Jump to content

Talk:Ghislaine Maxwell/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

English or American dialects

Maybe this has been covered before, maybe there is consensus here, maybe Im entering a minefield. The article and edits seem to shift back and forth between the English and American dialects of English. We should commit to one or the other. It's a tough call on this article. The subjects Father, where the indictments are, etc. all play a role, and point in different directions.

I think the more recent events in the Subjects encyclopedic life point towards American English. Then again, thats what I use daily, and maybe this is POV. Rklahn (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Greetings @Rklahn:, This did come up on the talk page before under the section, "American English but DMY dates?", still listed above. It is an interesting question of what determines the style of English for a given article. From what I learned during that earlier conversation, there is a default policy resolution for making the language style uniform based on the style of English that was used at origin/not-stub status.
Perhaps the style of English could be changed from British to American if editors have strong opinions about it. It seems that when it came up before, there was some support for that. Aa I see it, a consistent use of either British English or American English (dates, spelling) will do, no strong preference for one over the other. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 04:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Back at ya, @Cedar777:. Thanks for your pointer. While, yeah, I would side with those who argued American, I don't see a strong argument to switch. I'm glad it's been covered before. Thanks again. Rklahn (talk) 05:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it would be difficult to sustain a national ties argument for American when the third word in the article after her name tags her as British. Indeed on that basis the reverse would be the stronger case, but here it’s a simple case of RETAIN. MapReader (talk) 05:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

If it ain't broke don't fix it. PatGallacher (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Clearly, I havn't been paying attention chaps. No harm, no pack drill, what? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 23:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

NPOV & BLP defamation?

Article says, "Maxwell has also been associated and photographed with Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, and lawyer Alan Dershowitz, all of whom have been accused of sexual misconduct.[43][55][56][57]". Does this sentence belong in an encyclopedia article on Maxwell? Are they defamatory both of Maxwell & the 5 men named? Is it relevant what people have been accused of & that one has been photographed w/ people accused of something? Could this as well say that Maxwell has been photographed w/ these 5 guys who have been praised for their philanthropy? I think the whole sentence should be deleted. (PeacePeace (talk) 21:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC))

Yes, this sentence contains too many BLP issues, I have deleted it. PatGallacher (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

It is an odd sentence that was modified at some point to included the fact that these individuals have a shared history. As countless RS had reported on her very public friendships/associations with Clinton, Trump, and Prince Andrew, a mention was DUE and warranted. However, it was not my modification to add that they have all been accused at some point. Since it was changed, it has always struck me as odd and imprecise. So . . . what do the RS actually say, here? I agree that some changes are needed but can’t dig into the sources immediately. Short term solution is removal but open to others comments for what aspects, if any to retain. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

LEDE

The WP:lede is a mess on this article, looks like everyone is trying to jam content into it. Needs cleanup. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, The lede is meant to be a summary of the article. The article's initial sections cover Maxwell's life and career until age 30. She was known from an early age, as part of the Maxwell family (a public fixture the UK in the 1980s and 1990s). It is relevant that she was publicly known prior to her association with Epstein and that her father was a major public figure in the international cultural landscape during his lifetime. A brief mention of this belongs in the lede, in addition to being summarized in the article body. To omit this is an instance of WP:RECENTISM. The prior notability still exists.
Other aspects of the lede you modified are summarizations of the article; by removing them from the lede and inserting them into the article body, this creates redundant passages of similar text, as the lede's text was a simplification of what was covered in the article body.
It seems the root question is "What belongs in the lede?" Which is a similar question we are discussing at the neighboring Dershowitz article. I think we agree that, in both cases, the lede can be improved. As to what needs modification in the Maxwell article's lede we are seeing it differently. For a reader with limited time or patience, the lede needs to summarize the key aspect of the article. Cedar777 (talk) 07:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to support this excellent summary of the how we should look at this BLP. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 23:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Criminal investigation in USVI

The subject being under criminal investigation in the US Virgin Islands is a significant event that was already stated in the article's section immediately above where this line was recently moved. Restored to lede as it needs expansion in the body, rather than deletion in the lede. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2020

"organisation announced closure on 12 July 2019"

Organisations don't exactly "close" very often. Could "closure" become "its end" or "its dissolution"? 2601:5C6:8081:35C0:C505:548F:CCD:B5F9 (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

You would like to see the following sentence changed from ...
"The organisation announced closure on 12 July 2019, a week after the sex trafficking charges brought by New York federal prosecutors against Epstein became public."
the ref says "sad to announce that it will cease all operations."
so how about "The organisation announced cessation of operations on 12 July 2019, a week after the sex trafficking charges brought by New York federal prosecutors against Epstein became public."
Is that reasonable.? I agree the phrase you highlight is clumsy/awkward, and tbh, I'm not certain about your suggestions. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 23:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not certain about it either. I think your words are better. 2601:5C6:8081:35C0:C505:548F:CCD:B5F9 (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
OK, I'll do it to my suggestion. Thanks for replying. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Talk page is too long, time to archive?

