Talk:Jeffrey Epstein

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Contents

Lead section[edit]

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

Epstein is at least as well known for his paedophile pimping as for his finance and other work. This should be mentioned in the first sentence for the benefit of readers. In my original edit[1] I included it after "financier", leaving the details lower down in the lede:

Jeffrey Edward Epstein (born January 20, 1953) is an American financier and registered sex offender.[1] He worked at Bear Stearns early in his career and subsequently formed his own firm, J. Epstein & Co. In 2008 Epstein was convicted of soliciting an underage girl for prostitution and given an 18-month prison sentence, of which he served 13 months.[2] He is a registered level three sex offender.[3]

This was reverted by Ianmacm with the comment: "rv, this ends up saying twice in the lead that he is a sex offender. Needs a mention, but no need to go to town as it is clearly mentioned in the WP:LEAD already."
If we're going to describe him as just one thing in the first, defining sentence, then that one thing should be sex offender. But we can describe him in more than one term. I propose we return to my original edit but remove the second mention, not the first. Thus:

Jeffrey Edward Epstein (born January 20, 1953) is an American financier and registered sex offender.[1] He worked at Bear Stearns early in his career and subsequently formed his own firm, J. Epstein & Co. In 2008 Epstein was convicted of soliciting an underage girl for prostitution and given an 18-month prison sentence, of which he served 13 months.[4] He is a registered level three sex offender.[3]

References

  1. ^ a b Lewis, Paul (January 4, 2015). "Jeffrey Epstein: The rise and fall of teacher turned tycoon". Guardian.
  2. ^ "Jeffrey Epstein: the billionaire paedophile with links to Bill Clinton, Kevin Spacey, Robert Maxwell – and Prince Andrew". The Independent.
  3. ^ a b Dargan, Michele (November 22, 2011). "Jeffrey Epstein must register as NY's highest level sex offender". Palm Beach Daily News.
  4. ^ "Jeffrey Epstein: the billionaire paedophile with links to Bill Clinton, Kevin Spacey, Robert Maxwell – and Prince Andrew". The Independent.
Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
People have proposed similar wording in articles like Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris but it has been rejected by consensus. If Savile and Harris had not been major figures for many years in showbusiness, the sexual abuse angle would not have become notable in the first place. Plenty of people are registered sex offenders but this does not establish WP:GNG notability on its own. There needs to be some context, and it is Epstein's background as a wealthy financier that does this. For a long time, this article has been reading more like it is Jeffrey Epstein controversies or Jeffrey Epstein lawsuits rather than a biography of him as a person. There are also WP:NOTNEWSPAPER issues with a lot of weight being given to ongoing court actions. I think this article needs a cleanup or it should be referred to WP:BLPN for further input from experienced editors.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I think the proposed edit works. It gives both elements of Epstein's notability. I don't understand the point about "on-going court actions" -- he was convicted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Epstein has been convicted of one sexual offence, so he is not a serial sex offender. Saying that a person is a sex offender in the opening sentence has been rejected at articles like Jimmy Savile, Rolf Harris and Jonathan King, because they were independently notable before the sex offence controversies occurred.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Saville, Harris and King are all very well-known for their professional careers, Saville and Harris especially so - at least in the UK. Outside finance circles, Epstein is relatively unknown for his work, but widely notorious for his pimping. It is what he's known for. In this case, we owe it to the reader to identify the thing he's most notable for in the first sentence.
I've asked for input at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Should we describe Jeffrey Epstein as a sex offender in the first sentence of his BLP? Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
That BLP/N discussion arrived at no consensus and was archived here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Why is everybody ignoring the elephant in the room? The only reason sex offense is mentioned so prominently by these bitter, delusional partisans, —in fact, the ONLY reason they are here, —is to bludgeon the Clintons. For example, in Rollingstone's [Pizzagate: Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal] article yesterday Nov 16, 2017 on the whacko and Russian-fed fake news avalanche, Epstein is mentioned at least 3 times, —which is how I landed here.
I think you may be forgetting psychology. What a meteoric rise of that man! These rags to riches type stories always fascinate people. His father worked for the Parks Department, for goodness sakes, probably as a gardener or it would be mentioned (e.g. he headed the xyz section). Throw sex in and his unimaginable riches, unimaginable for most of us, it is totally fascinating. Now he owns a super mansion, plane, takes the person who was once the most powerful man on the planet - Clinton - to Africa has international residences and owns an island where the authorities cannot reach him. The number of his servants to manage and maintain all these properties must be significant and cost a significant sum. The connection to Ghislaine Maxwell is also 'interesting'. Put it all together and it's like a pulp fiction novel - but this is for real - and that is why it's fascinating to most people. How fake news and Russian fake news come in, is not clear to me, but we'll see what comes out in the next court case which is close. 124.184.70.17 (talk) 02:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Quoting from a comment above: "Epstein is at least as well known for his paedophile pimping as for his finance and other work." Sadly this is true for a minority of gullible people self-imprisoned by their AlexJones-Fox-Limbaugh conspiracy theory echo-chamber. They happily seek and chug-a-lug nasty delusions like Hillary's child sex slave ring with pizzagate, and other imaginary, perverted daydreams. Of course the quivering will say, or write, or do anything to destroy such a monster. How unspeakably sad.
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:2CA5:3D0:2D38:D4CC (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Doug Bashford

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

Tendentious edits to exclude sex offenses from opening sentence[edit]

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

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

Incidentally, User:Ianmacm promised (above) that he was "not going to edit war if someone changes the first sentence to "Jeffrey Epstein is an American financier and sex offender"". --Tataral (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
This was discussed recently at WP:BLPN. The problematic edits are the ones trying to say that Jeffrey Epstein is notable solely for being a sex offender. See the thread here--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Yep. The discussion is archived here. I agree with you but our argument failed to sway the opposition. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

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

The reason why this edit was reverted yesterday is that it has clumsy and crude wording that is out of step with core WP:BLP values. There are various ways of tackling this, but there was a consensus at BLPN that being a registered sex offender does not in itself make a person notable enough for their own Wikipedia article. How many sex offenders are there in the USA? Probably thousands. Do they all have their own Wikipedia article? No. It is therefore misleading to cite this as the primary cause of a person's notability. I was also concerned about describing him as a former financier as this is not clearly stated in the article or the sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
We have many pages dedicated to singers, but obviously not everyone who can carry a tune deserves a Wikipedia article - but that's clearly not what Ianmacm is arguing. Ianmacm isn't saying Jeffrey Epstein should have a Wikipedia page because he's a sex offender, they're saying he's a noteworthy person who is primarily known for his sex crimes, and that that should be recognized first and foremost over him being a financier. At this point, saying Epstein is famous for being a financier is like saying Britney Spears is famous for having been in The Mickey Mouse Club. Samtayhow (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
There's no consensus on anything at BLP/N. Since this is a BLP, when there's on consensus we err on the conservative side and leave the controversial edit out. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm in favor of changing the first sentence to describe Epstein as "an American financier and sex offender," and then deleting the both the last sentence (which would be redundant) as well as the portion of the third sentence about his prison sentence. How long he served is of course worthy of inclusion in the article, but isn't sufficiently noteworthy from the lead and serves as a distraction from the main, most noteworthy point (that he was convicted of soliciting underage girls). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

