Wikipedia

Talk:Jeffrey Epstein/Archive 4

< Talk:Jeffrey Epstein
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Newslinger in topic Request to re-add something removed in the WP:STATUSQUO restore
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

donations (to Jewish cause and to universities) as path to "Elite Connection"

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a lot of forth and back in the lede if or not Epstein was connected to the financial, political, and cultural “elite” and to what “elite” specifically.

According to sources Epstein produced press releases about making donations mainly (>20 donations) to the Jewish cause, also to science or a combination of both, mainly from the New York region what made it possible for him to insert himself or have people inserting him in those mainly New York circles. Outside his donation focus there is almost no reporting that people “connected” to Epstein. Outside his focus there is reporting of Epstein one-sidedly trying to meet people he deemed to be important and reporting that people declined and ignored Epstein. Epstein’s connection to notorious Prince Andrew would also be a sign of not being “connected to the elite” as the connected elite rather tries to avoid him. People that undoubtedly “connected” both ways with Epstein (and not only “met” him at whatever events Epstein tried to get to) like Greenberg, Bronfman, Hoffenberg, Wexner, Zuckerman are in line with his donation focus. So let’s at least limit the lede to what the sources say and stay with the version:

Until his conviction for sex crimes in 2008, he was “well” connected with “some” among the financial, political, and cultural elite --BalancedIssues (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

New suits and #MeToo

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Two new suits against Epstein have emerged, one from someone who was 18 and another from someone who was 20 when they claim inapropriate touching. This has moved it clearly out of child abuse, but still the accusations go to sex abuse, and a willingness of people to claim respect even when hired as ad hoc massagers, a postion that probably 30 years ago no one would think to argue they had a right to claim over stepping boundaries. This is moving to a larger dialogue of consent and the like. Look for these suits to get traction. They also do not appear directly connected to New York's suit window, but we may see more suits related there, since it runs to August 2020 to open suits against Eptein no matter how long ago the abuse happened.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Three more suits filed today, two of the girls were 17 at the time they were recruited. Here is the Reuters report. petrarchan47คุก 20:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The cop?

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

IN the investigation section it says "the cop roughed him up in his jail cell on July 23". For clarification it should at least say the ex cop cellmate Nicholas Tartaglione accused quadruple murder roughed him up. SO as not to confused the two sleeping cops or any random cop that entered his jail cell on that day. As it is blocked by an unknown party I cant correct this obvious error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.60.203 (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

How he died.

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

He did not just die, but he had committed suicide. It would be helpful to state that in the first paragraph, for those referring to the page.

It could be changed to - "Jeffrey Edward Epstein (January 20, 1953 – August 10, 2019) was an American financier and convicted sex offender.[1][2] Epstein began his career as a teacher and then changed to the banking and finance sector in various roles. During his career he became a multimillionaire. Until his conviction for sex crimes in 2008, he was well-connected with some among the financial, political, and cultural elite.[3]

In April 2005, police in Palm Beach, Florida, began investigating Epstein after a parent complained that he had molested her 14-year-old daughter.[4] After an investigation, prosecution, and plea negotiations, Epstein pleaded guilty and was convicted by a Florida state court of soliciting a prostitute and of procuring an underage girl for prostitution on June 30, 2008.[5] He served almost 13 months in custody, with work release, as part of a plea deal; federal officials had identified 36 girls, some as young as 14 years old, whom Epstein had molested.[6][7]

Epstein was arrested again on July 6, 2019, on federal charges for sex trafficking of minors in Florida and New York.[8][9] He committed suicide on August 10, 2019, in his jail cell, two days after signing his will. [10][11][12][13][14]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.75.212 (talk) 06:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

why so much detail about this guy?

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

hi all, why is this article so full of details like where he lived/residences owned, who liked him (with quotes) and other miniscule details? sure they are all confirmed with sources but do we really need so much information? if this was an article about a pop star, model, or sportsperson most of it would be called out as trivial and/or WP:FANCRUFT. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, there is an ongoing investigation of the criminal network of Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Epstein is maybe a head of one of the worst crimes in US history. Of course it is important who he had contact with and who helped him. Until this is all settled and we know which parts are relevant to the crimes committed and which are not, it may all be relevant to the readers.
"It is not reasonable to disallow all information that some editors feel is unimportant, because that information could be important to some readers." - from Wikipedia:Handling trivia
And regarding WP:FANCRUFT: Really!?
"Fancruft is a term sometimes used in Wikipedia to imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question." from WP:FANCRUFT
We may be talking about the crime of the century and you think this is only important to "fans of the subject"???
Crime of the century thus far -we're not quite yet 1/5th into it. kencf0618 (talk) 05:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

91.114.251.169 (talk) 04:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

  • I am still trying to figure out what people are fans of to push this article. Not Epstein. Maybe they would be "fans of exposing criminal conspiracies that the rich and power get away with for doing things 10 times worse than what gets homeless people in jail."John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Cable news fans? InedibleHulk (talk) 11:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Gumshoe newspaper reporting fans. The type of articles where you go an interview people in person, instead of reading twitter posts and giving up when the PR spokesperson for the diocese say no to talking to them, instead of talking to the Nigerian-born black priest as well as the old white people who consistently interupt mass as he conducts it trying to force him to conform to his their way. Of course the fact that the main Portland paper writes a one-sided article in favor of these racist shows the power of white privalege.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Did Donald Barr hire Jeffrey Epstein

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Two highly reliable sources the New York Times see article and the Miami Herald see article indicate that Donald Barr may have hired Jeffrey Epstein, while Forbes see article indicates that Donald Barr did hire Jeffrey Epstein. The relevant sections from each article have been quoted below:

"Yes, AG Barr oversees the US Attorney’s Office in NY, so it’s possible he could attempt to interfere, though it would be obvious. Also, many years ago, Barr’s father hired Epstein to teach at the private Dalton school, with no college degree. So there’s that..." (Frank Figuliuzzi's Twitt via Forbes July 6, 2019)
"In February 1974, Mr. Barr had announced that he was resigning as headmaster, protesting the meddling by the board of trustees, but that he would stay on until the end of the school year. It is unclear whether Mr. Barr hired Mr. Epstein during that time." (NY Times July 12, 2019)
"Barr left a semester before Epstein arrived and it's unclear whether Barr had a hand in hiring him. Branch, who was interim headmaster, did not remember who hired him." (Miami Herald July 16, 2019)

The New York Times and the Miami Herald directly interviewed people who had been at Dalton at the time that Epstein was teaching there. The Miami Herald even asked the interim headmaster after Barr, that is Branch, who hired Epstein and he said he did not remember. Frank Figuliuzzi, former assistant director of the FBI, just states off hand in a twitt that Barr hired Epstein. Figuliuzzi's statement is not convincing when viewed in light of the NY Times' and Miami Herald's investigation of the matter. It should be also noted that the NY Times' and Miami Herald's investigations were done after Figulizzi's off hand comment.

Based on the above information the most truthful statement for the wikipedia article is may have hired, and the article therefore should remain unchanged. --Guest2625 (talk) 05:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Perhaps the best thing to do is drop the sentence "Barr may have hired Epstein." from the wikipedia article. The New York Times in a later article says that Barr did hire Epstein referencing its own article that I quoted above. In the more recent article they say:
"Even Mr. Barr had chance ties to Mr. Epstein: His old law firm, Kirkland & Ellis, had worked with Mr. Epstein on the Miami deal, and decades earlier, Mr. Barr’s father had hired Mr. Epstein to teach at Dalton, the elite private school in Manhattan."(NY Times August 23, 2019)
Perhaps the totality of the evidence given that teachers are generally hired during the spring semester has the fact checkers at the New York Times conclude that Barr did hire Epstein. Given the above reference I'm fine with removal of the sentence. Having the may sentence places undue weight on the uncertainty. --Guest2625 (talk) 02:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Punctuation: inside or outside of quotes?

Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

@Misterlevel and Grayfell: Please discuss here what the Wikipedia style manual specifies, in terms of putting punctuation inside or outside of quotation marks. Misterlevel, as I warned you on your talk page, you should not make any more changes from the article's existing style until you have discussed it here. You may find that Wikipedia's preferred style is not the same as what is recommended by other sources. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:LQ is pretty clear on this one. I'm not sure what there is to discuss here. --Bangalamania (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, WP:LQ *is* pretty clear: If the quotation is a single word or a sentence fragment, place the terminal punctuation outside the closing quotation mark. When quoting a full sentence, the end of which coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, place terminal punctuation inside the closing quotation mark. 

   "Marlin needed, he said, "to find Nemo"."
   "Marlin said: "I need to find Nemo.""

If the quoted sentence has been broken up with an editorial insertion, still include the terminal punctuation inside the closing quotation mark. 

   ""I need", said Marlin, "to find Nemo.""

Whatever, folks. Not gonna teach you English today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterlevel (talk • contribs) 01:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay then. So for this edit, some changes seem acceptable or debatable, and most do not. The first example is this:
  • In a 2003 Vanity Fair exposé, Epstein refers to Maxwell as "my best friend."
"my best friend" is not a sentence. The period should go outside the quotation marks, correct? Most changes are similar to this one.
There is also a change to a direct quote. The cite template for the NYT source by Kantor et al includes a lengthy copied sentence which was modified. We should be faithful to sources, when possible. We can assume that the New York Times chose this punctuation for a reason, if nothing else. Grayfell (talk) 02:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Misterlevel: I just looked at the changes you made in the same diff Grayfell quoted (your most recent one). Here's what I found: "my best friend" is a sentence fragment, period should go outside the quotes, so that change is wrong. The Lolita Express thing doesn't really need both quotes and italic, but if we are going to use quotes the comma should go outside them. "600 flying hours a year … usually with guests on board" is a sentence fragment, period should go outside the quotes, so that change is wrong. The caption with President Trump states, what he says is a complete sentence so your change is correct, the period should go inside the quotes. The change involving insights and generosity, that’s a sentence fragment, the period should go outside the quotes, so that change is wrong. The quote with "they were each other’s wingmen" is a complete sentence, the period should go inside the quotes so the change is correct. More illusion than fact is arguable, it’s kind of a fragment but it does make a complete sentence, so it could go either way. "financial bona fides" is a sentence fragment, the period should go outside the quotes, so that change is wrong. The Forbes article uses a title which is not a complete sentence, and the period is for the end of our sentence, not the title, and the period should go outside the quotes and the change is wrong. "Manager of Fortune" is not a sentence, the period should go outside the quotes, the correction is wrong. "cutting edge of science" is a sentence fragment, the period should go outside the quotes, the correction is wrong. OK, that’s all I’m going to do even though you made a ton more changes in that one diff. Most of them are wrong and I am going to undo that diff. And I would say that your batting average is not good so you should not do any more "teaching us English". @Grayfell: what do you think we should do about all the other diffs? -- MelanieN (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, Misterlevel, looking at your edit summaries for your earlier edits suggests that you were not even using LQ, but some other rule of your own. You kept saying things like Periods and commas go inside quotations in written English; Moved period inside quotation, as is proper and correct in English grammar; Periods and commas belong inside the quotes. Please check grammar before undoing another's edit; Undo was incorrect. Recorrected quotations that had periods after the ending quotation mark. Look it up. And when I look at the corrections you made in this diff, they are all wrong, like changing FBI began its own investigation of Epstein, nicknamed "Operation Leap Year". to the FBI began its own investigation of Epstein, nicknamed "Operation Leap Year." and changing with four named co-conspirators and any unnamed "potential co-conspirators". to along with four named co-conspirators and any unnamed "potential co-conspirators." So it is clear you were not following Wikipedia style and I am going to undo all the changes you made. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Actually, Grayfell already undid them. I concur with that. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN and Grayfell:: Thanks for the detailed analysis. I was unaware of W'pedia's different approach to this from all other style guides I've ever seen. Will take it as a learning experience. Apologies for the snark. I've had a really bad couple of days. Carry on! Misterlevel (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your gracious response, Misterlevel, and happy editing! -- MelanieN (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Zorro Ranch

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

They were slow to raid most of his properties. Now a visit to Zorro Ranch in New Mexico was rebuffed!? What does that mean? Has the FBI still not raided Epstein’s New Mexico ranch? Why not? Bill Richardson? Epstein brought the Ranch from Yolanda King (Nuclear Weapons Center (AFNWC))/Gary King (Attorney General of New Mexico) and son of 3 time governor of New Mexico Bruce King.--93.211.222.97 (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Epstein was called Voldemort by MIT Media Lab staff

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The MIT Media Lab is heavily involved in military-related projects with the US Air Force, the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, the Army Research Office and Google, which is a high-tech contractor in artificial intelligence for DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) .

An email written by the MIT Media Lab Director Joi Ito says Bill Gates was "directed by" Jeffrey Epstein to donate $2 million to the research lab in October 2014. Why does Bill Gates do what Jeffrey Epstein tells him to do? --87.170.206.244 (talk) 12:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Separate article on suicide

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Considering how much information has come out, how much more likely is, and the ramifications that it may well entail, I think it's a good idea to spin the suicide off into its own separate article, "suicide of Jeffrey Epstein".

Having looked through the talk page, I now realize that this exists under "death" rather than "suicide". But I would like to at least say that I am in favor of keeping that article. Sirkh1 (talk)

Maybe one should spin off the "Legal proceedings" section as it is very detailed. The suicide section doesn't seem to be to long.--BalancedIssues (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2019 - "FBI Frank Figliuzzi"

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

@Petrarchan47: & @Guest2625: Please also re-edit → "FBI Assistant Director Frank Figliuzzi" to the sentence! Like here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeffrey_Epstein&diff=prev&oldid=911907304

"According to Former FBI Assistant Director Frank Figliuzzi, Epstein was hired by Donald Barr, father of U.S. Attorney General William Barr, who was the headmaster until June 1974." 93.211.211.129 (talk) 16:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The reason I originally added "according to Figliuzzi" was because the claim was being contested (edit warring ensued). But ideally we can state the claim in fewer words using Wikipedia's voice - this requires strong sourcing which we do have now. And the edit warring has stopped. So I am of the opinion we do not need to add this extra detail. What do you think? petrarchan47คุก 21:27, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  Note: I'm closing this request. There is no mention of Figliuzzi currently in the article, and I think the current wording is adequate. NiciVampireHeart 22:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Jeffrey Epstein flew to Virgin Islands with 11, 12-year-old girls in 2018, witness says

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/d3bozq/jeffrey_epstein_flew_to_virgin_islands_with_11/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

https://www.foxnews.com/us/jeffrey-epstein-witness-girls-virgin-islands

waddie96 {{u|waddie96}} {talk} 05:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

All prison documents about Epstein are being withheld

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
  • That may or may not be true, so you'll have to use a RS to back that info. Attkisson is never a RS for facts. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
@BullRangifer:

Attkisson is never a RS for facts.

Who decides that? You?? Are you the RS for who's a RS? — Guarapiranga (talk) 23:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
She has a terrible history for factual accuracy. She is, of course, considered a RS for her own opinions, which are generally fringe. You don't have to agree, and this is the wrong venue to carry on such a discussion. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Attkisson made a request under the Freedom of Information Act (United States) and it was turned down. This part of the story is OK, but it looks like routine bureaucratic stonewalling rather than an attempt to hide The Truth.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Claiming Guiffre lied needs strong sourcing

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Soibangla is repeatedly adding a claim that Guiffre admitted to lying, using a NYT piece about Trump's tweets. The piece does not say exactly what she supposedly lied about in reference to the island, it could be any detail. But the NYT did not take the time to detail what they are claiming she lied about, nor reference the exact section of the 2,000 pages of documents that contain the claim.

To call Guiffre a liar is going to require much stronger sourcing and until that is available, I ask that we leave the article as is.

Here is my change: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeffrey_Epstein&diff=914508529&oldid=914506382

Here is Soibangla's: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeffrey_Epstein&diff=914513360&oldid=914508959

Here is the NYT source: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/10/us/politics/trump-epstein-conspiracy-theories.html

Here are the documents: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6250471-Epstein-Docs.html

Here are articles written about the documents, which I suggest are better than the NYT piece about Trump's tweets:

"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."

No evidence or accusations of lies. petrarchan47คุก 22:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC) edit petrarchan47คุก 00:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The Times article is abundantly and unambiguously clear:

The documents unsealed Friday also include an acknowledgment from one of Mr. Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Giuffre, that an earlier claim she made about Mr. Clinton visiting Mr. Epstein in the Caribbean was untrue

Your continued insistence that the article lead was about Trump tweets is irrelevant. Many articles have many nuggets of information in them that are not about the lead, and the fact this nugget is deep in The Times article does not in any way detract from its validity. soibangla (talk) 00:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
You're right, but context is important when determining reliability. In this case,
I disagree that the article is clearly saying what you are trying to say; "an earlier claim she made about" could mean anything. Maybe she claimed he had a striped shirt on at the island, but later remembered it was a Hawaiian shirt. You should be able to find this admission of a lie in the documents by using the word search option. If indeed you find it, I will make a donation to the NYT for their fantastic reporting. Because apparently they're the only ones to uncover this, which strikes me as odd. Good luck! petrarchan47คุก 00:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
could mean anything? Absolutely not. It clearly means exactly what it says: an earlier claim she made about Mr. Clinton visiting Mr. Epstein in the Caribbean. Unbelievable. soibangla (talk) 00:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The New York Times is a high-quality WP:RS. Demanding that people perform WP:OR to validate their reporting seems a bit silly. Also, the wording is important - "was false" (which the text you object to accurately summarizes the Times piece as saying) is not the same as "was lying" (which is your own take on it, and is serving only to muddle discussions - would you agree that the text can remain as long as we avoid using the precise term "lying", after all?) A statement can be mistaken without being a lie. --Aquillion (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

"American Jew Financier", really?

Latest comment: 4 years ago22 comments9 people in discussion
This discussion is going absolutely nowhere; any continuation of it cannot be taken to have the purpose of exploring an edit to the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Comes off as amazingly anti-semitic as the first sentence, especially when quoted by google without the link highlights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.189.190.201 (talk) 02:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi @99.189.190.201: Thanks for your Wikipedia contributions :) If you're referring to adding this information to the article introduction, I agree it's not appropriate. I searched the revision but could not find which contributor added this. Do you know? Anyhow, as you know there is a better section to add this information to. All are welcome to join this related discussion.
With infinite Wikipedia love ♥. Francewhoa (talk) 23:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Many sources like "The Times of Israel" call Epstein a "Jewish financier", other sources describe Epstein as "American Jewish", so is there really the idea that it would not be appropriate for Wikipedia to describe him like normal sources do? Many other business people are also described as "American-Jewish financiers" (without being called "anti-semite") so why is it so important that Epstein is not described for what (he paid for) the media to describe him? --BalancedIssues (talk) 11:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Why is this special emphasis the sole focus of your edits? He's described in the article as coming from Jewish parents. Acroterion (talk) 11:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
If you are more interested to analyze to which sections of the article I contributed feel free to do so but why interested to represent in incorrectly: I added more to the "careeer" and "personal life" section of the article than to the topic if it were better be omitted in Wikipedia that Epstein is a "American Jewish business man" or "American Jewish financier". Why are you judging so much and "taking sides" instead of following the sources? I didn't put an emphasis on anything but users like "bus stop" put a lot of energy in omitting things. I am not really interested in your mission (you didn't need to put a "threat" to my personal page to confirm your mission), so what is it you want the reader to imply, that "coming from Jewish parents" means the same, or that it is a widely known fact and can therefore be omitted?--BalancedIssues (talk) 12:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I think businessman may be a better term than finacier. I have read enough of the articles published on Epstein since he was arrested to be convinced that he was not clearly a financier. His actions were too murky for that, and enough people have claimed he made money from blackmail (although no one has yet claimed to be a victim of this by him), that I am not sure people are convinced he was really a financier in any meaningful way. That he was American and Jewish is beyond dispute. I do not yet see any evidence that he was much of a religious Jew, but neither is Senator Sanders of Vermont, but when I tried to remove him from Jewish categories people went balistic on me, and Sanders has distanced himself from the Jewish community while Epstein embraces it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • It should read "Jewish-American" financier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tacomansam (talk • contribs) 17:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
A certain group of editors seem to deem it "antisemitic" if Wikipedia includes that Epstein is an Jewish-American financier. "Jewish-American" and "Financier" seems to be no problem in other Wikipedia articles. Nobody blocking this here would really explain why he he does it (and some people generically calling something "antisemitic" just want to propose not to discuss).--BalancedIssues (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
As emotions of some editors may have cooled down by now, are there still any objections that also the Wikipedia page can disclose that Epstein was a Jewish-American financier? --BalancedIssues (talk) 04:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
No, because the WP:LEAD of Michael Jackson does not say that he was an African-American singer, even though he undoubtedly was. The opening sentence of an article gives a person's nationality, and that is all.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Was it for M.Jackson as important to belong to the African community as it was for J.Epstein to belong to the Jewish community? --BalancedIssues (talk) 06:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
George Gershwin does not say "Jewish-American composer" although he undoubtedly was. Wikipedia articles do not do this, plain and simple. Gershwin's biography notes that he was "of Ukrainian Jewish and Lithuanian Jewish ancestry" so nothing is being hidden.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me)
Was being American or being Jewish as important for Gershwin as it was for Epstein? Why didn't a group of editors fight for omitting the mentioning of Gershwin being Jewish as much as possible? You will see that each Wikipedia article is specific.
So you are basically saying you presume to know better what "Wikipedia articles do". Editors who are biased concerning a discussed issue use those kinds of "arguments". Can it be assumed you are not biased?--BalancedIssues (talk) 08:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. I have pointed out that the opening sentences of Wikipedia articles give only the person's nationality. Religion, ancestry etc can be dealt with later on. The problem here would be implying that Epstein committed sexual offenses because he was Jewish. Is there any evidence for this?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Your logic would mean that disclosing the Jewish ethnicity would automatically imply the Jewishness caused all important things a person did in life. It would also mean that Jewish Einstein invented his theories because he was Jewish. Would unbiased persons apply this line of reasoning?

Also I didn't assume bad faith but seeing the logic you apply here I would just recommend if you really don't want to ask yourself if you could be biased in this issue.

Last but not least: Epstein himself put financial and organizational resources (PR agencies etc.) to make public how much Jewish he is and how much he cared for the Jewish cause and how often he donated to Jewish or Jewish related projects and also Epstein himself chose to have exclusively Jewish business partners for all his important steps to becoming a billionaire (what the media bought for decades).--BalancedIssues (talk) 11:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I am reminded of the spoof tabloid newspaper headline for general relativity, which is "Jewish nut says space is bent". Nikola Tesla said a variation of this.[1] Whether Einstein's Jewishness is important here is questionable, but inevitably some people loved to point out that Einstein was Jewish.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
It was "important" for Epstein himself in many ways, Epstein made sure it is public, it was reported by the media, why would you say that it should be omitted? (Einstein was neither in need of a Jewish network to achieve something in life nor did Einstein promote his Jewishness like Epstein - so why the double standard?) --BalancedIssues (talk) 08:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Einstein's Jewishness is primarily notable because it led to his becoming an American citizen after Hitler came to power in Germany. And even then, we still don't describe Einstein as a "Jewish theoretical physicist". Epstein's Jewishness is in no way of comparable notability (except, perhaps, to antisemites who feel that all Jews' Jewishness is notable and in need of prominent recognition)AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 10:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Einstein actually called himself agnostic and a religious nonbeliever. He is only famous for his theoretical work and results which he promoted, which meant all to him, for which he received the Nobel prize. He would probably be quite surprised that a Wikipedia article about him mentions his Nobel prize only 15 times while certain editors put in 35 times he would be Jewish as if that was important for him and as if that was the weighting unbiased source would show.

Epstein did the opposite: he professionally promoted his Jewishness, partnered almost exclusively within his Jewish network to dig as much as he could into these powerful circles. He used the funds and power gained by this “career” to have his escapades. He would probably be disappointed that for obviously political reasons in Wikipedia certain editors insist not to mention his Jewishness (0 mentionings) after so many Jewish organizations took his money and his Jewishness was always central for everything he tried to achieve in life.

Obviously, this is a huge double standard how facts are prioritized. Obviously, a certain (small) biased group of Wikipedia editors fight hard to keep it this way as we can see in this article.--BalancedIssues (talk) 11:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Also obviously, it is not a good idea to accuse other editors of acting in bad faith. Wikipedia editors are required to assume good faith.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
You don’t contravene the argumentation making transparent the double standard and bias. Instead you want to open a discussion if it was good or bad faith of the respective editors? How can this improve the article? --BalancedIssues (talk) 05:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I would watch the accusations of bias considering the breadth (or lack thereof) of your contributions to this site, and take particular note of the fact that "Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee has determined that 'single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.'" Your conduct could easily be construed as that of someone clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 14:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Claim the Clinton went to island

Latest comment: 4 years ago20 comments6 people in discussion

This edit was removed for two entirely specious reasons:

  • "Removed unfounded claim - NYT does NOT specify which claim they refer to, could be any detail; a better source for this would be one covering the docs, not Trump's tweets"

and then later:

  • "Please read carefully - it says a claim "about" not "that he went to" - now go to the documents and find the claim this NYT piece about Trump's tweets is supposedly referring to"

There are no tweets involved here whatsoever. The NYT explicitly and unambiguously states:

The documents unsealed Friday also include an acknowledgment from one of Mr. Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Giuffre, that an earlier claim she made about Mr. Clinton visiting Mr. Epstein in the Caribbean was untrue.

The edit should be restored soibangla (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Please see the section just above this one; it looks like we were adding to this page at the same time and you may have missed it. The NYT piece you're using is indeed about a Trump tweet, and only in passing do they mention the documents, but they do not specify what they are claiming she lied about. You are free to search the docs they cite and find what you need to support your assertion that she lied about Clinton going to the island. Before you waste your time, I suggest that articles about the document dump would be better sources, and if indeed Guiffre has admitted to lying, we would find that fact within those better sources (see section above). petrarchan47คุก 22:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
The NYT article may have been about a tweet, but the specific sentence and edit have nothing to do with it. soibangla (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
The line does not support your claim (see above section). I think reasonable people might question the reliability of Epstein-related articles from the NYT printed prior to today's news (https://twitter.com/marclacey/status/1170449442014728193), per this article from Ronan Farrow https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-an-elite-university-research-center-concealed-its-relationship-with-jeffrey-epstein.
The piece you're attempting to use contains what I believe to be an error. Guiffre has not been found to have lied about Clinton being on the island nor did she say she had. The NYT was being either sloppy, or outright disingenuous. petrarchan47คุก 00:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
what I believe to be an error You are in no position to challenge a highly reliable source with what you believe. soibangla (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
It does not appear that you are reading the sources and arguments I provide. I'm going to let others weigh with regard to your claim and source. petrarchan47คุก 00:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Sometimes a highly reliable source like the NYT makes an observation that others miss. The fact the sources you choose did not observe it, which makes you believe the NYT is wrong, does not detract from the reality that a highly reliable source reported it and thus it is worthy of inclusion, particularly when it involves a highly incendiary and defamatory accusation that has been denied by Clinton and refuted by the Secret Service. soibangla (talk) 00:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Here is the location in the 2000 pages of court documents where there is the statement of the retraction by Guiffre (the plaintiff) of certain statements that she made to the Daily Mail. The quote is from page 815-816:

"In her deposition, plaintiff was shown Deposition Exhibit 7, a collection of some of her allegations in the articles. Plaintiff placed checkmarks by those allegations she admitted—over the course of 20 pages of testimony—were not true. See Menninger Decl. EXHIBIT PP, at 435:7-455:6 & Depo. Ex.7. These include her claims that: (1) she was 17 when she flew to the Caribbean with Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell “went to pick up Bill in a huge black helicopter,” referring to former President Bill Clinton; (2) her conversation with Mr. Clinton about Ms. Maxwell’s pilot skills; and (3) Donald Trump was a “good friend” of Mr. Epstein’s and “flirted with me”."

It is not clear from this quote if it means that her entire discussion about Clinton visiting Jeffrey's island was false. Here is also the full Daily Mail article which she is retracting the truthfulness of some statements. The New York Times takes the position that she has retracted the full statement about Clinton visiting the island. Guest2625 (talk) 03:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

There is consensus that the Daily Mail (including its online version, MailOnline) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist, such as the NYT. Look, it’s really simple here: one of the most reliable sources in the world has reported a clear, simple, unambiguous statement which has not been disputed or refuted by any other reliable source. We operate on the basis of reliable sources here, not on beliefs or clearly false assertions that the statement is somehow unclear. It’s preposterous that we’re even debating this, but I suspect it may have something to do with the NYT report bursting the partisan bubble some preferred to believe. soibangla (talk) 03:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
In my above comment, I was merely stating the facts. The Daily Mail article is what is referenced in the court documents. I am not stating that it is a reliable source. In fact, based on the deposition by Virginia Guiffre, the Daily Mail needs to make a correction to their article. I agree that the material of Clinton going to the island should not be included, since the New York Times based on its examination of the court documents states she retracted her statement. Guest2625 (talk) 05:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • That's a good summary. My feeling is that the Times is a top-quality reliable source and, therefore, unless we have another source contradicting them or some other reason to doubt them, we should go with their interpretation here. --Aquillion (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
The Times was once the "paper of record", but I think there are reasons to question its reliability in this case (it was also demoted in relation to reporting on 5G as "reliable but not independent", and of course, famously lied about weapons of mass destruction, you may recall). I will post my argument at the RSN and leave a link here. There is more to the story that I have discovered since last posting here. petrarchan47คุก 20:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

RS/N

WP:FORUMSHOPPING and insufficient prior discussion on article talk page. If no consensus is reached after extensive talk page discussion, suggest WP:RfC.

Is here. petrarchan47คุก 22:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Based on the discussion at WP:RSN § New York Times' - Epstein reporting, I've submitted a correction to The New York Times and asked them to amend the phrasing of the claim "The documents unsealed Friday also include an acknowledgment from one of Mr. Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Giuffre, that an earlier claim she made about Mr. Clinton visiting Mr. Epstein in the Caribbean was untrue" in the "Trump Shares Unfounded Fringe Theory About Epstein and Clintons" article. The NYT sent an automated response confirming that my request was received. I'll be monitoring the NYT article for updates, and if I receive any additional responses from the NYT, I'll share them here. — Newslinger talk 21:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

BLP issues

The NYT's coverage is clearly relevant and central to the story; furthermore, Giuffre's initial statements are clearly WP:EXCEPTIONAL. WP:BLP requires balanced coverage, which the repeated removal of the exculpatory NYT coverage prevents. Therefore, I've removed all mention of Giuffre's statements about Clinton until / unless we can reach a clear consensus on how to include the statement in the NYT. Do not restore any of it without a clear consensus; I feel it is unequivocally a violation of the balance that BLP requires to include an accusation that a WP:RS has indicated is retracted, without noting that coverage of a retraction. We cannot cover only part of a story like this one, or cover WP:EXCEPTIONAL accusations while leaving out a retraction in such a high-quality RS. --Aquillion (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree. I find it quite flabbergasting to consider the claim, reported in reliable sources and backed up by the actual documents, that Giuffre indicated that a statement attributed to her was untrue to be WP:EXCEPTIONAL, while at the same time considering that her claims that Clinton visited the island aren't. In my mind the claim that Clinton visited the island is the more exceptional of the two, and there is no doubt that Giuffre indicated that at least one of her statements to this end were untrue. The only doubt is whether she actually made the statements as reported in the first place, or whether they were deliberately falsified by the Daily Mail (something which the documents show she did not directly allege, she equivocates on the matter of whether or not she said them "Q: And do you believe you said that statement to Sharon Churcher? A: I mean, Sharon and I talked a lot, and if she misheard me or just wrote it in the way that she thought she should, I have no control over that. I'm not too sure."). To only report the initial claims, which are phrased as eyewitness accounts, an aspect which is directly contradicted by the documents ("Q: What is inaccurate about... A: Because it makes it kind of sound like an eyewitness thing." and "Well, not being an eyewitness to it, wouldn't be able to tell you. I can't tell you what I don't know."), with no indication of this fact, would be extremely problematic. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 08:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Aquillion, 2 people at the RS/N besides me pointed out that we don't know what the NYT was claiming because they mention only that 'one of the claims' from Guiffre was, in their words, untrue per her later statements. So how do you view this as a statement about the Island? We don't know. And Ambivalent, the claims from Guiffre are sourced to the actual court documents and many media sources.
The claims by Guiffre are covered by RS that satisfies the requirement for exceptional claims, that's why they make up such a large part of the article. They are the reason most of us have ever heard of Epstein. There is no shortage of support from RS. Those familiar with this story know that the claims have been beyond anything we're used to hearing, and they involve many of the most elite among us. Yet, Guiffre's claims have stood the test of time and are backed up by hard evidence, so investigators and media continue to take them seriously. That is why the Epstein article is filled with the reports coming from the various court documents.
There has been no retraction, Aquillion. If the NYT was clear in what they were referring to with regard to 'one of the claims', and if it was relevant to this section, I would be happy to add it with attribution alongside the other RS which directly contradict it, including:
As well as the sources we were already using:
You can't hold RS hostage based on a false claim that we can't say anything bad about Clinton without a rebuttal. It is also false to claim that there ever was a rebuttal (or, rather, "retraction"). When and if the NYT responds, we can go from there. But nowhere in WP:BLP does it support the removal of RS as you did here, and consensus of a few editors on the talk page does not trump policy. I reject the notion that I am now responsible to prove your edits are at odds with policy by going to another noticeboard, as you told me here.
WP:BLPREMOVE states: Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: is unsourced or poorly sourced. It does not state that contentious material can be removed simply because it's contentious, which is your argument as I see it. Obviously, if any type of retraction, response, or rebuttal was available, it would indeed violate policy not to include it. But that's not the case here. petrarchan47คุก 01:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
WP:BLPREMOVE is not the only section of WP:BLP, merely the most pressing. WP:BLPSTYLE requires that Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves. Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources (but keep in mind that depictions of recent events may be unbalanced). Including only half a story by leaving out part of what those secondary sources are saying - as you are suggesting we are doing here - is a clear violation in that it produces a misleading summary of what the sources, collectively, say. Your personal opinion that the NYT's statement was not a retraction and that they will eventually update it to reflect your view of events and your view that it is contradicted by those other sources are worth discussing, but they can't change this without a clear consensus behind them. Personally I don't see either of the sources you presented to back your view affirming that underage girls were present, an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that you're trying to focus on in the article while omitting a high-quality source that casts it into doubt. But regarding your hope that the NYT will update their story, per WP:BLPBALANCE, The idea expressed in meta:Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times; that is to say, if we're in disagreement over what the NYT says and are waiting for them to clarify, the correct thing until then would be to have the most conservative viewpoint with regards to the reputation of the subject or, failing an agreement on what that is, to have nothing. And, of course, from my perspective you are the one who is trying to hold the section hostage by removing a key part of the coverage and then trying to insist that the rest (with a misleading and unbalanced summary of events) can remain; this is not the case. I'm not seeing a consensus that the NYT can be omitted in the WP:RSN discussions or in the discussions above, which means that for BLP compliance we need to include either it or say nothing about the controversy at all. I also disagree that the accusations are not WP:EXCEPTIONAL; there is a huge difference between "Clinton was friends with Epstein" and "someone says they saw Clinton with underage girls at Epstein's island." The latter has to be approached with extreme caution (caution that reaches five-alarm fire levels when we have a source as staid as the NYT implying that the claims were retracted); that's not the sort of caution that I am seeing in your fairly aggressive efforts to get the NYT off the page. --Aquillion (talk) 02:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
My efforts to remove the NYT are due to your misrepresenting what it says, and the fact that saying in WP's voice that Guiffre misspoke in her deposition is a BLP violation unless you have proper RS to back it up; BLP violations require 'aggressive action'. It was agreed at the RS/N that this source is not being used properly because we are attributing to it meaning that doesn't exist.
The NYT piece is not "half of the story", even IF they were clearly stating that Guiffre retracted her claim specifically about the presence of Bill C on the Island. It can't be called "half the story" when it is a claim mirrored in NO OTHER SOURCE and when we have countless sources which do not mention any retraction. That is what makes the NYT an exceptional claim. Guiffre's allegations are not considered exceptional in the WP sense because they are well established in media:
The NYT bit:
A spokesman for Mr. Clinton has denied that Mr. Clinton traveled to Mr. Epstein’s private island in the Virgin Islands. The documents unsealed Friday also include an acknowledgment from one of Mr. Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Giuffre, that an earlier claim she made about Mr. Clinton visiting Mr. Epstein in the Caribbean was untrue. NYT
is, per @Newslinger: at RS/N]:
not enough to substantiate the exceptional claim that Giuffre made a false statement. I can't be certain that the NYT was wrong, since the NYT article doesn't specify which ""earlier claim"" Giuffre allegedly made
and per @SlimVirgin::
The WP article discusses "her previous claim" as though there was only one claim—that Clinton visited the island—and therefore that must be the claim that is false. I agree that we can't infer this from the NYT article
You have removed reliable sources based on a false claim, which is that the NYT piece is RS for a retraction. The section you removed did indeed satisfy WP:BLP document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects.
Wikipedia: In documents unsealed the day before Epstein's death, the deposition of alleged sex slave Virginia Giuffre includes her allegations that when she was 17, Clinton visited Little St. James island, that underage girls were present, and that Epstein threw a dinner party for Clinton. She stated Secret Service was present, but not at all times. Her deposition did not include any claim that Clinton had sexual contact with anyone on the island. The Secret Service told Fox News in 2016 it had no record of agents being on the island. Giuffre claims Maxwell told her she flew Clinton to the island on her helicopter, although she conceded, "I heard a lot of things from Ghislaine that sounded too true – too outrageous to be true, but you never knew what to believe." Maxwell denied Guiffre's claim that Clinton visited the island.
That is exactly what RS reports. Here are more that state the same, and these are in addition to the RS we were using and those I've already quoted:
  • Associated Press "at least one alleged victim said in a court affidavit that she participated in an orgy, as well as had sex with Epstein and other people. She said she saw former U.S. President Bill Clinton on the island, but that she never saw him having sex with anyone. A Clinton spokesman issued a statement saying he never visited there."
  • VICE "sworn testimony unsealed Friday revealed allegations that Epstein once held a private dinner for former President Bill Clinton on the Little St. James. (Clinton has denied the visit, according to the Miami Herald, and the court documents didn’t contain any accusations that Clinton engaged in abuse.)"
  • NY Mag "Alleged Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre also claimed in a 2015 affidavit that Clinton visited the financier’s private island, though Clinton denies it. The claim has never been corroborated, and there are no Epstein-related allegations of sexual misconduct involving Clinton"
  • The Cut"Virginia Roberts, who claims to have been trafficked by Epstein, told her lawyers in 2011 interview that she saw Clinton with “two young girls” on the island. “I remember asking Jeffrey, ‘What’s Bill Clinton doing here?,’ [that] kind of thing, and he laughed it off and said, ‘Well, he owes me a favor,’” Roberts told her lawyers." petrarchan47คุก 15:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

BLP/N

WP:FORUMSHOPPING and insufficient prior discussion on article talk page. If no consensus is reached after extensive talk page discussion, suggest WP:RfC.

A section at the BLP noticeboard has been opened here regarding the recent removal of Clinton material. petrarchan47คุก 21:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

NPOV concerns regarding Bill Clinton section

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
WP:FORUMSHOPPING and insufficient prior discussion on article talk page. If no consensus is reached after extensive talk page discussion, suggest WP:RfC.

Please weigh in here. petrarchan47คุก 00:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring 1

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Petrarchan47, I must insist that you seek consensus for your repeated restorations of disputed content on this Talk page, where interested editors may participate, rather than asserting you have gained consensus here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#New_York_Times'_-_Epstein_reporting

in a location/discussion interested editors may be completely unaware of. Accordingly, I suggest you self-revert your recent restoration until you have achieved that consensus here, as at least three other editors have reverted the content, which appears to reflect the actual consensus. soibangla (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Soibangla, there are very clear rules for sourcing and you are trying to get around them by claiming you have a consensus to do so. This is not possible, editors' opinions do not overrule guidelines. petrarchan47คุก 00:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, there are very clear rules for sourcing and I am unequivocally on the right side of those rules. I am not asserting that I have consensus, you are asserting you do by virtue of a backchannel discussion that no one here knows about, and three editors have expressed the consensus by removing your content. soibangla (talk) 00:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Your claim that I am using a backchannel is typed just above the section where I announce this secret channel. One editor reverted me saying "appears to be a BLP violation", and he was wrong. The "consensus" is two people who claim this content mustn't be on the page without the NYT piece. I included the NYT. petrarchan47คุก 01:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring 2

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Per WP:STATUSQUO I just restored the 02:58, 7 October 2019 version from before edit war. Please stop all back-and-forth editing/reverting of the article and try to reach a consensus here on the talk page. If you think I should have gone back further, tell me what version you prefer and why. Note: I have no position regarding Epstein or Clinton other than wanting this article to meet Wikipedia's standards for BLPs. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Please note that per our BLP rules, in general negative material about living persons should stay out of the article until consensus is reached. I would like to see a good-faith attempt to reach consensus without any further personal comments -- discuss content, not contributors. In other words, More Light And Less Heat, Please. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss: how "a claim" by the NYT becomes "the claim" by Wikipedians

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Editors have successfully removed Guiffre's claim about seeing Bill Clinton on Epstein's island. The claim, along with her claims about many powerful men, has been in the article since August 9th. I'm not sure when the "rebuttal" from the NYT was added, but I recently noticed it and know that it cannot be used for the claim being made.

To re-add the information, I need consensus from editors here. My threads at noticeboards set up to help have been closed by Guy Macon, who says I need more conversation here, and to then open an RfC.

If you feel the NYT "a claim" means "the one claim that Clinton was there", I would appreciate if you would explain your position. The consensus here seems to be that without the NYT supposed rebuttal, it is a BLP violation to include the information about Clinton. Obviously I disagree. I don't think we can know which claim was false, and others at the RS/N agreed. I disagree that Guiffre's claims create a BLP violation.

Background: Two thousand pages of previously sealed court documents were released the night before Epstein was declared dead. The New York Times makes a claim that no one else (except Alan Dershowitz and Ghislaine Maxwell) has, a claim now mirrored in our Jeffrey Epstein article:

NYT "The documents unsealed Friday also include an acknowledgment from one of Mr. Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Giuffre, that an earlier claim she made about Mr. Clinton visiting Mr. Epstein in the Caribbean was untrue."

Wikipedia: "The unsealed court documents also showed that Giuffre later acknowledged her previous claim about Clinton visiting the island was false."

The claim was made midway through a fluff piece about Trump-fueled conspiracy theories involving Bill Clinton. Besides this brief mention, the NYT has not reported on the documents. WP editors have taken its statement to mean that Guiffre admitted Clinton was not on the island, contrary to her earlier testimony. They have decided that because it was printed in the Times, it must be true, and lack of corroborating reports, and the presence of contradictory reports, are seen as irrelevant because the NYT is considered to be reliable.

In transcripts of Giuffre’s deposition released by the court Friday, Bill Clinton‘s relationship with Epstein is expounded upon. Giuffre alleges that Clinton was around when she was with Epstein on his island. Giuffre claims that she “flew to the Caribbean” with Epstein when she was 17, and that while she was there, Maxwell bragged that she picked Clinton up in a "black helicopter that Jeffrey [Epstein] bought her". Giuffre further says that she had spent time with Clinton and that while his secret service agents were there, they weren’t "where [everyone] was eating." ... While the details of the alleged helicopter trip were, thus, unclear, Giuffre’s other statements in the deposition, if true, confirm Bill Clinton was on Jeffrey Epstein’s island while underage girls were present. This runs contradictory to Clinton’s claims that he has never been to Jeffrey Epstein’s private island.

More sources that cover the allegation: Law and Crime, FORBES, TIME, AP, VICE, NY Mag, The Cut, Chicago Tribune, and Fox8

I'm happy to include the NYT with attribution, but we must quote them properly and not change "a claim" to "the claim" (an idea with which Aquillion agreed: "at best you can say "the NYT said X, while [other source] disagreed"). That's why my fix was to say exactly what they did: a claim was made, but they don't specify which one. petrarchan47คุก 03:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

If your only issue is with the changing of "a" claim to "the" claim, why not just change "her previous claim" to "a previous claim she made" (something which I actually suggested) without further editorializing? Instead you repeatedly removed the entire sentence, seemingly tried to cast aspersions on the NYT's reporting as being biased towards pedophiles and therefore not reliable for Epstein coverage, and then re-wrote the whole thing with superfluous editorializing. I also have an issue with the fact that even though multiple editors disagreed with you, the moment one or two editors (one of whom you directly contacted about the issue when others did not take your side, which is dangerously close to canvasing in addition to the forumshopping issues others have brought up) seem to (loosely, maybe) agree with you, you reinstated your changes claiming some sort of consensus. This just doesn't seem like constructive editing to me, and makes it difficult to assume good faith. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 07:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I just searched and looked at every place "claim" is used in the current version and did not find any place "claim" and "Clinton" are near each other. Correct me if I am wrong. Could someone please specify the exact wording they want to add? And if anyone disagrees, could they please specify the exact alternative wording or specify leaving it out entirely? I am finding the arguments about wording that was removed when I restored a WP:STATUSQUO version confusing, and would like to see exactly what is being proposed. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The argument is about a sentence ("The unsealed court documents also showed that Giuffre later acknowledged her previous claim about Clinton visiting the island was false.") which was present in the article until this edit on October 7th: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeffrey_Epstein&diff=919992232&oldid=919722825 (Sorry I don't know the template to correctly provide diffs). The argument was over whether the New York Times was a reliable source for this statement, whether it should be included, and how the statement should be worded. A heavily modified version of it (with what is in my opinion undue editorializing) was present in the material you removed ("The New York Times reported that in the documents, Guiffre admits she was wrong about a claim she made regarding Clinton, but they did not specify which claim."). Because it is related to the bulk of the material you removed, there is no reason that I can see to re-add it unless the rest of the material is also re-added, so this is sort of a hypothetical argument right now. My position in a nutshell is this: I am happy for everything you removed to stay out of the article, but if it is re-added to the article, this statement ("The unsealed court documents also showed that Giuffre later acknowledged her previous claim about Clinton visiting the island was false.") (or a very close paraphrasing, as I mention above, without editorializing) should be added instead of the statement ("The New York Times reported that in the documents, Guiffre admits she was wrong about a claim she made regarding Clinton, but they did not specify which claim.") because I feel that that version includes too much editorializing. For reference, the sentence in the New York Times article which is the source for this is "The documents unsealed Friday also include an acknowledgment from one of Mr. Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Giuffre, that an earlier claim she made about Mr. Clinton visiting Mr. Epstein in the Caribbean was untrue." I hope that helped rather than made things more complicated. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 08:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Guy Macon The original sentence "The unsealed court documents also showed that Giuffre later acknowledged her previous claim about Clinton visiting the island was false." is the only correct interpretation of what the NYT reported. Any interpretation that NYT could be referring to "any" earlier claim is flatly false on its face. There is absolutely no ambiguity whatsoever in what the NYT reported, regardless of how much some might try to parse it to reach an alternative interpretation. Other editors have attempted to use original research of the legal documents to assert the NYT got it wrong, but a highly reliable source such as the NYT prevails over that OR. To my knowledge, no one has refuted that specific sentence by the NYT, most notably not Guiffre, and consequently the reporting by the reliable source must be accepted, as we cannot pick and choose when to accept or reject what reliable sources report. soibangla (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Please stop placing {{u|Guy Macon}} in front of your arguments. I DON'T CARE WHAT THE CONTENT OF THIS PAGE IS. The ONLY thing I care about is whether there is edit warring and whether the editors working on this page follow Wikipedia's policies. You need to address the editors who disagree with you, not me.
Read WP:CONSENSUS again, and show that there is a consensus to re-add anything about Giuffre and Clinton. Right now the article says nothing on the subject and will stay that way until there is agreement about what the article should contain. If you cannot get the other editors to agree with you (you might have more success with a less aggressive tone) your suggested changes will stay out of the article. Can't reach an agreement? Read WP:RfC for instructions as to what to do next. Again, please stop bothering me with your arguments about the content of this article. That's for you and the other editors to work out if you can. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I am not pleased that you misrepresented what I said to you last night. Perhaps consider striking. As to my "aggressive tone," I am approaching the limit of my patience and tolerance for what is likely the most surreal behavior by an editor (not you) I have ever witnessed on Wikipedia. It is truly mind-blowing. soibangla (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I apologize if what I wrote bothered you, I was simply trying to answer your question in the best way that I could and clear up any possible misunderstandings. I was not trying to argue about the content of the page other than to answer you specific question about "exactly what is being proposed". To keep it simple, I will just say that, for now, I propose that the text you removed stay out of the article. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Request to re-add something removed in the WP:STATUSQUO restore

Latest comment: 4 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion

Well OK, but the bold part of the sentence in the restored version The New York Times reported that in the documents, Guiffre admits she was wrong about a claim she made regarding Clinton, but they did not specify which claim remains false, and that's the crux of the matter, as far as I'm concerned. The NYT clearly said the specific claim Clinton visited Epstein's island was false. But I don't know how far back to go to restore that without removing intervening edits that are good. soibangla (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Let's see if there is a consensus for me to remove that particular claim. Does anyone object? If nobody objects I will remove the claim as being an uncontroversial and uncontested change. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
You can see clearly the NYT didn't specify which claim. You can also see other editors agreed:
The NYT bit:
A spokesman for Mr. Clinton has denied that Mr. Clinton traveled to Mr. Epstein’s private island in the Virgin Islands. The documents unsealed Friday also include an acknowledgment from one of Mr. Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Giuffre, that an earlier claim she made about Mr. Clinton visiting Mr. Epstein in the Caribbean was untrue. NYT
is, per @Newslinger: at RS/N]:
not enough to substantiate the exceptional claim that Giuffre made a false statement. I can't be certain that the NYT was wrong, since the NYT article doesn't specify which ""earlier claim"" Giuffre allegedly made
and per @SlimVirgin::
The WP article discusses "her previous claim" as though there was only one claim—that Clinton visited the island—and therefore that must be the claim that is false. I agree that we can't infer this from the NYT article
Ping Guy_Macon petrarchan47คุก 03:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
No need to ping me. When I post a comment I check for replies.
If I understand you correctly, that makes 2 for removal. Still waiting to see if anyone objects to the removal so I can decide whether removal is an uncontroversial and uncontested change. Give it, say, another 24 hours to give people time to respond.
Posting reasons why you think it should be removed is a waste of time. I don't care. All I care about is [A] whether anyone disputes removal, and [B] if they can give me a good reason why we should not follow our basic "keep negative material out until there is consensus to include it" BLP rule. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, of course it should stay out, according to the letter and spirit of BLP. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe that I made an error. The comment by Soibangla ("...the sentence in the restored version... remains false") made me think that my reverting to a version from before the edit war introduced an error. But the version I restored does not contain "https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/10/us/politics/trump-epstein-conspiracy-theories.html", "did not specify which claim" or "an earlier claim". So it appears that Soibangla is asking me to add something. The answer is no. My reverting to a WP:STATUSQUO version removed everything anyone was edit warring about, good or bad. If anyone wants some of what I removed put back, get consensus that it was good. If you can't reach consensus with discussion, post a WP:RfC. My apologies for the error. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I think (and I could be wrong) that Soibangla was saying that even if the material you removed was to be restored, that particular part of it ("did not specify which claim") should not be restored, which if that is the case (again I could be wrong, I don't want to speak for anyone other than myself) I agree with the sentiment. That being said, I am totally fine with everything you removed staying out of the article. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
AmbivalentUnequivocality Your interpretation of my meaning is correct. soibangla (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Guy_Macon I did not ask you to add anything. soibangla (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

SlimVirgin and Newslinger, because your names have again been invoked in this matter, I am again pinging you to request your input in this matter. Please closely examine this sentence reported by the NYT:

NYT "The documents unsealed Friday also include an acknowledgment from one of Mr. Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Giuffre, that an earlier claim she made about Mr. Clinton visiting Mr. Epstein in the Caribbean was untrue."

Do you interpret that sentence to mean...

A — Giuffre later acknowledged that some unspecified earlier claim she made was untrue;

or

B — Giuffre later acknowledged that her earlier claim Clinton visited Epstein in the Caribbean was untrue.

Please note that I am not asking if you believe the NYT was correct or incorrect in their reporting; I am simply asking for your interpretation of what they reported. Thank you. soibangla (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Soibangla, when the only available source for an exceptional claim is ambiguous, I don't think we should be picking an interpretation and using that as the basis for article content. That's why I would prefer to exclude this claim from the article until more high-quality reliable sources that corroborate the claim emerge (hopefully with more detail and precision). — Newslinger talk 21:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
So your answer is A? soibangla (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
​A would be closer to my interpretation. Three points:
  1. The earlier claim is unspecified.
  2. The article does not state whether Giuffre made one or multiple earlier claims on this subject.
  3. The earlier claim is "about" (i.e. related to) "Mr. Clinton visiting Mr. Epstein in the Caribbean". The sentence doesn't conclusively say that "Mr. Clinton visiting Mr. Epstein in the Caribbean" is the substance of the earlier claim.
​— Newslinger talk 23:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC) Added "in the Caribbean" to the quotes. — Newslinger talk 23:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Wow. Just...wow. Life is too short. I'm done with this insanity. soibangla (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
If the NYT were more specific, if there were other corroborating reliable sources, or if the claim were less contentious, we would not have this issue. The NYT dedicated just one ambiguous sentence in the article to state that Giuffre made a false claim, and I can't find any other reliable sources that support this sentence. I even searched through the underlying primary source (387MB PDF version), and wasn't able to find support for this sentence. — Newslinger talk 23:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jeffrey_Epstein/Archive_4&oldid=1136267728"