This talk page is getting really long and some of the discussions haven't been active in years. Does anybody object to me using User:ClueBot III to archive old threads on this page? The archives would be available by a link at the top of this page (for example, see my talk page which has archives). I would set it up with the following parameters:

  • age=2160 (only sections with no replies in the last 90 days will be archived)
  • maxarchsize=50000 (will create a new archive at about 50000 bytes)
  • minarchthreads=4 (requires at least 4 old threads to make a new archive page)
  • minkeepthreads=4 (will not archive if there are 4 or fewer threads on the page)
  • format= %%i (default archive format)

Thank you for any input. Ikjbagl (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Seeing no objection, I am now creating the archive. Ikjbagl (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Sections for each lawsuit

Seems there is a growing list of subsections for each lawsuit for some reason all listed under the section Ghislaine_Maxwell#Affidavit_filed_by_Maria_Farmer_(2019). Is there any reason for this to be under this section? Unless these individual lawsuits gain some sort of notability we should lump them under some type of lawsuits section. I would guess she will be subject of many more lawsuits, as many victims will seek compensation, and this will run afoul of WP:NOTDIR. 'Jane Doe sues Epstein estate and Maxwell for molestation in [insert date] where they molested Jane Doe' is a pretty boring list. Maybe we can start summarizing this? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Married

Ghislaine Maxwell is married to tech entrepreneur Scott Borgerson → https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/12/10/ghislaine-maxwell-pledges-30-million-bail-attempt-secure-freedom/ --87.170.198.101 (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything definitive yet about him being the husband. See [1][2][3] Some1 (talk) 05:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Please, pay attention to the date of the references! This week it it has been reported that a $30m bail package has been prepared to get Maxwell free before Christmas. Some $25m will come from Borgerson, the other $5m from Maxwell's siblings Kevin und Ian. Read: 4: "More than $22 million of the assets pledged to secure the proposed bond will come from the combined resources of Maxwell and her husband, with the remainder to be posted by a handful of close family and friends, according to a person familiar with Maxwell's intentions. The forthcoming bail application, expected to be in front of U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan in the coming days, will also be the first public acknowledgement from Maxwell that she is, in fact, married, the person said." Why is that a "secret"?--93.211.215.204 (talk) 04:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
If you'd paid attention to the date of the second link I provided, you would see that the article is dated December 10, 2020, and says "alleged husband," since there's nothing official about the identity of her spouse yet per all the links I'd given. And your sentence, again, emphasis mine: "The forthcoming bail application, expected to be in front of U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan in the coming days, will also be the first public acknowledgement from Maxwell that she is, in fact, married."
We can wait until then so more reliable sources report the identity of her spouse (if it is revealed) so we can conclusively state who the spouse is in the article, since this is a WP:BLP. Currently, the article says: "At the time of her arraignment, federal prosecutors stated that Maxwell was married; she did not disclose the identity of her spouse (or their respective finances).[125]". If you still disagree, then you can always put in an edit request (Wikipedia:Edit request) since the article is locked from IP editing. Some1 (talk) 07:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about bad formatting Ive never tried to edit anything on Wikipedia. But he was seen walking her dog in a house that was bought recently an hour away. Multiple people have come forward and said that yes, they were married, yet the documentation has disappeared. Can someone here write a full Scott Borgerson wiki? you guys rock keep up the good work — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:126d:1500:d5a:2642:55cc:4c07 (talk • contribs)

@Activist:

Please add to the info-box/ to the "Relatives" her "spouse" Scott Borgerson (married in 2016).

Sources:

This may point in the direction that he is her husband, but does not quite confirm it. PatGallacher (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I have looked into this further, I think there are enough sources to say this. PatGallacher (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@PatGallacher:

Please add to the info-box/ to the "Relatives" → "spouse Scott Borgerson (married in 2016)" --217.234.72.93 (talk) 03:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done I've added Borgeson's name to the infobox. Their marriage, and the reveal of their marriage, is already discussed in the Personal Life section. --Paul ❬talk❭ 07:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2020

Would you be able to do a similar write up Scott Borgerson? I found it chilling that there is not one and yet he is a prominent TECH CEO and is likely holding the money for the Epsteins. I wrote a little to get you started + some sources. Thank you. I will also gladly pay you $10 to write this out.


Scott Borgerson- Alleged Husband of Ghislane Maxwell (Jeffrey Epsteins Madame)the 43 year old CEO of CargoMetrics born in 1976, worth $102 million, currently resides in Massachusetts. Maxwell in 2016 sold her Manhattan penthouse and moved to Manchester by the Sea, Mass. Borgerson lives currently in Bedford, RI where he was seen walking Ghislanes prized bred vizsla dog. There is much speculation as to why there are no documents of them married. Is the Epstein network so powerful it could control databases? How far do their influence and malicious resources extend?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/11/style/who-is-scott-borgerson-ghislaine-maxwell.html

https://www.timesofisrael.com/the-maxwells-scandal-conspiracy-and-more-than-a-few-days-in-court/

https://www.the-sun.com/news/117528/who-ghislaine-maxwell-boyfriend-scott-borgerson/ 2600:4040:126D:1500:D5A:2642:55CC:4C07 (talk) 08:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Requested articles. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm slightly reluctant to create an article which would immediately raise BLP and other problems, but I have created a redirect from him to this article. PatGallacher (talk) 04:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Confinement location and autonomous reverting

I am stumped as to why an editor thinks that 5 1/2 month-old information is better than current information and characterizes an update as "overcategorization?" Federal and other prisoners are frequently moved from one place of confinement to another, for medical, prosecutorial, protection, overcrowding, etc., reasons, a situation more likely during the COVID-19 pandemic which is raging through prisons across the United States where some prisons have over 1,000 active cases of the virus. When Epstein died, it became public that MDC Brooklyn was severely understaffed, with lack of coverage and corrections officers being subject to such frequent, long, mandatory shifts that they fell asleep on the job. I've updated the info as to Maxwell's placement merely to reflect that the location hasn't changed since early July 2020. It should not be reverted again without consensus being sought and confirmed. Activist (talk) 07:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

"People charged with sex crimes" is an overcategory of "People charged with sex trafficking", but I won't get into a huge dispute about this. PatGallacher (talk) 14:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2021

This article contains numerous inaccuracies and defamation that could jeopardise the ongoing legal case. Many accusations are also misrepresented as facts, with the words 'alleged' and 'allegedly' being absent. JayBeecherVoteWatch (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood the issue earlier. What you are saying may or may not be correct, but unfortunately it would be difficult to do anything without explaining WHERE you think the article contains inaccuracies, or words like "allegedly" ought to be inserted. Actually I have at times copyedited the article, making sure that the more contentious sections are clearly sourced. PatGallacher (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2021

Typo on Maxwell's name, one instance of Maxell's. Missing a w. 86.26.162.243 (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

checkY Done. Thanks for the report. TwoTwoHello (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

House in Manchester-by-the-Sea

Please add: "Maxwell and Borgerson bought a house together in Manchester-by-the-Sea and lived there for years before she went into hiding after Epstein's arrest.[1]" --217.234.72.93 (talk) 03:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

 Question: It's already mentioned that they lived together in a house in Manchester-by-the-Sea, again in the Personal Life Section - do we feel it's important whether or not they co-owned the property? Happy to include it if so. --Paul ❬talk❭ 07:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 Not done: With no reply to the question and no replys from others, there is a lack of WP:Consensus on if the article should contain this information twice. Terasail[✉] 22:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/neighbours-tried-to-force-smug-ghislaine-maxwell-out-of-town-w8np9v39z

New book

I was going to add a bibliographic reference to this new book, but this article appears to be locked from editing. Please fix this ridiculous situation so people are able to contribute to this article and improve our project's content.

https://www.amazon.com/Ghislaine-Maxwell-Unauthorized-Biography-Shocking/dp/B098GY43F2

173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The article isn’t locked for editing, and can be edited by registered account holders. Given the current circumstances and pending court case it is very sensible that the article isn’t open to editing from anonymous IP addresses; you simply need to register an account so that there is some accountability for your edits. MapReader (talk) 03:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Schooling

This article provides a list of schools Maxwell went to. Should we include:

https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/18624525.jeffrey-epstein-ghislaine-maxwell-oxford-united-director/

©Geni (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

It checks out well with the existing sources and has added content. Good find. Cedar777 (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2021

Amend intro to "... is a former British socialite" 1.124.111.148 (talk) 04:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: "former British socialite" sounds like she's dead. Also that's not what is supported by any new reliable sources. - hako9 (talk) 05:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Ghislaine Maxwell is no longer a socialite - she is now an inmate

"Britmax" keeps reverting "former" socialite. Ghislaine is now an inmate, not a socialite. She does not get invited anywhere. Britmax needs to include links to where she is being invited to social events. She doesn't get any invitations. She is a pariah. Nobody will touch her. So, Britmax, start including links if you want to delete "former" socialite.Betathetapi545 (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

