Talk:Bill Cosby/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Discussion: Should the lead sentence mention the sexual assault accusations?

Help us reach a consensus on this by sharing what you think. There is currently a brief description of the sexual assault accusations in the last paragraph of the lede, an extensive discussion in a section titled Sexual Assault Allegations, and finally a very thorough description of all the available information in a separate article Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations. The disagreement is whether the first sentence of the Bill Cosby article should or should not mention the sexual assault accusations (or even describe Cosby as an "alleged serial rapist"). I will post my views in a separate post and I hope all editors of this article and others passing by will help us reach a consensus. Thanks. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 02:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

(I am restoring my original comment where it belongs. The following comment was improperly deleted by Hamsterlopithecus. I had deliberately placed it here, using the following edit summary: "This should be closed now after adding "Accused of sexually assaulting numerous women" in very first line." This was just one of many improper things which Hamsterlopithecus did on this page and elsewhere to hijack the discussion and mislead editors whom he forum shopped to come here. Wwdamron (talk) 17:01, November 10, 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 tex in the very First sentence, but any of the other would be okay for now as well.

Wwdamron (talk) 03:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Just FYI, the lead sentence that is subject to changing currently reads: William Henry Bill Cosby, Jr. (born July 12, 1937) is an American stand-up comedian, actor, author, and activist. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I am strongly against describing Cosby as an alleged rapist in the first sentence or mentioning the accusations there. The accusations are well mentioned in the last paragraph of the lede, where they should be chronologically. I understand that this is a very emotional subject and the accusations are pretty horrible, but we have to keep our objective tone and not suffer from WP:Recentism. We have to maintain a historical perspective. For this reason, I say we wait on labeling Cosby a rapist as if it described him like the word comedian does. Also, this is the biography of a living person and we should be VERY careful with what we say about people. Other sensationalist news organizations can say what they want but Wikipedia tries to be a standard for reliability. We should wait until the smoke clears, until the legal system determines what to call Cosby. Until then, we should continue stating the facts in those other sections that describe the situation, but, if anything, lets err on the side of caution on this. Finally, I want to bring the example of the Michael Jackson article. Notice that there is a thorough description of the sexual assault incidents but there is no mention of him a child molester along with singer and dancer. Now that the scandal has passed, and we are looking at it from a historical perspective, it would seem harsh to include those accusations in the lead sentence of that article. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

First off, you again do not address the version that you actually reverted. You instead discuss the rapist version that I do not support. I also don't really support a new section on this because the old section is the exact same subject. Also, citing the actual recentism test, "In ten years will this addition still appear relevant? If I am devoting more time to it than other topics in the article, will it appear more relevant than what is already here?" I believe the answer is clearly yes. His sexual assault charges have impacted his career as I have stated above, losing all airtime of cosby show, honorary degrees, cases that are not going away, etc. --JumpLike23 (talk) 03:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hamsterlopithecus, JumpLike23 is right. You are just repeating yourself; fighting against a straw man of your own creation (we aren't discussing the word "rapist"); and your creation of this section is disruptive. Just remove the heading and we can continue, otherwise this whole section should be hatted as disruption. It's your choice. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 03:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hamsterlopithecus, don't you EVER do this again. Never change other editors' edits in a way that changes the meaning, EVER. I have restored the heading. Your attempt to hijack this discussion is not appreciated. You should just join it. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 03:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

User:BullRangifer, I had already explained to you that we were both editing the same section at the same time when that happened. You know it wasn't in bad faith, don't act so outraged. Now please, don't derail this discussion. If you have an actual reason for being so passionately in favor of labeling Cosby a rapist in the first sentence, please explain it here so other editors can understand all sides of this argument and can make up their minds. And also, once you've stated your opinion, please let other editors join in. We are not fighting here, just trying to find what's best for Wikipedia. The more people involved, the better. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 03:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I made that edit 12 minutes before yours, and intervening edits as well. You still chose to remove that subheading. That was not an accident or edit conflict. I have already explained myself above, several times. Everyone but you understands, so I'm not going to repeat myself for your sake. Go back and read it again. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 03:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

This was discussed extensively already and the consensus was to include a sentence at the end of the lead. Please refer to the talk page archives. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The specific issue of whether to include mention in the intro sentence(s) was not discussed there, right? User:Hamsterlopithecus, please respond. I understand it is hard to justify, but you reverted my edit, and I feel were are thus entitled to such. Otherwise, I will assume you just say Recentism and BLP generally, fair enough? but that just simply is not compelling or based in policy. --JumpLike23 (talk) 04:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Cwobeel, I agree with User:jumplike23 that that discussion seems to have been about adding the paragraph on the lede that is currently in the article and not about adding a mention in the first sentence of the article. Jumplike23, could you please write down the wording that you would propose for the first sentence so we can have an idea of what you're thinking? And now, replying to your question: my argument is, indeed, as simple as stated in my previous comment. I think it is notable enough to be covered extensively in the article and all necessary sub-articles, but just not as the definition of who that person is. Like Michael Jackson, Paula Deen, Anna Nicole Smith, or Tiger Woods, I am not sure if this will be as important as it seems now that it is ongoing, hence WP:Recentism. Btw, please allow for a bit of time between replies. I am checking this discussion often, but I may take a few hours to reply. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 04:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Our discussions above were specifically about adding mention in the first sentence, so mentioning previous discussions about mentioning the subject in the lead at all are out of place here. We are well beyond that. I even provided a whole list of diffs regarding the edit warring over it. The actual content is also listed above, with a fourth version which accounts for the fact that not all the women claim they were raped, but still that they were assaulted. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 06:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Michael Jackson + Paula Deen +Anna Smith + Tiger woods all together does not even equal 10% of Cosby , Cosby and his rapes alleged or otherwise is something that will be discussed for centuries to come. That have led to changes in laws about sexual assault. He has 57 accussers and more to come, 13 recinded degrees which is for certain a world record many times more than his closest competitor. This is probably the biggest scandal in US history. And it cannot be compared to any other sex scandal, given who Cosby was, is and is accussed of. You can add woody allen and roman Polanski as well in addition to the other 3 people you mentioned and your still not even getting close to the scandel. This discussion needs to be closed, you are just going to have to deal with it. Wwdamron (talk) 05:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. This discussion is disruptive and just rehashes previous discussions. We are way beyond that. We have a consensus which Hamster will not accept. Well, that means they will just have to step aside and not be disruptive. I gave them to option of removing the heading or getting this section hatted. They have not acted, so I'll just hat it. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 06:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

User:BullRangifer, closing this discussion by yourself to push your own view is completely out of line! If you don't want to participate in general discussion and reaching a consensus then don't participate. But DON'T try to shut down the discussion of other editors. If you don't like reaching consensus, then Wikipedia is not for you. The only people who are pushing for changing the first sentence are yourself and User:Wwdamron who also happen to be the only people interested in shutting down any discussion about this. There are many people who specifically spoke out against this in a now archived thread. So there is currently NO consensus. Hijacking this page to push your own views is not how we do things. You guys have stated your opinions, now we must wait for others to pitch in. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 08:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hamsterlopithecus, no, your total reordering of whole sections, changing original headings, and then creating an improper RfC when we already had a consensus, is wrong. The RfC is not legitimate as it interferes with an ongoing discussion of the same subject and is not neutrally worded. You are once again ignoring existing discussions and hijacking the whole discussion. The hatting needs to be restored. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 19:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Should not be mentioned in first sentence.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The RfC was not formed properly and is yet another attempt by Hamster to disruptively hijack an existing discussion. Use it that discussion, which is above this improper section. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 19:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC) (Slight tweak added to clarify what "it" meant. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 16:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC))

57 Accusers, 9 Lawsuits, 2 Open Criminal Investigations, 1 Possible Confession from Cosby's own daughter he abused the Nanny, 13 World Record Ascended Honoaray Degrees, Countless of otherplaces distancing themselves from Cosby. Most Cosby's friends in show business agreee he is a Serial Rapist, including some who have changed their minds. "Cosby is an Alleged Serial Rapist " is a very kind opening line wouldn't you say ?Wwdamron (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

***** UPDATE November 13, 2015 . Since 3 days ago, Cosby has added 4 more women suing him and 2 more rescinded Honorary Degrees. And Camille Cosby has not made a public appearance since November 12, 2015. Cosby has reportedly been in Hiding in his Home in Massachusetts since he did the march in Selma.

57 Accusers, 9 Lawsuits(1 Insurance Company & 13 Women), 2 Open Criminal Investigations, 1 Possible Confession from Cosby's own daughter he abused the Nanny, 15 World Record Ascended Honoaray Degrees.

I am going to add Sexual Assault to the Lead Sentence soon, if someone else does not do it. Wwdamron (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The lead sentence? OK, that's unnecessary. As long as it's in the lead somewhere we should be good. Making it lead sentence is totally recentism at work.DreamGuy (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

DreamGuy, The Lead sentence tells Cosby's other past occupations - "comedian, actor, and author" what's wrong with "comedian, actor, author and accused serial rapist"? Why would you put "comedian, actor, and author" in the Lead sentence ?

***** UPDATE November 14, 2015 . Since 1 days ago, Cosby has added 1 more rescinded Honorary Degrees.

57 Accusers, 9 Lawsuits(1 Insurance Company & 13 Women), 2 Open Criminal Investigations, 1 Possible Confession from Cosby's own daughter he abused the Nanny, 16 World Record Ascended Honoaray Degrees. Camille Cosby has not made a public appearance since November 12, 2015 & Bill Cosby has reportedly been in Hiding in his Home in Massachusetts since he did the march in Selma. Wwdamron (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

So?DreamGuy (talk) 01:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I strongly support adding a note about the accusations in the first sentence. The sexual assault allegations are at the moment one of the most notable things about Cosby, and there's every probability that they will be his most enduring and memorable legacy. People should know about them up top. I can't tell if there's a consensus here or not...but I'm going to add it. I guess people will revert if they want to.NoahB (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL. If it comes to that yes, but as of now, he has yet to be charged or convicted of any crimes. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I support including mention of the accusations. There have been numerous WP:RS about these accusations, and he is notable for them. It may even be what he is most notable for. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

He has been charged and a warrant issued for his arrest. It is time to include this in the lede. --Jersey92 (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree that the allegations should be mentioned in the opening line of the article. I was going to change it myself, but I decided to instead see if it was discussed. At this point, there are actual charges against him pending, and dozens of women have come forward to accuse him. Beyond that, his own statements lend credence to the accusations.

Frankly, I think it's a travesty for him to be remembered first and foremost as an entertainer when there are so many who have accused him of extreme misconduct. Mike O (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

examples of sexual assault in second sentence in a BLP

Here is one: John R. Dallager (born March 4, 1947)[1] is a retired United States Air Force Major General. He served as the fifteenth Superintendent of the United States Air Force Academy from 2000-2003. He resigned the position in the wake of the sexual assault scandal at the Academy and was demoted from the rank of lieutenant general to major general upon his retirement. --JumpLike23 (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Is this gentleman notable for anything other than the sexual assault accusations?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I would think Cosby is more Notable now in the world for his Sexual Assault allegations than anyone else in U.S. history. Wwdamron (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

If you were born yesterday and don't pay attention to the world, sure. DreamGuy (talk) 01:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

the most notable alleged sexual perpetrator? I think he may be, not including murderers who also sexually assault. The notability of the sexual assault allegations deserve to be in the lede. It is time for a new discussion/vote --JumpLike23 (talk) 06:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

JumpLike23, do you mean mention in the second sentence, per the title of this section? I still think that's a good idea. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, second sentence work better. I am just not sure the support will be there from a majority of editors.--JumpLike23 (talk) 07:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth: the child sex abuse allegations against Jimmy Savile are mentioned in the third sentence of the lead of his article. Admittedly, he's not a living person, but he was also never charged with a crime. The second sentence, or at least the first paragraph, seems like a reasonable place to put the allegations against Cosby. Nblund (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Rescinded honorary degrees

Honorary degrees that have been rescinded, need to be indicated. I don't see any mentions at WP:MOS to the contrary. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

We use normal font for such - use of boldface is reserved to specific places per WP:MOS. I unbolded material which ought not to have been bolded in the first place. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for clarifying. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of this one from Springfield College. See here: http://www.masslive.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2015/10/springfield_college_bill_cosby.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.235.193.219 (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

On December 7th, 2015, Swarthmore College rescinded the honorary degree that it awarded to Cosby in 1995. Link here: http://www.swarthmore.edu/news-events/swarthmore-rescinds-bill-cosbys-honorary-degree Can this be updated? 19:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.194.6 (talk)

Outside of the rescinded degrees, some existing honorary degrees are missing. For example, Cosby was awarded the Honorary Doctor of Humanities title by the George Washington University when he spoke at their 1997 commencement and the article should be updated to reflect this (Sources: http://encyclopedia.gwu.edu/index.php?title=Honorary_Degrees_-_Recipients_of_Honorary_Degrees_At_The_George_Washington_University and https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1997/05/19/cosby-warns-graduates-it-gets-harder-by-degrees/b5638517-3ffb-4017-ba01-088df2324670/). I created a wikipedia account to make this change but because the article is so hotly contested, I am blocked from doing so because I am a new member. Perhaps more research needs to be done on the large number of honorary degrees he has received to ensure they are all listed here. Cjs130 (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Cosby has now been charged with a felony

It seems most of the debate over whether or not to include the sexual assault allegations in the lead sentence was that Cosby had never been charged with a crime. Now that he has, it seems appropriate to add it. Feel free to use this section to discuss any other ways in which the article should be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdude04 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure that this is necessary. The first sentence is useful to define what the person is or does for a living, or makes him or her notable enough to merit an article. If the majority (a real majority, not just the first people to reply to this) really feel like it should be included, then let's do it. But can we at least agree on the best way to break this highly sensitive news? This has been a topic of strong disagreement on the talk page for a while now, so we shouldn't take this lightly. As of this comment, the unsigned user above has changed the lead sentence to:

• Bill Cosby is an American stand-up comedian, actor, and author, who has been accused by multiple women of sexual assault.[1]

I suggest that we remove the mention until we decide how to best word this (as per WP:BLP). If it is to be mentioned in the first sentence, I suggest that we use something like "... has been charged with a felony sex crime from 2004" as this is more precise. I would also suggest we do it in a second sentence following the original "... is an American stand-up comedian, actor, and author". My 2 cents. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The sex stuff is in the lead - the question is whether it is a defining occupation for Cosby. I suggest that we are still in the "not yet proven" area, and that WP:BLP applies. Collect (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

BLPCRIME just says that we shouldn't imply that he is guilty of a crime when he hasn't been convicted, I don't think it says anything about whether or where we mention notable accusations. Even if someone were proven to have been wrongfully accused, we might still mention notable criminal accusations against that person. The allegations against Anthony Charles Graves, who is notable because he was exonerated while on death row, are mentioned in the lead section of his entry. Nblund (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with that for NOW. There is no rush, is there?--Malerooster (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

"[[[Jim Morrison]]] was an American Rock singer, exhibitionist and drug abuser."·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Consensus MET by majority of Americans if not the world. That Cosby's career is over and he has been accussed of SERIAL RAPE. One can reasonably assume all hell is going to break loose with more lawsuits and women coming forward. Wwdamron (talk) 00:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Wwdamron, you seem to be on some sort of crusade about this issue, especially on the Talk Page. Your personal opinion is just WP:SOAP and is not a discussion of Reliable Sources for the improvement of the article, which is the only purpose of the Talk Pages - they are not a forum. Please read the guidelines at the top of this TP and then adjust your future comments to comply. BLP is in full effect here. Maybe you need to take a break for a while and come back later when you can be more encyclopedic. 68.19.4.178 (talk) 09:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I think one thing we can ask ourselves here is, "why are people currently reading this article?" We can obtain a fair and unbiased answer to this question by looking at the focus of current media mentions. A careful review shows that the answer to these questions is "who is Bill Cosby and what is he being accused of (charged with)?" I think the lead should answer to this question or it will look very much out of step with very significant developments in his life. Rklawton (talk) 10:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Use of forthcoming mugshot

I personally think we should add it to the section about the allegations of sexual abuse that have come forth aganist Mr. Cosby. It should however not be used for his main photo on the page. Coasterghost (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

It absolutely can not be the "main photo" and I rather think use of it at all requires a positive consensus - in general use of mugshots anywhere is a "no-no." Collect (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Where is that policy? I see mug shots on all kinds of biographical Wikipedia entries (Jim Morrison, Sid Vicious, Justin Bieber, Larry Craig to name a few) Mdude04 (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Start at WP:MUG. General Ization ^Talk 22:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

"Should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light." Doesn't seem like this has relevance here... Mdude04 (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the "disparaging" part still has relevance. The purpose of mugshots is not to disparage their subject. If that is the primary reason for using it here (I think we all know what Cosby looks like, or can find better photos on the Web) and if no other encyclopedic purpose can be established, then it should not be used.General Ization ^Talk 22:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think its primary use is to disparage. In this context I think it's to highlight that this material has elevated beyond simple allegations. If you disagree, explain the widespread use among other BLP's like the ones I listed above Mdude04 (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

You may want to rethink that. A booking photograph does no more to "highlight that this material has elevated beyond simple allegations" than the text that mentions the charges, and links to the indictment (which, if not available here, are provided on our cited sources). And I have no interest in explaining why "other crap exists", which is to say that use of such photos elsewhere is not a good argument for using them here. General Ization ^Talk 22:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

There's a reason I didn't just point to one other example. This is a prevailing theme on Wikipedia. In all the cited pages, as in this, the mug shot is being used in the clinical NPOV context that accompanies it. Use of the mug shot is no more disparaging than having a section devoted to the sexual assault allegations. Your statement that "mug shots are a no-no" is simply not WP policy. Mdude04 (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Mdude04 (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I would agree that using it as the primary photo would be using it primarily to disparage, but putting it in the relevant section is fully relevant and not going against WP policy Mdude04 (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mdude04: Please do not add the booking photo again until consensus is established here. General Ization ^Talk 23:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

It's an absurd discussion. The cited WP policy here applies only to cases where a picture is being used "out of context" (to quote the policy directly). It's a mug shot of Bill Cosby related to a sexual assault allegation, within Bill Cosby's sexual assault allegations section. My head is exploding that there is an argument to suggest this is out of context and thus applicable to WP:MUG. Hopefully other people will chime in because I don't see any policy justification not to have the mug shot (which now appears in every reliable source news story about this subject matter). "Being sensitive" does not equal shutting off our brains and ignoring very relevant material. Mdude04 (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

If it now appears in every news story, all the more reason it is not urgently needed here. See WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NODEADLINE. Wikipedia's general policy is that anything that does not directly contribute to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject should not be added to or can be removed from an article. I maintain the booking photo contributes nothing other than "this is what the subject looked like moments after being booked", which is trivia. Wikipedia operates under consensus, and so far the consensus (based purely on the number of editors participating in the discussion, plus the one who reverted your addition of the photo) is against you. It can wait. General Ization ^Talk 00:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I have mentioned this discussion at WP:BLPN#Bill Cosby, which should result in some additional and well-informed discussion of the question. General Ization ^Talk 01:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. With the way today's events fundamentally altered this entire discussion (and the future encyclopedic legacy of Cosby), I was acting in an admitted sense of haste that is not necessary for Wikipedia. I look forward to an informed discussion on the best way to proceed. Mdude04 (talk) 02:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Alas - the "mug shot" is simply a bad photo of a black man with a grizzled beard and what appears to be possibly a bad cataract in his right eye. Is this of actual encyclopedic value? I rather fear not. Collect (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. The mugshot clearly has high encyclopedic value at Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations and should be restored for use there, as well as within the relevant section on Bill Cosby. The man has been charged wih sexual assault and his appearance at the time of arraignment is relevant. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Also disagree. The mug shot is historic and belongs in the articles. Jusdafax 17:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

So far it is 2 people who say no vs 4 people who say yes. So consensus at this point is to include it in the appropriate in-context section Mdude04 (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Mdude04, consensus is not a vote. I have no opinion one way or the other about the mugshot, but you need to stop trying to control this discussion. This discussion has been going on a grand total of two days. Consensus discussions with controversial issues such as this often take much longer. There is no consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

