Talk:Epstein didn't kill himself

How is this notable?

A few articles have noted this "meme". Will anyone want to look at this article in 10 years?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: It passes WP:GNG for starters. Second, we're now at a point where heads of state and congressmen are getting in on it, so yeah I think it will still be notable in ten years. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 13:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you remember anything a congressman said 10 years ago?--Jack Upland (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: Back when I was 11 years old, I had slightly different concerns that what my member of congress was saying lol.
Regardless, could you honestly tell me a single thing that you knew about Paul Gosar besides the fact he shared this meme off the top of your head? How long is it going to be before his constituents can Google his name without seeing a reference to Jeffrey Epstein?
In 20 years, when people are discussing Jeffrey Epstein; what do you think they'll remember the more- the circumstances of his death or all the funny jokes they shared with friends?
People are slapping this meme onto their gosh dang dating profiles and buying christmas sweaters with the words knitted on it. Notability is not temporary, but I assure you this will have WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't know who Gosar is. Do you want to have a bet about this?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

What are the terms? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

If the meme is still current in 10 years time, I will make a donation to a charity of your choice.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Sounds kinda vague.. I do think WP:RS will cover the meme on the 10th anniversary of Epstein's death, though. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

No way.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

The meme is already unmemorable, but unfortunately I had a dishonourable opponent.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It's May 16th 2023 and people are still using it.

