Talk:List of people named in the Epstein files

From Eurovision Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template:Old AfD multi Template:Talk header Template:BLPCRIME talk notice Template:Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice Template:WikiProject banner shell Template:Translated page

Template:Old move Template:Section sizes Template:Top25

Suggested merge

[edit source]

There is a high level of overlap between this list and Connections of Jeffrey Epstein. I suggest they be merged (which may make the current rename proposal moot). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:34, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Comment: I think verifiable information about connections with Epstein should be moved to Connections of Jeffrey Epstein. What is the relevance of someone being mentioned in the Epstein files if they do not have a verifiable connection to Epstein? Anybar (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
How many people in this list do not have a verifiable connection to Epstein? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:02, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
We still haven't established inclusion criteria for the people in this article.
If we only include people with verifiable connections to Epstein, then this article becomes Connections of Jeffrey Epstein mentioned in the Epstein files . Anybar (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
I think "connections with Epstein" is clearly very different than "individuals mentioned in the Epstein files". -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Nonetheless, "There is a high level of overlap between this list and Connections of Jeffrey Epstein." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:56, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose merge. While there is some overlap, there's clear distinction and difference in scope. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Merge per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose merge. Connections implies a closer tie than is warranted for some of the people on this list, raising BLP concerns. Gamaliel (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Not all mentions are connections. While there is some overlap, these are two different categories.-- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment. If we really want two pages, we need page for people, and another for connections. Otherwise it may end up being a copypasta project of other pages. Selbstporträt (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Merge This page both lists the names and provides context about the relationships, making Connections of Jeffrey Epstein essentially redundant. Keivan.fTalk 21:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge There's significant overlap here and I don't think these are needed as separate articles. Any "connections" content that might not go well in the Files list would be short and can also be covered elsewhere I'm sure without needing a duplicative page. Reywas92Talk 15:06, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Merge as I do not think the people simply mentioned in the Epstein files are actually a point of interest, rather people who met or were actively in conversation with Epstein. Which is covered under "Connections of Jeffrey Epstein". Limiting it to only specifically mentioned in the files also obfuscates this issue further. Vin Von Voom (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
I agree with you, Andy let's hope it happens,they should all be in one piece. ~2026-92754-2 (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Question. Looks like a merge is getting consensus. I suppose the new name of the page will be Connections of Jeffrey Epstein? Selbstporträt (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
With six opposed and six in favor, I'd hardly say we're getting a consensus to do anything. Joe (talk) 09:19, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Then I'd rather get onto building a real Connections page! Selbstporträt (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
An update: disruptive editing prevents me from contributing to that page for now. Selbstporträt (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per reasons previously listed by Gamaliel and Willthacheerleader18 Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
Merge per nom. Horse.staple (talk) 03:02, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose, these really are two different categories of things; there's absolutely nothing wrong with having some overlap. Joe (talk) 09:16, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose, this article helps the public access all the information with less effort Stemova11 (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
That's undeniable; why do you think moving the information to the other page would hinder its accessibility to the public? FaviFake (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Because a list is eaiser to read sense its less messy and more evenly ordered Stemova11 (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per Joe et al. TheSilksongPikmin (talk | contribs) 20:14, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment As far as I can see, the only person in Connections of Jeffrey Epstein but not in List of people named in the Epstein files is John Casablancas, who is only in the former with a fairly weak connection. It seems to me that the all the most well cited connections of Epstein would also appear in the Epstein files, therefore I'd mildly support redirecting connections into list (but not the other way round) and dropping that one weakly cited connection. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 08:41, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Just a note, the Connections page has been updated and now has other people who aren't included in the List page, as well as other types of connections. Joe (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Here are examples of connections or loci that can't fit in our list:
  • Edge.org: an organization mainly funded by Epstein;
  • Pritzker award: Epstein has been connected to it, along lots of architects;
  • Barbara Guggenheim: only named in subpoenas and in a list of names;
  • The Lolita Express: almost a character at this point;
  • The New York mansion: has its own page, with historicity;
  • Anybody involved in whatever happened before 1996;
  • Epstein's estate: a legal entity all by itself connecting Epstein to people and resources beyond his grave
To get the page where it would be useful to the reader, we'll need a few months. Selbstporträt (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
The items listed above that are not about people don't belong on either of the pages proposed for merging—we have an article about Epstein for them; those about individual people belong in a combined page, or none. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:03, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
By that logic, the NYAA would belong to Epstein's main page, whereas Guggenheim would belong to the Connections page. Since Guggenheim is connected to Epstein through the NYAA, that makes little sense.
A connection refers to a relationship, not a person. Selbstporträt (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Merge - "List of people named in the Epstein files" is a much more comprehensive version of "Connections of Jeffrey Epstein". Guz13 (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Tisn't - Connections of Jeffrey Epstein contains persons and institutions that aren't included in List of people named in the Epstein files. Some of the persons might not be included in the Epstein files at all. Joe (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per reasons previously listed by Gamaliel et al. Roc1233 (Talk | Edits) 23:38, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - per reasons listed by users Willthacheerleader18, Joe, and Gamaliel. Yodabyte (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
merge fs the important info overlaps Formerlygopackgo009 (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose - apples and oranges. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per Bearian and WP:SIZERULE Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 17:36, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
There is a separate, ongoing, discussion on subdividing this article, which would address the SIZERULE issue.
SIZERULE Says nothing that supports duplicating content across two or more articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:45, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Yeah I just voted on that one. I think that if the article is merged, then the set index (which this article will become) can be merged with connections of Jeffrey Epstein under Connections of Jeffrey Epstein#People but that is premature, there has not been connection to split yet. So my vote is Oppose, if split then merge under Connections of Jeffrey Epstein#People Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 17:57, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. How exactly are going to merge them? We could place the current version of the list into section "People" of this page. But this is not an improvement. This page is much better written, and it does look like a regular page, rather than a list. Another possible way would be moving the content of section "People" on this page into the list. This could be way to go. Overall, I think we need to keep a regular page (that one) and the list separately - as we usually do. My very best wishes (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Both pages are large and very notable, so I don’t see how a merge would be conducted. 🔮🛷 starmanatee 🛷🔮 (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose The scope of the two articles is different. Connection doesn't necessarily mean being in the Epstein files and vice versa. Some1 (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose: per reasons listed by Some1 Logimite (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose: Simply because someone is mentioned in the files doesn't mean they have/had a direct connection with Jeffery Epstein. X4VIER.OneTap (talk) 08:17, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Long article

[edit source]

This article is now more than 20,000 words long, well past the 15,000 word threshold at which an article should probably be split into multiple articles or summarized. One possibility would be to break it into sub-articles by what the person is primarily notable for, e.g. politicians, royalty, business executives, academics, and celebrities, thus:

or alternatively, but equivalently:

If people are interested in splitting the article on these lines, you might want to flag entries with wiki-markup comments, thus:

<!-- business executive -->

just under their header, as I have done already with the articles under 'A'. This would enable these classifications to be reviewed, followed by enabling this article splitting to be done programmatically if desired. — The Anome (talk) 11:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Splitting the article would make it harder to navigate, not easier. That word-count threshold is just a guideline, not a hard and fast rule. Having to navigate between half a dozen different pages to find what you're looking for would be harder than just clicking to the section you want. There's nothing wrong with having a long article for a big subject like this, we should keep it as a single list. We should remove the just-added 'Too-Long' template and simply add an index with subsections underneath the alphabetical contents. Joe (talk) 12:02, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Is there any reason not to use Template:Braces? That should solve any navigation issues. Joe (talk) 12:38, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Alternatively a simple two- or three-way split, with names like "List of people named in the Epstein files (A-M)". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:33, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
"Having to navigate between half a dozen different pages to find what you're looking for would be harder than just clicking to the section you want."
Indeed. This should be a self-contained page.
The simplest way to cut would be to refer readers back to the people pages' themselves for notable episode details.
"List of people named in the Epstein files (A-M)" would still be too long. There are *really* a lot of names! Let's estimate: 3M documents, let's be conservative and say 2 persons are named on average. Assume Trump's own 1,5K times and divide: 6M / 1,5K = 4K, so 2 thousand names per page.
That's 7 words per person! Selbstporträt (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Considering that many of those people mentioned won't have their own Wikipedia page to link to, it likely won't be a problem: I wouldn't say having your own Wikipedia page should be an absolute requirement to be listed here, only RS coverage relating to Epstein/the files, but if the latter obtains, the former likely will as well. So unless most of those couple-thousand people already have their own Wikipedia pages, it shouldn't be much of a problem. Joe (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Having spent a week on this, I would take the other side of that bet. Selbstporträt (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
It'd probably be a bit of a pickle to actually determine, but I would be quite curious to know how much overlap there is. Joe (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
In any event, to focus on the names with a wiki entry is the way to go. Most of the names on the page have a page. To give you an idea:
Template:Epstein files
This is a very small subset.
Here could be a practical guideline: (G1) if you wouldn't write the information on the person's own entry, it doesn't belong here; (G2) why don't you summarize here and go explain over there?
This way, we could either do very short sections on what can be found and linked to elsewhere, or we could transclude a very short bit from the page. Transclusion doesn't seem reasonable as an ask, so we should summarize.
As for summaries, I thought at first of three paragraphs: one introducing the named person, with a short description of the overall connection; another one notable deeds; one last about the aftermath (if it is known). Now I'm not sure there's a need to say that Robert Mugabe once was a president. (Perhaps we could add the information under the photo: "Robert Mugabe, once a president".) And the aftermath could be discussed in the person's pages themselves.
Enough talk. Time to edit. Selbstporträt (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Mugabe and Castro were the two that jumped out at me as having excessively long intros. As you say, time to edit. Moscow Mule (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
That was an example of the name format, not a suggested cut-off point. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:18, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
I know. I'm only trying to underline that we can't know the cut-off point in advance. Perhaps we need comparables: does anyone know of very big lists (say 5K+ entities) with such cut-off? Selbstporträt (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Several; for example the parts of List of United Kingdom locations which have been subdivided and rearranged a couple of times, over their history, without causing significant issues. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:55, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Thanks. Never saw this. We might very well end up like that, since 7 words times 13 (to get to 26 letters) is less than 100 words! Selbstporträt (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Thanks to whoever moved split proposal to sub-section here. Apologies for not seeing this section before, otherwise would of re-ordered proposals with this one at the top (currently Option F). CNC (talk) 11:04, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
i dont think it should be split, but if it is, it should be by nationality not occupation Formerlygopackgo009 (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
What is happening right now? It should be A-Z, last name first. Why should it be split in two? ~2026-15975-58 (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Split proposal

[edit source]

Per WP:ARTICLESIZE we are at 14K 15K and growing. The main consideration I see is how to split this list so suggesting a few options, along with diffs of sandboxed versions of splits as of current version with word size included.

