Talk:Jeffrey Epstein

"American Jew Financier", really?

This discussion is going absolutely nowhere; any continuation of it cannot be taken to have the purpose of exploring an edit to the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) Many sources like "The Times of Israel" call Epstein a "Jewish financier", other sources describe Epstein as "American Jewish", so is there really the idea that it would not be appropriate for Wikipedia to describe him like normal sources do? Many other business people are also described as "American-Jewish financiers" (without being called "anti-semite") so why is it so important that Epstein is not described for what (he paid for) the media to describe him? --BalancedIssues (talk) 11:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC) Why is this special emphasis the sole focus of your edits? He's described in the article as coming from Jewish parents. Acroterion (talk) 11:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC) If you are more interested to analyze to which sections of the article I contributed feel free to do so but why interested to represent in incorrectly: I added more to the "careeer" and "personal life" section of the article than to the topic if it were better be omitted in Wikipedia that Epstein is a "American Jewish business man" or "American Jewish financier". Why are you judging so much and "taking sides" instead of following the sources? I didn't put an emphasis on anything but users like "bus stop" put a lot of energy in omitting things. I am not really interested in your mission (you didn't need to put a "threat" to my personal page to confirm your mission), so what is it you want the reader to imply, that "coming from Jewish parents" means the same, or that it is a widely known fact and can therefore be omitted?--BalancedIssues (talk) 12:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC) I think businessman may be a better term than finacier. I have read enough of the articles published on Epstein since he was arrested to be convinced that he was not clearly a financier. His actions were too murky for that, and enough people have claimed he made money from blackmail (although no one has yet claimed to be a victim of this by him), that I am not sure people are convinced he was really a financier in any meaningful way. That he was American and Jewish is beyond dispute. I do not yet see any evidence that he was much of a religious Jew, but neither is Senator Sanders of Vermont, but when I tried to remove him from Jewish categories people went balistic on me, and Sanders has distanced himself from the Jewish community while Epstein embraces it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC) It should read "Jewish-American" financier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tacomansam (talk • contribs) 17:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC) A certain group of editors seem to deem it "antisemitic" if Wikipedia includes that Epstein is an Jewish-American financier. "Jewish-American" and "Financier" seems to be no problem in other Wikipedia articles. Nobody blocking this here would really explain why he he does it (and some people generically calling something "antisemitic" just want to propose not to discuss).--BalancedIssues (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC) As emotions of some editors may have cooled down by now, are there still any objections that also the Wikipedia page can disclose that Epstein was a Jewish-American financier? --BalancedIssues (talk) 04:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC) No, because the WP:LEAD of Michael Jackson does not say that he was an African-American singer, even though he undoubtedly was. The opening sentence of an article gives a person's nationality, and that is all.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC) Was it for M.Jackson as important to belong to the African community as it was for J.Epstein to belong to the Jewish community? --BalancedIssues (talk) 06:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC) George Gershwin does not say "Jewish-American composer" although he undoubtedly was. Wikipedia articles do not do this, plain and simple. Gershwin's biography notes that he was "of Ukrainian Jewish and Lithuanian Jewish ancestry" so nothing is being hidden.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) Was being American or being Jewish as important for Gershwin as it was for Epstein? Why didn't a group of editors fight for omitting the mentioning of Gershwin being Jewish as much as possible? You will see that each Wikipedia article is specific. So you are basically saying you presume to know better what "Wikipedia articles do". Editors who are biased concerning a discussed issue use those kinds of "arguments". Can it be assumed you are not biased?--BalancedIssues (talk) 08:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC) Please assume good faith. I have pointed out that the opening sentences of Wikipedia articles give only the person's nationality. Religion, ancestry etc can be dealt with later on. The problem here would be implying that Epstein committed sexual offenses because he was Jewish. Is there any evidence for this?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC) Your logic would mean that disclosing the Jewish ethnicity would automatically imply the Jewishness caused all important things a person did in life. It would also mean that Jewish Einstein invented his theories because he was Jewish. Would unbiased persons apply this line of reasoning? Also I didn't assume bad faith but seeing the logic you apply here I would just recommend if you really don't want to ask yourself if you could be biased in this issue. Last but not least: Epstein himself put financial and organizational resources (PR agencies etc.) to make public how much Jewish he is and how much he cared for the Jewish cause and how often he donated to Jewish or Jewish related projects and also Epstein himself chose to have exclusively Jewish business partners for all his important steps to becoming a billionaire (what the media bought for decades).--BalancedIssues (talk) 11:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC) I am reminded of the spoof tabloid newspaper headline for general relativity, which is "Jewish nut says space is bent". Nikola Tesla said a variation of this.[1] Whether Einstein's Jewishness is important here is questionable, but inevitably some people loved to point out that Einstein was Jewish.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC) It was "important" for Epstein himself in many ways, Epstein made sure it is public, it was reported by the media, why would you say that it should be omitted? (Einstein was neither in need of a Jewish network to achieve something in life nor did Einstein promote his Jewishness like Epstein - so why the double standard?) --BalancedIssues (talk) 08:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC) Einstein's Jewishness is primarily notable because it led to his becoming an American citizen after Hitler came to power in Germany. And even then, we still don't describe Einstein as a "Jewish theoretical physicist". Epstein's Jewishness is in no way of comparable notability (except, perhaps, to antisemites who feel that all Jews' Jewishness is notable and in need of prominent recognition)AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 10:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC) Einstein actually called himself agnostic and a religious nonbeliever. He is only famous for his theoretical work and results which he promoted, which meant all to him, for which he received the Nobel prize. He would probably be quite surprised that a Wikipedia article about him mentions his Nobel prize only 15 times while certain editors put in 35 times he would be Jewish as if that was important for him and as if that was the weighting unbiased source would show. Epstein did the opposite: he professionally promoted his Jewishness, partnered almost exclusively within his Jewish network to dig as much as he could into these powerful circles. He used the funds and power gained by this “career” to have his escapades. He would probably be disappointed that for obviously political reasons in Wikipedia certain editors insist not to mention his Jewishness (0 mentionings) after so many Jewish organizations took his money and his Jewishness was always central for everything he tried to achieve in life. Obviously, this is a huge double standard how facts are prioritized. Obviously, a certain (small) biased group of Wikipedia editors fight hard to keep it this way as we can see in this article.--BalancedIssues (talk) 11:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC) Also obviously, it is not a good idea to accuse other editors of acting in bad faith. Wikipedia editors are required to assume good faith.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC) You don’t contravene the argumentation making transparent the double standard and bias. Instead you want to open a discussion if it was good or bad faith of the respective editors? How can this improve the article? --BalancedIssues (talk) 05:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC) I would watch the accusations of bias considering the breadth (or lack thereof) of your contributions to this site, and take particular note of the fact that "Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee has determined that 'single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.'" Your conduct could easily be construed as that of someone clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 14:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Jewish

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

Here is an additional article where Epstein's lawers claim he had a fake passport to hide that he is Jewish. Being Jewish is clearly an importing part of how Epstein self-identifies. https://www.timesofisrael.com/epstein-lawyers-claim-fake-passport-was-needed-to-hide-jewishness/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.134.181.242 (talk) 05:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

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.

@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.

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)

• Quite simply, this should not be included per MOS:ETHNICITY. My very best wishes (talk) 14:49, 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 (talk • contribs) 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)
• Bill Clinton is not Causcasian. Caucasians are people from the caucuses and their descendants. His acnestros were not immigrants from Ingusetia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comsidering Jewish publications for years made it a point to always say Epstein is Jewish, we cannot in good conscience leave that out of this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Consensus

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. [2], 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. GMG^talk 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. GMG^talk 14:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• Option B Simple that we follow MOS:ETHNICITY and don't add religion or ethnicity to the lede unless it is pertinent in defining the person, which in this case it is not. Pursuing any other course would first involve getting those rules to change. It is pretty clear Epstein is Jewish by the name, and for those not sure, it is right in the first article paragraph. StonyBrook (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
• Option B, provided we actually have the relevant sourcing. While his religion is completely unrelated to his notability and absolutely does not belong in the lead or anywhere else that it isn't specifically focused on by high-quality mainstream sources, it is a relevant part of his early life, of equal weight to the other bits we usually mention in a brief early life summary, and is worth a one-word mention there in passing (but no more.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
• Option B there is no reason to put it in the lead and there is no reason to remove it from early life section.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Double Standard ( & censoring of this talk page)

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 [[3]] 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)

What sources are supporting your "misleading implications"?--BalancedIssues (talk) 11:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• The comparison of Jewishness to Prysbeterianism does not make sense. More to compare it to Christianity or at least Protestantism. However Jewishness is an ethno-religious identification. We have Jewish Christians and Jewish Buddhists and Jewish athiests in ways we do not have such overlapping with other religious identities. On the other hand if we want to get into misleading headlines we always have the Arizona "Sunday school teacher for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints arrested for having sex with student", the problem was the although every word in the headline was true, the person was arrested for having sex with a student he connected with in his capacity as a public school teacher, not a Sunday school teacher. Another even more egrigious case was the 20-year-old young men's presidency secretary arrested in Arizona for having sex with a 14-year-old who he had known for several years. Secretaries are not leadership per se, it is a post that keeps notes and can act as a general goffer for the organization, and to understand why a 20-yuear-old had this position you have to realize that almost all adults in a congregation of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who regularly or even semi-regularly attend services have some position. Also the dynamics of 20 year olds having sex with 14 year olds are just not the same as 30 year olds or 50 year olds doing the same, even if the legal issues are the same.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
• Ethnicity is normally in the lead. Do we really know enough about Epstein's victims to say they were "primarily non-Jewish whites", to begin with after 50 plus years of intermarriage, in the US is the ethnic line between Jewish and non-Jewish very clear. There are whole debates about "who is a Jew". Epstein is said to have "hundreds of victims". It is not clear if more than 10 have been publicly identified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Ethnicity is normally in the lead: yes, but some editors prefer to omit it here. Victims: you would need a reliable source for that.--BalancedIssues (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Consensus (on more unbiased options)

The main obvious options were somehow missing in the former consensus section. As everything may have cooled down maybe there is a sensible discussion possible. It would be advantageous if editors feeling biased concerning this very issue would consider refraining - to have a less emotional and more logical discussion.

A) Mention Epstein's ethnicity (per source)

B) Don't mention Epstein's ethnicity but his parent's ethnicity (per source)

C) Don't mention Epstein's and his parent's ethnicity

--BalancedIssues (talk) 05:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Option A) - because there is no reason to omit reported facts and because those facts are published by reputable sources (not even considering the fact that Epstein centered a lot of his life about being part of the Jewish community, and much more than average members of this community). Is there really no editor "feeling unbiased" seeing this discussion? Or is it more that nobody wants to be attacked or even bad-mouthed as "anti-semitic" just because of "not-hiding" the facts? --BalancedIssues (talk) 11:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• Improper RFC. RFCs are required to be neutrally-worded, which this one plainly is not - implicitly accusing editors of bias and dismissing the well-reasoned, policy-based arguments above as not being less emotional and more logical discussion in an RFC description is improper. Beyond that, the distinction between "mentioning Epstein's ethnicity" and "mentioning his parent's ethnicity" (which obviously implies his ethnicity) is unclear. It feels as if this RFC is using an awkward wording to beg the question of how much attention to give his ethnicity, which the tone and discussion of the previous RFC clearly covers already (and is clearly reaching a consensus on.) For the record, I think one sentence mentioning his parents' ethnicity is the best way to handle it, aside from the one other mention in the article from where his attorneys brought it up. --Aquillion (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Since when is "implying" (instead of "describing") the new Wikipedia standard to write articles?

In what respect is A) B) C) not neutrally worded?

Do you really think it is wrong to propose that editors feeling biased do refrain from commenting?--BalancedIssues (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I now think that the username "BalancedIssues" has problems with WP:USERNAME. It seems to imply that anyone who disagrees with this user's position in a debate is biased in some way. This is backed up by repeated talk page comments implying that other users are biased. This is not how to win friends and influence people on a talk page.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

You answer none of the three questions. Instead you try to attack but with no real argumentation.--BalancedIssues (talk) 05:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Do you think that I am biased when editing this article? I've been patient on this issue, but cannot listen to repeated comments implying that editors including myself are biased.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Editors should be able to assess for themselves if they are biased concerning a topic, so it is funny you ask me. I can state for myself that I am not biased concerning the issue whether "Jewishness" is to be mentioned or omitted in Wikipedia articles as I am neither affiliated with the Jewish community nor with any community that might have an adversary relationship with the Jewish community. Your proposal to "win friends" instead of having good arguments is also a bit awkward. But let's assume you have "befriended" user Aquillion enough, would you now comment on the issue like answer my three questions? --BalancedIssues (talk) 07:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm out of this RfC, because it is based on a flawed and non-neutral premise, as Aquillion has already pointed out.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I didn't know that asking editors who feel biased to consider refraining from this consensus would have this effect of zero real participants (apart from having users like ianmacm emotionally ejecting and exiting himself). Inviting editors who feel biased is also no solution. So I will have to explore where is the right spot in Wikipedia to ask for participation. --BalancedIssues (talk) 12:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Claiming Guiffre lied needs strong sourcing

Soibangla is repeatedly adding a claim that Guiffre admitted to lying, using a NYT piece about Trump's tweets. The piece does not say exactly what she supposedly lied about in reference to the island, it could be any detail. But the NYT did not take the time to detail what they are claiming she lied about, nor reference the exact section of the 2,000 pages of documents that contain the claim.

To call Guiffre a liar is going to require much stronger sourcing and until that is available, I ask that we leave the article as is.

