Talk:Jeffrey Epstein/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

"financier" in lede

Some editors argued for omitting "unnecessary" facts in the lede (and to have those in the article text). Is there any opposition to omitting "financier" is the lede? At least a hint in the lede that according to sources this is an image that Epstein paid to be promoted about himself?

According to latest sources it was mainly Epstein himself who promoted his image as 'billionaire financier' and he paid several journalists to paint this image what wouldn't be necessary if he was a real billionaire financier. Latest filings of his lawyers already showed that he is definitively not a 'billionaire'. Latest sources also make it very questionable whether Epstein's was a 'financier'. The sources document that his (primary) target seemed to be to finance 'himself' and his life-style and that he invested money (of unknown source) mainly in the general market - like everybody would do to "store" your money if you don't want to pile cash in your drawer ('Financier' would be a person whose (primary) occupation is either facilitating or directly providing investments to companies and businesses.).--BalancedIssues (talk) 08:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

How about the following start of the lede:

Jeffrey Edward Epstein (born January 20, 1953) is an American registered sex offender. Epstein began his career in finance at the investment bank Bear Stearns, before claiming to have various activities in the finance industry.

--BalancedIssues (talk) 09:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:CLAIM. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Financier is a key part of the subject's identity, public perception, and story; it belongs in the lede. It may eventually be proven that he moved no money for any clients in a legally responsible or professional capacity, only a fraudulent one, but that is unlikely to be the case.Cedar777 (talk) 00:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Throughout the article in multiple locations it is made clear that he is a financier. It is clear that for 20 years he was Leslie Wexner's – the man of great fortune, in the billions – main financial adviser. Also a google news search shows 2,200,000 search results for "financier Jeffrey Epstein". I recommend no change to the lead in terms of this descriptor. -- Guest2625 (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

As I've said many times, plenty of US citizens have convictions for sexual offenses, but it wouldn't lead to them having a Wikpedia article. Epstein is notable because of his wealth as a financier and very well connected address book.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

As to sources it is now revealed that Epstein didn't earn his wealth as a 'financier' but with high fees as an aggressive tax consultant to rich people that he approached with a lot of lies. See below. (According to his former business partner Hoffenberg, Epstein was his co-conspirator in a Ponzi scheme and that would also be the opposite of a financier)--BalancedIssues (talk) 07:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

No doubt he is still labeled with the buzz-word ‘financier’ in various sources, maybe partly even caused by the fact he is labelled ‘financier’ in the lede in Wikipedia. But those sources report that it is now known that his main commercial activity was to get tax and financial advisory mandates from wealthy individuals and his main business model was to get advisory fee income for that. His focus was reportedly on tax advisory because there you can get high short-term financial advantages for wealth clients if you do it aggressively what he reportedly did (moving money offshore and so on). If he acted predominantly as a real ‘financier’ his main activities would be more the opposite, having own wealth or a fund and wanting to invest his money in his client’s companies or assets. So in realty he mainly believed in tax advantages for wealthy clients and the fees he would get from aggressive (tax) strategies and not in investing in his clients like a financier would do. Should Wikipedia go for the buzz word’s like ‘financier’ still used in sources and their headings (and that Epstein paid the press to be report like this) or should Wikipedia reflect the content of the new reports now revealing that his main focus was to get (tax) consultancy fees (what he always tried to hide but is now revealed, according to sources) ? .--BalancedIssues (talk) 07:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, you are mistaken both about the meaning of "financier", and Wikipedia procedures. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Not really helpful to state that others are mistaken (and obviously implying to know it better) but not with one word elaborating why. Are you implying that tax consultants are 'financiers'? Or only those tax consultants that reinvest their fees to pay the press to picture them as 'financiers'?--BalancedIssues (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Provide reliable secondary sources that outweigh the overwhelming number of reliable secondary sources that describe him as a financier. Provide sources for "investing in his clients like a financier would do" being the meaning of financier. Provide sources showing that the descriptions of him as a manager of trusts and charities and as an investor are false. Cite wikipedia policy (such as WP:DUE) and demonstrate that your sources should be given such weight against others. Further, demonstrate that you are not a WP:SPA here with an agenda of defaming, if it is possible to do so, this person. —DIYeditor (talk) 09:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

"Billionaire financier Jeffrey Epstein found injured in jail cell: media" We aren't deciding that he is a "financier". We are merely following the precedent set by sources. Bus stop (talk) 09:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

answer: two days before your cited Reuters source Reuters reported Epstein saying he is worth USD 559 million in [1]. In your Reuters citation two days later, they report him as a billionaire without mentioning the contradiction. Just saying that there are easily inconsistent "precedents set by (even the same) sources" depending which sources you rely on for the Epstein article. --BalancedIssues (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The Cambridge Dictionary defines "financier" in American English as "someone who controls a large amount of money and can give or lend it to people or organizations". Seems OK. Epstein is very wealthy, exactly how he achieved this is the subject of some debate.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

answer: by your picked definition everybody with a large amount of money would be a financier if he is not forbidden to lend it to others. If you pick the following definition [2] a "financier" would be "a person, company, or government that provides money for projects or businesses" which to my humble experience is more in line with what is generally understood by "financier". --BalancedIssues (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not contradicting that there more than 10 million of google entries when you search for "epstein financier". There are also more than 10 million of google entries when you search for "epstein billionaire" and that won't change for a long time even though Epstein just admitted he is no billionaire. I will not change the lede as there are some editors correctly saying that "financier" is still what most of the press has written about Epstein (over decades). But that doesn't change the fact that (well researched) sources increasingly show that this "financier" image as his predominant occupation is more and more inconsistent with new facts that are continuously revealed, against what Epstein reportedly paid journalists to write about. The following article by a Bloomberg editor seems to be better researched than many daily reporting [3].--BalancedIssues (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The Accounting Today article is well written and confirms that the source of Epstein's wealth is a bit of mystery. He has a tendency towards opaque accounts, but the Wikipedia article has to be careful about implying that there is something dodgy going on.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia should not imply anything if those implications are not sufficiently reported in reasonable sources in a believable manner.--BalancedIssues (talk) 09:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

One additional angle to fact-check "Financier": If Epstein was primarily the wealthy "Financier" for decades there would by now be many companies and projects having been financed by him. According to sources this is not the case which means there is "silence" about the giving and receiving side of Epstein's alleged "Financier" activities (many companies and projects like Google, Facebook, Apple got funds from billionaire financiers and this is generally widely covered; clearly only Epstein is missing on any coverage about billionaires having financed companies which is awkward if "Financier" is said to be Epstein's predominant occupation, unlike many other billionaire financiers who have other main occupations). As sources increasingly start to cast doubt with regards to his self-ascribed "Fiancier" as main occupation, Wikipedia should soon be inclined to mention those doubts as long as Wikipedia descibes him as "Financier", maybe not today, but soon.--BalancedIssues (talk) 09:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

New revelations about Epstein

See here. He was interested in transhumanism and eugenics and wanted to start a “baby ranch” where scores of women would be inseminated with his sperm. Why these types of guys always think THEIR OWN DNA is somehow superior and most worth being passed on, I’ll never know. 97.116.77.170 (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

A weird false apologizing line about New Mexico's age of consent

In the section about the 2006 NPA is this quote:

"Age of consent in Florida and St. Thomas is 18 but in many other states it is lower, e.g. 17 in New York, 14 in New Mexico. Epstein's plea of procuring prostitution with an anonymous older minor thereby reduced the degree of crime classification for registration as a sex offender and minimized the perceived severity of the crime in the eyes of the public. In February 2011 the NY Post quotes Epstein: “I’m not a sexual ‘predator’, I’m an ‘offender’. It’s the difference between a murderer and a person who steals a bagel.” Formally committing the U.S. government to agree to call a minor a prostitute was also controversial."

but the age of consent in New Mexico is also 17. This is a very weird place to get such an easily verifiable fact wrong, especially with the apologetics that follow it. I'm revising that section.

MykalGroll (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Non-prosecution agreement section is not encyclopedic- needs work

The NPA section currently reads more like a blog and is in need of revision. While the numerous outgoing links inserted by editors may serve to point a reader to a source for more information, it is not aligned with how Wikipedia entries are written. The content gets distilled by the editor(s) with a numerical citation to the source, not a hot link to a web address in article. The repetition of five outgoing hot links to articles in the NPA section disrupts the flow and forces the reader to do the distilling. I am sure that there is relevant information linked in the section but wanted to address this issue and the logic behind it before making any changes to the page. Kind Regards Cedar777 (talk) 03:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Hoo-boy. Yeah, there is a lot of good information there, but it is not presented in an encyclopedic manner. I may try a bold edit in a bit that will substantially cut that section down. Thanks for mentioning this. Dumuzid (talk) 03:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Me again -- I took a whack at it. Suffice it to say I will not be offended in the least if people revert/edit/improve. Cheers all. Dumuzid (talk) 03:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

"Interest in eugenics and transhumanism": 2 unrelated subjects, tenuous evidence relating to "eugenics" interest, and questionable relevance of transhumanist beliefs

There are three serious problems with this section:

1. This section is a strange mashup of facts about Epstein's interest in transhumanism and eugenics, using 1 reference full of innate bias against transhumanism (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/business/jeffrey-epstein-eugenics.html) which falsely alludes to an equivalence between the two as evidence. Transhumanism is defined by dictionary.com as "a philosophy that explores human transcendence above or beyond organic, corporeal limitations through technological and philosophical evolution.", and neither this nor any actual issues promoted by transhumanists promote the selective superiority of any humans over any other humans.
2. Epstein's interest in "eugenics" is really just his desire to spread his own genes, which (though clearly excessive and drawing from an inflated ego in Epstein's case) is fairly common and does not directly pertain to the desire to promote the selective superiority or inferiority of any human ethnic groups. Should we call any human being who has an exceptionally large family, or perhaps anyone who donates sperm to a sperm bank, a eugenicist?
3. Even though Epstein clearly had an interest in transhumanism, the manner which it is included in this article (as a concluding footnote in the end, and especially alongside the eugenics assertion) seems like an arbitrary effort to paint Epstein as crazy for supporting transhumanism. Epstein had no more connection to transhumanism than any other personal belief he may have declared at any point, and if people still consider this relevant it should be as a single sentence elsewhere in the article and not as its own section McSchwangstasis (talk) 02:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by McSchwangstasis (talk • contribs) 14:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

This is not a WP:FORUM to discuss transhumanism. We go by sources. Please be more specific as to which text is WP:UNDUE or not cited to a WP:RS. I don't get the same impression you are getting from that section, that it is dismissive of transhumanism or unfairly paints Epstein as crazy. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2019

Please add:

"A 2019 pending lawsuit in New York, alleged that Epstein used "MC2 Model Management", a the international modeling agency, to recruit girls as young as 13 from Europe, Ecuador and Brazil. According to the sworn statement of a former agency bookkeeper in her 2010 deposition in the civil case, Epstein paid for their visas and put them in an apartment he owned on 66th Street in Manhattan." Source:

• https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article220097825.html
• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-13/a-billionaire-and-a-sex-offender-the-wexner-and-epstein-ties 93.211.215.111 (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

At one point he had a $1 million investment in ″MC2 Model Management″. Source:

• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-29/victoria-s-secret-has-more-than-a-jeffrey-epstein-problem

 Not done appears to be already covered in Jeffrey_Epstein#Residences.

