Open main menu


"American Jew Financier", really?Edit

Comes off as amazingly anti-semitic as the first sentence, especially when quoted by google without the link highlights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi @ Thanks for your Wikipedia contributions :) If you're referring to adding this information to the article introduction, I agree it's not appropriate. I searched the revision but could not find which contributor added this. Do you know? Anyhow, as you know there is a better section to add this information to. All are welcome to join this related discussion.
With infinite Wikipedia love ♥. Francewhoa (talk) 23:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Many sources like "The Times of Israel" call Epstein a "Jewish financier", other sources describe Epstein as "American Jewish", so is there really the idea that it would not be appropriate for Wikipedia to describe him like normal sources do? Many other business people are also described as "American-Jewish financiers" (without being called "anti-semite") so why is it so important that Epstein is not described for what (he paid for) the media to describe him? --BalancedIssues (talk) 11:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Why is this special emphasis the sole focus of your edits? He's described in the article as coming from Jewish parents. Acroterion (talk) 11:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
If you are more interested to analyze to which sections of the article I contributed feel free to do so but why interested to represent in incorrectly: I added more to the "careeer" and "personal life" section of the article than to the topic if it were better be omitted in Wikipedia that Epstein is a "American Jewish business man" or "American Jewish financier". Why are you judging so much and "taking sides" instead of following the sources? I didn't put an emphasis on anything but users like "bus stop" put a lot of energy in omitting things. I am not really interested in your mission (you didn't need to put a "threat" to my personal page to confirm your mission), so what is it you want the reader to imply, that "coming from Jewish parents" means the same, or that it is a widely known fact and can therefore be omitted?--BalancedIssues (talk) 12:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I think businessman may be a better term than finacier. I have read enough of the articles published on Epstein since he was arrested to be convinced that he was not clearly a financier. His actions were too murky for that, and enough people have claimed he made money from blackmail (although no one has yet claimed to be a victim of this by him), that I am not sure people are convinced he was really a financier in any meaningful way. That he was American and Jewish is beyond dispute. I do not yet see any evidence that he was much of a religious Jew, but neither is Senator Sanders of Vermont, but when I tried to remove him from Jewish categories people went balistic on me, and Sanders has distanced himself from the Jewish community while Epstein embraces it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • It should read "Jewish-American" financier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tacomansam (talkcontribs) 17:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
A certain group of editors seem to deem it "antisemitic" if Wikipedia includes that Epstein is an Jewish-American financier. "Jewish-American" and "Financier" seems to be no problem in other Wikipedia articles. Nobody blocking this here would really explain why he he does it (and some people generically calling something "antisemitic" just want to propose not to discuss).--BalancedIssues (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
As emotions of some editors may have cooled down by now, are there still any objections that also the Wikipedia page can disclose that Epstein was a Jewish-American financier? --BalancedIssues (talk) 04:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


If you came here to troll about Jewishness, I will be happy to block you. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Is it "trolling" to include the ancestry of notable persons when it is known? This is common practice on Wikipedia, and it is quite interesting to see that after this new scandal has come out, Epstein's ancestry/ethnicity is something that should be removed from the article? I.e. . Erasing mention of his background as a result of a scandal is hardly NPOV. ADMelnick (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
ADMelnick, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to take lessons in NPOV editing on Wikipedia from someone with a half dozen edits. I don't know the editor who made the change you pointed at (and it's already been restored to the article), but I do know that I find it odd that so many people are interested in this person's Jewishness, especially when coupled with the suggestion that there might be something going on, something fishy. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it's a commonly practiced form of trolling - I've never seen an editor who was vitally interested in mentioning that somebody's Presbyterian in a prominent manner, but for some reason it happens in articles on Jewish, or seems-Jewish people all the time. Please keep your views on whether Jewish people are mostly good and sometimes bad to yourselves, and stop promoting conspiracy theories about article editing.. Acroterion (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I simply noticed that information regarding his ethnic background had been removed, restored, and removed again (and since restored once more...) on this Wikipedia article as I have been following this story. I am sure we can all cast aspersions about the motivations of the editors on both sides; it's ironic, though, that the people who want to maintain the inclusion of this information in the article can be regarded as agenda-driven/ill-intentioned trolls, while making a similar allegation about those seeking to remove the information can disparaged as "promoting conspiracy theories". All this said, I never claimed that his background should be mentioned in the article intro. Only that it should be restored to the customary place in the article, i.e. in the "Early Life" section and in the article categories section. Thanks. ADMelnick (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
ADMelnick—what is your question? The "Early life" section includes that "Epstein was born in 1953 in Brooklyn, New York, to a Jewish family and grew up in Coney Island." And the individual is included in Category:American people of Jewish descent. Bus stop (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi @ADMelnick and And Drmies: Thanks for your Wikipedia contributions :) I suggest we focus our efforts on information from reputable source(s). Any volunteer to find a reputable source(s) about the claim that Jeffrey Epstein being of Jewish heritage and or religion? If any, what is the encyclopedic value in including this information in the article, from the reader's point of view? What would be the appropriate location for information in the article? Intro?, Early life?, elsewhere?
According to this Wikipedia article about "Epstein", "The surname Epstein is one of the oldest Ashkenazi Jewish family names". Source is Singer, Isidore; et al., eds. (1901–1906).
Contribution from all are really welcome :) Including people of Jewish religion. Speaking for myself, based on my interactions with Jewish people, most Jewish people are good people, with mature, ethical, and lawful behaviors. But allegedly, a minority of Jewish people are bad people, with immature, unethical or criminal behaviors. Same with all the other religions I interacted with ;) Francewhoa (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

It isn't a matter of singling him out as Jewish because he has committed criminal acts. If you look at most articles of famous persons on Wikipedia, the heritage of the individual is listed. The issue here is that some people want to hide the fact that he is Jewish, because they don't want child sex trafficking associated with a member of that particular ethnic group. My point is, if he was born into an Italian, Japanese, or Swedish family in NYC, and that was listed in his "early life" section (as is customary on Wikipedia), would there be any justification for removing that information if it comes out that the person has committed a crime? Of course not.
Here's a link to an article -
Here is an additional article where Epstein's lawers claim he had a fake passport to hide that he is Jewish. Being Jewish is clearly an importing part of how Epstein self-identifies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
It seems quite clear to me that the issue here is that Epstein is an ethnic/cultural Jew, and his victims were for the most part non-Jewish whites. So since "white supremacists" might complain that his actions might have been motivated by ethnic or cultural hatred, his Jewishness should be hidden, *for the greater good*. That's not right. If he was born into a Chinese-American family, that would be noted in his biography, regardless of whether or not he committed any crimes and whether or not his ethnic background (or that of the victims) was relevant to those crimes. ADMelnick (talk) 23:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
The problem here is that others wanted it in the lead, in an apparent effort to conspicuously smear Jews. It's fine in the body, which is common in BLPs. soibangla (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

