Talk:Jeffrey Epstein/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Article should be rewritten

[Epstein] is a Jewish-American financier, philanthropist and pedophile.

Uh...this guy is basically charged with child molestation. Why is this silly PR piece here? "Still considered one of its brightest minds?" Fer chrissake. Here comes the chainsaw... 68.81.114.143 14:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey Epstein is currently being tried on multiple counts of child molestation. Those facts will remain in the article. Destroying good faith edits without a discussion is outright vandalism. Graham Wellington (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Epstein is currently on trial for allegedly molesting teenage girls. If you intend to delete properly sourced facts, please discuss. Graham Wellington (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeffrey Epstein is currently being tried on several counts of molesting underage girls. Here are the facts:

"One of the accusers—a girl of 14—had put his age at 45, not in his fifties, and you could see why."

http://nymag.com/news/features/41826/

"The girl cried and dug her finger into her thigh and told the story, of going to a big house on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, and climbing a spiral staircase to the master bedroom, where a blonde woman of 25 who wasn’t very friendly laid out sheets and lotions on a massage table and left, then Jeff came in, naked but for a towel, and sternly ordered the girl to take off her clothes. As she rubbed his chest, he touched himself, then applied a vibrator to her crotch."

http://nymag.com/news/features/41826/index1.html

"But generally the girls’ feelings as portrayed by police interviews ranged from disgust to fear. Epstein was the hairy troll under the bridge they had to pass over to get quick money."

http://nymag.com/news/features/41826/index2.html

"A 16-year-old who needed money for Christmas said she was so upset by Epstein’s removing her underwear as she massaged him that she broke off her friendship with the girl who brought her. Another called Epstein “a pervert.”"

http://nymag.com/news/features/41826/index2.html

"One of Epstein’s friends told me, “He thinks there’s an anti-Semitic conspiracy against him in Palm Beach. He’s convinced of that. Maybe it’s a defense mechanism.”"

"Yet the anti-Semitic charge disturbed Jews whom I asked about it in Palm Beach."

http://nymag.com/news/features/41826/index3.html

"Driving home with their $500, Haley said to the 14-year-old that if they did this every Saturday they’d be rich, and it’s understandable that a teenager in West Palm Beach might feel that way."

"He has never shown a glimmer of understanding that a high-school girl could be damaged by a powerful 50-year-old’s demands, or that some of the girls were already emotionally damaged."

http://nymag.com/news/features/41826/index4.html

Graham Wellington (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This man is not considered guilty yet, therefore the headline for basically PR pieces and not the factual information of his life should be changed from "Accusations of child molestation" to something more fair. By putting up that headline, you are vandalizing his page. Him being accused DOES NOT need to be the HEADLINE of the piece. Why aren't there any headlines for his accomplishments? People are innocent until proven guilty. These accusations surely put bad tastes in people's mouths, but this page should be handled professionally and NOT as a one-sided PR piece.

Arazara (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

He was indicted by a grand jury on all counts. The headline should reflect that fact. Graham Wellington (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

not a mug shot

I removed the claim that this image was a mug shot... here is same image at HuffPo, w/ Bear Stearns poster behind him. Please direct me to the nearest police station that displays Bear Stearns posters. J.A.McCoy (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The source for this photo, The Smoking Gun, does identify it as a mug shot. Your comment asserting that police stations wouldn't have posters isn't valid, unless you've spent a considerable amount of time in various police stations?