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2019

Replace Steans with Stearns 209.122.211.116 (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• This isn't in the current version of the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2019

He died of a suicide in Manhattan according to ABC 7 https://abc7news.com/sources-jeffrey-epstein-dies-by-suicide-in-manhattan-jail/5457853/ 71.241.217.188 (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

NBC 4 New York has the same, and is citing three sources. They say he was found dead by hanging at 7:30ET. I think we really need this to be protected. Coasterghost (talk) 13:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I have asked that Cause of Death be hidden in the infobox to prevent an edit war. Emigdioofmiami (talk) 13:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Remove the vandalism

It says suicided by the Clinton's under death, please be sure to remove this and other vandalism Baboo222 (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2019

Under the cause of death in the Infobox, remove “(Clinton's suicided him).” This is unsourced and a pizzagate-tier conspiracy theory about the Vlintons. It has no place on Wikipedia. 2604:6000:1503:8A65:D17C:A319:6F68:3831 (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

It's been removed. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2019

Add to the line in Death section: After that incident, he was placed on suicide watch, but he was not on suicide watch at the time of his death.[211] Mikethewhistle-original (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources

Done. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

I just deleted a bunch of conspiracy theories from the article and the lead, including at least one that accused certain people of murdering Epstein. Please read WP:BLP; we absolutely can't pass along this kind of rumor no matter who says it. User:MarvellingLiked, thank you for trying to add to the article, but please be more careful to stay within Wikipedia guidelines. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC) Oops, it wasn't MarvellingLiked who originally added it; it was User:Soibangla. You know better than that. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Keep/Rephrase? Wouldn't the conspiracy theories — at least a brief mention of them — be notable enough for the lead? (See Vince Foster, etc.) Claims that he was murdered have received significant notoriety, even from mainstream reporters, and a statement like this (even if it is baseless) from the President of the United States seems notable by default. (Even if it is Trump) I'm sure we could rephrase a lot of this stuff, however, to better meet Wikipedia guidelines. And I was just summarizing what was already posted below. MarvellingLiked (talk) 00:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Certainly not for the lead, and I don't want to see them in the article text either. Trump may not have any standards, in terms of what kind of accusations can be leveled at living people, but we do. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2019

On 10 August 2019 at about 6:30 a.m. Epstein was “found unresponsive in his cell in the Special Housing Unit” at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC), according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Fire officials received a call at 6:39 a.m. that Epstein was in cardiac arrest. MCC staff tried to revive him. The New York Post reported that a gurney carrying a man who looked like Epstein was wheeled out of the MCC. At around 7:30 a.m. the photos showed EMTs using a breathing apparatus in an attempt to revive Epstein as he was wheeled out of the MCC into the Presbyterian-Lower Manhattan Hospital. Later he was pronounced dead at the hospital. Epstein’s death came less than a day after a court unsealed documents in a civil suit.

Attorney General William Barr said he was "appalled" and that Epstein’s death "raises serious questions that must be answered". Barr stated the FBI and the DOJ’s inspector general were investigating the circumstances of his death. Epsteins apparent suicide in federal custody in New York prompted outrage among lawyers seeking justice for victims. Eva Ford, the mother one victim, said: "How does someone who is this high profile commit suicide? They had to have cameras on him! Someone must have been paid to look the other way". Jack Scarola, a lawyer who representeds several victims stated: ″Epstein once again cheated his victims out of an opportunity for justice. While I’m sure none of them regret his death, all of them regret the information that died with him. The one expectation is that Epstein’s death not derail the investigation into others who participated in his criminal activities. There are named and unnamed co-conspirators who still need to be brought to justice″.

Sorces:

• https://nypost.com/2019/08/10/photos-show-jeffrey-epstein-as-hes-wheeled-into-downtown-hospital
• https://www.timesofisrael.com/as-anger-spreads-probes-opened-into-how-epstein-had-chance-to-kill-himself
• https://www.newsmax.com/headline/us-apnewsalert/2019/08/10/id/928120
• https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-attorney-general-william-p-barr-death-jeffrey-epstein
• https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article233742972.html 87.170.206.165 (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

We may wind up including some of this material in the article. We will certainly not use NYPost or Newsmax as sources when we do, as they are not considered to be Reliable Sources. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

You linked to the wrong MCC page, this is the correct one Metropolitan_Correctional_Center,_New_York Shushugah (talk) 12:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Misleadingly written description of Clinton relationship

The description of Epstein's relationship with Clinton is written in an ambiguous way. It says:

A Clinton spokesperson later stated in 2019 Clinton took four trips on Epstein's airplane, making stops on three continents, all with his staff and Secret Service detail.

The statement was made in 2019; the trips were made from 2001 to 2003. I can't help but wonder if this text was intentionally written to be ambiguous. Can someone please fix this?72.140.133.233 (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Done. -Sai ¿?✍ 13:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Submitted for your approval, under "Death"

What do you think, MelanieN?

The circumstances of his death raised conspiracy speculation on social media, particularly relating to former president Bill Clinton and then-president Donald Trump..[185] Clinton had worked with Epstein on matters relating to the Clinton Foundation in the early 2000s, flying on Epstein's jet 26 times.[186][187] Trump had a personal friendship with Epstein dating back at least fifteen years through 2002.[188] Hours after Epstein's death, President Trump joined the conspiracy speculation when he retweeted a conspiracy theory that Clinton may have been involved in Epstein's death, including the hashtag #ClintonBodyCount.[189]

soibangla (talk) 00:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Trump retweets Epstein conspiracy theory, claiming Clinton connection, NBC 2601:602:9200:3120:613A:73D4:9700:BB8E (talk) 01:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I totally oppose including any speculation that accuses named, living people of murder. No matter who retweets it or what newspapers report on it. IMO it would be totally irresponsible for us to promote the spread this kind of stuff. I'm tempted to go beyond WP:BLP and think it approaches libel. What do others think? -- MelanieN (talk) 03:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

So you are here to gatekeep the opinion of an elected official away from this website regardless of what reliable sources report? 2601:602:9200:3120:613A:73D4:9700:BB8E (talk) 03:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

If Trump said something and NBC reported on it, that sounds notable to me. We already have a Clinton Body Count redirect (it may have once been an article). From BLP perspective I just wouldn't worry about major figures like Trump or Clinton with regard to something with this amount of published reporting. We're just a drop in the bucket at worst. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 03:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Including a discussion of this on Wikipedia is not speculation and possible libel by Wikipedia; it is a reporting about speculation and possible libel by the President of the United States. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

We have a sentence in the article now that reports the existence of conspiracy theories without naming anyone. I am fine with that. We also now have a whole new article, Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories, where details can go. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2019: Comey

Please add:

Maurene Comey, daughter of former FBI Director James Comey and an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York, is a prosecutor in the 2019 criminal case against Epstein.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/06/us/jeffrey-epstein-arrest-sex-trafficking-indictment/index.html 87.170.197.207 (talk) 14:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Not a notable fact about Epstein.--Nowa (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Date of death

The date of death in the actual article says April 10th and then speaks about his suicide attempt 3 weeks prior in July. He died August 10th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.31.105.143 (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2019 --> Please change his month of death (near the bottom of the article) from April to August

Please change his month of death (near the bottom of the article) from April to August 77.125.2.131 (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 19:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2019 - 2010 Yom Kippur + Prince Andrew party at his home

please add to "Personal life":

In 2010, just a few months after after Epstein completed his 13 months detention in Palm Beach, he, with the help of the prominent New York publicist Peggy Siegal, hosted at his home in Manhattan a “Break the Fast” after Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish year and day of atonement — hundred friends and celebrities came, some brought their children. A few months later, on 2 December 2010, Epstein hosted a party for his friend, Prince Andrew, Duke of York, with several celebrities showing up.

Sources:

• https://www.salon.com/2019/07/09/i-was-a-friend-of-jeffrey-epstein-heres-what-i-know
• https://www.thedailybeast.com/katie-couric-woody-allen-jeffrey-epsteins-society-friends-close-ranks
• https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/13/nyregion/jeffrey-epstein-new-york-elite.html
• https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/fashion/peggy-siegal-publicist-oscars.html
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kElppWEBgwE 87.170.204.127 (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Note (still generally unanswered request): https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/13/nyregion/jeffrey-epstein-new-york-elite.html may be the only usable source above, —PaleoNeonate – 11:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not doneThe only original source for the Yom Kippur breakfast is the daily beast report. That article was making the point that he was popular because many people considered him brilliant and those that knew him were unaware of his pedophilia. You might want to reconsider rewording your requested changes to be more in line with the source. --Nowa (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Powerball winning in 2008, according to Medium.com

Is this worth mentioning?: "Jeffrey Epstein won the Oklahoma Powerball lottery, July 2, 2008" - Published August 10, 2019

https://medium.com/@nathanielhebert/did-jeffrey-epstein-win-the-oklahoma-powerball-lottery-july-2-2008-d23d2b0933e5

74.101.202.221 (talk) 11:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

It's interesting but rather speculative. As ever, Epstein's financial affairs are opaque. The article suggests a link but it stops short of being a knockout punch.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Info Box

'Paris' is listed under Residence. Is this Paris, France, Paris, Texas or Paris, Maine? Would an editor in the know please refine this location. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.130.59.43 (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

It is Paris, France, per the New York Times and others. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 15:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Updated wiki article to reflect that Shushugah (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Possibility Epstein body is a double.

We should add this to the conspiracy section. AHC300 (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Only if it is getting reported in reliable sources - can you provide a source? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

People on Twitter are having a great time with this claim, eg here. Normal rules of WP:EXCEPTIONAL apply.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Complete case listing

I'd like to have a complete list of Epstein-related litigation with proper citations to the actual cases (not just articles about them).

I just ran a search on PACER Case Locator, and Google Scholar, as well as adding cross-references I found in other documents. I excluded cases involving Jeffrey A. / M. Epstein, (this one is E.), bankruptcy cases, cases about (or represented by) a Jeffrey Epstein who is a lawyer, and one frivolous case mentioning him offhand.

I was able to find substantiation of the following cases (listed in ~chronological order of filing):

Extensive list

Feinberg, et al v. Gonsalves, et al, No. 1:86-cv-749 (D.D.C.) Stroll v. Epstein, No. 1:92-cv-1021, 818 F.Supp. 640 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) USA v. Epstein, et al, No. 1:92-mj-2283 (S.D.N.Y.) USA v. Epstein, et al, No. 1:93-cr-193 (E.D.N.Y.) USA v. Epstein, No. 1:93-mj-73 (E.D.N.Y.) Pierce Segerberg PC, et al v. Epstein, No. 1:95-cv-1109 (D. Colo.) USA v. Epstein, et al, No. 1:96-cv-8307, 27 F.Supp.2d 404 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) Mamberg f/k/a Epstein v. Epstein, 272 AD 2d 200, 707 N.Y.S.2d 439 (N.Y. App. Div., 1st Dept. 2000) Epstein v. Epstein, 289 AD 2d 78, 734 N.Y.S.2d 144 (N.Y. App. Div., 1st Dept. 2001) Financial Trust Company & Epstein v Citibank, No. 02-cv-108, (D.V.I.), 268 F.Supp.2d 561 (2003); 351 F.Supp.2d 329 (2004) Citibank, N.A. v. Epstein, et al, No. 1:02-cv-5332 (S.D.N.Y.) Shanks v. Wexner et al, No. 2:02-cv-7671 (E.D. Pa.) Securities and Exchange Commission v. Glick et al, No. 1:04-cv-10801 (D. Mass.) Coronel v. ADVO, Inc et al, No. 3:06-cv-1457 (D. Conn.) Golden v. Harding et al, No. 3:06-cv-1470 (D. Conn.) Kelleher v. ADVO, Inc et al, No. 3:06-cv-1422 (D. Conn.) Field v. ADVO, Inc et al, No. 3:06-cv-1481 (D. Conn.) In re Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, No. 06-cf-945AXXXMB (Fla. 15th J. Cir.) Williamson v. Culbro Corp. Pension Fund & Epstein, 41 A.D.3d 229, 838 N.Y.S.2d 524 (N.Y. App. Div., 1st Dept. 2007) Highland Crusader Offshore Partners v. Terrestar Corp., No. 600320/08, 2008 NY Slip Op 32843 (N.Y. Cty. Oct. 14, 2008) Cordero v. Epstein, 22 Misc. 3d 161, 869 N.Y.S.2d 725 (N.Y. Cty. 2008) Ava a/k/a Cordero v. New York Post, No. 115597/07, 2008 NY Slip Op 51281 (N.Y. Cty. June 24, 2008) Ava a/k/a Cordero v. New York Post, 64 A.D.3d 407, 885 N.Y.S.2d 247m 2009 NY Slip Op 5611 (N.Y. App. Div., 1st Dept. 2009) Doe et al v. Epstein, No. 9:08-cv-80069 (S.D. Fla.) Doe v. Epstein, No. 9:08-cv-80119 (S.D. Fla.) Doe v. Epstein, No. 9:08-cv-80232 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2009) Doe v. Epstein, No. 9:08-cv-80380 (S.D. Fla.) Doe v. Epstein, No. 9:08-cv-80381, 611 F.Supp.2d 1339 (S.D. Fla. 2009) B.B. v. Epstein, No. 502008CA03731XXXXMB (Fla. Palm Beach Cty. Cir. Ct. Oct. 8, 2009) Doe v. Epstein et al, No. 9:09-cv-80469 (S.D. Fla.) Doe v. Epstein, No. 9:09-cv-80591 (S.D. Fla.) Doe v. Epstein, No. 9:09-cv-80656 (S.D. Fla.) Does v. USA, No. 08-cv-80736 (S.D. Fla.); 817 F.Supp.2d 1337 (2011); 950 F.Supp.2d 1262 (2013); 2015 WL 11254692 (Apr. 7, 2015); _ (July 6, 2015); 359 F.Supp.3d 1201 (2019) Non-prosecution agreement from In re Epstein filed at ECF No. 361-62, Feb. 10, 2016 Appeals: Nos. 13-12923-C, 13-12926-C, 13-12928-C, & 19-10036-H (11th Cir.) Doe v. Epstein, No. 9:09-cv-80802 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 18, 2009) Doe v. Epstein et al, No. 9:08-cv-80804 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 3, 2008) C.M.A. v. Epstein et al, No. 9:08-cv-80811 (S.D. Fla.) Doe v. Epstein, No. 9:08-cv-80893 (S.D. Fla.) Doe v. Epstein, No. 9:08-cv-80993 (S.D. Fla.) Doe v. Epstein, No. 9:08-cv-80994 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2009) Epstein v. State, No. 4D09-2554, 16 So. 3d 315 (Fla. D. App., 4th Dist. 2009) Palm Beach Marine Construction, Inc. v. Epstein, No. 9:09-cv-80175 (S.D. Fla.) L.M. v. Espstein, No. 9:09-cv-81092 (S.D. Fla.) Epstein v. Edwards, No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB (Fla. Palm. Beach Cty. Cir. Ct. Mar. 17, 2010) Molyneux et al v. Epstein, No. 3:10-cv-34 (D.V.I.) Orseck v. Epstein, No. 1:10-cv-21586 (S.D. Fla.) Doe v. Epstein, No. 9:10-cv-80309 (S.D. Fla.) C.L. v. Epstein, No. 9:10-cv-80447 (S.D. Fla.) J. v. Epstein et al, No. 9:10-cv-81107 (S.D. Fla.) J. v. Epstein et al, No. 9:10-cv-81108 (S.D. Fla.) J. v. Epstein et al, No. 9:10-cv-81109 (S.D. Fla.) J. v. Epstein et al, No. 9:10-cv-81110 (S.D. Fla.) J. v. Epstein et al, No. 9:10-cv-81111 (S.D. Fla.) People v. Epstein, Indict. No. 30129/2010 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010) In re Edwards, No. 112345/10, 2011 NY Slip Op 31081 (N.Y. Cty. April 12, 2011) People v. Epstein, No. 6081, 89 A.D. 3d 570, 933 N.Y.S.2d 239 (N.Y. App. Div., 1st Dept. 2011) Irving H. Picard v. Kahn et al, No. 1:12-cv-2620 (S.D.N.Y.) Edwards v. Epstein, No. 4D14-2282, 178 So. 3d 942 (Fla. D. App., 4th Dist. 2014) Giuffre v. Edwards, No. 4D16-1847, 226 So. 3d 1034 (Fla. D. App., 4th Dist. 2017) Doe v. Black, No. 13-usc-12923, 749 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2014) Doe v. Epstein, No. 13-usc-12926 (11th Cir.) Lederer v. N.Y. Daily News, No. 650400/15, 2016 NY Slip Op 31394 (N.Y. Cty. July 8, 2016) Ransome v. Epstein and Maxwell, No. 15-cv-7433 (S.D.N.Y.), ECF No. 496 (Nov. 2, 2016); 221 F.Supp.3d 472 (Nov. 21, 2016); _ (April 27, 2017); ECF No. 892 (May 3, 2017); 325 F.Supp.3d 428 (2018); _ (Feb. 25, 2019) Johnson v. Trump et al, No. 5:16-cv-797 (C.D. Cal.) Hoffenberg v. Epstein et al, No. 1:16-cv-3989 (S.D.N.Y.) Doe v. Trump et al, No. 1:16-cv-4642 (S.D.N.Y.) Doe v. Trump et al, No. 1:16-cv-7673 (S.D.N.Y.) Giuffre v. Epstein, No. 9:16-mc-81608 (S.D. Fla.) Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 16-cv-3945 (2d Cir.) Doe (Ransome) v. Epstein et al, No. 1:17-cv-616 (S.D.N.Y.) Brown v. Maxwell, Nos. 18-2868-cv, 16-3945-cv(L), 17-1625 (CON), 17-1722(CON) (2d Cir. July 3, 2019) Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 17-cv-1625 (2d Cir.) Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 17-cv-1722 (2d Cir.) Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 18-cv-2868 (2d Cir.) Gerber et al v. The Financial Trust Company et al, No. 1:18-cv-7580 (S.D.N.Y.) Epstein v. Brunel, No. 3D18-1997 (Fla. D. App., 3d Dist. April 24, 2019) Edwards v. Epstein (Fla. Palm Beach County Court, 2018) I wasn't able to find a case #; this is from news reports USA v. Epstein, No. 1:19-cr-490 (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2019) USA v. Epstein, No. 19-cr-2221 (2d Cir.)

The article mentions, but I was unable to find, the following:

1. Maria Farmer v. Epstein and Maxwell (?.D.N.Y. 2019)
2. Jennifer Araoz v. Epstein (2019)

For the latter two, I did a PCL search for Maria Farmer and Jennifer Araoz. Neither is listed on any federal cases (at least not by that name).

I've listed most decisions I could find by formal cite (specific date, ECF #, slip op., published reporter cite, etc). For cases that just have case # & court, I didn't find a decision. (I haven't looked exhaustively, though.) For all decisions listed, though, I verified that they are about this Epstein. The ones that don't have him in the case name are generally about defamation, seal, or the CVRA.

A. Could someone please substantiate the last 2 - provide case #s & courts (and case # for Edwards v Epstein)?

B. Could someone please annotate the list above, and check the various cases involving people not named in the article (e.g. corporations, Orseck, Molyneux, etc - especially the 2006 & earlier cases) to see

• whether in fact those are this Jeffrey (E.) Epstein,
• what they're about, and
• the cites for decisions in the case?

Thanks! -Sai ¿?✍ 12:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

How does his death affect the open civil suits? do they just go away? 76.84.112.61 (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The Miami Herald and the fall of Epstein

I think the Miami Herald articles on Epstein need a better place in this article. This is what got the ball rolling. The Miami Herald published articles on the plea deal. Then Senator Ben Sasse brought up the issue at the confirmation hearing of William Barr. Not too long after that the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York had Epstein arrested as he landed. It is still several months involved, but since Epstein was away in France this whole set of events may have been delayed because of lots of factors. As can be seen from this article [4] Sasse is still a driving force behind the push to investogate Epstein.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, we do cite the Miami Herald article seven times here. But you're saying to make more of a point that it was that article that brought the plea deal to public attention. We do say something like that at the Conspiracy article - in the "possible co-conspirators" section. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

George Mitchell and Bill Richardson

These are two lesser named possible accomplices of Epstein. In part because they have been out of office a while, in part because they are not quite as notable as Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, and maybe in part because of complex bias/avoid bias meaning some want to avoid making a long list of accomplices of Epstein when it seems too politically one sided. It also may be that these two were not heavily named until the document dump a day before Epstein died.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

They are mentioned in passing at the "conspiracy" article. I think that's about all they deserve based on the lack of coverage they have gotten. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

"According to court documents"

filed by Bradley Edwards, Trump banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago.

That sounds awfully persuasive, doesn't it? After all, if it's in a court document, that means it's an official fact, right?

Nope.

The Edwards filing actually said "I learned through a source that Trump banned Epstein from his Maralago Club," which is merely hearsay, and Edwards later conceded "I've heard the rumor that Epstein was kicked out of there for allegedly trying to pick up somebody's daughter, something like that, but I think I did chase that down as far as I could and never was able to confirm it."

Edwards is known to have spoken to Trump. So, who might have the biggest motive to drop a rumor that Trump distanced himself from Epstein? soibangla (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, this appeared in a somewhat sketchy reference in The Washington Post, with the important caveat that said documents were filed by Edwards himself. I think it's important to include that caveat if we have this in the article at all. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Soibangla, for link and context. If we include this, we can start including every single bit of gossip as long as we are framing it properly--that should not be our job. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't use legal standards for inclusion of material as far as I know. And, as far as court documents go, that's about as heady as they come. It's an affidavit, meaning it has to same force behind as sworn testimony does. Additionally, whether or not the source's information was hearsay or not is impossible to tell via an affidavit. You'd have to have the entire court record.71.89.114.35 (talk) 03:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, we can say with the force of sworn testimony that Mr. Edwards heard the information from someone else. The affidavit's rendition of the Mar-a-Lago story is, itself, hearsay. We're plumbing a bit deeper than we really should here. I lean towards leaving this out, but if it is to be included, we really need to specify that it was in court documents filed by Mr. Edwards. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

"It was alleged in Edward's affidavit that Trump banned Epstein from Maralago after he sexually assaulted an underage girl." Something along those lines would make the most sense.71.89.114.35 (talk) 04:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Though I argued it was, in fact hearsay to mention this, I don't think any source has said as much. Now, with the later "rumor" bit added, I think we should remove any mention of hearsay in the actual article and let Edwards' words speak for themselves. Thoughts? Dumuzid (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. soibangla (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• Trying to pick up somebodies daughter" and "sexual assault" are not synonymous. The first implies creepy attempts to connect with a minor, the second implies some form of sexual contact. The problem is some sources use euphamisms so much that "trying to pick up somebodies daughter" is code for "he was running his hands all over the front of her shirt", or even "he was putting his hands down her shirt".John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

nationality Jewish-American or American

In this edit I am opting for the term American. I think that his being Jewish is irrelevant. Bus stop (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

