Talk:Jeffrey Epstein/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2023

Inthe section "Early life

Epstein's childhood neighborhood of Sea Gate, Brooklyn Jeffrey Edward Epstein was born on January 20, 1953, in the Brooklyn borough of New York City. His parents Pauline "Paula" Stolofsky (1918–2004)[23] <------

---

Reference #23 for his mother Paula, links to my Geni.com webpage. Paula was my great aunt. I prefer the reference to the link be eliminated. It doesn't serve the greater good to know that Paula's dates of birth and death were pulled from my family's private genealogical webpage (geni.com). Unfortunately, geni.com will make public the profile data for deceased individuals and that can't be controlled via my privacy settings.

Please remove reference [23] in the pasted section above (bold and italicized) , along with the referenced item at the bottom of the page

Dantus, Larry (July 6, 2019). "Pauline Epstein (Stolofsky)". Geni. Archived from the original on July 15, 2019.

My family prefers to not advertise the connection

Thanks!

Thanks! Larryd517 (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

.Why is there a section on Trump? There is no section on Clinton. It feels as if the typical editor on Wikipedia just cannot help themselves. According to the files released on 1/2/24 Trump was not the monster that Wikipedia tries to make him out to be. And according to the Article, the Judge tossed the case as without merit. I request that section be taken out, OR, Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew and others be added as sections as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:3E00:671:5C55:2544:79BC:5A91 (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done – as an unreliable source anyway (see WP:RS/P#Geni.com) when the information is already found in the reference at the end of that sentence I see no reason not to remove it. Tollens (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Link to associates main article

There is a small paragraph on the ruling to release Epstein's associates list by January 2024, but no link to the Jeffrey Epstein's associates list Wikipedia page itself. Shouldn't that be added? Rerbun (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

It was deleted via discussion, so there's no link. Acroterion (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2024

I would like to change "Jeffrey Edward Epstein (/ˈɛpstiːn/ EP-steen;[1] January 20, 1953 – August 10, 2019) was a Jewish-American financier and sex offender." to "Jeffrey Edward Epstein (/ˈɛpstiːn/ EP-steen;[1] January 20, 1953 – August 10, 2019) was an American financier and sex offender."

Being Jewish is not a nationality and shouldn't be referred to as such. Furthermore, his Jewish background is well stated immediately in the next section, so to mention his nationality as Jewish-American seems dubious and inaccurate. Inesaclt (talk) 10:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is contrary to the manual of style and disruptive. I’ve warned the editor who added it and removed the edit. Acroterion (talk) 12:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

We need to make it clear that he is 100% Ashkenazi Jew the way other articles on Wikipedia emphasize it. Wikipedia is supposed to be the free and open exchange of information ...... Isn't it? 149.19.46.112 (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Is he not Jewish? So why no JEWISH category

It strikes me as odd that I have never been to a bio and found a famous/rich/notable Jewish person who has not been over tagged with Jewish American, Jewish people of the 21st century, Jewish businesspeople, Jewish people of Italian descent, Jewish authors, Jews from Eastern Europe. Jews who are vegan, Jews who play jazz, Jews who are anti-Zionist, But when it comes to something like this Not one single Jewish category. Not ONE! Amazing Let the evidence speak for itself. The omission is startling. Hausa warrior (talk) 07:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

And what is the evidence telling you? What is it evidence of? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

What is the evidence telling me? WHy dont you do your job and go and add some? --Hausa warrior (talk) 09:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has become just propaganda and I'm saying that a Jew 149.19.46.22 (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

We need to make it clear that he is 100% Ashkenazi Jew the way other articles on Wikipedia emphasize it. Wikipedia is supposed to be the free and open exchange of information ...... Isn't it? 149.19.46.112 (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I see there's finally one category. Compare this to (random example) Seth Rogen with SIXTEEN categories intersecting his religion/ethnicity. I don't usually edit on anything to do with America or Jews, but from what I've seen on other pages, people are usually rushing to add descent categories to "good people". Why so quiet here? I barely log in without seeing IPs and new accounts claiming European people of colour for their ancestral country, or saying that regional ethnicity outweighs the national citizenship. Look at how big Category:Jewish scientists is. Of course Judaism is relevant to Einstein, who was persecuted by Nazis, and it's relevant to anyone who said the Torah inspired them to do science, but who can say that Henri Atlan's Judaism was relevant to his science? Fun fact: what publication is cherry picking that Epstein met with Noam Chomsky, Ehud Barak and a Rothschild? The Daily Stormer? No, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency! Who thinks it's worth a headline that Epstein ate kosher food in jail, therefore being a practicing Jew? Is it Stormfront? No, it's The Jewish Chronicle! Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

If you want to add categories, no one is stopping you! By the way, I noticed that Noam Chomsky isn't even mentioned in the article. I have WP:RS from the Wall Street Journal; they wrote at least three articles describing their investigation into Chomsky's relationship with Epstein. There was nothing immoral or illegal about it, but the two of them had no reason to be hanging out, even on a little based. Anyway, I don't know why y'all are so aggrieved about the lack of Jewish people-related categories for this not-living-BLP article. Add some. If page protection is preventing you from doing so, then provide a list of categories you want added, and I'll add them or someone else will.--FeralOink (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Mispelling

Stephen Hawking is misspelled in the personal life section. Grimnir69420 (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. Not sure why somebody went to the trouble of piping "Steven." Acroterion (talk) 01:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography has an RfC

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Image change

‎‎CarterLennon, are you sure the image change was appropriate? It doesn't show the subject's face particularly clearly and contains an additional person who is not the subject. I think the original was a better portrait. Anonymous 23:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Lede image

Why has the lede image been changed from Epstein's booking-photograph from 2019? Asperthrow (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bit 50-50 on this. The 2019 mugshot isn't ideal, but the 1993 image isn't ideal either. Other thoughts required here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I changed it to the 2006 mugshot. It's the most well known photo of him in my opinion. Ccole2006 (talk) 23:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I support using the 2006 mugshot. Although fairly old, it gives a much clearer look at his face than the other two options from 1993 and 2019.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Request to split scandal section

I had already split the R. Kelly section into the separate court case part. Now I request to split the Jeffrey Epstein scandal section the same. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 02:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

BTW, I was referring to split this section to "Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking scandal". Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 02:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it should be split as that is his main source of notoriety. R. Kelly is more notable for his music than for his long series of crimes, while Epstein's notability as a financier is there it is inextricably tied up in it. The scandal is him and he is the scandal, etc. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

agreeee 2001:8A0:7E0C:A400:D4D0:975E:E205:42DF (talk) 05:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

Ratmanny: This edit was automatically tagged because it used the WP:NYPOST and WP:THESUN. This should have been fixed before putting the edit straight back again with these sources. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

But I don't see the NYPOST on the list of the currently deprecated sources. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources Ratmanny (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Both of these are listed at WP:RSP, which is why they get tagged automatically as "use of deprecated (unreliable) source" in the edit history.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok, now I fix it. Ratmanny (talk) 08:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The problem with this edit is that is has simply removed the two cites that were tagged as unreliable, while keeping the text the same. The statement "Epstein was known for preferring prepubescents and barely pubescents girls or looking as such at the very most, to the point of putting girls on extreme particular diets and conditions to keep them mantaining a prepuberal look and body" appears to be backed by this story in the New York Post which says "Jeffrey Epstein and his accused madam Ghislaine Maxwell put his young victims on “ridiculous,” extreme diets to maintain their “prepubescent” look, accuser Virginia Roberts Giuffre claimed." The other cites are not specifically backing this claim. Apart from being in the New York Post, the cite provides more context by saying that this is a claim made by Virginia Giuffre and does not state it as a fact. The source in The Sun also makes clear that this is a claim made by Virginia Giuffre.. Despite the large number of sources added here, the specific claim about the diet comes from the New York Post and The Sun, and does not state it as a fact, only a claim by Virginia Giuffre.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I still don't get what's your point to justify the revert of all that content. Your point is just because two sources not considered valid on this Wikipedia says the same thing that others considered reliable and valid do, this is enough to invalidate all the rest? And the undebunked testimony of one of the victims is not reliable?

https://sputnikglobe.com/20200922/epstein-maxwell-kept-sex-girls-on-special-diet-to-make-them-prepubescently-thin-accuser-claims-1080537324.html

https://torontosun.com/news/world/jeffrey-epstein-wanted-tanned-petite-prepubescent-bodies-virginia-roberts Ratmanny (talk) 10:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

You have put it straight back again even though it was pointed out that this was a claim made by Virginia Giuffre, not a proven fact. Also, the other sources are largely irrelevant WP:CITEKILL because they do not relate to the diet. This is also running into problems with due weight by putting this in the lead section without pointing out that this is simply a claim by Giuffre. I can't see why there is an obsession with adding this in the same form repeatedly after the problems were pointed out to you. This is a claim that Giuffre made in a podcast, it is not really a reliable source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why in the previous version I wrote "according to Virginia Roberts Giuffre, an alleged victim of Epstein", wasn't ok even written that way? Ratmanny (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Please suggest a place to put it that isn't in the lead section. I removed it mainly because I agreed with Ianmacm's comment: it doesn't belong in the lead. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The problem is I don't know in what section to put it besides the lead. I mean, I could put the part of how he used to prefer his victims in the lead and the testimony of Virginia Giuffre in the Legal proceeding section but I don't know where specifically. Ratmanny (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Well? Ratmanny (talk) 07:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Well what? If you can't find a place for it in the body, that's not an argument in favor of dumping it in the first paragraph... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

If you add it to the first paragraph again, you will likely be blocked. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD should not contain orphaned statements. These are statements that appear only in the lead and do not appear elsewhere in the article. There has been a problem here with adding material to the lead section simply to ensure that it appears prominently in the article, but that is not what the lead section is there for. The lead is simply a summary of what appears later on in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Lottery Winner?

Just read the Wikipedia Article on Eddie Tipton, who was convicted of rigging multiple state lotteries, including Oklahoma, and also I have read online reports that Epstein "won" the Oklahoma Lottery, and so I naturally came here to find out if there is a connection, and discover that the fact of Epstein's lottery "winning" is not even mentioned in this Article. Is Wikipedia's position that this never happened, because if it did, and there is a connection, it would indicate something nefarious, IMO.

2603:8081:3A00:30DF:6514:C557:E752:615C (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

This looks like a WP:REDFLAG claim and it is a completely new one on me. Is there any decent sourcing for this (not blogs, YouTube videos etc)?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

About Donald Barr's brief mention on the Career section

It's nothing I just can't find the edit button so I hope someone can edit the information for me. It says something in the lines of the "unconventional" word that suggests something different from one source of the text, which is external link number 29 currently.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/12/nyregion/jeffrey-epstein-dalton-teacher.html Here it says "While Mr. Barr was strict on the school culture, he made it a point to hire teachers from unconventional backgrounds" with a focus on the culture side of the school.

While in the wikipedia page it says "Donald Barr, who served as the headmaster until June 1974, was known to have made several unconventional recruitments at the time" focusing the "unconventional" word vaguely which can tend to suggest a relation between unconventional and Epstein specifically.

Maybe the first person who brought words along those lines from the source haven't used them properly to interact with the rest of the text. These lines also suggest that Barr had to have some direct relation with Epstein's job when at least on the basis of documents it is unclear.

Also "although it is unclear whether he had a direct role in hiring Epstein" can be a confusing line to read for people that rely on wikipedia and doesn't look on the sources to understand an idea.

btw not angry its just my texts writing Shallow sleet (talk) 01:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

also unconventional and the lack of credentials situation don't have any relation when you read about it on the source, text is leaving enough things to imagination that it's not just a bad "implies" thing but a bad redaction thing. Shallow sleet (talk) 01:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Dalton School: Cause and Effect, Divided

The Lede mentions that Epstein was "dismissed" from the Dalton school, but does not say why, while further down in the body, it is revealed that Epstein behaved inappropriately with teenage students while at Dalton, but does not mention he was dismissed as a result. I assume this is an accident, and that the Article is NOT trying to divide these two halves of the same coin, in order to create the false impression that Epstein's entire career did not involve the sexual exploitation of children, from it's very first documentation in 1976. I assume good faith, and do not believe this obfuscation of the truth to be intentional. Particularly given how little attention has been paid to this topic. Probably just an oversight.

2603:8081:3A00:30DF:6514:C557:E752:615C (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The article says that he was dismissed from Dalton for "poor performance". Maybe the school used this as an excuse after there had been allegations of inappropriate conduct, but he was not officially dismissed from the school for this reason.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

From the Lede of the Article:

Born and raised in New York City, Epstein began his professional life as a teacher at the Dalton School despite lacking a college degree. After his dismissal from the school in 1976, he entered the banking and finance sector,

From the Body of the Article, subitle "Career>Teaching", first and second paragraphs:

Epstein started working in September 1974 as a physics and mathematics teacher for teens at the Dalton School...

However, he also allegedly showed inappropriate behavior toward underage female students

All I am doing is taking the general statement from the Lede, the specific statements from the body of the Article, connecting them, and asking why they are divided within the Article, when they obviously are connected to the Lede's description of first his "sexual offender" status, then fails to include the stated fact (from within the Article) that he was dismissed from Dalton as a result of "inappropriate" (meaning sexual) behavior. And while the Article mentions both halves of the same truth, moving the most lurid to within the body of the Article, it mentions the less-relevant fact that he "lacked a degree", which is good to know, but watered-down, and causing the Reader to NOT wonder whether or not he was hired despite not having a degree, because he had other talents, skills, predilections and money. I'm not asserting that there is a connection between his hiring and his pedophilia and presumed state-sanctioned blackmail status, I am asserting that the common sense connection between the two is being artificially divided into to halves by the Article itself. If this were any other Article, I might not make an issue out of this, but this is Epstein with all the intrigue that goes with it, and a common-sense, plain-language statement of basic facts that is delivered in any other way looks like something was done with intent, i.e. the appearance of impropriety vs. actual impropriety, if you will. Further I note, and wonder, how it is that a person "without a college degree" manages to teach "physics and mathematics" to young women that he eventually molests. FYI the Dalton school is a private, K-12 "college prep" school that is still in existence.

66.25.69.185 (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Legal Cases: Jane Doe v. Epstein/Trump Sep 2016

Ronan Farrow in his 2019 book, Catch & Kill, notes Dylan Howard of the National Enquirer contacted Jane Does’ attorney, Lisa Bloom, to pressure Jane Doe to drop the case against Trump BEFORE THE 2016 ELECTION. Farrow noted National Enquirer was working with Trump to kill any derogatory stories. The Doe case was, in fact, dropped on 4 Nov 2016. Ms. Bloom, Does’ attorney, denies any hush money was paid, or any agreement reached with National Enquirer claiming Ms. Doe withdrew complaint due to threats. These threats would be as effective as the original threats made in 1994 when she was 13 years old as stated in affidavit. Ms. Bloom may not have been the attorney to present a hush money deal. Mr. Trump had several lawyers working on hiding his sexual life from the voters in 2016. Steve Bannon stated in book, Fire & Fury by Michael Wolff, that lawyer Mark Kasowitz “took care of about 100 women during 2016.” The Stormy Daniels/Karen McDougal hush money payments were not disclosed til after the election in 2017. Doe had two witnesses: Joan and Tiffany Doe, who might also have been threatened/paid. Television media did not broadcast the Jane Doe case. A few newspapers mentioned it—notably the Huffington Post in 2016. Then, in 2024, NY’s Alvin Bragg charges Trump with falsifying documents to hide derogatory information from the voters to win election. During that trial, Dylan Howard and David Pecker of the National Enquirer confirm Ronan Farrow’s allegation and testify under oath about their 2015 agreement with Trump to kill such stories. NY trial was limited to the killing of Stormy Daniels/Karen McDougal hush money. FAILED to mention the SUCCESSFUL killing of this story of a tag-team rape of a 13 year old by Trump/Epstein in 1994. Trump, however, was not the only billionaire to be accused of raping 13 year old at Epstein’s NY mansion. Billionaire Leon Black would also be so accused. And, like Doe’s case, would discredit the victim and get the case dropped (or settled secretly). However, Black did pay a $62.5M settlement to not be charged with any sexual crimes at Epstein’s Virgin Islands’ mansion. Epstein’s estate refused to pay any penalty on behalf of Leon Black. Brainy86 (talk) 04:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Personal Life Section Bias - Clinton versus Trump

At the end of the 8th paragraph, it delves into Trump's description of his negative associations with Epstein. This is clearly written in a biased tone, as you can easily compare the apologetic nature of how Clinton's interactions with him are written. A good example of this is where the article states that rumors could not be confirmed, with a reference to a tweet of what the victim's representation said. The problem is that the way the sentence is written contradicts what the tweet says in its assertion of veracity. The tweeter literally precedes his retelling with "I think...", as in "I think [I remember it being]". Clearly (and to no one's surprise) there is the typical bias going on here that pervades modern media.

It needs to be re-written with the same tone and eye for both (and any other cases for that matter), not with a tone and verbiage that gives the benefit of the doubt to a person who's a member of a certain political party. 108.160.66.135 (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Work history

Assuming this is the same Jeffrey E. Epstein, according to this 2005 newspaper article he worked in the past for First Boston, DoubleClick, Revenot Inc. VNU, and ADVO. We should fill out sections on his work history and financial career as far as sources allow. Most articles unfortunately lack dates. The confirmed articles from the 90's on Epstein don't mention working for any of these companies however, so is it the same person? I doubt there's that many Jeffrey E. Epstein's in finance.

https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-los-angeles-times-jeffrey-epstein-f/128198858/

https://www.newspapers.com/article/hartford-courant-epstein-work-history/160819202/

https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-los-angeles-times-jeffrey-e-epstein/160818112/

Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

February 2025

Re this edit: the reason why I removed the wikilink is because "pleaded guilty" is a phrase that most English language speakers will understand when used in context. This leads to problems with WP:OVERLINK, as I said in the edit summary. Plea deal is more suitable for a wikilink. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and should not link common terms. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:27, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Epstein Files Phase 1 Has Released

Four documents were released by the Department of Justice today: Epstein Files:First Phase. These four documents can be found now on the Commons: Category:Epstein Files Phase 1. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Pedophile - sounds incorrect

Guys, I don't think it's okay to say he's a pedophile. The very meaning of that word means the person is attracted to prepubescent children, and there's no evidence he ever went that young. He shouldn't be labeled with an official DSM diagnosis on a whim. Was he ever diagnosed? Was this ever discussed? Ivavivian (talk) 12:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, pedophilia has been discussed, and Mr Epstein was not a pedophile. 86.153.233.92 (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

It is important to distinguish between pedophilia and pedophilic disorder. The latter is a clearly defined mental disorder among other paraphilic disorders. The article on pedophilia explains the distinction pretty well. However, the DSM for example is not an universal standard for everything, and also, pedophilia can be looked at more broadly than as being the state of being eligible for the DSM diagnosis. While I agree that it should be used accurately, for people attracted to prepubescents, I do not agree that medicalized definitions are a golden standard; I think it is more just a result of how we have collectively come to see the world.

To be clear, I absolutely do not oppose seeing pedophilia as a very problematic phenomenon, but I do oppose assuming that a specific diagnostic framework should have a monopoly on the term. As far as I know, even the DSM does not state that it has or should have a monopoly on defining the essence of pedophilia. BlockArranger (talk) 02:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

"Allegedly" removals

It isn't good enough to say "Epstein was a sex offender, therefore he would have been found guilty on all of the charges if he had lived." We will never know this for sure, because he might have been found guilty on some of the charges but not others. It is also leading to a problem with WP:SOURCEHIJACKING, because it is based on the police investigation, not actual court convictions. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Update with response from Pam Bondi explaining missing minute from footage.

AG Bondi said the explanation was that it’s a glitch that happens every night when they reset the camera.https://www.unilad.com/news/us-news/jeffrey-epstein-missing-minute-video-footage-pam-bondi-978330-20250709 CalvinCoolidge228 (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Different wording

For the caption on the CCTV footage, I believe this quote should be changed from "CCTV footage released in July 2025 showing the outside of Epstein's cell" to "CCTV footage released in July 2025 showing Epstein's cell block." The footage itself does not actually show Epstein's cell. Sosumiw (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

The current caption is indeed wrong, but it does not show Epstein's cell block either. The area of interest is the upper left quarter of the frame - the "white" area - which is part of a common area across which Epstein walks near the start of the video. The doors are a different block of cells from that containing Espstein's.

So I think the caption should read something like ""CCTV footage released in July 2025 showing part of a common area within Epstein's prison" 2A0B:5F04:5047:4F00:490B:D636:8205:9DF6 (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I've circled the area here which shows where the camera was positioned. The L Tier is where Epstein was housed. Sosumiw (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

"There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article."

What's the context of this warning? Which viewpoints have been recruited? Trade (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

First off, where is this statement located? Jusdafax (talk) 04:32, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Epstein list

So how come we do not have an article about the Epstein list? It is one of the hottest topics in the US media, and has been for years, yet Wikipedia has nothing. Obviously it should not name people, but having no article about it is rather odd. I doubt that nobody has thought of creating it, so what am I missing? Surtsicna (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Make a draft if you want Trade (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Epstein list — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trade (talk • contribs) 22:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm surprised there isn't a broader article called Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking scandal. Information about "Epstein list" can go in that article. Some1 (talk) 22:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Here you go ... Jeffrey Epstein client list No Swan So Fine (talk) 09:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

It's way too short and would need to be a lot longer to meet WP:GNG.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:44, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

That is what I had expected to find when I typed in "Epstein list" three days ago. Thank you, @No Swan So Fine. What do you think about nominating it for WP:DYK? Surtsicna (talk) 07:50, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

We also need Jeffrey Epstein's Black Book (which is what I think the fictional list pertains to) Jeffrey Epstein cases timeline (to guide the reader and tie all this together) Epstein Files (which have been released post death). His article really is sprawling and needs a more cohesive structure. No Swan So Fine (talk) 13:42, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Is there a broader article about the whole Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking scandal? If not, I suggest creating one instead of all these multiple smaller articles. Some1 (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree, I think that would be sensible to keep stuff structured sensibly.