This isn't even a debate. Epstein is Jewish and it needs to be in the article, at the very least the early life and personal life sections, but I would also support mentioning it in the introduction. If Drmies or whoever dislikes that Epstein is Jewish specifically because Epstein has been a very naughty boy and thus the word Jewish should be excluded from the article on that basis then that it tough luck. There is no Wikipedia policy which says we would need to do that. Funny how in the introduction of the articles for Albert Einstein and René Cassin, who have a comparatively positive PR campaign, we manage to mention that they were Jewish. This is like the Harvey Weinstein affair in that trying to keep hush-hush that he is Jewish is such a ridiculous proposal that most people don't even bother. It is what it is. Baron De La Ware (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Early life. Jewish family.Edit

@ADMelnick and And Drmies: I suggest two things. First I suggest to not add to the article intro that Epstein was born to a Jewish family. Simply because this is unusual to add such information for any similar article intro. It's risky to come across to some readers as cherry picking information for the Wikipedia article intro. Second, I suggest we restore this information from the "Early life" section. Because this information was included in the "Early life" section of this wikipedia article since the first draft was publish in April 2018. Also this is common practice on Wikipedia to include this information to a "Early life"/"Background" section. Many readers are interested in such heritage & historical information. Assuming it's based on reputable source(s). How about restoring this paragraph to the "Early life" section? With reputable source.

Early life
Epstein was born in 1953 in Brooklyn, New York, to a Jewish family and grew up in Coney Island. Epstein's father worked for the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation.[1]

  1. ^ "Billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein charged with sex trafficking - World News - Jerusalem Post". Retrieved 2019-07-09.
Again, speaking for myself, based on my interactions with Jewish people, most Jewish people are good people, with mature, ethical, and lawful behaviors. But allegedly, a minority of Jewish people are bad people, with immature, unethical or criminal behaviors. Same with all the other religions I interacted with ;) Francewhoa (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Francewhoa, I am going to have to ask you to NOT start talking about your experiences with people of varying backgrounds. This is not a forum. Or, WP:NOTFORUM. Besides that, I am quite surprised to find so much interest in some sex trafficker's Jewishness, including from relatively new or inexperienced editors. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal, the edit which I hyperlinked to in my initial comment has already since been reverted, hopefully an edit war will not ensue and the information will remain where it should. ADMelnick (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems quite odd that an administrator is allowed to get away with violating policy (see: WP:ASPERSIONS and Wikipedia:Vandalism) But any editor (including myself) that points this out or does the same thing is immediately blocked for "personal attacks". Since i cannot name the specific administrator/s who did this (else i be blocked for "personal attacks"), i will instead quote, without attributing a name to the quote, and everybody else can figure out the rest.

"I do know that I find it odd that so many people are interested in this person's Jewishness, especially when coupled with the suggestion that there might be something going on, something fishy."

"Yes, it's a commonly practiced form of trolling - I've never seen an editor who was vitally interested in mentioning that somebody's Presbyterian in a prominent manner, but for some reason it happens in articles on Jewish, or seems-Jewish people all the time. Please keep your views on whether Jewish people are mostly good and sometimes bad to yourselves, and stop promoting conspiracy theories about article editing"

In the first quote, a certain administrator assumes bad intent because somebody questioned the removal of Epstein's ethnicity from the article. This is of course, ridiculous. Sure, maybe someone might have that intent, but don't you think assuming that is the case for every single editor talking about that issue would constitute casting WP:ASPERSIONS? regardless of whether or not they actually have this intent, it's certainly against Wikipedia policy to accuse them of having that intent without evidence. And don't you think that, if they did have that intent, that removing them would only reinforce their idea that there is a grand conspiracy to hide the fact that Epstein is Jewish?

In the second quote, an administrator immediately assumes that the intent is trolling, and provides an explanation why they believe that to be so, however that explanation doesn't contain any real evidence of bad intentions. Even further, the administrator also assumes that they are pushing a conspiracy theory about article editing, simply by asking why content has been removed from the article. This example of course is another clear cut example of casting WP:ASPERSIONS

The other policy that was clearly violated by a certain un-named administrator, was removing the original question from this section, and blocking an IP user who reverted the deletion of the section, and then accusing them of (and blocking them for) "casting aspersions and making personal attacks" (For raising questions about the certain un-named administrator's conduct), and ridiculing them for being an IP user "I figured it was just a drive-by IP. I guess they found something, a cause, to sink their teeth into."

The administrator who i leave un-named violated WP:VANDALISM by removing talk page content without proper cause (He claimed on the talk page of the blocked IP user that the talk page content was "Trolling", but im sure you can be the judge of that yourselves here). This same administrator then replaced that content with his own content, threatening to block any user that "troll[ed] about Jewishness". Of course, this would only reinforce the belief by anti-semetic users that there is some sort of grand conspiracy, especially since there was content removed that questioned the removal of said content. Anyhow, the likelyhood that I stay here is not very long, since administrators (like the un-named ones in my post) like to block users for questioning their actions. (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to also add that the initial edit to remove "Jewish" from the article could have also been by an editor who wanted to cause a controversy. It's not just a one way street. (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

One can only wonder what you are talking about, Have you read the relevant material on this Talk page? The article mentions that he is Jewish. If you know of an issue could you please keep it brief? Bus stop (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't get it. He is Jewish. This source says "Jeffery Epstein, a Jewish politically well-connected billionaire, has been charged with sex trafficking, according to multiple reports." Bus stop (talk) 15:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
The IP was trying to insert this to the lead. According to MOS:ETHNICITY, "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." Ths is clearly not relevant to his notability. Should this be included to the body of the page? A cursory mention in a source that he is a "Jewish" (it does not tell anything about his family) is not a sufficient justification. Why this should be included? My very best wishes (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Ethnic background is basic biographical information. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

  • I agree with the consensus that this verifiable information belongs in the article. Just not in the lead. R2 (bleep) 19:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • In general, ethnicity or religion are not mentioned in the lede unless it's a vital part of the person's life and character: for instance, a Lutheran clergyman. It's perfectly fine elsewhere, as long as it's sourced, and as long as editors remember that it would be highly unusual to find it necessary to have an explicit statement that somebody was born in a Christian household, for instance, so it needs to have more than passing relevance. It is an insistence on the lede that makes other editors suspicious, since this is employed on Wikipedia by some editors as a form of Jew-baiting and trolling. That doesn't mean that everybody who advocates it is exhibiting bad intent or even knows that it might be a matter of concern, but it's a red flag, especially in editors with few or no other contributions. Acroterion (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Harizotoh9, R2, I was wondering how you all would register whiteness as a verifiable family background in, for instance, Bill Clinton. There are 63 occurrences of "white" in the article, but the only one that points to racial matters is in the "Judicial appointments" section, and it's not about him. (I looked for "caucasian" too, but didn't get further than "caucus".) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand your question or its relevance, but I'll be honest, it sounds rather pointy. R2 (bleep) 23:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Hmm that's kind of sad. Alright: a man born into a Jewish family needs to have "Jewishness" written up in his Wikipedia article. A man of Caucasian ancestry does not need to have Caucasianness written up in his article. Why? So, if you're going to be honest, be honest. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Because that is the modern standard, else you are going to have to talk of the holocaust as an explicitly "white genocide", something which the left claims doesn't exist, therefore holocaust denial. (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
This argument is an amazing encapsulation of why The Internet was such a terrible idea. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 03:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Because it is sourced, because it is comparatively rare, and because Judaism is an ethnicity and a religion, not a race. Suggesting that Judaism is a race is historically associated with Nazism. Please don't do it again. R2 (bleep) 16:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
That flip will not work, R2, but nice try. It is a choice to insert it, and, as this talk page proves, a choice that frequently has other motives than encyclopedic completeness. And don't go around suggesting I'm a Nazi when I'm blocking Nazis left and right here; that's more than a little disgusting. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
You're not a Nazi, you're a good admin. Please take a moment to cool off. R2 (bleep) 17:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Ahrtoodeetoo—you say "Judaism is an ethnicity and a religion, not a race". If such questions should be entertained, they should be entertained elsewhere, not on this Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 13:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh look, another admin using their administrator privileges to block people who have a certain ideology. I wasn't aware that being a "Nazi" was against Wikipedia guidelines. Again, casting aspersions about the motives of other users, and publicly announcing your mission is to block "Nazis", rather than working towards the project's goals. Tell me again why this user is an administrator? Why do administrators get to violate guidelines with no consequences, yet if another user so much as hints at opposition to another administrator's conduct, they get blocked for "personal attacks". Sitting here and speculating on whether or not another person's motives are valid does not help the project in any capacity. (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
That user is an administrator because they do laudable things like removing posts by Nazis. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
By nazis, or "nazis"? The goal of the project is not to remove "nazis". This is a fact. (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

It says he was born in 1953 and graduated high school in 1969. That would make him a 16-year-old high school graduate. Please double-check that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Confuzd420 (talkcontribs) 21:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

  • "Jewish" - what does it mean here? The religion, ethnicity or self-identification? This is not clear. Is he a religious person? I do not think that religion or ethnicity should be included automatically in all BLP pages, but only if this is important in the context of biography, as established by sources. This is not the case here. My very best wishes (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Bill Clinton is not Causcasian. Caucasians are people from the caucuses and their descendants. His acnestros were not immigrants from Ingusetia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comsidering Jewish publications for years made it a point to always say Epstein is Jewish, we cannot in good conscience leave that out of this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


Let's see if we can sort out a consensus here. I've seen several ideas proposed above:

  • A) Make no mention of the Epstein family's religion
  • B) Mention Epstein's parent's religion in "Early life" section (per source)
  • C) Put Epstein's parent's religion in the lead
  • (feel free to insert additional options D, E, etc)

Please indicate a preference and brief reason(s) Rklawton (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Support B

  • family history is common and acceptable in BLP, and it's appropriately sourced
  • motivation for including family background isn't relevant.
  • we must not infer Epstein's religion based on his parent's religion
  • I've seen no source indicating Epstein has acknowledged a personal faith
  • In contrast with Mayim Bialik, I've seen no source indicating Epstein's personal faith has played a significant role in his life.

Rklawton (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

  • "My very best wishes", "Rklawton"—you are overthinking this. "what does it mean here ... the religion, ethnicity or self-identification" "we must not infer Epstein's religion based on his parent's religion" All that we are doing is adhering to reliable sources. Reliable sources say he is Jewish, so we say he is Jewish. The source says "Jeffery Epstein, a Jewish politically well-connected billionaire, has been charged with sex trafficking, according to multiple reports." Bus stop (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I think this can be included in such context because here the relevance is clear, but not by noticing "hey, and BTW, that criminal was Jewish". My very best wishes (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "the relevance is clear" No it isn't. Jeffrey Epstein had been a trustee of the Wexner Foundation which gave $2.3 million to Ehud Barak. "The Wexner Foundation focuses on the development of Jewish professional and volunteer leaders in North America and public leaders in Israel. Founded by Leslie Wexner", who is Jewish. Ehud Barak is also Jewish. I think you can write about the issue (involving Jeffrey Epstein) in the Israeli Elections. But the issue is not "context" for saying that Jeffrey Epstein is Jewish. You are saying "I think this can be included in such context because here the relevance is clear". There is no "context" relating to Jeffrey Epstein's Jewishness in the news story you are presenting. Both items can be presented separately, but there is nothing tying them together. It would be a contrivance to try to tie them together. Bus stop (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I have removed this hodgepodge of information. It reads Several sources state that Epstein is Jewish and/or "grew up in a Jewish household.". Its inclusion would require consensus. Bus stop (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
OK, I agree with your both points. My very best wishes (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The "hodgepodge" was sourced from a number of news publications that are unlikely to be presenting an anti-semitic bias: The Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Haaretz, The Forward, and The Jerusalem Post. The sheer number of reputable sources that included this information in their general content in each news article persuaded me to post it to the subject's page. I see from the talk page that this has been an ongoing issue of concern for some editors. For what it is worth, I also have a connection to the Interlochen Center for the Arts, having been employed there for two summers, and I did pause before adding that educational background to the subject's page. Since his attendance was verified by the registrar at the art center, it should be included as part of Epstein's early life even if I personally cringe at the realization that he was present on the campus both of the summers that I worked there. Arts institutions and religious institutions are comprised of individuals who run the gamut of moral development. Unfortunately, none are immune from criminals. To clarify, I also support option B) Mention Epstein's parents religion in Early Life Cedar777 (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Here is the problem. These sources (e.g. [1], just as CNN article linked by me above) are not at all about his "Jewishness", but on entirely different subjects. So they should be used to source subjects they are actually about. You are trying to cherry pick information that is completely irrelevant and unimportant, unless someone wants to make a point that ... I noticed that someone noted WP:EGRS. Yes, sure, one can probably assign this page to the corresponding categories, but it does not really influence te text of the page. My very best wishes (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
In the interest of consensus, can you kindly clarify your support for any of the above options as suggested by Rklawton or provide another alternative? Cedar777 (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Option B AND Option C but also Option D. We can do all 3. Jewish media is not anti-Semitic and refers to him as "the Jewish billionaire" so it belongs at the start describing him, while discussing his family belongs in early life. "Option D" is the undiscussed issue of whether to at least include him in categories, since those were all removed recently. Even people who may not want to see this in Early life or the introduction may still agree to put him in the categories which are listed at the bottom. Olivia comet (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Option B While I think it bears mention, it strikes me as a background fact, and I believe it belongs in that section. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Option A. At this time I would opt to omit mention of Jewishness from the article and just include in Jewish categories. He may be Jewish but that quality is unrelated to the sex crimes that dominate this article. Bus stop (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