He was born in Brooklyn. He's not Jewish-American, because that's not a nationality. And we don't live in the pre-First-World-War era of Hyphenated Americans. GMG^talk 00:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, "Jewish" (or Jewish-American) is definitely not a nationality. I think there's an option in the template for religion separately, but I'm not seeing any reason to include it, since it's not relevant to his notability. --Aquillion (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

it isnt more irrelevant than him being american. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.237.134.123 (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC) 18:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)~~ If you are jewish trying to scrub negative things that jewish people have done then I'm invoking "conflict of interest" thing at the top of the page (only guessing this because I've seen it a handful of times already on here), that particular word is too personal in the context for you to be removing it unbiased/critically. And a bit of history for you; the jewish people were a close-knit group for long enough that they developed their own genetic traits and cultures, and therefor are both a race and a religion. 99.18.204.223 (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yet people put African-American as a nationality. Things are more complex than one may think.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Artbenis

Artbenis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been prolifically making changes without providing any sources. It's difficult to keep up with them and try to verify the changes. I am hoping they will come here and discuss the style of their edits and the need for reliable sources, avoiding WP:BLP violations, avoiding WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR, etc. Mostly Artbenis needs to be providing sources for statements that aren't included in the existing sources. Just for example this edit did not seem to be reflected in the listed source and would be a BLP violation. Unfortunately this article has attracted some very active and apparently inexperienced editors while being largely left unreviewed by our more experienced editors. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Or for example this edit - are the scare quotes on "helping" from the police report or is this yet another BLP violation? —DIYeditor (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm done reverting, I hope this will attract some other eyes. I assume this is a good faith editor who just doesn't understand how Wikipedia works. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• The 1997 accusations have to do with claims of raping a barely adult young woman. Anyway you put it it is clearly connected with claims of Epstein's criminal activities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

do we need more skepticism towards Epstein's claims

A reading of the coverage of Epstein over the last two months has convinced me that not everyone believes Epstein's claim that he only had clients worth more than $1 billion. I wonder if some of this skepticism towards this claim should be reflected in how we word it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

There's so much skepticism about his money in general. How did he get it? How much did he have? The NYT said his "finances could become a focal point for investigators". I think any changes in our treatment of the subject should wait until the financial autopsy is done. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

However, looking at how we word that sentence - "the company was formed to manage the assets of clients with more than US$1 billion in net worth", Wikipedia's voice, statement of fact - maybe we should modify it with a "supposedly" or something like that. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

To a lot of claims there should be added "supposedly" as new reports are phrased much more cautiously than former reports "pre-revelation". Until now there is a group a editors blocking that.--BalancedIssues (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• Without him having PR connections anymore, there is less pressure to put a certain image. I wonder have his crimes risen to the point where they are worth covering in a seperate article, or would Epstein not be notable except for his crimes?John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories‎ and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Jeffrey Epstein‎

I wanted to note here that I nominated Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories‎ for deletion, and shortly thereafter Death of Jeffrey Epstein‎ was created, which I have also nominated for deletion. We now have three articles, including this one, overlapping on the topic of the death of Jeffrey Epstein. The conspiracy theory article has, of course, become a dumping ground for the various rumors that Clinton flew on the "Lolita Express" and Trump and Epstein took turns raping a thirteen-year-old girl. bd2412 T 23:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• That Clinton flew on the Lolita express is verified. What that actually means is harder to say. On the other hand I remember reading something (but I can't remember what) about Epstein and Clinton travelling years ago. In fact none of these articles have adequate coverage from the past.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2019

For an update to the second charges section I was going to submit a link regarding a raid that the FBI had conducted on Epstein's island. link: https://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-raided-criminal-financier-jeffrey-epsteins-private-island-report-2019-8 Cpb2147 (talk) 04:49, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Not meaning to ignore you here. The raid definitely happened and probably deserves a mention under "investigation". Probably not much more unless significant findings emerge. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Archiving

Right now the default is to archive this page after 30 days. IMO, due to his death the page has become so heavily edited that 30 days is unrealistic. Right now there are 57 titles in the contents listing. Some of the older threads have attracted recent edits this week, but many are weeks old. Anybody think we should reduce the archive default to something more normal, like a week or 10 days? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I would think after the next archiving things would calm down considerably. Is a week or ten days normal? I think thirty days is normal or even short for a heavily edited article, most prominent article on my watch list have an auto archive of 3 to 6 months. Beach drifter (talk) 01:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

You may be right. I was comparing it to articles about highly-visible politicians, many of which are at 7 to 10 days, but checking now I find that even many of them are at 30 days. Most of them tend to have 10 or 12 live discussions at a time, not 57 like this which makes the page very hard to navigate. But maybe things will calm down in a week or so. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I see that a couple of the shorter ones got archived today - but we are still at over 200,000 bytes. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I can definitely agree that 57 headers is pretty crazy, however I'd also be loath to cutoff anything that anyone is commenting on. However it seems the comments on these topics from weeks past are unlikely to garner any productive edits. Beach drifter (talk) 04:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

If there are any current comments then it will not get archived. I think the program is to archive only if there have been no edits for whatever the time period is. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The bot just archived 16 discussions amounting to 60,000 bytes, so I feel better now. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Unknown death in jail

The claim of suicide is not proven and is just a police opinion. How a man who is on suicide watch with 24 hr camera on and manually checked by guards every 15 min commits suicide is near impossible. The death should be listed as unknown until proven otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.55.50 (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

"Jailed multimillionaire financier and accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein has died by suicide, two law enforcement sources said Saturday"[5]. That constitutes support in a source. Bus stop (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Rumors from cops is not source. No autopsy has been preformed. No cause of death from a medical professional has been released. No death certificate has been issued. The only truth is he was found in a jail cell dead hung. Wikipedia is about truth not the spreader of cop rumor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.55.50 (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

This is the perpetual war against saying something until some editor's personal standard of proof is satisfied. It is appropriate to attribute to police the description of it being suicide, as printed by reliable sources. There are conspiracy theories that he was silenced, but that is another topic. Edison (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth -- VX

If we are going to accept cop rumor as fact. Then the claim of drunk guys that see aliens walking around after an all night drunk are also fact according to this new Wikipedia standard.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.55.50 (talk • contribs)

He was no longer on suicide watch. Attorney General Barr has ordered an investigation into how this happened. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

The article should wait before saying that the suicide is a fact. It is still unconfirmed and based on what police told the media.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Correct especially because three weeks ago he was found with damage to his neck he said that was caused by another person. The reason he was in the "special unit" at the time of his death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.55.50 (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

On Friday August 9,2019 over 2,000 documents were released naming many rich and powerful people connected to Jeffery Epstein including Prince Andrew of Great Britain. Less than 24 hours later he is found dead in his cell on Saturday morning August 10,2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.55.50 (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Two Jail guards paid to watch Jeffery were found to both had been asleep for at least three hours and falsified official police logs claiming they checked on him while they were asleep. According to a breaking news story from the New York times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.60.203 (talk) 10:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

According to the Washington post his neck was snapped a clear indication he was murdered. It is not possible for a person to snap their neck unless the were hung from a great height like a gallows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.60.203 (talk) 05:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2019 Epstein, Barak, Wexner and Carbyne

Change: "In 2015, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that Epstein invested in a startup headed by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak."

to: "In 2015, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that Epstein invested in a startup called Reporty Homeland Security (now Carbyne) headed by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak." 87.170.195.115 (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Needs a reference.--Nowa (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)--Nowa (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

The "needed" reference is already linked in the article:

• https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-revealed-jeffrey-epstein-entered-million-dollar-partnership-with-ehud-barak-in-2015-1.7493648

But here somemore:

• https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/world/middleeast/epstein-israel-barak-ehud.html
• https://forward.com/fast-forward/427559/sex-offender-jeffrey-epstein-ehud-barak-investment
• https://www.jta.org/2019/07/23/israel/ehud-barak-wants-to-unseat-netanyahu-but-first-he-has-to-get-the-jeffrey-epstein-monkey-off-his-back
• https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20190712-israels-barak-us-sex-trafficking-suspect-epstein-ties-exposed
• https://www.timesofisrael.com/jeffrey-epstein-was-ehud-baraks-business-partner-as-late-as-2015-report
• https://www.thedailybeast.com/former-irs-agent-heres-how-id-investigate-jeffrey-epsteins-finances
• https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeffrey-epstein-israeli-politician-ehud-barak-often-crashed-at-his-manhattan-apartment-neighbors-say
• https://www.businessinsider.de/the-nyc-building-at-the-center-of-jeffrey-epsteins-web-2019-8
• https://www.calcalistech.com/ctech/articles/0,7340,L-3766639,00.html --87.170.196.238 (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

 Already done {{u|waddie96}} {talk} 09:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Since it seems to fit this section:

please change "Both Clinton[155] and Donald Trump[156] claimed that they never visited Epstein's island."

to "Both Clinton[155] and Donald Trump[156] claimed that they never visited Epstein's island. In 2016 Barak was caught on camera entering Epstein's Manhattan mansion with his face covered and closely followed by four young women, despite his claims he has 'never met Epstein in the company of women or young girls.'"

Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7250009/Netanyahu-challenger-Ehud-Barak-hides-face-enters-entering-Jeffrey-Epsteins-mansion.html

 Not done: I think this addition is great but better suited for Ehud Barak's article and not Epstein's. {{u|waddie96}} {talk} 09:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

4chan got the suicide(?) info early

[6] via HN[7]. Info leak from the hospital or jail I guess, has some unconfirmed medical details, no idea what to make of it. Contains usual 4chan trolling, hold nose before reading. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 03:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Now there's a thing. 99.9% of the time this sort of thread on 4chan would have been trolling, but it looks as though someone did give 4chan a well-placed leak of correct information.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Excerpting just the parts by the poster (minus two redundants) so you don't need to wade through 4ch:

• ID:rPtND1Si Sat 10 Aug 2019 13:16:36 No.222518349 dont ask me how I know, but Epstein died an hour ago from hanging, cardiac arrest. Screencap this
• ID:rPtND1Si Sat 10 Aug 2019 13:21:58 No.222518664 Was called out as a cardiac arrest at the manhattan federal detention facility. Worked asystole for 40 mins
• ID:rPtND1Si Sat 10 Aug 2019 13:31:30 No.222519266 lets say I know. Dont need a glowie coming to my crib. But they declared death at New York Presbyterian Lower Manhattan ER
• ID:rPtND1Si Sat 10 Aug 2019 13:47:56 No.222520442 worked asystole arrest for 40 minutes, als intubated in the field/epi/2 liters NS infused. Telemetry advised bicarb and D50 in field. Pt transported to Lower Manhattan ER and worked for 20 minutes and called. Hospital administrator was alerted, preparing statements

