Important notice: Accusations of committing a crime
This article may contain material about living persons who have been accused of committing a crime. Editors must seriously considernot including any material which suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured (seeWP:BLPCRIME). Please edit carefully.
Warning: active arbitration remedies
Thecontentious topics procedure applies to this article. The entire article relates to the following contentious topics:
Post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people
Living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles
The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:
This page isprotected. You must be logged-in to anextended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)
This article must adhere to thebiographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced orpoorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentiallylibellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue tothis noticeboard.This page is about apolitician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk ofbiased editing, talk-pagetrolling, and simplevandalism.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please seethis help page.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofcrime and criminal biography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofHuman rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofinternet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for thelegal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofpolitics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Presidents of the United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofPresidents of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Presidents of the United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject Presidents of the United StatesTemplate:WikiProject Presidents of the United StatesPresidents of the United States
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofsociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to theUnited States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofWomen's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize alllist pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit theproject page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to thediscussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
Annabelle Neilson, Renowned British author and model. Talked about decorating the Island with The art tree, her words "Hi babe how are you? thought you might like this as an idea for your island, as i'm=working on finding works for the sculpture park at Blenheim, i though= I'd passo= a few idea's i thought the Roxy Paine tree, particularly as it looks like=it has been ripped from it's roots already (you don't need a hurricane) al=o it has a very futuristic earth 2050 feel to it which i thought was very =ou. can't bare the idea of you living in tile city how ever classic and hi=toric it might be, I away's thought of you as more apocolyptic. =nbsp;" She clearly been to the Islands and removed her instagram profile and it is private nowFile Ref.— Precedingunsigned comment added byCockroach empire (talk •contribs)17:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is a Tibetan Buddhist monk; some leaked reports on Twitter X also mentioned him in relation to the diplomatic talks with Epstein, but it wasn't very clear because it was filmed in a different location, not on the island or anywhere else.
He appears sparsely in the files. I wrote this, but not included it:
In August 2015, Mark Zuckerberg, Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, Reid Hoffman, Ed Boyden, Joi Ito, Jeffrey Epstein attended what Reid Hoffman called "the Ed Boyden dinner" in Palo Alto. The dinner was previously reported on byVanity Fair. Epstein said the topic was about money.
Scheduling documents and email correspondence in the DOJ-released Epstein files show thatAriane de Rothschild, the CEO of Swiss private bankEdmond de Rothschild Group, met with Jeffrey Epstein repeatedly from 2013 to 2019 and stayed in frequent contact, including visits to Epstein’s homes and exchanges that mixed personal and business matters.[1][2]The same disclosures and subsequent reporting describe de Rothsch]]ild negotiating a $25 million contract in October 2015 for Epstein’s U.S. Virgin Islands–registered Southern Trust Company to provide “risk analysis” and related advisory services to the bank, and note that de Rothschild purchased nearly $1 million in auction items on Epstein’s behalf in 2014–2015.[3][4]After Epstein’s 2019 arrest, the bank initially said de Rothschild had never met him and that there were no business links; Reuters reports that the document release revived scrutiny of those statements, while the bank has said she was unaware of Epstein’s criminal conduct and condemned it.[5]~2026-84975-1 (talk)18:10, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00581305.pdf To: Gibby From: "G....Max (excerpt): "Your a star - he wants someone to come to the hse. The instructor has to be female youngish and attractive otherwise he will loose interest rapidly. He is looking for someone who can tone, flex and stretch"..."If you had to rate the top 10 gyms in the city where would they be + any masseuses in the same vein as the exercise instructor?"..."Gibby I need your help. JE is looking for an exercise instructor to work out with. He likes, well you know what he likes. Plse can you call me or let me know if you know of anyone or if you can point me to the right direction to go to a gym where you know I can meet someone who might do the trick"
Rebecca Watson is directly discussed on multiple occasions by Epstein and his scientist associates, her emails even directly forwarded to him in some cases. Should we include her when the only source is her own blog posts/videos? IfWP:BLPSELFPUB applies here, which to my understanding it does as part ofWP:BLP, then I believe we should.
Kmhkei (talk) 10:42 (upd. 10:45), 10 February 2026 (UTC)
I don't think being talked about in the Epstein files like this (mostly as far as I can see, by just being mentioned in forwarded emails) counts as significant here. As far as I can see, there's no sign that she ever interacted with Epstein or anyone surrounding him in any way, or that Epstein himself took a personal interest in her. —The Anome (talk)10:51, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
First is a discussion between Epstein andLawrence Krauss in April 2011 aboutWatson's blog post featuring them. This includes the direct forwarding of Watson's and Krauss' conversation (6 emails, file 1) to Epstein, and then a full discussion between Epstein and Krauss surrounding Watson's emails and the resulting blog post (10 emails, files 1-4). Epstein's direct words about Watson:
"no it was appreciated. thanks" (in response to Krauss forwarding his and Watson's exchange)
"what evidence? no real sex.. where is she getting her so called facts" (referring to Watson's now published blog post and questioning its validity)
"so would i" (agreeing with Krauss' assertion that he was doing whatRichard Feynman would have done)
File 5 is Epstein forwarding the entirety of the conversation from files 1-4 to his lawyerPaul Tweed.
File 6 has Krauss forwarding fan-mail from a CSA survivor to Epstein with the caption, "thought you might enjoy seeing that not all the mail is hate mail,". In said forwarded email, the fan expresses unhappiness with a walkout planned by Watson for one of Krauss' talks over his ties to Epstein; she had contemplated counterprotesting with a sign reading "Child Molestation Victims for Krauss", before settling instead on "Don't Grouse About Krauss,".
File 7 contains an email fromRichard Dawkins toJohn Brockman discussing the same blog post. Dawkins calls Watson "a rather nasty young woman [...] who seems to be running some kind of a witch-hunt against Lawrence Krauss,"; he then recalls Brockman telling him "something of the circumstances of Jeffrey's arrest, and that his case is not as black as painted,".
Files 8 and 9 contain a December 2017 request for comment fromBuzzFeed News journalist Peter Aldhous to formerCenter for Inquiry CEORonald Lindsay. This request and the pair's resulting conversation was in the wake of Lawrence Krauss' sexual harassment scandal, a part of which involved an employee of CFI resigning after multiple attempts at escalating complaints about Krauss internally. Said employee was Watson's at the time and still current partner, Adam Isaak. Lindsay claims the Krauss issue "pushed him over the edge," and that the real issue was his and Watson's "public spat," (Watson had publicly called on CFI employees to resign over the organisation's continued support of Dawkins, Krauss and Epstein by association). In February 2018, Lindsay forwards his entire exchange with Aldhous to Krauss; Krauss then forwards Lindsay's forward to Epstein.
File 10 is a discussion between Krauss and a journalist friend (Keridwen Cornelius), who appears to be helping him draft his response to the accusations. From Cornelius' feedback (which has not been released/included), Krauss rewrote the last sentence of the response to include the relevant point "that the staff member involved was Adam =saak [sic], boyfriend of Rebecca Watson, ringleader of the movement to impugn =eading [sic] male atheists."
John Phelan- Secretary of Navy--plane logs with Epstein, Jean Luc Brunel and victims on long flights. Strong NYC artworld ties to Leon Black chairman on MOMA in which his wife was trustee. Lived in NYC and Palm Beach.— Precedingunsigned comment added by~2026-93921-9 (talk)23:20, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 February 2026
Not done: If you would like these individuals to be added, please provide a short paragraph for each with citations to reliable sources, like the other entries in the article.Day Creature (talk)04:35, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can add a name unless it's mentioned somewhere else than in the files themselves. The files are primary sources. We'd need secondary ones to establish notability.
This list desperately needs inclusion criteria, or it will spin out of control into a huge list of every single name mentioned in a collection of millions of documents. I've already removed one person who was only a mention in passing, having been referred to in an email with no suggestion of any interaction with any part of the Epstein enterprise.
I suggest the following:
having been listed in the Epstein files as someone who had communicated with Epstein or a legally convicted close associate such asGhislaine Maxwell, or interacted physically such as having met him personally, received or given gifts, travelled to his island or homes or on his plane
Having in aggregate had asignificant degree of interaction with them - one single interaction would typically not qualify unless it was of itself significant, but hundreds or thousands of individually insignificant interactions would count collectively as significant
Independently, meeting Wikipedia's normal criteria for inclusion, with an article of their own (the "prominent person" part)
and, importantly,
Not one of Epstein's victims, unless they have publicly made themselves known as one, or are dead
There should be no implication whatsoever than anyone on this page is guilty of any crime
Arent the names of any victims censored? Third criteria is by definition an oxymoron. You can't be mentioned on the list if your name is censored alreadyTrade (talk)12:23, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As for the fourth criteria, that seems more appropriate to be a hidden text rather than part of the article content. Typically we don't leave warnings to editors visible in the articles for obvious reasonsTrade (talk)12:24, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
These are primary sources so it's hard to create a criteria beyond "mentioned: yes/no" and "is victim: yes/no".
On the 2nd point, there could either be a column noting the number of mentions, or an actual minimum number of mentions decided upon to ensure the decision to include someone or not is objective.Unable to detect username
I don't think there needs to be a threshold for number of mentions, the threshold should be significant interaction. If, for example, someone was mentioned in the file only once, but for giving Epstein $5,000,000, that would be in my opinion quite sufficiently significant for the list. At the other end of the scale, I would also think this of someone who had had no interaction other than 2000 emails exchanged with Epstein. What consistutes cumulatively significant interaction should be left up to common sense. —The Anome (talk)20:14, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Since there has been no objection to the above, I've made an edit to this page's EditNotice, specifying that listed people need to passWP:GNG and that all entries must be cited perWP:BLP, both fairly unexceptional requirements, I hope. —The Anome (talk)20:45, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how you can determine inclusion criteria in less than 24 hours and with a few editors. You should include everyone mentioned in the files as long as they are reported on in reliable sources.Guz13 (talk)03:32, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support criteria perWP:GNG, to clarify this means red links are possible as long as they are notWP:BLP1E. I'mopposed to BLP1E entries, and thus am likely opposed to most red links on that basis (when you do the math). This should not be a list of all individuals who have become notablebecause of these files most importantly.CNC (talk)13:46, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few people in this article who do not have their own wikipedia article yet, and I think they belong in the list. I think the criteria should be re-considered, and perhaps for longer than just a few hours. :)
(I guess I should say, therewerea few people who belong on the list...? Currently @Wilk10 and @Selbstporträt are deleting quite a bit of content based on the criteria that was adopted here, so looking at a historical point would be needed.)
I realise the previous edit notice regarding the inclusion criteria wasn't moved to the new title, havedone that now. Maybe that explains some of the additions, as well as why they are being deleted.CNC (talk)17:19, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I thinkWP:BLP1E is guidance for creating new articles about a person; it doesn't mean other people cannot be mentioned in articles.
I don't know what "RM move" means exactly, but I think people like Suliak, Mitchell, Lang, etc., were added to the article because wiki editors believe they belong there. I think it should be revisited.
I have not removed anyone yet, only information that we could read on people's page.
Notability for the page should not imply having a page, and vice versa. It's clear that Ross belongs on the page. No reason why he hasn't a page, except for the fact that no editor took the time to write it!
If I remove anything you think would deserve to stay, please let me know. I tend to be an inclusionist overall, although I prefer terseness. At least in the main pages...Selbstporträt (talk)17:23, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment about Ross is how I feel, too. Plenty of notable people don't have wiki pages, possibly in part because the number of wiki editors and editing declined. Plenty of articles discuss people who don't have their own wiki article, as well.
The inclusion criteria made sense when it was first discussed, but I think we're seeing that it needs modifying. As it is (to cherry-pick), we have a list that currently includes Michael Jackson (who was randomly house shopping, and whose photo was inexplicably included in the documentation release from a political event Epstein did not attend), but will not include Karyna Shuliak. That doesn't make sense to me, and I think it makes the article less true as a whole.
This implies we really need to make it short and sweet. (Could even have been a dictionary.) This also implies that if to elaborate descriptions of everything notable about the names in the file will have to be done elsewhere, either on the people pages' or on specialized lists, like I said earlier.
In my opinion we should not include everyone in the files.
As a reader, i would like to see the notable people in the files, a sentence about their background (like now) and a paragraph or two describing the interactions, without having to read a hundred sections on each person’s individual article. Maybe a separate article can just list a bunch of names of anyone mentioned, like in the Panama papers list.
I like the criteria of having to meet WP notability guidance because that is objective enough.
Including people that don’t meet that criteria slides towards OR, imo. It implies that they played a significant enough role for us to decide they are worth including. Having RS should lay the foundation to decide if they deserve their own article first, only then they should be added here.
With regards to notable people with their own article already, listing everyone indirectly mentioned or with just a single minimal interaction risks just diluting the significance of others, and i think it carries very little value to the reader. The question is how to draw a line that is not OR. I think how it’s defined in the current inclusion criteria is a good starting point, to maybe refine but not overhaul.Wilk10 (talk)21:39, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia or its editors can not be responsible for determining who is notable that is in the files. Some of these people were working behind the scenes and you may not be aware that they are a bigger player than you think.
The Panama Papers page is neutral as it lists everybody and doesn't rely on undue attention to anyone that specific Wikipedia editors believe have more "significance".Guz13 (talk)01:14, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Our awareness is dependent upon RS. If RS report on them, we can list them here and quote what RS are saying.
The Panama papers list may be neutral, sure, but is it informative to the reader? Absolutely not. I would like to avoid that here.
Hopefully, we find a way that is not OR to limit the number of people listed here, so that we can write more about them, provide more info in a (possibly) single article and make it easier for readers to have an informative enough overview.Wilk10 (talk)10:29, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not only who, but what. I came here searching an article of a professor he supposedly corresponded with and is being dragged by conspiracy theorists. There is a lot of question of DUEness on these and BLP concerns broadly. Im not even sure where to begin. ← Metallurgist (talk)19:34, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, there is only Ava Cordero listed so far. The inclusion criteria so far says:Not one of Epstein's victims, unless they have publicly made themselves known as one, or are dead. So I guess Cordero fits the criteria? But then there are other victims that would fit it.
In my opinion instead there should be no victims in this article, there can be a separate article listing them, perhaps? This one is already huge as it is.
If we instead agree to include them here, I think they should be listed (those the fit the criteria, of course) but be in a separate section.
Since there are concurrent discussions on questions about if we should include this or that person that has only been mentioned, perhaps we should clarify our inclusion criteria.
I believe that we're looking foractants: people whose involvement is more than being a mere figurant, an extra or a cameo in the activities being discussed. That leaves open the question of which activities we should be covering, but at least it gives us the right kind things to ask: how is that person *participating* in what Epstein was doing? What kind of agency did that person have?
Here would be my responses to clear cases: Melinda Gates had very little to do with Epstein; Eptein's victims had little agency since they were coerced; Eric and Donald Jr invited Epstein to a party; Landon received money from Epstein for gynecological work.
The Watson case is different. She clearly was interacting with Krauss, but Krauss was only complaining about her to Epstein. It's unclear what's Epstein's involvement in this spat. However, Watson willingly discusses her emails, and it'd make sense to include her, but that's no gimme.
It's quite possible I'm misunderstanding actor-network theory. (Who can truly say they get Bruno Latour?) But for our purposes, it doesn't take a deep dive in it to get us on the right track. For I guess what I'm saying is that we should make sure that we identify who *was* in the files (the "network" part), but also what they *did* (the "actor" part) and if what they did was of their own free will.
The following is a closed discussion of arequested move.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider amove reviewafter discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose perWP:BLPCRIME and the current working description ofEpstein files perour article:The termEpstein files refers to documentscollected as evidence in the criminal cases against Epstein and his associates, (...) (emphasis included). This list is not a list of suspects based on evidence for a criminal case; instead per The Anome, they are named in the files only, and are not part of any criminal case. However I'm alsoconditionally opposed(edit: added conditionally) toList of people named in the Epstein files, as theprominent individuals in the title is beneficial to avoid introducing BLP violations viaWP:BLPNAME by broadening scope to non-notable individuals mentioned only within the context of the topic.CNC (talk)22:03, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to have two different criterias for the Epstein files and the Panama Papers. After all, they both has served or can serve as judicial evidence. WP:BLPCRIME says a page shouldn't implicate any criminality not already established. That's not a title's job, but a whole page's. To parry that accusation, we could write a preamble section to that effect. There are lots of sources to support that kind of claim, for instance:
"From tech titans to Wall Street power brokers and foreign dignitaries, a who's who of powerful men make appearances in the huge trove of documents released by the Justice Department in connection with its investigations of Jeffrey Epstein.
All have denied having anything to do with his sexual abuse of girls and young women. Yet some of them maintained friendships with Epstein, or developed them anew, even after news stories made him widely known as an alleged abuser of young girls.
None have been charged with a crime connected to the investigation."
The last sentence is very important to include somewhere. I suppose we can find other lists that say something similar.
Another way to clarify implications would be to identify the specific deeds that have been reported: some asked for research money, others to fund bots with "sexy android bodies"; others asked to go to the island, etc.
SupportList of people named in the Epstein files per conciseness, butoppose original proposal as it subtly introduces a stronger BLP claim. Disagree with CNC's argument that removing "prominent" opens the door to anyone being named, as our inclusion criteria for such lists are usually based on individual notability either way, and these inclusion criteria generally aren't named in the article title.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)02:43, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe usually, but not always. Look atList of people named in the Panama Papers that others argue this article should be consistent with for example, there are plenty of non-notable individuals in there. Is this what we're looking to achieve long-term? Include every namenotable within the files (but not independently) within the 3-6 million pages? BLPNAME doesn't prevent non-notable individuals being included (otherwise,List of journalists killed in the Gaza war would be 95% less entries), it only recommends caution - that's it. If these names are mentioned by media sources, then the concern overnot [being] widely disseminated becomes invalidated, and such content due to inclusion. PerWP:BLP1E, it's de facto encouraged, unless the scope is well-defined.CNC (talk)12:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, usually. I do support keeping the scope limited to notable people. The relevant policy is notWP:BLPNAME orWP:BLP1E, butWP:CSC, which explicitly names "Every entry meets the notability criteria" as the first encouraged criterion. Claiming that what I'm looking to achieve long-term is to include plenty of non-notable individuals isnot taking my proposal in good faith, as it is literally the opposite of what I said in my comment.Also, I'm not sure about what you mean by "notable within the files". We're talking about notability as it is usually defined on Wikipedia, which has nothing to do with the files specifically.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)12:37, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
CSC states that isone of the following sets of objective criteria, out of three. That's why I'm genuinely asking whatwe (as a group of wikipedia editors in this discussion, notyou) are intending the scope to be. I hopewe are not going forShort, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group, like other lists. It's not a list based onlack of notability, that much is evident (as it also doesn't apply to BLP). Individuals notable only within the context of the list, ie BLP1E subjects, would otherwise be included per the liberal scope of lists, unless it's refined by scope.CNC (talk)12:52, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in that case we presumably agree. That question was honestly a bit out of nowhere, as I don't see anyone suggesting that we should follow the Panama Papers precedent for the scope (rather than just the title), and that criterion is the only one of the three that might reasonably apply here.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)13:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, without the context of other lists I can see how it wasn't obvious what I meant, apologies for that. I'd support consensus over the scope being refined to notable individuals (status quo) over opposing title change, but currently the discussion is about the title. So without that consensus over scope, I can't support title for now (but effectively, conditionally not opposed either). This isn't the hill I want on die though, it's just I'm only seeing lack of consensusin this topic over inclusion criteria, so yes I'm being overly cautious for now given the quantity of BLP violations that have already arisen around this topic area.CNC (talk)13:28, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! I totally see how I could've misinterpreted you, and also apologies for reacting too harshly. Looks like we're in agreement over the scope, but yeah, I'd also be happy with more guarantees over the inclusion criteria staying limited to notable individuals. Have a nice day!ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)13:31, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per @The Anome. They're not people in the Epstein files, and calling them such would cross dangerously close to defamation and would certainly violate WP:NOR. The source for who is in the files is the files themselves, and therefore any discussion about who is in them would constitute original research.Horse.staple (talk)03:01, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I merged the singular mention of Melinda French Gates onto the entry for Bill Gates, as taht was the only context in which she was mentioend, and there is no corespndence with her in th files. I was reveretd.
The article is a list of prominent individuals mentioned within the files. Being a correspondent isn't necessary for inclusion. She was the subject of discussion, so it's worth including her.ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk)13:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think verifiable information about connections with Epstein should be moved toConnections 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)[reply]
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 becomesConnections of Jeffrey Epstein mentioned in the Epstein files.Anybar (talk)19:11, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Nothing much is happening on the other page, and Connections to Jeffrey Epstein (or Jeffrey Epstein connections) would be more accurate for what this page is doing. If we interpret the concept of mention as not implying a connection, we'll end up with a partial index of all the famous names mentioned in the Epstein files. There are a lot of famous names.
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.Reywas92Talk15:06, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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
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 edits22:03, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
She was passingly mentioned by an associate of Epstein for being at a party (not a creepy sex party afaik) that someone else was at. Almost her entire section is just mentioning there is no reason to assume she was creepy. Is there a reason this is even here?--Amelia-the-comic-geek (talk)22:24, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But not significantly so. If we allowed this sort of mention-in-passing to pass, this article would be thousands of individuals long. There is absolutely no connection here, express or implied, to Epstein or any of his activities, other than a mention-in-passing in an email. —The Anome (talk)20:34, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ghislaine Maxwell was a known associate of Jeffrey Epstein at the time of the email (2009-10-21) and Epstein had already convicted in 2008 for sex crimes. For some reason, Ghislaine Maxwell was hosting a party in her townhouse for Mira Nair's film release. This is not a mention-in-passing. This is evidence of Ghislaine Maxwell, the chief co-conspirator of Jeffrey Epstein, hosting a party for a film director's movie release in her home and inviting said film director.
It is clear that the standard for inclusion is not to be accused of any crime. I will say, though, that the claim "Epstein hosted it [the party]" (in the Wiki article at this time) is unfounded as far as I know. Indeed, Epstein's publicist Peggy Siegal sent the email to *him* informing him after the fact about the party's purpose and notable attendants. Would be incredibly odd to do so if it was the party he himself was hosting.~2026-94771-3 (talk)03:21, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
FBI concluded Epstein wasn’t running sex trafficking ring
Sure, but we can't exactly trust any claims made about them by the federal government for obvious reasons. Everything they say is self-interested. If therewas any evidence of crime, they would never admit it.ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk)00:24, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Debunked" means there's a refutation. Lacking evidence isn't.
We could certainly add that the FBI did not prosecute anyone. We could also add that Jean-Luc Brunel was under investigation when he killed himself:
All we can conclude from this is that no-one apart from Maxwell and Epstein himself have been charged with a crime in relation with anything Epstein- or files-related. Which is now in the lede. —The Anome (talk)08:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is a list of people the FBI was investigating:
"After the Justice Department shut the door on releasing the Jeffrey Epstein files in July 2025, FBI agents worked on drafts of a 21-page presentation of all the evidence the FBI had gathered in the case, including a summary of allegations against 11 men... Among the names on the list: President Donald Trump, former President Bill Clinton, Harvey Weinstein, private-equity investor Leon Black, L Brands founder Les Wexner, banker Jes Staley and others."
The FBI said (when? it is unclear from the AP reference)that the investigation is now closed because they couldn't find enough evidence that Epstein ran a sex trafficking ring (reference AP here), despite both Maxwell and Epstein having been charged and convicted of child sex trafficking (references here from their trials).♦ WikiUser70176 ♦(My talk page)15:21, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I should have clarified that if we have sections with the names we need as reference, there's no need for anchors. That is, if there's a "Bill Clinton" as title somewhere in the page, using "#Bill Clinton" as a wikilink within the page will refer to it. Sorry about that.
Nevertheless, I already found two usages of anchors that could be useful:
#Boris Nikolic catches back the misspelling of Nikolić's last name.
#Eric Trump leads to the entry that mentions both Donald Jr and Eric Trump.
Ah ok, i might have rushed it a bit then. I thought the links between people on the page (linking to the anchor) could have been useful, and then only the article link on each person in their own section would link out of this article. Not sure if it’s clear.
shrug. That'd give us (e.g. [heh: though I take the point that q.v. is a degree more obsure than e.g.])Epstein's New York home together with Steve Bannon (also in this article) and Terje Rød-Larsen (also in this article). Anything shorter and sweeter? The other alternative would be to use links to the anchors instead of regular wikilinks to the external article (already in place in some instances): while that could be seen as WP:EASTEREGG territory, it puts the main article only another click away. But as I said,shrug: I'm only a drive-by editor on this article.Moscow Mule (talk)14:01, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I personally like q.v., but it's not in the MOS:MISCSHORT and MOS:LATINABBR would compel us to italicize it with the "lang" template. That may hinder page maintenance.
Also, quod vide relates to what has been said, so there may be a confusion in the scope of what is there to see: if we say that such and such was the daughter, (qv), then the qv should refer to the fact that Jack had a daughter. The confusion is inconsequential to most readers, except perhaps overly zealous editors or latinists.
I thought there could be problem with linking to anchor and other pages using the same string of letters, e.g. Steve Bannon sometimes leading to #Bannon or toSteve Bannon. It would be possible to use "Bannon" for the anchor and "Steve Bannon" for the page, "Jack" for #Jack Lang, and "Eric" for #Eric Trump, etc.
I think the problem we're trying to solve with the "q.v." usage is, to show there's relationship between a group of people. That's one reason I've been advocating for using a "spheres" heading, and why we see news articles that focus on discussing everyone in one sphere or country—it helps to understand the relationships.
Wecould just make a special rule for the article, like, "all wikilinks that are directly under a Heading 3 name go to the person's wiki page; all wikilinks that are in the body of the text go to anchors if possible", but that will be impossible to enforce over the years, and be confusing because it's not standard for readers or editors.
But regardless of whether we use the abbreviation "q.v." or if we replace that with another phrase, if we use links to anchors in some places in the article, we should probably use it in all places when possible. We've got a mish-mash of referencing: some links to anchors, some links to main wiki articles, in one case only (I think) a hatnote....
Style consistency will impose itself over time. Building this page is a marathon. No need to sprint and impose what should be emerging somewhat organically.
The only place where linking to the page of (say) Steve Bannon should be in the entry about Steve Bannon. Otherwise we'll end up overlinking to external pages. As I'm reviewing all the entries, I'm linking to sections. It's better doing it that way, for the style isn't clear. The "easter egg" concern is a valid one, so perhaps we should mention Bannon, and not Steve Bannon when linking to his own section. Imagine the work I just saved by not revising the whole page!
Using internal anchoring seems important for readers, as it provides a network effect: when Epstein baits Musk's brother, he does it with Nikolic. It's also important for editors, as otherwise we would feel the need to repeat the anecdote in both Nikolic and in Kimbal's sections. In the end, we can only summarize what could be developed in the entries of both Nikolic and Kimbal.
It's possible to use section links if we want to make interlinking more obvious. But that would require more structure, as it's a meta-communication device. For instance, we could add, at the end of each sub-section: See Bannon, Musk, Thiel, Zuckerberg.Selbstporträt (talk)15:52, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That does not work in direct sentences, like "The other day Woody Allen ate an apple". That would render as "The other day § Woody Allen ate an apple".
That would work if we add a See also at the end of each section. That takes real estate, it's harder for editors to maintain, and we just decided not to go tables.Selbstporträt (talk)15:55, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Looks like another editor used the "va" template.
It looks like this: "=== David {{va|Brooks}} ===".
Just in case editors read this belatedly: using the va template in section titles goes against policy. See WP:ANCHORSUBST for the correct usage of anchors in titles.Selbstporträt (talk)14:48, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, here's a converter script to turn the list part of this article into body text. It's very hacky and brittle, but it works on the article as-is. You should only run the list and its headings through this, not the complete article:
Code
import redef req1(x): if len(x) != 1: return None return x[0]def dedot(x): if x[-1] == '.': return x[:-1] else: return xdata = open("data.txt").read()items = re.split(r"\|-|\|\}", data)for i in items: hdr = re.findall(r"==\s*([A-Z])\s*==", i) if hdr: print("== %s ==" % hdr[0]) continue fields = [s.strip() for s in re.split(r"\n\|", "\n"+i) if s.strip()] if not fields: continue if len(fields) != 3: raise Exception("bad number of fields") anchor = req1(re.findall(r"\{\{anchor\|.*?\}\}", fields[0])) image = req1(re.findall(r"\[\[File:(.*?)\|", fields[0])) if "{{ill|" in fields[0]: namelink = req1(re.findall(r"\{\{ill\|.*?\}\}", fields[0])) name = re.findall(r"\{\{ill\|([^|]*)", namelink)[0] else: namelink = [s for s in re.findall(r"\[\[.+?\]\]", fields[0]) if not "File:" in s][0] name = re.findall("\[\[(.*?\|)?(.*?)\]\]", namelink)[0][-1] desc = fields[1].strip() info = fields[2].strip() linkwords = "is an" if desc[0].upper() in "AEIOU" else "is a" info = dedot(info) desc = dedot(desc)# print((anchor, image, namelink, name, linkwords, desc)) print(f"""=== {name}{anchor} ===[[File:{image}|thumb|120px|{namelink}]]{namelink} {linkwords} {desc}.{info}."""+"{{clear}}")
@Another Believer: Thank you for your tidy-up! I need to do one more thing, which is to add the{{clear}} template after each entry, but I don't want to crush your edits: is it OK if you take a short break in the tidying while I do this? —The Anome (talk)13:34, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to remove all the letters, and the TOC was unreadable.
Our actual solution is quite ugly. Perhaps we'd need a TOC that shows only the first 2 levels (Background, People, References, External links, etc), and a way to index the whole People section.
Many thanks to all those who have tidied up the changes I made to the article using my code, particularly those who found and fixed the occasional semantic and grammatical nonsense introduced by the reformatting. I think the whole article is greatly improved now, and I look forward to seeing how it evolves from here on. —The Anome (talk)14:54, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Several corrections with the Michael Jackson section. I will be sourcing some things here that I don't believe are viable for the article. Apologies if I am violating anything by including them on this talk page.
"An undated photograph released in December 2025 showed the singer posing with Epstein in front of a painting of a woman." - This photo was first made publicly available in the documentary Complément d'enquête: Les derniers mystères de l’affaire Epstein in January of 2025 where it's seen inside a picture frame but in much lower quality.[1] Also the painting behind the duo[2] is Time Lessons: Cloud on Sand by Beatrix Ost.[3]
"It was claimed that Jackson did not know who Epstein was" - By one source as far as I am aware and its sourced here; Matt Fiddes. Who I would consider not a very strong one for a laundry list of reasons it would be inappropriate to get into here but he was likely not present when the photo was taken as there is no indication other than his word that he was ever in the same room as Jackson after 2002.
"The latter image had been publicly available and was taken at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) fundraiser “A Night at the Apollo,” where Jackson and Ross performed" - This image had not been publicly available. An image of the same group in a moment shortly before/after was indeed publicly available[4] but the specific image in the file was not.[5]
"It is unclear why the photograph was in the files" - It's speculated that the fact Ghislaine Maxwell accepted an invite to this fundraiser via email could be related to the circumstances of the photo and it's inclusion in the Epstein release.[6] This is speculation though and is probably not worth including.
"there is no suggestion that Jackson was aware of, or involved in, any of Epstein’s crimes" - This is a correct statement but strikes me as WP:NPOV to include it for Jackson and not other people listed. It's also self evident by the rest of the section.