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

More: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/alexander-acosta-trump-labour-secretary-nominee-plea-deal-miami-jeffrey-epstein-a7624286.html and http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-jeffrey-epstien-alexander-acosta-sex-abuse-case-20170321-story.html. And there will be more... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Read our article. This is already heavily covered. Though it could certainly be tightened up, and the new sources (I've seen even more) could prove useful. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Unless you can show a causal link between Trump and Acosta's decision, using Trump's name is only political, and should not be included in this mention. DeknMike (talk) 01:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLP Concern in "Virginia Roberts lawsuits" section.[edit]

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

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

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

There is a load of unproven material in the Virginia Roberts section. I'm not happy about this, but the section is shorter and less prominent than it once was. The article should be careful here unless the claims actually stand up in court.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you both for your work here to keep the article in accord with BLP and verifiability policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:C700:2DB2:79F9:63EE:33ED:E050 (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Career?[edit]

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

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

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

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


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

Government Stop Order (construction)/ violation of[edit]

Epstein has been named as being in breach of building codes or construction permits (Planning Permission) during May 2019, but someone spotted ongoing work from their yacht.[1] Dunno why the article is locked up and he is not, so if a priveleged wikipedian could add that info, do.126.209.22.197 (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

References

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

Deee Latest![edit]

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

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

Religion in first sentence[edit]

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

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

"Amercan Jew Financier"`, really?[edit]

Comes off as amazingly anti-semitic as the first sentence, especially when quoted by google without the link highlights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.189.190.201 (talk) 02:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


Hi @99.189.190.201: Thanks for your Wikipedia contributions :) If you're referring to adding this information to the article introduction, I agree it's not appropriate. I searched the revision but could not find which contributor added this. Do you know? Anyhow, as you know there is a better section to add this information to. All are welcome to join this related discussion.
With infinite Wikipedia love ♥. Francewhoa (talk) 23:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


Trump quote[edit]

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)

To add to article[edit]

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

Trafficking subsection needs expert editorial attention[edit]

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

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

Pronunciation of surname?[edit]

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

hearing it said on the radio (usa) a lot lately rhyming with SEEN not with VINE. Cramyourspam (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
In my experience at least, the "rhymes with keen" pronunciation is the standard. Stein rhymes with vine, but I've never heard Epstein pronounced to rhyme with vine. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Wrong Chris Tucker[edit]

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

The Chris Tucker linked from the article is the American actor and stand-up comedian born in 1971. This looks like the correct Chris Tucker according to the sourcing.[2]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Virginia Roberts[edit]

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

Philantropist[edit]

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 [3]. 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)

Jewish[edit]

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

Is it "trolling" to include the ancestry of notable persons when it is known? This is common practice on Wikipedia, and it is quite interesting to see that after this new scandal has come out, Epstein's ancestry/ethnicity is something that should be removed from the article? I.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeffrey_Epstein&diff=905553885&oldid=905553655 . Erasing mention of his background as a result of a scandal is hardly NPOV. ADMelnick (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
ADMelnick, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to take lessons in NPOV editing on Wikipedia from someone with a half dozen edits. I don't know the editor who made the change you pointed at (and it's already been restored to the article), but I do know that I find it odd that so many people are interested in this person's Jewishness, especially when coupled with the suggestion that there might be something going on, something fishy. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it's a commonly practiced form of trolling - I've never seen an editor who was vitally interested in mentioning that somebody's Presbyterian in a prominent manner, but for some reason it happens in articles on Jewish, or seems-Jewish people all the time. Please keep your views on whether Jewish people are mostly good and sometimes bad to yourselves, and stop promoting conspiracy theories about article editing.. Acroterion (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I simply noticed that information regarding his ethnic background had been removed, restored, and removed again (and since restored once more...) on this Wikipedia article as I have been following this story. I am sure we can all cast aspersions about the motivations of the editors on both sides; it's ironic, though, that the people who want to maintain the inclusion of this information in the article can be regarded as agenda-driven/ill-intentioned trolls, while making a similar allegation about those seeking to remove the information can disparaged as "promoting conspiracy theories". All this said, I never claimed that his background should be mentioned in the article intro. Only that it should be restored to the customary place in the article, i.e. in the "Early Life" section and in the article categories section. Thanks. ADMelnick (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
ADMelnick—what is your question? The "Early life" section includes that "Epstein was born in 1953 in Brooklyn, New York, to a Jewish family and grew up in Coney Island." And the individual is included in Category:American people of Jewish descent. Bus stop (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi @ADMelnick and And Drmies: Thanks for your Wikipedia contributions :) I suggest we focus our efforts on information from reputable source(s). Any volunteer to find a reputable source(s) about the claim that Jeffrey Epstein being of Jewish heritage and or religion? If any, what is the encyclopedic value in including this information in the article, from the reader's point of view? What would be the appropriate location for information in the article? Intro?, Early life?, elsewhere?
According to this Wikipedia article about "Epstein", "The surname Epstein is one of the oldest Ashkenazi Jewish family names". Source is Singer, Isidore; et al., eds. (1901–1906).
Contribution from all are really welcome :) Including people of Jewish religion. Speaking for myself, based on my interactions with Jewish people, most Jewish people are good people, with mature, ethical, and lawful behaviors. But allegedly, a minority of Jewish people are bad people, with immature, unethical or criminal behaviors. Same with all the other religions I interacted with ;) Francewhoa (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

It isn't a matter of singling him out as Jewish because he has committed criminal acts. If you look at most articles of famous persons on Wikipedia, the heritage of the individual is listed. The issue here is that some people want to hide the fact that he is Jewish, because they don't want child sex trafficking associated with a member of that particular ethnic group. My point is, if he was born into an Italian, Japanese, or Swedish family in NYC, and that was listed in his "early life" section (as is customary on Wikipedia), would there be any justification for removing that information if it comes out that the person has committed a crime? Of course not.
Here's a link to an article - https://www.jpost.com/International/Billionaire-sex-offender-Jeffrey-Epstein-charged-with-sex-trafficking-594864
It seems quite clear to me that the issue here is that Epstein is an ethnic/cultural Jew, and his victims were for the most part non-Jewish whites. So since "white supremacists" might complain that his actions might have been motivated by ethnic or cultural hatred, his Jewishness should be hidden, *for the greater good*. That's not right. If he was born into a Chinese-American family, that would be noted in his biography, regardless of whether or not he committed any crimes and whether or not his ethnic background (or that of the victims) was relevant to those crimes. ADMelnick (talk) 23:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
The problem here is that others wanted it in the lead, in an apparent effort to conspicuously smear Jews. It's fine in the body, which is common in BLPs. soibangla (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Early life. Jewish family.[edit]