"Socialite" is a description of the source of her notability, and does not need to be a current state. If you feel the state has changed you still need a source to cite this change. Your other change, mentioning Robert Maxwell's status as a swindler, is still you using another article's sources, which is using Wikipedia as its own source. It does not belong in this article anyway, as it is no more necessary to mention this in any passing reference to him than it is to say that he was the owner of a newspaper or a football club. Britmax (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
@Betathetapi545: on the contrary, the burden of proof lies on you. The cited source says "socialite", not "former socialite". If you want to write the latter, you will need a WP:RS that says that. -- The Anome (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
former more accurate, per multiple recent usable sources:
and that's just page one of search results.Acousmana 20:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough. Put one of the sources in the article then. To me, if someone is described as a socialite that is always part of who they are but not everyone sees it that way. Fair enough. Britmax (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
With the relevant cites provided, using "former socialite" seems reasonable to me. -- The Anome (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Acousmana: just because you given multiple reliable sources to back up the "former socialite" characterization on this talk page doesn't mean you can just add "former" to the article while keeping the original cite that does not use the word "former"; you need to give at least one cite in the article to one or more of the cites that supports the new usage. Since you were kind enough to dig out the cites, I've put a couple into the article to support the statement. -- The Anome (talk) 12:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I still think "former" is a bit POV. Obviously she can't do much socialising at the moment, but this assumes that she will be found guilty, she could be free in a few months. PatGallacher (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Whatever we go with, it should be sourced. @PatGallacher: you have removed the word "former", but the two sources following still say "former socialite". -- The Anome (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
we can drop a cite bomb on it if you like, which is utterly pointless, but sure, if that's what you want - fact is she's in prison, hasn't been a "socialite" is years, it's not a professional title, it's bollox. Acousmana 23:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Acousmana and The Anome, I earlier argued this same point, that since Maxwell is not currently a socialite she should be described as a former socialite, and after I was reverted & following further discussion, I came to see it differently.

If one is jailed or changes careers . . . do they cease to be the things they are known for? For example, R. Kelly is notable as an R & B musician . . . but he is also jailed and (at this point) has been CONVICTED of multiple sex crimes. Does he too cease to be known as a musician? R.Kelly is a “former musician” . . . Or does he remain known as a musician that was also convicted of multiple sex crimes?

Kelly is notable for being BOTH a musician AND a convicted sex offender. Maxwell is primarily known as a socialite that was also connected to Epstein (she appeared in reliable sources for several decades described as this) vs being described as a former socialite that has been held in custody but not yet tried and convicted for approximately one year.

For less contentious examples . . . imagine the complication if all Wikipedia biographies needed to be updated by editors based on if one was “currently” practicing the things that made them notable. Does Robin Williams get described as a former actor after suffering from Parkinson’s? Does a Supermodel (see Cindy Crawford) cease being that after she’s not appeared in a major advertising campaign for a few years? Does a celebrated soccer player or golfer get described as a former athlete after leaving the sport following an injury or retiring (see Tiger Woods)? No. Notability generally doesn’t work that way. We continue to describe them as an actor, model, athlete. . . and for convicted criminal such as R. Kelly, we add the modifications of that fact. Cedar777 (talk) 03:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe if she is convicted can change her title. But as of now she is still a socialite facing trial and unconvicted. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other about "former"; WP:RS is the guideline here. But whichever way the consensus goes, can we please at least make sure the article text matches the citation[s] used to support it? And, before too many comparisons are made here with other people, it's important to note that Maxwell has not been convicted of anything at all; the presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle that applies to everyone. -- The Anome (talk) 10:37, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
[1 comment by Acousmana removed]
@Acousmana: I've removed your comment above: the presumption of innocence applies to Ghislaine Maxwell, as it applies to anyone else. Please read the notice at the top of this talk page. -- The Anome (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

It's amazing what inconsequential trivialities people will incessantly argue about. In my opinion, for which I'm aware none of you give a flying fig--no need to remind me--, the term "socialite" is perfectly meaningless all on its own, and it makes no difference whatsoever whether or not "former", "British", or any other adjective is attached to it. I know that certain journalistic sources call Maxwell a "socialite", but, in the first place, that's merely their euphemism for "wealthy bum", and, in the second place, certain journalistic sources are idiotic. Is she in solitary confinement? If not, maybe she's very sociable in prison. TheScotch (talk) 23:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2021

change imprisonned to imprisoned Xxprojectxxrealityxx (talk) 20:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for spotting this. -- The Anome (talk) 21:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

RFC socialite descriptor: active/inactive

Is Ghislaine Maxwell: A) a socialite; or B) a former socialite? Acousmana 12:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment using the date range 10 Aug 2019 – 23 Nov 2021 as a guide, "former" appears to be widely used by RS sources. Acousmana 12:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Socialite - I have no real preference one way or another, but after looking at sources, it's clear the weight is still on "socialite" rather than "former socialite." I did a google news search for "Ghislaine Maxwell" and the first results were:
Examples from recent sources

NOV 22, 2021 where prosecutors filed two new charges in their sex crimes case against British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell.

Published Nov. 22, 2021 7:25PM ET The family of British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell has filed a complaint

November 23, 2021 The 59-year-old British socialite could spend the rest of her life

NOV 16, 2021 AT 8:14 PM The Oxford-educated socialite, wearing a black suit

Posted: Nov 16, 2021 / 10:23 AM CST / Updated: Nov 16, 2021 / 10:23 AM CST got their first glimpse of Ghislaine Maxwell, the British socialite charged with

Mon 15 Nov 2021 12.28 EST for trial of British socialite on sex trafficking ... the former British socialite appeared notably at ease during

Nov 18, 2021, 11:18 AM accusing Maxwell of defamation when the British socialite called her a liar

Published 8 November letter by her lawyer, the British socialite's defence will say her accusers might have

This trend continued as I looked through more sources that I didn't feel like transcribing into wikitext. This makes it pretty clear to me that the weight of sources still refer to her as a socialite. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)

it's not clear at all:
hence the RFC Acousmana 14:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Bloomberg source, For the former socialite and the women... The British socialite and daughter of the late... only implicated the socialite after Epstein’s death... Maxwell continued living the life of a socialite in New York... and that the socialite groomed her to engage... at a time when prosecutors said the British socialite knew the girl
Inews, victims and the former socialite... The British socialite and daughter of
Insider, The British socialite is the daughter of late media mogul Robert Maxwell... Maxwell, a well-connected British socialite... An Oxford-educated socialite, she has been... The former socialite worked with
Some of the sources are paywalled, but even without access I can see at least a third use "socialite" more than "former socialite" and one uses a single instance of each. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

(invited by the bot) It's well established that she was/is a socialite. Presumably that is a part of her "career". "Former socialite" is a statement that it such has ended. Per BLP you would need very strong sourcing to make that statement. Same as calling an actress who hasn't had a gig for year a "former actress". Second there is no reason to be trying to put such and arguable statement in Wikipedia; it is not informative. North8000 (talk) 14:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

  • not a professional title, it's a high-society pastime - or role - one that requires active participation, not being prominent or involved in said society would seem to disqualify one from being called a socialite. It's more informative to use former. Acousmana 15:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
My statement was not intended to be dependent on it being a career. That was intended as an analogy covering making statement in Wikipedia that says any role prized by the individual is ended due to recent inactivity. North8000 (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
any such statement would reflect what RS's offer, former appears equally valid, and to my mind, more accurate - and more informative insofar as it is tied to her languishing in a penitentiary for 16 months. Acousmana 19:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I was listening to the main BBC news yesterday, and she was clearly described as a socialite. Personally, I can see how this description, with her in solitary within the notoriously caring US penal system, makes no sense. But then, depending on the outcome of the trial, was she ever just a socialite? Nevertheless, WP must follow the RS and, for the time being, the RS have settled on ‘socialite’. So A) MapReader (talk) 14:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • B. former socialite - I agree with Acousmana that "socialite" is not a professional title, but rather a descriptor of one's social activity. And since that social activity is clearly not present anymore in her life, we can't describe her as a socialite. There are plenty of sources describing her as a "former socialite". PraiseVivec (talk) 13:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
You seem to be missing the point that it doesn’t matter what individual WP editors think or what WP:OR they have done; WP always follows the RS. MapReader (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
You seem to be missing the point that it doesn’t matter what you think, RS's use "former"; WP always follows WP:CON. Acousmana 00:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  • A Socialite A quick google test of “Ghislaine Maxwell” and socialite in very recent news articles gave me 7 as “socialite” ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]), 1 “defrocked socialite” ([11]), 1 “former socialite” ([12]) both of which later describe her as a socialite. That’s good enough for me. Definitely not enough to change this to “former”. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • A: socialite. "Former" implies she officially moved on to doing something else, like business. At this point she hasn't, officially. She's been in hiding and then detention for a couple of years, but that just makes her a socialite in hiding and a socialite in detention, right? I don't think being in disgrace, hiding, or detention necessarily or officially makes one a "former" socialite. (Of course, her side hustle was being a sex trafficker, but Wikipedia can't say that, right?) Anyway, I think Vladimir.copic has provided sufficient proof numerous relevant RS do still call her "socialite" (even though that may be a euphemism at this point). Softlavender (talk) 05:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Who the people are who are "cleansing" the Ghislaine Maxwell article - explained

[rant by Betathetapi545 removed as violating the WP:NPA policy]

@Betathetapi545: please stop these extreme personal attacks on other editors. Any further rants are likely to get you blocked from editing without any further warning; please also note the warning about contempt of court at the top of the article. -- The Anome (talk) 10:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2021

Organisation should be spelled organization, this is America baby 97.68.128.90 (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Use British English|date=July 2020 ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

"British socialite," "New York socialite" or just "Socialite?"

As the article indicates Maxwell has lived longer in the USA as a socialite than in the UK, as she is American, British and French, and as the term is not being used to indicate historic British ancestry, I was surprised by her being described as a "British socialite" in the first sentence and as a "New York socialite" in the Career section instead of simply as a "socialite," and the choice seems to disregard her being American and French. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.31.76 (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia includes nationality in the first sentence. Maxwell is the daughter of a Briton and was raised and educated in the UK and spent the first 30 years of her 60-year life there. She does also now have U.S. and French citizenship, so I will add that to the intro, but not to the first sentence. Softlavender (talk) 07:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
just my two cents but why choose her nationality of birth and not the nationality she chose and where shes lived the last 30 years? George Washington lived longer as British than American but we never call him British — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:3028:4C00:956B:4F6:E39A:298D (talk) 03:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
That's how Wikipedia works; that is its common practice. What the subject personally wants is irrelevant; what reliable sources say is what counts. George Washington was born in, and lived his entire life in, America. Maxwell was born in France to a British father and French mother, and was raised and educated in the UK and spent the first 30 years of her 60-year life there. That's why Wikipedia lists British as the primary of her three nationalities, as do most reliable independent sources. Softlavender (talk) 04:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Criminal charges, criminal penalty and partner in the infobox

I have removed the additions by TheXuitts again, per the infobox documentation. criminal_charges criminal_penalty criminal_status For convicted criminals only. Please be certain to support these parameters with citations from reliable sources, in the article body. and partner If particularly relevant, or if the partner is notable; "partner" here means unmarried life partners in a domestic partnership (of any gender or sexual orientation), not business partner. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

As Maxwell has been convicted, I have added criminal details to the infobox. TheXuitts (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I do now support this, even though that infobox (per template doc) should only be used for someone convicted of a serious crime who is also principally notable (per WP:RS) for it. At this point, I'd argue both apply, but it is arguable so possibly worthy of debate. (I, for one, had only heard of Ghislaine's father and not her, until she was embroiled in the sex trafficking allegations.) I do think we need to be careful not to stuff the infobox so it is mostly about her conviction and incarceration, lest we fall foul of WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. Llew Mawr (talk) 03:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm 65 yrs old. I'd heard of her thirty years before this nasty stuff in relation to nasty stuff surrounding her father. I dont care about the ifnobox as long as coverage already exists in the article. -Roxy the dog. wooF 07:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
65 years? That's what Ghislaine stands to get. Trust you'll soon be enjoying a well-earned pension. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Despite the template at the top of this page, presumably this is no longer sub judice as there is no prospect of an appeal? Or should we wait until sentencing? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
The British media is reporting that an appeal (attempt) is almost certain. MapReader (talk) 09:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
When does the sub judice template get removed? Perhaps it's less important now that the jury has played its part. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the family is already launching an appeal. What also seems possible is a retrospective plea bargain under Rule 35b which she has a year to instigate. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I would err on the side of caution about removing the sub judice template, there is also her pending trial for perjury. PatGallacher (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that's very true. Might be even more relevant for that. Although it's still very unclear when it might happen. Up next is the Prince Andrew Show, I believe. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2021

It should read that she is a convicted sex offender/ trafficker FIRST and then former socialite. She has been convicted in a court of law. This is what she is.

To put ‘former socialite’ first, is lessening her crimes (crimes of which she has been found guilty) and more importantly diminishes the plight and feelings of her many, many victims.

Rectify this or be dammed! 2A02:C7F:F0B4:E200:B993:C24B:5685:25DA (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The first sentence generally follows a subject's life chronology. We generally credit readers with being able to read and comprehend a whole sentence, even one with 25 words. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Martinevans123 here. Whilst it may have been overtaken in importance by the conviction, Maxwell literally was a socialite "FIRST" (hence "former") "and then a" convicted sex trafficker (as of a day ago; also, she was a socialite before she moved to the U.S., met Epstein or began her criminal conduct).
MOS:ROLEBIO implies we should include all the subject's notable positions and societal rôles in the lead sentence. We had an article on her being a socialite before any criminal allegations, and no one disputed this article under notability criteria. Crucially, reliable sources about her conviction (e.g. BBC) refer to "the former socialite".
Asides: FWIW, I actually quite like the current (as brief as it may remain) version of the lead setence (if it isn't verbatim how I'd put it). Also, in my personal opinion (not explicitly backed up by sources I've read) her criminality and her status as a socialite are intimately intertwined. And, since I'm not a body of water, I think you'd find damming me difficult.
Llew Mawr (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Well, you know how things usually are at Wikipedia... Martinevans123 (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Well, as a Brit, I, of course, prefer to this place as more emblematic of The Damned's There Ain't No Sanity Clause and Machine Gun Etiquette... Llew Mawr (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
well said--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Education in infobox?

Is it a fact that ".. 'education' should only be used in lieu of 'alma_mater', not alongside.. " as per Template:Infobox person? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

It says "Alma mater. This parameter is a more concise alternative to (not addition to) |education=, and will often consist of the linked name of the last-attended institution of higher education (not secondary schools)" That looks pretty clear. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I do think the infobox data have become too numerous, so I like how it is now with just her uni (and schools with reliable secondary sources mentioned below in Early life). I also agree that having both is against the template doc. (As an aside, it seems odd that there is no option for "alma maters = " for multiple unis, and whilst my understanding has always been that "alma mater" only refers to higher education, as the template doc implies, wikt:alma mater and Alma mater both say it can apply equally to schooling, so the plot thickens.) Llew Mawr (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Lead - minor versus child

I recently made a straightforward edit to the lead, changing the incorrect term "child" to a better term "minor". While it hardly needed explanation, I did explain in and edit summary that it was "per sources".

