This is an archive of past discussions about Epstein didn't kill himself. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: I believe it contains enough text that the Background section (which is from Death of Jeffrey Epstein) can be disregarded and the article still considered new enough.
Interesting: - Do you have another more interesting hook? I feel like this is a little boring without context, kind of like the OK Boomer meme. How about this?
Overall: There are a few sources that may be seen as biased (in either direction), like Daily Dot and National Review. And to a smaller extent Slate, Fox, & the Intelligencer can also be seen as biased. However, the articles themselves are neutral, so I'll give the sourcing a pass. epicgenius (talk) 05:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: Oh my gosh.. I absolutely love ALT1!!! That would be the the perfect hook to for the quirky one at the end of a set. I guess that's why you're named epicgenuis. –MJL‐Talk‐☖05:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Nice. ALT1 is good to go, I personally find this the most interesting as well. Thanks for the quick response.
@Epicgenius: As it happens, you are not allowed to approve a hook you wrote yourself. (I learned that the hard way once.) This would probably have gotten bounced by the higher-ups in the process. So I will approve it:
@Yoninah: Just the background section (which was partly re-written and added to). Everything else in the article is new content. I can giv you a full character count when I get home (as well apply {{Copied}}). Regards, –MJL‐Talk‐☖18:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah and MJL: Character count of the prose in the entire article is 7,300 bytes. Conservatively (including ref brackets and other markup), copied prose is about 1,280 bytes. So this does represent a 5x expansion. epicgenius (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
As there has been a major expansion since the first approval, including entirely new sections, I think it's important that a re-review is done now that there was no consensus for the proposed merge, since the new material should be vetted for all the usual things (neutrality, sourcing, copyvio, etc.). epicgenius, did you want to do that, or should we find a new reviewer? My assumption is that MelanieN's approval of your ALT1 would still stand if the rest of the article still passes, though she may wish to reconfirm. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
OK, I will review this again. It is still new enough as the 7,500 bytes of this article is a five-fold expansion of the copied text. Sourcing is adequate, and there are no non-neutral parts of the article. Most of the copyvio pickups seem to be quotes. The hook is still OK. epicgenius (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Lead image
@SchroCat and Tom harrison: What policy justification do you have for removing the image without replacement? In general, all articles are supposed to be illustrated. The image clearly displays an example of the meme, and thus it is relevant. I have previously made an alternative image if you are not perfectly satisfied with that one. However, the article should clearly have an image to help convey its meaning. –MJL‐Talk‐☖00:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I can't believe you're actually trying to defend this. An image has been created to try and provide proof of something. That's akin to a journalist fabricating quotes to justify a news story. If this meme is something we should have an article on (a dubious thought as it is), then there should be something available that proves it: we should not have to fake examples to act as proof. "In general, all articles are supposed to be illustrated" just isn't correct, or any form of justification at all. - SchroCat (talk) 06:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
@SchroCat:Provide proof of something? That's so far from the purpose of this image. There are literally thousands of examples of this meme, but all of them are copyrighted. There's nothing to fabricate here. This roughly looks similar to a good portion of those memes, and it's the best example we are going to get unless you want me to modify it in some way. If this was the first example of a user literally creating a meme for an article, then you would have a point. However, I only got the idea after looking at our article on Internet memes. –MJL‐Talk‐☖22:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
There is either a non free option, or not to have an image at all. Not all articles should have (or even need) images, but to fabricate one is exactly the same as a journalist fabricating quotes to "illustrate" an article. - SchroCat (talk) 09:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
You should honestly know better than to suggest using a non-free option. WP:NFCCP#1 states this clearly of why that's not a possibility. Separately, Wikipedia encourages users to upload their own images.. You should really stop the false comparison to the journalist fabricating quotes because that is an example of someone outright lying whereas memes are inherently something anyone can create. There is no official meme database or prerequisite for who can and cannot create a meme. The moment I created the meme it became just as valid as Jane Doe's meme she made and shared on her Facebook group. Displaying this meme versus sharing her meme would have the exact same educational value for our readers. The best comparison I can think of right now would be heraldry and vexillology. The specifications for an image are detailed, but how Wikipedia chooses to display them can vary (See File:Flag of FIAV.svg). Internet memes are just a method to convey specific ideas, and one person's interpretation of a meme's specifications is no more or less valid than another person's. All memes are constructs from individuals, and to claim that the one I created for educational purposes is somehow distinct from (and even fraudulent compared to) another is unbelievably absurd to anyone who takes this topic seriously. –MJL‐Talk‐☖16:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Then don't use an image. Not every article needs them, and it's more honest not to fabricate something that didn't exist. You could use a quote box using the text from something that does exist, as long as you use a citation to support the quote. - SchroCat (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
There's nothing to fabricate! It's like if I uploaded a picture of a fractal to illustrate what a fractal is. Memes are entirely user-generated content. There isn't a meme certification process or an official meme list. Images are generated by anyone for any reason to convey information generally in a humorous format. You're drawing an arbitrary line in the sand by saying this particular image is not acceptable even though it was made for expressly illustrative and educational purposes. It even says as much in our Image use policy, Additionally, user-made images may be wholly original. In such cases, the image should be primarily serving an educational purpose, and not as a means of self-promotion of the user's artistic skills.@Tom harrison: This is why the reptilian humanoid picture was against policy. After several chances to do so, you have provided no policy justification for removing the image besides your own opinion that the picture was (somehow) fraudulent. I have explained, in great detail, how the image was generated and why that is a valid process. Remember, Wikipedia is not censored, so happening to disagree with an image is not a policy justification to removing it. –MJL‐Talk‐☖20:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