89.239.195.102 (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

This article is notable in the fact that Jeffrey Epstein, in fact, did not kill himself. It's pretty obvious, he changed his will 2 days before he exited prison (one way or another), his lawyers doubt the story, both guards fell asleep supposedly, all the cameras failed, Epstein supposedly tried to kill himself 2 weeks before, he denied that he attempted suicide according to his lawyers, he was a very high profile inmate, Alex Acosta said the reason he couldn't have the book thrown at him was because he was "intelligence", he was connected to many powerful people, nobody on Wall Street knows how he made his money, the beneficiaries of his will remain unknown. He may not even be dead. He was connected to Robert Maxwell, a well known Mossad spy who was a member of the British Parliament, who got a state funeral in Israel. This event caused many people to realize what the US government really is. It's a criminal organization. While some still dispute the validity of the claims, polling suggests at least one-third of the U.S.A population believes that Epstein was murdered. (A Majority cite his death as suspicious) Thus, this phrase will undoubtedly remain relevant for at the very least the decade, due to the large number of Americans who believe the circumstances are suspicious, and because it is possible that future congresses may yet order a commission be formed to investigate it further. Just as a commission revived parts of the Kennedy Assassination investigation in 1975 (Rockefeller Commission, HSCA in 1979), it is possible that a future congress creates a committee to investigate Epstein due to rising public pressure. Epstein was not a U.S. president, but he had significant connections with many people in power, lots of wealth, seemingly endless influence, and the circumstances surrounding his death are extremely suspicious, so it would not be unreasonable to suggest that a future congress may feel imperiled to investigate the matter to a more satisfactory conclusion. Such a commission, if formed many years in the future, would ensure that "epstein didnt kill himself" remained a permanent part of U.S. history. Regardless, based on the polling of Americans, it is clear that since 35% of Americans believe he was assassinated, it will remain influential, coming generations may be skeptical, and demand a more satisfactory explanation. Just as people often question the circumstances surrounding the Kennedy assassination's today, people will undoubtedly continue to question the circumstances surrounding Epstein's assassination/suicide well into the future due to his notoriety, connections, wealth, influence, and criminality. This phrase is not just a meme, just one of its uses is to relate the fact that the government, and the political class, are not telling the truth. This phrase is a part of American history now, its huge uptick in use in the matter of days was an event where Americans questioned the truthfulness of government, and even wondered if the government had been complicit in it. (Which remains an unanswered question) Not only this, but the circumstances alone dictate that this phrase will remain in popular memory for many decades, and may yet survive through generations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.125.190.90 (talk) 23:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's notable or not, but really, it just brings to mind the fact that Epstein didn't kill himself... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:5205:A800:705A:FEB1:3157:6049 (talk) 02:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I think the comment on 24 September 2020 confuses the issue of the Death of Jeffrey Epstein, which has its own article, with the "meme" which is the subject of this article. Yes, people still talk about the death of John F Kennedy, but what catchphrase do they use? The issue is: do we need a separate article about the catchphrase, as well as one about his death? The comment really puts forward an argument in favour of the death article (which is not in question), but largely ignores the catchphrase. I also think the argument about future investigations is misguided. There have been plenty of investigations into the death. Saying that government complicity is an "unanswered question" is nonsensical. There is an official answer — that there was no government complicity — and there is a "conspiracy theorist" answer — that, yes, there was. Sure, the death will probably become yet another example when the American public questions the official story, like Bigfoot, the Moon Landing, September 11, the 2020 election, the disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa, the death of Marilyn Monroe, the attack on Pearl Harbor, Roswell, the death of Elvis, new Coke, vaccination, the drug epidemic etc, etc. But, really, so what?--Jack Upland (talk) 06:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, yes, i was confusing the two articles. However, it is probably beneficial to keep this article up, some of it might need to be re-written and added onto to provide adequate background about what the articles actually meant to cover though. (The specific rise of the meme, the widespread nature of it.. why it arose later on that year instead of earlier..) Just a couple reasons, 1. The use of the phrase will probably continue into the future, as a meme or not.. due to that statistic i linked prior, its clear that its in the public vocabulary, so it will continue to see some use. (This article mentions it in passing as a "major online meme" in relation to QANON) (The tweets linked within the article include #McAfeeDidntKillHimself - clearly an evolution of the phrase this article describes. I'm unsure how popular it became, whether it trended or not, but a few of the tweets under the hashtag have 1k+ likes, dated as recent as June 23 2021. Another Article describes "epstein-like conspiracy theories" relating to McAfee and mentions the phrase this article is about in passing. (possibly drawing some readers) 2. Ok, so it has spawned at least one similar meme, very recently, thats a pretty good reason to keep it, since it shows that its still in the public vocabulary. 3. Since it remains in the public vocabulary, it undoubtedly is still conversed about sometimes.. the memes still exist, its difficult to know how they spread, so people can still come across the phrase and need a Wikipedia article to explain it. 3.1 Its impossible to predict how long the meme'ing of this phrase continues, its possible it could be passed on to the next generation even, especially if each popular death continues to get turned into a meme (like McAfee with #McAfeeDidntKillHimself ) (Semantics: You may be wondering why that hashtag specifically can be attributed as an evolution of #EpsteinDidntKillHimself, well, #McAfeeWasMurdered is simpler isnt it?) 3.2 So, its entirely possible that new people come across the phrase and need to have a Wikipedia article about it, what if you were a newly turned teenager who heard the phrase in passing from a political friend, a Wikipedia article explaining its origin as the #1 google result would be helpful. Similarly, it still remains in online discourse, with at least mild frequency. See: "epstein didn't kill himself after:2021-01-01" - im not going to reference reddit threads and other things.. but Politi-fact mentions it as recently as June 25 2021 ( 4. The phrase is permanently contained in the Library of Congress. All congressional tweets are archived, and I know of at least one congressman which tweeted it during the 2019 peak. It hasn't completely died out since. I imagine future generations would like to know why the phrase is contained in the Library of congress, and they would like to see how broadly it impacted the world for those few days. Thats where i think the article could be expanded, it had a huge impact in the media for several days, and really was unlike other events before in that it remained in the cycle for much longer than normal, and brought engagement from a huge amount of people across all groups and identities. It had a cultural impact. Merch with #EpsteinDidntKillHimself continues to be sold to this day.. 5. The google trends spike for this phrase is also a good reason for this article, it reached its all time high by far Nov 2019,this article should focus more on describing the peak of the meme and including some examples of the memes, describe its decline, and finally cap off with its continuing influence, it seems clear to me that this phrase influenced #McAfeeDidntKillHimself spiking on twitter & google trends just on June 25 2021, so I'd include a couple sentences on how it influenced the creation of that trend, link to a couple articles about it. Maybe even merge a description of #McAfeeDidntKillHimself into this article.. since its been meme'd as well. 6. Nyan Cat has a Wikipedia Article. ( ) So, if a meme from 2011 remains relevant enough for a wikipedia article today, a meme about a suicide is no different.. and I think I've made a case that it continues to remain in the public mind, just as Nyan cat does. (I presume the reasoning for its existence is the fact that Nyan cat is not forgotten, just like #EpsteinDidntKillHimself isn't forgotten, and future generations may yet stumble upon it and want a Wikipedia article on it) I dont think there's evidence that memes about this phrase have died out completely either, so its original justification remains as well, an explanation for the memes. Not going to cite all the reddit threads, but if you google the phrase & after:2021-01-01 you'll find them, and they have several thousand upvotes, as recent as this year. That's more upvotes than i've seen any Nyan cat meme get in the past year, yet its article remains. 7. No telling what future generations do with these memes, its very possible it re-appears frequently. Eventually, the crazy few days in 2019 where everyone memed about #EpsteinDidntKillHimself may become a small paragraph in an American History textbook that explains the dangers of national social campaigns on social media without the full story, or maybe, its taught as part of a lesson on how we meme'd about a conspiracy and forgot about it, allowing government to continue to become corrupt. There's no telling what lesson future generations might learn, they might just think its a funny event where everyone suddenly meme'd about a conspiracy theory that ended up becoming proven true, there might be bigger lessons, and the meme may even be studied at some point. Regardless, 8. EpsteinDidntKillHimself Memes continue to be created, in what number, we cannot know. Similarly, Nyan cat memes continue to be created, in what number, we cannot know. I dont think its necessarily important that the meme has died down quite a bit, just as nobody memes about Nyan Cat forever, nobody can meme about Epstein forever. But does anyone forget nyan cat? No. Do they sometimes need a wikipedia article to explain the craze of Nyan cat memes again? Yeah, thats presumably another part of the reason why it exists, to explain the meme to people. The same holds true for Epstein memes, nobody forgets it entirely, though they might need a refresher from time to time, and the meme may need to be explained to some. 9. The google trends data for this phrase is like other memes, though it is heavily depressed from its all time national peak, it still spikes to very high interest levels when you look at smaller geographic areas, and the spikes occur seemingly randomly and without pattern. One geographic area will spike, while another falls back to 0 interest. This is visible in the trends data for other memes as well, so it hasn't died, its just taken on life as a 'dead' meme like nyan cat memes are 'dead' -- that is to say, dead to some, but certainly not all as evidenced by trends data. Memes continue to spike seemingly randomly after their deaths, of course, might be reasons behind it, but it'd take a study for each occurrence to determine that. for now "random" spikes. (Trends data isnt like, insanely valuable, so im not going to reference it, but its not dismissible) (also you can google it and compare it to your choice of dead memes to see the similarities in the trend data anyways)