  • That's not option A, that's Option D. Option A was not mentioning anything at all and is mutually exclusive to B/C/D, though those could exist alone or with each other. Olivia comet (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Olivia comet—regardless of which option applies, Jeffrey Epstein's Jewishness has nothing to do with the theme of the article, which I think can be summed up as sexual abuse of underage girls. Bus stop (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Option B. The idea that it "anti-semitic" or "trolling" to mention Epstein's Jewish ethnicity and/or religion is nonsense. Either we should mention ethnicity/religion in notable persons' articles, or not. Any crimes a person is accused of should have no bearing on this choice - why would it? It does not matter whether it is related to the sex crimes that dominate this article - this is an article about Epstein, the person, not Epstein's alleged sex crimes. Like almost any other figure, this information should be made available in the early life section. Would also support C, or D (simply mentioning that he is Jewish, which many reputable sources say he is.)CelebrateMotivation (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2019 (EST)

"Either we should mention ethnicity/religion in notable persons' articles, or not. Any crimes a person is accused of should have no bearing on this choice - why would it?" Consider Bernard Madoff. In that case it is the Affinity fraud that makes this noteworthy: "Madoff targeted wealthy American Jewish communities, using his in-group status to obtain investments from Jewish individuals and institutions." This factor is missing in Jeffrey Epstein. Bus stop (talk) 23:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
With respect, you are conflating two entirely separate things. Bernard Madoff had a specific section for affinity fraud. Epstein's article has a section on his early life. The religious and ethnic makeup of his household is certainly related to his early life, just as Bernard Madoff's ethnicity was related to his affinity fraud. I reiterate: either we mention ethnicity/religion in notable persons' articles, or we do not. One thing we should remember is that Bernard Madoff is far from the only person whose ethnicity/religion is mentioned in their biography page. It is certainly not only mentioned in cases of affinity fraud (or similar).CelebrateMotivation (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
I am having trouble finding people described as "caucasian, protestant," or the like, either as to their person or their upbringing. I am given to believe that there exist notable people who fit this profile. Any thoughts on why? Dumuzid (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
You are asking for my personal opinion? This sort of seems like it might be a "gotcha"/trap question, but I will follow WP:AGF and assume it is not. My opinion - which should be irrelevant, mind you - would be that it is because people in many countries view "caucasian" or perhaps even "Protestant" to be the assumed default. You are very welcome to add "caucasian" or "Protestant" to any biographical articles where it would be appropriate. Indeed, I would welcome this. Also, for what it's worth, I am under the impression that it is pretty easy to find biographical articles that mention Protestant/Catholic/Islamic/etc. families with respect to notable persons' upbringings.CelebrateMotivation (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Honestly didn't intend the question as a "trap," but I did mean it to head toward a point, namely that I think it's a place wherein some judgment can and should be utilized. I don't think, for instance, that George Washington would be improved by "...was a Caucasian American military leader...." Reasonable minds, however, may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Reasonable minds may differ, certainly - in fact, I'd argue that George Washington's ethnic makeup and religion are very important, interesting, and notable topics for a biographical article. Indeed - not to get too off topic - Washington's religious views have been the subject of great controversy! His ethnicity also seems extremely notable, especially given the gestalt views of the time (but also, even without them). CelebrateMotivation (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
CelebrateMotivation—Jeffrey Epstein's crimes don't relate to Jews. Madoff's crimes related to Jews. (More correctly, Jeffrey Epstein's crimes didn't have anything to do with his being Jewish, whereas Madoff's crimes related to his being Jewish.) You say "I reiterate: either we mention ethnicity/religion in notable persons' articles, or we do not." We exercise judgement. We use Talk pages as we are doing now. I don't think one-size-fits-all. Bus stop (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Bus stop: Disagree entirely - here, one size does fit all. Consistency is important. I fail to see any reason why we should fail to include this information about notable figures unless it simply has not been reported by RS. Again, with respect, I reiterate that you are conflating two different things. This is, again, not an article about Epstein's alleged crimes, much as it may seem so right now. This is an article about Epstein. As long as there is a section on his early life - or really, his life in general - this information is relevant. With respect, I think you are focusing a bit too hard on his alleged crimes. I might agree with you if this were an article solely about his crimes, but it is not. CelebrateMotivation (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
The crime looms large in both the Madoff article and this one. Bus stop (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
It does, I agree. This is perhaps unavoidable due to the magnitude of the allegations. Perhaps it might be possible to split the allegations off into their own article - I don't know what the policy on this type of thing is. For the time being, however, please note that the Madoff article has separate sections just like this one. In the "Early life" section it mentions that he was born to Jewish parents. It again mentions he is Jewish under "Affinity Fraud." The two motivations for including these in those two separate sections are unrelated. I certainly agree that would be inappropriate to include anything about Epstein's Jewish background in the sections related to his alleged crimes, unless it was somehow directly related (ala affinity fraud). Nevertheless, his family's ethnicity/religion remains totally relevant to his "Early life." CelebrateMotivation (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Option B, obviously. It's absurd that we even have to discuss this soibangla (talk) 01:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

We start by writing that his parents were Jewish. Then some other stuff. Then again that the household was Jewish. Not to mention the awkward "sources say that he is Jewish or raised in a Jewish household". Obviously we should say something, but not like this. I propose something like "Epstein and his parents are Jewish, and he was raised in a Jewish household." Debresser (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed that the redundancy of referring to the subject's heritage three different ways is unnecessary. The current media coverage indicates a general statement that Epstein is Jewish. In the effort to search for and review any other credible sources with more detailed information on the matter, I instead made the unpleasant discovery of a hate-filled publication discussing this very Wikipedia talk thread. I still support Option B but acknowledge the above points that this is "a place wherein some judgment can and should be utilized" and "We exercise judgement." Bias against the non-normative is real. A simple mention to Epstein's Jewish parents in Early life is sufficient. The reporting on Epstein is ongoing and more in depth information will arise and can be added in time. Cedar777 (talk) 03:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
The article linked-to above is titled "Wikipedia Editors Don’t Want 'Goyim' to Know Jeffrey Epstein is jewish" but are Wikipedia editors mindful of "goyim"? I don't think so. That reveals the mindset of a publication that can't grasp the encyclopedic scope of Wikipedia, which can choose to omit or include any material it deems more in keeping with its principle of maintaining a neutral point of view. That publication should ask itself if it strives to maintain the quality of being bias-free. By the way, at the bottom of the "Renegade Tribune" article it says that the publisher "also organized the 2014 White Man March". Therefore I would take their "information" with a grain of salt. Bus stop (talk) 05:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
A grain of salt can only do so much to much to improve the taste of tripe. Unfortunately, the "Renegade Tribune" has plenty of company when it comes to an ugly impulse to attack Epstein's ethnicity. Another good reason to exercise care when editing. A more appropriate, reliable source discussing Epstein's childhood did materialize and there are again citations to the Early life section. Cheers. Cedar777 (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
You are saying "Another good reason to exercise care when editing" but I think exercising care in this instance implies omitting mentioning that he is Jewish. Thank you for sharing your perspective with me and I respect your opinion but I think my vote will remain "option A". Bus stop (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Respect to you as well 'Bus stop'. Just to clarify, the reference above to tripe was not to your comment but to the "Renegade Tribune's" content. The majority of editors in this section express support for B. Perhaps the reference to Epstein's Jewish parents was deleted earlier by 'Activist' due to lack of citation? It is not clear. This is why I made an effort to restore the information, in some form, with the new citation. 'My very best wishes' made the point below that the earlier citations did not state that his "parents were Jewish." This is true. They mostly use qualifiers. The latest piece published by the Forward "What We Know About Jeffrey Epstein’s Childhood" did more directly address the subject (and that many relatives perished in the holocaust) rather than simply adding a qualifier of Jewish in front of his name. The Childhood article also pointed to the deeper source: coverage of Epstein's upbringing in the book Filthy Rich. My logic in restoring it into the middle of the Early life section was that it would be less prominent, one detail among many in his early life. Exact placement within the paragraph is not important. Kindest Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option B, of course, similar to what we do for all prominent Jews whose notability is not connected with Judaism. He is neither a rabbi nor a notable Jewish activist, but on the other hand, he does not have an anodyne, vague "Caucasian" ethnic identity. He is a Jew, and discussed as such by several Jewish reliable sources. Mention it and cite it but do not make a big deal out of it. This is just another of countless examples where the moderate, matter-of-fact path is best for the encylopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Option B, "Jewish" is not just a religion but an ethnicity, and Wikipedia commonly adds the ethnicity of persons on their biographies, its honestly absurd that we are discussing this. -- Pedro8790 (talk) 07:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Option B is closer, but it must be sourced. Current references ([7] and [8]) do not tell that "his parents were Jewish". My very best wishes (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option B seems reasonable and within the bounds of normal practice, so long as it is reliably sourced. Einstein was Jewish. Indra Nooyi is Indian. Levi Strauss was German. I'm not sure there's any generally accepted standard for omitting someone's ethnicity/heritage/lineage/whatever-you-want-to-call-it just because the person is implicated in a crime. We don't seem to have any qualms about discussing Al Capone's Italian heritage. GMGtalk 13:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "We don't seem to have any qualms about discussing Al Capone's Italian heritage." I think you are comparing Anti-Italianism and Antisemitism. They are similar in some ways but distinct in some ways. Bus stop (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No, I'm just comparing our treatment of ethnicity/heritage/etc in biographies. That the group is the subject of prejudice, discrimination, or even genocide isn't terribly relevant to across-the-board editorial standards. We similarly don't avoid (as far as I am aware) identifying individuals as being First Nation, Armenian, or Rwandan on the basis of these groups being the subject of large scale historical and/or modern discrimination and violence. GMGtalk 14:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Double Standard ( & censoring of this talk page)Edit

User:Cullen328 doesn't seem to like that a possible double standard is made transparent that some authors have when it comes to mentioning or omitting “Jewishness”. Here [[2]] he immediately removed my contribution. My comments have not been a NOTAFORUM as Cullen328 tried to imply. Why censoring instead of answering in this talk page? BalancedIssues (talk) 09:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

BalancedIssues—you say "Why censoring instead of answering in this talk page?" It is important that we remove extraneous rants. I will assume for a moment that there is a "double standard". You would raise that issue elsewhere. Assuming still further your claim was sustained, it would have impact here. Now, you might be wondering—where might you raise your issue? I would suggest the WP:VILLAGEPUMP. Your posts are getting removed at this Talk page because they are off-topic. We aren't discussing general issues. This is the Talk page of a specific article on one specific individual. Bus stop (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
As you might be aware, it is very important among some anti-Semitic contexts to ensure that Jews are labeled as such, whether it's biographically significant or not, and we've had a parade of banned editors making new accounts to make sure that happens here. Accordingly, we tend to treat demands for prominent mention with skepticism. Acroterion (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
@Acroterion, I welcome your general "skepticism" because this is usually a sensitive topic. Allow me to clarify that I did not promote "prominent mentions" of Jewishness but I expressed my problems just omitting it in this article as some seem to propose.BalancedIssues (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
@Bus Stop, you may need to cool down when accusing me of being off-topic and ranting. Obviously you are the one promoting a bias when wishing to "omit mention of Jewishness from the article". Have a look at most of the other comments if you are in doubt. Also, you didn’t explain why your personal (biased?) wish to omit the mention of Jewishness in this article is "on-topic" and my hint that behavior like this would produce a double standard is "off-topic". Your proposal to remove my comments seem to be rant-like so one should ask you to be more civil.BalancedIssues (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
With all due respect, if you think Bus stop's post above is uncivil, then I fear you will find Wikipedia a shocking and frightful place. It's often a good idea to start with less controversial articles before diving in to active brouhahas. Just a thought. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
BalancedIssues—in this edit you say "There seems to be an obvious double standard in Wikipedia about the mentioning of Jewishness." Does that belong on the Jeffrey Epstein page? I apologize for referring to your post as a "rant". But the validity or incorrectness of that charge would be addressed elsewhere. I suggested the village pump but there are probably other appropriate places. If you ask at the village pump you could ask if this is the most appropriate place for your question. Someone might suggest a forum other than the village pump but I don't think they would suggest you raise that specific issue at this specific article.