(Cause now you have it spread out over his own bio article and this new "Epstein list" article...) 91.89.56.16 (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Maybe a split can be proposed? I think the scandal itself is wider than himself and should warrant its own article. Syn73 (talk) 02:58, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Agree. Make it should be called something like Epstein Files because that's what most news platforms are describing it as. Rexxx7777 (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2025

Change "at least one minute of it was missing,[20]" to "2 minutes and 53 seconds were missing," using the source https://www.wired.com/story/the-fbis-jeffrey-epstein-prison-video-had-nearly-3-minutes-cut-out/. This is a WIRED article, similar to the one used for citation 20, that describes more recent and relevant information regarding the doctored video file. IanMcCartney (talk) 01:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done with an additional reference to avoid a possible WP:ONESOURCE issue. UmbyUmbreon (talk) 02:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Jeffrey Epstein jail cell CCTV footage

Should we add this video to the article? Trade (talk) 08:19, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

This is covered here. I'm not sure if this adds anything significantly new, but someone may add it to the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:18, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Do you have any better videos of Epstein while he was alive? Trade (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I have just read this article on his profile, and after all the court publications from the Eileen Maxwell trial,

Also watching Michael wolves videos on this subject matter, especially the missing prison video footage and the money, laundering implications that Epstein had on Mr Chump

on top of That

Mr. Chump is John Doe 174 in Elaine Maxwell's trial transcripts, #FACTS MATTER Kingjames52 (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

It was the USII Maydd888 (talk) 05:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Remove the word siblings

Jeffrey was the older of the two; he and his brother Mark grew up in the working-class neighborhood of Sea Gate, a private gated community in Coney Island, Brooklyn. 134.255.241.130 (talk) 07:29, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Anti-Semitic section removed

There was a section previously that linked Epstein with Israel and Mossad. This is a case similar to blood libel and has no place in Wikipedia. Azuizo (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

That's not antisemitism. 2603:7000:8800:EE11:94AA:AC3A:6E0E:599D (talk) 06:13, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

That statement is not correct. It is NOT antisemitic to imply Epstein was an israli asset or operative. 108.88.197.8 (talk) 00:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

He was an Israeli operative though 96.27.47.40 (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

"Effrey jepstein" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Effrey jepstein has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 23 § Effrey jepstein until a consensus is reached. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 06:42, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2025

Why aren't the close relationships with Bill and Hillary Clinton noted? Would that be because your political beliefs won't allow it? 203.30.4.27 (talk) 04:32, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. If you are wondering why something is not included, then please provide the specific text that you would like to add to the page to redress it. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 05:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2025

Change death by hanging to murder. 2600:100F:B212:3424:B5B8:13D8:77E1:3B50 (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done. Provide a reliable source first. –Inimn _(Talk) 19:27, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

This is a popular conspiracy theory; like Inimn said, this will not be added unless it can be verified by a reliable source. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2025

In the Banking section: "Even though Epstein departed abruptly, he remained close to Cayne and Greenberg and was a client of Bear Stearns until its collapse in 2008." The link for "its collapse in 2008" should be changed.

Please change: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_Stearns#Lead-up_to_the_failure_%E2%80%93_increasing_exposure_to_subprime_mortgage

to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_Stearns#Lead-up_to_the_failure_%E2%80%93_increasing_exposure_to_subprime_mortgages

Note the missing 's' at the end of the bad link. Jakespeedorg (talk) 06:33, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 06:44, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2025

The mention of Mette-Marit should be removed from the lead on WP:UNDUE grounds, as has similarly been discussed on her own article. It does not seem right to me at all to list her alongside the likes of Trump, Clinton and Prince Andrew. The controversy from her meetings is nowhere near the scale of the other three cases. For what it's worth, the sentence mentioning these friendships was added recently. 80.189.57.169 (talk) 23:21, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Day Creature (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

To add to this article: mention of Epstein's last girlfriend

In order to help make this article more properly encyclopedic, shouldn't we add a mention of Jeffrey Epstein's last girlfriend, with whom he had a relationship for approximately the last 10 years of his life, and whom he helped put through dental school? She was one of the last people Epstein spoke to before he died. She is mentioned in this New York Times article:

Sources:

• https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/23/nyregion/jeffrey-epstein-suicide-death.html
• https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-epstein-girlfriend-last-person-to-speak-to-him-20200303-5eiir3ia5bbhvjcsdrsjmxvqoi-story.html

98.123.38.211 (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Infobox image size

Re:

I shrank the infobox image per the rationale in my edit summary. The shrunken image looked like this. Thirty-five hours later, another editor came along and reverted that change with no edit summary.

The |image_upright= parameter exists precisely because one size does not fit all.

The other editor is wrong on process and I believe they are wrong on content. Comments? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 03:16, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

After waiting five days for discussion, I have reinstated my bold edit. The article before this edit, without |image_upright=, looked like this. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 21:23, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2025

In the first paragraph, change "teenaged girls" to "teenage girls." 71.60.68.202 (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: "Teenaged" is an acceptable variant. Day Creature (talk) 23:09, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Adding the “American rapists” category

Would it be alright to add the “American rapists” category? RealRyanElder (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

This runs into problems with WP:CATVER, because he was not specifically convicted of rape.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:38, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Then why can Ted Bundy’s page have that category when he wasn’t specifically convicted of rape either? RealRyanElder (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Couple minor quibbles about lede first paragraph

Full disclosure: I think he was a blackguard too. But still:

• Second sentence: "...despite lacking a college degree" is not remarkable enuff for the lede. It was a private school and they can hire whom they want, and lots of people are hired for jobs that normally require a college degree if they have good enough resume/references/friends who know the boss to land an interview and ace the interview (I have been). It's just trivia. Belongs in article body (maybe; article is pretty long), but not in the lede.

• Next sentence, "After his dismissal from the school..." Maybe he was fired, but its not in the article body (the Private school teacher (1974-1976) section) which is required for lede statments.. Should either add it to article body or else change to "...after he left the school".

I'm just driveby so I'm not touching it, but pointing this out. Herostratus (talk) 11:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

The main body says "Epstein was dismissed from Dalton for "poor performance" in 1976". Agree that saying that he lacked a college degree is not a big deal that needs to be in the lead. See also Talk:Jeffrey_Epstein/Archive_7#Dalton_School:_Cause_and_Effect,_Divided.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:02, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Boy howdy how did I miss that. Thanks for the backup. Herostratus (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Request for lead statement(s).

@Stickhandler: Thanks for all the improvements to this article that you've done here!! Since you are so familiar with this subject, can you please add a statement or two to the lead summarizing his companies and how he made his money. I added a statement to that effect some weeks ago, but it got moved and I'm sure that you could do a better job than my addition of summarizing the sections on his companies and his wealth. We probably only need one or two sentences after the: "After his dismissal from the school in 1976, he entered the banking and finance sector, working at Bear Stearns in various roles before starting his own firm." Thanks!! ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:06, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I moved this because the WP:LEAD should summarize the article, and should not contain things that are not discussed in more detail later on in the article. Also, the Forbes source is a bit speculative, because Epstein's financial affairs were notoriously secretive, making it hard to say exactly where he got his money.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:53, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you, this is only one source; and I agree with WP:EXTRAORDINARY. maybe as more comes out the finances will become more clear. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:51, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

@Avatar317: @Ianmacm: both good points. I think that "After his dismissal from the school in 1976, he entered the banking and finance sector, working at Bear Stearns in various roles before starting his own firm." or a variation is uncontroversial, especially since the wiki heading change "Career -> Epstein & Co (1988-2019)". Maybe we can find a different footnote for the statement since the Forbes source is a bit speculative. I agree with Ian's observation that Epstein's wealth is kind of like an iceberg. Notice Avatar's words leave open the source of his money, just that his own firm was deliberately opaque. It shouldn't be too hard to find a source for "After his dismissal from the school in 1976, he entered the banking and finance sector, working at Bear Stearns in various roles before starting his own firm, which was a deliberately opaque vehicle for his multifarious activities." or something like that in the lede. PS Avatar: thanks for the props. Stickhandler (talk) 13:05, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

If there are sources, I like your "deliberately opaque vehicle" and (again I don't have a source here) but I think the reason for the opaqueness was his intention and ability to use his APPEARANCE of wealth and success to make the kind of "friends" and connections in high places that he was able to acquire. A statement like that might be supported by other sources than just the guy who made the comment we have as the last sentence in the lead: "...master manipulator". ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:49, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

"Virginia Giuffre was the first of Epstein's accusers to reveal her identity to the public, in 2015."

Virginia Giuffre was the first of Epstein's accusers to reveal her identity to the public, in 2015.

The article currently says the above, citing a source which says: "In 2015, when Giuffre’s allegations against Ghislaine Maxwell and Epstein became public, Maxwell called them 'obvious lies.'"

I think this original statement is true but 2015 is not the correct date. For instance, from Vanity Fair: "'Jane Doe #102 has agreed to waive her anonymity and tell for the first time her deeply disturbing story,' wrote the reporter Sharon Churcher, who flew to Australia to meet Virginia Giuffre and told her story in an article published in The Mail on Sunday on February 26, 2011.". The original article is here: Prince Andrew and the 17-year-old girl his sex offender friend flew to Britain to meet him though note it is not an honest account of what Giuffre has claimed.

I haven't found a reliable source that attests to her being one of the first to reveal her identity though. John Kinslow (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

@Johnkinslow: nice detective work, sir. Can you adjust the mistaken words? Stickhandler (talk) 12:47, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Done. I changed it to "among the first" and the year to 2011. I am not certain whether she was the first because Johanna Sjoberg is mentioned in that article I referenced, but I did find a reliable source for "among the first" so I went with that. John Kinslow (talk) 03:24, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

@Johnkinslow: fantastic, thanks. Stickhandler (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

References

Carbyne section date error

In the last paragraph of the Carbyne subsection, there is a date error. In "While scheduling the meeting with Thiel, Barak also discussed with Epstein about meeting Putin's ally Viktor Vekselberg on the 6th and 8th day of June 2024 Wikisteff (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

....the 2024 should be 2014, Per the source. https://archive.is/20250828070230/https://reason.com/2025/08/27/inside-jeffrey-epsteins-spy-industry-connections/, you want to search for "Vekselberg". Wikisteff (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

"Potential co-conspirators"

The section is likely problematic as they touch on living people, who are "potential" conspirators by Epstein’s 2008 non-prosecution agreement and not definitely so.

