not known. We are in BLP territory here. Davidships (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

She was convicted on 4 of 5 counts, all counts involved minors. This isn’t a BLP violation, it’s stating a known but ugly fact. She was a child sexual trafficker and Epstein’s madame. petrarchan47คุก 14:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, criminal convictions are not an occupation, except in certain circumstances, i.e. drug dealer, hired assassin. I'm not saying it's a BLP violation, I'm saying it's wrong, and doesn't make sense. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

It makes inappropriate comedic sense. That's the problem. Not sure the IRS will be investigating. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

One against many then, it seems to me? Can I now respond in the positive to the request below? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I think you're probably safe to do so, unless someone feels like starting an RFC to waste 30 days or so? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2022

Her occupation was never a sex trafficker that is wrong and far fetched could this be changed 82.132.219.47 (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

It could be changed, yes, but a clear consensus has not yet emerged. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 10:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Done. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 20:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

She had a "perfectly good" occupation as a former socialite before she branched out into sex trafficking. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

She was paid by Epstein to find victims - surely that was her occupation? Rustygecko (talk) 03:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

How much? Not sure they left a trail of invoices for tax deduction purposes? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Forensic accounting has shown that Epstein paid Maxwell some $30 million over the years for her services of finding young girls to rape. NoelWR (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

This is not yet mentioned in the article. What's your source? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2022

Change

"In 2021 she was found guilty in a New York court of child sex trafficking and other offences in connection with the financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein,[8] and was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment on 28 June 2022.[9]"

to

"In 2021 she was found guilty of child sex trafficking and other offences in connection with the financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein,[8] and was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment, by New York court on 28 June 2022.[9]" XSome1Else (talk) 08:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Sex offender should be written first

Sex offender should be written as the main header, instead it just shows ‘former socialite’ on its own when someone searches this name. The victims deserve better. 77.101.17.71 (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Not really, no. Do we have to argue with the "everything in one sentence limited attention span Google" mob again? Britmax (talk) 12:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The victims probably deserve compensation. And seeing a long prison sentence, not just a specially crafted opening sentence. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

If you are looking for Justice, sadly coming to Wikipedia is the wrong place. Here you have to have WP:RS to back up anything stated as fact, and with WP:BLP and WP:REDFLAG you have to have concrete, irrefutable evidence from multiple sources. If you can provide that, then by all means add it in as it adheres to Wikipedia's standard. Eruditess (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

People should not be defined by their crimes. Ghislaine Maxwell is best defined as "former socialite", who is also a sex offender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LameteBruce (talk • contribs) 15:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

People are defined in their lead paragraph by what the WP:WEIGHT of the body of the article holds. If Ghislaine Maxwell was a socialite and there is a lot of WP:RS to cover that. Then there is no need to inflate her crimes. But as seeing as her crimes hold quite a bit of weight in her notability. I would argue that she should be defined by it. Eruditess (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Photo rollback

I rolled back 2 edits where a "nicer photo" was added at the top which already was in the article further down. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Attempts to locate Maxwell to serve court documents edit request

This bit needs to be amended a little

"claiming she needed to return to the United Kingdom to be with her deathly ill mother" to,

Maxwell's attorney claimed "she needed to return to the United Kingdom to be with her deathly ill mother"

And maybe a a note, that her deathly ill mother managed to hang on for another 3 years? 121.98.30.202 (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Grammar correction

"In 2021 she was found guilty in a New York court of child sex trafficking and other offences in connection with the financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein,[8] and was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment on 28 June 2022.[9]" is structured in the wrong way. It shold have been like: "In 2021 she was found guilty of child sex trafficking and other offences in connection with the financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein,[8] and was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment by New York court on 28 June 2022.[9]"

Current version of text implies that there is a court of child sex trafficking, not that the latter is the crime Maxwell commited. XSome1Else (talk) 08:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

All it requires is the insertion of a comma: guilty in a New York court, of child sex trafficking

Nuttyskin (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Name.

A few portions where Ghislaine and her father are both referenced read fairly awkwardly, case in point -

"After Robert Maxwell purchased the New York Daily News in January 1991, he sent Maxwell to New York City to act as his emissary.". Robert Maxwell sent Maxwell to New York?

Should this, and other similar sentences, be written with her given name in place of "maxwell" for legibility purposes?2A02:C7C:5F61:5000:E9C4:AE63:13D5:51D (talk) 08:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Reddit

Why is Maxwell being a top employee with Reddit not mentioned in this article at all. 100.6.24.73 (talk) 00:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps because the multiple reliable sources required to verify such a statement in a BLP article have not been found. Davidships (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)