Talk:Bill Cosby/Archive 2

Sexual assault allegations - Lawyer Statement
I suggest to remove lawyer statements from the section :
 * lawyer are being hired and express (protect) their clients interest - hence they are not impartial
 * I don't see how they contribute in the context of allegations基 (talk) 06:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The neutral point of view requires us to report all significant views on a controversy. Surely, the views of a person accused of misconduct are worthy of inclusion in their own biography. If Cosby chooses to speak through an attorney at this time, so be it. Inclusion is justified. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've restored the statements. --Neil N  talk to me 07:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "significant views on a controversy" - how is this particular layers statement significant? 基 (talk) 11:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Because this particular lawyer is Cosby's lawyer. --Neil N  talk to me 15:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I gave this some thought - I think you are right - but I still would like to suggest 2 things for a change :
 * *replace the citation and replace it with a summary so the layers statement does not represent 1/3 of the entire paragraph  (Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight)
 * * leave out (as much as possible without bending the statement) the part of the layer statement that are subjective and pejorative referring to 'these new women' as "fantastical stories", "past the point of absurdity", "increasingly ridiculous", "completely illogical" ect. (see WP:Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_victimization and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Persons_accused_of_crime)基 (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Why should his PR man be given any more than a brief mention? When's the last time an accused rapist said, "hey I'm sorry, I've turned a new leaf and now empathize with other humans and I should be punished." Of course an accused person's lawyer is going to spit out some empty rhetoric. His "lawyer's" opinions on the matter don't speak to the matter itself. Including statements that marginalize or re-victimize the alleged victims doesn't make sense. It's not a refutation or denial, it's an attack. Obotlig ☣ interrogate 18:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a significant view, your mischaracterization of the person's position notwithstanding. If Cosby chose to speak through a PR person, we would include that. Whether it was a denial or attack makes little difference. --Neil N  talk to me 18:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what makes you the arbiter of the royal "we" but some vague insults from an attorney don't even merit quoting. The article should read "Around so-and-so date Cosby's attorney issued a statement ridiculing the alleged victims." Obotlig ☣  interrogate 19:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Neil & Obtolig - can you have a look at following suggestion and let me know if you could live with it :

Replacing
 * A follow-up statement by Singer dismissed the allegations, labeling them "unsubstantiated, fantastical stories [... that] have escalated far past the point of absurdity.... increasingly ridiculous... completely illogical... it makes no sense that not one of these new women who just came forward for the first time now ever asserted a legal claim back at the time they allege they had been sexually assaulted... Over and over again, we have refuted these new unsubstantiated stories with documentary evidence...It is long past time for this media vilification of Mr. Cosby to stop

By:
 * A follow-up statement by Singer dismissed the allegations as unsubstantial, lacking of evidence and an attempt to vilify Cosby.基 (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks ok to me. --Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks good. Thanks.  Obotlig ☣  interrogate 21:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for working with me on this ! 基 (talk) 06:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

"None of the allegations have been tested in court"
This statement is a little weird. It seems to imply that Cosby has not had the opportunity to confront the allegations. In the legal sphere, we don't use this when cases have settled either with cash or a plea bargain. One could very easily write, "Cosby has not won any lawsuits for slander or libel against any of his accusers." Things that haven't happened are both meaningless and endless. The section should be changed. 69.116.158.191 (talk) 04:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Tone tag, where is the discussion for this?
Help me out I am searching for the discussion around the tone tag which hangs on the article to figure out the issue. --Inayity (talk) 08:59, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Number of accusers
The article said 28 accusers, citing this source which says 26. That source is dated 3 December, and the Beverly Johnson allegation came out on 11 December. Per WP:CALC we can write 27, but I don't know where the 28th accusation is. Did someone use WP:CALC to get 28?

In any case I've replaced the source with one that directly says 27. Manul ~ talk 14:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit and substantive information addition request on 15 January 2015
Please change "In January 2015, Chloe Goins alleged that in 2009, when she was 18, Bill Cosby drugged and sexually assaulted her at the Playboy Mansion." to "In January 2015, Chloe Goins alleged that in 2008, when she was 18, Bill Cosby drugged and sexually assaulted her at the Playboy Mansion."

Also, please add substantive information:

On January 14th, 2015, Chloe Goins, accompanied by her lawyer Spencer Kuvin, met with LAPD high-profile case investigators to formally request charges to be filed against Cosby relating to the 2008 encounter(70). Goins is the first victim to publicly reveal that her sexual assault encounter with Cosby happened recently enough to potentially be within California's legal statute of limitations for criminal prosecution, though it's unclear what charges, if any, the LAPD may file(71).

(70) The New York Times. "Model who says Cosby drugged her meets with detectives" http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/01/14/us/ap-us-bill-cosby.html?_r=0 (71) USA Today. "New Cosby accuser wants L.A. cops to investigate claims" http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2015/01/14/latest-cosby-accuser-wants-la-cops-to-investigate-her-claims/21761945/

Tommycopeland (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes and no. Yes, I changed 2009 to 2008, per the sources. No, we aren't going to emphasize the Goins case further until it's decided in court or settled out of court. There's going to be a lot of accusations flying around until then, and we don't pay any attention to any except the main one, which does not need more emphasis just because it's current. Binksternet (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead section
Shouldn't the lead section of this article include some mention of the many rape allegations against him? The fact that some have made this claim is not by itself remotely new, meanwhile the last six weeks or so have made it very clear that his career and reputation have been altered (even destroyed) permanently. The article's introduction is incomplete without it. WWB (talk) 04:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC) Cosby
 * The Lead section should summarize the "what is ther person known for" - so your question burns down to : "is Bill Cosny going to be know as being accused for assaulting women" I somehow feel it is to early to say so.基 (talk) 05:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with this logic. Wikipedia is dynamic, it reflects today. This is how he is best known today, and there is no reason to think this would be a transient matter. If it turns out to be, the article can be fixed any time between now and eternity. If Cosby is still around I'm sure he can have his attorney raise objections. Obotlig ☣  interrogate 09:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * In five years' time, when people hear the name "Bill Cosby", what will come to mind first? That he hosted Kids Say the Darnedest Things from 1998 to 2000, or that he was credibly accused of rape by dozens of women beginning in the early 2000s? WWB (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not decided ... I think one could argue both ways (adding not adding the controversy in the Lead section) while still being in line with WP:Lead section. I don't think the Lead section "is dynamic, it reflects today" though. -基 (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Just my two cents, but I came here expecting at least a small mention in the lead. No matter what happens from now on these allegations are going to be a major part of the Bill Cosby story. AIR corn (talk) 06:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree, no WP:RUSH to predict how major something is. allegations are overblown by media and Wikipedia is NOT a Tabloid column or a newspaper. WP:NOT--Inayity (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, so I'm not sure where "the lead reflects today" comes from. In fact, it's just the opposite: The lead sums up the that for which the subject is most significant. In a more than 50-year career, these allegations &mdash; and, damning as they may appear, they are only allegations &mdash; are a small percentage of his life and career. I think a conviction would be another matter, but anyone can claim anything, and to put unproven allegations in the lead is a slippery slope. --Tenebrae (talk)