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

Early life
Epstein was born in 1953 in Brooklyn, New York, to a Jewish family and grew up in Coney Island. Epstein's father worked for the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation.[1]
Sources
Again, speaking for myself, based on my interactions with Jewish people, most Jewish people are good people, with mature, ethical, and lawful behaviors. But allegedly, a minority of Jewish people are bad people, with immature, unethical or criminal behaviors. Same with all the other religions I interacted with ;) Francewhoa (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Francewhoa, I am going to have to ask you to NOT start talking about your experiences with people of varying backgrounds. This is not a forum. Or, WP:NOTFORUM. Besides that, I am quite surprised to find so much interest in some sex trafficker's Jewishness, including from relatively new or inexperienced editors. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The administrator who i leave un-named violated WP:VANDALISM by removing talk page content without proper cause (He claimed on the talk page of the blocked IP user that the talk page content was "Trolling", but im sure you can be the judge of that yourselves here). This same administrator then replaced that content with his own content, threatening to block any user that "troll[ed] about Jewishness". Of course, this would only reinforce the belief by anti-semetic users that there is some sort of grand conspiracy, especially since there was content removed that questioned the removal of said content. Anyhow, the likelyhood that I stay here is not very long, since administrators (like the un-named ones in my post) like to block users for questioning their actions. 50.108.68.198 (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to also add that the initial edit to remove "Jewish" from the article could have also been by an editor who wanted to cause a controversy. It's not just a one way street. 50.108.107.238 (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

One can only wonder what you are talking about, 50.108.107.238. Have you read the relevant material on this Talk page? The article mentions that he is Jewish. If you know of an issue could you please keep it brief? Bus stop (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't get it. He is Jewish. This source says "Jeffery Epstein, a Jewish politically well-connected billionaire, has been charged with sex trafficking, according to multiple reports." Bus stop (talk) 15:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
The IP was trying to insert this to the lead. According to MOS:ETHNICITY, "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." Ths is clearly not relevant to his notability. Should this be included to the body of the page? A cursory mention in a source that he is a "Jewish" (it does not tell anything about his family) is not a sufficient justification. Why this should be included? My very best wishes (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

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

  • I agree with the consensus that this verifiable information belongs in the article. Just not in the lead. R2 (bleep) 19:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • In general, ethnicity or religion are not mentioned in the lede unless it's a vital part of the person's life and character: for instance, a Lutheran clergyman. It's perfectly fine elsewhere, as long as it's sourced, and as long as editors remember that it would be highly unusual to find it necessary to have an explicit statement that somebody was born in a Christian household, for instance, so it needs to have more than passing relevance. It is an insistence on the lede that makes other editors suspicious, since this is employed on Wikipedia by some editors as a form of Jew-baiting and trolling. That doesn't mean that everybody who advocates it is exhibiting bad intent or even knows that it might be a matter of concern, but it's a red flag, especially in editors with few or no other contributions. Acroterion (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Harizotoh9, R2, I was wondering how you all would register whiteness as a verifiable family background in, for instance, Bill Clinton. There are 63 occurrences of "white" in the article, but the only one that points to racial matters is in the "Judicial appointments" section, and it's not about him. (I looked for "caucasian" too, but didn't get further than "caucus".) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand your question or its relevance, but I'll be honest, it sounds rather pointy. R2 (bleep) 23:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Hmm that's kind of sad. Alright: a man born into a Jewish family needs to have "Jewishness" written up in his Wikipedia article. A man of Caucasian ancestry does not need to have Caucasianness written up in his article. Why? So, if you're going to be honest, be honest. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Because that is the modern standard, else you are going to have to talk of the holocaust as an explicitly "white genocide", something which the left claims doesn't exist, therefore holocaust denial.75.101.93.247 (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
This argument is an amazing encapsulation of why The Internet was such a terrible idea. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 03:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Because it is sourced, because it is comparatively rare, and because Judaism is an ethnicity and a religion, not a race. Suggesting that Judaism is a race is historically associated with Nazism. Please don't do it again. R2 (bleep) 16:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
That flip will not work, R2, but nice try. It is a choice to insert it, and, as this talk page proves, a choice that frequently has other motives than encyclopedic completeness. And don't go around suggesting I'm a Nazi when I'm blocking Nazis left and right here; that's more than a little disgusting. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
You're not a Nazi, you're a good admin. Please take a moment to cool off. R2 (bleep) 17:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Ahrtoodeetoo—you say "Judaism is an ethnicity and a religion, not a race". If such questions should be entertained, they should be entertained elsewhere, not on this Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 13:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh look, another admin using their administrator privileges to block people who have a certain ideology. I wasn't aware that being a "Nazi" was against Wikipedia guidelines. Again, casting aspersions about the motives of other users, and publicly announcing your mission is to block "Nazis", rather than working towards the project's goals. Tell me again why this user is an administrator? Why do administrators get to violate guidelines with no consequences, yet if another user so much as hints at opposition to another administrator's conduct, they get blocked for "personal attacks". Sitting here and speculating on whether or not another person's motives are valid does not help the project in any capacity. 50.127.248.30 (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
That user is an administrator because they do laudable things like removing posts by Nazis. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
By nazis, or "nazis"? The goal of the project is not to remove "nazis". This is a fact.50.127.248.30 (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

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

  • "Jewish" - what does it mean here? The religion, ethnicity or self-identification? This is not clear. Is he a religious person? I do not think that religion or ethnicity should be included automatically in all BLP pages, but only if this is important in the context of biography, as established by sources. This is not the case here. My very best wishes (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Consensus[edit]

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

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

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

Support B

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

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

  • "My very best wishes", "Rklawton"—you are overthinking this. "what does it mean here ... the religion, ethnicity or self-identification" "we must not infer Epstein's religion based on his parent's religion" All that we are doing is adhering to reliable sources. Reliable sources say he is Jewish, so we say he is Jewish. The source says "Jeffery Epstein, a Jewish politically well-connected billionaire, has been charged with sex trafficking, according to multiple reports." Bus stop (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I think this can be included in such context because here the relevance is clear, but not by noticing "hey, and BTW, that criminal was Jewish". My very best wishes (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "the relevance is clear" No it isn't. Jeffrey Epstein had been a trustee of the Wexner Foundation which gave $2.3 million to Ehud Barak. "The Wexner Foundation focuses on the development of Jewish professional and volunteer leaders in North America and public leaders in Israel. Founded by Leslie Wexner", who is Jewish. Ehud Barak is also Jewish. I think you can write about the issue (involving Jeffrey Epstein) in the Israeli Elections. But the issue is not "context" for saying that Jeffrey Epstein is Jewish. You are saying "I think this can be included in such context because here the relevance is clear". There is no "context" relating to Jeffrey Epstein's Jewishness in the news story you are presenting. Both items can be presented separately, but there is nothing tying them together. It would be a contrivance to try to tie them together. Bus stop (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I have removed this hodgepodge of information. It reads Several sources state that Epstein is Jewish and/or "grew up in a Jewish household.". Its inclusion would require consensus. Bus stop (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
OK, I agree with your both points. My very best wishes (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The "hodgepodge" was sourced from a number of news publications that are unlikely to be presenting an anti-semitic bias: The Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Haaretz, The Forward, and The Jerusalem Post. The sheer number of reputable sources that included this information in their general content in each news article persuaded me to post it to the subject's page. I see from the talk page that this has been an ongoing issue of concern for some editors. For what it is worth, I also have a connection to the Interlochen Center for the Arts, having been employed there for two summers, and I did pause before adding that educational background to the subject's page. Since his attendance was verified by the registrar at the art center, it should be included as part of Epstein's early life even if I personally cringe at the realization that he was present on the campus both of the summers that I worked there. Arts institutions and religious institutions are comprised of individuals who run the gamut of moral development. Unfortunately, none are immune from criminals. To clarify, I also support option B) Mention Epstein's parents religion in Early Life Cedar777 (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Here is the problem. These sources (e.g. [4], just as CNN article linked by me above) are not at all about his "Jewishness", but on entirely different subjects. So they should be used to source subjects they are actually about. You are trying to cherry pick information that is completely irrelevant and unimportant, unless someone wants to make a point that ... I noticed that someone noted WP:EGRS. Yes, sure, one can probably assign this page to the corresponding categories, but it does not really influence te text of the page. My very best wishes (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
In the interest of consensus, can you kindly clarify your support for any of the above options as suggested by Rklawton or provide another alternative? Cedar777 (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Double Standard ( & censoring of this talk page)[edit]

User:Cullen328 doesn't seem to like that a possible double standard is made transparent that some authors have when it comes to mentioning or omitting “Jewishness”. Here [[5]] he immediately removed my contribution. My comments have not been a NOTAFORUM as Cullen328 tried to imply. Why censoring instead of answering in this talk page? BalancedIssues (talk) 09:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The article says he has Jewish parents. It puts him in the categories of American Jew and Jewish philanthropists. So his "Jewishness" as you put it, is mentioned in the article. What exactly is it you want this article to say so that it is "balanced"? Railfan23 (talk) 05:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I would put more weight on the "Career" section as I said BalancedIssues (talk) 05:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Adding well-sourced information to the Career section of the article would be appropriate. But what on earth has that got to do with the long, tedious discussion about "Jewishness"? Absolutely nothing. If you want to propose additions to the Career section, backed with appropriate reliable sources then do so. Railfan23 (talk) 05:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Sure I will do that. Btw, it is not my fault that some argue for suppression of facts or (inadvertently) introduce double standards for this article.BalancedIssues (talk) 05:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
BalancedIssues—I will guess the reference is to me about "suppression of facts". I am concerned about misleading implications therefore I will choose "option A". Bus stop (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2019[edit]

Questionable source needs to be flagged. Change citation #75 to [better source needed].

Mar-a-Lago barred Epstein[edit]

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

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

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

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

Indeed, "radaronline" does not look as an RS. The info is really really controversial. My very best wishes (talk) 03:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
It's cited to a Fox News report which is a RS. Atsme Talk 📧 03:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Fox News: Trump banned Epstein from his Mar-a-Lago estate “because Epstein sexually assaulted an underage girl at the club,” according to court documents filed by Bradley Edwards, But the same lawyer later said in an interview that he was unable to confirm that claim. Edwards 2010 court doc: "I learned through a source that Trump banned Epstein from his Maralago Club." Video of interview: https://twitter.com/AdamReigner/status/1147899138878693377. soibangla (talk) 03:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Citation #75 is currently a Fox News report (which is a RS), so either the citation has been updated or the citation you're referring to has moved to a different number. I'm closing this request; if something still needs to be changed then please reopen this request with more details. It's probably better to refer to a citation by name, or by specific placement in the article, rather than by number - this article is changing so rapidly right now that the citation numbers will be changing on a regular basis. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Atsme, Dranomartini, and ElHef: Thanks for your Wikipedia contributions :) I found this additional reputable source about Mar-a-Lago barred Epstein.
According to news reports dating to 2007, Trump’s Palm Beach resort Mar-a-Lago barred Epstein from the premises because of his unseemly pursuit of young females.[1]
Sources

  1. ^ Saunders, Debra J. (2019-07-09). "Trump backs Labor secretary as Democrats demand resignation". Las Vegas Review-Journal. Retrieved 2019-07-09.
Francewhoa (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Additional reputable source:
An April 2011 court filing shows that Trump eventually barred Epstein from Mar-a-Lago “because Epstein sexually assaulted a girl at the club,” the documents allege.[1]
Sources

  1. ^ Schwab, Nikki (2019-07-10). "Schumer got thousands in donations from Jeffrey Epstein". New York Post. Retrieved 2019-07-10.
Francewhoa (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

This all seems very murky to me. 2007 news reports? What 2007 news reports? 2011 court filing? What 2011 court filing? And other, more reputable outlets have delved into the Epstein-Trump relationship in depth, covering Epstein's visits to Mar-A-Lago, and they don't say anything about this. This seems suspicious to me. R2 (bleep) 21:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: The last actual interaction between Trump and Epstein (that I can find) appears to be adversarial - "Trump Wins Gosman Mansion for $41 million", Palm Beach Daily News (March 28, 2016): "Judge Steven Friedman presided over the bidding by Trump and two other parties, Wall Street financier Jeffrey Epstein, a part-time Palm Beach resident, and developer Mark Timothy Prestige Homes, based in Boca Raton". Something seems a bit off about the reporting to me, though, so perhaps this can be verified from another source. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
That's not really adversarial, nor do I think it's worthy of mention. Their companies bid against each other to buy a property. It's just business. There's no indication of any good or bad blood. R2 (bleep) 18:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I removed the content about Mar-A-Lago barring Epstein per WP:BLP and other community standards. The content was a mess of verifiability problems. It suggested that the sole basis for the claim was the say-so of a lawyer who had sued Epstein. And that wasn't even reflected in the cited sources which were themselves pretty shitty. R2 (bleep) 19:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
So, I thought it important to note that this territory has been covered by the Washington Post, but there it still strikes me as murky and uncertain, because they reference it as well to "court documents filed by Edwards." I guess I would lean towards leaving it out, for now, but this one is closer (for me) than I thought. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Ugh, I expect that sort of thing from Fox News, but not from the Post. There are court documents, and then there are court documents. From a journalistic standpoint, there are some court documents that are equivalent to smoking guns, while there are others I wouldn't use to wipe my ass. R2 (bleep) 20:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Clinton, Lolita Express[edit]

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

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

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

What is Wikipedia's "black list" and how does it "report"?? Atsme Talk 📧 04:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Who and how is totally irrelevant. Because guess what? You (and therefore Wikipedia) are criticizable, as you are not the eternal fount of wisdom. The only relevant question is, what does it report. And it is about the edit-rush to get Bouncing-Billy out of the context of the Lolita-Express. And it is not only happening in the US. The same is happening on the germany Wiki. Bye, Chris - Hamburg, Germany 2003:C8:8725:9D00:D980:1F8C:72D6:4FD7 (talk) 06:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Why does this article have to have such a strong leftist bias? To keep a neutral perspective, either add all of Bill Clinton/Donald Trump/the rest of them, or leave them out entirely. Stop cherrypicking individual figures just to fit a leftist narrative. 2001:48F8:3022:D9E:39D3:463B:9EF1:A218 (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree. This article has been massively altered to remove any mention of former President Bill Clinton yet deliberately has left current President Trump in place. I find this to be biased against our sitting President and an offense to the office he holds to not mention BOTH or remove BOTH. Stop pushing your narrative.JKnight78 (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
We only repeat what is reported in independent reliable sources, nothing more or less. Our job is not to favor one person or party over another or to ensure some kind of parity. The relationships of both men to Epstein are discussed in the section dealing with his personal life. As far as I can tell the facts presented are adequately sourced. And as of right now Mr. Clinton's flying on the plane is discussed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
You use a source that mentions Clinton in the title, and yet the article doesn't even mention him? To be clear, it appears that content is being added/removed rather quickly. There are definitely editors who are editing with bias. 199.21.163.10 (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
And plenty of nameless drive-by trolls who don't know or don't care to know how Wikipedia works, but think that the site somehow needs their opinion. Drmies (talk) 12:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh Infowars, where facts never stand in the way of a good story.

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

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

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

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

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

Incorrect information on donation to Harvard[edit]

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2019[edit]

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

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

Run-on sentence[edit]

The current version[6] states "Fox News reported he flew without Secret Service at least 5 times[75] although his press secretary disputed that in a July 8, 2019 statement the pilot's flight logs show at least 26 trips by Bill Clinton and each one with young girls .[76] " This run on sentence looks dubious. I don't plan on researching this at the moment, but I just wanted to flag it. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that was a mess. petrarchan47คุ 21:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

Political Affiliation[edit]

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

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

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

Link: https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/results?name=jeffrey+Epstein&order=asc&page=1&sort=D
There are also some (R) donations listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DirkDouse (talkcontribs) 19:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
DirkDouse (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Nothing's going in without a reliable secondary source. R2 (bleep) 20:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Recent sources[edit]

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

Clinton flights[edit]

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

Fox News reports:

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

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

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

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

Here is the point. If the subject (JE) simply met someone or provided his planes merely to transport persons X,Y,Z (and there was nothing else), then persons X,Y,Z possibly do not deserve to be mentioned on the page. However, if there was a more substantial connection (his layers, prosecutors or people who banned him from visiting a place) and that can be reliably sourced, then it should be included on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 02:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Per BLP and RED FLAG any claim or imputation that Clinton (or Trump) was involved with sexual impropriety, whether criminal or merely unethical, would need very clear RS sources. Noting that Clinton was a friend of Epstein and flew on his plane is solidly sourced and not UNDUE. Anything beyond that would need much better sourcing than I have seen, which is mostly speculative. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
That's exactly the problem. Was he a "friend" and what exactly that means? Without any substantial and factual involvement claiming someone to be a "friend" of a notorious criminal is a BLP violation. Flying on someone else plane (a lot of people did it) - is it due on the page? This is something disputable. My very best wishes (talk) 12:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Noting that Clinton was a friend of Epstein is not, in fact, solidly sourced. There is no evidence their relationship went anywhere beyond creating/promoting CGI. To assert otherwise is similar to asserting Mueller and Comey are "friends," when there is no evidence they were anything but professional acquaintances employed by the same organization. soibangla (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • This NYT source provides the most current and in-depth look at Clinton's contacts with Epstein. Many reliable sources cover whatever relationship existed between these two people, so it certainly seems noteworthy to include something on the topic. R2 (bleep) 19:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure what you are proposing in regards to the article content, Soibangla? The article, as it stands, does not claim that Epstein procured minors for Clinton. It simply mentions the close involvement between Clinton and Epstein which is a matter of historical record. It also mentions Epstein's relationships with a number of individuals such as good old Woody Allen (who has a very interesting biography). We are not here as a jury to try individuals, such as Bill Clinton, we simply report back what reliable sources say.... and reliable source mention that Bill and Jeff were good pals. Baron De La Ware (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Reliable sources say that they were good pals? Can you identify one of those sources please? R2 (bleep) 20:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2019[edit]

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

Just a word to the wise: it is usually a good idea to at least skim the article in question before requesting edits. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I recommend reading every word of the article first, but I am an old fashioned 20th century kind of guy. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Molyneux WP:CANVASSing re: “Jewish family”[edit]

FYI to contributors: Stefan Molyneux (413,000 Twitter followers) is drawing attention to this article's “Early life” section.[11] I have no opinion on how it should read but it should be known that an attempt at WP:CANVASSing is going on, and recent edits should be seen in this light. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 06:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

This isn't canvassing. Canvassing must be on-wiki. However it could lead to meatpuppetry. It's also not just Molyneux; it's all over the far-right Internet right now. I've dropped a {{recruiting}} tag on this page. R2 (bleep) 19:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
R2, thanks for that. If you had admin glasses and you'd look at the history of this talk page, you can see that the antisemites are targeting this page. Drmies (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
A valid concern to be sure, but please don’t overreact to a comment I made about a single editor who made a single, civil, nondiscrimatory comment on this page. I don’t particularly care whether the editor came here as a result of Molyneux’s tweet. If they stay civil and keep their bigotry to themselves then they are allowed and indeed encouraged to participate (disruption elsewhere aside). R2 (bleep) 15:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ahrtoodeetoo:If they stay civil and keep their bigotry to themselves then they are allowed and indeed encouraged to participate (disruption elsewhere aside).—I beg your pardon? Are you assuming I have some bigotry to keep to myself? That is to say, are you calling me a bigot? I'm going to chalk this up to poor turn of phrase and not a personal attack. Who cares how I found the tweet? I consider Molyneux to be a crazed (and blatantly racist) muppet, by the way. Clearly the page needed a {{recruiting}} tag, I just didn't know the right template so brought this to your attention and you added it. Why am I on trial, Drmies? You both need to stop shooting the messenger. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 14:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Psiĥedelisto, I'm not even talking about you. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
You may not have been, but the admin who replied to you (R2) obviously was… Psiĥedelisto (talk) 03:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
In your previous post you said "I'm going to chalk this up to poor turn of phrase and not a personal attack". Now you say "[y]ou may not have been, but the admin who replied to you (R2) obviously was". I think those are two quite different stances. And I happen to agree with your first expressed sentiment. "[P]oor turn of phrase" says it well. Bus stop (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2019[edit]

Return American to Jewish.

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

Not done You have failed to provide any reliable sources. Your implication that Epstein is somehow not American but rather "Jewish" is as absurd as it is objectionable. So, the answer is "no". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Not much of a discussion to be had when there is a) a source indicating his Jewish heritage and b) there was no issue with indicating his Jewish heritage until this most recent arrest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.134.181.242 (talk) 02:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Secret Service[edit]

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

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

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

The twitter reference does not support the Fox claim.

