Talk:Epstein didn't kill himself: Difference between revisions

How is this notable?

A few articles have noted this "meme". Will anyone want to look at this article in 10 years?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: It passes WP:GNG for starters. Second, we're now at a point where heads of state and congressmen are getting in on it, so yeah I think it will still be notable in ten years. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 13:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you remember anything a congressman said 10 years ago?--Jack Upland (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: Back when I was 11 years old, I had slightly different concerns that what my member of congress was saying lol.
Regardless, could you honestly tell me a single thing that you knew about Paul Gosar besides the fact he shared this meme off the top of your head? How long is it going to be before his constituents can Google his name without seeing a reference to Jeffrey Epstein?
In 20 years, when people are discussing Jeffrey Epstein; what do you think they'll remember the more- the circumstances of his death or all the funny jokes they shared with friends?
People are slapping this meme onto their gosh dang dating profiles and buying christmas sweaters with the words knitted on it. Notability is not temporary, but I assure you this will have WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't know who Gosar is. Do you want to have a bet about this?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

What are the terms? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

If the meme is still current in 10 years time, I will make a donation to a charity of your choice.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Sounds kinda vague.. I do think WP:RS will cover the meme on the 10th anniversary of Epstein's death, though. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

No way.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Epstein Meme.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Christmas jumpers featuring the phrase "Epstein didn't kill himself" are available for sale? Source: Special:Permalink/928083229#cite_note-Slate-18

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/bongos eat burnt wood
• Comment: I believe it contains enough text that the Background section (which is from Death of Jeffrey Epstein) can be disregarded and the article still considered new enough.

Created by MJL (talk). Self-nominated at 18:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC).

• @MJL: Hi, I'll review this. epicgenius (talk) 05:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting: - Do you have another more interesting hook? I feel like this is a little boring without context, kind of like the OK Boomer meme. How about this?
  • ALT1 ... that people have randomly interjected the phrase "Epstein didn't kill himself" at the end of statements? Source: Special:Permalink/928104363#cite_note-5
  • ALT2 ... that the phrase "Epstein didn't kill himself" has been used by individuals on all sides of the political spectrum without agreement as to the specific details? Source: Special:Permalink/928104363#cite_note-7

QPQ: Done.

Overall: There are a few sources that may be seen as biased (in either direction), like Daily Dot and National Review. And to a smaller extent Slate, Fox, & the Intelligencer can also be seen as biased. However, the articles themselves are neutral, so I'll give the sourcing a pass. epicgenius (talk) 05:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Epicgenius: Oh my gosh.. I absolutely love ALT1!!! That would be the the perfect hook to for the quirky one at the end of a set. I guess that's why you're named epicgenuis. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• Nice. ALT1 is good to go, I personally find this the most interesting as well. Thanks for the quick response.
• However, the {{merge}} tag still needs to be removed before promotion. I see slightly more opposes than supports at that page, but still. epicgenius (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Epicgenius: Awesome, thank you! Hopefully, the merge discussion will be over sooner than later. (edit conflict × 2) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Epicgenius: As it happens, you are not allowed to approve a hook you wrote yourself. (I learned that the hard way once.) This would probably have gotten bounced by the higher-ups in the process. So I will approve it:
• Good to go with ALT1. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• MelanieN, thanks. I just recently learned that I can't approve my own hooks as well, though not in as drastic a manner as you likely did. epicgenius (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• @MJL: per Rule A5, copied text from an article that is more than 7 days old must be expanded, character-count-wise, in the new article. How many characters of text did you copy from Death of Jeffrey Epstein? Additionally, Template:Copied must be added to the talk pages of both articles. Yoninah (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Yoninah: Just the background section (which was partly re-written and added to). Everything else in the article is new content. I can giv you a full character count when I get home (as well apply {{Copied}}). Regards, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Yoninah and MJL: Character count of the prose in the entire article is 7,300 bytes. Conservatively (including ref brackets and other markup), copied prose is about 1,280 bytes. So this does represent a 5x expansion. epicgenius (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• This nomination is on hold until the merge proposal for this article has been closed one way or the other. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

  @BlueMoonset: It's been closed now! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• As there has been a major expansion since the first approval, including entirely new sections, I think it's important that a re-review is done now that there was no consensus for the proposed merge, since the new material should be vetted for all the usual things (neutrality, sourcing, copyvio, etc.). epicgenius, did you want to do that, or should we find a new reviewer? My assumption is that MelanieN's approval of your ALT1 would still stand if the rest of the article still passes, though she may wish to reconfirm. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• OK, I will review this again. It is still new enough as the 7,500 bytes of this article is a five-fold expansion of the copied text. Sourcing is adequate, and there are no non-neutral parts of the article. Most of the copyvio pickups seem to be quotes. The hook is still OK. epicgenius (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Lead image

@SchroCat and Tom harrison: What policy justification do you have for removing the image without replacement? In general, all articles are supposed to be illustrated. The image clearly displays an example of the meme, and thus it is relevant. I have previously made an alternative image if you are not perfectly satisfied with that one. However, the article should clearly have an image to help convey its meaning. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I can't believe you're actually trying to defend this. An image has been created to try and provide proof of something. That's akin to a journalist fabricating quotes to justify a news story. If this meme is something we should have an article on (a dubious thought as it is), then there should be something available that proves it: we should not have to fake examples to act as proof. "In general, all articles are supposed to be illustrated" just isn't correct, or any form of justification at all. - SchroCat (talk) 06:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@SchroCat: Provide proof of something? That's so far from the purpose of this image. There are literally thousands of examples of this meme, but all of them are copyrighted. There's nothing to fabricate here. This roughly looks similar to a good portion of those memes, and it's the best example we are going to get unless you want me to modify it in some way. If this was the first example of a user literally creating a meme for an article, then you would have a point. However, I only got the idea after looking at our article on Internet memes. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

There is either a non free option, or not to have an image at all. Not all articles should have (or even need) images, but to fabricate one is exactly the same as a journalist fabricating quotes to "illustrate" an article. - SchroCat (talk) 09:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

You should honestly know better than to suggest using a non-free option. WP:NFCCP#1 states this clearly of why that's not a possibility. Separately, Wikipedia encourages users to upload their own images..
You should really stop the false comparison to the journalist fabricating quotes because that is an example of someone outright lying whereas memes are inherently something anyone can create. There is no official meme database or prerequisite for who can and cannot create a meme. The moment I created the meme it became just as valid as Jane Doe's meme she made and shared on her Facebook group. Displaying this meme versus sharing her meme would have the exact same educational value for our readers.
The best comparison I can think of right now would be heraldry and vexillology. The specifications for an image are detailed, but how Wikipedia chooses to display them can vary (See File:Flag of FIAV.svg). Internet memes are just a method to convey specific ideas, and one person's interpretation of a meme's specifications is no more or less valid than another person's. All memes are constructs from individuals, and to claim that the one I created for educational purposes is somehow distinct from (and even fraudulent compared to) another is unbelievably absurd to anyone who takes this topic seriously. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Then don't use an image. Not every article needs them, and it's more honest not to fabricate something that didn't exist. You could use a quote box using the text from something that does exist, as long as you use a citation to support the quote. - SchroCat (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing to fabricate! It's like if I uploaded a picture of a fractal to illustrate what a fractal is. Memes are entirely user-generated content. There isn't a meme certification process or an official meme list. Images are generated by anyone for any reason to convey information generally in a humorous format. You're drawing an arbitrary line in the sand by saying this particular image is not acceptable even though it was made for expressly illustrative and educational purposes. It even says as much in our Image use policy, Additionally, user-made images may be wholly original. In such cases, the image should be primarily serving an educational purpose, and not as a means of self-promotion of the user's artistic skills. @Tom harrison: This is why the reptilian humanoid picture was against policy.
After several chances to do so, you have provided no policy justification for removing the image besides your own opinion that the picture was (somehow) fraudulent. I have explained, in great detail, how the image was generated and why that is a valid process.
Remember, Wikipedia is not censored, so happening to disagree with an image is not a policy justification to removing it. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

NOTCENSORED is a straw man. This isn't about censoring anything, it's about having integrity of information on display. I've suggested using a quote to demonstrate, which would work equally well, given there is no need for this to be an image, or to include an image. As I've suggested an alternative you don't like, I've opened an RfC for wider input. - SchroCat (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. This reminds me of the "reptilian humanoid," original artwork a contributor made for that article (good work too, as far as that goes...). If there's to be an example at all, at least it needs to be one "from the wild." Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Those would all be copyrighted images. I based this image off this one which was shared on WP:Discord. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• Note. I have asked for feedback from WikiProject Internet culture. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
• See below for RfC on this matter. - SchroCat (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

RfC on fabricated image

Should an example of a meme in use be falsely created to give an impression of how it may be used, or should an alternative form be used instead (a quote, for example). - SchroCat (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes This is completely asinine. If an editor can't make original content specifically for visual purposes on an article, then why is there such a thing as Wikimedia Commons? This meme was created to avoid any kind of copyright violation. An editor already tried to upload a genuine meme, but it was fair-use. And there is nothing "false" about how this image was created. If one was to distribute this image on Reddit, there would be no noticable difference between it and the others. Just as if a wikipedia image of the Empire State Building is no different than any image of it on Pinterest. Please visit Internet Meme. You will find plenty of memes created by Wikipedia editors for that specific page.HAL333 22:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

HAL333, can I advise that unless you want people to revert to industrial-level language in telling you where to go, you try to avoid classing a good faith opinion as "completely asinine". I'm more than happy to respond with some base Anglo-Saxon if you'd really want, but if you could try to understand what WP:AGF means it would make life much easier for everyone concerned. And jsut because we have second rate rubbish on a different page, does not mean we should encourage the thread of misleading our readers on this one. An alternative has already been suggested: use a text based quote without an image. Use a quote box to frame it in and use a citation to support the genuine use. Fabricating images is like journalists fabricating quotes to try to "improve" an story: it lacks integrity or honesty. - SchroCat (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but not this particular image I am opposed to using an image of a large block of text: it's bad for accessibility and can't be easily modified. Either a less text-heavy meme or a quote box would be better. Cheers, gnu57 22:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)