You say Also, you didn’t explain why your personal (biased?) wish to omit the mention of Jewishness in this article is "on-topic" and my hint that behavior like this would produce a double standard is "off-topic". For an obvious reason—the bulk of the article is related to criminality. And none of the criminality is related to Jewishness. This is in contrast to Madoff, whose criminality involved affinity fraud. Reliable sources are saying that Madoff exploited an "affinity" between himself as a Jew and those Jews who entrusted him with their money. We do not have that relationship between the alleged criminality of Jeffrey Epstein and his Jewishness. In the absence of a connection between the alleged crimes and Jewishness, the insertion of Jewishness into this article is only gratuitous and it is misleading because it implies a relationship between Jewishness and lasciviousness. Bus stop (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

This is irrelevant, there is nothing on Wikipedia rules saying that the ethnicity of persons should be ommitted if the bulk of the article is related to criminality, and besides, if he was, say, of German or Italian descent, would be so insistent in removing his ethnicity? -- Pedro8790 (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Pedro8790—I did not use the word "ethnicity". Bus stop (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
But Jews are an ethnicity though. -- Pedro8790 (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
That would depend on context. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Pedro8790—can one convert to an ethnicity? Bus stop (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bus stop, your assertation that “the bulk of the article is related to criminality” may either be appropriate, or otherwise should trigger changes in the article balance (more subsections and content in “Career” compared to “Criminal Proceedings” would be suitable, I guess) but reported criminal behavior of an individual doesn’t change the fact whether or not that individual is Jewish.

If Jewishness is mentioned in this article (like in the other articles about Jewish individuals) it doesn’t mean that Epstein’s criminal behavior is caused or connected to his Jewishness as you seem to imply. The mentioning of Jewishness in all articles about Jewish Nobel laureates also doesn’t imply that Jewishness “caused” the Nobel prices and nobody would think about eliminating the mentioning of Jewishness because of the special fact that there have been Nobel prices awarded. But not everybody here seems open-minded enough to understand my hint to a double standard if reporting of Jewishness is promoted for individuals with “positive” achievements and is to be eliminated as soon as “negative” reporting for that individual are surfacing.BalancedIssues (talk) 05:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The article says he has Jewish parents. It puts him in the categories of American Jew and Jewish philanthropists. So his "Jewishness" as you put it, is mentioned in the article. What exactly is it you want this article to say so that it is "balanced"? Railfan23 (talk) 05:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I would put more weight on the "Career" section as I said BalancedIssues (talk) 05:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Adding well-sourced information to the Career section of the article would be appropriate. But what on earth has that got to do with the long, tedious discussion about "Jewishness"? Absolutely nothing. If you want to propose additions to the Career section, backed with appropriate reliable sources then do so. Railfan23 (talk) 05:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Sure I will do that. Btw, it is not my fault that some argue for suppression of facts or (inadvertently) introduce double standards for this article.BalancedIssues (talk) 05:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
BalancedIssues—I will guess the reference is to me about "suppression of facts". I am concerned about misleading implications therefore I will choose "option A". Bus stop (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
What sources are supporting your "misleading implications"?--BalancedIssues (talk) 11:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The comparison of Jewishness to Prysbeterianism does not make sense. More to compare it to Christianity or at least Protestantism. However Jewishness is an ethno-religious identification. We have Jewish Christians and Jewish Buddhists and Jewish athiests in ways we do not have such overlapping with other religious identities. On the other hand if we want to get into misleading headlines we always have the Arizona "Sunday school teacher for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints arrested for having sex with student", the problem was the although every word in the headline was true, the person was arrested for having sex with a student he connected with in his capacity as a public school teacher, not a Sunday school teacher. Another even more egrigious case was the 20-year-old young men's presidency secretary arrested in Arizona for having sex with a 14-year-old who he had known for several years. Secretaries are not leadership per se, it is a post that keeps notes and can act as a general goffer for the organization, and to understand why a 20-yuear-old had this position you have to realize that almost all adults in a congregation of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who regularly or even semi-regularly attend services have some position. Also the dynamics of 20 year olds having sex with 14 year olds are just not the same as 30 year olds or 50 year olds doing the same, even if the legal issues are the same.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Ethnicity is normally in the lead. Do we really know enough about Epstein's victims to say they were "primarily non-Jewish whites", to begin with after 50 plus years of intermarriage, in the US is the ethnic line between Jewish and non-Jewish very clear. There are whole debates about "who is a Jew". Epstein is said to have "hundreds of victims". It is not clear if more than 10 have been publicly identified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Ethnicity is normally in the lead: yes, but some editors prefer to omit it here. Victims: you would need a reliable source for that.--BalancedIssues (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

why so much detail about this guy?Edit

hi all, why is this article so full of details like where he lived/residences owned, who liked him (with quotes) and other miniscule details? sure they are all confirmed with sources but do we really need so much information? if this was an article about a pop star, model, or sportsperson most of it would be called out as trivial and/or WP:FANCRUFT. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, there is an ongoing investigation of the criminal network of Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Epstein is maybe a head of one of the worst crimes in US history. Of course it is important who he had contact with and who helped him. Until this is all settled and we know which parts are relevant to the crimes committed and which are not, it may all be relevant to the readers.
"It is not reasonable to disallow all information that some editors feel is unimportant, because that information could be important to some readers." - from Wikipedia:Handling trivia
And regarding WP:FANCRUFT: Really!?
"Fancruft is a term sometimes used in Wikipedia to imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question." from WP:FANCRUFT
We may be talking about the crime of the century and you think this is only important to "fans of the subject"???
Crime of the century thus far -we're not quite yet 1/5th into it. kencf0618 (talk) 05:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC) (talk) 04:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

  • I am still trying to figure out what people are fans of to push this article. Not Epstein. Maybe they would be "fans of exposing criminal conspiracies that the rich and power get away with for doing things 10 times worse than what gets homeless people in jail."John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Cable news fans? InedibleHulk (talk) 11:57, August 14, 2019 (UTC)
Gumshoe newspaper reporting fans. The type of articles where you go an interview people in person, instead of reading twitter posts and giving up when the PR spokesperson for the diocese say no to talking to them, instead of talking to the Nigerian-born black priest as well as the old white people who consistently interupt mass as he conducts it trying to force him to conform to his their way. Of course the fact that the main Portland paper writes a one-sided article in favor of these racist shows the power of white privalege.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Separate article on suicideEdit

Considering how much information has come out, how much more likely is, and the ramifications that it may well entail, I think it's a good idea to spin the suicide off into its own separate article, "suicide of Jeffrey Epstein".

