Talk:Death of Jeffrey Epstein/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

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

• Jeffrey Epstein Protestor.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

no lividity

• https://nypost.com/2020/01/16/disturbing-evidence-in-jeffrey-epsteins-autopsy-points-to-his-murder-pathologist
• https://www.foxnews.com/us/jeffrey-epstein-autopsy-disturbing-evidence-baden
• https://www.doctoroz.com/episode/true-crime-exclusive-access-inside-jeffrey-epstein-autopsy-medical-examiner-who-was-there

• “The blood settles after we die. The so-called lividity, if you’re hanging, the lividity is on the lower part on the legs. These would be like maroon/purple, front and back and they aren’t,” Baden tells Dr. Mehmet Oz.

• Epstein’s lower extremities were pale and not purple or bluish, which he said would have been the case had he hanged himself"

Please, add "no lividity on the lower part on the legs" --93.211.220.238 (talk) 06:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. ~ HAL333 00:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Jeffrey epstein eyes prove murder.

According to Dr Baden who was on the Dr OZ show. The capillary in both eyes burst this is caused by manual strangulation and not hanging. Thus proving that Jeffery Epstein was murdered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.95.120 (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

My eyes are bloodshot today. Now — who murdered me...?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Whisky? ;) ——SN54129 10:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Epstein Pizzagate

@HAL333: How do you see Epstein and Pizzagate as being related? I see no relationship other than speculative conspiracy theories, referencing "the gothic fantasies of Pizzagate, the debunked conspiracy theory" and Epstein, and had found no other connection between the two Wikipedia pages. I find the link merely sensationalizing. (Quote: New Yorker https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-the-uk/prince-andrews-noxious-interview-about-jeffrey-epstein) Lindenfall (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

My reasoning was that it places some of the Epstein conspiracy theorists into a greater context. Sure the link isn't directly related, but it doesn't have to be. If it was, it would be embedded in the article. See the featured article 1740 Batavia massacre which has a link to a massacre over 200 years later. Surely a relevant conspiracy theory that occurred only a few years before his death should be included. Many international readers, and domestic, may not understand why some people's first reaction was "Hillary!" Further, many mainstream sources have recognized the relation between the two. ~ HAL333 04:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Sources

I see, but disagree. Mainstream sources may comment on both, but they remain unrelated. Including it smacks of tabloidism, to my mind. Also, this is temporal, not encyclopedic: "Many international readers, and domestic, may not understand why some people's first reaction was 'Hillary!'" Including it leaves readers to assume there is a true connection, of which none is known, at least at this time, undermining WP:NPOV. Lindenfall (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I have removed it. The two are unrelated, and I strongly oppose promoting Pizzagate any further than it already has been. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2020

In the picture in "Homicide Suspicion and Speculation" it should be noted that the triple parentheses on Epstein's name is an antisemetic dogwhistle and is used by antisemites to denote Jews 2600:1700:55D0:6090:F973:82E0:5CAC:C08E (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. And any case, the protester already entirely discredits himself with the "Hillary for prison" shirt... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

We've already addressed this issue. You can find the relevant discussion in the archives. ~ HAL333 17:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Reapplying semi-protection

Since semi-protection expired on July 5, there have been multiple disruptive edits from IP editors. Considering that this Maxwell case is probably going to be in the courts for a while, I think it would be best to protect this page again. ~ HAL333 23:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The article has been protected virtually continuously since last August. The latest protection expired July 6. There have been three bad IP edits since then, which would normally not be enough to call for protection in my book, but this article has been such a vandalism magnet - including serious BLP violations - that I’m going to give it another six months. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks MelanieN! ~ HAL333 23:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2020

Suggesting edit/inclusion to text under final section labeled "In popular culture"

Contributions made under this section include a number of later public mentions of the phrase "Epstein didn't kill himself" but is not inclusive of a primary public mention to to which others may be attributed. Event was aired live on the 27th September 2019 and replay on Australian national television (Nine Network) and streamed online.

CHANGE TO:

Epstein's death was comedically referenced by celebrity musician Suffa MC of trio Hilltop Hoods during live national television coverage of the 2019 ARIA Music Awards (Link to Article/Video), concluding the acceptance speech for again winning Award for Best Australian Live Act with words "Epstein did not kill himself". Other celebrities include Ricky Gervais, remarking at the 77th Golden Globe Awards that Epstein didn’t commit suicide and on Saturday Night Live, when Adam Driver played a murdered Epstein in hell. Several television documentaries were created due to increased public interest after his death. In May 2020, Netflix released Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich. HBO, SonyTV, and Lifetime also have similar works in progress.

FROM:

Epstein's death was comedically referenced by celebrities, such as when Ricky Gervais remarked at the 77th Golden Globe Awards that Epstein didn’t commit suicide and on Saturday Night Live, when Adam Driver played a murdered Epstein in hell. Several television documentaries were created due to increased public interest after his death. In May 2020, Netflix released Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich. HBO, SonyTV, and Lifetime also have similar works in progress. 110.145.1.110 (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per WP:DAILYMAIL. And in any case, why? Is this any more prominent of a mention? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't seem particularly notable. ~ HAL333 18:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I just realized that it is covered via further information over at Epstein didn't kill himself, if that helps. ~ HAL333 00:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

References

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Death of Jeffrey Epstein/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ovinus Real (talk · contribs) 23:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Second opinion requested

The article is quite good, but I just want to make sure that it treats alternative theories with the appropriate amount of weight. Unusually for an article like this, the alternative theories about Epstein's death are believed by a large majority of Americans and by many politicians, of both parties. Comments? Ovinus (talk) 02:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I think the popular culture section is too short compared to the rest. Trillfendi (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I expanded it a bit. ~ HAL333 21:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@HAL333: I made a small ce to your expansion; please review that, and once you're ready I'll pass the nomination. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 22:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks great. ~ HAL333 22:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Immediate failure criteria

1. Approved Article seems to be in very good shape
2. Approved All images are licensed permissively and appropriately. I ran the copyvio detector, which produced dailyhawker.com/all-about/jeffery-epstein, but that's just a copy of this article.
3. Approved No such banners/templates
4. Approved No edit wars in recent times, despite the controversiality
5. Not applicable

Looks good! 01:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Criterion 1

I only have a few comments here.

• Y"victims the FBI identified" → "victims identified by the FBI"
• Y"Tartaglione in connection" → "Tartaglione of connection"
• Y"to take his own life were" → "to kill himself were"
• Y"Psychological staff dismissed Epstein from suicide watch after six days following a psychiatric examination." → "After six days, psychological staff..."
• Y"SHU" (first instance) → "special housing unit (SHU)". You mentioned the acronym's expansion later, so you just need to move that earlier
• YIn [note 3], "ball-point" → "ballpoint"
• "A paper note by Epstein was ... clothes for an hour." I think this should be moved to "Discovery", as the time of the note's writing is not known.

I couldn't find a way to wedge it into the discovery section. I think it was only found after a deep sweep a few days later, if I'm correct. It's more pertinent to the "final weeks" section as it describes what his living conditions were like. ~ HAL333 15:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Epstein was reportedly depositing funds into other prisoners' accounts to gain their favor or buy protection." I don't know if this sentence is relevant, but if it is, it probably belongs earlier in the section.

I think it makes the most sense to keep the information regarding the note, the funds, and the will in the same paragraph. It's just what he was up to in jail besides the July 27 incident. ~ HAL333 16:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Y"which was initially reported as apparent suicide" I'm confused here; initially reported by whom and when? Also, "an" belongs after "as"

I'm confused here too. I just removed it - it was out of place anyway. ~ HAL333 15:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Y"If it was posted by" → "If this 4chan post was by" Just to make sure that it's not conflated with the ABC News report
• Y"Later conflicting reports" → "Later, conflicting reports" to make sure that Sampson's report is not considered a conflicting report
• Y'Adam's apple".' → 'Adam's apple."' I think MOS:LQ dictates this, though I may be wrong
• Y"neck-bones" → "neck bones"
• Y"According to Baden the neck wound" → "According to Baden, the neck wound" This one is just a matter of taste I guess. What Baden says contains a comma, and thus I think it should be set off with some punctuation
• Y"Later on August 13" → "On August 13" Because it implies that the previous statement was made on Aug. 13
• Y"Sen. Lindsey Graham has" → "Senator Lindsey Graham had"
• Y'to light." "The elements' Consider moving the later phrase "a spokesperson for the office told ABC News" in between these two quotes to make reading easier.

I also expanded the French paragraph with some recent developments. ~ HAL333 16:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Y"use the footage to demonstrate his character while he allegedly saved Epstein" Confusing, probably rewrite
• 'his death by "apparent suicide"' → 'his "apparent suicide"'

I just changed it to death. ~ HAL333 15:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Y"Homicide suspicions and speculation" section should probably be "Homicide suspicions and conspiracy theories" or "Homicide suspicions, speculation and conspiracy theories". I think conspiracy theories are a bit more extreme than "speculation"
• Y "ago - they" should use an em-dash, which I've fixed for you
• YIn references: "USA TodaaODAY" is a (rather amusing) typo
• YIn references: Otterson, Joe is cited as the author of a single source twice

Since most of these things are pretty simple fixes, you can just put a checkmark before/after them to indicate you have done them, or put a comment under them and quickly explain why you didn't want to make the change. Overall, the writing quality is pretty top-notch!

Criterion 2

Most challengeable claims in the lead have a corresponding (and cited) source in the body. Here are the ones which I believe require a citation somewhere:

• Y"The guards on duty were later charged with conspiracy and record falsification." You mentioned with a citation they did falsify records, but not that they were charged correspondingly.

I'm kind of confused here... Is that what you wanted? ~ HAL333 16:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Y"Consequently, Barr removed the Bureau's director" I don't see anywhere in the article which explains that she was removed.

It's now covered in section 4.1 ~ HAL333 16:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I should note that "Many public figures accused the Federal Bureau of Prisons of negligence and inefficiency." is a clear conclusion from the section 4.1 Reaction, and doesn't need a source in the lead, in my opinion.

Other things that need a citation element:

• Y "... forthcoming." Probably should reuse the next citation; it's not clear that the next citation applies to the preceding sentence also.

I have put in [citation needed] tags for these three items.

The sources are all of high-quality, which is a requisite for this kind of article.

Criterion 4

Overall, it is very well balanced for such a controversial topic. My only comment:

• The last sentence of the first paragraph should be removed, or moved to the last paragraph of the lead. Including it in the first paragraph provides undue weight, in my opinion, and the sentence also quite detailed in comparison to the rest of the paragraph. The alternative theories are given an entire paragraph in the lead, which I think is a good amount (taking into account their unusually widespread popularity).

The alternative theories are given due weight, which is an unusual thing to desire for these kinds of articles, but given their widespread popularity including among people like politicians, it is definitely appropriate. Evidence for all major claims, including statements from experts in relevant fields, is provided and organized clearly. However, because this is a very unusual case, I am requesting comment from a more experienced editor as to whether my assessment here is accurate.

I removed the sentence, but still kept the mention of Baden. ~ HAL333 15:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Criterion 5

As I noted earlier, the article is stable.

Criterion 6

The article is well-illustrated. My one recommendation would be to move the images of Epstein's neck injuries down to where it says "although there was blood on Epstein's neck..." That way the images feel more immediately relevant and further justifies the usage of mildly disturbing content (though I think they are 100% appropriate anyway).

That's about it; let me know if you have any questions. Awesome work! Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 02:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done I really appreciate this review. April 8 seems so long ago. ~ HAL333 16:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome! Since you responded adequately to all my comments I'll pass the nomination once someone else takes a look at the article's neutrality and makes a comment. Hopefully that won't take too long... if it's been two weeks I'll try find someone to do it. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Amkgp (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that, according to polling, a majority of Americans believe that Jeffrey Epstein's death was a homicide?[1]
  • ALT1:... that US Attorney General William Barr has described Jeffrey Epstein's death as "a perfect storm of screw-ups"?[2]

Improved to Good Article status by HAL333 (talk). Self-nominated at 22:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC).

• Just a comment, not a review: Those two horrible pictures of Epstein's neck should NOT be included with this DYK. They have nothing to do with the the content of the hooks and add nothing to the DYK. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Actually as long as I am here I might as well review it. The article is indeed a Good Article, having reached that designation on September 21 so the nomination is timely. The article is big enough, neutral, and well sourced. No copyvios are found. The hooks are interesting and sourced; I prefer ALT0 since it is interesting and sourced and is clear what it is about. ALT1 kind of leaves out the key fact that Barr was saying that to express his belief that it was in fact a suicide and not a homicide. My objection is the image; I think it is inappropriate and unrelated to either of the hooks, and should not be used. HAL333, comments? HAL has only four DYKs up to now so a QPQ is not required for this one. Future nominations will need QPQ. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• I can understand how the image is not suitable and am perfectly happy to drop it. ALT0 would be my preference too. However, if you want me to, I can clarify ALT1 so it's clear that Barr has concluded that it was a suicide. ~ HAL333 00:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Let's go with ALT0 and drop the image, and it is Good To Go. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

We cannot run these images on the main page, nor in the article. I've removed them from the hook. Yoninah (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)