Talk:Ghislaine Maxwell/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Announced her intention to sue for libel

Did she ? -- Beardo (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, added current location of statement from 3 and a half years ago. Philip Cross (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - but did she ever sue as she said she would ? -- Beardo (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks like it was the alleged victim that sued Maxwell for defamation, not vice versa. http://pagesix.com/2016/03/17/alleged-epstein-madam-forced-to-hand-over-17-years-of-documents/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.59.63 (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ghislaine Maxwell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140107063805/http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2011/03/notes-on-new-yorks-oddest-couple-jeffrey-epstein-and-ghislaine-maxwell to http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2011/03/notes-on-new-yorks-oddest-couple-jeffrey-epstein-and-ghislaine-maxwell

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Is this a Publicity Article?

It seems that only the favorable information on this woman has been included in this article. There is quite a bit of stuff that has been omitted that is of public knowledge or available for inclusion that has not been. Someone with the time and initiative will find a lot of additional information worthy of inclusion that will round out or shore up the perspective given here. This appears to be a publicist's version. Regards... Stevenmitchell (talk) 12:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

All self written memoirs and bios omit 'stuff'. I can recommend an image search which coughs up all kinds of interesting connections. What is also always omitted is sources of revenue - i.e. the crust. She just moved to the US, but the Maxwells were sort of pennyless when the empire collapsed. Before his death it was discovered that he had raided the workers' pension funds. Maybe he had squirreled the stolen pension funds away in the States? How do they pay their daily bread is always an important question!!! She'd done a lot things that cost money, helicopter licence etc. Socialite must pay really well.2001:8003:A921:6300:F51A:FBBF:B86A:FB7A (talk) 03:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes - Robert Maxwell stole GBP 400 million plus from the Mirror's pension fund and as far as I know that was never found or paid back. Cross Reference (talk) 15:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

She must have a good source of income. It says: settled in Giuffre’s favour, with Maxwell paying Giuffre "millions." ... that is from 2019. Unbelievable unless those who think there are secret service connections are correct. We'll watch for pointers, as we will not be told124.184.70.17 (talk) 07:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

BLP violation? Is one allegation enough reliable source to post it?

Reporting defamatory allegations based on one person's say so, defames a person without actually claiming it is true. So I ask if it is proper to put in this article:

"On 16 April 2019, a new accuser, Maria Farmer, went public and filed a sworn affidavit in federal court in New York, saying that she was sexually assaulted and her then-15-year-old sister was molested by Epstein and his companion, Ghislaine Maxwell, in 1996.[18]"

Is Maria Farmer's one person say-so enough for Wikipedia to repeat it? Is this more than gossip at this point? (PeacePeace (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC))

How does this count as gossip. The accusations are there and should be reported as such, nothing more, nothing less. 91.114.251.169 (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Fined for driving while intoxicated

It seems that this content regarding a driving violation for intoxication is unverified and should be removed. Any other editors have insights here? Cheers, Cedar777 (talk) 23:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Removed this content due to inability to find source or any other sources that reference it Cedar777 (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

BLP issues with "widely reported that she participated in the same crimes"

Wikipedia requires that Biography of Living Persons (BLP) are treated with great care and avoid defamatory statements. This statement is too vague and unsubstantiated to list at this time. Widely reported by which sources? Which crimes? and when? The subject's role and Epstein's role are not the same, even if the multiple lawsuits, settled and unsettled, point to Maxwell as complicit. There are even more lawsuits against Epstein, a convicted criminal with fresh charges. Your statement implies that Maxwell is complicit in all of these as well, even though Epstein was active both before and after Maxwell's involvement. The credible sources that have covered Maxwell are all careful to list her as the "alleged madam," "Epstein's associate," and to credit specific accusers with their more incriminating statements. Tabloids and opinion pieces may state that Maxwell participated in the same crimes but these sources are not useful on Wikipedia. Defamation must be avoided by sticking to the facts from the most credible secondary sources. This story will continue to evolve with more information in the days and weeks ahead. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

low quality intro

the introduction is imo low(est) quality. it looks like ghislaine maxwell is defined by beeing photographed with well known persons, only. i mean wikipedia is not trash reporting :( --ThurnerRupert (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@ThurnerRupert: RE: 1991 being inaccurate, to what are you referring? Please, by all means, find and cite the sources of more appropriate information for 1991 and for the lede. The subject is a challenge as there seems to be little concrete information about any career other than as a socialite or as the daughter of a disgraced media baron. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@Cedar777: i see what you mean and i agree. difficult. imo it would not make any sense to file a deletion request as not noticeable? it seems people go through the whole wikipedia though, and mass replace "epstein" with "epstein the convicted sex offender". like here in the lede. this is not ok, isn't it? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 13:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@ThurnerRupert: Epstein has old charges that he was convicted of in 2008. There is no debate about this fact. He is a convicted sex offender. He also had brand new charges for sex trafficking and sex trafficking conspiracy that were left unresolved after his recent death. The fact remains that Epstein is a convicted sex offender and is more notable for this than for his financial career. That said, listing financier first is most appropriate, with his notoriety as a convicted sex offender listed second as it was chronologically later in development.

Getting back to the subject of this biography, Ghislaine Maxwell, she has been highly visible in the last year (with increasing intensity of media coverage in past month) in excellent quality news publications. See the articles cited in her bio from the Miami Herald, New York Magazine, Vanity Fair, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. Are you suggesting that Maxwell is not notable rather than not "noticeable"? There is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

now i find the article more factual and better structured, thanks! --ThurnerRupert (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Coatrack

The Epstein section comes across as a WP:COATRACK. --Chiswick Chap (talk) 01:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I understand the point that you are making @Chiswick Chap:. Maxwell was full time "associate" of Epstein for 15 years (1991 - 2008+). What that association entails is harder to define. It is reported that she had a romantic relationship with him initially, it evolved into friendship, and that it also became an unofficial long standing business partnership of sorts. It doesn't fit neatly into the personal life section or the career section as she has declared that she is "unemployed" when donating money to political campaigns. None of the sources list her as having an actual title or an official job description when working with Epstein. I would list the heading by the location of New York but she traveled extensively with Epstein and did not stay in one location. The time and activity are defined by her association with Epstein. That is what the section has been renamed. The wording about sex trafficking allegations was removed. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Mm. I suspect the material is too fresh and raw for us to get a proper perspective on right now, and events are moving rapidly. I am concerned that the legal material is rather WP:PRIMARY and blow-by-blow news (and we're certainly not a news site, either). No doubt the material will settle down in time; very likely it will fit better into another article, or will be summarized here from (future) reliable secondary sources. Right now, hm. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: Maxwell's mother wrote an autobiography published in 1994. Still waiting for its arrival as the city library did not have it. It will likely prove more insightful than all the recent news coverage. Cheers, Cedar777 (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. But it's the Epstein section that is most in need of work, and that won't be in the book. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Surname of accuser with the first name Virginia

I caught a glimpse of an image of the first page of her lawsuit on TV — her name was shown as Virginia Giuffre. So she doesn't use a double-barrelled surname. —⁠184.207.152.32 (talk) 02:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The double-barrelled surname has been minimized. Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedar777 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2019

UK English spelling should be used here, shouldn’t it? The Huhsz (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I would personally support such change, however, change of English spelling variety requires community consensus. See MOS:ENGVAR. Please reopen this request if consensus for your change is achieved. Melmann 12:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Both MOS:TIES and MOS:RETAIN (sample earlier revision using British English) would argue for using UK English. --The Huhsz (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done since this would require consensus, which is likely given the subject and the above comments, but this is too general for an edit request anyway unless you go through and point out all the specific changes that need to be made (or do so in a sandbox for someone else to copy in). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I made this change in the absence of any opposition here. The edit notice needs to be fixed. --The Huhsz (talk) 06:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2019

I would like to update facts only. No trolling or vandalism Donjon388 (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Not done: Your request is blank or it only consists of a vague request for editing permission. It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected page; however, you can do one of the following:

• If you have an account, you will be able to edit this page four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other pages.
• If you do not have an account, you can create one by clicking the Login/Create account link at the top right corner of the page and following the instructions there. Once your account is created and you meet four day/ten edit requirements you will be able to edit this page.
• You can request unprotection of this page by asking the administrator who protected it. Instructions on how to do this are at WP:UNPROTECT. A page will only be unprotected if you provide a valid rationale that addresses the original reason for protection.
• You can provide a specific request to edit the page in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing will determine if the requested edit is appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Citation removed - can someone reinstate please

I added the content relating to Terramar UK with a reference to the source (Companies House in the UK) and it’s since been removed.

Can someone reinstate please, or let me know if I added it incorrectly. Thanks. Ambitus (talk) 05:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ambitus:The information and citation you added are still active under the Philanthropy section where TerraMar is covered. Thank you, Cedar777 (talk) 08:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Merge proposal discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge on the grounds that the companies/charity are independently notable from Ghislaine Maxwell. Klbrain (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

---

It has been suggested that this article on Ghislaine Maxwell be Merged with the article on The TerraMar Project. Do you Support or Oppose the Merge? -The Gnome (talk) 10:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support Terrramar is now closed down permanently while its UK sister organization is ostensibly in "hibernation". Not much activity in any case to have stand-alone articles about either. -The Gnome (talk) 10:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose It makes sense to wait a few months to see what comes of this "hibernating" organization and Maxwell's involvement. Hibernation is quite different to dropping the foundation entirely. Kind regards, Cedar777 (talk) 02:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• You cannot determine that the UK organisation is in “hibernation”. The Limited Company is still registered, and no application has been made for it to be struck off the register yet. Ambitus (talk) 09:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Greetings, Ambitus. The word “hibernation” was used in what appears to be a final announcement by the organization itself, as shown in the referenced link in the article. Here it is, once more. -The Gnome (talk)

@The Gnome: and @Ambitus: It appears that there is some confusion between A) the US nonprofit organization "The TerraMar Project", B) the UK based company listed as a charity that is actively and publicly registered under three people (Ghislaine Maxwell, Catherine Vaughan-Edwards, and Lucy Clive)with a Salisbury UK address, and C) TerrMar Organics which appears to be a clothing company (originally started in the UK but now global) that specializes in organic clothing and activewear with a logo that has survived multiple iterations. See this article for the history and transition: https://outdoorindustry.org/press-release/terramar-sports-worldwide-acquired-by-apparel-industry-leader-lamour-inc/

While I understand the clear distinction in the US between a for-profit business and a non-profit organization, the way these things are structured (and seperated?) in the UK is not familiar. Are charities required to register separately from for-profit companies? Perhaps there is a second source to verify that TerraMar UK is still active? Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• In the UK the definitive source is Companies House, as mentioned previously. See https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08661523. It’s active in the sense that there’s no reference there to it being wound up, struck off the register, etc.

There’s no requirement (as far as I know) to have a limited company associated with a not-for-profit charity - although many do (eg NSPCC Trading Company Limited - https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00890446) presumably because it makes a profit (however it is subsequently distributed) where the charity is registered here https://www.gov.uk/find-charity-information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambitus (talk • contribs) 03:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

See http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithoutPartB.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1154106&SubsidiaryNumber=0 also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambitus (talk • contribs) 03:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Greetings, Cedar777. TerraMar Organics is a separate entity and does not seem to have a website; it is present on twitter (here). For all we know, that's a for-profit corporation that's still active. But the UK-based, non-profit entity Terramar UK, an affiliate of the US-based, non-profit Terramar, has indeed indefinitely suspended its operations, as shown by the the announcement using the word "hibernation" in the corporate website (again, here). We seem to be confusing two separate issues: The formality of registration and actual operations, yet a company can suspend operations without being struck off the register. For some reason, Ambitus disputed the legitimacy of using the word "hibernation" when referring to Terramar UK, yet it's the very word the company itself used. So, I sincerely do not understand what the fuss is all about. It's a very clear situation. -The Gnome (talk) 05:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

There’s no legal definition for a company to be in “hibernation”, that was my point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambitus (talk • contribs) 05:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

When a company uses a term that is outside standard legal terminology, all we Wikipedia editors can do (what, in fact, we are obliged to do) is replicate the term they used. The term "hibernation" is evidently more of a P.R. term, rather than a legal one. But here it is, for whatever it's worth. There is no error at all in using it to denote the current, self-declared situation of Terramar UK. -The Gnome (talk) 06:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Please sign your comments, Ambitus. It facilitates the conversation. Thanks. -The Gnome (talk) 06:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Greetings @The Gnome: and @Ambitus:. Apologies for my lack of clarity above. My main concern was that I cannot find a link between Ghislaine Maxwell and TerraMar Organics. I believe the ocean advocacy nonprofit (The TerraMar Project) is completely separate from the web address associated with the clothing company in “hibernation”, i.e. Maxwell is only associated with A) and B) from above and does not have any involvement with C). The organic clothing company appears to have been bought out by another larger outdoor gear and clothing company neither of which had any association with Maxwell. Please correct me if I am missing something. Thanks and Kind Regards, Cedar777 Cedar777 (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Cedar777, I’m not aware of any connection to the organic clothing company either. You can search for her by name at Companies House in the UK to see which companies she is or has been an officer of. Ambitus (talk) 07:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose would like to keep this article and expand if possible. Its about more than GM. Fob.schools (talk) 08:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Notable subject on it own. ~ HAL333 18:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for a practical reason. Why would we try to jam all this content into a BLP? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2020 (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.

Personal life: new information on residency since 2016 and public appearance in 2019

This was removed as the source was deemed "unreliable". Do the pictures showing her at the restaurant not count as fact? I wonder who decides based an what criteria that The New York Post is unreliable?

• WP:RS specifically states that "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis."
• Also "Other reliable sources include: mainstream newspapers", which applies to The Post, I guess?
• Also the article is not based on rumors but has an unnamed source: a close neighbour of Borgeson and Borgeson himself. Therefore WP:NOGOSSIP does not apply either.
• In the article about Jeffrey Epstein The New York Post is used 6 times as a reference. Either someone is doing a really crappy job at keeping unreliable sources out or The Post is generally a RS unlike the editor removing the information claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.114.251.169 (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

So I wonder on what grounds the account and pictures given in the article are dismissed as unreliable?

I might agree leaving the first paragraph out but the second one is proven by photographs and should therefore be treated differently. In any case all of the information below comes from the same news article and is not unsourced as the person reverting the edit claimed.

>>In August 2019 it was reported that Maxwell had been living with tech CEO Scott Borgeson in his mansion in Manchester-by-the-Sea, Mass., since 2016. According to a close neighbour she left about a month prior. Borgeson has denied having a romance with her, stating "I am not dating Ghislaine. I’m home alone with my cat." Asked about the status of their friendship he declined to answer: "I don’t want to comment on that. Would you want to talk about your friends?"<<

>>Only a few days later she was spotted and photographed in a fast-food restaurant in Los Angeles, reading a book titled "The Book of Honor: The Secret Lives and Deaths of CIA Operatives." This was her first public appearance since 2016.<<

21:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC) 91.114.251.169 (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Here's a RS you can use: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/16/ghislaine-maxwell-seen-in-public-for-first-time-since-epstein-death -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Eating a burger at a fast food restaurant is not a "public appearance". Based on her reaction when she was confronted, she did not expect to be recognized. In my opinion, eating a burger at a fast food restaurant while reading a book is not a sufficiently important event to report in an article on Wikipedia. I strongly suggest not to include the report about her meal. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed that the burger sighting information is not necessary to include in the article. Perhaps it will become more relevant in time, but for now, it is invasive to the subject to post it and largely irrelevant to the broader biography.Cedar777 (talk) 01:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

No, her sighting is relevant. The FBI says Ghislaine Maxwell is now of 'renewed interest' in its ongoing case into allegations made by scores of minors and women that they were sexually abused by Epstein, Maxwell and his wealthy friends at homes in London, New Mexico, New York and the US Virgin Islands. --87.170.199.245 (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Her whereabouts are relevant, but the source and image at the burger joint are failing to hold up under scrutiny. See: http://www.insider.com/ghislaine-maxwell-in-n-out-burger-photo-photoshopped-2019-8

Best to handle each new “reveal” with some caution. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 16:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

American English but DMY dates?

The article is tagged saying it should use American English. However, it is also tagged saying it should use DMY dates. Per MOS:DATETIES, American English ordinarily uses MDY dates, not DMY dates, so this seems inconsistent. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The subject has spent about half of her life in the UK and half of her life in the US. It is a bit of a toss up as to which style of English is the most appropriate for the article. Which ever style, it makes sense to keep it consistent. Cheers, Cedar777 (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it is more important to consider her notability than the amount of time she lived in each place. My rough impression is that she has become more notable as an associate of Mr Epstein in the United States than she has been for aspects of her previous life in the UK. But I see that there does not currently appear to be a consensus to support that opinion. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

See #Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2019 above. The article was first written in UK English; I think the edit notice needs to be amended. --The Huhsz (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for not noticing that previous discussion. The edit notice was just changed to prescribe British English. I'm not sure I see a consensus for that personally, and would have preferred if the edit notice was just removed until a more clear consensus has formed. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

BarrelProof, There doesn't need to be a consensus per WP:ENGVAR: if the original main contributions were in BrE and there is no overwhelming reason to be AmE (etc.) then it stays. ENGVAR was written to avoid conflicts exactly like this. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. However, my sense is that we were having a discussion, not really a conflict. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

BarrelProof, Pardon me if I misspoke: I just meant if there is confusion, not necessarily a quarrel. Without having a value judgement on this particular discussion, it's clear that this should be {{BrE}}. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

What is an American Socialite?

I think it is important to look at the reported activities of a 'socialite' whither they be political or social. Socialites have occupations that should be noted when reported as it adds to the understanding of how one moves socially. According to the articles cited at my edit, the subject has been retired as well as unemployed. Is she still a socialite? The proper question is how was she a socialite?Church of the Rain (talk) 00:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Ms Maxwell has a certain degree of wealth and inhabits the sort of social environment in which a term such as "unemployed" doesn't really apply, because she has no apparent need to work at an ordinary job in order to maintain her lifestyle. Also, most of the salaried or hourly-paying jobs that she might hypothetically be able to get would not pay enough to have any significant effect on her balance of assets and liabilities. I think "retired" would only ordinarily be used for someone who has declared that they have retired and don't plan to work anymore in the future, or for someone who is old and inactive enough that a further career seems unlikely. As far as I know, she doesn't consider herself retired, and at 57 years old, she is still young enough that she does not need to retire as a matter of age-related decline. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The source for the subject's political beliefs is her own donations at Opensecrets.org. Her occupation is given at the time of each donation by herself, which is authoritative, but not as good as an interview. The heading is "Career" which we have already defined as 'socialite'. Socialite is simply defined as a 'socially prominent person.' In our country, a socialite moves in the political class rather than royals. The info I am adding is amplification which is the content cited in the article already footnoted. Church of the Rain (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Here is what I find for a definition of socialite: a person who is well known in fashionable society and is fond of social activities and entertainment.

Socialite is a fitting description for Maxwell. People primarily knew her socially, as one who is "fond of social activities and entertainment". The general sentiment that comes up again and again in interviews with those who know Maxwell is along the lines of "Yes, I knew her casually and socially for years but did not know of her business dealings, how she had acquired her wealth, or of the activities as described in multiple accusations and court documents." Around 2012 - 2013 there was a shift in focus, with Maxwell's appearances becoming more centered on promoting ideas about TerraMar, but she was still attending social events as a non-political socialite until the defamation suit from Roberts Giuffre began to heat up. She has kept a lower profile for the last 4 - 5 years, but the previous 40 years of being a prominent socialite in the UK and US is the dominant understanding of the subject's notability. More reports from the press are likely to fill in the unknowns over time. For now, I support retaining socialite in the subject's description. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The term seems ok to me, describing someone like Bruce Wayne who has lots of money and sports cars and is a frequent party attendee. The person might also have less well publicized side activities, such as amateur law enforcement in Wayne's case. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Former socialite

As Maxwell has retreated from appearing at public functions for several consecutive years running, she does not currently fit the definition of a socialite as one who "spends a significant amount of time attending various fashionable social gatherings." This is the reason for the modifier of "former" when describing Maxwell as a socalite, i.e. she was previously highly active in that capacity but has completely retreated from attending public events. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 01:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you have sources to support this, or is this your WP:OR? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: The content is cited to an existing source from the New York Times Twohey/Bernstein article "The Lady of the House." See the Wikipedia sections for Maxwell under Association with Epstein ("By late 2015, Maxwell had largely retreated from attending social functions") and Attempts to locate Maxwell to serve new lawsuits ("The New York Times stated that, by 2016, Maxwell was no longer being photographed at events"). This arose due to the coverage in the Twohey/Bernstein New York Times article which states: "Ms. Maxwell disappeared from the social scene after 2015, the year that Ms. Giuffre filed the defamation suit against her. By 2016, Ms. Maxwell was no longer being photographed at events." Added clarity with recent edit providing second source to Financial Times article. See Maxwell's bio for full citations. She is no longer active as a socialite. If there are reliable sources to the contrary, please advise. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I have read she is in hiding and doesn't want to be served with lawsuits. However that isnt summarized by saying she is a former socialite. Better to just say she is in hiding, if we can say that and comply with BLP. Celebrities go into hiding all the time. Maybe she is socializing with A-listers at her underground bunker for all we know. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Request for consensus: qualifiers for Robert Maxwell: disgraced? fraudster? none? other?

@Tataral:@Portillo:The subject's father, Robert Maxwell, is most frequently referred to by RS as a "disgraced" tycoon/baron/mogul. See references from the Guardian, the Telegraph, Independent, the Times, and BBC, It is true that there are some sources that describe Robert Maxwell with the qualifier of "fraudster". They are much less frequent, but they do exist. The ITV example cited in the main Robert Maxwell article and another from the New Zealand Herald. Fraud is a legal term. Since Robert Maxwell was neither charged nor convicted of fraud in the legal sense, this is a less precise word to use when one is looking for a concise qualifier. Request for consensus, regarding the most accurate way to refer to Robert Maxwell as A)a disgraced media tycoon/baron/mogul B)a media tycoon/baron/mogul and fraudster C) a media tycoon/baron/mogul (no qualifier) or D) another named alternative

I support option A: describing Robert Maxwell as a disgraced media tycoon (the same as the majority of RS do) Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Maxwell's own Wikipedia article describes him in the first sentence as a fraudster (with sources). As long as that is the case, it's perfectly acceptable to use that descriptor when briefly referring to him in other articles in which he is not the topic. This article on his daughter is not really the best place to litigate whether he "is" (or in his case "was") a fraudster. --Tataral (talk) 08:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The majority of RS avoid the descriptor of fraudster. Why might that be the case? Perhaps it is a result of different libel laws in the UK vs the US. The burden of proof lands with the journalist or author in the UK, whereas in the US, the burden of proof rests with the person bringing the libel claim. As the subject essentially worked for her father in the decade prior to moving to the US, he is a part of this biography, and as a result, debate about whether it is appropriate to label him a fraudster is relevant. Cedar777 (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Placement of Epstein in lede

@Tataral: The page for WP:MOSLEAD indicates that "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic." and "The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences." not definitively in the very first sentence. Maxwell has received a great deal of media coverage for her involvement in the Epstein scandal, particularly ever since his arrest in July 2019. However, she has been covered in the press and well known long before that, first as Robert Maxwell's (favorite) daughter, and then as a prominent London/New York socialite for several decades. Numerous sources state this.

As she has not yet been charged with a crime, the lede addresses these three aspects of her notability, chronologically, linking to Epstein in the second sentence. Rewriting the first sentence with a wiki link to Epstein, while leaving the second sentence in place with another wiki link to Epstein, is confusing and redundant. This a biography of Maxwell, not Epstein. Changes to the first sentence of the lede impact those that follow. She was born into a widely known family (soon wracked by scandal due to the missing pension funds) and grew notorious for allegations of procuring minors. The bio is a tough one, and it keeps changing as more becomes known. Perhaps the lede needs to be expanded with a second paragraph summarizing the civil cases, as these form such a large part of the article. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 04:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The first sentence is a consise summary of the article, and hence, why she is notable, and the first sentence always includes the most important descriptors. Like the lead section itself, the first sentence (the summary in the summary) is based on the contents of the article, which also applies to the weight the different topics are given. The first-level section "Association with Jeffrey Epstein" covers the vast majority of the body of this article, which highlights why this is her main claim to fame. Hence, it needs to be mentioned in the first sentence.

She is not primarily notable for being someone's daughter. Her father died when she was in her 20s and before she was even notable by our standards. Her relationship with her father is covered by a tiny part of the article consisting of just a couple of sentences. She is primarily notable for what she did as an adult, i.e. her involvement in the Epstein affair. Involvement in that affair doesn't imply that she necessarily did something illegal, only that she is associated with Epstein and the controversy surrounding him in the public consciousness. Her parentage is not more important than her involvement in the Epstein affair, as your propoposed first sentence implies. A Wikipedia lead section is not written strictly chronologically, it's primarily written according to the importance of the different aspects, and this especially applies to the first sentence (although there may be some chronological element to parts of a lead section, except the first sentence, and always secondary to WP:WEIGHT concerns).

Regarding her notability as a "socialite": That is just an aspect of her decades-long association with Epstein, and hence, involvement in the Epstein affair. She was associated with Epstein since the early 1990s ("remained closely associated with him for decades") as the article notes. This is a woman who has spent her life on a decades-long association with Jeffrey Epstein and who has become notable primarily in that capacity. --Tataral (talk) 08:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2020

This person is English!! Do not state her as British. She is English. Paulcoll1971 (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Reliable sources routinely refer to the subject as British. There is no basis for this change. It would be akin to referring to an American subject as a North Dakotan, or an Australian subject as a Queenslander. While these may be accurate, the are less useful to those farther from the location, i.e. too specific and too regional as it is the nation that is needed for nationality. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

FBI Arrest on July 1st/2nd, 2020

One of many sources:

It appears that Ms. Maxwell has finally been caught and arrested. This might blow open the whole Epstein/Andrew royal situation wide open.

FS3DPete (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

But why only now? Since Epstein's arrest and suicide, his victims have demanded that others involved in the abuse be brought to justice. --93.211.222.223 (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Maxwell family

I've noticed that a lot of her family have either very little info on them or not enough to warrant an entire page. I was wondering other people's thoughts on turning each individual page into an overview page of either "Relatives of Ghislaine Maxwell" or the "Maxwell Family". Naihreloe (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a good point and worth considering. The family was prominent in the UK in the late 1900s and at one time, all of Robert Maxwell’s children were publicly known. A few of the seven surviving children have changed their names and/or covered their tracks in other ways. The twins (Christine and Isabel), Ian, and Kevin are individually known for events that have receded over time, (Magellan for the twins and the trial for fraud for Ian and Kevin. But now that Ghislaine is in custody, there will be renewed interest in the family. More will soon be published to shed light on the legacy of Robert Maxwell and how this, in turn, shaped Ghislaine.

I support retaining the existing individual family member’s pages (and their separate histories) for now to wait and see. A Maxwell family overview page would be a welcome addition for readers looking for a quick summary of the family’s notability. That said, I am also curious about other editors thoughts on the matter. Thanks and Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The Maxwell clan is notable as a clan, and as individuals. This one appears to be as nice as her dad! -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 14:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, "Maxwell family" is needed.--87.170.207.160 (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not convinced a Maxwell family page would add anything, and in the WP:CURRENT time frame it would be another venue for current news trivia to be added. For comparison, I note there is Murdoch family and there is no Hearst family. And the notable Maxwells consists of father, perhps mother, and a few children, there aren't other branches for example. Perhaps a Maxwell family infobox or template giving links between the members' pages? Sussexonian (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2020

Change “charved” to “charged” in section on July 2, 2020 arrest. 198.255.179.200 (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you, Cedar777 (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Why isn't she listed as LGBT?

Why isn't Ghislaine listed with the tags as LGBT? Did she just like having sex with young girls? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:8484:7E00:A43B:5FC5:C14F:7B63 (talk) 12:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

No reliable source has referred to her that way. Cedar777 (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

According to Audrey Strauss, she played the role of a role model and told act in sexual manners. That means that she would be the fishhook, Jeff plays the Fisherman. She also was the instructor on how to perform the sex act. She did not have sex with young girls. She trained them hence that she was training them to perform the acts with Jeffrey Epstein. Personisgaming (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I hate to use this term, but it sounds more like the subject was an instructor in this area, not a sexual partner, forced or otherwise. Until some citable source emerges that proves she is a lesbian or bisexaul, we should not list as LGBT. Rklahn (talk) 07:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Procurer term

I removed the procurer term (Procuring (prostitution), which is analogous to madam. I dont think she has been charged with this, has she? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

She has now*, but I'm still not sure we should mention it in the lede. It was in the lede with "alleged" or a similar caveat before she was charged (when it was alleged only by civil suits and the Epstein indictment).

• According to Reuters (footnote 8) and other sources, the DOJ's federal complaint charges her with "four criminal counts [of] procuring and transporting minors for illegal sex acts". In the article, I summarised that as multiple "charges of crimes [of] sex trafficking" but procuring was part of the alleged offence.

Llew Mawr (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

citizenship in two countries and three passports

Please add: "has citizenship in two countries and three passports" → https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/ghislaine-maxwell-arrested-jeffrey-epstein/2020/07/02/20c74502-bc69-11ea-8cf5-9c1b8d7f84c6_story.html Thx --87.170.207.160 (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Great suggestion. Found it even more specifically defined in WSJ and added this to infobox. Thank you,Cedar777 (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Connections to intelligence agencies

Suggestions that Maxwell is connected to intelligence (Mossad) have come up before . . . but in the past, the sources were not the best. Perhaps that is changing. If there are several credible sources, a mention in the body of the article may be warranted. However, I agree that it is not appropriate for inclusion in the lede until there consensus and much more credibility in the sourcing. This is likely to be an ongoing topic of discussion and it is best to avoid edit warring. Thanks and Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Is it neutral and reliable to state Maxwell's father was a suspected Israeli agent?

Well according to biography of her father Robert_Maxwell and the sources there yes:-

• Ari Ben-Menashe a former Mossad agent stated her father was long-time agent for Mossad
• When Robert_Maxwell died/ (killed according to his daughter) he was burried in Jerusalem with President of Israel and six heads of Mossad attending his funeral. You know the exact kind of funeral average Joe expects!

Yet [[User:Acroterion|Acroterion] (talk) reverted the edit requiring consensus I am all for that but if it was Putin and six KGB heads who attended his funeral with a testimonial of a former KGB agent stating he was on of them, would we even be having this conversation. Why not Israel then? It's reliable and neutral info that deserves to be published. According to the book "Dead men tell no tales by Dylan Howard, Melissa Cronin, James Robertson, the pictures obtained by Epstein and Maxwell for their VIP guests were used to black mail them and extract favors for the state of Israel when and where it becomes needed. Please let me know what you think — Preceding unsigned comment added by MYS1979 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It's covered in Robert Maxwell's biography as a rumor. Why are you insisting on mentioning in it in the biography of his daughter? Acroterion (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Ghislaine Maxwell, the subject of this biography, reportedly met Epstein through Robert Maxwell via intelligence work. The existing sources all seem to point to Ari Ben-Menasche, appearing as several recent recorded interviews, as articles (Australian) https://7news.com.au/the-morning-show/jeffrey-epstein-was-a-mossad-spy-says-investigative-journalist-dylan-howard-c-595812 and/or rely heavily on the recent book “Dead men tell no tales” by Dylan Howard. I have not read the book. Is there anyone who has and can speak to it’s credibility? Cedar777 (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Spies/spooks/intel officers do not leave traces - that is their trade. You can only ever connect dots and produce a conclusion with probability. Robert Maxwell had an official Israeli government funeral, so he had been of service to the government. Some Jews were allowed to come out of the Soviet Union and that is what Maxwell arranged, I have read and I believe that. I even knew some of them. That is not spying but there may well have been additional activities which were.

Re Ghislaine: The money that set her up in the US must have been the money which Robert Maxwell stole from his employees. According to Bill Browder, Maxwell's London company had no funds at all on the day he died. Had Robert Maxwell lived, he might have planned to keep going with funds from Ghislaine or Israel payments for negotiating the release of Soviet Jews. It would not have been for free. I would not be surprised if the US government confiscates all of the Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell assets as "proceeds of crime". The timeline fits, Epstein was not wealthy before he met Ghislaine. In one source I read that Ghislaine found Epstein's address in Robert Maxwell's notes as financial adviser/secr. service connection. The trial will hopefully shed some light. We always need to know how things were done, maybe we can prevent them the next time. 2001:8003:A02F:F400:75E3:343D:E6C0:5EB3 (talk) 06:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not published by an academic press (Skyhorse publishing regularly publishes wildly fanciful conspiracy theory books), Dylan Howard headed and was the top editor for The National Examiner and The National Enquirer, before being ousted as too controversial even for them, and most of his books seem like the same kind of fanciful sensationalism that has proved those tabloids to be completely unreliable. I would not in any way consider him to be a reliable source. 2601:647:C900:D9A0:E41C:A1CF:9B91:7BF5 (talk) 03:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Are we missing the white elephant in the room and dancing around the obvious ? The biography of Robert_Maxwell in Wikipedia already states that he is a suspected spy. let's go beyond that. The question here is should this be inserted in the biography of his daughter or this information is totally irrelevant to her. I don't think there is any doubt here that this information is relevant giving what she did and how she met Epstein. Now out of abundance of caution and to avoid any knee jerks out there we can say "alleged Israeli spy" instead of "Israeli spy", I think that's fair, neutral, independent and reliable. MYS1979 (talk) 13:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

fixes

• == External Links ==

  SHOULD BE LOWER CASE "L"

• {{commonscatinline}}

  should be

  {{commonscat}}

• mugshot is informal and should be changed to police photograph.

 Done TheImaCow (talk) 09:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

(All done save the mugshot. It is not yet available.) Cedar777 (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Why is it so hard to change a word. It is a police photo FFS!

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ~ Amkgp 💬 11:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Ghislaine

User:Trillfendi recently deleted the pronunciation /ˌɡiːˈleɪn/ ghee-LAYN and kept only /ˌɡiːˈlɛn/ ghee-LEN, saying "It’s French so it's certainly not 'layn'". However, this is a primarily English-speaking British individual, and English pronunciations of names derived from French do not always follow the French pronunciation. An article from Vanity Fair reports the pronunciation used by the people introducing her in videos as "Gee-lane" or "G’lane", or even "Gee-lahn". Names like Aquitaine, Lorraine, and Maine are pronounced in English to rhyme with "rain", despite being from French. Unless we have confirmation of her own preferred pronunciation, we should restore the previous pronunciation guide /ˌɡiːˈleɪn, -ˈlɛn/ ghee-LAYN, -⁠LEN. --Iceager (talk) 05:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Note

See a photo of Ghislaine and Kevin Spacey in the Daily Telegraph of 4/7/2020, on the front page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7C87:4F00:BC0F:F0EB:5A0D:F9 (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

First sentence

The first sentence lists her as a "philanthropist". That seems quite, ummmm, unseemly. And not what she is noted for. She is known worldwide as the (alleged) procurer for Epstein's sexual affairs with minors. She is not noted for being a philanthropist. This should be reworded, somehow. It seems particularly offensive now, given the recent events. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Anorexia as a toddler

In Revision 966433957 I struck a reference to Ghislaine Maxwell having Anorexia nervosa, or perhaps infantile anorexia. As a WP:BLP, I felt the source, a biography of her Father, written by her Mother, was questionable, particularly for a medical diagnosis. WP:BLP suggests that such a reference should be "removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

In Revision 966443933 an editor restored the reference, although not word for word.

I propose striking the reference, and restoring Revision 966428527. I seek consensus before doing so.

Rklahn (talk) 05:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I oppose striking the mother's observation as it is relevant to the subject's early life and it is clearly attributed as the mother's observation, not a medical diagnosis from a doctor. The subject's mother also stated that all her children were brought up as Anglicans (but she is apparently considered reliable for this information). Both bits of information (that the subject was raised in an environment where the parents emphasized a particular faith and that she was raised in an environment where the family was grieving the loss of a child's consciousness for seven years before he passed) are as relevant to the subject's early life as the town she grew up in and the schools she attended.

The statements are clearly attributed to Elisabeth Maxwell, and are sourced at the end of each sentence, for readers to consult, verbatim, as needed. Elisabeth Maxwell's book is an autobiographical memoir, not a biography of the subject's father, and it contains some of Elisabeth Maxwell's later insights about her life and family, some of which are painfully honest. Cedar777 (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I am still in favor of striking the reference. Accepting that the Elisabeth Maxwell book is an autobiography, its not WP:V or WP:NPOV for a medical claim, which I assert the reference still is, despite the clear language that it's the mother's observation. The same source being used as a reference to the religion that the subject was brought up in is very different. The mother participated in the raising of the subject, and had a hand in what religion the subject was brought up in. I will let another editor argue that perhaps this is WP:OR, but I don't think it is.

The edit I made, Revision 966433957, did not disclaim that the subject underwent a traumatic, painful, childhood. I believe that this fact is horrifically relevant to the article. The citation was retained, and the reader can consult the work and draw their own conclusion based on the source material.

I also question if the claim of Anorexia nervosa in an infant is, in and of itself, WP:V. Medical research is lacking in this area, and there are advocates for a separate diagnosis of Infantile Anorexia. If we are talking about Anorexia (symptom) and not Anorexia nervosa, we need to work on making that a lot clearer.

Rklahn (talk) 02:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

We cant use WP:wikivoice for her mother's statement to say she was medically diagnosed with something. But we can include it with proper attribution saying 'her mother said she had anorexia as a child' I too dont see a good reason to exclude the content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. While still disagreeing with it personally, I could agree to a consensus that retained the gist of the edit, but using Anorexia (symptom) instead of Anorexia nervosa. Without the symptom edit, I still think we are too close to medical diagnosis. Rklahn (talk) 07:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Daily Mail and NYP pics

Hi

I have edited the last sentence of the "Personal life" section. Unfortunately the evidence used is in The Daily Mail, which is a banned ref and so cannot be used in the article.

It is important to note that the pictures from the New York Post (NYP) and The Daily Mail (DM) are completely different. The NYP ones are from outside the restaurant's patio area, while the DM ones are from inside. The photographs are also taken from completely different angles, roughly 180° opposed to each other

The ones from the NYP are of extremely low quality, while the DM ones are of high quality. Similarly, in the NYP pics Ms Maxwell is not happy, and appears surprised, while in the DM ones she is relaxed and hpsoing for the photographer. The Daily Mail claims "her dog appears", while in the NYP pics there is no dog visible.

One cannot conclude these are the same photographs. They are clearly NOT Daily Mail Pics link

The article stated that "they [NYP pics] were proven to be staged by her solicitor" - This is not supported by the refs, as the pics in the DM article are clearly not the same as the ones in the NYP. I agree that the ones in the DM are staged, it is clear that they are, but the ones in the NYP are NOT the same pics. Chaosdruid (talk) 07:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2020

Ghislaine Maxwell has not been officially charges trafficking 24.242.193.243 (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm opposed to this edit. In the United States, "being charged" is a commonly used colloquial phrase for the technical "having been indicted." Ms. Maxwell has been indicted. The source in both the first and second paragraphs shows that. I do, however, think it's excessive to mention this in both the first and second introductory paragraph. Rklahn (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

reference 44

wiki claims farmer contacted polic and fbi. the reference does not support that. "no coment" and "we take all reports seriously" dosnt verify the report was anything but fantasy. no offence. but catholic priests are accused of abuse half often as space aliens. (reference available) and cosby, nassir, weinstien all had exactl the number of accusers that "space aliens" get.. based on their "name populatiry". search for paper alien-abduction..htm

so it reminds me of the texas case. the 5 year olds nodded "uh huh" to all the incriminating questions.. because prosecutors were very serious looking.. there was no mass abuse.. but a ha.f amdozzen people were charged woth dancing naked, sacrificing chickens and fondeling.

if there was no report to fbi.. wiki should not be saying there was based on "no coment".

there are no unbiased parties. gold diggers, heroes and sensationalists.

never give your date an antihistimine in a hotel room. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.65.71 (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

reference 44

wiki claims farmer contacted polic and fbi. the reference does not support that.

""Farmer reported the incident to the New York Police Department and the FBI.[44]""

"no coment" and "we take all reports seriously" dosnt verify the report was anything but fantasy. no offence. but catholic priests are accused of abuse half often as space aliens. (reference available) and cosby, nassir, weinstien all had exactl the number of accusers that "space aliens" get.. based on their "name populatiry". search for paper alien-abduction..htm

so it reminds me of the texas case. the 5 year olds nodded "uh huh" to all the incriminating questions.. because prosecutors were very serious looking.. there was no mass abuse.. but a ha.f amdozzen people were charged woth dancing naked, sacrificing chickens and fondeling.

if there was no report to fbi.. wiki should not be saying there was based on "no coment".

there are no unbiased parties. gold diggers, heroes and sensationalists.

never give your date an antihistimine in a hotel room. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.65.71 (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Citizenship

Why does it say "US naturalized citizen" instead of simply "United States"? Are we now doing the apartheid-style nativist stuff of "real Americans" vs. "not really one of us"? 184.101.189.72 (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Consult the source article which states "Maxwell is a naturalized U.S. citizen but retains citizenship in the U.K. and France and appears to possess passports from the three countries." That is the way a reliable source described her status. If you don't like the language, please address your concerns to Wall Street Journal. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

There are some differences between "naturalized citizen" and "natural-born citizen" in the United States. Denaturalization, while doubtful in this case, exists. I don't think its Nativist, or approaches anything resembling Apartheid. Rklahn (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

All citizens of the United States are American, period. There should be no place for fascism, racism, and nativism here. Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting. 184.101.189.72 (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

As I described, there are some differences between "naturalized citizen" and "natural-born citizen". Not all citizens are equal. While the situation may be debatable as to if it should exist, this is not the place to do it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. I think you are being unnecessarily inflammatory. Rklahn (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

It is genuinely baffling as to the extent of offense taken to careful, specific, and sourced information about the subject. Nearly a year ago, I added three nations to the infobox for the subject's citizenship in this edit. A few weeks later, they were deleted by another editor for being unsourced. It was therefore quite welcome to see that recent sources were specifically addressing and clarifying the complex history of a subject with strong ties to three nations.

To set your rather severe and inflamatory accusations of nativism, fascism, racism, and aparthied to the side in an effort to focus on the essence of your complaint, it appears that your request is to remove mention of the specifics of nationality/citizenship from the infobox, correct? In consulting WP:INFOBOXNTLY, it advises that "Use of nationality and citizenship simultaneously should rarely if ever be necessary (complex cases should be explained in the article prose)." That seems clear enough from the MOS. I propose 1)retaining the infobox category of citizenship (with listings for United Kingdom, France, United States), 2)removing nationality, and 3)clarifying that the subject is a naturalized US citizen as prose in the body of the article. Cedar777 (talk) 05:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Cedar777 Rklahn (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree with OP, we dont discriminate even if the source did. There is no such distinction as naturalized citizen and citizen. Remove it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Also agree with OP. Her history is complicated, her father being Czech, naturalised British in 1946, and her mother French. She was born in France but lived in the UK until age thirty, thereafter in the US, and she has citizenship of France, the UK and the US. I notice the article nevertheless describes her as British in the opening sentence. I somehow think she is going to end up spending the majority of her life in the US. Her stated occupations are the more questionable part of the article IMO. MapReader (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. There is a citable and potentially relevant difference between "naturalized citizen" and "natural-born citizen". Denaturalization is one of the differences, and as someone charged with a serious crime (again, relevant and citable), remotely possible. Rklahn (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

What is so citable and so potentially relevant? And do Charlize Theron, Christian Bale, or John Oliver need to be characterized with both a nationality and a citizenship? Nationality and citizenship simultaneously should rarely if ever be necessary. Can you articulate the potential relevance here that doesn't apply to those three pop stars? And can we assemble a list of subjects who show both nationality and citizenship in their infobox? Mcfnord (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

A few paragraphs up I agreed with an evolving consensus that would remove nationality from the infobox, and retain citizenship. What I am saying that is citable and relevant is the fact that the subject is a "naturalized citizen" which, right or wrong, comes with a different set of rights than a "natural-born citizen." Among them is Denaturalization, a process that would revoke the subject's United States citizenship. It's remote, but possible, because the subject has been indicted for several serious crimes. Of the people you mention, two of them have naturalization directly mentioned, and the third has language that strongly implies it, apparently without controversy. None of the three, Im presuming, are under indictment, so naturalization is even less relevant for them. I don't feel a strong motivation to gather a list of subjects as you suggest. Ive already agreed with removing nationality, and even if I did not, you can do your own research. Rklahn (talk) 02:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no shortage of notable people with more complex citizenship/nationality represented all manner of ways on Wikipedia. (Anthony Hopkins has nationality listed as well as citizenship to two countries, editors at Natalie Portman apparently felt the need to address her dual citizenship in the very first sentence of the lede (not in agreement with that!), and Arnold Schwartzenegger has an entire section of prose clarifying his evolving citizenship status in the US and Austria (including a statement that he is a naturalized US citizen). The MOS has guidance for INFOBOXES but does not restrict more specific information on citizenship in the body of the article. Please point the discussion to the appropriate MOS link describing these restriction if this is mistaken.

Sticking with the guidance in WP:INFOBOXNTLY seems to be a good way to move forward for this biography. RS repeatedly describe Maxwell as British for nationality, i.e., the culture she was educated in & absorbed, regardless of her current citizenship status. Recent sources have clarified that she does, in fact, have active citizenship in United States, France, and United Kingdom. I agree with the OP, and editors Jtbobwaysf & MapReader that "naturalized" should be removed from the infobox as it does not belong there. I also agree with Rklahn that there are valid reasons to retain the more detailed information. Of course, any mention of her specific citizenship process or status will need to be moved into the body of the article as prose and sourced as per the Schwartzenegger article. Cedar777 (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with nearly everything that Cedar777 and Mcfnord have said recently, but I hesitate to invoke the Schwartzenegger article as precedent. His particular popularity, Austrian dual-citizenship, and presidential ambition come together in an unusual way, even more unusual than the subject. Rklahn (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

As a public offical, the implications of Schwartzenegger's citizenship are more complex than Maxwell's. Her citizenship does not warrant a separate section, just a mention, perhaps best placed in the context her Arrest and indictment, when RS began to address it (especially given that France does not extradite & CNBC and this was a factor in her being denied bail). Since there is no longer an editor advocating for her status as naturalized to remain in the infobox, there is consensus to remove that detail from the infobox while discussion is ongoing regarding placement within the text. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 05:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Such a consensus exists, IMHO. I hope we can reach a consensus on naturalized US citizen as prose quickly. Rklahn (talk) 07:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding the content as part of the Arrest and indictment section, after there were no aditional objections or suggestions on where else to include as prose. If this is problematic, we can come back to the drawing board. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 08:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

U.S. vs. US

In Revision 968088304 we went from "U.S. Virgin Islands" to "US Virgin Islands". I think "U.S. Virgin Islands" is right. At least two government websites have it that way. Im having a hard time finding a site that goes with "US". Let go back to "U.S. Virgin Islands". On the other hand, I don't want to simply undo a good faith edit. Rklahn (talk) 06:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Looks like the Manual of Style covers this topic here MOS:US. Seems it advocates for consistency within a given article with some additional guidance. Cedar777 (talk) 08:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

As Cedar says, this is already covered by the consensus at MoS:US. There are already several references in the “US” format within the article as well as a “UK”, so the change of the recently added sentence concerning the Virgin Islands is just for consistency. Both formats are acceptable within WP and the unpunctuated format is widely used within the US (see for example CNN.com - here[1] is a link that resolves your search); in this case the MoS directs toward the unpunctuated format. MapReader (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. Let's leave it be. Thanks for the discussion. Rklahn (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2020

Dates should be: July 2nd 2020, not 2 July 2020 104.221.47.70 (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Article was originally written in British english and uses the corresponding DMY format, not the American MDY format as per WP:ENGVAR. Thanks and Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

New Documents

With the release of new documents, I believe the mention of the sexual connections shouldn't involve Trump or anyone else. Just Prince Andrew and Bill Clinton. Personally I think it should be scrapped and changed to potential links to high standing figures to avoid disinformation. Therealninja47 (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Not entirely sure I follow. Are you saying these new documents exonerate anyone but Prince Andrew and President Clinton? If thats the case, I think that should be citable, otherwise, it approaches original research. Rklahn (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The answer is, surely, that in such a high profile case with myriad BLP issues, we stick very closely to what the RS are reporting. We shouldn’t be making our own judgements one way or the other, but follow what appears in the mainstream media. MapReader (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely agree with MapReader on this. Entering into a little opinion here, there is probably a lot more to be reviled here, and we need to stay with reliable sources. Rklahn (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Revealed and reviled, I rather suspect ;) MapReader (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)