Personally i think Nyan cat having an article is the strongest justification I have, and this page deserves to exist for all the reasons that page does, + the above. Like if Nyan Cat, from 2011, still remains enough in the popular memory for a wikipedia artice.. then Epstein memes from 3 years ago, with recent mentions as of June, definitely continue to remain in popular memory Sorry for the last edits, I was justifying the death article like you said & confusing the 2, can edit those out or leave for posterity (new editor so not sure which is ideal), the article reference is the only part of the previous edit to keep. Specifically I think work should be done to expand the article to include a description of the spread of the memes, its major platforms, modes of spread, etc. For example, I dont see it mentioned in the article that a 4chan user broke the news about Epstein's death, which could be viewed as a spark for the meme, since it took off on 4chan more than an hour before the news even picked it up. It was being memed on 4chan before his death was even announced, and thats part of the reason it had such a huge spread some believe, it would be beneficial to include a paragraph on its early spread on 4chan, and its subsequent leaps to all other platforms after the news picked it up. Essentially just describe in a paragraph how it originated on 4chan, and subsequently spread to most other sites, and occupied them for several days. Under one subsection named "Platforms" it mentions Joe Rogan and influencer platforms, but not social media platforms, and no description of its spread and occupation of those sites for several days. Nor a description of its origin on 4chan and early days. (its "rise") DrDrago1337 (talk) 09:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, but why can't the Death article handle this? The "meme" can be summed up in a paragraph. Why does this need to be expanded into a separate article? The difference with the Nyan Cat is that there's only one article which deals with it. With regard to 4chan, I'm unclear whether the death was being discussed or the "meme" was being used. If people on 4chan were just discussing the death, then I don't think it belongs here. I continue to think this article should be merged with the Death article because many people have trouble distinguishing between the two issues, and in reality there is no point in distinguishing between the two issues. People who use the "meme" are generally expressing their lack of belief in the suicide theory.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I mean, it could be contained within the death article, but it would be an entire section with 3+ paragraphs in my opinion, which would make it highly convoluted. If you search #EpsteinDidntKillHimself, the wikipedia death article isnt even near the first page, so it would also make finding information more difficult for pretty much no reason. I think the death article already contains too much information about the meme, the two should be separated, there is the death of Jeffery Epstein, and then there are the two weeks where the Epstein didn't kill himself meme took hold and dominated. Especially since its spawned #McAfeeDidntKillHimself -- the meme has its own life, and its own meaning now.. its a meme about questioning what the authorities tell you

Thats pretty distinct from the death of a person, especially since the meme may continue to evolve with each new passing suspicious death. It seems wrong to update the "Death of Jeffery Epstein" article each time a new meme is spawned off of #EpsteinDidntKillHimsef -- especially since we really cant tell how long the meme remains, some memes re-appear from time to time, it'd look pretty stupid to merge this article and have #EpsteinDidntKillHimself trend again in a year-- two years-- whatever. I dont think its right to include much about his death being turned into a meme in the actual death article, it isnt too much to keep a separate article to describe the meme that his death was turned into--and that memes subsequent evolution. its not the death of jeffery epstein that continues to change and evolve, its the meme that continues to be used and evolve. In other words, I think the death of Epstein article should focus entirely on his death--reactions to it-- a blurb about how it spawned a meme, but then a link to this article which explains the meme and its rise, its fall, evolution, etc. An encyclopedia differentiates between a persons death and the unchanging facts around it, and a cultural reaction to it which continues on long after his death. Closest Analogy: The "OK boomer" meme could, technically, be contained within the article on baby Boomers.. but is the meme not distinct from boomers themselves? it is. Epstein's death article should describe his death, like the baby boomers article describes boomers.. They shouldnt be convuleted with the memes they've spawned, except for a small reference and link to the article about the meme. The OK Boomer meme spawned from boomers, just like the epstein memes spawned from epstein's death, but does that mean they necessarily need to share an article?

The meme is distinct from the death, its being symbolized to mean much more than its face value, just like many other memes. OK Boomer memes symbolize much more than just "ok boomer" the statement, epstein memes are the same, the symbolize much more than a simple reference to his death as the text appears on the surface. Specifically, I've seen it attributed to memes about government corruption in general, McAfee, and other popular deaths that occur in the future will surely follow.. Nyan cat wasnt spawned from a mans death, if the creator was inspired by a death to create the meme, then im certain there wouldn't be anyone trying to merge the Nyan cart article with the "death of x person" article since it inspired the meme. -- i believe 4chan was meme'ing about it within minutes, but of course, there will be a dearth of verifiable sources, so yeah probably cant include it because I doubt any reputable sources went into 4chan and catalogued the memes from the early days. (atleast I dont remember them if such sources exist) DrDrago1337 (talk) 03:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Requested move 2 May 2024

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Sceptre (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

---

Epstein didn't kill himself → Conspiracy theories about Jeffrey Epstein's death – The current title of this article falls short of the requirements for non-neutral titles stipulated by policy, while also not being sufficiently descriptive for those unfamiliar to identify the topic and scope of the article at a glance.

While "Epstein didn't kill himself" is doubtless the common name of the subject of the article, it also falls under both circumstances under which Wikipedia articles should ideally avoid non-neutral common names detailed at WP:POVNAME. It is unlikely to be remembered or repeated in the future, and a more encyclopedic alternative exists as an option, as other articles about similar conspiracies exist with more neutral titles. Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death exists as a precedent, and 9/11 conspiracy theories is not titled "Bush did 9/11", for instance.

As such, I believe the article should be moved to another title which both more clearly identifies the topic of the article and complies with NPOV. silviaASH (inquire within) 17:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• Agree. The current title is misleading. It is not framed in a manner that makes clear it is not a factual statement. That must be fixed per FRINGE. We do not advocate fringe beliefs or state them without the appropriate RS commentary and framing that they are BS. This also applies to article titles, as many times the first and only thing a reader sees is the title, especially in a Google search. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: Keep the current title or move to "Epstein didn't kill himself (meme)": The article is written as being about the meme/statement/declaration/catch-phrase, not about the theories, and it is referenced that way in other articles. For example, the opening sentence of this article puts the phrase in quote marks and flatly says it is a meme. The conspiracy theories are covered in the Death of Jeffrey Epstein article already, which refers to this article only when discussing the meme – not as a place to get more information about the theories. See also "I can't breathe" as another article named after a statement that expresses a factual assertion. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Adding "meme" would be an improvement, as the title would no longer be a statement of fact. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose any attempt to move to Epstein didn't kill himself (meme) as redundant - we add brackets to titles only when doing so is necessary to disambiguate from other subjects with the same title. No opinion on whether to move to "Conspiracy theories about Jeffrey Epstein's death". * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Many people who have participated in distributing this meme are not especially focused on the conspiracy theories or the truth of the matter – they are just basically having some fun and trolling. As the article mentions, it's often a non sequitur or parting interjection that is just "used by individuals of all sides of the political spectrum without agreement on the specific details" – "sometimes more as a pop culture catchphrase than an actual belief". The article is not about theories of what actually did or did not happen to cause Epstein's death. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: this article is about the meme, not the "conspiracy theories" which are covered in the Death article. I support merging this article to the Death article.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Jack Upland, neither article is very large, so merging is a good solution. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support a move or merge, Oppose Conspiracy theories about Jeffrey Epstein's death. I agree the current title can be read as less than neutral, but I also feel that "Conspiracy theories" may also be POV depending on who you ask, and that it is more of a meme than a conspiracy theory (although I do suppose it could be both, the question then becomes which is prevalent, all of these issues could be solved with a merge, however.) ASUKITE 17:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, as the nominator seems to have misunderstood the article's topic (it's not about conspiracy theories but about a meme that runs literally "Epstein didn't kill himself", which others have also pointed out). Also, we do have a precedent: Hitler was right. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.