Talk:Death of Jeffrey Epstein/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Dismissive language

The term "conspiracy theory" is generally understood to be dismissive of previously discredited ideas. Its use in this article, related to the cause of death is inappropriate, and there is a legitimate disagreement between professionals related to the theories of death. The terms "theory" or "theories" related to the death is both sufficient and not intentionally leading, and should therefore replaced "Conspiracy theory" in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.218.68.217 (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories means a theory about a conspiracy. It shouldn’t have a negative connotation even though it does. 2606:A000:C1C6:CEF0:5DA7:B0F5:F217:A796 (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Article is a disjointed mess

I don't believe this article should be deleted. However, we need to establish some sort of parameters as to how it should be written. The four sections need to be eliminated and merged into one section, the arrest, previous incident, death, and autopsy just doesn't look right. Merge those four sections and then break it up from there. Blakebs (talk) 4:13, August 13 2019 (CST)

About this article

I feel that most conspiracy theories should be kept off of this page HAL333 19:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

For the curious, this topic is currently being debated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to have two such pages. Either merge the conspiracy stuff into this title (as has been proposed at that article), or else delete this and leave all the content on the Jeffrey Epstein page. Most of it is there anyhow so this is an unnecessary fork - if it is not going to deal with the conspiracy stuff which is getting most of the coverage. We absolutely shouldn't be reporting on his death in three places. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I'll wait for your response before nominating it for deletion. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you that we should not have articles at both Death of Jeffrey Epstein and Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories.

A merge of "death conspiracy theories" to this "death of" article seems most reasonable to me. Our standard practice for biographies is to have a "Death" section in the article. If there's significant coverage of the death itself, we make a "Death of X" article (e.g., Death of Michael Jackson, Death of Edgar Allan Poe, etc.). In exceptional circumstances, we create an article devoted to death conspiracy theories (e.g., Osama bin Laden death conspiracy theories). At this point in time, we have reached the second stage, but not the third. There is and continues to be significant ongoing coverage of Epstein's death and that will continue in the coming weeks with the federal investigation into his death while in custody. The conspiracy theories are largely confined to Twitter, and while mentioning the conspiracy theories and media coverage of them is certainly reasonable at this point, devoting a separate article to them is currently overkill. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories should not be fully explored in a article covering someone's death, or on their biographical page. That is the current precedent. Although Death of Diana, Princess of Wales mentions conspiracies, there is a separate Death of Diana, Princess of Wales conspiracy theories. There are articles for Assassination of John F. Kennedy, Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, Assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., but there are also and John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, Yitzhak Rabin assassination conspiracy theories, Robert F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, Martin Luther King Jr. assassination conspiracy theories. While there is a page for the 1943 Gibraltar B-24 crash, there is also one for Władysław Sikorski's death controversy. I could continue endlessly. There is enough (and will be much more) information on Epstein's death to support a death page and a conspiracies page. Conspiracies do NOT belong on a death article, but on their own article. HAL333 05:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi HAL333. Can you please explain why you feel conspiracy theories should not be included in a death article? You've stated that position a couple times now, but I don't see a rationale. The examples you cite such as Assassination of John F. Kennedy#Conspiracy theories and Assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.#Conspiracy theories have "Conspiracy theories" sections about conspiracy theories in the death article.

If the conspiracy theories are directly tied to Epstein's death, including them in the same death article seems pretty reasonable to me. The question here is whether a separate article devoted to the conspiracy theories is warranted for Epstein. I don't believe this is currently the case.

The people you note are all pretty exceptional and there is significantly more coverage of conspiracies surrounding their deaths than there is with Epstein. I don't think comparisons to John F. Kennedy or Martin Luther King Jr. are apt as Epstein is not nearly on the same level as them. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Shriking, attempt to revivive Epstein

Here [1] is an article quoting an unnamed source that mentions shriking and attempts to revive Epstein. I am not sure how much of it should be incorporated into the article at this point.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I assume your mean shrieking? HAL333 05:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I sure hope so. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Prison warden reassigned

This article [2] covers the head of the prison where Epstein died being reassigned and other related issues.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Broken neck bones

Here [3] is a USA today article that goes into depth about the possible meanings of Epstein's broken neck bones. This [4] Washington Post article seems to be where the issues was first reported. This [5] CNN article argues that the breaks are consistent with suicide.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

What could it mean when a CNN Business writer uses Health and Science sources to sling mud at a competitor's Politics piece? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh. Oliver Darcy's profile says he's "writing from the intersection of media and politics". Morgan Hines filed under Health, but specializes in trendy breaking news, particularly "quirky and fun" shit. Any real science reporters talking neckbone out there? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Merger

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories was closed as Merge to this page. Editors may discuss how to do so here. starship.paint (talk) 06:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I've renamed "Proponents" to "Suicide denial", because the new implication made no sense here. Also changed "Conspiracy theories" to "Homicide predictions" because they were. Tried deleting "Connections to public figures" because that was during and still regarding the life of Jeffrey Epstein, but the going was too slow with only backspace functionality; if someone could highlight and delete the prehumous bits, that'd seem about right. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I've changed the section title from "Suicide denial" to "Conspiracy theories", and I removed the section "Homicide predictions", instead summarizing that material under "conspiracy theories". -- MelanieN (talk) 03:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

But there are no conspiracy theories in there. Just a bunch of doubt or wild guesses at single culprits. Aside from that major problem, it's a fine header. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps "Conspiracy theories" should be merged into "Reactions".--Jack Upland (talk) 05:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

There's a lot from the old conspiracies page that was not merged into this one. I'm going to pick up some of that missing content now. The old page is here Bangabandhu (talk) 05:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Death of Jeffrey Epstein

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

Reference named "auto2":

• From 4chan: Siegel, Jacob (June 29, 2015). "Dylann Roof, 4chan, and the New Online Racism". The Daily Beast. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
• From Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories: "Jeffrey Epstein's death by apparent suicide inspires new conspiracy theories". www.cbsnews.com.
• From Martin Luther King Jr. assassination conspiracy theories: "The Plot to Kill King". www.civilrightsmuseum.org.
• From White genocide conspiracy theory: Heer, Jeet (24 June 2015). "Dylann Roof's Defense of White Rule in Africa Has Roots in American Conservatism". The New Republic. Retrieved 2018-12-09. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
• From Kirsten Gillibrand: Franco, James V. "Sen. Gillibrand and her family will soon call Rensselaer County home". The Record.
• From Hillary Clinton: "Clinton's Book Sales Top 1 Million". Associated Press. July 9, 2003. Archived from the original on May 11, 2011. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019): Basu, Zachary (March 24, 2019). "Mueller investigation finds no Trump campaign conspiracy with Russia". Axios.com. Retrieved March 24, 2019.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected Edit Request

Hi, sorry, but can someone please change "hung himself" to "hanged himself"? Seems laughably niggling, given the subject matter and ongoing factual disputes, but let's just have it at least read grammatically. Microfamous (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Done. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Very much appreciated. Microfamous (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

"Connections to public figures" section

What's the justification for this section? It's material that should be included on the primary JE article, if at all. His dealings and cozy relationships with these various high-profile figures do not seem relevant to an article that's explicitly about the facts and circumstances around his death (unless it is proven or widely reported that one of these people had some kind of hand in it). I say this even as someone who isn't buying the ruling of "suicide" at this time; I speculate and believe privately that the man was murdered, but this sprawling section on his alleged connections to the "elite" seems wildly off-topic for the article's purportedly narrow subject. Microfamous (talk) 00:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll say one last thing and then stifle myself: the final section, "Suicide denial," is basically redundant with the earlier "Reaction" section––which is itself already woefully overlong and filled with what are essentially (and oftentimes literally) just people's tweets. If I had a vote, I'd say that "Reactions" should be heavily edited and summarized, and that every section following "Investigations" (beginning with "Homicide predictions") should be deleted entirely, as they contain nothing that isn't either redundant, marginal, or off-topic. Microfamous (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing - that the Reactions section is bloated with every comment made by every celebrity or politician. We need to take an axe to that section and leave only the comments that are in some way noteworthy. BTW without seeing your comments here I have already responded to some of them. I deleted the section "Homicide predictions" and summarized that information briefly under the "Conspiracy theories" section. That section needs to remain, under that name, because it represents material that was merged from Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories per the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

But one of the main reasons that article didn't remain was the absence of conspiracy theories. Full of doubtful speculative reactions to his death instead, so made more sense to have them here. Merging some content of a deleted article is one thing, but carrying over the underlying problem doesn't solve anything. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I have done some major trimming to the Reactions section, deleting comments from peripheral figures, or statements that merely echo other statements. I found that several of the comments I retained were unsourced, and I will try to add sources for them. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I sourced them, and removed two that I could not find independent sourcing for. I have removed the "excessively detailed" tag from the Reactions section. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Thanks, Melanie. You and Hulk have done a great job pruning the article and tightening up the focus of its various sections. It's night and day compared to yesterday. Back on the topic of "Connections to public figures" ... what work do we think this section is doing in the article? We're talking about his death, specifically, right? I can see a section like this living (or being woven throughout) the article for the man himself, but we've just got this "who's who" of his famous buddies plopped in the middle of the thing for reasons that are still escaping me. It almost reads like a Whodunnit!? or a Game of Clue, inviting the reader to guess... which one of these guys is the culprit! Maybe I'm overreacting, but I still don't understand the intent of this section and what it's doing conceptually or structurally in the article. (For the record, I think the subsequent sections –– "Predictions" and "Conspiracy Theories" –– are more than warranted and, in their present form, contribute to this article's holistic approach to covering both his death and the resulting aftershock and outcry.) Microfamous (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Removal / restoration of a full section about death predictions

I removed the pre-existing section “Death predictions” from this article, and summarized it in a single sentence in the “Conspiracy theories” section. User:Lexi sioz restored [6] the section, making it into a subsection of the “Conspiracy theories” section, including named sub-subsections for each of the three people who made such a prediction. I think this is overkill. I would be OK with expanding that sentence into a paragraph, but I think we should be summarizing this kind of information rather than quoting everyone at length. And I certainly don’t agree with individual sub-sub-sections for each individual. Thoughts? (It should be noted that Lexi Sioz disagrees with the decision to merge the conspiracy article into this one, and continues to argue for a separate article.[7]) -- MelanieN (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The long version and short version both don't posit a single conspiracy theory, for what that's worth. Best to have "Predictions" as a header in itself, avoiding the problems of subsubsections, confusing "Death" with "Homicide" and false advertising in one fell swoop. Kooky idea, maybe, but entirely possible and feasible. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, actually all of the predictions are that he would be murdered, so IMO that pretty much is part of the conspiracies. But you are suggesting a freestanding "predictions" or "death predictions" section, not part of the "conspiracies" section? That's possible, but where in the article would you suggest putting it? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Dore's is about Clinton foreseeing suicide (implicitly no other option, but still). The others suggest plain killing, no secret group (and not illegal if the government plotted it). I put it below "Conspiracy theories", but no harm in above, I suppose (but someone else will have to do it, because I'm not programmed to paste). InedibleHulk (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I am OK with the changes you have made. I removed the sub-sub-sections, and I moved "Protections" before "Conspiracy theories" for chronological reasons. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

And I mostly like what you've done with the place, too. I've a hankering to delete everything between Patton and Bautista, since they don't remotely suggest anyone conspired with anyone, just powerful single people getting the job done. Scarborough, particularly, is on record as just screwing around; would you miss them? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I’m OK with deleting Patton, Perlman and Bautista, who are simply echoing what someone else has said. I would like to keep Rangappa and Scarborough because they are each offering a unique theory - as is Foster. IMO Rangappa, Scarborough, and Foster could then be combined into a single, catch-all paragraph. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Perlman and Batista's one-liners are definitely the weakest, even by joke standards. As a believer in a paragraph's role as a container for a single idea, I'm fairly opposed to mixing three unique premises (though three goes into one more naturally than any number except one). How about we nuke the comedians and use the freed space to explain how Scarborough was attempting humour as well; in text (and given the recent history of "serious" Russia commentary on cable), it might otherwise fly over some heads. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I think you all are missing the forest for the trees here. There are two primary aspects that are requiring coverage regarding JE's death:

- One is the fact that there is this person who has died.

- The second is the fact that there has been this swirl of controversy regarding his death in what could have been an extremely controlled situation.

These are two separate aspects. And I will reiterate the view I had expressed in my edit summary. Actually, I will cut&paste that here:

"Re-adding the three people previously mentioned in earlier versions of this article, carried over from "...conspiracy theories" article merger. If anyone wants this removed, it would be best to open discussion in the Talk. These serve an important function in showing how easily this was predictable. Dore notability goes back more than a decade, with his article having been created in 2008."

"I also need to voice my opinion that the Merge decision was faulty, and will need to be reexamined. This was no ordinary death and no ordinary case. It was closely related to 2 US Presidents, both of whom had been accused of rape, and inappropriate sexual conduct with very young females, let alone connections to Harvard professors and nobility. Proper encyclopedic coverage will require a separate article to address the storm of information surrounding those aspects, current & future." - me (from Edit Summaries, 21Aug2019‎)

I will repeat for emphasis: This was no ordinary death and no ordinary case.

I fully agree with the cleaning up of having subsections being removed. I could have done that myself, but at the time I had decided to follow the format that had been established by editors before I arrived at that article. And in my decision to paste it back into here, I again decided to stay with the format which appeared to have achieved semblance of stability. It reads much better now. Thank you for those changes.

As far as the statement made at the beginning of this section that I continue to argue against the merge, there is only one other place where I had voiced my opinion, and that was over at Talk:Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories#Predictions, at the separate article, after it had been merged. To this day, I have not seen, nor have I looked for the arguments which were presented which led to that decision. To be clear, I was not involved in that decision in any way. My inputs came after the merge decision had been made. But it is difficult for me to imagine how any argument to merge could have carried more weight than the totality of reasons why this incident is to be properly presented in encyclopedic form as two separate articles. I will present a different angle on the distinct nature of these two separate issues:

- Death of JE: This is the article dedicated to presenting cut and dried factual information about the incident of this person having died.

- Conspiracy theories: This would be the article dedicated to presenting facts which surround the underlying set of events which may or may not ever come to light.

Maybe we can open up a discussion on Conspiracy Theories as to why Wikipedia does not have a separate article on Jeffrey Epstein Death Conspiracy Theories. I laugh as I type that out. But there are obviously very powerful people who would like to see a big de-emphasis on this entire discussion, and that right there might qualify as the top reason as to why there needs to be a separate article.

Ok, I realize that the majority of what I am offering here is beyond the main topic of this subsection. Regarding strictly the changes which have been made toward improving the sub-section I had added, I fully support that. -- Lexi sioz (talk) 05:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

A swirl of controversy is not a bunch of conspiracy theories. Nor are known or unknown facts surrounding underlying sets of events. If we just left the cut and dry shit here, there'd be nothing because everything's still fresh and dubious, including whether he died at all. Powerful people perhaps not wanting something is no reason for regular people to spread the word amongst ourselves. You think "they", who have everyone's actual sum of online human knowledge, concern themselves with this podunk clearinghouse? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I suggest that your own words provide strong support for reasons to have a separate article to cover the non-cut & dried aspects:

"...including whether he died at all."

That is not a topic that is covered in a normal "Death of [person]" article. (Today we saw a new section started in our Talk here discussing that.)

And if you clicked thru to see my post on the Talk page of the Conspiracy article, you saw my point that Trump tweeting to promote a conspiracy theory is also far beyond stuff that is covered in a normal article of a person's death. The point remains that this particular case is VERY FAR from normal. The tweeting fact gets even more bizarre in light of the very close connection between this particular Potus with the deceased. -- Lexi sioz (talk) 09:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Lexi, this talk page is not the place to relitigate the AfD. I suppose you could challenge the close, via deletion review, if you really think it was improperly decided. But you are wasting your own time and everybody else's my making your argument here. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I have already acknowledged that the Merge decision is a separate issue from inclusion of predictions.

I see no need for anyone to act nasty here. Regarding your view that I am wasting everyone's time, if you followed what had happened, it was not just that the Conspiracy article got merged with this one, but it got merged, and then the info from the Conspiracy article got summarily deleted. So while these are separate issues, it is apparent that there is significant overlap in these actions. And it was from observing that trend which was why I voiced concern over potential Conspiracy about the Conspiracy article. (If Reagan wrote Wikipedia policy, he might say "AGF but verify.")

For anyone who is wanting to initiate a campaign to have the Conspiracy article brought back, I certainly agree that this is not the place to center that discussion. But bringing it back can be accomplished with one simple edit. I expect everyone here knows that the article was not deleted. It got switched to a redirect pointing here. Restoration can be done by just removing that redirect. Any editor has the power to do that. I myself have no plans to.

My main concern, which is what brought me to this article to begin with, was that there were prominent people who had publicly voiced predictions about Epstein's death. That info got scrubbed from all of Wikipedia. It is clearly important info to include when presenting this topic. And I was very glad to see the end result that the collaborative effort here arrived at.

While I do not see this current state to be ideal, I would say that it is satisfactory. It delivers key info to readers interested in this. I myself have voiced gratitude to editors who have helped to improve this article. In an ideal world, Wikipedia would be a community where everyone treats each other with respect. -- Lexi sioz (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I enjoyed hearing you out. Still don't agree with your proposal, but understand why you do. I've wasted more time elsewhere on Wikipedia, learning way less than this, that's for sure. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Bueno. Thanks for that feedback. I've got nothing more to add here. Adios, yall. -- Lexi sioz (talk) 12:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Hasta la vista, maybe. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

You were dead on with that 'maybe'. Loads more posted below. If I had been paying attention, I would have seen that key info was being eliminated from this article when I had said goodbye a few days ago. So hello again. -- Lexi sioz (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Hola. I'm not exactly tickled by this recent reclumping of the mess, either. The important thing is we still know what we know, you know? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. I'll repost to you one statement I offered to Vanilla Wizard below:

At the very least, I hope we can agree that it would be helpful for editors to maintain an awareness that this might be a corrupting factor in how this article is evolving. -- Lexi sioz (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Predictions section removal decision needs to be reviewed (but that's far from the biggest problem in this article)

Well that did not last long. And it is not surprising in the least that this article was going to get scrubbed of info which showed that there were many powerful people who wanted Epstein to remain silenced, with permanent silence being a huge advantage to them. This article was in reasonable condition back on August 21st:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Jeffrey_Epstein&diff=prev&oldid=911876814

It had separate sections for:

Connections to public figures

...clearly listing his ties to:

Bill Clinton

Donald Trump

Prince Andrew

Alan Dershowitz

Possible co-conspirators

And then it was followed by a section for:

Predictions

And then:

Conspiracy theories

That version of the article had a logical flow, with Connections happening prior to the arrests and conviction, the Predictions happening prior to his death, and the Conspiracy Theories happening after his death. The way the article has evolved, this once-clear presentation of info has been mushed together, with significant portions removed. Here is the edit where the info about Jimmy Dore's prediction got removed: [8]. That was done by Vanilla Wizard with the justification given being that it was a Primary Source. Anyone who bothers to read the WP:RSPRIMARY policy will find this:

"...they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research."

That is to say that there is absolutely no prohibition against using a primary source. Wikipedia policy cautions against doing so because it might be OR. Well clearly that does not apply to this info that got removed regarding Jimmy Dore. It is clearly an excellent case for when it is proper to use a Primary Source. We have video of him doing his standup routine where he makes this prediction about Epstein's death being something that extremely powerful people wanted to happen.

THAT is a central issue in this entire topic.

And this is the BIGGEST problem happening with this article. Key info is getting removed without proper justification. This article is being sanitized. This article is worse than broken. It is being intentionally broken. And just as it was quite easy to predict that Jeffrey Epstein would not live to testify in his trial (or live long enough to cut any deals), it was also quite easy to predict that this article would get cleaned up in the way it has. The action of merging the Conspiracy Theory article was a huge warning sign that this was happening. -- Lexi sioz (talk) 11:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I was pinged, so I might as well reply. For you to say that this article is being "intentionally broken", "sanitized", and that removal of content is occurring "without proper justification" leads me to believe that you could greatly benefit from rereading WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:SOAP, and WP:AGF. Your comments give off the impression that you believe that us Wikipedians are part of some plot to sanitize the encyclopedia to protect Epstein. That's not me saying it, you said that it has been "scrubbed of info which showed that there were many powerful people who wanted Epstein to remain silenced." That definitely leads me to worry that you're WP:NOTHERE for the right reasons.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 22:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I now see that you pinged me specifically because I previously took issue with the subparagraph about Dore. Yes, primary sources should be used with caution to avoid original research. I asked for a secondary source (which was later provided) because secondary sources establish that weight is due & that the sentence isn't there solely because some random fan out there wanted it there. When a secondary was provided, I stopped advocating for the wholesale removal of the sentence, because my concern was met. I haven't looked at the new source to see if it actually counts as a reliable secondary source, but if it does, then that's great. Without any secondary sources, it just looked like that subparagraph was about one of many YouTubers making one joke about Epstein, and the paragraph absolutely looked like it was written by a fan. It simply was original research before the fixes, nevermind the way it misused and abused Wikipedia's voice. It went on about how Dore "explained" that Epstein's death was predictable and that he was "substantiating his claims" by talking about the off-hand joke he made prior. That was wholly unencyclopedic, and your line about how "we have a video of him doing his stand-up routine where he makes this prediction about Epstein's death being something that extremely powerful people wanted to happen" absolutely reeks of original research. That's not "key info."  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 22:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll leave one final comment in this thread: it is a little odd that you viewed it as a red flag that the conspiracies article was merged into this one, yet you seemed to especially take issue with my actions here. For the record, I !voted "keep" on both articles, not "delete" or "merge." Please don't suggest that any editor, myself or others, is part of some grand plot to "scrub" the article of information about the conspiracy theories without checking to see what we actually thought about keeping the conspiracy theories on the encyclopedia. Cheers,  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 22:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I still steadfastly deny conspiracy theories have even been presented in reliable sources, and you're all getting jerked around by a shadowy cabal of the top outlets' top brass. They want you to equate "conspiracy theory" with "kooky bullshit" with "unsubstantiable intuition", so that every doubt you have about their professed motives, desires and recollections makes you fear turning into Alex Jones rather than dig deeper past the headlines and party lines. If scrubbing their blatant mischaracterizations of healthy and natural distrust of corporate media makes me a scrubber, then I guess I can be the symbolic whipping goat here. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Vanilla Wizard, my sole reason for highlighting your edit was explained as hinging on the propriety of my use of that reference as a primary source. You and I are disagreed on this matter. My position is that my addition from THIS EDIT was an improvement to the article which conformed to Wikipedia standards. I did not present anything of Dore's words as incontrovertible fact. Anybody who read those words should have easily been able to see that it was one person voicing his own opinion. And he is not just any YouTuber. He has reached notibility to the point of having an article here about him established several years ago. As far as my choice in using the words that he "explained" and "supported", it was clear that he was explaining and supporting his own personal view. Clear to me, at least.

Now you've also raised these issues of Assuming Good Faith, along with other WPs. I've been well aware of how my inputs here have been clashing with that, and I had raised those points myself in the parent section above (see "Reagan", etc). AGF is an excellent policy. But it might also help if we were to maintain an awareness of the limits of AGF. For example, say that an article about a war is being created. There are three types of editors contributing to that article: those who are with the combatants of one side, those with the combatants of the other side, and those not involved in the war. Here we can see that it is not an unreasonable expectation that editors belonging to the first two groups will be heavily biased, in polar opposite directions. I suggest to you that this is one place where AGF has significant limits of utility. A more effective approach of a neutral editor might be to maintain a healthy suspicion that editors from those camps may not be acting with an NPOV. Because they do not have an NPOV.

And with our Epstein article here, we have a similar situation. The very same elements which have led to this rise in theories about suspicious activity IRL are not blocked by some invisible barrier to being the same forces which come into play in the shaping of this article. Now in an ideal world, I would much prefer that it did. But in observing this trend of edits which have cleaned out key info, it became apparent to me that this is yet another situation where AGF has its limits.

At the very least, I hope we can agree that it would be helpful for editors to maintain an awareness that this might be a corrupting factor in how this article is evolving.

You went much further than that to express concern that I am Not Here for the purpose of improving this article. This appears to me to be a 180-degree spin on the observation I was highlighting. Shoot the messenger, because it is the person announcing that there appears to be a problem who is the actual problem. -- Lexi sioz (talk) 10:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I've read your most recent comment thread several times and I'm still struggling to figure out what most of it is saying or how it relates to Wikipedia policy & whether or not to include the sections which other editors have removed, but I'll respond to what I made sense of.

I did not present anything of Dore's words as incontrovertible fact. Anybody who read those words should have easily been able to see that it was one person voicing his own opinion.

You used Wikipedia's voice to say that, by mentioning a joke that he made in the past, that he was supporting/substantiating his claims. You used Wikipedia's voice to say that Dore was explaining the situation, not voicing his opinion.

Secondly, I'm noticing that a point which you've made time and time again is that, because Jimmy Dore has his own Wikipedia article, that his comments are automatically notable enough to be mentioned in this article, with or without any secondary sources. It doesn't work like that, nor should it. I don't mean to bite the newcomers (though your account is actually older than mine, you've less than 500 edits so I don't expect you to be too familiar with the guidelines on notability, weight, or reliable secondary sources yet). More than 5,000 YouTube channels have more than 2 million subscribers (nearly triple his), and quite a lot of them are politically-charged YouTubers with their own comments on the Epstein situation & their own articles on the encyclopedia. Should all of their comments be included in this article, and would it be appropriate if the article about Dore himself cited primarily his own YouTube videos, allowing any editor to shift the WP:WEIGHT to undue subjects? That's how cherrypicking happens, and that's what these guidelines are meant to avoid.

I have no clue what you're trying to say with regard to WP:AGF as the entirety of your comment was about WP:NPOV, and it looks like you're using terms like "an NPOV" when I'm guessing that you mean to say "a POV" which makes that entire paragraph of your reply even more confusing. Your next paragraph seems to be an attempt at defending the obvious AGF violations in your original comment (in which you blatantly suggested that the rest of the editors are purposefully destroying the article to make sure that nobody can read about the conspiracies) by simply mentioning the fact that it's a controversial topic and different people have different points of view? That's not how any of this works. Casually assuming bad faith and suggesting that other editors are just fighting for their own POV is casting aspersions and counts as a personal attack on the encyclopedia.

Your last sentence suggests that my goal is to "shoot the messenger" and that I took issue with the fact that you're talking about issues? I suspected WP:NOTHERE applied because your initial comment, in which you appeared to stand on a soapbox and declare that everyone around you is purposefully sabotaging the article for nefarious purposes, looked like a warning sign that you're not here for the right reasons. I can retract this suspicion, as your comments throughout this talk page overall do not suggest that !here is likely to apply, but I do want to strongly encourage you to become more familiar with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, rather than forming bizarre arguments around them, as you did with AGF.

Cheers,  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 21:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I have not "casually assumed bad faith" here. I actually subscribe to AGF. What happened is that I observed the quality of this article systematically deteriorate, and only after observing that pattern unfolding over the course of several days did I look to other explanations. It was never an assumption.

I have done my best job here toward communicating my primary point. You've expressed confusion over that, and in your effort to recap what I was saying, it certainly adds layers of confusion to a very simple message:

Let's be VIGILANT that we present NPOV info on this topic.

I cannot state that any more succinctly and clearly. If you're confused about anything else I stated, you can ignore any and all of that, and just know that this has been my core message on this Epstein stuff from Day 1. -- Lexi sioz (talk) 06:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I intend for this to be my last message on this topic, but I would like to go into detail for your own sake why I found your initial comments to be an issue. Conduct-related policies and guidelines are not something that editors choose to "subscribe" to, and you did declare that this article has been "intentionally" broken. Your comments about how "the limits of AGF" (according to you, at least) are when there may potentially be POVs involved was concerning, as it operated under the assumption that guidelines and policies are not enforced. "I like to assume good faith, but if there are two polarized sides, it's okay to accuse people of being intentionally damaging" is not an option. If it takes an essay worth of back-and-forth discussion over several days to explain why that behavior was problematic, then I worry that you may make the same mistake in the future. By no means do I intend to suggest that it would be appropriate to take any action against your account - I don't believe that at all - but what I do want to convey is that you would benefit from becoming more familiar with the guidelines of the encyclopedia. Unless there's a case to be made that a rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, editors don't simply choose when to follow them by creating their own "limits" for them. Viewing editing disagreements as a war where the other "side" has nefarious intentions is a common cause of warnings and blocks, and I want to make sure that you keep that in mind in any future disputes that you may have. I see no reasons to further this thread, but I hope you benefit from it in the end. Best regards,  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 09:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Imagine being engaged in a civil discussion with someone, say, at the mall. And then this person tells you:

"By no means do I intend to suggest that it would be appropriate to call the cops and have them come and taze you. I don't believe that at all."

Well that's the kind of thing that you just did here with me.

In my ideal world, your response would not have been persistent attacks against me, but instead you and I quickly finding common ground...

"Yeah, this Epstein thing is definitely a hot potato where it would be good if we editors strive to maintain NPOV."

You're certainly entitled to your own position. And you're also free to levy your un-threats. You've characterized me as cherrypicking WPs. That is not accurate at all. Anyone who bothers to read the AGF Policy will find that the third statement in its lede highlights the limitations of the policy, similar to how I explained its limitation:

"This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary" - WP:AGF

How ironic that the central aspect of your criticism of me is my lack of familiarity with WP. -- Lexi sioz (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I genuinely meant every word of that last reply in the nicest way possible, with no intentions other than to explain why I felt that you misunderstood the relevant guidelines and policies. When I said that I by no means believed that it would be appropriate for any action to be taken against you, I was quite literally trying to diminish any possibility that what I said (e.g. bringing up how refusing to follow civility guidelines can result in sanctions) would come off as harsh or threatening, but if you're going to perceive it as a "threat" anyways, then perhaps I need to be more direct about it. You've brought up how AGF does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary.

Let me put it very simply by showing examples of when that is the case.

• An edit like this one is an example of incredibly obvious vandalism, so instead of pretending that this user was just a well-meaning editor like any other, they were blocked indefinitely from editing the encyclopedia.
• An edit like this one is so over-the-top where we don't have to pretend that this user isn't fighting for their own point of view, so instead of pretending that this user was just trying to improve the encyclopedia, they were blocked indefinitely from editing the encyclopedia.
• An edit like this one where a former Wikipedian abuses the edit summary to insult another editor is such an obvious example of bad faith editing that, instead of pretending that they're just here to help, they were blocked indefinitely from editing the encyclopedia.

Zero comparable edits have happened on this article. All of the "key info" that you say was "scrubbed" was removed with a WP:CONSENSUS to do so, not by vandalous POV warriors.

If you still think it's okay to smear the many Wikipedians who've edited this article as trying to "intentionally" "destroy" and "scrub" and and "break" and "sanitize" the article, then you've got another thing coming. Best wishes,  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 21:04, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Here is a quote from a Washington Post article from mid-month:

"The details add to the bizarre circumstances surrounding Epstein’s death, which have launched a wave of questions and conspiracy theories about how he could have died in federal custody."

I have sounded an alarm that the same types of concerns surrounding his death given the extremely powerful people who had very close ties to him might also have spilled over into the forces from various editors who have been shaping the articles on this topic. You do not have to agree with me. And clearly you don't. But it is not a totally ungrounded flag to be raised here.

And if you go back and read the exact words I wrote, I never characterized your words as a threat. The entire point of that taser analogy was to show that if you actually have no intention of making any 911 calls, then it is absolutely unnecessary to raise that as a point. The exact word I used was "un-threats". As in... "See, I am not threatening you by pointing out what I have no intention of doing."

Now you last words for me are how I have another thing coming. -- Lexi sioz (talk) 01:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

The Dore quote doesn't offer us anything that the other predictions don't already offer us. In particular, the phrasing as a joke tends to weaken the non-comedic predictions of an untimely death. Feoffer (talk) 06:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The argument presented in this subsection is that the 21Aug version of this article had a much clearer presentation of info with its format of:

Connections / Predictions / Conspiracy theories

As for your argument that Dore's comedic format weakens his point, that might have been the case decades ago when we had Walter Cronkite delivering news to America. But today we are more than a decade past the point where Jon Stewart was voted the most trusted man in America. Comedians are a primary source for news for a whole lot of people in the USA. And it has been this way for a very long time. These jokesters were the ones who stepped up to the plate and filled in the vacuum when mainstream outlets failed to do their job en masse. -- Lexi sioz (talk) 13:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

"Connections to public figures" --> main article

The "Connections to public figures" section is left over from the "Conspiracy theories" article which was merged here. However it really doesn't make sense in this article as far as I can tell (maybe I'm missing something). I'm thinking about moving information from this section to the main article, where similar information is housed in the "Personal life" section (which is somewhat of a mess). Would there be any objections to removing the "Connections" section? petrarchan47คุก 23:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Go for it! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

:) OK, thanks! It may take me a bit of time but I wanted to get some feedback first. petrarchan47คุก 00:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Pleaseeeeee do. See my latest comment above, under a similar heading, that I think this is the best course of action –– at least for this article's sake. Microfamous (talk) 01:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I came here to say the same. Only information related to Epstein's death should be included in this article. As written, it seems like the entire "Connections to public figures" section should be removed from this article. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree, and so did several people in the discussion above. I don't think the entire section should be moved to the main Jeffrey Epstein biography, either, except maybe in very abridged fashion. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I moved one sentence, that was worth keeping, out of the "connections" section; as far as I am concerned the rest can go. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Now removed. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Wiles conspiracy theory

Conspiracy theorist and pastor Rick Wiles has claimed that Epstein didn’t really die but was transported to a safe house in Israel. Is this notable enough to include? [9] 63.231.154.58 (talk) 01:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Strictly speaking it doesn't have to be notable (that only applies to article creation) to be included in the article, just described in RS, and the WaPo is extremely reliable. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Skeletal in detail and buried deep in an opinion piece, though. Seems we might have an actual theory. Any hard news about it? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

DeadState did a post about it: [10] but probably not considered hard news. 63.231.154.58 (talk) 03:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Formatwise, it's much closer. But platformwise, it's a bit "unconventional". I don't mind if everyone else doesn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Or wait. It redirects to something called MediaPass partway through, demands I turn on Javascript and won't let me leave with the back button. I disapprove of that part. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

We still have to abide by BLP's WP:PUBLICFIGURE, IOW we must have multiple very RS for this conspiracy theory. Has it been picked up by such sources? If so, then we are required to cover it, but if not, then we leave it out. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:49, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Of course, now that he's been dead for more than a few days, we may be getting out from under that particular "umbrella" and can still include it. Hmmm.... -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Nothing in Haaretz today. Just something about a "Wayne Allyn Root" and "U.S. security umbrella". You never know. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

We already have a similar claim in the article, from a rock singer named Mark Foster. That at least has some independent sourcing. I couldn't find Wiles's claim anywhere except the farthest reaches of the loony fringe. (sample: George H.W. Bush didn't die of natural causes (at age 94); he was executed.) -- MelanieN (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The real Bush Senior committed hara kiri in 1989, rather than attempt to live down the spaghetti incident. He was thereafter played by the real Bush Junior (famously referenced in The Simpsons episode where Milhouse pulls a perfect Kirk). The one the sheeple call Dubya is just some robot Barb made in secret college and didn't have the heart to scrap after it chuckled nervously at her, flashed its beady eyes and called her "mother" (unlike this truth bomb, Barb was damn real). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

"Hanged himself"

Has this been confirmed? All we know now is that his neck was broken. Wouldn't it be better to just say "found dead"? UpdatedAutopsyReport (talk) 03:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

That would imply his head was shaped like Bulger's, Dahmer's or Mumm-Ra's, I think. Unless we also keep quiet about the alleged jailhouse setting. Seriously though, it's as confirmed as it's officially going to get, barring another Mumm-Ra situation. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I have changed the lead sentence back to "found dead", with a second sentence saying that the medical examiner said suicide by hanging and that Epstein's lawyers challenge that conclusion. I don't think we should say "hanged himself" in Wikipedia's voice in such a contentious situation with multiple other investigations still going on. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a huge problem with this except that the vast majority of reliable source I can find (WSJ, NYT, WaPo, etc.), when speaking in their own voice, all say either "hanged himself" "killed himself" or "committed suicide", without qualification. Is such passive phrasing common in reliable sources, other than in statements they are attributing to others, and I'm just not seeing it?AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's a good point. That's what I found too in recent news stories. On the other hand I do want to keep the second sentence, about the medical examiner ruling suicide by hanging and the defense team challenging. Maybe see what others think? (BTW great username!) -- MelanieN (talk) 23:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Predictions

I have a concern that the predictions are not notable or verified. Almost all high profile celebrities deaths get predicted especially after they've been in the news.

I know I've heard similar stories about Michael Jackson death was predicted and that's not included in that article.

Most importantly the sources all come from articles after his death except the reddit ama (from the, now quarantined, controversial subreddit ChapoTrapHouse) which doesn't seem notable enough too include.

I'd also argue that they show a bias to the conspiracy theory and that violates Wikipedia neutrality. Mandrilltiger (talk) 04:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree the predictions are problematic. They have since been subsumed into the "conspiracies" section which is an improvement.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree, the "homicide suspicion" section is a better place now. Anybody can predict mere death. The Death of Jimmy Carter shall turn blue in winter, I say! InedibleHulk (talk) 10:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Reference 57 has wrong date

Reference 57 should say July 29th not August 29th. Mandrilltiger (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! fixed it Feoffer (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Who was the warden?

In the “Investigations” section, we say in one place that the warden of the MCC was Lamine N’Diaye, and a few paragraphs later we say it was Shirley Skipper-Scott. Which is correct? -- MelanieN (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN: It seems that it was N'Diaye, per https://twitter.com/maxkutner/status/1161645158909263872. Neutrality^talk 02:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Neutrality, great research! I've fixed it. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories and suicide watch

Due to Epstein's removal from a suicide watch, violations of standard prison procedures, and Epstein's knowledge of compromising information about famous people, his death spawned conspiracy theories.

This is found in the lead and also under "Homicide suspicions". Firstly, I disagree with mentioning "conspiracy theories" in the lead because so far they haven't developed very far. We could say there was concern about his death, and this would encompass the multitude of issues people have raised. Secondly, "Epstein's removal from a suicide watch" is not a reason for homicide suspicions and conspiracy theories. Rather it points to the fact that he did commit suicide.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe we could change the wording away from "conspiracy theories". You are right; although there were actual conspiracy theories immediately after his death ("so-and-so killed him!"), the situation now seems more along the lines of doubts about whether he committed suicide and questions about the many violations of policy that made it possible. That is what his defense team is saying, and that is what fueled the current investigations. Maybe we could change "his death spawned conspiracy theories" to something like "many people still have questions about his death". Or maybe we could just remove the sentence, since the first paragraph already mentions his attorneys' doubts and the ongoing investigations. What do others think? -- MelanieN (talk) 14:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

When this was article was two pieces, I'd replaced each lead's copy of "conspiracy theories" with "doubts and speculation" once. Now that everything's wrapped up in a neat little package, you'd think I'd want to double down on that preconceived notion. And you'd be right. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Is Scarborough Fair?

In response to deletion of irrelevant commentary, how relevant is this?

Cable news host Joe Scarborough commented, "A guy who had information that would have destroyed rich and powerful men's lives ends up dead in his jail cell. How predictably... Russian."[66] After he was accused of positing a conspiracy theory by several media, he said his comment was "glib", and not intended to accuse Russians or any group of killing Epstein.[67] Actor Ron Perlman tweeted: "Vlad!!!" and Dave Bautista wrote "Is that the same thing as Putin’d?".[68] Actor and comedian Alec Baldwin tweeted: "The Russians killed Epstein. They’re in charge of everything now."[69]

It seems these comments were lighthearted, and don't amount to serious accusations, let alone theories. Should we delete? (Or just leave it to the Russians?)--Jack Upland (talk) 09:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Could change up the verbs if we're aiming to hammer the levity home. Scarborough "mused", Perlman "joked", Batista "quipped". Then just delete the part explaining how sarcasm kind of works. Batista's reply makes more sense as a retort to "Hillary'd!" than "Vlad!!!", if anything sketchy here needs explaining. We can probably leave Baldwin's accusation as "tweeted", because anything followed by a 69 is inherently not taking itself too seriously (and we do try to warn even the humourless crowd that he's a legitimized comedian, unlike those other clowns). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

But do we need it at all? Celebs tweet controversial and humourous stuff all the time. Unless someone is making a serious allegation, it seems extremely trivial.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Just throwing out alternatives, for spitballing's sake. Deletion's still an attractive option. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Deleted.Jack Upland (talk) 00:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

A fine choice. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Deleted again.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Probability of multiple camera mailfunction and guards sleeping

The probability of both cameras mailfunctioning and guards sleeping should be included. Has the evidence of how he hang himself been presented yet and were photos of his fata injury presented? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.77.130.182 (talk) 17:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theory" is yellow journalism

This phrase is almost always used to smear unwelcome ideas. I want this to stop. There are two rotten examples right in this article.

Regarding Epstein's death

Let's stick to the mountain of evidence suggesting foul play and stop the nonsense. Relegate the theory about Epstein's escape to a footnote or a parenthetical, or else remove it entirely. It is logically inconsistent to honor the theory with its inclusion on the one hand, while at the same time deriding it as a 'conspiracy theory' on the other.

Regarding the Clinton body count

• Fact: More than a hundred people close to the Clintons have died prematurely.
• Fact: No other American politician's life is strewn with anything like the never-ending trail of corpses left in the Clintons' wake.
• Slandering the dead: Deriding all these deaths as some kind of 'conspiracy theory' dishonors their lives and our humanity as well.

I do not deny that more than a few have advanced theories as to where the Clinton body count came from. Still, neither the body count itself nor the associated theories are germane to this article.

Wikipedia is better than this. Please remove all occurrences of the inherently defamatory term 'conspiracy theory.'

Page Notes (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The term "conspiracy theory" is problematic, but far, far worse is accusing people of mass murder without a shred of evidence.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Title should be "Death of..." not "Murder of..."

How did this slip by? Wikipedia editors should know better than to title the article "Murder of Jeffrey Epstein" when the article itself establishes that it is unknown whether or not his death was a murder. GeoEvan (talk) 06:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see that it was just moved here. I'll move it back again. If you disagree, let's discuss it here, but I think the move back is unlikely to be controversial among editors familiar with Wikipedia guidelines. GeoEvan (talk) 06:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

 Already done. El_C 06:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! GeoEvan (talk) 06:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Found "unresponsive" vs "murdered"

Hi,

I don't see any WP:RS that Epstein was murdered. Unresponsive seems more neutral and evidence-based to me.

Best, Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't see "found murdered" in the article. It must have been removed already. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose that Epstein didn't kill himself be merged to this article. There is very little substance in that article, and a lot of it is duplicated here. There is no reason to think the "meme" will be long lasting, so it is better to record any important material here.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support Epstein didn't kill himself meme has lasted on its own long, but soon will be wiped out, merge to retain this information.
• Support Agree with Jack Upland on this issue. Memes become famous only for certain period of time and they will be forgotten soon. It's better to merge rather than having a separate one. Abishe (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. The article just got created, so the proposal to merge is decently premature. The meme is a separate phenomenon which, at this point, has become completely divorced from the original proceedings of Jeffrey Epstein. It passess WP:GNG and thus is independently notable enough for a stand-alone article. When members of Congress and heads of state start sharing a meme, I think it becomes safe enough to say that it isn't going to just fade away into obscurity. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 13:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Which "heads of state"? Syria's Assad did not share the meme. He just commented on the issue. Your comment illustrates the problem. This article doesn't distinguish between the real issue and the "meme".--Jack Upland (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Just noting for the record that this is being discussed further here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. This meme is notable enough in and of itself to be its own article. HAL333 22:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support – there's no way this meme needs to be a stand-alone article. The context is all here. – bradv🍁 23:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - While I think that there is plenty notability to support keeping the article up, there is a problem involving WP:Recentism. I lean Oppose for now though per MJL. Jerry (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The meme has gained more than enough RS coverage to be notable in its own right. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 02:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support Personally stunned to see it as a stand-alone article. Literally thousands of memes are as common. (Perhaps a policy is needed to state that any meme, must be attached to the subject article. Especially notable memes with no related page could lodge on the meme page, as examples, or just pass into the ether.) Merge, lest WP start to resemble Sunday comics. Lindenfall (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment (added later, 11-27, by above). Within a section seems appropriate, as example: Jeffrey Epstein#In popular culture.Lindenfall (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• Strong Support This clearly belongs as part of the "Death" article. It can only be contextualized by duplicating most of its material from the "Death" article. The article currently contains only two sentences that are actually about the meme. In fact, the "Death" article ALREADY contains more information, and more references, about the meme than the "Meme" article does. This subject deserves, at most, a section or subsection in the "Death" article. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Check this out: the illustration at the article, showing the phrase tagged onto the end of a caption allegedly from the Wikipedia article about Jainism, is not a real example of use of the meme. It does not appear in the Jainism article and never did. It apparently was invented to be an illustration of how the meme can be used, rather than an actual usage. That seems rather desperate to me. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Very weird.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Upland and MelanieN: I made the image based off feedback I received from users on WP:Discord. It uses the lead text of our article on Jainism. It's representative of an image that would be shared on social media. I originally made this image for the task, but it was rightly pointed out to me that isn't how the meme is generally formatted. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I have deleted the image as being highly inappropriate (it's like a journalist fabricating quotes to justify a story). I'm happy to open an RfC on the matter if I am reverted again. - SchroCat (talk) 07:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Currently the Epstein didn't kill himself article is not in the best shape but it was created only a few days ago. I think one of things it needs to address is the clear difference between Epstein's death and the meme itself. However, I think that the meme has gathered enough coverage from reliable sources to warrant its own article (WP:SIGCOV) although currently the article does not demonstrate all of this coverage. Some include reliable sources include:
  • Fox News [11] [12]
  • Wired [13]
  • GQ [14] [15]
  • The Washington Post [16]
  • ABC News [17]
  • Russia Today [18]
  • The Daily Dot [19]
  • Townhall [20]
  • Daily Intelligencer New York (magazine) [21] [22]
  • As well as some other sources like: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose There is more than enough notable coverage online. Cards84664 (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment — Regardless of coverarage, what will the meme article ever be? A summary of this article with a few examples of the meme. What's the point?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Jack Upland: It's impossible for us to know what this meme may mean, but WP:RS are clearly saying this is important. The point is that we do what they say. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

  No, we don't have to do anything.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. Davey2116 (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per the arguments above but I would support renaming the article "Epstein didn't kill himself" to "Epstein didn't kill himself (meme)" or any other title that clarify what the article is about.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it should be renamed. It could be misinterpreted.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose This is an article about a person who's life and death are of lasting significance. It is not a resting place for ephemera. Such content has little more place in this article than trivia about people posting photos of cats resembling Hitler would in the Wikipedia biography on him. 'Memes' in general, in the sense that the term is used in this context (Richard Dawkins, who invented the term meant something else entirely) may possibly merit an article, provided adequate secondary sourcing can be found. Articles on a singe 'meme' very rarely do, if the notability standards supposedly applied elsewhere are applied consistently. And trivia about 'memes' never belongs in biographies and similar articles at all. Not without a great deal of evidence from sources discussing the article subject itself (in this case, Epstein's death) making the case that the memes are relevant to the broader subject matter. The mere fact that sources (in themselves ephemeral, like most journalistic media) chose to fill their pages with content documenting what is currently all the rage on Twitter or Reddit each week is no reason to mimic them. Encyclopaedias, and online projects aspiring to be encyclopaedias, don't, and should not. 86.143.229.179 (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

So really, you're saying that the "meme" article should be deleted?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support and reduce it to a sentence or a footnote. It's so trivial it's staggering people are even mentioning it, let alone writing a page in an encyclopaedia about it. - SchroCat (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC) (Addendum: This may appear in some US news sources today, but it fails the WP:10YT; added - SchroCat (talk) 13:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC))

  @SchroCat: It has its own Wikipedia page at the moment because multiple, independent and reliable, secondary sources have covered the topic. To cut our coverage down to a single sentence or footnote would be to contradict the more than substantial coverage of this topic done by these reliable sources. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

  Not at all. It would just mean having standards to differentiate the wheat from the chaff, the dross from the encyclopaedic content. This will be forgotten in a week, and the world will have moved on, but I think doesn't mean we should have standalone pages about utter shite that have no encyclopaedic content at all. - SchroCat (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

  So are we just to only trust your opinion on what is and is not encyclopedic? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks for the link to an essay; WP:NOTEVERYTHING is policy, however. And I've not said mine is the only opinion to trust, I'm just putting my opinion in, and refuting the point you made. - SchroCat (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

  Which part of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Encyclopedic content are you claiming the article on the meme is exactly? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

  "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful." And yes, as MelanieN has asked, please don't badger everyone; Jack Upland, that advice goes for you too. Perhaps you could both make an effort not to post in this thread for a while, just to let others have their say? Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 07:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

  MJL, please don't WP:BADGER someone just because they have a different opinion from you. This is a dicussion and they are entitled to their opinion. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

  @MelanieN: I would normally take this advice, but you say that as Jack Upland makes yet another bolded comment in support of this merge proposal (despite more commenters here opposing it). Shrocat also just claimed that he is making a policy based argument without actually specifying what policy has apparently been broken. That's antithetical to having an well-informed, intelligent, discussion and more conductive of just having a vote. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

SchroCat—you say "This may appear in some US news sources today, but it fails the WP:10YT" I think the meme is illustrative of a recurring form of obsessive thinking. We have an article John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. A lot has changed between 1963 and 2019 but widespread obsessing over alternative explanations for startling events, especially deaths, seems to me to be what they both have in common. A source writes "The conspiracy theory this most resembles is probably the speculation surrounding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy ... If the Epstein memes mean anything, it’s that the American public is deeply suspicious of the closed rooms and dark fringes that seem to encircle and control their world."[30] Bus stop (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

You don't have to bludgeon everyone. WP:10YT is something you should readd. It's an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Notability, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policies. Not guidelines or wishlists or people just thinking a passing ephemeral meme should have its own page, but the distillation of policies. Sometimes less is more, and this topic is certainly a case where it should be much, much less. - SchroCat (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

My fingers can hardly believe they're typing this, but... I completely agree with SchroCat. EEng 01:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: It seems this is a case of WP:PROMOTION of a conspiracy theory. We have had fake pictures and fake claims about Bashir al-Assad. Now the article has been nominated for DYK.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: There is no deadline, let the meme article be and let this article discuss the actual events. Feoffer (talk) 06:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
• Absolutely Oppose: A quick Bing news search showed that this has definitely been covered as a notable subject by a myriad of reliable sources (including but not limited to: New York Magazine, The Daily Dot, Yahoo! Finance, Wired, Orlando Sentinel, Business Insider, Washington Times, Newsweek) which according to the WP:GNG is all that is required for a standalone article. As such, I see no logical reason to support a merger here (and in fact I'm not sure if I've ever seen us merge topics with this much independent coverage). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Further note - Some people have mentioned here that WP:PAGEDECIDE/NOPAGE is a substitute for WP:GNG in determining the merits of this topic having a stand-alone article. While that can be true in some cases, it is important to remember we also have an overarching policy on how much information can be covered in a main topic article: WP:UNDUE. And here's how that policy applies to such fringe views/movements:

  Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.

  Indeed, let me present this direct quote from WP:PAGEDECIDE that seems to clearly indicate the current consensus on coverage of conspiracy/fringe theories like this in main topic articles:

  Fringe theories, for example, may merit standalone pages but have undue weight on a page about the mainstream concept.

  That logic seems quite apt to work here, as to cover all the reliably sourced data from the article about an internet meme/theory in an article about Epstein's actual death (and the facts/notable questions surrounding it), seems entirely out-of-place. To say we can simply remove data that is reliably sourced and fits with other necessary content criteria, seems to be a challenge to the long-standing consensus on this site that only data that doesn't conform to our policies (or redundant data) should be removed. So all that's left is the issue of whether the reader can be provided enough context to understand what the article is about, and in my eyes that's not an issue we've had before even with the most far out there concepts (i.e. the clear precedent presented by 9/11 conspiracy theories, John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, Moon landing conspiracy theories all of which have sections with links to the fringe topics included on the main topic, but do not include everything in accordance with WP:UNDUE). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

However, the article in question is not an article about conspiracy theories. That article has already been merged.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The meme is about a conspiracy theory, but has received more widespread coverage in reliable sources. So, my point still fully stands. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

You quoted it yourself: Fringe theories, for example, may merit standalone pages but have undue weight on a page about the mainstream concept. But you're acting as if may means will or usually. EEng 22:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

You're certainly entitled to your own opinions, but I sharply disagree with that characterization. I intended to only explain why I came to the conclusion that in this particular case a standalone page seems to be merited (and compared it to relative precedents). I did not argue that all or even most fringe topics warrant a stand-alone article, and I would not do so. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank your for the information that I'm entitled to my own opinions. I didn't say that you were arguing that all or even most fringe topics warrant a stand-alone article, I said you were acting as if that was true. You quoted NOPAGE:

Fringe theories, for example, may merit standalone pages but have undue weight on a page about the mainstream concept

and said that this seems to clearly indicate the current consensus on coverage of conspiracy/fringe theories like this in main topic articles, which it doesn't. EEng 16:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

No, what I quoted was from an actual content guideline that you used below to state why you though such a topic can't/shouldn't have a stand alone article, while right in the content guideline is a direct line about how some fringe-topics may in fact warrant their own article (mostly caused by whether the topic being fully covered in the mainstream article would present undue weighting). Let me quote the entire relevant portion since you seem to be missing the point (emphasis added): Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page […] Other times, standalone pages are well justified […] One should particularly consider due and undue weight. Fringe theories, for example, may merit standalone pages but have undue weight on a page about the mainstream concept. That content guideline was literally established via consensus, I'm most certainly not just "acting" as if that's the case. I mean I can completely understand us varying on whether the may is applicable here as may literally indicates there's discretion involved, and us being two different people I think it's not too hard to think we could come to a different conclusion on whether something may need to be or not (as PAGEDECIDE states: Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page). Which is why I also ensured to quote the actual policy: WP:UNDUE, which explains the specific issue of covering fringe-topics with their mainstream topics, and how we're to avoid making minority opinions look like majority opinions. Specifically: Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views […] To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.. In this case even though there is a "significant majority" of people (according to reliable polling data) that seem to believe the conspiracy theory/meme's contents, there is only a "tiny/significant minority" of actually reputable sources on criminal/health matters (such as the various doctors involved) that seem to be taking the view that the meme does. Yet still, in this case there are a myriad of reliable sources that have given ample coverage to the meme itself, so we're left at an editorial judgement that in my eyes seems to be rectified best by keeping the articles separate. This is to prevent this topic (the meme) from being unduly weighted on the article about his actual death, while also ensuring a topic with a lot of independent coverage in reliable sources is not censored (regardless of whether we like it or not). As you yourself noted in your original comment below, the existence of a stand-alone article does not make a topic more or less important... it's merely how we have judged is best for a specific/notable topic to be covered. Having a stand-alone article here does not add credence to the meme, it simply shows that the meme is notable (and has been covered as such). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

TLDR beyond the point where you declaimed No, what I quoted was from an actual content guideline that you used below as if somehow I'd implied you hadn't quoted from a content guideline. EEng 05:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support Merge into this article. Provide a redirection to the relevant section of this article. Mike Richardson (talk) 04:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• Merge here or into an article on or list of Internet memes. I don't think that passing "ha ha, isn't that funny" mention in various press sources constitutes in-depth coverage in RS (WP:GNG), and I tend to agree that assigning this its own article (especially given that it's almost certain to be short-lived and have no lasting cultural impact) is WP:RECENTISM, promotion of a conspiracy theory, and may also encourage vandalism of images and captions (WP:DONTFEED).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish: If a 20+ minute broadcast from one of Canada's leading news outlets which is solely dedicated to the article's subject doesn't count as in-depth coverage from a reliable source, then I say we just pack things up and go home. [Not really though, but you get what I mean]. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  

  The next lead image for Epstein didn't kill himself –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖

  WP:GNG requires multiple instances of in-depth coverage in reliable, independent sources (plural). And that piece is primarily about the conspiracy theory, using the meme-phrase as a framing device. The conspiracy theory about his death is a subtopic of this article, Death of Jeffrey Epstein, so naturally the meme about the conspiracy about his death is, too, unless and until we'd have cause for a WP:SPLIT due to so much material about it in this article that it became unwieldy as sectional material. (See, e.g., John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories.) While it's permissible to fork off a topic into its own article under GNG (assuming we would find more in-depth and actually reliable coverage devoted to the meme), this isn't required when readers are better served by consolidating the material. Fandom of Internet memes aside, it's clearly the case that we're going to provide better encyclopedic context by merging the meme stuff into the conspiracy stuff into the death stuff. As a stand-alone article, the meme borders on WP:INDISCRIMINATE, isolated trivia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  I have listened to that broadcast multiple times now, and in now way does it discuss the conspiracy theory over the meme. Additionally, the following media-sized sources used within the article also focus on the meme: GQ, Daily Dot, Yahoo! fiance, the National Review, Wired, and New York Magazine. If that wasn't enough, I also have Emmy award winning journalist Scott Simon doing an interview with Know Your Meme editor Don Caldwell about the meme. In depth is a subjective standard, but it's pretty dang clear this article meets that. The only question that really applies is whether or not this should be placed in a stand-alone article. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect Many of the comments above (e.g. WP:GNG is all that is required for a standalone article) betray a misunderstanding of guidelines, in that notability is merely a gating requirement for a standalone article; it is not the final determiner. As WP:NOPAGE explains,

  Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic.

didn't kill himself (which needs a good trimming anyway) would be well-presented as a section of Death of Jeffrey Epstein, and will be more readily understood in that context. EEng 02:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect User:EEng says it well. --The Huhsz (talk) 11:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support per NOPAGE. ∯WBG^converse 15:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. We should want to recount many of the incarnations of this meme. They are known for their humor. Doing so would be constrained in the article on the death. It would even be in poor taste. Thus it is best done in an article devoted to the meme. Bus stop (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

That sounds like an indiscriminate list of trivia. See WP:INDISCRIMINATE.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

What is trivial or indiscriminate about including in the "Epstein didn't kill himself" article many manifestations of that meme? Bus stop (talk) 04:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I believe Jack is trying to say here is that we don't need every example of the meme that exists (even if covered by a reliable source). We should be just focusing on the key events.
I do understand your point though, and that a merge would leave a lot less room for small details like Jane Doe 15's bracelet (one of Epstein's victims) having the phrase. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

We certainly don't need every reliably sourced example but even a small number of examples might run into undue weight issues at this, the Death of Jeffrey Epstein article. Bus stop (talk) 05:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

No, that's not the issue. Running around gathering any number of "manifestations" is not only trivial and indiscriminate, but more to the point such manifestations are primary sources and gathering them hither and yon is WP:OR, whether in a standalone article or as part of a larger article. Coverage of a meme must be based on secondary sources which discuss the meme as a phenomenon and themselves enumerate individual examples; we extract and rephrase this discussion, and maybe -- if we feel it serves the reader -- use select few of the primary sources ("manifestations") for illustrative material. The sure sign of an inappropriate article on a cultural phenomenon is a zillion cites to examples of the phenomenon per se, instead of a limited number of cites to sources discussing the phenomenon. Seen this way, treatment of this topic should be much more compact even if it remains a standalone article, and is therefore easily integrated into the Death of article should the outcome of this discussion be Merge. EEng 08:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I think that treatment of the meme can be more unfettered in an article of its own. This pertains not just to examples of the meme but also to related commentary as may be found in reliable sources. I think the amount of material called for to optimally cover this topic would run into undue weight constraints in the "Death of Jeffrey Epstein" article. Bus stop (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Will you be bludgeoning this discussion like you're bludgeoning WT:MOS#"She"_vs._"it"_for_ships, by simply gainsaying what everyone else says while repeating your opinion over and over with no new arguments or evidence? EEng 16:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

EEng—I'm not advocating Running around gathering any number of "manifestations". I would agree that would be trivial and indiscriminate. I didn't say we should use primary sources. You are saying Coverage of a meme must be based on secondary sources. I agree 100%. As for what we feel serves the reader we can have differences of opinion. That would be the case with editors throughout the project. It seems to me editors often disagree about what serves the reader. You say The sure sign of an inappropriate article on a cultural phenomenon is a zillion cites to examples of the phenomenon. But I don't think I suggested a zillion cites to examples of the phenomenon. I was merely trying to make the point that a more expansive location for the meme would be a standalone article. It is true that I only mentioned examples of the phenomenon. But it is not just examples of the phenomenon that could be covered in a standalone article. I think there is considerable commentary/analysis on the phenomenon that could be included in a separate, standalone article. When trying to cram all of this into the "Death of Jeffrey Epstein" article I think we run into undue weight issues. Finally, the two articles are conspicuously linked and a summation of the phenomenon is found in the "Death of Jeffrey Epstein" article, allowing the reader easy access to both background information on the death and expansive treatment of the meme. Bus stop (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not advocating 'Running around gathering any number of "manifestations"' – What are you talking about? You literally said We should want to recount many of the incarnations of this meme. Since the first thing you said directly contradicts what you said two posts before, I didn't read the rest. EEng 04:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

EEng—the only point that I'm making is that the sum total of examples of the meme plus additional commentary on the phenomenon would probably trigger undue weight concerns in this article thus it might be advantageous to have a separate article exploring all aspects of this meme. Bus stop (talk) 06:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Well you certainly packed a lot of words into that little point. EEng 06:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support merge per nom, Lindenfall. CThomas³ (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support I was originally not going to vote on this because I felt it was too soon to assess whether the coverage was sustained or not, but the concerns about WP:INDISCRIMINATE are compelling. If we eliminate trivial examples of the meme that lack secondary analysis, a large chunk of this article will be gone. While the meme has indeed received widespread media coverage, there's not a lot of substance to it beyond "this and that celebrity tweeted it". Many of the sources also mention the meme in passing but are primarily about Epstein's death and/or the conspiracies around it, not the meme itself. Note that Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories, a broader topic with more media coverage, was merged here as well. If the meme turns out to have a significant social impact the article can be split off again later. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. I do want to say that, as the primary contributor of the article, I have tried to ensure that the article is in no way an indiscriminate collection of people saying the meme. My stance has, and remains, that incidents like this where a non-notable person contributes to the meme (in that case by vandalizing the expensive Banana exhibit) do not get translated into the article's prose. Instead, I place a single news article in the further reading section with a hidden comment as to why I do not think it belongs in the article proper. Still, I don't want to make the further reading section that long, and some pretty interesting stuff had to be cut out like: opinion pieces, tattoos, and presidential candidates. This is just the world we live in now. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support per WP:BADIDEA. Some good reasons that keeping a standalone article on a developing conspiracy theory-related meme is a "terrible idea": we guarantee that the meme creators get sustained attention by blessing this meme with its own article on a global encyclopedia, we are indirectly promoting a conspiracy theory, we are patently and obviously creating an unjustified maintenance burden on future editors, we are not Wikinews, we are not Know Your Meme, and, in my view most convincing, removing a meme from its context solely to increase the available space for listing instances of it is very bad encyclopedic practice. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support Merge or delete it. A lot of the information here is already stated in the main article. --BornToZucc (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support Should be merged. --Yannkemper (talk) 03:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support, absolutely. As it stands, the article is really only a magnet for conspiracy theorists. Merge it into a real article and minimize WP:FRINGE. Ifnord (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support. This is just another meme. It has no lasting effects. The only thing notable about it is that it is widespread, but all memes are widespread by definition. As oppose !voters have pointed out, this particular meme has received a lot of media coverage. If there wasn't already a "Death of Jeffrey Epstein" article, then maybe that would be enough to warrant an article of its own. But there already is an article on the Death of Jeffrey Epstein. This meme could easily be summarized in a paragraph or two in that article, and nothing of value would be lost. Surachit (talk) 03:38, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

  @Surachit: It particularly bothers me when people say things like This is just another meme. What exactly am I supposed to retort that with? It's not like you're quoting an obscure policy. You're just giving your opinion. There isn't anything wrong with that, but it doesn't help me understand exactly what needs happen here to be policy compliant. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:45, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

  @MJL: The policy I was referring to when I said I don't think the meme is notable enough to deserve its own article is WP:NOTABILITY. Specifically this passage from the WP:GNG: significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article. Surachit (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

  @Surachit: Okay, so that is a policy that says something can happen, but what policy says a merge should happen to you. The article's content does not define its notability, so you're kind of confusing me here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

  The policy I cited states that in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article. My comment is my contribution to that "in-depth discussion". I'm not sure what you're asking for. There is no objective policy which dictates whether or not any particular subject warrants its own article. If there were, we wouldn't need discussions like this. However, I suppose my opinion is informed by WP:GNG (as I stated earlier), WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOPAGE, and WP:INHERENTWEB, if that's what you're looking for.

For the record, your !vote basically boils down to "passes GNG". However, the GNG explicitly states that meeting the notability guidelines does not guarantee a stand-alone article. Therefore, your !vote is based on opinion just as much as my !vote is, and yet I don't see anyone badgering you about yours. Surachit (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support. The meme is certainly notable, but coverage overlaps enough that it's awkward to have a separate article. This article does a much better job explaining the factual background, with details that feel like they are missing from the meme article. -- Beland (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Should not be merged. It is a very prominent meme that has been used widely during discussions of varying importance. Not to mention it's fun to say. Yobbin (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support The meme can be adequately summarized in this article.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support per the nominator and others'—SchroCat's in particular—persuasive arguments. Particularly WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOPAGE and WP:RECENTISM: on the latter (update as of 2019-12-24), there has been little new commentary for a few weeks now, and usage of the meme would seem to be descending into WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS.
  It's a shame that certain opposing parties feel the need to WP:BLUDGEON those they disagree with, but that's perhaps less surprising when their arguments are based on little more than WP:ILIKEIT. ——SN54129 20:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC) Updated 07:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose It is a viral internet meme that has gained traction and is worthy enough to have its own page. Plus, as Yobbin said, it's fun to say. ImYourTurboLover (talk) 03:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support An unproven conspiracy theory about a minor criminal does not deserve a stand-alone article.Michael E Nolan (talk) 05:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

talk This article covers the meme, not the conspiracy. And on the second bit, aren't all conspiracy theories unproven? HAL333 05:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. This meme is notable, having been covered by plenty of sources. Benjamin (talk) 10:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom and others, WP:RECENTISM, WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT. Miniapolis 01:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support the context is in the main article - Death of Jeffrey Epstein, therefore, the content of this article has to be duplicated into the sub article. I don't think there's a need for a separate article for the meme. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 21:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose obviously an independently notable meme.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per above. GiggyMaxwell (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose people need an article on the meme. 162.121.245.100 (talk) 14:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Since when did Wikipedia start proffering articles about memes? Chisme (talk) 18:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  @Chisme: By my estimate, there are roughly 750 articles on Wikipedia about memes. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

  If anyone would like to know where I got that number from... Right now there are 936 mainspace articles under Category:Memes without counting redirects. If you say the category has a 25% error rate, then you you come up with 750 articles. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Basic Information claims that Hillary killed Epstein

On the basic information of this article at, the Central description reads " Hillary Clinton ordered the death of Jeffery Epstein." Could someone please fix this? Thanks.HAL333 01:36, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@HAL333: That was vandalism on Wikidata which I took care of yesterday. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Tenzing did it on Hillary's orders, apparently.

-EEng

• Wikidata strikes again. EEng 21:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @MJL: HAL333 02:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2019

Removal of the 1999 Stanley Kubrick movie Eyes Wide Shut from the See Also section, as it is unrelated to the page. Afevis (talk) 13:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Calling attention to the image of far right, white nationalist using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_parentheses in the "Homicide suspicions and speculation" section

While the article itself deals with rather grim subject matter, is it reasonable decorum to include white nationalist, anti-Semitic imagery front and center, without notice about that content? Yes, it is a protester, and yes, white nationalism is representative of the country most associated with Epstein (the USA), but still. How much thought really went into this? A metal shard (talk) 03:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree, that is a despicable thing. But it’s inclusion does not condone that man’s actions. I think it helps to demonstrate the often fringe/extremist contingent to those who believe Epstein was murdered. Do you think the caption should note (and link) the antisemetism? I think that would be a proper compromise.HAL333 05:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I think noting it would advertise the anti-Semitism. Wikipedia is not censored. Occasionally our photos show things that right-minded people abhor. We even have photos of Jeremy Corbyn.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Images

There are too many examples of sandwiching of text between images here. That means there is either too many images, or,their positioning is poor. - SchroCat (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do.HAL333 02:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)