Talk:Epstein didn't kill himself

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Internet culture (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Politics / American (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by American politics task force (marked as Low-importance).

How is this notable?[edit]

A few articles have noted this "meme". Will anyone want to look at this article in 10 years?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: It passes WP:GNG for starters. Second, we're now at a point where heads of state and congressmen are getting in on it, so yeah I think it will still be notable in ten years. –MJLTalk 13:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Do you remember anything a congressman said 10 years ago?--Jack Upland (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
@Jack Upland: Back when I was 11 years old, I had slightly different concerns that what my member of congress was saying lol.
Regardless, could you honestly tell me a single thing that you knew about Paul Gosar besides the fact he shared this meme off the top of your head? How long is it going to be before his constituents can Google his name without seeing a reference to Jeffrey Epstein?
In 20 years, when people are discussing Jeffrey Epstein; what do you think they'll remember the more- the circumstances of his death or all the funny jokes they shared with friends?
People are slapping this meme onto their gosh dang dating profiles and buying christmas sweaters with the words knitted on it. Notability is not temporary, but I assure you this will have WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. –MJLTalk 05:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't know who Gosar is. Do you want to have a bet about this?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
What are the terms? –MJLTalk 19:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
If the meme is still current in 10 years time, I will make a donation to a charity of your choice.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Sounds kinda vague.. I do think WP:RS will cover the meme on the 10th anniversary of Epstein's death, though. –MJLTalk 00:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
No way.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Did you knowDYK comment symbol nomination

This review is transcluded from Template:Did you know nominations/Epstein didn't kill himself. You may review or comment on the nomination by clicking here.

Created by MJL (talk). Self-nominated at 18:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC).

Hook eligiblity:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg There are a few sources that may be seen as biased (in either direction), like Daily Dot and National Review. And to a smaller extent Slate, Fox, & the Intelligencer can also be seen as biased. However, the articles themselves are neutral, so I'll give the sourcing a pass. epicgenius (talk) 05:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

  • @Epicgenius: Oh my gosh.. I absolutely love ALT1!!! That would be the the perfect hook to for the quirky one at the end of a set. I guess that's why you're named epicgenuis. –MJLTalk 05:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Nice. Symbol confirmed.svg ALT1 is good to go, I personally find this the most interesting as well. Thanks for the quick response.
  • However, the {{merge}} tag still needs to be removed before promotion. I see slightly more opposes than supports at that page, but still. epicgenius (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Epicgenius: As it happens, you are not allowed to approve a hook you wrote yourself. (I learned that the hard way once.) This would probably have gotten bounced by the higher-ups in the process. So I will approve it:
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Good to go with ALT1. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • MelanieN, thanks. I just recently learned that I can't approve my own hooks as well, though not in as drastic a manner as you likely did. epicgenius (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Lead image[edit]