Having looked through the talk page, I now realize that this exists under "death" rather than "suicide". But I would like to at least say that I am in favor of keeping that article. Sirkh1 (talk)


Cause of death is from a snapped neck according to the Washington post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Not exactly. There were broken bones in his neck, according to several anonymous sources. In any case that doesn't make it murder; this sometimes happens in suicides by hanging according to the sources. We have reported this at the larger article Death of Jeffrey Epstein, but we should wait for some more authoritative word and context/interpretation before putting it in this biography. -- MelanieN (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

According to the New York post many inmates heard screaming coming from his cell early Saturday morning. With the broken neck and the screaming coming from his cell more than enough evidence that he was murdered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The New York Post is not considered a reliable source. It is a tabloid and sensationalist, and given to exaggeration if not outright making stuff up. Let's wait to see if this is reported by a more reliable source. (If true, it's odd it hasn't been reported before this. And even more odd that it didn't wake the guards.) -- MelanieN (talk) 06:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Here's a more sober source: CBS News. [3] It says that "shrieking and shouting" (not screaming) was coming from his cell that morning, which apparently included the guards shouting "breathe, Epstein, breathe!" In other words it was the ruckus when he was found dead. -- MelanieN (talk) 06:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Explain this? If they wanted to keep him alive for trial why would they put him in a cell with a guy accused of quadruple murder? Could not find a safe cell mate that was not accuse of murder? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Please stop expounding your opinions. This page is for discussing what should be in the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 06:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Gatekeeping at its finest. Broken bones in his neck should be in the article, regardless of what exactly it means. It is part of the investigation, which currently only talks about circumstances of his death, and has 0% on his actual cadaver. 2601:602:9200:3120:A1BE:59E9:E91:67BC (talk) 07:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Just released from the Washington Post. His type of broken hyoid neck break is seen in only 16 out of 264 suicides or 6 % of the cases. In the other 248 cases it was murder or 94% of the time. By this report its 94% certain he was murdered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Here's a link to the Washington Post Article. [4] We can say that his neck bones were broken. The article does not say, however, that this means he was murdered.In fact, it says it's inconclusive. --Nowa (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Since the broken bone is connected most often with over 60 suicides and Epstein was 66, this adds towards suicide. I don't feel like refinding the source, but I read and article where it was pointed out that since death by suicide hanging is 20 times more common than stranglation, this bone is more often broken in suicide than murder. Of course, some conspiracy theorists would just insist that many more "sucide hangings" are murders than we admit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The article should list the bones broken in Epstein's neck. (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

While I understand the desire for this, that's getting a little close to primary sourcing. Better to let secondary sources do the interpretation and report that, by my lights. Have a good day. Dumuzid (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2019: Suicide in prison cell not possibleEdit

Please change >>The national president of the Council of Prison Locals C-33, E. O. Young, stated that prisons "can't ever stop anyone who is persistent on killing themselves".[232]<<

to >>The national president of the Council of Prison Locals C-33, E. O. Young, stated that prisons "can't ever stop anyone who is persistent on killing themselves".[232] However, as a former inmate of the MCC stated, it is impossible to hang one self in their prison cells as there are no means to do so.<<

Source: Former MCC inmate: There’s ‘no way’ Jeffrey Epstein killed himself (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

{{not done}} Interesting article, but the former inmate is not an authoritative source, nor does the article in it's own voice say that suicide was not possible.--Nowa (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see anything in WP:RS that would categorize this as an unreliable source. According to WP:RS source always refers to either the article, the author or the publisher. Nowhere does it say that persons mentioned in articles are to be scrutinized as "authoritative". How is this different than reporting e.g. that Barr stated it was an "apparent suicide"? No journalist said themselves it was an apparent suicide, yet that is ok to include? Please elaborate as to why you think WP:RS does not apply. (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I see your point. Perhaps this is more of an issue of wp:synth. If a single article, for example, contrasted what the former inmate said with what the president of the Council of Prisons said, then the proposed edit might be OK since it would be summarizing what the article said.--Nowa (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
You seem to be unsure as to why you declined the change request. First you said the source was not authoritative, then you mention WP:Synth. Again I don't see how WP:Synth applies here, as the edit adds a single statement from a single article. Is it the wording you object? I started the new added sentence with "However" as it is in contrast to the Council of Prison Locals statement. This does not mean or imply any conclusions of my own. May I quote from WP:NOTSYNTH:
"SYNTH is not a policy - It's part of a policy: no original research. If a putative SYNTH doesn't constitute original research, then it doesn't constitute SYNTH."
Since the change request does not constitute original research, SYNTH does not apply.
"SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition"
As the change request merely juxtaposes two contrasting statements, both with RS, again SYNTH does not apply. -- (talk) 18:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Good job reading the guidelines. The real reason is that I just don't think an anonymous former prisoner knows enough about committing suicide to be relied upon as authoritative, irrespective of any Wikipedia policy or guidelines. Having said that, if there are other editors that agree it should be added, then I will not stand in the way. I am therefore changing the status of the request to "not answered" to see if others want to weigh in.--Nowa (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I see, and tend to disagree, but that is beside the point. I don't think it is the job of Wikipedia editors to scrutinize the sources that journalists rely on. For example how is this different to the following sentence in the article: "According to NBC News, two sources said that Epstein might have tried to hang himself [...]". How are these unnamed persons of NBC News more authoritative on the matter than the former inmate?
In my opinion dividing the sources that journalists rely on into authoritative and non-authoritative would open a can of worms: is e.g. Bill Clinton a reliable source to media? He was caught lying before, after all. Does that mean we can't include anything in Wikipedia that Clinton says in the news? I too would welcome others to state their opinion in this discussion.
Again reopened as the issue at hand was not addressed and both parties involved agreed on further input from others. IanMacM, would you have the courtesy to justify why you keep declining the change requests? A mere "has a reply" does not suffice, imho. (talk) 08:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC) (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The New York Post is not a Reliable Source. It is prone to sensationalism and outright fabrication. A story like this, based on claims from an invisible anonymous source, is particularly suspect. Unless other more reliable sources repeat this claim we will not be using it. MelanieN alt (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