NOTCENSORED is a straw man. This isn't about censoring anything, it's about having integrity of information on display. I've suggested using a quote to demonstrate, which would work equally well, given there is no need for this to be an image, or to include an image. As I've suggested an alternative you don't like, I've opened an RfC for wider input. - SchroCat (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. This reminds me of the "reptilian humanoid," original artwork a contributor made for that article (good work too, as far as that goes...). If there's to be an example at all, at least it needs to be one "from the wild." Tom HarrisonTalk13:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Found in the wild. Doesn't meet the threshold of originality for the work to be protected by the graffiti artist. Leaving here for consideration in light of ongoing discussion and the fact that this article is locked up pretty tight right now. Enwebb (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't crop it. The writing is perfectly conspicuous. It is the only writing in the photograph. It isn't as if there were other signage competing for our attention. And the idea of the meme is that it is an appendage to virtually anything, thus all the extraneous imagery contributes to illustrating the meme. Bus stop (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
@Spy-cicle: I'll be honest by saying that I'll take this image over anything I had a hand in creating if it just means this dispute can end faster and I can edit the article again. This has been an incredibly frustrating experience, and I just want it to be over. –MJL‐Talk‐☖20:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Support as lead image. This is a freely licensed example of the meme in the wild, which solves the issues with 'fabricated' images and copyright discussed above. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Support This answers my objections to the original illustration. This seems unanimous. Can we just go ahead and put it into the article? -- MelanieN (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
(non-admin closure) Procedural close – RfC question is not neutrally worded as required by WP:RFC, and as such, cannot lead to a valid consensus in any direction. The underlying issue–image selection–is being discussed through local discussion elsewhere on this talk page, and local discussion is preferred to starting an RfC, per WP:RFC. It is not a good use of editors' time to continue to keep a malformed and now-moot RfC open, especially when productive discussions are ongoing elsewhere. – Levivich02:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Should an example of a meme in use be falsely created to give an impression of how it may be used, or should an alternative form be used instead (a quote, for example). - SchroCat (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes This is completely asinine. If an editor can't make original content specifically for visual purposes on an article, then why is there such a thing as Wikimedia Commons? This meme was created to avoid any kind of copyright violation. An editor already tried to upload a genuine meme, but it was fair-use. And there is nothing "false" about how this image was created. If one was to distribute this image on Reddit, there would be no noticable difference between it and the others. Just as if a wikipedia image of the Empire State Building is no different than any image of it on Pinterest. Please visit Internet Meme. You will find plenty of memes created by Wikipedia editors for that specific page.HAL33322:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
HAL333, can I advise that unless you want people to revert to industrial-level language in telling you where to go, you need to avoid classing a good faith opinion as "completely asinine". I'm more than happy to respond with some base Anglo-Saxon if you'd really want, but if you could try to understand what WP:AGF means it would make life much easier for everyone concerned. And just because we have second rate rubbish on a different page, does not mean we should encourage the thread of misleading our readers on this one. An alternative has already been suggested: use a text based quote without an image. Use a quote box to frame it in and use a citation to support the genuine use. Fabricating images is like journalists fabricating quotes to try to "improve" an story: it lacks integrity or honesty. - SchroCat (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Ah @SchroCat:, you're definitely one who adheres to WP:AGF. You created this snide little RFC in a utterly biased fashion. And the idea that the meme was fabricated is ridiculous. The single example of "journalists fabricating quotes" that you keep repeating (likely because you can't come up with a more absurd example in Anglo-Saxon or Standard English) is a blatant false analogy. This meme is no different than a reporter adding a photo to their story, or having a graphic designed. No one is manipulating what anyone said. No reader is being mislead. The substance of this meme is no different than any other meme of this variety. The only person potentially misleading anyone is the person who wants to display the meme as a quote box. No reader will ever encounter a Jeffery Epstein meme in the form as a Wikipedia quote box.HAL33304:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
HAL333, please moderate your language. It is inappropriate in a discussion to call the other person's opinion "asinine", "ridiculous", "snide", and "utterly biased". -- MelanieN (talk) 04:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
If you see the coverage [about combat dogs] and you decide I want one of these dogs, either buy a fully trained and finished dog from a professional or just don't get one at all, and Epstein didn't kill himself.
I am afraid I don't understand what you mean by "No reader will ever encounter a Jeffery Epstein meme in the form as a Wikipedia quote box": quote boxes carry quotes, so any use of the meme in a verbal sense can be quoted. An example is shown just to the right of this comment: this can be tweaked to show the text normal size or embolded as desired, but it has the benefit of being an actual example of the phrase being used in a real setting. - SchroCat (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, MelanieN I will tone down my language. But with all due respect, I would like to note that you are clearly biased against me due to my stance on this issue. SchroCat has used equally rude language, such as "second rate rubbish," telling editors to "piss off," along with other harsh language. Does that not merit a slap on the wrist because you agree with him?HAL33323:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
And SchroCat, the meme is not simply verbal. Any information pertaining to the verbal arrangement of the meme can be found in the text. The purpose of the image is to represent the meme visually, as that is what this meme is.HAL33323:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but not this particular image I am opposed to using an image of a large block of text: it's bad for accessibility and can't be easily modified. Either a less text-heavy meme or a quote box would be better. Cheers, gnu5722:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
No — inappropriate in this case. It's misleading. As far as I can tell, there are no examples of Wikipedia being vandalised like this. If we can't have real pictures of the "meme" we shouldn't have anything.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
No - use a real example from the wild, or use nothing. Ideally, it would be something a reliable source says is an example of the meme, like "An article is The Washington Post presented this image as an example of the meme, quoting Dr. so-and-so who noted its use of imagary typical of ..." Tom HarrisonTalk23:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
* Yes - The image is a free-use alternative to real memes like this one, which was posted above. It demonstrates, as the article says, that The meme usually includes a list or paragraph about an unrelated subject but concludes with the phrase "Epstein didn't kill himself." It is inappropriate to use a fair use image - which examples of the meme "in the wild" would be - when a freely licensed image can be used instead. There is precedent for "fabricated" images like this in articles like Image macro and Lolcat.
