Talk:Bill Cosby/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Obama addresses Cosby's Medal of Freedom

I think President Obama's discussion about Bill Cosby and his thoughts about revoking Cosby's Medal of Freedom should be included in this article. There are many news stories today (e.g. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/obama-bill-cosby-no-way-revoke-cosbys-medal-freedom-n392656) that cover the President's comments on the matter. A couple of senators have publicly commented about establishing a petition drive to revoke it. Since I'm relatively new to WP and this page, I want to ask the group. Some of everything (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I concur and I am a long time editor with the WP. The New York Times just covered President Obama's comments. While I realize that the article is governed by WP:BLP, comments made by a standing president are notable enough for entry:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/16/us/obama-wades-into-growing-sexual-scandal-surrounding-bill-cosby.html?_r=0
President Obama:
"There’s no precedent for revoking a medal,” Mr. Obama said in answer to an off-topic question during a long news conference that was otherwise focused on the nuclear deal with Iran announced Tuesday. “We don’t have that mechanism.” [...] “I’ll say this,” Mr. Obama said. “If you give a woman or a man, for that matter, without his or her knowledge, a drug, and then have sex with that person without consent, that’s rape.”“And this country, any civilized country, should have no tolerance for rape,” the president added.
The NYT article includes video and text. -Classicfilms (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Classicfilms. Using a variety of sources that could be included, including the NYT article, here is a possible addition for consideration. I propose it goes at the end of the Sexual Assault Allegations section:
On July 15, 2015, President Barack Obama answered a reporter’s question whether he would consider revoking Bill Cosby’s Medal of Freedom award, which Cosby received from President George W. Bush in 2002. President Obama said, “there is no precedent for revoking a medal…we don’t have that mechanism.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/15/white-house-has-no-mechanism-to-revoke-bill-cosbys-medal-of-freedom/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/15/obama-on-cosby-scandal-drugging-a-woman-for-sex-is-rape/

Some of everything (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I like Some of everything's version however I think we should also include the latter portion of what President Obama said since what he says is rather short and otherwise his full opinion is not expressed.Louieoddie (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

As another editor inserted a reference to Obama's comment in the main article, I modified it with the entire quote. I agree with Louieoddie that President Obama's full statement should be included. -Classicfilms (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Ridiculous. It doesn't matter much unless the award is actually revoked which we've reported on in other cases. Obama is asked, and talks about LOTS of things that we do not have to jump on. Keep to the main story not the news cycles please. Georgeivs vid (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The American president commenting on this issue is certainly notable enough to be in the article. Dream Focus 21:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree that it should be mentioned. One could discuss how much of the quote to use, but Obama's comments are germaine to Cosby as a person, and to Cosby as an accused person. Complete removal is uncalled for. Discuss here and we can likely work out some compromise. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
It would be worth including if ANY action were to be taken but this remains Wikipedia reporting on what is not happening when there is so much of the story that we are missing. Future editors will have to cope with removing all that is not happening from the article i will try to work with what is occurring. Georgeivs vid (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

While I find the comments representative of a general public feeling that Cosby is guilty as sin, I feel quoting Obama is dangerous since it implies that Obama is an expert on the Cosby case and has specific reasons not available to the ordinary person for feeling Cosby is guilty. Obama is not getting reports from the CIA or the NSA on Cosby's activities (as far as we know). There's no evidence that Obama is getting his facts from any specialist source beyond what he reads in the paper - heck, he might even be getting his facts from Wikipedia! And Obama carefully talks in the abstract: that conduct like what Cosby is accused of is indisputably rape. (Which nobody sane is likely to disagree on.) I would far rather have a direct quote from one of the (claimed) victims than a comment from a man with no particular connection to the case in this space. (I personally find it a bit sad that the longest quote in this section is from a man with no connection to the case.) Blythwood (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Wikipedia is constructed according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." When I Googled the phases, "President Obama" and "Bill Cosby" together, I received "About 3,300,000 results." Thus, a NPOV article on Cosby will include the response of the sitting president of the United States at the time, President Obama. It is a difficult quote to paraphrase without involving the POV of the editor who constructs it. Thus including the full quote fulfills Wikipedia:Neutral point of view as it allows the reader to make up his or her own mind on the subject. Far from dangerous, including the full quote is the best way to approach the topic. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I removed the indents that were added to the quote. Indented quotes are usually quite long and this one isn't long enough for an indent.-Classicfilms (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I totally agree that the full quote is best. It's clear that Obama clearly refuses to comment on the question of Cosby's guilt, but expresses his opinion about the combination of drugging and lack of consent, and he calls it "rape". His comment is extremely relevant in this context as he's responding to a question about Cosby's guilt (by not commenting on it), and then giving his opinion about the situation described in the accusations, but in a generic sense, regardless of sex.
As to indenting or not indenting long quotes, the MoS says this: "Format a long quote (more than about 40 words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length)...", so Obama's quote should be indented (done), while the other one, especially since you have now broken it up, is fine as you've formatted it. Good work! -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
hmmm, I see, 40 words. Back in the analog world, it used to 4 sentences but perhaps that comes up to 40 words. Well, I won't argue with a style guide rule -- and it looks like the indent was added back. Good to know about the 40 word rule. As for the rest, when it comes to a controversial issue, I prefer using an exact quote and leaving it up to the reader to decide. Paraphrasing is simply too complex in this situation to work well within WP:NPOV. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, although Obama made no reference to Cosby, I agree that the full quote should remain. As a suggestion and for the avoidance of doubt, the current, "President Obama responded by stating": could be qualified to "Making no reference to Cosby, President Obama responded by stating": Selector99 (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I must respectfully disagree. The current wording is compliant with WP:NPOV because it is not interpreting the quote in any way. If a reader clicks on the source and watches the video, s/he will see that it matches the Wikipedia description exactly, which is how it should be. We need to leave it up to the reader to interpret the President's statement. -Classicfilms (talk) 12:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

'Stand-Up Career'

The stand-up career section could possibly be more elaborate. Despite the allegations, I think the page should make more clear how influential he was in the world of stand-up comedy, as it was a huge part of his life/ career.

You could mention that his album 'To Russell, My Brother, Whom I Slept With' was Number 1 on Spin Magazines list of '40 Greatest Comedy Albums of All Time' ( http://www.spin.com/2011/11/spins-40-greatest-comedy-albums-all-time/9/ )

That his 1983 concert film 'Bill Cosby: Himself' is/was generally considered the greatest comedy concert film of all time (http://www.gq.com/story/bill-cosby-himself-30th-anniversary-june-2013) (this is also mentioned on the specific wiki page for the film)

These 2 facts could also be included in the lede, as his stand-up career is barely mentioned in it (other than the fact about The Hungry i). Respectfully, I believe that more than one sentence should be included about his stand-up in the lede.

You could also mention in the stand-up section his stand-up special 'Bill Cosby: 77', which was recorded and set to be released the day after Thanksgiving 2014 on Netflix, but was postponed due to sexual assault allegations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asaprockysource (talk • contribs) 04:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be beneficial to pay more attention to his stand-up work/ legacy in the article. Just my personal opinion, though. And I don't mean to undermine the very serious allegations being raised against him, which are obviously very important.

RfC: Should the allegations of sexual assault be mentioned in the lede?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus to include the allegations in the lede. There was no consensus on a version for the lede in this RFC, but those that mentioned what should be included all preferred something short. AlbinoFerret 22:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Should the allegations of sexual assault be mentioned in the lede? 20:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • Support short mention of the allegations of sexual assault in the lede, per the preponderance of reliable sources reporting on the allegations, and the notability of the subject. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose It all remains allegations and innuendo. Most of the alleged incidents can never go to trial as the cases are way too old. What is left is the court of public opinion and the lawyers representing the various women hoping they can get still mete out punishment (money) for what amounts to largely unprovable incidents. Please be more cautious when trying to hang a *Warning: Rapist* sign on someone until there is actually any evidence to merit that brand. We have zero evidence, no convictions, zero cases even. Once he is convicted in an actual trial of wrongdoing then a small mention in proportion to his decades of reshaping television might be appropriate. Wikipedia should not be a tabloids, or support the tabloids' rather profitable work of slinging muck on famous people and fomenting scandals. Georgeivs vid (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes. The dozens of sexual assault allegations have had a substantial and notable impact on the subject's life. A short mention in the article lead is warranted, in my opinion.

    "Since 2000, Cosby has been repeatedly accused of sexually assaulting women, in several cases after purportedly drugging them. The allegations span from the 1960s to the 2010s. Cosby has never been formally criminally charged." ← I would prefer wording that's similar to this. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

  • include, but with better wording per Kevin Clash or Roman Polanski. This has had a significant impact on his career, and will likely remain part of his reputation permanently. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Leave out, the lede doesn't include most of the accomplishments he's done including some quite distinguished awards. I don't see how you can devote any room for the accusations while omitting most of his life's milestones. And he has was never convicted, no trial even. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheShadowKnowsNot (talk • contribs) 06:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC) — TheShadowKnowsNot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Yes include The information has been published for long enough that it is not news and is an essential part of this person's biography. I am not commenting on the weight, but I support that the fact be included in the lead. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose While pertinent and necessary to include in the article, placement in the lede is extremely WP:UNDUE. LavaBaron (talk) 06:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose It should be left out of the lead. I see no policy or guidance that it should or should not be in the lead. Even WP:UNDUE application in this case is a matter of opinion. I feel putting it in the lead is a scarlet letter type of punishment and he is presumed innocent at this point. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Include in lead paragraph - holy cow, how bad does someone's crime have to be and how much press does it have to get to make it into a lead paragraph? Red Slash 07:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Bad enough that he is found guilty in a court room . . . which he hasn't. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Wait, what?? He has to be convicted before we can reflect reliably sourced allegations? Goodness sakes, if someone blew up New York City and Cosby was arrested for smuggling a nuclear weapon to the terrorists, you wouldn't be willing to put that in the lead until he was convicted? At some point, allegations in and of themselves (so long as they're reported in reliable sources) are notable enough. Red Slash 19:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Good point, but you are presuming guilt. I am sure you think him guilty, but if he is innocent, would he still deserve this accusation in the lead? I am not saying I think he is innocent, I am assuming he is innocent, which is what we should do. We are not ignoring the accusations, they are in the body. I suppose there are cases where the evidence could be enough to support a mention in the lead, but this is not one of them. There is not one shred of physical evidence and no cases have be brought to court yet and frankly it looks to me like they never will. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
We're not a jury in a courtroom. We shouldn't assume innocence just because he hasn't been convicted. We can make a judgement based on the facts. Given over 40 women have accused him of rape through drugging I don't see why you would presume him to be innocent. 194.82.100.215 (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Because it is Wikipedia policy. See WP:CRIME. It says "A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law." Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Richard-of-Earth.

Sorry, no. WP:CRIME is a redirect to a section of Wikipedia:Notability (people), which is a notability guideline, not a policy. Even the main notability page (WP:N) is not a policy page, for better or worse. Biographies of living people is a policy, for comparison.

The argument that people such as Georgeivs vid are putting forward is that Wikipedia must act similar to a U.S. court of law and presume innocence until proven guilty [in a U.S. court of law]. This is certainly a true legal principle, but WP:NOTCOURT (which is a redirect to an actual policy ;-) makes it clear that Wikipedia is not a judicial body. We apply common sense and editorial judgment in dealing with sensitive subjects such as this, while trying to maintain a neutral point of view. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi MZMcBride, Sorry, your right. The policy I should have linked is WP:BLPCRIME. That is a policy and says "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law." My bad. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
MZMcBride, I'm not saying we should presume he is innocent but that we should write as if we don't know for sure, which we don't. We may suspect, but we don't know. Georgeivs vid (talk) 07:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


  • Support -- I was directed here by a bot and so am uninvolved. Excluding mention of this, which is widely covered in reliable sources, would actually be a violation of WP:UNDUE. The lead should summarise the article, which has significant coverage of this. Also worth remembering that we don't require a criminal conviction to include negative coverage of someone in an article -- that's an absurd threshold for an encyclopaedia -- we just require wide coverage in multiple reliable sources. -- Shudde talk 04:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment -- To whomever closes (who I assume will be an admin), it'd like to point out that at least one of the commenters on here is a WP:SPA. -- Shudde talk 04:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Include Whether he is guilty or innocent is besides the point. Per WP:LEAD: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." I believe the coverage in reliable sources establishes this as a prominent controversy. --NeilN talk to me 00:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Include - allegations now have a notability that will never dissipate. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 13:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • It already is dissipating. This blew up late last year and because there are no crimes to be prosecuted it's all being replaced by other celebrity gossip.2602:306:CE95:57B0:F8C0:2046:E36E:2D23 (talk) 04:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Cosby isn't a borderline notable person, and this issue isn't a flash in the pan. It has overshadowed, in the RS, all the other things he is known for, and it looks odd for the lead not to mention it. WP:LEAD is clear about including prominent controversies: "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Sarah (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose.I would support inclusion IF I thought the mention would be very short and VERY neutral, ie 'he has been accused of .. , he hasn't been tried etc'. Looking at drafts below, 'multiple women', 'over 40 women' etc. are 'backdoor' ways of giving credence and prominence to the accusations and are not appropriate to the lead. (ps also uninvolved)Pincrete (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, as the pile of reliable sources about this clearly shows it is now a significant chapter of the subject's life and history. Tarc (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support/Include Such allegations are obviously sensational, but given the abundance of reliable sources covering the multiple allegations, it would seem to be a violation of WP:DUE and WP:LEAD to not include mention of this in the lead.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

*Support briefly alluding to allegations in lead without the sex. Per WP:BLPLEAD, "Care should be taken to avoid placing undue weight on aspects of sexuality." Given the denial, and absent any legal charges or conviction, I think the sexual aspect ought to be kept out of the lead, but can go in the main text of the article. See Gerry Studds and John Phillips (musician). The lead should say something like "In 2014, Cosby denied various misconcduct alegations that did not result in any legal charges." Per WP:BLP, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist...." Per WP:Sensation, "Wikipedia is not for scandal mongering or gossip. Even in respected media, a 24-hour news cycle and other pressures inherent in the journalism industry can lead to infotainment and churnalism....." Per WP:NPOV, discussion of "news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." WP:BLP is also pertinent: "Biographies of living persons ('BLPs') must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy."Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Striking in view of newly reported admission from 2005.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support The allegations have had a tremendous impact on his career, reputation and legacy. In contrast of Mark Whitaker's account of Cosby's life, we can no longer summarize his life without mentioning them.LM2000 (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support It's been all he's been in the news for for at least the past year, and includes consistent coverage in a myriad of very reliable sources with non-trivial coverage. It's been referenced by multiple other celebrities on talk shows and comedy bits. Confronting it and discussing why it took so long to talk about it even when the allegations have been known for years have become a cultural turning point. It's insane that it's not already included in the lead, and the lack of it there is a serious WP:NPOV problem by trying to whitewash the article. Leads also also accurately summarize the article. As consensus already has a lengthy section in the article, an equivalent percentage of the lead should mention it. Note that ends up meaning it would be fairly short... one or two sentences, which is all that is needed so that people can then refer to the later section. DreamGuy (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Has been pretty broadly covered and is a sizeable chunk of the article. The suggested version George has posted below seems best (with assault changed to sexual assualt). Also someone should probably include something about his political views/activities in the lede given that a large chunk of the article is dedicated to them.Bosstopher (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This has been in the news for some time now. I just saw something about them opening his 2005 court records today. It's hardly libelous to mention the fact that this scandal is going on in the subject's life as everyone must know about it by now. For all we know this might end up being the thing that everyone remembers him for above all else. It would be like leaving Jerry Lee Lewis's marriage to his 13 year old cousin out of his lead.Louieoddie (talk) 10:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • UPDATE. Given the new revelations and editors' insistence that it has to be there we might as well end this discussion as pointless. Georgeivs vid (talk) 18:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support While it is important to list that he has not been charged with the crime of sexual assault, it is notable to include why he hasn't been charged. He hasn't been charged, because the accusations are outside of the statute of limitations, in the areas where the alleged sexual assaults occurred. I think this fact should be included in the lede. Jenno707 (talk) 02:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I think a short mention of the allegations in the lede is appropriate, but I think it could be shortened to two sentences, re: WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. One sentence saying there have been a number of allegations. A second sentence saying he has not been charged in any court.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 23:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support A google news search for "Bill Cosby" turns up dozens of pages of articles on the assault allegations and virtually no articles on anything else. I agree with others: it would be WP:UNDUE to attempt to exclude them from the entry. Nblund (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion seems like you don't read about Cosby nowadays unless it's about this. I've been involved plenty re US politics but not at all re Cosby. As an aside, I'm curious if that makes me involved or not. MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 12:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

This is not an issue for the legal realm. Regardless if the accusations are true or not, and regardless if any legal proceedings find him guilty or not, the controversy is notable enough to warrant a short mention in the lede. Also note that many reliable sources have reported on the controversy, and these sources are mainstream and reliable as they get. Claims that the sources are tabloids, are baseless. Just do quick Google search. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

If the argument should be can we mention this in the article that has already been done. What remains disputed is that this is too much of a pile of accusations without factual basis or evidence of any kind. Zero evidence, zero convictions. Wikipedia is not the judge and jury here. We have to look at what the most reliable sources have said and none of them state he did do anything, because no one knows for sure. Get a conviction that sticks and likely the intro should be updated. Until then it omits many more important aspects of his life. And he remains a living person that you're trying so hard to publicly accuse of sexual assault. Georgeivs vid (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
In Wikipedia we follow the sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
No one has suggested we do otherwise. We also use our brains to know what sources are tabloids and what ones are reliable. And none of that is really at issue, although our reporting remains tabloid-like on this article. We should greatly trim back the repeated allegations and insist on only cases at trial that haven't been dismissed. And summarize the one settled out of court briefly. Instead we drone on about one allegation after the next as if any of them have merit. Sorry we don't all work for Gloria Allred here, this is suppose to be an encyclopedia. Georgeivs vid (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
We don't work for the hero either. Your insistence on "only cases at trial that haven't been dismissed" has no basis in Wikipedia policy. --NeilN talk to me 04:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I never suggested we did. And many believe Cosby to still be very influential in the fields of comedy and black empowerment. Perhaps we should just treat this as person A, etc. The facts remain these are all allegations mostly whipped up since October with one possible exception looks like all have been dismissed as way too old to prosecute. Meanwhile his intro glosses over nearly 80 years of trailblazing in industries that have been shown to be hostile to blacks. The intro is lacking yet we are working hard to use unproven, untested allegations to label him as a rapist. Perhaps Wikipedia can do better than that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeivs vid (talk • contribs) 05:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Georgeivs vid (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

No one is saying that he is guilty. What is being argued is the significance of the allegations and the coverage it has attracted. We are just reflecting what the sources say. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
We are implying his guilt in the manner we choose to report the accusations, what weight we give them, and the prominence. Georgeivs vid (talk) 12:19, 7 July 2015 (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.

Main photo

I'm a little confused why the main, full faced, pic from 2011 was recently replaced by one from 2006 with Cosby wearing sunglasses (surely we want to see the man's eyes?). Is it the case that main pics (particularly of celebrities currently in the news) are changed at will or should consensus first be sought? To be honest, I never really liked the previous pic as it made him look slovenly and bet there's a better, more recent one out there. Should I just search from a free pic that I prefer and replace it? Change for the sake of change seems weird. Selector99 (talk) 12:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

No reason was given in the edit summary, but it's certainly better than the "slovenly" one. Among those we have facing front, there is a better image (than the "slovenly" one) which is more recent. It would be nice to find a better one. Until then, the current one seems fine.
It would also be good if we could document his keratoconus eye condition with a good source. The National Enquirer is the best one I can find, and it's not the greatest. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I find the more recent one a preferable image as the whole of the man's face is viewable. Selector99 (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the U.S. Navy one is better, and support it going up. --JumpLike23 (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. (It would still be nice to have a better one.) -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Great! I'll leave it 24hrs from the opening comment before changing the article pic. If anybody changes it in the meantime, I've no objection. Selector99 (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Very wise. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 Done Photo changed although description relating to U.S. Navy may prove a problem for some in current climate. Selector99 (talk) 15:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Too many subsections? Organization issues

I'd like to partially roll back to where things were reporting chronologically as there was a major split between what happened before/after October 2014. How that is reported is editorial judgment, I feel we are organizing things that put unequalled emphasis on each very small paragraph and missing reporting on the subject of rape in American culture when many sources are using these cases to show how reporting/and believing those reports have greatly changed. For instance "date rape" was relatively unknown, especially in pop culture, only decades ago. Reliable sources have shared a lot of good rape statistics in conjunction with these cases that would illustrate how Cosby's cases represents the changing of attitudes about sexual assault. Also I think we should look to including more about the New Yorker cover article. I don't feel we are giving it due coverage. Georgeivs vid (talk) 01:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

To include all that, as well as the statistics, we'd have to give this subject its own article. Louieoddie (talk) 09:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
That is still a possibility. We have discussed it, and currently we are supposed to keep building the content until the topic literally expands to the point where it will force the creation of a legitimate fork article. Previous attempts to limit coverage so as to not overwhelm this article proved to amount to censorship and denying the subject the coverage it deserves. So just keep developing this and pressure will increase for creating that fork article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
We essentially gave its own sub-section. Please feel free to add to it. The article itself got coverage.--JumpLike23 (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

sexual assault section length

While I am of the strong opinion that this subject is notable and should be included in this article, I am concerned that the level of detail and length of the section is WP:UNDUE and suffers from WP:RECENTISM. I think we need to move to a more WP:SUMMARY level of detail and drop out some of the minute day to day updates. an off the top of my head suggestions

  • The sever ties section should be condensed into one or two paragraphs just saying that shows were canceled, agencies dropped, etc. Each event does not need individual coverage.

Gaijin42 (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

If the level of detail is too much for a bio, you can suggest a split per WP:SPLIT, I would not support such a split though. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Do you think 17 paragraphs of severing ties is WP:DUE? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I oppose the minimizing of the impact that the allegation had in show cancellations, and agencies dropping their sponsorship of Cosby. He is an entertainer, and as such these cancellations are all notable on their own right. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Im not saying not to cover it, but that one sub-section is longer than all of the coverage given to the cosby show, fat albert, i spy, etc put together. this is textbook WP:UNDUE Gaijin42 (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
As I said, if it is too long, there is always the possibility of split and wp:summary, but not deletion. But the content is notable in the context of his career as an entertainer. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
We have already discussed this and the consensus seemed to be to wait and see if the content became undue. If that happened, then we'd have justification for a legitimate FORK article, as is done with many other such cases. Maybe it's time to do it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree that it is defintiely time to do it. At the moment, the "Institutions sever ties" subsection in particular looks like a news ticker. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The sections on his stand-up and television career are around 2300 words combined. The sections on the sexual assault allegations are around 2800. This doesn't seem wildly out of the ordinary. For comparison:

So its more toward the OJ/Saville end of the distribution rather than the Spector/Polanski one, but that seems reasonable given the sheer magnitude of the allegations, and the incredible amount of press attention they have received. I think there's room to debate, but its not clear to me that this is undue. Nblund (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind that there are multiple FORK articles for these people.
Simpson:
Saville:
Polanski:
Michael Jackson:
We should follow these examples and create a FORK. This is standard practice. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree, but there should be a vote. I know first hand that the section has changed significantly since the last vote on a fork because I created the subsections, making the article more accessible to the average reader. After that, the section greatly expanded. --JumpLike23 (talk) 04:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree it's time for another vote and would vote for a FORK. OJ was convicted for robbery, Saville was found guilty as sin by Opeartion Yewtree and Polanski and Phil Spector were convicted. Cosby has yet to be charged. I say we'd do well to treat him, at least, like Michael Jackson. Give the man a FORK. Selector99 (talk) 07:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
BullRangifer I think a fork makes sense, but that seems like a separate issue. These articles include ample discussion of the crimes in the main entry even with the fork.Nblund (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Nblund, we should definitely still keep some discussion in the main article, but a FORK will allow for much more detail.
It's often a good idea to create a section for the controversy/allegations/court cases/whatever in the main article, then add a "main" link pointing to the FORK and use the lead of the FORK as the content in the main article's section. Then whenever the FORK is expanded and the lead modified/enlarged, it can be used to update the section in the main article. That way the controversy doesn't overwhelm and create undue weight in the main article, while still giving a short synopsis of the issue(s). It should never be hidden away from the main article.
It's just a matter of keeping things in proportion. Even if a celebrity's legacy ends up being damaged and drowned out by their last bad actions, their entire career and life should still be presented in full. The article should not be limited to, and overshadowed by, their LASTing legacy. People tend to remember first and last impressions, but our articles should not be bound by these defects of human attention span. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm totally with you on the forking, but past crimes can overshadow a person's career. This seems to be exactly what's happened with the OJ and Savile entries. We still talk about OJ's football career, but its less important than that other part of his legacy.
Cosby's show has been removed from syndication, his future projects have been scrapped, and his name is currently being scrubbed from universities and institutions. That seems to suggest that these allegations have superseded his comedy and television careers in the public imagination. This is a major part of his lasting legacy. Point being: with or without a fork, it seems perfectly reasonable that a significant portion of this entry should be dedicated to sexual assault allegations. This isn't to say there can't be cuts for readability, but the current iteration doesn't seem UNDUE in comparison to analogous cases. Nblund (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Agree. I could not have said it better. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I made that point above, about how last impressions totally alter our memories of someone's history, so we certainly agree on that.

The problem is that your proposal creates a conflict between how human memory works and how UNDUE requires us to keep too much coverage of one aspect in a separate FORK. We're an encyclopedia, not a human mind. We don't allow later events to cause us to start overpowering, smothering, or deleting earlier events from an article (which is essentially how human memory and attention span seems to work by burying older information).

UNDUE still applies, so a FORK article is the way we always deal with these situations. I hope you're not proposing a new way of doing things which ignores it. That would require RfCs, dispute resolution, and going all the way to ArbCom proceedings, since a mere RfC can't change policy. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Does WP:UNDUE say anything about content forking? This seems like you're conflating two different issues. I think talking about ArbCom is a little dramatic at this point, I don't see anyone proposing something that would require a rule change or dispute resolution to include. Its a minor dispute over the length of a section.
WP:UNDUE requires assigning weight in proportion with the representation in reliable sources, not in accord with some objective standard of the truth about a person. We don't dedicate a lot of space to Charles Manson's songwriting career, even if that's a big chunk of his biography. There's room for debate over the ideal proportions in this case, but I don't see a clear cut case that this is out of sync with what we see in RS. Nblund (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I think it will be simplest for me to quote from policy at this point, because we're not talking about a POV FORK, but a spinoff article. We haven't been using that wording, but that's really what we're talking about, so here's a relevant quote (bold added):
  • "Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not POV forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary, conform to Neutral Point of View. Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter. This can happen when a particular controversial incident gets a lot of attention from editors representing different points of view, expanding until every item of evidence is included and referenced. This kind of detailed examination of a single incident in a general article will usually be considered to give Undue Weight to the incident so it is more appropriate to break that section out as a separate sub-article and just have a summary in the main article." (emphasis added)
I hope that explains my meaning better. As per the title of this section and previous discussions, length is now a problem, so "it is more appropriate to break that section out as a separate sub-article...." I think it's time to do it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
It does, and I agree 100% about creating a new article, I also agree that, stylistically, the section is too timeline-y and could be edited for clarity. There really isn't a good cause for including every institution that severed ties with him. That said, I don't think the length of the section is really the issue. Like you said: several of the other entries have spinout articles, and yet many of them still have a similar "crimes to career" ratio to this one. To be clear: we're talking about an accusation that this person was a serial rapist for basically his entire career. That does seem like it might overshadow his legacy a la Jimmy Saville.Nblund (talk) 22:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
@ BullRangifer Agreed Selector99 (talk) 09:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Props to those who have been working on this but I do think the material needs some presentation help. I think presenting things more as a timeline up until 2012 would help readers see how things progressed. I think we should show how and if the Buress comedy bit influenced anything. If none available it should be trimmed back, otherwise explain it better. The women respond back sectioned is misnamed, it's a media response, and shouldn't have a subsection as much as be a meaty paragraph in post-Oct 2014 developments. I think time-lining everything would help a lot. Georgeivs vid (talk) 02:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I know I am not as experienced as others on here and do not edit that often, however before visiting the talk page I did notice that the sexual assault section is a bit too large. Given the fact that this entertainer's history in the industry is far more vast than this recent hot topic of controversy, shouldn't his page be condensed to reflect proportions as such in the article? Maybe I am wrong, but perhaps a biography of living persons might want to be more sensitive to controversial tabloid topics? Conspirasee1 (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2015

As of August, 2015, 52 (redacted) women have claimed that they were sexually assaulted by him. LisaTalmadge (talk) 06:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)Lisa Talmadge

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. That's not reliable source. Cannolis (talk) 12:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Time for "Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations" spinout sub-article?

Consensus is clear: spinout article created. JohnCD (talk) 10:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

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.

  • We have a very clear SNOW consensus, so I have effectuated the changes. I don't know how to close this RfC, and since I started it, it's best that someone else do it anyway. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Per the discussion in the section above, are we ready to create the "Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations" spinout sub-article, just like the similar articles for other famous people? It's relatively easy to do by moving the relevant content from this article and leaving a summary style section and a "main" link to the "allegations" sub-article. The content in that section could be made using the lead from the sub-article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. We have discussed this quite thoroughly and there is good precedent and policy support for such a move. There is a serious undue weight problem with all that content in the current article. This violates BLP and needs to be resolved quickly. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support There's more than enough reliably sourced content here to start a spinout. Is this tagged as an RfC? It seems like it should be, maybe with the "bio" and "style" tags? Nblund (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - Not needed, per WP:SPLIT. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Nowadays, many people come to the article just to read about the allegations so we can't just reduce the section. Louieoddie (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support but the sexual assault section will need to still be somewhat lengthy.--JumpLike23 (talk) 03:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • support the section is massively over-detailed, and WP:UNDUE Gaijin42 (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support And make sure that the section here is only a simple summary, and not excessive here. Note any new article must fully comply with WP:BLP - a subarticle is not a release from being compliant with policy. Collect (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: It seems like the matter of creating a spinout article should be addressed separately from proposed edits to the sexual assault section here. I'm in favor of a spinout, but I don't think the section on this page is necessarily WP:UNDUE, and it looks there are others who feel similarly. Nblund (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The section overwhelms the artcile and is no longer representative of WP:BLP. Also the massive section now flies in the face of WP:NOTNEWS, I reckon. Selector99 (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:SPLIT which states: If an article becomes too large, or a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it is often appropriate for some or all of the article to be split into new articles.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • WP:SPLIT provides some metrics, which have not been met yet, so the split is unwarranted. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It's not rocket science. The article is currently overwhelmed by and predominantly covers the as yet unproven (and uncharged) sexual allegations by which Cosby and his life's works are not nearly or remotely defined. WP:WEIGHT Selector99 (talk) 06:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • These types of split are permissible only if written from a neutral point of view and must not be an attempt to evade the consensus process at another article. On the other hand, having a separate article on a controversial incident may give undue weight to that incident. For this reason Mel Gibson DUI incident was folded back into a Mel Gibson article section.' From WP:SPLIT. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • This isn't so much one incident as it is a series of incidents over a protracted period of time, so the Mel Gibson analogy doesn't really work. Dyrnych (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • OK. I remove my oppose. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Exactly. The situation is quite a bit different. Thanks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Though important to Cosby's biography, the sexual assault allegations threaten to dominate the article. Dyrnych (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support separate article is long overdue. —МандичкаYO 😜 01:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – This is pretty much a thing in its own right. Besides, it's getting bigger every time I look at it. (As the actress said to the bishop.) --Pete (talk) 23:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - needs a separate article Jack1956 (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Of course, there should still be a moderately detailed summary in the main article. But it is not good to allow the sexual abuse allegation content to overwhelm the article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Fully support. Bill Cosby's sexual assault scandal absolutely needs its own page. There is no debate about the scandal's notability, and it, over the course of months, simply has not gone away. I don't think I'm saying anything groundbreaking here, but because of the fact that Jimmy Savile and O. J. Simpson have pages about their transgressions, due to the importance said transgressive behaviors held to the public, Bill Cosby's scandal should be equivalently treated. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 03:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
consensus has arrived.--JumpLike23 (talk) 03:37, 31 August 2015 (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.

Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations sub-article created

The Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations spinoff sub-article was created by moving content from the main Bill Cosby article. This happened after a WP:SNOW consensus at an RfC on this talk page.

I have sought to bring all the relevant refs along. We can now concentrate all efforts on this topic there, and NOT here in this main article. So, let's improve that article! -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

All well, but the current summary needs expansion as it is not reflective of the main article. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I understand and anticipated your concerns, per my comments above. That summary can be improved, so please follow the hidden editorial instructions and fix the lead at the sub-article first. Then copy it to the section in this article. The hidden editorial instructions should be plain enough. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
It's really important to do this in this order so we don't deal with the same issues in two different places. That only creates confusion and edit wars, and then we'll end up with a protected article again. The content in this section must be a consensus version, and that work is done on the sub-article. If the lead there is considered accurate and adequate (it isn't at present, so fix it), then there will be no conflict over its use here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I understand, but I disagree on the process. Summaries of sub articles do not necessarily need to be the lead of the sub article. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I understand your questioning of this method, because it's true that no policy dictates this process. As far as I know, this is the least disruptive method and the one which ensures that the summary in the main article is as complete and non-controversial as possible. The lead in the sub-article should be of that quality.
This will minimize the risk of discussing the same issues in different places, and also the risk of edit warring. The sub-article is now the main article for this content. It has primacy, so I believe we should develop this type of content there, and then bring a thorough summary here. We have all the content and refs there.
That's just my thinking, and I hope you'll give it a try. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Sexual Assault Innacuracies

Two new Accusers have come forward since this revision and allred represents 22 people not 17. Allred has also stated there are more accusers coming forward. 

This is a well known fact documented in many news outlets and on television and other media.

Although you may not be able to find a source that says 22 victims , it is easy arithmetic 17 as the now + 3 new accusers in early august, plus an additional 2 accusers on August 20th, 2015. Wwdamron (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that info should be updated, and this is not the place to do it. Please go to Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations and do it there. It may have been done to some degree, but not completely. Go for it! -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Lead change

Can you change "Numerous women" to "Several dozen women"? Numerous could be as low as 4, whereas 47 women have accused Cosby. Alternately just be specific and say 47. 2.103.12.173 (talk) 05:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done
Good catch! There were also two sentences which were nearly identical, so that is also fixed. I also updated the section here, and the lead at Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Total Number of Honorary Degrees is Off by a large number.

On this web page detailing Marquette's decision to strip it's Degree, it states that Cosby has been awarded 23 Honorary Degrees by various colleges and universities:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/marquette-university-strips-bill-cosby-of-honorary-degree-b99583730z1-329253351.html

This i can try to work on adding all the different schools, but may need help , if anyone is interested in helping locate all 23 schools ?

Wwdamron (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Wwdamron. For what it's worth, this October 7, 2015 piece from the New York Times says Dr. Cosby has received at least 60 honorary degrees. The article helpfully includes a list of schools and universities at the end. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes I have read that, it actually says there is over 100 Honorary degrees likely and that 57 have been given since 1985, it also lists the world record holder , The King of Thailand with 136 (whom, by coincidence, I have actually met). It also states that Notre Dame Disagrees and says their former President has the record with 150. I will try to add these when time persists, if someone else wants to take a crack at them, be my guest. I also think that these Degrees should be in Chronological order. Another Idea, since there is so many is maybe make a separate sub-article devoted to Cosby's Honorary Degrees and perhaps other awards Combined. (Just an Idea, if someone wants to create one, I will leave that up to someone else.) Thanks for the info Wwdamron (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Bill Cosby is an accused Serial Rapist.

 Done -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I added "accused serial rapist"

As this has been documented and known all over the world that probably is overshadowing Bill Cosby more than every other piece of work he has done in his lifetime. I do NOT think it should be deleted that Cosby is an "accused serial rapist" since it is 100% accurate that he is accused , although not convicted, it will FOREVER be part of his Background for him well beyond his life span for centuries to come.Wwdamron (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Putting "accused serial rapist" in the first sentence seems a bit harsh if "he has denied the allegations and has never been criminally charged". In addition it could be misread as "he is a serial rapist who has been accused", i.e. proven. 31.54.59.160 (talk) 00:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's too ambiguous. Try better wording here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
How about "who has been accused of serial rape"? -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
"Alleged" is another option. 31.54.59.160 (talk) 07:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Do we have sources specifically using the term "serial rape?" That's obviously what it looks like, but it's such an incendiary topic that I'd want to hew as close to the actual words of the accusations against him as possible. Anyway, I'm a bit dubious about putting it directly in the list -- something like "stand-up comedian, actor, author, activist, and accused serial rapist" reads more like snark than anything else. I would suggest adding a second sentence for it, or breaking it off in the first sentence somehow with something like "stand-up comedian, actor, author and activist who was accused of... " -- the rest of his career, if nothing else, provides essential context for the accusations against him and their impact, so it makes sense to phrase as "he is this guy who is accused of this." (Breaking it off from the list gives it more weight, anyway -- part of the reason "author, activist, and accused serial rapist" comes off as comical to me is that it feels like it's presenting the last item on the list as similar to the others in a silly fashion.) --Aquillion (talk) 07:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
If you look at an article for someone like Roman Polanski, who everyone knows is guilty, they don't mention anything about the girl he raped until the fourth paragraph of his lede. The first paragraph simply describes him as "a Polish and, since 1976, naturalized-French film director, producer, writer, and actor". Louieoddie (talk) 12:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Because this is some of the strongest and most sensitive content one can add to a BLP, we need to get this right, so let's take this one step at a time.

Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations is the primary article for this type of content, and a summary is used here in the Bill Cosby#Sexual assault allegations section. We also use a whole paragraph in the lead. Since this article also uses a lead sentence, it should also be mentioned there, but we need to mention "serial" rape/rapist elsewhere first.

We do have RS which use those terms (but need more), but we haven't explicitly stated it yet, so that should change. It is a very accurate description and summary of all the accusations. I support Aquillion's suggested wording, so something like this should work: "stand-up comedian, actor, author and activist who is accused of serial rape." That should NOT be added until we have the words "serial rape" and/or "serial rapist" added to the section in the article, with refs, and that happens after such a change happens at the main "allegations" article. I'll start working on that now. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey I'm all for writing that he's an alleged serial rapist on the article, but just from a wikipedia quality standard: it looks almost like vandalism when the charge is on the first sentence. I'm sure we can all agree that being a serial rapist isn't what made Cosby "notable" but it is a very important part of his life/career. The first sentence should just define who the person is and why he is on wikipedia. Then we can mention all the most notable things in his life/career including the allegations of rape in a separate paragraph of the lede. Basically, I'm saying that we should move all the rape stuff to the last paragraph of the lede. It just looks better from an encyclopedic point of view. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 02:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Cosby has been accussed ofvserial rape thoughout his entire career. This discussion is closed. Wwdamron (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you're not the owner of this article. The whole goal of the talk page is to reach a reasonable consensus. We don't put the accusations of child molestation in the first sentence of Michael Jackson's article. Could you please give us a rationale for why we should treat this article differently? Also, please see my previous comment on how it looks very un-encyclopedic (and almost vandalism) to put that in the first sentence. Let's just talk it out and find what's best for the article. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 04:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Quite. Wwdamron: you'll need to develop and demonstrate a consensus on this talk page before a highly charged term such as "serial rapist" can be included in this article. It's also a good idea to read some of this talk page's archives for previous discussions about the article lead and related issues. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hamsterlopithecus, in your aggressive edit warring (refusal to abide by BRD), you used WP:ALIVE in an edit summary. Why? That content is extremely well sourced (we have a whole subarticle about it, it's that notable an issue. It's becoming the thing that defines his memory, tragic as that may be in some ways. It's also very neutrally descriptive wording. BLP is not violated. Why are you so emotionally involved that you react so strongly? You are the one who came along and hijacked the article by changing the status quo version without waiting for a consensus on the matter. Calling admins? Really? And again, why the WP:ALIVE?

You fail to realize that this particular lead, and lots of articles do this, uses an introductory lead sentence which summarizes the entire lead (which of course summarizes the whole article). The sexual assault allegations take up the last paragraph in the lead, so the short mention at the end of the lead sentence is justified. It's a parallelism and good writing.

There is also the principle involved in why we avoid WP:POVFORKS; We are not allowed to isolate, hide, or reduce mention of contentious content in an article by banishing it to a different article, if the purpose is to reduce its legitimate coverage in the main article. By reducing mention in the lead, you are violating that principle. Just because we have created a legitimate WP:SPINOFF subarticle for that content, for the legitimate reason that it created an undue weight problem here, does not mean it has any less weight or that we should also reduce mention in the lead. That's wrong. It's a POV and WEIGHT violation to do that.

The subject is still of huge weight, so it deserves some mention in the lead (a whole paragraph in this case), and short mention in the lead sentence. You have to imagine that the whole subarticle content was still in the main article and give it more weight than its current appearance in the article (only one section). We only moved most of that content because it visually smothered the article. The subject is still very weighty, and that is growing. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

BullRangifer, I see that you are very passionate about this and that's great. Your edits are very valuable and will definitely help push us all towards a better article in the end. I am not, however, attached to this article at all. I am just an editor that stumbled upon the article and something just didn't feel right about such harsh language as the first sentence. You just don't see that in other articles of a similar nature, especially of living people. After reading the talk page and some archives, I noticed that not everyone is fully on board with your edits and Wwdarmon's. Maybe we need to step back a little bit and think of the bigger picture. This is an encyclopedia and it has to remain neutral in tone and consensus based. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


YEARS ACTIVE 1961-2015

Years active 1961 - 2015

I don;t think this can be questioned. Bill Cosby no longer has any new shows, interviews or is going to be involved in any type of activism any time soon.

this could be changed to reflect for example - 1962-2015, 2017-present. If he evers becomes active again.

The last known activism was the Selma March across a bridge which happened months ago, Cosby gave a brief interview about a week prior which was his last known television appearance. His last Comedy show was in Atlanta , months ago.

Everything else has been scrapped or put on hold. Unless you can show evidence about him still being active in Acting, Comedy, Authoring, and/or activism then please give a reason why this edit should be UNDONE ? Wwdamron (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

That's absurd. Until he officially retires, he's active. Also, see WP:CRYSTAL. --NeilN talk to me 21:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
This was meant to mean temporarily unemployed. How can you be active if your not employed ? If Cosby is employed or doing something, what is it ? Please explain what Cosby is doing or who he is working for ? ″perhaps you and him are working on a new show ?″ I guess that means Kurt Douglas is also not retired, he is living in a nursing home last I hear but never announced retirement.

I guess we have to wait until Cosby dies , then he will be inactive ? Or will he still be active ? What does this have to do with WP:CRYSTAL ? Your right I can't predict the future, maybe Cosby will once again be working on a new project, But it also seems that you cannot give me an explanation of why my change is Absurd and which is more Absurd ? "he is active or inactive?" That's all I am going to say about it , since I cannot over ride you on this argument.Wwdamron (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. Wikipedia does not predict the future. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable..." You are predicting Cosby will do nothing in 2016. --NeilN talk to me 17:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

One last comment, what is the definition of "PRESENT" ? Wwdamron (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Bill Cosby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2015

to help with the alegations Karah kenze (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --Stabila711 (talk) 00:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


to help with the alegations, keep it updated with the latest info Karah kenze (talk)

Post that information here and it will be added if it is correctly sourced. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's be very careful with the sexual assault information WP:ALIVE

I am noticing that a lot of content is being added rather quickly as soon as an article in some website can be used as a reference. Let's remember that as horrible as the allegations are, this is still the Biography of a Living Person and should be treated with the utmost care, verifiability and neutrality. Let's also remember that Wikipedia is NOT a Newspaper and we do not need to include every detail of an unfolding story. Not only are we not here to break news, but we have an expectation to be reliable. If any new information is available about the sexual assault allegations, let's all see it and talk about it before it gets put into the article and potentially removed as more information comes out. If it is very obvious that something is true and has a lot of sources and no one is disagreeing, then we put stuff in the article. Otherwise, if there is a dispute, then we SHOULD NOT put that contested information in. This is a living person! We should all try to make this article clear and everlasting, but let's wait until the smoke clears a bit before writing things down on an encyclopedia. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 04:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Very much agreed. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Hamsterlopithecus, that single addition should not have happened here. It belongs in the subarticle. Otherwise, ALIVE does not apply to such properly sourced content when placed in the right article in the proper manner. It's fixed now, so this is a moot issue. There are many very experienced editors working on this, long before you arrived here. We're on top of it, we know the context of the issue, we know the sources, we know the historical development of both articles, we know the policies, and we have the experience to deal with these issues. This was just a goof up, not a real trend, so you don't need to worry that this type of thing will run amok. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree but at the same time will respect your decision to leave in it's as is mode that Hamsterlopithecus changed it to. I may revisit this in the future, BUT only in the talk section and allow an administrator to make the change if they deem appropiate at a later date. I almost think we're at the point where this is no longer becoming an alleged set of incidents , rather than a Factual series of events.
ps. My main reason for arguing my point is that this goes beyond accused; And that Drugging & Serial Rape was an actual occupation of Bill Cosby. And the Word Activist could very easily be changed to Serial Rape or Serial Adulterer, since Cosby was using Activism as a cover for his 'alleged' Sex Crimes & Adultery. I will elaborate later at a future date, why I know this to be true and when further factual evidence surfaces as their is factual evidence (that cannot be disproved) in several forms already, (I will elaborate at a future date in the talk section only, thanks) Wwdamron (talk) 12:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
BullRangifer, I have replied on the section above to your general comments. Also, although it probably won't affect any experienced editor of wikipedia, discouraging other editors to get involved with an article is probably not the way to go. It would be a shame if someone who really wants to make this article better would read your comments and turn away. It's ok that you (and Wwdamron) feel very attached to this article (and especially this topic), but please take a moment to think of what is best for the entire encyclopedia first. We want everyone to engage in these discussions, that's how the best article's arise. However, please continue to bring your passion on this topic forward and we can all discuss it her in the talk page and agree on what would truly improve the article.
Wwdamron, thank you for understanding. I agree with you that these are horrible things that have happened it's looking like he will be at least criminally charged. But lets wait until all of that happens to write it down on what we hope will be a timeless document. But please keep bringing all that new info here so we can discuss. We should be prepared to put in a carefully worded and agreed upon paragraph once he is charged or convicted (or any other major event like that occurs). Thanks! Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
It's only a matter of time. I don't think charges or a conviction of anything (or any other major event like that) will be necessary. This whole year-long media attention is already a permanent part of the Bill Cosby legacy. Whether or not the irrefutably true relative clause "who is accused of serial rape" is in the first line or not is at this point simply a matter of hair-splitting. His reputation is forever damaged and officiously editing a lead-in sentence will have zero effect on changing that. Bill Cosby was, is and ever will be a man accused of serial rape by dozens of women whom he had known and groomed and who had trusted him. I question the real motives of the edit and history will show (is already showing) me to be right. Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burkeophile (talk • contribs) 04:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Cosby has not been charged or convicted of any crimes. This is the biography page of a living individual. Any wording must include the wording 'alleged' concerning any 'accusations' or even alleged 'admissions' from his deposition as the context of the publication is not yet fully known.Without the qualifier 'alleged' wikipedia becomes nothing more than a dumping ground for scandal mongering. Sincerely A Contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.121.210 (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we're obviously aware of that. Read the above. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Why lead with "Cosby has been the subject of publicized sexual assault allegations since about 2000." from the get go? That should be deleted or placed in the section below pertaining to the subject. La Fuzion (K lo K) 13:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Lafuzion, you are correct. It shouldn't be there. It has been discussed thoroughly in the talk page. I wish they hadn't archived that section since it's still very relevant. If you could please help revert those kinds of unilateral edits, it would be great! The information is there on the lede section, so it's unnecessary for it to be in the first sentence. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 06:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Please do not remove a sentence and not place it elsewhere in the article. That was the link to the sexual assault article. Vandalism is not a valid reason to keep it from the lead sentence. Please cite a policy statement to support that rationale. Moreover, Cosby sexual assault scandal has been in the newspapers everyday for nearly a year and been in the papers for years and thus I support keeping it in the lead. --JumpLike23 (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Hamsterlopithecus, I agree with JumpLike23. That should remain in the lead sentence. Below I document your slow edit warring. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 16:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Moreover, now that the only mentions of Cosby are in connection with these allegations, his legacy is that of an accused serial rapist, and by his own admission, he led an immoral, adulterous, life, using exactly the method mentioned by his accusers.
The lead sentence here is a summary of the whole lead. It mentions what made him notable, and now this is what keeps him notable. Therefore it should be mentioned in the lead sentence. If he is ever convicted, the "alleged" will be removed. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 16:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it is fine how it is now. Leading the article with his allegations is not the norm for any other living person that is not famous for their crime. BullRangifer, why do you sound so combative and condescending over this subject? La Fuzion (K lo K) 11:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

CAA

the mention of CAA leaving cosby relates to the sexual assault allegations and does not belong in the stand-up comedy section. --JumpLike23 (talk) 04:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

It belongs in both contexts, and it is. Should it be improved? -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 04:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Mention of allegations in lead sentence?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Asked to close even though this has been archived. Clear no consensus, with equal support of #3 and None of the above. --GRuban (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

For convenience, here are links to the archived discussions:

Here's the history of mention in the first sentence:

Lots of confusion because of no consensus discussion
  1. first addition by User:Wikister98. (no refs)
  2. deleted by User:Jumplike23.
  3. restored by User:Wikister98. (no refs)
  4. deleted by User:NeilN
  5. restored by User:Wwdamron. (no refs)
  6. deleted by myself.
After much discussion on the talk page
  1. restored by myself per talk page result. (fully referenced)
  2. changed by User:Jumplike23.
  3. changes reverted, by User:Wwdamron.
  4. deleted (vandalized) by User:Austinyoder
  5. restored by User:NeilN
  6. deleted by User:Hamsterlopithecus.
  7. restored by User:Wwdamron.
  8. deleted again by User:Hamsterlopithecus.
  9. restored by moving by User:Jumplike23, and later fixed by them.
  10. deleted (vandalized) by User:Romelo75. (deceptive edit summary)
  11. restored by User:NeilN.
  12. deleted yet again by User:Hamsterlopithecus.

After the discussion, we only have deletions by Hamsterlopithecus (three deletions, with some support by vandals). Whether this is slow edit warring by Hamsterlopithecus is worth considering. Although there wasn't an overwhelming consensus, it appeared we had a stable version which was protected by several editors, and Hamsterlopithecus was edit warring with those editors. Hamsterlopithecus doesn't seem to understand the summary status of that first sentence, as previously explained to them:

"You fail to realize that this particular lead, and lots of articles do this, uses an introductory lead sentence which summarizes the entire lead (which of course summarizes the whole article). The sexual assault allegations take up the last paragraph in the lead, so the short mention at the end of the lead sentence is justified. It's a parallelism and good writing....
"The subject is still of huge weight, so it deserves some mention in the lead (a whole paragraph in this case), and short mention in the lead sentence."

After the discussion, several other editors saw no problem and kept protecting the content, thus indicating a consensus for inclusion in the first sentence.

I'd like to see an RfC about mention in the first sentence. Hamsterlopithecus, would you like to create one in a new section? Before starting it, please suggest your wording here so we can discuss it. It needs to be something which will not derail the discussion, and be so neutral that all parties will feel comfortable !voting on it. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 16:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

what in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons supports keeping it out of lead. I actually did not like the previous version that used the word rape. I would just say: "Cosby has been the subject of publicized sexual assault allegations since about 2000." --JumpLike23 (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
That's perfectly good wording: "... and the subject of publicized sexual assault allegations since about 2000." -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 20:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
The topic of the sexual assault is already being discussed in the last paragraph of the lede because it is, chronologically, where it goes concerning notable things in Cosby's life. There are two reasons for not including the sexual assault charges in the lead sentence and they have been repeated over and over and over in this talk page but you seem to ignore them User:BullRangifer. The two reasons are that: 1) the criminal allegations do not define Cosby's career almost by definition because they are an ongoing event. If that were the case then Michael Jackson's lead sentence should call him a "American singer, songwriter, record producer, dancer, actor, and alleged serial child molester". And 2) This is a living person's biography WP:ALIVE. Regardless of your personal bias and passion for this and other rape-related subjects, as of now, there are no formal charges on Cosby. If, for example, Cosby is acquitted of all charges and the final verdict is that he is innocent (as unlikely, or upsetting as that may be) we would have to remove the "serial rapist" descriptor on the lead sentence. If that is the case, we would have damaged a living person's reputation by jumping the gun with Wikipedia's position on the subject. We don't know right now. So let's keep our eyes open but let's not make moves that we will then have to revert. Unless of course, the whole goal of desperately wanting to add the words "rapist" to the lead sentence is simply to try to damage his reputation for activist purposes. If that is the case, then by all means go for it, but just not on Wikipedia. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 21:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok, serial rapist is unreasonable. Please respond to my points about what in wikipedia policies supports it not being in the sentence--other than broadly citing to WP:ALIVE. This issue has evolved, with more victims coming forward, more criminal investigations, civil suits, much of his accomplishments on this page being repudiated, for example, the cancellation of shows, dropping of honorary degrees, people like Goldberg no longer supporting, more accusation and the prior discussion thus is not controlling. Thanks again for your speedy response. --JumpLike23 (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Just to be clear, juries do not declare innocence. The accused is presumed innocent in the U.S. Juries simply declare "guilty" or "not guilty". Next: "Politicized"? Really? Controversial, sure, but has this matter been politicized? The Terri Schiavo case was politicized in that two opposing camps based on philosophy or religious belief emerged. I've probably missed something, but I don't think this is the case with Cosby. That is, I don't think feminists, Republicans, liberals, libertarians, Democrats, Christians, etc. have taken sides on the matter. That is to say, some folks believe Cosby is a rapist and other folks don't but it doesn't break down along any particular political line. Rklawton (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with both of you. It should be mentioned in the lead. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 15:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I completely 100% agree with user JumpLike23, that this is evloved and even if Cosby is never brought to a Criminal trial, this will be in his life forever. Allred stated a few days ago more victims will be coming forward. Ofcourse more lawsuits are expected. To compare this with someone like Michael Jackson is perposterous. Jackson had 2 accusers with no witness's. COsby has more than 50 with other people backing up what they said on many of the occasions at or shortly after the rapes or other sexual misconducts happened, except no one would believe them or know what to do at the time because of Cosby's power and influence., Cosby is involved in at least 7 lawsuits, Cosby has been investigated criminally since 2000. And the LA Police have said they would investigate any allegations regardless of statute, meaning Cosby has probably been investigated more than possibly any one else ever in crimes of sexual assault. If the Statute of Limitations did not exist, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out what would happen to Cosby. And I am not just talking about criminal prosecutions, He would be pennilesss, there would be more than 50 lawsuits. ALsmot no one (well known) is supporting Cosby. And the few that are , are not speaking.

Finally

Without giving any explanation , answer YES or NO only. Has Cosby been Accussed of Sexual Assault (YES or NO ONLY !) ? If your answer is YES, then CASE CLOSED (Cosby is accused of sexual assault and that is being nice), If NO then all these women are make believe and we should delete the Cosby sexual assault allegation page. Wwdamron (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Well said. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 15:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Hamsterlopithecus, I have no special burden for this case. I'm just following our policies and guidelines. You are ignoring the nature of the lead sentence in this article. It is a summary of the lead. That's why the allegations should be mentioned at the end of the sentence, just as the allegations are mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead. It's a parallelism. It's good English writing practice. Beyond that, it is now part of his legacy, and will likely be the final chapter, overshadowing everything he has previously done. It's sad for everyone concerned. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 15:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Which version to use?

It appears we have a consensus for inclusion in the first sentence (or as a following sentence), so which version should we use? The first three are versions we have used (feel free to propose a better version, since we can always change our !votes):

  1. ... actor, author, and activist who is accused of serial rape.
  2. ... actor, author, and activist. Since about 2000, Cosby has been accused of sexually assaulting numerous women.
  3. ... actor, author, and activist. Cosby has been the subject of publicized sexual assault allegations since about 2000.
  4. ... actor, author, and activist who is accused of sexually assaulting numerous women.

Which one do you favor? -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 02:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

  • 4. I tend to favor the shorter options so they don't draw too much attention to themselves. I favor 4 because there are some who were assaulted, but not raped. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 02:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • 3 with an embeded link to Cosby's sexual assault page, i am not totally against 3' since Cosby has been accussed way before 2000, it was that nobody believed or ignored allegations prior to 2000 and really the allegations didnt become public until 2004(which received almost no media attention), 2000 was the first criminal case which was swept up quietly(Cosby's name was hidden in the original police report) and really the allegations didn't really become widespread(publicised) until late 2014 after many Hannibal burress shows So 4 is my first choiceWwdamron (talk) 04:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • 3 without the citations because they are not necessary. --JumpLike23 (talk) 02:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree, but in case of any problems, we can have them there, but hidden. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 02:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • JumpLike23, I added a wikilink instead of the refs. Would you please take another look and see if you'd change your mind? If not, why? -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 06:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • None of the above - The lead sentence should not include a mention of the allegations. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
No stated rationale. Please explain, User:Cwobeel. thanks. --JumpLike23 (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Rationale is simple. The allegations of sexual abuse are already included in the lede. The notability of this person is not related to the allegations of sexual abuse.- Cwobeel (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Cwobeel and snunɐɯ·, this situation is a bit different than most articles, so you need to think differently. Even though they are not the majority, there are many articles which use a lead sentence in the lead. Such a sentence is a parallelism, summarizing the main points of the lead. Therefore the paragraphs in the lead will be mentioned using single words in the first sentence. That's why we are where we are. The allegations have so dominated his notability that it is all he has left. He is never mentioned in any other connection anymore.
The nature of the lead sentence dictates that this sad legacy (his only remaining notability) be mentioned at the end of the sentence, just as the allegations are mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead. It's a parallelism. It's good English writing practice. Beyond that, it is now part of his legacy, and will likely be the final chapter, overshadowing everything he has previously done. It's sad for everyone concerned.
His legacy as an accused, and maybe guilty, abuser of women is now his remaining notability. He has admitted, under oath, to being a serial adulterer, and of giving drugs to women for the purpose of having sex with them, in exactly the way he is accused of doing. The only thing left is whether it was consensual or not. These women say it wasn't. He has paid several of them money for years to be silent, but now it's all out in the open. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 02:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Nonsense. There is no such thing as "only remaining notability". That is for history to decide not us. Your argument is both recentist and non neutral.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • None of the above per Cwobeel. The allegations should be in the lead, but not in the definition sentence.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

"None of the above", but if you do include it in the lead sentence, I say go with number 1, it's the quickest and most cohesive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asaprockysource (talk • contribs) 08:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section stating that a lead, including a lead sentence , should cover the subject's most important points. For the reasons I have repeatedly stated, the sexual assault charges are important in understanding his career as an actor and comedian because the cosby show re-runs have been entirely cancelled and other accomplishments stripped from him. I think we gain credibility by addressing them upfront as accusations rather than seeking to just label him an actor--that is just dishonest. His comedian and acting career have been overshadowed. Note also that the test is not consensus but rather wiki policy. The above users state no rationale for opposing this and should thus be dismissed until further explained.--JumpLike23 (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Your interpretation of policy is tendentious since the same policy states that "first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is" (being a rapist is not a defining characteristic of Cosby's notability, rather his being a rapist is notable because of Cosby's already existing notability as a comedian and actor). And it also says to "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead."·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
·maunus, I just pinged you in an explanation above. Please read it. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 02:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I read it. It is misguided.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I am only promoting the view that cosby is now well-known for being accused of sexual assault, which I believe is supported by the wiki articles on Cosby. I propose it in the second sentence actually. --JumpLike23 (talk) 03:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment take a look at google news and then tell me the sexual assault allegations should not be in the second sentence. --JumpLike23 (talk) 04:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I disagree with the opinion that there's sufficient consensus to change the lead. I agree with Cwobeel, ·maunus, and La Fuzion that the lead sentence is not currently an appropriate place for this information.

    A paragraph in the lead is appropriate, though some of the citations and wordiness in the current sexual allegations lead paragraph could and should be reduced. [3][4][5][6][7][8][8][9][10] just looks silly and amateurish, frankly.

    I also don't really buy the parallelism argument. I don't think it's very common for lead sentences of biographies to follow the high-level outline of the article in the way that following parallelism would entail. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Parallelism is good English writing. My last English professor (I'm retired, but still attend college classes occasionally) rated me in the top ten of all the students he's had in his 15 years of teaching. He has 250-300 students in each class, and about three classes per day. (Don't judge my writing skills by my writing here, or my texting or tweets.) -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 04:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • 5 Two-sentence mini-lede: "... is famous for allegedly sexually assaulting numerous women. Before that, he was an actor, ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidLeeLambert (talk • contribs) 15:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
    • We're definitely not going to use this type of language. While the sexual assault allegations are certainly a notable portion of Dr. Cosby's biography, saying that he's famous for them and framing it as more noteworthy/prominent than his 40-plus-year career is inappropriate. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

User:BullRangifer, what consensus? The discussion is starting and you suddenly jump the gun again trying to get your way. Please allow people to discuss this issue calmly. I propose this: let's start another section in this talk page to discuss the lead sentence alone and wait until a good number of editors have stated their views. If there is, indeed, a consensus to mention the accusation of rape in the first sentence, then it shall naturally appear there and we will incorporate it into the article then. I will make the section now. I will also remove current mention on the lead sentence until a consensus has been reached in that section. I think this is a reasonable proposal, please help me carry it out. (Apologies for editing your new section, but I had already written this thing out) Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Hamsterlopithecus, the consensus exists in all the comments above. You are the only dissenting voice in the recent discussion. The question now is which version to use. You can suggest improvements if you wish, or you can abstain. Whatever. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 03:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
User:BullRangifer #4 in my opinion, I will let you User:BullRangifer decide since you have the most clout (I did temporarily revert it back to #3, but quickly undid it).
As for User:Hamsterlopithecus, I am almost starting to believe you are a Cosby sympathizer and letting your emotions dictate or that you feel sorry for Cosby. This is not an opinion, these are facts and cannot be dictated my emotions.
FACT - Cosby has been accused by many people of Serial Rape, Sexual Assault and other Sex crimes, with new things surfacing on just about a daily basis, with many witness's to back these women's stories up.
FACT - This is probably the biggest scandal in modern USA history and will be talked about for centuries to come.
CONCLUSION - It would be Vandalism (in my and the majority of peoples opinions) to revert it back if it is changed to one of User:BullRangifer conclusions.
User:BullRangifer please go ahead and change it, number 4 in my opinion, also in my opinion citations are probably not necessary under any of your scenarios except a possible embedded link to Cosby's Sexual assault allegation page in addition to the text in the very First sentence, bit any of the other would be okay for now as well.
Wwdamron (talk) 03:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
The use of an embedded link is a good suggestion. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 03:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I like the two sentences and don't like 4. 3 is the most NPOV while still putting this in the lede sentence where it belongs --JumpLike23 (talk) 03:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
So are you !voting for 3? If so, go ahead and bullet it and bold it. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 03:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC) Oops! I see you already did it. I got confused. It's Wwdamron who needs to place their !vote above. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 03:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Please place all !votes in the section above, and keep the discussion here. Thanks. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 03:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

User:BullRangifer, you have edited this entire talk page to change the order in which things were said and the titles of the sections in which they were said. This section here is completely new and you have moved all these posts from the section above. Now some of the comments have been placed under a much different context than when they were originally written. This is creating a lot of confusion at best and is dishonest at worst. Stop editing other people's entries and sections. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 08:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Hamsterlopithecus, no, I didn't change the order of anything. You are totally confused. I only added a header to note that the subject was changing. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 18:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Hamsterlopithecus, you have done exactly what you falsely accused me of doing! Here you reversed the order of whole sections! This is a blockable offense. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 19:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Hamsterlopithecus, I ask you to prove your false claims or retract them on my talk page. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 03:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hamsterlopithecus I'd suggest you disengage for a few days. Your behavior in this page is really not acceptable. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I haven't really been following Hamsterlopithecus' behavior enough to comment one way or another, but I have noticed that BullRangifer is very active on this talk page. I thought it might just be my impression, but the talk page stats indicate that BullRangifer has more than 60 edits over next highest non-bot editor. That's a lot. I think it might be best if a few people involved here took a few days off. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
So being active is wrong? That's a new policy. I wasn't aware of that. If I've been disruptive, it would be different matter and your failure to AGF would be justified. If putting out fires because of Hamster's disruption is wrong, then we have a problem. Let's then penalize all firemen because they are active whenever there is a fire.
Please go to the last section of my talk page and see the diffs, all prepared, for a possible RfC/U on Hamster's behavior here. It's horrible and has made a mess of this page. Don't blame me for his disruption and incompetence. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 04:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I think the way it is now should be sufficient. It's a bit ridiculous we lead with his sexual accusations from the bat when we not do the same in the first sentence any mention of the accusations raised against Jared Fogle, for example. La Fuzion (K lo K) 12:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a legitimate argument. If that article had multiple paragraphs and a lead sentence which summed them up, then it should mention it, but that is not the case. It has only two paragraphs and the entire second paragraph is about his problems.
Note that in this article no one is proposing that we "lead with his sexual accusations from the bat". We're talking about the end of the sentence because that content is also at the end of the lead. (I happen to favor a fairly short mention.) The parallelism should be maintained. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 14:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
User:BullRangifer, there is very obviously no consensus. Various editors have raised concerns about changing this and you just will not hear opinions that go against yours. It's not a problem to be active, but please let others talk and stop shutting down discussions. You have edited this talk page massively to alter the meaning of the discussions in hopes of suppressing opinions that go against your own. You squeezed this entire section between two existing ones to make it seem like this was made first. This is a violation of WP:REFACTOR and it's preventing people from making progress on this article. For the sake of the article, I will take User:MZMcBride's advice and take some time off from editing anything here and I would suggest that you, User:BullRangifer, do the same. I think the other editors will be able to handle this. It's very hard to work with people that are so pushy. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Hamsterlopithecus, there was a consensus before you created the improper section below. (See my comment above: "the consensus exists in all the comments above".)
  1. You ALONE didn't like the consensus.
  2. You were edit warring with multiple editors.
  3. A version had been agreed for use.
  4. The consensus was so united that I was told to restore the agreed content (you had deleted such content several times in your edit warring). (I never got around to restoring it.)
  5. Another editor told you that it would be considered vandalism if you deleted it again. (All of this is on this page, but you refused to abide by the consensus and went on the following rampage.)
  6. You massively forum shopped on at least 15 pages.
  7. You changed other's headings.
  8. You totally screwed up the chronological order of comments and sections on this page. (The page is now somewhat restored to its chronological order, which wasn't easy work for me to do.)
  9. You continue to accuse me of doing what YOU did. Your lies must stop.
  10. Unfortunately your improper section below is now unhatted so it can create more confusion. I request that other editors restore the hatting of that whole section so we don't have the same discussion in two places.
  11. I ask you to prove your false claims or retract them on my talk page. I'm tired of you repeating lies about me, accusing me of doing what YOU did.
My asking you to stop lying about me, and my fixing all the damage you did (your literal rearranging of sections on this page was totally wrong), is not being "pushy". -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 03:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I did NOT "squeezed this entire section between two existing ones to make it seem like this was made first." That's a blatant lie. Look at the timestamps and the history.
Here is the diff which shows YOU doing it! -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 03:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • BullRangifer, Hamsterlopithecus - you both need to drop the stick and stop engaging each other. Take a break from this article if that is what is required. You are both being disruptive at this point.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:46, 30 October 2015 (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.

Activist

The opening sentence in the lede describes Cosby as an "activist", but I find neither text, nor sources in the article's body about Cosby's activism. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The opening sentence reads " is an American stand-up comedian, actor, author, and activist."
Eventually is will have to be replaced with was, as Cosby is no longer Employed.
And Years active 1961-present is not accurate either as Cosby is unemployed and I think that should be changed to 1961-2015, that can be reverted back at anytime once Cosby has gained some sort of Employment or Activsism.
One last thing, COsby has been a public moralist, made many donations and his last Public Appearance was the Selma March, would these things be considered "Activisim" ?
But at the same time , who can argue that Cosby is not participating, working on any projects (other than his lawsuits and criminal investigations) in any of these things and hasn't been for months.
I am throwing this in this section since I did not get a response in another section, when I asked if anyone would provide a definition of the word ::"PRESENT" ? Wwdamron (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
See WP:MOSBIO -- "was" is reserved for "deceased" and "former" may be used for a person who is no longer active - but even then the simple "is" is generally preferred.Collect (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Didn't he host a take back the night event recently? Doesn't that make him an activist? Wwdamron (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.239.33.51 (talk)
There are some sources in google news about him being an activist and it is implied in the article.--JumpLike23 (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

examples: [1], [2], [http://www.amazon.com/Bill-Cosby-Entertainer-Americans-Achievement/dp/1604137118], [3], [4], [5], [6], etc. All quite simple to find. Collect (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I checked these, and those that work are not reliable sources. removed. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
if he was an activist to warrant a mention on the lead sentence of the lede, we need substantial sources. Not enough to have some implications in the article's body. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Fixed the dang "&2F" bits from Google. CBC is a reliable source. CNS is reliable for this claim. And so on. Your abrupt dismissal of easily found material may be problematic here. I suggest your anxiety to delete an easily sourceable claim is also that. Collect (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Not enough for including in the opening sentence of the lede. See WP:LEDE. removed. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
to make it into the lede, let alone to the opening sentence, we need a substantial number of sources describing Cosby as an "activist". - Cwobeel (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I found more than twenty -- but do you really wish citation overkill here? (NYT "Bill Cosby will be among those honored, and Alec Baldwin will be the master of ceremonies at a dinner at Pier 60, Chelsea Piers, to aid the Brennan Center for Justice. It works to promote equality and human rights through research, education and legal action" 5 Oct 2003) (NYT 4 Nov 2009 " BILL COSBY: THE MARK TWAIN PRIZE 2009 He's an actor, author, television producer, activist and educator. ") Two solid NYT sources. How many do you need before the result is clear? As I said, we could play "citation overkill" with 20 footnotes - or simply accept the term used here for quite a while. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
As I said at BLP/N, develop a section in the article's body about Cosby's activism, and then we can decide if that is notable enough to mention that aspect in the lede. See WP:LEDE: The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. . - Cwobeel (talk) 23:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
My question is, "What has he done to be considered an activist, and an activist for what cause(s)? Maybe a source or two mentions he's an activist, but is there evidence from his actions which is mentioned in RS? We need those types of sources. I have no problem with including a description in the body, but not in the lead, but the section on his activism should be replete with his multiple causes he supports and how he's done it. Right now I'm totally in the dark. I don't recall ever seeing it. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 02:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

(unindent) Cwobeel: I'm a little confused here. Doesn't the section Bill Cosby#Political views (and the related article Pound Cake speech) make it clear that Dr. Cosby is engaging in at least some (political) activism? Maybe activism is too imprecise or is overly broad. As I said below, I'm not sure "activist" is necessarily the right word, but I'm also not sure having only "stand-up comedian, actor, and author" is sufficient either. Are there better words we could try? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You also have to take into consideration that Cosby is widely believed to be using Activism as a cover for his Serial Rapes. Playing the Public Moralist Activist, while he was doing just about the most Immorral things possible, Serial Raping(allegedly of course). Wwdamron (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Unless his activism is sufficiently notable to receive substantial coverage in the body of the article, for example as a dedicated section, it does not belong in the definition sentence.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • In general, I agree. The lead sentence should be a reflection of the article.

    In this particular case, Dr. Cosby took on the role, over several decades, of a public figure and public speaker. This is discussed in the article and I think this is what "activist" was trying to capture. That said, I'm not sure it's the correct word choice. I would also be more inclined to use/include the "activist" descriptor if Cosby self-identified as such, but I haven't seen much evidence of that. It's probably fine to drop for now, though I think it warrants additional consideration whether "stand-up comedian, actor, and author" appropriately reflects his work in later years. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

  • I agree. "Public speaker" would be much more accurate, especially when he got rewarded with so many honorary degrees for each instance. It seemed like more of a "business". I don't know of anyone with more honorary degrees, or anyone who has had more rescinded. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 04:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I considered "public speaker" or "orator," but I don't love either. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I understand! Activist doesn't seem quite right either. Hmmm. If the article had such content, it would be easier, and that's the order things should be done. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 04:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Giving a speech does not make one a "public speaker", and advocating for an issue does not make one an "activist". - Cwobeel (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps giving hundreds of speeches is not the same as just "giving a speech" and perhaps being given multiple awards for "activism" might make one an "activist." Clearly your dictionary and mine are not the same. Collect (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
True. It does make him a "public speaker", but does it make him an "activist", and for what cause(s)? Did he march in protest with other activists? Did he repeatedly make speeches at such gatherings"? Was there a cause he kept advocating? -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 15:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Sources for "hundreds of speeches"? Sources for multiple awards for "activism"? - Cwobeel (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

'Shawn Upshaw paternity lawsuit' Title Change

Hello Fellow Editors

There needs to be a title change as there is no 'paternity lawsuit' the title of the section should be something like 'Shawn Upshaw Extortion Trial and Conviction' 66.235.36.153 (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)Respectfully A Contributor

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bill_Cosby/Archive_3&oldid=1090474413"