In case you aren't aware, new comments belong at the bottom of the page, not at the top. You've been here long enough to have learned that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added the mug shot back. Source: Palm Beach Sheriff's Office. It's a mug shot, folks, distributed by a public agency. Proxy User (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Please see my post in Biographies of Living Persons. There are many other people in the world named Jeffrey Epstein. I am one of them, and I am NOT THIS GUY. Jeep15603 (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that you are having difficulties in sharing a name with this individual. However, the use of disambiguation pages on Wikipedia is clearly outlined at WP:DAB, which says Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural choice of title for more than one article. In other words, disambiguations are paths leading to the different article pages that could use essentially the same term as their title. Since there are no other articles on Wikipedia about a Jeffrey Epstein, and the article is very clear regarding the specific Epstein with whom it is dealing, I'm afraid little can be done to further disambiguate it. Just a basic 411.com search for this name reveals 158 persons alone whose phone number is listed under the name "Jeff Epstein." So unless you're the Jeffrey Epstein who is 54 years old, was born on Coney Island, is a billionaire financier who lives in Florida and has hobnobbed with politicians and celebrities, owns a private island and is currently in legal problems for proclivities, it's not likely that the ordinary person will mistake you for him. That is rather the point, in that this is hardly a unique name and while I'm sure you are more highly aware of it, the average person is not likely to read that name elsewhere and think of you in specific. There really isn't a precedent, or a need, to print a disclaimer in the article saying "Make sure you know this isn't another Jeffrey Epstein." Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Jeffrey Epstein is now serving time in prison for his sex crimes - why is that not in this article?

He was convicted. He is serving time. Is that fact-based enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.144.195 (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Did he actually go to a prision or jus6t house arrest? Which prison? 72.209.63.226 (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Can the opening description incorporate his convicted sex-offender status.. it is a big part of his infamy. Good references are here: http://gawker.com/5751094/law--order-commemorates-jeffrey-epsteins-taste-for-teen-hookers?skyline=true&s=i including his current as of Feb 2011 status as a Level 3 NY state sex-offender.

Edit request from Useredits, 22 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

please unlink blank page.

Useredits (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I do not understand what you are asking for. The page is not blank. Please clarify and re-request. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  22:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

The second paragraph under the "Solicitation of prostitution" [1] heading/section contains an error in the sentence beginning with, "I His team of lawyers included ...", and should read, "His team ..." instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.196.163 (talk) 08:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 94.174.71.4, 8 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Remove reference 16 as there is no information there

94.174.71.4 (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Partly done: Rather than remove it I marked it as a dead link. It's clear that said page used to contain the appropriate news story. I couldn't find it through other searches, but it may be in an archive somewhere. In general, if a source was once accurate, we preserve it with a dead link rather than just removing it. Qwyrxian (talk)

What is unusal about victims being able to sue?

In the section about civil suits there is a quote lifted from a British paper stating that it was unusal that his victims are able to sue after the plea bargain. This is not unusual in the US as a plea bargain between the state and the defendent never precludes another party from taking civil action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.109.63.190 (talk) 13:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

List of friends

This has been uncited since October 2008, so is overdue for removal: "Epstein has befriended high profile scientists such as Leonard Susskind, Richard Axel, Gerald Edelman, Murray Gell-Mann, Lawrence Krauss, Ben Goertzel, and Marvin Minsky, and politicians including George J. Mitchell and Bill Clinton." These people may have met Epstein or flown on his private jet plane at some point, but the claim that they are personal friends needs tighter sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

picture

the article as of 3/25/11 had no picture. i know there is a 'mugshot' picture elsewhere on wikipedia, but it does not link specifically to the source where the picture was obtained from. it simply said uploaded by Proxy User (a user that does not exist). the new picture has been specifically sourced with a url to a Wikipedia:Verifiability website. it is a poor quality picture but it is public domain. Decora (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Friendship with Prince Andrew not mentioned

If you look at the references section, you'll see that many of the sources in this article are media reports that focus primarily on Prince Andrew, but his name is mysteriously absent from the text itself. What is the justification for this? One of the things Epstein is famous for is the embarrassment he has caused to his royal friend. I don't think there is any justification to sanitise this article to protect the reputation of Epstein's powerful and famous friends. Beorhtwulf (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed -- I support adding something along these lines. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Whitewashing

