Talk:Jeffrey Epstein/Archive 5

Jewish
If you came here to troll about Jewishness, I will be happy to block you. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it "trolling" to include the ancestry of notable persons when it is known? This is common practice on Wikipedia, and it is quite interesting to see that after this new scandal has come out, Epstein's ancestry/ethnicity is something that should be removed from the article? I.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeffrey_Epstein&diff=905553885&oldid=905553655 . Erasing mention of his background as a result of a scandal is hardly NPOV. ADMelnick (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ADMelnick, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to take lessons in NPOV editing on Wikipedia from someone with a half dozen edits. I don't know the editor who made the change you pointed at (and it's already been restored to the article), but I do know that I find it odd that so many people are interested in this person's Jewishness, especially when coupled with the suggestion that there might be something going on, something fishy. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a commonly practiced form of trolling - I've never seen an editor who was vitally interested in mentioning that somebody's Presbyterian in a prominent manner, but for some reason it happens in articles on Jewish, or seems-Jewish people all the time. Please keep your views on whether Jewish people are mostly good and sometimes bad to yourselves, and stop promoting conspiracy theories about article editing..  Acroterion   (talk)   00:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I simply noticed that information regarding his ethnic background had been removed, restored, and removed again (and since restored once more...) on this Wikipedia article as I have been following this story. I am sure we can all cast aspersions about the motivations of the editors on both sides; it's ironic, though, that the people who want to maintain the inclusion of this information in the article can be regarded as agenda-driven/ill-intentioned trolls, while making a similar allegation about those seeking to remove the information can disparaged as "promoting conspiracy theories". All this said, I never claimed that his background should be mentioned in the article intro. Only that it should be restored to the customary place in the article, i.e. in the "Early Life" section and in the article categories section. Thanks. ADMelnick (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ADMelnick—what is your question? The "Early life" section includes that "Epstein was born in 1953 in Brooklyn, New York, to a Jewish family and grew up in Coney Island." And the individual is included in Category:American people of Jewish descent. Bus stop (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Thanks for your Wikipedia contributions :) I suggest we focus our efforts on information from reputable source(s). Any volunteer to find a reputable source(s) about the claim that Jeffrey Epstein being of Jewish heritage and or religion? If any, what is the encyclopedic value in including this information in the article, from the reader's point of view? What would be the appropriate location for information in the article? Intro?, Early life?, elsewhere?
 * According to this Wikipedia article about "Epstein", "The surname Epstein is one of the oldest Ashkenazi Jewish family names". Source is Singer, Isidore; et al., eds. (1901–1906).
 * Contribution from all are really welcome :) Including people of Jewish religion. Speaking for myself, based on my interactions with Jewish people, most Jewish people are good people, with mature, ethical, and lawful behaviors. But allegedly, a minority of Jewish people are bad people, with immature, unethical or criminal behaviors. Same with all the other religions I interacted with ;) Francewhoa (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It isn't a matter of singling him out as Jewish because he has committed criminal acts. If you look at most articles of famous persons on Wikipedia, the heritage of the individual is listed. The issue here is that some people want to hide the fact that he is Jewish, because they don't want child sex trafficking associated with a member of that particular ethnic group. My point is, if he was born into an Italian, Japanese, or Swedish family in NYC, and that was listed in his "early life" section (as is customary on Wikipedia), would there be any justification for removing that information if it comes out that the person has committed a crime? Of course not.
 * Here's a link to an article - https://www.jpost.com/International/Billionaire-sex-offender-Jeffrey-Epstein-charged-with-sex-trafficking-594864
 * Here is an additional article where Epstein's lawers claim he had a fake passport to hide that he is Jewish. Being Jewish is clearly an importing part of how Epstein self-identifies. https://www.timesofisrael.com/epstein-lawyers-claim-fake-passport-was-needed-to-hide-jewishness/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.134.181.242 (talk) 05:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems quite clear to me that the issue here is that Epstein is an ethnic/cultural Jew, and his victims were for the most part non-Jewish whites. So since "white supremacists" might complain that his actions might have been motivated by ethnic or cultural hatred, his Jewishness should be hidden, *for the greater good*. That's not right. If he was born into a Chinese-American family, that would be noted in his biography, regardless of whether or not he committed any crimes and whether or not his ethnic background (or that of the victims) was relevant to those crimes. ADMelnick (talk) 23:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that others wanted it in the lead, in an apparent effort to conspicuously smear Jews. It's fine in the body, which is common in BLPs. soibangla (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that others wanted it in the lead, in an apparent effort to conspicuously smear Jews. It's fine in the body, which is common in BLPs. soibangla (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

This isn't even a debate. Epstein is Jewish and it needs to be in the article, at the very least the early life and personal life sections, but I would also support mentioning it in the introduction. If Drmies or whoever dislikes that Epstein is Jewish specifically because Epstein has been a very naughty boy and thus the word Jewish should be excluded from the article on that basis then that it tough luck. There is no Wikipedia policy which says we would need to do that. Funny how in the introduction of the articles for Albert Einstein and René Cassin, who have a comparatively positive PR campaign, we manage to mention that they were Jewish. This is like the Harvey Weinstein affair in that trying to keep hush-hush that he is Jewish is such a ridiculous proposal that most people don't even bother. It is what it is. Baron De La Ware (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Early life. Jewish family.
I suggest two things. First I suggest to not add to the article intro that Epstein was born to a Jewish family. Simply because this is unusual to add such information for any similar article intro. It's risky to come across to some readers as cherry picking information for the Wikipedia article intro. Second, I suggest we restore this information from the "Early life" section. Because this information was included in the "Early life" section of this wikipedia article since the first draft was publish in April 2018. Also this is common practice on Wikipedia to include this information to a "Early life"/"Background" section. Many readers are interested in such heritage & historical information. Assuming it's based on reputable source(s). How about restoring this paragraph to the "Early life" section? With reputable source.




 * Again, speaking for myself, based on my interactions with Jewish people, most Jewish people are good people, with mature, ethical, and lawful behaviors. But allegedly, a minority of Jewish people are bad people, with immature, unethical or criminal behaviors. Same with all the other religions I interacted with ;) Francewhoa (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Francewhoa, I am going to have to ask you to NOT start talking about your experiences with people of varying backgrounds. This is not a forum. Or, WP:NOTFORUM. Besides that, I am quite surprised to find so much interest in some sex trafficker's Jewishness, including from relatively new or inexperienced editors. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with your proposal, the edit which I hyperlinked to in my initial comment has already since been reverted, hopefully an edit war will not ensue and the information will remain where it should. ADMelnick (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems quite odd that an administrator is allowed to get away with violating policy (see: WP:ASPERSIONS and Vandalism) But any editor (including myself) that points this out or does the same thing is immediately blocked for "personal attacks". Since i cannot name the specific administrator/s who did this (else i be blocked for "personal attacks"), i will instead quote, without attributing a name to the quote, and everybody else can figure out the rest.

"I do know that I find it odd that so many people are interested in this person's Jewishness, especially when coupled with the suggestion that there might be something going on, something fishy."

"Yes, it's a commonly practiced form of trolling - I've never seen an editor who was vitally interested in mentioning that somebody's Presbyterian in a prominent manner, but for some reason it happens in articles on Jewish, or seems-Jewish people all the time. Please keep your views on whether Jewish people are mostly good and sometimes bad to yourselves, and stop promoting conspiracy theories about article editing"

In the first quote, a certain administrator assumes bad intent because somebody questioned the removal of Epstein's ethnicity from the article. This is of course, ridiculous. Sure, maybe someone might have that intent, but don't you think assuming that is the case for every single editor talking about that issue would constitute casting WP:ASPERSIONS? regardless of whether or not they actually have this intent, it's certainly against Wikipedia policy to accuse them of having that intent without evidence. And don't you think that, if they did have that intent, that removing them would only reinforce their idea that there is a grand conspiracy to hide the fact that Epstein is Jewish?

In the second quote, an administrator immediately assumes that the intent is trolling, and provides an explanation why they believe that to be so, however that explanation doesn't contain any real evidence of bad intentions. Even further, the administrator also assumes that they are pushing a conspiracy theory about article editing, simply by asking why content has been removed from the article. This example of course is another clear cut example of casting WP:ASPERSIONS

The other policy that was clearly violated by a certain un-named administrator, was removing the original question from this section, and blocking an IP user who reverted the deletion of the section, and then accusing them of (and blocking them for) "casting aspersions and making personal attacks" (For raising questions about the certain un-named administrator's conduct), and ridiculing them for being an IP user "I figured it was just a drive-by IP. I guess they found something, a cause, to sink their teeth into."

The administrator who i leave un-named violated WP:VANDALISM by removing talk page content without proper cause (He claimed on the talk page of the blocked IP user that the talk page content was "Trolling", but im sure you can be the judge of that yourselves here). This same administrator then replaced that content with his own content, threatening to block any user that "troll[ed] about Jewishness". Of course, this would only reinforce the belief by anti-semetic users that there is some sort of grand conspiracy, especially since there was content removed that questioned the removal of said content. Anyhow, the likelyhood that I stay here is not very long, since administrators (like the un-named ones in my post) like to block users for questioning their actions. 50.108.68.198 (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to also add that the initial edit to remove "Jewish" from the article could have also been by an editor who wanted to cause a controversy. It's not just a one way street. 50.108.107.238 (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * One can only wonder what you are talking about, 50.108.107.238. Have you read the relevant material on this Talk page? The article mentions that he is Jewish. If you know of an issue could you please keep it brief? Bus stop (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Quite simply, this should not be included per MOS:ETHNICITY. My very best wishes (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. He is Jewish. This source says "Jeffery Epstein, a Jewish politically well-connected billionaire, has been charged with sex trafficking, according to multiple reports." Bus stop (talk) 15:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The IP was trying to insert this to the lead. According to MOS:ETHNICITY, "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." Ths is clearly not relevant to his notability. Should this be included to the body of the page? A cursory mention in a source that he is a "Jewish" (it does not tell anything about his family) is not a sufficient justification. Why this should be included? My very best wishes (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Ethnic background is basic biographical information. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with the consensus that this verifiable information belongs in the article. Just not in the lead. R2 (bleep) 19:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In general, ethnicity or religion are not mentioned in the lede unless it's a vital part of the person's life and character: for instance, a Lutheran clergyman. It's perfectly fine elsewhere, as long as it's sourced, and as long as editors remember that it would be highly unusual to find it necessary to have an explicit statement that somebody was born in a Christian household, for instance, so it needs to have more than passing relevance. It is an insistence on the lede that makes other editors suspicious, since this is employed on Wikipedia by some editors as a form of Jew-baiting and trolling. That doesn't mean that everybody who advocates it is exhibiting bad intent or even knows that it might be a matter of concern, but it's a red flag, especially in editors with few or no other contributions.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Harizotoh9, R2, I was wondering how you all would register whiteness as a verifiable family background in, for instance, Bill Clinton. There are 63 occurrences of "white" in the article, but the only one that points to racial matters is in the "Judicial appointments" section, and it's not about him. (I looked for "caucasian" too, but didn't get further than "caucus".) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your question or its relevance, but I'll be honest, it sounds rather pointy. R2 (bleep) 23:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm that's kind of sad. Alright: a man born into a Jewish family needs to have "Jewishness" written up in his Wikipedia article. A man of Caucasian ancestry does not need to have Caucasianness written up in his article. Why? So, if you're going to be honest, be honest. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Because that is the modern standard, else you are going to have to talk of the holocaust as an explicitly "white genocide", something which the left claims doesn't exist, therefore holocaust denial.75.101.93.247 (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This argument is an amazing encapsulation of why The Internet was such a terrible idea. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 03:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Because it is sourced, because it is comparatively rare, and because Judaism is an ethnicity and a religion, not a race. Suggesting that Judaism is a race is historically associated with Nazism. Please don't do it again. R2 (bleep) 16:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That flip will not work, R2, but nice try. It is a choice to insert it, and, as this talk page proves, a choice that frequently has other motives than encyclopedic completeness. And don't go around suggesting I'm a Nazi when I'm blocking Nazis left and right here; that's more than a little disgusting. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You're not a Nazi, you're a good admin. Please take a moment to cool off. R2 (bleep) 17:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ahrtoodeetoo—you say "Judaism is an ethnicity and a religion, not a race". If such questions should be entertained, they should be entertained elsewhere, not on this Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 13:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh look, another admin using their administrator privileges to block people who have a certain ideology. I wasn't aware that being a "Nazi" was against Wikipedia guidelines. Again, casting aspersions about the motives of other users, and publicly announcing your mission is to block "Nazis", rather than working towards the project's goals. Tell me again why this user is an administrator? Why do administrators get to violate guidelines with no consequences, yet if another user so much as hints at opposition to another administrator's conduct, they get blocked for "personal attacks". Sitting here and speculating on whether or not another person's motives are valid does not help the project in any capacity. 50.127.248.30 (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That user is an administrator because they do laudable things like removing posts by Nazis. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * By nazis, or "nazis"? The goal of the project is not to remove "nazis". This is a fact.50.127.248.30 (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

It says he was born in 1953 and graduated high school in 1969. That would make him a 16-year-old high school graduate. Please double-check that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Confuzd420 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * "Jewish" - what does it mean here? The religion, ethnicity or self-identification? This is not clear. Is he a religious person? I do not think that religion or ethnicity should be included automatically in all BLP pages, but only if this is important in the context of biography, as established by sources. This is not the case here. My very best wishes (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Bill Clinton is not Causcasian. Caucasians are people from the caucuses and their descendants. His acnestros were not immigrants from Ingusetia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comsidering Jewish publications for years made it a point to always say Epstein is Jewish, we cannot in good conscience leave that out of this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Consensus
Let's see if we can sort out a consensus here. I've seen several ideas proposed above: Please indicate a preference and brief reason(s) Rklawton (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A) Make no mention of the Epstein family's religion
 * B) Mention Epstein's parent's religion in "Early life" section (per source)
 * C) Put Epstein's parent's religion in the lead
 * (feel free to insert additional options D, E, etc)

Support B Rklawton (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * family history is common and acceptable in BLP, and it's appropriately sourced
 * motivation for including family background isn't relevant.
 * we must not infer Epstein's religion based on his parent's religion
 * I've seen no source indicating Epstein has acknowledged a personal faith
 * In contrast with Mayim Bialik, I've seen no source indicating Epstein's personal faith has played a significant role in his life.


 * "My very best wishes", "Rklawton"—you are overthinking this. "what does it mean here ... the religion, ethnicity or self-identification" "we must not infer Epstein's religion based on his parent's religion" All that we are doing is adhering to reliable sources. Reliable sources say he is Jewish, so we say he is Jewish. The source says "Jeffery Epstein, a Jewish politically well-connected billionaire, has been charged with sex trafficking, according to multiple reports." Bus stop (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I think this can be included in such context because here the relevance is clear, but not by noticing "hey, and BTW, that criminal was Jewish". My very best wishes (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * "the relevance is clear" No it isn't. Jeffrey Epstein had been a trustee of the Wexner Foundation which gave $2.3 million to Ehud Barak. "The Wexner Foundation focuses on the development of Jewish professional and volunteer leaders in North America and public leaders in Israel. Founded by Leslie Wexner", who is Jewish. Ehud Barak is also Jewish. I think you can write about the issue (involving Jeffrey Epstein) in the Israeli Elections. But the issue is not "context" for saying that Jeffrey Epstein is Jewish. You are saying "I think this can be included in such context because here the relevance is clear". There is no "context" relating to Jeffrey Epstein's Jewishness in the news story you are presenting. Both items can be presented separately, but there is nothing tying them together. It would be a contrivance to try to tie them together. Bus stop (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I have removed this hodgepodge of information. It reads Several sources state that Epstein is Jewish and/or "grew up in a Jewish household.". Its inclusion would require consensus. Bus stop (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I agree with your both points. My very best wishes (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The "hodgepodge" was sourced from a number of news publications that are unlikely to be presenting an anti-semitic bias: The Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Haaretz, The Forward, and The Jerusalem Post. The sheer number of reputable sources that included this information in their general content in each news article persuaded me to post it to the subject's page. I see from the talk page that this has been an ongoing issue of concern for some editors. For what it is worth, I also have a connection to the Interlochen Center for the Arts, having been employed there for two summers, and I did pause before adding that educational background to the subject's page.  Since his attendance was verified by the registrar at the art center, it should be included as part of Epstein's early life even if I personally cringe at the realization that he was present on the campus both of the summers that I worked there. Arts institutions and religious institutions are comprised of individuals who run the gamut of moral development.  Unfortunately, none are immune from criminals. To clarify, I also support option B) Mention Epstein's parents religion in Early Life Cedar777 (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is the problem. These sources (e.g., just as CNN article linked by me above) are not at all about his "Jewishness", but on entirely different subjects. So they should be used to source subjects they are actually about. You are trying to cherry pick information that is completely irrelevant and unimportant, unless someone wants to make a point that ... I noticed that someone noted WP:EGRS. Yes, sure, one can probably assign this page to the corresponding categories, but it does not really influence te text of the page. My very best wishes (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In the interest of consensus, can you kindly clarify your support for any of the above options as suggested by Rklawton or provide another alternative? Cedar777 (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Option B AND Option C but also Option D. We can do all 3. Jewish media is not anti-Semitic and refers to him as "the Jewish billionaire" so it belongs at the start describing him, while discussing his family belongs in early life. "Option D" is the undiscussed issue of whether to at least include him in categories, since those were all removed recently. Even people who may not want to see this in Early life or the introduction may still agree to put him in the categories which are listed at the bottom. Olivia comet (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Option B While I think it bears mention, it strikes me as a background fact, and I believe it belongs in that section. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Option A. At this time I would opt to omit mention of Jewishness from the article and just include in Jewish categories. He may be Jewish but that quality is unrelated to the sex crimes that dominate this article. Bus stop (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not option A, that's Option D. Option A was not mentioning anything at all and is mutually exclusive to B/C/D, though those could exist alone or with each other. Olivia comet (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Olivia comet—regardless of which option applies, Jeffrey Epstein's Jewishness has nothing to do with the theme of the article, which I think can be summed up as sexual abuse of underage girls. Bus stop (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Option B. The idea that it "anti-semitic" or "trolling" to mention Epstein's Jewish ethnicity and/or religion is nonsense. Either we should mention ethnicity/religion in notable persons' articles, or not. Any crimes a person is accused of should have no bearing on this choice - why would it? It does not matter whether it is related to the sex crimes that dominate this article - this is an article about Epstein, the person, not Epstein's alleged sex crimes. Like almost any other figure, this information should be made available in the early life section. Would also support C, or D (simply mentioning that he is Jewish, which many reputable sources say he is.)CelebrateMotivation (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2019 (EST)
 * "Either we should mention ethnicity/religion in notable persons' articles, or not. Any crimes a person is accused of should have no bearing on this choice - why would it?" Consider Bernard Madoff. In that case it is the Affinity fraud that makes this noteworthy: "Madoff targeted wealthy American Jewish communities, using his in-group status to obtain investments from Jewish individuals and institutions." This factor is missing in Jeffrey Epstein. Bus stop (talk) 23:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * With respect, you are conflating two entirely separate things. Bernard Madoff had a specific section for affinity fraud. Epstein's article has a section on his early life. The religious and ethnic makeup of his household is certainly related to his early life, just as Bernard Madoff's ethnicity was related to his affinity fraud. I reiterate: either we mention ethnicity/religion in notable persons' articles, or we do not. One thing we should remember is that Bernard Madoff is far from the only person whose ethnicity/religion is mentioned in their biography page. It is certainly not only mentioned in cases of affinity fraud (or similar).CelebrateMotivation (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am having trouble finding people described as "caucasian, protestant," or the like, either as to their person or their upbringing. I am given to believe that there exist notable people who fit this profile.  Any thoughts on why? Dumuzid (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You are asking for my personal opinion? This sort of seems like it might be a "gotcha"/trap question, but I will follow WP:AGF and assume it is not. My opinion - which should be irrelevant, mind you - would be that it is because people in many countries view "caucasian" or perhaps even "Protestant" to be the assumed default. You are very welcome to add "caucasian" or "Protestant" to any biographical articles where it would be appropriate. Indeed, I would welcome this. Also, for what it's worth, I am under the impression that it is pretty easy to find biographical articles that mention Protestant/Catholic/Islamic/etc. families with respect to notable persons' upbringings.CelebrateMotivation (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly didn't intend the question as a "trap," but I did mean it to head toward a point, namely that I think it's a place wherein some judgment can and should be utilized. I don't think, for instance, that George Washington would be improved by "...was a Caucasian American military leader...."  Reasonable minds, however, may differ.   Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Reasonable minds may differ, certainly - in fact, I'd argue that George Washington's ethnic makeup and religion are very important, interesting, and notable topics for a biographical article. Indeed - not to get too off topic - Washington's religious views have been the subject of great controversy! His ethnicity also seems extremely notable, especially given the gestalt views of the time (but also, even without them). CelebrateMotivation (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * CelebrateMotivation—Jeffrey Epstein's crimes don't relate to Jews. Madoff's crimes related to Jews. (More correctly, Jeffrey Epstein's crimes didn't have anything to do with his being Jewish, whereas Madoff's crimes related to his being Jewish.) You say "I reiterate: either we mention ethnicity/religion in notable persons' articles, or we do not." We exercise judgement. We use Talk pages as we are doing now. I don't think one-size-fits-all. Bus stop (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Bus stop: Disagree entirely - here, one size does fit all. Consistency is important. I fail to see any reason why we should fail to include this information about notable figures unless it simply has not been reported by RS. Again, with respect, I reiterate that you are conflating two different things. This is, again, not an article about Epstein's alleged crimes, much as it may seem so right now. This is an article about Epstein. As long as there is a section on his early life - or really, his life in general - this information is relevant. With respect, I think you are focusing a bit too hard on his alleged crimes. I might agree with you if this were an article solely about his crimes, but it is not. CelebrateMotivation (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The crime looms large in both the Madoff article and this one. Bus stop (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It does, I agree. This is perhaps unavoidable due to the magnitude of the allegations. Perhaps it might be possible to split the allegations off into their own article - I don't know what the policy on this type of thing is. For the time being, however, please note that the Madoff article has separate sections just like this one. In the "Early life" section it mentions that he was born to Jewish parents. It again mentions he is Jewish under "Affinity Fraud." The two motivations for including these in those two separate sections are unrelated. I certainly agree that would be inappropriate to include anything about Epstein's Jewish background in the sections related to his alleged crimes, unless it was somehow directly related (ala affinity fraud). Nevertheless, his family's ethnicity/religion remains totally relevant to his "Early life." CelebrateMotivation (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Option B, obviously. It's absurd that we even have to discuss this soibangla (talk) 01:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

We start by writing that his parents were Jewish. Then some other stuff. Then again that the household was Jewish. Not to mention the awkward "sources say that he is Jewish or raised in a Jewish household". Obviously we should say something, but not like this. I propose something like "Epstein and his parents are Jewish, and he was raised in a Jewish household." Debresser (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Agreed that the redundancy of referring to the subject's heritage three different ways is unnecessary. The current media coverage indicates a general statement that Epstein is Jewish.  In the effort to search for and review any other credible sources with more detailed information on the matter, I instead made the unpleasant discovery of a hate-filled publication discussing this very Wikipedia talk thread.  I still support Option B but acknowledge the above points that this is "a place wherein some judgment can and should be utilized" and "We exercise judgement."  Bias against the non-normative is real.  A simple mention to Epstein's Jewish parents in Early life is sufficient.  The reporting on Epstein is ongoing and more in depth information will arise and can be added in time.  Cedar777 (talk) 03:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The article linked-to above is titled "Wikipedia Editors Don’t Want 'Goyim' to Know Jeffrey Epstein is jewish" but are Wikipedia editors mindful of "goyim"? I don't think so. That reveals the mindset of a publication that can't grasp the encyclopedic scope of Wikipedia, which can choose to omit or include any material it deems more in keeping with its principle of maintaining a neutral point of view. That publication should ask itself if it strives to maintain the quality of being bias-free. By the way, at the bottom of the "Renegade Tribune" article it says that the publisher "also organized the 2014 White Man March". Therefore I would take their "information" with a grain of salt. Bus stop (talk) 05:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A grain of salt can only do so much to much to improve the taste of tripe. Unfortunately, the "Renegade Tribune" has plenty of company when it comes to an ugly impulse to attack Epstein's ethnicity. Another good reason to exercise care when editing.  A more appropriate, reliable source discussing Epstein's childhood did materialize and there are again citations to the Early life section.  Cheers.  Cedar777 (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You are saying "Another good reason to exercise care when editing" but I think exercising care in this instance implies omitting mentioning that he is Jewish. Thank you for sharing your perspective with me and I respect your opinion but I think my vote will remain "option A". Bus stop (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Respect to you as well 'Bus stop'. Just to clarify, the reference above to tripe was not to your comment but to the "Renegade Tribune's" content. The majority of editors in this section express support for B.  Perhaps the reference to Epstein's Jewish parents was deleted earlier by 'Activist' due to lack of citation?  It is not clear.  This is why I made an effort to restore the information, in some form, with the new citation.  'My very best wishes' made the point below that the earlier citations did not state that his "parents were Jewish."  This is true.  They mostly use qualifiers.  The latest piece published by the Forward "What We Know About Jeffrey Epstein’s Childhood" did more directly address the subject (and that many relatives perished in the holocaust) rather than simply adding a qualifier of Jewish in front of his name.  The Childhood article also pointed to the deeper source: coverage of Epstein's upbringing in the book Filthy Rich.  My logic in restoring it into the middle of the Early life section was that it would be less prominent, one detail among many in his early life. Exact placement within the paragraph is not important. Kindest Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Option B, of course, similar to what we do for all prominent Jews whose notability is not connected with Judaism. He is neither a rabbi nor a notable Jewish activist, but on the other hand, he does not have an anodyne, vague "Caucasian" ethnic identity. He is a Jew, and discussed as such by several Jewish reliable sources. Mention it and cite it but do not make a big deal out of it. This is just another of countless examples where the moderate, matter-of-fact path is best for the encylopedia. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Option B, "Jewish" is not just a religion but an ethnicity, and Wikipedia commonly adds the ethnicity of persons on their biographies, its honestly absurd that we are discussing this. -- Pedro8790 (talk) 07:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Option B is closer, but it must be sourced. Current references ([7] and [8]) do not tell that "his parents were Jewish". My very best wishes (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Option B seems reasonable and within the bounds of normal practice, so long as it is reliably sourced. Einstein was Jewish. Indra Nooyi is Indian. Levi Strauss was German. I'm not sure there's any generally accepted standard for omitting someone's ethnicity/heritage/lineage/whatever-you-want-to-call-it just because the person is implicated in a crime. We don't seem to have any qualms about discussing Al Capone's Italian heritage.  G M G  talk  13:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "We don't seem to have any qualms about discussing Al Capone's Italian heritage." I think you are comparing Anti-Italianism and Antisemitism. They are similar in some ways but distinct in some ways. Bus stop (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I'm just comparing our treatment of ethnicity/heritage/etc in biographies. That the group is the subject of prejudice, discrimination, or even genocide isn't terribly relevant to across-the-board editorial standards. We similarly don't avoid (as far as I am aware) identifying individuals as being First Nation, Armenian, or Rwandan on the basis of these groups being the subject of large scale historical and/or modern discrimination and violence.  G M G  talk  14:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Option B Simple that we follow MOS:ETHNICITY and don't add religion or ethnicity to the lede unless it is pertinent in defining the person, which in this case it is not. Pursuing any other course would first involve getting those rules to change. It is pretty clear Epstein is Jewish by the name, and for those not sure, it is right in the first article paragraph. StonyBrook (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Option B, provided we actually have the relevant sourcing. While his religion is completely unrelated to his notability and absolutely does not belong in the lead or anywhere else that it isn't specifically focused on by high-quality mainstream sources, it is a relevant part of his early life, of equal weight to the other bits we usually mention in a brief early life summary, and is worth a one-word mention there in passing (but no more.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Option B there is no reason to put it in the lead and there is no reason to remove it from early life section.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Double Standard ( & censoring of this talk page)
User:Cullen328 doesn't seem to like that a possible double standard is made transparent that some authors have when it comes to mentioning or omitting “Jewishness”. Here [] he immediately removed my contribution. My comments have not been a NOTAFORUM as Cullen328 tried to imply. Why censoring instead of answering in this talk page? BalancedIssues (talk) 09:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * BalancedIssues—you say "Why censoring instead of answering in this talk page?" It is important that we remove extraneous rants. I will assume for a moment that there is a "double standard". You would raise that issue elsewhere. Assuming still further your claim was sustained, it would have impact here. Now, you might be wondering—where might you raise your issue? I would suggest the WP:VILLAGEPUMP. Your posts are getting removed at this Talk page because they are off-topic. We aren't discussing general issues. This is the Talk page of a specific article on one specific individual. Bus stop (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As you might be aware, it is very important among some anti-Semitic contexts to ensure that Jews are labeled as such, whether it's biographically significant or not, and we've had a parade of banned editors making new accounts to make sure that happens here. Accordingly, we tend to treat demands for prominent mention with skepticism.  Acroterion   (talk)   14:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * @Acroterion, I welcome your general "skepticism" because this is usually a sensitive topic. Allow me to clarify that I did not promote "prominent mentions" of Jewishness but I expressed my problems just omitting it in this article as some seem to propose.BalancedIssues (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * @Bus Stop, you may need to cool down when accusing me of being off-topic and ranting. Obviously you are the one promoting a bias when wishing to "omit mention of Jewishness from the article". Have a look at most of the other comments if you are in doubt. Also, you didn’t explain why your personal (biased?) wish to omit the mention of Jewishness in this article is "on-topic" and my hint that behavior like this would produce a double standard is "off-topic". Your proposal to remove my comments seem to be rant-like so one should ask you to be more civil.BalancedIssues (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, if you think Bus stop's post above is uncivil, then I fear you will find Wikipedia a shocking and frightful place. It's often a good idea to start with less controversial articles before diving in to active brouhahas.  Just a thought.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * BalancedIssues—in this edit you say "There seems to be an obvious double standard in Wikipedia about the mentioning of Jewishness." Does that belong on the Jeffrey Epstein page? I apologize for referring to your post as a "rant". But the validity or incorrectness of that charge would be addressed elsewhere. I suggested the village pump but there are probably other appropriate places. If you ask at the village pump you could ask if this is the most appropriate place for your question. Someone might suggest a forum other than the village pump but I don't think they would suggest you raise that specific issue at this specific article.You say Also, you didn’t explain why your personal (biased?) wish to omit the mention of Jewishness in this article is "on-topic" and my hint that behavior like this would produce a double standard is "off-topic". For an obvious reason—the bulk of the article is related to criminality. And none of the criminality is related to Jewishness. This is in contrast to Madoff, whose criminality involved affinity fraud. Reliable sources are saying that Madoff exploited an "affinity" between himself as a Jew and those Jews who entrusted him with their money. We do not have that relationship between the alleged criminality of Jeffrey Epstein and his Jewishness. In the absence of a connection between the alleged crimes and Jewishness, the insertion of Jewishness into this article is only gratuitous and it is misleading because it implies a relationship between Jewishness and lasciviousness. Bus stop (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * This is irrelevant, there is nothing on Wikipedia rules saying that the ethnicity of persons should be ommitted if the bulk of the article is related to criminality, and besides, if he was, say, of German or Italian descent, would be so insistent in removing his ethnicity? -- Pedro8790 (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Pedro8790—I did not use the word "ethnicity". Bus stop (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * But Jews are an ethnicity though. -- Pedro8790 (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That would depend on context. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Pedro8790—can one convert to an ethnicity? Bus stop (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bus stop, your assertation that “the bulk of the article is related to criminality” may either be appropriate, or otherwise should trigger changes in the article balance (more subsections and content in “Career” compared to “Criminal Proceedings” would be suitable, I guess) but reported criminal behavior of an individual doesn’t change the fact whether or not that individual is Jewish.

If Jewishness is mentioned in this article (like in the other articles about Jewish individuals) it doesn’t mean that Epstein’s criminal behavior is caused or connected to his Jewishness as you seem to imply. The mentioning of Jewishness in all articles about Jewish Nobel laureates also doesn’t imply that Jewishness “caused” the Nobel prices and nobody would think about eliminating the mentioning of Jewishness because of the special fact that there have been Nobel prices awarded. But not everybody here seems open-minded enough to understand my hint to a double standard if reporting of Jewishness is promoted for individuals with “positive” achievements and is to be eliminated as soon as “negative” reporting for that individual are surfacing.BalancedIssues (talk) 05:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The article says he has Jewish parents. It puts him in the categories of American Jew and Jewish philanthropists. So his "Jewishness" as you put it, is mentioned in the article. What exactly is it you want this article to say so that it is "balanced"? Railfan23 (talk) 05:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I would put more weight on the "Career" section as I said BalancedIssues (talk) 05:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding well-sourced information to the Career section of the article would be appropriate. But what on earth has that got to do with the long, tedious discussion about "Jewishness"? Absolutely nothing. If you want to propose additions to the Career section, backed with appropriate reliable sources then do so. Railfan23 (talk) 05:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure I will do that. Btw, it is not my fault that some argue for suppression of facts or (inadvertently) introduce double standards for this article.BalancedIssues (talk) 05:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * BalancedIssues—I will guess the reference is to me about "suppression of facts". I am concerned about misleading implications therefore I will choose "option A". Bus stop (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What sources are supporting your "misleading implications"?--BalancedIssues (talk) 11:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The comparison of Jewishness to Prysbeterianism does not make sense. More to compare it to Christianity or at least Protestantism. However Jewishness is an ethno-religious identification. We have Jewish Christians and Jewish Buddhists and Jewish athiests in ways we do not have such overlapping with other religious identities. On the other hand if we want to get into misleading headlines we always have the Arizona "Sunday school teacher for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints arrested for having sex with student", the problem was the although every word in the headline was true, the person was arrested for having sex with a student he connected with in his capacity as a public school teacher, not a Sunday school teacher. Another even more egrigious case was the 20-year-old young men's presidency secretary arrested in Arizona for having sex with a 14-year-old who he had known for several years. Secretaries are not leadership per se, it is a post that keeps notes and can act as a general goffer for the organization, and to understand why a 20-yuear-old had this position you have to realize that almost all adults in a congregation of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who regularly or even semi-regularly attend services have some position. Also the dynamics of 20 year olds having sex with 14 year olds are just not the same as 30 year olds or 50 year olds doing the same, even if the legal issues are the same.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ethnicity is normally in the lead. Do we really know enough about Epstein's victims to say they were "primarily non-Jewish whites", to begin with after 50 plus years of intermarriage, in the US is the ethnic line between Jewish and non-Jewish very clear. There are whole debates about "who is a Jew". Epstein is said to have "hundreds of victims". It is not clear if more than 10 have been publicly identified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ethnicity is normally in the lead: yes, but some editors prefer to omit it here. Victims: you would need a reliable source for that.--BalancedIssues (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Consensus (on more unbiased options)
The main obvious options were somehow missing in the former consensus section. As everything may have cooled down maybe there is a sensible discussion possible. It would be advantageous if editors feeling biased concerning this very issue would consider refraining - to have a less emotional and more logical discussion.

A) Mention Epstein's ethnicity (per source)

B) Don't mention Epstein's ethnicity but his parent's ethnicity (per source)

C) Don't mention Epstein's and his parent's ethnicity

--BalancedIssues (talk) 05:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Option A) - because there is no reason to omit reported facts and because those facts are published by reputable sources (not even considering the fact that Epstein centered a lot of his life about being part of the Jewish community, and much more than average members of this community). Is there really no editor "feeling unbiased" seeing this discussion? Or is it more that nobody wants to be attacked or even bad-mouthed as "anti-semitic" just because of "not-hiding" the facts? --BalancedIssues (talk) 11:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Improper RFC. RFCs are required to be neutrally-worded, which this one plainly is not - implicitly accusing editors of bias and dismissing the well-reasoned, policy-based arguments above as not being less emotional and more logical discussion in an RFC description is improper.  Beyond that, the distinction between "mentioning Epstein's ethnicity" and "mentioning his parent's ethnicity" (which obviously implies his ethnicity) is unclear.  It feels as if this RFC is using an awkward wording to beg the question of how much attention to give his ethnicity, which the tone and discussion of the previous RFC clearly covers already (and is clearly reaching a consensus on.)  For the record, I think one sentence mentioning his parents' ethnicity is the best way to handle it, aside from the one other mention in the article from where his attorneys brought it up. --Aquillion (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Since when is "implying" (instead of "describing") the new Wikipedia standard to write articles?
 * In what respect is A) B) C) not neutrally worded?
 * Do you really think it is wrong to propose that editors feeling biased do refrain from commenting?--BalancedIssues (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I now think that the username "BalancedIssues" has problems with WP:USERNAME. It seems to imply that anyone who disagrees with this user's position in a debate is biased in some way. This is backed up by repeated talk page comments implying that other users are biased. This is not how to win friends and influence people on a talk page.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 04:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You answer none of the three questions. Instead you try to attack but with no real argumentation.--BalancedIssues (talk) 05:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you think that I am biased when editing this article? I've been patient on this issue, but cannot listen to repeated comments implying that editors including myself are biased.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Editors should be able to assess for themselves if they are biased concerning a topic, so it is funny you ask me. I can state for myself that I am not biased concerning the issue whether "Jewishness" is to be mentioned or omitted in Wikipedia articles as I am neither affiliated with the Jewish community nor with any community that might have an adversary relationship with the Jewish community. Your proposal to "win friends" instead of having good arguments is also a bit awkward. But let's assume you have "befriended" user Aquillion enough, would you now comment on the issue like answer my three questions? --BalancedIssues (talk) 07:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm out of this RfC, because it is based on a flawed and non-neutral premise, as has already pointed out.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 08:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that asking editors who feel biased to consider refraining from this consensus would have this effect of zero real participants (apart from having users like ianmacm emotionally ejecting and exiting himself). Inviting editors who feel biased is also no solution. So I will have to explore where is the right spot in Wikipedia to ask for participation. --BalancedIssues (talk) 12:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Anybody notice the similarties between Epstain and the Rysqulbekov case?
Hello fellow Wikipedians. I was skimming through some of my old articles and came across the one about Qairat Rysqulbekov. While obviously they were both obviously arrested for very different things (Qairat Rysqulbekov being a Kazakh dissident in the USSR and Epstein being a multi-millionare human trafficker), there seem to to quite a few similarities in the circumstances of their (unrelated) deaths. Worthy of noting in article?--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 12:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Are the similiarties between Epstein and Qairat Rysqulbekov mentioned in any reliable sources? If not is probably not worth mentioning.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 14:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Jeffery Epstein Murdered
Jeffery Epstein was murdered period. Dr Mike Baden fox news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.74.23 (talk) 12:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * This is based on the Fox News source here. It does not say that "Epstein was murdered period", but questions the nature of his three neck fractures. The Fox article says "While there’s not enough information to be conclusive yet, the three fractures were “rare.”"-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Fox is RS, but it's all over the news. Here is NYT if that's preferred (however as can be seen in the RfC above, the NYT was found to produce misinformation and has not corrected the piece, though they were informed 3 weeks ago - not very impressive) Epstein’s Autopsy ‘Points to Homicide,’ Pathologist Hired by Brother Claims -- The New York City medical examiner strongly disputed the claim that evidence from the autopsy suggested strangulation. It would make sense to add this conclusion to the article.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   22:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I think this should be added. After all we already quote other people talking about possible homicide. We currently mention Dr. Baden in the "Autopsy" section, saying this:
 * "Epstein's estate independent pathologist, Michael Baden, who was at the examination, was unable to discuss the result, since, as of August 16, he was bound by a gag order from the medical examiner office and Epstein's estate.[259]"

It would appear that the information in the article is out of date, since he is now discussing it. We could remove that sentence, and instead put something at the end of the paragraph along the lines of "Michael Baden, an independent pathologist hired by the Epstein estate, observed the autopsy. On October 31 he said that in his opinion the autopsy findings were more consistent with homicidal strangulation rather than suicide.(reference)" Would that be OK with everybody? -- MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The language is neutral and accurate. StonyBrook (talk) 01:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That would likely be the most neutral way of phrasing it, though I quibble slightly with the wording (but it can be tweaked later). &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 01:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Casual passer-by here who was looking at the recent Baden quotes and was surprised the article is stale as the article mentions Baden, who is a very prominent individual in the field, but has nothing about his latest statements. 2600:1700:1111:5940:52E:4981:73FA:C700 (talk) 04:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I added it. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2019
Please change: "The medical examiner ruled the death a suicide,[13] although Epstein's lawyers have disputed the ruling.[14][15]"

To: "The medical examiner ruled the death a suicide,[13] although Epstein's lawyers have disputed the ruling.[14][15]" On October 30th, Dr. Michael Baden (former NYC Medical Examiner) described Epstein's injuries as being more likely to have been caused by homicide. . Lcdrtomdodge (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * ❌: See the section above. Baden described Epstein's three neck fractures as "rare". The NYT source says "Several medical officials cautioned against relying solely on the broken hyoid as evidence of strangulation. “It’s not a slam dunk,” Marcella Sorg, a forensic anthropologist, said in an interview. She said a broken hyoid is “a sign of neck trauma” that can occur in both strangulation and hanging cases. Dr. Burton Bentley II, the head of Elite Medical Experts, a consulting firm based in Arizona, echoed that skepticism. “It’s not a hundred percent,” he said. “It’s not even going to get us to ninety.”" Baden's comments have picked up a lot of media coverage, but there is a need to put them in perspective with the views of other medical experts.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 06:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Hanging or strangulation? as cause of death?
Should say hanging or Murder by strangulation by unknown party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.95.120 (talk) 13:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * See the section above. It is largely Michael Baden who has put forward the theory about the neck fractures pointing to murder, but other experts are not convinced. The current wording in the infobox is "Hanging or strangulation (disputed)" which seems to cover all the bases.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry ...
... about my bad html tonight ... --MIB4u (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Additional category
What about Category:People of the United States intelligence agencies as an additional category, going by several sources already given in the article, such as Evening Standard and Daily Beast? Note these sources are not only talking about Epstein's own claims but also claims made by judges presiding over him that they have been officially told such via internal governmental or inter-government channels. In the past, further reliable sources on the issue (also linking him to the Iran–Contra affair) have been brought fourth (among them also Law & Crime, the Washington Examiner, The Observer, Democracy Now!, Institute for Public Accuracy, Vanity Fair (magazine), New York (magazine), The Raw Story, and CounterPunch) here on this talkpage (all of which is archived by now), but back then those were deemed as "only a few sources" and "not enough".

If the problem is that there's only allegations (allegations that, BTW, have even had very real and tangible legal consequences in his case, as such that they have even been given as official reasons for his legal treatment) and no substantial proof, do we also have something like a category for alleged personnel? --2003:EF:13DB:3B60:64E1:AE94:AC82:BB7 (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion, but I would say no. Way too vague, just hints here and there, and no reliable sourcing. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Great St. James
Epstein owned two neighboring properties in the US Virgin Islands, having purchased Little St. James in 1998 and Great St. James in 2016. --93.211.222.200 (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes. That is true. The material is already in the article under residences. Thank you for mentioning the material. --Guest2625 (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:DAILYMAIL applies here
Just as a reminder, we can't use dailymail.com as a source here. --The Huhsz (talk) 10:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Re this edit: it uses the The Mail on Sunday which for most practical purposes is a separate newspaper with its own editorial team. As a British person, I can vouch for the statement that the The Mail on Sunday is not anything like as much utter BS as the Daily Mail, but it might still be seen as a tabloid source.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't claim to be an authority on the relative merits of the daily versus the Sunday editions of the newspaper, but as www.mailonsunday.co.uk mirrors the content of the main newspaper's site, I think they are within the purview of WP:DAILYMAIL. As you mention, they are also tabloids, and so would also breach WP:BDP on this article. I'm not automatically against including the material, but I think a far better source would need to be found. --The Huhsz (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above editor that the The Mail on Sunday is not the same publication as the Daily Mail and that it has its own editorial group. If there is a wish to remove either reference, a separate discussion for each of the references and their associated content can be started on the talk page below. Any serious biographer or reader of Epstein's life would have the first biographical sketch of Epstein (1992) in the printed press on their reading list. --Guest2625 (talk) 03:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If stories in The Mail on Sunday were being published in The Sunday Telegraph, they would probably be OK. But Paul Dacre's handling of the Daily Mail led to the brand being seen as toxic. I suppose we have to mention the famous Japanese porn story here.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hence the project's adoption of WP:DAILYMAIL. --The Huhsz (talk) 07:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm re-establishing the original talk page structure, (see this edit) before an individual changed the structure. On another board where policy was discussed concerning whether the Mail on Sunday was the same newspaper as the Daily Mail, the consensus was reached that they were separate newspapers with their own editorial boards. Therefore, the automatic removal policy of WP:Dailmaily does not apply. As I stated before at issue is a content dispute. While we work out what modifications we wish to make to the article here on the talk page, I will re-establish the old version of the article which had half a year of established consensus and is free of the erroneous blanket policy alteration that used WP:DailyMail. This follows standard procedure which is to retain the stable old consensus version of the article, while modification and new consensus is discussed on the talk page. If anyone wishes to contribute to the policy dispute concerning the Mail on Sunday and the Daily Mail they can go to the linked board where a number of editors have discussed this topic. Speaking as an editor involved in that discussion, I apologize for not making the other editors and readers on this talk page aware of that discussion and providing the appropriate link to the board.

As before, I wish to break down the content dispute into parts for each of the references and material that has garnered concern. I have started below the discussion concerning the reference which is to Jeffrey Epstein's first biography from 1992 in the printed press. That discussion in fact is already ongoing. Elizium23 it's good to see some new editors on this page. I felt that your subsection was best kept in this talk section since it involves policy; however, if you think there is a more appropriate location please go ahead and place it there. It is obviously each of our own rights to place new sections on the talk page where we choose and it makes sense to everyone else. I'm looking forward to discussing these different references and with a new larger group of editors. Many of us here have already been hashing through these reference issues for quite some time. --Guest2625 (talk) 02:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It might be wise for someone uninvolved in the WP:ANI discussion to tell us what the 'consensus' there was. If indeed there was a consensus at all. Given that decisions as to the merits of a source are outside the remit of WP:ANI anyway, I see no reason to see the discussion as to the merits of the Sunday Mail as a source to be resolved in the slightest. That would require wider participation, in a more appropriate place. 86.143.229.179 (talk) 03:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes. The consensus on that policy board was that the Mail on Sunday is not the same newspaper as the Daily Mail, and that it has its own independent editorial board. Therefore, the blanket ban of WP:Dailymail does not apply. This is an important policy determination, since it allows us to move forward to a content discussion of the benefits of removing specific material from the article, as we have started below for the first reference. If you wish an independent determination of what the consensus was on the board, which I linked to above, that is fine. Also, if you wish to utilize a more appropriate board to determine whether the blanket ban of WP:Dailymail applies to the Mail on Sunday, that is fine with me. Where do you think we should go to get a consensus opinion on whether the Mail on Sunday applies under the blanket ban of WP:Dailmail, so that you will feel more comfortable moving forward with a content discussion? You may note that on the above mentioned board I already asked for a link to such an appropriate board or place. I am not so familiar with these policy boards and intricacies. I prefer spending my time with content creation and discussion. --Guest2625 (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Again, WP:ANI is not a 'policy board' for discussions regarding sourcing. It does not make such determinations on sourcing. No such determination has been made. As for content discussion, yes, I suggest you move on - by responding to the comments made below in the section you started earlier, where multiple contributors have made it clear that they do not think the source being cited should be used for the material being cited. Such arguments are still valid regardless of whether a blanket ban on the Sunday Mail should exist, and need to be addressed. 86.143.229.179 (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * So, then for this section of the talk page we don't have a resolution yet. The issue being specifically whether the policy WP:Dailymail applies to the Mail on Sunday. Where should the two of us go to resolve this issue? Do you think the reliable source board would be able to let us know whether the Mail on Sunday is covered by WP:Dailymail? This is a serious question. I actual don't know where to ask about the details of the WP:Dailymail policy determination. As far as I can tell, WP:Dailymail is a blanket ban, and the material can be removed without any discussion and without gaining consensus. This is an important question that needs to be resolved, since if WP:Dailymail applies, technically we do not even need a content discussion. Also, WP:Dailymail is the reason why we do not have the status quo form of the article as would be standard procedure in a content modification discussion. So what board should the two of us go to to resolve our issue? --Guest2625 (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * This isn't a dispute between 'the two of us'. Multiple people have discussed in the section you started why they think the Mail on Sunday shouldn't be cited for the material it is being used for. I suggest you respond there, and try to work towards a consensus, as instructed, rather than trying to Wikilawyer the article back to a state that is clearly contrary to the majority of opinions stated. 86.143.229.179 (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes. This was a dispute between the two of us regarding whether the Mail on Sunday fell under the blanket ban of WP:Dailymail. After being misdirected to the wrong board, as you note, I believe I found the right board that is the reliable source board. I posted the question [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Does_WP:Dailymail_apply_to_the_Mail_on_Sunday "Does WP:Dailymail apply to the Mail on Sunday?" over on that board]. The consensus is that WP:Dailymail does not apply to the Mail on Sunday. Therefore, while we discuss the merits of the material that an editor wishes to remove from the article the version of the article that should be up is the old status quo version from before the edit warring. The reversion utilizing WP:Dailymail as an explanation was a good faith error and should be undone, while the content under dispute is discussed below.

You might think I'm wikilawyering, but I'm not. Wikilawyering is when you throw out a stream of WP:"this and that" and attempt to get the upper hand in an argument without clearly and concisely stating your argument. A wikilawyer hides behind Byzantine boards and policy that us noob writers don't know. If you know the policy, use it wisely and fairly. On the first board, that I was directed to, I came across this nice simple diagram by the editor Awilley that explains the community consensus process: At the moment we have the problem concerning two sources and the content of the sources. The action desired is the removal of the sources. Problem:
 * First reference:
 * [ref name=":21"][/ref]
 * Second reference and content:
 * [ref name=":18"][/ref]


 * A porter who worked next door to Epstein's house on the Upper East Side of Manhattan in 2000 stated to The Mail on Sunday in reference to people coming and going from Epstein's house that "I often see Donald Trump and there are loads of models coming and going, mostly at night. It's amazing he's got so many ladies, as Mr Epstein, and always has a new one on his arm, it seems."[ref name=":18" /]

The discussion concerning the first reference has begun below. Why the editor, The Huhsz, wishes to rush to remove material from the article that has been there for half a year is beyond me. He says on the policy board, that I was directed to, that he is confident that he will gain consensus for its removal, so why not just wait for that new consensus as is standard procedure? --Guest2625 (talk) 08:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that this is still beyond you. It seems really clear to me. Consensus is not determined by counting votes, but as far as I am aware no other editor has supported restoring this material. On the other side, here we've had me, 86.143.229.179,, ; and at AN/I , , and , who all agree that this is not a good source for the material it was supporting. That's seven. In addition, JzG has placed the article under a restriction which requires you to demonstrate consensus before restoring the material. I don't think you're going to be able to do that. In addition,  has now identified other serious problems with the article's sourcing. In case it might help you to understand - if I understand correctly, this poorly sourced material has been in the article since "half a year" ago; that takes us back to the time when the subject was still alive. It isn't acceptable to use poorly sourced material like this on an article about someone alive, because it may harm them. The subject of this article killed himself, and it's a (slim) possibility that he may have read this article with its sleazy salacious rumours sourced to a tabloid, before he killed himself. For me, that is crossing an enormous red line common to most value- and belief-systems, expressed in various ways including the Hippocratic oath. A Wikipedia essay about it is here. --The Huhsz (talk) 17:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Guest2625, nobody else is going to restore the article to version prior to the removal of the Mail on Sunday source, because there is no consensus to do so. If you restore it yourself, since it is clear that such an edit would be contrary to the current consensus, you will very likely find yourself sanctioned under the arbitration remedies you have been notified of. This all that needs to be said on the matter, unless and until you can get agreement to make such a change. I am not interested in further debate, except in as much as it directly relates to the merits of specific edits in improving the article, takes place in the appropriate section of this talk page (i.e. with regard to the Mail on Sunday material, in the section below you started on the topic), and directly responds as necessary to comments made by others. 86.143.229.179 (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * At the moment, we don't have an agreement as to which version should be up, while we are having a content discussion below. According to standard procedure, the version of the article from before the edit warring, which was the status quo version, should be up. Unfortunately, this is not the case. At this point, I can be bold and place the article in the correct state, while we discuss the content change desired, or we can seek the help of some outside policy or help boards. I would have to study those boards and locations to determine which would be the best one. If you guys know, I would gladly go along with you to the appropriate board. It is always great to have help in these bureaucratic processes.


 * I do want to make it clear that I am not being pedantic or seeking to waste anyone's time. The diagram above indicates why this procedural question is important. If the content discussion below does not obtain consensus for exclusion, then the status quo version of the article before the edit warring will stand. This is procedurally and content wise the correct and fair action. Therefore, the right to be bold or to continue this procedural discussion will remain until there is a final vote concerning the action of whether to remove material. Procedural fairness in the removal process is important in the much broader question of censorship and how wikipedia approaches it. --Guest2625 (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I have made my position clear, and am not going to engage with your Wikilawyering nonsense over supposed 'procedural questions' that nobody else considers of the slightest relevance any further. 86.143.229.179 (talk) 05:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Should the porter's statement (2000) concerning Trump often visiting Epstein's townhouse be excluded?
An editor wishes to exclude the following reference and content from the article:


 * Second reference and content:
 * [ref name=":18"][/ref]


 * A porter who worked next door to Epstein's house on the Upper East Side of Manhattan in 2000 stated to The Mail on Sunday in reference to people coming and going from Epstein's house that "I often see Donald Trump and there are loads of models coming and going, mostly at night. It's amazing he's got so many ladies, as Mr Epstein, and always has a new one on his arm, it seems."[ref name=":18" /]

I believe the reference is solid and the content should remain. I believe a number of questions should be asked when determining if this source is reliable. Such as: Do you believe that the writer of the article is being dishonest about the content of the article? That is, do you believe that the journalist Jon Clarke made up the fact that he spoke to a porter and that the porter stated what the journalist attributed to him? Also, do you believe that the porter was truthful when they stated they saw Trump often visit Epstein's New York City townhouse?

It is not evident to me why the journalist Jon Clarke would lie about having spoken to a porter, who told him Trump often visited Epstein's townhouse. Also, it seems strange that a random porter would lie, and just state out of the blue, that they often saw Trump entering Epstein's townhouse at night. Given that I do not see the logic for either of the two people to lie, I stick with not removing the content. --Guest2625 (talk) 03:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Please read Reliable sources. Criteria for usage of a particular source do not revolve around contributors making subjective judgements about whether a writer has been 'dishonest'. And why are you asserting that 'an editor wishes' to make an edit that has already been made? If you want to gain consensus to revert the edit, say so directly. 86.143.229.179 (talk) 04:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Find a RS. Only then can we consider including it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that even with an RS it would need to be included. The article already makes Epstein's frequent interactions with Donald Trump abundantly clear. Trump is currently mentioned 20 or so times already. 86.143.229.179 (talk) 06:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Should the Jeffrey Epstein biography (1992) reference be excluded?
An editor wishes to exclude the following reference from the article:


 * First reference:
 * [ref name=":21"][/ref]

I see no reason to exclude this reference. In fact, this is a pivotal reference as it is the first biographical sketch (1992) in the printed press about Jeffrey Epstein. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Early coverage is in fact rarely of the best quality. EEng 17:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As discussed above, there are two main reasons to exclude this. The first is the general deprecation of the Daily Mail by our community, and the second is the particular insistence on high-quality sources for subjects who are still alive or have recently died. As this source breaches both, it would need an extraordinarily powerful reason to be used. A mention on Reddit isn't a reason, and neither is it being the first biographical sketch about the subject. --The Huhsz (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * If even the Mail on Sunday doesn't believe such claims (which is what "outrageous" implies, and the source goes on to describe the claims as "rumour") it doesn't belong in a biography, full stop. There are plenty of sources on Epstein that actually purport to be reporting facts, rather than repeating tall stories. 86.143.229.179 (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The Daily Mail consistently refers to Epstein as a "paedophile". Epstein had no interest in pre-pubescent females and was not a pedophile. The Daily Mail is definitely not a reliable source. MartiniShaw (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The issue of the WP:Dailymail blanket ban is not of concern here, since we are discussing the Mail on Sunday, which based on the reliable source board is not the same thing as the Daily Mail. However, you are correct in your statement that Jeffrey Epstein was not technically a paedophile. And, it shows poor editorship to include a technically incorrect term in an article. I did a search of the wikipedia article for Jeffrey Epstein and did not find that term in it. However, unfortunately, the term did appear in the article's reference section. A few articles from The Independent, The Daily Beast, Gawker, New York (magazine), and New York Post contain that word in their titles. Given that the term is in the reference section and not the article, I believe that is fine. --Guest2625 (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * It is not fine. The Huhsz (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I would not include the Daily or Sunday Mail unless a reliable independent source calls out their reporting as specifically relevant or important. For example, if Private Eye's Street of Shame were to congratulate them on having correctly called this against opposition and / or litigation, I'd consider that worthwhile. To the best of my knowledge, that didn't happen. Guy (help!) 19:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * It should probably be noted that the only material the Mail on Sunday is being cited for is also supported by a citation from the Evening Standard. A Mail citation (to an article which makes it clear that it is repeating "rumour" about a person of which "little is known") would seem unnecessary on the face of it. Which then leaves the question as to whether Wikipedia should be reporting Epstein's sometime claims to be some sort of 'spy' back in the 1980s at all. Frankly, I can't see why it should, given that they are unverified, and apparently later retracted. Epstein seems to have made all sorts of unverified and fanciful claims about his past, and picking out the 'espionage' ones for special treatment seems to me to be tabloidish at best, and possibly pandering to later conspiracy theories about Epstein at worst. 86.143.229.179 (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * We would never use a source with the poor reputation of this one on any encyclopedia article. We would especially never use it on an article about someone alive or who had recently died. Having a feeling for this sort of thing is kind of important in editing an encyclopedia. The DAILYMAIL rule was meant to make it simpler to explain to people who don't, won't or can't understand this. Seemingly on this occasion it has failed. That doesn't mean it is ok to restore this salacious gossip to the article. It never will be. --The Huhsz (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

'Epstein owned a private Boeing 727 jet, nicknamed the "Lolita Express"...'
This is cited to Newsweek. The source however doesn't explain who gave the aircraft that name, and neither does Wikipedia, making it perhaps appear that Epstein himself used it. As an earlier Newsweek article indicates, the nickname was in fact given by Saint James locals, and I think this needs to be made clear, if the name is mentioned at all (I'm not entirely sure it merits it, really). I can't edit the article myself (for reasons I fully understand), but it should be a simple enough to fix the citation and tweak the wording, and I can't see it being controversial. 86.143.229.179 (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and added the material about the origin of the nickname. If you want the material worded differently, just post the corrected wording below. --Guest2625 (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Virginia Giuffre and Bill Clinton

 * The following discussion 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.

Should the article include or exclude the following text related to Virginia Giuffre and Bill Clinton? —  Newslinger  talk   20:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: The correct spelling of Virginia's last name is Giuffre, not Guiffre. Some of the excerpts below (and some reliable sources) contain misspellings. —  Newslinger  talk   23:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Giuffre's claims regarding Clinton

 * The following discussion 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.

A – Removed in Special:Diff/920457099:

B – Added in Special:Diff/920948666:

Survey (Giuffre's claims regarding Clinton)

 * A This is neutral, informative representation of the sources; with a nod to, I would support leaning heavily on full quotations with in-text attribution. ''iVote changed from "either", however I'm also happy with some version of B   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   01:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no justification in the PAG's to exclude Guiffre's testimony. WP:BLP: document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects. It is well-supported by RS:
 * Law and Crime FORBES CNN TIME AP VICE NY Mag The Cut Chicago Tribune Fox8
 * There are normally three men mentioned in the Epstein story; media almost always mentions that Epstein was friends with big wigs, and the examples most often cited are: Trump, Clinton and Prince Andrew. For context, scan the "Personal life" section for names of politicians. We have included (albeit with much updating to do) all notable allegations. Note as well that we already have rebuttals about any visit to the island: and Secret Service stated that there is no evidence of the former President making a trip to Epstein's private island & At the time of Epstein's 2019 arrest, Clinton's spokeswoman Angel Ureña stated that Clinton ... has never been to Little St. James Island.  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   22:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There are normally three men mentioned in the Epstein story; media almost always mentions that Epstein was friends with big wigs, and the examples most often cited are: Trump, Clinton and Prince Andrew. For context, scan the "Personal life" section for names of politicians. We have included (albeit with much updating to do) all notable allegations. Note as well that we already have rebuttals about any visit to the island: and Secret Service stated that there is no evidence of the former President making a trip to Epstein's private island & At the time of Epstein's 2019 arrest, Clinton's spokeswoman Angel Ureña stated that Clinton ... has never been to Little St. James Island.  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   22:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There are normally three men mentioned in the Epstein story; media almost always mentions that Epstein was friends with big wigs, and the examples most often cited are: Trump, Clinton and Prince Andrew. For context, scan the "Personal life" section for names of politicians. We have included (albeit with much updating to do) all notable allegations. Note as well that we already have rebuttals about any visit to the island: and Secret Service stated that there is no evidence of the former President making a trip to Epstein's private island & At the time of Epstein's 2019 arrest, Clinton's spokeswoman Angel Ureña stated that Clinton ... has never been to Little St. James Island.  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   22:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * B - but I'm of the mind that we need in-text attribution with direct speech (quoted) from the source for such an exceptional claim, and the allegation should be corroborated by other RS. Example: The Miami Herald article states Virginia Roberts Giuffre ...testified that Epstein once had a dinner for Bill Clinton on his island, Little St. James, off the coast of St. Thomas.  We can verify that published statement with court documents. Atsme  Talk 📧 12:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Combine A works very well, but just add the bit about the helicopter from B to A HAL  333  21:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * B, think that three sources aren't enough to pass through WP:UNDUE, possible WP:SYNTHESIS. The conclusion that might be obtained by any rational reader does not appear to be stated as fact in any of the sources. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page)  23:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (Giuffre's claims regarding Clinton)

 * I would agree that some version of A works, and the helicopter is already mentioned, . A general note: There is no shortage of sourcing. To remove the claim about Clinton but leave Trump's section intact rings of WP:CHERRYPICKING and creates a POV issue. Wikipedia was accused of pro-Clinton POV at this article in early July. Jimmy Wales (who called it a false rumor) was bothered so much on Twitter, he ended up attempting to fix the problem himself. Around that time, an editor at this page suggested, When the spotlight's off Epstein, the Clinton mentions can be edited out like they should be. He was given a warning for trolling. From what I have observed, editors have since then have agreed to leave information meeting WP:RS, when accurately represented, in the article, and have made sure to include, and not disallow, both sides of the story when possible. This is why no one has ever complained about the addition of A, and why it has been live for over two months (granted, with the inclusion of the problematic NYT piece), with no claims any of it was poorly sourced or WP:UNDUE.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   01:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll write up a version that includes all suggestions above, perhaps we can add a version C on which everyone can agree.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   22:35, 31 October 2019 (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.

The New York Times's claim regarding Giuffre

 * The following discussion 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.

A – Removed in Special:Diff/919992232:

B – Added in Special:Diff/920948666:

Survey (The New York Times's claim regarding Giuffre)

 * Exclude both A and B per my previous comment on the reliable sources noticeboard. This is an exceptional claim that is only supported by a vague sentence from The New York Timess article. An examination of the Epstein documents (387MB PDF version), the underlying primary source, failed to reveal information that could be used to support this text. As with any exceptional claim, we need multiple high-quality reliable sources to substantiate this claim before it can be included into the article. —  Newslinger ' talk   20:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Exclude both A and B The argument at this page has been whether to include the NYT and how to summarize it. The NYT's "a claim" clearly does not specify which claim (others have agreed); per WP:OR we cannot do that here. Version B is a non-statement and I see no reason to include it.  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   21:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Exclude both A and B - for the reasons stated above, and because information has/is coming forward like what's in this NPR article. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 11:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Exclude both A and B does not appear this strongly in the actual article HAL  333  21:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (The New York Times's claim regarding Giuffre)

 * Following up on my correction submission to The New York Times, I have not yet received a response from the NYT, and "Trump Shares Unfounded Fringe Theory About Epstein and Clintons" has not yet been amended. Since I don't submit corrections very often, I'm not sure what to expect from the process. The NYT's automated response (received immediately after my email) is reproduced below:

THANK YOU for writing The New York Times newsroom. We are grateful to readers who take the time to help us report thoroughly and accurately. Your message will reach the appropriate editor or reporter promptly.

PLEASE NOTE: For security reasons, we do not open email attachments. IF your email included an attachment, please resend your message with all of the information in the body of the email. If your email did not have an attachment, there is no reason to resend it, of course.

What happens now that your message has been received, or if you have more questions?

ACCURACY: If you have pointed out an error, the article will be corrected online and a correction appended; a correction will also appear in print editions as soon as possible. Corrections for articles in weekly sections usually appear in those sections. Because dozens of readers often point out the same error, we cannot notify each person that we are publishing a correction. Please accept our thanks now for having pointed out the error.

When an issue of accuracy is raised, at least three editors review the query. Often re-reporting is requested; sometimes the issue is turned over to our research department. Because of the volume of queries we receive, we are not able to send a response explaining why we decided no correction is necessary. But please know that every query about a possible error is taken seriously and thoroughly considered.

NEWS COVERAGE: If you are writing to give us feedback on our coverage, your message will be forwarded to the appropriate department. Because of the volume of email we receive, we cannot respond to every comment. But we pay respectful attention to all messages, even those that are part of organized letter-writing campaigns, for which we are not staffed to reply individually.

CONFIDENTIAL NEWS TIPS: Do you have a confidential tip that you want to share with The New York Times? We offer several ways to get in touch with and provide materials to our journalists. Learn more about them here. https://www.nytimes.com/tips

EDITORIALS: News and opinion departments operate separately at The Times. If you have written to comment on an editorial or an Op-Ed article and want your comments considered for publication as a Letter to the Editor, please resend your message to [mailto:letters@nytimes.com letters@nytimes.com] More information on submitting letters can be found at nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/lettertoeditor.html

Send Op-Ed submissions to [mailto:oped@nytimes.com oped@nytimes.com] More information can be found at nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/opedsubmit.html.

CUSTOMER CARE: You can find answers to a variety of questions in our help section, as well as specific information about your subscription by visiting your account. You can also reach Customer Care by chat, phone, text or email.

RESEARCH: We are not staffed to do research for the public. But our online archives, dating to 1851, can be accessed by going to nytimes.com and using the search function.

REPRINTS OF ARTICLES: write to [mailto:rights@nytimes.com rights@nytimes.com]

TO BUY PICTURES: write to [mailto:photosales@nytimes.com photosales@nytimes.com]

BACK COPIES: Information about requesting back copies of the newspaper can be found here.


 * CNN directly counters the idea that Guiffre recanted her testimony:


 * "Maxwell and her attorney portray Giuffre as an unreliable narrator, pointing to errors in certain dates and figures she provided. Giuffre has said the errors were mistakes."


 * "According to a transcript of a video deposition Giuffre gave in 2016, she disputed aspects of a 2011 story in the Daily Mail that was based on a series of interviews Giuffre had given


 * "...she did not refute other details of the Daily Mail story, including that Epstein hosted a dinner on his Caribbean island for President Bill Clinton shortly after Clinton left office."   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   22:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What does "procured many women" mean?
The first paragraph says, "He developed an elite social circle and procured many women, including underage girls, who were then sexually abused by Epstein and some of his contacts." What does "procured many women" mean? Can it please be rewritten to be more specific? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.53.48.9 (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Good question. 'Procured' has several meanings. I'd assume that Procuring (prostitution) is what is meant, in which case it should say so - though given that the next paragraph says exactly that, it seems unnecessary repetition. Otherwise, given the ambiguity, other wording should be found that reflects whatever it is we are trying to say. Preferably wording that doesn't by juxtaposition lead the reader to suppose that all of Epstein's 'elite social circle' were involved with prostitution and unlawful sexual activity with minors. 86.143.229.179 (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Wikilink added. Guy (help!) 12:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

New "In popular culture" section.
A contributor has recently added a section under this title. What do people think of this? Personally, I think it is distasteful, trivialising, and in as much as it references a 'meme' likely to be documenting ephemera. If content on potential media coverage (i.e. future TV documentaries on Epstein's life and death) should be included (which is also questionable I'd have thought, until 'popular culture' has actually seen such documentaries) it should perhaps be included in a 'media coverage' section that didn't cherry-pick particular forms of media. And any such section should be sourced to material discussing the media coverage of Epstein, rather than merely being examples of it. 86.143.229.179 (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Popular Culture sections are common across many other similiar pages, such as Joseph Force Crater or O. J. Simpson. Epstein and his death is notable in its cultural implications. No one is trivializing anything. If anything the pop culture section shows the opposite. And they aren't just TV documentaries, but drama series. HAL 333  16:58, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * While "In popular culture" content is an essay, I think it adds some useful guidance on the matter. In particular, it emphasises that any such section depends on finding secondary sources demonstrating that the content discussed is actually of lasting cultural significance. Since such sources cannot possibly exist for as-yet-unaired TV documentaries, the only content provided worth discussing would appear to be the bit about the 'meme'. Which is, as I've already pointed out, likely to be ephemeral, and any argument to the contrary would need to demonstrate the lasting cultural significance of said 'meme'. Which clearly cannot be demonstrated for a meme' which has only been around for a few months. As for 'other articles have PopCult sections', yes, some do. Many don't. Using the Joseph Force Crater biography as an example of how to do things is questionable at least, given that it contains a prominent note stating that it contains exactly the sort of primary-source trivia that the Wikipedia essay warns against. The O. J. Simpson biography PopCult section is arguably better, but to my mind isn't actually a PopCult section at all: instead it is a list of media coverage of the subject, with inadequate secondary sourcing. If you want to see an example of what good 'popular culture' coverage should look like, I recommend reading the 'In culture' section of the Lizzie Borden article. It starts by demonstrating, through appropriate sources, that the Borden story has lasting cultural significance. Not something you can do with month-old 'memes'. 86.143.229.179 (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "In popular culture" sections are always a potential disaster area for a Wikipedia article. The version here isn't really about IPC, as it mentions three upcoming TV projects, which has an element of WP:CRYSTAL until they are finished and broadcast.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , common, and almost always irredeemable dreck. Guy (help!) 12:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Link to meme article
Can someone please remove the link to the 'Epstein didn't kill himself' note just added to the top of the PopCult section. It is misleading, since the meme article isn't a 'main' article on Epstein in PopCult, but instead an article on a particular (ephemeral) part of it. 86.143.229.179 (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd be weakly in favour of removing the entire section but I've just removed this for now while we discuss what to do. --The Huhsz (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Other deprecated or questionable sources
I was recently referred to check a few footnotes, so check them I did: this article relies heavily, heavily on The Daily Beast for many assertions. That is a problem: Daily Beast is yellow in WP:RS/P and given the contentious nature of the article subject and claims herein, I would expect stronger sources to support them. Also appearing is Gawker, which is outright deprecated (red) in RS/P. I think we have a long way to go in the way of solid sourcing here, other than WP:PRIMARY news reports which proliferate. I almost removed all the Gawker footnotes, but since it is yellow and not red, I decided to bring it up here, first. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Yup. The Daily Beast is being used to cite material that needs better sourcing if it is to be included, and Gawker shouldn't be used at all. In fact, the use of Gawker here for material relating to living individuals is almost certainly a violation of WP:BLP policy in of itself, and were I able to, I'd remove it myself, immediately. As it is, I can't, for reasons I fully understand (one of the consequences of choosing to edit as an IP), but if something isn't done about this, I'll look at bringing it up on WP:BLPN. 86.143.229.179 (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The 'Video recordings' section concerns me somewhat in this regard, it cites material from the International Business Times - which has frequently been seen as a questionable source in discussions at WP:RSN etc - for content which would appear to be alleging that a living person (i.e. not Epstein) engaged in blackmail. While I am aware that other, less questionable, sources have made similar claims, any such content should, if it is to be included at all, be impeccably sourced, per WP:BLP. 86.143.229.179 (talk) 06:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree. For now, I've removed the Gawker sources. The Daily Beast is a bigger problem. What should we do? --The Huhsz (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * My thoughts? If there is anything which cites Gawker, and also cites a better source, remove the Gawker citation. If there is anything that appears not to add substantive content to the article, remove the material and the citation - if anyone objects, we can discuss it further. Which will leave substantive content only sourced to Gawker. If any of that appears to conflict with the WP:BLP requirements for strong sourcing - particularly in relation to third parties, since this article contains serious allegations about individuals other than Epstein - remove it. If there is anything left, and better sourcing cannot be readily found, such specific content should probably be discussed on this talk page. As always, WP:BLP is the prime concern, and beyond that WP:RS and the need to avoid a kitchen-sink article of everything that has ever been said about Epstein. The mere existence of a source, even if reliable, isn't of itself an argument for its use. Brevity and focus make for good articles. 86.143.229.179 (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree, and have removed the material sourced to Daily Beast. I see what you mean; there were serious BLP violations there. --The Huhsz (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The_Huhsz Can you pelase explain why your Early Life section edit on 20:05, 28 November 2019 removed the mention about Epstein being born to jewish parents? It was already agreed in previous talk page discussions to include it - see the archives for this as it was voted on and discussed at length by many editors. I'm curious as to why you quietly removed it without justification or even mention as part of your edit on "remove daily beast per talk". The 2 citations relating to Epstein's jewish parents were not removed from the edit, so presume there was no issue with the sourcing quality on those. If there was no reasoning behind the removal, can someone please reinstate as per the talk page consensus? I thought the decision had been settled, as the last comment on that discussion was made on 22 October 2019. Effectively0 (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem restoring that if it can be properly sourced and there's a consensus that it's important. --The Huhsz (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Great. An apology for some confusion though - I've just noticed I was referring to the Gawker citations, while you were asking about the Beast. The same comments apply to both really, though Gawker seems to be even more questionable as far as Wikipedia is concerned. 86.143.229.179 (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is a constructive approach to blanket strip the article. If you wish to have better citations, then place an indicator next to the material or indicate which publication you want stripped and have a discussion before hand. I think with this aggressive approach to the article you are going to lose people who wish to contribute. No one wants to work in an unfriendly environment which has become a battle zone. This article already had a problem with people contributing to it. --Guest2625 (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Removing poorly sourced material is normal, and according to WP:BLP policy actually a requirement if the sourcing is bad enough. So far, I've not seen anything removed which is of any particular significance, and in my opinion the article is more than a little bloated by content which largely duplicates things already said. Getting a large and high-visibility biography up to encyclopaedic standards frequently requires substantial reworking, and getting too upset over it is inadvisable. If you want to see more of your own work remaining in an article, you should probably find more obscure subject matter to work with. Meanwhile, if you have issues with any specific edit, you are free to raise them here. 86.143.229.179 (talk) 03:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


 * We did have a discussion here beforehand; this section has been up since 23:05 on 22 November. That was ample chance for anybody to go through and replace sources. As 86.143.229.179 says, leaving stuff like this up with a tag isn't really an option. I am amazed it lasted as long as it did; the claims about his parents were harmless enough but there was one very egregious claim about a prominent living person which I am not going to repeat here but should never have been placed on an article. Never mind, onwards and upwards. --The Huhsz (talk) 15:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes. I agree with you the Daily Beast is fine for the non-controversial material about his early life such as information about his education and parents, and can be restored. --Guest2625 (talk) 07:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should use the Daily Beast for anything on this article. --The Huhsz (talk) 10:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Should The Daily Beast be excluded as a reference for this article?
The editor The Huhsz does not think that the The Daily Beast should be used in this Wikipedia article. I disagree. The Daily Beast is a good source and should be used with the same care that we use with other quality sources in this article. The Daily Beast is a good reliable source because:
 * On the website, mediafactcheck.com, one of the main reliable sources that is used by the reliable source notice board to determine the factual accuracy of a news website, The Daily Beast is rated for factual reporting as high. This is the same rating that other good news sources such as The New York Times have received.
 * Other Wikipedia editors concur that The Daily Beast is a quality reliable source. A search of Wikipedia indicates that The Daily Beast has been cited 6,009 times. Each of those citations has been a vote by an editor that The Daily Beast is a quality source. In each of those citations, an editor has read the article and weighed the facts and concluded that, yes, The Daily Beast knows what it is saying and is not making up facts. For each of those citations, an editor has stated that The Daily Beast passes muster for verifying the content they have added to Wikipedia.
 * The Daily Beast has been used in a wide range of Wikipedia articles and has received the seal of approval by a wide range of Wikipedia editors. On the first page of a search of Wikipedia articles using The Daily Beast, it is indicated that the publication is used in Wikipedia articles such as Steve Jobs, Barack Obama, Michael Bloomberg, Taylor Swift, Star Wars, Youtube, Facebook, etc. Each one of those citations is a vote for inclusion by an editor forThe Daily Beast in a Wikipedia article.
 * The Daily Beast (cited 6,009 times) is of equal or higher factual caliber as any new media website such as: Buzzfeed News (Used on Wikipedia: 3,365 times), CNET (7,804 times), The Intercept (796 times), Mother Jones (2,280 times), Politico (7,022 times), The Register (3,863 times), Rolling Stone (28,917 times), Salon (7,423 times), Slate (8,887 times), The Verge (5,310 times), or Wired (12,673 times). These publications with The Daily Beast are all good reliable sources.
 * The Daily Beast has won a number of press awards in recent years. It was nominated for 16 LA Press Club awards in 2016 and 12 LA Press Club awards in 2017. The Daily Beast won: 5 LA Press Club awards in 2019,, 5 LA Press Club awards in 2018, 4 LA Press Club awards in 2017, 2 New York Press Club awards in 2018, and 3 New York Press Club awards in 2017.
 * The Daily Beast on its front page has a clear link to its Code of Ethics and Standards. The code of ethics without hesitation states that its goal is to seek the truth. As quoted from the code of ethics page:
 * "The Daily Beast is dedicated to independent journalism, pursued without fear or favor. We value an inclusive culture, committed to the public good. A core part of our mission is to confront bullies, bigots and hypocrites. We believe that skepticism is a virtue and cynicism is a vice. Above all, our goal is to tell the truth. To that end, journalists must strive to hold themselves to high ethical standards: aiming for honesty, fairness and accuracy while avoiding conflicts of interest."

It is startling that we are even having this conversation whether to ban or not ban The Daily Beast as a source for the Jeffrey Epstein article. Any editor, who has closely followed the Jeffrey Epstein story, knows that The Daily Beast has done trailblazing investigative reporting on the subject. The Daily Beast has consistently been ahead of the story and has ferret out numerous valuable facts through a range of interviews with primary witnesses and a search through primary documents. In fact, The Daily Beast was one of the few publication that before the story broke, because of Julie Brown's work with the Miami Herald, had doggedly pursued it. This early persistent pursuit of the story is thanks to Conchita Sarnoff of The Daily Beast.--Guest2625 (talk) 09:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I posted the question whether The Daily Beast is a reliable source on the reliable source notice board. If you would like to participate in that conversation, here's a link to that location. --Guest2625 (talk) 05:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2019
"Jeffrey Epstein's 2019 mushot" should be "Jeffrey Epstein's 2019 mugshot" 67.86.187.162 (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. El_C 19:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Looking for help on Peggy Siegal article
Peggy Siegal is an marketing event organizer and host with some connections to Epstein and I thought this might be a good place to ask if anyone wants to help on the currently brief draft article I created for her. — Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 06:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Draft: Peggy Siegal

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2020
Jeffery Epsteain didn't kill themselves Jonahrec (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Majavah (t/c) 16:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The summary that appears in my browser window is out of date.
This is an obvious update that should be made. I am a total newbie, so will someone please make this change for me? It is too complicated for me to do.

I use www.Startpage.com as my web browser. I typed in "wiki epstein". The following summary popped up on the upper right side of my browser with a photo of Jeffrey Epstein,

"Jeffrey Epstein American financier, science and education philanthropist and sex offender

Jeffrey Edward Epstein (born January 20, 1953) is an American financier, science and research philantropist, and registered sex offender. Epstein began his career at the investment bank Bear Stearns before forming his own firm, J. Epstein & Co. In 2008, Epstein was convicted of soliciting an underage girl for prostitution, for which he served 13 months in "custody with work release". He lives in the United States Virgin Islands. Wikipedia",

The browser summary contains the following link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein

The outdated browser summary says, "He lives in the United States Virgin Islands." Please update the browser summary to say, "He lived in the United States Virgin Islands. He died in a NY detention facility in 2019. "

End of request...

Thank you. There is much controversy over whether his death was a suicide or a well covered up homicide. So I would rather you not say with any certainty that he died by suicide in this short browser summary. Just note in the browser summary that he is now deceased. The public can read the full details in the full article.

Thank you. Margaret Wiki (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Margaret

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2020
In the "Investigations" section of this article there is this sentence that should be changed from this:

Epstein's attorneys asked Judge Berman to probe their client's death, alleging they could provide evidence that the incident resulting his death was "far more consistent with assault" than suicide.[14]

to this:

Epstein's attorneys asked Judge Berman to probe their client's death, alleging they could provide evidence that the incident resulting in his death was "far more consistent with assault" than suicide.[14]

Note the addition of "in" in the corrected sentence. 73.63.131.144 (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done	DarthFlappy (talk) 14:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2020
Please change "had sexually abused." in the last sentence of the second paragraph to "could have sexually abused." because there needs to be undeniable evidence from all of the 36 people that proves he did these crimes. Equalityb (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's an interesting point. We are never going to know how many of these charges would have stood up in court because Epstein is dead. This is similar to the situation with Jimmy Savile. I am tempted to make the change that you suggest, but will wait for input from others on this.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I've added allegedly to that sentence. Lindenfall (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Motion to unseal
This was a significant event, as much information was revealed. Mike Cernovich was one of three parties to motion. There are plenty of reliable sources to support this fact. Especially official court documents. If anyone wants to add the proper citation for official, offline court documents, feel free to have a crack at it.

Dershowitz moved to intervene in the case to seek unsealing of documents that he said would exonerate him. Cernovich and the Herald moved to unseal the entire case on journalistic grounds. The judge allowed all three to join the case but denied their unsealing requests. They appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which vacated that order July 2. Judge José A. Cabranes, writing for the court, said the trial judge “failed to conduct the requisite particularized review” before sealing virtually the whole case. The briefs urging and opposing summary judgment, in particular, carry a strong presumption of public access, Cabranes said. Overcoming that presumption requires specific findings that the judge didn’t make because he couldn’t have, the court said. “Upon reviewing the summary judgment materials in connection with this appeal, we find that there is no countervailing privacy interest sufficient to justify their continued sealing,” Cabranes wrote. The court ordered the summary judgment papers unsealed. It remanded the case to the district court, ordering the trial court to remedy its “failure to conduct an individualized review of the sealed materials.”


 * I would second including Cernovich's name in the article. Like many contributors here, I'm not a fan of the guy, but per WP:NPOV this is totally irrelevant. I have seen some questionable edits and reversions, such as ValarianB's on April 21st 2020, where the revert message was merely "Cernovich is not relevant to Epstein's bio." Unfortunately, this makes as much sense as saying that we should take Attorney General Barr's name out of the article because he's "not relevant to Epstein's bio." If we have a section about the unsealing of documents in a particular case, and the list of parties to the motion is short, there is no legitimate reason to include some but not all of the parties to the motion. The only conceivable reason is "bias," which we should strive to avoid per WP:NPOV. As such, I propose we seek consensus ("WP:CON") on this issue, and suggest that we include the names of all parties to the motion in that subsection.CelebrateMotivation (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit request
In the residences section, the end of the first paragraph states: "entrance hall is lined with rows of individually framed prosthetic eyeballs which were made for injured English soldiers."

This is not in the source. The source states that the eyeballs were imported from England, and that they had been made for injured soldiers. It doesn't reveal the ethnicity of the soldiers. However, considering England is part of the UK, it would probably be safe to assume that the eyeballs were not restricted for use only for English soldiers but were, in fact, undoubtedly used for British soldiers.

Of course, the article also mentions "the Queen of England" when there hasn't been a Queen of England since Queen Anne, some three hundred years ago. --82.21.97.70 (talk) 04:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Fixed the bit about the glass eyeballs to conform to what source actually says. Visually scanned but was unable to locate where in article the reference to a Queen of England might be. Cedar777 (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)