Talk:EpsteinExposed

Conflict-of-interest banner on article

This article was entirely written by @EKeller-OSINT. When @Moritoriko approved it as a new article, they added the COI template but the COI editor removed it when adding new text. I returned the COI template to the article, and believe it should not be removed until other editors have substantially contributed to the article.

My understanding is that this Talk page should include the Connected Contributor template when the article has the COI template, but there's a bit more new content and I haven't reviewed the article for neutrality, which that template requires. I hope someone can review and add that template to this Talk page soon.

Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

March 28, 2026 COI editing reverted

On March 28, 2026, the creator of this article made 10,986 bytes changes to the article, without any comments on the talk page, contrary to his declaration on his user page to make suggestions on the talk page and not edit directly. The article has been reverted to the version before his edits. Any edits that @User:EKeller-OSINT believes are needed to this aricle should be placed as suggested edits on this talk page. — ERcheck (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

What the article is needing.

1. New features and tools descriptions. 2. Main source should be EpsteinExposed's site, not the WIRED's article. 3. More history context. SunnyIvannie (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @SunnyIvannie, welcome to Wikipedia. You're the second new editor I've seen this morning who is trying to help the creator of EpsteinExposed. I assume this interest is related to his current fundraising effort? You might find it helpful to look at the advice I gave to the other new editor; hopefully it will help explain the types of reliable resources editors draw upon when updating wiki articles. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Good morning. Thank you. How do I submit a new source? I'm not a programmer, so I don't know the intricacies. SunnyIvannie (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Here are instructions for citing sources. Just as importantly, here is how to identify a reliable source. I'm pointing this out because it's not correct, for wikipedia articles, that we should get our information from the EpsteinExposed site instead of articles published in news sources (for example). Also, things like providing birthdates for living people (an edit you made elsewhere) are also governed by specific rules—we have to be very careful about what's entered for living people, and here are the rules for that. You'll notice that last bit also links to some other serious rules, like no original research and neutral point of view. One main idea is that this place is not one for advocacy or any unsubstantiated claims. It's important to read up on the rules and try to follow them, because accounts that are always breaking the rules usually get blocked. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

WIRED published the article in late March. It's now mid-June. Some of the data is out of date since then. Also, why can't we get information from the site about this site? Isn't it a reliable source for what data it has? SunnyIvannie (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

We actually are citing the website. This morning, after the other new editor updated the article's first paragraph, I changed the citation from a news article to the the "Press Kit" page on the EpsteinExposed website. That action weakens the article, and I halfway expect someone else will revert my change, but it means that the first sentences has the statistics that "Eric" says about his website (except the total number of emails, which his website gives several really different numbers for). We have to be careful about quoting the EpsteinExposed website itself because (depending) it could be considered breaking the rule on self-published sources.

This is how I think of it: For the Wired article, a reporter interviewed "Eric", and then wrote a news article for his employer with his own reputation and job on the line. The magazine editor double-checked that everything was true because if they publish incorrect info that damages the magazine's reputation. That makes the Wired article a reliable source for us to cite, because it came from people who do not need EpsteinExposed to succeed or fail for any reason. On the other hand, "Eric" can put facts on his website and they may be true... but also, Eric needs that website to succeed for his own financial well-being and because it is a project that is important to him. That makes him a less reliable source, even if everything is true. Does that make sense?

That's why, if you look at the top of this Talk page, you see a conversation about COI (conflict of interest). Eric first created this article, and accidentally broke the rules—the rules about reliable sources and conflict of interest are related in a way, because a person (Eric in this case) can't be "reliable" as we mean it here. We later rewrote part of the article and tried hard to provide as many citations as we could that were not just Eric talking about Eric's website, and that's why the article remains in wikipedia.

If you know of recent reporting about EpsteinExposed that has details you'd like to update this wiki article with but you're unsure if it's a reliable source, you can always ask here. However, I don't think there is any new reporting. For example, if you do a Google search for news articles with "epsteinexposed.com" in the text but exclude the EpsteinExposed website, and then sort by most recent first (like this, but the search may break with this link for reasons I don't understand), the first 5 pages of search results are twitter, reddit, instagram, facebook, one websites from "Eric" websites (capitalexposed, scammingexposed), non-notable blog, substack, and podcast... none of those would be reliable sources either. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, there is outdated data in the categories, so here are the places where I got the information:

https://epsteinexposed.com/

https://epsteinexposed.com/emails SunnyIvannie (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

The wiki article's second sentence is this:

• 'As of June 2026, the database contains over 2.14 million documents, 1,742 persons of interest, 3,652 flight records, and 51,254 connections, and 1.76 million emails sourced from DOJ releases, court filings, FBI disclosures, and congressional investigations.'
• Citation shows that the information comes from '"Press Kit". EpsteinExposed. Archived from the original on June 9, 2026.'

The numbers in the wiki article and the website's Press Kit page seem to match the numbers on the website's main page, for me at least. Here are numbers I see on the website and on the wiki article.

Specifically about the email numbers:

• Wiki article: '1.76 million emails'
• Website's Press Release page:
  • First paragraph: '11,280 emails'
  • Further down: '11,280 Emails Cataloged'
  • Further down, in "Platform features": '1.78M+ email messages with thread reconstruction'
• Website's Emails page: '1,758,382 total emails'

I assume "emails cataloged" means something specific that they did to a subset of the total emails.

Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

What different numbers are you talking about? There are emails and there are messages. SunnyIvannie (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Just a reminder, please provide citations, to reliable sources. For example, the launch date of February 5 was provided by "Eric". He did not give a citation. It seems you've found this was incorrect, and a citation will help people understand why wikipedia is claiming a later launch date.

Also please know that we also have rules (so many rules!) about updating our articles with up-to-the-minute changes. For example, yesterday afternoon the EpsteinExposed website said that they tracked 1,742 persons of interest. This morning that has been increased by 35. Minute-by-minute changes are not encouraged. The What Wikipedia is not article is a good read for this type of thing. If by chance you are coordinating your updates with "Eric", you'll also want to put a note in your profile—here's a guide for that. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I think it would be easier if you communicated with him directly:

contact @ epsteinexposed . com SunnyIvannie (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

That's not an appropriate action for Wikipedia articles. Since we're now just talking about policies, I'll move this discussion to your Talk page. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2026 (UTC)