We've got at least one recent editor who is deliberately whitewashing this article and claims it his "right" - though clearly by our policies, it is not. Rklawton (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I removed the convicted sex offender part from the WP:LEAD because it looked somewhat POV to make an issue of this in the opening sentence of a BLP article. Not sure if you were referring to this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

There have been previous concerns over making the article a WP:BLP1E relating to the sex charges. The use of his police mugshot in the infobox is less than ideal. This is not whitewashing, but normal BLP/NPOV concern. Please assume good faith.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

That's just a small part of the problem. But to address your point specifically... given the massive amount of publicity this subject has received and the fact that a significant section of the article is devoted to the subject, it's blatant whitewashing to remove it from the lead. The fact that this is a BLP isn't relevant since the conviction is undisputed. WP:BLP1E has nothing to do with article leads. However, if you wish to propose this article for deletion on the basis of WP:BLP1E, then that's a different matter entirely. Rklawton (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the NPOV issue, the current wording is clunky. It would be better to say this in a separate sentence, giving some details of the charges.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to less clunky wording. Rklawton (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Turvill

User:Turvill a new account who hasn't yet joined the talk page discussion has dedicated him or herself to whitewashing this article. By itself, such efforts aren't all that unusual. However, these new efforts by this newly registered account fall on the heals of several other attempts to do the same by IPs and appears highly irregular to-wit duckish. I'm very concerned that there's a ham-handed and unethical PR effort underway to clean up Epstein's image. Given all the press last year referring to Epstein as a "pedophile", I'd say this article is pretty neutral in that it refers to him only as a "convicted sex offender". The whitewashing efforts including adding trivial details about scientific research that Epstein had funded - which is like boasting the Cali Cartel helped fund schools and hospitals - as well as removing significant negative information about the subject - all if it well sourced and well within bounds of WP:BLP. Rklawton (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I was asked to comment by Turvill and the main thing that I would like to say is that using a mugshot in the infobox is not ideal and could reinforce the idea that this article is a hatchet job. The real problem is WP:NFCC, but it would help to have a more neutral image in the infobox.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I would not object to replacing the mugshot with something else. If anyone has a more suitable free image, we could use that instead. I'm also open to the idea that we move the mug shot down to the related section. Rklawton (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Turvill is running around to various user talk-pages instead of coming here -- complaining that there's no source for the money-laundering claim. It's unfortunate that this editor has not consulted the reference added by Rklawton when restoring it: [2]. In any event, this is the place to discuss it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

there are dozens of articles that have mugshots as photos. Lets take a few examples. Link to Commons category "mug shot". Charles Manson, Paris Hilton, Robert Downey, Jr., Bill Gates, Dennis Hopper, Foxy Brown, Haley Joel Osment, Jared Loughner, etc etc etc. besides, you can hardly even tell its a mugshot photo Decora (talk) 11:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Philanthropy

The section on Epstein's philanthropy should give the reader an idea about its scope. Total amounts donated, amounts donated by type of charity (research, art, whatever), and amount donated as a percent of net worth would all be useful in establishing scope. However, I oppose detailing the research itself as the research is not the subject of the article, and most research receives funding from multiple sources. I'd be open to providing a brief description of research funded entirely by Epstein as then it truly would be his project. And, as with everything in the biography of a living person, everything we add must be sourced. Rklawton (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Response from Turville Re: Epstein article

Hello, thank you for your posts and for adjusting the mug shot to the more appropriate location. I am not as claimed, a pr crony for Jeffrey Epstein. I do though come from a science journalist background, had heard of the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics at Harvard, and when I came across this article I was quite taken by the lob-sided presentation of this piece. It struck me immediately as slanderous vs. having a neutral point of view. MONEY LAUNDERING: the link that was added to back this, does not connect through. That is extremely problematic given that this is in the lead of the piece and libel if not properly sourced. I googled money laundering and Jeffrey Epstein and found the article url that mentions it but this is what I found, and I quote: "Yet a source tells The Daily Beast that Epstein’s legal troubles may not be over. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT, as an outgrowth of the 2007 Florida investigation, federal investigators are now looking into allegations of money laundering and other financial misdeeds. Villafana notes at the end of her letter to Lefkowitz: “You accuse me of broadening the scope of the investigation without any foundation for doing so by adding charges of money laundering and violations of a money transmitting business to the investigation. Again, I consulted with the Justice Department’s Money Laundering Section about my analysis...the duty officer agreed with my analysis.”