If a mugshot is trivial because it only shows how Cosby looked at a certain time and place, then every single other one of his portraits in this article are equally trivial because that's all they show, too. Except that I would argue that Cosby's booking not only marks but illustrates a pivotal moment in his life - and it should therefore be included in the appropriate section. Rklawton (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The mugshot is relevant if the fact that he got arrested is among the most notable things in his life, for example Leona Helmsley. This is absolutely not the case at this moment. But maybe as time goes by this scandal may be the most important thing in his life. I strongly doubt that, but who knows. The point is, if it's important, it should still be important as time passes. So waiting shouldn't be a problem. Otherwise, this is just WP:Recentism. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

That's a little ridiculous, Hamsterlopithecus. That's not the standard for judging an EV-worthy picture. By your logic, reviewing a script in 1990 with the director of an anti-drug public service announcement was a career milestone for Cosby, as evidenced by our including a picture from that meeting. So should that picture be struck from the article, because it is not a "pivotal moment in his life"? And yet it's incontestably the case that Cosby's accusations by 50+ women, his categorical denials of predatory behavior and his lawyerly insistence that he had never been charged with a crime, culminating in his arrest on felony assault charges, without question constitutes a watershed turn of events in his life and career whether or not he's ultimately found guilty. Either way, his mugshot has high encyclopedic value. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm just saying that doing things because we feel strongly emotional about them today may not be in the long-term interest a wikipedia article. If the mugshot is important, it will continue to be important tomorrow. IMHO, let's wait until the smoke clears and then decide what were the important bits of this whole mess. We're not here to break news. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Bingo, Hamsterlopithecus. Chase (talk | contributions) 01:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I think use of the mugshot is appropriate at Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations, but is not needed here. I think the situation is roughly comparable to the use of the mug shot in our Featured Article Canadian drug charges and trial of Jimi Hendrix, though the mug shot is not used in Jimi Hendrix. Obviously, that is not a BLP and he was acquitted, but there are parallels. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that including the mug shot is more appropriate at Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Not to be confused with William Cosby.

Is this really necessary at the top of the article? Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. I've gone ahead and removed the hatnotes from both articles (William Cosby and Bill Cosby). To me, it seems unlikely that William Cosby and Bill Cosby would be confused. Are our readers really having difficulty distinguishing the two when searching? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Vesuvius Dogg given this recent edit. I removed both hatnotes as I preferred symmetric treatment, but perhaps a one-way hatnote would be best here. I guess it's more likely that someone would search for "William Cosby" and want "Bill Cosby" rather than the reverse? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

That is exactly what I was thinking, which is why I added it to William Cosby. It's pretty much one-way traffic, I'll bet. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I undid my edit to William Cosby. I'm still a bit wary of the demonstrable need for a disambiguation/redirection to our readers in the form of a hatnote on either article. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Sundayclose: Given this edit of yours, do you want to weigh in here? I think suggesting that William Cosby was ever referred to as "Bill Cosby" is currently unfounded. Are there any sources to support this? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I see your point and will revert myself, although my point of view is that it does no harm. But I do think that it's quite possible for someone searching for Bill Cosby will search for William Cosby, so that hatnote should stay. Sundayclose (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Revert

I have reverted two editors. One wants to add "humanitarian" to the descriptors in the lede, which should be discussed here first, and the other is by a single purpose account, WP:SPA whose axe to grind is obvious. Jusdafax 15:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Both edits need RS, so it's proper to revert them. Otherwise, I would be careful about impugning the motives of another editor, especially one who does so much good work. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

If you refer to the SPA, that editor has only edited on Cosby and related articles for the past half year. That is obsessive, in my view. Jusdafax 18:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize if my edits to the 'Stand-Up Career' section were controversial or inappropriate in any way , that was not my intention. I'm just a HUGE fan of Cosby's work as a comic ((or former fan, to be more accurate), his alleged actions disgust me and this whole scandal fascinates me. My edits to the stand-up section were purely because I'm extremely enthusiastic about comedy and comedy history, and I wanted to stress things that I thought were significant/ noteworthy enough to add to that section. I'm not trying to clean up Cosby's image on your page, nor am I defending him as a human being and his repulsive alleged actions, I'm not an apologist and I don't have an axe to grind, ,just someone who enthusiastic about stand-up. I apologize again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asaprockysource (talk • contribs) 06:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

His notability needs to be updated

What this is about is "notability", both real world and here. There is no question that an "American stand-up comedian, actor, and author" is accurate and what made him notable. It's also undeniable that it is no longer up-to-date, as a 50-year accumulation of buried accusations has now become very well-known and is crashing down on him and his previous notability like a giant tsunami wave. In fact, it has obliterated his previous notability.

I keep track of many subjects by using Google Alerts, and they keep me notified of whatever reliable (and unreliable!) sources say about many subjects. Bill Cosby has no current notability separated from the sexual assault allegations. His previous notability is gone and he is never mentioned in any other context than the allegations. His "first impression" was favorable, but his "last impression" is a huge elephant in the room which all RS mention, so we must do it as well. The allegations have become his identity.

Mention at the end of the first sentence is now warranted more than ever. We have discussed this before, and we need to revisit it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The mistaken notion that his previous notability is "gone" reflects a serious misunderstanding of what notability actually is on this encyclopedia. Beware of recentism. Notability is not temporary. If it wasn't for his very long and highly successful show business career, the current allegations would be getting way less than 1% of the attention than they are. This is a biography that ought to cover his entire life and career. It should neither whitewash nor overly highlight the current allegations. Prudent editorial judgment is a rare commodity during a media frenzy. Let's cultivate it and nurture it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

No one is proposing that we remove anything, only that we update things. His previous notability is a fact, but it's now ignored, even while, as you rightly observe, providing a basis for the shocked reactions to his hypocrisy; the public identity of the beloved Dr. Huxtable is not the same as the secret double life of the real Bill Cosby. He is a self-confessed serial adulterer, and is also accused of serial sexual assault and rape. His previous notability is never going to be what it was. It's permanently tarnished. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Our job is not to express shock, to expose hypocrisy, to point out "double lives" or to evaluate reputations as "tarnished". Our job is to write the article, scrupulously, from the neutral point of view. Feel free to blog elsewhere if you feel compelled to denounce Cosby, which is entirely understandable. But Wikipedia is not the place for that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Our job is to document what RS say, not to express our own opinions or to censor what RS say. It is unwikipedian to do either. The overwhelming weight of all RS is now on the side of documenting the allegations. There is zero weight on his past career and past notability, except to show the contrast. Of course it might be possible to find a RS currently mentioning Cosby without mentioning the allegations, but that would be an exception that proves the rule. I suggest you do some searches, rather than criticize me. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

A strong case can be made that Bull's argument is correct. This blunt editorial in the Washington Post is no mere blog, but a highly respected news outlet. The editorial points out that Cosby has admitted his criminal behavior in court depositions he fought to keep secret. If not the first sentence, the lede's first paragraph calls for mention of Cosby's actions and current status. Jusdafax 08:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLP is not negotiable here - and if his notability gets affected by a conviction, then we can abide by WP:DEADLINE but unless and until that time, the BLP policy is predicated on not implying that allegations of crimes are proof of crimes. And editorials are ... editorials. Collect (talk) 14:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

You need to step back one step. No one is proposing that we imply that "allegations of crimes are proof of crimes." Not at all. We should simply state that he is also known for the allegations. If and when he is convicted, that would be updated, but not until then. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The lead section of a biography should summarize the person's life and career, usually in chronological order. The allegations are described with due weight and properly in the final paragraph of the lead, since the vast majority of the public attention to them has developed in 2014 and 2015. There is a lengthy, detailed section in the article. We also have a very long spinoff article Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations with 247 references for anyone who wants all the details now available in reliable sources. In the context of his entire career which spans more than half a century, we need to avoid making changes motivated by moral outrage over what certainly appears to be reprehensible behavior. We are encylopedists, not editorialists. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I think BullRangifier is discussing changes to the lead sentence, not the lead section. I don't know that it's policy, per se, but lead sentences typically define a topic or give an abbreviated preview of the subsequent paragraphs. Look at the OJ Simpson entry: the first sentence begins with football and ends with his designation as a convicted felon, and the first sentence reflects the structure of the rest of the lead. Nblund (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

O.J. Simpson is a convicted felon who is in prison, Nblund. At this time, Bill Cosby has been convicted of nothing. Very big difference. Please also note that Simpson is in prison for reasons having nothing with his notoriety regarding the famous double murder. Appropriately, that case isn't even mentioned until much later in the lead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Convictions and acquittals don't really have anything to do with the notability of an allegation: Don King, Mark Wahlberg, and Huddie "Leadbelly" Ledbetter were all convicted or plead guilty to serious crimes, but those crimes aren't considered notable enough to warrant mention in the lead sections of their entries. By contrast, the lead sentences in the entries for Robert Durst and William Kennedy Smith mention crimes for which each was later acquitted. The accusations against Stephen Hatfill and Richard Jewell are both in the first sentence of their entries even though we now know that those allegations were false.

It's already been established that these accusations are notable enough to warrant significant lead space. My point is that, simply as an editorial/stylistic matter, the first couple of sentences should contextualize and summarize the subsequent material, and they don't do that right now. Nblund (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Just for context, BullRangifer has been advocating for a mention of Bill Cosby's sexual assault allegations in the first sentence for a few months now. The consensus has been to not include it. Before this thread devolves into unproductive personal attacks, may I ask you, BullRangifer, can you write down specifically what you are proposing to "update" (i.e. write down the version you would like to have on the article) and then step back for a bit and see how other users feel about it? I think this will help pinpoint the specific things people may have problems with and help us all agree on something we are all (or at least most are) happy with. Thanks. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Good idea. Incidentally, it's best not to mix personal attacks with good ideas such as you did. It puts people off. Rklawton (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this is terribly urgent, but I do think the writing is a little jarring. What about this line for the second sentence: "Since 2014, multiple women have publicly accused Cosby of drugging and sexually assaulting them." Nblund (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Accusations of sexual assault begin long before 2014. The floodgates didn't open until 2014. I'm concerned that even though the language above is technically correct, it might be a little misleading. Rklawton (talk) 04:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Hamsterlopithecus here. If there's a specific proposal for an updated lead sentence, please put it here so that we can evaluate and discuss. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposals for an updated lead sentence

Okay, here are some versions. I have started each line with the existing wording so the context and final appearance will be apparent. It is the quoted parts which are the proposals:

1. ... an American stand-up comedian, actor, and author. "Cosby has been the subject of publicized sexual assault allegations since about 2000." (Proposed by JumpLike23. I added the wikilink, since it should be used in the first mention in the article.)
2. ... an American stand-up comedian, actor, and author "who is accused of sexually assaulting numerous women." (I'm not sure who first proposed this version, but I favor it because of its brevity.)
3. ... an American stand-up comedian, actor, and author. "Since 2014, multiple women have publicly accused Cosby of drugging and sexually assaulting them." (Proposed by Nblund. I added the wikilink, since it should be used in the first mention in the article.)
4. Quote: If it is to be mentioned in the first sentence, I suggest that we use something like "... has been charged with a felony sex crime from 2004" as this is more precise. I would also suggest we do it in a second sentence following the original "... is an American stand-up comedian, actor, and author".[2] (Proposed by Hamsterlopithecus.)

