Talk:Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories

Predictions

Jimmy Dore predicted Epstein's alleged "suicide" as part of a comedy bit. however, Jimmy is also a journalist and is heavily concerned with establishment corruption and i thought it a fitting note to include. watch his vid after epsteins death on youtube in which he plays the original clip:[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.236.190.141 (talk) 07:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I had added Dore's prediction in this edit from August 19. This article got merged, and I just now added those three predictions over on the main article, in this edit.

I was not involved in the decision to merge. And I have not looked at the arguments made for / against. But as I see it now, I consider this to have been a faulty decision. There is far too much in regards to extremely powerful people being connected for Wikipedia to limit his death to this single article. I suggest that it would be best to present info on his death from what is known under pure fact, and then a separate article to cover the shadowy aspects of his death where certain key facts may never come to light.

Perhaps the strongest point of fact which should lead Wikipedia editors to clearly see that this needs a separate article is when the Potus tweets to promote a conspiracy theory. And that this particular Potus himself was friends with the now dead self-admitted pedophile. Wikipedia can do much better here. -- Lexi sioz (talk) 07:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hillary

The "Connections to Public Figures" section is labeled "Bill and Hillary Clinton" though it only mentions Bill Clinton. For consistency, either rename this section or change the next one to "Donald and Melania Trump." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.59.150.121 (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Or "Donald and Ivanka Trump". They've been in cahoots since Epstein mysteriously vanished from Bear Stearns. Probably no connection, but still, being in any sort of committed relationship since 1981 counts as "going way back" (at least relative to 2005, when Epstein mysteriously escaped hanging for molesting a kid). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Royal connection

Wondering if the article is a tad Americentric, and only focuses on the theories related to American politics (for the most part). Ties between Epstein and Prince Andrew have been floating around for a long while, and there was a major surge in news reports (in the UK at least) regarding their ties, with speculation that it could tarnish or even bring down the monarchy. In GMT terms, these reports exploded onto the scene in the morning, and then by early afternoon, Epstein was found dead. We all know how the Royal Family deals with potential threats. The international component is obviously not an issue, as we have seen previously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldhamtw (talk • contribs) 19:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, editors use reliable sources for all articles, whatever is floating around the internet is otherwise irrelevant. Any conspiracy theory involving the Duke of York are no exception and can only be mentioned here if reliable sources pick them up. The conspiracy theories surrounding the death of the Princess of Wales nearly 22 years ago have been thoroughly debunked. Philip Cross (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree the "Connections to Public Figures" section could be expanded to include info about Prince Andrew, Duke of York from Epstein's main page. The page is still being edited heavily so I predict this will be added in sooner or later. Wqwt (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The stuff that was added is way, way too detailed, with way to much in the way of specific allegations against living people. It should be trimmed by about half. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I have trimmed it. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Theory that Epstein is still alive

The band Foster the People have promoted the idea that Epstein didn’t really die and that the photo of his body is fake. [2] 97.116.77.170 (talk) 04:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Great. Where's the ref?

(I bet the emphasis is on that "promoted" part, seeing as FtP's article is heavily self-promo, and only days ago the inevitable forthcoming album was announced there.)

I'm backing the no-less-wacky idea that Epstein is a lizardoid and got sent back to the mother ship for blowing his cover so badly.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Wake up, Dingle! Lizard men rejuvenate in earthly pyramids. You're thinking of hot-blooded ugly bastards. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I think there's a more mundane explanation: Trump, Clinton, and Bill Richardson have all negotiated with North Korea. North Korea probably decided to protect them.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I was about to say that's crazy, but I suddenly remembered Bill Richardson wasn't the Alaskan version of Bill Barilko. It was Ted Stevens all along. I can totally see a Kim-Richardson rainbow connection. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

This claim has gotten a lot of coverage so it's in the article now. What some bands won't do to call attention to themselves! -- MelanieN (talk) 04:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

And what some media corporations won't do to dispel negative attention. I think if Yahoo! finds NBC's beef with Foster's theory noteworthy, we should include that layer, otherwise it seems like Wikipedia's hushing up a hushup. I don't want to be complicit, for the record, and not only for the various conflicts of interest. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Weirdly, I heard that Colbert mentioned the lizardoid theory in his monologue the next evening, so maybe it was pilfered from here… or it was already becoming A Thing before I posted. Seems we've entered the era where anything, no matter how humorous (or stupid) that one might say will be seized upon by some random gaggle of the semi-hinged.

Imaginationland

At one time, I tried to write a couple of political thrillers; it was fun for experience, but my heart wasn't in the project, though I can still spin a tall tale. So, here's a scenario I mentioned to entertain friends a few weeks ago. We all had a good long laugh over it.

• Miscreant gets into deep trouble, and tries to call up old associates to mitigate the problem. But the world has moved along, and most are now relatively powerless. Cash is of course not an issue; rather, it is a matter of connections.
• The miscreant pares the list down to a former buddy, a businessman with a talent for finding (and documenting) weaknesses in others for possible future negotiation. There'd been a falling out, and no communication for years.
• Miscreant also has (or at least alludes to) damning evidence that would tend to implicate Buddy in similar shenanigans.
• Buddy agrees to pull many strings, and also says "do not call me again, ever." Miscreant gets a light sentence on acts that would have put a middle-class man away for decades, possibly life.
• Crisis mitigated. However, the arrogance remains, and so does access to abundant resources. Having cheated Fate, why not continue the aberrant behavior? That doesn't work out so well. In the meantime, Buddy has developed wide-ranging political clout, and has established his willingness to grant pardons to convicted criminals (and coincidentally granted political office to a key player in giving the miscreant that light sentence).
• A call is made, with hints to aforementioned evidence. Miscreant is assured the problem will be handled.

I regret not coming up with something like "have Federal agents standing by to raid miscreant's mansion as soon as his untimely demise is established," but nobody would've believed it — far too formulaic.

Anyway, my point here is that ANY scenario can be swiped from fiction or history, a few names grafted in, and suddenly it's "a new theory." At what point is Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories just a collection of fancruft and thereby totally unsuitable to remain in W'pedia? Shouldn't it at least be pared down to relying upon lists that others are no doubt already posting?
Weeb Dingle (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "JonSwaine":

• From Prince Andrew, Duke of York: Booth, Robert (9 January 2015). "Palace digs in over Prince Andrew's links to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein". The Guardian. London, England: Guardian Media Group. Retrieved 19 April 2016.
• From Jeffrey Epstein: Swaine, Jon (January 13, 2015). "Jeffrey Epstein's donations to young pupils prompts US Virgin Islands review". The Guardian. London, England. Archived from the original on November 10, 2016. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Off topic sections

The sections pertaining to Clinton, Trump, Dershowitz, and Prince Andrew should be removed. These sections do not demonstrate relevance to this topic. All that is discussed in these sections is past associations with Epstein, past lawsuits related to Epstein, or lawsuits by Epstein's victims. There is no connection between these individuals and Epstein's death in confinement.

Also, there is no connection to a conspiracy theories theory in these three sections. The other sections I can accept for now. But possible co-conspirators and conspiracy theories are two different things, so I have to question the value that section, as well - but I can accept it for now. Clinton or Trump or Dershowitz or Prince Andrew have not been named as a suspect in Epstein's death so these do not belong in this article.

I also believe keeping these sections implies these men are somehow involved in conspiracy theories related to Epstein's death, of which there is no coverage in reliable sources. There is only coverage of unsealed lawsuits and past associations with Epstein. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Until legal charges are properly made, mentioning those names here probably runs directly toward BLP violation. If such charges are made in the national press by a publication or broadcaster willing to put its credibility on the line (and risk a huge lawsuit), then maybe it could be included here, albeit with MUCH use of caveats such as "according to." But lacking even that, then (per previous) the name-dropping is nothing but embellishment of a tall tale.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 09:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree too. The idea that Epstein was murdered is becoming more and more unlikely, particularly with the news he wrote his will before he killed himself. The fact that he relationships with various VIPs is irrelevant, and should be deleted.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)