Talk:Nicholas Christakis

Opinion in the "Free Speech Advocacy" section

I tagged this as POV for the following two sentence clauses: "Christakis' belief that Yale students could discuss controversial issues (such as costumes) among themselves, and his confidence in their ability to do so, was apparently not enough..." and "this documentary also provided the interesting detail that Christakis comes from a multi-racial family" Put bluntly, the first sentence reads like an op-ed. But it doesn't appear to be a quote from an article. If this statement is taken from an op-ed then it should be in quotation marks, right? Otherwise, the this entire section of the sentence should be removed. It reads like obvious editorializing. The second sentence is fine except that it should be left to the reader to decide whether Christakis' multi-racial family is interesting or not. I highly doubt those of us in a multi-racial family find that alone to be interesting. The implicit message here is to point out the hypocrisy of Christakis' detractors. But then why not just do that in an obvious and measured way? Why imply it? Doesn't read like an encyclopedia entry. I just want to know the facts. Thank you for your attention. --2601:602:9500:66A8:98E2:8964:F1FC:DE09 (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Revirvlkodlaku: I think the edits by 128.36.7.216 of the prior edits of Lamacha9617 improved the article. Most of Lamacha9617 edits were kept, but more citations were added (including to the original letter from the Yale deans), along with clarification that that letter from the deans did indeed include links to a pinterest page with approved and non-approved costumes. Lamacha9617 added a citation to another article in The Washington Post that made reference to a letter by 400 faculty; this was kept in the proposed edit, but more accurate information (and two quotes) from the Post article was included in the proposed edit. And better context was added too.

Distinctly, I think the prior way this section was handled, organized chronologically, was superior to the proposed version, but I guess this is up for debate. And I defer too more experienced editors, like Revirvlkodlaku, on whether the POV tag should stay or not. To me, this section reads neutrally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.173.170 (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I have no major objections to the latest version of the article, which is different from the one I had reverted earlier. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The POV tag to the "Advocacy for Free Expression" section was added in October of 2022 and it would seem that the criteria for removing it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:POV#When_to_remove) have been met? First, it was unclear what the original objections were. Second, quite a few named editors have edited that section in the intervening months. Third, there has not been any other discussion of this matter since the tag was added. Should the tag thus be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.181.77.132 (talk) 00:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to remove marker, given above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.205.211.226 (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Greek-American?

Although it is obvious he considers himself an American, he's also definetely a Greek-American. 74.83.233.1 (talk) 04:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of citations which confirm that he is (and considers himself) a "Greek American" such as:

https://greekreporter.com/2019/09/13/meet-the-greek-american-author-whose-book-is-among-bill-gates-favorite

https://greekreporter.com/2009/05/04/nicholas-christakis-is-the-most-influential-greek-american-of-2009/

So the edit to the article removing this might need reversal. 12.187.141.7 (talk) 00:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

While I acknowledge that Christakis has Greek heritage, and clearly, strong affinities with the culture of his parents, he was born in the US, and neither the article nor any of the references mention Greek citizenship, so as far as I'm concerned, he's an American with Greek heritage.Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

By this wikipedia definition of Greek Americans, he is Greek American whether or not he has a Greek citizenship (which, anyway, is unclear how would be ascertained?). I propose the original way his ethic origin was handled be restored (e.g., labeling him as "Greek-American"), but perhaps a compromise might be to simply say "he is an American of Greek descent"? 151.181.77.132 (talk) 11:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

If we use the Greek Americans definition, we may as well start hyphenating every American person, which seems unwieldy. I think your suggested compromise is reasonable, however. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

These articles in the Greek language press all specifically refer to him as being a Greek national: 1) https://www.ellines.com/famous-greeks/727-apedeixe-oti-i-eutuchia-einai-metadotiki/ ; 2) https://www.lifo.gr/now/tech-science/nikolas-hristakis-i-tehniti-noimosyni-tha-allaxei-oti-zoyme ; 3) https://www.iefimerida.gr/ellada/kathigitis-yale-nikolas-hristakis-telos-arhis ; and 4) https://www.protothema.gr/world/article/1306984/i-ethniki-tis-aristeias-251-pagosmioi-ellines-pou-diaprepoun/ . It seems safe to say he is both Greek and American.

What I find odd here is that all the articles refer to him as Greek only, when in reality, he's more American than Greek, so it seems like, being Greek publications, they are "claiming" him as Greek, and that smacks of bias. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:29, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't see that as "bias" since the point of those citations was to document his being Greek. Many other articles in the Greek press also refer to him as "Greek American," too. It seems clear he is both, and that he conducts many of his interviews in Greek and in Greece. Other than someone publishing his passport (which is not the standard on wikipedia for other people of two nationalities or ethnicities), what other evidence would we need, given all of the foregoing, to say that he is "an American and Greek" scientist? Are you able to make the edit? 128.36.7.124 (talk) 11:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Done :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

This subject is now being discussioned in Greece. The biography now says "Greek American" but you write you will make it "American and Greek" here. That is better to say he is both, since he is both Greek and American. 2A02:1388:2096:50A2:2148:B751:EDE6:5C4A (talk) 07:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Given above discussion, it seems he is both Greek "and" American and the text in the entry should probably be revised to read that he is "American and Greek" or something like that, instead of how it is phrased now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.197.123 (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I can't recall, have we established that he has Greek citizenship? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Dead links

Many dead links seem to exist in the article probably because he moved in 2013 from Harvard to Yale, so his websites must have changed.SoSivr (talk) 09:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Policy on trivia for BLP

Probably worth including something that sums up these events: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-new-intolerance-of-student-activism-at-yale/414810/#article-comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.177.18.229 (talk) 04:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds more like triva for an biography article. It needs to be more substantial: i.e. consequential---beyond some people got upset about a letter his wife wrote--- in order to be included. Mootros (talk) 04:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Excessive list of publications

This section seem excessive and somehow random. Why these articles? It should be reduced and made relevant. Wikipedia is not a directory. Mootros (talk) 04:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Clarification on Erika Christakis's email

She did not mention redface of blackface in her email. Instead, she said that students had the right to dress however they wanted for Halloween.

This is what she said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/11/07/administrators-defending-student-free-speech-apparently-reason-for-dismissal-according-to-some-yale-students/

"I don’t, actually, trust myself to foist my Halloweenish standards and motives on others... Nicholas says, if you don’t like a costume someone is wearing, look away, or tell them you are offended. Talk to each other. Free speech and the ability to tolerate offence are the hallmarks of a free and open society... Whose business is it to control the forms of costumes of young people? It’s not mine, I know that."

Salad 981 (talk) 11:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

RCF: Recentism

This article contains a section that appears to be a form of recentism as defined by this explanatory supplement.

The section in question deals with a recent controversy, in relation to the Christakis's wife and an email exchange. Regardless whether this incident was a notable event or not at the time, it appears to be overburden the article with a controversy that seems transient due to its inconsequential nature.

By no means does it appear to withstand the recommend ten-year test, as a thought experiment, and seems to trivialise this BLP be giving undue weight to something by simply regurgitating media coverage of an issue, without actually adding well-sourced information that will remain notable over time.

Mootros (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• I've removed the section about his wife's email. Whatever his wife wrote has nothing to do with his biography. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you —Мандичка for your contribution to the article. I too agree that the information about the email should not be included in the article; as it sways opinion and is inherently biased. It should not be included in a biography. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

