 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the following to the wiki:
In November 2025, Kelly drew criticism for comments made on The Megyn Kelly Show regarding how the term "pedophile" was being applied to Jeffrey Epstein. Kelly said that someone "very, very close" to the Epstein case told her that Epstein "liked 15-year-old girls" and therefore "was not a pedophile," adding that she regarded those views as "disgusting" but was "just giving you facts." [1]
She elaborated that Epstein "wasn't into, like, 8-year-olds" but preferred "very young teen types that could pass for even younger … but would look legal to a passerby," and noted, "There's a difference between a 15-year-old and a 5-year-old … I think there is a difference." [2]
Kelly also said her view had shifted only after hearing claims—reported by former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi—that Epstein possessed "tens of thousands" of videos of alleged child sexual abuse material, although Kelly expressed skepticism about Bondi’s credibility. [3]
Her remarks prompted widespread backlash from commentators and media outlets, with critics arguing that her distinctions minimized the severity of Epstein’s criminal conduct. [4] Others described the statements as potentially "career-ending," noting that 15-year-olds are minors under U.S. law and that such conduct is categorically illegal. [5] BuzzKinsey (talk) 09:18, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Editor's comment: It seems very clear to me that the preceding history is extremely notable and worthy of inclusion in the Article. I am also somewhat mystified at User:TimeToFixThis's removal of the well-sourced and to me, clearly NPOV addition about it, particularly their noted reasons for doing so ("rm material per WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE - contentious allegations, overquotation, lack of attribution, and sensational tone") - the information is well-sourced, not contentious (particularly as it derives entirely from recorded quotes by the subject herself), absolutely not given undue weight as it is unarguably the news about Ms. Kelly given the most significant media coverage in at least a year, not over-quoted as the quote is fairly concise and every included portion is central and relevant to the controversy, and as seen by the several citations offered, by no means unattributed. Further, I'd say that to describe User:Johnny_Rose_11's tone as "Sensational" is truly stretching any rational meaning of the term - the language added that is not part of the quote itself is matter-of-fact, as NPOV as possible, and well-supported in the (now growing list of) references. While I am a relatively inexperienced editor and I will defer to others, I am deeply concerned that User:TimeToFixThis's removal of this material is strongly at odds with WP's goal of objectivity, and that they may be abusing important terms of the Wikipedia community to enforce an editorial agenda. I urgently seek commentary from other, more experienced editors who may weigh in, and hopefully, to re-add something akin to User:Johnny_Rose_11's edit or the passage below to the main Article, and soon. TomTuohy (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
- TimeToFixThis objected, hence it is contentious. I agree with them. Establish WP:CONSENSUS for contentious material on a BLP. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
- Understood, thanks for the education. I am certainly interested in seeking consensus in good faith, and I think it is within reach!
- To that end, I would ask User:TimeToFixThis to offer their reasoning for the objections they raised to the edit, because as I mention above, those reasons are not at all clear to me, nor do I believe they would be to others. And since you say that you agree with them, I'd also gladly invite your own thinking!
- Concerns about undue weight are simple enough to refute - the controversy happened on Ms. Kelly's own show which is her primary work product, it was the subject of numerous high-profile secondary reports from very reputable sources and received a great deal of attention, and perhaps most relevant, the edit made to the article by User:Johnny_Rose_11 was tucked at the bottom of a fairly general section as a single, fairly concise paragraph, and not given any particular flair or heading that elevates it unduly.
- Similarly, "Overquotation" does not stand as a principled reason for the omission, because the quote is rather concise as mentioned, and every part of it is central the the subject at hand (this controversy).
- As for the stated reason that the removed edit was "sensational," it is difficult to understand how the wording outside of the quote itself could be considered such; it is admirably neutral, empirical, and to the point. I fully grant that the quote itself is sensational, as is some of the resulting media coverage, but Wikipedia includes information about about all manner of sensational events and happenings, and indeed, WP would be a much less valuable resource if these were somehow not permitted to be covered in Wikipedia at all! I would think that it's important that a sensational event is not taken to mean that any description of that event is somehow also sensational.
- I have some concern that we may be wandering into a Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete situation. To my reading, the guidance on that page would clearly suggest that inclusion of this controversy as previously written and sourced is well within accepted practice, even considering that the standards for WP:BLP are higher than normal. The fact that this topic is centered squarely on Kelly's own words renders it inherently and unimpeachably credible, and that those words raised a great deal of controversy among many different reputable media outlets is likewise ironclad. The risk of legitimate defamation or libelous character in User:Johnny_Rose_11's edit or the draft Controversy passage here is quite hard to characterize as anything but zero.
- At this point, I would contend that the burden of proof that User:Johnny_Rose_11's edit or something like the Controversy section drafted here are in violation of policies around "WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE - contentious allegations, overquotation, lack of attribution, and sensational tone" now falls to User:TimeToFixThis and whoever else feels that they apply.
- Obviously, as I should say again, I am a novice, here, and would appreciate whatever corrections or guidance can be given by more experienced editors like yourself. But I have a great deal of experience with winnowing principled and unprincipled points and counterpoints in a variety of decision-making contexts, and this particular contention seems ripe for such winnowing, especially with the immediate and contemporary newsworthiness and notability of the controversy in question. TomTuohy (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
- I'm the editor who added this controversy to the article. I stand behind my edit. It was well sourced and written with neutral language. User:TimeToFixThis's reasoning for reverting my edit was over the top and has caused an unnecessary revert war which I'm refusing to engage in. This latest controversy easily equals or exceeds any other one she has been in, all of which are covered in this article. There's no logical reason why this topic can't be covered in the article. We've got Wikipedia editors acting like a PR firm for the subjects of these articles. Johnny Rose 11 (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
- I would also want to hear from those opposed to adding this text to the article, it appears well sourced and I was honestly surprised it hadn't been included in the article already. It's clearly noteworthy and has been covered by a number of sources. Personally I don't follow how including information about an article subject's own statements can be considered contentious. – OdinintheNorth (talk) 03:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
- I am in complete agreement with you, OdinintheNorth. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
- The material concerns a very recent social-media controversy based on a selectively edited clip, covered only in passing by tabloid or opinion sources. The edit made here, which I removed, relied on a single Daily Beast article - an outlet classified as a partisan/tabloid source on Wikipedia’s RS Noticeboard - and thus cannot support contentious claims about a living person (WP:BLP). The incident has not received sustained, in-depth, or long-term coverage from mainstream national publications and therefore does not meet the threshold for enduring encyclopedic relevance (WP:DUE). Including it gives excessive weight to a short-lived social-media cycle and risks sensationalism (WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE). Until and unless the event receives significant, independent, high-quality coverage demonstrating lasting notability, it should not be included. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 21:49, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
- It is now worth noting since you speak specifically about the sources used, that the New Yorker and Newsweek have made their official reporting on the quotes. I do agree that the initial edit was sensationalized, I also agree that the sourcing of the initial talk by User:BuzzKinsey did not source well. It should also be noted that I agree the controversy should be mentioned in this page, with a less sensational variant of the two previous attempts of edit by User:BuzzKinsey and User:Johnny Rose 11 and specifically without news aggregator links from Yahoo! News, or links from The Daily Beast, Entertainment magazines.
- The two sources (The New Yorker and Newsweek) can be found here:
- FHEdits (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
- I'm confused about when enough sources are enough. There are many additional mainstream sources that have since covered this:
- With regard to the claim of a "selectively edited" clip, yes, she says that this was "this person's view", but Kelly is the one arguing that there's a difference between 5 and 15. There is a full YouTube video of the discussion in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANQJYKnBSWo and at 13:43, she says: "We have yet to see anybody come forward and say I was under 10, I was under 14, when I first came within his purview. Look, you can say that's a distinction without a difference- I think there is a difference. There's a difference between a 15-year-old and a 5-year-old." And yes, she goes on to say it's sick, and it makes her skin crawl. But she does in fact still downplay the seriousness of the crimes because they were happening to teenagers rather than pre-pubescent children. I would frankly suggest that the removal of this information constitutes a lack of neutrality.
- Trickycrayon (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Trickycrayon, thanks for your comments.
- How can we establish consensus if those who originally objected have not responded for quite some time?
- I’m happy to prepare a more concise edit using your proposed sources. BuzzKinsey (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- I should be clear, that I did not find the content, only the way it was written to be contentious. I provided better sources for you to use, as well as User:Trickycrayon providing other sources, which I also think are great additions. I am unsure of why this has not moved forward. I can only assume that User:TimeToFixThis still finds it contentious. But the content stayed on mainstream airways for more than a month, and it should have been added shortly after my own comment. It has fit every objection User:TimeToFixThis made, with it staying in the news cycle, and User:Trickycrayon and I submitting 5 more sources that are not 'contentious' sources. FHEdits (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=small}