Here is my change: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeffrey_Epstein&diff=914508529&oldid=914506382

Here is Soibangla's: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeffrey_Epstein&diff=914513360&oldid=914508959

Here is the NYT source: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/10/us/politics/trump-epstein-conspiracy-theories.html

Here are the documents: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6250471-Epstein-Docs.html

Here are articles written about the documents, which I suggest are better than the NYT piece about Trump's tweets:

• https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisettevoytko/2019/08/09/unsealed-jeffrey-epstein-documents-list-new-allegations-against-powerful-men/#3b5d93303924
• https://www.npr.org/2019/08/10/750086331/julie-k-brown-on-latest-jeffrey-epstein-documents
• https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/deposition-underage-girls-were-present-when-bill-clinton-visited-jeffrey-epsteins-island/
• https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/10/us/epstein-court-documents-allegations/index.html

"Maxwell and her attorney portray Giuffre as an unreliable narrator, pointing to errors in certain dates and figures she provided. Giuffre has said the errors were mistakes."

"According to a transcript of a video deposition Giuffre gave in 2016, she disputed aspects of a 2011 story in the Daily Mail that was based on a series of interviews Giuffre had given

"...she did not refute other details of the Daily Mail story, including that Epstein hosted a dinner on his Caribbean island for President Bill Clinton shortly after Clinton left office."

No evidence or accusations of lies. petrarchan47คุก 22:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC) edit petrarchan47คุก 00:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The Times article is abundantly and unambiguously clear:

The documents unsealed Friday also include an acknowledgment from one of Mr. Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Giuffre, that an earlier claim she made about Mr. Clinton visiting Mr. Epstein in the Caribbean was untrue

Your continued insistence that the article lead was about Trump tweets is irrelevant. Many articles have many nuggets of information in them that are not about the lead, and the fact this nugget is deep in The Times article does not in any way detract from its validity. soibangla (talk) 00:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

You're right, but context is important when determining reliability. In this case,

• it was little more than an offhanded remark
• there are no other sources to support it
• it is not congruent with what RS does say about the documents petrarchan47คุก 00:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that the article is clearly saying what you are trying to say; "an earlier claim she made about" could mean anything. Maybe she claimed he had a striped shirt on at the island, but later remembered it was a Hawaiian shirt. You should be able to find this admission of a lie in the documents by using the word search option. If indeed you find it, I will make a donation to the NYT for their fantastic reporting. Because apparently they're the only ones to uncover this, which strikes me as odd. Good luck! petrarchan47คุก 00:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

could mean anything? Absolutely not. It clearly means exactly what it says: an earlier claim she made about Mr. Clinton visiting Mr. Epstein in the Caribbean. Unbelievable. soibangla (talk) 00:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• The New York Times is a high-quality WP:RS. Demanding that people perform WP:OR to validate their reporting seems a bit silly. Also, the wording is important - "was false" (which the text you object to accurately summarizes the Times piece as saying) is not the same as "was lying" (which is your own take on it, and is serving only to muddle discussions - would you agree that the text can remain as long as we avoid using the precise term "lying", after all?) A statement can be mistaken without being a lie. --Aquillion (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Claim the Clinton went to island

This edit was removed for two entirely specious reasons:

• "Removed unfounded claim - NYT does NOT specify which claim they refer to, could be any detail; a better source for this would be one covering the docs, not Trump's tweets"

and then later:

• "Please read carefully - it says a claim "about" not "that he went to" - now go to the documents and find the claim this NYT piece about Trump's tweets is supposedly referring to"

There are no tweets involved here whatsoever. The NYT explicitly and unambiguously states:

The documents unsealed Friday also include an acknowledgment from one of Mr. Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Giuffre, that an earlier claim she made about Mr. Clinton visiting Mr. Epstein in the Caribbean was untrue.

The edit should be restored soibangla (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Please see the section just above this one; it looks like we were adding to this page at the same time and you may have missed it. The NYT piece you're using is indeed about a Trump tweet, and only in passing do they mention the documents, but they do not specify what they are claiming she lied about. You are free to search the docs they cite and find what you need to support your assertion that she lied about Clinton going to the island. Before you waste your time, I suggest that articles about the document dump would be better sources, and if indeed Guiffre has admitted to lying, we would find that fact within those better sources (see section above). petrarchan47คุก 22:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The NYT article may have been about a tweet, but the specific sentence and edit have nothing to do with it. soibangla (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The line does not support your claim (see above section). I think reasonable people might question the reliability of Epstein-related articles from the NYT printed prior to today's news (https://twitter.com/marclacey/status/1170449442014728193), per this article from Ronan Farrow https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-an-elite-university-research-center-concealed-its-relationship-with-jeffrey-epstein.

The piece you're attempting to use contains what I believe to be an error. Guiffre has not been found to have lied about Clinton being on the island nor did she say she had. The NYT was being either sloppy, or outright disingenuous. petrarchan47คุก 00:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

what I believe to be an error You are in no position to challenge a highly reliable source with what you believe. soibangla (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

It does not appear that you are reading the sources and arguments I provide. I'm going to let others weigh with regard to your claim and source. petrarchan47คุก 00:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes a highly reliable source like the NYT makes an observation that others miss. The fact the sources you choose did not observe it, which makes you believe the NYT is wrong, does not detract from the reality that a highly reliable source reported it and thus it is worthy of inclusion, particularly when it involves a highly incendiary and defamatory accusation that has been denied by Clinton and refuted by the Secret Service. soibangla (talk) 00:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Here is the location in the 2000 pages of court documents where there is the statement of the retraction by Guiffre (the plaintiff) of certain statements that she made to the Daily Mail. The quote is from page 815-816:

"In her deposition, plaintiff was shown Deposition Exhibit 7, a collection of some of her allegations in the articles. Plaintiff placed checkmarks by those allegations she admitted—over the course of 20 pages of testimony—were not true. See Menninger Decl. EXHIBIT PP, at 435:7-455:6 & Depo. Ex.7. These include her claims that: (1) she was 17 when she flew to the Caribbean with Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell “went to pick up Bill in a huge black helicopter,” referring to former President Bill Clinton; (2) her conversation with Mr. Clinton about Ms. Maxwell’s pilot skills; and (3) Donald Trump was a “good friend” of Mr. Epstein’s and “flirted with me”."