Something being "possible" in the press is not the same as something that actually "is" as claimed in the lead of the article. And just because the duty office agreed with the analysis is not evidence that money laundering is under investigation. So, so far the lead is misleading and false. Also, I think it would show a biased point of view if it were stated in the lead of the article that he "may be" under investigation for money laundering. We should just stick to the facts. Unless you can find an article that confirms that he IS under investigation for money laundering, I think it should be removed. PROGRAM for EVOLUTIONARY DYNAMICS: this was entirely established from Jeffrey Epstein's $30 million, as was the research that was the first to mathematically quantify the in vivo kinetics of human cancer cells. That was a major achievement in the field of cancer and I think it should be allowed back into the article.

Thank you for your thoughts. PS. I didn't use this talk page because I simply overlooked it and so went to your individual talk pages instead. I agree that this is a better forum, so long as it is a venue that editors look at. my best, Turville50.74.171.70 (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Remains Under Investigation is Not Proven by Citation

Again, this is a serious accusation of someone. It is in the lead and is not properly backed. We therefore risk libel. The burden of proof for such an accusation lies on us. The proof should come from more than one source and should be known to be true. The citation given in the lead to support this however, does not confirm that Jeffrey Epstein remains under investigation. The citation is from The Guardian in England. Their statement in the article claims that: "The Mail on Sunday reported that the FBI is to reopen its investigation into Epstein over allegations of his involvement with underage girls." Something that "Is to reopen" is not the same as something that actually HAS reopened. So we should not be stating facts that have not yet occured. Furthermore, we are only basing this on a newspaper that says that another newspaper has reported this. For such a serious accusation and for one that is also in the lead of the article, we should only be relying on clear and factual evidence. Otherwise, this piece on Jeffrey Epstein will be libel. We must be careful and act professionally. Thank you. TurvillTurvill (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

latest reverts

Hi Nomoskedasticity,

There is a ton of superfluous language in the Solicitation of Prostitution section that needs to be cleaned up--many other editors have suggested this. So yes, I forgot to add commentary here.

However, RE; the science information, you don't get to unilaterly delete this. This is relevant information and I now put in sources to back it up from the Wall Street Journal, The Boston Globe and others. So you are not reverting what was there before.

I am going revert. Or at least, put the science stuff back in there.

If you have an issue with the substance, then address it on the article Talk Page as I am doing now. See article Talk Page, where I will post this.

I will file a formal complaint if this continues.

Thank you, Turvill (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It's entirely clear that your main purpose is to delete "convicted sex offender". For the rest, please see WP:BRD, WP:BURDEN and WP:CONSENSUS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The convicted sex offender is not appropriate as a lead to this article. It is not conducive to a neutral point of view. There is consenus with this from editor lanmacm for example. The mug shot was moved down for example from the lead position due to other consensus on this talk page because it was not condusive for a neutral point of view for a living person with other relevant aspects to his profile. Turvill (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Lead - "involvement"

I object to the use of the word "involvement" in lead. This is an encyclopedia. We don't use euphemisms. He was convicted of a crime, so we should specify that crime rather than elude to it. Rklawton (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

This is why I think it is appropriate to use "convicted sex offender" in the lead. Turvill repeatedly removes it -- I wonder about the real reason for that... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Jewish

Epstein is Jewish, as is well known and well documented in reliable sources. It seems rather odd that this fact has been removed from the article, particularly as a great many of Epstein's personal and professional associates are also Jewish, Epstein is reported to have described his prosecution as forming part of an anti-Semitic conspiracy, and he is a major supporter of Israel.[3] Rangoon11 (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

