Talk:Death of Jeffrey Epstein

Online Conspiracy Theorists

If such a large percentage of people think Epstein was murdered, doesn’t that mean “online conspiracy theorists” are better simply described as “people”? Is it the position of mainstream, “reliable” sources that all conspiracy theories are, were, and always will be, false? Or are those who believe in the outlandish, and those who believe in theories with more evidence, simply lumped into the same group? Does this risk legitimizing the ridiculous, or is the working hypothesis that the righteous and good people of the world always know which is which? 73.254.234.103 (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Unreliable Sources

This article made heavy use of unreliable sources such as: Fox News, NYPost, Washington Examiner. For a controversial subject, it is even more important to use mainstream reliable sources with a history of good cautious reporting rather than give weight to reporting by unreliable sources known for sensationalism and sloppy reporting. These sources also give the most weight to Epstein's team's claims. I've removed some text, and tagged others with CN. If a CN can't be found this text should be removed or re-worded to what reliable sources say. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Harizotoh9: I would caution you from removing only sources you disagree with. Here are a couple of things I note.

You removed the statement: After Epstein's death, Tartaglione was reportedly threatened by jail guards and told to "stop talking" after describing Epstein's death and conditions in the jail to the media.

Reported:

https://abc7.com/jeffery-epstein-nicholas-tartaglione-metropolitan-correctional-center-mcc/5481525/

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-epstein-cellmate-wants-jail-transfer-with-threat-claims-20190820-es34umh3rnetxm5gditnrsdnru-story.html

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/jeffrey-epstein-jail-guards-warn-cellmate-discuss-suicide-lawyer-2019-8-1028462230

You removed the statement: Epstein was reportedly depositing funds into other prisoners' accounts to gain their favor or buy protection.

Reported:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/jeffrey-epsteins-wealth-allowed-him-many-perks-while-serving-jail-time-in-florida/2019/07/17/fab2c128-a8c5-11e9-a3a6-ab670962db05_story.html

https://www.concordmonitor.com/Harassed-by-guards-and-extorted-by-inmates-Jeffrey-Epstein-shared-suicidal-thoughts-at-NYC-federal-jail-38022078

You removed the statement: The news of the death was posted on 4chan about 38 minutes before ABC News reported it. If this 4chan post was by a first responder, as it has been speculated, it would likely be a violation of privacy law

Ours is not to judge the law it is to report what is cited.

Reported:

https://www.cnet.com/news/4chan-post-appears-to-have-detailed-jeffrey-epsteins-death-before-news-broke

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/4chan-user-posted-about-jeffrey-epstein-s-death-it-was-n1041931

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/08/13/4-chan-post-jeffrey-epstein-death-made-before-news-broke-not-from-fdny/2002514001/

https://www.businessinsider.com/jeffery-epstein-death-by-apparent-suicide-4chan-post-investigated-2019-8

You removed the Washington Examiner as a source but left the statement up asking for a citation??

The Washington Examiner is not a Wikipedia:Deprecated sources#Currently deprecated sources

You removed several other sources... for what I believe was your disagreement on the reporting but ours is not to judge the reporting if it is reported by numerous agencies that are reliable.

DoctorTexan (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Fox News is reliable providing it is non-politics non-science, per WP:FOXNEWS.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)SimpsonDG (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Defining liberal news sources as "reliable" and conservative news sources as "unreliable" necessarily introduces a liberal bias into Wikipedia. The same applies to the deletion of conservative views from Wikipedia talk pages. This is why I direct my college students NOT to use Wikipedia for any reason. SimpsonDG (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

That's not what Wikipedia does. You'll notice there are reliable conservative sources, such as the Wall Street Journal. There are also unreliable liberal sources, such as Daily Kos. OrangeCroutons (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Biased article

(Personal attack removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.212.239 (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Removed comment for personal attacks against editors contributing to this article. DoctorTexan (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Majority believe that he was murdered???