@SchroCat and Tom harrison: What policy justification do you have for removing the image without replacement? In general, all articles are supposed to be illustrated. The image clearly displays an example of the meme, and thus it is relevant. I have previously made an alternative image if you are not perfectly satisfied with that one. However, the article should clearly have an image to help convey its meaning. –MJLTalk 00:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I can't believe you're actually trying to defend this. An image has been created to try and provide proof of something. That's akin to a journalist fabricating quotes to justify a news story. If this meme is something we should have an article on (a dubious thought as it is), then there should be something available that proves it: we should not have to fake examples to act as proof. "In general, all articles are supposed to be illustrated" just isn't correct, or any form of justification at all. - SchroCat (talk) 06:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
@SchroCat: Provide proof of something? That's so far from the purpose of this image. There are literally thousands of examples of this meme, but all of them are copyrighted. There's nothing to fabricate here. This roughly looks similar to a good portion of those memes, and it's the best example we are going to get unless you want me to modify it in some way. If this was the first example of a user literally creating a meme for an article, then you would have a point. However, I only got the idea after looking at our article on Internet memes. –MJLTalk 22:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
There is either a non free option, or not to have an image at all. Not all articles should have (or even need) images, but to fabricate one is exactly the same as a journalist fabricating quotes to "illustrate" an article. - SchroCat (talk) 09:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
You should honestly know better than to suggest using a non-free option. WP:NFCCP#1 states this clearly of why that's not a possibility. Separately, Wikipedia encourages users to upload their own images..
You should really stop the false comparison to the journalist fabricating quotes because that is an example of someone outright lying whereas memes are inherently something anyone can create. There is no official meme database or prerequisite for who can and cannot create a meme. The moment I created the meme it became just as valid as Jane Doe's meme she made and shared on her Facebook group. Displaying this meme versus sharing her meme would have the exact same educational value for our readers.
The best comparison I can think of right now would be heraldry and vexillology. The specifications for an image are detailed, but how Wikipedia chooses to display them can vary (See File:Flag of FIAV.svg). Internet memes are just a method to convey specific ideas, and one person's interpretation of a meme's specifications is no more or less valid than another person's. All memes are constructs from individuals, and to claim that the one I created for educational purposes is somehow distinct from (and even fraudulent compared to) another is unbelievably absurd to anyone who takes this topic seriously. –MJLTalk 16:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Then don't use an image. Not every article needs them, and it's more honest not to fabricate something that didn't exist. You could use a quote box using the text from something that does exist, as long as you use a citation to support the quote. - SchroCat (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
There's nothing to fabricate! It's like if I uploaded a picture of a fractal to illustrate what a fractal is. Memes are entirely user-generated content. There isn't a meme certification process or an official meme list. Images are generated by anyone for any reason to convey information generally in a humorous format. You're drawing an arbitrary line in the sand by saying this particular image is not acceptable even though it was made for expressly illustrative and educational purposes. It even says as much in our Image use policy, Additionally, user-made images may be wholly original. In such cases, the image should be primarily serving an educational purpose, and not as a means of self-promotion of the user's artistic skills. @Tom harrison: This is why the reptilian humanoid picture was against policy.
After several chances to do so, you have provided no policy justification for removing the image besides your own opinion that the picture was (somehow) fraudulent. I have explained, in great detail, how the image was generated and why that is a valid process.
Remember, Wikipedia is not censored, so happening to disagree with an image is not a policy justification to removing it. –MJLTalk 20:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
NOTCENSORED is a straw man. This isn't about censoring anything, it's about having integrity of information on display. I've suggested using a quote to demonstrate, which would work equally well, given there is no need for this to be an image, or to include an image. As I've suggested an alternative you don't like, I've opened an RfC for wider input. - SchroCat (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. This reminds me of the "reptilian humanoid," original artwork a contributor made for that article (good work too, as far as that goes...). If there's to be an example at all, at least it needs to be one "from the wild." Tom Harrison Talk 13:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Those would all be copyrighted images. I based this image off this one which was shared on WP:Discord. –MJLTalk 22:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

RfC on image[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
(non-admin closure) Procedural close – RfC question is not neutrally worded as required by WP:RFC, and as such, cannot lead to a valid consensus in any direction. The underlying issue–image selection–is being discussed through local discussion elsewhere on this talk page, and local discussion is preferred to starting an RfC, per WP:RFC. It is not a good use of editors' time to continue to keep a malformed and now-moot RfC open, especially when productive discussions are ongoing elsewhere. Levivich 02:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Should an example of a meme in use be falsely created to give an impression of how it may be used, or should an alternative form be used instead (a quote, for example). - SchroCat (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes This is completely asinine. If an editor can't make original content specifically for visual purposes on an article, then why is there such a thing as Wikimedia Commons? This meme was created to avoid any kind of copyright violation. An editor already tried to upload a genuine meme, but it was fair-use. And there is nothing "false" about how this image was created. If one was to distribute this image on Reddit, there would be no noticable difference between it and the others. Just as if a wikipedia image of the Empire State Building is no different than any image of it on Pinterest. Please visit Internet Meme. You will find plenty of memes created by Wikipedia editors for that specific page.HAL333 22:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
HAL333, can I advise that unless you want people to revert to industrial-level language in telling you where to go, you need to avoid classing a good faith opinion as "completely asinine". I'm more than happy to respond with some base Anglo-Saxon if you'd really want, but if you could try to understand what WP:AGF means it would make life much easier for everyone concerned. And just because we have second rate rubbish on a different page, does not mean we should encourage the thread of misleading our readers on this one. An alternative has already been suggested: use a text based quote without an image. Use a quote box to frame it in and use a citation to support the genuine use. Fabricating images is like journalists fabricating quotes to try to "improve" an story: it lacks integrity or honesty. - SchroCat (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Ah @SchroCat:, you're definitely one who adheres to WP:AGF. You created this snide little RFC in a utterly biased fashion. And the idea that the meme was fabricated is ridiculous. The single example of "journalists fabricating quotes" that you keep repeating (likely because you can't come up with a more absurd example in Anglo-Saxon or Standard English) is a blatant false analogy. This meme is no different than a reporter adding a photo to their story, or having a graphic designed. No one is manipulating what anyone said. No reader is being mislead. The substance of this meme is no different than any other meme of this variety. The only person potentially misleading anyone is the person who wants to display the meme as a quote box. No reader will ever encounter a Jeffery Epstein meme in the form as a Wikipedia quote box.HAL333 04:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
HAL333, please moderate your language. It is inappropriate in a discussion to call the other person's opinion "asinine", "ridiculous", "snide", and "utterly biased". -- MelanieN (talk) 04:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
If you see the coverage [about combat dogs] and you decide I want one of these dogs, either buy a fully trained and finished dog from a professional or just don't get one at all, and Epstein didn't kill himself.