 * No, the lead sums up the article. So if it is mentioned in the article it is fair game to mention in the lead. WP:BLP concerns have to be met naturally, but in this case it is more down to wording and level of coverage. Given the level of treatment in the article I imagine a single sentence at the end of the lead would suffice. AIR corn (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Lead does not have to sum up every single last piece of information in the article. It has to do with WP:WEIGHT also. Cosby has a very long career and I do not think wikipedia should become pressured into adding things just cuz tabloid wants to give focus to something like this. If he went to jail for it or had a court case Like MJ then.--Inayity (talk) 08:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The lead should clearly allude to the sexual impropriety charges against Cosby. This is not a minor point in his biography. Sexual assault is considered a serious charge and the lengths of time involved are considerable. Bus stop (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Allegations without charges aren't lead paragraph material. If something comes of this, for instance if there are criminal charges filed or a civil suit follows, then something should be mentioned in the lead paragraph. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 00:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Notable material pertaing to the subject of a biography can be found in the lead. Bus stop (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Notable content that is real, not allegations that have not yet been proven or substantiated in a court of law. There's no deadline in Wikipedia.  We are not a newspaper or tabloid, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  Just because it's on the internet and in the news doesn't mean that it should be included in articles.  If it's in the article, it doesn't have to be in the lead. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  01:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We have a section in this article called Sexual assault allegations and fallout. It occupies a large section of the body of our article and consequently that general topic qualifies for mention in the lead. Language found in the lead should parallel language found in the body. These are clearly allegations. We use that language to distinguish this material from the results of legal processes. Bus stop (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The allegations are still just allegations. If something more comes of it (which is very possible), then I can see something being put in the lead about it.  At this time, my personal feeling is that it should stay out.  I know others will disagree.  I'm just stating my position.  Is there policy on something along these lines?  If so, that would at least be some kind of compass for further discussion and possible consensus building.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  04:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it is a case of quality vs quantity, occupying a large section can be for numerous reasons, it is not proof of WP:NOTABLE. Controversy and sex scandals by their very nature are usually extended. --Inayity (talk) 10:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sexual assault allegations are an important aspect of the subject of this biography. Consequently this should be mentioned in the lead section of our article. It is an important aspect of the subject of this biography, and we go into considerable depth about this in the body of our article. Consequently there is little reason that I am aware of for omitting mention of this aspect of the subject of our biography in the lead section of our article. Bus stop (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes - but let's hold off until after the convictions. Rklawton (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Fair treatment of the subject of the biography always applies. This should be mentioned in the lead with care taken to point out that these are only allegations and that no convictions exist, nor have any charges even been filed in a court of law. This is the way we should be applying WP:BLP. We should be aiming to write an article that is useful to the reader and which follows the standards that we try to apply to similar articles. This is a facet of the individual that good quality sources are supporting as noteworthy. We should simply and robotically be following suit in mentioning in the lead that sexual impropriety charges have been badgering the individual. Omission of mention of this issue is a curiosity whereas inclusion of carefully worded mention would be expected by the average reader. Bus stop (talk) 12:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see how leaving anything out of the lead regarding the sexual abuse allegations has made the article un-useful to readers. Further, how is having the content in the body of the article but not in the lead not meeting expectations of readers? I could buy what you are saying if there was nothing in the article about it, but I have a hard time believing a reader will go away from the article feeling confused or slighted if there's nothing in the lead about the allegations. The article as a whole is meant to get the reader to the place where they understand the article subject. This article does that minus the allegations in the lead. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 14:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:LEAD. This article should not be an exception to the suggestions articulated in WP:LEAD. Bus stop (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Bill Cosby's lawyer claims he has proof Chloe Goins is lying
Cosby's lawyer claims that he has proof that Cosby was not only NOT at the playboy mansion, but not even in California the night she claims Goins claims she was raped. In fact he was in New York City at the time. In addition the hotel she claims she was in was not opened until 2010. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article. It's the first time any evidence has actually been presented by anyone in this scandal. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/cosby-lawyer-proof-bill-didn-sexually-assault-goins-article-1.2082447 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/28/w-hollywood-hotel-opens-t_n_440536.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2870704/I-18-Bill-Cosby-drugged-woke-naked-licking-toes-Comedian-faces-new-claim-committed-sex-attack-Playboy-Mansion-just-SIX-years-ago-woman-contacted-police.html Turtire (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Cosby's lawyer said they have proof, but have they actually provided this documentation to LAPD or Goins lawyers? Last I heard Goins lawyers publically asked to see this documentation, telling people magazine: "If he has evidence then we would like to see it, and the LAPD would like to see it too," Spencer Kuvin tells PEOPLE. "Otherwise, it is just a lawyer's words. Additionally, I appreciate Mr. Singer admitting that Mr. Cosby has kept records going back to 2008. We would like to see where he was for the entire summer of 2008 and if he was ever at the mansion." . Regarding including any of this in the article, I have no objection as long as it's balanced with respect to statements from both lawyers, or alternately we could just wait to see what happens before mentioning it.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I say to keep it out until we see if the evidence has an actual effect on the allegations. Otherwise all kinds of minutiae could be added, overwhelming the article. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay fine but shouldn't we mention that she did lie about where she was staying? The hotel she claims to have stayed in did not open until 2010. Also there are pictures and videos of this playboy mansion party, and none show bill cosby being there. Googling midsummer night's dream party 2008 doesn't bring him up at all. Turtire (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * When you say Goins lied about the hotel, is that based on WP:Original Research, or has some reliable source commentator said Goins lied here? I ask because in the huffpost link above regarding the hotel, I see no mention of Goins.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Chloe Goins claims she was staying in the W Hollywood Hotel on the day August 9 2008. It is not possible because the hotel opened up 2 years later. Hence she has told a lie. This doesn't mean she's lying about being raped but the statement is false. Turtire (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not what Bobo asked. Please only state conclusions that you've found in reliable sources. Nothing more. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) That's original research....we would need a reliable source commentator pointing out that there is this contradiction in Goins' account and 2) I'm not sure there even is a contradiction here anyway because according to the Goins reported staying at "W Hotel in Hollywood"  and according to the 2010 huffpost piece you found a hotel called "W Hollywood Hotel" opened in 2010.  Even if we could include original research (which we can't) I'm not convinced "W Hotel" and "W Hollywood Hotel" are the same place. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Putting this in for the reasons stated by NeilN. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 01:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess we won't include it. BoboMeowCat the hotel she mention has a website here http://www.whollywoodhotel.com/ there aren't mutliple hotels with the name Turtire (talk) 01:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Bill Cosby in advertising/archive1
FYI, a Cosby related article is nominated for feature status. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