As long as the section is removed the REQUEST is closed... RFS member Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that the material in question does not pass the "ten-year test," and I agree with its removal from the article. But one thing has me confused: Wikipedia:Requests for comment calls for an RfC to "Include a brief, neutral [emphasis added] statement of or question about the issue"; the statement in this RfC seems anything but neutral.
  Richard27182 (talk) 09:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed, the RfC statement should be neutral however, regardless of how it was framed, I would maintain that the email exchange is irrelevant and WP:NOTNEWS. Meatsgains (talk) 03:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Disagree. I just ran into yet more coverage of this issue, and the choice of Erika not to teach at Yale in spring (though the university issued a statement saying she is welcome to continue at any time). The situation is receiving coverage as part of overall race relations at Yale. Time references a video of students confronting Nicholas, the subject of this article, over his wife's email Now I wish to emphasize, I don't think this needs to be included out of some desire to punish the subjects - to the contrary, I think that trying to draw a line against the endless bullying and counter-bullying that makes up modern social media, by refusing to make a federal case out of a mere costume, is admirable. However, unlike apparently much of Yale, I think that the best way to handle such issues is to cover them responsibly, rather than taking the Chinese approach of repressing discussion of contentious ideas, and that means we ought to cover it. Yeah, it's gonna be hard to keep the section neutral. That's why it's worth doing. Wnt (talk) 14:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with "Wnt"'s comment of December 8th. I came to this article seeking a clear, concise statement of this particular controversy and was surprised to find none. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:252:D0D:DB0:241B:BF52:91D2:8319 (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• After looking over this diff just before it was removed, and it seems to bear the correct weight, although it does need some editorial cleanup. As far is recentism, I am slightly in favor/belief that it will have the 10 year impact. That is, I think this specific event will have the impact over policy for many years to come - which were triggered by this event. I don't think what happened itself was very significant, because this sort of stuff happens all the time, but rather due to the national media coverage, I am pretty sure this will have a domino effect for many years. It might not be directly referenced as the source, but indirectly, I do believe there will be an impact. As well as what the IP stated above, about people coming here to find something (anything) on this topic, and there ought to be something... Tiggerjay (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• I have gone ahead and readded the content with minor copy edits, based on this discussion here, primarily because it is notable with it's national coverage - consistent with my comments above. Minor copy-edits have been done to clean it up a bit. It seems to have the correct weight as well with regards to the overall article. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nicholas A. Christakis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101218145327/http://www.foreignpolicy.com:80/articles/2010/11/29/the_fp_top_100_global_thinkers?page=0,44 to http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/11/29/the_fp_top_100_global_thinkers?page=0,44

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikilinking

Hello RekishiEJ, I would like to call your attention to the fact that you are edit warring with me, which is not advised. After another editor reverts your edit, the correct procedure is to discuss, not to reinstate your edit. I think it is appropriate for Christakis' wife to be linked a second time in the Personal section, as, at a cursory glance, I don't see her linked anywhere else besides the infobox. As for linking maple syrup, I don't think it is required, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

RekishiEJ, I am attempting to draw your attention to a point of dispute between us. Please do not ignore it. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku:, sorry for not replying to you until now, because I didn't have enough time then. But according to the MoS you mentioned, duplication of internal links in an article usu. should be avoided, and the duplication that I removed actually was not applied to inline citations, tables or lists. According to the guideline just because a celebrity is crucial from the context of a particular article does not mean that the internal link to him can be repeated. And the link to maple syrup, I acknowledge that this isn't necessary because this syrup is familiar with most people, and is not relevant to Nicholas's academic career, after reading the section "What generally should not be linked" of the guideline.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

RekishiEJ I appreciate your response. As I mentioned, after considering your reasoning, I'm actually ok with the changes you made. I mainly wanted to make sure we could maintain a civil discussion. Thank you for replying. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Yale Halloween "Case" Section Heading

I wonder whether others feel that, especially given the passage of time and contemporary perspectives regarding the events at Yale during Halloween in 2015, the relevant section in this biography should be labeled "Yale Halloween Case" rather than "Yale Halloween Controversy." The material in this Wikipedia policy would seem to suggest that this would be a rational edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Criticism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.7.225 (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to this proposed change, though I'd like to see it discussed further. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, the Halloween controversy should be given its own page altogether, since both Christakis and his wife were involved and since it sparked a much larger debate. The event is also clearly notable enough to have its own page, as it is still being discussed in 2023 as a pivotal event in campus free speech controversies. (See this Chronicle of Higher Education article, as well as the recent The Canceling of the American Mind.) Astaire (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, it would be fine to create a separate entry for the 2015 Halloween event, though it would also make sense to keep 2-3 short paragraphs and a few citations in this biographical entry. The citations given above, to the Canceling of the American Mind and the Chronicle piece show the staying power of this event. I also think this subheading can be edited to 'case.' Will do so, and will add the above citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.197.108 (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The whole section is way too long because it serves as a coatrack to showcase a range of pundit takes, most from known cultural warriors. Selbstporträt (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Epstein Files

Here is one source, titled Nicholas Christakis met and emailed with Epstein about his research:

https://yaledailynews.com/articles/nicholas-christakis-met-and-emailed-with-epstein-about-his-research

In it we learn a few things. First, that between 2013 and 2016 Christakis tried to get funding from Epstein. The dates matter: five full years after Epstein's conviction. Second, that Christakis released a statement on his relationship with Epstein. That matters too, if only to disculpate Christakis.