Proposal is based on WP:NCSPLITLIST and splitting long lists. CNC (talk) 11:52, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Support A as proposer. While not inherently natural, this is the way to split the content equally (roughly 7K words each) with room for growth. The numbers of entries for M justifies the move to the first half over the second half for balance (M alone is 1.9K words). Splitting by B would lead to C, which seems unnecessary if the list can be contained to two sub-lists. I otherwise don't see the argument for remaining as is based on WP:TOOBIG, given there is an easy and straightforward way to handle the page size. This in turn could convert this article into a list of lists, set index based list, or simply a redirect to the the first list article per suggested format at Wikipedia:Lists of lists#Splitting long lists with the following style of hatnote:
List of people named in the Epstein files: A–L | M–Z.
CNC (talk) 11:58, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
D. List of list. The page shrank from 20K to 14K recently, and it would be possible to reduce it even more: I'd say 5K. But editors started to add people because they have received an unidentified package (Aznar) or because their name is contained in some newsie Epstein is forwarding (Trudeau). That's going to take its toil on the page size: even with less than 50 words per person (i.e. less than what we have) the actual split offers will only work for 400-600 names. The paragraph you are reading contains 100 words, including the sentence I am writing right now.
With 100 words per peep, that's half of that. We have 169 peeps so far. So I'd go with a split. The page List of United Kingdom locations is split up this way:
- One main page: List of United Kingdom locations.
- Other pages starting with "List of United Kingdom locations", followed by letters
It's more natural to refer to the list of people named in the files than the list of people named in the files (A-M). More so if we end up splitting even more, which I predict will eventually happen unless we turn the page into table.
A list of list gives us more real estate to provide information about the list. For instance, it would give us space for various indices, say a categories like celebrities, artists, scientists, academics, culture warriors, whatever. Background information on the list of name would not need to be maintained on multiple pages too.
Since the list of names on many different pages loses its internal cohesion, anchoring becomes deprecated. Selbstporträt (talk) 15:26, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
E. Don't split: we're currently at 90,000 bytes, less than 5% of the technical limit on how large a Wikipedia page can be before errors start to crop up. This information is more navigable as a single page with an index, rather than a list of lists. Its large word count does not make it difficult to read or navigate, and so it should not be split at this time. Joe (talk) 16:30, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
F. Organize in one article by sphere now, and divide with list of lists later. I still propose we divide the content by sphere, and then later it would divide neatly into fewer than a dozen articles, which could be referenced by a "list of lists". This idea was fleshed out here:
Alternatively, if not this then I vote to not split and no structural change.
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 23:28, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
I'm concerned that if we split the list into categories related to type; religious, political, royal, financial, academic, judicial, law enforcement, business, hackers, event organizers, alleged spies, socialites, etc., that there will inevitably be subjects that don't fall neatly into one category, either because they belong to more than one category or because they belong to none of the ones we come up with.
I can envision an eventuality where either dozens of pages are made to accommodate all types (with only two or three entries for the less-common categories like filmmakers - the 'splitter' outcome), or whole swathes of oddballs who don't fit neatly are simply not listed because they don't fall into any of our synthetic (not in the WP:SYNTH sense) categories (the 'lumper' outcome). This I wish to avoid, and thus, I prefer simple alphabetical listings. All that said, I think having general categories might actually make the page easier to navigate for some purposes for the average reader, so it's not all negative. Though, that may also make it harder if the page is ever split, as readers would have to guess what category the subject they're searching for was placed into and click on multiple pages just to find it. Suffice to say, I err on the side of alphabetical listings, simply because one can't go wrong with that. Joe (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
There is no real choice between classifications. We could have an alphabetical list of names. We could have a page for the scientists in the Epstein files, the artists, the architects, the sports guys. That's the only way editors will be able to write whole paragraphs on so many people at the same time. There are lots of reliable sources on such partial lists.
We could have sections listing people according to connections (friends, business partners, employees, grantees, etc). A bit like an index nominum and an index rerum, but the index rerum linking to the index nominum. That makes more sense in a self-contained documents, but I suppose it could work with secondary pages that act like appendices. No idea if that has ever been done on this wiki. Not that it should stop us.
To have all the classifications at the same time, we'd need a table we can sort. With one click one could see the friends, the scientists, those in Epstein's book, or else. Tables attract less editors, however, and they need to start on the right foot, otherwise it's a pain to redo everything. (Ask me how I know.) So it's better to build a big list at first.
In fact, we could do both a list and a table. We already have a Connections page. This is the page that ought to have the table that contains *all* the connections in the Epstein universe. Not only those in the files. Not only *people* but organizations, and even locations.
In any event, the page is looking better and better. Selbstporträt (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Personally, I'd say we should just keep this one as people mentioned in the files - though a page titled List of Places Mentioned in the Epstein Files might be quite an interesting and encyclopedic affair, in itself. Joe (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
We indeed should, as it's a list of people, not persons. Personhood can include corporations. Selbstporträt (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment / Wait: I think first of all we should settle on an inclusion criteria and only after we can estimate how long the article could get and how to split it. Some people seem to want to include everyone, others only notable people etc. Let’s first agree on what this article should include. Wilk10 (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Perhaps I should clarify my own stance: we can only include people that are notable. Not in the sense of WP:N, which only applies to pages. But in the sense that we have reliable sources external to the files themselves. People with their own coverage can't be ignored. People appearing in lists too. Whatever we say about people needs to be supported, and whatever that can be supported can't be rejected. The principles to follow are verifiability, neutrality, and attribution: see MOS:SOURCELIST. To break any of these often leads to original research.
Original research isn't about editorial choices related to the creation or the scope of a page. It's only about making sure that *both* our facts and inferences are supported. The latter, about inferences, is usually called SYNTH. Selbstporträt (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
E. Don't split: Size per JoePhin. The benefit of one page is searchability. Splitting protects people from being found. Don't. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
"protects people from being found" is ridiculous and baseless hyperbole. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:06, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Or it's a well-known user interface fact. "Every time you ask the user to click you lose half of them." -SusanLesch (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
I'm afraid there actually is some very legitimate concern about paid or other COI editing occurring on this page, as well as other pages related to Epstein and people connected to Epstein. We know that Epstein paid to have his own Wikipedia page edited on at least one occasion (see Al Seckel). It is not at all unthinkable that some of the people on this page, many of whom are quite wealthy, might wish to pay someone to edit Wikipedia to remove, de-emphasize, or down-rank unwanted information on this page - and splitting the page would make it generally less accessible to the average reader, both in terms of search engine accessibility and on-site navigation, either of which COI editors might wish to take advantage of.
With all that said, it's very important to assume good faith when dealing with individual editors, and I certainly wouldn't accuse anyone above who thinks splitting the page is a good idea of being a COI editor. At the same time however, we should not discount the possibility of COI editor activity on the page, more than the average Wikipedia page. Joe (talk) 02:59, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
Support alphabetical proposals ie. A, B, or C. I think that proposals for splitting into a list by occupation or significance could cause problems with a single entry being listed multiple times. Or you would have to arbitrarily have to choose what they are 'most significant' for, which creates a whole lot of possibility for needless bickering. The aforementioned split proposals would also create navigation problems for our readers, and the encyclopedia is ultimately for our readers, so we should not sacrifice reader experience. Alphabetical order is standard with such lists and we should remember that the spirit of WP:CONSISTENCY is very strong on Wikipedia; with WP:CONSISTENT and WP:TITLECON applying specifically to article titles. Splitting for occupation may also create WP:SYNTH concerns because of needing to list them under a specific occupation when sources mentioning their connection to the Epstein Files may not mention that. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 17:48, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose any split Having all the names on one page makes it easier for readers to search through the entire list. For editors, it's similar to WP:RSP with the super large table. Having everything on one page is convenient. Some1 (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Removal of Sergei Lavrov

[edit source]

Lavrov was never in contact with Epstein. The source doesn't imply this and there is no prove of something similar happening. Epstein told an intermediary that he could offer Lavrov insight on the American president. He didn't say it to Lavrov. 8ZeitundZeit8 (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Selbstporträt (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Third heading level = difficult navigation

[edit source]

Is there a way to fix this?

At some point, we added a third heading level, so that it's now like this:

1. Names

1. A-E
1. Woody Allen

The navigation to each letter was removed from the top. There is no way to quickly get to, say, "D". The sidebar navigation on a desktop, or the layout on a mobile device, only rolls up the Heading 2 ("Names").

I'm also not sure why we now have a more extensive "Background" section, because it looks that that is covered in detail at Epstein files? Where are we heading, with these two changes?

Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 16:49, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

With the earlier navigation, we had no access to notes, to references, to external links. And "A" doesn't directly get you to "Allen" either: "A" or "A-E" only vary in size. Compact TOCs seem to divide editors. They're more palliative than a boon. If we can go without them, we should.
The page could easily reach 20K words soon, in fact we could be at 50K words by the end of Winter. I say this as someone who may have removed more words than I added to the page. We can go with a main entry point (this page) or without. If we go without, this page disappears and is replaced by splits, all the Background information gets merged to a section named List on the main page, with the links to the splits. That's not what is done with List of United Kingdom locations, the only comparable I saw so far.
The main reason we have this page is to describe the list. This seems necessary as it's no mere gazetteer. The background sections of this page and of The Epstein files contain no overlap except for one sentence. Readers need to know the extent of our list and our main sources without having to search them in multiple sections of another page. This description can contain various classifications seen in the sources, something you wanted. This could grow into a table that contains both ordering.
Either way, once the split is done, there's no need for letter-based sections, at least not until we reach a tipping point. Selbstporträt (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
I agree with both points. The Background section should not be part of this page and can be removed to keep the page shorter. The new navigation is way worse than before, in my opinion. It takes ages to reach a name down the list. On desktop is bad enough but on mobile is very very bad. I would argue for a revert first and then a discussion in Talk to build consensus. Wilk10 (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
If we remove the Background section, then we must delete the lead, for the lead is supposed to represent what is written on the page, not be a patch-writing from another page. If that's where we're going, then the current page will perforce disappear, to be replaced by a series of splits, presented on the parent page. That implies we remove every single commentary on the list from the page and go connect our current list in a subsection of the main page. The only viable alternative is that this page explains what it does.
Besides, we're talking about 300 words. This isn't what will prevent the page from being split. There's no way this page can sustain its growth and still be readable. Even if we reduced the entries that remain to be edited by half, the additional names listed on this talk page alone will stall that reduction.
Also, my own user experience is completely opposite. In MinervaNeue, Vector 2022, Timeless, and MonoBook the page was unusable: no page elements, no names, just letters. Readers can still reach everything using Vector Legacy, but now the list doesn't take more than the screen.
The page isn't meant for those who edit the page, but for readers. Readers who are searching for a specific name use a search tool. The current division makes no difference to those who glean over sections. If that current division gives too long subsections, just divide more: A-C, D-F, etc. That'll give 8 TOC items, not 26, many of which were useless. Selbstporträt (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
On a technical note, this is the revert: the default is a normal TOC, not the bold choice of a compact one, which has never been accepted as consensus. See above for editors who scratched their heads when that happened. Or perhaps see the archives, for now we have an editor who does nothing else on the page than archive random bits from the page to make sure their Additional lists stay on top. Selbstporträt (talk) 14:08, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Here's the new division: A-C, D-F, G-I, J-L, M-O, P-R, S-U, V-Z
Tell me if that works. Selbstporträt (talk) 14:39, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Ok thanks, on desktop it does work actually, but on mobile the UX is still bad, in my opinion. Wilk10 (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
I've just added a denser index of names - hopefully this will help with navigation. Even if the page is split at some point in the future (something which I'm not in favor of), we might wish to keep this original page with the same (or similar) index of links, to aid navigation. Joe (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
@CommunityNotesContributor, it seems we're taking action on one of the solutions you proposed, so I think this discussion actually goes with your #Split proposal vote and discussion. Would you like to move it to there?
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

The problem of having to go to a letter group and then search down for a name of interest on this page is a small, and not at all as bad, preview of what would happen if the page were ever to be split. I just want to emphasize this again: splitting the page will make the information contained on it less navigable, not more. High word counts make pages hard to navigate if they're simply giant walls of text, but that's not the case for this page, we've just got a ton of entries. Splitting it would be like cutting off your nose to make it easier for your socks to fit on your feet, i.e., not helpful. Hopefully the new index will help a bit. Joe (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Here are the choices:
One page => short list, table.
One main page, splits => indices, categories on the main page, entries on the splits.
Splits => entries connected to the main page.
Anything else leads to something else. Selbstporträt (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Why? Can it not just be a single page? I am also against splitting it: the page is not a wall of text, the short sections don't overwhelm when reading. I would rather have a single page and an inclusion criteria that is reasonable and not original research but also that filters out less relevant names (of course everything based on reliable sources). Wilk10 (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
If it's one page you want, then work on making sure the entries are very short, so that we have quasi-lists. And push as much detail as you want in the personalities' pages themselves. After a while, the page will turn into a real list. Then a table, because in the end, there are two life certainties: every life form becomes crab-like, every wiki entry becomes table-like.
Even if we have very strict inclusion criteria, we could easily have more than 500 names. Perhaps even a thousand. Perhaps more. There are *many* known names in the files directly connected to Epstein. We have to expect that more coverage will get more out. We're already quite behind.
I too would prefer one page. And I'd prefer one main page and splits over "frontless" splits. We live in a material world, and lists get split all the time. We also live in a political world: our job is to write the list of Names in the Epstein files as a co-creation process. So I'm trying to offer the design options we have, and work toward them while being agnostic. I would rather have (List of) People if the Epstein files, but at this point my talk/rock ratio is not to my taste. Selbstporträt (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Splitting this page will make it a navigation nightmare. Ensuring brevity for the entries and linking to the main page for more info - and more importantly for future page size limitations - using only the minimal necessary references, which are the actual culprits when it comes to page size explosions, is a good idea. I'm not proposing anything specific, but a general guideline to try to keep entries concise and to the point, without missing anything important, may be a good idea. Joe (talk) 01:28, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
References are not counted when we use Page Count from the More list. It only counts the yellowed text. An inclusion criteria would help. Considering the topic, I err on the side of an objective one. See below. Selbstporträt (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
References do add to the overall byte size of the page, however, and that's the only hard limit on how big a Wikipedia page can get. We're absolutely nowhere near that limit at this time, by the way, it's just something to consider for long-term editing in case this page gets really massive. Joe (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
I'm considering a bold edit to remove {{TOC limit}} = 3. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Try it. I doubt you want to see more than 250 names in your list. Selbstporträt (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Why did we change it from this style? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_people_named_in_the_Epstein_files&oldid=1339704605
Was there no sidebar TOC option with that layout, and that's why it changed?
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
The TOC did not serve its function of providing the main divisions of the page. Search for "13:56, 23 February 2026" for a more complete response. I still can't replicate the issue you have, but then I would never ever read this page using anything mobile. Susan removed the TOC limit: it takes space, but it's not so bad on my side. Reading the syntax, I now see it would be possible to bring it back if editors need it. Gnomes usually take care of that. As long as I have a table of content that provides the page's content, anything suits me. Selbstporträt (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
And the main divisions (A-C, D-F, etc.) were added because you were going to split the article into multiple articles, by last name?
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 04:16, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
We had several different discussions about splitting this article, and there was no consensus with multiple people definitely opposed to the idea. But then a bold move was taken to ready the text for splitting anyway, by adding introductory sections, new heading levels, and a new TOC structure. That action created a usability issue.
If you're now in agreement that we should work within consensus views, then the easiest and most sensible thing is to undo the actions taken to prepare for a split that people argued against.
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Since I've not gotten a response, I'm assuming it's ok for me to undo the bold action that introduced this usability issue, since it was to prepare the article for splits that weren't agreed on.
I'd prefer you take this action, as you're more familiar with your edits, but I see you're busy fighting battles elsewhere. Please only let me know if this is not ok, otherwise I'll try to untangle it tonight (8-10 hours from now, or so).
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia has something unique to offer here. I oppose splitting the page. Happy to finally find one page that lists everyone, unlike the drip drip DOJ hodge podge spread in bits and pieces all over the media. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Advance Warning

[edit source]

In Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#We need a clear policy about being in the Epstein Files we are discussing the possibility of nomination this page for deletion.

I would like to give everyone here a chance to make the deletion unnecessary by fixing the problem.

In particular, I would like to see

  • A clear set of inclusion criteria arrived at by consensus.
  • A strong commitment to following our WP:BLP policy and reverting any edit that doesn't.