One rape accuser has tried to conceal information
When Andrea Constand sued Bill Cosby, she fought to keep conversations between her and some lawyers she sought legal advice from out of his lawyers hands. Is that worth mentioning? Especially since it's being mentioned that Cosby has tried to conceal information. Turtire (talk) 02:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC) http://www.lawfuel.com/constand-v-cosby-shows-skillful-application-of-attorney-client-privilege-and-provides-important-lessons-for-everyday-cases here is the link Turtire (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That does not look like a reliable source. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 02:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How is lawfuel not a reliable source? It's basically a news site for lawyers and it's been around for 14 years. http://www.lawfuel.com/about-lawfuel If tabloids are reliable why not this source? Turtire (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Tabloids are not reliable sources. Where did you get that idea? And the author "Law Admin" is basically anonymous. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 02:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It does appear difficult to find the biography of the writer or his name. However this is discussed in the court documents

https://archive.org/details/gov.uscourts.paed.184613 I'm searching through them and I've found one of interest. Notice how many inquiries got denied https://ia902607.us.archive.org/29/items/gov.uscourts.paed.184613/gov.uscourts.paed.184613.93.0.pdf a request for cell phone records by Cosby https://ia902607.us.archive.org/29/items/gov.uscourts.paed.184613/gov.uscourts.paed.184613.79.12.pdf request by Cosby for Constand's cousin to testify. https://ia902607.us.archive.org/29/items/gov.uscourts.paed.184613/gov.uscourts.paed.184613.79.6.pdf Andrea Constand's cousin and Toronto police officer was also asked to testify https://ia802607.us.archive.org/29/items/gov.uscourts.paed.184613/gov.uscourts.paed.184613.79.7.pdf --Turtire (talk) 03:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Court documents cannot be used per WP:BLPPRIMARY. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * , I appreciate that you are trying to help, and I appreciate that Wikipedia's policies aren't exactly riveting, but please take some time to read the No original research policy. Even if these sources were permitted (which they aren't, as Neil mentioned), we wouldn't be able to pull them together to form a conclusion, called synthesis. Manul ~ talk 03:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Additionally, Wikipedia policies extend not only to article pages but to talk page. That one editor's research appears to be violating WP:SYNTHESIS here, and appears to be making accusations against a private, non-notable individual in violation of WP:BLPCRIME, which states:" For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime [such as obstruction of justice] unless a conviction is secured." --Tenebrae (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Did we miss this one?
There was an accuser who came forward 3 days before christmas last year. Should she be included? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbWtNE8sDXA Turtire (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Weight?
Is there a WP:WEIGHT problem with the sexual assault allegations section? Should that detailed analysis be moved to a stand-alone article - Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations or similar - and replaced with a one or two paragraph summary, per Summary style? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think a stand alone article makes sense at this point. There is so much coverage of the allegations in RS that it threatens to overwhelm the article.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if there is a WP:WEIGHT issue, but there's certainly enough coverage to warrant a stand-alone article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I also agree that there is a weight issue and that a standalone article is appropriate. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 02:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * B/c of its controversial nature, any sexual allegation of anyone will "overwhelm" it is a sex driven society and people like that stuff so papers write that stuff. I am not sure it deserves a stand-alone-article, but picking what is really notable and not reporting (newspaper style) on every piece of gossip the newspapers print to increase their sales. Even what is currently written is pretty poor. extended quoting of statements and and replies to statements. Had he opened 10 schools in Africa I am sure there would be less paper printed behind it, despite its notability. --Inayity (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Besides weight issues, it seems a stand alone article would be better able to address other notable and unusual aspects of the scandal, including Hannibal Buress' stand up routine that went viral and the Cosby "meme me" PR stunt that backfired http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bill-cosby-rape-allegations-timeline-hannibal-buress-joan-tarshis/ --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Ambiguity
The wording in the controversy section makes it ambiguous what the allegation are. From the article; 'alleged that Cosby drugged, sexually assaulted and/or raped'. Did he drug them OR rape them OR assault them. Did he drug AND rape OR drug AND abuse. This needs to be reworded in some way. Hollth (talk) 05:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

How much money did Cosby have in the 60s and 70s?
The recent scandal regarding alleged rapes would really be better clarified if the article went into more detail about where he was in the 60s and 70s when his career was starting out. The first rape allegation dates back to 1965, the year the first season of I Spy aired. I read this article and it seems to imply his career didn't really take off until the 80s. Are there any sources regarding his exact net worth during that time? Turtire (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * His album 200 M.P.H. was recorded in 1968 and discusses his purchase of a Shelby Cobra Super Snake CSX 3303 which is a rather exotic and expensive car to play with. He obviously was doing well financially by that point. Trackinfo (talk) 11:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Ladd allegations
The source (ABC News) is strong, the person (Ladd) is prominent, the story appears consistent with earlier reports, and I believe this particular story demonstrates that the allegations are ongoing. The editor who reverted me indicated that this has been discussed here before, but I do not see it on this talk page. If consensus exists to exclude the Ladd report, then I will step aside. Please link to that consensus. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  08:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * On a related matter, I think the way it works is when content is removed by TWO editors, and you get reverted, you go to the talk page to discuss. What you are not suppose to do is OPEN up a discussion (to discuss with more than yourself), and then REVERT. What do you think?--Inayity (talk) 11:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The allegations section is now about thirty lines long, and already names more than a dozen women. This is clearly a matter of weight in a BLP, and I suggested a long time ago that ten names would certainly be more than ample.

Adding a fifteenth name would indicate that we could pile Ossa on Pelion in any BLP - but the policy is clearly aimed at not allowing such. Thus the determination of proper weight for each added allegation clearly applies at this point, and likely before this point.