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

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

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

Clinton mentions in the article[edit]

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

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

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

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

WP:There is no cabal. Or is there? (And I haven't analyzed the article or the sources.) I just have an idea of how this place works. We follow the reliable sources. When the preponderance of WP:Reliable sources devotes more prose to associations between one or the other then we should generally have more prose here about that association. So you might have a point or you might not. Just thought I'd chime in. Hope that helps. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
This is a fast developing story, and Fox is a bit out ahead of the rest with that particular reporting. It may well be true, or it might not. If it is, it should be confirmed by other reliable sources in short order, and then there would be no question as to including it. But in the meantime, we have to be particularly careful with including ties to anyone here. I know that's not terribly satisfying, but it's the right way to run this encyclopedia, I believe. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Clinton is currently noticed on the page. The real question: what was his actual involvement with the subject? If he was just a passenger on a plane, that hardly worth inclusion. If it was something else, that something else must be sourced to multiple RS. My very best wishes (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
The New York Times[12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptnono (talkcontribs) 14:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
From that article: "It was unclear how many individual flights were involved in each trip that Mr. Ureña mentioned and whether that may account for the discrepancy between the number he cited and what the flight logs show." Also, it would be helpful if you would sign your posts. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! This is an RS, and it answers my question. They interacted through work in Clinton Foundation. As source tells, "The ride on the private jet was part of a visit to Africa that Mr. Clinton made in order to discuss economic development on the continent and the ongoing fight against H.I.V. and AIDS." That can be included on the page I think. My very best wishes (talk) 15:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
This isn't a new story, we have a Gawker article from 2015 showing Epstein's "little black book" which included "21 contact numbers and various email addresses for Clinton". I can't blame anyone for having their spokespeople play down a relationship with Epstein, but we should try and present this as dispassionately as possible. For instance, Clinton's spokesperson "said" he only took 4 flights, yet our article had (until my fix, which may have been changed already) 'Clinton's spokesman confirmed". That is spindoctoring and is not allowed. petrarchan47คุ 16:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, one can certainly notice that C. flied on the plane, but it should also be explained - why did he fly. Text above provides an explanation, as oppose to simply saying that he flied on a plane provided by a notorious criminal. My very best wishes (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Petrarchan47, you appear determined to insinuate that Clinton was associating with underage girls on Epstein's jet. There is no evidence of this, in fact. The Fox News source you provided is nothing more than a guest making an accusation without any evidence whatsoever to support it. It's trash. "That is spindoctoring and is not allowed." soibangla (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Soibangla, I'm sorry, but this is a ridiculous comment. First, you have no idea if I'm trying to insinuate something, or documenting what WP:RS is saying on the matter. Second,
“Almost every time that Clinton's name is on the pilot logs there are underage girls there are initials and there are names of many many girls on that private plane.”
This is a quotation by Conchita Sarnoff, not 'some guest', but rather the investigative reporter who has been following the Epstein case for years, and wrote the seminal piece "TraffiKing: the Jeffrey Epstein Human Trafficking Case". Her remarks are nothing more than facts gleaned from the flight logs. I don't see her statement as "insinuating" anything. She is documenting facts and stating them dispassionately as we are expected to do. To call Sarnoff's summary of hard core evidence "trash" gives me pause with regard to your participation on this article. Further, if any editor suggested that, if similar evidence emerged about Trump and was covered by RS, it should be ignored because obviously the editor suggesting it's addition had bad intentions, I would fight that nonsense as well. petrarchan47คุ 20:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Petrarchan47: Her remarks are nothing more than facts gleaned from the flight logs. The flight logs have been public for years, but no one has ever identified the individuals designated by initials. How does Sarnoff purport to know, simply by looking at initials, that the passengers are underage girls? Anyone can call themselves an "investigative journalist" and self-publish a book on Amazon, then appear as an alleged expert on Fox News by persuading a producer that they have something to say that is aligned with their narrative. Many people have faked their way to success in this manner. There is simply no evidence she is a reliable source, and Fox News is not "reporting" anything, they are simply and credulously repeating what she said on the air. soibangla (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

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

RT (TV network) has covered this [13] saying "‘Reputation managers’ get to work scrubbing Clinton-Epstein connection from Wikipedia." I must have missed the check in the mail from the Clintons.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
RT is only reliable as an anti-source, meaning you cite RT and add whatever is the opposite of what they're reporting to the article. GMGtalk 18:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Added a template to this talk page citing another outlet due to the influx of activity here.Cptnono (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I removed it. {{press}} should not be used for low-quality sources. R2 (bleep) 19:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
And I reverted. This is not a source i the article but instead a "heads yp". Would you prefer I use RT?Cptnono (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Neither, since by its instructions, {{press}} isn't for low quality sources such as those, especially when linking to defamatory / personal attack content (such as RT's completely unsubstantiated accusation that specific editors here are Clinton's reputation managers). R2 (bleep) 20:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I think the editor from Jacksonville should send their "literal picture" to Fox or some other news organization, and it sounds pretty important. In the meantime, there is no "concerted effort to erase the Clinton connection," and there's no need to defend Fox News. We have plenty more reliable, more up-to-date sources that have covered this very same content--such as the New York Times source so helpfully provided by Dumuzid. R2 (bleep) 19:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Just to be clear, the link was actually provided by someone who didn't sign their contribution. I just pointed out one quote -- though I quite agree about the picture. At least show us, assuming said picture is publicly available. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
There has been a well-documented Bill Clinton connection: over 20 times on the flight logs. But photos of the two of them? That Fox News article you linked gives no pictures of the Epstein and Clinton.Dogru144 (talk) 02:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Please note I removed a link to a pretty sick misleading picture, and I changed the header to something a bit more neutral. Note also that this is yet another drive-by IP smear: admins and editors should not hesitate to refuse allowing this talk page to be turned into a forum/subreddit. If it looks like trolling, delete it. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
You have a weird definition of sick. Just saying, though it is very misleading. 2600:1700:1111:5940:19D8:4999:DC85:66D6 (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Fixed, thanks. Beach drifter (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I removed Kirchner from the article since his inclusion wasn't supported by the cited source. R2 (bleep) 19:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Orgy Island[edit]