-Sai ¿?✍ 13:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I've had second thoughts on this. The 4chan post is timestamped 13:16:36.[8] If this is Coordinated Universal Time, it was 2:16 PM British Summer Time where I live. At around 2:15 PM, there were BBC News and Sky news reports that Epstein had died, and I went straight to Wikipedia.[9] There doesn't seem to be a big time gap between the 4chan post and the mainstream media news reports. It depends on whether the additional medical details turn out to be accurate.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• The earliest diff on Wikipedia saying that Epstein had died was at 13:06 UTC, August 10.[10] I'm not now convinced that the 4chan post is genuine unless the medical details check out.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Just to throw in here, If I recall NYPD, FDNY and emergency medical are not encrypted for NYC. It’s possible for someone to have heard that over the radio (if broadcasted online) in addition I know there have been internet based user controlled radios which would allow broadcast of said information. I’m not aware if a New York City based one I’m aware of, was online at the time. Coasterghost (talk) 02:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I had a quick look and even putting aside whether emergency response team's radios are encrypted, to me it seems likely quite a few people would be aware of those details before the public release. If it was a busy public hospital there would likely be multiple staff members aware and they may be bound by confidentality but practically figuring out who leaked it may be difficult depending on the efforts made and that's assuming anyone bothers. Of course in a busy ER it can be hard to prevent members of the public finding out from observation anyway. Of course it's a not point to us unless a RS mentions the leak anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Just to throw out as a possibility that HIPPA can be easily breached without having to talk to hospital staff. There was a few years ago a art installation that printed out hospital pager messages which weren't encrypted and those can usually have the name and bed of the patient. So we do need to be weary about it. [11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coasterghost (talk • contribs) 01:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Chris Walker: 4chan User Posted About Epstein Death — 38 Minutes Before It Was Public Knowledge, Hill Reporter, 13 August 2019 --93.211.219.161 (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

NY Post "Why was Jeffrey Epstein’s death on 4chan before it became public?"[12] 173.228.123.207 (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

BuzzFeed News: Jeffrey Epstein's Death Was On 4Chan Before Officials Announced It — And Authorities Had To Look Into It, August 13, 2019 --93.211.220.161 (talk) 03:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

This also happened with the Death of Michael Jackson, with TMZ reporting the death before the mainstream media. TMZ had probably been told by someone at the hospital that Jackson had died, but TMZ is seen as a tabloid source and there would have been problems with using an off the record quote. As for Epstein, the 4chan posts are under review, but we may never know for sure how they came to be posted unless there is an extensive investigation with a subpoena of the logs at 4chan.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Trump quote

Trump said of Epstein in 2002: "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."[68]

Vapid, out of context left-wing drivel. This should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.55.169 (talk) 03:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Direct quote from 2002: http://nymag.com/nymag/features/n_7912/. View HTML source of story for publication date. soibangla (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

“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 on the younger side. Jeffrey enjoys his social life.” – Donald J. Trump in 2002 FactChecker429 (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Direct quote from 2002: http://nymag.com/nymag/features/n_7912/. View HTML source of story for publication date. soibangla (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

the trump quote absolutely has to go in and stay. when the spotlight's off epstein, the clinton mentions can be edited out like they should be. Cramyourspam (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Both Clinton and Trump information should stay in the article. They illustrate a key aspect of Epstein's biography, his development of relationships with powerful people. bd2412 T 23:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

hmmmmm, no. we're an academic/journalistic resource. with that role comes a social responsibility to soil one political side and shine another. any long-time WP editor or journalist knows what we mean. (that's not "unfair" ["waaah waaah"]; that's doing what's right.) we can 3RR away anyone not doing the proper thing. especially in dangerous times like now, with constant broadcast dog-whistles activating the hateful alt-right underside of nationalist wingnut-merca, we can't afford to be less than socially-responsible. Cramyourspam (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

This is truly unbelievable. Are you openly admitting to using this page to push your own political agenda by hiding potential pedophilia connections of people you happen to politically allign yourself with? While simultaneously claiming engaging in such acts makes you a shining beacon of morality? Or is this simply parody? -Z 5:55PM 7/8/2019

You're giving quite the "not here to build an encyclopedia" vibe. bd2412 T 00:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Cramyourspam has been warned for their obvious trolling. Do not engage with trolls. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Political vandalism going on here? https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/car286/epsteins_wikipedia_page_is_being_altered_to/ Apparently figures previously mentioned in the article are being erased but Trump is being left. I'm pretty sure Donald Trump isn't the only person Epstein has ever had any social contact with, so this is getting pretty bizarre. Either list all prominent relationships or remove all prominent relationships. This is not a campaign article2601:1C0:C801:9FA0:C575:4C00:47BC:F289 (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC).

Information on Bill Clinton was removed from the article, and was restored, as was a mention of Kevin Spacey and Chris Tucker. There is no either/or here; in order to be fully informative, we list all prominent relationships. bd2412 T 00:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

This quote definitely fits the article as it shows how well-known Epstein's character may have been. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.168.189.226 (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I can only hope, and suspect, that's sarcasm.John2510 (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

since it has been asked: i speak truth. that's going to make some itchy of course. Cramyourspam (talk) 03:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

That aged well. Cramyourspam is just saying what most of you were thinking. And now here we are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.186.130 (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Clinton being his friend is farm more important than Trump, Trump at the time wasn't a politician, Clinton was. Any rich person is going to have friends with a lot of people. Also if you're leaving it for political reasons, wasn't Trump a democrat at the time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1E02:C05D:B168:B66D:9F96:3439 (talk) 06:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Cramyourspam wasn't trolling. He was trying to make a point. An accurate point that is usually only denied by the accused editors. Wikipedia, or rather Wikimedia, no longer tries to hide the political bias of it's "well respected" editors, or fact that only one political ideology is consistently uplifted and protected. The examples of it are everywhere. Not trying to get involved in the actual "debate" there, just clarifying what Cramyourspam was doing, since it seems his comments were misunderstood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.212.30 (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Corpse claimed by unidentified person, Epstein special treatment at MCC

Will leave this here for future edit request:

According to a report by MSNBC from Aug. 15. 2019, Epstein's corpse was claimed by an unidentified "associate" from the New York medical examiner's office. [13]

A lawyer working at the MCC reports that Epstein was frequently given access to one of two meeting rooms available for inmates of the Special Housing Unit, so much that other lawyers had grown frustrated with Epstein's daily presence there. He was also once visited by a young woman without the company of his main lawyer.

The lawyer reporting his observation stated: “I think she was there just to babysit him, and keep him out of his cell, and just keep him company for eight hours a day,” he added. “Which is not supposed to be the way it works.”

"Prison officials did not respond to Forbes’ calls about Epstein’s apparently frequent access to the meeting room." [14]

91.114.251.169 (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2019

The first sentence of the Epstein's page states that he was... "was an American financier and convicted sex offender.", but due the nature of his hideous crimes, I believe he should be first identified as a sex offender. The first sentence should read: "was a convicted sex offender and American financier." Larryfargus (talk) 06:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done: As I've practically worn out the keyboard saying, if an average person had a conviction for a sex offense involving a minor in 2008, they would not meet WP:GNG and have a Wikipedia article about it. It is Epstein's wealth and well connected social sphere that has made all of this notable.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Epstein is accused of paying possibly hundreds of underaged girls for sex. He just got two new suits from people 18 and 20 when he violated existing agreements and touched them and masturbated in while touching them when the massage had been pre-agreed to not go this far. The level of his sex offenses, hundreds of girls, would make him notable no matter how much money he had. True, it is unlikely he could have gotten so many girls to participate without money and would probably have to have gone the Nassar way, but it is his sex crimes that make him notable. He didn't have a Wikipedia article until after the charges were maide public. True, that was back in 2006, so Wikipedia was much newer then, so that is a hard measure. Still, Epstein without the sex charges is probably not notable enough. The amount of money he sent to Harvard and other places as donations is not at the level to establish notablity, and his background roles in Ponzi schemes and creating the situation that lead to the 2008 housing crash is too background for me to believe it would merit an article on its own.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

We're never going to know how much of this would have stood up in court. It's now like Jimmy Savile who is also dead. As far as the record goes, Epstein had a single conviction for a sex offense in 2008. This is the only reason that he can be called a sex offender.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2019: Alexander Acosta press conference on the NPA

Please change >>and instead urged them to have "patience".[82][83]<<

to >>and instead urged them to have "patience".[82][83]

In a July 2019 press conference regarding the Epstein case Acosta stated that "individuals from main justice were involved fairly early on and were certainly aware of it" and "that decisions were appealed again and again to main justice". He also provided the press with public documents that support his account.<<

Source: DEFENDING PLEA DEAL: Acosta SPEAKS on Jeffrey Epstein History

A transcript of that part is here: [15]

I have no idea how to find the public documents Acosta refers to as I am not familiar with US bureaucracy. Can someone help with this?

91.114.251.169 (talk) 20:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

It looks like you aren't asking for any change. Did I miss something?--Nowa (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The change consists of the addition of a new paragraph (starting with "In a July 2019 press conference"). The public documents are just an additional related question, but not necessary for the change request. -- 91.114.251.169 (talk) 18:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Why was this closed as answered when no one responded to the addition of the paragraph? 91.114.251.169 (talk) 08:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• While I understand wanting to have a fuller picture of what went on when Acosta made the decision not to prosecute, we have to remember that Wikipedia articles are built on secondary sources. Public documents are primary sources, and should not be used to build Wikipedia articles. We need a fuller picture of the Acosta issue, either here or in the Acosta article, but this will have to follow the needed investigative reporting done on that issue, not preceed it. There is a need for more investigative journalism on the Acosta-Epstein plea deal issue, but Wikipedia cannot cover it in more depth until after that investigation actually occurs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Trump accuses Clintons of killing Epstein

Seems worth mentioning that Trump, as per this article, https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/456979-trump-retweets-post-promoting-conspiracy-theory-about-jeffrey has retweeted conspiracy theories accusing the Clintons of involvement in Epstein's death (particularly given that Barr is quoted in the article in response to the apparent suicide).206.45.7.58

The edit summary "removing this rumor for heavens sake. The Clintons are living persons after all; we can't pass along this kind of accusation no matter who says it." made by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MelanieN is an absurd and indefensible reason not to mention such an important claim in regard to this event. Trump is directly implicated in the Epstein case, his Attorney General (who is investigating the death) has conflicts of interest related to it, and his former Secretary of Labor was responsible for the illegal deal that helped him escape justice in the past. Why would this accusation not be notable, let alone when it is made by the President himself? For comparison, nearly the entirety of Seth Rich's Wikipedia article is devoted to the allegations against the Clintons surrounding his death. Why should this article be any different? Accusations are made against living persons all the time and must be accurately reflected as such on Wikipedia. Documenting that an accusation was made does not mean Wikipedia is endorsing that accusation.(talk) 00:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree, it's standard procedure to include high profile accusations and suspicions. That said, since it's Trump, chances are they wont be included. As wiki continues to become more and more politically motivated, you'll see more inconsistencies like this. The facts are documented elsewhere though, and relying on wiki for accuracy is a bad idea anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.212.30 (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• Trump retweeted this accusation. That is very different than him creating his own tweet on the matter. It may still be notable but we need to make sure we do not over play what happened. A retweet and an original post are very different things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Philantropist

Can someone tell me how would a registered sex offender be qualified as a "philantropist" (i.e. love for humanity)? Any logic, common sense to this? almoravid (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC

I agree. He is mostly known as an alleged organizer of sex traffic network [16]. My very best wishes (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

But one should also check this. Did he really act as a philanthropist by providing his planes to Clinton, ot that was something else? My very best wishes (talk) 02:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Before the revelations about Epstein in 2019, sources have called his money gifts either "gifts", "donations" or "philantrophy" so we have at least three headings we can choose from what is more appropriate now having sources about what Epstein tried to hide for decades. "Gifts" would be the most neutral heading. The word "Donation" is less neutral as it somehow implies a certain degree of honor in the person of the donator (which probably no source is anymore crediting to Epstein). "Philantrophy" would be the less neutral heading and would additionally require motives like "love for humanity" which no source will argument for by now and is in strong contrast to Epstein's predator activities he had succussfully hidden for decades. To end the edit war about this section we should have the most neutral heading "Gifts". It is also the heading of a source that has reported about his money gifts when Epstein could still hide the scope of his activities and was known for "soliciting sex from prostitutes". See "Harvard to keep Epstein gift" [17] --BalancedIssues (talk) 06:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Epstein paid journalists for displaying him as a "philantropist". Wikipedia should be careful not to write about images that the subject paid for to be written about.--BalancedIssues (talk) 06:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Here is a source using the term "philanthropy". Bus stop (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Huh? If a sex offender is rich and donates a ton of money to charity, then the sex offender is a philanthropist. The two terms don't even interact. It's like asking how a firefighter can also be a ginger.