Also Wikipedia is not a place for tabloid journalism - which massive lists clearly represent, nor is Wikipedia a newspaper adding every new such allegation. Note that all of this so far is, indeed, a series of allegations, and by providing massive lists of people we are clearly implying that the allegations are the "truth." WP:BLP tells us not to do this. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * We are not "clearly implying" anything of the sort. We are reporting what a WP:RS is reporting: "Cindra Ladd, a philanthropist and former entertainment executive who is married to former Fox and MGM/UA chief Alan Ladd Jr., wrote in an op-ed piece published in the Huffington Post on Monday morning that the comedian drugged her and had sex with her when she was 21." Our sentence in our article reads: "On January 27, 2015, Cindra Ladd, wife of former MGM/UA CEO Alan Ladd, Jr. alleged that Cosby drugged and sexually assaulted her in 1969." I don't consider our paraphrasing of a reasonably good quality source to be "tabloid journalism". We have kept it brief. It is a serious allegation, the omission of which, in my opinion, would be a disservice to the reader. Bus stop (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So if we have 200 people saying something, they each should be named and cited - even if the allegations perchance turn out to be unproven?  And the denial gets one lone sentence, with 200 sentences making the allegation?  If you were the person involved, would you find that to be "neutral" at all?   Collect (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Would I find that to be neutral? I would find that a reasonable reflection of "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". Bus stop (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

And so we have another name added and the hint of an edit war beginning over keeping the name in/taking it out. Not trying to embody WP:CRYSTAL, but personally, I think there will continue to be more names that could be added to the growing list. As has been expressed above, do we really need to add the name of every person? Prominent names and exceptional allegation-bearers, probably yes, but not every name. WP:UNDUE has already been brought up previously, and the more names we add, the more undue weight becomes an issue. As I just stated, I think there will be more names. Why don't we get back to the discussion of a few days ago regarding a separate article rather than continuing to see section bloat/undue occur? I think the addition and subsequent discussion over adding more names gives a bit more credence to the argument for a separate article. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 16:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The controversy section is a mess. It's poorly written and one innuendo after the next. i think it should be more of a summary of the UNPROVEN ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT with more reasoned published opinions from reputable news sources. Instead this is a goal for anyone who wants to get a few news stories delivered click-bait and teased in promotions. The top section also fails to point out that Cosby is a hero, especially in the context of the discrimination that blacks face to this day and part of the abuse allegations story is that conflict of a fallen hero. I was referring to something like --> http://www.kennedy-center.org/explorer/artists/?entity_id=3713 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeivs vid (talk • contribs) 23:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Constant vs Cosby Court documents
Should this be added as a reference to the Constand vs Cosby lawsuit as a reference? It is the actual suit as far as I can tell

http://www.scribd.com/doc/248295751/Bill-Cosby-Civil-Case-Files

Jplaschke (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)Plaschke
 * No, it is a primary source uploaded by an anonymous source. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2015
Reference # 30 was retrieved before it was written: "Bill Cosby settles lawsuit in drug, sexual assault case". Los Angeles Times. Associated Press. November 9, 2006. Retrieved January 20, 2006. I assume the retrieval date is supposed to be 2007 or even 2015?

50.152.200.38 (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 *  Kharkiv07 Talk  21:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)  Kharkiv07  Talk  21:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

BLP - Persons of accused of crime
This is a BLP - strict adherence to policy, please....

WP:BLPCRIME: Persons accused of crime (See also: Wikipedia:Notability (events) § Criminal acts and Wikipedia:Notability (people) § Crime victims and perpetrators)

A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgements that do not override each other, refrain from using pithy descriptors or absolutes and instead use more explanatory information.