Meme, as broadcast on Fox News in November 2019.[1][2]

I am afraid I don't understand what you mean by "No reader will ever encounter a Jeffery Epstein meme in the form as a Wikipedia quote box": quote boxes carry quotes, so any use of the meme in a verbal sense can be quoted. An example is shown just to the right of this comment: this can be tweaked to show the text normal size or embolded as desired, but it has the benefit of being an actual example of the phrase being used in a real setting. - SchroCat (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, MelanieN I will tone down my language. But with all due respect, I would like to note that you are clearly biased against me due to my stance on this issue. SchroCat has used equally rude language, such as "second rate rubbish," telling editors to "piss off," along with other harsh language. Does that not merit a slap on the wrist because you agree with him?HAL333 23:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

And SchroCat, the meme is not simply verbal. Any information pertaining to the verbal arrangement of the meme can be found in the text. The purpose of the image is to represent the meme visually, as that is what this meme is.HAL333 23:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@HAL333: MelanieN is also the person who reviewed the DYK. Just an FYI. –MJLTalk 04:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but not this particular image I am opposed to using an image of a large block of text: it's bad for accessibility and can't be easily modified. Either a less text-heavy meme or a quote box would be better. Cheers, gnu57 22:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • No — inappropriate in this case. It's misleading. As far as I can tell, there are no examples of Wikipedia being vandalised like this. If we can't have real pictures of the "meme" we shouldn't have anything.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Visit Internet meme for some more examples of this type of "vandalization".HAL333 04:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think this image for use only in this article is not problematic, in fact it illustrates the subject of the article well. Bus stop (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • No - use a real example from the wild, or use nothing. Ideally, it would be something a reliable source says is an example of the meme, like "An article is The Washington Post presented this image as an example of the meme, quoting Dr. so-and-so who noted its use of imagary typical of ..." Tom Harrison Talk 23:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

* Yes - The image is a free-use alternative to real memes like this one, which was posted above. It demonstrates, as the article says, that The meme usually includes a list or paragraph about an unrelated subject but concludes with the phrase "Epstein didn't kill himself." It is inappropriate to use a fair use image - which examples of the meme "in the wild" would be - when a freely licensed image can be used instead. There is precedent for "fabricated" images like this in articles like Image macro and Lolcat.