Article from The Guardian

Also there might be a fine line between victim and perpetrator in this case, or the two roles might be mixed

Article from NZ Herald

If one mentions these women at all, maybe it is best to mention them in more neutral language and then the complexities can be dealed with on their own Wiki pages. Deamonpen (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I removed it. It was added earlier today. Beyond the BLP issue of naming "potential co-conspirators", there's the POV language of "sweetheart deal" and actually referring to Epstein as a wanker in wikivoice, rather than keeping it in our heads where it belongs. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Clarity on: Conviction and sentencing (2008–2011)

"grassed on" and "swooped in to save Bear's carcass" are slang. Suggested rewriting (changes underlined):

Epstein served almost 13 months of his 18-month sentence before being released on July 22, 2009, for a year of probation on house arrest until August 2010. His early release after 13 of 18 months served was because he testified against Bear Stearns executives Ralph Cioffi and Matthew Tannin, whose conduct was scrutinized by the SDNY court in In re Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. Securities, Derivative and ERISA Litigation, before JPMorgan Chase bailed out Bear Stearns. Coincidentally, Epstein's subprime investment vehicle Liquid Funding had somehow repaid all their debt, or it was forgiven. STrRedWolf (talk) 12:21, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Replacing File:Jeffery Epstein Signature.png with File:Signature of Jeffrey Epstein in Non-Prosecution Agreement of Jeffrey Epstein by Alexander Acosta, Page 7.jpg

Hello, I wanted to recommend that the current signature for Jeffrey Epstein, File:Jeffery Epstein Signature.png, be replaced with File:Signature of Jeffrey Epstein in Non-Prosecution Agreement of Jeffrey Epstein by Alexander Acosta, Page 7.jpg.

The first one I'm not certain of the provenance of or where it came from. I think it's authentic but I would prefer to know the source of the image.

The second one has a much clear chain of custody (coming from Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 NPA from Alex Acosta) and is a bit higher resolution (414×140px vs 944×325px).

Any thoughts? John Kinslow (talk) 03:08, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

article overlength

@Nikkimaria: observed in a tag that the article was overly long. I agree, and that's why I split off Civil law cases rooting from Jeffrey Epstein. The main Jeffrey Epstein article has been trimmed down by 51,000 characters. Stickhandler (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

The current word count is 13099 prosesize which is within WP:SIZERULE guidelines, so I've removed the "too long" tag for the time being. However, the article has been growing and is tending to attract excessive detail, so some copyediting is needed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:50, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider it too large, but won't undo the change. The title of that article makes no sense. It probably is intended to mean Civil law cases stemming from Jeffrey Epstein, but that too is awkward. I suggest Litigation involving Jeffrey Epstein. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:11, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@Valjean: "Litigation involving Jeffrey Epstein" works for me. Stickhandler (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Good. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:33, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Civil law cases rooting from Jeffrey Epstein moved to Litigation involving Jeffrey Epstein. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:43, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Relationship with Trump?

Seeing as Trump's page now has a mention of his over a decade long friendship with Epstein, should something similar be added to Epsteins page about his relationship with Trump? Necrambo (talk) 12:03, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

small question with legal issues section

At the top, it mentions Ava Cordero and how she's a transgender model, but immediately follows it up with "crossdressing man" and male pronouns. It seems like the sources use female pronouns. This doesn't seem right to me. Is this how it's supposed to be? 2600:2B00:9728:5700:84F7:97C7:53C8:DDCF (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

It's absolutely not, this is what we call wiki vandalism Snokalok (talk) 04:54, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Add Peter Mandelson to lead

Peter Mandelson's relationship with Epstein has recently come under intense controversy and led to him being sacked by Keir Starmer 209.93.85.118 (talk) 11:39, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Unsourced Claims

@Tpbradbury: I appreciate your efforts in removing the YouTube essays and unreliable sources, but you must also remove the associated claims too if you're deleting them. Now the article has several unsourced claims. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 00:42, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

thanks @Nice4What, I thought someone would add reliable sources, but feel free to delete claims, it's a wiki world, Tom B (talk) 09:01, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Epstein Files Phase 1, Part C – Contact Book Redacted.pdf

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:22, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

No boroughs in infoboxes

Should we exclude "Brooklyn" as a borough of New York City from infobox as per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. However, its a fine example if not necessary to add boroughs/neighborhoods, just cities per format according to Template:Infobox person/doc stated: Manhattan, New York City, U.S. when New York City, U.S. conveys essentially the same information more concisely. Here's an example of David Bowie's infobox. Absolutiva 02:27, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

There is no uniformity among wiki articles on handling NYC in infoboxes. I just noticed that Alicia Keys and her husband Swizz Beatz are not in synch with each other regarding NYC in the infobox. Infobox person documentation does not say anything about boroughs, it says For example, it is not necessary to state: New York City, New York, United States when New York City, U.S. conveys essentially the same information more concisely. and I agree with that. But, adding the borough provides more specific information than NYC alone and is better than listing NYC alone, IMHO. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Renaming "Prince Andrew" to "Andrew Mountbatten Windsor"

The renaming of the article for Andrew was debated for a couple of days, but it has been decided now; an admin closed the move request and declared that there was consensus for the move. The page is now located at Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. Given this, I think we should update the page to replace all mentions of "Prince Andrew" with "Andrew" or "Andrew Mountbatten Windsor". This is a change that has already been made, but was reverted due to the page for Andrew not having been renamed yet. As such, I can't just be bold and do it myself, we have to establish consensus on the talk page first. I think it's pretty clear that it is now an appropriate change, but are there any objections? Quantum Burrito (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. He was known as "Prince Andrew" through his interactions with Epstein and there is no need to change that for an after-the-fact name change in these articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

The effect on Andrew probably deserves some mention in the article itself. In that context, an "Andrew Mountbatten Windsor (then known as Prince Andrew, Duke of York)" or "Prince Andrew, who was stripped of his titles as a result of the controversy and is now known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor" might make sense. But for the most part I agree that "Prince Andrew" is appropriate, for the same reason that his brother is "the Prince of Wales" in articles about his pre-regnancy life. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:40, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Ghislaine/Ghislane Typo

Could someone with the appropriate permissions correct the typo in Maxwell's name please?

"Clinton ever visited Epstein's island, with Ghislane Maxwell"

Thanks

92.28.160.65 (talk) 10:00, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

•  Done--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! 92.28.160.65 (talk) 11:47, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Victims count question

i once saw the page's victim count being "250+" and now it's "1000+"

Where did you guys get those numbers? ~2025-32209-18 (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

The two sources in the infobox say "The FBI and Justice Department said in their memo that the review confirmed that Epstein harmed more than 1,000 victims, each of whom suffered "unique trauma."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:56, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Problems with new additions

The newly added text is: "Documents released by the House Democratic Caucus in September 2025 show that he maintained connections with Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Larry Summers, and Steve Bannon.[30] The documents included over 20,000 pages of Epstein emails dating from 2011 to 2018, many of which included conversations about Donald Trump. Trump has described the release of these files as a "hoax," while his press secretary Karoline Leavitt has desribed it as a Democrat-led distraction.[31][32][33]"

Problems with the content are:

• It is not covered on article body. Where should we cover it?
• The sentences, "Trump has described the release of these files as a "hoax," while his press secretary Karoline Leavitt has desribed it as a Democrat-led distraction.[31][32][33]" are undue even if they were covered on article body. Has any WP:RS rejected the authenticity of those emails? If they haven't then we don't need these multiple denials on lead. If emails are authentic then covering is reaction is false balance. If mentioning Trump requires the mention of his denial then we can remove the mention of Trump with regards to the emails. Zalaraz (talk) 11:35, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Typo

Sorry, I'm not sure how this whole thing works, but I just saw a typo in the intro:

press secretary Karoline Leavitt has desribed (sic) it as a Democrat-led distraction. ~2025-38095-48 (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I fixed that typo, changed "desribed" [sic] to described and "Democrat-led" [sic] to Democratic-led.

For my second spelling correction, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that an adjective is needed before "led," not a noun, and if you check any dictionary, you'll see that Democrat is a noun, while the adjective form is Democratic, not Democrat. Republican politicians almost always inenttionally mispronounce and misspell Democratic Party as "Democrat Party" in order to insult Democrats, the same way they intentionally mispronounced the name of Kamala Harris. Gato63 (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Donald Trump called it a Hoax

is this an example of WP:MANDY ? Should we eliminate Trumps response that it's fake because...well, he would, wouldn't he? Mccartneyac (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes Snokalok (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. He calls everything he doesn't like "fake," including the 2020 election results, but there's no reason to repeat his lies in the article. Gato63 (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done If nothing else, accusations of it being a hoax aren't covered in the body. But also yes, we don't need to record Trump's reaction to everything in the lead of every article. GMG^talk 19:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Whitney Webb

May Whitney Webb be considered a reliable source for this article? Lots of nuggets in her work, but I am worried it could be straying into FRINGE territory. JDiala (talk) 00:50, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

This article contains verifiably false claims about Alex Acosta, Epstein & intelligence

The sources for Alex Acosta claiming he was told Epstein "belongs to intelligence" are all NOT traced to Acosta himself, but instead an anonymous White House source (later revealed to be Steve Bannon. When Acosta himself was asked about this by investigators, he flat out denied it. https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/17/politics/acosta-interview-epstein-house-oversight Wikipedia should not persist in conveying such misinformation when there are verifiable sources refuting it. I would correct it myself, but it appears this article is under some kind of edit protection, so I will leave it to someone else to correct it. ~2025-36985-52 (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Provide a source that it was Bannon who said that? ~2025-41106-66 (talk) 06:30, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Why no mention of the release of the missing minute?

The article reads like that missing minute of CCTV footage outside of Epstein's cell on the night of his death is still missing when it was released on September 2nd by the US House Oversight Committee. Seems like a pretty large oversight unless that footage was somehow proven to be fake or misleading. Speaking on it here even though I have authorization because I might genuinely be mistaken.

Link to the video file from the official release: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1NwWgjCOejOBHvGkdooYL7XN0YuLO-NCj (listed as DOJ-OGR-00022154.MP4)

News articles discussing this: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jeffrey-epstein-missing-minute-jail-video-shows/, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/03/missing-minute-video-epstein-released, https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/c98eyn3xey2o Vin Von Voom (talk) 10:35, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree, the missing minute release should be added. There is also this part in the current article: "When the Department of Justice released the footage, approximately 2 minutes and 53 seconds of it was missing,[18][19] and the video was found to have been modified despite the FBI's claim that it was raw." It links to a WIRED article from July suggesting it could be linked to the missing minute, which was released months later. The in the body it says "A minute was found missing from the footage soon after, where the clock jumps from 11:58:58 to 12:00:00.[426] A Wired investigation found that the video had been modified despite the FBI's claim that it was raw,[20] and that nearly three minutes were cut out of the video.[19] CBS News cited an unnamed government official, who said that the video had been deliberately edited to remove a minute, and an unedited version is in possession of the FBI.[427]" There is no reference to the September reporting about the missing minute being released. I think the missing minute release should be added (as you mentioned, we have reliable and recent CBS News and The Guardian reporting on it) and to be honest I would remove the 2:53 minute part because it is just based on WIRED's metadata analysis which is not related to the actual content of the CCTV footage released so it is entirely speculation. Midwood123 (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

What if he just never did what he did?