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

By "we" you mean you, as in "In my opinion ". You have simply asserted that there were BLP violations regarding celebrities or politicians who an editor dislikes, which should not be the example you yourself provided, Obrist. Unless you can find someone who dislikes him?
And to address your ridicule: no, Jesus isn't people. Selbstporträt (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
So you would prefer that this page be nominated for deletion rather than it having a clear set of inclusion criteria and a strong commitment to following our WP:BLP policy? Are you sure that is what you want? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
I would prefer that you support your assertion, and that you come here not as some kind of deus machina who makes threats, which is against policy. Selbstporträt (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Evasion noted. You chose not to answer a clear question, so I will assume that you prefer deletion to to following our WP:BLP policy. If you think I have violated any Wikipedia policy, feel free to report me at WP:ANI. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
I'd rather ask you to stop your threats and try to help people out, Guy. Also, to point in the general direction of WP pages begs the question you came here to ask. Which means you were not really asking.
Do you *really* think editors don't want to abide by that policy? Selbstporträt (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Of course not. I am assuming that you are in good faith trying to do what you think is best. Alas, in my opinion you have a fundamentally different understanding of WP:BLP and WP:DUE than most editors. Otherwise you would not be defending the inclusion of someone who was invited to an event Epstein was invited to. BLP says "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." (emphasis in original). DUE says "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." Putting someone on this list because one source said they were invited to an event is giving undue weight to minor aspects. And one sentence in passing in a single source is not the same thing as multiple multiple reliable third-party sources documenting an incident --Guy Macon (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
"Otherwise you would not be defending the inclusion of someone who was invited to an event Epstein was invited to."
I'm not, as I actually raised a similar issue earlier, in a talk page you haven't read. So you have not really searched the page on which you just appeared. Neither have you searched the files, for Obrist is mentioned 51 times. He's connected to Brockman who has been funded by Epstein. You're also misrepresenting the concept of "aspect": a person isn't an aspect. The question of how much lines to dedicate to Obrist isn't the same question as if we should include Obrist in the first place. And your own quote mentioning proportionality supports what has been said about Obrist on the page.
That being said, your last comment is much better than your first ones. The question if we should people who are not "directly" connected to Epstein is one that we can ask. It may complicate matter more than it may resolve them (what does "direct" mean, how much "direct", etc.), and it may compel more details to be added in the Background section, but at least that helps. So thanks for that. Selbstporträt (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
There is a clear set of inclusion criteria (as discussed at the top of this talk page) and you still haven't established what BLP issues you think are present. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Nonsense. An ongoing discussion about inclusion criteria with multiple opinions is not a "clear set of inclusion criteria".--Guy Macon (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2026
Do you have an example of "a clear set of criteria" that would satisfy you, by any chance? Selbstporträt (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
That's for the editors working on this page to decide. I just think there should be a published set of inclusion criteria. Perhaps you can ask one of the editors that claim it already exists to tell you what it is. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Then we might easily end up in the Kick the Football scene from the Peanuts. Suppose we say it's NPOV, OR, and V: would that be enough? Selbstporträt (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
It was doomed to happen:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jacob_Zuma Selbstporträt (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
What exactly are the BLP issues? The page specifically says that inclusion in the files is not an indication of wrongdoing and that only Maxwell and Epstein have actually been prosecuted for crimes. This page does not make any undue implications of impropriety or criminality against people listed in it. In cases where allegations are made (ie, allegations about Bill Gates using anti-STD meds on his wife), the context is provided and it's established that such claims are alleged by a third party. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
"If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article...If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Source: WP:BLP --Guy Macon (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Yes, that is how this article is written. All of the entries are relevant and cited to reliable third-party sources. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
If you think that the Hans Ulrich Obrist entry is noteworthy, relevant, well documented, and supported by multiple reliable third-party sources, I have nothing further to to say to you. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
If it's because you disagree, then you're may not be looking for a set of criteria after all. Selbstporträt (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Guy, can you point out the actual problems with this article? WP:BLP and WP:DUE and WP:OR have all been brought up but where are the actual violations of these policies in this article? //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 17:30, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
If you cant find any problems while reading Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#We need a clear policy about being in the Epstein Files, I have nothing further to to say to you. -Guy Macon (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
So Obrist and just Obrist? Can we rename this talk page section to clarify you just mean about Obrist then? //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 18:44, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
There are two. The first is related to the page name, and is mostly jocular. The second one isn't formulated to produce any set of criteria in response. Selbstporträt (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose anything that implies that this is only about Obrist. I picked a section at random and within the first few names I checked I found one that was total bullshit and just the sort of thing that will convince people to delete the entire page as a magnet for BLP violations. If you wish I am pretty sure that I can find ten more names that shouldn't be listed within ten minutes. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Go for it. Meanwhile, we should have a section stating our inclusion criteria later this evening, which anyone bold enough can edit. And as soon as we find a second source for Obrist, what will be your next reason to exclude him? Selbstporträt (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
WP:AGF violation. I am going to stop interacting with you now. My opinion that the inclusion of Hans Ulrich Obrist based solely on them being invited to an event that Epstein was invited to -- an event that we don't even know that Epstein or Obrist attended -- is not acceptable in a Wikipedia article. I base this upon WP:DUE and WP:BLP, not on the fact that you only have a single source or that the source only mentions the connection in passing. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:13, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Agree, mentioning Hans Ulrich Obrist seems would be a waste of page space on an already excessively long article. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:20, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
WP:AAGF violation and unsupported opinions noted. Selbstporträt (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
"The possibility of nomination this page for deletion" is a hollow threat.
"The possibility of this page being deleted" is non-existent. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:49, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Is the threat of deletion really the only reason to take the BLP complaints seriously? Trade (talk) 02:58, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
What on Earth makes you think that's what I said? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:13, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria - second draft

[edit source]

So here's what I got. It's a bit rough, but I am running out of steam:

Having one's name in the files isn't enough to be included in the list. Individuals must meet the following criteria:

  • Contact. A point of contact between the individual and Epstein can be traced back to the files themselves. The evidence of contact can take whatever form: words, photos, gathering, transaction, etc.
  • Acquaintance. The contact between the individual and Epstein must persist long enough to speak of acquaintance. It could include plans to develop a personal relationship. It extends beyond mere formalities.
  • Participation. They sollicited or maintained a relationship with Epstein in their own name and of their own free will. This may include liberal professions, but excludes employees and victims.
  • Grouping. The individual is already belong in a list from secondary reliable sources, with enough details to establish contact, acquaintance, and participation.
  • Coverage. If there's no grouping, at least two reliable secondary sources must detail the relevance of the individuals.

Comments welcome. Selbstporträt (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I think the "Participation" criteria needs adjustment. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
How? Selbstporträt (talk) 03:01, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
The problem is "of their own free will" and "excludes employees and victims". Let me give examples to illustrate why this is a problem.
  • Ghislaine Maxwell (currently on the list): She was a girlfriend. She was also a paid employee with a job that she describes as something like property manager for his various estates. She also contends that she was his victim.
  • Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn (currently not on the list): They were not employees but kind of... they were hired by Epstein to be his long-standing lawyer and accountant. They are also joint executors of his estate, originally stood to receive tens of millions of dollars from his final trust. Given the roles for which they were hired, they are all over the released files, and I believe were part of releasing some of the files.
  • Karyna Shuliak (currently on the list): Girlfriend of about a decade, fiancé with a 33-carat ring, named to inherit the bulk of his property and estate. Helped procure females for Epstein. Also possibly initially a victim.
  • Virginia Giuffre (currently not on the list): Victim but also outspoken advocate, central to the release of these files, named in the files.
  • Nadia Marcinko (currently on the list): Reportedly at the beginning was his victim. Then, his girlfriend of a few years. Then, his employee as a pilot as well as a procurer of other females.
  • Les Wexner (currently on the list): By his own estimation, provided more than $100 million to Epstein plus credibility and access to other wealthy people. Claims he was a victim of a swindle.
  • Leslie Groff (currently not on the list): Named over 150,000 times in the files. An employee, hired to be his assistant, she played a central role and the FBI at one point named her a co-conspirator alongside Wexner and Brunel.
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 03:58, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
OK. How would you solve this? Selbstporträt (talk) 04:16, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
I would remove it.
Here's what I think you wanted to prevent with the "Participation" criteria: You didn't want a victim who is living outside the media spotlight to be outed/doxxed here on wikipedia. But, with proper citation from high-quality media, that won't happen because news media also do not want to identify someone like that. For example, it's not uncommon to see news articles (about Epstein or other topics) say they know the identity of a victim but refuse to name them as a matter of policy. If this decision later becomes an issue, we address it then and adjust the criteria as needed.
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
Consider it done. I wanted to express agency: whatever he says, Wexler has it. Other people may not.
The Holy Grail would be to express the following criteria in an objective manner: we include people based on why they're named, not just for featuring in the files. Some sources seem to include people just because their names is notable, or because they're directly tied to Epstein. Why should readers care if some famous dude received an unidentified gift from Jeffrey? Selbstporträt (talk) 06:23, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
I'd say proposal is all far too complicated, and in some cases arbitrary and needless - if there's any reliable coverage of a subject being in the Epstein files, that should be the only inclusion criterion. Moreover, this page should include persons Epstein/associates regularly discussed or were interested in, as well as deceased victims like Virginia Giuffre, and other victims whose involvement in Epstein's affairs is already included on their own respective pages with RS. Joe (talk) 04:10, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
Coverage the only criteria? Here are some made-up test cases. The criteria should make it clear whether or not the individual should be mentioned in the following cases. (I don't care whether you decide to include or exclude. I just want the inclusion criteria to be able to tell you what to do in the test case):
  • Meets every other criteria for inclusion, with lots of coverage, but the person was an underage victim who has never made any public statement about Epstein.
  • Same as above, but -- after becoming an adult -- they purposely reveal their identity in the press.
  • Epstein discusses at length making a donation to the Save The Skeet foundation with the STS president. Lots of coverage. In the discussion the prez says "and here is a research paper by our top scientist, Skeety McSkeetster", who has a Wikipedia page. Epstein talks about Skeety. Does Prez go on the list? Does Skeety?
  • Same as above, but it all happened long ago, before anyone had a hint about what Epstein was up to. Does Prez go on the list? Does Skeety?
  • Same as above, but Prez and Skeety died in a tragic Yodeling-and-Yoyo-related accident ten years ago, so no BLP restrictions. Does Prez go on the list? Does Skeety?
  • The files show Epstein having extensive email conversations with a famous politician, with all sorts of slimy details, and multiple sources cover it. Just the thing we would normally include. But one source -- a good, reliable source -- points out that maybe Epstein was talking with an imposter. None of the other sources say he was or he wasn't; they just take the "from" field of the email at face value.
--Guy Macon (talk) 04:36, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
There are laws and news media standards/guidelines that prevent that first one from happening in reputable news sources, so probably mark that one off your list. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
As long as there's significant reliable coverage in all of those cases, I'd say they should be included, unless there are any legal issues with including information about minors (I'm sure someone knows the intricacies of Wikipedia policy on that matter better than I do, and we should of course give consideration to any polices intended to cover all Wikipedia pages). I particularly like the final example with the potential imposter: this is a more general issue a la Wikipedia as a whole and less this specific page; if two or more different RS give divergent coverage on a subject, Wikipedia should reflect both; that's quite standard. Joe (talk) 05:02, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
Seems kind of unfair to old Skeety. There he was, just studying Snipes and publishing papers, and suddenly his boss put him on a list on Wikipedia against his will. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:15, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
If one has significant coverage in reliable sources, one might end up on this or any other Wikipedia page. I hardly see anything 'unfair' about that. Who is to say, mayhaps Dr. Skeety will be overjoyed. "Yes! Finally, the recognition I deserve! I'm on a list that includes a dozen or more Nobel laureates and as many billionaires!" Some people judge their own celebrity based on whether or not they've made it onto Wikipedia. More importantly, and I should hope, obviously, merely appearing in the Epstein files doesn't in itself imply anything bad. If Dr. Skeety feels like he's been defamed in some way by the reliable sources covering him, he may sue them (although, that suit will probably itself be covered by reliable sources and end up on Wikipedia anyway). Joe (talk) 05:36, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
I agree with Joe that reliable coverage of a subject being in the Epstein files should be the most important criteria. If we as editors have to decide whether someone is worthy or not of being in this list, then that feels very WP:OR. This list is currently called "List of people named in the Epstein files" and not "List of perpetrators named in the Epstein files" or "List of dodgy bastards in the Epstein files". If Dr Skeety McSkeetster contacted Epstein and some reliable source discusses that then that alone is enough.
One example of how I think this inclusion criteria is enough. Valerie Jarrett is mentioned in the Epstein files 14 times, but only on a technicality as her name appears in Quora digest emails. As far as I can tell, no reliable source has talked about this, because why would they? She is clearly not connected to Epstein despite appearing in the files. See also: John Scalzi (1 newsletter mention, 0 reliable sources talking about his connection to Epstein), Jesus (477 mentions, 0 reliable sources talking about his connection to Epstein), Tommy Lee Jones (8 mentions, 0 reliable sources talking about his connection to Epstein), George Washington (215 mentions, 0 connection). Do we need an explicit inclusion criteria of "No passing mentions, all individuals must have direct contact" (Contact and Acquaintance above)? No, clearly not, because this is not a problem that needs to be solved.
The only other inclusion criteria I think we need is blue names only. This was mentioned in the previous inclusion criteria discussion: Independently, meeting Wikipedia's normal criteria for inclusion, with an article of their own (the "prominent person" part) //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 10:41, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
The example that raised suspicion was Obrist. Mentioned in reliable sources. Has a page. No direct connection. Trudeau could be another: RS, blue link, nothingburger. Laliberté is different: tried to sell an island (yeah!), sent a birthday card (meh). Azar and Botella: why tho? Blue links fail relevance.
Having reliable sources can't be a selection criteria because we always need reliable sources. The same goes for the usual alphabet: NPOV, OR, etc. Our selection criteria should restrict furthermore. We've been told that the wiki isn't a repository of indiscriminate information, not how to exercise that discrimination. This is what's a selection criteria is supposed to meet (with emphasis):

Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item. Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence. For example, all known species within a taxonomic family are relevant enough to include in a list of them, but List of Norwegian musicians would not be encyclopedically useful if it indiscriminately included every garage band mentioned in a local Norwegian newspaper. While notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject, it may be too stringent for narrower lists; one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles, so common sense is required in establishing criteria for a list.