So what? Your picking of a 2015 source calling Epstein a "philantropist" doesn't contradict anything what is discussed above but it obviously ignores this discussion. Why do you then prefer editwarring-like behavior to change the article space after ignoring this discussion?

Are you really so hooked up to Epstein’s former image that (according to sources) Epstein paid for, to journalists, to PR agencies? Is it Wikipedia's goal to protect and resurrect “bought” images? How do you explain that reasonable reports don't call Epstein philantropist anymore in contrast to your personal preference?

As you don’t seem to like explaining yourself in an understandable manner it can only be assumed you think changing the heading from “Gifts” (as some sources called it) again to “Philantropist” (as other sources called it) would better protect Epstein’s reputation. You seem to ignore that Epstein’s reputation and the knowledge about him have already significantly changed, so any missions to restore Epstein's image pre-revelation are misguided, also your editwarring style will not help. Why do you ignore that your term “philanthropist” would include that Epstein has “love for humanity” (contradiction to what he reportedly does to other humans?) And, did you ever think about what it would mean for the families of all these hundreds of underage girls to read that Wikipedia would still attribute to this guy “love for humanity” even if there are more neutral words available for the headings?--BalancedIssues (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Philanthropy doesn't mean love for humanity—whatever love for humanity might mean. Philanthropy is a term used in standard English for giving money away, especially large sums of money. As concerns a dictionary definition: "the desire to promote the welfare of others, expressed especially by the generous donation of money to good causes". Sources support the use of the term philanthropy in relation to the subject of the article. One does not lose the status of philanthropist based on having sex with underage girls. Have sources said that his previous philanthropic status no longer applies based on reevaluation of his character traits? Bus stop (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Philanthropy is a Greek word, it surely means love of humanity. Wikipedia can also use more neutral headings like "Donations" or "Gifts", all backed up by sources. So there is no need to describe him as a "philanthropist" which raises a lot of doubt and critisism if you read this talk page section. Also all the reliable sources are dropping the terms "billionaire" and "philanthropist" for Epstein as the truth has been revealed. Don't ask me if all sources want to explicitly explain that they may have been deceived by Epstein and his circles for decades, or if all sources now will do an official "status" update on how Epstein is to be named. For Wikipedia it should be sufficient that the reliable sources clearly changed how they describe Epstein and everybody seems to understand why, maybe minus you who prefers his pre-revelation image. Do you really need walls of text for not reverting neutral headings like "Gifts" or "Donations" that are backed by sources?--BalancedIssues (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

One need not be a billionaire to be a philanthropist. You say "[d]on't ask me if all sources want to explicitly explain that they may have been deceived by Epstein and his circles for decades, or if all sources now will do an official 'status' update on how Epstein is to be named." Until they update us to the new understanding that he is not a philanthropist, he remains a philanthropist. One does not lose the status of philanthropist based on having sex with underage girls. Here you say "Please name the multiple reliable sources". (And here you say "added 'allegedly' as Epsteins foundation doesn't disclose".) The sources are found at Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation. It is not merely alleged that the Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation funds science research and education. When an assertion is supported by sources there is no need to call that assertion an allegation. The sources in the Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation article support that he gave millions of dollars to Harvard University. Furthermore a philanthropic gift does not become an alleged philanthropic gift if a foundation "doesn't disclose". You are coining your own use for the word "alleged". This source (for instance) writes "Elusive financier Jeffrey E. Epstein donated $30 million this year to Harvard for the founding of a mathematical biology and evolutionary dynamics program." Despite the fact that this source was written in 2003 there is no reason or logic for him to now be an "alleged" philanthropist. You have not produced a source supportive of your characterization that he is an "alleged" philanthropist yet you have twice added "alleged" to the article. Bus stop (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Exactly why would you decline to name the section about donations "Donations" ?--BalancedIssues (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

If I give a coat to The Salvation Army, that is a "donation". $30 million falls into the realm of philanthropy. I don't have a source for this. I am basing this on the way the two words sound. A person might "donate" a used car to charity. But that is probably not "philanthropy". But $30 million to an educational institution qualifies as philanthropy. This is only based on the way I have heard the words used. Bus stop (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

As the press now openly reports that Epstein had for decades „underage sex slaves“ and was systematically running an “underage prostitute ring”, this is almost the contrary to the positive laden occupation of a “philanthropist”. How can this newly revealed picture about Epstein still match a philosophy that implies you love humans and humanity and donate with this motive. Being a “philanthropist” is a philosophy and more than just giving “money donations” and "buying" you way through life.

Also, you weren’t sure if “high amount donations” still qualify as “donations”. They surely do, also according to sources, like this CNN report about a 28 million donation [18] or this 700 million donation [19]. These donors didn’t need “to cultivate their image as a high-society multimillionaires” like Epstein reportedly had to when bragging about his donations. They also didn’t need to ascribe themselves as “philanthropists”, also CNN didn’t describe them as “philanthropists”.

So why not call Epstein donations “Donations”, a neutral heading, not implying anything that is not consistent with Epstein’s now revealed real life-style.--BalancedIssues (talk) 08:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

"Also, you weren’t sure if 'high amount donations' still qualify as 'donations'." There are no qualifications that something must meet in order to be considered a donation. A ten billion dollar donation is certainly possible, based on it being grammatically correct. He is not accused of for instance giving counterfeit currency to Harvard departments of math and biology. You are arguing that we should knock him down a notch in an area unrelated to the crimes he is accused of. Bus stop (talk) 12:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

It is not about me. Obviously, most of the reasonable sources don't call Epstein a “philanthropist" anymore after what has been revealed about him. And even if you wouldn't know the meaning of widespread Greek words like "phil", "phob", "anthropo" you could still google it if you wanted to understand why sources stopped calling Epstein a “philanthropist". Also, "Donations" is not an "insult" or a "knocking down" of the donor as you seem to imply, it is just a neutral word for the activity of donating money, and most sources even use this word, also for Epstein's donations, so it would be no problem to use it for the heading of his donations. Also, that Epstein’s donations were "unrelated" to his (criminal) life is only a private theory of yours as according to what sources revealed Epstein's donations were not only very related to his (hidden) criminal life and life-style, it was for him an important lever to distract from his criminal activities.--BalancedIssues (talk) 23:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The article doesn't call him a philanthropist. You are saying "most of the reasonable sources don't call Epstein a 'philanthropist' anymore". Nor does the article call him a philanthropist. The article has within it the section heading of "Philanthropy". You are objecting to a section heading. Large sums of money moving from wealthy individuals to good causes is called philanthropy. It is a section heading that you are objecting to. I don't think terms such as "donations" or "gifts" are as appropriate for the section heading under discussion as the term "philanthropy". If one gives a used car to a charitable organization it could appropriately be called a donation. But what the subject of this article has given falls into the more rarified category of philanthropy. We should not knock what he has gifted down a notch by using the section heading appropriate to more common gifts of little more than a few thousand dollars. At least in a few cases he has given millions of dollars. And the recipients of such largess were such sterling institutions as Harvard, and for causes as worthwhile as math and science. Bus stop (talk) 01:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Your argument is: "Large sums of money moving from wealthy individuals to good causes is (exclusively) called philanthropy.". I mentioned many sources calling it "donations", also in the headings, so various sources prove your argument wrong. But you seem to ignore anything that doesn't fit to your idea that you personally would know what are "appropriate" headings in this article.--BalancedIssues (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Epstein contributed millions of dollars to Harvard University. Although some of this may have been just moving others money, and he may have mainly done this to skim (aka embezzle) large amopunts of money. However he did however he got the money manage to negotiate himself as the recognized giver of the money. Clearly he was not a philanthropist on the level of Jon Huntsman Sr or Ira A. Fulton, both of whom earned their money from legitimately running companies that actually made things people needed, instead of dark deals that may have mainly been advising people on how to cheat the government, but the key to Huntsman and Fulton is giving the money away, not how they got it (well for Fulton, Huntsman would be notable if he never gave away a cent). John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Here is the link to Jon Huntsman Sr..John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• We should not confuse etymology with meaning. "Philanthropist" is anyone who donates their money towards the public (very broadly defined) good. Basically if you donate money to any non-profit endevor you are a philanthropist. In encyclopedia articles the term is usually reserved to those who do so at significant scale, and maybe for those who coordinate others doing it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

See also "...philias"

Just wanted to say that the "See Also" section in this article strikes me as extraneous, and I really think should be done away with in the name of parsimony. Though the topics undoubtedly bear some relationship to the article, I am not sure that broad discussions of this sort are really helpful. I won't make any changes until I see if there's something approaching consensus. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh yes, removed; this is not helpful. This page is already classified as Category:American people convicted of child sexual abuse. My very best wishes (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

short of Epstein's own psychiatrist/psychologist, I'm not sure how it would be included in the wiki. For all we know he chooses younger victims for purely pragmatic reasons, such as finding younger girls more vulnerable/easier to control or even just financially cheaper. 71.89.114.35 (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Given that the media repeatedly uses the word pedophile (the word appears 7 times in the article through the titles of news stories), I don't see why we shouldn't link to these terms, as they are more defined than the words used in headlines churned out by the popular press. I found the article at first only linking to ephebophilia, which I found to be unfair, since it ignored the term hebephilia. The concept of hebephilia is very relevant, since he's already been convicted of recruiting a 14 year old girl for prostitution. MOS:ALSO states that things in a see also section should be relevant, related, or tangentially related. What's the argument to exclude these terms from being seen by readers, exactly? What does "name of parsimony" and "not helpful" mean? Google gives the definition of parsimony as "extreme unwillingness to spend money or use resources". What's the argument here? (old version of the see also section with the three links) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

First of all, adding pedophilia or hebephilia to "see also" section does not improve the page. For example, should we add Airplane to "See also" on page about every specific airplane, like Antonov An-2. No. Secondly, as you correctly noted, a lot more sources describe him simply as a pedophile rather than as a someone prone to hebephilia. So, saying that he just liked little girls (hebephilia) would be wrong POV. My very best wishes (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• Since his private plane "The Lolita Express" was so notable, and key to his connection with Clinton among others, maybe we should put "airplane" on the see also here, along with "Lolita" and I could go on. See also i think is not a good way period. I also have to say #MeToo should cause us to rethink the current assumption that the day a woman turns 18 she has way more ability to make sexual chouices than the day before (although current laws in several states actually make this change on a 17th or 16th birthday. In some states having actual sex with a 17-year-ol is legal but having a nude picture of the same 17-year-old is illegal. Although generally all commercial sex acts with children under 18 are considered human trafficking, which is why the pleading guilty to soliciting a girl under 18 for prostitution got the sentence it did. If I remember correctly South Korea has an age of consent of 20, that might make more sense. Why can 18 year olds consent to sex but not legally drink? #MeToo at least is pointing out we need a more robust understanding of consent, which makes the Clinton/Lewisnky connection more problematic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Please note that "Lolita Express" was a nickname given by tabloids. It's not as if was emblazoned on the side of the aircraft and flight attendants greeted boarding passengers with "welcome aboard the Lolita Express!" soibangla (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

By the end it was far more than "tabloids" using the term. In this case if people had not tried to dismiss those complaining of the extremely young women circleing around Epstein as "tabloid" types maybe he would have faced justice sooner and better.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2019: The ‘Epstein-Barr’ Problem

Change: "Epstein taught calculus and physics at the Dalton School in Manhattan from 1974 to 1976."

to

Despite being a college drop-out, Epstein was hired in 1973 by Donald Barr, the headmaster at Manhattan’s private Dalton School (1964–74), as a calculus and physics teacher. There Epstein taught from 1974 to 1976. Donald Barr worked during World War II for the OSS (forerunner of the CIA), and is the father of current United States Attorney General William Barr, who is currently overseeing Epstein’s prosecution. The hire was unusual for a number of reasons: Epstein had not earned a college degree, the other odd circumstance was that he was only 20 years of age.