BullRangifer (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Cosby has not been convicted of anything at this point. I think it's fine to mention the accusations in the lede section. However given his other notable achievements that precede his current troubles, absent of a legal finding, it seems more like news and recent-ism than encyclopedic to put it in or adjacent to the lede sentence. Bill Clinton was the first president in modern times to be impeached, but that's not in the lede sentence. Cosby's career spans decades, and the lede should reflect that.Mattnad (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• The history of allegations also spans decades, basically the same length as his career, but they have just been hidden by alleged (as well as proven) hush money payments, cover-ups, and failures by police to act on them. The first sentence mentions what he is notable for. This suggested addition would complete the list. It is seriously lacking. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• The allegations are recent, although they refer to past events. So in terms of his notability, they are very recent and still in the process of being proven. I just think it's a bit premature to have this in the lede sentence, although it's fine in the lede.Mattnad (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• I wanted to step back and let other editors discuss (and I would suggest you do the same, BullRangifer). But I am being quoted as having proposed item #4. I just want to say that I think we should NOT mention any of this in the first sentence or even the first paragraph of the lede. I think it just seems important because it is happening now, but it is far from being that notable in the grand scheme of things. I think it is fine where it is, i.e. the last paragraph of the lede. But if it is to be mentioned (anywhere in the article) it should be reported exactly the way it is reported in the source (hence item #4). Care must be taken to not reach conclusions that are not directly attributable to the source, otherwise we are approaching "original research" territory. I will now step back and let others discuss. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• Above I have provided more of your statement for context in number 4. I wouldn't want anyone to misunderstand what you wrote.

  I provided the initial content in this "proposals..." subsection because you asked me to do so above. In fact, it needs a subsection heading, which I have now provided, using MZMcBride's wording. The order of comments above and below the heading is unchanged, the order of existing sections has not been rearranged, and no section has been squeezed in between other existing sections.

  Your idea was considered a good idea by Rklawton and MZMcBride, and we are now having a civil discussion of the options. There is no reason to shut down the discussion the three of you requested. Either there is a consensus for one of the options, or there isn't, or discussion may bring forth a totally better idea. I'm hoping ... -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

(un-indent) My vote right now is to stick with the current version, which uses the final lead paragraph to discuss the allegations and criminal charge, but leaves the lead sentence alone. I don't like any of the proposed alternatives for the lead sentence (options 1–4) enough to support them. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we are voting or !voting yet, just discussing the lede. It feels to me like including the charges in the first sentence may be too much for some, and the fourth paragraph too deep down for others, including myself. Let's not forget that Cosby has admitted illegal and highly inappropriate behavior in a deposition. I thank Bull for his work here, and personally agree with his first sentence views. However, and without going into the exact wording, I think that at least a first paragraph mention of Cosby's sexual infamy is warranted. Using this measured approach, we can leave the first sentence as is, but bring in the additional material in a subsequent sentence in the first paragraph. This would perhaps be a good compromise. Jusdafax 08:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Jusdafax: Illegal behavior? Can you please clarify what you mean? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

This Chigago Tribune report took ten seconds to Google up. Jusdafax 15:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jusdafax. Yes, I'm familiar with the 2005 deposition and its release in 2015. You mentioned illegal behavior. What specific illegal behavior are you referring to when you say "Cosby has admitted illegal and highly inappropriate behavior in a deposition"? My understanding is that Dr. Cosby testified that he gave women sedatives, but if you're going to claim that Dr. Cosby has admitted to illegal behavior, that requires a clear and reliable source, in my opinion. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Cosby's lawyers claim getting his prescription drugs to give to women is not illegal. Few others agree. The information is right there. I'd call it obvious. If you claim otherwise, we disagree. I'm going to ask you to quit pinging me. Jusdafax 19:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

It would be a pretty big deal for Dr. Cosby to admit to illegal behavior, particularly in a legal deposition. That's why I asked for clarification about your claim. Your responses here don't support your claim that Cosby admitted to illegal behavior and the snarky "took ten seconds to Google up" is pretty shady and unnecessarily snarky, especially given that you're wrong. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Given that members of the U.S. Congress, now planning to revoke Cosby's Congressional Medal, have come to the same conclusion as I have I am going to as you MZMcBride to strike your comment regarding me, which I regard as a disrespectful, disruptive personal attack. Jusdafax 10:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jusdafax. You're very confused. Which part of the linked article supports your claim that Dr. Cosby "admitted illegal [...] behavior in a deposition"? Please provide specific quotations from the article.

I won't be striking any part of my comments here, but I will explain why your latest reply is wrong. You write "members of the U.S. Congress, now planning to revoke Cosby's Congressional Medal". This is not true. First, Dr. Cosby was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, not the Congressional Medal of Freedom. Second, Congress has almost no control over the Presidential Medal of Freedom, as the article you linked to notes. Quoting the article, "The legislation would call for President Barack Obama to revoke the medal, which Cosby received in 2002, affirm his legal capacity to do so, and bring criminal penalties against anyone displaying the medal after having it revoked." As you can see, the legislation would call for revocation, but would not actually revoke the award. My understanding is that Congress isn't empowered to revoke awards and honors bestowed by the President. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• I oppose mentioning the allegations in the first sentence at this time. If he is convicted, then it would be appropriate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment Rklawton makes a valid point that the "since 2014" statement might not be entirely accurate -- so we can take my suggestion off the table if that helps narrow down the options. I think the guilt or innocence discussions are somewhat tangential to the question of notability. If Cosby were somehow completely exonerated of every accusation against him tomorrow, wouldn't those accusations remain notable? Nblund (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Nblund: Yes. And this lasting notability accounts for the fact that we devote a paragraph in the lead of the Bill Cosby article to the sexual assault allegations. We also discuss the allegations in a section of the article and we now have a pretty lengthy separate article at Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations. The question is not whether the sexual assault allegations and single criminal charge are notable, the question is whether this portion of Dr. Cosby's life is so noteworthy that it deserves mention in the first or second sentence of his biography. I can see the arguments for inclusion, but the arguments against still seem stronger to me, particularly given the options presented here. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I also think there are legitimate concerns on either side here. I'm just noting that, from my view, those questions about notability and recency don't need to hinge on questions of guilt or innocence. Nblund (talk) 06:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Nblund, I see your point about Rklawton's observation. What about tweaking it so it's better? Otherwise feel free to strike it out. Thanks everyone for expressing your opinions about this. This is good. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I also agree about the question of guilt or innocence. It's actually irrelevant. We are concerned with "verifiability, not truth". Even a totally false narrative can be so notable that it should be mentioned in the first sentence. It's all just a matter of how it's mentioned. We are trying to word our propositions very carefully. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

In cases like this we often see an overly strict and mistaken application of BLP. BLP does not forbid negative information, only "unsourced" negative information. NPOV requires the inclusion of such information, and NPOV pretty much trumps all other policies when there is any doubt. NPOV is about how we include opinions and biased material, and is against the inclusion of editorial bias, not against content bias. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Given the move to revoke Cosby's Congressional Medal of Freedom which I cite above, the notability trumps other factors. A first paragraph mention of Cosby's increasingly tarnished legacy is merited, in my view. It's a good compromise, I maintain, between mentioning it at the bottom of the lede, and at the very top in the first sentence. Jusdafax 11:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

As I just noted above, Dr. Cosby wasn't awarded the Congressional Medal of Freedom and Congress can't revoke his Presidential Medal of Freedom. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I demur. I recall folks who thought an online petition to deport Justin Bieber was important enough to mention in that BLP and I demurred there as well. If the medal were revoked, that would be a fact. That people think it should be revoked is of far lower encyclopedic value at best. And inclusion of negative material is not "required" - the fact is that material is included only based on editorial consensus per policy. I do not think we have such a consensus at this point. Collect (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100521044901/http://movies.yahoo.com:80/movie/contributor/1800036559/bio to http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/contributor/1800036559/bio
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100420024934/http://www.pbs.org:80/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/200405/20040526_cosby.html to http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/200405/20040526_cosby.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140309093350/http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/01/20/1788049/bill-cosby-comes-clean.html to http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/01/20/1788049/bill-cosby-comes-clean.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090625230551/http://berklee.edu:80/events/2006/01/60th.html to http://www.berklee.edu/events/2006/01/60th.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150402143215/https://vimeo.com/88475482 to https://vimeo.com/88475482
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070820041441/http://www.upenn.edu:80/commencement/hist/hondegalph.html to http://www.upenn.edu/commencement/hist/hondegalph.html#C
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090710043206/http://www.upenn.edu/commencement/hist/speakers38.html to http://www.upenn.edu/commencement/hist/speakers38.html

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Honorary degrees

Is it really necessary to list every single one of these? It almost seems like the point of mentioning these is to point out that some of them have been rescinded. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

It's standard practice, in harmony with the purpose of Wikipedia, to document such things. If the amount of content in the whole "Works" and "Awards and honors" sections creates undue weight and makes the article too long (I tend to agree), then the standard practice is to create WP:SPINOFFs with the content. Those sections have lots of nitty gritty detail that is important, but fills too much in the article. Many, if not most, celebrity articles do this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there is a movement afoot. It is useful to readers to have a quick, available list to see if an institution in their community, or with which they have an affiliation, has rescinded the Cosby doctorate, rather than just a number (23 institutions have revoked degrees, at least 40 have not). The section was cut down 80% or more already with the removal of disapproving statements by individual colleges. Of course this material appears to be over at Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations, which covers the fallout of that scandal. AFAIK it is not here on his bio. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