An alternative could be to take a screenshot of an article being vandalized with the phrase "Epstein didn't kill himself". This type of vandalism is apparently so prolific that an edit filter was added to prevent it. However, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of encouraging vandals by showcasing their vandalism in an article that gets 1000+ views per day, so I think this image is the best option for now. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
No — I see two problems with keeping this image. First, it is fabricated based on one person's understanding of the meme, and therefore could mislead readers about the notability or even the format of the meme. But there are situations in which that might be okay (lolcats), so I'm really more concerned about the second problem. The second problem is that, in contrast to the lolcat example cited above, this fabricated example treats a minority religion's beliefs as material to set up a punchline about an unrelated event, and is therefore inconsistent with Wikimedia's resolution on nondiscrimination. While there are good reasons to document discriminatory objects and images in context (see, e.g. Christianity and antisemitism), there are zero good reasons to create such things on a worldwide encyclopedia project committed to non-discrimination. (Note: I saw this RfC mentioned at WikiProject Internet Culture.) Indignant Flamingo (talk) 04:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
No, or rather, not this particular image. I was the first one to call attention to how inappropriate an illustration this is, here. For one thing, it's a totally phony creation rather than a real use of the meme. For another (I hadn't thought of this), using an example where Wikipedia was vandalized is a terrible idea. Is this something we want to encourage? Or maybe become a meme of its own - "Hey, sneak this phrase into Wikipedia somewhere, everybody's doing it!" Surely you can find a real use of the phrase out there somewhere. Or else forget about having an illustration. (Or maybe even forget about having an article - remember that the merge discussion is still ongoing.) -- MelanieN (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Looks like I was a little late to that party. Apparently adding it to Wikipedia is/was already a thing. It was done so often that a filter has been created to prevent it. [1] Thanks to SpicyMilkBoy for pointing that out. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment. This RFC will see no further participation from me due to its one-sided nature which will likely make finding consensus near impossible for any closer. However, I do want to comment, so I won't feel the need to respond to users individually. As I have said, I am open to changing the image based off any specifications by user request. For example, Indignant Flamingo, I have created a Flamingo-based alternative that I am willing to replace with the current image right now (I'm not particularly original/creative). @MelanieN: As I have said, this is not based on any act of vandalism, but you are welcomed to re-write the image caption if you feel that isn't more clear. I highly encourage users to read the above discussion where I have tried patiently address SchroCat's concerns. However, no alternative image or modification I suggested was acceptable to him. Regardless, if I could have any lead picture I wanted it'd be this. Wikipedia will likely never be able to use that image though because of WP:NFCCP#1. Like it or not, we're stuck creating the image ourselves if we want one (and we should if we want to keep the article adequately illustrated). I don't really care what the image we use is; afterall, this was my first attempt at creating a meme for this page. However, until someone points me to a policy justification as to why our readers wouldn't be served by an image (any image), then I'm going to maintain my stance of insisting that an image be included as a service to our readers. As HAL333 said, they'll never see this meme shared as a Wikipedia quote box. (edit conflict) –MJL‐Talk‐☖06:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I like this one I think this one is suitable. It displays what the meme is like, which is all that is needed.HAL33323:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
No. This image (and another like it) doesn't really add anything useful or informative to the article. The "phenomenon" is already explained in the prose, and our readers generally don't have severe brain damage, so they already will understand what is meant. And given that we're already saying this takes more than one form, just illustrating the exact form of sticking this phrase at the end of an over-long image caption isn't actually illustrative of the subject. I'm not terribly concerned about whether the image is "false", since our one on LOLcat] is, too, and so on. As long as it fits the pattern (right down to the near-universal font style), it's useful. But this meme doesn't have a specific pattern, so it's not useful to make up a picture for it. Seriously, though, I wonder if this shouldln't just go to WP:AFD for deletion or at least merger into an article on Internet memes or into the Death of Jeffrey Epstein article. This one is not likely to have much staying power (no cultural significance over time), so it's a poor article subject. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 09:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes Firstly, this RfC is already partisan even though RfCs should be neutral per WP:RFCBRIEF. Secondly, it is a completely legitamate free alternative to other Internet memes on the internet. For example, if someone posts a popular Epstein didn't kill himself meme we cannot use it here since it will not fall under any fair use policy since it is non-free material. Here MJL, has created a free alternative internet meme similiar to that of others in order to demonstrate an example of the meme. These examples are found across different articles like Internet meme. It is a completely legitamate alternative to using non-free copyrighted material. I urge SchroCat to WP:AGF when making RfCs next time. This is because stating this is "falsely created" is not true since fundamentally with Internet memes there is no true or false "Epstein didn't kill himself" since memes are user-generated content. Thus, making an equivilating this to journalist fabricating a quote is false. Spy-cicle💥 Talk?19:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I urge you to piss off and don't question my good faith in opening an RfC. I have opened a question that neither I or MJL would agree on: it is up to the open community to discuss and come to a decision on. - SchroCat (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
No. Questioning my good faith when opening a recognised mechanism of getting past an impasse does not help for productive discussions. Strike your comments about me and the status of the RfC and I will consider my comment again. - SchroCat (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment For those who have just arrived: here is the image in question. It was once again removed from the article.HAL33300:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)The original imageA possible alternative
I know it's painful but it might be a good idea to conclude the RfC just in case the issue comes up again, in other words to get a clearcut answer if the image is OK.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I would prefer we do that on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) with a fresh RFC and where more uninvolved contributors can participate. This RFC wasn't framed in such a way that would be any bit helpful to future scenarios where situations like this come up again. It an RFC about whether a particular image or set of images should be used for this particular article, and now the underlying facts of the dispute just fell through. The question of whether pages about memes should have memes generated for those pages will not be answered here. –MJL‐Talk‐☖02:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
No - No image is better than having a fabricated one. Not all articles have to have images and in this case, it would not assist the learning of this (fairly crap) article. CassiantoTalk19:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think it would be best to wait until the earlier RfC is either closed or withdrawn. Consensus is clear that your picture will be added at some point. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
@Jack Upland: I get that you thought the first time I made this statement, it was misleading. To be perfectly honest, I was careless and should've read the article I sourced it to more closely. However, I don't agree with this removal. I was much more careful with my words there, so it's cited and quoted to explain the association exactly as it written about. It wasn't in Wikipedia's voice because it was attributed to Fox News with a clear distinction that Assad was professing his belief in the conspiracy theory and not sharing the meme. –MJL‐Talk‐☖16:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
It's true that one article says that. Simply because one article says something doesn't mean it should be included (see WP:ONUS). That source does not distinguish between the "meme" and an expression of an opinion. This would open the floodgates to include everything here. This really strengthens the case for a merge.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Firstly, if we agree that Assad didn't take part in the "meme", why mention him here? Even if the claim is attributed to Fox News, the wording still implies that Assad did take part. Secondly, I don't agree with your take on the source. The source opens by saying, "The “Jeffrey Epstein didn’t kill himself” meme appears to have now gone international. Syrian President Bashar Assad, in an interview with Russian state TV Thursday, waded into the bizarre viral craze by offering his own take...". That only makes sense if you believe that anyone who mentions a "conspiracy theory" is taking part in the "meme". In that case, Trump is taking part, as are Epstein's lawyers, etc. The distinction between the meme and the controversy about his death becomes very blurred. However, in relation to the claim that the "meme" has gone international, I think that is true, given the example of Australian rappers, Hilltop Hoods. --Jack Upland (talk) 06:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I suppose you're right here. I think I was too focused on trying to feel vindicated. There are plenty of better examples, so there's no reason for me to be too attached to this one. –MJL‐Talk‐☖05:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
How about I just put it in the Further reading? I'm a few edits away from tapping out the reserve sources I stored there, so it will just be an option for people to read if they want to look more into closely related subject matter. –MJL‐Talk‐☖18:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
BLP
I wonder if there are BLP issues about an article that is essentially promoting a "conspiracy theory". Epstein has just died. The people who supposedly did kill him — Trump, the Clintons, the British Royal Family, Putin etc — are very much alive.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
For an article that is promoting a conspiracy theory, there seems to be a lack of actual theorizing in the article. There's no mention of Trump, the Clintons, or Putin in any of the article's prose. The only mention of the British Royal Family is in a footnote, and the only mentions of Epstein personally are backed by reliable sources. BLP is a non-issue. If people want to read about the conspiracy theory, then they can do so in the further reading section or in the article about Jeffrey Epstein's death. –MJL‐Talk‐☖17:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Conspiracy theory
This is not a conspiracy theory, but a controversial case in which well-known pathologist Michael Baden came to a different conclusion than the official report. Not all that is officially announced is true, especially since the case is not yet completed. Here, the term "conspiracy theory" is misused to declare everything nonsense that contradicts the mainstream narrative. Wikipedia should not make itself the lackey of the establishment of the rich and powerful. Metron (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
'Things that don't hang themselves': Christmas ornaments, drywall, and Epstein
The Senate Judiciary Committee is also a platform. Please add:
On 12 November 2019, during a Judiciary Committee hearing with Federal Bureau of Prisons Director Kathleen Sawyer, senator John N. Kennedy stated the public doesn’t believe the New York City medical examiner’s conclusion that Epstein killed himself, he said: "Christmas ornaments, drywall and Jeffrey Epstein — name three things that don’t hang themselves. That’s what the American people think, and they deserve some answers."
Maybe Of your sources: - Primary - Paywalled (so I personally can't used it) - Better for Death of Jeffrey Epstein - The final source needed to add prose about the Art Brasel Banana vandalism. - Redundant source - See WP:NEWSBLOGS - Not a reliable source. I suggest you make an edit request at Talk:Death of Jeffrey Epstein. I'll get started on working the prose of the Banana thing, but I can't imagine there will be consensus to add information on the Senator. I will put it in the "Further Reading" section, though. Cheers! –MJL‐Talk‐☖19:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Per MOS:DATEVAR this should carry the US date format. It concerns a US citizen and a US-centric (pointless) meme. To somehow claim it should be in UK date format because "Epstein hung out with memebers [sic] of the British Royal family" is a gross misreading of DATEVAR. - SchroCat (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
To start, as I previously stated, this article isn't about Epstein. Second, you're talking about a dude who is famous for taking international trips with world leaders, okay? He has also partially lived in France. Third, my point previously, which you just quoted, was that the only relationship he has been noted in the article is the one with Prince Andrew. Fourth, the meme is international as I keep explaining, and just because you personally think it's US-centric carries little weight. Finally, here is what MOS:DATEVAR says that you have yet to note: The date format chosen in the first major contribution in the early stages of an article (i.e., the first non-stub version) should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page. [emphasis added]. That doesn't mean that an article about a meme about a conspiracy theory about the death of a guy who happened to be American who sometimes lived in France needs to absolutely use MDY dates. However, you're welcome to place {{Use American English}} if you want. I don't particularly care one way or the other what spelling we use. –MJL‐Talk‐☖20:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
It's not what I "personally think", but this is about as close to a US topic as you can get. It should, therefore, carry a US date format. Just because Epstein took "international trips with world leaders" does not get close to a basis for changing the various policies and guidelines we have just. Cause you happened to start the article with the wrong format. - SchroCat (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
With respect to the meme being "international", what about the ratio of coverage in reliable sources? The bulk of the sources cited in the article are US-based and US-centric. MJL stated "... As the first major contributor I decided to use DMY dates per my own preference" in the edit summary here; that does not seem like a good justification. MDY please. (Nothing to do with my own preference, which is YMD.) —[AlanM1(talk)]—20:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
@AlanM1: Yeah, my preference is DMY because it's simpler. As the first major contributor, I'm allowed to choose that within my own discretion. The policy is meant to give at least some deference to the people who make the content. I'll note here that I am an American (haven't even been outside the northwestern hemisphere), so it's not like I did it due to a differing own country of origin. If you look at what the sources say on the topic, you will consistently find mention of Epstein's connections to other countries. If I spoke more languages, the article would probably be less reliant on english-language sourcing altogether (since I know it's spread to Latin American countries as well for example). –MJL‐Talk‐☖21:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I have no idea what Muhammad Ali Jinnah has to do with this discussion. And just because Epstein knows people abroad when he travelled does not mean we throw away our policies on the basis of something you want. - SchroCat (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
MOS:TIES is the policy that defines Strong national ties. They give several examples of articles with Strong national ties, but the only biography they list as an example is Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Pakistan. Epstein, the guy who has been alleged of running an international sex trafficking ring, isn't even anywhere near as tied to America as Muhammad Ali Jinnah is to Pakistan (the country he founded). –MJL‐Talk‐☖22:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
As you're determined to ignore the obvious about a US citizen who was born, lived and died in the US, then there is one obvious course of action... - SchroCat (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
You can take what you want from a comment in which I have not addressed you, but was answering another. As it is, there is an RfC running, and I'm happy to sit back and let the comments come in from neutral third parties. - SchroCat (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I was not able to edit Wikipedia that much today, so I had a good amount of time to reflect on this dispute. I was clearly displaying WP:OWNERSHIP here, and I am not above admitting it. I was wrong on the policy arguments, but I persisted solely because I was reacting from an emotional place rather than thinking what would be best for the project. I am personally sorry to SchroCat and everyone else whose time has been taken up by this nonsensical dispute I caused. Epstein and the meme his death spawned have clear ties to America, so this article should simply use that format. (non-admin closure) (edit conflict) –MJL‐Talk‐☖03:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What date format should be used in this article? This article was started with the DMY date format. There is a question over whether this should remain or whether it should change to MDY. – SchroCat (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
MDY Given we are looking at a US-centric meme about a US citizen it seems clear that a US datre format is the obvious choice. The meme began in the US and is heavily present in the US (although there is some small international usage). This is akin to a US book or film that is also sold outside the US: we would still use a US format, not one primarily used in BrEng formats. - SchroCat (talk) 22:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
DMY. As I said above, the article is about a (1) meme based on (2) a conspiracy theory about (3) the death of (4) an American (5) who has been alleged to run an international criminal sex trafficking ring (6) that had clientele including several (former and current) world leaders (7) as well possibly a member of the British Royal Family (the only one noted in the article) and (8) who sometimes lived in France and (9) owned two private islands far outside the continental United States. Of those 9 clauses, only two include explicit ties the United States and neither could be considered strong enough to meet MOS:TIES. I am an American who uses DMY dates and the primary contributor of this article, and I'd like to avoid situations where everytime I go to add a source the date has to get changed. (edit conflict) –MJL‐Talk‐☖22:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't matter where Epstein went on holiday or where else he may or may not have owned property, nor does it matter who his friends are. 1. He is American; 2. The mem originated in the US and is more used in the US than anywhere else (the rest of the world don't give a toss about it). US film stars also have property overseas and live overseas and their products are broadcast worldwide, but we still follow the MDY format. It doesn't matter what version you started it in - see the third statement and realise what you are trying to claim. - SchroCat (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
1. An American who was consistently noticeably absent from America. MOS:TIES is for people who actually... you know are really tied to their country of origin. The United States has the third largest population in the world, so of course it can be found there more. Also, do you know what "ties" are? Are you seriously suggesting that a person's associates don't contribute to whether or not they have ties to a given country? That it doesn't matter where a person lives, but their citizenship is the only indicator of strong national ties? Really? If an American started an article on a British actor who was in a few American movies, MOS:DATEVAR gives them the freedom to choose whatever date format they want. There is no automatic date format for American Citizens versus British, Canadian, etc. ones. Per my longstanding policy of not addressing conduct disputes on article talk pages, I shall disregard the non-sequitur. (edit conflict) –MJL‐Talk‐☖22:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
"If an American started an article on a British actor who was in a few American movies, MOS:DATEVAR gives them the freedom to choose whatever date format they want." No, no, no, no! You don't understand this at all: if it about a British actor it would take the British date format, not one that someone wanted to force on the article. I don't care what your personal "policy" is: just because you started this article, it does not mean you WP:OWN it. Your claims above could have been copied from Wikipedia:Ownership of content#Statements. - SchroCat (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
There is a designated place for conduct disputes, and it isn't this RFC (WP:FOC). For the record and in case a newbie is reading this thread, that's what user talk pages are for. To your content policy related point, I highly encourage you re-read MOS:TIES. The examples of articles with sufficiently strong ties that it lists include: locations within the country, historical events of that country, and a person who founded a given country. I have no clue how you read that list of examples and conclude that every article on every person that who is only tied to a country by way of citizenship must use that country's date and language system. Gosh forbid anyone ever writes and article about me. Despite me my obvious own use of DMY, you might show up on the talk page to argue that it needs to use MDY because I'm an American and all Americans must use MDY dates. –MJL‐Talk‐☖23:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Your ignorance of the guidelines is noted, and you may want to try and take things on board that people tell you. Yes, the articles on British individuals are written in British English and use a British date format; articles on Americans use the US format, etc. Take a spin through as many biographies as you want, and you'll get the idea. You don't OWN this article, and the guidelines are there to stop crap like this from happening. I'm going to disengage from this, as you're obviously not taking this on board, despite it being basic stuff. - SchroCat (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Had to get that last swipe in me, I guess. This pointless back-and-forth was unhelpful and should probably be collapsed. I'll note as well that I have no plans to further engage with this RFC unless I am mentioned further. –MJL‐Talk‐☖23:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
MDY Epstein was born and educated in the US, and his businesses were based in the US and the US Virgin Islands. He was incarcerated and died in the US. The notion that this is not a US topic is just . . . bizarre. Cullen328Let's discuss it22:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
@Cullen328: For clarity, I'm not arguing that his biographical article should use DMY here. I'm saying the meme about a set of conspiracy theories, one of which suggests the British Royal Family did him, in has no strong national ties. –MJL‐Talk‐☖22:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
@Cullen328: I'm also not saying that the article is about British royal family. Look, there are 46 citations currently in the article, but 8 of those are just for the background section. Of those remaining 38 citations, roughly 20 of them mention Prince Andrew by name. I'm not going to even discuss stuff like this. Even if that wasn't the case, my point is that this isn't an article on people; it's an article on the meme. Internet memes aren't really tied to any one particular country (at least not in a way comparable to a national landmark). If you look at the article, there isn't any details of the conspiracy theory behind the meme because no one agrees on what they would even be. People just share the meme for its own sake, so there's nothing distinctly "American" about it. –MJL‐Talk‐☖02:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
It is crystal clear to me that this is a US topic, despite your innovative reasoning. Benjamin Franklin is a US topic even though he lived in London for almost twenty years and in Paris for almost ten years, and was very famous in both cities. If a meme about Franklin's flirtations with the beautiful ladies of Paris became notable, that would be a US topic. The subject of this particular meme was an American, through and through. You are not going to convince me, and it seems unlikely that I can convince you, so let other editors comment. I have had my say. Cullen328Let's discuss it03:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
DMY per MOS:RETAIN. The guy didn't write the star-spangled banner. The fact that a meme happens to center around an American subject doesn't mean that the meme has "strong" ties. Enwebb (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
MDY per Cullen. I also find the argument that this is not an American topic baffling. Even if we focus more on the meme than on Epstein himself, it's a meme that was popularized by an American news broadcast, about an American man's death in an American prison; it has primarily been covered by American news sources, and it's obviously more relevant to American politics and pop culture than those of other countries. Yes, Epstein had international ties, as rich and powerful people often do, and I'm sure people outside the US have shared the meme and written a few articles about it - but overall it is an American topic. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 23:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
MDY per above. He's American, the death was in America in an American corrections facility under watch of American authorities. SounderBruce06:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
MDY Obviously. As SounderB and others have noted, the meme is American; he was American; he died in America...and whoever is suspected of actually killing him is doubtless American also. Unless of course, it was the Fuggin' Duke of Edinburgh and MI6. I echo the sentiments of bizarre and baffling above. ——SN5412911:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I reluctantly accept that this conspiracist meme is probably notable by Wikipedia standards, but that doesn't mean we should be promoting it on the main page. Having the false statement 'Epstein didn't kill himself' appear in bold text on the main page is an embarrassing self-inflicted blow to Wikipedia's credibility. Robofish (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Because the statement was not made in Wikipedia's voice, I fail to see how it's damaging to the site's credibility. And in case it wasn't clear, most people who spread the meme don't actually believe that Epstein didn't kill himself; they just use the phrase as a tongue-in-cheek non sequitur. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
There was a fair amount of truth in what he said. He was highly critical of Hollywood. I don't know how much he believed that. I can't see any reason to believe that he was just joking about Epstein. It seems that many people do believe Epstein didn't kill himself. Simply because people say that lightheartedly doesn't mean they don't believe it.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
'Most people who spread the meme don't actually believe that Epstein didn't kill himself'. There's no evidence of that in the actual article. Is there even one example of someone using the meme, then admitting they don't actually believe it? It makes more sense to take anyone who says it at face value. Robofish (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Would this meme be considered a descendant of the classic "Bush Did 9/11" meme? They are both referencing conspiracy theorists and are used as placeholders and spam
Given the clear intent to offend, I'd say it's more equivalent to the classic 4chan slogan, 'Jews Did WTC'. Not that I have a source for that. Robofish (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
'his reported "suicide" led to truth about the nature and cause of his death'??
In paragraph one of this page, the quote 'his reported "suicide" led to truth about the nature and cause of his death' is written.
Thanks for bringing this up. There were several rounds of bad edits which left the paragraph in bad shape. I think I've fixed it now. --Macrakis (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
@Jack Upland: It passes WP:GNG for starters. Second, we're now at a point where heads of state and congressmen are getting in on it, so yeah I think it will still be notable in ten years. –MJL‐Talk‐☖13:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
@Jack Upland: Back when I was 11 years old, I had slightly different concerns that what my member of congress was saying lol. Regardless, could you honestly tell me a single thing that you knew about Paul Gosar besides the fact he shared this meme off the top of your head? How long is it going to be before his constituents can Google his name without seeing a reference to Jeffrey Epstein? In 20 years, when people are discussing Jeffrey Epstein; what do you think they'll remember the more- the circumstances of his death or all the funny jokes they shared with friends? People are slapping this meme onto their gosh dang dating profiles and buying christmas sweaters with the words knitted on it. Notability is not temporary, but I assure you this will have WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. –MJL‐Talk‐☖05:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
This article is notable in the fact that Jeffrey Epstein, in fact, did not kill himself. It's pretty obvious, he changed his will 2 days before he exited prison (one way or another), his lawyers doubt the story, both guards fell asleep supposedly, all the cameras failed, Epstein supposedly tried to kill himself 2 weeks before, he denied that he attempted suicide according to his lawyers, he was a very high profile inmate, Alex Acosta said the reason he couldn't have the book thrown at him was because he was "intelligence", he was connected to many powerful people, nobody on Wall Street knows how he made his money, the beneficiaries of his will remain unknown. He may not even be dead. He was connected to Robert Maxwell, a well known Mossad spy who was a member of the British Parliament, who got a state funeral in Israel. This event caused many people to realize what the US government really is. It's a criminal organization. While some still dispute the validity of the claims, polling suggests at least one-third of the U.S.A population believes that Epstein was murdered. (A Majority cite his death as suspicious) [1] Thus, this phrase will undoubtedly remain relevant for at the very least the decade, due to the large number of Americans who believe the circumstances are suspicious, and because it is possible that future congresses may yet order a commission be formed to investigate it further. Just as a commission revived parts of the Kennedy Assassination investigation in 1975 (Rockefeller Commission, HSCA in 1979), it is possible that a future congress creates a committee to investigate Epstein due to rising public pressure. Epstein was not a U.S. president, but he had significant connections with many people in power, lots of wealth, seemingly endless influence, and the circumstances surrounding his death are extremely suspicious, so it would not be unreasonable to suggest that a future congress may feel imperiled to investigate the matter to a more satisfactory conclusion. Such a commission, if formed many years in the future, would ensure that "epstein didnt kill himself" remained a permanent part of U.S. history. Regardless, based on the polling of Americans, it is clear that since 35% of Americans believe he was assassinated, it will remain influential, coming generations may be skeptical, and demand a more satisfactory explanation. Just as people often question the circumstances surrounding the Kennedy assassination's today, people will undoubtedly continue to question the circumstances surrounding Epstein's assassination/suicide well into the future due to his notoriety, connections, wealth, influence, and criminality. This phrase is not just a meme, just one of its uses is to relate the fact that the government, and the political class, are not telling the truth. This phrase is a part of American history now, its huge uptick in use in the matter of days was an event where Americans questioned the truthfulness of government, and even wondered if the government had been complicit in it. (Which remains an unanswered question) Not only this, but the circumstances alone dictate that this phrase will remain in popular memory for many decades, and may yet survive through generations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.125.190.90 (talk) 23:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I think the comment on 24 September 2020 confuses the issue of the Death of Jeffrey Epstein, which has its own article, with the "meme" which is the subject of this article. Yes, people still talk about the death of John F Kennedy, but what catchphrase do they use? The issue is: do we need a separate article about the catchphrase, as well as one about his death? The comment really puts forward an argument in favour of the death article (which is not in question), but largely ignores the catchphrase. I also think the argument about future investigations is misguided. There have been plenty of investigations into the death. Saying that government complicity is an "unanswered question" is nonsensical. There is an official answer — that there was no government complicity — and there is a "conspiracy theorist" answer — that, yes, there was. Sure, the death will probably become yet another example when the American public questions the official story, like Bigfoot, the Moon Landing, September 11, the 2020 election, the disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa, the death of Marilyn Monroe, the attack on Pearl Harbor, Roswell, the death of Elvis, new Coke, vaccination, the drug epidemic etc, etc. But, really, so what?--Jack Upland (talk) 06:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Ah, yes, i was confusing the two articles. However, it is probably beneficial to keep this article up, some of it might need to be re-written and added onto to provide adequate background about what the articles actually meant to cover though. (The specific rise of the meme, the widespread nature of it.. why it arose later on that year instead of earlier..) Just a couple reasons, 1. The use of the phrase will probably continue into the future, as a meme or not.. due to that statistic i linked prior, its clear that its in the public vocabulary, so it will continue to see some use. (This article mentions it in passing as a "major online meme" in relation to QANON) [2] (The tweets linked within the article include #McAfeeDidntKillHimself - clearly an evolution of the phrase this article describes. I'm unsure how popular it became, whether it trended or not, but a few of the tweets under the hashtag have 1k+ likes, dated as recent as June 23 2021. Another Article describes "epstein-like conspiracy theories" relating to McAfee and mentions the phrase this article is about in passing. (possibly drawing some readers) [3] 2. Ok, so it has spawned at least one similar meme, very recently, thats a pretty good reason to keep it, since it shows that its still in the public vocabulary. 3. Since it remains in the public vocabulary, it undoubtedly is still conversed about sometimes.. the memes still exist, its difficult to know how they spread, so people can still come across the phrase and need a Wikipedia article to explain it. 3.1 Its impossible to predict how long the meme'ing of this phrase continues, its possible it could be passed on to the next generation even, especially if each popular death continues to get turned into a meme (like McAfee with #McAfeeDidntKillHimself ) (Semantics: You may be wondering why that hashtag specifically can be attributed as an evolution of #EpsteinDidntKillHimself, well, #McAfeeWasMurdered is simpler isnt it?) 3.2 So, its entirely possible that new people come across the phrase and need to have a Wikipedia article about it, what if you were a newly turned teenager who heard the phrase in passing from a political friend, a Wikipedia article explaining its origin as the #1 google result would be helpful. Similarly, it still remains in online discourse, with at least mild frequency. See: "epstein didn't kill himself after:2021-01-01" - im not going to reference reddit threads and other things.. but Politi-fact mentions it as recently as June 25 2021 ([4] 4. The phrase is permanently contained in the Library of Congress. All congressional tweets are archived, and I know of at least one congressman which tweeted it during the 2019 peak. It hasn't completely died out since. I imagine future generations would like to know why the phrase is contained in the Library of congress, and they would like to see how broadly it impacted the world for those few days. Thats where i think the article could be expanded, it had a huge impact in the media for several days, and really was unlike other events before in that it remained in the cycle for much longer than normal, and brought engagement from a huge amount of people across all groups and identities. It had a cultural impact. Merch with #EpsteinDidntKillHimself continues to be sold to this day.. [5] 5. The google trends spike for this phrase is also a good reason for this article, it reached its all time high by far Nov 2019,this article should focus more on describing the peak of the meme and including some examples of the memes, describe its decline, and finally cap off with its continuing influence, it seems clear to me that this phrase influenced #McAfeeDidntKillHimself spiking on twitter & google trends just on June 25 2021, so I'd include a couple sentences on how it influenced the creation of that trend, link to a couple articles about it. Maybe even merge a description of #McAfeeDidntKillHimself into this article.. since its been meme'd as well. 6. Nyan Cat has a Wikipedia Article. ([6] ) So, if a meme from 2011 remains relevant enough for a wikipedia article today, a meme about a suicide is no different.. and I think I've made a case that it continues to remain in the public mind, just as Nyan cat does. (I presume the reasoning for its existence is the fact that Nyan cat is not forgotten, just like #EpsteinDidntKillHimself isn't forgotten, and future generations may yet stumble upon it and want a Wikipedia article on it) I dont think there's evidence that memes about this phrase have died out completely either, so its original justification remains as well, an explanation for the memes. Not going to cite all the reddit threads, but if you google the phrase & after:2021-01-01 you'll find them, and they have several thousand upvotes, as recent as this year. That's more upvotes than i've seen any Nyan cat meme get in the past year, yet its article remains. 7. No telling what future generations do with these memes, its very possible it re-appears frequently. Eventually, the crazy few days in 2019 where everyone memed about #EpsteinDidntKillHimself may become a small paragraph in an American History textbook that explains the dangers of national social campaigns on social media without the full story, or maybe, its taught as part of a lesson on how we meme'd about a conspiracy and forgot about it, allowing government to continue to become corrupt. There's no telling what lesson future generations might learn, they might just think its a funny event where everyone suddenly meme'd about a conspiracy theory that ended up becoming proven true, there might be bigger lessons, and the meme may even be studied at some point. Regardless, 8. EpsteinDidntKillHimself Memes continue to be created, in what number, we cannot know. Similarly, Nyan cat memes continue to be created, in what number, we cannot know. I dont think its necessarily important that the meme has died down quite a bit, just as nobody memes about Nyan Cat forever, nobody can meme about Epstein forever. But does anyone forget nyan cat? No. Do they sometimes need a wikipedia article to explain the craze of Nyan cat memes again? Yeah, thats presumably another part of the reason why it exists, to explain the meme to people. The same holds true for Epstein memes, nobody forgets it entirely, though they might need a refresher from time to time, and the meme may need to be explained to some. 9. The google trends data for this phrase is like other memes, though it is heavily depressed from its all time national peak, it still spikes to very high interest levels when you look at smaller geographic areas, and the spikes occur seemingly randomly and without pattern. One geographic area will spike, while another falls back to 0 interest. This is visible in the trends data for other memes as well, so it hasn't died, its just taken on life as a 'dead' meme like nyan cat memes are 'dead' -- that is to say, dead to some, but certainly not all as evidenced by trends data. Memes continue to spike seemingly randomly after their deaths, of course, might be reasons behind it, but it'd take a study for each occurrence to determine that. for now "random" spikes. (Trends data isnt like, insanely valuable, so im not going to reference it, but its not dismissible) (also you can google it and compare it to your choice of dead memes to see the similarities in the trend data anyways)
Personally i think Nyan cat having an article is the strongest justification I have, and this page deserves to exist for all the reasons that page does, + the above. Like if Nyan Cat, from 2011, still remains enough in the popular memory for a wikipedia artice.. then Epstein memes from 3 years ago, with recent mentions as of June, definitely continue to remain in popular memory
Sorry for the last edits, I was justifying the death article like you said & confusing the 2, can edit those out or leave for posterity (new editor so not sure which is ideal), the article reference is the only part of the previous edit to keep. Specifically I think work should be done to expand the article to include a description of the spread of the memes, its major platforms, modes of spread, etc. For example, I dont see it mentioned in the article that a 4chan user broke the news about Epstein's death, which could be viewed as a spark for the meme, since it took off on 4chan more than an hour before the news even picked it up. It was being memed on 4chan before his death was even announced, and thats part of the reason it had such a huge spread some believe, it would be beneficial to include a paragraph on its early spread on 4chan, and its subsequent leaps to all other platforms after the news picked it up. Essentially just describe in a paragraph how it originated on 4chan, and subsequently spread to most other sites, and occupied them for several days. Under one subsection named "Platforms" it mentions Joe Rogan and influencer platforms, but not social media platforms, and no description of its spread and occupation of those sites for several days. Nor a description of its origin on 4chan and early days. (its "rise") DrDrago1337 (talk) 09:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
OK, but why can't the Death article handle this? The "meme" can be summed up in a paragraph. Why does this need to be expanded into a separate article? The difference with the Nyan Cat is that there's only one article which deals with it. With regard to 4chan, I'm unclear whether the death was being discussed or the "meme" was being used. If people on 4chan were just discussing the death, then I don't think it belongs here. I continue to think this article should be merged with the Death article because many people have trouble distinguishing between the two issues, and in reality there is no point in distinguishing between the two issues. People who use the "meme" are generally expressing their lack of belief in the suicide theory.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I mean, it could be contained within the death article, but it would be an entire section with 3+ paragraphs in my opinion, which would make it highly convoluted. If you search #EpsteinDidntKillHimself, the wikipedia death article isnt even near the first page, so it would also make finding information more difficult for pretty much no reason. I think the death article already contains too much information about the meme, the two should be separated, there is the death of Jeffery Epstein, and then there are the two weeks where the Epstein didn't kill himself meme took hold and dominated. Especially since its spawned #McAfeeDidntKillHimself -- the meme has its own life, and its own meaning now.. its a meme about questioning what the authorities tell you
Thats pretty distinct from the death of a person, especially since the meme may continue to evolve with each new passing suspicious death. It seems wrong to update the "Death of Jeffery Epstein" article each time a new meme is spawned off of #EpsteinDidntKillHimsef -- especially since we really cant tell how long the meme remains, some memes re-appear from time to time, it'd look pretty stupid to merge this article and have #EpsteinDidntKillHimself trend again in a year-- two years-- whatever. I dont think its right to include much about his death being turned into a meme in the actual death article, it isnt too much to keep a separate article to describe the meme that his death was turned into--and that memes subsequent evolution. its not the death of jeffery epstein that continues to change and evolve, its the meme that continues to be used and evolve. In other words, I think the death of Epstein article should focus entirely on his death--reactions to it-- a blurb about how it spawned a meme, but then a link to this article which explains the meme and its rise, its fall, evolution, etc. An encyclopedia differentiates between a persons death and the unchanging facts around it, and a cultural reaction to it which continues on long after his death. Closest Analogy: The "OK boomer" meme could, technically, be contained within the article on baby Boomers.. but is the meme not distinct from boomers themselves? it is. Epstein's death article should describe his death, like the baby boomers article describes boomers.. They shouldnt be convuleted with the memes they've spawned, except for a small reference and link to the article about the meme. The OK Boomer meme spawned from boomers, just like the epstein memes spawned from epstein's death, but does that mean they necessarily need to share an article?
The meme is distinct from the death, its being symbolized to mean much more than its face value, just like many other memes. OK Boomer memes symbolize much more than just "ok boomer" the statement, epstein memes are the same, the symbolize much more than a simple reference to his death as the text appears on the surface. Specifically, I've seen it attributed to memes about government corruption in general, McAfee, and other popular deaths that occur in the future will surely follow.. Nyan cat wasnt spawned from a mans death, if the creator was inspired by a death to create the meme, then im certain there wouldn't be anyone trying to merge the Nyan cart article with the "death of x person" article since it inspired the meme. -- i believe 4chan was meme'ing about it within minutes, but of course, there will be a dearth of verifiable sources, so yeah probably cant include it because I doubt any reputable sources went into 4chan and catalogued the memes from the early days. (atleast I dont remember them if such sources exist) DrDrago1337 (talk) 03:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Do you have another more interesting hook? I feel like this is a little boring without context, kind of like the OK Boomer meme. How about this?
There are a few sources that may be seen as biased (in either direction), like Daily Dot and National Review. And to a smaller extent Slate, Fox, & the Intelligencer can also be seen as biased. However, the articles themselves are neutral, so I'll give the sourcing a pass. epicgenius (talk) 05:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
ALT1 is good to go, I personally find this the most interesting as well. Thanks for the quick response.
(edit conflict × 2) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
@MJL: per Rule A5, copied text from an article that is more than 7 days old must be expanded, character-count-wise, in the new article. How many characters of text did you copy from Death of Jeffrey Epstein? Additionally, Template:Copied must be added to the talk pages of both articles. Yoninah (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
This nomination is on hold until the merge proposal for this article has been closed one way or the other. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
As there has been a major expansion since the first approval, including entirely new sections, I think it's important that a re-review is done now that there was no consensus for the proposed merge, since the new material should be vetted for all the usual things (neutrality, sourcing, copyvio, etc.). epicgenius, did you want to do that, or should we find a new reviewer? My assumption is that MelanieN's approval of your ALT1 would still stand if the rest of the article still passes, though she may wish to reconfirm. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
–MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
–MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
.jpg?lang=en)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
Done –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Maybe Of your sources:
