Jump to content

Talk:Ghislaine Maxwell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Education

[edit]

After Edgarley Hall she attended Millfield senior school. 86.7.120.76 (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2025

[edit]

Update the "Jennifer Araoz v Epstein's estate, Maxwell, and Jane Does 1–3 (2019)" section to include:

In late 2020, Araoz dropped her civil suit, which is a condition of the settlement was that victims could not pursue any more legal claims against Epstein or Epstein employees. The actual amount that was paid to Araoz from the Victim Fund is not known, as that information was filed under seal, but Araoz’s lawyer, Douglas B. Chanco, wrote that the defendant “has satisfactorily resolved Araoz's claim.” [1]Svfos (talk) 06:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC) Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).[reply]

Sorry, but that source doesn't seem to support? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple BLP violations?

[edit]

I have removed several mentions of the subject's relatives per the BLP rules and also rules concerning criminals. However the narrative is full of multiple mentions of the subject's parents, siblings and other living persons not involved in the criminal convictions of the subject. Consequently I believe this article requires substantial copyediting. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For a criminal, we can't mention "any parents, siblings and other living persons not involved in the criminal convictions"? I'm pretty sure both her parents are now dead. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite specific BLP policy on this? The closest I find is "Names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced", and that last clause is important. We do need to follow WP:BLPCRIME and consider strongly not including any statement that suggests that the relatives were involved in crimes ("Bob McCrime was the head of the McCrime crime family; Brenda was his niece" might qualify, I suppose), but merely stating that someone is a relative (or that the criminal phoned them) is not that. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For a criminal and well known socialite to have her sort of criminal and certainly socialite family members expunged from a BLP because of the sensitivities of associating family with criminal WP:BLP subjects is silly. All of her family have a shady background. In short, I'm pretty certain we should re-include. 2p. - Roxy the dog 14:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not really for you to say, though, is it? Either they are notable and in their article their shadiness can be cited, or they’re not, in which case BLP privacy applies. MapReader (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the OP has an axe to grind about the genetic bases for criminality? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In their articles, their shadyness is cited, so BLP privacy does not apply. Thanks MapReader. - Roxy the dog 15:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding, whatever BLP vios may exist here or not naming notable relatives as her relatives very clearly isn't?? Should absolutely be restored. What? PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-added this. Several of the people you removed information about have been dead for literal decades. It is in no shape or form a BLP violation to mention someone has an immediate relative if those people are also notable. Which they are. We are not insinuating they have committed any crimes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have substituted the more succinct format used in her parents' infoboxes (minus Michael, who has no article). - Davidships (talk) 10:26, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reddit account

[edit]

should the theories about Maxwell's Reddit account be included? (assuming maxwellhill is her, so much evidence leading to that) she had substantial and notable activity on the site. IAmAttractedToFemales (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where has this been reported? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drunk driving

[edit]

Ghislaine was convicted of drunk driving in 1996 and made headlines for it, also notable that the news clarified she listed her occupation as "Internet Operative" (and this was ten years before Reddit was created). one such article Fundy Isles Historian - J (talk) 03:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2025

[edit]

At least 8 batches of documents were ordered released in the case of alleged victim of Jeffrey Epstein, Virginia Guiffre, in her case against Ghislaine Maxwell.

https://publicintelligence.net/epstein-docs-batch-8/

https://publicintelligence.net/epstein-docs-batch-7/

https://publicintelligence.net/epstein-docs-batch-6/

https://publicintelligence.net/epstein-docs-batch-5/

https://publicintelligence.net/epstein-docs-batch-4/

https://publicintelligence.net/epstein-docs-batch-3/

https://publicintelligence.net/epstein-docs-batch-2/

https://publicintelligence.net/epstein-docs-batch-1/

add these references to:

Giuffre sued Maxwell for defamation in federal court in the Southern District of New York in 2015.

Piñanana (talk) 02:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]