Talk:Jeffrey Epstein

Article should be rewritten

[Epstein] is a Jewish-American financier, philanthropist and pedophile.

Uh...this guy is basically charged with child molestation. Why is this silly PR piece here? "Still considered one of its brightest minds?" Fer chrissake. Here comes the chainsaw... 68.81.114.143 14:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey Epstein is currently being tried on multiple counts of child molestation. Those facts will remain in the article. Destroying good faith edits without a discussion is outright vandalism. Graham Wellington (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Epstein is currently on trial for allegedly molesting teenage girls. If you intend to delete properly sourced facts, please discuss. Graham Wellington (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeffrey Epstein is currently being tried on several counts of molesting underage girls. Here are the facts:

"One of the accusers—a girl of 14—had put his age at 45, not in his fifties, and you could see why."

http://nymag.com/news/features/41826/

"The girl cried and dug her finger into her thigh and told the story, of going to a big house on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, and climbing a spiral staircase to the master bedroom, where a blonde woman of 25 who wasn’t very friendly laid out sheets and lotions on a massage table and left, then Jeff came in, naked but for a towel, and sternly ordered the girl to take off her clothes. As she rubbed his chest, he touched himself, then applied a vibrator to her crotch."

http://nymag.com/news/features/41826/index1.html

"But generally the girls’ feelings as portrayed by police interviews ranged from disgust to fear. Epstein was the hairy troll under the bridge they had to pass over to get quick money."

http://nymag.com/news/features/41826/index2.html

"A 16-year-old who needed money for Christmas said she was so upset by Epstein’s removing her underwear as she massaged him that she broke off her friendship with the girl who brought her. Another called Epstein “a pervert.”"

http://nymag.com/news/features/41826/index2.html

"One of Epstein’s friends told me, “He thinks there’s an anti-Semitic conspiracy against him in Palm Beach. He’s convinced of that. Maybe it’s a defense mechanism.”"

"Yet the anti-Semitic charge disturbed Jews whom I asked about it in Palm Beach."

http://nymag.com/news/features/41826/index3.html

"Driving home with their $500, Haley said to the 14-year-old that if they did this every Saturday they’d be rich, and it’s understandable that a teenager in West Palm Beach might feel that way."

"He has never shown a glimmer of understanding that a high-school girl could be damaged by a powerful 50-year-old’s demands, or that some of the girls were already emotionally damaged."

http://nymag.com/news/features/41826/index4.html

Graham Wellington (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This man is not considered guilty yet, therefore the headline for basically PR pieces and not the factual information of his life should be changed from "Accusations of child molestation" to something more fair. By putting up that headline, you are vandalizing his page. Him being accused DOES NOT need to be the HEADLINE of the piece. Why aren't there any headlines for his accomplishments? People are innocent until proven guilty. These accusations surely put bad tastes in people's mouths, but this page should be handled professionally and NOT as a one-sided PR piece.

Arazara (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

He was indicted by a grand jury on all counts. The headline should reflect that fact. Graham Wellington (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

not a mug shot

I removed the claim that this image was a mug shot... here is same image at HuffPo, w/ Bear Stearns poster behind him. Please direct me to the nearest police station that displays Bear Stearns posters. J.A.McCoy (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The source for this photo, The Smoking Gun, does identify it as a mug shot. Your comment asserting that police stations wouldn't have posters isn't valid, unless you've spent a considerable amount of time in various police stations?

In case you aren't aware, new comments belong at the bottom of the page, not at the top. You've been here long enough to have learned that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added the mug shot back. Source: Palm Beach Sheriff's Office. It's a mug shot, folks, distributed by a public agency. Proxy User (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Please see my post in Biographies of Living Persons. There are many other people in the world named Jeffrey Epstein. I am one of them, and I am NOT THIS GUY. Jeep15603 (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that you are having difficulties in sharing a name with this individual. However, the use of disambiguation pages on Wikipedia is clearly outlined at WP:DAB, which says Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural choice of title for more than one article. In other words, disambiguations are paths leading to the different article pages that could use essentially the same term as their title. Since there are no other articles on Wikipedia about a Jeffrey Epstein, and the article is very clear regarding the specific Epstein with whom it is dealing, I'm afraid little can be done to further disambiguate it. Just a basic 411.com search for this name reveals 158 persons alone whose phone number is listed under the name "Jeff Epstein." So unless you're the Jeffrey Epstein who is 54 years old, was born on Coney Island, is a billionaire financier who lives in Florida and has hobnobbed with politicians and celebrities, owns a private island and is currently in legal problems for proclivities, it's not likely that the ordinary person will mistake you for him. That is rather the point, in that this is hardly a unique name and while I'm sure you are more highly aware of it, the average person is not likely to read that name elsewhere and think of you in specific. There really isn't a precedent, or a need, to print a disclaimer in the article saying "Make sure you know this isn't another Jeffrey Epstein." Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Jeffrey Epstein is now serving time in prison for his sex crimes - why is that not in this article?

He was convicted. He is serving time. Is that fact-based enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.144.195 (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Did he actually go to a prision or jus6t house arrest? Which prison? 72.209.63.226 (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Can the opening description incorporate his convicted sex-offender status.. it is a big part of his infamy. Good references are here: http://gawker.com/5751094/law--order-commemorates-jeffrey-epsteins-taste-for-teen-hookers?skyline=true&s=i including his current as of Feb 2011 status as a Level 3 NY state sex-offender.

Edit request from Useredits, 22 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

please unlink blank page.

Useredits (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I do not understand what you are asking for. The page is not blank. Please clarify and re-request. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  22:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

The second paragraph under the "Solicitation of prostitution" [1] heading/section contains an error in the sentence beginning with, "I His team of lawyers included ...", and should read, "His team ..." instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.196.163 (talk) 08:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 94.174.71.4, 8 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Remove reference 16 as there is no information there

94.174.71.4 (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

 Partly done: Rather than remove it I marked it as a dead link. It's clear that said page used to contain the appropriate news story. I couldn't find it through other searches, but it may be in an archive somewhere. In general, if a source was once accurate, we preserve it with a dead link rather than just removing it. Qwyrxian (talk)

What is unusal about victims being able to sue?

In the section about civil suits there is a quote lifted from a British paper stating that it was unusal that his victims are able to sue after the plea bargain. This is not unusual in the US as a plea bargain between the state and the defendent never precludes another party from taking civil action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.109.63.190 (talk) 13:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

List of friends

This has been uncited since October 2008, so is overdue for removal: "Epstein has befriended high profile scientists such as Leonard Susskind, Richard Axel, Gerald Edelman, Murray Gell-Mann, Lawrence Krauss, Ben Goertzel, and Marvin Minsky, and politicians including George J. Mitchell and Bill Clinton." These people may have met Epstein or flown on his private jet plane at some point, but the claim that they are personal friends needs tighter sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

picture

the article as of 3/25/11 had no picture. i know there is a 'mugshot' picture elsewhere on wikipedia, but it does not link specifically to the source where the picture was obtained from. it simply said uploaded by Proxy User (a user that does not exist). the new picture has been specifically sourced with a url to a Wikipedia:Verifiability website. it is a poor quality picture but it is public domain. Decora (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Friendship with Prince Andrew not mentioned

If you look at the references section, you'll see that many of the sources in this article are media reports that focus primarily on Prince Andrew, but his name is mysteriously absent from the text itself. What is the justification for this? One of the things Epstein is famous for is the embarrassment he has caused to his royal friend. I don't think there is any justification to sanitise this article to protect the reputation of Epstein's powerful and famous friends. Beorhtwulf (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed -- I support adding something along these lines. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Whitewashing

We've got at least one recent editor who is deliberately whitewashing this article and claims it his "right" - though clearly by our policies, it is not. Rklawton (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I removed the convicted sex offender part from the WP:LEAD because it looked somewhat POV to make an issue of this in the opening sentence of a BLP article. Not sure if you were referring to this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

There have been previous concerns over making the article a WP:BLP1E relating to the sex charges. The use of his police mugshot in the infobox is less than ideal. This is not whitewashing, but normal BLP/NPOV concern. Please assume good faith.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

That's just a small part of the problem. But to address your point specifically... given the massive amount of publicity this subject has received and the fact that a significant section of the article is devoted to the subject, it's blatant whitewashing to remove it from the lead. The fact that this is a BLP isn't relevant since the conviction is undisputed. WP:BLP1E has nothing to do with article leads. However, if you wish to propose this article for deletion on the basis of WP:BLP1E, then that's a different matter entirely. Rklawton (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the NPOV issue, the current wording is clunky. It would be better to say this in a separate sentence, giving some details of the charges.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to less clunky wording. Rklawton (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Turvill

User:Turvill a new account who hasn't yet joined the talk page discussion has dedicated him or herself to whitewashing this article. By itself, such efforts aren't all that unusual. However, these new efforts by this newly registered account fall on the heals of several other attempts to do the same by IPs and appears highly irregular to-wit duckish. I'm very concerned that there's a ham-handed and unethical PR effort underway to clean up Epstein's image. Given all the press last year referring to Epstein as a "pedophile", I'd say this article is pretty neutral in that it refers to him only as a "convicted sex offender". The whitewashing efforts including adding trivial details about scientific research that Epstein had funded - which is like boasting the Cali Cartel helped fund schools and hospitals - as well as removing significant negative information about the subject - all if it well sourced and well within bounds of WP:BLP. Rklawton (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I was asked to comment by Turvill and the main thing that I would like to say is that using a mugshot in the infobox is not ideal and could reinforce the idea that this article is a hatchet job. The real problem is WP:NFCC, but it would help to have a more neutral image in the infobox.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I would not object to replacing the mugshot with something else. If anyone has a more suitable free image, we could use that instead. I'm also open to the idea that we move the mug shot down to the related section. Rklawton (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Turvill is running around to various user talk-pages instead of coming here -- complaining that there's no source for the money-laundering claim. It's unfortunate that this editor has not consulted the reference added by Rklawton when restoring it: [2]. In any event, this is the place to discuss it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Philanthropy

The section on Epstein's philanthropy should give the reader an idea about its scope. Total amounts donated, amounts donated by type of charity (research, art, whatever), and amount donated as a percent of net worth would all be useful in establishing scope. However, I oppose detailing the research itself as the research is not the subject of the article, and most research receives funding from multiple sources. I'd be open to providing a brief description of research funded entirely by Epstein as then it truly would be his project. And, as with everything in the biography of a living person, everything we add must be sourced. Rklawton (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Response from Turville Re: Epstein article

Hello, thank you for your posts and for adjusting the mug shot to the more appropriate location. I am not as claimed, a pr crony for Jeffrey Epstein. I do though come from a science journalist background, had heard of the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics at Harvard, and when I came across this article I was quite taken by the lob-sided presentation of this piece. It struck me immediately as slanderous vs. having a neutral point of view. MONEY LAUNDERING: the link that was added to back this, does not connect through. That is extremely problematic given that this is in the lead of the piece and libel if not properly sourced. I googled money laundering and Jeffrey Epstein and found the article url that mentions it but this is what I found, and I quote: "Yet a source tells The Daily Beast that Epstein’s legal troubles may not be over. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT, as an outgrowth of the 2007 Florida investigation, federal investigators are now looking into allegations of money laundering and other financial misdeeds. Villafana notes at the end of her letter to Lefkowitz: “You accuse me of broadening the scope of the investigation without any foundation for doing so by adding charges of money laundering and violations of a money transmitting business to the investigation. Again, I consulted with the Justice Department’s Money Laundering Section about my analysis...the duty officer agreed with my analysis.”

Something being "possible" in the press is not the same as something that actually "is" as claimed in the lead of the article. And just because the duty office agreed with the analysis is not evidence that money laundering is under investigation. So, so far the lead is misleading and false. Unless you can find an article that confirms that he IS under investigation for money laundering, I think it should be removed. PROGRAM for EVOLUTIONARY DYNAMICS: this was entirely established from Jeffrey Epstein's $30 million, as was the research that was the first to mathematically quantify the in vivo kinetics of human cancer cells. That was a major achievement in the field of cancer and I think it should be allowed back into the article.

Thank you for your thoughts. PS. I didn't use this talk page because I simply overlooked it and so went to your individual talk pages instead. I agree that this is a better forum, so long as it is a venue that editors look at. my best, Turville50.74.171.70 (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)