If Epstein has made an issue out of his faith, then we should include it. Otherwise, it's a non-issue. Rklawton (talk) 00:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by an "issue". He has actively supported Jewish and Israeli charities, and has described his prosecution as forming part of an anti-Semitic conspiracy. I wasn't aware such a significant aspect of a persons identity - their ethnicity - required that test anyhow. Does a person need to make a issue out of being Chinese to be described as such in WP?Rangoon11 (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a sensitive issue. Jeffrey Epstein is first and foremost a US citizen. There are plenty of websites pointing out that a person is Jewish for all the wrong reasons. It is unclear whether he is a practicing member of the faith, which would need a reliable source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 02:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Reliable source is better than Synth. I could be persecuted for being Jewish, but that doesn't make me Jewish. Rklawton (talk) 05:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

His ethnicity is not in question. I recognise that there exists something of a taboo in describing certain types of individuals as being Jewish, in the UK and US media, over recent decades, at least. What puzzles me somewhat is how this seems to carry across into WP too. I never see any issue with individuals being described as, say, British Pakistani, or African American, or Chinese Korean, but I have noticed on numerous occasions that there is a real resistance on WP to some individuals being categorised as ethnically Jewish. I came to this article already knowing that Epstein is Jewish - I guess it is obvious from the name anyhow - and then was puzzled to see this detail not mentioned at all in what is a fairly long article.

I noticed a similar thing at Dominique Strauss-Kahn. I went to that article following his arrest and found no mention of his being Jewish. Sure enough, it turned out references had been removed following the arrest.

I can accept that there is a complication in that 'Jewish' is both an ethnicity and a religion, with many ethnic Jews being atheist, but I still feel that the current approach is not consistent and could better deal with this.

I'm happy for this thread to not continue any further unless others wish it to as I accept the resistance being shown and it is not a point which I personally wish to pursue any futher. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I think there was a policy discussion of this years ago and it was decided not to label people according to their religion, as it could be viewed as discriminatory or as part of some group's agenda, whether for or against that religion. I remember, for example, actors were no longer described in their intros as a "Jewish-American actor." No one was being described as a "Christian-America actor," etc. I'm sorry, but I can't locate where that decision can be found today. For those with a pro-Jewish agenda and wish to label people, the List of Jews is enormous and unending. 5Q5 (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes but Jewish is an ethnicity rather than simply a religion. In my experience most Jews in the UK and US are atheists but still strongly associate with being Jewish and attend Jewish functions etc. Things such as British Pakistani and British Indian seem standard in WP. It seems all the more odd when we have vanity articles such as List of Jewish astronauts and List of Jewish Nobel laureates. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Turvill - Again.

As others have noted, the editor with the username Turvill, who previously participated as an unregistered editor with a New York City IP address, has an unusual protective interest in this biographical article, perhaps even a connection to the subject, most recently nominating it for speedy deletion on July 13, 2012. See also contribs/Turvill and contribs/50.74.171.70. I would like to make note of the material in the box below that he or she deleted from the article on August 4, 2012 in case any editor can use it in the future. Frankly, I think what I wrote is balanced, nice even, considering, and I wish Mr. Epstein well. 5Q5 (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

In Florida in 2008, Epstein agreed to plead guilty on a charge of soliciting a minor for prostitution and served 13 months of an 18-month sentence in an isolated wing of the Palm Beach County jail, where he was allowed out on daily unsupervised work releases of up to 16 hours to manage his business interests. Part of his 2008 sentence, which was by way of a plea agreement, requires registration as a sex offender in the United States for life; however, Florida law provides a means for eventual removal from the list after 25 years or a pardon.