Of the opinion polls cited in the article: in the August 2019 Rasmussen poll, 42% say murder is more likely; in the January 2020 Rasmussen poll, 52% say murder is more likely; and in the Business Insider poll 45% say it was murder. The Rasmussen polls were clearly asking about likelihood, so presenting this as a positive belief is wrong. The 2020 Rasmussen poll was of 1000 people and had a 3% margin of error. Overall I don't think these polls indicate a majority of Americans believing it was murder, so I have taken this out of the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I would say "Rasmussen found in August 2019 that 42% of Americans believed murder was more likely" and leave it at that, maybe add an updated poll if it exists, like "by 2021.. x% believed he was murdered according to y poll" I would agree that characterizing it as a majority positively believing it is inaccurate. The polls themselves should remain linked, since it is significant that 42% believe murder was more likely, that should be mentioned in this article as it certainly indicates its widespread nature. DrDrago1337 (talk) 10:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Jeffrey Epstein has an RFC

Jeffrey Epstein has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Gaioa (T C L) 11:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Just noting that, according to the RfC, it would apply to this article too. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2022

Note 5 of the "Notes and References" section should be removed. It states that Jeffrey Epstein's possession of a sheet was against jail protocol. The source linked only states that possession of a sheet is against protocol for those under suicide watch, which Epstein was not under at the time of his death.

Here is the exact quote from the article.

"Under the jail's protocol, Epstein would not have been given a bedsheet had he been on suicide watch. He was placed on suicide watch last month after he was found on the floor of his cell with bruises on his neck, but he was later returned to the jail's special housing unit for inmates needing close supervision." Jobbus (talk) 18:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Fair point. I haven't removed it, as it is interesting material, but I have clarified per your source that he would not have had one, etc, on suicide watch but was allowed one at the time he was killed died  :) Thanks for improving Wikipedia! SN54129 19:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Picture of Protestor implicitly associates Epstein murder theory proponents with far-right

The picture of the protestor in the "Homocide suspicions and conspiracy theories" section of the page should be removed or changed with an image of a less partisan image. The current picture unfairly implicitly associates proponents of the Epstein homicide conspiracy theory with far-right, antisemitic pizzagate conspiracy theorists when in reality proponents of the conspiracy theory are found on every corner of the political compass and the theory is believed by a larger percentage of the public than other conspiracy theories. If another photo of a protestor asserting Epstein's alleged homicide that is less associated with other fringe conspiracy theories cannot be found then the image should just be removed to maintain a neutral point of view. 47.205.39.125 (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the current photo. NPOV doesn't mean censoring photos.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

It's the best protest image we have. ~ HAL333 17:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2023

Jeffrey Epstein was murdered 2601:842:8100:2E80:D953:9A10:B046:2551 (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lightoil (talk) 04:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Move to rename article "Suicide of Jeffrey Epstein"

Shouldn't this page be changed to Suicide of Jeffrey Epstein? Conspiracy theories and speculation notwithstanding, the official manner of death has been ruled a suicide. "Death" lacks context and implies the manner of death is inconclusive, when in reality it has already officially been ruled a suicide and no reliable evidence (aside from speculation) indicates otherwise.

User:Gdeblois19(talk) Gdeblois19 16:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• That's not the status quo in naming articles on assumed suicides: Death of Adolf Hitler, Death of Cleopatra, Death of Marilyn Monroe, Death of Sandra Bland, etc. What makes Epstein so special? ~ HAL333 22:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  The difference here is that the suicide isn't "assumed". An autopsy was performed, and the manner of death was officially ruled a suicide. Most of the other examples you listed did not have an official manner of death ruled. Gdeblois19 14:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Death of Jeffrey Epstein is just better.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support -- A lot of other articles of official suicides use this language. For example Suicide of Kurt Cobain. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 01:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Per HAL333.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 04:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per HAL333. Unnecessary change when "Death of..." is the more neutral title in this more charged topic. Some1 (talk) 12:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support. I'm very late here. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 03:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Reportedly