Alphabetical order makes it easier to find a name. Also, there are people who could be included in more than one of your categories. (For instance, there are tech bros who are researchers. And where would you put Sam Harris?) Eventually, editors will add odd names at many places.
Your suggestion would work better for a table. That means information gets reduced to its simplest expression. By removing tabular information, we went the other way. We should not be following the format of the Panama Papers page. As is, it's not very useful; at best it's a "switch board" to find relevant references. And the scope differs: there it's about fiscal traces that are hard to interpret, here it's emails anyone can read.
If there's no merge between the two pages, we should transform the Connection pages in a big table. That at least would allow readers to explore the Epstein network.Selbstporträt (talk)15:16, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Pinker is seen in the Lolita Express. Is he mentioned? Strictly speaking, no. Pinker is cc-ed by Summers in the latter's dating advice. Is he mentioned? That's debatable, but I'd say no. Pinker is listed as a guest in the2011 Brockman gala with his wife:
Jeff Bezos · Stewart Brand/Ryan Phelan · Sergey Brin/Anne Wojcicki · George Church/ Tin Wu · Richard Dawkins/Lala Ward · Daniel C. Dennett/Sue Dennett · Jared Diamond · Freeman Dyson · George Dyson · Brian Eno · Jeffrey Epstein · Tony Fadell/Danielle Lambert · David Gelernter · Murray Gell-Mann · Terry Gilliam · Alan Guth · Sam/Annaka Harris · Nicholas Humphrey/Ayla Humphrey · Daniel Kahneman/Anne Treisman · Salar Kamangar · Eric Kandel/Denise Kandel · Judith Katz · Dean Kamen · Andrian Kreye · Jaron Lanier · Ian McEwan/Annalena McAfee · Marvin Minsky/Gloria Rudisch · Evgeny Morozov · Nathan Myhrvold · Jack Nicholson · Hans Ulrich Obrist · Larry Page/Lucy Page Southworth · Lori Park · Elaine Pagels · Sean Parker · Moses Pendleton/Cynthia Quinn · Jean Pigozzi · Steven Pinker/Rebecca Goldstein · Lisa Randall · V.S Ramachandran · Martin Rees · Jacqui Safra/Jean Doumanian · Frank Schirrmacher · Charles Simonyi · David Shipley · Clay Shirky · lee Smolin · Nassim Taleb · Max Tegmark · Richard Thaler/ France LeClerq · Angie Thieriot/Richard Thieriot · Deborah Treisman · Robert Trivers · J. Craig Venter/Heather Kowalski · Evan Williams/Sarah Morishige · Naomi Wolf · Anton Zeilinger
Should we mention all the names in that list? It's not like they're not prominent! At some point, we will have to reckon with the fact that there are a lot of names dropped we all know in these files.
A criteria that would compel us to include Gilliam and Eno and Nicholson and to exclude anyone who only appears in the non-textual documents is bound to raise questions.Selbstporträt (talk)23:51, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a more pratical example would be in order:
Epstein was looking to talk with a different Russian official: Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. On June 24, 2018, Epstein emailed Norwegian politician Thorbjørn Jagland, then the secretary general of the Council of Europe, "I think you might suggest to putin, that lavrov, can get insight on talking to me. vitaly churkin used (to) but he died. ?!" Jagland answered that he would meet with Lavrov's assistant the following Monday and suggest it. Epstein replied: “churkin was great. he understood trump after [our] conversations. it is not complex. he must be seen to get something its that simple.”
There are lots of things we could do with that passage. People who are mentioned: Putin, Lavrov, Churkin, and Trump; people who say things: Jagland, Epstein, and Churkin although as reported by Epstein. If we are serious about mentions, then this can't be reported under Jagland's section. Only Putin, Lavrov, Churkin, and Trump.
Let's stand aside the question of what happens to the page if we add the same event in different places on the page, how should we do so? The first mention to Churkin is inconsequential. The second has been reported in Trump's section. The first part about Lavrov could be mentioned in Putin's section, which is actually missing.
We could decide to only use it in Jagland's section, for it's the only he's the one beingtalked to. But if we takemention seriously, the exchange that involves Jagland should not be included in Jagland's section.
Can there maybe be a hierarchy? Two sections, one about people with multiple direct contact with JE and another with people only mentioned in a conversation by someone else with JE (they all must be prominent, of course). In this second list the entry could be very limited, but I find it very valuable to learn more about those with their own section here, instead of just a listing like in theList of people named in the Panama Papers, that's not very informative, imo.Wilk10 (talk)08:23, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
List of people in the Panama Papers would have been shorter and perhaps more precise. Being named leads to similar paradoxes: having a photo, being referred to by corporation number only, etc.
Perhaps the original idea in adding prominence was to also qualify the relationship: people who prominently appear in the files. That introduces another kind of paradox (a sorites: when does appearing prominently begins?), but that kind of paradox is usually solved by consensus.
As for hierarchy, your suggestion echoes the connection-friendship distinction. If we limit connections to direct ones (having met, exchanged, received money, done business together, been a guest, etc), then we would be able to exclude having been in the same room, being invited by the friend of, being talked about, etc.
This may create a different kind of page. We'll always be discussing whom to include as friends, if saying "you're a friend" is enough evidence, "but what about this source who speaks of friends", etc. But you're right: that's very well be what readers are looking for!Selbstporträt (talk)14:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merely attending a single gala seems to me to be too tenuous a link to merit inclusion in this list; it's like being cc'd in an email, it's not substantive. Direct correspondence, meeting him in a one-to-one meeting, giving or receiving gifts or money, going to his house or island, flying on his plane, that would be different, but this is none of those. —The Anome (talk)14:07, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Attending a gala isn't what's important; appearing in the files is what's important. We really want to include any notable person who appears in the files - that's what this list is about. I strongly advocate for an inclusive approach, without arbitrary exclusions.Joe (talk)14:50, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
All the names listed earlier are in the files.
There may very well be more than 15K famous persons named in the file!
When I say 'notable people' I mean people with a Wikipedia page who have significant coverage in reliable sources about their involvement with Epstein or their inclusion in the files. I'm sure you could make an argument for including a person who appears in the files and has RS coverage, but who doesn't have a Wikipedia page, but that can be taken on a case-by-case basis to determine notability. There's nothing wrong with some people, like Donald Trump or Bill Clinton, getting more coverage, while others get only a blurb.Joe (talk)15:06, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Epstein's co-conspirators (at least those named so by the FBI) don't all have an entry. Kathryn Ruemmler, whom just stepped down from JPM because of being tied to Epstein, however does.
The problem is that being named in the files may not imply any involvement. How is Brian Eno involved with Epstein, besides being invited by Brockman? Here are mentions of him:
I think it highlights why there's a need for two separate pages for connections and for those who appear in the files, actually a strong argument for why the two pagesshouldn't be merged.Joe (talk)15:26, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. But it doesn't solve our actual problem, which is that there are more people named in the Epstein files than there are connections!
So perhaps what we need is to rename this page Connections, and then rebuild something like Epstein's phone book, so to speak.
Alternatively, we restrict ourselves to friends, multi-billionaires, the most powerful, those who went to the island, or any other classification scheme. My earlier concern was intra-page redundancy: repeating the same thing in the same page is frowned upon. My main concern with a split is based on my experience last year: once editors started to split the DOGE pages, they stopped taking an interest in maintaining satellite pages.
The big problem with doing this kind of connection-mapping is that it is explicitly out of Wikipedia's remit by breaking both theWP:OR andWP:SYN policies, and unless there is explictWP:RS coverage of person X's appearance in the files, we are bound byWP:PRIMARY also. I'm sure there's a place for a comprehensive Epstein files link database and mapping project, but Wikipedia isn't it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle forWP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS. —The Anome (talk)16:09, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's OR and SYNTH because it's OR and SYNTH doesn't look like a solid argument, and saying what isn't an encyclopedia only provides a negative definition.
If a table of X is a problem, then a list of X is a problem too. More generally, a page on X becomes a problem. Since the X in question isn't a problem, then if there's a problem with a table of X, it should be for another reason than because it provides tabular information.
"Being connected to Epstein" does not imply any wrongdoing, for the same reasons as "being named in Epstein's files". More so that being named is too moot to compel inclusion in the page.
There's nothing illegal in being funded by Epstein. Nor is there any wrongdoing implied in seeking funding by going to Epstein. It's still what we should be talking about. To be able to sort people by criteria for which we have sources should be perfectly fine, at least in principle.
To put it another way: OR compels claims support, and SYNTH compels inferences support. Neither applies to our choice of page topics or to our presentation preferences.Selbstporträt (talk)16:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
One could certainly generate a synthetic statement related to this material, however, as long as there are RS, there's no problem.Joe (talk)16:40, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If somebody is in the files and it is covered by reliable sources, then they must be included. It doesn't need to be more complicated than that. Any other suggestions are Original Research.Guz13 (talk)16:54, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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:
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
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.
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)[reply]
PerWP:ARTICLESIZE we are at 14K 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 ofcurrent version with word size included.
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 onWP:TOOBIG, given there is an easy and straightforward way to handle the page size. This in turn could convert this article into alist of lists,set index based list, or simply a redirect to the the first list article per suggested format atWikipedia:Lists of lists#Splitting long lists with the following style of hatnote:
List of people named in the Epstein files:A–L |M–Z.
D. List of list. The pageshrank 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 pageList 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.
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)[reply]
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 thenlaterit would divide neatly into fewer than a dozen articles, which could be referenced by a "list of lists". This idea was fleshed out here:
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 notall 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)[reply]
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.
Personally, I'd say we should just keep this one aspeople mentioned in the files - though a page titledList 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Richard is in total damage control mode but he has also has gone on records that he has known Epstein since the 90s. We also know that he flew on Epstein's private plane across the country in 2002. Furthermore we know that he continued to be in communication with Epstein even after Epstein was convicted of sexually assaulting children.~2026-10083-56 (talk)23:21, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to Wasserman's response, I think it's important to also put in the direct fallout, i.e. numerous people leaving his agency, his decision to sell his agency, and the Olympics' decision to keep him. Same goes for other people, but Wasserman is probably the most prominent.~2026-39564-4 (talk)01:14, 15 February 2026 (UTC)Mumbai0618[reply]
I was going to make a small spelling correction to this article, but was unable to do so because it appears to be locked from editing. Please fix this ridiculous situation!~2026-90336-1 (talk)05:41, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: If you would like these individuals to be added, please provide a short paragraph for each with citations to reliable sources, like the other entries in the article.Day Creature (talk)04:35, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
_(3x4_close_cropped).jpg)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a"change X to Y" format and provide areliable source if appropriate.Day Creature (talk)20:41, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]