"Several of these honorary degrees have been rescinded due to allegations of sexual assault and/or immoral behavior[citation needed]:"

Citation needed? Come on. You don't need a citation for every SINGLE line of an article. There are references given each time a degree is mentioned as having been rescinded. 72.200.151.15 (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The honorary degree section looks like an unnecessarily long and cluttered list. If the point of mentioning so many honorary degrees is to point out the ones that have been rescinded, then maybe this section is more appropriate for the Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations article. Keep in mind that these are barely notable and the list is twice as long as that of other awards given to Cosby for his actual work. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2016

"William Henry "Bill" Cosby, Jr. (born July 12, 1937) is an American stand-up comedian, actor, author, and sexual offender." Luigaji (talk) 01:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a reliable source that he has been convicted of a sexual offense. And read WP:BLP. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Sundayclose (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Other Jobs

He was so much more than a Actor, comedian and author, even according to the page it has a discography (to prove he is a singer) plus if you reed some of the shows credits it credits him as a director, writer, producer, etc. I feel that we should give credit to all of this once good mans works.00:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)Ksksksksks (talk)

The infobox is designed to be very brief. We don't include every professional capacity in which the person has ever functioned, just the top two or three. And there's no such thing as a "t.v. show maker". There are TV producers. There are cinematographers. There are writers. There are directors. But there is no title of "t.v. show maker." Sundayclose (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Simpsons quote

Cosby has stated, many times in his stand up shows, that "kids these days don't know what the jazz is all about".

That is not a real quote. It was from the Simpsons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.1.183.14 (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Bill Cosby production Black History: Lost, Stolen, or Strayed

Hello This needs to added to Cosby's television accomplishments. Black History: Lost, Stolen, or Strayed by Cosby, Bill, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.36.153 (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Cosby has not retired

Hello Cosby has not retired. He is not a 'former' stand up comedian, actor etc. the use of 'former' should be removed and may also be vandalism as there is an aggressive PR campaign in the media to ban Cosby from performing. Wiki should not be used or participate in such actions or even create such an impression in the biography of a living person. Sincerely 66.235.36.153 (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC) A Contributor

Removed the word "former" from the lead sentence. I don't have any information about this, but given how controversial this article is, I would like to ask those who want to call him a "former" stand-up comedian to make your case here before creating chaos on such a touchy article. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 15:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Also changed the years active for the same reason as above. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you could put (Not necessarily in these exact words) that Bill Cosby effectively had to retire due to ongoing numerous sexual assault claims and a pending sexual assault criminal trial against him as well as numerous lawsuits. -----

(I don't think that it is unreasonable to say that nobody will touch him with any type of legitamite job offer in the future).Wwdamron (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Not without a WP:RS saying that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree there is not quite enough to put it in their yet without some sort of source , But I do think, that if he ever goes to prison, I think that would be enough(this is just my opinion)Wwdamron (talk) 12:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors emphasize the negatives?

Hello Are wiki editors only willing to emphasize the negative about Cosby such as the loss of awards and not acknowledge his Civil Rights contribution to TV. Some wiki editors have been going about social media proclaiming Cosby guilty. Is this why this is not in the article about a living person ? Sincerely 66.235.36.153 (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC) A Contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.36.153 (talk • contribs)

If you have any suggestions on what to add, please feel free to write it up. Just try to follow the Manual of Style. And please don't take it personally if others edit your content or remove it. You can just discuss it here. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 03:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Cosby pretty much lost almost everyone's trust in him and this wipes out just about everything that is positive. very few well known people believe Cosby is innocent. You have to keep in mind assuming these allegations are true which a mountain of evidence so far suggests, that if he had been caught in the 1960's COsby would be just another criminal and never accomplished anything. I am not Comparing him to Hitler, but Hitler did many great thing for the Germans all while being a murderous mad man. It is sad, If Cosby is found innocent and all these lawsuits go away then maybe you can talk about more positive things, but this is what is going on with COsby. These allegations just can't be ignored, this is one of the Biggest Scandals in Modern History.Wwdamron (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• • • NOTICE: THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN CENSORED TWICE DO NOT REMOVE (Bold Edit) Hello There is no court tested 'mountain of evidence' just allegations,plus an 'opinion' that there is a 'mountain of evidence', at this time. It is up to history to judge the merits of any 'scandal'. Wiki does not predict the future or censor the the personal history of a Living Person. Good Faith Editors have to be open to the realities of wikipedia's encyclopedic standards about a Living Person, no matter what their personal opinions about Cosby. Sincerely A 66.235.36.153 (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Contributor

Black History: Lost, Stolen, or Strayed

Here is a suggestion To be placed under the 'I Spy' heading (section)..."Also during the 1960's, Cosby's television accomplishments included the production, 'Black History: Lost, Stolen, or Strayed' sponsored by the Xerox Corporation as part of an anthology series on Black History and Civil Rights broadcast on CBS." Sincerely 66.235.36.153 (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC) A Contributor

He did not produce, write, or direct it. He hosted it, which means he read a script. Not very notable. Sundayclose (talk) 01:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello REMOVAL OF THE IS CENSORSHIP OF AN RS ABOUT A LIVING PERSON:Hello Cosby was key to the production as he gave voice to the series as noted by the producer. Here is a news article by Robert Musel of UPI essentially Bill Cosby was the face of one of the most significant civil rights productions sponsored by Xerox and broadcast by CBS, it is an Emmy winning production. Sincerely A Contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.36.153 (talk) 03:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that have more in-depth coverage of Crosby's role? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Per World Cat it was produced by CBS with executive producers Andrew A. Rooney and Vern Diamond and writers Andrew A. Rooney and Perry Wolff. All big names at the time. The citations I found suggest just narrating the show was an big move for Cosby and contributed to its impact. I would say it is notable in his career. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

There is plenty of room for discussion on the issue of notability, and I appreciate the comments. I would ask anon 66.235.36.153, however, to stop repeatedly ranting about "censorship". This is a good faith discussion, and such wild, shouting accusations serve no purpose and make it difficult to have a reasonable discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• • • • • Hello Here is a link to a RS piece by Andy Rooney about Cosby's importance to the award winning production. Also, Hello Sundayclose first you need to learn the difference between a 'rant' and a BOLD EDIT, second check the history of this 'talk' section and you will find the RS that was posted was deleted twice denying fellow editors the chance to decide for themselves the merits of the RS content. There is also censorship of a comment to a fellow good faith editor one will soon restore, so please climb off your high horse and stop trying to diminish other good faith editors who sometimes resort to a bold edit to get the needed materials reviewed. Sincerely A 66.235.36.153 (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Contributor

Shouting false accusations of censorship repeatedly is a rant. If you feel that someone is guilty of "censorship", this is not the appropriate venue to discuss it; present your case at WP:ANI. You've made your point, so please restrict your comments to discussion of the issue of notability. And please watch your tone. Now, let's please stay on task. Sundayclose (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• • • • Hello Here is a link to an article from a syndicated news group that comments on the ongoing importance of Cosby's contribution to the production, his career as an educator and Civil rights activist. It is from 1992 and speaks to the ongoing significance of the series. PS Hello Sundayclose to get this conversation started this good faith editor first had to stop the deletion of the RS it is based on, deletion equals censorship. A 'Bold Edit' was needed to stop that sooooo unsaddle that high horse you rode into this conversation on, put that nag in the barn and actually add something to the conversation. In the meantime adjust your tone when (if) you add a comment about the RS posted here for you to examine. Your ranting about rants (where there are no rants just a BOLD EDIT) is not constructive. Sincerely A 66.235.36.153 (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)Contributor
    • Hello here is an item from the Schenectady Gazette - July 20, 1968 that gives information about the broadcast of the documentary 'Black History:Lost, Stolen or Strayed. It gives details on Cosby's contribution to the series and that there was an audience of 22 million viewers for his segment of the multipart series sponsored by Xerox and broadcast by the CBS network. The earlier link to an article titled 'Black White Nation Weeps For The Great Bill Cosby' offers a detailed account by the Emmy winning writer as to Cosby's significant contribution to the documentary. Along with the other RS fellow editors are invited to peruse these and to suggest an apropos edit for the article of this significant portion of Bill Cosby's career as an educator, and Civil Rights activist (as stated in the RS). Sincerely A 66.235.36.153 (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Contributor
    • Hello here is an expanded suggestion for the Cosby Black History broadcast based on the RS listed below "Also during the 1960's,Cosby's television accomplishments included the broadcast of, 'Black History: Lost, Stolen, or Strayed' sponsored by the Xerox Corporation as part of an anthology series on Black History and Civil Rights, broadcast on CBS. The producers noted Cosby's contributions led directly numerous awards including the Emmy for a history based documentary. The initial broadcast was viewed by 22 million persons and has had continued viewings during numerous Black History Month broadcasts of the program." Looking forward to edit suggestions to add this important part of Cosby's biography as a Living Person Sincerely 66.235.36.153 (talk) 23:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC) A Contributor "
      • • Hello Below is the IMDB listing for the Cosby episode on Black History. Wikipedia is now the only notable site to continue to have it's good faith editors ignore or openly suppress that part of a Living Person's biography because they feel Wiki is about making 'moral judgements', comparing Cosby to 'Hitler' or just remaining silent while other editors do this for them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia it does not censor the past or predict the future. When will this important and obvious part of a Cosby's biography be added to improve the article from the multiple RS stated, in the past it only took some reference in the NATIONAL ENQUIRER for some editors to scurry over to add that content to the article. With deep concern... Sincerely A Contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.36.153 (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Since I have not seen an objection backed by policy to putting this in, I added a paragraph about it. Aside from just being plain old WP:BOLD, it is mentioned in Andy Rooney's article and Stephin Fetchit's article, so it is clearly notable enough to be mentioned. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• • • Hello Richard of Earth Excellent presentation of the material in your edit, a good improvement is the article. Would only point out that 'Black History: Lost, Stolen, or Strayed' needs to added to the 'Filmography' Chart. Sincerely 66.235.36.153 (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)A Contributor

Done. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• • • • • • • Hello Richard Good clean edit and now completed filmography, good job. Sincerely 66.235.36.153 (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC) A Contributor

