Talk:Jeffrey Epstein/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Bill Clinton identified in lawsuit against his former friend and pedophile Jeffrey Epstein

• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2584309/Bill-Clinton-identified-lawsuit-against-former-friend-pedophile-Jeffrey-Epstein-regular-orgies-Caribbean-compound-former-president-visited-multiple-times.html - --91.10.41.3 (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

A Daily Mail article isn't sufficiently reliable for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Rklawton (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is a major newspaper, and that particular article references court documents which have been reported on similarly by other major publications: of course it can be included as a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.244.103 (talk) 06:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

On close inspection, the Mail article is repeating material from the National Enquirer, which is not a reliable source either. It appears that Bill Clinton flew on Epstein's private jet to Epstein's Caribbean island, Little Saint James, U.S. Virgin Islands, between 2002 and 2005 [1]. At the moment, there is nothing particularly embarrassing for Bill Clinton.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

External links section

This is getting bloated, and I am tempted to prune it back to The Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation, which is the main page. Thoughts?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Works for me. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Opening Sentence

Changed to: "Jeffrey Edward Epstein (born January 20, 1953) is an American financier, science and education philanthropist, and a self-confessed paedophile." He is at least as widely known for pleading guilty to soliciting sex from a minor as for his philanthropic endeavours, so this introductory sentence seems to me to strike the best balance.

---

below is a reply to the above unsigned change, which appears to have later been reverted to "Jeffrey Edward Epstein (born January 20, 1953) is an American financier and sex offender".

I would like to suggest that the opening sentence be changed to simply read ""Jeffrey Edward Epstein (born January 20, 1953) is an American financier, science and education philanthropist.", without any reference to his criminal conviction in this opening paragraph.

I suggest this for the following reasons:

1) It is uncommon for the opening sentence of an article describing any famous person to make reference to any criminal convictions, unless the person is famous only because of their conviction (for example, "John Dillinger was a bank robber"). The actor Tim Allen was convicted of drunk driving and cocaine offenses, this is not mentioned in his opening sentence. The entertainer Jay-Z has been convicted of stabbing, this is not mentioned in the opening sentence of his Wikipedia article. Similarly, the actor Christian Slater has been convicted of drunk driving, assault, possession of a firearm, and sexual assault, and this is not mentioned in the opening sentence of his Wikipedia entry. Heck, even the opening sentence for Adolf Hitler's bio in Wikipedia simply reads "Adolf Hitler was an Austrian-born German politician and the leader of the Nazi Party", and I think most people would agree that Hitler was a lot nastier a guy than Epstien or any of the other people I mentioned.

2) There is a full section within the main body of the article that describes his criminal convictions, what he did wrong, etc. in great detail.

I get the feeling that the reference to Epstien's conviction for soliciting prostitution (and, the later revision and reversion of that reference to 'self-confessed paedophile' as written above in this talk section) is the result of the effort of a very small number of people - or only one person, perhaps - who seeks to malign Mr. Epstien. Full disclosure: I did not know who Jeffrey Epstein was and had never heard of him until I came to this article today to find out who he was, this after reading a news article on BBC that mentioned him.174.88.96.104 (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, (without making accusations to anyone) I'm inclined to agree. I modified the introductory sentence as well just yesterday, but it was quickly reverted without a guideline or policy to back it. From the (little) that I've read, he's known for his funding towards scientists - some of which have won the Nobel Peace Prize (my edit summary about him winning it was inaccurate). This person isn't notable solely for his criminal conviction. I think WP:NPOV is best maintained with the "sex offender" part removed. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Jeffrey Epstein is a registered sex offender: http://offender.fdle.state.fl.us/offender/flyer.do?personId=62762 173.162.252.241 (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Oshwah: he is not known for funding science. He puts out press releases and engages in web presence management.

• Jeffrey Epstein: Sex Offender, Yes. Billionaire, No.
• "The source of his wealth — a money management firm in the U.S. Virgin Islands — generates no public records, nor has his client list ever been released. One known client, Leslie Wexner, billionaire founder of The Limited clothing chain, was widely believed to be his benefactor for years and the major source of his wealth: at one time, Epstein was listed as a trustee of The Wexner Foundation, and Wexner reportedly bought Epstein a $13 million New York apartment. But once Epstein was charged with engaging in sexual activity with minors, Wexner dropped his old friend, replacing him…" 173.162.252.241 (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• I disagree and have returned the opening sentence to describe what he is principally known for, with another reliable source. --John (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with John. Epstein is at least as well known for his sex offending as he is for his financial activities.  Philg88 ^♦talk 04:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, mainly known for being a convicted sex offender -- it's impossible to overlook the myriad of sources covering this issue. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the opening sentence of Ched Evans does not say "Ched Evans is a footballer and rapist". This is clumsy wording and a non sequitur. Epstein was convicted of a single offence in 2008, and it should be mentioned in the WP:LEAD but does not need to be in the opening sentence. I agree with 174.88.96.104 about this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I have edited the Ched Evans article so that it too reflects what the subject is principally known for. In what sense would you say that this is a non sequitur here? I would very strongly disagree that this well-sourced statements meets the definition: It is something said that, because of its apparent lack of meaning relative to what preceded it, seems absurd to the point of being humorous or confusing. Epstein has one conviction and has made numerous out-of-court settlements to prevent more. He is mainly known and mainly notable for being a sex offender and the opening sentence needs to reflect this. --John (talk) 14:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It is a question of flow rather than what reliable sources say. There have been numerous attempts to say something like "Ched Evans is a footballer and rapist" in the opening sentence, but they have been reverted as it leads to a clunky sentence.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

We have to balance up "clunkiness" (which is a matter of subjective opinion) with factual accuracy (which we can refer to the sources for). It should be possible to balance both. I am glad you have retreated from your ludicrous claim about non sequitur. --John (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

As 174.88.96.104 pointed out, there is a risk of turning the article into a WP:BLP1E about the 2008 court case if this is mentioned in the opening sentence. If anything, Ched Evans is now better known for the controversy about his rape conviction, but it is not mentioned in the opening sentence. If this saga continues, an article such as Jeffrey Epstein controversy could be created, but this is a biography and should not give the impression that sex offending is the most important thing that he ever did on the basis of a single conviction in 2008.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Mmm. I think at this point you should read the Guardian source I added to spare yourself further embarrassment. The 2008 conviction is the least of it. "By the following year prosecutors said they had identified 40 young women who may have been illegally procured by Epstein. Dozens of his alleged victims are reported to have settled with Epstein out of court." If anything he is now mainly known as a sex offender, with current allegations regarding Prince Andrew. --John (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm well aware of this, but as the recent controversy involving Bill Cosby shows, it is possible for people to take their place in a queue to make allegations of this kind. He has only one criminal conviction and the civil lawsuits are given in a much vaguer form. I haven't tried to remove the phrase "sex offender" from the WP:LEAD, only the opening sentence. Overall, I'm not convinced that Jeffrey Epstein satisfies WP:GNG, as many of the sources about his funding of academic research appear to lead back to press releases with links to Epstein himself. He is now best known for the controversy into which Prince Andrew has been dragged, but it would be highly unusual to say "X is a sex offender" in the first sentence of any biographical article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Ianmacm, your point would be on target if someone were proposing to have the opening sentence say "J Epstein is an American sex offender." No one is proposing this. He is of course known for being a financier -- but he is equally known for being a sex offender. There's no prospect of "BLP1E here -- there's a lot going on in this article apart from that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit war if someone changes the first sentence to "Jeffrey Epstein is an American financier and sex offender", but it wouldn't be my choice of wording in line with the Ched Evans article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Given the context, it seems a little absurd not to mention Epstein's conviction in the opening few sentences of his bio. He is considered a highly dangerous sex offender and, as others have pointed out, this is almost certainly what he is most widely known for. Perhaps the issue (such as it is) could be resolved by leaving the first sentence alone and simply adding another after it? If nobody objects I'm going to go ahead and do so. LumpyGoatmeal (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Jeffrey Epstein's web presence management

• http://www.jeffreyepsteinblog.com
• http://www.jeffreyepstein.org
• http://www.jeffreyepstein.net
• http://www.jeffreyepsteinfoundation.com
• http://www.jeffreyepsteinscience.com
• http://www.jeffreyepsteineducation.com
• http://www.jeffreyepsteinusvi.com
• http://www.jeffreyepsteinnewyork.com
• http://www.jeffreyepsteininternational.com
• http://jeffrey-epstein-science.blogspot.com
• https://www.facebook.com/jeffreyepsteinvifoundation
• http://www.jeffreyepsteinsciences.wordpress.com
• http://jeffrey-epstein-edge-foundation.blogspot.com
• http://jeffreyepsteinedgefoundation.typepad.com

Some press releases issued by Jeffrey Epstein

• http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/11/jeffreyepsteinneurotv-idUSnPnbGv6sM+91+PRN20141111
• http://finance.boston.com/boston/news/read/27808883/The_Jeffrey_Epstein_VI_Foundation_and_MIT_Media_Lab_Help_Restore_Five_Astounding_Rothkos
• http://markets.financialcontent.com/mi.miamiherald/news/read/21710890/World's_Smartest_Think_Tank_Gets_Substantial_Backing_from_The_Jeffrey_Epstein_VI_Foundation
• http://finance.yahoo.com/news/science-power-jeffrey-epstein-harvard-142200816.html
• http://www.prlog.org/11864040-jeffrey-epsteins-involvement-with-the-edge-foundation.html (saying Epstein is a member of the Edge Foundation)

173.162.252.241 (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

See the section above. This is way too many links and Wikipedia is not a directory.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Taught at a school without a degree in 1975?!

How could anyone teach anywhere in the world, let alone in New York City, without a college degree as late as 1975? That statement sounds very dubious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.245.146.105 (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The sourcing says that he worked as a "maths teacher at a Manhattan private school".[2] Maybe the rules for private schools are different.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The source verifies the point in a straightforward way -- and yes, private schools in the USA can often do what they like. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course you can teach without a degree! I went to Wimbledon College, London, UK, in 1975 and my maths teacher there not only didn't have a degree, but he had stopped studying maths at the age of 16, not 18, as he was only teaching pupils to the age of 16. There are no requirements even today in the UK for teachers in either private or state schools to have a degree in the subject they are teaching. Of course it is preferred that they do, but it is not a legal requirement. Very, very few maths teachers in the UK have a university degree in mathematics.