Jeffrey Epstein

Hi Nomoskedasticity,

It is serious slander to accuse a living person of pedophilia when they have not been legally accused of that crime. Pedophilia is a serious crime and that was not Jeffrey Epstein's conviction. Please see the Fox News link for example. http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/07/01/billionaire-jeffrey-epstein-pleads-guilty-to-prostitution-charge/ Circuit Court Judge Deborah Pucillo in West Palm Beach charged Jeffrey Epstein of soliciting underage prostitution. The Daily Beast and Gawker and all of those others are not legally accurate sources.

I have no interest in promoting Jeffrey Epstein but I am interested in maintaining a fair and neutral point of view and not to engage in a Crucible like cacophony of false and slanderous accusations.

I will paste this on Jeffrey Epstein's talk page and will be asking other editors to back it.

Thank you, Turvill (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turvill (talk • contribs)

Third opinion

I was asked to provide a third opinion. This edit is unsatisfactory because:

• A person cannot be convicted by a court of pedophilia, which is a medical diagnosis.
• The Daily Mail is not suitable per WP:BLPSOURCES. It has a track record of sloppy wording and inaccuracy in its articles.

Epstein served 13 months of an 18 month jail term for soliciting a minor for prostitution, and is a registered sex offender.[4]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Conviction in lead section

User:Turvill asked me about this at User_talk:Ianmacm#Jeffrey_Epstein_2 and I repeated the view that it does not need to be in the lead section. When a person has a criminal conviction and has been in prison, there needs to be careful thought before adding it to the lead section. The version here gives undue prominence to the conviction. Overall, the lead is too short, but I'm still not sure that the conviction needs to be in the lead in case it looks like trying to make a point.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. It's the main reason why he's in the news. At any rate, it's not a BLP violation when it's one of the leading causes of news articles about the subject. Rklawton (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: Turvill is a SPA here only to whitewash this article. Rklawton (talk) 01:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• 19,000 g-hits for "'Jeffrey Epstein' philanthropist"
• 19,000 g-hits for "'Jeffrey Epstein' billionaire"
• 23,000 g-hits for "'Jeffrey Epstein' sex offender"
  • I'm thinking sex offender belongs in the lead - if not in the very first sentence. At any rate, I'd prefer we use the correct legal language rather than something inflammatory. "Level 3 sex offender" works since that's what a judge ruled in his case.[5] Rklawton (talk) 02:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

According to Most viewed articles on Wikipedia 2012, Kim Kardashian, Nicki Minaj and Justin Bieber are more popular than Jesus or Muhammad, who fail to make the top 100. WP:GOOGLETEST is useful, but not a reliable source as news spikes can distort results. As stated previously, I would not object to mentioning the conviction in the WP:LEAD as long as the lead was longer than it is now and the tone was neutral.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The wording used ("He was convicted in 2008 of solicitation of prostitution, after incidents in his house involving underage girls") was previously rejected at a BLPN thread (see WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive183#Jeffrey Eppstein). I've amended it to reflect exactly what he was convicted of, soliciting an underage girl for prostitution. Worth noting at this point that the consensus is to include the conviction in the lead, but we haven't discussed whether to refer to allegations for which he has not been convicted, which referring to girls plural does (if I've understood it correctly that the conviction involved one girl). January (talk) 12:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I suggest limiting it to only his conviction. Speaking of which, it's my understanding that he pled guilty. That's worth using in the sentence. Rklawton (talk) 14:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Re this edit: the WP:LEAD "should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." As with Jonathan King's conviction in 2001, Jeffrey Epstein's 2008 conviction qualifies as a prominent controversy. It is therefore not a BLP or NPOV violation to mention it in the lead section. Previous versions of the lead have been too short and used phrases such as "registered sex offender" in the opening sentence without going into any detail. This did have some issues with WP:LEAD, but the current version of the lead is long enough not to give undue weight to the conviction, and also states accurately what the conviction was.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Conflict of interest template

I've added a conflict of interest template to the talk page. The aim of the article is not to make Jeffrey Epstein look good or bad. The article is also not intended to be a running commentary on various controversies, as this leads to problems with WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Bhagat blackmail claim