He was reportedly found dead. This is a simple statement of reality. Whether you think he committed suicide or was killed, it was reported that he was killed. Hence I see no reason to abstain from using the word "reportedly". Par âpre aux astres (talk) 21:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@Par âpre aux astres, your insertion of the word "reportedly" was probably reverted per MOS:DOUBT. While there are reasons for thoughtful people to question Epstein's cause of death, there aren't many sources who seriously question that he was "found dead". Sure, there are those who have speculated that his death was faked, but there's not good evidence of that, at this point. So, I don't see any compelling reason to say that he was "reportedly" found dead. Open to changing my mind if you think I'm missing something. Cheers. Pecopteris (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

The word "reportedly" is an adverb that means "according to reports". "Guards found him dead" sounds somewhat like "He committed suicide, no further questions. Case closed. Drop. The. Topic." but the word "reportedly" doesn't push an opinion, it just means "reports say that". Par âpre aux astres (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

It provides attribution when none is necessary, thus sneaking in a suspicion of doubt. The doubt would be about whether he was murdered or committed suicide. We don't introduce such doubts unless mainstream RS do it. You did it by wikilinking to an article about the conspiracy theories, which is what my edit summary was about. The word is just unhelpful since everything here is "reportedly". It ALL has to be sourced, so it is ALL "reported" by a source. We don't usually mention that as it's a given. When we do, it's because there is serious disagreement in RS, and we then explain both/all sides of the debate.

In this case, there is no debate in RS, only in unreliable sources, ergo conspiracy theories, which, around here, are false. When proven true, we retitle (by removing the words "conspiracy theory") the article and update its contents. Pretty much all articles here that say "conspiracy theory" are about "false" conspiracy theories. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity: Did mainstream "reliable" sources ever showed a suspicion of doubt in a situation like that? Like, on occasions where U.S federal government said "this is blue" did they ever say "no, it's red"? For example the U.S government says "Kennedy was killed by one man" and "reliable" sources say "yes sir, he was". I want to see if they ever happened to say "no, we think otherwise" on any topic of identical level of importance and controversy. Par âpre aux astres (talk) 06:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Par âpre aux astres, I understand your concern. If this article took the tone of "he committed suicide, no further questions. Case closed. Drop. The Topic", I would not be comfortable with that at all. But in this specific case, I don't see it. The sentence basically says "The guards found him dead." But think about it: maybe he committed suicide and was later found dead, or maybe he was murdered and later found dead. The simple assertion "the guards found him dead" leaves that ambiguous.

Adding the word "reportedly" actually implies that the guards may not have found him dead, which would mean one of two things: the guards observed his death first hand, or he was removed from the prison, dead or alive, without the guards seeing him. I'm aware of plenty of conjecture about that, but no hard evidence or investigative reporting. If you're aware of some...by all means, please bring it to my attention. But until we have citable evidence to back that up, I don't think the adding the word "reportedly" is wise. Pecopteris (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Source for jail cell aberrations?

Note 1 says "the removal of his cellmate without a replacement, possession of banned objects, and the falling asleep of two guards who were meant to check on him" but I could not find in the cited sources any statement that he possessed contraband (in the period following removal from suicide watch) nor that the guards had been asleep. Am I blind? Al Begamut (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Suggesting slight change to image caption for neck markings:

The caption of the autopsy image:

> Marks on Epstein's neck

I recommend, to remove the opportunity for misunderstanding:

> Marks on Epstein's neck (front and back view)

Due to the hard crop of the autopsy image, the composition of the photograph makes the hair on the back of his head in the second photo look like facial hair on his chin.

It took me a long time to realize I'm looking at two different perspectives of the same autopsy. Originally, I thought these two images were both a front view, a comparison of two types of neck trauma. It's a very small change, but it is objective and reduces ambiguity. Ryanalexmartin (talk) 05:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)