Sources (please, choose):

• William Barr Reportedly Won’t Recuse Himself From Epstein Case, The Last Word, MSNBC, 9. July 2019
• https://hillreporter.com/the-ties-that-bind-jeffrey-epstein-william-barr-donald-trump-34107
• https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/12/nyregion/jeffrey-epstein-dalton-teacher.html
• https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/the-epstein-barr-problem-of-new-york-citys-dalton-school
• Institute for Public Accuracy Epstein: Protected Because He Is a Spy? — A Backgrounder
• Senator Ben Sasse (R-Nebraska) questioning attorney general nominee William Barr about the Epstein case on 15 January 2019, getting the nominee to commit to having the Department of Justice look into the handling of that case if confirmed: miamiherald 87.170.195.115 (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
• My first response is WP:UNDUE, but the sourcing appears to be strong. Drmies (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I think this definitely needs to be included to the page as something well sourced and definitely an interesting story, given the people involved. My very best wishes (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Although I would not oppose the addition of the paragraph described, with properly formatted citations, but would strongly oppose any use of the phrase "Epstein-Barr" in this context; that is a neologism with respect to this matter which can only serve to confuse from the established topic of the Epstein–Barr virus. bd2412 T 03:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The virus - I am sure that was a joke by the IP. My very best wishes (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it was black humour, thanks My very best wishes. That virus makes cancer. Like the cancer, that arises in our society when such crimes are perpetuated and not prosecuted for decades. --87.170.203.224 (talk) 10:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done per consensus. I also updated per current events and info from sources.

Epstein started at Dalton several months after Donald Barr left. That Donald Barr hired Epstein is unproven. Beyond this, no one who has thought this threw or listened to or read the interchange between Sasse and Barr thinks the 1970s hiering decision is at play here. What is at play is that the large law firm that Barr worked for had been highered by Epstein, even though Barr himself was never one of the lawyers in any way connected with the Epstein case.John Pack Lambert ([[User talk:|talk]]) 00:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Johnpacklambert: Unproven? Show me your sources! --93.211.219.95 (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Ours are above:

• ... not the first connection between Barr ... 1973, Barr’s father Donald, the headmaster at Manhattan’s Dalton School, hired Epstein ...
• One more? Here: yahoo ... Headmaster Donald Barr is pictured here in the school's 1974 yearbook. He hired Jeffrey Epstein ...

You may also read the sci-fi novel, Space Relations: A Slightly Gothic Interplanetary Tale (1973), Donald Barr wrote... about sex slavery in space. Barr recuiting spy kids! --93.211.219.95 (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

More reliable sources show that Barr left Dalton before the end of the 1973-1974 school year, while Epstein started there at the beginning of the 1974 school year. There is 0 conclusive evidence that Barr hired Epstein. There is even less evidence that thje actions of the father are reflected in the son. William Barr started working as a China analyst for the US government in 1973. He had moved away from New York City after completing his masters in government and Chinese studies at Columbia. It is almost certain that even if Donald Barr was the person who made the decision to hier Epstein, William Barr had no knowledge of this fact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Re age of consent 17 in New Mexico

According to www.ageofconsent.net in New Mexico a partner's age of consent can be as low as 14 for a person of age 18: "New Mexico statutory rape law is violated when a person over age 18 has consensual sexual intercourse with an individual under age 17 who is at least 4 years younger. "

I have added "adult" into the relevant sentence for more clarity, as it applies to Epstein (even though age 18 is an adult). Artbenis (talk) 12:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Romeo and Juliet laws are pretty common, but are generally not accounted for when people talk about what the age of consent is in this or that jurisdiction, in my experience anyway. But seems like the whole section has been excised anyway, and I think the article is much better for it, it was kinda a mess lol

MykalGroll (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Since Epstein was well over 40 (maybe even 50) at the time of his crimes, the 4 year rule didn't apply.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I think what happens is New Mexico has different ways of classifying prostitution with an underaged girl than other states. In some states having sex with a 17-year-old is always legal for a person of any age as long as she gives consent, but paying her to have sex redefines the act as commerical sexual activity which is classed as human trafficking for any minor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Alleged Mossad connection

See [20] [21]. According to the latter article, some “prominent Republicans” think Jeffrey Epstein may have been a Mossad agent, like his ex-girlfriend’s father Robert Maxwell was said to be. 97.116.77.170 (talk) 13:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

It is merely given the status of "one theory circulating among" in the Vanity Fair article, hardly conclusively verified. Mondoweiss is a website which can only be used here with heavy caution. Philip Cross (talk) 15:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Than the implications are he will be proclaimed dead just before being placed into a witness protection program. --87.170.193.9 (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

No high quality sources seem to have alleged a Mossad connection with any certainty. It is almost entirely those with conspiracy theorist inclinations which have done so. Philip Cross (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

A high quality source is Acosta: "belonged to intelligence". Fact: Epstein invested in Reporty Homeland Security (now Carbyne) with former Minister of Defense Ehud Barak. --87.170.206.165 (talk) 00:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

The link to Carbyne is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.73.137.68 (talk) 11:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, the right link is to Carbyne (company). And his pimp is the daughter of Israel's Superspy Robert Maxwell, he died after Israel acquired nuclear weapons. "Six serving and former heads of Israeli intelligence services attended his funeral".

• Avner Cohen (1998): Israel and the Bomb. Columbia University Press.
• Seymour Hersh (1991): The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy. Random House.
• Gordon Thomas (1999). Gideon's Spies: The Secret History of the Mossad. New York: St. Martin's Press. → Promis and the "Mega Group"
• Gordon Thomas and Martin Dillon (2002): Robert Maxwell: Israel's Superspy: The Life and Murder of a Media Mogul. Carroll and Graf.--93.211.214.162 (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• But Acosta didn't allege that "Epstein was inteligence". He said he was told Epstain "belong to intelligence", which is not a clear claim of anything. Beyond this Acosta never claimed he knows this as a fact, jsut says someone told him this. Until we have a journalist who has the gumption and shoe leather determination to hunt down Acosta and get him to name who told him this, or admit he made it up later to cover up for wimping out in the face of high pressure tactics by Dershowitz, Kenneth Starr and their associates, we have a mess. Considering that Starr was defense lawyer to Epstein for sex trafficking of minors the fact that Baylor had a whole football player sex scandal under his direction is shocking. Of course what no one has yet been willing to talk about is "college sexual assault crisis as an example of black/white cultural miscommunication on sexual consent".John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Previous attempt

Epstein made a previous attempt about a month ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.51.7.73 (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

This is in the article.[22] Due to some controversy over how this happened, the article should not be saying that he died from suicide until it is confirmed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I stupidly did not read the passage you mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.51.7.73 (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

What is in question? Cause of Death? Manner of Death?

Cause of Death (specific injury or disease leading to death) is normally obvious and easy to determine; Manner/Mode of Death (natural, accident, suicide, homicide, or undetermined) is what is difficult to determine. --Naaman Brown (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Except sometimes people try to cover up one crime with another. Here in my city of Detroit we occasionally have homes burn down in arsons when people seek to hide the fact they murdered someone in the home. So sometimes a body found in a fire did not die from burning. There are other similar ways that people may do something to a dead body to make it look like one thing caused death when it was another.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to the article: what did Epstein use to hang himself? 76.189.141.37 (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

If anyone finds out, it'll likely be added instantaneously, eh?
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

It will likely be added when reported, but should be done so with measured consideration, and avoid undue detail (even if verifiable). "Copycat suicides", or "suicide contagion", is when someone emulates another suicide they learned about either from local knowledge or due to accounts or depictions of the original suicide on television and in other media. Responsible and considerate coverage of suicides can decrease the risk of copycats. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• Recommendations for Reporting on Suicide from ReportingonSuicide.org
• BloggingonSuicide.org
• The facts about safe reporting of suicide from The Conversation
• Preventing Suicide: A Resource for Media Professionals from the World Health Organization
• Suicides when facing hundreds of human trafficing crime chages and locked in jail until facing a trial do not have large contagion issues.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Reported in the New York Post: "Jeffrey Epstein was found hanging in his lower Manhattan jail cell with a bedsheet wrapped around his neck and secured to the top of a bunk." 76.189.141.37 (talk) 09:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• The Associated Press has said they usually do not report the specific method of suicide but did so in this case to discourage speculation. As I have said elsewhere, Epstein does not much inspire copy cat. I highly doubt any other sex offenders facing life inprison felt an increase in the desire for suicide after reading Epstein did it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Cause of Death

It's not vandalism. Investigations into whether this was another 'Arkancide' [23] are getting a lot of attention right now. We should report on all points of view in the public discourse. 97.68.156.197 (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

We are not a 24/7 news station nor are we partisan commentators. We need to only amend the page when the actual facts come out. With the FBI looking into this, and given its public interest there will be follow ups. Until such a time, we shouldn’t amend it to include baseless claims.Coasterghost (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Whilst this is true, it's important to note the existence of the rumors that have been flourishing. 2002loucle (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

No, we are absolutely not going to turn this article - a biography - into a forum for rumors and conspiracy theories. There will be additional information, including an autopsy and two official investigations, and other information may come out in the coming days. That is what Wikipedia is about - verified information. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

To quote the Fed Bureau of Prisons "Epstein was found unresponsive in his cell in the Special Housing Unit from an apparent suicide at MCC" No official autopsy has been published, so his cause of death shouldn't be stated as fact, but rather "reported as a suicide"Joshua.paul1300 (talk) 05:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

His neck was snapped by persons unknown while his guards were sleeping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.60.203 (talk) 05:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• Autopsy's are not published in New York. Their findings are released to the public, but not their specific details. I am not sure if it is possible to use FOIA to get the full details of the autopsy. If it is, I hope a newspaper tries to do so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2019

Change the intro paragraph. It is incredinly disrespectful of you to write "he is best known for being a sex trafficker" before even writing the stuff before the MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENT. Just because a mans life has a mistake does not mean that defined his entire life, in fact, it only RECENTLY even became evident. How about instead of being a biased, one sided media outlet like Fox news, you actually give the facts. Thats what you are designed for. Leave out your stupid opinion, and I say stupid, because you may not think it is, but I do, which means at least 1 other human, thinks what you wrote is stupid, disrespectful, and clearly bad writing. How about instead of acting like Cosmo, you give the facts, like you were designed to. The fact was that he only recently, so recently that I had no idea who this man even was, until today, accused, note, accused, as a sex trafficker, and thats what you lead with in your article. Disgusting. How would you like it if someone wrote an official page about you and lead in the intro with those secrets you dont tell anyone, those things that mortify you, your mistakes? Does that seem fair? Like an accurate depiction of you? No. It isn't. So be fair, put your opinon of the man aside, and properly write this article. Geez. 2601:191:8580:35DD:3C25:8BB:734C:B10D (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