In [this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghislaine_Maxwell&oldid=1062721084] Llew Mawr Reverted on the basis that the change wasn't supported by the sources. In fact, it is.

Starting with common usage of terms, per Merriam-Webster the word "child" is defined as:

a young person especially between infancy and puberty

The sources make a number of references, commonly teenage girls but specifically mentioning girls as young as 14. That is certainly not pre-puberty. I find the word "minor" used multiple times. While I found a reference to "child" used twice, it was in connection to issues other than these five counts, which means the sources refer to "minor" never refer to "child" (with the caveat that the WSJ article is paywalled and I can only read the headline in the opening paragraph.

My review of sources: Source 2 "minor" in subhead minor in text

(Paywalled, so I don't see the entire article) Source 3 "teenage girls" as young as 14 so not a child per Merriam Webster

"child" used twice, but in different contexts. A reference to a child sex case, but that's a different case, as a reference to Mazwell as a "child of a media mogul:

Source 3 "teenage girls" "teenagers"

"minor" No mention of "child"

I'm open to the possibility there may be a better term than "minor", but "child" is absolutely wrong is it is not mentioned in the sources and doesn't make any sense given the definition. I'm restoring my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick (talk • contribs) 20:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Our numbers agree (a very good summary BTW), and I merely reverted to encourage talk page discussion on what term most WP:RS use (and as an aside, I felt "per sources" was a little overstating and terse). As I said in my revert, the sources barely support either "minor" or "child", so we need to discuss other phrasing (but I'm happy to leave it as "minor" for now, which should be maybe wikilinked as it isn't widely understood).
From what I have seen "teenage girls" might be most apt per RS, but I'll read even more MSM articles and try to do a tally.
[FWIW, I wasn't enforcing the lede's wording per se as I didn't like it much as "child" could be pointy or at least problematic (although I wasn't aware then as aware of the dic def variation in senses of child between the UK and the US). I haven't been contributing to the lede (other than reverts of unexplained edits) until the edit warring settles down, only the Conviction section (where I actually had recently added source #3, CNN US, the only one that calls them minors, or actually "minor girls", outside of the charges).]
Llew Mawr (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

"former British socialite"

This is like describing Hitler as a "former Austrian painter". It is a distortion of what makes her notable as the subject for a Wikipedia article. Her socialite career is documented in the rest of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ribonucleic (talk • contribs) 00:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not similar to Hitler, because he was briefly an unsuccessful painter before becoming very successful in politics. Maxwell was a successful socialite for many years; it was her main occupation for most of her adult life. I guess you're saying that she wouldn't be notable as a socialite had she not become involved with Jeffrey Epstein, and you may be right about that. Jim Michael (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
As I say above, MOS:ROLEBIO implies we should include all the subject's notable positions and societal rôles in the lead sentence and no one disputed her notability as a socialite and this article's existence prior to the criminal allegations against her. Crucially, most reliable sources about her conviction call her a socialite, ex-socialite or former socialite (e.g. The BBC's main article opens with "Former British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, 60, has been found guilty of..."; other top Google News UK result for her atm: [13]; [14]; [15])
Since you already proved Godwin's Law, I actually think the analogy (albeit clearly an imperfect fit) proves why we need to include "former socialite". The opening and second sentences of Adolf Hitler don't mention WWII nor the Holocaust. They establish rôles he held that allowed him to commit such atrocities (arguably, if WP:OR, Maxwell's rôle also enabled the crimes):
...German politician who was the dictator of Germany from 1933 until his death in 1945. ...leader of the Nazi Party...chancellor...and...Führer und Reichskanzler...
Only then does it explicate (reiterating again his societal rôle, During his dictatorship, he initiated World War II...
Llew Mawr (talk) 01:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Um, Vienna State Opera House (1912) is really quite good, you know.... Martinevans123 (talk) 11:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
This discussion has strayed unhelpfully. The fact is that reputable media sources continue to describe her as a socialite or former socialite (making evident that she never did anything of value). WP follows the RS and that should be the end of the discussion. MapReader (talk) 14:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
I'd suggest it strayed to start with. She might have "done something of value" at The European or with The TerraMar Project? Depends what we mean by "value", I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Degree course

What was the subject of her degree (and what class did she get)? I am unable to see p434 of Haines (1988), via the Google snippet-view online, so I don't know if it's given there. The article currently says "Maxwell attended Marlborough College where she studied Modern History with Languages before going on to earn a degree from Balliol College, Oxford in 1985". but that doesn't sound right, as she would have done just 3 separate A-levels at Marlborough. It sounds like an undergraduate course (although it was me who added the upper case for that reason). Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Do we know how many A-Levels she took? Jim Michael (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
I certainly don't. That was another assumption. I don't know what the usual entry qualification requirements were for Balliol in 1982, although they don't always require a given number of A-levels, or grades. No-one's going to suggest that Balliol had a mystery anonymous donor that year, are they. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
The other existing source just says: "After her A-Levels at Marlborough, she joined her father’s Pergamon Press at Headington, “doing anything from typing to managing congresses”." Martinevans123 (talk) 13:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
I see that Cedar777 has now added added a BBC source from yesterday and restored the lower case. These are still not the names of A-levels, however. I wonder where Jon Kelly got his information. But what he says is this: "She was educated at Marlborough College and Oxford University, where she studied modern history and languages." I read that a slightly different way (and I still think the upper case is required). Martinevans123 (talk) 13:55, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
It's still inadequate. We don't know which languages she studied, what grades she gained or which year she started university. Jim Michael (talk) 14:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree. But I will try and adjust to how I understand it. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Unless RS cover the number of A-levels (and any discrepancies) as relevant, Wikipedia sticks to what the RS state. RS state that Maxwell studied modern history with languages. Adding anything more is original research. Cedar777 (talk) 14:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree we don't know how many A-levels she studied or passed. But you think she studied "modern history with languages" at Marlborough?? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) On closer reading, I see now that the BBC does not differentiate where, i.e., at which school, she studied modern history with languages. Best to be very cautious and stick closely to the sources. Cedar777 (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
It shouldn't be worded that way. It makes it sound like 1 subject, when it would have been 2. Also, it's unlikely that 2 A-Levels would have been sufficient to gain a place at Oxford. Jim Michael (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Um, "modern history with languages" is not an A-level. Nor was it in 1982. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the advice. As far as I know, in 1982, there were no "schools" in the UK where one could have studied "modern history with languages". I guess you have read the Oxford Mail source that says "... she revealed that she had started a United supporters’ club at Balliol College, where she was studying modern history with languages"? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC) p.s. they offer it still
Many readers (and editors) are unfamiliar with the specific ways in which higher education is structured within the UK vs. the USA vs. Australia, etc.. My apologies Martinevans123 if my statement that it is best to stick closely to the sources came off as advice directed to you, specifically, as it was intended more generally and as much a mea culpa that my own edit did not stick closely to the BBC source, which seems to be the best quality option out there for now, although it is rather recent. Cedar777 (talk) 15:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
No worries. Thanks for explaining. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
That's my point - it's 2 separate subjects, so we shouldn't word it as though it's one. Jim Michael (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the modern language options were in 1982, but Balliol now says: "In Modern Languages (that is, French, Italian, German, Spanish)... " So that might be five. Likely A-levels might have been History, French and Spanish. But I don't know what Marlborough offered. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Neither of the easily verifiable existing sources say anything about A-levels. They say she attended a school or schools. They also state what she studied. Oxford Mail: "she had started a United supporters’ club at Balliol College, where she was studying modern history with languages." BBC: She was educated at Marlborough College and Oxford University, where she studied modern history and languages.. It is worth noting that one sources uses with and the other uses and. I don't think that it is waranted to mention A-levels and wikilink it as it is not mentioned in RS. A third article sourced to The Independent, also quite recent, states: Maxwell attended Marlborough College and Balliol College, Oxford, where she studied modern history with languages.[16] It seems the safest course, until there is higher qualtiy in depth coverage of Maxwell, would be to simple restate that "she attended MC and BC where she studied modern history and languages." Cedar777 (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
I suggest that would be less clear, for the reasons I have already set out above. There is no reason why A-levels should be excluded, although I agree some might see mention of them as trivial. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
A-Levels aren't trivial, but we shouldn't mention them in the article if RS don't mention her taking/passing them. Jim Michael (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
In line with the infobox where, for graduates, all entries in the "education" field get superseded by the "alma mater" field, A-levels might be seen as "relatively trivial". But, as I did note above, the Oxford Mail says "After her A-Levels at Marlborough..." and I assume the Oxford Mail is WP:RS. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, it does mention A-levels farther down in the Oxford Mail article, a source used for quite a bit of existing info about her early life and education. Cedar777 (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm not saying that A-Levels should be included in the ibox, but they should be in Early life. We still don't appear to have a source which says she passed her A-Levels, even though she must have in order to study at Oxford. Jim Michael (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
I concur. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Of course you could (and still can) study 'modern history with languages' at British 'public' (aka fee paying) schools - for example taking 3 A Levels - French, Italian, Modern History - as many people do. There's no specific A Level course called 'Modern History with Languages'. I think people are getting pointlessly hung up on what could be no more than a helpful summary of Maxwell's school studies.31.49.28.120 (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Political party?

Interesting that Wikipedia forgot to list Maxwell's political party. 24.236.35.96 (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, is she a big supporter of one? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
There's no indication from the article that she has a political affiliation. If a RS says that she does, it can be added. Jim Michael (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ghislaine_Maxwell/Archive_2&oldid=1100406636"