We learn other things too. That they exchanged on the Halloween controversy, in 2015. Also that "In his reply, Christakis told Epstein he "enjoyed meeting" him at the conference, despite writing to the News on Friday that the two "hadn't spoken during the event." And that after meeing with Epstein, Christakis tried to connect with Epstein again, in January 2016, which doesn't cohere with the "stock reply" bit afterwards.

So, what are the objections, again? Selbstporträt (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

clearly notable should be in article Secarctangent (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

The evidence on record, and in the Chronicle citation now added to the main page, is that Christakis had three email threads with Epstein. Two occurred in 2013, one after Christakis was introduced while he was still at Harvard, and one related to the single 2013 meeting the two of them had, along with others, at Epstein's House. Then, there was no contact until Epstein himself emailed Christakis in 2016. The description of these three email chains as Christakis "maintaining" contact with Epstein for "three years" is not accurate. Moreover, there are some aspects to these edits whereby anyone that even met Epstein is presumed to have done something wrong. Christakis took a meeting (with the support of Yale) about possible fundraising. And the citations suggest he, like many other scientists, was not aware of the extent of Epstein's crimes at the time. they did not have a personal relationship; there were no other forms of communication between them in the record; and there is no evidence of Christakis doing anything untoward, other than having a meeting. The current main page seems to strike a balance in the efforts to figure out whether or how to note all this by noting, in the appropriate fundraising section, that such a meeting took place. Saying more than that seems like an effort to simply add non-pertinent information with unclear purpose, other than to smear Christakis by association. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-74476-7 (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

That isn't how WP policies work. We are supposed to include relevant controversies reported by reliable sources. Just because you don't like the conclusions others might draw based on learning of RS information, doesn't mean that information should be censored.

If you continue to edit in this inappropriate way, I will seek semi-protection for the page. Secarctangent (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I see we have two editors with actual accounts here in favor of including, and one temporary account against. I seek consensus to retain this content in the article. Requesting other editors who are opposed, or who have edits, to weigh in. Secarctangent (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@Secarctangent, you are currently the one engaged in edit warring, so please stop until a consensus is reached here on the topic. I have opposed the inclusion of mention of Christakis' communication with Epstein, so you are mistaken to state that consensus has been achieved. As I stated in my last edit summary: the fact that Christakis communicated with a sexual predator does not taint him by association, so my position is that unless and until something of substance is uncovered regarding a Christakis-Epstein connection, I see no reason to mention that he "communicated" with the felon. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 07:05, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

"unless and until something of substance"

Denying the facts laid out in my comment above won't make them disappear. Selbstporträt (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku You hadn't posted to talk on this as of my post above. Thank you for weighing in.

His communication with Epstein is clearly notable. Both the primary publication at his school, as well as multiple national-level publications, have covered his interactions with Epstein. In addition to "communicat[ing]" with Epstein, he also self-admittedly went to Epstein's home and sought funding from him. Multiple RS see these as worth reporting. You seem to be projecting in SYNTH concerns about "taint[ing] him by association," which is unencyclopedic. We should include notable information about him, and this is clearly more notable than many facts in his article (e.g., such as reference to a random 2010 lecture). Secarctangent (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there's no SYNTH concern expressed so far, and the "association" it has only been expressed by the number account invested in an edit war that is misattributed by your interlocutor.

The only concern your interlocutor expressed is denial, with his "substance" abuse. Selbstporträt (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Is there something else that we should call a refusal to include notable facts because of a fear of "taint by association"? Happy to call it that.

Clearly the allegations have substance, they have been reported on by multiple RS. Secarctangent (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Hard to tell what lies underneath that judgment. No real reason has been forthcoming. It's just a vote, and votes don't count.

Having a clear editorial line would help, but our consensus requesters have yet to contribute anything else to the page than stonewalling.