He was convicted as a sex offender in 2008. That is not recent. Only the sex trafficking charges are newer. Cedar777 (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I have made some modifications to the lead paragraph including removal of "best known for". However, that is why most people have heard of him, and the allegations are not recent; he was convicted of sex offenses in 2008 and has been a "registered sex offender" since that time. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• He was convicted of sexually abusing a minor and only got off that lightly because of presure against and threats against the US attorney and his team. He is credibly accused of sexually trafficing minors. The accusations against him are a lot more credible than the ones that are so often used to mass accuse all Catholic preists in some circles. Having sex with minors is not a "mistake". Oh, plus the feds recovered large amounts of child porn when they raided his home.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• Just because his travesty of justice plea deal was way back in 2008 does not mean this is anything other than the most noted thing about him. We did not have an article on Epstein at all until criminal charges were publicly brought against him. True that was in 2006, and to this day we lack articles on multiple directors of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department, a very major position in the US government, so when Wikipedia includes an article is not super relevant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Past insights

This article dates back to August 2006, so just after Epstein was first charged. He is there said to be accused of soliciting "underaged prostitues". Bill Clinton is one of his associates mentioned in that very first iteration of the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

And your point is? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

It shows that despite attempts to claim otherwise, Epstain is notable really only as a sex offender.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Connection to Elites

Please change "Epstein was a multimillionaire who, until his conviction for sex crimes in 2008, was well connected with the financial, political, and cultural elites of society."

to "Epstein was a multimillionaire who, even after his conviction for sex crimes in 2008, was well connected with the financial, political, and cultural elites of society."

Source: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/07/jeffrey-epstein-case-grows-more-grotesque - see first paragraph

I think this needs to be changed because the current version significantly downplays his role and status in elite circles even after his conviction. I mean, there even was a welcome party after he got released from jail, for crying out loud:

Source: Epstein Was a Sex Offender. The Powerful Welcomed Him Anyway.

91.114.251.169 (talk) 04:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe we don't need the "until his conviction for sex crimes in 2008" part at all if his crimes had no effect on his influence among the cultural elites. – Anne drew 14:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the proposed wording more accurately captures the point the RS is making. All RS found it notable that he continued or rebuilt strong connections to elites despite his conviction in 2008. --Nowa (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I think we should delete the phrase "until his conviction for sex crimes in 2008". Just say he was a multimillionaire and well connected. There is no need to try to explain to readers whether (or not) his status as well-connected was affected by his conviction. The proposed "even after" line is not neutral; it implies his status SHOULD have been affected. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree, deleting the phrase is more neutral. I have updated the change request. 91.114.251.169 (talk) 19:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Please don't delete things from talk pages after they have been responded to, rather use <ins> and <del> per WP:TPG. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the hint, will do my best to follow WP:TPG. 91.114.251.169 (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Anne drew 19:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• Strong disagree with phrasing this as "the ... elites" instead of "certain ... elites". We don't state in Wikipedia's voice that these people represent "the elites" which sounds more like conspiracy or social theory about some coherent circle/society of elites than a factual observation, and at any rate he was not connected with them en masse but rather certain individuals. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• 2 presidents, Harvard University, a governor, a senate majority leader. Maybe not "the elites", but was there any rich person in the 6th borough of New York (Palm Beach) who didn't hobnob with Epstein?John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2019

Please change the “under 18 girl for prostitution” That is a child and a child is not a prostitute they are a victim being abused and taken advantage of by adults. She can not give consent so can not give sex for money. 2601:184:4180:6A14:DE7:5DEA:D80:4778 (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done Source only says "two felony prostitution charges".--Nowa (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• Prostitution charges mean exchanging money for sex. In many states (including Michigan), 17 year olds can legally consent to sex with anyone of any age (with the exception of teachers who have supervision over them), but if there is an exchange of money for sex it is criminal human trafficking, which makes the charge have much higher criminal penalties than soliciting a prostitute. Soliciting an 18 year old prostitute, even if you are 53, does not lead to registration as a sex offender. If the fact that 2 days of age can change so much is a bit odd to you, than welcome to our odd law. Although the women who were 18 and 20 when Epstein sexually abused them and have brought suits against his estate are at least helping us move towards a nuanced understanding of consent, power and coercion. THe problem is that the "Dear College" letter and Title IX reformers have so often pushed not a nuanced understanding of power and consent, but a sexist one, that we now have men who were so drunk they were near unconscious who had a woman perform an agressive sex act on them being repremanded to drink more responsible and being expelled or suspended from a university on the grounds they were at fault in the sex act, even when multiple testimonies of other witnesses confirm it was clearly the women initiating the sex act. Many universities inherently violate Title IX by assuming men by default always want sex with women and thus classing any sexual agression by women as always wanted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nowa:

In Florida sex with minor is legally rape! No matter if money or promises are exchanged. But Acosta allowed Epstein to plead guilty to only two prostitution offenses - that "Non-prosecution agreement" straight-up violated the law in Florida. → Please read: http://hillmanfoundation.org/sidney-awards/miami-herald-wins-december-sidney-exposing-alex-acosta-sweetheart-deal

First these minors were defamed as prostitutes!!! And then the crime that had been committed on them was not even brought to court. There is No Such Thing as a ‘Child Prostitute’.

That agreement was soooo "lenient" → Please read: https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/jeffrey-epstein-prosecutor-alex-acosta-ducks-blame-on-twitter-for-sweetheart-deal-11215091 Miami New Times], 9 July 2019 --93.211.214.223 (talk) 09:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Prince Andrew

• in 2015 Metropolitan Police began a review of “available evidence” after receiving a complaint over claims in court papers that Virginia Roberts Giuffre was “forced to have sex with Prince Andrew”. They now said they decided that the matter “would not progress to a full investigation”: https://www.channel4.com/news/exclusive-met-police-decided-not-to-conduct-full-investigation-into-court-claims-of-sex-trafficking-of-girl-in-prince-andrew-photo

• https://www.inquisitr.com/5586814/video-prince-andrew-jeffrey-epstein-new-york-mansion-royal-family: A uncovered video filmed in 2010 when Prince Andrew was serving as Special Representative for International Trade and Investment, shows him inside the doorway in Herbert N. Straus House allegedly owned by Epstein. Andrew "remained on friendly terms with Epstein even when it was obvious just what sort of man he was." --93.211.221.124 (talk) 03:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Seems obvious, but recent media accounts involving Prince Andrew, Duke of York probably belong on his page. Philip Cross (talk) 11:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

One should wait what is really confirmed and then it may belong on both pages.--BalancedIssues (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

Source: Former MCC inmate: There’s ‘no way’ Jeffrey Epstein killed himself

91.114.251.169 (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

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

I don't see anything in WP:RS that would categorize this as an unreliable source. According to WP:RS source always refers to either the article, the author or the publisher. Nowhere does it say that persons mentioned in articles are to be scrutinized as "authoritative". How is this different than reporting e.g. that Barr stated it was an "apparent suicide"? No journalist said themselves it was an apparent suicide, yet that is ok to include? Please elaborate as to why you think WP:RS does not apply. 91.114.251.169 (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I see your point. Perhaps this is more of an issue of wp:synth. If a single article, for example, contrasted what the former inmate said with what the president of the Council of Prisons said, then the proposed edit might be OK since it would be summarizing what the article said.--Nowa (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be unsure as to why you declined the change request. First you said the source was not authoritative, then you mention WP:Synth. Again I don't see how WP:Synth applies here, as the edit adds a single statement from a single article. Is it the wording you object? I started the new added sentence with "However" as it is in contrast to the Council of Prison Locals statement. This does not mean or imply any conclusions of my own. May I quote from WP:NOTSYNTH:

"SYNTH is not a policy - It's part of a policy: no original research. If a putative SYNTH doesn't constitute original research, then it doesn't constitute SYNTH."

Since the change request does not constitute original research, SYNTH does not apply.

"SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition"

As the change request merely juxtaposes two contrasting statements, both with RS, again SYNTH does not apply. -- 91.114.251.169 (talk) 18:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Good job reading the guidelines. The real reason is that I just don't think an anonymous former prisoner knows enough about committing suicide to be relied upon as authoritative, irrespective of any Wikipedia policy or guidelines. Having said that, if there are other editors that agree it should be added, then I will not stand in the way. I am therefore changing the status of the request to "not answered" to see if others want to weigh in.--Nowa (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I see, and tend to disagree, but that is beside the point. I don't think it is the job of Wikipedia editors to scrutinize the sources that journalists rely on. For example how is this different to the following sentence in the article: "According to NBC News, two sources said that Epstein might have tried to hang himself [...]". How are these unnamed persons of NBC News more authoritative on the matter than the former inmate?

In my opinion dividing the sources that journalists rely on into authoritative and non-authoritative would open a can of worms: is e.g. Bill Clinton a reliable source to media? He was caught lying before, after all. Does that mean we can't include anything in Wikipedia that Clinton says in the news? I too would welcome others to state their opinion in this discussion.

Again reopened as the issue at hand was not addressed and both parties involved agreed on further input from others. IanMacM, would you have the courtesy to justify why you keep declining the change requests? A mere "has a reply" does not suffice, imho. 91.114.251.169 (talk) 08:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

91.114.251.169 (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Murdered

Cause of death is from a snapped neck according to the Washington post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.60.203 (talk) 06:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

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

According to the New York post many inmates heard screaming coming from his cell early Saturday morning. With the broken neck and the screaming coming from his cell more than enough evidence that he was murdered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.60.203 (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The New York Post is not considered a reliable source. It is a tabloid and sensationalist, and given to exaggeration if not outright making stuff up. Let's wait to see if this is reported by a more reliable source. (If true, it's odd it hasn't been reported before this. And even more odd that it didn't wake the guards.) -- MelanieN (talk) 06:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Here's a more sober source: CBS News. [24] It says that "shrieking and shouting" (not screaming) was coming from his cell that morning, which apparently included the guards shouting "breathe, Epstein, breathe!" In other words it was the ruckus when he was found dead. -- MelanieN (talk) 06:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Explain this? If they wanted to keep him alive for trial why would they put him in a cell with a guy accused of quadruple murder? Could not find a safe cell mate that was not accuse of murder? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.60.203 (talk) 06:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Please stop expounding your opinions. This page is for discussing what should be in the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 06:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Just released from the Washington Post. His type of broken hyoid neck break is seen in only 16 out of 264 suicides or 6 % of the cases. In the other 248 cases it was murder or 94% of the time. By this report its 94% certain he was murdered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.60.203 (talk) 12:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Here's a link to the Washington Post Article. [25] We can say that his neck bones were broken. The article does not say, however, that this means he was murdered.In fact, it says it's inconclusive. --Nowa (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• Since the broken bone is connected most often with over 60 suicides and Epstein was 66, this adds towards suicide. I don't feel like refinding the source, but I read and article where it was pointed out that since death by suicide hanging is 20 times more common than stranglation, this bone is more often broken in suicide than murder. Of course, some conspiracy theorists would just insist that many more "sucide hangings" are murders than we admit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The article should list the bones broken in Epstein's neck. 71.82.73.37 (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

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