As a matter of policy, this is on the thin side yet succeeds in being contradictory: a criteria ought to be objective...but if it's subjective? It is said that notability can be too stringent, not that sometimes it's too loose, cf. Azar. So in the end, it all falls down on relevance. However, the people in the Epstein files (this should be the page's title) are not obscure Norwegian garage bands!
As I understand the situation, metapedians are asking us to establish relevance. They call it N or DUE or whatever, mostly because code words always lose their original meanings. (Due weight is proportionality, not relevance.) To me, that state of affairs explains why we're tasked with establishing a selection criteria without being told how, why, or even shown related examples. It all works implicitly, everybody acting like this is normal, just another bureaucratic process. And we need to get on it without much further ado.
We already have worked on this above. It only needs to be convened, written on the page, and then enforced. The least we can do is to find a way to tell readers and editors the reasons why we find some material relevant, not other. Should be easy peasy, right?
(Insert your favorite emoji.) Selbstporträt (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Break 1

[edit source]
Let's test the strength of the criteria by applying it to real people, to see if we agree we've got it right now:
  • Currently on the list, but should be removed (most failing the Acquaintance rule because they had attended a single public event in which Epstein was also in attendance, or Epstein invited them to a single event but failed to cultivate any acquaintance with them, or otherwise had no relationship with him of any sort, based on the blurb in the article):
  • Edward Boyden (possibly, I'm not clear what the text is saying)
  • David Brooks
  • Fidel Castro
  • Richard Dawkins
  • Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj (possibly)
  • Frederic Fekkai (possibly)
  • Tenzin Gyatso
  • Jonathan Haidt
  • Sam Harris
  • Michael Jackson
  • Jay-Z
  • Pope John Paul II
  • Brett Kavanaugh
  • Mary Richardson Kennedy
  • Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
  • Jeff Koons
  • Robert Lawrence Kuhn
  • Guy Laliberte
  • Sergey Lavrov
  • ...
  • Currently not on the list, and should not be added to it:
  • Melinda Gates
  • Mick Jagger
  • Paul McCartney
  • Chris Tucker (possibly)
  • ...
  • Currently not on the list, but should be on it:
  • Virginia Giuffre
  • Leslie Groff
  • Darren Indyke
  • Richard Kahn
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
Looks good to me. The objective would be to diminish having to discuss inclusion of specific cases. Inclusion of Roman emperors is still debated, so let's not raise our expectations too high. Not having to spend much time on your first set of instances would be good.
The concept of acquaintance might be ambiguous. ("Direct" is not much better.) To some people, it could mean on the verge of friendship. For others, it's being in the same social sphere. For philosophers, it's having first-hand experience. To me, it's two nodes in a graph connected by a transactional relationship.
That's not enough to get actors part of the action-network model. What we're looking for, I think, is evidence that they did things together: Helen paid Paul, Bob danced with Dennis, not just Arkadi is Viktor's nephew: they may be estranged, not know one another, etc.
I'm doing the best I can not to overcomplicate. But I'm working with the wetware I have, and English is not my first language. Selbstporträt (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
How would you qualify Aznar & Botella, Edward J Epstein, Mona Juul (at least based on her entry), Mugabe (weak ties in the files, stronger ties outside of them), Mira Nair, Talulah Riley, Princess Sofia, Michael Waltrip
Regarding Rovert J Kennedy Jr: going on a fossil expedition together should qualify as acquaintance, no?
Yeh I must say it was not too difficult to go through the list and relatively quickly assess the Acquaintance criteria. Wilk10 (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
Meeting one criteria shouldn't be enough, or we'll end up with no filter at all. People would need to pass all our criteria. The critical one has yet to be made clear: what we mean by relevance in the context of this list. Receiving an unidentified box fails relevance; going on a trip could be, we can't escape edge cases. Being talked about is a property that Guy would like excluded, at least in cases of unrequited gossip. (Putin could be an edge case here.) To merely have one's name on a letter isn't that interesting. Were we to come up with our own personal pages of the project, it'd be easier. Selbstporträt (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
Offhand, without too much thought:
  • Aznar and Botella: Keep on list, because there were two packages and an email that also possibly included their son, so I think that likely passes the Acquaintance criteria
  • Edward J. Epstein: Keep on the list. He spent a lot of time with Epstein in the earlier years (before the time captured in the Epstein Files), but then also exchanged a few emails decades later, and the outcome of both of those interaction times were important.
  • Mona Juul: I haven't followed this enough to know, but she believes she was enough of an acquaintance that she has issued an apology and resigned from her job.
  • Mugabe: Keep on the list; Epstein was employed by him and there may hae also been other financial ties. That's plenty to meet the Acquaintance criteria, in my opinion.
  • Mira Nair: I would remove her from the list.
  • Talulah Riley: As a side note, our habit of redirecting women's entries to their husband's is not great. If she belongs on the list, she should have her own entry. Having said that, I believe all we have for Riley is that Elon mentioned her, which does not mean she had any acquaintance. Again, see my comment about how women are individuals not appendages.
  • Princess Sofia: Keep on the list. Did she probably do anything wrong? No, but that's not what the list is about. She met Epstein in 2005, continued to correspond with him occasionally, well enough to be invited to a private Broadway screening as his guest in 2012. She had an ongoing Acquaintance.
  • Michael Waltrip: I don't understand the blurb in the article well enough to know, but it seems someone mentioned him in an email to Epstein? That doesn't pass the Acquaintance criteria, so I would remove him from the list.
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
"our habit of redirecting women's entries to their husband's is not great"
To say the least.
How about "Noteworthy action" as relevance criteria: there are actions done with Epstein (or by Epstein that involve them--why does action theory have to be so hard) that are worth noting. Adding a name without any action makes no sense. Adding a name with an action that is too mundane to be worth mentioning should make little sense. "Epstein saw The Most Important Man in the World eat a banana": seriously? That still relies too much on common sense to my taste, but at least we make our stance explicit on that matter: let's list people for the games they play. Selbstporträt (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
Some synthetic examples (replace The Most Important Man in the World with any celebrity you like, Xi Jinping, George Soros, Bill Murray):
(1) Epstein saw The Most Important Man in the World eat a banana.
(2) Epstein paid The Most Important Man in the World to eat a banana.
(3) Epstein and The Most Important Man in the World ate a banana.
(4) Epstein tells someone unidentified: "And then The Most Important Man in the World says, "what can a banana cost, Jeffrey, 10$?"
(1) fails acquaintance; (3) fails noteworthiness; (2) looks noteworthy to me; (4) could work if we have independent means to establish acquaintance.
Transactions that involve money tend to be noteworthy. Those involving gossip less. Formal gatherings seem to be, more so when they involve Epstein's money. Epstein meeting with the Mag 7 boys is noteworthy. Scientists being funded by Epstein is too. These actions don't imply any wrongdoing. They still are what they are, whether participants knew about Jeffrey or not. So we're not fishing in the dark. Perhaps all we need is a list of actions we deem noteworthy. Selbstporträt (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Yeh they all make sense and the criteria seem to do their job.
Regarding Mugabe I thought the FBI report was outside of the files but it’s listed in there. Makes sense to keep.
Agree on the observation about wives too. Wilk10 (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
I looked at the email mentioning Waltrip:
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01969576.pdf
A redacted name mentioned him to Epstein. Unless there's anything else, he should be out. Not directly connected. The story mentions Vickers, so a citation to it could be added there. There is a similar networking effect with Belyakov: he and Epstein discuss a meeting with Putin. Putin is also mentioned under Churkin. We could remove Putin's entry and he'd still be on the page. If we continue to add secondary connections, sooner or later we'll have to mention Kevin Bacon, perhaps even Paul Erdős. No, I just checked: Paul isn't there, only mary. But Kevin Bacon sure is there. He's everywhere. Selbstporträt (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
So blue link would not be part of the criteria? Wilk10 (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
An earlier counterexample (search for "17:23, 15 February 2026") was Ross. No page. Could have one. Definitely needs to be mentioned. Having a page could weigh in favor of inclusion without not having one being dispositive for exclusion. Few pages have explicit inclusion criteria. Those I read either borrow them from their sources or end up saying "we'll list numbers people find cool". Selbstporträt (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
Looks like Guy is asking that WP:SAL be modified:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Stand-alone_lists&diff=prev&oldid=1340364389
so as to include that inclusion criteria becomes a must in case of partial lists where the criteria isn't contained in the title. The discussion includes editorial comments about "listmongering" and "Wikilawyered guilt by association". I hope this suffices to illustrate why we should take threats by upper management seriously. Selbstporträt (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
I don't feel confident manually archiving items on this Talk page, but we need to do it. There's no single, concise place we can point to, where we have achieved consensus on what we're doing, and that's part of the problem.
Maybe @The Anome can help? I don't know who's been doing archiving. Let's archive all requests that were addressed, and the several attempts at discussing the inclusion criteria and how we want to deal with the size of the article. Let's also clean off the banners pointing to these discussions from the top of the article.
Then let's start four topics:
1. Voting on inclusions criteria
  • Start with parameters: When will voting end?
  • List each criteria individually and ask for people to vote by putting their name under each with Agree or Disagree; any advocacy or discussion goes in conversation #2, below
2. Discussion about the inclusion criteria
  • Start this discussion with a concise summary of the previous (archived) conversations we had about this, pinging people so they know that wasn't just waved away
  • Add a discussion section for more parameters: What happens if we do not have a consensus? How will we know in the future if we need to return to the issue and take another vote?
3. Voting on actions, if any, to address the size of the article
  • Start with parameters: When will voting end?
  • List each option individually and ask for people to vote by putting their name under each with Agree or Disagree; any advocacy or discussion goes in conversation #4, below
4. Discussion about the actions, if any, to address the size of the article
  • Start this discussion with a concise summary of the previous (archived) conversations we had about this, pinging people so they know that wasn't just waved away
  • Add a discussion section for more parameters: What happens if we do not have a consensus? How will we know in the future if we need to return to the issue and take another vote?
But this is key: We need consensus. It cannot be that one person strikes out after the vote and decides to do it their way anyway. It also cannot be that we walk away without making any decision.
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Bear in mind that consensus is the default. Boldness is the only virtue that worked so far on this page, it may be the last thing that keeps the wiki alive and kicking. You could easily write a section called Inclusion criteria based on what you think is best. (I don't think I should, but I could.) If there's a problem with the criteria, editors will tell you. Then we'll revisit. The "RS is enough" approach can't work: *that* is as clear as day, both from reading the rulebook and from the reaction from upper management, even if we had to go look behind the door with "beware of the leopard" written on it. Tight selection criteria should be enough to solve page size. No need to specify a style guide specifically for that. Omitting needless words is not hard compared to building a list of criteria.
Notwithstanding Azar, I don't recall anything you said that could be disputed. Perhaps the TOC, but even then I just found that there's a way to use a compact TOC and add other sections. As long as you give it time before chopping too many names at the same time, the criteria could impose themselves like they do everywhere else: implicitly and vicariously. Hence why nobody has so far provided an explicit list of criteria for BLP pages like the one we're being asked to provide.
That being said, if you prefer something more formal, I can understand too. Selbstporträt (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Yes, I prefer something more formal. I have made a post over on the other page saying that we are working on these issues, will try to make that effort and outcomes clearer on this page, and requesting that Guy give us one week to make progress on that without the proliferation of conversations that are now happening in multiple places.
I'm willing to set up the voting and discussion topics as outlined here, but I would like help getting almost everything else on this page manually archived. Let's wait to see if someone will step in and assist with that (I may try to leave a request for help on a few User pages), and maybe take a minute to just step back and congratulate ourselves on the hard work we've accomplished and the important progress we're going to make.
What do you think? Agreed?
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Fine with me. Andy's the one who archived the page. If we could rename the page List of People in the Epstein Files, that could help prevent further misreadings too.Selbstporträt (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, I wasn't sure who was archiving! I posted a request on Andy's page.
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
If you don't mind, I'll let you deal with management. Claims like "despite multiple false accusations to the contrary" could be taken to higher authorities, but I promised myself never to do that. Selbstporträt (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Changed my mind: management needs to know that too many misinterpret the rulebook, which means the rulebook needs clarification. Selbstporträt (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
I am fine with giving everyone as much time as they need. Despite multiple false accusations to the contrary, my goal was and is fixing the WP:BLP and WP:DUE problems instead of simply nominating this list for deletion at WP:AfD. That would have been easy and simple, and I am pretty sure that the result would be an overwhelming consensus to delete the page. Instead I have chosen not to go for an AfD at this time and am encouraging other WP:BLPNB regulars to also hold off on any deletion discussions to see if the problem can be solved by the editors of this page arriving at a consensus for inclusion criteria that doesn't violate WP:DUE or WP:BLP. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Ok, just to circle back @Guy Macon and @Selbstporträt
I asked @Pigsonthewing (Andy) to help us archive old conversations and completed requests for action so we can have a discussion people can easily find, and I asked for some help with renaming the article. He said no. You'll notice he's also "hatted" some discussions. I'm not up on the jargon, so...? I'm not sure but maybe that means he's unilaterally set the criteria? Or maybe it just locks the conversations as a signal to editors to keep scrolling down for the latest iteration?
I don't have any other ideas right now, for how we can quickly and clearly build better consensus on the main topics of inclusion criteria and managing article length, and I'm not even sure if that's up for discussion anymore. I withdraw my offer to help with the new voting, summary, and discussion topics on this Talk page, and I withdraw my request for a one-week ceasefire.
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Andy still archived a few items. Considering his last comment, he might prefer that cards be left on the table. I thought the split was no longer "in the cards" (to remain thematic). The merge with the Connections page is still open, but I have no idea why either. It could make sense considering the criteria we follow, but it makes page limit harder to maintain.
I have no idea how to open or close any of this. I try to stay out of voting procedures, except to bring arguments pro and contra. Perhaps just open another topic like Anome did? At the start of next week, we could ask a third party to help. Would that work? Selbstporträt (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
From my perspective, there were several of us who do not want to split the topic and have said so in the various discussions and iterations, but then actions were taken unilaterally to prepare the article for a split anyway. Again my perspective: This page has such disorganization, and such a high volume of it, that it's causing miscommunications.
I feel like opening yet another discussion on this page will just make it more confusing. Just another place where we can talk past one another.
Asking another third-party person to step in will likely be ineffective (in my opinion) because we'd first have to ask them to read this tome of comments, arguments, half-measure voting, philosophical asides, hypotheticals, comedic efforts, lists of filled and unfilled requests, etc., and nobody's realistically going to do that. They will say, "Point me to the main point" and we can't, because it's all over the place. But! We also can't clean off a place to create that.
Guy (and others, not just Guy) is applying pressure against that disorder: "Get everything figured out right away, or else I'll have all this work scrubbed" (to paraphrase). And since the conversation points are all over the place (across this page, and now across multiple pages), it creates this situation where people on one page sit and critique or throw bombs at another page, and also rehash what's already over here... along with their own variations of the same comedic asides, hypotheticals, whataboutisms, etc.... but likely they don't see that they are duplicating ideas and conversations that are already here. So now, it's a problem and also a deadline, with a dramatic action taken if those demands aren't met.
Anyway, those were my thoughts and the issues I was hoping to solve with my "archive for clean working area and organize new topics with summaries of the archives" idea. I don't have another idea to offer, though, so I need to just sit this one out.
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't asking for a third opinion, but for technical help to close a formal discussion. Opening another topic allows previous topics to be archived by bots. Nobody reads the start of talk pages, otherwise our previous discussion on criteria would have been noticed.
The demands are mostly met as far as I can see. The only question that remains is if we restrict more than by acquaintance (which could be called reciprocity or interaction) and talk about noteworthiness. I'll go wherever y'all decide. Selbstporträt (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
"maybe that means he's unilaterally set the criteria?"—It means nothing of the kind. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:17, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Another update: an editor helpfully pointed out examples of living persons talk pages on the BLP forum. They simply include Template:List criteria. The examples are not quite close to what we need (they mostly rely on notability) but that's a start. Considering the misinterpretations we have faced so far, we might still need to add a section that makes our criteria known to the readers. Selbstporträt (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
We don't have criteria. We have discussions about criteria.
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
I'm trying to answer the question: what do we do after we set our criteria? A request that is not actionable is more than a hollow threat: it's a "nice house you got there, would be bad if anything happened to it" kind of warning. Selbstporträt (talk) 13:43, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Break2

[edit source]
The 'Epstein files' aren't a single source, and shouldn't be treated as such by Wikipedia as if they are. The files are instead, as has been made amply clear through extensive discussion in WP:RS, a collection of diverse primary-source documents ranging from the detailed and credible to random junk sent by random nobodies to US government agencies. They exist as a collection only because such agencies filed them in the same (no doubt digital) 'filing cabinet' since they had Epstein's name included. Treating this media-shorthand lumping-together as if it meant more than that, and building a list around it, has no real justification at all, and thus provides absolutely no justification whatsoever for treating mere inclusion in the lumping-together as any sort of criteria for inclusion in a 'list'. That is absurd. We don't need lists of where documents can be found. We need articles based around Epstein and some of his acquaintances certainly (most obviously those where there has been extensive discussion of serious allegations by said acquaintances), but these can't be built around primary sources, many of which would be ruled out by BLP (and other) policy, making this list inherently biased, and intentionally or otherwise, a violation of WP:NPOV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
'We don't need lists of where documents can be found.'
This article is not a list of where documents can be found.
The article does, however, briefly define what we mean by "Epstein files", as introductory matter to the main point. That was added a bit ago, and we discuss that addition briefly sin some responses here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_people_named_in_the_Epstein_files#Third_heading_level_=_difficult_navigation The most specific definition of the phrase "Epstein files" can be found at Epstein files.
If I'm understanding your comment correctly, you're not intending to comment on the second draft of our inclusion criteria. Instead, you mean to start a new topic about whether this article should exist at all?
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
I'm suggesting that inclusion criteria based on presence in a 'filing cabinet' are inherently flawed. A 'List of individuals who have had serious allegations made about them regarding their association with Jeffrey Epstein' might be justified, and possibly this list as it stands might be useful as a starting point - just as long as inclusion in the 'filing cabinet' primary-source collection isn't a criteria for inclusion. Rename, and rework on that basis, and I don't have an issue with the general concept. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
'List of individuals who have had serious allegations made about them regarding their association with Jeffrey Epstein'
This article is very much not that, and there are notices warning that it must not be that. At the top of this Talk page is a boxed warning to not suggest a person has committed a crime unless they have been convicted. The same warning displays in the Edit view of the article itself. And in the article, the sentence directly above an index says this: 'No wrongdoing is established by merely appearing in the documents and people featured in the files commonly deny any wrongdoing in relation to Epstein's life and crimes.'
A different way to look at the list is this: These are people who cultivated relationships with Epstein. That might mean, for example, professionals he hired, people who likely hired him, scholars he entertained and funded, victims who are now advocates, high-powered oligarchs and royalty that gave him access and credibility while he gave them connections and companionship, people who wanted to stand close to the wealthy and connected, lifelong friends.
That brings us to the crux of the topic in this part of the Talk page, one criteria we've been fine-tuning: What does "acquaintance" mean, as one of our criteria? We've decided it's not someone who was basically just passing through. Unfortunately, we've got some of those on the list right now, and I suspect we'll delete them as soon as we have the criteria nailed down.
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
There was talk about merging with Connections of Jeffrey Epstein in an an above section on this talk page. Feel free to voice your support there and read the concerns of those who oppose. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 10:13, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
"I'm suggesting that inclusion criteria based on presence in a 'filing cabinet' are inherently flawed."
Suggesting is one thing. Providing an argument is another. And handwaving to some WP pages here and there is the opposite of being helpful. More so when it's obvious the page one wishes to criticize has not been read in the first place. Management issues are not one-way streets. Selbstporträt (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
I've read WP:BLP another time, and I see nothing to worry about on that front. I also read WP:DUE, and I'm once again reminded why these two shortcuts are so often added without relevant quotes. Selbstporträt (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
OK, so how is your 'I've read WP:BLP another time, and I see nothing to worry about...' compatible with Wikipedian-in-Waitings post 'What does "acquaintance" mean, as one of our criteria? We've decided it's not someone who was basically just passing through. Unfortunately, we've got some of those on the list right now, and I suspect we'll delete them as soon as we have the criteria nailed down'? And no, it has never been obligatory to make long threads involving multiple experienced contributors who are supposed to be familiar with core Wikipedia policy even longer by repeatedly quoting policy they should be familiar with - policy that has already been repeatedly brought up in the thread. And cut out the crap about 'management', this isn't a management issue (whatever that is supposed to mean, we are volunteers). It is a discussion of how this list (or something evolved from it) will have its content governed in the future. Which quite clearly depends not on what is included now on the list (and in the title, even if only implicitly), but on the very criteria being discussed. So did I read the current list word-for-word, beginning-to-end, immediately before I commented? No, as it happened I didn't. With article edits running at an average of 75 a day, that would be a fool's errand, and not actually relevant to the discussion. I've been watching this thread and list (and the multiple threads discussing it elsewhere) long enough to be able to make informed comments, and you not liking me making a fundamental point about the premise of the title, as I am fully entitled to, is a poor excuse to fail to address them and instead come out with a whole load of irrelevances that rather suggest you'd rather not actually think about what I wrote. Looking at the editing stats for the list I can perhaps see why. Would you like me to post a quote from WP:OWN? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
I thought you said not having an issue with the general concept, Andy. What would be the premise and the general concept of the page? Management refers to the notice board. Everyone is free to make as high a percentage of one's contributions to pages that start with "Talk:" and "Wikipedia:" as one sees fit. Just like you are free to quote from the page you evoke, especially WP:STEWARDSHIP. Could you please do so elsewhere than in a subthread about a list of inclusion criteria? Selbstporträt (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
What I wrote was 'I don't have an issue with the general concept'. Rename, that is, after reworking it as a 'List of individuals who have had serious allegations made about them regarding their association with Jeffrey Epstein', perhaps using this list as a starting point. Kindly don't half-quote me. Other people are fully capable of seeing what I actually wrote. An actual response to the points I have been making just might. But only if you have one... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Your suggestion is duly noted. Readers can also read that you've already been told that this isn't what the page is about, and why. Again, what is the premise of the page, what is the concept of the page? Selbstporträt (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
WP:OWN applies to talk pages too. And I have already explained why I think that the 'premise' of the list is flawed, and what I think should be done about it. So unless you are going to address that, I'm not going to respond further to your repeated deflection, and instead confine myself to discussing article/list content - with any scope I see as relevant, including the title, and the resultant inclusion criteria implicit from it. See my point below, where I explain why this arbitrary 'found in files' list is liable to not just include people it shouldn't, but quite likely exclude people that should be on a list of people drawn into Epstein' criminal circle. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
That's your second AGF violation, Andy. This is not a list of people in Epstein's criminal circle. Assuming you take criminal charges seriously, the page you would prefer would have two names on it, perhaps three.
Besides, you have been commenting on a thread that addressed your concern right from the start: being in the files ain't enough. We know that. What do you think we're trying to do with the list of criteria? That some commenters will find issues with how this draft is expressed has already been anticipated. Acquaintance is good enough for cases like Woody Allen: they're friends. Allen is notable, there are plenty of sources on Allen's presence in the files.
When you speak of premise and of concept of the page, I sincerely have no idea what you're referring to. But at this point, whatever. Selbstporträt (talk) 15:41, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Andy, I appreciate the engagement. It helped me clarify for myself how to express why this list is not a list of "potential criminals."
Originally, way back, I proposed that we organize the article based on spheres (royalty, scholars, etc.) instead of alphabetical. That didn't happen, but I've always viewed it like that: The Epstein files gives a glimpse into the many different types of relationships Epstein formed, for all kinds of different reasons.
Based on our conversation, I've added some text to the beginning of the article that I hope clarifies the nature of this list:
This article lists people who cultivated relationships with Epstein, as evidenced in the released files. Among others, they were professionals he hired; people who hired him; scholars he entertained and funded; victims who are now advocates; oligarchs, royalty, and political leaders who provided connections and companionship; people who wanted to stand close to the wealthy and connected; and lifelong friends.
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Thanks. That certainly clarifies things a little as far as the existing list content goes, though I'd say it perhaps presents evidence that the list title and resultant content is actually missing the point: it is entirely possible that individuals who had 'relationships with Epstein' will at some point in the future face serious allegations and possibly convictions despite not being 'named in the files' at all. Enquiries are (or should be) ongoing. Thus someone looking for individuals who have been prosecuted etc won't necessarily find them all on this list. Which is more useful: a list of individuals with all sorts of 'cultivated relationships', many of which have nothing to do with Epstein's criminal behaviour, or a list of his 'associates' who are at least facing serious well-documented allegations of being involved in the same behaviour, regardless of where these allegations originate? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
So much of this "inclusion criteria" idea is Original Research and BLP violations. If this list is too large, the make a second list for "List of people charged with crimes in relation to the Epstein files". That is just an example. Guz13 (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Inclusion criteria are editorial decisions. Originality covers content, not editorial decisions. Arguing by assertions seldom convinces. Arguing by false assertions convinces that the claimant may need to revisiting the rulebook before asserting. Selbstporträt (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Gary King

[edit source]

Gary King, the former New Mexico Attorney General, appears in the files and coordinated with Epstein for campaign donations for his last two campaigns. Sources here and here. --107,590 recent contributors (talk) 08:21, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Done - thanks! Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Thanks! --107,590 recent contributors (talk) 05:52, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
[edit source]

Reminder that we're not allowed to use links to archive.is and archive.today anymore. Ghost Archive is a good substitution.

Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of this page for deletion

[edit source]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of people named in the Epstein files is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people named in the Epstein files until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Selbstporträt (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I think the victims deserve justice and this list should be free and clear for the whole world to see. It states just because the names are on the list does not admit to wrong doing. You have to read it and not just assume wrong doing just for being mentioned. The man had money. I do not doubt people reached out for donations. It should be free for the world to see. ~2026-12994-75 (talk) 03:26, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
People can read the list outside of Wikipedia Trade (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Yet outside of Wikipedia, folks are unable to gather sources, links, or readily witness connections between folks named in the files. ~2026-13062-32 (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
There is nothing in Wikipedia that isn't publicly available elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Proposal: Removing the "background" section

[edit source]

I believe we added the "Background" section to prepare this article for being split into numerous smaller ones. I also believe that plan is now on hold until we gain consensus about what (if anything) we do to address article length.

As it stands today, the Background mostly focuses on "wrongdoing and crimes" and I think that's creating a tension or confusion: We say that the article isn't a list of potential criminals, but we start with a background that details crimes, litigation, redactions.

I want to delete the entire Background section to fix this confusion. If a reader wants to know the background, they can read it at Epstein files, which is linked as the second and third words in the article. Please leave comments below; I would like to take this action today, quickly to respond to the debate about deleting the article altogether.

Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Delete, with the same text in the lead. I created that subsection to remove that information from the lead. It kept reappearing. Going this way means we need to abide by this (with emphasis):

A stand-alone list should begin with a lead section that summarizes its content, provides any necessary background information, gives encyclopedic context, links to other relevant articles, and makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected, unless inclusion criteria are unambiguously clear from the article title.

(Another thing we should have been told.)
Redactions are related to the "names" part, which is creating confusion too. Selbstporträt (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
I can go along with the deletion of that background section. Bearian (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Nevermind. I went ahead and deleted it. The quote above is from MOS:SALLEAD. Selbstporträt (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Thank you.
Along the same lines, I deleted the sentences in the lede that highlight suspected or actual criminals. That removes the final implication of criminality from the lede and keeps any discussion of repercussions to the individual entries.
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Prefect. We could acknowledge that there was backlash if we want to cite the WaPo piece for which we have an archive dot org URL. Passing over citing WaPo is no big loss. In my notes, there is more material. Selbstporträt (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Limit to 55 words?

[edit source]

Some of the descriptions are 80 to 100 words. Individually this is ok, but in totality it's making the list too long. Can we please limit the descriptions to about 55 words? Bearian (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Allen's entry now has exactly 55 words. That should give us a gauge for the remaining entries. On my screens, that means 3-4 lines. Selbstporträt (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
With this morning's test, I'd say big entries could take 80 words and short ones 20-30. Entropy should make sure we get to an average of 55 words. We're at 15,2K, down from c. 16,5K I believe earlier. Getting under 10K is more than feasible as is, and with the inclusion criteria already acted upon (a visitor deleted an entry, I deleted one too), not having to split the page is becoming a reality. Selbstporträt (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
We're at 11,7K. Getting under 10K is now ineluctable. Selbstporträt (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Page Structure

[edit source]

The TOC has been returned to the compact TOC. Parameters have been tweaked out of sheer curiosity and to show what's possible: the name has been omitted (it got under my CSS skin), unused letters have been omitted to save space. The sections at the end of the page are back! It'd be possible to do more than showcased, see Template:compact TOC for more.

Is the index nominum still useful? If so, it might be best to put it at the end, like in books. Always wondered why wiki pages didn't have indices - perhaps they're too short. That trick could be used for categorization. Selbstporträt (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. That was a heck of a lot of work, both ways, and I appreciate that you keep experimenting to find the best way to present our text as it continues to change shape. Very grateful for all you're doing for this article.
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Most welcome. In return, I'm happy to see that your boldness introduced criteria that so far suffice to lead the page in the right direction! Selbstporträt (talk) 19:35, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
I think now that the sections by letter are back maybe the index can be removed, since it’s hard to maintain. Wilk10 (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Tal and Oren Alexander?

[edit source]

Do Tal and Oren Alexander belong in this list? Victor Grigas (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Hmm.
If I'm reading it correctly: the Alexanders are on trial for sex crimes that are unrelated to Epstein's crimes. The Justice Department released two Alexander-related files (with unredacted names of victims) in with the Epstein files. The Alexanders and Epstein are both alleged to have trafficked adult and minor females in New York and Florida, both had rumors and allegations going back years, and both had associates in common (like Leon Black).
  • The Miami New Times (cited in their wiki article) reported that it was part of that release because a female who filed a complaint about the Alexanders said that she was assaulted by Epstein at one of Epstein's parties, among other crimes committed by the Alexanders.
  • The New York Times, however, reported: 'The documents released include an email from a lawyer that inadvertently revealed the name of one of the eight women who have accused Oren and Tal Alexander, and Oren Alexander’s twin brother, Alon Alexander, of sexual assault.... None of the documents provided evidence that the Alexander brothers were involved in Mr. Epstein’s sex-trafficking operation. But they did thrust the Alexanders into the discussions involving Mr. Epstein, which worried the defense team.'
I don't think the Alexanders meet the Acquaintance criteria for inclusion in this article.... Let's see what others think.
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

"In a May 2012 email, Epstein called Zuckerberg "gay"

[edit source]

Is this really relevant? Does it improve the article in any meaningful way? Trade (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done Selbstporträt (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Photographs

[edit source]

Can I ask why it is considered appropriate for this list to include photographs? What encyclopaedic purpose is being served here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

BLPSPS

[edit source]

I have previously made a comment about WP:BLPSPS and this article.[1] E-mails are self published sources. So, 'someone said something about someone else' in an e-mail should generally be barred by BLPSPS. (For example, I think the current listing on Penny Pritzker relying on an email by Tom Pritzker should be excluded, and I intend to remove it. (It does not really say much anyway but really I want to address SPS more generally) I don't think we should give more air to what was said here about Penny Pritzker for the same reason as BLP applies to this talk page, too. So I ask that you be reticent in your comments, here about her. And just look at the entry yourself.[2])

And, I would like some discussion on how BLP:SPS, should be applied generally to this list. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to read our discussion about inclusion criteria on this Talk page?
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
I don't see any discussion about BLPSPS there. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:16, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
About Penny Pritzker in particular, you can cite our draft inclusion criteria to support your decision. For example, you might argue, "Penny doesn't belong on this list because she did not meet the Acquaintance criteria ('Acquaintance. The contact between the individual and Epstein must persist long enough to speak of acquaintance. It could include plans to develop a personal relationship. It extends beyond mere formalities.'). She was talked about in an email, but did not have even a casual relationship with Epstein. This makes her similar to Melinda Gates, who was also removed from the list for the same reason, and several other people who were named in the list of people used to "test" the current inclusion criteria draft." Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 16:27, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
How is WaPo a self-published source? Selbstporträt (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
The email is the self published source. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
We don't rely on any self-published secondary source for reliability, we rely on WaPo. That's why the code you invoke falls under the reliable sources heading.
We can exclude Pritzer because it could be interpreted as gossip. That's different. Selbstporträt (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
No. She was only mentioned here because she was mentioned in a self published source, it does not matter that the e-mail was republished by anyone, it is still an email that is being relied on for her inclusion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
That's not my interpretation of how any of this works. An email is not a "self-published source" unless it's published in the first place by the person who wrote it. If you have a blog in which you reprint an email you wrote to a fan, it becomes a self-published source.
The email is a primary source. WaPo is the secondary source. Our secondary source is obviously not self-published. Selbstporträt (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
I think Alan has come to the correct conclusion (delete Penny), but based on our inclusion criteria - which is additional evidence that our inclusion criteria is strong.
Here's why: Penny didn't have a relationship with Epstein. Penny's cousin was complaining about her to Epstein. Here's the article that was cited: https://archive.ph/Zri7C
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
I am in strong disagreement. That a primary source is republished does not make it a secondary source, only analysis would be secondary, and we are not presenting any analysis. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
No email has been "self-published" here, so the "self-publish" requirement doesn't apply at all. Vazquez' piece is called Jeffrey Epstein's vast web of powerful friends, so I doubt you could argue it contains no analysis.
Being talked about can be excluded when it fails relevance, reliable or not. It doesn't always fail: A invites B, saying that C will come; then A invites C, saying that B will come.
We can include Pritzer because she may not be in Jeffrey's "vast web of powerful friends" based on the fact that her cousin expressed regret regarding her taxation practices. Selbstporträt (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Well, we are in strong disagreement. That you imagine you can rely on a WP:HEADLINE for analysis of this e-mail is absurd and just not true, it's not. And we certainly don't present any WaPo analysis of this email. Moreover, saying 'I will come" is someone saying something about themselves, it is not one person self publishing about another person.
I think, we should let others weigh in. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
The part of the example you elide is "saying (to B) that C will come" and vice versa. The point was to show that third-person reports can't be rejected out of hand: if we have confirmation from B and C that they come, then the third person report is just a shorthand way to present the state of affairs.
In our cases, there is what Tom says about himself, and what he says about his cousin. We can exclude what he says about his cousin as being unreliable gossip. That's fine. None of that has anything to do with self-publication, which is another reason why editors should moderate code words usage.
In any event, I think that removing material that can be interpreted as hearsay or gossip is perfectly legitimate. Selbstporträt (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
I have no idea what you mean about code words, at any rate, you're really not making much sense when you say 'gossip' has nothing to do with the reasons we exclude BLPSPS. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
BLPSPS is a code word. SPS stands for self-published source. An email just isn't a self-published source unless one publishes it oneself, i.e. "books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, or social network posts" as the article you cite says. If you could present your arguments without probing my mind ("if you think") or saying I make no sense, that'd be appreciated. Selbstporträt (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
BLPSPS is not an article, and you are simply wrong that an e-mail republished is not the same as an email published. They are exactly the same, or they are simply made up. Your argument that 'gossip' has nothing to do with SPS is either nonsense or fallacious. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
It's neither: gossip is idle talk about the personal affairs of others. Its idleness makes it fail relevance. That doesn't imply unreliability: reliable gossip is still gossip. Granted, most of the times it's unreliable too!
"WP:BLPSPS" is a shortcut that leads to the subsection "Avoid self-published sources" in the section "Reliable sources" of the page "Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons". In that subsection, the word Self-published sources leads to this section:

Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. Self-published material, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, podcasts, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources.

One way to "self-publish" an email is to publish it through a newsletter. It would look something like this:
https://www.theredhandfiles.com/seeking-counsel-in-grief/
(That is, assuming that Nick Cave is writing an email to a fan. It's just a good piece of writing.)
So no, an email isn't eo ipso self-published just because it's an email. The vast majority of emails are not published at all. Selbstporträt (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
They are published when they are sent, and yes they can be republished. Republishing likely makes them available to a wider audience, but it does not change the source. The source is still a person who self published this information. Nor does it matter if it is reliable for BLPSPS. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
They're not republished by self-published source. They're republished here:
https://www.justice.gov/epstein
Are you arguing that the government self-publishes? Selbstporträt (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
That government does not authenticate any of what it republishes there, it is just what was gathered by it. Some of it purporting to be what some people wrote in e-mails. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
That doesn't answer the question how the government self-published the emails, neither does it clarify if The Washington Post did so either.
If WaPo isn't a secondary source, what kind of source is it? Selbstporträt (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
See, WP:Primary and WP:Secondary: sources are regularly a mixture of both. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
First keyword: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved."
Second keyword: "A secondary source...contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources."
If the concept of secondary source implies analysis, we wouldn't need to say that in scholarship: "a secondary source is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere."
To me, the WaPo piece clearly relates and discusses material we can find in the Epstein files. If editors decide that reporting amounts to becoming a primary source, there are lots of page like the one we discuss that will need some editing, for we're not supposed to cite primary sources directly! Selbstporträt (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
No. Per the policy, we are certainly allowed to cite primary sources, but we must do so carefully.
Your bolding of synthesis is bizarre, and you somehow jumped right past analysis in the same sentence. Repeating the words of the email is not analysis, nor synthesis, and that is all we were doing in the Penny Pritzker entry. (The e-mail's wording is primary information and in this instance it is barred by BLPSPS.) And it does not make it synthesis nor analysis just because the email's words are repeated in WaPo or anywhere else, it makes it the same primary information, it's the same e-mail. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Right, it's possible to rely on primary sources, but we need to cite secondary sources:

Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.

Sources are what we cite, and what we cite are pieces published in outlets like WaPo. They are secondary sources, yet non self-published sources. So as far as I can see, everything is as it should be.
Thank you for having deleted the entry. Selbstporträt (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Again, we are certainly allowed to "cite" primary sources, but we must do so carefully. Your word play between "rely" and "cite" is plainly untrue, we could not rely on nor cite an e-mail that is false, presenting it as true, just because the words of the e-mail are republished in WaPo (see, "subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies"). And under, BLPSPS, the matter of what one person write's about another living person and initially self-publishes, regardless of whether it is reliable, or republished, also can't be relied on, nor cited. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:44, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
There is not one single thing you said so far that is remotely true, Alan.
Take care. Selbstporträt (talk) 13:10, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Everything I have said is true. Your ignoring of policy meant to protect people, and your misunderstanding of primary and secondary information is just appalling. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:31, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
The Washington Post article is manifestly not a SPS source. The discussion doesn't need to go any farther than that on this SPS question. Whether or not the article is primary or secondary is a different dispute. Katzrockso (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

"Victims who are advocates" cannot be fairly said to have "cultivated relationships with Epstein"

[edit source]

The above passage in the top paragraph [3] is rather like revictimization. It was also placed weirdly (so in running through, almost reads like they are advocates for "powerful men.") If that group of victims needs to be there, at all, it should be in a separate clearer sentence, not with the others and not suggesting they did anything to deserve it. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:11, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Yup. Grossly inappropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:00, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Additional names to process - second batch

[edit source]

Filtering the names and the information from the list on top, here's what we got. Additions to the page have been deleted from the list. This list will be edited as it's being processed.

(Last updated: 2026-03-03)

To add: Albert Bryan Jr; Barbro Ehnbom; Neil Gershenfeld

To be evaluated: Tal and Oren Alexander; Nick Candy; Robert Maxwell; Kevin Spacey; Jacob Zuma (removed for now)

Not done or undone:

    • Jose Maria Aznar (no contact)
    • Ana Botella (no contact)
    • David Brooks (flimsy contact, no acquaintance)
    • Fidel Castro (handshake)
    • Frédéric Chaslin (plausible deniability)
    • Gibby Cohen (no report)
    • Cosby (no acquaintance, no source)
    • Richard Dawkins (no acquaintance)
    • Nigel Farage (slop)
    • Frédéric Fekkai (grapevine)
    • Tenzin Gyatso (aspiration)
    • Polly Gym (no reporting)
    • Jonathan Haidt (aspiration, promo)
    • Sam Harris (handshake)
    • Michael Jackson (no source)
    • Jay-Z (grapevine)
    • John Paul II (handshake)
    • Jeff Koons (flimsy contact, dubious acquaintance)
    • Guy Laliberté (impersonal deal)
    • Sergei Lavrov (aspiration)
    • Ravi Mantha (no acquaintance)
    • David McKillips (unrelated)
    • Jean-Luc Moulène (no reporting)
    • Nair (no report, gossip)
    • Pusha T (grapevine)
    • Mary Richardson (gossip)
    • Talulah Riley (no acquaintance)
    • Mitt Romney (no report)
    • Matteo Salvini (no acquaintance)
    • Michael Waltrip (grapevine)
    • Harvey Weinstein (grapevine)
    • Rebecca Wilson (no acquaintance, no report)
    • Richard Saul Wurman (no report)
    • Jacob Zuma (shaky acquaintance)