So I guess I'll start revisiting the page and see how it goes. Selbstporträt (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Are you still intending to revise this? I think we should clearly include this notable, RS'd information about Christakis and his associations and activities. Secarctangent (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Please note that I am still opposed to mentioning any putative connection between Christakis and Epstein. Until something substantive is uncovered, there's nothing newsworthy here, IMO. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 07:39, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

While just a humble "numbered account," I am also opposed. I also note that, elsewhere in Wikipedia (for other entries for other people), there are ongoing debates about where to draw lines about what sorts of contacts with Epstein were "material" or "noteworthy" or "encyclopedic." There are so many names "in the files" and so many people who simply met with him, that this would seem, in the opinion of many, to not be noteworthy. I saw one person ask whether, for instance, every person who has a Wikipedia entry and ever met with Bill Cosby or Diddy should have their entry amended to note that such a meeting took place. ~2026-74476-7 (talk) 12:53, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

He sought money from Epstein and went to Epstein's home, and maintained a correspondence with him years after he was convicted of his crimes. He has had multiple RS articles written about these connections in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Inside Higher Education, CT Insider, and the Yale Daily News.

It's newsworthy. RS sources think so. Secarctangent (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Secarctangent, did he seek funding and visit Epstein's home before or after the conviction? Let's make sure that only morally objectionable activity is mentioned here, otherwise it's just an academic seeking much-needed funding from a rich dude with creepy parties. Has Christakis responded to allegations that his connection to Epstein is somehow morally noteworthy? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

His meetings and fundraising began in 2013, Epstein was convicted in 2008. https://yaledailynews.com/articles/nicholas-christakis-met-and-emailed-with-epstein-about-his-research Secarctangent (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I think it is important to be accurate here. Christakis only ever had one meeting with Epstein, not "meetings" (see: https://www.ctinsider.com/news/article/jeffrey-epstein-files-yale-professor-unabomber-21328799.php). The RS indicate he got no money from him, so while there were fundraising efforts, there was no actual "fundraising." The articles also indicate that, after the 2013 emails related to that meeting, there were no interactions between them until 2016 when Epstein wrote to Christakis. ~2025-39213-15 (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

what are you talking about, fundraising is the effort to seek money. Check any dictionary Secarctangent (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. I meant while there was a fundraising meeting, there were no "funds raised" (per RS). It's a pertinent detail, at least IMHO. To me at least, the contact by Kristakis with Epstein overall was objectively limited (e.g., compared to other academics or financiers or politicians with whom he had dozens of meetings and thousands of emails or money moving or trips to his island, etc.). The connection here, to me at least, seems tangential. But of course that is what is under discussion here (and everywhere, it seems!) at the moment. ~2025-39213-15 (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Secarctangent, while the sentence "while there were fundraising efforts, there was no actual 'fundraising'" could be phrased more clearly, it isn't so confusing that an experienced English reader couldn't make sense of it; please keep your discourse civil and non-belligerent. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I was responding to a temporary account who now has a track record of repeatedly misstating the facts. Civility doesn't require naivete. Secarctangent (talk) 04:17, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I see no track record of misstating facts; careful with any personal accusations you make. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 07:19, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

This temporary account (which I strongly suspect to be a Christakis associate given his comments) has, for example, in this talk thread alone:

1. Incorrectly claimed that Christakis had only met Epstein once, despite Christakis' own admission in a email that they had met more than once

2. Stated that their interaction was only a sole meeting, even though it is clearly documented that they had additional correspondence.

3. Misstated the definition of "fundraising"

I could go on. Secarctangent (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Your first two points seem legit, but the IP did not misstate the definition of "fundraising", as far as I can tell. My understanding of "while there were fundraising efforts, there was no actual 'fundraising'" is that no funds were raised, despite fundraising attempts. It's clunky, but not a misstatement. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

The confusion about "meetings" is odd to me since, in actuality, all the emails are in the public release and people can see them, if they want. No RS says they actually met (in the sense of having a conversation? -- is that the issue here?) more than once. FWIW, the emails only record one meeting. And the emails in the public record say they were at the same conference in 2013 (along, presumably, with many other people who also thereby 'met'?) and then actually had an actual meeting (for "fundraising") once after that. I don't see evidence to the contrary.

Of course, the broader topic at issue here remains: whether the interactions are material. Like I said earlier, I think this is an ongoing topic as many analysts digest the Epstein Files. ~2025-39213-15 (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I note that you did not deny my concerns about your behavior being suggestive of you being a Christakis associate. Secarctangent (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I second the last point made by our "special contributor", who seemingly prefers to remain anonymous. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

It's not a point, but a request.

Here's a point. Stonewalling won't change the basic facts of the matter:

(1) between 2013 and 2016 Christakis tried to get funding from Epstein, five full years after Epstein's conviction;

(2) Christakis released a statement on his relationship with Epstein;

(3) both exchanged on the Halloween controversy, in 2015;

(4) Christakis told Epstein he "enjoyed meeting" him at the conference, despite writing to the News on Friday that the two "hadn't spoken during the event."

(5) after meeting with Epstein about getting funding, Christakis tried to connect with Epstein again.

So the claim that they met only once is not even true. Selbstporträt (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

The specific evidence in the record is that they met once and only once, in 2013, and that the point of that meeting was to explore a grant to Yale to support scientific research. I think it is important to get this fact right here. Also, there is no evidence of any personal connection or untoward conduct. The 2016 exchange, which Epstein (*not* Christakis) initiated, was not about fundraising, as the RS document. To say that *between* 2013 and 2016 he tried to get funding is not accurate. It is also wholly unclear whether Christakis even knew about Epstein's criminal convictions (the evidence on record is vague in this regard); regardless, no one knew the full extent of Epstein's awful crimes back then. The "enjoyed meeting" phrase is odd; perhaps he meant that he acknowledged that they were at the same conference? But speculation is so rife in all matters Epstein at the moment, and I think we need to be judicious. Reports out today indicate that some scientists had hundreds of emails with Epstein and dozens of meetings or went to the Island, etc. It will take time, I think, for the Wikipedia community to settle on some sense of what is incidental contact with Epstein and what is noteworthy or encyclopedic contact. This is just my opinion, of course, and I respect the variety of views here. ~2025-39213-15 (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

"The specific evidence in the record is that they met once and only once"

That's false.

The rest of the comment mixes editorializing with whataboutery. Selbstporträt (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Arguing by rhetorical questions? Selbstporträt (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

"the Chronicle citation now added to the main page"

Here is the relevant CHE piece:

https://archive.ph/jFSac

Where is it, on the main page? Selbstporträt (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I would note that this topic may also evoke recentism as defined by this explanatory supplement. His single meeting with Epstein about fundraising, at a time when the extent of Epsteins's crimes was not widely known (and Christakis may not have know about it), would not appear to withstand the recommended "ten-year test," and seems to trivialise this BLP be giving undue weight to something that is unlikely to remain notable over time. This situation is not at all like the situation of others in Epstein's orbit who either had an actual social relationship with Epstein or who got some benefit (whether legal or illegal) from Epstein. Hence, as Revirvlkodlaku notes, it is not clear why this warrants mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-74476-7 (talk) 12:16, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

"His single meeting"

That minimization again. You forget the correspondence, and Christakis' own public response to the Yale article. Were you really serious about defending him, you'd mention the incident, his own minimization, and be done with it.

But speaking of undue weight, why half the page is on the Halloween thing, while there's nothing on the obesity controversy? Isn't that recentism too? Selbstporträt (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps I should also add since the events we are discussing happened between 2013 and 2016, appealing to recentism is rather rich. Selbstporträt (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Agree, not recentism Secarctangent (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

That he had a 'single meeting' is just a fact, worth noting. How is it to Christakis' discredit that he responded to an inquiry from the Yale Daily News (and who knows how much of what he said they recorded, or how accurately, anyway). Recentism is relevant because of the recent event of the DOJ document release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-74476-7 (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

To reduce what is being covered by the sources to a "single meeting" amounts to minimization.

To conflate the date of source with the date of the events being covered is the best way to overplay the appeal to recentism.

Meanwhile, you forgot to discuss why the obesity controversy has been elided from the page, whereas the Halloween one dominates so much readers may wonder if it's not a page about it first and foremost.

Lastly, if you can identify the CHE citation you alluded to, that'd be nice.

Selbstporträt (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2026 (UTC)