Wouldn’t it have been lovely if Epstein just lived his life without doing the horrible offences he committed? Maybe he could’ve become a world famous teacher. And also someone really needs to put a level of protection onto this article since Epstein is a very controversial figure. Thecrazypog (talk) 11:31, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Al Seckel

The released Epstein files contains a discussion with Al Seckel. Epstein seems to have hired that person to improve the Wikipedia page. Have the accounts that did this been found? Who changed the site at that time to replace the mug shot? That person should never edit wikipedia again. Volumemy (talk) 12:00, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Please block him Oriongrey (talk) 08:22, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2025

please change that trump was friends with Epstein he has stated he was not friends with him and ended whatever they had in 2003 and he stated this in 2019 so they did not conversate for 21 years but in 2019 he stated it was 15 years they had not talked due to epstein stealing workers from trump. its a fact. ~2025-31375-63 (talk) 08:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NotJamestack (talk) 11:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Donald J. Trump, who has been known to contradict himself within the same sentence, is not the most reliable source.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

And now there's an Epstein email which indicates Trump was with him for Thanksgiving 2017.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Even al jazeera says there is no evidence of that ~2025-35249-50 (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Please protect this page to spam and gouvernement édit Oriongrey (talk) 09:17, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

why no mention of Marina Lacerda? she was a central witness against Epstein who went public

Marina Lacerda should be mentioned in this article, in relation to the 2019 case against Epstein.

According to The Guardian: Marina Lacerda, a Brazilian immigrant identified as “Minor-Victim 1” in the federal indictment, was a central witness who spoke publicly for the first time in September. She detailed her abuse by Epstein from the age of 14 and said she saw Donald Trump with Epstein more than once ... Her testimony ultimately resulted in Epstein’s indictment.

And according to The Independent: The woman credited with helping to indict Jeffrey Epstein has spoken out for the first time in the decades since she was first abused by the disgraced financier at age 14. Marina Lacerda was part of a vast network of victims who were abused by Epstein as a teenager. Until now, she was identified as an unidentified minor victim in the 2019 federal indictment against the disgraced financier ... Although she’s credited with helping secure the 2019 criminal charges against Epstein, investigators first approached her about his abuse in 2008, she told ABC News.

It seems like there should be some mention about her in the article, as her contributions to Epstein's indictment were significant. ~2025-40672-28 (talk) 03:39, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Juvenile victims section

With the exception of Virginia Giuffre, none of the other people named in Jeffrey_Epstein#Juvenile_victims appear to have been juveniles (i.e. under 18) when they were abused by Epstein. And one of the sources for exploiting underage girls is a claim made in a primary court filing (WP:PRIMARY), not evidence or corroboration. There are certainly claims involving underage girls earlier in the article, but this section seems misleading and haphazardly assembled. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:18, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2025

Insert "wife" between "second" and "Valeria" in section on Noam Chomsky. ~2025-42392-47 (talk) 06:00, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 07:40, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2025

There may be a spelling mistake in the name "Eva Andersson-Dublin" where there is only a singular "s" in "Eva Anderson-Dubin (1980s)" in the Personal Life; Romances and procuresses; sections in the Jeffrey Epstein page Jimc618 (talk) 14:24, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Fixed –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:44, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Grammatical error in the first paragraph

I can't edit it myself, so if anyone reading this has the power to do so: In the sentence that starts with "Him and trump", Trump should start with an upper case T. Biharek 24 (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Fixed – Muboshgu (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

thanks! Biharek 24 (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

removal of the "Further Reading" section !?

Strongly disagree with the removal of a list of articles and books from the "Further Reading" section. The editor who did this simply wrote "already long" in their edit summary, as if this is an appropriate reason for removing additional reading suggestions.

I feel like this should be reverted, what do others think? ~2025-40672-28 (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

100% Agree. BronMeat (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it should be reverted back, they also removed the "page needed" in one of the then Line 59 ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2026

In the Personal life section under the subhead Juvenile victims there is a sloppy error in the sentence "They were accompanied by former UFC fighter Stephanie Tidwell, his bodyguard Igor Zinoviev,".

Stephanie Tidwell was a woman on Jeffrey Epstein's plane, she has never been a UFC fighter and no one named Stephanie Tidwell has ever fought in the UFC. His bodyguard Igor Zinoviev is the one who formerly fought in the UFC, so it is verifiably false to attribute Stephanie Tidwell as a former UFC fighter.

The sentence should read "They were accompanied by a woman identified as Stephanie Tidwell, his bodyguard former UFC fighter Igor Zinoviev, personal chef Lance Calloway, and assistant Sarah Kellen, on the Lolita Express.".

Alternatively, Stephanie's name could also be taken out since there is not much public info on her, and she could be a victim of Jeffrey Epstein. "They were accompanied by his bodyguard former UFC fighter Igor Zinoviev, personal chef Lance Calloway, and assistant Sarah Kellen, on the Lolita Express."

Source 228 appears to have the mistake in the story. Here are sources that corroborates that Igor Zinoviev is the former UFC fighter in the story not Stephanie Tidwell.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12931579/Inside-cult-model-joined-visiting-Jeffrey-Epsteins-pedo-island-Ruslana-Korshunova-lured-Moscows-Rose-World-humiliates-members-tells-rape-victims-fault.html

Korshunova's name is circled on the manifest. She was on board with JE (Epstein); IZ (his bodyguard Igor Zinoviev, a former UFC fighter); LC (Lance Calloway, who worked as Epstein's chef on the island); SK (Epstein's long-time assistant Sarah Kellen) and Stephanie Tidwell

https://nypost.com/2024/01/05/news/top-model-who-killed-herself-flew-on-epsteins-private-jet/ - This source has an error where they say "an unidentified former UFC fighter", but name bodyguard Igor Zinoviev earlier. Igor is the former UFC fighter, here is a link to his MMA record https://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Igor-Zinoviev-191

Korshunova’s trip to Epstein’s island was just weeks before the moneyman was arrested in 2006 and later convicted of sex with underage girls. He was listed as being with her on the flight, along with three of his staffers — bodyguard Igor Zinoviev, personal chef Lance Calloway, and longtime assistant Sarah Kellen. There was also a woman identified as Stephanie Tidwell — and an unidentified former UFC fighter. The4RealNews420 (talk) 08:41, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Partly done: Thank you for catching this mistake. I ended up removing the sentence entirely, as the existing sources only mention Tidwell by name and not any of the others. They are also WP:UNDUE for inclusion in the article here as it's not clear what their role was other than flying on the plane. Note that the Daily Mail and New York Post aren't considered reliable sources by Wikipedia and can't be used here. Day Creature (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2026

"The documents included over 20,000 pages of Epstein emails dating from 2011 to 2018, many of which included conversations about Trump." Needs citation ~2026-49508-0 (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: Citations are not required for the lead section of the article, since it is intended to be a summary of the article body. See MOS:LEADCITE. Day Creature (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2026

Vettla (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2026 (UTC) add Joshua Miguel Araujo Sheldon to the Epstein files

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. GearsDatapack (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2026

He was friends with diddy ~2026-62074-5 (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. – LuniZunie_(talk) 00:55, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Similar line of work, but definitely didn't know each other BronMeat _talk 13:20, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

The cause of death should say (alleged)

If a poll cited by Wikipedia shows that only 16% believed he actually killed himself, then why is it listed as the cause of death as if its factual? ~2026-66684-9 (talk) 06:38, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

This was discussed both above and for multiple times in archived discussions. I didn't read through much of them, but they've probably argued over the pros-and-cons quite extensively. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 07:19, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Edit request: Delete fake video of "Epstein in his cell"

The "12 second video of Epstein in his cell" is a fake, according to https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.88Z86KF (and other sources.)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2026 (2)

The link to File:US Department of Justice Investigation and Review of the Federal Bureau of Prisons' Custody, Care, and Supervision of Jeffrey Epstein at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York.pdf on the info on the report from June 2023 should be removed as the file doesn’t exist. ~2026-72547-2 (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done Day Creature (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2026

Please replace the current signature image in the infobox for Jeffrey Epstein with a new version based on official Department of Justice (DOJ) records.

Proposed Change: Replace the current signature file with:

File:Epstein signature.png

Rationale: This new file is a clean version of the signature extracted from Epstein's U.S. passport, which is included in the official DOJ document dataset (see: https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01295217.pdf). Since the passport was his valid identification at the time of his death, it serves as an authoritative and verifiable primary source. This version is more accurate and clear than the one currently used in the article. Shkrp (talk) 11:55, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: The new signature seems to be of poorer quality. If you can get the same quality as the signature currently on the page, I wouldn't mind. jolielover♥talk 15:51, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

How about now? File:Epsteinsignature.png. Shkrp (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I just removed the background from that image, and it is now in the page.  Done jolielover♥talk 16:39, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Good article

WikiWorkerBees (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

You shouldn't really do peer review and a GA review at the same time. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, as a non-major contributor, it's not really suitable for you to nominate an article like this for GA status. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:27, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I’m not sure WikiWorkerBees is here to improve the encyclopedia. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

i can't even edit the article because is lock WikiWorkerBees (talk) 12:18, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

GA review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jeffrey Epstein/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: WikiWorkerBees (talk · contribs) 10:51, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Bgsu98 (talk · contribs) 11:34, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I am quick-failing this GAN as a drive-by nomination. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:35, 6 February 2026 (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.

i accidently changed the language of the original article into malayalam, how can i re do it

Sorry, i accidently changed the language of the original article into malayalam, how can i re do it Jaisonll799 (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

i am cleared my mistake, thank you Jaisonll799 (talk) 14:06, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 February 2026

Add hyperlink to Donald Trump for references to Donald Trump. This is the only name not hyperlinked in the opening paragraph of the Acquanitances section, and also appears in other places without a hyperlink, which is inconsistent with the treatment of other named individuals. ArgalPenryn (talk) 05:18, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done {{GearsDatapack|talk|contribs}} 07:50, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

What should we do something with r/Epstein on this article and the article ""Don't worry. Boys are hard to find." Part 1 o2"?

This subreddit has way more information, such as news articles and other stuff, than on wikipedia, and therefore i have a idea to put the subreddit into the "Further Reading" section, this section was removed by someone for being "already long" but it will be reverted back due to the opinions as mentioned in the above discussion, i also found this article named ""Don't worry. Boys are hard to find." Part 1 o2" https://lisevoldeng.substack.com/p/dont-worry-boys-are-hard-to-find?r=1uodw7&utm_medium=ios&shareImageVariant=overlay&triedRedirect=true It is written by Lisa Noelle Voldeng and it discusses a Iraq War veteran named Sascha Riley who was a victim, it is too long to write everything that is in the article, however there is a multiple news articles about it

• https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/who-is-lisa-noelle-voldeng-substack-user-who-leaked-sasha-rileys-alleged-epstein-audio-tapes-101768354980755.html
• https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/sascha-riley-audio-testimony-explodes-online-triggering-global-debate-over-unverified-epstein-linked-claims/ar-AA1UbMYI?ocid=BingNewsVerp
• https://news24online.com/world/who-is-sasha-riley-and-whats-behind-viral-testimony-audio-of-alleged-epstein-survivor/711215/
• https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/who-is-sasha-riley-and-why-is-alleged-epstein-survivors-testimony-audio-going-viral/ar-AA1U8Yxy?ocid=BingNewsVerp
• https://news24online.com/world/sasha-rileys-alleged-viral-audio-recording-reignites-debate-around-epstein-case-heres-all-you-need-to-know/711577/
• https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/sasha-riley-alleged-epstein-survivors-testimony-audio-recordings-go-viral/ar-AA1U9GLd?ocid=BingNewsVerp
• https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/who-is-lisa-noelle-voldeng-substack-user-who-leaked-sasha-rileys-alleged-epstein-audio-tapes/ar-AA1U9OXH?ocid=BingNewsVerp
• https://www.msn.com/en-in/entertainment/celebrities/sasha-riley-alleged-epstein-survivor-s-testimony-audio-recordings-go-viral/ar-AA1U9GLd?ocid=BingNewsVerp
• https://sundayguardianlive.com/world/who-is-sasha-riley-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-alleged-epstein-survivors-audio-going-viral-164466/
• https://www.newsx.com/world/who-is-sasha-riley-sascha-iraq-war-veteran-behind-viral-epstein-survivor-audio-drops-bombshell-claims-names-powerful-figures-146891/

Therefore it could be added in Wikipedia because there are multiple news articles about it. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

in fact, i found out about this article on this subreddit, so my reason is correct (i don't know what word to use, so i'm using correct) and i found news articles by searching about it. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Therefore the subreddit is a geniunly great place to find information and news articles about it, either on the subreddit or by searching information you found on the subreddit. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• EFTA00000166 - Massage room with patterned wallpaper a large painting of a reclining figure and a massage table.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

CGI video used in death section

Video captioned as 'Epstein alive in his cell' in his death section, file name '12-Second Video of Jeffrey Epstein in his Cell (EFTA00029924).webm' is fake.

While this was part of DoJ release, numerous fake files were also included as part of their investigation. This video was sent to DoJ via email by a conspiracy theorist who claimed to have retrieved it from an anonymous source. PDF was uploaded by DoJ as EFTA00029922.pdf, and has since been removed: https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00029922.pdf

Scribd backup: https://www.scribd.com/document/974531999/EFTA00029922

Also found as EFTA00028840.pdf, which the DoJ seems to have forgotten to remove: https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00028840.pdf

Sender known as 'Younes Ali Kabbaj' links his own websites. He goes on a tirade defending this video as authentic and real here, with no legitimate sources obviously: https://theinvestigation.org/epstein.html

Original video in higher quality can be found on YouTube way before it was released by DoJ, where title and description clearly describes it as being CGI: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_GchRndOKw

Justice.gov link to video has since been removed: https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00029924.mp4

Further NY Post article covering this: https://nypost.com/2025/12/22/us-news/doj-releases-shocking-fake-video-of-jeffrey-epstein-suicide-as-part-of-file-dump/

Should be removed to avoid confusion, as it's currently implied it's the video of Epstein's death, which is not in public domain or known to exist. Or perhaps, mention of the fake video could be equally as informative. Wuwuweiwei (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Epstein and Bear Stearns

The section on Epstein's $57 million investment in the Bear Stearns High-Grade Structured Credit Strategies Enhanced Leverage hedge fund is misleading as written.

Specifically, this section makes it sound as though the unnamed investor's April 18, 2007, request to withdraw $57 million was the cause of the fund's collapse (and thus the 2008 financial crisis more generally). However, a total of thirteen investors, including the fund's own manager, requested redemptions between March 1 and May 3, for the reason that the fund was rapidly losing value.

At the time the fund suspended redemptions on June 7, 2007, it was facing a total of $240 million in redemptions due on June 30 alone, or more than four times the value of Epstein's investment on its own.

See Cohan, William D., House of Cards: A Tale of Hubris and Wretched Excess on Wall Street, the book from which the article in reference 99 is excerpted, p. 404: "[B]etween March 1 and May 3, thirteen investors, including two of the largest investors and [hedge fund manager Ralph] Cioffi himself, had requested redemptions..."

And ibid., p. 410: "The [Bear Stearns Asset Management] memo [of June 6] said the Enhanced Leverage Fund had $240 million in redemptions for June 30."

The sentence beginning "At this time, the fund had a leverage ratio of 17:1," etc., is not supported by the source cited (reference 100), which does not mention the fund's leverage ratio.

The three sentences beginning "The selling of CDO assets to meet the redemptions," etc., are not supported by the sources cited, and inaccurately argue that the "selling of CDO assets began a repricing process" (emphasis mine).

Rather, as Cohan writes, Goldman Sachs, "as a counterparty to trades in the funds, ... was obligated to report its thinking about the value of the securities in the funds on a monthly basis." In April, Goldman marked the value of the securities held by the fund down to "50 and 60" cents on the dollar. In turn, this required the fund to update and "repost [its] NAV [Net Asset Value]," resulting in a catastrophic "minus 18.97" percent return for the month on top of the declines posted in the three previous months (Ibid., p. 399-400).

In other words, investors were making redemption requests from the fund because a "repricing process" already underway demonstrated that the value of their investments was significantly decreasing.

Here is my suggested revision of the paragraph beginning "On April 18, 2007":

"On April 18, 2007, an investor in the fund, who had $57 million invested, discussed redeeming the investment.[97][98] This investor was one of thirteen people, including the fund's own manager, who requested redemptions between March 1 and May 3 of that year, due to the fund's rapidly worsening performance.[99] While $240 million in redemptions had been scheduled for June 30, 2007, the fund announced on June 7 that redemptions would be suspended.[100] Epstein's efforts to recover his investment in the fund were unsuccessful.[96]"

References 96, 97, and 98 above are the same as in the current version of the article. The citations for references 99 and 100 are:

99. Cohan, William D. (2009). House of Cards: A Tale of Hubris and Wretched Excess on Wall Street. New York: Doubleday. p. 404. ISBN 0-385-52826-4.

100. Cohan, William D. (2009) House of Cards: A Tale of Hubris and Wretched Excess on Wall Street. New York: Doubleday. p. 410. ISBN 0-385-52826-4. Thecrystalwheatear (talk) 04:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

John Casablancas

Has his connection to Epstein ever been added here? I added it to his page John Casablancas with 2 reliable sources to The Guardian, who stated "It also appears that Epstein had a Casablancas connection during the 1990s. According to a lawsuit filed in the US three months ago, in 1990 Casablancas sent a teenage model for her first “casting call” at a residential address on New York’s Upper East Side, to meet a “photographer” who, it turned out, was Epstein. The lawsuit states that Epstein ordered the 15-year-old girl to undress before taking photographs of her, pushing her against a wall and sexually assaulting her."

I also added his name to Acquaintances of Jeffrey Epstein.

Casablancas was also close friends with Donald Trump, and had various relationships with minors before the Epstein scandal. Aradicus77 (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2026

In "Alleged connections to intelligence agencies", add that the late political commentator Charlie Kirk also alleged that Epstein was connected with Israeli intelligence (Mossad) and cited Ghislaine Maxwell and Robert Maxwell as co-conspirators.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccRNaLGavf8 Giantlawnmower64 (talk) 01:24, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Youtube is considered a poor source because it lacks the necessary editorial oversight, peer review, and verification required for high-quality information. You may find a different source, but please be aware that YouTube may not be suitable for sourcing. 𝚃𝚑𝚎 𝙶𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚝 𝙴𝚙𝚒𝚙𝚑𝚊𝚗𝚢👁👄👁 (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Section name - "In pop culture" v. "Legacy"

I was looking at the section's name change from In pop culture to Legacy ... I know the word is not connotatively positive, but for me it always feels like something with a positive connotation (especially when used alone, instead of e.g., "destructive legacy" "legacy of slavery").

I don't feel strongly about said opinion, though; not more than a slight sense of oddity.

Friendly ping to @Harizotoh9. :) 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 14:53, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Legacy is for what came after, and it's a neutral term and used by historians and scholars all the time. You may read in an academic history book a chapter titled "Legacy of the Ottoman Empire". Or "What are the British Empire’s “Legacies”?" Or a scholar might say

"The truth of the matter is that empires come into power for complex reasons. They’re able to persist for complex reasons. And their legacies are complex too."

These are all pretty standard uses of legacy by academics and journalists. Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks and that's convincing, no more questions from me. :) 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 15:16, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

DC-based IP Address Manipulating the Narrative

So who with the Washington DC-based IP address has access to edit this page and keeps manipulating the narrative to bury the extent of Epstein’s human trafficking crimes and connections with prominent politicians/business leaders? Seems pretty obvious that their access should be removed. ~2026-79451-0 (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I think they are representatives of Nicole Junkermann. The same ones who continuously deleted any reference to Epstein on Nicole Junkermann’s wiki, despite well-documented/legitimate sources, before ultimately deleting her page to bury any evidence of a connection. She appears in over 4,000 documents released by the DOJ, and yet someone is preventing any of these documented connections from being published. ~2026-80784-3 (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's make an RfPP for this article. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 16:37, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks! StoopKidsAfraidToLeaveHisStoop (talk) 13:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2026

change "underage girls" to "children" change "minors" to "children" change "teens" to "children" ~2026-83823-2 (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: Those three terms are used several times throughout the article in a variety of different contexts, and it would be inappropriate to change them all to "children" wholesale. If there is a specific instance you would like to change, please make a new edit request about it. Day Creature (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

To add to article

In the section on Karyna Shuliak, the current version of this article states that she was "one of the largest beneficiaries" of Epstein's estate, but, since we aim to be properly encyclopedic in our articles, shouldn't we be more specific and add the fact that Shuliak inherited between $260 million and $300 million in assets from Epstein's will? ~2025-32865-45 (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 February 2026

An ongoing conspiracy surrounds the possibility that Epstein might not be dead, as there are a couple of files that have been release by the US Department of Justice that could hint at the possibility of his supposed death being staged. The main key factor being the witness of Roberto Grijalva, an officer at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York, who was identified as the individual who anonymously posted on 4Chan the morning of Epstein’s death, August 10, 2019, claiming he witnessed weird happenings at the prison before Epstein’s death. Among other documents, while none of this has been officially confirmed, I believe it would be worth including this in the article as a theory that surrounds Jeffrey Epstein.

I say this is merely a theory as the subpoena for the phone records, bank records, etc., which is where the name Roberto Grijalva appears, only includes the IP address belonging to the 1st, 2nd and 4th posts. https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00133349.pdf See page 20 and 86.

So it appears the Grijalva might be responsible for the posts about Epstein dying and the medical information, but it does not appear that he was responsible for the post about the swap. And I can't find any more information on that IP in the files. Looks like he was a police officer and a CO at the prison, which explains how he knew early: 'NYC payroll' deposit and 'Mesk police equipment' in his bank records.

Possibly a 4chan troll who saw Grijalva's posts and ran with it. They were later deleted, it seems, since it's listed under deleted records.

Images/screenshots that I could not find again/have been redacted after obtaining. https://imgur.com/a/2ay0EUq

Sources: https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00133349.pdf Page 85. https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00098157.pdf Now redacted, check Imgur URL for unredacted. https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00133623.pdf https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01249740.pdf https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00062221.pdf Page 5. https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01649154.pdf ~2026-85500-7 (talk) 05:26, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. jolielover♥talk 09:03, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Request to add Nadia Marcinkova under “romances and procuresses”

Greetings, I am not an experienced wikipedia editor and this page appears to have edit restrictions so I’m unable to add this myself. Nadia Marcinkova was an assistant to Epstein and is said to have procured some of his victims as well participated in the abuse. I think her involvement as a member of his inner circle warrants her name being mentioned in this article. I’m unsure, however, if this would be considered a “romance.” She has her own wikipedia page and I think it should be hyperlinked as well.

Here is her wikipedia page. Meta mimesis (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. 🍅 fx (talk) 09:52, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Donald Barr

He's mentioned in the lede- of all things- as having hired Epstein, when the source (the New York Times, no less) cited in this article and Barr's own states that it's not clear that he was the one who hired Epstein prior to his own retirement. Why this guy needs to be mentioned in the first paragraph of this very controversial individual's article like some kind of finger is being pointed- 'look, this guy was complicit somehow'- isn't clear. But the statement isn't corroborated that he DID hire Epstein, so it shouldn't be stated. 'Epstein was employed at the Dalton School between X and Y' would be sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-88215-2 (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Long page

This article has 366,404 bytes of markup. Some thought might be given to thinning, or splitting, it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Request to add interlanguage link

Hello,

I have created a Malayalam translation of this article at: ml:ജെഫ്രി എപ്സ്റ്റീൻ

As the article or its Wikidata item is protected, I do not have permission to add the interlanguage link myself. I would appreciate it if an autoconfirmed editor or administrator could add the Malayalam link.

Thank you for your help. Jaisonll799 (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

This was done in response to your request posted elsewhere. Please do not ask in multiple venues, as it ties up volunteers' time unnecessarily. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:32, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Brother Peter(?)

In the "Final Will" section of the article, it states Epstein left "10 million to his brother Peter". His only brother's name is Mark, not Peter. ~2025-41267-78 (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for noticing the mistake! — Dulcetia ^{texting is free} 20:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Is this considered up to wikipedia standards...?

The page begins with 5 lengthy paragraphs with zero, literally zero citations. Not sure I have ever seen any other extensively viewed wikipedia page that wasnt immediately flagged for this. There is not even a single temporary tag calling for "citation needed". ~2026-91163-5 (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Hmm Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section explains why you didn't see those tags. It's actually proper. Drmies (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Barring replies to certain topics why?

No pun intended, but why are barred from replying to the topic involving Donald Barr? I simply wanted to quote from the man's own wiki to explain why he is potentially relevant: "For a brief time, at the end of his tenure as headmaster, college dropout Jeffrey Epstein, later convicted of sex trafficking, was employed as a math and science teacher. In February 1974, Barr announced his resignation at the end of the school year. Epstein began working at Dalton in September 1974. At Dalton, Epstein tutored the children of Alan Greenberg, who later offered him a job at Bear Stearns. Writing career edit In 1973, Barr published Space Relations, a science fiction novel about a planet ruled by oligarchs who engage in child sex slavery. It has been noted that the plot of the novel anticipates the crimes of Epstein and his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell." ~2026-91163-5 (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

You are not barred from replying to it, the comment in the discussion was left unsigned so it doesn't have a reply button next to it. This is a technical artefact, not a restriction. I have signed it for the user now. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:17, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

"Reactions" to Second set of criminal charges (2019)

Unlike in the section about his first criminal case, the Second set of criminal charges doesn't have a subsection about "Reactions". rootsmusic (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Financial Times article

There's a new piece from the Financial Times out that directly addresses some claims made in this article. https://www.ft.com/content/69019b85-7843-4335-96fd-6b42b882a9c2 ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 17:33, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Does it actually directly address this very article? Then it should be put into the talk page header. And it could be very useful for making corrections to this page. There's a lot of good sources in this article, but also sloppier ones, and some gossip and speculation that needs to be trimmed. Does anyone have a subscription? Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes it directly addresses this very article. I can email you the piece if you'd like. Brycehughes (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

That would be piracy and very, very, wrong. People with a legitimate subscription to the paper can read it and make corrections as needed. A reliable source fact checking a WP page is something that needs to be addressed. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok. Brycehughes (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Wiki allows use of archived pages of articles without a paywall, you can read the article here for example. Zenomonoz (talk) 06:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Expanding Acquaintances

Seeing as how the black book is the primary source for most of the people detailed more people should also be listed, as an example, Bill Gates although he did 'regret' it, i could find 4 "reliable" sources on him with just one search. Making an article on Acquaintances of Jeffery Epstein should also be done

Sources

Google Search BronMeat (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Made the article, Now need to shift info to there and make Acquaintances shorter BronMeat (talk) 08:20, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

They also need to add Barack Obama and many other Democrats as it seems very obvious that this was written with bias intent. ~2026-74784-0 (talk) 11:31, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

There are loads of democrats and republicans in the epstein list, many of whom are written in the article.

Feel free to add more if you've got credible sources BronMeat _talk 12:00, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

It's already split up into new sub-article, see personal life of Jeffrey Epstein. Absolutiva 07:28, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Estate of Jeffrey Epstein

Following the opening of deletion discussions (1, 2) for Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn (accountant), I have created Draft:Estate of Jeffrey Epstein as a potential redirect target for those pages and a potential sub-article of this page. I would greatly appreciate some help in expanding the draft and preparing it for mainspace. mdm.bla 16:31, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Rapist?

One of the many strange unknowns about the Epstein saga is what he specifically did to the female victims. Aa far as I can tell there were "massages", hand jobs, oral sex, and possible "consensual" intercourse meaning the girls/young women were not forced or held down against their will. I'm not a legal expert on sex crimes but I don't believe rape i.e. penetrating another person with a penis against their will was confirmed by victims of Epstein and as far as I'm aware he was never charged or convicted of rape. Was Epstein a sex offender / likely intel asset for Israel, or an actual violent "rapist" and should the article describe him that way? Yodabyte (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for this comment, I agree sex offender is a more suitable term in the lead due to ambiguity around the term rapist. I'd also note that WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY and WP:STICKTOSOURCE applies. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Sex offender and sexual assault are better, more accurate more objective terms. Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Source cleanup

• FBI concluded Jeffrey Epstein wasn’t running a sex trafficking ring for powerful men, files show -APNEWS

AP is the gold standard and this particular article is a very good summary of the FBI's conclusion. It should be cited heavily in the article. There's a little too much low quality sources and speculation. Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Harizotoh9, I don't have too much time to go through the article, but I'd appreciate you highlighting any sources that are questionable. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Fox news, NY Post, Newsweek, TRTworld, NDTV world, Drop Site News, TMZ, as a starter. The article should be built with only the highest quality gold standard sources like CNN, ABC News, Miami Herald, NY Times, etc. It's not like this subject hasn't been reported on heavily. There's too many low quality and tabloid sources being used. Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah those should definitely be removed. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Those are just the most brazen. There are also borderline questionable, tons of tabloid sources, and others. A few have been removed. The article is also too big, too bloated, and trimming down on excessive low quality sources and speculation will help address that. Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree this article needs a lot of trimming and probably restructuring (a lot of stuff under 'personal life' that could be in other sections). I agree too much weight is given to tabloids and bordering on giving credence to unproven allegations. As the FBI has shown (also seen in internal documents now released), a lot of the more scandalous elements are lacking in evidence. We should use the more recent findings on that front. Also, that AP piece could be used on the Virginia Giuffre article. Zenomonoz (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Why 52-minute video mostly of nothing much?

There's a 58-minute video in the article ("Palm Beach Police search video at Jeffrey Epstein's mansion in 2005 on El Brillo Way in Palm Beach"), which slowly shows the inside of house. Is that informative in some way? I didn't actually watch the whole video myself, but it seemed a lot of nothing. Also I don't see a source in Wikipedia format.David Couch (talk) 02:04, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

David Couch, I removed the video, I agree it is mundane and distracting for the purposes of this article. If somebody wants to contest this removal, I am all ears. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:08, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 February 2026

Change "some some" to "some". Sebcarroll (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done – Muboshgu (talk) 01:13, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Urgent Concern Regarding the Removal of Sources

Hi,

Over the past month, a significant number of sources have quietly disappeared.

The scale and timing of these removals raise legitimate concerns. When multiple sources vanish within such a short period, it naturally leads to questions about whether this is coincidental or part of a broader effort to soften, dilute, or obscure certain claims.

At the very least, this pattern undermines transparency. When information that previously informed public debate becomes unavailable without clear explanation, trust erodes. Regardless of the underlying reason, the sudden disappearance of these materials deserves attention and clarification. Bye McJohnD (talk) 09:08, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

McJohnD, Wikipedia doesn't allow use of unreliable sources. This was discussed on Talk:Jeffrey Epstein#Source cleanup. We don't use sources like DailyMail and the rest. No need for accusations of a nefarious conspiracy theory, we are simply adhering to the Wikipedia policies. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:02, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Summary sentence suggestion

The current opening sentence is this : Jeffrey Edward Epstein (January 20, 1953 – August 10, 2019) was an American financier, child sex offender, serial rapist, and human trafficker.

I think that his networking with the rich and powerful should be reflected. Perhaps add, here in square brackets:

(...) an American financier [with an extensive network among the rich and powerful in the USA and the Western world, as well as] a child sex offender, serial rapist and human trafficker. Morten7an (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Very strong introduction, adds critical detail. I think this might be clearer and flow better.

Jeffrey Edward Epstein (January 20, 1953 – August 10, 2019) was an American financier, child sex offender, serial rapist, and human trafficker. [He is known for his extensive connections to world leaders, US politicians, proponents of Zionism, and a self-described representative of the Rothschilds.] Sarah serafin (talk) 05:35, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

how about "Jeffrey Edward Epstein (January 20, 1953 – August 10, 2019)was a serial rapist, child sex offender, and human trafficker, with an extensive network among the rich and powerful in the USA and the Western world. He was also a financier." ~2026-89777-4 (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

None of these are necessary. The first paragraph already covers his connections, no need to bring it into the first sentence. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:14, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

At this point, he is much better known as a sexual predator/offender/rapist than a financier. If anything, even this article itself proves that there's a lot less known about him as a financier than a human trafficker and sex offender.

I would be much more inclined to suggest something like:

Jeffrey Edward Epstein (January 20, 1953 – August 10, 2019) was an American child sex offender, serial rapist, and human trafficker.

His career as a financier is really of secondary importance to history. It's not as relevant, he would not be as famous/well-known. ~2026-98363-4 (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Please move financial adviser to the last position on the list

acknowledging his business position above his evil crimes is what normalises this kind of behaviour. Predator is a much more fitting opening to this little list. ~2026-83793-6 (talk) 09:58, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I think this entire page is proof that we're not "normalizing" that behavior. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Could you expand what you mean? ~2026-98363-4 (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Why is "financier" in the headline?

What are his financial achievements? ~2026-96607-8 (talk) 10:18, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

A Wikipedia admin above commented:

> I think this entire page is proof that we're not "normalizing" that behavior. ~2026-98363-4 (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

He was a hedge fund manager, and confirmed to have millions in investments. He may have done shady economic things, but he was never charged nor convicted. All his criminal cases related to sex crimes. If he engaged in financial malfeasance, it wouldn't negate that he also had real investments. Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

He was a noteworthy financier before he was a noteworthy sex criminal. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Accomplice / co-conspirator in side bar

I see there are several reversions unfolding regarding the accomplice section. Please note that WP:1RR is active on this article.

Second, I agree with Lolamelody123456 against including Jean-Luc Brunel in the sidebar. This is new information, and there is no rush to include until the facts have been established in WP:RS.

Of note, several of the people announced as "co-conpirators" have zero connection to Epstein , and Ro Khanna seems to have walked back his announcement on X for being a misstep. In addition, this source should not be used in the side bar, it's a primary source from 2019.

So, I think Acroterion has been too preemptive in reverting. As for "the dead are not entitled to due process", perhaps not – but we should still aim to be accurate and cautious regarding a contentious topic when information is constantly changing. As shown and now conceded by Khanna, some of the men shown in the unredacted files as "co-conspirators" were nothing of the sort. So we shouldn't be relying on rushed media reports of inaccurate documents.

Zenomonoz (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I was addressing the rationale that a dead person must be tried in a court before guilt is declared. There are lots of people whose crimes have been established who never were convicted, because they died before they could be tried. If there is a rationale for their removal on another basis, then fine, but not that one. And I see that there's been an small edit war developing over the infobox. Figure it out here, not via edit summary. Acroterion (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

His crimes have not been established yet in this particular case and we cannot definitively label him as responsible for those crimes connected to Epstein in the infobox, regardless of our personal opinions. On Wikipedia, content must be written from a neutral point of view and must avoid presenting unproven allegations as facts. Otherwise, we would have to treat every alleged accomplice in this case as guilty as well. @Zenomonoz @ThirdEye96 Lolamelody123456 (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Then don't present your removal as "he was never tried in a court." Neither was John Wilkes Booth. Use a more appropriate rationale. And be careful about 3RR. Acroterion (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Comment on allegation/proven in lead

Hey WikiUser70176, part of the problem with this sentence is that Epstein was not convicted of raping every young women he had an interaction with. Many of the women were over the age of consent, and the sentence includes the term "young women" to take this into account. Some of the women over the age of consent have since made allegations (e.g. Elizabeth Stein, who was 21 when she met Epstein and says she realised she was abused at age 30), and subsequently attempted to claim funds from the Epstein estate. Attorneys argued that she did not qualify as a “crime victim” under the CVRA, and she received no payout. It is not the case that he has been proven of raping every women he had sex with. The legal definition does apply to those underage, however. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Alright. How would yo phrase it then? ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦^{(My talk page)} 21:58, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I looked it up. Under US law, all persons trafficked are considered raped. So if a person was procured for sex trafficking then that person was raped. The sentence is accurate as is. ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦^{(My talk page)} 14:39, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

"All persons trafficked are considered raped" is assuming that every adult woman that Epstein had sexual activity with was trafficked. That isn't the case, only a subset of interactions was he prosecuted for. And we don't do WP:OR with terminology anyway. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

No no no, it doesn't assume that at all. The subject and predicate of the sentence are not commutative, to use a logical phraseology. What I mean is "All persons trafficked are considered raped" says nothing more than that: all persons trafficked by Epstein were raped. That's all. It doesn't mean that all women he had sex with were trafficked, i.e. raped. The sentence He procured underage girls and young women who were raped by him and, allegedly, some of his associates. doesn't say or imply anything about the women he had consensual sex with. The sentence explicitly refers only to the persons who were procured and no one else. It seems pretty straightforward to me. Am I missing something? ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦^{(My talk page)} 01:19, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I'll think about some minor rephrasing, it may make sense to adjust it to say Epstein was charged with cases of rape and trafficking etc. Also, the Ghislaine part can definitely be brought into the lead, I have only removed it here because she was only around for a period of this. I've left the rest of your sentence intact. Perhaps this belongs in one of the other paragraphs. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

"Trafficked to associates"

We have this AP source, and I'll also add that we have this source :

A woman who was a victim of convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein has agreed to drop allegations against attorney Alan Dershowitz saying she “may have made a mistake” when she also accused him of sexual abuse. The accuser, Virginia Giuffre, said in a statement that she was young at the time she was trafficked by Epstein and in a “very stressful and traumatic environment.” Giuffre had alleged that Epstein had trafficked her to Dershowitz between 2000 and 2002, but Dershowitz long denied her claim.

So this one seems a bit more specific about whom she was accusing, and then retracted it as a "mistake" after years of allegations. Might be worth incorporating some of this into the lead. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Entire personal life section moved to separate article???

Does anybody else oppose the recent move to put all of the large "personal life" section into another article Personal life of Jeffrey Epstein ?? The entire section is now blank here. I think it would make more sense to have shortened it in other ways. I think this should be reversed. Some of the personal life content should've been split into different sections, and not put into a different article. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, at the very least there should be a short summary paragraph retained here. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you. I think at least the lead section and the romantic relationships section (Dubin/Maxwell/Shuliak) should be included here under "Personal life," while everything else remains in the Personal life of Jeffrey Epstein article, which should still be linked here as the main article. Lolamelody123456 (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, this article is too large that meets WP:ARTICLESIZE policy. Absolutiva 02:44, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Pronunciation

A section on the pronunciation of his surname would be helpful: as an Englishman, I had assumed that it would be the same of that of the Beatles' late manager; however, my American wife tells me that it is Epsteen. Paul Magnussen (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia

Mentions Epstein, but that could probably be expanded a bit, if anyone is interested in that. Could deserve a sentence in this article as well, there's some decent coverage like , more under "This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:" on this talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:00, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Age of victim Epstein pleaded guilty

In the Wikipedia-Intro: "In 2008, he pleaded guilty to procuring one 17 year old child for prostitution and of soliciting a prostitute, and was convicted by a Florida state court." (no source).

Washington Post (2019) says:

"But when he pleaded guilty in state court in 2008, the only minor Epstein was convicted of soliciting was 16 years old at the time the offenses began, according to information obtained by The Washington Post."

"Epstein, now 66, was charged with soliciting a minor between Aug. 1, 2004, and Oct. 9, 2005, according to court documents. Based on the birth date provided by the state attorney’s office, this victim would have been 16 when the solicitation began and on the eve of her 18th birthday — the age of consent in Florida — when it ended."

Miami Herald (2019) says:

"The lawyer for the 16-year-old girl who state prosecutors now say was the victim attached to the mysterious plea deal given to multimillionaire Jeffrey Epstein says neither he nor his client was ever informed that it was her case that ended Epstein’s prosecution." KurtR (talk) 04:14, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing to my attention, will tweak lead to a minor for now and then investigate body first. It seems somebody moved a lot of the content to other articles, so I thought it had been there. I'll need to check the sources, because the Miami Herald part sounds strange to me. From my knowledge, the girl was quite reluctant to testify because she described it as "consensual", so it is news to me that she was "neither he nor his client was ever informed" of that. Zenomonoz (talk) Zenomonoz (talk) 04:32, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok, having checked the WaPo source, it's still the case he was charged for contact with a 17 year old. The lead is covering what he was charged for. If it is the case that WaPo retroactively found evidence she was 16 while she knew him, that could be covered in the body and perhaps a note in the lead. The sentence in the lead covers what he pleaded guilty for at the time. I'll do a bit more digging into the sources relating to the charges, and expand this in the body before it is covered in the lead. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:39, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 February 2026

Include Barack Obama and Haleej Jeffries in your list of Epstein's associates and friends. It's weirdly predictable that you lead off with Trump, when he is well known to have cut Epstein off. Par for the course for a website dedicated to undermining facts it doesn't like. ~2026-57582-3 (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Good trolling, maybe. Unless you fell for AI pictures? Obama and Jeffries were not associated with Epstein. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:09, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

"Reiter" is mentioned without introduction

"During the investigation, Reiter publicly accused the Palm Beach County state prosecutor, Barry Krischer, of being too lenient and called for help from the FBI"

Reiter is Michael Reiter, the police chief in charge of the first inquiry, but this isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. Hughjonesd (talk) 13:57, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Correction: it's mentioned, but only subsequently. Hughjonesd (talk) 13:57, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 February 2026

Add Sex Trafficker to professions. ~2026-95660-2 (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: that's not an "occupation" – Muboshgu (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Is prostitute an occupation? ~2026-10484-26 (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Jean-Luc Brunel

Since he is listed as an accomplice in the infobox, this should also be mentioned in the lead ~2026-78989-4 (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Not a rush to include it yet. The allegation about Brunel trace back to Virginia Giuffre, but the FBI has rejected her claims that Epstein trafficked girls to other men . Virginia Giuffre alleged that one of these men was Alan Derschowitz for ~8 years, but then retracted it in 2022. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

It's messy. He was subject to his own prosecution for sex crimes, and killed himself. There's accusations going back years of collusion between the two in trafficking, however no conclusive legal decision. FBI also was cautious about Virginia Giuffre's claims, and the NYC prosecution against Epstein and Maxwell didn't use her as a witness. If there's a new FBI report or conclusion saying that he was a co-conspirator or accomplice, then fine. However, the current FBI director under oath has said that Epstein did not traffic women or young girls to anyone else. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2026 (UTC)