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

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

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

Can you provide a link to an actual reliable source discussing this, rather than observing that it "pops up" in the "news"? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Please read Little Saint James, U.S. Virgin Islands. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
https://www.google.com/search?q="orgy+island"+epstein
37000 results. take your pick. 173.13.69.21 (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability. We've had a similar argument about the inclusion of the phrase "Lolita Express". Some users objected to this because they thought it was an over the top tabloid phrase.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
i object to them MISSING. they're both in the news CONSTANTLY. 173.14.130.9 (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not news. Also WRITING in random CAPITAL LETTERS doesn't actually make YOUR argument any more CONVINCING. GMGtalk 17:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The editor from Massachusetts may not be the best ambassador for Wikipedia community standards, but I actually think "Orgy Island" should be mentioned among other nicknames for the island. There are plenty of reliable, non-tabloid, non-Fox sources that mention it. Here's a good one, which links in turn to other reliable, non-tabloid, non-Fox sources. R2 (bleep) 19:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
thank u. and i should note that many of the foreign-lang versions of this article have (properly, imho) retained "lolita express". just someone HERE tryna whitewash it. 173.13.69.21 (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Lolita Express Masseuse Reveals Lurid Details from Jeffrey Epstein's Private Plane - (458.160 viewings on YouTube. Inside Edition (CBS), 27.04.2015)
Amy Goodman (received the the I.F. Stone Medal for Journalistic Independence) in Democracy Now!: ... "the plane that Jeffrey Epstein himself called “Lolita Express.”" !!!, 12 July 2019. --87.170.205.211 (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Early life section (about his brother)[edit]

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

I removed that as irrelevant. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
The presence or lack of siblings has a significant impact on one's early life. This information always interests me when I come to Wikipedia looking for concise, accurate information about a subject's biography, whether that subject is living or deceased. It is relevant, in and of itself if an individual grew up with 9 siblings or no siblings. In the case of this subject, the sibling's rental property is also implicated in the criminal allegations as housing alleged victims of the subject. Some of the former staff members listed in the non-prosecution agreement also have ties to the sibling's rental property. [1] This information may receive more news coverage in the weeks ahead. Cedar777 (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Swaine, John (January 7, 2015). "Jeffrey Epstein scandal: women with new identities run firms from Epstein-linked property". The Guardian. Retrieved July 13, 2019.

Connections to Trump, Clintons, Spacey[edit]

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

It seems you haven't actually read our article. What's this about eliminating connections to Clinton and Spacey? That stuff is in, along with some of the connections to Trump. We need better sources to cover the alleged banning from Mar-A-Lago as well as any connection to HRC. R2 (bleep) 19:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, the article didn't mention that the jet is called "Lolita Express" until my edit a few moments ago. petrarchan47คุ 15:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Alex Acosta has resigned[edit]

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

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

Alex Acosta's July 10 press conference[edit]

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

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

Snopes[edit]

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

  • Gråbergs Gråa Sång, all I can say is that I'm happy they scrapped (with bleach!) every bit of evidence that I ever flew on Epstein's plane. Seriously, this is getting crazier by the scandal. Is Soros involved yet? I've only heard rumors of that in a Dutch Facebook thread. Drmies (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I heard that Epstein has Obama's actual birthcertificate. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

"According to court documents"[edit]

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)

Ephebophilia[edit]

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

Un homme embrassant un jeune homme dans la Grèce antique.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you point to some reliable sources which make this connection? If so, it may well belong in the article. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
he's literally already mentioned in the existing sources in the wiki(after kenneth star), which makes his absence particularly perplexing71.89.114.35 (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I am guessing he hasn't been included yet simply because he's not as independently notable as the other members of the defense team. Just a guess! Dumuzid (talk) 23:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Apparently Jay Lefkowitz was also one of his attorneys conspicuously absent from the wiki, and seems particularly notable as he was the apparent primary nexus for arranging the plea deal with Acosta.71.89.114.35 (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

See also "...philias"[edit]

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)

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

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):

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2019[edit]

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)

"is Jewish and grew up in a Jewish household"[edit]

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

Epstein "belonged to intelligence", Khashoggi, Iran-contra[edit]

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

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

I've seen this bandied about, and honestly, stranger things have happened. That being said, this is definitely a WP:REDFLAG situation, and I would want to see fairly widespread coverage before including a claim like this. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 06:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Acosta did say it, as can be reliably sourced [14]. That had happened during his nomination to his position. What does it mean is another question. "He’d cut the non-prosecution deal with one of Epstein’s attorneys because he had “been told” to back off, that Epstein was above his pay grade." He was told - by whom? My very best wishes (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Again, per WP:REDFLAG, I, personally, would want to see this from more than one source before including it. That being said, I am frequently wrong and consensus may well be against me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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


Here a fairly widespread coverage for "belonged to intelligence":
* The Daily Beast - Jeffrey Epstein’s Sick Story Played Out for Years in Plain Sight
* The Observer - (John R. Schindler, a Ex NSA analyst trying to spin the story towards the KGB and Mossad *eyeroll*) It Sure Looks Like Jeffrey Epstein Was a Spy—But Whose?: ... "instead proffering this strange word salad" ...
* Institute for Public Accuracy - Epstein: Protected Because He Is a Spy? — A Backgrounder: "Ward ... on “Democracy Now!” on Monday: “This is a man who definitely trades in the knowledge he has over the rich and famous, and uses it for leverage. He also introduces rich and famous people, like Bill Clinton, like Donald Trump, to girls.”... Ghislaine Maxwell... daughter of Robert Maxwell... Seymour Hersh alleged in his book The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy that Maxwell was tied to the Israeli Mossad. Hersh was sued for the allegation, but then received an apology... Barr, who spent years at the CIA, stated he would recuse himself on the Epstein matter on Monday and then reversed himself on Tuesday. Barr helped cover up the Iran-Contra scandal by approving the pardons of Elliott Abrams and other officials who were caught in illegal activity. In 1973, Epstein got his start as a math teacher thanks to Barr’s father, Donald Barr, who was headmaster of the elite Dalton School despite Epstein not having a college degree. His New York Times obituary notes that Donald Barr belonged to the Office of Strategic Services (better known as the OSS, the precursor to the CIA). ... " Julie K. Brown of the Miami Herald has named two women — Virginia Roberts Giuffre and Sarah Ransome — who say that Epstein, when they were very young, directed them to have sex with Alan Dershowitz. Yet, the New York Times and other media continue to reference and even quote Dershowitz about the case without noting that he has been thus accused. Dershowitz was also one of Esptein’s lawyers when Acosta agreed to the non-prosecution agreement. The Times has recently noted that Dershowitz attacked the Herald‘s reporting in an attempt to deprive them of a Pulitzer. A piece by Annie Karni and Maggie Haberman quoted him saying that if you didn’t know Epstein and Trump in the 80s, “you were a nobody” — again, without noting that Dershowitz has so far been accused by two of Epstein’s victims. ... Dershowitz participated in the “Israeli assassination committee that reviews evidence before terrorists are targeted and killed.” Said Dershowitz: “I actually sat in on one of the committee meetings.”"
* Vanity Fair - “It’s Going to Be Staggering, the Amount of Names”: As the Jeffrey Epstein Case Grows More Grotesque, Manhattan and DC Brace for Impact
* The Cut - New York Magazine - What We Know About Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein’s Alleged Madam: "Epstein and Maxwell acted as the leaders of an “organized crime family”"
* from the Left: Rawstory WATCH: Acosta gives a cryptic response when asked if Jeffrey Epstein is an intelligence asset
* CounterPunch Did Jeffrey Epstein “Belong to Intelligence?”: "Since World War Two, the United States has built itself into a “national security state” which recognizes no ethical or legal constraints. It’s doesn’t exist to protect the American public. It exists to protect itself. And, too often, it protects the predators among us."
--87.170.194.205 (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Both Bill Clinton[1] and Donald Trump[2] claimed that they never visited Epstein's island.
Sources

  1. ^ Perez, Chris (2019-07-09). "Bill Clinton claims he 'knows nothing' about Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sex crimes". New York Post. Archived from the original on 2019-07-09. Retrieved 2019-07-17. He had one meeting with Epstein in his Harlem office in 2002, and around the same time made one brief visit to Epstein’s New York apartment with a staff member and his security detail. He’s not spoken to Epstein in well over a decade, and he has never been to Little St. James Island, Epstein’s ranch in New Mexico, or his residence in Florida.”
  2. ^ Ernst, Douglas (2019-07-12). "Trump issues Jeffrey Epstein challenge to press: 'Find out the people that went to the island'". The Washington Times. Archived from the original on 2019-07-17. Retrieved 2019-07-17. “Other people, they went all over with him,” Mr. Trump said from the White House lawn. “They went to his island and all over the place. He was very well known in palm his island — whatever his island was, wherever it is, I was never there. Find out the people that went to the island.”

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


It would be more interesting if it was the NYT and WaPo. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Clinton has "credibility issues": Monica Lewinsky → “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”, credible sexual assault accusations from Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey, among others. Virginia Roberts Giuffre stated in an affidavit that she saw Bill Clinton on Epstein’s private island in the US Virgin Islands: link. "In 2002 and 2003, President Clinton took a total of four trips on Jeffrey Epstein’s airplane" Why only that "2002 to 2003" period? Clinton’s statement claims a “total of four trips” on Epstein’s “Lolita Express” amid widespread reports of at least 26 trips aboard.
During the 2016 race, a woman going by the name Katie Johnson sued Trump, stated Trump had raped her at one of Epstein’s parties when she was 13. She later dropped the suit -- after receiving death threats. Trump is well-known globally as a pathological liar. --87.170.203.224 (talk) 10:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
"A 2016 lawsuit alleged that Trump raped a 13-year-old girl in Epstein's Manhattan residence in 1994. The suit was voluntarily dismissed on November 4, 2016. The suit alleged that Epstein raped her afterwards and then the pair told her that she and her family would be killed if she ever spoke about what happened. The suit also alleged that Trump attended at least four parties at the residence." here - --87.170.200.213 (talk) 06:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2019[edit]

Please add:

"A 2019 pending lawsuit in New York, alleged that Epstein used "MC2", 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:

Please double bracket the term "fake news."[edit]

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

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

quote in citation / Removing Jewishness[edit]

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

In this talk page you said "Reliable sources say he is Jewish, so we say he is Jewish". Nevertheless in the article page you are continuously removing that he is Jewish. Wouldn't it be better you stopped these obvious "cleansing" activities that lead to back and forth in the article. You could use this talk page to make a case for your contradicting behavior (if there is a case)?--BalancedIssues (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
The fact that he is Jewish is mentioned, but must be kept in line with WP:DUE. While factual, it is simply not a major part of his notability. Also, perhaps you haven't noticed, but "back and forth" is sort of the raison d'être of this place. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Actually, user Bus stop always removed it, so it is removed. Why is it "undue" to mention that Epstein is "Jewish"? Also, multiple "back and forth" of always the same words are the "raison d'être" here? Je ne crois pas.--BalancedIssues (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Debate is often repetitive, and rarely efficient. So it goes! And the article still includes that Epstein was born to Jewish parents, which, I think in light of what we know and the reason for the subject's notability, is enough. Reasonable minds may differ, but thus far, I am with Bus stop on this once. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
You are not with Bus stop as he said "Reliable sources say he is Jewish, so we say he is Jewish".
Also, sources describe him as "Jewish" or an "American Jewish" business man. Sources also say Epsteins partners during his career were almost exclusively Jewish: he worked for a Jewish bank (Bear Stern), with Jewish partners (Hoffenberg, Weinstein, Zuckerman,...), with Jewish clients (Wexner). So against all sources continuously directly mentioning his Jewishness it should be omitted because you don't feel like it?--BalancedIssues (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
BalancedIssues—the lasciviousness for which he is now legally culpable has nothing to do with his being Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 00:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
BalancedIssues--Thanks very much for telling me where I stand. Ever so helpful. Dumuzid (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

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

BalancedIssues—are any sources saying that his Jewishness had bearing on his alleged criminality? Bus stop (talk) 01:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
That is not a relevant question and one should not feed trolling activities. (But maybe you should read this article here [[18]] )--BalancedIssues (talk) 07:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Just to point out, BalancedIssues, you are linking to an article that makes no mention of Jewishness. Bus stop (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
(direct inline answer: this source shows that it is not yet clear if Epstein was or was not involved in Ponzi schemes and if Epstein did or did not use his Jewish network to promote his activities. Various sources report that Epstein`s former (Jewish) business partner admitted that half a billion USD vanished in their common Ponzi scheme and that Epstein would have funneled the money only to his personal entities; at the same time many sources report Epstein was never able to explain what is the source of his half a billion USD wealth that he reportedly has; the sources say those links are being investigated but no source supports your private theories like that there is no connection when you argue on this talk page: "Jeffrey Epstein's crimes didn't have anything to do with his being Jewish, whereas Madoff's crimes related to his being Jewish".)--BalancedIssues (talk) 11:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • It is a relevant question. WP:DUE weight is decided, in part, based on how relevant things are to the notability of the article's subject. There's no indication that Epstein's faith is relevant to his notability or to his crimes (which are the most notable thing about him), ergo there's no particular reason to emphasize it or to give it focus when discussing them. It's mentioned briefly in the article at a few points where it logically comes up, but there's no reason for us to give it any particular focus. --Aquillion (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Just to contradict what some editors seem interested to claim: I never argued for "prominent mentioning" or "giving focus" or “emphasizing” the fact that Epstein is Jewish. What I said is that this Wikipedia article shouldn’t have a double standard and suppress or omit the fact of Epstein being Jewish as those facts are also not suppressed or omitted in many other article about Jewish people. In those other articles the "Jewishness" is also not relevant to the notability of the respective persons, so it is not clear what is the reason that some editors want that J. Epstein should be handled differently compared to common practice.--BalancedIssues (talk) 11:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Especially there should no (edit-warring like) repeating "cleansing" activities be needed in the article space like one author is doing it, even against what he says in the talk page, instead of discussing it first--BalancedIssues (talk) 11:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
BalancedIssues—what point are you trying to make when you introduce the Daily Beast article to this discussion? It makes no mention of Jewishness. You are adding "Removing Jewishness" to the section heading so I am assuming you feel that insufficient prominence has been given to Jeffrey Epstein being Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Pictures confirmed as underage????[edit]

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

nationality Jewish-American or American[edit]

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. GMGtalk 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)

Technical and personal continuity in OPs[edit]

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

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

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

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

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: