Talk:Jeffrey Epstein

RfC: Virginia Giuffre and Bill Clinton

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

A – Removed in Special:Diff/920457099:

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.

B – Added in Special:Diff/920948666:

In court documents unsealed August 9, 2019, one night before Epstein was found dead, Virginia Guiffre claims to have seen Clinton on Little Saint James where she said Epstein threw a party for the former president. Guiffre noted also that Ghislaine Maxwell told her she and Clinton flew in a "huge black helicopter."

References

Survey (Giuffre's claims regarding Clinton)

• A This is neutral, informative representation of the sources; with a nod to Atsme, 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 petrarchan47คุก 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. petrarchan47คุก 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 HAL333 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, HAL333. 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. petrarchan47คุก 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. petrarchan47คุก 22:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The New York Times's claim regarding Giuffre

A – Removed in Special:Diff/919992232:

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

B – Added in Special:Diff/920948666:

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.

References

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 Times's 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. petrarchan47คุก 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. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude both A and B does not appear this strongly in the actual article HAL333 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:

Automated response to correction submission from The New York Times

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 letters@nytimes.com  More information on submitting letters can be found at nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/lettertoeditor.html Send Op-Ed submissions to 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 rights@nytimes.com TO BUY PICTURES:  write to photosales@nytimes.com BACK COPIES:  Information about requesting back copies of the newspaper can be found here.

— Newslinger talk 20:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• 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." petrarchan47คุก 22:19, 17 October 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.”"--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(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. petrarchan47คุก 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). — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 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)

References

•  Not done: 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.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(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.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry ...

... about my bad html tonight ... --MIB4u (talk) 16:41, 19 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.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(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.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(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)

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)

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)

Should the Jeffrey Epstein biography (1992) reference be excluded?

An editor wishes to exclude the following reference from the article:

[ref name=":21"]Robotham, Michael (November 15, 1992). "The Mystery of Ghislaine Maxwell's Secret Love". Mail on Sunday. One outrageous story links him to the CIA and Mossad. Another that Epstein was a concert pianist. Yet another that he was a maths teacher at an exclusive girls school...'He told me he was a spy hired by corporations to find major amounts of money which had been embezzled,' she says. 'He made it sound very exciting and glamorous...'[/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)

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)

• 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)