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bill Cosby. 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/20091008122800/http://www.haverford.edu/commencement/files/honorarydegrees.pdf to http://www.haverford.edu/commencement/files/honorarydegrees.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5244/is_200409/ai_n19571672

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) 12:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Cosby Lawyers Allege Racial Bias

Cosby Lawyers Allege Racial Bias

Hello Fellow Editors The alleging of racial bias seems an important part of the Cosby defense teams strategy and should be mentioned. It has been commented on as an attempt to sway the jury counter negative public opinion advanced by Gloria Allred so seems an important part of defense teams legal position. Would like suggestions on wording for the article Sincerely 66.235.36.153 (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC) A Contributor

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bill Cosby. 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/20080705132705/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-lens/2006/12/bill_cosby_and_me.html to http://blog.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-lens/2006/12/bill_cosby_and_me.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070216143109/http://www.kennedy-center.org/calendar/index.cfm?fuseaction=showIndividual&entitY_id=3713&source_type=A to http://www.kennedy-center.org/calendar/index.cfm?fuseaction=showIndividual&entitY_id=3713&source_type=A
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070216143109/http://www.kennedy-center.org/calendar/index.cfm?fuseaction=showIndividual&entitY_id=3713&source_type=A to http://www.kennedy-center.org/calendar/index.cfm?fuseaction=showIndividual&entitY_id=3713&source_type=A
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160103025717/http://www.startribune.com/ga-college-considers-revoking-bill-cosby-s-honorary-degree/333587851/ to http://www.startribune.com/ga-college-considers-revoking-bill-cosby-s-honorary-degree/333587851/

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) 08:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

Recent edit referring to Bill Cosby as "world renowned and hugely inspirational" in the first sentence of the article violates the neutral point of view policy of this article.LandLaird (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Normally I'd agree, but in this amazing case, it is only a fact. Facts don't violate NPOV. We're writing this for generations of students to come, and my current freshmen (we've stopped saying "first years" for some reason) were born eight years after the Cosby Show left the air. They wouldn't have a clue from the current Wikipedia article why there is all this uproar (which they are aware of) over accusations against someone whom our Wikipedia article currently portrays as just another successful TV star. I remember polls in the 1990s that listed the five most admired people in America, and they always included Cosby, Michael Jordan and Oprah. (Yes, three of the five most admired people were African American, for one blessed moment.) Cosby certainly has been "world renowned and hugely inspirational." Don't be so sure he isn't, still. In America a person is innocent until proven guilty, as the people who prejudged that Duke team found out. However, the point at issue today is simply that unless the article brings out Cosby's long-time reputation for moral stature, no student in years to come will be able to figure out what all the fuss was about. Profhum (talk) 05:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2017

Marquette University is listed last under the Honorary Degrees. The Degree was rescinded in Sept 2015. http://archive.jsonline.com/news/education/marquette-university-strips-bill-cosby-of-honorary-degree-b99583730z1-329253351.html EllisMT (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done General Ization ^Talk 18:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2017

Villechr (talk) 02:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@Villechr: What change are you proposing? —C.Fred (talk) 02:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bill Cosby. 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/20110602102013/http://fattah.house.gov//index.cfm?sectionid=34 to http://fattah.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=34&sectiontree=32%2C34&itemid=510
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120816100615/http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/3677.html to http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/3677.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 09:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2017

Add that Bryant University had revoked an honorary degree for William H. Cosby Jr., initially conferred in May 1994 (then Bryant College), on November 12, 2015, per the decision of the Board of Trustees. 207.189.57.117 (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I'm not necessarily opposed to this addition, but since a biography of a living person is concerned we need a reliable source. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The Prosecution's words are meaningless without a motion

Until the motion for a retrial is filed, it's just empty rhetoric.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The prosecution's words are the prosecution's words, and they are accurately reported as such. That they may at some time in the future be contradicted by other statements or actions is meaningless at this time; we report what reliable sources report. General Ization ^Talk 17:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

First paragraph

The first paragraph goes straight into the timeline at sentence 2. Isn't it more common for it to give a higher level overview. "He is known for his blah blah comedy style, and the shows he led in the 80s and 90s. Another sentence on his work. One sentence on multiple sexual assault allegations that became become highly publicized in 2014."

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2017

In the lead, unlink legal proceedings and link mistrial. Everyone knows what a legal proceeding is, but not necessarily what a mistrial is. 93.139.22.28 (talk) 23:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Partly done: I wikified "mistrial" but did not de-wikify "legal proceedings". —KuyaBriBri^Talk 00:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2018

Move Honorary Doctorate from University of Pennyslvania to revoked. In a letter to the community on Feb 1 2018, the President and Board of Trustees chair announced that they will revoke the doctorate awarded to Cosby at the same time as they are revoking that awarded to former trustee Steve Wynn. For source, please see this article. Sabreitweiser (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 April 2018

Replace the link for Carnegie Mellon University rescinding Boll Cosby's honorary degree from a news article to an official announcement from the university - https://www.cmu.edu/news/stories/archives/2018/april/statement-bill-cosby.html. Sreecharan 93 (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Pittsburgh Tribune-Review is a secondary source, and preferable to a WP:PRIMARY source. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

BLP violations

Cosby was convicted of sexual assault, not rape. Adding him to rapist categories or describing him as a rapist is a BLP violation. Natureium (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• This needs to be relaibly sourced. I don't think it belongs in the lead. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • What part? That he's been convicted of sexual assault? There are 3 references from major news outlets attached to that in the lead. Natureium (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Misspoke. "Convicted rapist" should not replace "stand-up comedian, actor, musician, and author"' in the first sentence.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Agreed. EC protection has definitely cut down on vandalism, but now we even have an admin putting in the lead that he is a rapist... Natureium (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
        • Totally - I liked him too, but he won't be remembered for Fat Albert, Cosby Show or his brilliant stand-up. He'll be remembered for drugging and raping 62 women - no matter what euphemism you wish to use. DEFINITELY should be noted in first paragraph. Tiptopper (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

"Convicted felon," are weasel words too. It should be rewritten. 98.10.165.90 (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, come on now. Really? This is not a platform for personal soap boxing against the BLP. This is recentism at its best. The lede sentence should not include a one-day "label" over a decades long career for other known accomplishments - negative or positive. The lede clearly states the guilty verdict; as well as mentioning it within the article. But it does not warrant a first line label to such a degree within the scope of recent events to change the subject's most known associations. Agree to remove until more transpires within the case and is known for the future of the BLP. Maineartists (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Secondary sources are now cheerfully using the word rapist. Enjoy! Abductive (reasoning) 03:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Abductive I think you need to specifically bring your proof here that shows those "secondary sources cheerfully using the word rapist"; otherwise, I will revert back to convicted felon. Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks, JDDJS. Maineartists (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Many sources are calling him a rapist. You guys are too cowardly and/or too lazy to even contemplate looking for the sources. I guess the big scary BLP-monster will come sue you at any moment. Abductive (reasoning) 02:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Abductive: Cosby was charged and convicted for sexual assault, a crime which encompasses many types of behavior which may not necessarily involve rape. Inversely, he was not charged and convicted of rape. According to the Pennsylvania Penal Code, § 3121. Rape and § 3125. Aggravated indecent assault are two distinct, separate crimes. To call Cosby a convicted rapist is not only false, but an extreme violation of BLP. A cursory search shows that virtually every journalism outlet worth its salt is using the phrase "sexual assault"; considering that Wikipedia isn't a dimestore tabloid but instead an encyclopedia which adheres to a neutral point of view, this article should do the same. FlotillaFlotsam (talk) 07:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

As you can see from my most recent edits, I keep trying to hone in on the exact charges. Abductive (reasoning) 16:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph

This article currently starts with:

William Henry Cosby Jr. (/ˈkɒzbi/; born July 12, 1937) is an American stand-up comedian, actor, musician, author, and convicted felon.

Is including "convicted felon" here appropriate? There are plenty of cases where someone has been convicted of a felony but we choose not to include that information in the first sentence of their biography. I'm thinking of Dinesh D'Souza off-hand; there are undoubtedly other cases. A part of someone's life and biography can be undeniably true without warranting such prominent placement in the subject's biography. (cc: Risker, iridescent) --MZMcBride (talk) 04:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I say leave it out, and discuss the conviction later down. The first sentence should describe the main reason(s) he is notable, which is not because he was recently convicted of sexual assault, but because he's a well-known entertainer. ^Falling_Gravity 06:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

It should certainly be included. He is guilty of serious crimes, which have destroyed his reputation and will forever be associated with him. So yes, it deserves to be mentioned in the opening sentence, rather than being white-washed and relegated to a lower section. Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Uh, no. Per WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; and you are predicting the future with your own personal opinion. Many BLPs have been convicted (done certain things in their lives) and over the course of time have been either forgotten or reduced as such that it is no longer significant enough to place in the first line of the lede. This is WP:RECENT, plain and simple. WP is WP:NOTNP and you are treating it as such in that you are presenting "news" on a daily basis, and not an encyclopedia with facts that properly should be presented with due weight. Maineartists (talk) 10:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Anthony22 You have not proven with reliable sources that your claim: "His career, spanning over five decades, was ended by accusations of, and his eventual conviction for, sexual assault" to be true. Once again, WP is not a crystal ball WP:!. The BLP has not even been sentenced; you have no proof his career - in all its capacities - has been ended. Please provide reliable source that specifically state that his career was ended by accusations of and eventual conviction for sexual assault. We may all know it - and agree with it; but you still have to back it with proof. It's also a poorly constructed sentence that needs editing for the first lede line. I am contesting your entry and may remove if you cannot prove it outside of opinion. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Maineartists: You are criticizing the wrong individual. I was not the person who wrote the edit "His career, spanning over five decades, was ended by accusations of, and his eventual conviction for, sexual assault" to be true." You have to learn to properly identify the person who wrote a given edit before you start throwing arrows. Also, the sentence itself was very poorly written. You might want to contact Heaviside glow. Anthony22 (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies, Anthony22. Thank you for your schooling; but there were so many endless edits on your part (grammatical corrections included), some 30 in total, that I could not discern in the chaos. I am to presume that Michael Drew made the edit? It is unclear from the history. Thanks Maineartists (talk) 23:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• The lede sentence currently states:

His career, spanning over five decades, was ended by accusations of, and his eventual conviction for, aggravated sexual assault.

In an attempt to write a lede sentence that properly reflects not only the on-going news regarding the BLP currently developing without opening invitation to multiple edits due to constant change within the media; but also to write an encyclopedic entry that will last longer than the immediate coverage and BLP's notable claim at present; a consensus on construct and statement should be agreed upon before entry. It is impossible to predict the end to this BLP's career since he just appeared at a jazz club to do stand-up [3] in January 2018; not to mention that he still sells DVDs, books, and other merchandise. The BLP has yet to be convicted and may appeal, serve a much lesser sentence, or not at all (although, this seems unlikely); and his career may certainly resurrect in some fashion. It goes without saying, that due to his age and philanthropy, he may be released sooner than later, and serving time does not necessarily end a career: i.e. [Martha Stewart] - even though, at the time, many thought it was the end of her career. Although there are reliable sources that back the claim that certain television stations are dropping certain Cosby related programs and distancing themselves from the BLP at present; to make such a blanket statement for the rest of the BLP's career and lifetime is impossible to predict and is a personal projection by opinion alone; as it is well known that the BLP was accused for years and still continued one aspect of his public career: stand-up - yet, stand-up is only one part of his career. It needs to be re-written, as it is poorly written in a way that claims something that cannot be definitely proven at this time. In addition, it invites endless editors who have their own opinion to edit or even remove. Maineartists (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The statement in the lead that Cosby is a convicted sex offender foreshadows his contributions as an author, entertainer, etc. There is no BLP issue with that in the lead, it's a well documented fact. Calling him a serial rapist would run afoul of BLP since he was not convicted of rape. He was convicted of sexual assault. Most of these women from my own investigation of the background of the incidents were sycophants wanting an audience with Crosby, so they were most probably not raped from a pure legal standpoint since there may have been intent on their part to consensual sex, which Cosby alleged, but getting drugged and then fondled and penetrated is not consent either, so I would agree that the term "convicted sex offender" does not run afoul of BLP and is an accurate portrayal of the events. That being said, no individual editor WP:OWN's the article so we need to accept the consensus of other editors and be careful not to run afoul of 3RR here. If other editors insert it or view it that way, then leave it in. :-) Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. Had no intention of reaching 3RR - pointless. But consensus by way of editing is only consensus as long as it stays active; that's why I always suggest bringing it to the Talk Page. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Tecnically its neither Rape or Sexual assault. Butnindecent assault, which is a sex crime. I reqorded it in the lead , convicted sex offender, the article explains the sex crime later Wwdamron (talk) 12:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

William Henry Cosby Jr. (/ˈkɒzbi/; born July 12, 1937) was an American stand-up comedian, actor, musician, and author, and is a convicted sex offender. AceFL (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

It’s the truth, it’s highly notable, and it belongs in the first sentence. Jusdafax (talk) 03:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Is this relevant for the article?

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1983/03/14/Crosbys-children-claim-he-abused-them/5007660964411/ 2A02:C7F:8E0C:6600:507A:72B4:BFEF:3FB9 (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Er, why would an article about Bing Crosby and his children be relevant to a Wikipedia article about Bill Cosby? General Ization ^Talk 19:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

And this has already been covered at Bing Crosby#Personal life. General Ization ^Talk 19:06, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I am shocked -- shocked[4] -- to find that this article makes no mention of Elliot John Crosby! --Guy Macon (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Lead citations

@In Memoriam A.H.H.: I appreciate that you can understand that eight citations for the fact that Bill Cosby is a convicted sex offender is overkill. I question the need for the three you put back there though. Typically, lead citations are unnecessary because anything in the lead should be supported by inline citations in the body. Cosby's conviction is very much covered, and even the staunchest Cosby supporter cannot deny that Cosby was convicted (though they could argue whether or not he deserved to be). I don't think any citations are needed at that point because there's nothing there that's being challenged. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with Muboshgu. Jusdafax (talk) 00:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

University System of Maryland

This source [5] says Bill Cosby received honorary degrees from three USM schools: University of Baltimore; University of Maryland, College Park; and the University of Maryland, Eastern Shore (which were rescinded today). The article mentions the degree from UMES but not Baltimore or College Park. Does anyone know any details about the other two degrees (like the degree's subject/title and date awarded)? Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

This source [6] indicates that his honorary degree from UMD is in performing arts and was awarded in the spring of 1992 so I have added it as a citation. The source says it is from the University of Maryland, but does not explicitly say University of Maryland, College Park. However the article for College Park says that it is commonly referred to as the University of Maryland, UMD, or simply Maryland. This source [7] states that he had received honorary degrees from UMD College Park, Baltimore, and East Shore which were later rescinded. It just doesn't specify when he received the degrees or what subject they are in. However, I left the citation needed tag for Baltimore since more sourcing is needed to state the subject and date of his honorary degree. What the source indicates is that the degree from all three universities were rescinded on June 22, 2018.Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Take out Allison Mack's link

In see also, former actress Allison Mack is listed just because both Cosby and Mack were revealed to be sex offenders despite being known for sympathetic roles. It is not enough excuse to link her, since their cases are still different.--Maese Juan 25 (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it is ludicrous to have a "See Also" WP section on a BLP linking "Larry Nassar", "Jerry Sandusky", "Allison Mack", and "Harvey Weinstein". These individuals have nothing to do with the subject and each article is separate within their own level of notability; even if they do share a slight - and I do mean slight - element of reference to abuse. This only opens up a WP listing invite to any editor that thinks a similar abuser should be a "see also" link. I say: remove any and all BLP links and set a consensus that this should not be allowed in the future. This is not for what the section was made. Maineartists (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Criminal Convictions section

Bill Cosby has been charged with Criminal actions, not convicted as of yet. Should the section be more accurately labeled Criminal Charges? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:74E5:9600:2516:D6E6:38A7:7B29 (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Please re-read the last sentences: "In a retrial by a jury, he was found guilty on April 26, 2018, of three counts of aggravated indecent assault. His sentencing date is set for September 24, 2018." Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 23:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Juilliard honorary degree was revoked in April

I noticed the honorary degree from Juilliard is still in the article. I can't find reporting in a proper secondary source to cite, but the following email was sent out to the Juilliard community back in April. The article has an incorrect statement, but fixing it would violate WP:PRIMARY, and I don't really want to resort to WP:IAR to change it.

From: Office of the President
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2018 10:43 AM
Cc: Office of the President <officeofthepresident@juilliard.edu>
Subject: Message to the Juilliard Community

In response to Bill Cosby's felony conviction on April 26, The Juilliard School has rescinded its honorary degree awarded to him in 2002.

The conduct for which Bill Cosby has been convicted is anathema to Juilliard’s core values. This decision to revoke Mr. Cosby's honorary degree underscores Juilliard's commitment to maintaining a healthy and nurturing environment for all members of our community, as well as our work fostering a culture of prevention and awareness surrounding sexual misconduct.

Office of the President

The Juilliard School

If someone can find a proper source or a proper way to cite this (perhaps: cite press release and paste the whole email into the |quote parameter?), I'd appreciate it.-Ich (talk) 08:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I say do not mention the rescinding in the article. Per WP:V and WP:BLP information has to be verifiable from a reliable source. The Juilliard School has not made a press release or any kind of public statement about it. If that email you got is not fake news, then the school decided to keep the information private to the Juilliard community. The fact that he got the degree is public and verifiable, so that stays in the article. Wikipedia does not break news nor WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply - I agree that this is the appropriate policy here.-Ich (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

he's been sentenced

3-10 years, of which he must serve 2 yrs and 8 mo's before a "good behavior" release. http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/09/25/bill-cosby-sentenced-to-3-to-10-years-for-drugging-raping-andrea-constand.html 50.111.7.77 (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I thought that the minimum sentence was 3 years, and the maximum sentence was 10, as reported in the New York Times. How does 3 years minimum get reduced to 2 years and 8 months? 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:C78:D148:25CF:61D9 (talk) 00:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

You can get credit for good behavior with that credit he can be released in 2 years and 8 months. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 00:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Uncited material in need of citations

I am moving the following material here until it can be properly supported with reliable, secondary citations, per WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:IRS, WP:PSTS, et al. This diff shows where it was in the article. Nightscream (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Early life

His father was away from home in Navy service during much of Cosby's early childhood and especially during World War II.

In addition, he worked before and after school; he sold produce, shined shoes, and stocked shelves at a supermarket to help support his family

Instead of repeating, he quit school and got a job as an apprentice at a shoe repair shop. He liked the work but could not see himself doing it for the rest of his life.

Convicted sex offender

Is it necessary to have him described as a "convicted sex offender" in the first sentence? The article has a sub-heading on sexual assault accusations, and this has a separate article on it. Vorbee (talk) 07:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, to see if it was fair, I looked at other lists regarding this type of crime (and crime in general) and the pages associated with those people, in a cursory glance it appears that when this status is acquired by someone, it's noted in the first paragraph. Example (click on a random individual): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_convicted_of_rape

As an anonymous observer I say it should stay the way it is. 75.184.6.213 (talk) 11:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Currently Bill Cosby is best known equally for both his work in show business AND as a convicted sex offender. That fact is very unlikely to change. It should be not only in the first paragraph, but in the first sentence as it is right now. It should stay there. It's fact. It's proven. It's noteworthy. Period. SentientParadox (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• I think it's very presumptive, perhaps even original research to state that "Bill Cosby is best known equally for both his work in show business AND as a convicted sex offender." UNDUE would suggest that the information is acceptable to be in the first paragraph, as you've mentioned, but the first sentence feels like too much. His notability, prior to his conviction, was as an entertainer. In my opinion, we should establish that, -then- get into his conviction. Strikerforce^Talk 17:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I do feel, for dramatic effect and tone, that the first sentence could be longer to lessen the bias for the charge, but it obviously as per my last reply, deserves to be in the first paragraph. When I looked at past articles with people their charges were in the first paragraph, almost unconditionally. If someone could rewrite it to "soften the blow" it may be good enough. I do say that it's fine as is but if someone out there with good writing ability could change it to be longer, it may be an improvement. The conviction still belongs in the first paragraph, bar none. 75.184.6.213 (talk) 07:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The older version of the sentence was much harsher than this one (I noted this above), however I agree that it's still not perfect. I think the best way to do it would be to have two sentences, the first indicating his career history, the second stating his conviction in factual terms: "Bill Cosby is an American stand-up comedian, actor, musician and author. On 26 April 2018 he was found guilty of three counts of aggravated indecent assault, for which he was sentenced to three to ten years in prison."

I think the kind of argument put forward by SentientParadox above isn't greatly convincing. Something being "factual" and "noteworthy" is a different thing from it being written in an encyclopedic style. The two sentences I've proposed here state the same facts, just in a more encyclopedic way. Emotive language, even when it's deserved, isn't encyclopedic, makes articles look unbalanced/unprofessional, and damages the credibility of the site. We have to defend those principles particularly strongly in articles like this one because it's so easy to give in for fear of being seen to be on the side of a monster, but there are plenty of monsters who have their own articles on Wikipedia and most of them have more balanced intros than the one in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.136.45.202 (talk) 05:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

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

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

• BillCosbyMugshot2018.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

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

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

• BillCosbyMugshot2018.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Listing "sex offender" in opening sentence of lead

Is it Wikipedia policy or guideline to include whether a person is a sex offender in the opening sentence of the lead of an article? From what I've seen usually it is reserved for their occupations or the fields they contributed to, especially when that is what they are primarily known for. Having a paragraph in the lead about his sex offenses definitely seems warranted, but listing him as a sex offender in the first sentence as if it's his occupation or his major claim to fame seems excessive.

If anyone can direct me to Wikipedia policy, guideline, or user consensus that suggests this, or other examples of articles that are written in this way, it'd be appreciated. Apologies if this has already been discussed before. Voyaging^talk 03:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

It is not forbidden by policy since a conviction is secured. The only policy I found is WP:BLPCRIME. There is no policy compelling inclusion, that is left to consensus. I believe there were many discussions about the lead, but the only discussion after Cosby's conviction was Talk:Bill Cosby/Archive 4#BLP violations and it was not about whether it should be mentioned, but how. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I imagine it is Wikipedia's policy to include what a public figure is best known for, and Cosby is clearly best known at least to many for the sexual assault charges. However Wikipedia is obviously biased in the application of this policy and there should be a clearer policy to prevent the obvious influence of cultural bias. For example, glance at the Tonya Harding article, Harding is by far best known as a convicted felon, but the leading sentence merely reads "retired American figure skater" rather than "retired American figure skater and convicted felon". Wikipedia editors are clearly trying to cast some figures in favorable and some in unfavorable lights by selective use of criminal convictions in opening sentences. Similarly on the Chris Brown article, the felony assault conviction is only mentioned in the second paragraph: here arguably, the assault charges have faded somewhat from popular memory in Chris Brown's case. However, would the assault charges have faded if "convicted violent felon" were in the lead sentence on Chris Brown's Wikipedia page? YouTube now even posts Wikipedia content on videos uploaded on controversial subjects. It is clear Wikipedia is drastically influencing culture by its own biases, so how public figures are framed and presented is a serious issue that Wikipedia seriously needs a strict and uniform policy to govern.MarcelB612 (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi MarcelB612. I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion that "Wikipedia seriously needs a strict and uniform policy to govern." Wikipedia already has many, many policies and guidelines, including our biographies of living persons policy. We try to apply these guidelines and policies using common sense, sound judgment, and editorial discretion.

It can be useful to look at other articles for reference, but we also must keep in mind that different articles are different. Dr. Cosby is a bit of an unusual case in that he's been accused by 60 women of "rape, drug facilitated sexual assault, sexual battery, or other sexual misconduct" (cf. Bill Cosby sexual assault cases#Table of accusers' allegations). We're a general-purpose encyclopedia that includes biographies of living people. To this end, we try to weigh various parts of an individual's life and appropriately include information about their life here, preferring not to give undue weight to specific parts.

In this discussion, you've pointed to a couple of example articles, but there are other articles such as Ian Watkins (Lostprophets), Patrick Ada, and Vince Champ that similarly reference convictions in the lead sentence. In the cases of Roman Polanski and Ray Teret, their legal issues are mentioned in the lead paragraph, but not in the lead sentence. For Mike Tyson, his rape conviction is not mentioned in the lead paragraph, but is included in the lead section. I don't see a reason that Wikipedia seriously needs uniform treatment here given that each article is separate and can be treated differently as needed. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Listing it in the lead sentence (or sentences) is fine, but the current wording ("and a convicted sexually violent predator") is borderline hysterical. The best solution would be to put the reference to his conviction in the next sentence and state the facts: "On April 26, 2018, he was found guilty of three counts of aggravated indecent assault." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.136.45.202 (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not hysterical—and hysterical is a word traditionally used to put down women—It's factual. 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:C78:D148:25CF:61D9 (talk) 00:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

This isn't about the facts of the case, it's about wording. It wasn't written in an encylopedic tone and it's now (rightly) been changed. Also, in future please try to debate issues of wording without assuming bad faith. The word hysterical has absolutely nothing to do with "female hysteria" in this context and it's incredibly unhelpful to make responses like that which assume bad faith on the part of other users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.136.45.202 (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The context is a discussion about the leading sentence on an article about a convicted rapist who appears to have assaulted 60 women; I think the sensitivity regarding the word "hysteria" is justified. People who think the word is legitimate likely just don't understand it's origin. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hysteria#Etymology 144.172.193.118 (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Fine, it's a "frenzied" lead-in then. Are you satisfied now? 96.32.155.15 (talk) 02:21, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

It's bad faith because the clear implication that's being made in going down that line of argument is that the only reason someone is objecting to the intro is because they also have issues with women (i.e. the choice of vocabulary used reflects some hidden prejudice that should render the point invalid because the individual making the comment is of dubious moral standing). The actual argument (the idea that anyone who uses the word hysteria is being insensitive to women) is so wide of the mark given the broad use of the word in countless legitimate sources that it's barely worth responding to, but the more important point is that making bad faith arguments like this is a clear breach of one of the fundamental principles of the site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.136.45.202 (talk) 03:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• • • • • The Cosby legal team has begun the appeal process of his conviction to overturn the verdict. This should be noted in the opening sentence so as to not create a biased perspective for Wikipedia readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.174.169 (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

••••••••Hi From the Chicago Sun Times..Bill Cosby is behind bars, but that doesn’t mean his sexual assault case is over.

Cosby’s lawyers are vowing to appeal his conviction, and they’ve already outlined some potential issues — from Judge Steven O’Neill’s weighty decision to let five additional accusers testify at Cosby’s retrial to new allegations that prosecutors used a doctored tape as evidence.

Cosby is appealing the conviction on multiple grounds. Wikipedia should not use non-encyclopedia language that creates a biased (and possibly racist) perspective for readers by not acknowledging The appeal process in the opening statement. With all due respect 24.113.174.169 (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Legal Appeal In First Sentence For BLP Balance

Bill Cosby is now in the legal appeals process of the jury conviction. This is being covered by the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, NBC, CNN and all other major RS media. The ‘convicted sex offender’ statement in the first sentence needs to be balanced by noting the legal appeals process. 24.113.150.218 (talk) 17:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:ONUS consensus is still needed to put this in the lead sentence. To be clear, I do not oppose or support putting it in the lead. I'm just pointing out the policy. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Richard athe perspective here is there is a rough consensus that the presence is ‘convicted sex offender’ in a BLP is not balanced and needs modification in first sentence or at least mentioning it is being appealed in the courts in the opening paragraphs.24.113.150.218 (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Please point to the discussion where "there is rough consensus". Thank you, - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 20:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello The’rough consensus’ is in the overall arc of the collective conversations on this page and those archived on the same subject. It requires a review of both sources 24.113.150.218 (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Remove ‘Former ‘ from opening statement

Hello

Cosby has not declared his retirement and has made public statements of his intentions to continue his writing career during his appeal process of his experiences of incarceration. The use of ‘former’ is misleading. 24.113.150.218 (talk) 04:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Even if he officially retired, we would say "retired" not former. For all we know he is still doing stand up in prison. As for his writing career, you never become a "former author". Once you publish your an author. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2019

In the last para of section "Sexual assault conviction" the words "a Toronrot woman" should read "a Toronto woman". 198.72.25.26 (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done Fixed. aboideau^talk 15:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Supreme Court Ruling

Should the recent SCOTUS ruling in favor of Cosby (Unanimous decision) be included in this article? Seems BLP rules might require that now... EditorASC (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

"After a year-long trial"

This is inaccurate. The trial began April 9, 2018. The jury returned its verdict April 26, 2018. Clearly not a year-long. Here are the citations: <The Trial of Bill Cosby: Prosecutors reveal Cosby paid his accuser nearly $3.4M https://whyy.org/segments/topless-protester-charges-at-bill-cosby-as-retrial-begins/> <Bill Cosby Is Found Guilty of Sexual Assault https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/26/arts/television/bill-cosby-guilty-retrial.html> 2603:301D:1B04:C100:F873:65CF:E3C1:EBF (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Bill Cosby for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Bill Cosby is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Bill Cosby until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Jeffrey Epstein's "Little black book"

I do not see the significance of this. It seems a bit trivial to me or an attempt to imply something not actually said in the section. I am incline to delete it, but I would like to hear comments first. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I say just delete it. It's not notable that Epstein would have his neighbor listed in his address book. I think this section is just original research trying to imply something that hasn't been demonstrated. Unless some reliable source demonstrates that Epstein facilitated some illicit actions on the part of Cosby, I don't think that this section belongs here. And even if Epstein did facilitate something illicit, it would be that information that is worthy of being cited in the article, not the simple fact that Cosby's name was in Epstein's address book. I presume that a lot of people were in Epstein's address book, and that not all of them were in the book for criminal reasons. Ketone16 (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I will remove it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

An editor had been adding Epstein's "little black book" entries to a lot of pages, and I removed a lot of them. May have missed that one. Perfectly fine to remove that content. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2019

2011: Received Honorary Chief Petty Officer from US Navy. Revoked December 4, 2014.[120]

The Webpage associated with the reference can no longer be obtained. However, the link for the U.S. Navy reporting the revoked honorary can be found at https://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=84720.

Thank you Melodypoet (talk) 03:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, I've added the new source and tagged the old one as a dead link. Marianna251TALK 19:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)