DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Epstein files

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Rjjiii talk 04:13, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Bondi discusses Epstein list
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Drygalski Glacier (Tanzania)
  • Comment: I have never seen a video in a DYK set, but WP:DYKIMG implies that videos are allowed ("an associated image or other piece of media"). Of course, Bondi in this video denies saying what she said in the Fox interview, but as far as I can tell the mainstream sources concur that she did say it; I included the word "apparently" just in case.
Created by No Swan So Fine (talk), Ca (talk), Another Believer (talk), and Chetsford. Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 237 past nominations.

Surtsicna (talk) 12:07, 18 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]

I very much doubt that. Most people are not US Americans; only about 4% are. Most readers of this Wikipedia are not US Americans; only about 25% are. And even among those, I dare say that most do not know this. Surtsicna (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is global news, especially in the areas most enwiki readers are from. It's being reported by the newspapers of record in Australia, Brazil, China, France, India, and these are just the countries I checked.

And even among [USians], I dare say that most do not know this.

I highly doubt that. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Labeling a tabloid like News.com.au a "newspaper of record" is erroneous. I'm in Australia and I didn't know about this. I find it interesting. TarnishedPathtalk 01:20, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, I didn't know that; it does seem like a tabloid. I feel obliged to apologize to something about this.

Also, I don't know how this happened but on review I only searched for links about Trump being told his name appears in the list. Though I'm still not sure it's considered interesting, I'll withdraw my opposition then. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article created 11 July and nominated the 18 July. Earwig comes up as 59.9%, however this primarily a consequence of quotes. Note there are a number of references which Earwig scores high against, and these are all for the same qoutes. The hook is supported by the source and is interesting. This hook uses a video, which is novel. Note the video in this hook (commons:File:Pam Bondi on Jeffrey Epstein, July 8, 2025.webm) is a shorter version of what is used in the article (commons:File:President Trump and Pam Bondi on Jeffrey Epstein, July 8th 2025.webm. The video was recorded by a employee of the federal government and therefore is in the public domain. QPQ done. Good to go. TarnishedPathtalk 11:34, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Could you then address Gatoclass's response to your concern, RoySmith? You are the only editor who raised an argument against the hook in its entirety. Surtsicna (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I saw here was a hook about a highly controversial subject with questions being raised about whether the hook is misleading, about WP:NPOV, about the wording of the hook, and about whether we should run the video. These are questions that need to be resolved, and it's much easier to resolve them here at the nomination page where there's no time pressure than to do it on the queue, where the clock is ticking down to when it hits the main page. RoySmith (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru, Narutolovehinata5, TarnishedPath, Launchballer, AirshipJungleman29, Launchballer, Gatoclass, EF5 (and forgive me if I missed anyone), as the participants in the discussion, could you please clarify which of you found the hook misleading or non-neutral? I am not seeing it. It is also not clear to me who thinks that we should not run the video. Surtsicna (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru, would rewording "(video featured)" resolve your concerns? I see now that I originally suggested "(in the video)" after Bondi's name. See above. I am open to other suggestions too, of course. Surtsicna (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Surtsicna:, speaking personally I would be happy with a change to "(video featured)", I'm not convinced there are any wider issues with the hook or article. It is possible to report the whole timeline of events without necessarily implying Bondi is lying or anything - it is well sourced at [1] and other places that she apparently answered a question about the client list by saying it was on her desk and then later said she meant something else. I'm not convinced it's a BLP violation or that this amounts to an accusation of perjury in WikiVoice... Politicians do this sort of obfuscation all the time AFAIK and you can hide almost anything under cover of vague language 🙃
As for what to say about the video, I think something along the lines you said at WT:DYK would be good. Let readers know this her later explanation rather than the original statement about the files being on her desk. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 07:04, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • AirshipJungleman proposed a hook on WT:DYK that I think with a bit of modification works:
ALT1b: ... that months after the US Attorney General stated that the Jeffrey Epstein client list was "sitting on my desk", she said her remark had been misinterpreted (video featured)?
TarnishedPathtalk 07:17, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can't say that she "stated" that the list was sitting on her desk because she says she didn't say that. That's why I formulated ALT1 as I did. But you could go with:
Gatoclass and TarnishedPath, do you see any problems with the original hook? Surtsicna (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Surtsicna, I think I already stated in the WT:DYK discussion that I didn't see any problems with the original hook. However the hook has been pulled and I think it's best to find an alternative which is not going to get pulled again. TarnishedPathtalk 00:16, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, TarnishedPath, and you also approved it as reviewer. It was pulled because of "a lot of disagreement" and I would like to ascertain who actually disagrees with the original hook. If the original hook is within policy, I would much prefer to run it as the most interesting one. Surtsicna (talk) 08:50, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru objected to the original hook because it didn't fully jell with the featured video clip. I then objected to use of the word "apparently" as arguably both a POV term and one at variance with the requirement that hooks be comprised of "definite facts" per WP:HOOK. So for all those reasons, I don't think ALT0 is viable. Gatoclass (talk) 11:12, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1c looks fine to me. Lets get on with it. TarnishedPathtalk 12:09, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Gatoclass. Is it not possible to mention that the Department of Justice declared that the list did not exist instead of Bondi claiming that her statement was misinterpreted? TarnishedPath, I feel like politicians claiming that their remarks were misinterpreted is far too common to be particularly interesting. Perhaps the concerns of both Gatoclass and Amakuru could be resolved with ALT2: ... that months after US Attorney General Pam Bondi said in response to a question about the Epstein client list that "it's sitting on my desk", her department declared the list non-existent (Bondi explaining in video)?
No "apparently", no simple "video featured". Surtsicna (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't work Surtsicna because the video does not even mention the JD. If you wanted to include the JD info, IMO you would have to go back to the original ALT1, ie:
*ALT1: ... that months after US Attorney General Pam Bondi said in response to a question about the Jeffrey Epstein client list that "it's sitting on my desk", the justice department said the list did not exist and Bondi said her original remark had been misinterpreted (video featured)? Gatoclass (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And that, as I am sure you will agree, would raise eyebrows due to extreme length. So again the issue is just how to introduce the video. ALT2a: ... that months after US Attorney General Pam Bondi (in video) said in response to a question about the Epstein client list that "it's sitting on my desk", her department declared the list non-existent? Does this not cut it? Amakuru? This just says that she is in the video, right? The caption of the video can go into detail if it needs to. Surtsicna (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be OK with that if that's what will find compromise, even though I don't particularly onject to the original hook either. It would be ideal to clarify that the Bondi video is related to the incident, rather than just any old video that she happens to be in, but we can sort that with a caption if necessary, as you mention.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. So do we need another green tick now? Surtsicna (talk) 08:02, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still 186 characters; not great for any hook, and especially not the image slot, where space is a premium because of the formatting. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:17, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see why we need to say "in response to a question", ~~ AirshipJungleman29. I do not see what value that adds. ALT2b would do just fine in my opinion: ... that months after US Attorney General Pam Bondi said the Epstein client list was "sitting on my desk", her department declared it did not exist? But if we need "in response to a question", there is no way to word this hook using fewer characters. Surtsicna (talk) 12:41, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ALT2c: ... that months after US Attorney General Pam Bondi said the Epstein client list was "sitting on my desk", her department declared the list non-existent?
TarnishedPathtalk 12:55, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because that she wasn't referring to the list in particular is what Bondi says she actually meant (as you see in the video), and currently the shortest way we've come up with for this without asserting that she was referring to the list involves "in response to a question". Aaron Liu (talk) 13:04, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ALT2b does not presume to say what she meant. It says what she said. It is accurate. But if we have to take into account her later statement that she meant something else, then, yeah, ALT2a is the shortest we can hope for. Surtsicna (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fwiw, the actual buried lede is the thing's already been published three separate times: by Gawker, by 8chan, and by Business Insider. That's the hook that DYK browsers (if not the professional media) would find astonishing, given the way the story's generally presented. But if you're really in love with the video of Ms Bondi's waffling / lie, eh, fine. Another vote for, no, you don't actually need to say "in response to a question" since she said what she said with a specific grammatical referrent, regardless of how she'd like to triangulate people's memory of that now. A decision by Wikimedia's lawyers about exposure they want to avoid is one thing but, no, there's no actual black letter policy that you have to accommodate simple memoryholing of things that are recorded on (nondeepfaked) camera. — LlywelynII 19:05, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ALT3: ... that the Jeffrey Epstein client list has been published three times?--Launchballer 10:41, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does look interesting, Launchballer, but wouldn't hook NPOV be a concern here since the justice department says that the list does not exist? I have no idea what the consensus is in the sources about whether the list exists. Surtsicna (talk) 11:24, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see no WP:WEIGHT issues. The hook looks good. TarnishedPathtalk 11:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair, TarnishedPath, but could you explain how? Do we not have sources saying that it does exist and source(s) saying that it does not and we are choosing to say outright that it does exist? Does this not contradict the article's definition of the list as a "hypothesized document"? Surtsicna (talk) 11:41, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an American, so perhaps the average American's knowledge of the situation is better than mine. That said, as far as I'm aware, the source stating that it doesn't exist is Trump's DOJ and that body has made contradictory statements. It doesn't strike me that Trump's DOJ is reliable for any statements about the existence of Epstein's list. Therefore if we have multiple reliable sources stating that it has been published on three separate occasions, I take it that that claim is WP:DUE. But again, I'm not an American. TarnishedPathtalk 13:07, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a passerby American I also support ALT3. If there are any concerns about asserting that thing to be the list that the DOJ says does not exist, we could swap "client list" with "book of names" or something of the sort. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is just no way that will fly at WP:ERRORS. We cannot possibly say, without any ifs or buts, that the list has been published if the very first thing we say about it in the article is that it is a hypothesized document. What was published is a contacts list, not a client list. The contacts list includes celebrities but also people like his gardeners and barbers. The NY Post and the Guardian explain the distinction (but the former is on our list of unreliable sources). Surtsicna (talk) 06:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ALT4: ... that Jeffrey Epstein's contact list has been published three times but the existence of a separate client list is a matter of extreme controversy?
@Surtsicna: Something like this is entirely solid, though, right? or would we need
ALT5: ... that purported contact lists have been published three separate times but the existence of Jeffrey Epstein's client list remains a matter of extreme controversy?
 — LlywelynII 03:29, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's factual, though I would perhaps remove "extreme", and it is interesting indeed. I still prefer the Bondi angle (ALT2b or ALT2c) as the most interesting, but ALT4 is a close second best in my opinion. Surtsicna (talk) 06:25, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewer needed for ALT4a: ... that Jeffrey Epstein's contact list has been published three times but the existence of a separate client list is a matter of controversy?--Launchballer 23:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As someone new to this discussion, I think ALT4a is supported by the sources and the article, is clear and interesting, and addresses the concerns raised in this thread. I would give it a yes . Is there anything else an additional reviewer needs to check? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:56, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment before promoting: the article and cited sources don't say that the client list has been proven to exist. To meet NPOV, a hook should at least nod towards that uncertainty. Also, a hook should likely not single out living individuals. This is both an issue for WP:BLP as it's so negative, and also for WP:NPOV more broadly as we would be choosing to highlight an attorney as opposed to, for example, an individual reported to be involved. Rjjiii (talk) 04:12, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move 26 November 2025

