Talk:Joscha Bach

Joscha Bach wrote to Jeffrey Epstein about some very strong opinion about various races, women, etc that are not present in his widely diffused public presence

https://journaliststudio.google.com/pinpoint/search?collection=092314e384a58618&utm_source=collection_share_link&entities=%2Fm%2F0c4yypj&p=1 https://www.reddit.com/r/JoschaBach/comments/1oxc3j2/extremely_racist_email_in_epstein_files_from/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-34393-41 (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Do we have any information on his religious beliefs? He talks about Judaism (and how it's the only religion compatible with modern science) constantly, on Twitter. Has he publicly stated his religious beliefs in the past? I believe this is important to know about for an AI researcher who has been extremely influential in AI alignment. --Jaayce — Preceding undated comment added 15:18, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Master of Arts in Computer Science? That should be Master of Science:

§ 7 Akademischer Grad

Wer den Masterstudiengang Informatik erfolgreichabgeschlossen hat, erlangt den akademischen Grad „Masterof Science“ (abgekürzt „M.Sc.“)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by WiseWoman (talk • contribs) 21:06, 27 August 2020 UTC) (UTC)

Without secondary sources, it seems hard to judge if this falls under WP:UNDUE especially for a BLP. Does that section belong in the BLP? --Molochmeditates (talk) 02:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

This part: “Between 2013 and 2017, Bach was directly or indirectly attributed research funding by Jeffrey Epstein charitable funds, according to fact-finding reports from Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Bach declined to comment.” While this may seem meaningful, as a data engineer within the philanthropic space, working with multiple Forbes top-50 non-profits and the sheer billions in records I have pipelined and analyzed, the only reasonable conclusion I have for thinking this was written was to raise suspicion or operate with an agenda. It should be removed entirely in its current form and style as it seems disingenuous. Please remove

Worldisallthatisthecase (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, one day I’ll read all the rules or pick them up from thoughtful redirects about speaking on such matters. I am open to being prodded as to how I could have effectively made my case Worldisallthatisthecase (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

The reports of both MIT & Harvard, alongside the article make it three sources? I've provided a short summary paragraph with the corresponding references that cites from those articles, which should make the article fit better with WP:NPOV. -- Gedankenstuecke (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the new interview with Lex Friedman is relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8qJsk1j2zE 192.36.28.75 (talk) 09:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

This article includes an assertion that Joscha is a member of the Bach Family, with a link to an article about the Bach family that states "Caroline Augusta Wilhelmine, lived the longest. She died in 1871 – the last of Bach's descendants to hold the Bach name."

The cite for that statement leads to a long podcast to which I have listened, but I missed any claim about being a member of the Bach family there (but it was a long podcast, and I might have been distracted).

I am not doing any original research, but it seems to me that only one of these two statements can be true. jens (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I think this article is much too negative in its portrayal of Bach. He is certainly not notorious for having received funding from the guy. Many people have. KevlarStar (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, some cruft in here. Article should be fixed. MutuallyAssuredDeduction (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@Kairotic @Zero Contradictions as you both requested that the other start the discussion: here it is, discuss here and stop edit warring. I have no opinion on the content dispute itself, but we're approaching 3RR. ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) 14:33, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion. Indeed, we do want to avoid surpassing WP:3RR.

WP:UNDUE is pretty straight-forward. If a quote is already included into an article, then including the exact same quote into the article a second time would be giving undue coverage to the quote. A month ago, @MutuallyAssuredDeduction: pointed out that the quotes Kairotic wanted to add are already included in the References section.

In his or her most recent edit summary, @Kairotic: said "A quote in a citation is not in the article". But this is simply not true. In WP:ARTICLE, it's clearly stated that the References section of a Wikipedia article is part of that article. So, MutuallyAssuredDeduction and I are both correct to state the information that Kairotic wants to add to the article a second time is already included inside the article.

This article is a WP:BLP, so we need to be extra cautious about avoiding undue coverage. In the article's current version, there is text saying that Joscha Bach has fascist, eugenicist, and sexist beliefs in the Philosophical Views section, as well as in the Association with Jeffrey Epstein section. It is definitely undue to state the same information twice in the article. It should thus be removed. Zero Contradictions (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I suggest moving the section about his sexist & racist remarks from the current section (Assoc w/ Epstein) to the "philosophical views"-section, where it imho fits better. Currently those views are couched between the financial dealings and contact w/ Epstein and don't really fit there.

I'd also edit it for a consistent citation style. Currently, Bach's views on race etc are only directly quoted in the references, while his verbatim rebuttal is given space in the body of the article. I think both should be either given space in the body or moved down to the references. Gedankenstuecke (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. This seems like a reasonable proposal to me. If content is moved from one section into a different section where it fits better, then we avoid the problem of undue coverage, while improving the organization of the article.

A consistent citation style is also reasonable. It would probably be best to move Bach's verbatim rebuttal to the allegations into the references section, instead of as an inline citation. Zero Contradictions (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Took a stab at that. Gedankenstuecke (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

It looks good to me. Thanks for your help! Zero Contradictions (talk) 00:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC)