Talk:Marvin Minsky/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Cleanup needed

I added the cleanup tag. The biography section needs to be structured better, it just kind of goes from one topic to another without any natural progression. Some of it could probably be moved to the trivia section; maybe the parts about his contributions to Jurassic Park and 2001 could be moved to their own section. Also, as discussed above the edits on the page which appear to be from Minsky himself seem to be legit... these are very informative comments and need to be integrated into the article.

Letslip 01:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

marvin monroe

is the simpsons psychologist based on him? Family Guy Guy 05:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Year of confocal microscopy patent added

The page on Confocal microscopy has the year of 1957 as the year of Minsky's confocal patent. I believe that date to be 1961 for 3 reasons, but boy it would be nice if Dr. Minsky read this and ensured I was correct. So I added the year here to be consistent with his another patent having the year attached to it. Now the three reasons are 1) I could find no support for 1957 in the Confocal microscopy article. 2) I found support for the 1961 date in an article by Dr. Jeffrey Lichtman (et alia?) in an August 1994 Scientific American article entitled, "Confocal Microscopy." 3) Based on the Lichtman article, I searched the patent records, and while very limited data for old patents is available, a search for the last name of Minsky reveals no patents at all in 1957 but one patent in 1961. December 19th specifically. 3,013,467; US Classification 356/432. A further search shows:

US Class 432 FOR LIGHT TRANSMISSION OR ABSORPTION:

This subclass is indented under the class definition. Subject matter wherein visible radiation is passed directly or with internal reflection through solid, liquid, or gaseous substances or any mixture thereof including coated solids, and detected visually or photoelectrically after it has passed through the substance for the purpose of determining the intensity, the change of intensity, the extinction of the radiation, or the outline of the radiation source or image.

(1) Note. As between this Class 356 and Class 250, the claimed combination of a light source, a support for a substance to be tested by a transmission test, and a photosensitive detector with or without indicating structure is classified in this Class 356 providing there is the disclosure of an indicator responsive to the detector not provided for elsewhere. If an indicator of the quantitative type such as a meter is present in the claimed combination, classification is in Class 356 regardless of the claiming of the support.

(2) Note. The patents claiming a light source with the transmission of this light through a substance and detected (usually quantitatively) are in subclasses 432+. If no light source is claimed and only the light intensity of a specific location or locations is involved and not the amount of light attenuated in the passage of the light through a medium or a substance, or only the intensity or a light source is desired without regard to the attenuation of the light in its passage through a medium, see subclasses 213+ on photometry.

Based on the above, I am very confident the date is 1961, not 1957. Hence I added it here, and will correct it in Confocal microscopy. --SafeLibraries 03:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

With regards to the above, 1961 was the date that the US patent #3,013,467 was issued, however it was filed in 1957 and hence its term started from that year. --Colin E. 09:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Great to see others involved. In this case, I will change the date back to 1961. Patent terms nowadays (since June 8, 1995) run from the date of issue but last 20 years from the date of filing. However, for this older patent, patent terms run from the date of issue for 17 years. In either case, patent terms run from the date of issue, not the date of filing. And in our case, that would be 1961. To prove this to you, look here http://bpmlegal.com/howtoterm.html. Note also "In any event, the 20 year term laws take effect June 8 (barring any change in legislation between now and then). The patent term will begin on the issue date and end 20 years from the date of filing." Thanks again for your input. --SafeLibraries 11:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I put an excerpt of the SciAm Lichtman article on the Confocal microspopy Talk page. By the way, if Dr. Minsky is reading this, may I have your autograph with a short message to children of the future? --SafeLibraries 03:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

His Picture

The page used to contain a picture of him. Why was it removed?

Yeah, that’s interesting... And more - I refuse to understand it... I uploaded http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Marvin_Minsky.png and added to the top of the page the code but the image didn't appear! Strange... --Yuriy Lapitskiy 17:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, reuploaded it to jpg... --Yuriy Lapitskiy 18:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Edits made by the subject of the article

Will we accept the correction of quotes by on 1 January 2006 by someone claiming to be Marvin Minsky? (This is the dilemma of anonymous editing of a wiki.) Were these quotes published contemporarily elsewhere? GUllman 22:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Considering that according to IPLocation.com, is located at "MASSACHUSETTS BROOKLINE RCN CORPORATION", and that minsky@media.mit.edu also posted to the newsgroup comp.ai.philosophy from the same IP address, I think we can incorporate these quotes as his own recollections of the incidents. GUllman 01:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes -- I talk to Marvin Minsky regularly (he was my thesis advisor) and those comments are certainly his. (I had recently suggested he make some fixes to his Wikipedia entry.) Pushsingh 01:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

While I blanch from my own temerity, I'd still like to ask you, Pushsingh, to contact Minsky and ask him to register onwiki and comment on talk. We must rewrite his edits, merging them into the article yet, perhaps, continuing to cite them as direct quotes. It's all a mess and I'd like the warmth and comfort of User:Marvin Minsky hovering nearby. John Reid 02:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, Push passed away a few weeks ago. I will try to answer your comments as soon as I can - however I don't seem Marvin nearly as often. Cmouse 04:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can email Minsky. You don't need a .mit.edu domain to get him to answer. Personally, I think no one should be above wikipedia convention, though anyone can help create conventions. --Jaibe 08:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Technically, we can't accept previously unpublished accounts or explanations, even if we have ironclad proof that it's Minsky adding them personally. It needs to have appeared in some other published s source first. Stan 23:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well we can treat his edits as pointers to parts of the edit that may be false (or that he wants expunged from the article for vanity reasons, perhaps). I took the liberty of removing the Jurassic Park edit because of this - since having a conversation on a beach about something that didn't appear in the film is perhaps too trivial an occurrence --82.35.240.214 21:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

"old man minsky"

I have no first-hand knowledge, but I found several non-wikipedia references to him as such, most notably this 2006 Discover interview. Tvoz | talk 07:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

http://donbot.com/DesignBot/Bibliography/Bib02MinskyDiscoverInterview.html

XOR problem

Added a mention of Minsky and Papert's incorrect assumption on the XOR problem. --Spazzm 21:00, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)

This is odd. Minsky and Papert were correct that Perceptrons cannot represent XOR, although of course multilayer nets can. I deleted the contribution that suggested different. --PushSingh

Minsky's book killed any hope of government funding for research into artificial neural networks. He was right about what a perceptron could not do, but wrong about what a two or more layer network of perceptrons could do - i.e. model just about any continuous function. Minksy biased his views in the book in order to acquire continued military funding for MIT for research into knowledge based systems. The article must incorporate this tragedy more formally. --Amit 06:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Preferably without the POV. Cmouse 16:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Please cite references for these assertions, so that we can document them properly. --Fjarlq 20:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The stated assertions are common knowledge, and I don't see any POV bias in them. Reviewing any lenghty archived discussion on Marvin Minksy, such as on Slashdot, (or book reviews for Perceptron) should yield pointers to several references. One reference in particular that comes to mind is the book The Brain Makers by HP Newquist. --Amit 04:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I am deeply sorry, but the "common knowledge" is plain wrong in this aspect. Please, let us have great care with this subject. One of the reasons Wikipedia is criticized is because it may borne "popular" conceptions that are not necessarily true. Let's use this tool to finally put an end to the enduring misconceptions on the history of neural networks and of Minsky's work. Plus, it's even funny, if not tragic, that someone might use slashdot as a source to solve a wikipedia dispute. This is not at all the righteous path.

The book Perceptrons suffers from the "Necronomicon syndrome". It is a book that is often mentioned, but was actually read only by few people. I do not wish to talk about why so many researchers continue to spread the misconceptions regarding this book, but the fact is that one learn the tale from the other, cites them, and the myth goes on, when all we have to do is simply read the original book. The book should stand by itself as a reference. There is no need at all to quote any other books as a source of explanation of a book that can be read directly by anyone. And it's not even an old, strange of inaccessible book. It is relatively new, and had an edition published in the early 1980s, with a new preface where Minsky seems confused about the strange things people started to say about it.

The XOR problem regards only what a single neuron can do, and doesn't tell us much about Perceptron networks. It tell us as much as the fact that a single AND or OR gate can't also implement the XOR function by themselves, while both are routinely used in standard electronic circuits. The fact that networks of Perceptrons are needed to perform minimally interesting computation was known not only by Minsky, but much earlier by Rosenblatt, to whom the book was dedicated (if I am not much mistaken). This is a first misconception that must be cleared out. Some people talk as if the book came to destroy Rosenblatt's previous and historical research. Minsky and Papert's feeling towards him were pretty much the opposite, they talk wonders of his work.

The fact that networks of neurons are able to implement any kind of boolean function was known by McCulloch and Pitts themselves. In fact, in the 1943 article I believe they even mention the fact that we can use these neurons with memory units and build Turing-machine-like devices. Minsky and Papert also knew that, everyone knew that. Some people say that this was only started to be proved in the 1980s... If you don't believe me regarding these books and articles, the originals, you can also take a look at the 1964 book by Michael A. Arbib, that talks about boolean functions and state machines built from Perceprons in a very explicit way. Even if anyone insist in disputing the contents of the works of Minsky, McCulloch and Rosenblatt, this Arbib book is enough to deny the claims that the (boolean) generality of neural networks was only discovered in the 1980s. One may (must) also read the exceptional book by Minsky called Computation: Finite and Infinite Machines. It is from 1967, so it is even prior to Perceptrons, and it is a book of basic computer theory, covering finite state machines and Turing machines. The important thing is that Minsky uses Perceptrons to describe the construction of the machines throughout the book!

Regarding the findings in the Perceptrons book, what it contains are never-disproved theories regarding the limits of Perceptron networks, and how the sizes needed grow with the problem complexity. It is general, and is goes much further then the XOR case. In fact, the proof for the XOR function is easy, and is not subject for a book, perhaps half a chapter... This proof is much larger, talks about feed-forward Perceptron networks in general, and states limits for the functions implemented. The best example of the kind of inherent limitation they proved that MLPs have is the drawing at the cover of the book.

That is what amazes me the most. Everybody talk about the book and about the trivial XOR-function/single-perceptron problem. But the most important and big problem is the one in the drawing of the cover. People not only have not read the book, they don't even know the cover of the book!!

I will explain the problem and the cover drawing now. But I urge you to instead go to your library and read the book, because I will spoil your experience... It is as pleasurable as watching a movie, or reading any other good book! So, "spoilers warning". Here it goes. The problem is that of identifying whether a colored area in a drawing is a single area, or two separate areas, or to determinate the connectedness of a drawing. The proof shows that a network of limited size can only solve the problem for drawings with limited sizes. This limitation exists to this day, will never be overcome, and is in fact the routine problem posed to an engineer who needs to build a MLP to solve certain problem: determine the number of neurons needed... Because the best we can do is to build a network as large as the requirements of the problem. You can't build a fixed-size network to solve any problem. (And this is ok!... It's just like selecting the order for a linear filter to do the desired job.)

Another common misconception is that people had no idea of the so-called backward propagation algorithm in the 1960s, but if you think about it, it's just a pretty standard optimization algorithm. And they did it back then!...

I would be glad to have a deeper discussion with anyone interested... I shall start to edit this article right this weekend unless anyone manifests himself. I only hope to do a job as minimally good as Push might have done. It is a great shame for wikipedia that him and Minsky himself have dedicated some of their times to this page, but to this day it still contains inaccuracies. I hope we all can do justice to wikipedia and to Minsky. -- NIC1138 (talk) 05:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Participation in the Victim of the Brain film

Does anybody have reliable sources on this? I've heard people say that it might be true, and there is indeed a character that is introduced as Marvin Minsky in a fictional part the film (here at 1:45). But Marvin Minksy is not in the official credits, which is hard to explain. The character that is supposed to be him seems to have an English accent. Julien.dutant (talk) 14:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal communication

Please don't add information or remove challenge tags based on uncited "personal communication". Such edits will be reverted on sight. Superm401 - Talk 07:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that one, but where can I find a list of what information needs for sure to have a reference? For example, do the names and dates of birth of people need to be referenced? Why does religion? If this is so important to be verified it should perhaps remain blank instead of "pending". I imagine this is debated somewhere already, can someone point me a link? -- NIC1138 (talk) 07:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible Misquote

I checked my copy of 2001: A Space Odessey, and in the quote it says 1980's in stead of 1960's. Could anyone confirm, and if necessary correct this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.197.0.162 (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Good reference to mine for more details

In Honor of Marvin Minsky’s Contributions on his 80th Birthday,AI Magazine Vol 28, No 4: Winter 2007. Model summary sections on Minsky’s Research and Contributions and Minsky's Personal History, in addition to anecdotes from John McCarthy, and several former students, including Danny Hillis, Patrick Winston, et al. Now free access: added as a named reference for easy re-use. --Paulscrawl (talk) 05:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Marvin the Robot

Was this character from Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy named after Mr. Minsky? If so, an interesting reference.

-- Interesting if true, but not. See Marvin the Paranoid Android -- Paulscrawl (talk) 05:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment on Eastern Thinkers?

Did Minsky make some controversial comment recently about how the orient has failed to produce cognitive scientists? I've heard of it, but I think I'm missing something. --Christofurio (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marvin Minsky. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://alcor.org/AboutAlcor/meetsciadvboard.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Please list Carl Hewitt as a doctoral student in Infobox

Please list Carl Hewitt as a doctoral student in the Infobox. Carl (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 02:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Marvin Minsky. 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/20120616204508/http://mitpress.mit.edu/e-books/Hal/chap2/two3.html to https://mitpress.mit.edu/e-books/Hal/chap2/two3.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060630001944/http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/02/26/loebner_part_one/index4.html to http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/02/26/loebner_part_one/index4.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120716182537/http://mitpress.mit.edu/e-books/Hal/chap2/two1.html to https://mitpress.mit.edu/e-books/Hal/chap2/two1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060829135040/http://www.edge.org/video/dsl/EF02_minsky.html to http://www.edge.org/video/dsl/EF02_minsky.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 16:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marvin Minsky. 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/20110526130553/http://www.fi.edu/winners/2001/minsky_marvin.faw?winner_id=3528 to http://www.fi.edu/winners/2001/minsky_marvin.faw?winner_id=3528

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 03:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Allegations of child sex abuse

The section Marvin Minsky#Child sex trafficking and abuse is problematic. It currently reads:

Child sex trafficking and abuse

In 2019, Virginia Giuffre named Minsky as one of Jeffrey Epstein's child trafficking clients in an unsealed deposition in Federal court.

This all hangs on a few words in Giuffre's deposition, which was unsealed in 2019, but made in 2016. In it, Giuffre claimed that she was "directed to have sex" with Minsky (among others). She did not allege that Minsky was a "client" of Epstein's or that she in fact had sex with Minsky. There is no corroboration of this claim from any other source. Giuffre has not pursued legal action against Minsky or the others, and has not even accused them in public. None of them have been indicted, let alone convicted, for any crime related to this.

Now, of course, it may be true that Minsky was in fact a "client" of Epstein's, and did in fact have sex with underage women procured by Epstein. Which would be horrible. But Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Regardless of how horrible the allegations are, Wikipedia only reports verifiable information, not speculation or personal conclusions.

That Giuffre made accusations is certainly verifiable, and probably belongs in the article. That they are true is not currently verifiable, and does not belong in the article. One editor has been insisting on maximalist wording. He or she has removed the word "allegation", added by several editors, multiple times. He or she insists on a section heading, "Child sex trafficking and abuse", which is not supported even by the accusation. He or she wrote an edit comment, "It's not a wiki's job to contextualize. Sorry your hero is a pedophile." which is both a personal attack on me and goes beyond what the uncorroborated deposition says. It may be true that Ghislaine Maxwell "directed [Giuffre] to have sex with Minsky", but the allegation does not go beyond that and claim that Giuffre actually approached Minsky or actually had sex with him. The same editor characterizes the word "allegation" as a weasel word, saying that it "doesn't matter".

This section needs to stick to the verifiable facts of the matter. --Macrakis (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The only thing here problematic is how you are doing the bidding of a degenerate pedophile. ChrisRehm8814 (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging on the Talk page, but I'd appreciate it if you'd avoid the personal attacks. Anyway, I can hardly "do the bidding" of someone who's been dead for three years.

What evidence do you have that Minsky is a "degenerate pedophile"? Giuffre was testifying about the behavior of Ghislaine Maxwell, and said nothing about what she did or what Minsky did. Just because someone tries to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge doesn't mean that you in fact tried to buy it, let alone that you actually handed over your money! According to a blog, Giuffre did in fact approach Minsky, and Minsky turned her down.[1] But of course a second-hand report in a blog like that isn't a reliable source. --Macrakis (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

How about the evidence of sexual abuse victims as evidence, Stavros? It's really disgusting that you're trying to muddy the waters, and pretend since there's no video evidence of Minksy doing this it's impossible to believe. ChrisRehm8814 (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The victim in question is Virginia Giuffre. She has never claimed that Minsky had sex with her, only that Ghislaine Maxwell told her to. --Macrakis (talk) 11:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Better to have a picture of him in his prime?

Looks a bit old and tired; not representative of his life overall?

Some one is spamming for Minsky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.8.120 (talk) 15:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Richard Stallman Tie-in

If this article is truly about encyclopedic knowledge, there needs to be mention of Richard Stallman being forced to resign from MIT for defending Minsky's activities on Epstein's island. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.218.2.192 (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

What activities are you talking about? If you’re taking about the accusations that he had intimate relations with Virginia Giuffre, there is no evidence he had sex with her (Giuffre never said they actually had sex), and there is testimony from multiple people (Gregory Benford and Minsky’s widow) that he did not. We already have discussed this issue extensively here. Samboy (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC on Giuffre/Epstein issue

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.

---

}} Should Minsky be characterized as a "child trafficking client" of Jeffrey Epstein, in a section entitled "Child sex trafficking and abuse"? --Macrakis (talk) 12:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Editor ChrisRehm8814 (a WP:SPA) has created a section entitled "Child sex trafficking and abuse" [2] where he or she has been repeatedly re-inserting [3] [4] IP edit, possibly the same person [5] the unsubstantiated claim that Minsky was named as one of Epstein's "child trafficking clients". He or she has also removed the qualifier "alleged" or the clarification that the accusation was uncorroborated from the article multiple times. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Several editors have pointed out that Giuffre only testified that she was "directed to have sex" with Minsky in both edit comments [14] [15] and on this Talk page. ChrisRehm has made multiple personal attacks on those who disagree with him, again, both in edit comments [16], on this Talk page,[17] and on his Talk page.[18] He or she has not responded to substantive discussion (see Talk above). He or she has been informed of Wikipedia policies on his or her Talk page.[19] Although this account has only ever edited the Marvin Minsky page, the editor apparently knows WP procedures well enough to try to intimidate another editor with a uw-vandalism2 warning [20].

My last edit, [21], presents what I believe to be an accurate and properly contextualized summary of the Minsky-Epstein connection. --Macrakis (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment When the underage girl was directed to have sex with Minsky, it probably indicates he was a client since Epstein was in the trafficking business. She was also constantly being forced to perform such service with other clients. However, calling Minsky a client could be problematic for two reasons. First, there was no evidence that he paid for or solicited the service. Epstein was known for befriending scientists and academics and Giuffre's service could have been offered as a favor (although, I don't know if this already made him a client). He might have even played another role in this affair (e.g. an associate). Also, the reports I was able to read only cited one accuser so far. By the way, this article in RollingStone reported that another witness claimed she took the trip with Giuffre and Minsky during the incident. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not it was a 'freebie' doesn't change the fact that he had sex with an underage sex slave. Prostitutes are fungible and accepting one establishes a quid pro quo relationship. ChrisRehm8814 (talk) 03:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Giuffre never said that she had sex with Minsky. She said that Maxwell "directed her" to have sex with him. Concluding from this that Minsky was "probably a client" is pure speculation. It appears that Epstein was in the blackmail business,[22] so tempting his guests could well have been part of the operation. Presumably some guests succumbed, and others didn't. We have no evidence that Minsky actually did anything at all with Giuffre. --Macrakis (talk) 12:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes she did. Stop being intentionally dense to protect your friend from MIT. ChrisRehm8814 (talk) 12:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Please show us the evidence that she had sex with Minsky. The only evidence I've seen is the deposition in the Maxwell case, which does not say that she had sex with Minsky. And please stop the personal attacks. --Macrakis (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• My understanding is that Wikipedia is about "verifiability". We can verify that Guiffre approached Minsky.
  But where is the verifiability of what happened next? :And even IF he did have sex with her that he did it knowing that she was a prostitute? [User:SimetraartemiS|SimetraartemiS]] (talk) 14:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

She did not have agency in this as she was a minor and was regarded as chattel by both Mr. Epstein and Mr. Minsky. Regardless of whether or not there's a sex tape to "prove" what happened, by her testimony alone Minsky was a child sex trafficker as defined by USC 18 §1591 et seq. ChrisRehm8814 (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Under what section of USC 18 §1591 do you believe that Minsky was a child sex trafficker? If an underage prostitute approaches me on the street and I turn her down, I am not a "sex trafficker". --Macrakis (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

USC 18 §1591 (b1) and (b2) make is clear that someone who "patronizes, or solicits by any means" is a trafficker. Giving Mr. Minsky the benefit of the doubt that he turned her down, which is a highly dubious fact stream (why would she have recall of someone like Mr. Minsky, who isn't well known outside of his field, if she had no sexual encounter with the man?), not reporting this activity to the authorities makes him an accessory after the fact in the commission of human trafficking. Also, people hire prostitutes to perform non-sexual acts. The mere relationship between the two constitutes patronization. ChrisRehm8814 (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer (and I will guess that you aren't either), but "patronize" presumably means to engage the person for services, not just to encounter casually. Otherwise, as in my example above, if a prostitute were to approach me on the street or at a party and offer her services, and I turned her down, I would still be guilty of "patronizing" her, which is ridiculous.

Prof. Minsky was not only very well known in his field, but was in St. Thomas at Epstein's place running a conference that Epstein financed (a fact which for some reason you deleted, even though it smells bad -- at least in retrospect). The testimony was about Maxwell directing her to approach Minsky. To use your language, "it is a highly dubious fact stream" that she wouldn't mention that she had sex with Minsky if in fact she had.

Not reporting the situation is problematic if he realized what was going on -- the key word in the statute is "knowingly". Assuming that Giuffre actually approached him (which is not what she said, but was reported by a third party, who also said that she turned him down), how was he to know that she was underage, and that she was being coerced? I would guess that famous people like Minsky get approached by fans (some underage) fairly often. Remember, this was in 2002, before Epstein's behavior pattern was widely known.

If it turns out that Minsky was taking money for conferences etc. from Epstein after it became clear what Epstein was up to -- the way the Media Lab under Ito was -- that's a different matter. So far, we haven't seen any evidence of that, but of course I keep an open mind.

But until now, all I see in the Giuffre-Minsky testimony is that it was Maxwell that was a bad actor. I would guess that Epstein's strategy of putting rich or famous men in compromising positions succeeded some of the time, and we will, I hope, eventually find out who they were. But so far, we don't know, and we certainly don't know that Minsky was among them. --Macrakis (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes we do know. Her testimony says so. Stop muddying the waters.

• Q (BY MS. MENNINGER): Where did you go to have sex with Marvin Minsky?
• A: I believe it was the U.S. Virgin Islands, Jeff's -- sorry, Jeffrey Epstein's island in the U.S. Virgin Islands.

ChrisRehm8814 (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

You have quoted the answer correctly, but that's not what the question says.[23] The question was: "Where were you and where was Ms. Maxwell when she directed you to go have sex with Marvin Minsky?" Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find an online copy of the full deposition to make sure it is being quoted correctly. --Macrakis (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I copied and pasted directly from the deposition. ChrisRehm8814 (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Where did you find that text? Most sources I've seen show the other text. Anyway, even that text is ambiguous. --Macrakis (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Full Text. It's not ambiguous. --ChrisRehm8814 (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

And what about the rest of the testimony where Guifre admits to not knowing how old she was?

Q And when was that?

A I don't know.

Q Do you have any time of year?

A No.

Q Do you know how old you were?

A No.

SimetraartemiS (talk) 02:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

She was groomed and continuously used as a sex slave from the ages of 14-17, and Mr. Minsky used those services. There's no 'contextualization' that can change that here, Stravos. I thought Penn State was a cult for the way they turned a blind eye to child sex abuse. I had no idea that MIT was even worse cult. ChrisRehm8814 (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Are you claiming that Minsky knew that Guiffre was a prostitute? SimetraartemiS (talk) 04:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Other People in the lab knew: 'The New Yorker reports that Epstein was aggressively courted by the Media Lab, which consulted him about the use of funds. He even brought young women in tow when visiting the Media Lab to meet with senior researchers in person as a VIP. (“All of us women made it a point to be super nice to them,” Signe Swenson, a former employee at the lab, told the New Yorker. “We literally had a conversation about how, on the off chance that they're not there by choice, we could maybe help them.”)' — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisRehm8814 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Chronology matters. The Giuffre claim was about 2002. The New Yorker article is about the period after his conviction (2008). --Macrakis (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Chris, Guiffre was 16 when she first met Esptein. You can check it here: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/09/nyregion/epstein-sex-slave-documents.html -- SimetraartemiS (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• NO - do not state as “child trafficking agent”. Not a strong claim. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comments (refactoring discussion): I'm making a series of edits now to try to keep this discussion looking like an RfC and something that might still aid consensus, despite the participation of several new editors with limited understanding of our processes and little effort to investigate and adhere to basic talk page guidelines or behavioural norms. The mangled use of formatting in particular, plus a whole lot of irrelevant commentary has already made much of the foregoing discussion bloated and difficult to track. I have attempted to remedy this with some refactoring, but it will amount to very little if our new users do not put some effort into meeting baseline expectations for how to proceed in a consensus discussion on this project non-disruptively:

ChrisRehm8814, you need to slow your roll, my friend, particularly where it comes to WP:CIV, WP:NPA, and just basic courteous interaction with your fellow editors, or I assure you, you're tenure here will be limited indeed. We're already on the edge of how far we can indulge some of your behaviours before an administrative call is made to assess your ability to participate here, particularly when it comes to unwanted and irrelevant speculation on who you think your rhetorical opposition are and what you believe their motives to be. Neither area is a useful or acceptable topic for you to be ruminating on in a discussion on this project. Argue the point, not the supposed qualities or motivations of the other party, as you perceive them. On this project, we don't arrive at conclusions based on who advances them, but rather on the basis of which argument most consistently applies our WP:policies, as an expression of community consensus, to the subject matter and sources. In this regard, you are losing the argument here very badly at the moment, by failing to even engage on a level that is relevant under this project's approach to WP:Verification and WP:Reliable sourcing--and all the ad-hominems in the world will not help you gain consensus for your preferred approach if you can't re-adjust and make an argument predicated in this project's guidelines rather than accusations of a cover-up. In fact, those kinds of comments will only undermine your credibility and position further.

You have advanced an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim here. That means the WP:ONUS is upon you to find a WP:reliable sources which support your claim. And by that, I mean exactly your "client" language: the fact that 1) you have a source that says this exploited young woman has recounted being told to sleep with Minsky and that 2) it suffices (in itself) for you to feel comfortable arriving at the conclusion that he was an Epstein "client", does not mean it also suffices under our WP:verification policies to replicate your conclusion within the article. Please see especially our policies on WP:original research and WP:Synthesis. You need a reliable independent source to arrive at this conclusion, rather than you (or any other editor for that matter) making he determination yourself. In fact, because this is such an exceptional claim, you would need several high-quality sources to expressly use the "client" label before we could even consider using it in Wikipedia's voice. It is your responsibility as the proponent of this addition to supply this sourcing, and without it, you cannot prevail here. This is not a matter of bias or an attempt to whitewash--this is the standard Wikipedia approach to verification of content and to WP:neutrality, regardless of the topic in question.

SimetraartemiS: I took the unusual step of removing your last addition to the talk page. Having an entire portion of a statute plastered across the page, in an already disjointed and poorly formatted thread was just not tenable. Further, for reasons related to the WP:original research point I have just made to Chris, it is not relevant: we're not here to argue whether, in our own perspective/legal evaluation, Minsky would or would not have been guilty of this or that offense, had there been some theoretical trial over this or that set of theoretical set of facts. This is WP:NOTAFORUM for open discussion and speculation, even if your own commentary was directly in response to Chris' own original research: the answer to his approach is not to engage in that debate in similar terms, but rather to point out that we don't care about (or wish to see) such assessments by our own editors: we are concerned only about what the WP:reliable sources say about a particular topic, on balance of things, and within context. I have therefore deleted the statute and the subsection you created for it. I would advise not re-adding it, as it is irrelevant to the editorial discussion at hand, but if you feel you must make reference to it for some reason, please just use an external link to the relevant subsection of the online location from which you referenced the Title 18 offense. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Snow Rise: Thanks for your comments. Just one correction. The statute was not added to the Talk page by SimetraaretmiS, but by ChrisRehm8814 in this edit. --Macrakis (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing that to my attention, Macrakis. SimetraaretmiS, my apologies for the confusion: from all appearances on the live page at the time I began reformatting, it looked as if that was your addition. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Apologies accepted. SimetraartemiS (talk) 05:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• NO - An associate explains why. Bottom line: "This is the first one about someone that I know personally and it rings false." ("unreliable" blog, but by a published author and expert.) https://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2019/08/11/artificial-intelligence-and-commercial-sex-purportedly-intersect/ -- Yae4 (talk) 12:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

He doesn't explain anything. He tries to conflate this as being just like the Stormy Daniels and Donald Trump affair, which is a non-sequitur as that was a consensual affair between adults that is only of note because of campaign finance violations and threats made by Cohen after the fact to help cover it up. Just saying, "gee shucks he was an alright kind of guy who I could never see doing this sort of thing" is the very sort thing that enables this sort of systemic abuse to happen. ChrisRehm8814 (talk) 05:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Yae's source is A) not remotely a WP:reliable source for our purposes on Wikipedia, and B) is being used to advance a position based in WP:Original research. But, here's the problem: so are all of your arguments. If you want to include the claim that Minsky was a "trafficking client" of Epstein's, please show us multiple, high quality independent reliable sources that say as much. And by that I do not mean "Here is source #1 that says X, source #2 that says Y, and source #3 that says Z, and I [ChrisRehm], by combining these facts (which I judge to be established beyond doubt), have arrived at the perspective that this means Minsky is guilty of a particular crime." That is not how this project verifies claims or establishes WP:NEUTRAL, reliable content. You must show us sources that arrive at the exact same conclusion you want added to the article (here, that Minsky was Epstein's "client" in these sordid, exploitation matters). If you cannot provide such sources at this time, then please WP:DROPTHESTICK and let this matter go, because there is literally no other way that this content can be added to the article, and if you keep WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion with incessant comments that show you have made absolutely zero effort to understand the content standards and processes of this project, the likely outcome is that you will eventually be blocked for WP:disruption. Again, I urge you to read our policies WP:Original research and WP:SYNTHESIS before participating in this discussion further (also WP:Verification, WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT, WP:Reliable source, and WP:TRUTH--but start with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH). Snow ^{let's rap} 07:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Still NO. Philip_Greenspun who worked with Minsky has a good reputation. We could argue about that source. Nevertheless, we should also give weight to Minsky's widow, quoted in the (non-consensus reliability) source, which is already referenced in the section. A more neutral presentation might have a article section saying "Unsubstantiated claims released posthumously." Neutral presentation would give weight to Minsky's wife, quoted in the same NY Post source:

Minsky’s widow, Gloria Rudisch, denied to The Post that he had sex with Giuffre or any of the other girls at Epstein’s residences.

She said that she and Minsky visited Epstein’s residences in New York and Palm Beach “three or four times at the most” and that they always went as a couple.

“We were always together,” she said. “We didn’t stay at his house or anything.”

Rudisch said that there young girls at Epstein’s residences, but that “none of them seemed very young.”

“I’m a pediatrician, I think I would have noticed,” Rudisch said.

Of Epstein, she said nothing about him struck her as suspicious and that he seemed like “just a rich guy interested in science.”

-- Yae4 (talk) 11:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the section title "Unsubstantiated claims released posthumously" suggested by Yae4.SimetraartemiS (talk) 01:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with that section title for two reasons: the section title should be more neutral and more specific than that; there is the unfortunate (in retrospect) fact that Minsky did accept money from Epstein for a conference. Though there is no reason to believe that at the time (2002) he knew about Epstein's crimes, we probably should keep that information in the article. As a general rule, I've found that when there is a popular association between one topic and another, it's worth cross-referencing them so that misinformation doesn't get added instead. See, for example, the mention of "walking on custard" in Custard#Physical-chemical properties, even though in fact it is not custard at all that is being walked on. -- Macrakis (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, although I think that example is not an ideal one, insofar as we're talking about a misnomer in one instance and a vague and uncertain implication in another. However, putting the outside exemplar to the side for the moment, I certainly feel that something like the title you utilized in this version is considerably clearer, more neutral, encyclopedic in tone, more in keeping with Wikipedia norms and the relevant MoS section (WP:HEAD), and just simply reads less awkwardly. In fact, I would happily support your entire approach to the issue in the subsection you re-worked there as a reasonable middle-ground solution. I'll be honest, I'm not sure the amount of WP:WEIGHT we have here (one WP:PRIMARY source making ambiguous reference to the article's subject in a civil case deposition which has only recently come to light and which secondary sources have not as yet analyzed in any significant way) justifies any kind of mention of this accusation, given the WP:BLP implications. However, insofar as the story is out there now, and some small portion of readers may come to this article looking for some edification on the matter, perhaps it does make sense to review the circumstances surrounding Ms. Giuffre's statements. Furthermore, I am (Summoned by bot) on this one, and insofar as I am responding to a situation in which both sides seem to have conceded that at least this much coverage is warranted, I will place my recommendation of practical solutions within that spectrum. And within that context, Macrakis' edit is the more consistent with policy and the limited sourcing we have to work with on the matter, for now. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with by Snow Rise and support Macrakis (talk)'s verison [24] SimetraartemiS (talk) 12:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Re "both sides seem to have conceded that at least this much coverage is warranted". According to the information we have, Minsky (as opposed to Maxwell) did nothing of interest, so you might think the article shouldn't cover it. Giuffre says that Maxwell told her to do something. We have no corroboration of that. Giuffre does not claim that she did in fact follow Maxwell's instructions and do it. (We do have second-hand reports on blogs that Giuffre approached Minsky and that he declined, but that is definitely not a WP reliable source.)

So why mention it at all? Simply because people will come to Wikipedia to see what is known about the Minsky-Epstein relationship. Better to include the correct information (even if it arguably fails WP:WEIGHT) than to leave the impression that we are missing information (or worse, the impression that we have suppressed it). I have seen this pattern in other articles: if information appears to be missing, it tends to get filled in, often incorrectly. --Macrakis (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Only here for the RFC then I am outta here.
  The article says, at the time of my reading it:
  "In 2019, Virginia Giuffre, in an unsealed deposition in Federal court, named Minsky as one of Jeffrey Epstein's child sex trafficking clients."
  That seems to me unexceptionable if true, and probably adequate if true, unless someone has persuasive evidence of anything else of relevance to the article; it neither asserts nor denies his guilt, nor moralises nor comments on any basis for doubt or belief. People's tastes and morals in the matter are not of encyclopaedic interests, not in this article anyway. JonRichfield (talk) 06:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

It is not a correct report of what Giuffre said. She testified that G. Maxwell "directed [her] to have sex" with Minsky. She did not say that she did in fact have sex with him, nor did she say that Minsky was one of Epstein's child sex trafficking clients. Smaller point: she gave the testimony in 2016; it was unsealed in 2019. --Macrakis (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Stick to sources. The wording in the article should be as close to the declaration by Virginia Giuffre as possible, which according to the disclosed document is that she was "directed to go have sex with Marvin Minsky" by Ghislaine Maxwell. Diego (talk) 07:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I've also changed the section title. "Accused" and "alleged" are the terms used by the news sources reporting the issue, so we should use them as well. Diego (talk) 07:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Since we have no way to verify one way or the other if Minsky did or did not have sex with Giuffe, the title should say "allegation". And I rephrased the main text to try and have it reflect that we do not know what what happened after she was told to aproach Minsky. SimetraartemiS (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

As Diego Moya says, we need to stick to the source. The source alleges that Ghislaine Maxwell did something, namely direct Giuffre to have sex with Minsky. It does not allege that Minsky did anything or accuse him of anything. There is no allegation against Minsky at all. Of course, as SimetraartemiS says, it is possible that Minsky did in fact have sex with Giuffre. However, we have no evidence at all of that, not even Giuffre's statement, so it is clearly not verifiable and thus does not belong in WP. So even "Alleged sex abuse" is incorrect. A more suitable heading is something like "Relationship with Jeffrey Epstein", and the section would mention the AI conference that Minsky ran and that Epstein funded. That may have been perfectly innocent at the time, but given the interest in Epstein's crimes, probably needs to be there. --Macrakis (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Macrakis is right. It should be mentioned that Minsky visited because that wa swhere the conference that Epstein funded was held. As Gloria Rudish said, they saw him as a "rich guy interested in science". SimetraartemiS (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The section heading needs to be changed as there is currently no sex abuse allegation against Minsky. What we do have is media suspicion that he may have had knowledge of the sex trafficking ring because why else would Maxwell mention him by name to Epstein's victims? I don't know what the perfect wording is but maybe something like "Extent of his connection to Jeffrey Epstein" or "Posthumous scrutiny in relation to Jeffrey Epstein". Connor Behan (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• NO - per Macrakis comments. If something has to be included in the article, I'd support Macrakis "Proposed consensus version" on "Relationship with Jeffrey Epstein". Cheers! --ColumbiaXY (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

---

Proposed consensus version

Based on the discussion above, I propose the following heading and text for the Epstein/Minsky section. As far as I can tell, only one editor, ChrisRehm8814, would object. --Macrakis (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Relationship with Jeffrey Epstein

Minsky organized a conference on common sense and artificial intelligence in St. Thomas in 2002 with financial support from Jeffrey Epstein, who in 2008 was convicted of procuring for prostitution a girl below age 18. In 2012, Epstein mentioned this conference to "[try] to rehabilitate his image".

In a 2016 deposition, unsealed in 2019, Virginia Giuffre testified that Ghislaine Maxwell, an associate of Epstein, had directed her to have sex with Minsky and other men. As of September 2019, there has been no independent corroboration of this, and none of the men have been charged with a crime or sued in connection with this.

That looks cautious and reasonable. Haukur (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this concensus. SimetraartemiS (talk) 02:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Support per WP:BDP. Connor Behan (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I think the above version goes beyond neutrality. First, this is an article about Minsky, not about Epstein, so there is no need to mention Epstein's 2008 conviction, nor whether someone alleges that Epstein mentioned the conference to "rehabilitate his image", which is not even what the source said ("In 2012, as Epstein was trying to rehabilitate his image, he touted his foundation’s sponsorship of an academic conference organized by Minsky.") The above text claims Epstein's reason for mentioning the conference was to improve his image, but the source merely says that the mention and the image rehabilitation effort occurred sometime in the same year. Second, the above text repeats the allegation but not the refutation. Both Minsky's widow and Gregory Benford have refuted the allegation, and they both state that they were personally present. Benford says he watched Guiffre approach Minsky and watched him turn her down, and that Minsky talked about it to him afterward and that Guiffre did not approach Benford after seeing them speak about her. The above text reveals bias by never mentioning any evidence of refutations, and merely saying there's no corroborating evidence nor charges. Third, the section is too long for the importance of its topic, being filled out with phrases like "In a 2016 deposition, unsealed in 2019", irrelevant info that is readily available to anyone who follows one of the refs. This contested allegation is a very minor issue in the long and busy life of the subject of the article. Fourth, "Relationship with Jeffrey Epstein" is an overinclusive section title, since it appears that they had a much larger relationship (none of which is mentioned in this section) that included Epstein funding Minsky's AI work and the Media Lab that Minsky was associated with, Minsky recommending scientists for Epstein to invite to conferences, Epstein visiting Minsky, and Minsky and his wife visiting Epstein's other residences several times. Without such info, the relevance of which is questionable in an article about Minsky's entire life, the section title would be misleading. Having seen only the article and not the talk discussion, earlier today in this edit I retitled the section "Alleged to have declined sex offered by a 17-year-old" and made other similar changes. Giuffre's eyewitness/participant allegation is that she offered; Benford's eyewitness allegation is that Minsky declined; Minsky's widow made a general allegation denying that he had sex and stating that she was always present when Minsky was at Epstein's. There is no conflict between those allegations, all three have appeared in the press and the sources are currently cited in this page, and if we report one, we should report all three. Someone reverted my change and pointed me at the talk page, which is what led me to this discussion. For the above reasons, I think the edit I made is a much more neutral text than what appears above. I'm happy to discuss further. Gnuish (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with your proposed title because it focuses on the red herring of Virginia Giuffre's age. Since she offered sex under duress, Minsky would be legally bound to decline even if she were above the age of consent. Maybe "Relationship with Jeffrey Epstein" is not perfect, based on the WP:WEIGHT concerns you mention, but the longer we argue here, the longe the false one will stay up. Connor Behan (talk) 21:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, let's not try to tell a complicated story with the title. I tried "Epstein controversy" now but I also support a more fleshed out version with a title like "Relationship with Jeffrey Epstein". Haukur (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

There are several problems with Gnuish's version:

• The "refutation" you'd like to include depends on a hearsay source published in the Instapundit blog for the "declining" part; Instapundit does not seem to be a reliable source under WP rules. We do however have a good source saying that the claim is not corroborated, and did not lead to any criminal or civil charges against Minsky or any other of the alleged targets.
• The Slate article does not support the conclusion it footnotes. Nowhere in the Slate article does it say that the Minsky incident happened during the 2002 conference. I had actually included that claim in an earlier version I wrote, but then I realized that that was WP:SYNTH not directly supported by any source. In fact, in the deposition, Giuffre says that she didn't remember what year it was, and doesn't mention a conference. It's a reasonable inference, but we're not supposed to make inferences, reasonable or otherwise. In fact, one of the cited articles mentions a date of March 2001, not 2002.
• A section heading of "Alleged to have declined sex offered by a 17-year-old" is peculiar. We don't have section headers like "Claim that moon is made of green cheese refuted".

I agree with your basic point that -- if I were king of Wikipedia -- I wouldn't include the section at all. However, the way Wikipedia works, once a claim is associated with a topic, the article has to address the claim one way or another, otherwise it keeps getting added in more or (usually) less accurate ways over and over.

As for the other support that Epstein may have given Minsky over the years, given the high interest in Epstein, it seems that we should document it more fully, not less so. Establishing a clear chronology is important. Did Minsky accept money after Epstein was widely known to be a sex offender? Was Minsky complicit with Joi Ito in taking money while knowing that Epstein was such a bad actor that he was on MIT's donor blacklist? I certainly hope it isn't true. --Macrakis (talk) 23:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

PS The Instapundit source (which we can't use, since it's not WP:RS), by the way, corroborates Giuffre's claim. Which was not about Minsky, but about what she was told to do. --Macrakis (talk) 01:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Re whether Minsky had to decline. He can't be required to decline sex with someone under duress if he doesn't know that the sex is under duress. But no matter whether he was required or not, the point is that he DID decline. Yet the proposed consensus version never mentioned that. We have his wife saying so, in the same cited Verge story that made the original claim that Giuffre offered sex. If that source is reliable for saying Giuffre offered, then it's reliable for saying Minsky didn't have sex.

Re reliable sources. Giuffre's claim that she was ordered to offer sex is well sourced, and her actual deposition is online too, though we don't cite to it. Re whether they DID have sex, the second source, Instapundit, may or may not be reliable, I am no expert on that. But it is quoting a Facebook posting made by Gregory Benford himself. (I can't see that posting because I do not have a Facebook account, but lots of people can.) Yes, Benford is a primary source; that is why I cited other sources who quoted it and put it into context (e.g. calling the whole claim fake news). See BattleSwarm Blog's LinkSwarm for August 23, 2019 which says: "Gregory Benford says that the Epstein smear against Marvin Minsky is baseless. (Hat tip: Instapundit, which is a backup source if you can’t get to Greg’s Facebook page.)". Here's the Facebook link to Benford's posting, which I found linked from that blog text. A third source is the Investment Watch Blog copy of Benford's refutation.

Re the section title. We shouldn't be doing original research about all of Minsky and Epstein's connections, whether we think it's interesting or not. And particularly not to justify the use of an overbroad section title. I also agree that when thousands of enraged editors are trying to spam libelous claims into an article, the article should briefly address that claim in a balanced way. I agree that a section called "Claim that moon is made of green cheese refuted" would be peculiar. In Wikipedia, that section is called "In popular culture". Perhaps that should be the title of this section.

Gnuish (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

You're right, Gloria's statement, which is mentioned in the NY Post and other RS articles, should be reported. My mistake. Though it is problematic in that it only speaks of visits to NY and Palm Beach, not to St. Thomas, which Marvin clearly did visit (based on the conference report). I suppose it would be WP:SYNTH to point that out.

The Facebook posting by Benford is not a reliable source for two reasons: it is a primary source, and given the way Facebook works, it's ephemeral and not globally visible -- I can't see it using the link you give, for example. It would be nice to have a reputable media outlet quoting it, but I haven't found one yet: Instapundit and InvestmentWatchBlog are both random blogs and don't look like RS.

Agreed that we shouldn't be doing original research on Minsky and Epstein's connections. If reputable media point things out, we should follow. I agree that we should remove that part of the proposed version for now at least. --Macrakis (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

PS I mistakenly committed WP:SYNTH when I jumped to the conclusion that the incident Giuffre testified to would have taken place at the St. Thomas conference, and for that reason mentioned it. But in fact Giuffre doesn't say that, and at least one source gives incompatible dates. Yet another reason not to mention it. --Macrakis (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

While we have been discussing this, the section of the article has improved. It still has a few issues. Here it is:

Epstein controversy

In 2016, Virginia Giuffre named Minsky as one of the people she was "directed to have sex" with on Jeffrey Epstein's private island while she was 17 years old. It is alleged to have happened in 2002, during an AI conference hosted by Epstein at his compound in the US Virgin Islands.

One issue is that there is no source that alleges that the incident with Minsky occurred in 2002. We know (Slate) there was an AI conf in 2002 on the island, which included Minsky. We know (NY Post) that Giuffre was directed to have sex with Minsky. But not that the incident happened at that AI conf in 2002. Minsky visited Epstein several times in other places (Slate), and we don't know when else he had been on the island. Also, WP:SYNTH, Benford is not listed as being present in the AI Journal article about the 2002 conference, yet in Benford's (poorly sourced) claim, he was present when Giuffre propositioned Minsky. All this throws the article's claim that it happened in 2002 into doubt.

And if we don't know what year it happened, we also don't know the age of Giuffre at the time; the articles don't say, and in her deposition, she specifically disclaims knowing what year it happened (Verge: "Q: And when was that? A: I don't know."). (Daily Beast: "admitting she can’t remember the year or how old she was at the time.") This means she could have been of legal age at the time. Her birth date has not been publicly reported. The Verge article says that she was 17 "at the time of the flight" (to New Mexico and Palm Beach) in March 2001; the AI Journal paper linked from Slate says "This meeting was held in St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, on April 14-16, 2002." Bloomberg says "in 2000, when she was 16" which is consistent but doesn't say what month. If all three of these credible sources are true, her age was 18 during the 2002 AI conference.)

In short, I recommend removing "while she was 17 years old" and the whole second "It is alleged" sentence.

--Gnuish (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I want to thank Macrakis (talk) for editing the article to implement the consensus from this talk page. I also want to thank the other editors who contributed to making this section much more accurate and unbiased. --Gnuish (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

More Epstein controversy

There is a mainstream media caveat: "None of the allegations in the case have been proven in court." Seeing as this is hinging on an untested deposition, should it not be included or at least touched upon?
-- Codesmith (talk) 16:23, 23 September 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.

Controversy, context, MIT report, Harvard and prominent scientists connection

• The subtitle of the article is "Marvin Minsky was named alongside several other prominent men."
• The quote being summarized from the article[25] is:

"Minsky was one of a number of prominent scientists with ties to Jeffrey Epstein, who often called himself a “science philanthropist” and donated to research projects and academic institutions. Many of those scientists were affiliated with Harvard, including physicist Lawrence Krauss, geneticist George Church, and cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker."

• It is obviously relevant context, as it was to the author of the source. As it was to the MIT report writers. Coatracking? No. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Minsky was a detail in the MIT report, which was about MIT, the Media Lab, etc. This article is specifically about Minsky, not about MIT, the Media Lab, or Epstein. --Macrakis (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Re consensus, you seem to be the only one supporting the inclusion of Harvard scientists. User:SimetraartemiS, User:Elizium23, User:Connor Behan, and I all agree that it doesn't belong there. --Macrakis (talk) 03:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

​​​ Third request (2 unanswered): Please explain why you think all positive mentions of Harvard are OK, but not even one negative mention when numerous sources make the connection between Epstein and Harvard (and more of his money went there)? These include Note 1 with his (positive) relationship with Harvard when inventing the Confocal Scanning Microscope, and quoting Minsky's (primary source) webpage? And adding a (positive) mention of Minsky's Junior Fellowship, at Harvard? -- Yae4 (talk) 09:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't say any of the mentions are positive or negative. But saying that Minsky was at Harvard when he did certain work is a statement about Minsky. Saying that Epstein's "science philanthropy" focused primarily on Harvard is a statement about Epstein. It's also not particularly interesting. Epstein preferring the more privileged institutions is what everyone would guess. Connor Behan (talk) 13:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Not positive or negative?

Saying Minsky invented something notable, Confocal_microscopy, and associating it with Harvard here, is obviously a positive thing, and Minsky is stated to be the inventor in that article, even though it is an article about microscopy, not Minsky.

Saying Minsky was one of (a number of) List_of_Harvard_Junior_Fellows in the Harvard Society of Fellows, and associating it with Harvard here, is obviously considered an honor (see the page), which is a positive thing, and Minsky is listed in that article even though it is an article about the society, not Minsky.

Saying Minsky was one of several people who received money from Epstein, etc., and associating it with Harvard here, is obviously a negative thing, and Minsky is mentioned in the Epstein article, (as is Harvard, numerous times), even though it is an article about Epstein, not Minsky (nor Harvard). Sources connect Epstein, Minsky and Harvard (a photo is worth a thousand words).

I agree (with the Straw_man) Epstein's "science philanthropy" focused primarily on Harvard is a statement about Epstein. However, that's not the disputed statement, which is:

Many of those scientists were also affiliated with Harvard, including physicist Lawrence Krauss, geneticist George Church, and cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker.

-- Yae4 (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Yae4, you are not listening and you are edit warring.

Minsky was a Junior Fellow at the Harvard Society of Fellows in 1954-57. This is a well-sourced fact about Minsky, and the kind of fact that is normally given in biographies (cf. Noam Chomsky, Thomas Kuhn, Tai Tsun Wu). It is indeed an honor.

Minsky invented the confocal microscope while he was a JF at Harvard, in 1956. Not only is this is well-sourced fact about Minsky, but he explicitly recognizes the importance of the Society of Fellows and the use of Harvard laboratories in his own write-up of the invention.

Minsky received funding from Epstein in 2002. This is a well-sourced fact about Minsky.

Minsky was a Harvard alumnus. This is a well-sourced fact about Minsky, clearly mentioned in the Biography section. It is not relevant in any substantive way to the Controversy section, where including it is peculiar and tendentious, as User:Elizium23 says.

The list of other people who received money from Epstein is not about Minsky. The fact that some were affiliated with Harvard is not about Minsky, and is especially irrelevant since Minsky was last substantively affiliated with Harvard in 1957 (though in principle one is a member of the Society of Fellows for life). Like any academic, he surely had other, looser connections to Harvard, e.g., serving on a thesis committee of a Harvard grad student, giving talks, writing letters of recommendations for his students, etc. Many people at MIT were much more closely connected to Minsky, and involved with Epstein, most notoriously Joi Ito. But again, there is no reason to mention Ito in the Minsky article unless there is some explicit connection made by a WP:RS. Cf. WP:SYNTH.

Kindly stop flogging a dead horse. --Macrakis (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

You can cast all the aspersions you wish, but it won't change the fact the quote from the RS (already used in this article) is: "Minsky was one of a number of prominent scientists with ties to Jeffrey Epstein, who often called himself a “science philanthropist” and donated to research projects and academic institutions. Many of those scientists were affiliated with Harvard, including physicist Lawrence Krauss, geneticist George Church, and cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker." Will you at least acknowledge the two statements are connected by a period in this RS, and we've agreed to strike the intermediate phrase? And please don't edit my comments unless you can actually improve the format, Thanks. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I corrected the indentation of your comments, per WP:TPO. I did make one error (introducing a new line before the word "however") -- I've fixed that. --Macrakis (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The fact that an RS says something doesn't mean that it belongs in an article. It has also got to be relevant to the article.

On the other hand, if we can find a third-party source for it, we should probably mention that Minsky organized a conference at Epstein's island in 2011. I don't think the Epstein Foundation's Press Release is sufficient. --Macrakis (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong.WP:5P2. We should be trying to summarize the source(s), not go find sources to mold the article a particular way. -- Yae4 (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

To your second point, Wikipedia allows biased sources yet aims to be neutral itself. So there is a little bit more to our role than providing a summary. Connor Behan (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. One last "flog" - Wikipedia aims but misses. I think the section should be significantly shortened and linked elsewhere for details, but that's not how it has gone. Now, a reader unfamiliar with the controversy, seeing the section, would not get context, or have easy wiki-links to see more. Currently, only a hint is given - "one of a number of prominent scientists who received research funding..." with wikilinks only to Epstein and Giuffre (and a glorious non-critical article about Harvard). Facts that Harvard people were (perhaps, but according to the source) more involved in accusations and took much more money are missing here (and at Harvard's articles). The source gives names that can be wiki-linked to give context. As alternatives, should there be lists or categories of MIT and Harvard alumni or researchers tainted by association with Epstein? Maybe this should go to a RfC or COI noticeboard. -- Yae4 (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Yae4, thanks for clarifying your intent.

To rephrase, you seem to believe:

• Anyone who was associated with Epstein in any way and at any time was "tainted" by him.
• Wikipedia should have a list of such people somewhere.
• Harvard people were disproportionately tainted, and both the individuals and the university as a whole should be singled out.
• Anyone who has had any affiliation with Harvard at any time is a "Harvard person".

These are all problematic claims which would need very strong reliable sources to support, but let's not litigate that here, because you also make it clear that the reason you want to identify Minsky as a Harvard alum in the Controversy section is that you want to point a finger at Harvard. That is, it's not about Minsky, it's about Harvard. You also make it clear that you want that information on the Minsky page because it isn't on the Harvard page.

That's pretty much the definition of a coatrack, where you're trying to make a point about X (Harvard) in the article about Y (Minsky).

If there is material that belongs on the Harvard page, go edit that page. In the meantime, kindly remove the tendentious mention in this article.

I have no objection to an RfC on this if it's really needed. --Macrakis (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Except I said none of those things. What part of "I think the section should be significantly shortened and linked elsewhere for details" did you not understand? -- Yae4 (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

And I'll add this: "Material that is supported by a reliable, published source whose topic is directly related to the topic of the article, is not using the article as a coatrack." from Wikipedia:Coatrack_articles#What_is_not_a_coatrack. -- Yae4 (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

(←) Then I don't understand your edit. Why are you adding this particular material to this article if you believe that the section should be "significantly shortened". Clearly Minsky is a Harvard alum. We don't need additional sources for that. But why do you insist on adding "an alumnus of Harvard University" to the Controversies section when it's already mentioned in this article? --Macrakis (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Because you and others wanted to expand it. And then, what the the Verge source actually says: "Minsky was one of a number of prominent scientists with ties to Jeffrey Epstein, who often called himself a “science philanthropist” and donated to research projects and academic institutions. Many of those scientists were affiliated with Harvard, including physicist Lawrence Krauss, geneticist George Church, and cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker. Minsky’s affiliation with Epstein went particularly deep, including organizing a two-day symposium on artificial intelligence at Epstein’s private island in 2002, as reported by Slate. In 2012, the Jeffrey Epstein Foundation issued a press release touting another conference organized by Minsky on the island in December 2011." But, if I understand correctly, you wish to include just about all of it except selectively leaving out the particular piece of what the author said about Harvard and 3 particular individuals, which to me seems just as encyclopedic as all the rest of it (if you're going to include any of it). Then add the fact that the MIT report mentions Harvard many times, and there is widespread news coverage of Harvard being involved in the scandal. -- Yae4 (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I did not want to expand the section.

The Verge article is problematic in many ways. For one, it says that the deposition makes an accusation against Minsky. Which it does not. As we already discussed in the RfC above. --Macrakis (talk) 14:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, recently saying "On the other hand, if we can find a third-party source for it, we should probably mention that Minsky organized a conference at Epstein's island in 2011" made me think you did (selectively). Obviously the IP editor (and previously others editors) did too. As for the a "reliable" source being "wrong," that's a general problem with Wikipedia. -- Yae4 (talk) 04:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Please read my other comments further up in this Talk page, notably:

I agree with your basic point that -- if I were king of Wikipedia -- I wouldn't include the section at all. However, the way Wikipedia works, once a claim is associated with a topic, the article has to address the claim one way or another, otherwise it keeps getting added in more or (usually) less accurate ways over and over.

That is, there are things that we probably need to add to the article "defensively", so that readers don't think we're ignoring or suppressing information.

So, could you please explain why you think the "alumnus of Harvard" tag belongs in this section? That information is already included further up in the article. Are you trying to make a point about Wikipedia?

There is nothing in WP policy that says that we have to treat everything that is said in a generally acceptable source as correct. See WP:Inaccuracy. --Macrakis (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

This Vice source is not wrong about the Harvard connections. Likewise, refer back to (more recent) list of other sources also making the connection between the three. Can you find more sources that cover Minsky and Epstein without mentioning Harvard, than sources that talk about all three (usually in close proximity; one with a visual/photo)? I'm not making any point other than it doesn't seem encyclopedic, if you're going to have and expand the section, to ignore those facts (and not provide wikilinks to help readers find more info' on related articles).

“You don’t have to think about money for the next 5 years,” Epstein said he told Bach as the researcher prepared to move to MIT’s Media Lab in 2014. (Epstein says Minsky helped arrange the appointment.) Two years later, Bach moved to Harvard University’s program for evolutionary dynamics,..." [26]

"Minsky was one of a number of prominent scientists with ties to Jeffrey Epstein, who often called himself a “science philanthropist” and donated to research projects and academic institutions. Many of those scientists were affiliated with Harvard, including physicist Lawrence Krauss, geneticist George Church, and cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker." [27]

Another article that mentions Minsky says "The earliest gift was $100,000 given in 2002 to support the research of the late Professor Marvin Minsky, who died in 2016," MIT said as it released the report,..." and Seth "Lloyd is an influential thinker in the field of quantum mechanical engineering. Educated at Harvard College..." [28]

-- Yae4 (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The New York Times has two articles which mention both of them.

One of them (["M.I.T. Media Lab in Crisis After 2 Scholars Vow to Leave Over Epstein Ties") says nothing about Harvard; the other ("Jeffrey Epstein Was a Sex Offender. The Powerful Welcomed Him Anyway") mentions Minsky once in a list of scientists. The article doesn't mention those scientists' affiliations, but they are U Cambridge, MIT, MIT, Utrecht, UCSB, and MIT. It points out that "Though Mr. Epstein never attended Harvard or even got a college degree, the university has been a recurring theme in his self-styled image as a Renaissance man of finance and science."

No article about Minsky and Epstein that I'm aware of mentions Minsky's bachelor's or SoF connections at Harvard.

The Science magazine article "What kind of researcher did sex offender Jeffrey Epstein like to fund? He told Science before he died" shows the Getty Images file photo from 2004 [29] with Epstein wearing a Harvard hoodie.

Epstein clearly had many connections at Harvard, but Minsky wasn't one of them. --Macrakis (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

PS, if you're looking for a nexus connecting the various recipients of Epstein's money, it might not be Harvard or MIT per se, but rather John Brockman (literary agent) [30], many of whose clients were at Harvard and MIT. Of course, that doesn't excuse either MIT's or Harvard's (or anyone else's) ethical lapses. --Macrakis (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I will boldly delete "As of September 2019," because it gets progressively farther out of date. Otherwise, I feel like we're both not happy with the article section, so that may indicate a reasonable compromise state. It seems roughly half the sources we've cited refer to Minsky along with Epstein and Harvard (and other specific names), and about half don't, so combined with the MIT report mentioning Harvard 18 times or so, I still think it should be mentioned, as it is in the quote in the top of this talk section. I'm not looking for any kind of nexus of anything, and my position should be clear by now - Either fork to a different article (if it's an allowed fork type) or cover the controversy thoroughly, neutrally, and without leaving out key points that a significant portion of sources include. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

No disagreement about the "As of" statement.

I still don't see any reason to repeat that he was an alumnus of Harvard in the Controversy section. This isn't a matter to "compromise" on.

The Jeffrey Epstein article is the place to cover the issue thoroughly and neutrally, and it already mentions Harvard multiple times and Minsky once. Strangely, it doesn't mention MIT, the MIT report, the MIT Media Lab, or Joichi Ito at all. That's certainly worth fixing.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology article mentions the Epstein issue. The Harvard University article doesn't, and probably should.

This discussion has gone on way too long, so I ask @Snow Rise: (who contributed to the closely related RfC above) to help resolve the issue. --Macrakis (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Yae4, you ask above why Epstein isn't mentioned in the Harvard University article, and speculated that it might be systemic bias. Why haven't you added info about Epstein to the Harvard article? In reviewing the page's history, I see that no one ever added info about Epstein to it, so it's not as though it's being censored. Of course, any addition needs to be judicious and balanced. Harvard has 2400 faculty--how many were involved with Epstein? Did administrators at Harvard know about Epstein? Bacow's letter is a start; no doubt there will be a more complete review in time. Remember that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so we don't need to follow developments blow-by-blow. --Macrakis (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Given the Third opinion, I'm removing the alumnus comment. --Macrakis (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Here’s a fourth opinion: Let’s not have the Harvard alumnus comment. I need to see reliable third party sources stating that Minsky’s contributions from Epstein are because of Minsky’s connection to Harvard. SkylabField (talk)

MIT January 10, 2020 report

An IP user at MIT gives a link to MIT's fact finding report (pdf). Discussion of how to include? -- Yae4 (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I am the author of this edit. User Yae4's revert message states "original interpretation or analysis of a source." The text in question is:

In January 2019, an MIT report[47] detailing Epstein's connections with MIT revealed that, on September 12, 2002, Minsky had received a donation of $100,000 from Epstein. It also reported that Media Lab founder Nicholas Negroponte said of Epstein "The person who is his closest friend is Marvin Minsky, who even visited him in jail."

How is this an original interpretation or analysis? The first sentence is purely factual, and is in the table on page 9. The second sentence reports a quote by another person, which is on page 14. -- 192.54.222.137 (talk) 06:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Take a look at my edit. The report is not the topic of the article, so citing it belongs in a footnote. I've also tried to stick more closely to exactly what the report says, both negative and positive, and avoid POV words like "revealed" (which implies that something was hidden). --Macrakis (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I counted 17 mentions of Minsky in the report, so it's a question of giving due weight, and we should look to secondary sources for interpretation of the report (WP:DUE), as MIT publications are essentially a primary source for a topic so closely connected.

• Boston Globe
• WCVB
• FastCompany
• The Verge

-- Yae4 (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Macrakis, After reviewing the above sources, this article currently includes more than "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The Boston Globe repeats almost everything from the MIT report, but WCVB barely mentions Minsky (receiving 100k in 2002), Fastcompany only mentions the visit to his memorial, and The Verge mentions the "closest friends" quote and posthumous accusation. These are in context of much more detail in the articles on other aspects of the report. --Yae4 (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The whole section is really about innuendo. What do we have? Minsky received $100k from Epstein years before it was known that he was a sexual predator. Negroponte claimed that Minsky was good friends with Epstein (whatever that means) and visited him in jail. Giuffre says that Maxwell "directed [her] to have sex" with Minsky as part of a deposition in a law suit against Maxwell.

What do we not have? No one has claimed that Minsky knew Epstein's character before receiving money. No one has claimed that she had sex with Minsky, underage or not, coerced or not.

Of course, it may turn out that Minsky did do bad things. If that is supported by RS, of course we will report it.

In the meantime, I think we have to mention these issues neutrally and with suitable context. --Macrakis (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, @Yae4:, you restored the mention of Harvard to the article. I really don't see its relevance. Yes, the MIT report talks about the money Epstein gave to Harvard, because the MIT decision makers were trying to see what everyone else was doing with Epstein's dirty money. But those mentions long postdate Minsky's 2002 grant, and most of the grants themselves probably do, too (though that info isn't in the report). That Minsky is a Harvard alum is surely completely irrelevant to his relationship with Epstein. --Macrakis (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the mention to Harvard is not relevant here. SimetraartemiS (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

There is widespread coverage of how far this "dirty money" spread, including to Harvard, one of Minsky's alma maters. As for "postdating," in fact they pre- and post-date: "Our review to date indicates that between 1998 and 2007, Epstein made a number of gifts to support various faculty and institutional research activities across the University. The largest of these was a $6.5 million gift in 2003 to support the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics. The University received other gifts, which totaled approximately $2.4 million..." Harvard primary source. -- Yae4 (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Macrakis and SimetraartemiS:Have a look at the picture at the top and tell me again the Harvard connection was irrelevant. Why isn't this even issue even mentioned in the Harvard_University article? -- Yae4 (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Anyone can go and buy a Harvard hoodie. Or an MIT one. Or whatever university you want to name. wearing one doe snot mean you have connections with that university. SimetraartemiS —Preceding undated comment added 06:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Yae4 and SimetraartemiS: This is the Marvin Minsky article, not the "ethics of philanthropy" article, which didn't exist -- so I started it. See Ethics of philanthropy and please improve it. Clearly M.I.T. and Harvard both have a lot of explain, but the Minsky article isn't the place to discuss the larger issue.

The photo of Epstein with Minsky is from 2004,[31] before Epstein's misdeeds became known. It shows Epstein and Minsky talking, with Epstein wearing a Harvard hoodie (even though he had never attended Harvard). It is well known that Epstein basked in the reflected glory of Harvard and various researchers, including Minsky. That Minsky had been a JF at Harvard 50 years earlier, and that Harvard received money from Epstein, hardly seem relevant to Minsky's relationship with Epstein. --Macrakis (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

PS Re the Harvard article, sure, it seems important enough to mention there. But that has nothing to do with this article. Minsky hadn't been affiliated with Harvard for 45 years at the time of the Epstein research grant. --Macrakis (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Based on coverage other than the primary source, this article goes too far by adding anything from the report other than a mention of the timing. The rest is selected excerpts not backed by other sources. If that is going to be done anyway, then I feel the issue should be put into context, based on sources, and that includes mentioning the larger, connected issue, at Harvard.

When the photo was taken is "original research." The rest is synthesis about what it means. However interesting that might be, the job here is to summarize reliable sources. The source in the case of the photo made the connection between Minsky, Epstein, and Harvard, by also illustrating the article with such a picture, whenever taken. And even that source connects Minsky with Harvard, as follows:

“You don’t have to think about money for the next 5 years,” Epstein said he told Bach as the researcher prepared to move to MIT’s Media Lab in 2014. (Epstein says Minsky helped arrange the appointment.) Two years later, Bach moved to Harvard University’s program for evolutionary dynamics,..." [32]

No objection to Note 1 including his (positive) relationship with Harvard when inventing the Confocal Scanning Microscope, and quoting Minsky's webpage? Adding a (positive) mention of Minsky's Junior Fellowship, at Harvard, is OK? Saying just "Minsky was one of a number of prominent scientists..." is OK, while the full quote is:

"Minsky was one of a number of prominent scientists with ties to Jeffrey Epstein, who often called himself a “science philanthropist” and donated to research projects and academic institutions. Many of those scientists were affiliated with Harvard, including physicist Lawrence Krauss, geneticist George Church, and cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker." [33]

So you want to delete any negative mentions of Harvard in this article? Even though Minsky, Epstein and Harvard are all connected by reliable sources?

I'm glad you agree the issue should be mentioned in the Harvard article. The question then is why hasn't it been mentioned? Could it be systematic bias in Wikipedia? Fear of things like this?

Some of the published sources on the new report, particularly those farther from Cambridge, do not even mention Minsky, but they all mention Harvard:

"Through his wealth, Epstein developed connections at elite universities, including MIT and Harvard University. He gave nearly $9 million to Harvard over the in donations. After initially saying they had "no plans" to return the money to Epstein, Harvard in September announced the university is reviewing his donations." [34]

Mr. Ito resigned from the Media Lab in September. He also stepped down from several other boards and a visiting professorship at Harvard. He did not respond to a request for comment. [35]

Friday’s report shows that Epstein will continue to haunt powerful institutions and people who had long courted his connections and money. In September, Harvard University said an ongoing review showed Epstein made about $9 million of donations between 1998 and 2007, though it didn’t find any gifts after his 2008 conviction. [36]

Another article that does mention Minsky says Seth "Lloyd is an influential thinker in the field of quantum mechanical engineering. Educated at Harvard College..." [37]

Can you find any sources that talk about this new report and Minsky, but do not mention Harvard? -- Yae4 (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Um, you seem to be forgetting that this article is about Minsky, not about Harvard, and not about Epstein.

In the Epstein article or the Harvard article, much of what you say above could be relevant. But Minsky hadn't been affiliated with Harvard since 1957! Yes, Epstein is wearing a Harvard hoodie in a picture with Minsky. So what?

As for "Minsky, Epstein and Harvard are all connected by reliable sources?", yes, Minsky is certainly an alumnus of Harvard, and Epstein certainly gave money to Harvard, but it is WP:SYNTH to treat the Minsky-Epstein relationship as somehow related to Harvard. There are lots of Harvard alumni, and we don't attribute their bad or good deeds to Harvard.

Re the photo, it was you who brought it up, apparently as evidence of a connection between Harvard, Epstein, and Minsky. I pointed out that even if it were evidence of that (which it is not), it was taken in 2004 according to Getty Images, which owns it (looks like a RS to me), so long before Epstein was convicted.

Apparently you don't believe that User:SimetraartemiS's and my comments are worth listening to, and you persist in re-adding this material to the article. At this point, I think we need to get a third-party opinion, because the discussion does not seem to be coming to a resolution. --Macrakis (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Macrakis: I have not forgotten your profile page says you are connected with both MIT and Harvard, and this article on Minsky also has several connections to both. Please refrain from telling me what (you think) I remember or believe.

Here is a slight re-wording of the quote from above: In 2014 Minsky helped arrange an appointment of Bach to the Media Lab. Two years later Bach moved to Harvard's program for evolutionary dynamics. [38]

What does this excerpt and the photo of Epstein in a Harvard hoodie with Minsky, and the caption, "Jeffrey Epstein (left) and artificial intelligence pioneer Marvin Minsky (right), whom Epstein viewed as a trusted scientific adviser" say to you?

Repeat: No objection to Note 1 including his (positive) relationship with Harvard when inventing the Confocal Scanning Microscope, and quoting Minsky's webpage? Adding a (positive) mention of Minsky's Junior Fellowship, at Harvard, is OK?

Yes, more unbiased opinions would be good to have here. -- Yae4 (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Yae4:Given the impasse we've come to here, I've listed this issue at WP:3O. --Macrakis (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Third opinion

I'll be the third opinion here. The question was phrased there as follows: Should the Controversies section of the Marvin Minsky article mention Minsky's Harvard affiliation and the Harvard scientists who received research funding from Jeffrey Epstein, even though Minsky hadn't been affiliated with Harvard since 1957?. Answering that question alone I'm inclined to say "yes" provided that sources are clear that his Harvard provenance was a factor in the donation. Having said that, I see the dispute touches upon other stuff as well, and I haven't yet read all the arguments, so I'm suspending judgment until I do. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• Looking through the arguments and the sources given by Yae4, none of them appear to say that Epstein had given Minsky money because of his Harvard affiliation; indeed, none mention Harvard at all except for the Globe in passing mention w/r/t Lessig and the Verge with its anonymous "Harvard Law School professor". The rest of the arguments presented by Yae4 appear to be SYNTH or otherwise reaching, so I'll say that no, the Harvard affiliation should not be explicitly mentioned in this context. Hope this helps! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Minsky/Epstein allegations

Hey guys, I'm having trouble documenting the well-sourced allegations against Minsky on this page. Before I dive in, do any of you guys know offhand if this is local to this page, or is this also happening across the pages of other people being accused in the Epstein scandal? In other words, should I address it just on this page, or is there a set of pages that I should be addressing similar issues for as a group? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

It’s not a question of Minsky getting a free pass. Since this is vague, I presume this is about the allegations of Minsky committing adultery. The only evidence of this was the testimony of one person, and there is no other evidence to support their accusations, and at least two witnesses claiming Minsky did not have intimate relations with the girl. Samboy (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Please read the extensive discussions earlier in this talk page. No one accused Minsky of having sex with Virginia Giuffre. There is one deposition by Giuffre in a lawsuit against Ghislaine Maxwell where Giuffre testifies that Maxwell "directed her to have sex" with Minsky. This is an accusation against Maxwell. Giuffre did not testify that she obeyed Maxwell's instructions and actually approached Minsky, or that Minsky was receptive, or that Minsky in fact had sex with her. That is, Giuffre never accused Minsky of anything, and never took any kind of legal action against him. The article correctly reports the facts. --Macrakis (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

[39]: Q: "Where did you go to have sex with Marvin Minsky?" A: "I believe it was the U.S. Virgin Islands, Jeff’s—sorry, Jeffrey—Epstein’s island in the U.S. Virgin Islands". Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the RFC that Minsky should not be addressed as a be characterized as a "child trafficking client" of Jeffrey Epstein, in a section entitled "Child sex trafficking and abuse", as the conduct is alleged rather than proven. If you intended the RFC to solve the entire issue of how to characterize Minsky, it sounds like you should have phrased the RFC differently. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Because of how the questioning was done, Virginia was actually answering where she was directed to have sex with Minsky, as can be seen in the entire line of questioning:

Q Where did -- where were you and where was
Ms. Maxwell when she directed you to go have sex with
Marvin Minsky?
MR. EDWARDS: Object to the form.
A I don't know.
Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Where did you go to
have sex with Marvin Minsky?
A I believe it was the U.S. Virgin Islands,
Jeff's -- sorry, Jeffrey Epstein's island in the U.S.
Virgin Islands.
Q And when was that?
A I don't know.
Q Do you have any time of year?
A No.
Q Do you know how old you were?
A No.
Q Other than Glenn Dubin, Stephen Kaufmann,
Prince Andrew, Jean Luc Brunel, Bill Richardson,
another prince, the large hotel chain owner and
Marvin Minsky, is there anyone else that Ghislaine
Maxwell directed you to go have sex with?

The Verge engaged in rather selective quoting of the questioning done there to imply Minsky had sex with this lady when, in fact, she remembers very little about what happened, and the question immediately before and after make it clear the questioning is about who she was directed to have sex with. It’s pretty damn close to scandal mongering. As a point of comparison, Vanity Fair says she was “directed” to have sex with Minsky, not that she had sex with Minsky.

Even if she did flat out say “I had sex with Marvin Minsky”, that testimony would directly contradict two other people who have stated that Minsky did not have intercourse with that woman, and it would require that Minsky would commit adultery with his wife of over 50 years—something which I do not think he would had done. Samboy (talk) 09:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

No, look at the exact thing you posted, she was directly answering the question "Where did you go to have sex with Marvin Minsky?" She testified that she had sex with Minsky, and also testified that she was directed to have sex with Minsky; I don't see why you seem to believe that these two things are exclusive. I'm sorry you believe that all sources that contradict you must be automatically excluded on the sole grounds that they contradict you, but that's now how Wikipedia policy works. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Let’s see what the sources say. The Daily Beast says “Maxwell directed her to have sex with [...] Minsky” (Green at WP:RS/P); New York Times says “she was told to have sex with Marvin Minsky” (Green at WP:RS/P); Bloomberg says “she was also sent to [...] the late MIT scientist Marvin Minsky” (Again, Green at WP:RS/P); while The Verge has the explosive summary “AI pioneer accused of having sex with trafficking victim”, in the text it summarizes it as “Giuffre says she was directed to have sex with Minsky”. Observe something: Every single reliable source (except for The Verge) does not say Minsky had sex with this lady. Instead, they say that she was told to/directed to have sex with Minsky. If, in fact, the source testimony (above) could be reasonably interpreted as an unambiguous claim of sex, we should have multiple reliable sources saying so. Even The New York Post (Yellow, i.e. less reliable over at WP:RS/P) words it as “claimed she was trafficked to MIT professor Marvin Minsky” ... again, no explicit “they had sex” wording in this less-than-fully-reliable source.

Point being, it’s best if we summarize it the same way multiple reliable sources summarize it: She claimed to be directed to have sex with Minsky (or words to that effect), but the above lines from her testimony can not be unambiguously read to say she claimed to actually have had sex with Minsky. To get me to change my mind requires finding three or more other sources that are green at WP:RS/P saying words to the effect of “she claimed to have sex with Martin Minsky” without any qualifiers like “told to”, “directed to”, etc. The more sources, the more likely I will change my time as per WP:WEIGHT Samboy (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the ridiculous arbitrary bar of three green sources. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

It’s not an arbitrary bar. I’m asking there to be more “green” sources saying she was alleged to straight up have sex with Minsky than “green” sources which merely say she was alleged to be directed to have sex with Minsky. I have found five six “green” sources using “directed to” or words to that effect, and only two three “green” sources which straight up say she claimed to have full on sex with Minsky. It’s a matter of the majority of fully reliable sources using only the “directed to” wording. Samboy (talk)

It is in no way arbitrary, it is perfectly sensible, considering he has found more than three sources that argue against your assertion, so extraordinary claims require extraordinary citation, and you'll need to back up that assertion with impeccable sourcing. Elizium23 (talk) 05:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

As I said, there is no "contradiction". Also, Minsky committing adultery is not an "extraordinary claim". I'm not interested in finding three sources every time I want to add a fact that is unchallenged in the mainstream media. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there is a contradiction. Three “green” sources (as well as a plain reading of the primary source) say she only claims to have been “directed to” have sex with Minsky. One “green” source, The Verge, in the headline says she claimed to have sex with Minsky, using the same source document; in the body of that article, it uses the same “directed to”-type wording done by all other “green” sources (note also that the original title, as seen in the URL does not appear to make this claim). Also, Gloria’s denial of him ever having sex with Minsky is in two sources: New York Post (yellow at WP:RS/P) and Time (green at WP:RS/P), so please do not remove this well sourced claim without consensus; that comes off as disruptive “pointy” editing. Samboy (talk) 07:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm utterly baffled. What source states that she "only" claims to have been directed to have sex with Minsky? There are sources that "only state" that she was directed to have sex with Minsky. There are even more sources that "only state" that she was directed to have sex with, say, Prince Andrew; does that mean, by your logic, that all allegations against Minsky should be removed, since a majority of sources don't mention Minsky at all? I don't get it. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I found a second “green” source (i.e. green at WP:RS/P) saying the allegation was that she had sex with Minsky: Venture Beat. Unlike The Verge, this uses “alleged to have sex” wording in both the title and body of the article. I would like to find a third “green” source before we use that wording, though. Samboy (talk) 09:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

To counter balance the Venture Beat allegation, here’s another “green” source (The Washington Post) which uses the “directed to” wording: “Giuffre said in a deposition that she was directed to have sex with Minsky while on the island”. This in mind, I would need to see two other “green” sources with the “alleged to have sex” wording before considering adding it to the article. Samboy (talk) 09:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Another counter balance. Vanity Fair, a “green” source, has this to say about the matter: “Giuffre also alleges Epstein and Maxwell told her to have sex with ... Marvin Minsky” Samboy (talk) 09:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

And another “green” source with “directed to” type wording (The Wrap): “Giuffre also named several prominent men she says Epstein or Maxwell ordered her to have sex with. The list includes ... Minsky”. That makes it 6-2; six sources using “directed to”/“told to”/“ordered to” and only two with an unqualified “had sex”. Samboy (talk) 09:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Yet one more “green” source with mixed wording before I call it a night. From Forbes: “In a 2016 deposition of Giuffre, she claims that Maxwell ordered her to have sex with friends of Epstein, and she complied. They included ... Minsky”. It uses the “ordered to” wording, but it also has “and she complied”. I’ll make this a “she alleged to have sex with Minsky” source, so that makes the score 6-3. A 6-3 supreme court decision is a decisive majority decision; ditto here. Samboy (talk) 10:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Rolf H Nelson (talk), is there some reason that you feel compelled to push this information into Minsky's page? Have you brought us any new sources, any new court decisions, any new depositions, any information to change the consensus that Wikipedia editors reached months ago from the existing sources about how much has been proven versus alleged, and how much emphasis any of it deserves in a page about Minsky's entire life (not about Epstein, not about any of Epstein's assistants, nor about Stallman). Did you think this information wasn't controversial at the time it came out? That nobody in Wikipedia cared or noticed the scandal before, and somehow you have had to come in months later and fight the good fight to smear a dead guy with an allegation that comes from a single deposition of someone who can't remember when or where? No, the reason you're "having trouble" inserting those allegations is because they are alleged, not proven. (Or are irrelevant, like about Stallman.) Changes like yours were inserted dozens of times, within hours and days of the scandal, and a long fight/discussion in the Minsky page and the talk page resulted. And the Minsky page you started editing in February was the result of hearing all the points of view and sorting it out. Do you think the consensus was wrong? If so, say why. Did you even notice that there WAS a consensus before blasting stuff into the page? Do you really think Epstein belongs in Minsky's Table of Contents along with "Biography, Contributions in computer science, Role in popular culture, Personal life, and Bibliography"? Your comment at the top of this section wondered "is this also happening across the pages of other people being accused in the Epstein scandal?" Yes, it is happening. Whenever someone inserts unproven allegations into the pages of "people being accused", putting undue weight on them, more balanced editors work to keep those changes out of the encyclopedia. My question is why you are putting us to the trouble. Gnuish (talk) 08:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Did Minsky sleep with a (possibly underage) prostitute?

This is an attempt to summarize in a concise way the allegation that Minsky slept with a (possibly underage) prostitute. Because of how the single source document (which is the only source for this allegation) is worded, it’s hard to tell if the woman is alleging that Minsky slept with her, or is instead alleging that she was directed to sleep with Minsky without stating he actually slept with her. To have an opinion on this, as a Wikipedia editor, is original research. In compliance with Wikipedia policy, I will look at how secondary sources look at the issue. I have found 11 sources that are considered reliable (“green”) sources over at WP:RS/P; eight say she was simply directed to have sex with Minsky, being silent on whether or not she outright claimed to have sex with Minsky. Three state or imply that she claimed they had sex.

In more detail, here are the eight reliable sources using the “directed to” wording or other words to the same effect:

• Vanity Fair says she was “directed” to have sex with Minsky
• The Daily Beast says “Maxwell directed her to have sex with [...] Minsky”
• New York Times says “she was told to have sex with Marvin Minsky”
• Bloomberg says “she was also sent to [...] the late MIT scientist Marvin Minsky”

"Sent" is more specific than "directed to". I feel like there are one or more sources also stating that she "went to" have sex with Minsky, I can try to track them down if desired. Some people (not me) seem to believe there's an important distinction here (maybe they suspect that she declined to actually approach Minsky?), so we should be specific to avoid confusing such readers. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• The Washington Post: “Giuffre said in a deposition that she was directed to have sex with Minsky while on the island”
• Vanity Fair: Giuffre also alleges Epstein and Maxwell told her to have sex with ... Marvin Minsky
• The Wrap: “Giuffre also named several prominent men she says Epstein or Maxwell ordered her to have sex with. The list includes ... Minsky”
• Wired: “In a deposition, one of Epstein’s victims says he instructed her to have sex with Minsky ... It is far from resolved whether Minsky had sex with the woman” (The article is about RMS, not about Minsky and not directly about the allegations)

And here are the three reliable sources which state that the lady claimed to have sex with Minsky:

• The Verge
• Venture Beat
• Forbes: “In a 2016 deposition of Giuffre, she claims that Maxwell ordered her to have sex with friends of Epstein, and she complied. They included ... Minsky”

FFR you should probably strike the Forbes article, it's specifically by a "breaking news reporter", which may be why it's exiled to /sites/ despite being staff. Vanity Fair is also iffy IMHO, as this isn't their pop-culture beat (again FFR, I agree no more than a couple of strong sources explicitly state she claimed to have with Minsky, and that many sources explicitly state she was "directed to" do so. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Point being, we can’t say in the article that this lady claimed to sleep with Minsky, because the majority of reliable sources only say that she was directed to sleep with Minsky, and only a minority say that she claimed to straight up have sex with Minsky. As per Wikipedia policy, we can only state that she was “directed to have sex with Minsky”, and can not state that she claimed to sleep with Minsky. For that to change, we need to find five other “green” reliable sources stating that she claimed they had full on sexual intercourse.

------ Samboy (talk) 05:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that, if we're limited to one sentence, the indirect statement is ok. So two related questions:

• Why should the article "summarize in a concise way" to such a degree that something that's reported in about a dozen green sources? In general, you shouldn't block well-sourced material.
• I guess first we should address, do I need to explain further why I believe there was at most pagewide (and not Wikipedia-wide) consensus on omitting this? There have been complaints that this was settled by the RFC, but the RFC's wording is very narrow and addresses an obvious and trivial yes/no question about the title, so I don't believe WP:CCC applies to the broad question of what the entire text should be, and I believe that an RFC with broader wording is still possible, and would address my concern that the broader community did not get an opportunity to provide input to the broader question.

------ Rolf H Nelson (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep in mind that consensus generally is not two editors trying to add something against the wishes of four other editors. Most of the sources are about Epstein; one is about RMS. In the articles, by and large, Marvin Minsky gets at most a one-sentence mention. A Duck Duck Go search done today only shows one single non-Wikipedia hit describing the allegation. This in mind, any coverage beyond the one paragraph coverage we have right now would violate WP:WEIGHT. Samboy (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT states "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." I don't see how omitting a relevant statement made by two green sources and contradicted by no sources, in an article that's not anywhere near maximum length, fairly represents all significant viewpoints. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Consensus disagrees here. It comes down to this: Only two editors support changing the content to put more weight on these accusations, and one of them is a known disruptive editor. Four of us disagree with you: [40] [41] [42] [43] I have gone to a lot of effort to explain why reliable sources do not support the content you wish to add to this article. Again, as Gnuish has asked you, and something you have not answered: Why you are going to so much effort to try to smear a dead man? I think you need to think long and hard about that question. The fact that you continue to try to smear him using different approaches is starting to stretch my assumption of good faith I have, and is starting to become downright disruptive. Samboy (talk) 07:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that guy seems like a disruptive editor. Sorry to hear you had a bad experience with him, don't take it out on me. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)