Talk:Richard Epstein

Fair use rationale for Image:Epstein.jpg

Image:Epstein.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Opinion of Obama

I'm not a partisan, so get that out of the way. But I was not sure that the "Opinion of Obama" section was appropriate -- it really seems to have more to do with Obama than Epstein. I mean, here we have Epstein, a guy who has said a ton of things about what must be thousands of different subjects. So why (other than the ongoing election) would we focus on this one? Similarly, certainly thousands of notable people have expressed views about political candidates -- I could be wrong, but I don't see anything special about this quote. If we did keep it, we might want to limit it to "statements about Obama" or the like. It's a little dangerous to say that this is Epstein's "opinion" of the candidate -- it's something he said about him, and may or may not truly reflect his opinion. Epstein may be voting for Obama, for all we know, so defining his opinion by one quote seems an overreach. Anyways, that's why I changed it, but reverts and/or contrary views are of course welcome. --TheOtherBob 23:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've heard Epstein speak on Obama, and he does in fact praise his former colleague.

That said, Epstein has indeed opined on many subjects, from Richard Nixon to the Exchequer Court to drug patents. A whole section on Obama is absurdly undue weight, and smacks of campaigning. It ought to be excluded. Thank you. Cool Hand Luke 17:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 06 September 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain ^t/c 13:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

---

Richard Allen Epstein → Richard Epstein – No reason to list him with full middle name: the only other Richard Epstein is vastly less well known –  White Whirlwind  咨  21:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@White whirlwind: This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

1. Support-Unless he is known by his middle name, this is a no brainer. The refs do not seem to mention his middle name.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

This is a full Epstein book and should be included in his Bibliography

Epstien's books on Antitrust ought to be included in his Bibliography. The link to his full book is provided by his publisher AEI and is included in the article. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

1.) You didn't cite the book properly. It needs the city and publisher.

2.) The section is "Selected Works", not "Works". That book is very short (150-ish pages) and is on a very narrow and specialized topic. It doesn't need to be included.  White Whirlwind  咨  20:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Both of Epstein's books on Antitrust are from AEI Press in Washington D.C. You may format these as you prefer since you are overlooking the edits on this page. Its probably a good idea that you introduce here that the article should move towards a complete Bibliography as the article develops further. Including both antitrust books is significant since Epstein himself devoted about a year of his life to each one of them. The other title includes two notable chapters by him and his co-author also from AEI: Competition Laws in Conflict: Antitrust Jurisdiction in the Global Economy – January 1, 2004. If someone is willing to move this article closer to a complete Bibliography then its likely a good direction. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@ManKnowsInfinity: I see you are new to Wikipedia, so let me explain a few things. We do not put complete bibliographies on individuals' articles, mostly because they're rarely all notable (and WP:Notability is a main criterion here on Wikipedia), and because if a person has written many works the section becomes too long very quickly. If a person is a very well-known writer, they will often have a separate page listing all of their works – for example, see Ernest Hemingway (specifically the Selected list of works section) and Ernest Hemingway bibliography. We will only be adding Professor Epstein's major works to this article, as he is not notable enough to have a separate bibliography page.  White Whirlwind  咨  00:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Should Epstein's coronavirus comments be covered?

The editor "White whirlwind" removed all content sourced to a New Yorker interview where Epstein elaborated on his reckless coronavirus gibberish, which influenced the Trump administration's response to the coronavirus pandemic. The content is obviously DUE, and it's hard to think of content that's more DUE than a man who influenced a White House administration's response to an enormous crisis explaining his thinking in a solid RS, such as the New Yorker. The editor removed it because the content was "far too much possibly biased coverage", which is just another way of saying that this editor personally disagrees with the content and seeks to whitewash it. It should be restored immediately. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

You don't have to refer to me in scare quotes, try a simple template or message on my talk page. Your history shows you've been around long enough to know that.

Anyway, your argument is weak on several fronts. I didn't say The New Yorker wasn't generally reliable, I said a Q&A interview on such a topic is unreliable for so much content of that type. The DUE argument is preposterous—no intelligent editor could plausibly argue that one of the most cited legal scholars of the 20th and 21st centuries needs three-plus paragraphs (including quotes) on a story whose current Google Trends score barely approaches what it got last summer when Epstein starting representing some parties opposing the Obama Presidential Library site, a not-very-notable story that isn't even mentioned anywhere in this article at present. The level of detail is a classic example of undue weight described at DUE, which instructs us to "treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." I'm not saying that at some point in the future this section might not be expanded. Rather, I'm saying that it isn't warranted based on one Q&A article. Take your time and wait for the sources at large to comprehensively evaluate. Wikipedia is not a newspaper (WP:NOTNEWSPAPER). The fact that we're all unpaid volunteers doesn't mean that our editing has to be amateurish.  White Whirlwind  咨  03:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Since he is spreading really, really, really stupid and dangerous misinformation, a fact which is extremely obvious to anybody with a smidgen of scientific knowledge, this is important and needs more coverage. The man has particularly virulent form of Dunning-Kruger, drifting into delusions of grandeur, and he will kill people with it. See also [1].