(Paul Murphy). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.171.127 (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Pressure on abuse victims to stay silent, general attitude to abuse

Is the Daily Mail a reliable source? If it is material from ‘Sex slave’ who claims she was forced to sleep with Prince Andrew was ‘promised to be looked after if she kept quiet’ should go into the article. If it isn't we should check if material from tha above article is repeated elsewhere. Proxima Centauri (talk)#

No, numerous discussions of the Daily Mail at RSN have identified good reasons not to treat it as RS -- particularly for this sort of topic. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

If it is in the Daily Mail, is controversial, and cannot be sourced anywhere else, it is unsuitable for a Wikipedia article. Another problem is that people can claim whatever they like in court documents and it is not necessarily true. A large amount of the Prince Andrew controversy can be traced back to claims made in the Mail.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Split

Given the scandal's recently revived attention and the number of prominent individuals either directly or indirectly affected by the allegations, I suggest that this section be split off into a new article - Jeffrey Epstein Sex Scandal - with a basic summary left in this article. The section is only likely to be expanded in the coming weeks and months, and, if covered in sufficient depth, is likely to be undo weight (if it isn't already) if it remains here in the main Epstein article. Also, many people are likely coming here seeking info about the scandal, so it's best if they don't have to wade through a larger biographical article. -Helvetica (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:SIZERULE. Prose size < 40 KB doesn’t justify splitting. (Current prose size = 11 kB.) I do agree with Helvetica that readers shouldn’t have to “wade through” a lengthy biographical article to get to the Solicitation section. Let’s begin by removing the voluminous poorly sourced material from the Financial Career and Science Funding sections, per WP:BLPSOURCES. --J.K.Herms (talk) 06:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

For a long time I have been saying that the parts about science funding are unhealthily sourced to press release material that can be traced back to Epstein himself. This leads to WP:SPS issues, because it is unclear how accurate some of this material is without secondary sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@J.K.Herms - The size guidelines you cite state that: "Length **alone** does not justify division." (Emphasis added.) My reasoning for the split was not based on the total size of the article, but rather on undue weight, and the fact that this is a larger political scandal involving - either directly or indirectly - a large number of prominent individuals, ranging from Alan Dershowitz to presidential front-runners Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush. This strikes me as beyond the scope of what should be covered in a biographical article. Also, if the other info (e.g. alleged science funding) gets removed (which may well be justified) this would even further exacerbate the undue weight issue, since even a larger percentage of the article would be focused on the scandal. I would note though that if there's really nothing much notable about Epstein outside of the scandal then it could make sense to simply move and redirect Jeffrey Epstein to Jeffrey Epstein Sex Scandal instead of splitting... -Helvetica (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@Helvetica: To clarify, the relevant policy (WP:BALASPS) requires that each aspect of the subject be treated with a weight appropriate to “the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject”. --J.K.Herms (talk) 06:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, this is missing the point, which is that the scandal itself is wide-reaching and deserving of its own unique article - beyond what would make sense to include in a bio article. -Helvetica (talk) 11:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose -- the notion of undue weight isn't significant enough to justify removal of detail from this article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Probably pointless, since active contributors here seem attached to the status quo, but this misses the point. The idea isn't the "removal of detail," but rather the elaboration of detail at a more appropriate venue - namely an article specifically about the *scandal* as opposed to an Epstein biography. As I've noted above, this scandal involves far more people now than Epstein himself - ranging from the Clintons to Prince Albert. As such, a separate article is called for, and the bio article would have a summary of the most important points with a link to the scandal article with more details. -Helvetica (talk) 11:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, because Jeffrey Epstein Sex Scandal would largely involve rehashing claims made in court documents and the Daily Mail. Unless something more solid appears, there is no need to create a WP:CONTENTFORK at the time being.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose and snow closed There is no potential to have one "good" biography sourced to the subject's own releases and another about his exploits as a sexual predator. Neither should the Mail ever be used on a BLP. I have cleaned up the article a little and removed the split tag. --John (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Jeffery Epstein's religion/faith.

I was wondering why there is no mention of Jeffery Epstein's religion. Everybody know's Jeffery Epstein is Jewish. His Jewish heritage is a well know fact. & i can only assume you fail to include his Jewish heritage in the articles because it is just another example of racism, Bigotry & Jewish hatred. Covering up Epstein's religion & Jewish heritage is another example of Wikipedia's ethnic cleansing & Antisemitism.

Why else would Epstein's Jewish background be erased from the pages of Wikipedia.

It's Anti-Semitism. Plane & simple. ( So Racist ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.217.133.124 (talk) 09:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Disagree, any mention of a person's faith in a WP:BLP article needs a reliable source. Who is a Jew is relevant here. "Jewish" can mean different things to different people, and a person would not be described as following a religion unless they had discussed it in public. For example, it would be wrong to assume that anyone called Paddy Murphy must automatically be Irish and a Roman Catholic.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Another problem is that some people just don't like Jews. This one of the reasons why statements of this kind need to be relevant to the article and reliably sourced.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose suggestion by 162.217.133.124; so wrong in so many ways... --J.K.Herms (talk) 05:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Meh. He's Jewish if he says he's Jewish. Has he declared his Jewishness anywhere? If so, cite it. If not, drop it. Rklawton (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there even a reliable source for this being his ethnicity? The article is in Category:American Jews although there is no sourced text on his ethnicity. January (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

An editor just cited NY Mag as the basis for establishing Epstein's religion. The quote is this: "“It was all a little giddy,” Wolff says. “There’s a little food out, lovely hors d’oeuvre. And then after fifteen to twenty minutes, Jeffrey arrives. This guy comes onboard: He was my age, late forties, and he had a kind of Ralph Lauren look to him, a good-looking Jewish guy in casual attire." Folks, this simply isn't sufficient to establish an individual's faith. Personally, I don't care one way or the other. But I do care that each and every fact we include in our high profile biographical articles is reliable sourced. One guy describing Epstein's appearance falls woefully short. Rklawton (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Media mentions

The media are now referring to him by way of introduction as, "... the disgraced financier." I don't recall any media introductions lately that read, "... the financier and philanthropist". Point being, why are we giving his philanthropy higher billing than his other, apparently more notable activities? Rklawton (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The media loves to label people, and Wikipedia articles need to steer clear of this. A lot of the media coverage about Epstein as a philanthropist and sponsor of academic research can be traced back to press releases issued by Epstein himself. It is unclear from the current version of the article what sort of financial work Epstein does, because as Forbes pointed out, it is all rather secretive and based on trusts that are hard to unravel.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. 61,000 ghits for "Pedophile billionaire"... So far as I know, he doesn't even fit the definition. Rklawton (talk) 03:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Billionaire pedophile is the media's preferred headline tag for Epstein. The word "pedophile" is beloved by the media, but it is a word to avoid on Wikipedia because pedophilia is a medical condition which refers to a sexual attraction to prepubescent children. As for Epstein being a billionaire, this has been disputed by Forbes.[3] However, as the Forbes article points out, his net worth is hard to calculate because of the extensive use of opaque trusts.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

NPOV section tagging

The article is becoming top heavy with detail about the allegations made by Veronica Roberts. Unless and until these are proved in a court of law, they should be dealt with only briefly.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree; will edit and reduce. WP does not need to duplicate tabloids.Parkwells (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here and here). Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jeffrey Epstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2008/03/05/0305epstein.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Date mismatch

the dates dont match up... she would have only been 15 in 1999 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorheadrush (talk • contribs) 01:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Where in the article do you see a date of birth for her? It's not in the sources.--Auric talk 18:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Government Stop Order (construction)/ violation of

Epstein has been named as being in breach of building codes or construction permits (Planning Permission) during May 2019, but someone spotted ongoing work from their yacht. Dunno why the article is locked up and he is not, so if a priveleged wikipedian could add that info, do.126.209.22.197 (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Allegedly being in breach of building codes does not seem to be relevant enough to mention in a biography of a living person. We might insert if it gets coverage in multiple reliable sources. – Þjarkur (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Deee Latest!

https://www.courthousenews.com/court-orders-sunlight-on-huge-tranche-of-jeffrey-epstein-files/

Ruh-Roh! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.176.47 (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to article: who hired Epstein (who had no college degree) to teach at Manhattan's prestigious Dalton School? 173.88.241.33 (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)"Epstein was hired at the prestigious Manhattan college-prep institution by the father of Attorney General William Barr" from http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/how-did-jeffrey-epstein-make-his-fortune.html

Trafficking subsection needs expert editorial attention

This subsection of the Criminal Proceedings section contains clear redundancies, and otherwise needs expert attention to completely but succinctly summarise the content of relevant sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:C700:2DB2:9471:5D4C:6886:90D (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

There is no reason to stack reference upon reference at the end of units of prose (sentences, paragraphs). If all content in a unit appears in all sources, choose the best, most reliable and timely of the sources (including the source that broke the story, if it is known), but present only a limited number (placing them as near as possible to the content they cover). And unless the NY Post is breaking a story that is not covered by other news sources, there is no reason at all to add this source when 2-3 other sources already appear. Finally, the fact that this article has breaking news does not excuse using different styles for references added, inserting redundant material, or other kinds of editorial sloppiness. Check to make sure the material found does not already appear (!), choose a reliable source for truly new material, determine the prevalent citation style in use, and then add the information and the complete citation, in that prevalent style. Existing sources need to be checked for completeness and stylistic uniformity; meanwhile, as an interim measure—since the article is restricted in its editing—someone should add to every reference that omits authors, dates of publication, URLs and access dates, etc. The "cite journal" and "cite news" templates are helpful in ensuring citations are complete and otherwise encyclopedic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:C700:2DB2:9471:5D4C:6886:90D (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLP Concern in "Virginia Roberts lawsuits" section.