It is not clear from this quote if it means that her entire discussion about Clinton visiting Jeffrey's island was false. Here is also the full Daily Mail article which she is retracting the truthfulness of some statements. The New York Times takes the position that she has retracted the full statement about Clinton visiting the island. Guest2625 (talk) 03:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

There is consensus that the Daily Mail (including its online version, MailOnline) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist, such as the NYT. Look, it’s really simple here: one of the most reliable sources in the world has reported a clear, simple, unambiguous statement which has not been disputed or refuted by any other reliable source. We operate on the basis of reliable sources here, not on beliefs or clearly false assertions that the statement is somehow unclear. It’s preposterous that we’re even debating this, but I suspect it may have something to do with the NYT report bursting the partisan bubble some preferred to believe. soibangla (talk) 03:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

In my above comment, I was merely stating the facts. The Daily Mail article is what is referenced in the court documents. I am not stating that it is a reliable source. In fact, based on the deposition by Virginia Guiffre, the Daily Mail needs to make a correction to their article. I agree that the material of Clinton going to the island should not be included, since the New York Times based on its examination of the court documents states she retracted her statement. Guest2625 (talk) 05:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• That's a good summary. My feeling is that the Times is a top-quality reliable source and, therefore, unless we have another source contradicting them or some other reason to doubt them, we should go with their interpretation here. --Aquillion (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

The Times was once the "paper of record", but I think there are reasons to question its reliability in this case (it was also demoted in relation to reporting on 5G as "reliable but not independent", and of course, famously lied about weapons of mass destruction, you may recall). I will post my argument at the RSN and leave a link here. There is more to the story that I have discovered since last posting here. petrarchan47คุก 20:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

RS/N

WP:FORUMSHOPPING and insufficient prior discussion on article talk page. If no consensus is reached after extensive talk page discussion, suggest WP:RfC.
Is here. petrarchan47คุก 22:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Based on the discussion at WP:RSN § New York Times' - Epstein reporting, I've submitted a correction to The New York Times and asked them to amend the phrasing of the claim "The documents unsealed Friday also include an acknowledgment from one of Mr. Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Giuffre, that an earlier claim she made about Mr. Clinton visiting Mr. Epstein in the Caribbean was untrue" in the "Trump Shares Unfounded Fringe Theory About Epstein and Clintons" article. The NYT sent an automated response confirming that my request was received. I'll be monitoring the NYT article for updates, and if I receive any additional responses from the NYT, I'll share them here. — Newslinger talk 21:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

BLP issues

The NYT's coverage is clearly relevant and central to the story; furthermore, Giuffre's initial statements are clearly WP:EXCEPTIONAL. WP:BLP requires balanced coverage, which the repeated removal of the exculpatory NYT coverage prevents. Therefore, I've removed all mention of Giuffre's statements about Clinton until / unless we can reach a clear consensus on how to include the statement in the NYT. Do not restore any of it without a clear consensus; I feel it is unequivocally a violation of the balance that BLP requires to include an accusation that a WP:RS has indicated is retracted, without noting that coverage of a retraction. We cannot cover only part of a story like this one, or cover WP:EXCEPTIONAL accusations while leaving out a retraction in such a high-quality RS. --Aquillion (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree. I find it quite flabbergasting to consider the claim, reported in reliable sources and backed up by the actual documents, that Giuffre indicated that a statement attributed to her was untrue to be WP:EXCEPTIONAL, while at the same time considering that her claims that Clinton visited the island aren't. In my mind the claim that Clinton visited the island is the more exceptional of the two, and there is no doubt that Giuffre indicated that at least one of her statements to this end were untrue. The only doubt is whether she actually made the statements as reported in the first place, or whether they were deliberately falsified by the Daily Mail (something which the documents show she did not directly allege, she equivocates on the matter of whether or not she said them "Q: And do you believe you said that statement to Sharon Churcher? A: I mean, Sharon and I talked a lot, and if she misheard me or just wrote it in the way that she thought she should, I have no control over that. I'm not too sure."). To only report the initial claims, which are phrased as eyewitness accounts, an aspect which is directly contradicted by the documents ("Q: What is inaccurate about... A: Because it makes it kind of sound like an eyewitness thing." and "Well, not being an eyewitness to it, wouldn't be able to tell you. I can't tell you what I don't know."), with no indication of this fact, would be extremely problematic. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 08:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Aquillion, 2 people at the RS/N besides me pointed out that we don't know what the NYT was claiming because they mention only that 'one of the claims' from Guiffre was, in their words, untrue per her later statements. So how do you view this as a statement about the Island? We don't know. And Ambivalent, the claims from Guiffre are sourced to the actual court documents and many media sources.

The claims by Guiffre are covered by RS that satisfies the requirement for exceptional claims, that's why they make up such a large part of the article. They are the reason most of us have ever heard of Epstein. There is no shortage of support from RS. Those familiar with this story know that the claims have been beyond anything we're used to hearing, and they involve many of the most elite among us. Yet, Guiffre's claims have stood the test of time and are backed up by hard evidence, so investigators and media continue to take them seriously. That is why the Epstein article is filled with the reports coming from the various court documents.

There has been no retraction, Aquillion. If the NYT was clear in what they were referring to with regard to 'one of the claims', and if it was relevant to this section, I would be happy to add it with attribution alongside the other RS which directly contradict it, including:

• Unsealed documents show allegations against Jeffrey Epstein and his inner circle - But she did not refute other details of the Daily Mail story, including that Epstein hosted a dinner on his Caribbean island for President Bill Clinton shortly after Clinton left office.
• Unsealed Jeffrey Epstein Documents List New Allegations Against Powerful Men Bill Clinton: The former president visited Epstein’s private island while Giuffre was there, she claims in one of her depositions. Giuffre stated that Epstein held a dinner for Clinton on the island. (In a statement previously made to Forbes, Clinton denied ever visiting Epstein’s private island.)
• Huge cache of newly unsealed records detail how Jeffrey Epstein and his madam allegedly lured girls into sexual servitude Giuffre, as part of her sworn testimony, also states that she met former President Bill Clinton, former Vice President Al Gore and future President Donald Trump, and that Epstein once held a dinner for Clinton on his island, Little St. James, off the coast of St. Thomas.

As well as the sources we were already using:

• Deposition: Underage Girls Were Present When Bill Clinton Visited Jeffrey Epstein’s Island
• The Forbes piece above

You can't hold RS hostage based on a false claim that we can't say anything bad about Clinton without a rebuttal. It is also false to claim that there ever was a rebuttal (or, rather, "retraction"). When and if the NYT responds, we can go from there. But nowhere in WP:BLP does it support the removal of RS as you did here, and consensus of a few editors on the talk page does not trump policy. I reject the notion that I am now responsible to prove your edits are at odds with policy by going to another noticeboard, as you told me here.