An alternative could be to take a screenshot of an article being vandalized with the phrase "Epstein didn't kill himself". This type of vandalism is apparently so prolific that an edit filter was added to prevent it. However, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of encouraging vandals by showcasing their vandalism in an article that gets 1000+ views per day, so I think this image is the best option for now. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • No — I see two problems with keeping this image. First, it is fabricated based on one person's understanding of the meme, and therefore could mislead readers about the notability or even the format of the meme. But there are situations in which that might be okay (lolcats), so I'm really more concerned about the second problem. The second problem is that, in contrast to the lolcat example cited above, this fabricated example treats a minority religion's beliefs as material to set up a punchline about an unrelated event, and is therefore inconsistent with Wikimedia's resolution on nondiscrimination. While there are good reasons to document discriminatory objects and images in context (see, e.g. Christianity and antisemitism), there are zero good reasons to create such things on a worldwide encyclopedia project committed to non-discrimination. (Note: I saw this RfC mentioned at WikiProject Internet Culture.) Indignant Flamingo (talk) 04:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • No, or rather, not this particular image. I was the first one to call attention to how inappropriate an illustration this is, here. For one thing, it's a totally phony creation rather than a real use of the meme. For another (I hadn't thought of this), using an example where Wikipedia was vandalized is a terrible idea. Is this something we want to encourage? Or maybe become a meme of its own - "Hey, sneak this phrase into Wikipedia somewhere, everybody's doing it!" Surely you can find a real use of the phrase out there somewhere. Or else forget about having an illustration. (Or maybe even forget about having an article - remember that the merge discussion is still ongoing.) -- MelanieN (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
    Yeah, I agree. I could be seen as promoting vandalism.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
    Looks like I was a little late to that party. Apparently adding it to Wikipedia is/was already a thing. It was done so often that a filter has been created to prevent it. [1] Thanks to SpicyMilkBoy for pointing that out. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. How about this. This image plus "and Epstein didn't kill himself." (The illustration can be found at Mass–energy equivalence.) Bus stop (talk) 05:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
It's okay. Maybe something with a little more text.HAL333 05:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
It has some text, in the image. I'll keep on looking. Bus stop (talk) 05:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. This RFC will see no further participation from me due to its one-sided nature which will likely make finding consensus near impossible for any closer. However, I do want to comment, so I won't feel the need to respond to users individually. As I have said, I am open to changing the image based off any specifications by user request. For example, Indignant Flamingo, I have created a Flamingo-based alternative that I am willing to replace with the current image right now (I'm not particularly original/creative). @MelanieN: As I have said, this is not based on any act of vandalism, but you are welcomed to re-write the image caption if you feel that isn't more clear.
    I highly encourage users to read the above discussion where I have tried patiently address SchroCat's concerns. However, no alternative image or modification I suggested was acceptable to him.
    Regardless, if I could have any lead picture I wanted it'd be this. Wikipedia will likely never be able to use that image though because of WP:NFCCP#1. Like it or not, we're stuck creating the image ourselves if we want one (and we should if we want to keep the article adequately illustrated). I don't really care what the image we use is; afterall, this was my first attempt at creating a meme for this page. However, until someone points me to a policy justification as to why our readers wouldn't be served by an image (any image), then I'm going to maintain my stance of insisting that an image be included as a service to our readers.
    As HAL333 said, they'll never see this meme shared as a Wikipedia quote box. (edit conflict)MJLTalk 06:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
fabricated diagram
I like this one I think this one is suitable. It displays what the meme is like, which is all that is needed.HAL333 23:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • No. This image (and another like it) doesn't really add anything useful or informative to the article. The "phenomenon" is already explained in the prose, and our readers generally don't have severe brain damage, so they already will understand what is meant. And given that we're already saying this takes more than one form, just illustrating the exact form of sticking this phrase at the end of an over-long image caption isn't actually illustrative of the subject. I'm not terribly concerned about whether the image is "false", since our one on LOLcat] is, too, and so on. As long as it fits the pattern (right down to the near-universal font style), it's useful. But this meme doesn't have a specific pattern, so it's not useful to make up a picture for it. Seriously, though, I wonder if this shouldln't just go to WP:AFD for deletion or at least merger into an article on Internet memes or into the Death of Jeffrey Epstein article. This one is not likely to have much staying power (no cultural significance over time), so it's a poor article subject.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  09:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • No image - Echo SMC. WBGconverse 16:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • No: Do not use an image to replace prose. And in this case, it hardly augments it. ——SN54129 16:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

  1. ^ Castrodale, Jelisa (13 November 2019). "This Beer Says 'Epstein Didn't Kill Himself' on the Bottom of Its Can". Vice. Retrieved 25 November 2019.
  2. ^ Hein, Michael (3 November 2019). "Fox News Guest Sneaks in 'Epstein Didn't Kill Himself' Comment During Live Segment". Retrieved 25 November 2019.
  • Yes Firstly, this RfC is already partisan even though RfCs should be neutral per WP:RFCBRIEF. Secondly, it is a completely legitamate free alternative to other Internet memes on the internet. For example, if someone posts a popular Epstein didn't kill himself meme we cannot use it here since it will not fall under any fair use policy since it is non-free material. Here MJL, has created a free alternative internet meme similiar to that of others in order to demonstrate an example of the meme. These examples are found across different articles like Internet meme. It is a completely legitamate alternative to using non-free copyrighted material. I urge SchroCat to WP:AGF when making RfCs next time. This is because stating this is "falsely created" is not true since fundamentally with Internet memes there is no true or false "Epstein didn't kill himself" since memes are user-generated content. Thus, making an equivilating this to journalist fabricating a quote is false.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I urge you to piss off and don't question my good faith in opening an RfC. I have opened a question that neither I or MJL would agree on: it is up to the open community to discuss and come to a decision on. - SchroCat (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
@SchroCat: Please could you strike-through "piss off" or re-word it calmly and neutrally since incivility does not help for productive discussions. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
No. Questioning my good faith when opening a recognised mechanism of getting past an impasse does not help for productive discussions. Strike your comments about me and the status of the RfC and I will consider my comment again. - SchroCat (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I have no issue with you opening an RfC but please state the question in a neutral fashion as I have explained above per WP:RFCBRIEF.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 21:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • No – an encyclopedia may document Internet memes, but should not participate in them. – bradv🍁 21:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Bradv, consider this response to be a barnstar, for summing up the heart of the issue in a very few well-chosen words! -- MelanieN (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • No - It's a slippery slope once we start accepting simulacra. Find the real thing or leave it out. Bacondrum (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment For those who have just arrived: here is the image in question. It was once again removed from the article.HAL333 00:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
    The original image
    A possible alternative

See below[edit]

@SchroCat: Now that Enwebb has come up with an example of the meme in the wild, can we finally end this irregular RFC per WP:NOTBURO? I'd like to actually get back to improving and expanding the article. –MJLTalk 20:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra and MelanieN: I'm not sure what to do exactly given that SchroCat seems to have ignored my ping. Face-troubled.svgMJLTalk 00:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I know it's painful but it might be a good idea to conclude the RfC just in case the issue comes up again, in other words to get a clearcut answer if the image is OK.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I would prefer we do that on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) with a fresh RFC and where more uninvolved contributors can participate. This RFC wasn't framed in such a way that would be any bit helpful to future scenarios where situations like this come up again. It an RFC about whether a particular image or set of images should be used for this particular article, and now the underlying facts of the dispute just fell through. The question of whether pages about memes should have memes generated for those pages will not be answered here. –MJLTalk 02:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
True, but someone could try to reuse your picture at a later stage.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
If they do, I'll just ask for it to be deleted on Commons. –MJLTalk 05:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
OK, no problem then.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • No - No image is better than having a fabricated one. Not all articles have to have images and in this case, it would not assist the learning of this (fairly crap) article. CassiantoTalk 19:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Assad claims[edit]

@Jack Upland: I get that you thought the first time I made this statement, it was misleading. To be perfectly honest, I was careless and should've read the article I sourced it to more closely. However, I don't agree with this removal. I was much more careful with my words there, so it's cited and quoted to explain the association exactly as it written about. It wasn't in Wikipedia's voice because it was attributed to Fox News with a clear distinction that Assad was professing his belief in the conspiracy theory and not sharing the meme. –MJLTalk 16:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

It's true that one article says that. Simply because one article says something doesn't mean it should be included (see WP:ONUS). That source does not distinguish between the "meme" and an expression of an opinion. This would open the floodgates to include everything here. This really strengthens the case for a merge.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
@Jack Upland: That's why we have WP:INTEXT. The article was simply referencing the meme in its opening line. It also, doesn't strengthen the case for a merge because you have folks like Donald Trump who have shared the theory without sharing the meme. –MJLTalk 20:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Firstly, if we agree that Assad didn't take part in the "meme", why mention him here? Even if the claim is attributed to Fox News, the wording still implies that Assad did take part. Secondly, I don't agree with your take on the source. The source opens by saying, "The “Jeffrey Epstein didn’t kill himself” meme appears to have now gone international. Syrian President Bashar Assad, in an interview with Russian state TV Thursday, waded into the bizarre viral craze by offering his own take...". That only makes sense if you believe that anyone who mentions a "conspiracy theory" is taking part in the "meme". In that case, Trump is taking part, as are Epstein's lawyers, etc. The distinction between the meme and the controversy about his death becomes very blurred. However, in relation to the claim that the "meme" has gone international, I think that is true, given the example of Australian rappers, Hilltop Hoods. --Jack Upland (talk) 06:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I suppose you're right here. I think I was too focused on trying to feel vindicated. There are plenty of better examples, so there's no reason for me to be too attached to this one. –MJLTalk 05:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
OK, but no one else has waded in, so if you decide you want it in, I won't oppose it.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
How about I just put it in the Further reading? I'm a few edits away from tapping out the reserve sources I stored there, so it will just be an option for people to read if they want to look more into closely related subject matter. –MJLTalk 18:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Suitable illustration[edit]

Epstein Bridge Nov2019 2

Found in the wild. Doesn't meet the threshold of originality for the work to be protected by the graffiti artist. Leaving here for consideration in light of ongoing discussion and the fact that this article is locked up pretty tight right now. Enwebb (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I think you've solved the problem.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Jack Upland, yes, perhaps in need of a crop but I'm hoping it could be of use. Enwebb (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't crop it. The writing is perfectly conspicuous. It is the only writing in the photograph. It isn't as if there were other signage competing for our attention. And the idea of the meme is that it is an appendage to virtually anything, thus all the extraneous imagery contributes to illustrating the meme. Bus stop (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
@Bus stop:
20% cropped
The 20% crop that I did seems to not be too much though, right? –MJLTalk 05:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
@MJL: Either one is acceptable in my opinion. Bus stop (talk) 05:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I would support this as the lead image if nothing can be agreed upon in the above discussion.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@Spy-cicle: I'll be honest by saying that I'll take this image over anything I had a hand in creating if it just means this dispute can end faster and I can edit the article again. This has been an incredibly frustrating experience, and I just want it to be over. –MJLTalk 20:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes this does seem like the best solution here.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Support as lead image. This is a freely licensed example of the meme in the wild, which solves the issues with 'fabricated' images and copyright discussed above. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Aw, shucks :) Enwebb (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support If everyone is happy with it.HAL333 22:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support This answers my objections to the original illustration. This seems unanimous. Can we just go ahead and put it into the article? -- MelanieN (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Not unless you have special powers, MelanieN.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. It illustrates the meme well. Bus stop (talk) 02:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. I will support this if the word "HERE" is artificially added on the end of the graffito.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Jack, is this a real point or sarcasm? It's always impossible to tell here. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
It's probably sarcasm. –MJLTalk 18:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I was asking Jack. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it was a joke...--Jack Upland (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
🙄MJLTalk 18:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Fully-protected edit request on 5 December 2019[edit]

Graffiti of the meme, Epstein didn't kill himself in Cincinnati, Ohio


I request to add the image to the right as the lead image for the article as per the unanimous consensus above (excluding the joke by Jack Upland) ([2]) Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

May I remind you that there is an RfC still open on this. CassiantoTalk 22:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes I am aware. It is clear there is no consensus for having anyone of those images as the lead picture. I was referring to the unanimous consensus under suitable illustration  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 23:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Shouldn't edit protection have expired?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
It is. The template was just still on the page. Editing now open again. Enwebb (talk) 23:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I think it would be best to wait until the earlier RfC is either closed or withdrawn. Consensus is clear that your picture will be added at some point. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Since it has now been closed, this is now  DoneMJLTalk 05:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


I wonder if there are BLP issues about an article that is essentially promoting a "conspiracy theory". Epstein has just died. The people who supposedly did kill him — Trump, the Clintons, the British Royal Family, Putin etc — are very much alive.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

For an article that is promoting a conspiracy theory, there seems to be a lack of actual theorizing in the article. There's no mention of Trump, the Clintons, or Putin in any of the article's prose. The only mention of the British Royal Family is in a footnote, and the only mentions of Epstein personally are backed by reliable sources. BLP is a non-issue. If people want to read about the conspiracy theory, then they can do so in the further reading section or in the article about Jeffrey Epstein's death. –MJLTalk 17:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)