Under the section "Virginia Roberts lawsuits" in this article, the statement "He trafficked her to several people, including Prince Andrew and Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz.", where "He" refers to Jeffrey Epstein and "her" to Virginia Roberts is made. Please notice there's no qualification of the claim as an allegation.

Under WP:BLP that statement ought to be changed to establish that it is not yet a fact determined in court, but an allegation made by Ms. Roberts in one of her lawsuits> "Virginia Roberts claims FBI has videos of her having underage sex with Jeffrey Epstein and 'powerful friends' by The Independent's Adam Withhall, the source cited inline to support it refers to the act in question as an allegation by Ms. Roberts, not a proven fact.

I'm changing this sentence to "Allegedly, Epstein trafficked Roberts to several people, including Prince Andrew and Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz." first and soliciting consensus later under the guidelines in WP:BLP which require statements challenged or likely to be challenged to be supported by inline citation of a reliable published source. loupgarous (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a load of unproven material in the Virginia Roberts section. I'm not happy about this, but the section is shorter and less prominent than it once was. The article should be careful here unless the claims actually stand up in court.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both for your work here to keep the article in accord with BLP and verifiability policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:C700:2DB2:79F9:63EE:33ED:E050 (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Virginia Roberts

How is it that the victim has a redirect here, to her attacker? She will take on added importance as her testimony on the new charges becomes apparent, and as there are now videos of her stating her account.Dogru144 (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Wrong Chris Tucker

Wrong Chris Tucker, guys — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.13.160.18 (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

The Chris Tucker linked from the article is the American actor and stand-up comedian born in 1971. This looks like the correct Chris Tucker according to the sourcing.[4]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2019

Remove reference to Trump - otherwise this site is a lie lie lie 2601:5CE:4300:15E3:895C:A256:26C0:D47D (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Run-on sentence

The current version[5] states "Fox News reported he flew without Secret Service at least 5 times[75] although his press secretary disputed that in a July 8, 2019 statement the pilot's flight logs show at least 26 trips by Bill Clinton and each one with young girls .[76] " This run on sentence looks dubious. I don't plan on researching this at the moment, but I just wanted to flag it. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that was a mess. petrarchan47คุก 21:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Recent sources

I am looking at this and this. Look like good RS which describe a lot in detail. In particular, it appears that "The Herald has since identified nearly 80 girls molested by Epstein, most of whom were listed only as “Jane Doe” in court documents to protect their identities as minors. Most were girls between the ages of 13 and 16 when they were targeted by Epstein as far back as 2001." ..."According to the Miami Herald, Acosta met privately with one of Epstein’s lawyers, Jay Lefkowitz — a former colleague in D.C. — and gave Epstein’s legal team a bizarre amount of control over the plea deal’s terms. (Other Epstein lawyers included Alan Dershowitz and Kenneth Starr.)" “Thank you for the commitment you made to me,’’ Lefkowitz wrote to Acosta after their meeting, referring to Acosta’s promise that he would not contact “any of the identified individuals, potential witnesses or potential civil claimants.” That needs to be included I think. My very best wishes (talk) 01:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

This article should be locked down to require admin approval of edits

soibangla (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I found this article via an external link. The typical people outside of Wikipedia claiming a conspiracy to protect the powerful (vs the usual chaos we see with some politically active articles. I'm not at all interested in editing the page but you might be right about a temporary page lock to force editors to take it to talk. Just today you have reverted others at least 4 times. [[6]] [[7]] [[8]] [[9]] Springee (talk) 02:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Tendentious edits to exclude sex offenses from opening sentence

User:Ianmacm seems to be engaged in problematic edits in connection with this article. Judging by this talk page, there appears to be consensus that the opening sentence "is an American financier" is inadequate, to put it mildly. Epstein is not primarily known as a financier; when he is mentioned in reliable sources it is usually in connection with his conviction for sexual offenses, for which he has served a prison sentence. When you google his name, all the first results are about the crimes he has been convicted of, not finance. His role in sex crimes is "why the person is notable" as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies; his background as a financier is of secondary importance. User:Ianmacm's comparison with Savile and other figures is flawed; Savile was of course an extremely well known celebrity independently of the sex crimes revelations, and he was unlike Epstein never convicted and sent to prison for it either.

The argument that it is covered in the lead section is also flawed; for instance, Google currently shows the following Wikipedia snippet about him when searching for his name: "Jeffrey Edward Epstein is an American financier. He worked at Bear Stearns early in his career and subsequently formed his own firm, J. Epstein & Co". That is hardly an adequate summary of the article, or even of the lead section. The opening sentence should stand on its own and establish why he is notable (what he is mostly known for). Currently both the bulk of the body of the article and even most of the lead section are devoted to sex crimes, not finance; like the lead section itself is supposed to be a summary of the article reflecting its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section), this is also true for the opening sentence. --Tataral (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, User:Ianmacm promised (above) that he was "not going to edit war if someone changes the first sentence to "Jeffrey Epstein is an American financier and sex offender"". --Tataral (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

This was discussed recently at WP:BLPN. The problematic edits are the ones trying to say that Jeffrey Epstein is notable solely for being a sex offender. See the thread here--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Yep. The discussion is archived here. I agree with you but our argument failed to sway the opposition. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Consensus relating to this particular article is primarily determined by discussion on this talk page. There appears to be significant support here to include it in the opening sentence. There also appears to be support in the old discussion on the noticeboard, for example TFD's suggested compromise "is an American financier and convicted sex offender"; the noticeboard discussion doesn't demonstrate that he is primarily known as a financier either, and the fact that the bulk of the article is about sex crimes and not finance attests to the fact that he is primarily known for that. The lead is supposed to reflect the content in the body. --Tataral (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The reason why this edit was reverted yesterday is that it has clumsy and crude wording that is out of step with core WP:BLP values. There are various ways of tackling this, but there was a consensus at BLPN that being a registered sex offender does not in itself make a person notable enough for their own Wikipedia article. How many sex offenders are there in the USA? Probably thousands. Do they all have their own Wikipedia article? No. It is therefore misleading to cite this as the primary cause of a person's notability. I was also concerned about describing him as a former financier as this is not clearly stated in the article or the sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

We have many pages dedicated to singers, but obviously not everyone who can carry a tune deserves a Wikipedia article - but that's clearly not what Ianmacm is arguing. Ianmacm isn't saying Jeffrey Epstein should have a Wikipedia page because he's a sex offender, they're saying he's a noteworthy person who is primarily known for his sex crimes, and that that should be recognized first and foremost over him being a financier. At this point, saying Epstein is famous for being a financier is like saying Britney Spears is famous for having been in The Mickey Mouse Club. Samtayhow (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

There's no consensus on anything at BLP/N. Since this is a BLP, when there's on consensus we err on the conservative side and leave the controversial edit out. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm in favor of changing the first sentence to describe Epstein as "an American financier and sex offender," and then deleting the both the last sentence (which would be redundant) as well as the portion of the third sentence about his prison sentence. How long he served is of course worthy of inclusion in the article, but isn't sufficiently noteworthy from the lead and serves as a distraction from the main, most noteworthy point (that he was convicted of soliciting underage girls). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't it read "financier and convicted Pedofile", or does "financier pedofile and accused child rapist" sound better 68.173.128.206 (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

We'd need very solid sourcing before calling Epstein a pedophile. We don't currently have that, though it might exist. I went through the cited sources and none of them use the word pedophile. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Why is this being changed to exclude the truth??? Once again the left is manipulating Wikipedia to influence the public...VERY SAD!!!!! Please look elsewhere for the truth because you won't find it on Wikipedia!!!!! Bunnsoffunn (talk) 04:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

To quote some book I once read, "what is truth?" Just saying. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 04:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2019

Epstein flew Bill Clinton, Kevin Spacey, and Chris Tucker to Africa in his private jet. Flight records show Bill Clinton flew on Epstein’s plane 26 times 96.40.10.27 (talk) 05:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Just a word to the wise: it is usually a good idea to at least skim the article in question before requesting edits. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I recommend reading every word of the article first, but I am an old fashioned 20th century kind of guy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Career?

In September 2002, Epstein flew Bill Clinton, Kevin Spacey and Chris Tucker to Africa in his private Boeing 727.[4][7]

Epstein is also a longtime friend of Prince Andrew, Duke of York, and has partied with celebrities such as Katie Couric, George Stephanopoulos, Charlie Rose, and Woody Allen.[8]

Not sure how the above fit in the "Career" section. Personal section, perhaps? Avocats (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The link ref #71 that cites "Woody Allen" has no mention of Woody Allen in it. 2604:2000:14C5:8760:3DEA:9A36:BACC:1F3E (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation of surname?

Can someone add this to the lede with an authoritative cite?. I would have assumed it was the standard, rhyming with "vine", but on a UK BBC Radio 4 report yesterday (which was the first i'd heard of this guy) it was pronounced to rhyme with "keen". The BBC used to be reliable on such matters, having a Pronunciation Unit (why no article, by the way?) that advised newsreaders etc. in advance of any difficult or unusual pronunciations. In this case they may have underestimated the inexperience of the newsreader in question, or perhaps the unit has been axed. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.177.55 (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

hearing it said on the radio (usa) a lot lately rhyming with SEEN not with VINE. Cramyourspam (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

In my experience at least, the "rhymes with keen" pronunciation is the standard. Stein rhymes with vine, but I've never heard Epstein pronounced to rhyme with vine. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

TYPO: Krischer is spelled "Kirchner" in "...asked Kirchner to remove himself from the case.[14]

TYPO: Krischer is spelled "Kirchner" in "...asked Kirchner to remove himself from the case.[14] Can't fix this right now because the whole page is locked. There is no "Kirchner" it's a typo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerkey (talk • contribs) 19:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Beach drifter (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I removed Kirchner from the article since his inclusion wasn't supported by the cited source. R2 (bleep) 19:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Clinton flights

It has been reported that Epstein consulted with Clinton on creating the Clinton Global Initiative, established in 2005. Epstein has characterized himself as a co-founder of CGI, but he is not named in the founding documents.

Fox News reports:

logs do not show Clinton aboard any flights to St. Thomas [next to Epstein's island], the nearest airport capable of accommodating Epstein's plane. They do show Clinton flying aboard Epstein’s plane to such destinations as Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, China, Brunei, London, New York, the Azores, Belgium, Norway, Russia and Africa...trips between 2001 and 2003 included extended junkets around the world

Logs show Clinton took 26 flights, he said he took four "trips," so evidently he made stops at the above locations (and maybe more that were not listed) during four "extended junkets around the world" to promote CGI. There is no indication any of these flights were sex junkets. Nor is there any indication Clinton and Epstein were "friends," rather they were collaborating on CGI. It's business.

Now we have a woman, Conchita Sarnoff, telling Fox News “Almost every time that Clinton's name is on the pilot logs there are underage girls there are initials and there are names of many many girls on that private plane.” In fact, the only female name cited in the logs is "Tatiana," who has not been further identified and there is no indication she was underage, or even in any way involved in sexual activities, but this has not stopped some from insinuating she was. Otherwise, passengers are identified only by their initials (many of which are recurring on many flights, suggesting they are flight crew). So how does Sarnoff purport to know simply by looking at initials that the passengers were underage girls, or even female? She can't possibly know that.

I smell a big fat smearjob. Yes, yet another one. soibangla (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Here is the point. If the subject (JE) simply met someone or provided his planes merely to transport persons X,Y,Z (and there was nothing else), then persons X,Y,Z possibly do not deserve to be mentioned on the page. However, if there was a more substantial connection (his layers, prosecutors or people who banned him from visiting a place) and that can be reliably sourced, then it should be included on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 02:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Per BLP and RED FLAG any claim or imputation that Clinton (or Trump) was involved with sexual impropriety, whether criminal or merely unethical, would need very clear RS sources. Noting that Clinton was a friend of Epstein and flew on his plane is solidly sourced and not UNDUE. Anything beyond that would need much better sourcing than I have seen, which is mostly speculative. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem. Was he a "friend" and what exactly that means? Without any substantial and factual involvement claiming someone to be a "friend" of a notorious criminal is a BLP violation. Flying on someone else plane (a lot of people did it) - is it due on the page? This is something disputable. My very best wishes (talk) 12:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Noting that Clinton was a friend of Epstein is not, in fact, solidly sourced. There is no evidence their relationship went anywhere beyond creating/promoting CGI. To assert otherwise is similar to asserting Mueller and Comey are "friends," when there is no evidence they were anything but professional acquaintances employed by the same organization. soibangla (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• This NYT source provides the most current and in-depth look at Clinton's contacts with Epstein. Many reliable sources cover whatever relationship existed between these two people, so it certainly seems noteworthy to include something on the topic. R2 (bleep) 19:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you are proposing in regards to the article content, Soibangla? The article, as it stands, does not claim that Epstein procured minors for Clinton. It simply mentions the close involvement between Clinton and Epstein which is a matter of historical record. It also mentions Epstein's relationships with a number of individuals such as good old Woody Allen (who has a very interesting biography). We are not here as a jury to try individuals, such as Bill Clinton, we simply report back what reliable sources say.... and reliable source mention that Bill and Jeff were good pals. Baron De La Ware (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources say that they were good pals? Can you identify one of those sources please? R2 (bleep) 20:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Political Affiliation

Democrat Jackwabbit01 (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Can you point us to a reliable source for this? Thanks in advance. Dumuzid (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

The site opensecrets shows his large financial contributions to the party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:68B0:45D0:15F3:7002:A30A:6C3 (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Link: https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/results?name=jeffrey+Epstein&order=asc&page=1&sort=D

There are also some (R) donations listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DirkDouse (talk • contribs) 19:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

DirkDouse (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Nothing's going in without a reliable secondary source. R2 (bleep) 20:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Trump’s Labor nominee oversaw ‘sweetheart plea deal’ in billionaire’s underage sex case

Time for a section or reference. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/alexander-acosta-trump-jeffrey-epstein-plea-235096 --Wikipietime (talk) 11:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

More: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/alexander-acosta-trump-labour-secretary-nominee-plea-deal-miami-jeffrey-epstein-a7624286.html and http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-jeffrey-epstien-alexander-acosta-sex-abuse-case-20170321-story.html. And there will be more... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Read our article. This is already heavily covered. Though it could certainly be tightened up, and the new sources (I've seen even more) could prove useful. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Unless you can show a causal link between Trump and Acosta's decision, using Trump's name is only political, and should not be included in this mention. DeknMike (talk) 01:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2019

Return American to Jewish.

As per the history of edits, you had no problem with it until recently when the news broke. This is blatant hiding of facts that would not be advisable should a media outlet get wind of it and could turn the public against wikipedia and further erode its credibility. Evaunit01berserk (talk) 07:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done You have failed to provide any reliable sources. Your implication that Epstein is somehow not American but rather "Jewish" is as absurd as it is objectionable. So, the answer is "no". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Not much of a discussion to be had when there is a) a source indicating his Jewish heritage and b) there was no issue with indicating his Jewish heritage until this most recent arrest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.134.181.242 (talk) 02:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Religion in first sentence

Why is his religion mentioned in the first sentence? I checked the profile of many Christian billionaires and NONE of them have this format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:85:C380:1030:BCA8:B98A:4AC3:2880 (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• "Jewish" can refer to a religion, an ethnicity and/or a culture. 66.115.87.148 (talk) 03:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect information on donation to Harvard

The "Science Philanthropy" section states "In May 2003, Epstein established the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics at Harvard University with a $30 million gift". However, this is a widely misquoted number. Epstein PLEDGED $30M to Harvard but only $6.5M was donated. The university does not appear to have accepted any further donations after his initial conviction. Info provide here:

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2006/9/13/harvard-to-keep-epstein-gift-after/ https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/12/3/epstein-harvard-ties/

Thanks Viribex (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done R2 (bleep) 18:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Secret Service

In the section Personal Life, the [Fox article] used as a reference states "apparently ditching his Secret Service detail for at least five of the flights". Note the qualifier "apparently"; even Fox would not definitely state that he flew without them. The Fox article goes on to say that there is contradictory evidence against the allegation (forms not filed). There are many reasons why they might not have been listed, including not enough space in the log entry, or their presence was taken for granted, or they were listed by initials as many people were.

The AP reference is sloppy: it turns 26 flights into 26 trips, when there were only four trips (as it later states). The AP article references the Fox article regarding the flights and presents no new reporting other than President Clinton's statement. It should be used as a reference for his statement only and the original Fox article reference should be moved back to the preceding sentence about the Secret Service and that changed to an "allegation" or "possibly" or eliminated.

The [second second Fox article] used as a reference in the section restates the allegation about the Secret Service, referencing the first article and providing no new information on the point.

The twitter reference does not support the Fox claim.

The Wikipedia article should not state the allegation as a fact when the references are unwilling to do so. Please make this edit for me.

Evolutionary (talk) 12:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done I believe I've addressed these issues with this series of edits. R2 (bleep) 19:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2019

Questionable source needs to be flagged. Change citation #75 to .

Mar-a-Lago barred Epstein

All information related to Epstein having been barred from Mar-a-Lago and suggestions that Donald Trump aided Brad Edwards is attributed to what appears to be an unreliable source of information. Dranomartini (talk) 02:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

COMPLETELY UNTRUE. It's from the UK newspaper The Daily Mail. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7229027/President-Trump-banned-Jeffery-Epstein-Mar-Lago-sexually-assaulted-underage-girl.html

Daily Mail is not considered a reliable source, nor are any of the others you earlier cited soibangla (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

If I were you, I would be careful about making a claim that is so easy to debunk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.36.95.56 (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, "radaronline" does not look as an RS. The info is really really controversial. My very best wishes (talk) 03:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

It's cited to a Fox News report which is a RS. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Fox News: Trump banned Epstein from his Mar-a-Lago estate “because Epstein sexually assaulted an underage girl at the club,” according to court documents filed by Bradley Edwards, But the same lawyer later said in an interview that he was unable to confirm that claim. Edwards 2010 court doc: "I learned through a source that Trump banned Epstein from his Maralago Club." Video of interview: https://twitter.com/AdamReigner/status/1147899138878693377. soibangla (talk) 03:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Citation #75 is currently a Fox News report (which is a RS), so either the citation has been updated or the citation you're referring to has moved to a different number. I'm closing this request; if something still needs to be changed then please reopen this request with more details. It's probably better to refer to a citation by name, or by specific placement in the article, rather than by number - this article is changing so rapidly right now that the citation numbers will be changing on a regular basis. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

---

Hi @Atsme, Dranomartini, and ElHef: Thanks for your Wikipedia contributions :) I found this additional reputable source about Mar-a-Lago barred Epstein.

According to news reports dating to 2007, Trump’s Palm Beach resort Mar-a-Lago barred Epstein from the premises because of his unseemly pursuit of young females.

Sources

Francewhoa (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

---

Additional reputable source:

An April 2011 court filing shows that Trump eventually barred Epstein from Mar-a-Lago “because Epstein sexually assaulted a girl at the club,” the documents allege.

Sources

Francewhoa (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

---

This all seems very murky to me. 2007 news reports? What 2007 news reports? 2011 court filing? What 2011 court filing? And other, more reputable outlets have delved into the Epstein-Trump relationship in depth, covering Epstein's visits to Mar-A-Lago, and they don't say anything about this. This seems suspicious to me. R2 (bleep) 21:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• Note: The last actual interaction between Trump and Epstein (that I can find) appears to be adversarial - "Trump Wins Gosman Mansion for $41 million", Palm Beach Daily News (March 28, 2016): "Judge Steven Friedman presided over the bidding by Trump and two other parties, Wall Street financier Jeffrey Epstein, a part-time Palm Beach resident, and developer Mark Timothy Prestige Homes, based in Boca Raton". Something seems a bit off about the reporting to me, though, so perhaps this can be verified from another source. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

That's not really adversarial, nor do I think it's worthy of mention. Their companies bid against each other to buy a property. It's just business. There's no indication of any good or bad blood. R2 (bleep) 18:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• I removed the content about Mar-A-Lago barring Epstein per WP:BLP and other community standards. The content was a mess of verifiability problems. It suggested that the sole basis for the claim was the say-so of a lawyer who had sued Epstein. And that wasn't even reflected in the cited sources which were themselves pretty shitty. R2 (bleep) 19:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

So, I thought it important to note that this territory has been covered by the Washington Post, but there it still strikes me as murky and uncertain, because they reference it as well to "court documents filed by Edwards." I guess I would lean towards leaving it out, for now, but this one is closer (for me) than I thought. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Ugh, I expect that sort of thing from Fox News, but not from the Post. There are court documents, and then there are court documents. From a journalistic standpoint, there are some court documents that are equivalent to smoking guns, while there are others I wouldn't use to wipe my ass. R2 (bleep) 20:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Connections to Trump, Clintons, Spacey

Emphasizing Epstein's connections to President Trump (who banned him, according to the Daily Mail: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7229027/President-Trump-banned-Jeffery-Epstein-Mar-Lago-sexually-assaulted-underage-girl.html but eliminating his connections to President Clinton, who rode teh so-called "Lolita Express" (Epstein's plane as many as 26(!) times (https://meaww.com/bill-clinton-flew-26-times-on-jeffrey-epstein-lolita-express-fitted-with-beds-orgy-island-jet-plane) (https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/07/bill_clinton_frequent_flyer_on_jeffrey_epsteins_lolita_express.html) (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3589628/Report-Bill-Clinton-jumped-aboard-disgraced-sex-offender-Jeffrey-Epstein-s-Lolita-Express-plane-junkets-26-TIMES-just-three-years.html) and Hillary Clinton (https://www.wnd.com/2016/11/source-fbi-has-evidence-hillary-visited-orgy-island/) and actor Kevin Spacey (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zulSO_p8Yi8) shows conclusively that whoever edits this article is NOT interested in a neutral point of view, but in using the Epstein case to promote one side politically and damage the other side politically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.36.95.56 (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems you haven't actually read our article. What's this about eliminating connections to Clinton and Spacey? That stuff is in, along with some of the connections to Trump. We need better sources to cover the alleged banning from Mar-A-Lago as well as any connection to HRC. R2 (bleep) 19:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, the article didn't mention that the jet is called "Lolita Express" until my edit a few moments ago. petrarchan47คุก 15:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Clinton, Lolita Express

Something on Wikpedia's "black list" reported Wikipedia Editors Battle to Hide Bill Clinton’s Link to Jeffrey Epstein Fact that Clinton flew on ‘Lolita Express’ 26 times briefly removed

https://www.theepochtimes.com/bill-clinton-issues-statement-on-jeffrey-epsteins-case_2994646.html

What goes on? Foofbun (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

What is Wikipedia's "black list" and how does it "report"?? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Who and how is totally irrelevant. Because guess what? You (and therefore Wikipedia) are criticizable, as you are not the eternal fount of wisdom. The only relevant question is, what does it report. And it is about the edit-rush to get Bouncing-Billy out of the context of the Lolita-Express. And it is not only happening in the US. The same is happening on the germany Wiki. Bye, Chris - Hamburg, Germany 2003:C8:8725:9D00:D980:1F8C:72D6:4FD7 (talk) 06:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Why does this article have to have such a strong leftist bias? To keep a neutral perspective, either add all of Bill Clinton/Donald Trump/the rest of them, or leave them out entirely. Stop cherrypicking individual figures just to fit a leftist narrative. 2001:48F8:3022:D9E:39D3:463B:9EF1:A218 (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree. This article has been massively altered to remove any mention of former President Bill Clinton yet deliberately has left current President Trump in place. I find this to be biased against our sitting President and an offense to the office he holds to not mention BOTH or remove BOTH. Stop pushing your narrative.JKnight78 (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

We only repeat what is reported in independent reliable sources, nothing more or less. Our job is not to favor one person or party over another or to ensure some kind of parity. The relationships of both men to Epstein are discussed in the section dealing with his personal life. As far as I can tell the facts presented are adequately sourced. And as of right now Mr. Clinton's flying on the plane is discussed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

You use a source that mentions Clinton in the title, and yet the article doesn't even mention him? To be clear, it appears that content is being added/removed rather quickly. There are definitely editors who are editing with bias. 199.21.163.10 (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

And plenty of nameless drive-by trolls who don't know or don't care to know how Wikipedia works, but think that the site somehow needs their opinion. Drmies (talk) 12:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oh Infowars, where facts never stand in the way of a good story.

  "The current Wikipedia page for Epstein does mention his link to Clinton but devotes more words to the billionaire’s ties to Donald Trump, which were less direct. [they were? opinion.]

  The current entry contains Trump’s 2002 quote about Epstein: “I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”

  However, it fails to mention that Trump kicked Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago as soon as he discovered Epstein had hit on a young girl."[which is in there, with the important qualifier that the witness "but later conceded he was unable to confirm that"--the kind of thing that doesn't matter on Infowars.]

  It's pretty sad that we have to respond to this kind of nonsense, and I suppose it's a good thing that this is blacklisted (I assume it is). Drmies (talk) 12:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Yet again more casting aspersions by an administrator. "plenty of nameless drive-by trolls who don't know or don't care to know how Wikipedia works, but think that the site somehow needs their opinion" Why am i not surprised? Why is this person still an administrator? The fact that he complains about other users instead of doing his job is the most revealing thing. If you don't want to deal with "this kind of nonsense", maybe you shouldn't be an administrator. 50.127.248.30 (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Alex Acosta has resigned

Is this perhaps a development worthy of mention within this article? StewBrewer (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I certainly think so, but let's wait for the news to report it and its connection authoritatively first. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Lead section

Re this edit: it is way out of line with WP:BLP to describe Epstein as a sex offender in the opening sentence without giving any context. Without his work as a financier and links to various famous people, the sex offence angle would not be notable enough for a mention. This is a WP:BLP article, ie a biography of Epstein, so it needs to say more than "he is a sex offender" in the opening sentence. This isn't a tabloid newspaper.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Epstein is at least as well known for his paedophile pimping as for his finance and other work. This should be mentioned in the first sentence for the benefit of readers. In my original edit^[10] I included it after "financier", leaving the details lower down in the lede:

Jeffrey Edward Epstein (born January 20, 1953) is an American financier and registered sex offender. He worked at Bear Stearns early in his career and subsequently formed his own firm, J. Epstein & Co. In 2008 Epstein was convicted of soliciting an underage girl for prostitution and given an 18-month prison sentence, of which he served 13 months. He is a registered level three sex offender.

This was reverted by Ianmacm with the comment: "rv, this ends up saying twice in the lead that he is a sex offender. Needs a mention, but no need to go to town as it is clearly mentioned in the WP:LEAD already."

If we're going to describe him as just one thing in the first, defining sentence, then that one thing should be sex offender. But we can describe him in more than one term. I propose we return to my original edit but remove the second mention, not the first. Thus:

Jeffrey Edward Epstein (born January 20, 1953) is an American financier and registered sex offender. He worked at Bear Stearns early in his career and subsequently formed his own firm, J. Epstein & Co. In 2008 Epstein was convicted of soliciting an underage girl for prostitution and given an 18-month prison sentence, of which he served 13 months. He is a registered level three sex offender.

References

Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

People have proposed similar wording in articles like Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris but it has been rejected by consensus. If Savile and Harris had not been major figures for many years in showbusiness, the sexual abuse angle would not have become notable in the first place. Plenty of people are registered sex offenders but this does not establish WP:GNG notability on its own. There needs to be some context, and it is Epstein's background as a wealthy financier that does this. For a long time, this article has been reading more like it is Jeffrey Epstein controversies or Jeffrey Epstein lawsuits rather than a biography of him as a person. There are also WP:NOTNEWSPAPER issues with a lot of weight being given to ongoing court actions. I think this article needs a cleanup or it should be referred to WP:BLPN for further input from experienced editors.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the proposed edit works. It gives both elements of Epstein's notability. I don't understand the point about "on-going court actions" -- he was convicted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Epstein has been convicted of one sexual offence, so he is not a serial sex offender. Saying that a person is a sex offender in the opening sentence has been rejected at articles like Jimmy Savile, Rolf Harris and Jonathan King, because they were independently notable before the sex offence controversies occurred.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Saville, Harris and King are all very well-known for their professional careers, Saville and Harris especially so - at least in the UK. Outside finance circles, Epstein is relatively unknown for his work, but widely notorious for his pimping. It is what he's known for. In this case, we owe it to the reader to identify the thing he's most notable for in the first sentence.

I've asked for input at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Should we describe Jeffrey Epstein as a sex offender in the first sentence of his BLP? Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

That BLP/N discussion arrived at no consensus and was archived here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Why is everybody ignoring the elephant in the room? The only reason sex offense is mentioned so prominently by these bitter, delusional partisans, —in fact, the ONLY reason they are here, —is to bludgeon the Clintons. For example, in Rollingstone's [Pizzagate: Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal] article yesterday Nov 16, 2017 on the whacko and Russian-fed fake news avalanche, Epstein is mentioned at least 3 times, —which is how I landed here.

I think you may be forgetting psychology. What a meteoric rise of that man! These rags to riches type stories always fascinate people. His father worked for the Parks Department, for goodness sakes, probably as a gardener or it would be mentioned (e.g. he headed the xyz section). Throw sex in and his unimaginable riches, unimaginable for most of us, it is totally fascinating. Now he owns a super mansion, plane, takes the person who was once the most powerful man on the planet - Clinton - to Africa has international residences and owns an island where the authorities cannot reach him. The number of his servants to manage and maintain all these properties must be significant and cost a significant sum. The connection to Ghislaine Maxwell is also 'interesting'. Put it all together and it's like a pulp fiction novel - but this is for real - and that is why it's fascinating to most people. How fake news and Russian fake news come in, is not clear to me, but we'll see what comes out in the next court case which is close. 124.184.70.17 (talk) 02:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Quoting from a comment above: "Epstein is at least as well known for his paedophile pimping as for his finance and other work." Sadly this is true for a minority of gullible people self-imprisoned by their AlexJones-Fox-Limbaugh conspiracy theory echo-chamber. They happily seek and chug-a-lug nasty delusions like Hillary's child sex slave ring with pizzagate, and other imaginary, perverted daydreams. Of course the quivering will say, or write, or do anything to destroy such a monster. How unspeakably sad.
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:2CA5:3D0:2D38:D4CC (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Doug Bashford

It is written that he was convicted of soliciting a 14-year-old girl for prostitution. While the original complaint was about a 14-year-old girl, the sweetheart deal he cut with Acosta convicted him of soliciting a 17-year-old girl (in one record 16-year-old). This was why he didn't have to register as a sex offender in New Mexico, where the age of consent is 16. Please refer to the New York Times article on the same subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Confuzd420 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Alex Acosta's July 10 press conference

On July 10 (two days before he decided to resign), Alex Acosta held a press conference to discuss his involvement in the 2008 non-prosecution agreement. Acosta's narrative disagrees with the narratives covered on this page, in several ways. For example, Acosta says that (admittedly delayed) attempts were made to inform victims of the agreement. This conflicts with the current text, which says: The Miami Herald states: "Acosta agreed, despite a federal law to the contrary, that the deal would be kept from the victims." Would it be worth including a summary of the key points from Acosta's narrative? If so, I could draft such a summary. Mpb2 (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Update: Actually, it might be better just to link to here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Acosta#Prosecution_of_Jeffrey_Epstein Mpb2 (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Early life section (about his brother)

The statements about his brother are pointless. Where his brother attended school or what his brother does, unconnected to the subject, are irrelevant. Who cares about his brother? If it has nothing to do with the subject beyond being a relation, how is it relevant? Surely, you would not insert siblings' curriculum vitae in the early life section of anyone else. Did his brother come on here and edit the page in order to promote his business? --Geekyroyalaficionado (talk) 02:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I removed that as irrelevant. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The presence or lack of siblings has a significant impact on one's early life. This information always interests me when I come to Wikipedia looking for concise, accurate information about a subject's biography, whether that subject is living or deceased. It is relevant, in and of itself if an individual grew up with 9 siblings or no siblings. In the case of this subject, the sibling's rental property is also implicated in the criminal allegations as housing alleged victims of the subject. Some of the former staff members listed in the non-prosecution agreement also have ties to the sibling's rental property. This information may receive more news coverage in the weeks ahead. Cedar777 (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Orgy Island

This pops up in the news a lot, but is not even MENTIONED in the article!

Which island does it refer to. Little St. James?

Should be included. 173.9.95.217 (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to an actual reliable source discussing this, rather than observing that it "pops up" in the "news"? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Please read Little Saint James, U.S. Virgin Islands. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

https://www.google.com/search?q="orgy+island"+epstein

37000 results. take your pick. 173.13.69.21 (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability. We've had a similar argument about the inclusion of the phrase "Lolita Express". Some users objected to this because they thought it was an over the top tabloid phrase.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

i object to them MISSING. they're both in the news CONSTANTLY. 173.14.130.9 (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not news. Also WRITING in random CAPITAL LETTERS doesn't actually make YOUR argument any more CONVINCING. GMG^talk 17:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• The editor from Massachusetts may not be the best ambassador for Wikipedia community standards, but I actually think "Orgy Island" should be mentioned among other nicknames for the island. There are plenty of reliable, non-tabloid, non-Fox sources that mention it. Here's a good one, which links in turn to other reliable, non-tabloid, non-Fox sources. R2 (bleep) 19:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

thank u. and i should note that many of the foreign-lang versions of this article have (properly, imho) retained "lolita express". just someone HERE tryna whitewash it. 173.13.69.21 (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Lolita Express Masseuse Reveals Lurid Details from Jeffrey Epstein's Private Plane - (458.160 viewings on YouTube. Inside Edition (CBS), 27.04.2015)

Amy Goodman (received the the I.F. Stone Medal for Journalistic Independence) in Democracy Now!: ... "the plane that Jeffrey Epstein himself called “Lolita Express.”" !!!, 12 July 2019. --87.170.205.211 (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Snopes

Maybe good for something: Did Google Remove Photos of Bill Clinton with Jeffrey Epstein from Search Results? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• Gråbergs Gråa Sång, all I can say is that I'm happy they scrapped (with bleach!) every bit of evidence that I ever flew on Epstein's plane. Seriously, this is getting crazier by the scandal. Is Soros involved yet? I've only heard rumors of that in a Dutch Facebook thread. Drmies (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I heard that Epstein has Obama's actual birthcertificate. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

There a reason behind Jack Goldberger's name not being included here?(as well as jay lefkowitz)

Apparently he was the local attorney and in fact longest serving member of Epsteins legal team through 2007-2008. 71.89.114.35 (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Can you point to some reliable sources which make this connection? If so, it may well belong in the article. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

he's literally already mentioned in the existing sources in the wiki(after kenneth star), which makes his absence particularly perplexing71.89.114.35 (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I am guessing he hasn't been included yet simply because he's not as independently notable as the other members of the defense team. Just a guess! Dumuzid (talk) 23:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Apparently Jay Lefkowitz was also one of his attorneys conspicuously absent from the wiki, and seems particularly notable as he was the apparent primary nexus for arranging the plea deal with Acosta.71.89.114.35 (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Ephebophilia

Why "Ephebophilia" under the "See also" section? Ephebophilia is when older men prey on boys. Preying on young girls is parthenophilie.

Un homme embrassant un jeune homme dans la Grèce antique.

--87.170.205.211 (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

While this was certainly the historical meaning of the term, in modern psychological parlance, it is used to mean a sexual preference for adolescents of any gender. See, e.g., The American Psychological Association. I'm not sure that it merits a "see also" here, but the definition is apt. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, let's clutter the page with useless references to classic greece with academic non-sensical neologisms... Rabbi (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.4.91.218 (talk)

Thanks --87.170.195.115 (talk) 05:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

"is Jewish and grew up in a Jewish household"

In this edit I've removed "is Jewish and grew up in a Jewish household" and reinstated the simpler "to Jewish parents". Is there a distinction between "is Jewish" and "grew up in a Jewish household"? Yes. But is it an important distinction? Not in my opinion. The simpler version suffices. Bus stop (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Clinton mentions in the article

I can post a literal picture of Clinton and Epstein at his private island with three other individuals with their shirts off, sitting in the water laughing with each other. Yet some blatantly obvious political activists with editing capabilities will pretend it's a "smear job" to suggest any link whatsoever, and that it was "just business" that Bill Clinton was such a close friend to Epstein. Unfortunately for them, the Clinton-Epstein connection is well-documented to the point of being undeniable as it appears in court documents:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/flight-logs-show-bill-clinton-flew-on-sex-offenders-jet-much-more-than-previously-known

"Former President Bill Clinton was a much more frequent flyer on a registered sex offender’s infamous jet than previously reported, with flight logs showing the former president taking at least 26 trips aboard the “Lolita Express” -- even apparently ditching his Secret Service detail for at least five of the flights, according to records obtained by FoxNews.com."

I get that Fox often falls into the category of "I DON'T LIKE IT!!!" material for certain political activists disguised as Wikipedia editors, but court documents are court documents. As of right now, this article has 18 references to Trump and only 7 to Clinton, despite the fact Clinton had a decades-long relationship with Epstein that was certainly far more intimate and robust than Trump's. The effort to remove this information is, I posit, a coordinated effort from the top, and an attempt to manage reality in real-time. Epstein had enough friends to keep him out of federal prison in the past, so having people manage his Wikipedia article certainly doesn't seem out of the question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:343:8101:6f0:44c1:19e1:a418:2e44 (talk)

WP:There is no cabal. Or is there? (And I haven't analyzed the article or the sources.) I just have an idea of how this place works. We follow the reliable sources. When the preponderance of WP:Reliable sources devotes more prose to associations between one or the other then we should generally have more prose here about that association. So you might have a point or you might not. Just thought I'd chime in. Hope that helps. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

This is a fast developing story, and Fox is a bit out ahead of the rest with that particular reporting. It may well be true, or it might not. If it is, it should be confirmed by other reliable sources in short order, and then there would be no question as to including it. But in the meantime, we have to be particularly careful with including ties to anyone here. I know that's not terribly satisfying, but it's the right way to run this encyclopedia, I believe. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Clinton is currently noticed on the page. The real question: what was his actual involvement with the subject? If he was just a passenger on a plane, that hardly worth inclusion. If it was something else, that something else must be sourced to multiple RS. My very best wishes (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The New York Times[11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptnono (talk • contribs) 14:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

From that article: "It was unclear how many individual flights were involved in each trip that Mr. Ureña mentioned and whether that may account for the discrepancy between the number he cited and what the flight logs show." Also, it would be helpful if you would sign your posts. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! This is an RS, and it answers my question. They interacted through work in Clinton Foundation. As source tells, "The ride on the private jet was part of a visit to Africa that Mr. Clinton made in order to discuss economic development on the continent and the ongoing fight against H.I.V. and AIDS." That can be included on the page I think. My very best wishes (talk) 15:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

This isn't a new story, we have a Gawker article from 2015 showing Epstein's "little black book" which included "21 contact numbers and various email addresses for Clinton". I can't blame anyone for having their spokespeople play down a relationship with Epstein, but we should try and present this as dispassionately as possible. For instance, Clinton's spokesperson "said" he only took 4 flights, yet our article had (until my fix, which may have been changed already) 'Clinton's spokesman confirmed". That is spindoctoring and is not allowed. petrarchan47คุก 16:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, one can certainly notice that C. flied on the plane, but it should also be explained - why did he fly. Text above provides an explanation, as oppose to simply saying that he flied on a plane provided by a notorious criminal. My very best wishes (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, you appear determined to insinuate that Clinton was associating with underage girls on Epstein's jet. There is no evidence of this, in fact. The Fox News source you provided is nothing more than a guest making an accusation without any evidence whatsoever to support it. It's trash. "That is spindoctoring and is not allowed." soibangla (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Soibangla, I'm sorry, but this is a ridiculous comment. First, you have no idea if I'm trying to insinuate something, or documenting what WP:RS is saying on the matter. Second,

“Almost every time that Clinton's name is on the pilot logs there are underage girls there are initials and there are names of many many girls on that private plane.”

This is a quotation by Conchita Sarnoff, not 'some guest', but rather the investigative reporter who has been following the Epstein case for years, and wrote the seminal piece "TraffiKing: the Jeffrey Epstein Human Trafficking Case". Her remarks are nothing more than facts gleaned from the flight logs. I don't see her statement as "insinuating" anything. She is documenting facts and stating them dispassionately as we are expected to do. To call Sarnoff's summary of hard core evidence "trash" gives me pause with regard to your participation on this article. Further, if any editor suggested that, if similar evidence emerged about Trump and was covered by RS, it should be ignored because obviously the editor suggesting it's addition had bad intentions, I would fight that nonsense as well. petrarchan47คุก 20:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Petrarchan47: Her remarks are nothing more than facts gleaned from the flight logs. The flight logs have been public for years, but no one has ever identified the individuals designated by initials. How does Sarnoff purport to know, simply by looking at initials, that the passengers are underage girls? Anyone can call themselves an "investigative journalist" and self-publish a book on Amazon, then appear as an alleged expert on Fox News by persuading a producer that they have something to say that is aligned with their narrative. Many people have faked their way to success in this manner. There is simply no evidence she is a reliable source, and Fox News is not "reporting" anything, they are simply and credulously repeating what she said on the air. soibangla (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you think starting off with I can post a literal picture of Clinton and Epstein at his private island with three other individuals with their shirts off, sitting in the water laughing with each other lends credence to anything else you said? soibangla (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

RT (TV network) has covered this [12] saying "‘Reputation managers’ get to work scrubbing Clinton-Epstein connection from Wikipedia." I must have missed the check in the mail from the Clintons.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

RT is only reliable as an anti-source, meaning you cite RT and add whatever is the opposite of what they're reporting to the article. GMG^talk 18:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Added a template to this talk page citing another outlet due to the influx of activity here.Cptnono (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I removed it. {{press}} should not be used for low-quality sources. R2 (bleep) 19:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

And I reverted. This is not a source i the article but instead a "heads yp". Would you prefer I use RT?Cptnono (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Neither, since by its instructions, {{press}} isn't for low quality sources such as those, especially when linking to defamatory / personal attack content (such as RT's completely unsubstantiated accusation that specific editors here are Clinton's reputation managers). R2 (bleep) 20:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• I think the editor from Jacksonville should send their "literal picture" to Fox or some other news organization, and it sounds pretty important. In the meantime, there is no "concerted effort to erase the Clinton connection," and there's no need to defend Fox News. We have plenty more reliable, more up-to-date sources that have covered this very same content--such as the New York Times source so helpfully provided by Dumuzid. R2 (bleep) 19:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the link was actually provided by someone who didn't sign their contribution. I just pointed out one quote -- though I quite agree about the picture. At least show us, assuming said picture is publicly available. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

There has been a well-documented Bill Clinton connection: over 20 times on the flight logs. But photos of the two of them? That Fox News article you linked gives no pictures of the Epstein and Clinton.Dogru144 (talk) 02:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• Please note I removed a link to a pretty sick misleading picture, and I changed the header to something a bit more neutral. Note also that this is yet another drive-by IP smear: admins and editors should not hesitate to refuse allowing this talk page to be turned into a forum/subreddit. If it looks like trolling, delete it. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

You have a weird definition of sick. Just saying, though it is very misleading. 2600:1700:1111:5940:19D8:4999:DC85:66D6 (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Molyneux WP:CANVASSing re: “Jewish family”

FYI to contributors: Stefan Molyneux (413,000 Twitter followers) is drawing attention to this article's “Early life” section.[13] I have no opinion on how it should read but it should be known that an attempt at WP:CANVASSing is going on, and recent edits should be seen in this light. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 06:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

This isn't canvassing. Canvassing must be on-wiki. However it could lead to meatpuppetry. It's also not just Molyneux; it's all over the far-right Internet right now. I've dropped a {{recruiting}} tag on this page. R2 (bleep) 19:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

R2, thanks for that. If you had admin glasses and you'd look at the history of this talk page, you can see that the antisemites are targeting this page. Drmies (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

A valid concern to be sure, but please don’t overreact to a comment I made about a single editor who made a single, civil, nondiscrimatory comment on this page. I don’t particularly care whether the editor came here as a result of Molyneux’s tweet. If they stay civil and keep their bigotry to themselves then they are allowed and indeed encouraged to participate (disruption elsewhere aside). R2 (bleep) 15:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ahrtoodeetoo:—If they stay civil and keep their bigotry to themselves then they are allowed and indeed encouraged to participate (disruption elsewhere aside).—I beg your pardon? Are you assuming I have some bigotry to keep to myself? That is to say, are you calling me a bigot? I'm going to chalk this up to poor turn of phrase and not a personal attack. Who cares how I found the tweet? I consider Molyneux to be a crazed (and blatantly racist) muppet, by the way. Clearly the page needed a {{recruiting}} tag, I just didn't know the right template so brought this to your attention and you added it. Why am I on trial, Drmies? You both need to stop shooting the messenger. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 14:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Psiĥedelisto, I'm not even talking about you. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

You may not have been, but the admin who replied to you (R2) obviously was… Psiĥedelisto (talk) 03:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

In your previous post you said "I'm going to chalk this up to poor turn of phrase and not a personal attack". Now you say "[y]ou may not have been, but the admin who replied to you (R2) obviously was". I think those are two quite different stances. And I happen to agree with your first expressed sentiment. "[P]oor turn of phrase" says it well. Bus stop (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Please double bracket the term "fake news."

I didn't realize that Wikipedia had an article devoted to the topic of fake news. Please double bracket this term in the Jeffrey Epstein article so that a link to the article on fake news is created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.83.213 (talk) 03:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done The source didn't even mention fake news at all. I cleaned it up and moved it to the correct paragraph. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Pictures confirmed as underage????

This statement appears to be an exaggeration: "Some of the photos were confirmed as those of underage females." According to the citation, a lawyer for one of the alleged victims says the picture is of her when she was underage. I don't think this qualifies as "confirmed." If the lawyer claimed his client slept with Epstein we wouldn't call that "confirmed." --73.151.157.60 (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Epstein "belonged to intelligence", Khashoggi, Iran-contra

According to investigative journalist Vickie Ward, who has been covering the Epstein case since 2002, Alexander Acosta, the than U.S. attorney who cut Epstein a sweetheart deal back in 2007, did so because he had "been told" to back off. "I was told Epstein 'belonged to intelligence' and to leave it alone," he reportedly claimed.

• https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/investigative-journalist-explains-why-jeffrey-epstein-might-have-needed-a-fake-passport : "When Acosta gave a press conference last week, the one preceding his eventual resignation, he was asked about whether Epstein being an intelligence asset had something to do with the sweetheart deal. Acosta acknowledged the reporting on this, did not outright deny it as completely untrue, and said guidelines prohibited him from addressing it directly."

• https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/alexander-acosta-dodges-when-asked-if-jeffrey-epstein-was-an-intelligence-asset

--93.211.215.111 (talk) 06:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I've seen this bandied about, and honestly, stranger things have happened. That being said, this is definitely a WP:REDFLAG situation, and I would want to see fairly widespread coverage before including a claim like this. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 06:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• Acosta did say it, as can be reliably sourced [14]. That had happened during his nomination to his position. What does it mean is another question. "He’d cut the non-prosecution deal with one of Epstein’s attorneys because he had “been told” to back off, that Epstein was above his pay grade." He was told - by whom? My very best wishes (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, per WP:REDFLAG, I, personally, would want to see this from more than one source before including it. That being said, I am frequently wrong and consensus may well be against me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

In 1995 Jeffery Epstein was member of the [15]: [16] Redacted (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.31.90.26 (talk)

So you imply that Acosta made the deal because Epstein was a member of this organization? But we need some RS telling this directly. Otherwise, we can not include it anywhere. My very best wishes (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Here a fairly widespread coverage for "belonged to intelligence":

* The Daily Beast - Jeffrey Epstein’s Sick Story Played Out for Years in Plain Sight

* The Observer - (John R. Schindler, a Ex NSA analyst trying to spin the story towards the KGB and Mossad *eyeroll*) It Sure Looks Like Jeffrey Epstein Was a Spy—But Whose?: ... "instead proffering this strange word salad" ...

* Institute for Public Accuracy - Epstein: Protected Because He Is a Spy? — A Backgrounder: "Ward ... on “Democracy Now!” on Monday: “This is a man who definitely trades in the knowledge he has over the rich and famous, and uses it for leverage. He also introduces rich and famous people, like Bill Clinton, like Donald Trump, to girls.”... Ghislaine Maxwell... daughter of Robert Maxwell... Seymour Hersh alleged in his book The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy that Maxwell was tied to the Israeli Mossad. Hersh was sued for the allegation, but then received an apology... Barr, who spent years at the CIA, stated he would recuse himself on the Epstein matter on Monday and then reversed himself on Tuesday. Barr helped cover up the Iran-Contra scandal by approving the pardons of Elliott Abrams and other officials who were caught in illegal activity. In 1973, Epstein got his start as a math teacher thanks to Barr’s father, Donald Barr, who was headmaster of the elite Dalton School despite Epstein not having a college degree. His New York Times obituary notes that Donald Barr belonged to the Office of Strategic Services (better known as the OSS, the precursor to the CIA). ... " Julie K. Brown of the Miami Herald has named two women — Virginia Roberts Giuffre and Sarah Ransome — who say that Epstein, when they were very young, directed them to have sex with Alan Dershowitz. Yet, the New York Times and other media continue to reference and even quote Dershowitz about the case without noting that he has been thus accused. Dershowitz was also one of Esptein’s lawyers when Acosta agreed to the non-prosecution agreement. The Times has recently noted that Dershowitz attacked the Herald‘s reporting in an attempt to deprive them of a Pulitzer. A piece by Annie Karni and Maggie Haberman quoted him saying that if you didn’t know Epstein and Trump in the 80s, “you were a nobody” — again, without noting that Dershowitz has so far been accused by two of Epstein’s victims. ... Dershowitz participated in the “Israeli assassination committee that reviews evidence before terrorists are targeted and killed.” Said Dershowitz: “I actually sat in on one of the committee meetings.”"

* Vanity Fair - “It’s Going to Be Staggering, the Amount of Names”: As the Jeffrey Epstein Case Grows More Grotesque, Manhattan and DC Brace for Impact

* The Cut - New York Magazine - What We Know About Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein’s Alleged Madam: "Epstein and Maxwell acted as the leaders of an “organized crime family”"

* from the Left: Rawstory WATCH: Acosta gives a cryptic response when asked if Jeffrey Epstein is an intelligence asset

* CounterPunch Did Jeffrey Epstein “Belong to Intelligence?”: "Since World War Two, the United States has built itself into a “national security state” which recognizes no ethical or legal constraints. It’s doesn’t exist to protect the American public. It exists to protect itself. And, too often, it protects the predators among us."

--87.170.194.205 (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Technical and personal continuity in OPs

For all interessed in the technical and personal continuity → great read → Whitney Webb: Hidden in Plain Sight: The Shocking Origins of the Jeffrey Epstein Case - Epstein is only the latest incarnation of a much older, more extensive and sophisticated operation that offers a frightening window into how deeply tied the U.S. government is to the modern-day equivalents of organized crime.: Quote: " ...Samuel Bronfman’s children and grandchildren, their family’s ties to the criminal underworld intact, would later go on to associate closely with Leslie Wexner, allegedly the source of much of Epstein’s mysterious wealth, and other mob-linked “philanthropists”..."

In the US alone, the CIA operated numerous sexual blackmail operations throughout the country, employing prostitutes to target foreign diplomats in what the Washington Post once nicknamed the CIA’s “love traps.” If one goes even farther back into the US historical record it becomes apparent that these tactics and their use against powerful political and influential figures significantly predate the CIA and even its precursor, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS). In fact, they were pioneered years earlier by none other than the American mafia.

Connect the dots from Samuel Bronfman, Lewis Rosenstiel (connected to both the FBI and to Organized Crime), Charles “Lucky” Luciano, Meyer Lansky to J. Edgar Hoover, Roy Cohn & Plaza Hotel & Donald Trump, Ronald Reagan and wife Nancy, William Casey, Bill Barr, Elliott Abrams, Cohn’s network extends to Bill Clinton, whose friend and longtime political advisor, Richard “Dirty Dick” Morris, was Cohn’s cousin and close associate. Part II to come. --87.170.195.145 (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

quote in citation / Removing Jewishness

English language sources are readily accessible online supporting that Jeffrey Epstein is Jewish therefore I don't think it is necessary to include in a citation the quote that "Epstein, a Jewish politically well-connected billionaire, has been charged with sex trafficking".[17] I find at WP:CITE "Quotes are also useful if the source is not easily accessible...In the case of non-English sources, it may be helpful to quote from the original text and then give an English translation." Additionally I don't think any source disputes that Jeffrey Epstein is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

In this talk page you said "Reliable sources say he is Jewish, so we say he is Jewish". Nevertheless in the article page you are continuously removing that he is Jewish. Wouldn't it be better you stopped these obvious "cleansing" activities that lead to back and forth in the article. You could use this talk page to make a case for your contradicting behavior (if there is a case)?--BalancedIssues (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The fact that he is Jewish is mentioned, but must be kept in line with WP:DUE. While factual, it is simply not a major part of his notability. Also, perhaps you haven't noticed, but "back and forth" is sort of the raison d'être of this place. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually, user Bus stop always removed it, so it is removed. Why is it "undue" to mention that Epstein is "Jewish"? Also, multiple "back and forth" of always the same words are the "raison d'être" here? Je ne crois pas.--BalancedIssues (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Debate is often repetitive, and rarely efficient. So it goes! And the article still includes that Epstein was born to Jewish parents, which, I think in light of what we know and the reason for the subject's notability, is enough. Reasonable minds may differ, but thus far, I am with Bus stop on this once. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

You are not with Bus stop as he said "Reliable sources say he is Jewish, so we say he is Jewish".

Also, sources describe him as "Jewish" or an "American Jewish" business man. Sources also say Epsteins partners during his career were almost exclusively Jewish: he worked for a Jewish bank (Bear Stern), with Jewish partners (Hoffenberg, Weinstein, Zuckerman,...), with Jewish clients (Wexner). So against all sources continuously directly mentioning his Jewishness it should be omitted because you don't feel like it?--BalancedIssues (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

BalancedIssues—the lasciviousness for which he is now legally culpable has nothing to do with his being Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 00:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

BalancedIssues--Thanks very much for telling me where I stand. Ever so helpful. Dumuzid (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bus stop, this is an article about Jeffrey Epstein. The sources about Epstein say he is "Jewish" and an "American Jewish" business man, so the sources don't omit it. Even though you reverted this wikipedia article several times to the opposite the sources still don't seem to pick up your personal wishes. There are no sources for your private theories which seem to have the logic base that Epstein's Jewishness had no effect on his behavior in life and his criminality.--BalancedIssues (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

BalancedIssues—are any sources saying that his Jewishness had bearing on his alleged criminality? Bus stop (talk) 01:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

That is not a relevant question and one should not feed trolling activities. (But maybe you should read this article here [[18]] )--BalancedIssues (talk) 07:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Just to point out, BalancedIssues, you are linking to an article that makes no mention of Jewishness. Bus stop (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

(direct inline answer: this source shows that it is not yet clear if Epstein was or was not involved in Ponzi schemes and if Epstein did or did not use his Jewish network to promote his activities. Various sources report that Epstein`s former (Jewish) business partner admitted that half a billion USD vanished in their common Ponzi scheme and that Epstein would have funneled the money only to his personal entities; at the same time many sources report Epstein was never able to explain what is the source of his half a billion USD wealth that he reportedly has; the sources say those links are being investigated but no source supports your private theories like that there is no connection when you argue on this talk page: "Jeffrey Epstein's crimes didn't have anything to do with his being Jewish, whereas Madoff's crimes related to his being Jewish".)--BalancedIssues (talk) 11:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

• It is a relevant question. WP:DUE weight is decided, in part, based on how relevant things are to the notability of the article's subject. There's no indication that Epstein's faith is relevant to his notability or to his crimes (which are the most notable thing about him), ergo there's no particular reason to emphasize it or to give it focus when discussing them. It's mentioned briefly in the article at a few points where it logically comes up, but there's no reason for us to give it any particular focus. --Aquillion (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Just to contradict what some editors seem interested to claim: I never argued for "prominent mentioning" or "giving focus" or “emphasizing” the fact that Epstein is Jewish. What I said is that this Wikipedia article shouldn’t have a double standard and suppress or omit the fact of Epstein being Jewish as those facts are also not suppressed or omitted in many other article about Jewish people. In those other articles the "Jewishness" is also not relevant to the notability of the respective persons, so it is not clear what is the reason that some editors want that J. Epstein should be handled differently compared to common practice.--BalancedIssues (talk) 11:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Especially there should no (edit-warring like) repeating "cleansing" activities be needed in the article space like one author is doing it, even against what he says in the talk page, instead of discussing it first--BalancedIssues (talk) 11:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

BalancedIssues—what point are you trying to make when you introduce the Daily Beast article to this discussion? It makes no mention of Jewishness. You are adding "Removing Jewishness" to the section heading so I am assuming you feel that insufficient prominence has been given to Jeffrey Epstein being Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Add both Clinton & Trump's claims about never went to Epstein island?

I suggest to add a paragraph about both Bill Clinton & Donald Trump claims that they never went to Epstein Island. How about the draft sentence below? I tried to include both point of views (POV), with their respective sources & quotes.

Both Bill Clinton and Donald Trump claimed that they never visited Epstein's island.

Sources

Francewhoa (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

---

It would be more interesting if it was the NYT and WaPo. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Clinton has "credibility issues": Monica Lewinsky → “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”, credible sexual assault accusations from Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey, among others. Virginia Roberts Giuffre stated in an affidavit that she saw Bill Clinton on Epstein’s private island in the US Virgin Islands: link. "In 2002 and 2003, President Clinton took a total of four trips on Jeffrey Epstein’s airplane" Why only that "2002 to 2003" period? Clinton’s statement claims a “total of four trips” on Epstein’s “Lolita Express” amid widespread reports of at least 26 trips aboard.

During the 2016 race, a woman going by the name Katie Johnson sued Trump, stated Trump had raped her at one of Epstein’s parties when she was 13. She later dropped the suit -- after receiving death threats. Trump is well-known globally as a pathological liar. --87.170.203.224 (talk) 10:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

"A 2016 lawsuit alleged that Trump raped a 13-year-old girl in Epstein's Manhattan residence in 1994. The suit was voluntarily dismissed on November 4, 2016. The suit alleged that Epstein raped her afterwards and then the pair told her that she and her family would be killed if she ever spoke about what happened. The suit also alleged that Trump attended at least four parties at the residence." here - --87.170.200.213 (talk) 06:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

You need to add up to date info

He was found injured in a ny cell and rushed to hospital — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.167.109.254 (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

It's already in the article, see the Jeffrey Epstein#Trafficking charges section. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Undue weight

The amount of material covering Trump's supposed connection to Epstein is completely disproportionate to the material covering leftist connections to Epstein. Fix it. 2601:644:877F:F6D8:D5EA:30C6:8CF:FA72 (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

You may be right but I think your suggestion should be more concrete. What should be added, concerning "leftist connections to Epstein", and what sources support it? You say "Fix it." Is that a command? Bus stop (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)