WP:BLPREMOVE states: Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: is unsourced or poorly sourced. It does not state that contentious material can be removed simply because it's contentious, which is your argument as I see it. Obviously, if any type of retraction, response, or rebuttal was available, it would indeed violate policy not to include it. But that's not the case here. petrarchan47คุก 01:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLPREMOVE is not the only section of WP:BLP, merely the most pressing. WP:BLPSTYLE requires that Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves. Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources (but keep in mind that depictions of recent events may be unbalanced). Including only half a story by leaving out part of what those secondary sources are saying - as you are suggesting we are doing here - is a clear violation in that it produces a misleading summary of what the sources, collectively, say. Your personal opinion that the NYT's statement was not a retraction and that they will eventually update it to reflect your view of events and your view that it is contradicted by those other sources are worth discussing, but they can't change this without a clear consensus behind them. Personally I don't see either of the sources you presented to back your view affirming that underage girls were present, an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that you're trying to focus on in the article while omitting a high-quality source that casts it into doubt. But regarding your hope that the NYT will update their story, per WP:BLPBALANCE, The idea expressed in meta:Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times; that is to say, if we're in disagreement over what the NYT says and are waiting for them to clarify, the correct thing until then would be to have the most conservative viewpoint with regards to the reputation of the subject or, failing an agreement on what that is, to have nothing. And, of course, from my perspective you are the one who is trying to hold the section hostage by removing a key part of the coverage and then trying to insist that the rest (with a misleading and unbalanced summary of events) can remain; this is not the case. I'm not seeing a consensus that the NYT can be omitted in the WP:RSN discussions or in the discussions above, which means that for BLP compliance we need to include either it or say nothing about the controversy at all. I also disagree that the accusations are not WP:EXCEPTIONAL; there is a huge difference between "Clinton was friends with Epstein" and "someone says they saw Clinton with underage girls at Epstein's island." The latter has to be approached with extreme caution (caution that reaches five-alarm fire levels when we have a source as staid as the NYT implying that the claims were retracted); that's not the sort of caution that I am seeing in your fairly aggressive efforts to get the NYT off the page. --Aquillion (talk) 02:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

My efforts to remove the NYT are due to your misrepresenting what it says, and the fact that saying in WP's voice that Guiffre misspoke in her deposition is a BLP violation unless you have proper RS to back it up; BLP violations require 'aggressive action'. It was agreed at the RS/N that this source is not being used properly because we are attributing to it meaning that doesn't exist.

The NYT piece is not "half of the story", even IF they were clearly stating that Guiffre retracted her claim specifically about the presence of Bill C on the Island. It can't be called "half the story" when it is a claim mirrored in NO OTHER SOURCE and when we have countless sources which do not mention any retraction. That is what makes the NYT an exceptional claim. Guiffre's allegations are not considered exceptional in the WP sense because they are well established in media:

The NYT bit:

A spokesman for Mr. Clinton has denied that Mr. Clinton traveled to Mr. Epstein’s private island in the Virgin Islands. The documents unsealed Friday also include an acknowledgment from one of Mr. Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Giuffre, that an earlier claim she made about Mr. Clinton visiting Mr. Epstein in the Caribbean was untrue. NYT

is, per @Newslinger: at RS/N]:

not enough to substantiate the exceptional claim that Giuffre made a false statement. I can't be certain that the NYT was wrong, since the NYT article doesn't specify which ""earlier claim"" Giuffre allegedly made

and per @SlimVirgin::

The WP article discusses "her previous claim" as though there was only one claim—that Clinton visited the island—and therefore that must be the claim that is false. I agree that we can't infer this from the NYT article

You have removed reliable sources based on a false claim, which is that the NYT piece is RS for a retraction. The section you removed did indeed satisfy WP:BLP document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects.

Wikipedia: In documents unsealed the day before Epstein's death, the deposition of alleged sex slave Virginia Giuffre includes her allegations that when she was 17, Clinton visited Little St. James island, that underage girls were present, and that Epstein threw a dinner party for Clinton. She stated Secret Service was present, but not at all times. Her deposition did not include any claim that Clinton had sexual contact with anyone on the island. The Secret Service told Fox News in 2016 it had no record of agents being on the island. Giuffre claims Maxwell told her she flew Clinton to the island on her helicopter, although she conceded, "I heard a lot of things from Ghislaine that sounded too true – too outrageous to be true, but you never knew what to believe." Maxwell denied Guiffre's claim that Clinton visited the island.

That is exactly what RS reports. Here are more that state the same, and these are in addition to the RS we were using and those I've already quoted:

• Associated Press "at least one alleged victim said in a court affidavit that she participated in an orgy, as well as had sex with Epstein and other people. She said she saw former U.S. President Bill Clinton on the island, but that she never saw him having sex with anyone. A Clinton spokesman issued a statement saying he never visited there."
• VICE "sworn testimony unsealed Friday revealed allegations that Epstein once held a private dinner for former President Bill Clinton on the Little St. James. (Clinton has denied the visit, according to the Miami Herald, and the court documents didn’t contain any accusations that Clinton engaged in abuse.)"
• NY Mag "Alleged Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre also claimed in a 2015 affidavit that Clinton visited the financier’s private island, though Clinton denies it. The claim has never been corroborated, and there are no Epstein-related allegations of sexual misconduct involving Clinton"
• The Cut"Virginia Roberts, who claims to have been trafficked by Epstein, told her lawyers in 2011 interview that she saw Clinton with “two young girls” on the island. “I remember asking Jeffrey, ‘What’s Bill Clinton doing here?,’ [that] kind of thing, and he laughed it off and said, ‘Well, he owes me a favor,’” Roberts told her lawyers." petrarchan47คุก 15:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

BLP/N

WP:FORUMSHOPPING and insufficient prior discussion on article talk page. If no consensus is reached after extensive talk page discussion, suggest WP:RfC.
A section at the BLP noticeboard has been opened here regarding the recent removal of Clinton material. petrarchan47คุก 21:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

All prison documents about Epstein are being withheld

• https://sharylattkisson.com/2019/09/all-prison-documents-about-jeffrey-epstein-withheld : All prison documents about Epstein are being withheld. One reason given: Their release could endanger someone's life.--87.170.192.80 (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• That may or may not be true, so you'll have to use a RS to back that info. Attkisson is never a RS for facts. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@BullRangifer:

Attkisson is never a RS for facts.

Who decides that? You?? Are you the RS for who's a RS? — Guarapiranga (talk) 23:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

She has a terrible history for factual accuracy. She is, of course, considered a RS for her own opinions, which are generally fringe. You don't have to agree, and this is the wrong venue to carry on such a discussion. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Attkisson made a request under the Freedom of Information Act (United States) and it was turned down. This part of the story is OK, but it looks like routine bureaucratic stonewalling rather than an attempt to hide The Truth.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring 1

Petrarchan47, I must insist that you seek consensus for your repeated restorations of disputed content on this Talk page, where interested editors may participate, rather than asserting you have gained consensus here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#New_York_Times'_-_Epstein_reporting

in a location/discussion interested editors may be completely unaware of. Accordingly, I suggest you self-revert your recent restoration until you have achieved that consensus here, as at least three other editors have reverted the content, which appears to reflect the actual consensus. soibangla (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Soibangla, there are very clear rules for sourcing and you are trying to get around them by claiming you have a consensus to do so. This is not possible, editors' opinions do not overrule guidelines. petrarchan47คุก 00:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there are very clear rules for sourcing and I am unequivocally on the right side of those rules. I am not asserting that I have consensus, you are asserting you do by virtue of a backchannel discussion that no one here knows about, and three editors have expressed the consensus by removing your content. soibangla (talk) 00:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Your claim that I am using a backchannel is typed just above the section where I announce this secret channel. One editor reverted me saying "appears to be a BLP violation", and he was wrong. The "consensus" is two people who claim this content mustn't be on the page without the NYT piece. I included the NYT. petrarchan47คุก 01:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

NPOV concerns regarding Bill Clinton section

WP:FORUMSHOPPING and insufficient prior discussion on article talk page. If no consensus is reached after extensive talk page discussion, suggest WP:RfC.
Please weigh in here. petrarchan47คุก 00:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring 2

Per WP:STATUSQUO I just restored the 02:58, 7 October 2019 version from before edit war. Please stop all back-and-forth editing/reverting of the article and try to reach a consensus here on the talk page. If you think I should have gone back further, tell me what version you prefer and why. Note: I have no position regarding Epstein or Clinton other than wanting this article to meet Wikipedia's standards for BLPs. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Please note that per our BLP rules, in general negative material about living persons should stay out of the article until consensus is reached. I would like to see a good-faith attempt to reach consensus without any further personal comments -- discuss content, not contributors. In other words, More Light And Less Heat, Please. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Request to re-add something removed in the WP:STATUSQUO restore

Well OK, but the bold part of the sentence in the restored version The New York Times reported that in the documents, Guiffre admits she was wrong about a claim she made regarding Clinton, but they did not specify which claim remains false, and that's the crux of the matter, as far as I'm concerned. The NYT clearly said the specific claim Clinton visited Epstein's island was false. But I don't know how far back to go to restore that without removing intervening edits that are good. soibangla (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Let's see if there is a consensus for me to remove that particular claim. Does anyone object? If nobody objects I will remove the claim as being an uncontroversial and uncontested change. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

You can see clearly the NYT didn't specify which claim. You can also see other editors agreed:

The NYT bit:

A spokesman for Mr. Clinton has denied that Mr. Clinton traveled to Mr. Epstein’s private island in the Virgin Islands. The documents unsealed Friday also include an acknowledgment from one of Mr. Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Giuffre, that an earlier claim she made about Mr. Clinton visiting Mr. Epstein in the Caribbean was untrue. NYT

is, per @Newslinger: at RS/N]:

not enough to substantiate the exceptional claim that Giuffre made a false statement. I can't be certain that the NYT was wrong, since the NYT article doesn't specify which ""earlier claim"" Giuffre allegedly made

and per @SlimVirgin::

The WP article discusses "her previous claim" as though there was only one claim—that Clinton visited the island—and therefore that must be the claim that is false. I agree that we can't infer this from the NYT article

Ping Guy_Macon petrarchan47คุก 03:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

No need to ping me. When I post a comment I check for replies.

If I understand you correctly, that makes 2 for removal. Still waiting to see if anyone objects to the removal so I can decide whether removal is an uncontroversial and uncontested change. Give it, say, another 24 hours to give people time to respond.

Posting reasons why you think it should be removed is a waste of time. I don't care. All I care about is [A] whether anyone disputes removal, and [B] if they can give me a good reason why we should not follow our basic "keep negative material out until there is consensus to include it" BLP rule. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, of course it should stay out, according to the letter and spirit of BLP. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe that I made an error. The comment by Soibangla ("...the sentence in the restored version... remains false") made me think that my reverting to a version from before the edit war introduced an error. But the version I restored does not contain "https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/10/us/politics/trump-epstein-conspiracy-theories.html", "did not specify which claim" or "an earlier claim". So it appears that Soibangla is asking me to add something. The answer is no. My reverting to a WP:STATUSQUO version removed everything anyone was edit warring about, good or bad. If anyone wants some of what I removed put back, get consensus that it was good. If you can't reach consensus with discussion, post a WP:RfC. My apologies for the error. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I think (and I could be wrong) that Soibangla was saying that even if the material you removed was to be restored, that particular part of it ("did not specify which claim") should not be restored, which if that is the case (again I could be wrong, I don't want to speak for anyone other than myself) I agree with the sentiment. That being said, I am totally fine with everything you removed staying out of the article. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

AmbivalentUnequivocality Your interpretation of my meaning is correct. soibangla (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Guy_Macon I did not ask you to add anything. soibangla (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

SlimVirgin and Newslinger, because your names have again been invoked in this matter, I am again pinging you to request your input in this matter. Please closely examine this sentence reported by the NYT:

NYT "The documents unsealed Friday also include an acknowledgment from one of Mr. Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Giuffre, that an earlier claim she made about Mr. Clinton visiting Mr. Epstein in the Caribbean was untrue."

Do you interpret that sentence to mean...

A — Giuffre later acknowledged that some unspecified earlier claim she made was untrue;

or

B — Giuffre later acknowledged that her earlier claim Clinton visited Epstein in the Caribbean was untrue.

Please note that I am not asking if you believe the NYT was correct or incorrect in their reporting; I am simply asking for your interpretation of what they reported. Thank you. soibangla (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Soibangla, when the only available source for an exceptional claim is ambiguous, I don't think we should be picking an interpretation and using that as the basis for article content. That's why I would prefer to exclude this claim from the article until more high-quality reliable sources that corroborate the claim emerge (hopefully with more detail and precision). — Newslinger talk 21:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

So your answer is A? soibangla (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

​A would be closer to my interpretation. Three points:

1. The earlier claim is unspecified.
2. The article does not state whether Guiffre made one or multiple earlier claims on this subject.
3. The earlier claim is "about" (i.e. related to) "Mr. Clinton visiting Mr. Epstein". The sentence doesn't conclusively say that "Mr. Clinton visiting Mr. Epstein" is the substance of the earlier claim.

​— Newslinger talk 23:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Wow. Just...wow. Life is too short. I'm done with this insanity. soibangla (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

If the NYT were more specific, if there were other corroborating reliable sources, or if the claim were less contentious, we would not have this issue. The NYT dedicated just one ambiguous sentence in the article to state that Guiffre made a false claim, and I can't find any other reliable sources that support this sentence. I even searched through the underlying primary source (387MB PDF version), and wasn't able to find support for this sentence. — Newslinger talk 23:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss: how "a claim" by the NYT becomes "the claim" by Wikipedians

Editors have successfully removed Guiffre's claim about seeing Bill Clinton on Epstein's island. The claim, along with her claims about many powerful men, has been in the article since August 9th. I'm not sure when the "rebuttal" from the NYT was added, but I recently noticed it and know that it cannot be used for the claim being made.

To re-add the information, I need consensus from editors here. My threads at noticeboards set up to help have been closed by Guy Macon, who says I need more conversation here, and to then open an RfC.