New suits and #MeTooEdit

Two new suits against Epstein have emerged, one from someone who was 18 and another from someone who was 20 when they claim inapropriate touching. This has moved it clearly out of child abuse, but still the accusations go to sex abuse, and a willingness of people to claim respect even when hired as ad hoc massagers, a postion that probably 30 years ago no one would think to argue they had a right to claim over stepping boundaries. This is moving to a larger dialogue of consent and the like. Look for these suits to get traction. They also do not appear directly connected to New York's suit window, but we may see more suits related there, since it runs to August 2020 to open suits against Eptein no matter how long ago the abuse happened.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Three more suits filed today, two of the girls were 17 at the time they were recruited. Here is the Reuters report. petrarchan47คุ 20:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Prince AndrewEdit

Seems obvious, but recent media accounts involving Prince Andrew, Duke of York probably belong on his page. Philip Cross (talk) 11:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
One should wait what is really confirmed and then it may belong on both pages.--BalancedIssues (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

donations (to Jewish cause and to universities) as path to "Elite Connection"Edit

There is a lot of forth and back in the lede if or not Epstein was connected to the financial, political, and cultural “elite” and to what “elite” specifically.

According to sources Epstein produced press releases about making donations mainly (>20 donations) to the Jewish cause, also to science or a combination of both, mainly from the New York region what made it possible for him to insert himself or have people inserting him in those mainly New York circles. Outside his donation focus there is almost no reporting that people “connected” to Epstein. Outside his focus there is reporting of Epstein one-sidedly trying to meet people he deemed to be important and reporting that people declined and ignored Epstein. Epstein’s connection to notorious Prince Andrew would also be a sign of not being “connected to the elite” as the connected elite rather tries to avoid him. People that undoubtedly “connected” both ways with Epstein (and not only “met” him at whatever events Epstein tried to get to) like Greenberg, Bronfman, Hoffenberg, Wexner, Zuckerman are in line with his donation focus. So let’s at least limit the lede to what the sources say and stay with the version:

Until his conviction for sex crimes in 2008, he was “well” connected with “some” among the financial, political, and cultural elite --BalancedIssues (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The cop?Edit

IN the investigation section it says "the cop roughed him up in his jail cell on July 23". For clarification it should at least say the ex cop cellmate Nicholas Tartaglione accused quadruple murder roughed him up. SO as not to confused the two sleeping cops or any random cop that entered his jail cell on that day. As it is blocked by an unknown party I cant correct this obvious error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

How he died.Edit

He did not just die, but he had committed suicide. It would be helpful to state that in the first paragraph, for those referring to the page.

It could be changed to - "Jeffrey Edward Epstein (January 20, 1953 – August 10, 2019) was an American financier and convicted sex offender.[1][2] Epstein began his career as a teacher and then changed to the banking and finance sector in various roles. During his career he became a multimillionaire. Until his conviction for sex crimes in 2008, he was well-connected with some among the financial, political, and cultural elite.[3]

In April 2005, police in Palm Beach, Florida, began investigating Epstein after a parent complained that he had molested her 14-year-old daughter.[4] After an investigation, prosecution, and plea negotiations, Epstein pleaded guilty and was convicted by a Florida state court of soliciting a prostitute and of procuring an underage girl for prostitution on June 30, 2008.[5] He served almost 13 months in custody, with work release, as part of a plea deal; federal officials had identified 36 girls, some as young as 14 years old, whom Epstein had molested.[6][7]

Epstein was arrested again on July 6, 2019, on federal charges for sex trafficking of minors in Florida and New York.[8][9] He committed suicide on August 10, 2019, in his jail cell, two days after signing his will. [10][11][12][13][14]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Did Donald Barr hire Jeffrey EpsteinEdit

Two highly reliable sources the New York Times see article and the Miami Herald see article indicate that Donald Barr may have hired Jeffrey Epstein, while Forbes see article indicates that Donald Barr did hire Jeffrey Epstein. The relevant sections from each article have been quoted below:

"Yes, AG Barr oversees the US Attorney’s Office in NY, so it’s possible he could attempt to interfere, though it would be obvious. Also, many years ago, Barr’s father hired Epstein to teach at the private Dalton school, with no college degree. So there’s that..." (Frank Figuliuzzi's Twitt via Forbes July 6, 2019)
"In February 1974, Mr. Barr had announced that he was resigning as headmaster, protesting the meddling by the board of trustees, but that he would stay on until the end of the school year. It is unclear whether Mr. Barr hired Mr. Epstein during that time." (NY Times July 12, 2019)
"Barr left a semester before Epstein arrived and it's unclear whether Barr had a hand in hiring him. Branch, who was interim headmaster, did not remember who hired him." (Miami Herald July 16, 2019)

The New York Times and the Miami Herald directly interviewed people who had been at Dalton at the time that Epstein was teaching there. The Miami Herald even asked the interim headmaster after Barr, that is Branch, who hired Epstein and he said he did not remember. Frank Figuliuzzi, former assistant director of the FBI, just states off hand in a twitt that Barr hired Epstein. Figuliuzzi's statement is not convincing when viewed in light of the NY Times' and Miami Herald's investigation of the matter. It should be also noted that the NY Times' and Miami Herald's investigations were done after Figulizzi's off hand comment.

Based on the above information the most truthful statement for the wikipedia article is may have hired, and the article therefore should remain unchanged. --Guest2625 (talk) 05:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Perhaps the best thing to do is drop the sentence "Barr may have hired Epstein." from the wikipedia article. The New York Times in a later article says that Barr did hire Epstein referencing its own article that I quoted above. In the more recent article they say:
"Even Mr. Barr had chance ties to Mr. Epstein: His old law firm, Kirkland & Ellis, had worked with Mr. Epstein on the Miami deal, and decades earlier, Mr. Barr’s father had hired Mr. Epstein to teach at Dalton, the elite private school in Manhattan."(NY Times August 23, 2019)
Perhaps the totality of the evidence given that teachers are generally hired during the spring semester has the fact checkers at the New York Times conclude that Barr did hire Epstein. Given the above reference I'm fine with removal of the sentence. Having the may sentence places undue weight on the uncertainty. --Guest2625 (talk) 02:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Return to "Jeffrey Epstein" page.