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Seems to be WP:SNOWing in here. (closed by non-admin page mover) – LuniZunie ツ(talk) 15:27, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Epstein client list → Epstein files – The last time I proposed this discussion, a lot of respondents said that this article was then mostly about a hypothetical list and not the files in general.

The article has since then been changed to being moreso about the files than just the list. Therefore I believe that the circumstances of both this article, and the topic in general, has changed substantially enough that the slim consensus not to move the article to the more general "Epstein files" can be changed. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 13:53, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support The scope of the article has broadened over time, and the current title is now misleading. It is also the title Encyclopedia Britannica uses. Ca talk to me! 00:24, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Thanks, Glasspalace (talk | contribs) 02:45, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and common name for current scope. CNC (talk) 10:43, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per nom. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 07:32, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. The law named Epstein Files Transparency Act even named it "Epstein Files" instead of "Jeffrey Epstein client list" or similar. ~2025-36676-87 (talk) 11:55, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Happy Editing -- IAmChaos 22:37, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Speculation about a client list should be a small section in this article. The Epstein Files certainly exist. Rolluik (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Moving would also abide by WP:COMMONNAME — EarthDude (Talk) 11:46, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Maybe a SNOW closure would be in order by now? Thanks, Glasspalace (talk | contribs) 07:31, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2025

[edit]

If you put trump and elon you should also put biden. This is a very clearly biased article. Biden has also been accused of being on the list. JamesTesta (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 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. (please ping on reply) Happy Editing -- IAmChaos 22:36, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems pretty obvious that changes he want made Trade (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trumps name appears 7 times in the lede, and then in three different section headers. If @JamesTesta would like Biden added, they should be be more specific about what and where to add Biden. Happy Editing -- IAmChaos 22:16, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2025

[edit]

I would like to edit this page for more information for the readers. I worked a lot with this topic and I know that its a precariouis topic but I just want to tell the people more about this topic ~2025-41114-71 (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Aston305 (complain/compliment) 14:49, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2025 (2)

[edit]

Replacd Epstein with Aaron ~2025-41114-71 (talk) 13:54, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. Toast1454TC 15:02, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, an Associated Press claim of a woman sitting on Bill Clinton's lap in an Epstein photo is either exaggerated or entire inaccurate

[edit]

MS NOW has displayed the photo on their website, and she was sitting at his side.[2] If this claim about a woman sitting on Clinton's lap is included in the article,[3] it needs to be removed.MyGosh789 (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton

[edit]

Clinton has the most photos, but wikipedia "editors" still focus on trump. You guys are the reason why wikipedia will never be taken seriously. You're shooting yourselves in the foot by very obviously (and poorly) pushing an agenda. I don't like trump, I'm just tired of the obvious propaganda from the left on wikipedia. Something needs to be done about it. ~2025-41961-85 (talk) 03:15, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is not a Trump vs Bill Clinton thing, that’s a whataboutism narrative that is being pushed by the right to distract from the fact that Trump is the most currently powerful man being implicated. Saying “what about Bill Clinton” does not make the issue any more objective, as there are tons of other high profile men being implicated. The left has actively been releasing damaging information about Clinton’s involvement as well, nobody is actually trying to hide that fact.
The reason Trump has much of the focus is because he is currently the president, and he and his DOJ have actively been trying to prevent himself from being implicated. The act would not have been passed if his administration did not use the files as open political leverage, only to turn around and claim that there is nothing of substance. The truth is Trump is by far the central associate of Epstein being implicated socially and politically surrounding this whole scandal, so of course the article is going to heavily discuss his involvement. Femnesiac (talk) 12:28, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Damaging" only in your opinion with regards to Clinton. Nothing has been released to implicate him even being on Epstein's Virgin Islands property. The Associated Press claimed a girl was sitting on his "lap." That wasn't true.MyGosh789 (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since Clinton was publicly shamed for sexual peccadiloes and even his penis shape was international news, I think it is valid to include details of ex-President Clinton in the article. Trump will be presumably no longer President in 10 years time!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Passed law required all documents to be released by November 19.

[edit]

The overview should include the fact that the law explicitly said all documents were required to be released by the 19th with only victims ID’s censored. DOJ did not comply with this deadline and only partially released the files while heavily redacting information about Epstein’s associates. Femnesiac (talk) 12:18, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

picture of some of the redactions

[edit]

This page should have a picture of some of the redactions.Muaza Husni (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then add it Trade (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson image

[edit]

one of the pictures is being noted as Michael Jackson & Diana Ross's own children in NYC after his Apollo Theater performance for a DNC fundraiser alongside President Clinton. It is from 2002. ~2025-42006-91 (talk) 15:21, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of many claims involving donald trump Case ID #: 50D-NY-3027571

[edit]

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00025010.pdf Jonaheriksen88 (talk) 21:18, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talks about unintentional hacks of unredacting the pieces using Word

[edit]

Guardian already covered it Benfor445 (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about this source of information

[edit]

[1] ~2026-52146 (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2026

[edit]

Source #45 says that it was published July 27, 2026, and I believe that it should say July 27, 2016 instead Hyrum Taylor (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Day Creature (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Number of files?

[edit]

Is there anything in here about the total number of known files to exist? Victor Grigas (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Rihat, Tahir (26 December 2025). "The December 2025 Release of Epstein-Related Records: An Examination of Scope, Content, and Limits". Journoist. Retrieved 3 January 2026.