"Removing crank content from lead"? But since he is a crank, does it not belong in the lead? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

You're arguing in good faith that it's UNDUE to (i) mention the fact this man is influencing the White House's response to what is the most profound crisis in the United States since 9/11, (ii) to lay out the fact that his views are profoundly idiotic and contrary to those of actual experts, and (iii) let him present his views in his own words as reported in a strong RS? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Try to respond to my substantive arguments. Now, the new data from Google Trends definitely show a big bump for this story, so therefore I now feel quite comfortable increasing the amount of coverage we're giving this story. But we have a continuing problem in that the main piece is simply a Q&A, which is a primary source, not a secondary source, and we are instructed to avoid those and especially avoid "all analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources", which "must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source" (WP:PRIMARY). At present, it will be extremely difficult to add encyclopedic coverage of this issue without interpretation and analysis of it – even if it is as simple as calling it "dangerous" or "idiotic", which is unquestionably an interpretation and analysis of his comments. The correct course is to wait for treatment of his words in "reliable, published secondary sources", which is what Wikipedia is supposed to be based on (see PRIMARY again).  White Whirlwind  咨  22:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Try to respond to what the other users say. I did link a secondary source.

I get the feeling you are trying to protect Epstein from the responses to his bullshit. Your wording above "one of the most cited legal scholars of the 20th and 21st centuries" shows you admire this guy for his expertise in one area, and you cannot cope with the fact that he has made it publicly known that he is an extremely ignorant layman in other fields as well as extremely ignorant about his own ignorance. And now you are trying to WP:WIKILAWYER around it. Stop that. And stop edit-warring. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Personal accusations of bias fly in the face of our fundamental principle of WP:AGF. But it's a truth that ad hominem is almost always an indicator that one's argument is superior, otherwise the other party(ies) would just attack it instead. And I am therefore comforted. There's no need to flail around with lame accusations like Wikilawyering. Though this is an issue for another day, I can safely say that page, like most Wikipedia essays, fully deserves its unofficial status. Stick to things that have been vetted and actually matter.

Now, let's stick to the topic at hand and avoid silly accusations. Gather some good secondary sources on Epstein's Q&A so we can try to reach some consensus what do add and with what scope. By not doing so, and instead leveling only accusations, one perpetuates whatever edit warring that might have occurred, since seeking consensus on a talk page is the antithesis of edit warring (WP:EDITWAR; "Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit warring").  White Whirlwind  咨  07:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

You keep ignoring the fact that I already gave a secondary source, although I mentioned it again. Will you do so a third time, or are you here to build an encyclopedia? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see it now. Instead of snarkiness, just point out that little link next time. Now, that New York article is not a terribly long treatment, and as the below commenter noted it's not definitive in connecting Epstein's article to Trump. Let's try to draft some good language. I'll look for other articles and try one soon.  White Whirlwind  咨  22:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry for linking it just once in my first contribution and only mentioning it in the other two. Next time I talk to you I will link the important stuff twice in every contribution, and I will use boldface with a larger font in different colors and blinking. My bad. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

See my earlier snark comment. If you aren't here to be WP:CIVIL and build an encyclopedia, try another hobby.  White Whirlwind  咨  06:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Just stop blaming me for your mistakes, and no snark will be needed. Actually, you are the one who should consider trying a hobby which does not confront you with people who disagree with you. I can handle that situation just fine. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Update: I'm content with the current state (current diff) thanks to the recent edits. They lack the blatant POV of the earlier stuff, particularly the extended interview quotes, which were flat-out gratuitous.  White Whirlwind  咨  01:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Should be covered but I'm not seeing support in either the New Yorker or Post article for the claim that his article "influenced the Trump administration's response". Neither article goes so far as to claim that, they both only point out that people around Trump have read it. 2600:1014:B105:6D27:A057:904F:7DB5:EE57 (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The COVID stuff is entirely WP:UNDUE, especially for the lede. IF there is some article about the politicalization of the pandemic, then his 2-bits about how the pandemic was handled can be included. NOT NOW -- because he is as poorly/well-informed as the rest of us. He's a pundit, not a health expert. – S. Rich (talk) 05:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

It may be undue for the lede, not for the body. This was a high profile intervention what (according to RS) helped inform the early strategy. [[2]], [[3]], [[4]] if you want more they are there.Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I will add that given the significance of the Corona Virus, and its impact this may well be the single most important thing he has ever said (given its possible impact). In fact (as of writing) it is what he is most noted for (If google news is anything to go by).Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Come on, you are interested in Epstein for reasons unrelated to CORVID-19. E.g., he's said a lot of things completely unrelated to virology. His comments on the pan[ic]demic are sideline material. – S. Rich (talk) 07:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I have never heard of him until this.Slatersteven (talk) 08:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Me neither. It's just that now, his ignorance and windbagdom is a danger to the public (maybe it has always been, I don't know), he may kill people with it, and it is important that his misinformation is given an appropriate place. The problem is that he did not realize he is not a health expert. He probably still doesn't.

BTW, a corvid is something else. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I will add that this (and this may violate wp:not) is a major public service, exposing and naming those who are spreading disinformation about this crisis. In fact this may be (wp:soapbox alert) the single most important issue we have ever had articles on, far more significant than list of Cryptids, famous disappearances or 9/11 conspiracy theories. This actually is important and can affect (literally) peoples lives. In a sense this is living history and how we report these events will be read (and we will be judged) hundreds of years after these events have played out.Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

If anything deserved and warranted the invocation of WP:IAR this is it, every article about this pandemic (and is about the only time I think it can ever really be invoked), This is not about civil POV pushing or fringe science or whatever else its invoked for. This is actually about (potentially) saving lives. If one person comes here thinking Richard Epstein knew what he was talking about and goes away with that opinion changed that is far more valuable than all the other fights over pseudoscience we have ever had here put together. Rant overSlatersteven (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment on content no users, if you have an issue with a users actions take it elsewhere.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

It does need to be covered twice.Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

And he continues to misinform, so yes this is highly relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

New to the conversation, but also seems quite relevant given that he was claiming that states like Florida and Texas were a great model for the country. This happened just three weeks ago in his monthly Las Vegas Review-Journal column. 2600:8801:C000:264:2114:CFC6:271D:6999 (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

References