Selbstporträt (talk) 14:33, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I did Gary King and Matthew Menchel yesterday. Steven Pinker is also in the article already. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Richard Dawkins: From the cited article, he attended a gala dinner during a conference in 2014, and sat next to Epstein at the table (possibly assigned seats). In the 1990s, Dawkins and his wife attended a dinner hosted by Epstein. And, another time Dawkins and other scientists flew on Epstein's plane to a conference in California.
I don't think this meets the Acquaintance criteria. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Barbro Ehnbom: She is only mentioned in the list within the Princess Sofia entry. The cited article only says that Ehnbom sent a photo of Sofia to Epstein. Politico has another article gives some context: Ehnbom was reportedly "boosting women to the top" and part of that was connecting women to people like Epstein. She "proposed young women" for Epstein to meet for more than a decade. Additionally, they shared friendly, chatty emails from 2005–2018. Ehnbom sometimes asked Epstein for money and (and Epstein frequently gave money to her organizations), and Ehnbom would frequently ask Epstein for introductions to wealthy people.
I think Ehnbom meets the Acquaintance criteria, and should have her own entry in the list. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Tenzin Gyatso (incumbent Dalai Lama): There's no credible reporting that Epstein ever even met him, only that Epstein wanted to. There is reporting that this is part of a disinformation campaign.
Somewhat similarly:
John Paul II (Pope): The pope was photographed shaking hands with Epstein and Maxwell, in some sort of formal setting.
Fidel Castro: Castro was photographed shaking hands with Maxwell, in a formal setting.
I don't think any of these people meet the Acquaintance criteria, so I think they should be removed from the list. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
(Reminder that Gyatso also has a "see" entry under "Dalai Lama"). Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed all three (plus the extra entry for the Dalai Lama) Wilk10 (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Sam Harris: He met Epstein at a TED conference. Epstein tried to engage with Harris a few times by email, but then declined an invitation to Epstein's home. That seems to be it, when you look at the very scant reporting and Harris's public explanation of the email thread.
I don't think this meets the Acquaintance criteria, and so he should be removed. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 15:56, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
I agree and removed him. Wilk10 (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Mary Richardson Kennedy: She's only mentioned in a classless exchange between Eva Dubin and Epstein after her death.
She doesn't meet the Acquaintance criteria, and should be removed. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Robert Maxwell: This will take some work to tease out. Per news reports about the released files, did Robert have an acquaintance with Epstein?
I don't know. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 16:02, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
When I originally listed some people, to test our inclusion criteria, I only went through about half the list. So there's the second half to do. I notice that Guy has deleted Pusha T, which I agree with. We should methodically evaluate the rest of the list, though.
(Reminder that we need to remove Pusha from the index, too, as it was left behind...) Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Jay-Z and Harvey Weinstein If we remove Pusha T, by the same logic we remove these two. They are all in the list solely based on the same FBI crisis intake report. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Talulah Riley is on the list but as an appendage that's cross-referenced to her spouse, and she was just mentioned by Elon.
I think we should remove her. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
I agree and removed her. Wilk10 (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Kevin Spacey: I think we should think more about this one. From our blurb, it seems he was several times attending humanitarian trips with Epstein or Maxwell and others, but that's it? Possibly we need to remove this one. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Michael Jackson: He was house-shopping. I don't think he meets the Acquaintance criteria, and should be removed. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
These all look like fair judgments. Can only act on them in a few hours: anyone can chime in and *do* the damn thing we're supposed to be here for, which is editing pages. Glad to finally see Guy at work. I agree with him regarding the two Spanish royalties: anyone could send anyone mail. Unless we have evidence the package has been requested, they should be out. Knowing what was in it would be a plus. Until later. Selbstporträt (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
I'm stepping out for the day in about 20 minutes, so I'm just adding a few notes here. I can help remove ones we agree on tomorrow. I'll start a separate comment about the Spanish family. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Jonathan Haidt: The cited article states only that Brockman added Haidt to two lists of potential conference invitees... and the link to one of those two doesn't have Haidt's name. It's not clear if Haidt even attended the event, and even if he did that doesn't rise to our Acquaintance criteria. I think we should remove him from the list. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
The Aznar and Botella family (Jose Maria Aznar, Ana Botella, and their son): Someone (Guy?) mentioned (elsewhere?) that they should be removed, and Selbstportrat agrees. I also agree but think we should take another quick look before doing so. An article. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Frédéric Fekkai: According to a deposition (which can include hearsay), Epstein's office manager asked Epstein if he knew any "girls" to send to Fekkai while he was cutting hair in Hawaii. Is that all? Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Other names to be considered, that were listed at some point for possible removal:
  • Boyden
  • Brooks
  • Elbegdorj
  • Kavanaugh
  • Koons
  • Kuhn
  • Laliberte
  • Lavrov
  • Nair
  • Waltrip
On most I don’t have an opinion yet, I am just listing them because mentioned at some point.
Well at least on Nair I am pretty sure she doesn’t meet the criteria, since they just attended an event together. Wilk10 (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Boyden received funding, and the event reported was especially made for him, so I'm not sure he should be out. The whole Edge stuff is still unclear: we could leave it out by default. Reading a bit more about Laliberté makes me doubt the island purchase went very far. Kavanaugh is out already. Selbstporträt (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Guy Laliberté: Laliberte was selling one of his properties, and Epstein was interested in buying it. As far as what's reported, Epstein never even made an offer, though, and Laliberte never persued it beyond adding Epstein's email address to his bulk-distribution of virtual Christmas cards... with each recipient receiving identical cards even. I think this doesn't meet our inclusion criteria, and Laliberte should be removed. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
(starting one comment per each person, so we can "show our work" for each, and hopefully someday archive all this off the main Talk page)
Edward Boyden: Wilk10 wants a reconsideration of Boyden; Selbstportrat points that he received funding and the event Boyden attended was for him.
I would add: Hoffman (not Epstein) hosted a dinner for Boyden. Epstein talked about the event with Attia and Pritzker, including a photo that did not have Hoffman in it. I feel like the single email describing a dinner does not alone rise to the Acquaintance criteria. However, MIT hired Goodwin Procter to investigate the connections between MIT Media Lab and Epstein and their report found Boyden meeting with Epstein five times and Boyden issuing a statement of regret that included saying he knew Epstein was convicted of serious crimes.
I recommend we edit our entry to make it clear that Boyden meets the Acquaintance criteria by cultivating a relationship with Epstein, over time and multiple visit, in addition to a single dinner and lucre. Citations can be found on Boyden's main article. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
For reasons similar to Boyden, I recommend we add Neil Gershenfeld. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
David Brooks: I agree we should remove him from the list. He attended a single, public event. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj: Our blurb says Epstein hosted a dinner for Elbegdorj and two other political leaders, and then goes on to mention what all three had in common (I think). The article we cite uses information from the Epstein files that were released by the Justice Department but also the emails posted by the whistleblower organization Distributed Denial of Secrets. I think we need to consider, for our criteria are those part of the "Epstein files"? I'll create a separate comment for discussing this.
The Australian Financial Review has other details. Mongolia's economy needed the $11 billion copper project with Rio Tinto at the Oyu Tolgoi mine, which was stalled. The stalled project was also scaring away other foreign investors. After a 2013 dinner with Epstein, Elbegdorj brought in Epstein and 5 others as advisers to get the project going again and improve their economy. This group (Elbegdorj, Rudd, Barak, Bondevik, Summers, and Epstein) worked together for several years on these efforts.
Although Elbegdorj was probably less in the day-to-day communications, I think he still meets our Acquaintance criteria. I suggest we edit our blurb to make it clearer the scope of this group of people and their years-long project. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
The people in this group include Kjell Magne Bondevik, and I suggest we add him to our list. He was involved with Epstein in the above matter, but also met with Epstein in Oslo in 2012 (before the Mongolian project) to discuss a murder because Epstein was connected to the accused murderer's father? Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Considering the Rio Tinto project, are we sure the blurb for Kevin Rudd as the most-correct information? Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Jeff Koons: According to the reporting I've seen, Koons attended a single dinner party at Epstein's home. Epstein tried to visit his studio a few times, but was not successful. That was it. I think we should remove him from the list. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Robert Lawrence Kuhn: In 2016, Epstein spoke and met with Kuhn numerous times. Epstein made donations to Kuhn's TV show in 2017 and 2018. In 2018, after the Miami Herald articles, Kuhn became aware of the mounting accusations but wanted the money, and after the 2019 arrest the bookkeeping marked Epstein's money as going to general funds instead of a specific project, so as to not have any particular project tainted.
I think the reporting reflects an ongoing relationship which meets our criteria, and so I think Kuhn should remain on the list but perhaps the blurb should be strengthened to reflect that. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for these analyses. Background information should take one sentence in an entry; the page covers the files: coatracking other sources weakens that tie. At 200 names, entries need less than 50 words on average: 400 names mean 20 words each. At 500 names, we'll be forced to choose between a split or tabular format. Tables allows to have *both* alphabetical order and categories (billionaires, scientists, etc). AndyM was ahead of us all along.
If the page becomes the Connections page, we'll extend provenance beyond the files. I still feel readers would prefer that the Connections page should not be a list of names, but a place to present the various spheres of influence. Perhaps I should take a look at the Epstein Files page itself: we'd need a subsection that introduces to that list. Selbstporträt (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Let's set aside discussion about length, splitting to tables, merging with other articles, etc., to other sections on this Talk page. What seems to happen is, we work on one issue and then get sidetracked into all the other issues, and then insist that one problem can't be resolved until we resolve them all... and then critics elsewhere share their dissatisfaction with cherry-picking from our own discussions that we were working on, bombs are lobbed from other pages, we go to defend ourselves which means we aren't here fixing things, those people then canvass for votes to delete the topic altogether, nothing gets resolved or archived because the conversation isn't satisfactorily completed, and we abandon the discussion for a "new" one.
"There is only one way to eat an elephant: one bite at a time."
If someone belongs on the list according to our inclusion criteria, let's add them. If we can keep it to the suggested (not mandated) wordcount, great. If not, let's see if others can edit it down. I'll take a look at them much later today and see what I can do to help edit down, although that's not my strength. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Apologies. Only wanted to articulate how stylistic and editorial decisions are interconnected. Sorry about the politics. Truly. Nobody should act in a way that demotivates editors like you.
I can cut as much words as we need. That's no big problem for me. We only need to keep details that describe, explain or justify inclusion in the list. Everything else can be left to citations. Selbstporträt (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
No need to apologize!
I'm writing these little summaries just to help save other editors time, so they can quickly chime in with their ideas about whether these should be added, removed, edited from our article. Also, to give evidence of why I think a certain decision should be made, and evidence to others that we are weighing these carefully against our criteria... in part so it can be set next to some straw man claims and general whataboutism I've seen bandied about. I don't think all the details I write here need to make it to the article, but I do hope that every entry clearly points to why it belongs per our inclusion criteria.
I believe, from comments I've skimmed elsewhere, that the internal politics will become an ongoing hum in the background because there has been a discussion about posting another removal request, or moving this article to a draft status, or something. The person who mainly keeps conflicts alive from afar without helping in good faith has asked me to not speak with him again, and he's made the same request of you. That's good because it means we expend less time and energy with him. It's bad because it means there's no reasonable way to exchange ideas directly. But, that wasn't really happening anyway. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Michael Waltrip: Waltrip is no longer on the list. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Let's review Tal and Oren Alexander, so we can take action and archive it as addressed. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 17:34, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Virginia Giuffre: I've already added her to the article, but am leaving this note here to solicit feedback or direct edits. My entry was extremely spare.
It's difficult to find top-notch reporting grounded on the files released by the DOJ or Congress (not her book, the unsealed civil cases, her televised interviews, and not even the Bloomberg or DDoSecrets files) and that synthesizes the FBI's own case memos, and does not focus on third-party allegations (meaning, about Prince Andrew, George Mitchell, etc.). For a citation, I found an article jointly published by the Associated Press and PBS News which I think meets the highest bar we can have for a quality news report.
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Another to add: Albert Bryan Jr., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Bryan_Jr.#Jeffrey_Epstein_Litigation_and_Related_Controversies
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Our inclusion criteria and defining "Epstein files"

[edit source]

In the #Additional names to process - second batch discussion on this Talk page, I asked us to consider a definition of "Epstein files" for our inclusion criteria. In particular for that conversation, I was looking at a news article that referenced emails posted by the whistleblower organization Distributed Denial of Secrets. My immediate question was, is this part of "the files"?

Obviously, we do not cite the released files, but only reporting that might reference them.

Here is a working/draft list of files released, for us to consider. The table might have errors or missing items. We would obviously need to update this if other files are released in the future.

Major public releases and leaks of Jeffrey Epstein–related documents (2024–2026)
Date Source / Tranche Type Description Notes
January 2024 Court-ordered unsealing in civil litigation (e.g., Giuffre v. Maxwell) Court release Unsealing of depositions, filings, and related materials from prior civil defamation litigation involving Ghislaine Maxwell. Materials released pursuant to federal court orders.
September 2025 Bloomberg News email cache Investigative journalism (independent acquisition) Publication and reporting based on approximately 18,000 emails from a Yahoo account associated with Epstein. Not part of DOJ Transparency Act releases.
September 2, 2025 U.S. House Oversight Committee document release Congressional release Approximately 30,000+ pages of documents obtained from the Department of Justice and related entities released by the Committee. Separate from DOJ’s later staged “Data Sets” releases.
November 2025 (mid) Distributed Denial of Secrets (DDoSecrets) – “Epstein Files” Independent leak archive Publication of a large archive (reported at hundreds of gigabytes) containing publicly released documents, court materials, and additional email data attributed to Epstein accounts. Access restricted in part to journalists and researchers due to privacy concerns.
November 26, 2025 DDoSecrets – first public email tranche Independent leak Public release of approximately 13,000 emails from an account reported to be associated with Epstein, forming part of a larger email dataset. Distinct from DOJ Transparency Act datasets.
December 19, 2025 DOJ “Data Sets 1–5” Executive branch release (Transparency Act) Initial release of documents pursuant to the Epstein Files Transparency Act, including investigative files, logs, and court materials. Heavily redacted in places.
December 20–23, 2025 DOJ “Data Sets 6–7” Executive branch release Additional tranches including grand jury materials, flight logs, and internal records. Posted incrementally on DOJ website.
December 2025 (late) DOJ temporary postings and removals Executive branch release Additional files briefly made available online and subsequently removed or replaced with revised versions. Reported by multiple news outlets.
January 30, 2026 DOJ “Data Sets 8–12” Executive branch release (final major tranche) Final major publication under the Transparency Act, totaling millions of pages including investigative files and related materials. DOJ described this as full compliance with statutory requirements.

Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I think if we cite high-quality news sources, and reporting in those news sources draw on the unofficial tranches (Bloomberg and DDoSecrets), that is acceptable for inclusion in our list. But, I can see that we might want to consider what happens with news articles that solely draw on information found in the January 2024 civil litigation files. I think we should come to a consensus and then specify that in our inclusion criteria, to head off any later debate. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Great work! Tried to cite the various releases earlier, but could not find back part of the emails the DOJ said it released. I believe the page Epstein files need to clarify that question. Have to step out, but can ask editors over there. Selbstporträt (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
I asked the editors over there. Will read their page to see which sources they cite to support claims related to the section that concerns us: Epstein files#Contents. We could improve that section with the answers we have. Selbstporträt (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
While we wait, we might follow Epstein files#Chronology of releases and disclosures. Selbstporträt (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Skimming quickly, it looks like they list all the releases in the above table except the DDoSecrets ones. I wonder if it was an oversight. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
I asked a similar question on the other talk page. We'll see. Main author of that section is Orgullomoore. Selbstporträt (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Another warning

[edit source]

Looks like there's an extension. It comes with another warning, which sounds a lot like tit for tat. No idea when is "near the end of the extra time". In any event, instead of cutting down words, perhaps we should focus on making sure every entry left abides by the new criteria. In doubt, feel free to remove entries. We can put them back later on if needed.

This is not a report to impose myself as some kind of taskmaster, and so will start later today. Selbstporträt (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Update: A to J should be fine.
That "warning" rests on such a non sequitur that words fail me. Selbstporträt (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
A relevant parable: WP:FETCH. Selbstporträt (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 March 2026

[edit source]

Template:Edit extended-protected

Requested additions

[edit source]

Please include missing information on People of Note in Epstein files: This is only a partial list of doctors to be add. Many are not on Wiki Epstein list page yet.

Dentists:

Thomas Magnani (Columbia University): A dentist with a private practice in NYC who acted as a point of connection for Epstein, leading to his removal from the Columbia College of Dental Medicine faculty in February 2026. Karyna Shuliak: Epstein's last partner, who received a dental education at Columbia with the help of Epstein's connections. Dr. Letty Moss-Salentijn (Columbia University): A vice dean at the dental college who was stripped of her title for helping plan Shuliak's admission.

Therapists MDs:

Dr. Paul Conti: A Portland-based psychiatrist whose firm received tens of thousands of dollars from Epstein between late 2015 and 2017. Records indicate Epstein arranged and paid for Conti to treat a woman who was in high distress.

Dr. Henry Jarecki: A psychiatrist, entrepreneur, and former Yale faculty member who was accused in a 2024 lawsuit by an Epstein victim of raping and trafficking her. The suit alleges Jarecki was a "go-to" doctor for Epstein to treat young women and that he shielded Epstein from law enforcement. Dr. Stephen M. Kosslyn: A psychologist and former Harvard professor who, according to Reddit users analyzing the "Epstein Files," was responsible for providing referrals to "discreet" peers willing to see minors. Dr. Stephen R. Alexander: A licensed clinical and forensic psychologist who reportedly "examined" Epstein's minors and worked as an expert witness. Randee Kogan: A therapist who was identified in social media discussions as having provided care to some of Jeffrey Epstein's victims. NBC NewsNBC News +5 These individuals appeared in documents, including emails and financial records, released by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Medical Doctors:

Dr. Bruce Moskowitz: Described as a "longtime personal physician" to Epstein, often referred to as "internist to the world's wealthy". Emails indicate he assisted in providing medical care to Epstein's "girls" (associates) and managed health issues for them, including discussions on white blood cell counts and acne treatments. Dr. J.S. Ting & Dr. Windsor Ting (Mount Sinai):Documents show they provided VIP medical care to Epstein and his associates, including arranged MRIs and house calls for, among other things, examining a "tumor" on his collarbone. Dr. Rony Shimony (Mount Sinai Cardiologist):Emails show he was tasked with setting up ambulances for Epstein's private island and ranch. Dr. Mark Landon (Ohio State University): A gynecologist referenced in a memo regarding $25,000 quarterly retainer payments made to him in 2005, though the documents largely detail his activities before the 2008 conviction. As a gynecologist specializing in high-risk pregnancy and a professor of maternal-fetal medicine at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus.

Dr. Steven Victor: A New York dermatologist who communicated with Epstein regarding business, including, in one case, requesting help to find a job for the son of the dean of Cornell Weill in QatarVictor is a New York City dermatologist and CEO of a stem cell company whose name appears more than 500 times in the Justice Department database. His name is listed in an earlier version of Epstein's willopens in a new tab or window as one of more than two dozen individuals whose outstanding loans would be forgiven upon Epstein's death. It is not clear if his name remains in the final versionopens in a new tab or window Epstein signed in 2019 because 12 of the 22 names listed were redacted. ~2026-14703-97 (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

You have cited no sources for any of this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Not done: Any claims about living people, and especially relating to things like associations with Epstein, needs to be accompanied by references to reliable sources backing up those claims. ―Maltazarian (talk<math>\lor</math>investigate) 08:34, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
    More than that, it would be preferrable to reduce the number of direct quotes, the number of E said P about X where it is unclear how X is involved, and to make sure that an entry on X is based on E interacting with X, i.e. it goes both ways. Selbstporträt (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
A few of these are already on the list (Mark Landon, Jess Ting, Karyna Shuliak, Stephen Kosslyn). Since this was rejected only because the request didn't have citations included with it, I went ahead and opened a new discussion for each person requested that's not already on the list, along with possible citations - see #March 2026 add/remove discussion.
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
There could be cutters and adders. There could be "hands" and "heads". (It's a fun Chess variant.) I like shorter entries, like "(Columbia University): A vice dean at the dental college who was stripped of her title for helping plan Shuliak's admission." That's good enough for me. Size is now under control.
When adding, the priority is to support claims that justify inclusion with reliable sources. One citation in a newspaper of record could suffice, perhaps in dominant niches too (e.g. Nature). Three sources are only important for claims that have been disputed. More than three is almost always overkill: better to accommodate the concerns and adjust the claim being made. I tend to favor press agencies. These considerations guide editorial decisions, they don't replace it.
I could keep a trace of the last list of names or I could simply archive it so that we restart with a cleaner slate. No idea what's best. The bot clock could be reduced to 21 days too. Selbstporträt (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
I wrote out my thinking on each of the proposed names (in prep for the next AfD) and I think I'll just act Boldly and add/remove the ones warrant it. However, when you have time, would you please look over my comments about Tarnita? Two doors down, at #March 2026 add/remove discussion. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

[edit source]

Why he was removed? 1 or 2 biased editors shouldnt decide on behalf the community and external references — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-16359-59 (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

External references don't decide. The entry was removed because all we know is that their teams organized a visit as a buyer. One party denies acquaintance. We don't have any evidence that would defeat that claim yet. Also, mind your manners. Selbstporträt (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

March 2026 add/remove discussion

[edit source]

I wish we could archive all our actioned discussions. Here's a new topic for discussing people add or remove. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 11:50, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Oren, Alon, and Tal Alexander: Propose removing. Their names were in a complaint filed with the police, but there is nothing else in the cited article that indicates any cultivation of a relationship. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 11:56, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
See also #Tal and Oren Alexander?
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Removed. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Sergei Belyakov: Propose discussing a reinstatement. This was removed on March 9 with a comment that Epstein emailed Belyakov but we don't know that Belyakov replied. However, the Al Jazeera citation discuses Belyakov's reply. We could also add the New York Times article cited in Belyakov's article, which discusses a year-long friendship. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Reinstated, added details about their years-long relationship, and cited the New York Times for these details. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Corina Tarnita: Propose discussing a reinstatement. This was removed on March 5 with this comment: 'WP:NPF - Previously raised at WP:BLPN; no consensus to include in her biography; student paper is inadequate for inclusion.'
The "student paper" cited was the Princeton University paper, a substantial, professional, award-winning, long-standing newspaper. Princeton is where Tarnita works. It should be enough, but if we need more for citation, there's Nature, Inside Higher Ed, Chronicle of Higher Education, and the Boston Globe.
They didn't link it, but their "BLPN" comment is referring to a COI person who petitioned people on the Biographies noticeboard to help their friend remove information from wikipedia. An editor removed our entry within 3 hours and also scrubbed Tarnita's article, without discussion.
This is the content that was removed from our article: 'Corina Tarnita is a Princeton University biology professor who met Epstein while a graduate student at Harvard, and remained in contact between 2008 and 2012, including discussion of his 2008 conviction. In 2009, she helped Epstein anonymously wire transfer $10,000 to a "girl from Romania" and $5,000 to a person in California.' Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
A few additions were requested by an editor on March 8, and rejected because they included text but failed to add citations. I have no idea how to reset that parameter to answered=No, so I'm just putting it back here for discussion.
Thomas Magnani: (Columbia University) A dentist with a private practice in NYC who acted as a point of connection for Epstein, leading to his removal from the Columbia College of Dental Medicine faculty in February 2026.
Possible citations, which I will read later: New York Times; Nature; Columbia University statement; Columbia Daily Spectator Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Recommend adding. Potential text:
Thomas Magnani was Epstein's personal dentist, a graduate of Columbia University's dental college, and a faculty member on their admissions review committee. After the dental college rejected Karyna Shuliak's admission application, Magnani used his influence with the vice-dean for academic affairs Letty Moss-Salentijn to revive her application.[1][2] Columbia removed Magnani from the faculty and admissions review committee.[3]
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2026 (UTC) Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Added. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
(also from earlier)
Dr. Paul Conti A Portland-based psychiatrist whose firm received tens of thousands of dollars from Epstein between late 2015 and 2017. Records indicate Epstein arranged and paid for Conti to treat a woman who was in high distress.
Possible citations, which I will read later: Williamette Week 1; Williamette Week 2; The Oregonian; Politico
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Recommend not adding.
Dr. Paul Conti is a prominent psychiatrist and consultant in Portland, Oregon. In 2015, Peter Attia referred Epstein to Conti for psychiatric care of a young woman who is taking an antidepressant but having problems with motivation and anxiety. Conti provided care, Epstein paid for the sessions, and through mid-2017 they exchanged emails mostly related to scheduling the first appointment, and about payments. The woman emails Epstein quite a bit with words of affection, and Epstein was also buying her flowers, museum entrances, university tuition, and Netflix. Conti is still providing care for her.
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
(also from earlier)
Dr. Henry Jarecki: A psychiatrist, entrepreneur, and former Yale faculty member who was accused in a 2024 lawsuit by an Epstein victim of raping and trafficking her. The suit alleges Jarecki was a "go-to" doctor for Epstein to treat young women and that he shielded Epstein from law enforcement.
Possible citations, which I will read later: Yale Daily News; NBC News; CNBC; Reuters; Wall Street Journal
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Recommend not adding.
Jarecki did sign Epstein's birthday book, in the "Friends" section, but nothing else about their relationship has been reported. Jarecki (or someone speaking on his behalf) says that he had a consensual sexual relationship for several years with a woman who wasn't his wife. That woman filed a civil (not criminal) suit alleging Jarecki raped her (and other allegations), but she has since voluntarily dismissed her lawsuit and and publicly retracted all her allegations. Jarecki is now in his 90s, has dementia, and is noncommunicative.
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
(also from earlier)
Dr. Stephen R. Alexander: A licensed clinical and forensic psychologist who reportedly "examined" Epstein's minors and worked as an expert witness.
Possible citations, which I will read later: 1819 News; The Crimson White; WVTM 13 (NBC affiliate)
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Yes. Potential text:
Dr. Stephen Alexander was Epstein's court-approved sex-addiction doctor when Epstein was convicted in Florida in 2008, and at that time Epstein used Alexander to woo government and law enforcement officials to get favored treatment. Alexander collaborated and delivered Epstein's messages, and in return Epstein gave Alexander business opportunities, stock tips, and trips to Little Saint James over the subsequent years.[4][5]
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2026 (UTC) Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Added. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
(also from earlier)
Dr. Bruce Moskowitz: Described as a "longtime personal physician" to Epstein, often referred to as "internist to the world's wealthy". Emails indicate he assisted in providing medical care to Epstein's "girls" (associates) and managed health issues for them, including discussions on white blood cell counts and acne treatments.
Possible citations, which I will read later: New York Times; Post Bulletin; KTTC (NBC affiliate); Wired
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Yes. Potential text:
Dr. Bruce Moskowitz, a Palm Beach internist who was also part of Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago Crowd,[6] was Epstein's physician. He treated young women Epstein sent to him for gonorrhea and acne, and Moskowitz discussed the women's medical care with Epstein, helped Epstein evade government reporting of positive tests for venereal disease, and offered loyalty after Epstein's crimes were widely reported. In return, Epstein donated money to Moskowitz's foundations, invested venture capital in their son's efforts, and provided guest rooms for Moskowitz at Epstein's New Mexico ranch.[7]
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2026 (UTC) Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Added. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Added. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
(also from earlier)
Dr. J.S. Ting (Jess Ting) and Dr. Windsor Ting: (Mount Sinai): Documents show they provided VIP medical care to Epstein and his associates, including arranged MRIs and house calls for, among other things, examining a "tumor" on his collarbone.
Possible citations, which I will read later: New York Times; Politico; Advocate
Note: Jess Ting is already on the list. This will just be to discuss Windsor Ting.
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Recommend not adding Windsor Ting. His brother Jess brought him along to a single medical visit, for his medical specialty.
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
(also from earlier)
Dr. Rony Shimony: (Mount Sinai Cardiologist): Emails show he was tasked with setting up ambulances for Epstein's private island and ranch.
Just one possible citation: Politico
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 13:52, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Recommend No.
Epstein wanted ambulances for his huge New Mexico ranch and his island, so he asked his friend Eva Andersson-Dubin. She turned around and asked her colleague (Shimony) how they can be bought. I don't think that meets our inclusion criteria; there was no cultivation of a relationship between Epstein and Shimony based on this reporting. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Recommend Yes. Potential text:
Dr. Rony Shimony was Epstein's cardiologist and he also socialized with Epstein in his New York mansion. He and Andersson Dubin helped Epstein investigate how to buy ambulances for his New Mexico and Little Saint James properties. More notably, Epstein connected Shimony with Jagland and paid for Jagland's visit, and connected him with Black.[8]
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2026 (UTC) Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Added. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
(also from earlier)
Dr. Steven Victor: A New York dermatologist who communicated with Epstein regarding business, including, in one case, requesting help to find a job for the son of the dean of Cornell Weill in Qatar. Victor is a New York City dermatologist and CEO of a stem cell company whose name appears more than 500 times in the Justice Department database. His name is listed in an earlier version of Epstein's will as one of more than two dozen individuals whose outstanding loans would be forgiven upon Epstein's death. It is not clear if his name remains in the final version Epstein signed in 2019 because 12 of the 22 names listed were redacted.
Possible citations: New York Times; New York magazine; Cornell Sun
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Recommend adding. Potential text:
Dr. Steven Victor is a dermatologist who was based in Manhattan. He treated girls and women referred by Epstein. His name is mentioned hundreds of times in emails. Victor treated some referred patients for free, and did not give comments to reporters, and Epstein lent him $100,000 for his beauty-product company.[7][9]
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2026 (UTC) Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Added. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
(also from earlier)
Dr. Letty Moss-Salentijn: (Columbia University): A vice dean at the dental college who was stripped of her title for helping plan Shuliak's admission.
Possible citations: Nature; New York Times; Columbia University; The Guardian; Christian Science Monitor; Columbia Daily Spectator
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Recommend adding. Potential text:
Letty Moss-Salentijn was the vice-dean for academic affairs at Columbia University's dental college. After the dental college rejected Karyna Shuliak's admission application, she and Thomas Magnani worked together to have her admitted anyway. She later stepped down from her administrative roles at Columbia.[3][1]
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2026 (UTC) Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Added. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

There are over 1,000,000 Trump References in the Released Files as of March 2026

[edit source]

Truth ~2026-16646-34 (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Shanahan, Ed (February 16, 2026). "Columbia Punishes 2 Who Helped Epstein's Girlfriend Enter Dental College". The New York Times. Archived from the original on February 16, 2026.
  2. ↑ Gilbert, Natasha (February 25, 2026). "Scientists face fallout for past associations with Epstein". Nature (journal). Archived from the original on February 26, 2026.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Das, Ushoshi; Topalian, Ruby; Cullen, Theresa (February 12, 2026). "Columbia donates funds, removes College of Dental Medicine officials over ties to Jeffrey Epstein". Columbia Daily Spectator.
  4. ↑ Brown, Julie K (March 6, 2026). "How Jeffrey Epstein sought to infiltrate the justice system". Miami Herald. Archived from the original on March 11, 2026.
  5. ↑ Buffenbarger, Trenton (February 19, 2026). "Epstein files reveal connection to UA alum and family". 1819 News.
  6. ↑ Lerner, Meredith; White, Lauren (March 12, 2021). "Mar-a-Lago member Bruce Moskowitz had contacts with the White House and CMS". Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Fahrenthold, David A.; Ghorayshi, Azeen; Astor, Maggie (February 28, 2026). "Elite Doctors Served Jeffrey Epstein While Treating His 'Girls'". The New York Times. Archived from the original on March 1, 2026.
  8. ↑ Kaufman, Maya (February 4, 2026). "'Anything is possible': How Jeffrey Epstein received special treatment at one of the country's elite hospitals". Politico.
  9. ↑ Dickson, E.J. (February 18, 2026). "power 'Do You Remember the Name of the Gynecologist You Used to Send Your Victims To?'". New York Magazine. Archived from the original on March 16, 2026.
Retrieved from "https://eurovision.jobogamer.xyz/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_people_named_in_the_Epstein_files&oldid=3677"