Talk:Jeffrey Epstein/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2023

Inthe section "Early life

Epstein's childhood neighborhood of Sea Gate, Brooklyn Jeffrey Edward Epstein was born on January 20, 1953, in the Brooklyn borough of New York City. His parents Pauline "Paula" Stolofsky (1918–2004)[23] <------

---

Reference #23 for his mother Paula, links to my Geni.com webpage. Paula was my great aunt. I prefer the reference to the link be eliminated. It doesn't serve the greater good to know that Paula's dates of birth and death were pulled from my family's private genealogical webpage (geni.com). Unfortunately, geni.com will make public the profile data for deceased individuals and that can't be controlled via my privacy settings.

Please remove reference [23] in the pasted section above (bold and italicized) , along with the referenced item at the bottom of the page

Dantus, Larry (July 6, 2019). "Pauline Epstein (Stolofsky)". Geni. Archived from the original on July 15, 2019.

My family prefers to not advertise the connection

Thanks!

Thanks! Larryd517 (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

.Why is there a section on Trump? There is no section on Clinton. It feels as if the typical editor on Wikipedia just cannot help themselves. According to the files released on 1/2/24 Trump was not the monster that Wikipedia tries to make him out to be. And according to the Article, the Judge tossed the case as without merit. I request that section be taken out, OR, Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew and others be added as sections as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:3E00:671:5C55:2544:79BC:5A91 (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done – as an unreliable source anyway (see WP:RS/P#Geni.com) when the information is already found in the reference at the end of that sentence I see no reason not to remove it. Tollens (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Link to associates main article

There is a small paragraph on the ruling to release Epstein's associates list by January 2024, but no link to the Jeffrey Epstein's associates list Wikipedia page itself. Shouldn't that be added? Rerbun (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

It was deleted via discussion, so there's no link. Acroterion (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2024

I would like to change "Jeffrey Edward Epstein (/ˈɛpstiːn/ EP-steen;[1] January 20, 1953 – August 10, 2019) was a Jewish-American financier and sex offender." to "Jeffrey Edward Epstein (/ˈɛpstiːn/ EP-steen;[1] January 20, 1953 – August 10, 2019) was an American financier and sex offender."

Being Jewish is not a nationality and shouldn't be referred to as such. Furthermore, his Jewish background is well stated immediately in the next section, so to mention his nationality as Jewish-American seems dubious and inaccurate. Inesaclt (talk) 10:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is contrary to the manual of style and disruptive. I’ve warned the editor who added it and removed the edit. Acroterion (talk) 12:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

We need to make it clear that he is 100% Ashkenazi Jew the way other articles on Wikipedia emphasize it. Wikipedia is supposed to be the free and open exchange of information ...... Isn't it? 149.19.46.112 (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Is he not Jewish? So why no JEWISH category

It strikes me as odd that I have never been to a bio and found a famous/rich/notable Jewish person who has not been over tagged with Jewish American, Jewish people of the 21st century, Jewish businesspeople, Jewish people of Italian descent, Jewish authors, Jews from Eastern Europe. Jews who are vegan, Jews who play jazz, Jews who are anti-Zionist, But when it comes to something like this Not one single Jewish category. Not ONE! Amazing Let the evidence speak for itself. The omission is startling. Hausa warrior (talk) 07:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

And what is the evidence telling you? What is it evidence of? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

What is the evidence telling me? WHy dont you do your job and go and add some? --Hausa warrior (talk) 09:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has become just propaganda and I'm saying that a Jew 149.19.46.22 (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

We need to make it clear that he is 100% Ashkenazi Jew the way other articles on Wikipedia emphasize it. Wikipedia is supposed to be the free and open exchange of information ...... Isn't it? 149.19.46.112 (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I see there's finally one category. Compare this to (random example) Seth Rogen with SIXTEEN categories intersecting his religion/ethnicity. I don't usually edit on anything to do with America or Jews, but from what I've seen on other pages, people are usually rushing to add descent categories to "good people". Why so quiet here? I barely log in without seeing IPs and new accounts claiming European people of colour for their ancestral country, or saying that regional ethnicity outweighs the national citizenship. Look at how big Category:Jewish scientists is. Of course Judaism is relevant to Einstein, who was persecuted by Nazis, and it's relevant to anyone who said the Torah inspired them to do science, but who can say that Henri Atlan's Judaism was relevant to his science? Fun fact: what publication is cherry picking that Epstein met with Noam Chomsky, Ehud Barak and a Rothschild? The Daily Stormer? No, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency! Who thinks it's worth a headline that Epstein ate kosher food in jail, therefore being a practicing Jew? Is it Stormfront? No, it's The Jewish Chronicle! Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

If you want to add categories, no one is stopping you! By the way, I noticed that Noam Chomsky isn't even mentioned in the article. I have WP:RS from the Wall Street Journal; they wrote at least three articles describing their investigation into Chomsky's relationship with Epstein. There was nothing immoral or illegal about it, but the two of them had no reason to be hanging out, even on a little based. Anyway, I don't know why y'all are so aggrieved about the lack of Jewish people-related categories for this not-living-BLP article. Add some. If page protection is preventing you from doing so, then provide a list of categories you want added, and I'll add them or someone else will.--FeralOink (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Mispelling

Stephen Hawking is misspelled in the personal life section. Grimnir69420 (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. Not sure why somebody went to the trouble of piping "Steven." Acroterion (talk) 01:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography has an RfC

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Image change

‎‎CarterLennon, are you sure the image change was appropriate? It doesn't show the subject's face particularly clearly and contains an additional person who is not the subject. I think the original was a better portrait. Anonymous 23:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Lede image

Why has the lede image been changed from Epstein's booking-photograph from 2019? Asperthrow (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bit 50-50 on this. The 2019 mugshot isn't ideal, but the 1993 image isn't ideal either. Other thoughts required here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I changed it to the 2006 mugshot. It's the most well known photo of him in my opinion. Ccole2006 (talk) 23:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I support using the 2006 mugshot. Although fairly old, it gives a much clearer look at his face than the other two options from 1993 and 2019.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Request to split scandal section

I had already split the R. Kelly section into the separate court case part. Now I request to split the Jeffrey Epstein scandal section the same. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 02:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

BTW, I was referring to split this section to "Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking scandal". Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 02:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it should be split as that is his main source of notoriety. R. Kelly is more notable for his music than for his long series of crimes, while Epstein's notability as a financier is there it is inextricably tied up in it. The scandal is him and he is the scandal, etc. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

agreeee 2001:8A0:7E0C:A400:D4D0:975E:E205:42DF (talk) 05:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

Ratmanny: This edit was automatically tagged because it used the WP:NYPOST and WP:THESUN. This should have been fixed before putting the edit straight back again with these sources. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

But I don't see the NYPOST on the list of the currently deprecated sources. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources Ratmanny (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Both of these are listed at WP:RSP, which is why they get tagged automatically as "use of deprecated (unreliable) source" in the edit history.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok, now I fix it. Ratmanny (talk) 08:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The problem with this edit is that is has simply removed the two cites that were tagged as unreliable, while keeping the text the same. The statement "Epstein was known for preferring prepubescents and barely pubescents girls or looking as such at the very most, to the point of putting girls on extreme particular diets and conditions to keep them mantaining a prepuberal look and body" appears to be backed by this story in the New York Post which says "Jeffrey Epstein and his accused madam Ghislaine Maxwell put his young victims on “ridiculous,” extreme diets to maintain their “prepubescent” look, accuser Virginia Roberts Giuffre claimed." The other cites are not specifically backing this claim. Apart from being in the New York Post, the cite provides more context by saying that this is a claim made by Virginia Giuffre and does not state it as a fact. The source in The Sun also makes clear that this is a claim made by Virginia Giuffre.[1]. Despite the large number of sources added here, the specific claim about the diet comes from the New York Post and The Sun, and does not state it as a fact, only a claim by Virginia Giuffre.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I still don't get what's your point to justify the revert of all that content. Your point is just because two sources not considered valid on this Wikipedia says the same thing that others considered reliable and valid do, this is enough to invalidate all the rest? And the undebunked testimony of one of the victims is not reliable?

https://sputnikglobe.com/20200922/epstein-maxwell-kept-sex-girls-on-special-diet-to-make-them-prepubescently-thin-accuser-claims-1080537324.html

https://torontosun.com/news/world/jeffrey-epstein-wanted-tanned-petite-prepubescent-bodies-virginia-roberts Ratmanny (talk) 10:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

You have put it straight back again even though it was pointed out that this was a claim made by Virginia Giuffre, not a proven fact. Also, the other sources are largely irrelevant WP:CITEKILL because they do not relate to the diet. This is also running into problems with due weight by putting this in the lead section without pointing out that this is simply a claim by Giuffre. I can't see why there is an obsession with adding this in the same form repeatedly after the problems were pointed out to you. This is a claim that Giuffre made in a podcast,[2] it is not really a reliable source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why in the previous version I wrote "according to Virginia Roberts Giuffre, an alleged victim of Epstein", wasn't ok even written that way? Ratmanny (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Please suggest a place to put it that isn't in the lead section. I removed it mainly because I agreed with Ianmacm's comment: it doesn't belong in the lead. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The problem is I don't know in what section to put it besides the lead. I mean, I could put the part of how he used to prefer his victims in the lead and the testimony of Virginia Giuffre in the Legal proceeding section but I don't know where specifically. Ratmanny (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Well? Ratmanny (talk) 07:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Well what? If you can't find a place for it in the body, that's not an argument in favor of dumping it in the first paragraph... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

If you add it to the first paragraph again, you will likely be blocked. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD should not contain orphaned statements. These are statements that appear only in the lead and do not appear elsewhere in the article. There has been a problem here with adding material to the lead section simply to ensure that it appears prominently in the article, but that is not what the lead section is there for. The lead is simply a summary of what appears later on in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Lottery Winner?

Just read the Wikipedia Article on Eddie Tipton, who was convicted of rigging multiple state lotteries, including Oklahoma, and also I have read online reports that Epstein "won" the Oklahoma Lottery, and so I naturally came here to find out if there is a connection, and discover that the fact of Epstein's lottery "winning" is not even mentioned in this Article. Is Wikipedia's position that this never happened, because if it did, and there is a connection, it would indicate something nefarious, IMO.

2603:8081:3A00:30DF:6514:C557:E752:615C (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

This looks like a WP:REDFLAG claim and it is a completely new one on me. Is there any decent sourcing for this (not blogs, YouTube videos etc)?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

About Donald Barr's brief mention on the Career section

It's nothing I just can't find the edit button so I hope someone can edit the information for me. It says something in the lines of the "unconventional" word that suggests something different from one source of the text, which is external link number 29 currently.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/12/nyregion/jeffrey-epstein-dalton-teacher.html Here it says "While Mr. Barr was strict on the school culture, he made it a point to hire teachers from unconventional backgrounds" with a focus on the culture side of the school.

While in the wikipedia page it says "Donald Barr, who served as the headmaster until June 1974, was known to have made several unconventional recruitments at the time" focusing the "unconventional" word vaguely which can tend to suggest a relation between unconventional and Epstein specifically.

Maybe the first person who brought words along those lines from the source haven't used them properly to interact with the rest of the text. These lines also suggest that Barr had to have some direct relation with Epstein's job when at least on the basis of documents it is unclear.

Also "although it is unclear whether he had a direct role in hiring Epstein" can be a confusing line to read for people that rely on wikipedia and doesn't look on the sources to understand an idea.

btw not angry its just my texts writing Shallow sleet (talk) 01:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

also unconventional and the lack of credentials situation don't have any relation when you read about it on the source, text is leaving enough things to imagination that it's not just a bad "implies" thing but a bad redaction thing. Shallow sleet (talk) 01:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Dalton School: Cause and Effect, Divided

The Lede mentions that Epstein was "dismissed" from the Dalton school, but does not say why, while further down in the body, it is revealed that Epstein behaved inappropriately with teenage students while at Dalton, but does not mention he was dismissed as a result. I assume this is an accident, and that the Article is NOT trying to divide these two halves of the same coin, in order to create the false impression that Epstein's entire career did not involve the sexual exploitation of children, from it's very first documentation in 1976. I assume good faith, and do not believe this obfuscation of the truth to be intentional. Particularly given how little attention has been paid to this topic. Probably just an oversight.

2603:8081:3A00:30DF:6514:C557:E752:615C (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The article says that he was dismissed from Dalton for "poor performance". Maybe the school used this as an excuse after there had been allegations of inappropriate conduct, but he was not officially dismissed from the school for this reason.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

From the Lede of the Article:

Born and raised in New York City, Epstein began his professional life as a teacher at the Dalton School despite lacking a college degree. After his dismissal from the school in 1976, he entered the banking and finance sector,

From the Body of the Article, subitle "Career>Teaching", first and second paragraphs:

Epstein started working in September 1974 as a physics and mathematics teacher for teens at the Dalton School...

However, he also allegedly showed inappropriate behavior toward underage female students

All I am doing is taking the general statement from the Lede, the specific statements from the body of the Article, connecting them, and asking why they are divided within the Article, when they obviously are connected to the Lede's description of first his "sexual offender" status, then fails to include the stated fact (from within the Article) that he was dismissed from Dalton as a result of "inappropriate" (meaning sexual) behavior. And while the Article mentions both halves of the same truth, moving the most lurid to within the body of the Article, it mentions the less-relevant fact that he "lacked a degree", which is good to know, but watered-down, and causing the Reader to NOT wonder whether or not he was hired despite not having a degree, because he had other talents, skills, predilections and money. I'm not asserting that there is a connection between his hiring and his pedophilia and presumed state-sanctioned blackmail status, I am asserting that the common sense connection between the two is being artificially divided into to halves by the Article itself. If this were any other Article, I might not make an issue out of this, but this is Epstein with all the intrigue that goes with it, and a common-sense, plain-language statement of basic facts that is delivered in any other way looks like something was done with intent, i.e. the appearance of impropriety vs. actual impropriety, if you will. Further I note, and wonder, how it is that a person "without a college degree" manages to teach "physics and mathematics" to young women that he eventually molests. FYI the Dalton school is a private, K-12 "college prep" school that is still in existence.

66.25.69.185 (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)