Talk:Nadia Marcinko

Victim protection

I removed a 2006 story that was posted, it is unclear if she is a victim at this point. I would thing that we err on the side of caution and not include disparaging remarks from 13 years ago. There does not seem to be anything new in the news that names her so she could well have been a unwilling victim in the current legal activities in New York. --2600:8802:2200:2320:5C7D:8652:9634:83C5 (talk) 05:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Current federal documents point to her as being a co-conspirator.

I would leave old content, but be cautious about adding new. Genetikbliss (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

An IP 2600:8802:2200:2320:29ED:4D34:26:940A (below), has copied the above 2006 post from the archives; it dates from a period before Epstein was convicted of crimes, and in particular, almost a decade before quality RS WP:SIGCOV pieces on the subject appeared in sources such as The Guardian (2015), and Wired (2019). Britishfinance (talk) 08:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Victim protection once again

Can a Minor be a co-conspirator? I think the answer to this question is clearly no.

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous."

Some user has decided to go over the top reprinting the same things that have in the past been viewed as judge, jury and prosecutor. This young lady it sounds to me was a victim of this freak at the age of 15 and there is a clear indication that she was a underage victim that was suffering from the Stockholm Syndrome. This should really be reverted to the previous version as she was underage at the time and the author even states that in his new disparaging version in the conclusions made on the page.--2600:8802:2200:2320:29ED:4D34:26:940A (talk) 06:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

You have deleted a section of fully referenced material from The Guardian (a WP:SIGCOV piece), The Daily Telegraph, Wired (a WP:SIGCOV piece), The New York Times (notable author Philip Weiss), Miami Herald (notable author Julie K. Brown) – all of which are considered reliable sources in Wikipedia per WP:RS, and some of which are considered perennial reliable sources per WP:RS/P.

These sources are well aware of libel and slander rules, and are not known for printing material that would violate these rules; in addition, they concern the now convicted offender Jeffrey Epstein, and the publically disclosed material regarding Marcinko as part of his conviction.

You have re-stored a Talk Page archive from 2006 re Victim Protection, however, in 2006 Epstein had not been convicted nor any evidence was taken; all of the RS you have deleted date post-2006, and, apart from the New York Times (dated 2007), the oldest dates from 2105 (The Guardian and The Telegraph), but most are from 2019 (Wired, The Guardian, Miami Herald).

Your assertions regarding the subject are not from RS, they are from you, and thus not relevant to Wikipedia, which is solely about summarising secondary independent reliable sources (per WP:RS)) that are verifiable (per WP:V)

If you feel a particular source violates Wikipedia's WP:BLP, then please raise it at the Talk Page for discussion; however, avoid discussion-forum type posts on your concerns about material that high-quality RS have reported on; people come to Wikipedia to read what the RS say, not what we say.

Britishfinance, 08:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

1, She was underage slave, according to your draft that was taken in her early teens by Ebstien.

Please read: Stockholm Syndrome

2, Even the reporters state in the stories you cite that these things are all third hand statements, none of them provide any actual foundation evidence of the claims.

3, You don't dissuade a potential victim from coming forward.

4, The Daily Telegraph, Wired (a WP:SIGCOV piece), The New York Times (notable author Philip Weiss), Miami Herald (notable author Julie K. Brown) all simply repeating the same third hand claims that have been around since his original conviction.

5, I have actually read the original Florida criminal action as filed in Broward County Court.

6, She has never been convicted of any crime.

2600:8802:2200:2320:29ED:4D34:26:940A (talk) 09:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Again, these are all your opinions, and not the opinions of high-quality reliable sources. It doesn't matter what you or I read, it is only what reliable sources report on. You edits have been reverted, but if you persist, you will have editing privileges withdrawn, and the article will be locked from further IP editing. Britishfinance, 09:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

(if she was convicted or charged with anything it would be here but its not:WP:NPOV) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:2200:2320:29ed:4d34:26:940a (talk • contribs) 09:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Please do not tamper with other users' comments, as you did here - it makes it appear that they wrote your words. Instead leave your reply below the comment (quoting from it if necessary). Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable sources, not on an editor's personal speculations about psychological conditions ("This young lady it sounds to me ...", "there is a clear indication ..."). And the assumption that criminal convictions are the only content critical of the article's subject that is ever permitted to appear is wrong.

Please stop the edit-warring and take the opportunity to read up on the Wikipedia policies Britishfinance mentioned above. Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

{I was commenting on the age that she was when he brought her to the US, at 14 a child is unable to make that choice) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:2200:2320:29ed:4d34:26:940a (talk • contribs) 09:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies, I know them yes. Your way off base, and do not need to parse my words. I have read each of the ref's provided by the Brit.. and all of simple mince the words and contain no original reporting. Perhaps listing her in underage kidnapping victims would also seem to apply with the assertion in the test that she was 14 when Ebstien "bought her".

I have made a request for comment's from other editors, lets try to be civil please. 2600:8802:2200:2320:29ED:4D34:26:940A (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

If a reliable source (per WP:RS) says that she was the victim of underage kidnapping, or that she is the victim in general (plausible in my view, but I cannot list my views in WP), or that she suffered from Stockholm Syndrome (again, not entirely implausible), then it will go into the BLP. If you can find RS that say this, then you should add it. Britishfinance (talk) 09:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

A 14 year old child does not have the reasoning skills, if procured by the the accused Ebstien, to do anything about it. To assert that at 14 she became a co conspirator is sick really. In the US accused are innocent unless proven guilty, unless your on Wikipedia? 2600:8802:2200:2320:29ED:4D34:26:940A (talk) 10:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Where does the article "assert that at 14 she became a co conspirator"? Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

copying this post from 2600:8802:2200:2320:29ED:4D34:26:940A from my Talk Page, and my response

Why would you want to convict view media reports someone that has never been charged. How do you know she is not helping or cooperating in the investigation, you don't. WP:NPOV Your carefully crafted draft cites, recitations of news that was reported 14 years ago. If she is charged then run with it, but I think it should be done only if she is convicted, otherwise from a legal perspective she could come after the site for its slanted claims in your draft.--2600:8802:2200:2320:29ED:4D34:26:940A (talk) 09:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

(regarding the Nadia Marcinko article). You have the wrong impression of how Wikipedia functions. We don't take views on things or provide information that would be used for investigations. We simply report on what independent reliable sources say (per WP:RS). It is that simple. You are deleting material which is referenced to recent articles from some of the most reliable sources that Wikipedia uses (per WP:RS/P), including WP:SIGCOV pieces by The Guardian and Wired. Don't make legal threats (a big mistake on Wikipedia); if any of the RS are successfully sued by the subject, then the articles will be withdrawn; however, sources like The Guardian do not have a record of printing such material. Britishfinance (talk) 09:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

It is biased, please allow time for others to chime in, what is your hurry? Do you have some personal connection to this issue, I simply stumbled upon it when reading MSNBC story on him good grief. Pointing out that something could be considered liable is not legal threats, it is what people call a observation. I came to this page a few weeks ago and it was tagged for removal, now it reads as a obituary. Britishfinance, let others weigh in please. 2600:8802:2200:2320:29ED:4D34:26:940A (talk) 09:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

As well as legal threats, please also avoid making unsubstantiated WP:COI allegations against other editors. You simply stumbled upon it when reading MSNBC, however, you also note that you also came to this page a few weeks ago. The page was not tagged for removal, it was tagged for WP:NOTABILITY, but some dynamic IPs had been deleting references in the BLP?

In addition, please ensure that your further edits to this Talk Page are via your logged-on user name and clarify your IP edits, as a courtesy to other editors and to avoid the inevitable WP:SPI or WP:Checkuser process. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 11:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Czechoslovakia never a part of Yugoslavia

In the section Personal we read: "It was reported that Nada Marcinkova was brought as a young girl to the U.S. from Yugoslavia (Czechoslovakia was part of it together with Serbia and Bosniak)..." Not so. Czechoslovakia is separated from Yugoslavia by Austria and Hungary. Aves n Leps (talk) 13:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC) Aves n Leps

Agreed, just take out the material in brackets which is not right. I can see from various refs that she was born in Czech but her family seemed to move to Yugoslavia sometime later on but the location is never specific. Britishfinance (talk) 13:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

BLP

It gets worse than "Slovakia being part of Yugoslavia" etc.

As per the ref:

Jej rodičia, ktorí žijú v Prešove, spájanie škandálnej pedofílie Jefferyho Ep­steina a ich dcéry kategoricky odmietajú. „Úprimne, mediálne informácie mi pripomínajú detskú hru na telefón, keď niečo poviete jednému človeku, ten ďalšiemu v rade a na konci radu sa všetci zabávame na tom, čo z pôvodnej informácie nakoniec vzišlo. Lenže toto nie je smiešne a vôbec nejde o detskú hru! Sú to nepodložené informácie a fámy, ktoré ubližujú nielen mojej dcére, ale aj celej našej rodine,“...

In short, the father refers to a version of our WP:BLP.

I quickly fixed this unreffed claim, but let us keep the rest of the article that way.

Zezen (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps clarity as to the father’s expression could help, e.g., “According to her father, she was not brought as a young girl to the U.S. to live with Epstein, and (he stated in an interview in 2019 with Novinky CZ that) such gossip is defamatory both to her and her family.”

It is unfortunate that the Miami Herald reported the family as connected to Yugoslavia. Perhaps the subject does have some relation to that former nation but with so little written about her at this point, it seems wise to clarify the source and date that each claim was made about her history. Cedar777 (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, it looks good.

I thus leave it to the other Wikipedians, as long as such wild claims are doubly checked, and are in line with our BLP.

Zezen (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Complete translation of the fathers comments: (Slovic to English)

Her parents, who live in Prešov, categorically reject the combination of Jeffery Epstein's scandalous pedophilia and their daughters. "Honestly, media information reminds me of a child's play on the phone, when you say something to one person, another in a row, and at the end of the series, we all talk about what came out of the original information. But this is not funny and it is not a child's game at all! It is unsubstantiated information and rumors that harm not only my daughter but also our whole family. Bob5 (talk)