This IB Times writer mentions reports being released that security cameras were present for the purpose of blackmail. Does anyone know what report this was referring to? Would like to accompany this with a source like the report itself which Bhagat is referring to so we can better confirm the accuracy of the claim and understand who made the report and what evidence supports the allegation. Ranze (talk) 10:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jeffrey Epstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091223074727/http://www.nydailynews.com:80/topics/Jeffrey+Epstein to http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Jeffrey+Epstein

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jeffrey Epstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160806182020/http://stthomassource.com/content/news/local-news/2006/03/17/physicists-debate-gravity-st-thomas-symposium to http://stthomassource.com/content/news/local-news/2006/03/17/physicists-debate-gravity-st-thomas-symposium
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110313035624/http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/news/former-epstein-house-manager-alfredo-rodriguez-sentenced-to-755446.html to http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/news/former-epstein-house-manager-alfredo-rodriguez-sentenced-to-755446.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Lede

Why do constructive edit keeping being blanket reverted to a wording which highlights one portion of his life and deletes a wider clarity on Epstein in the introduction? This appears to be blind reverting to a version without reading the constructive editing being made. 91.110.126.210 (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, so now you want to discuss it. That's what was suggested before you got into an edit-war... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

There is a section above on this page discussing the issue of the opening sentence. My views are in this section, so I won't repeat them here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think Brighton's edit neutrally represented Epstein in any way, shape, or form. He's best known as a financier and as a sex offender, that's why those were in the first sentence. He's not best known as a philanthropist, the bit about funding scientific research was unsourced, and the explanation of his sentence put undue weight on the technicalities of his plea (which have received heavy scrutiny) and did not reflect the full story. Brighton's version made it sound like the guy might have once accidentally solicited an underage prostitute. I agree it read like apologism, regardless of actual intent. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Jeffrey Epstein at Harvard University.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

No mention of the "Lolita Express"?

It seems incongruous to me that the search term ["Lolita express"] redirects to Jeffrey Epstein, but then appears nowhere in the text. I attempted to make a small addition recognizing the use of the term by media, but it was reverted without comment. The term appears in sources [5] and [54] (articles by the New York Post and Fox News) which are already part of the article, as well as in articles from Newsweek and Gawker which I cited, and in other articles by the Daily Beast (seems I can't link it without tripping abuse filter 189) and Vice News. None of these are considered unreliable sources by Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources. I reached out to the editor who reverted my edit, but he hasn't responded. As such, I am undoing the revert until someone can provide a reason against it. 179.153.230.248 (talk) 03:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

For reference, here is the IPs original message in its entirety:

Extended content

It seems incongruous to me that the search term ["Lolita express"] redirects to Jeffrey Epstein, but then appears nowhere in the text. I attempted to make a small addition recognizing the use of the term by media, but it was reverted without comment. The term appears in sources [5] and [54] (articles by the New York Post and Fox News) which are already part of the article, as well as in articles from Newsweek and Gawker which I cited, and in other articles by the Daily Beast (it has "pedophile" in the URL, so it seems I can't link it without tripping a filter) and Vice News. None of these are considered unreliable sources by Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources. I reached out to the editor who reverted my edit, but he hasn't responded. As such, I am undoing the revert until someone can provide a reason against it.

Regards, —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

More stuff (January 2019)

Some new material to the subject, realeased early January 2019 by Democracy Now!:

• How Trump’s Labor Secretary Cut a Deal for Multimillionaire & Serial Sexual Abuser Jeffrey Epstein
• Perversion of Justice: The Shocking Story of a Serial Sex Abuser & Trump’s Sec. of Labor

Podvečerníček (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

You left out so much and then...

... went out of your way to connect President Trump to him. Without even looking at your Harvey Weinstein page I can guess you did not include a positive quote from Hillary. They were practically best buds. This is why I am hesitant to give to info pages like yours. I never know the real agenda of the people working there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.239.17 (talk) 11:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Virginia Giuffre listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Virginia Giuffre. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)