Talk:Autumn Jackson

additional details regarding Cosby trail

I think this section should include information regarding Jackson's extortion conviction being overturned and her release from prison [1], but then "in a highly unusual move" the extortion conviction was reinstated [2]. I haven't added this yet because I haven't been able to find a source regarding whether or not Jackson was returned to prison after being released or remained free on bail. Does anyone know what happened with respect to the remainder of Jackson's prison term? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Bobo She was returned to prison after a review of her case that found the instructions the judge gave to the jury were proper based on a recent Supreme Court ruling. She served the full duration of her sentence. The NYT covered this. Respectfully 66.235.36.153 (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)A Contributor

Hello here is the relevant material from the Los Angeles Times archives...

Appellate Court Restores Conviction of Woman in Cosby Extortion Case

November 16, 1999|From Associated Press

NEW YORK — The federal appeals court that overturned the conviction of a woman imprisoned for trying to extort $40 million from Bill Cosby reversed itself The ::2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided that an improper instruction given to the jury was not sufficient to overturn the extortion conviction of Autumn ::Jackson.

Her lawyer, Robert Baum, said she will appeal. The written ruling means Jackson might have to return to prison for another seven months, which would separate ::her from 18-month-old twin boys and her husband, Baum said.

U.S. District Judge Barbara Jones sentenced Jackson, now 25, in December 1997 to two years in prison after she was convicted of extortion, conspiracy and ::crossing state lines to commit a crime. She was freed in June when her conviction was overturned.

Prosecutors said Jackson demanded money from the entertainer on Jan. 16, 1997--the day Cosby's son Ennis, 27, was fatally shot in an apparent robbery in Los Angeles.

Sincerely66.235.36.153 (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC) A Contributor

This is important to include, but now, after so many years, it would seem rather odd to only say (according to the sources above) that she "might have to return to prison." Either she did or she didn't, and since she likely did, we need sources which say that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Info box

It is non-neutral to simply state Shawn Upshaw & Jerald Jackson are her parents in the infobox, when her entire notability is tied to fact Jackson and her mother claim Bill Cosby is her father. Restored info box content which has been in article since it's creation. Please discuss and seek consensus for changes which have been objected to per WP:BRD. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Bill Cosby being her father isn't a fact, it's her claim and her mother's claim. Where's the court case or DNA test establishing paternity? There is neither. As far as the infobox goes, on her birth certificate, her father is Jerald Jackson. He's the man listed there, he's the man who gave her his last name, he's the man who raised her as his daughter. He is her legal father. Until there is a DNA test establishing paternity, he is the man who should be listed in the infobox. It's not Wikipedia's job to guess who her father is and we don't pass off allegations as fact. Also, please look into MOS for infoboxes. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps a compromise could be to delete the paternity information from the info-box entirely, but listing her parents as Shawn Upshaw & Jerald Jackson is not neutral, and not in accordance with the reliable sources in the article of which 100% indicate Bill Cosby is the father according to both Jackson and her mother. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Add - I do not see where any of the RS say that Jerald Jackosn "raised her as his daughter". Instead, the sources say that she was raised by her mother and her grandmother, and that both of these women claim that Cosby is Autumn's father and that Cosby financially supported her during her upbringing.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

BoboMeowCat: Okay, if he didn't raise her, he is still her legal father. Until we have a reliable source stating otherwise based on DNA, Jerald Jackson is her father. The purpose of Wikipedia is to report facts, not unproven allegations as fact. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

How is it not neutral to list her legal father as her father? as far as "sources" saying Cosby is her father, if there is nothing scientific proving his DNA matches, there's nothing to prove he is the father. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Because this paternity is disputed and that is basically the entire reason for her notability. Your recent edits, put you over 3RR, please self revert and discuss.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Citing what you think is the reason for her notability isn't a valid reason for listing someone as her father that isn't her legal father. You do realize this is a BLP and the guidelines about such rumor and conjecture are very clear, right? Unsourced, controversial content must be immediately removed, especially if potentially libelous. Look at the top of this page and you will see exactly that. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

So, let's try this again, BoboMeowCat: What exactly is your issue with the edits I made outside of listing Autumn Jackson's legal father as her legal father? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for self-reverting. With respect to the infobox, your version of the infobox did not say “legal father”, it said: "Parent(s) Shawn Upshaw, Jerald Jackson". Stating that Jerald Jackson is her parent, in WP’s voice, really stands out as non-neutral when 100% of the RS’s used in this article say that this is disputed. Both Autumn Jackson and her Mother say he’s not the father. However, I do agree that the original infobox listing of father: Bill Cosby (disputed), Jerald Jackson (claimant) is odd wording. I didn’t add that. We could change it to Jerald Jackson (legal father) and Bill Cosby (alleged father), but honestly, it seems probably best to just leave paternity off the info box entirely.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

No, the article doesn't say her paternity is disputed. It says she and her mother claimed Cosby is her father and that she attempted to extort Cosby in regard to that claim. There is literally no reason why the infobox needs to contain anything about Cosby being her alleged and unproven father. Jerald Jackson is listed as her father on her birth certificate and he is her legal father. Look at it this way: if someone was adopted, their birth certificate was changed to reflect the names of the child's adoptive parents, those people were the child's legal parents, who would we refer to as that child's parents? Their legal parents listed on the birth certificate. Again, let me stress, Cosby has never admitted to being Jackson's father, there is nothing that legally ties Cosby to Jackson as her father, and nothing has been proven either in court or by a DNA test. We don't list someone in a BLP as a person's father unless they are their legal father or there has been irrefutable proof that the individual is the father. That's not Wikipedia's job. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia filled with supported facts, not gossip column maybes. Make sense? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the info box does not need to contain anything about Cosby being her alleged father. It seems to make sense to just leave paternity off the info box entirely.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding recent changes

Winkelvi, you have attempted to remove reliably sourced content from the article, including the bold part of the following 2 statements:

1) According to Jackson's mother, when Cosby was told she was pregnant, he persuaded her to put her former boyfriend Jerald Jackson's name on the birth certificate. She claims she agreed to do so to protect Cosby's reputation.

2) Additionally, Jesus Vasquez, who is an ex-husband of Upshaw, has also claimed paternity. Jackson's mother claims she never had sex with Vasquez, who was a Mexican immigrant and former busboy.

I see no reason to delete that Upshaw alleges she agreed to put Jackson’s name on the birth certificate to protect Cosby’s reputation. This is reliably sourced.

I think perhaps all mention of Vasquez, her ex-husband, should be deleted from the article. The only source provided for it is not available online. I don’t see Vasguez mentioned in any of the other sources used in the article. Vasquez seems WP:UNDUE. However, if we are going to keep it, we do need to keep the context. Upshaw says it’s not him because she never slept with him, with the implication it was a non-sexual marriage of convenience for a green card.

You’ve also attempted to remove: "Upshaw has said to reporters that she believes Cosby allegedly raped her because 'I wasn't as freaky in bed as he liked'.” This statement is sensational, but she has told reporters that, and I think readers might be interested in the explanation she gives for this alleged rape, by a man who she had consensual sex with previously, and whom also told reporters she was willing to have consensual sex with the very night in question.

Additionally, you’ve attempted to change:

"Jackson's mother claims she had consensual sex with Cosby prior to the alleged rape, but she alleges the last time they were together, Cosby spiked her drink and raped her."

To:

"While in the past Jackson's mother claimed she had consensual sex with Cosby, she further claimed the last time they were together Cosby spiked her drink and raped her."

When I initially read your version, I misread it as stating that Upshaw used to say the sexual encounter that led to Autumn’s conception was consensual, but now she’s changed her story and is now calling it rape. If you very read closely, that’s not what it’s saying, but it seems easy to misread that version. I think it’s clearer in the first version.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the above points:

1) I removed the alleged motive because the article isn't about Jackson's mother or Bill Cosby, it's about Jackson. I culled that particular sentence because it really isn't necessary in regard to an article on Jackson.

2) Nothing wrong with keeping something about Vasquez, but it's not necessary to state he is a Mexican immigrant and busboy. The article is about Jackson.

3) Removal of 'I wasn't as freaky in bed as he liked' is because such a statement is tabloid gossip material, not encyclopedic in nature. It doesn't enhance the reader's understanding of the article subject (Autumn Jackson) and is more about Jackson's mother. Which, before I started copy editing the article, was where the article lead the reader. Less about Jackson and more about her mother's alleged affair with Cosby.

Please stop saying, "You've attempted to change..." and "You have attempted to remove reliably sourced content from the article." What I've done is reworded content and removed unnecessary content to improve it and turn the focus back on the article subject - it's called copy editing. When you tell it, my copy editing sounds like vandalism or that I have nefarious motives designed to hurt the article. That's absolutely not the case. And, in regard to removing referenced content: if sourced content is taking the focus off the article subject, is tabloid in nature, and doesn't help the reader better understand the subject of the article, it needs to be removed or the wording needs to be changed significantly. Sourced content isn't always in the best interest of the article or the encyclopedia just because it's sourced content. It has to assist the reader in better understanding and focusing on the article subject. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

You've been here once already today, BoboMeowCat, are you going to respond to the above so we can move on? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I plan on responding fully. For a brief reply, I am not calling these edits vandalism, but they do seem to go beyond basic copy editing. I have limited WP time today but will reply more fully as soon as I can. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The only thing beyond copy editing I'm working toward is bringing the article in line with MOS for BLPs. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Considering the reasons for Jackson’s notability, I do not agree with the justification of the removal of sourced content, due to the material being about Cosby or her mother (Upshaw). Jackson’s conception/paternity is central to her notability, so information regarding Cosby and Upshaw (if it is in direct relation to Jackson’s conception/paternity) seems on topic. Such information would include content related to her birth certificate; statements regarding alleged rape by Cosby which allegedly resulted in Autumn’s conception, and statements regarding why Uphaw thinks Cosby is the father and not Jackson or Vazquez etc. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

As long as the article is a BLP titled "Autumn Jackson", the article must stay on topic about Jackson. Anything else that diverts away from Jackson (things that have to do with Upshaw's alleged reasons for putting Jerald Jackson's name on the birth certificate, what Cosby allegedly likes/liked sexually, etc.) have nothing to do with Jackson and do not meet the MOS for BLPs. And, just for the record, Jackson's notability came not in regard to her claims of paternity, they came when she was charged with extortion and her subsequent trial. You, just like the now-indeffed editor who created this article, are seeing the article as something other than a BLP, rather, more of an expose of Cosby. But that's not what the article is "billed" as. It's billed as a BLP about Jackson -- as long as it is such, it should not stray from the article subject. Everything else added is undue weight and does not enhance the reader's understanding of the article subject. Even your comments above are focused on Jackson's mother, someone who is not the subject of the article. Please stay focused on the topic: Autumn Jackson. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi, I agree that general statements about what Cosby likes sexually are off-topic, but please do not misrepresent this as general statements regarding Bill Cosby's alleged sexual interests. Upshaw is alleging conception from rape and her statements are in reference to that alleged rape. The title of the article being “Autumn Jackson” doesn’t erase WP:DUE. We cannot fail to report on the primary focus of 100% of the RS that cover the topic of Autumn Jackson. These sources all cover Jackson's conception/alleged paternity (which is tied to her extortion attempt not separate from it). Statements regarding this alleged paternity are not only on topic, but seem required with respect to WP:DUE. It’s not like anyone is actually reading this BLP to find out tidbits such as Jackson aspired to study film and is now a kitchen and bath designer living in Maryland. I have no objection to inclusion of that content, as it appears reliably sourced, but it's not the primary focus of Jackson's notability. Jackson's notability is due to her conception/alleged paternity and her extortion attempt based on that alleged paternity. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

You are focusing only on what has made her notable. BLPs aren't supposed to only focus on what made someone notable, nor are they to take focus away from the article subject through peripheral issues pertaining more to other individuals. You seem to be fixated on only her notability - the article should be more than that. But it definitely can't be about stuff that isn't about her. Everything you want to keep is about stuff other than her. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with the premise that her birth certificate, and the debate regarding the circumstances of her conception "is about stuff other than her". That's basically what she's notable for. I agree that when I edit WP articles I fixate on what's notable regarding the subject and try to present that in accordance with wp:due. Hopefully, more people will eventually chime in so we can get additional opinions on this. Also, there seems to be selectivity regarding what content you think should be removed on these grounds. For example, by your logic, it would also seem similarly off topic that Upshaw had consensual sex with Cosby, prior to the alleged rape. That's not directly about Autumn. Should we remove that? Or only Upshaw's statement that provides some rationale for this? I have trouble with such arguments because it seems your past editing has actually highlighted that Upshaw had sex with Cosby previously, but by the logic you are using to remove other content, it seems that shouldn't even be in the article at all.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this person notable enough for an independent biography?

This article looks to me like a WP:BLP1E - an article on a person 'notable' only for one event, rather than deserving a biography in their own right. (See also WP:PERP, which says perpetrators of crimes are not necessarily notable in their own right.) Perhaps it would be a better idea to rewrite it into an article on the event (Bill Cosby extramarital affair? Bill Cosby extortion case?) rather than on the person, or simply to merge the important details into Bill Cosby#Personal life, where it's summarised already. Robofish (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Daily Mail Tabloid Journalism Poison Fruit National Enquirer

Why is a section of the Paternity claim allowed in the article when it is based on the NATIONAL ENQUIRER and Poisoned Fruit sources? This should be removed.

Hello Fellow Editors

Is the reportage used as a source in the article from the Daily Mail qualify as 'tabloid journalism' which should not be used as source about a Living Person in violation of BLP standards. It is a single source for the reportage. Essentially the reportage is a reiteration of allegations given to the NATIONAL ENQUIRER. Here is the headline and bullet items emphasizing the titillation that is the substance of the reportage...

EXCLUSIVE: The one woman who Bill Cosby admits he cheated with says 'he drugged and raped me too - and got me PREGNANT'

Shawn Brown, then known as Shawn Byers, became Bill Cosby's lover

But the last time they were together he slipped something in her glass and urged her 'Drink, more, drink more'

She woke up naked in his bed and knew she had been violated

'Sex with Bill just wasn't mind-blowing because I wasn't really into him 100 percent'

Wikipedia designates Daily Mail as a tabloid. I look forward to any comments. 66.235.36.153 (talk) 21:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)Respectfully A Contributor

This repetition of exactly the same comment has already received replies elsewhere. Here's mine. The sensational cherry picking of salacious wordings in the source which we tend to avoid actually using in articles is tabloid journalism by an editor designed to elicit an emotional response. I'm not falling for it. We don't do that in articles, but, because Wikipedia is uncensored and requires us to document negative information about subjects, we are not afraid to describe immoral and offensive behavior. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Goodie for you Bull. Apparently you have some magical means to determine both 'facts' from tabloid journalism but you reveal that you can divine what is both immoral and offensive. That used to be called being a blue nose.

The question posed is not whether you can by some unknown magic squeeze a few 'facts' from a tabloid journalism item, it is whether the article cited at the Daily Mail is tabloid journalism. That fact that it is little more than a regurgitation direct from the NATIONAL ENQUIRER with even more titillation about 'freaky sex' recycled in what wiki itself describes as a 'middle level tabloid'. Recycling an item from the NATIONAL ENQUIRER in another tabloid (Daily Mail) does not negate that fact of tabloid style journalism.

You will find the same concerns by other editors here in this talk page. Sorry if your emotional attachment to that article and tabloid based article is somehow clouding your usual better judgment. The fact you have stated you know of a better source such as the LA Times is an example of both a better source and far better capacity of editorship on your part. Respectfully 66.235.36.153 (talk) 04:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)A contributor

Here is the Los Angeles Times article I previously provided you: LA Times. It provides many details about Cosby's affair with Shawn Upshaw Brown. Go for it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Bull Thank you for the LA Times article, it is an excellent source for the Autumn Jackson article about her trial and conviction for extortion. It however does not relate at all to the Upshaw Brown charges in the Daily Mail (first made in the NATIONAL ENQUIRER) about 'mind blowing sex' 'freaky sex' etc. etc.

The question still stands is the Daily Mail article which is little more than recycled material made in the NATIONAL ENQUIRER tabloid journalism. The primary concern of this editor is the numerous use of known tabloid like sites such as GAWKER, JEZEBEL, RADAR ONLINE etc etc. being used as single sources in Wikipedia articles. Respectfully66.235.36.153 (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC) A Contributor

The Daily Mail is a normal British newspaper - and the general problem is that it, and other such papers, do not have good records with being reliable sources in the area of "celebrity gossip." In short - great for football news, quite poor for "celebrity gossip". Collect (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Shawn Upshaw paternity lawsuit

Hello Fellow Editors The above title is used over in the Bill Cosby biography article. It is essentially false as it states there as a 'paternity lawsuit' yet there was no such 'lawsuit' there is only the Autumn Jackson Extortion Trial. As there is a link to this page it does not sate the actual events in the life of Autumn Jackson and reflects poorly on a Wikipedia article. A senior editor needs to look into this and correct the title to reflect the factual basis of the events. Respectfully66.235.36.153 (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC) A Contributor

No senior editor (we don't really use that term) is needed. You can do it. If there is any doubt about what to do, use the talk page there. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I fixed the issue at the Cosby article. You could have done it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Bull Good call. It was obvious. The article is rightfully under protection and IP editors such as this editor who have no interest in registering can not make the change. That is why it was requested multiple times. Glad you made the edit, even if after a bit of huffing and puffing about it. Respectfully66.235.36.153 (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC) A Contributor

Look, let's get something clarified here, I hadn't noticed it was under protection, and I never protested, objected, or "huffed and puffed" in any manner to it being fixed. Next time just say "thanks", without any sour grapes and casting aspersions that aren't true. I actually, and very sincerely, encouraged you to do it above, but, as I wrote, I didn't realize you couldn't do it. Since you brought up the subject, out of courtesy I wanted to give you the opportunity to fix it yourself. To use a hunting analogy, the hunter who first sees the deer therefore has the first rights to shoot it, but if he just waits and doesn't do it, I'm going to shoot it before it gets away. That's essentially what happened. I saw that this issue just sat here and nothing had happened, so I finally did it. I never had anything against it being done, because it did need to be done. I totally and sincerely agreed with you, so be just as total and sincere in your appreciation for me doing it.

What I don't understand is why you never mentioned this in the proper venue, which is at Talk:Bill Cosby? You say "it was requested multiple times". This is the first and only (and wrong) place I've seen this mentioned, but I may have missed it. It's lucky I have both pages watchlisted (but then again, I currently "have 6,761 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)"), so it's not surprising I saw this and also fixed it for you. My point is that next time mention it on the relevant talk page.

We may not agree on everything, but keep in mind that I have always tried to aid or improve nearly everything you have contributed to an article using a RS, and when you have included stuff in an article, I rarely (if ever) delete it, but usually improve its formatting and wording, which is the proper thing to do so it's up to snuff according to our policies, guidelines, and the Manual of style. (I'm always hoping that you will see what I've done and learn how to do it yourself. That's how editors learn here. I want to see you getting it right more often.) Anyway, good faith editors try to improve other editor's edits when those edits have some merit. I always appreciate when other editors improve my edits.

As far as you using an IP to edit, why not just log in to your account? There is no advantage to using an IP, and lots of disadvantages. You have less privacy, for one thing, and receive a whole lot more rights, privileges, respect, and tools when logged in. The only seeming advantage to using an IP is when an editor is embarrassed to be associated with their registered account which has a bad reputation. This is one way to distance themselves from it. They should just clean up their act and redeem the reputation of their username. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

" Hello Bull Thanx again for taking the actions to improve the article. You are a very good editor if a tad bit long winded. Yes, you missed the post over at the Cosby bio, it is now archived. All The Best To You 66.235.36.153 (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)A Contributor

Yes, longwinded indeed! I now see your request back then. Thanks for the clarification. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Autumn Jackson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141229074233/http://gawker.com:80/bill-cosby-mistress-and-alleged-rape-victim-believes-he-1663728712? to http://gawker.com/bill-cosby-mistress-and-alleged-rape-victim-believes-he-1663728712

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Is “Brown” a typo?

At one point it say “Brown expressed concern that ...”. That’s the only time the word Brown appears. Was it supposed to be Upshaw? Minicarmen (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Minicarmen: At one point Upshaw had the last name Brown. That has been updated for clarity. Thank you for pointing that out. --Kbabej (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)