If you feel the NYT "a claim" means "the one claim that Clinton was there", I would appreciate if you would explain your position. The consensus here seems to be that without the NYT supposed rebuttal, it is a BLP violation to include the information about Clinton. Obviously I disagree. I don't think we can know which claim was false, and others at the RS/N agreed. I disagree that Guiffre's claims create a BLP violation.

Background: Two thousand pages of previously sealed court documents were released the night before Epstein was declared dead. The New York Times makes a claim that no one else (except Alan Dershowitz and Ghislaine Maxwell) has, a claim now mirrored in our Jeffrey Epstein article:

NYT "The documents unsealed Friday also include an acknowledgment from one of Mr. Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Giuffre, that an earlier claim she made about Mr. Clinton visiting Mr. Epstein in the Caribbean was untrue."

Wikipedia: "The unsealed court documents also showed that Giuffre later acknowledged her previous claim about Clinton visiting the island was false."

The claim was made midway through a fluff piece about Trump-fueled conspiracy theories involving Bill Clinton. Besides this brief mention, the NYT has not reported on the documents. WP editors have taken its statement to mean that Guiffre admitted Clinton was not on the island, contrary to her earlier testimony. They have decided that because it was printed in the Times, it must be true, and lack of corroborating reports, and the presence of contradictory reports, are seen as irrelevant because the NYT is considered to be reliable.

• Law and Crime reported on the documents: Underage girls present when Bill Clinton visited Jeffrey Epstein's island

In transcripts of Giuffre’s deposition released by the court Friday, Bill Clinton‘s relationship with Epstein is expounded upon. Giuffre alleges that Clinton was around when she was with Epstein on his island. Giuffre claims that she “flew to the Caribbean” with Epstein when she was 17, and that while she was there, Maxwell bragged that she picked Clinton up in a "black helicopter that Jeffrey [Epstein] bought her". Giuffre further says that she had spent time with Clinton and that while his secret service agents were there, they weren’t "where [everyone] was eating." ... While the details of the alleged helicopter trip were, thus, unclear, Giuffre’s other statements in the deposition, if true, confirm Bill Clinton was on Jeffrey Epstein’s island while underage girls were present. This runs contradictory to Clinton’s claims that he has never been to Jeffrey Epstein’s private island.

More sources that cover the allegation: Law and Crime, FORBES, TIME, AP, VICE, NY Mag, The Cut, Chicago Tribune, and Fox8

I'm happy to include the NYT with attribution, but we must quote them properly and not change "a claim" to "the claim" (an idea with which Aquillion agreed: "at best you can say "the NYT said X, while [other source] disagreed"). That's why my fix was to say exactly what they did: a claim was made, but they don't specify which one. petrarchan47คุก 03:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

If your only issue is with the changing of "a" claim to "the" claim, why not just change "her previous claim" to "a previous claim she made" (something which I actually suggested) without further editorializing? Instead you repeatedly removed the entire sentence, seemingly tried to cast aspersions on the NYT's reporting as being biased towards pedophiles and therefore not reliable for Epstein coverage, and then re-wrote the whole thing with superfluous editorializing. I also have an issue with the fact that even though multiple editors disagreed with you, the moment one or two editors (one of whom you directly contacted about the issue when others did not take your side, which is dangerously close to canvasing in addition to the forumshopping issues others have brought up) seem to (loosely, maybe) agree with you, you reinstated your changes claiming some sort of consensus. This just doesn't seem like constructive editing to me, and makes it difficult to assume good faith. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 07:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I just searched and looked at every place "claim" is used in the current version and did not find any place "claim" and "Clinton" are near each other. Correct me if I am wrong. Could someone please specify the exact wording they want to add? And if anyone disagrees, could they please specify the exact alternative wording or specify leaving it out entirely? I am finding the arguments about wording that was removed when I restored a WP:STATUSQUO version confusing, and would like to see exactly what is being proposed. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The argument is about a sentence ("The unsealed court documents also showed that Giuffre later acknowledged her previous claim about Clinton visiting the island was false.") which was present in the article until this edit on October 7th: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeffrey_Epstein&diff=919992232&oldid=919722825 (Sorry I don't know the template to correctly provide diffs). The argument was over whether the New York Times was a reliable source for this statement, whether it should be included, and how the statement should be worded. A heavily modified version of it (with what is in my opinion undue editorializing) was present in the material you removed ("The New York Times reported that in the documents, Guiffre admits she was wrong about a claim she made regarding Clinton, but they did not specify which claim."). Because it is related to the bulk of the material you removed, there is no reason that I can see to re-add it unless the rest of the material is also re-added, so this is sort of a hypothetical argument right now. My position in a nutshell is this: I am happy for everything you removed to stay out of the article, but if it is re-added to the article, this statement ("The unsealed court documents also showed that Giuffre later acknowledged her previous claim about Clinton visiting the island was false.") (or a very close paraphrasing, as I mention above, without editorializing) should be added instead of the statement ("The New York Times reported that in the documents, Guiffre admits she was wrong about a claim she made regarding Clinton, but they did not specify which claim.") because I feel that that version includes too much editorializing. For reference, the sentence in the New York Times article which is the source for this is "The documents unsealed Friday also include an acknowledgment from one of Mr. Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Giuffre, that an earlier claim she made about Mr. Clinton visiting Mr. Epstein in the Caribbean was untrue." I hope that helped rather than made things more complicated. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 08:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon The original sentence "The unsealed court documents also showed that Giuffre later acknowledged her previous claim about Clinton visiting the island was false." is the only correct interpretation of what the NYT reported. Any interpretation that NYT could be referring to "any" earlier claim is flatly false on its face. There is absolutely no ambiguity whatsoever in what the NYT reported, regardless of how much some might try to parse it to reach an alternative interpretation. Other editors have attempted to use original research of the legal documents to assert the NYT got it wrong, but a highly reliable source such as the NYT prevails over that OR. To my knowledge, no one has refuted that specific sentence by the NYT, most notably not Guiffre, and consequently the reporting by the reliable source must be accepted, as we cannot pick and choose when to accept or reject what reliable sources report. soibangla (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Please stop placing {{u|Guy Macon}} in front of your arguments. I DON'T CARE WHAT THE CONTENT OF THIS PAGE IS. The ONLY thing I care about is whether there is edit warring and whether the editors working on this page follow Wikipedia's policies. You need to address the editors who disagree with you, not me.

Read WP:CONSENSUS again, and show that there is a consensus to re-add anything about Giuffre and Clinton. Right now the article says nothing on the subject and will stay that way until there is agreement about what the article should contain. If you cannot get the other editors to agree with you (you might have more success with a less aggressive tone) your suggested changes will stay out of the article. Can't reach an agreement? Read WP:RfC for instructions as to what to do next. Again, please stop bothering me with your arguments about the content of this article. That's for you and the other editors to work out if you can. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I am not pleased that you misrepresented what I said to you last night. Perhaps consider striking. As to my "aggressive tone," I am approaching the limit of my patience and tolerance for what is likely the most surreal behavior by an editor (not you) I have ever witnessed on Wikipedia. It is truly mind-blowing. soibangla (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I apologize if what I wrote bothered you, I was simply trying to answer your question in the best way that I could and clear up any possible misunderstandings. I was not trying to argue about the content of the page other than to answer you specific question about "exactly what is being proposed". To keep it simple, I will just say that, for now, I propose that the text you removed stay out of the article. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Virginia Giuffre and Bill Clinton

Should the article include or exclude the following text related to Virginia Giuffre and Bill Clinton? — Newslinger talk 20:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Guiffre's claims regarding Clinton

A – Removed in Special:Diff/920457099:

In documents unsealed the day before Epstein's death, the deposition of alleged sex slave Virginia Giuffre includes her allegations that when she was 17, Clinton visited Little St. James island, that underage girls were present, and that Epstein threw a dinner party for Clinton. She stated Secret Service was present, but not at all times. Her deposition did not include any claim that Clinton had sexual contact with anyone on the island. The Secret Service told Fox News in 2016 it had no record of agents being on the island. Giuffre claims Maxwell told her she flew Clinton to the island on her helicopter, although she conceded, "I heard a lot of things from Ghislaine that sounded too true – too outrageous to be true, but you never knew what to believe." Maxwell denied Guiffre's claim that Clinton visited the island.

B – Added in Special:Diff/920948666:

In court documents unsealed August 9, 2019, one night before Epstein was found dead, Virginia Guiffre claims to have seen Clinton on Little Saint James where she said Epstein threw a party for the former president. Guiffre noted also that Ghislaine Maxwell told her she and Clinton flew in a "huge black helicopter."

References

Survey (Guiffre's claims regarding Clinton)

• Include A or B Either version is fine. The wording can be tweaked later. There is no justification in the PAG's to exclude Guiffre's testimony altogether. WP:BLP: document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects. It is well-supported by RS:

Law and Crime FORBES CNN TIME AP VICE NY Mag The Cut Chicago Tribune Fox8

There are normally three men mentioned in the Epstein story; media almost always mentions that Epstein was friends with big wigs, and the examples most often cited are: Trump, Clinton and Prince Andrew. For context, scan the "Personal life" section for names of politicians. We have included (albeit with much updating to do) all notable allegations. Note as well that we already have: and Secret Service stated that there is no evidence of the former President making a trip to Epstein's private island and At the time of Epstein's 2019 arrest, Clinton's spokeswoman Angel Ureña stated that Clinton ... has never been to Little St. James Island. petrarchan47คุก 22:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The New York Times's claim regarding Guiffre

A – Removed in Special:Diff/919992232:

The unsealed court documents also showed that Giuffre later acknowledged her previous claim about Clinton visiting the island was false.

B – Added in Special:Diff/920948666:

The New York Times reported that in the documents, Guiffre admits she was wrong about a claim she made regarding Clinton, but they did not specify which claim.

References

Survey (The New York Times's claim regarding Guiffre)

• Exclude both A and B per my previous comment on the reliable sources noticeboard. This is an exceptional claim that is only supported by a vague sentence from The New York Times's article. An examination of the Epstein documents (387MB PDF version), the underlying primary source, failed to reveal information that could be used to support this text. As with any exceptional claim, we need multiple high-quality reliable sources to substantiate this claim before it can be included into the article. — Newslinger talk 20:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude both A and B The argument at this page has been whether to include the NYT and how to summarize it. The NYT's "a claim" clearly does not specify which claim (others have agreed); per WP:OR we cannot do that here. Version B is a non-statement and I see no reason to include it. petrarchan47คุก 21:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (The New York Times's claim regarding Guiffre)

• Following up on my correction submission to The New York Times, I have not yet received a response from the NYT, and "Trump Shares Unfounded Fringe Theory About Epstein and Clintons" has not yet been amended. Since I don't submit corrections very often, I'm not sure what to expect from the process.

  The NYT's automated response (received immediately after my email) is reproduced below:

Automated response to correction submission from The New York Times

THANK YOU for writing The New York Times newsroom. We are grateful to readers who take the time to help us report thoroughly and accurately.  Your message will reach the appropriate editor or reporter promptly. PLEASE NOTE:  For security reasons, we do not open email attachments. IF your email included an attachment, please resend your message with all of the information in the body of the email.  If your email did not have an attachment, there is no reason to resend it, of course. What happens now that your message has been received, or if you have more questions? ACCURACY:  If you have pointed out an error, the article will be corrected online and a correction appended; a correction will also appear in print editions as soon as possible.  Corrections for articles in weekly sections usually appear in those sections. Because dozens of readers often point out the same error, we cannot notify each person that we are publishing a correction.  Please accept our thanks now for having pointed out the error. When an issue of accuracy is raised, at least three editors review the query.  Often re-reporting is requested; sometimes the issue is turned over to our research department.  Because of the volume of queries we receive, we are not able to send a response explaining why we decided no correction is necessary.  But please know that every query about a possible error is taken seriously and thoroughly considered. NEWS COVERAGE: If you are writing to give us feedback on our coverage, your message will be forwarded to the appropriate department.  Because of the volume of email we receive, we cannot respond to every comment.  But we pay respectful attention to all messages, even those that are part of organized letter-writing campaigns, for which we are not staffed to reply individually. CONFIDENTIAL NEWS TIPS: Do you have a confidential tip that you want to share with The New York Times? We offer several ways to get in touch with and provide materials to our journalists. Learn more about them here. https://www.nytimes.com/tips EDITORIALS: News and opinion departments operate separately at The Times. If you have written to comment on an editorial or an Op-Ed article and want your comments considered for publication as a Letter to the Editor, please resend your message to [email protected]  More information on submitting letters can be found at nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/lettertoeditor.html Send Op-Ed submissions to [email protected]  More information can be found at nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/opedsubmit.html. CUSTOMER CARE: You can find answers to a variety of questions in our help section, as well as specific information about your subscription by visiting your account. You can also reach Customer Care by chat, phone, text or email. RESEARCH:  We are not staffed to do research for the public.  But our online archives, dating to 1851, can be accessed by going to nytimes.com and using the search function. REPRINTS OF ARTICLES:  write to [email protected] TO BUY PICTURES:  write to [email protected] BACK COPIES:  Information about requesting back copies of the newspaper can be found here.

— Newslinger talk 20:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• CNN directly counters the idea that Guiffre recanted her testimony:

"Maxwell and her attorney portray Giuffre as an unreliable narrator, pointing to errors in certain dates and figures she provided. Giuffre has said the errors were mistakes."

"According to a transcript of a video deposition Giuffre gave in 2016, she disputed aspects of a 2011 story in the Daily Mail that was based on a series of interviews Giuffre had given

"...she did not refute other details of the Daily Mail story, including that Epstein hosted a dinner on his Caribbean island for President Bill Clinton shortly after Clinton left office." petrarchan47คุก 22:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)