WP:UNDUE is running rampant. A few notable accusers is all that is needed. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme &#9775;  Consult  16:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 100% agree, and that section should be hedged with a big saw.--Inayity (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You do realize that the second and third sentences you quoted from WP:BLPCRIME don't apply to this situation as Cosby is not a relatively unknown person. I don't know if someone's already pruned the article, but given it's current form. the amount of space devoted this subtopic appears to be appropriate.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , yeppers I am aware, thank you. Just a sideline observation - when I don't include the whole policy I get scolded for purposeful exclusion.  When I do include the whole policy, I get scolded for "walls of text".  I tried to offer a happy middle, and was politely nudged, for which I thank you.  That's why I bolded the relevant part, but will strike-thru the irrelevant part to avoid confusion.  In the interim, please let's remember that WP is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid or podcast or the likes of CNN's breaking news.  There are several other PAG that discourage tabloidism and/or the kind of sensationalism that is widely used by commercial internet sources to attract readers and advertising dollars.  The intent of WP is to be encyclopedic not "newsy".  'encyclopedic - a type of reference work or compendium holding a comprehensive summary of information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge.  I don't think the Arts & Entertainment section of an online website is quite the same branch of knowledge.  And a day or so later, I'm adding my sig... <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  20:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And this arts and entertainment gossip colum type thing is what i been objecting to since it was added. Someone mention coverage in the media to give it weight. Am... as stated before if he opened 20 schools in Africa every month it would be important but poorly covered in the news. News, for the most part, is what sells. A story of sex and drugs is going to (by nature of its contents) going to be hot stuff. Wikipedia needs to be much more than that, and filter out the spectacle. --Inayity (talk) 09:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the lateness of my response, but I've been taking care of an ill family member. In any case, this is not the typical thing that is only covered in the arts and entertainment gossip columns.   This is front page news and not relegated to mere gossip columns.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not everything on the front pages needs to be reported to consume 20% of an article. Unlike these newspapers that cover sell by covering scandal, sex, lies and everything inbetween we do not have to fall into that hole and worry about advertising revenue generated from sale.--Inayity (talk) 12:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Consuming? You do realize that 20% is actually a minority, right? Let's not get carried away with hyperbole.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No actually, and You are assisting me to make another point. Let me explain it another way. This old man is 77 years old and has in all of those years done all these great things. All those great things by themselves might be 2% dedicated to one theme, 10% dedicated to acting, 10% dedicated to his albums (and he made a few), then you got 20% which you are telling me is a minority dedicated to accusations? That is not a minority in stat terms. If you have a country like Congo with 20% Muslim and everyone else is 3%, 10%, 9%, then 20% is not a minority (just an example). --Inayity (talk) 13:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Um...no, 20% is still a minority of 100%. This is basic math.  How can the 20% overwhelm the majority?  I understand your point, but you should cut it with the hyperbole.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

This is somewhat tangential, but... in reading the rest of the article, I'm displeased that the current revision contains 21 "citation needed" tags. (There are no "citation needed" tags in the sexual allegations and fallout section, for what it's worth.) I think we should be more aggressive in removing unsourced information from the whole article. There's a separate discussion below about the article lead and about the "undue weight" tag used in this section. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

New Sources Added
Folks, I added some citations including citations to the following articles: http://www.gq.com/entertainment/humor/201306/bill-cosby-himself-30th-anniversary-june-2013 Ref Name = GQ Bill Cosby Himself Tribute http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/05/-this-is-how-we-lost-to-the-white-man/306774/ Ref Name = The Atlantic on Cosby Conservatism http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/15/eternal-paternal  Ref Name = New Yorker Profile

See also: http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2014/09/19/349922912/bill-cosbys-huge-complicated-post-cosby-show-legacy (not yet cited in article) http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/bill-cosbys-untold-story-agony-726162 (not yet cited in article)

These articles have a lot of good information on things OTHER THAN the sex assault accusations which can be used to expand the other sections in this bio. I think it is true that the rest of the article could use more work so that the entirety of this article represents Cosby's very long and complex life/career in all its dimensions. Please use the reference names if you cite the first three sources above. Cheers! David.thompson.esq (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC
Is Bill_Cosby currently of undue weight? 14:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

discussion
This section, exclusively containing allegations, comprises abut 20% of the text of the entire biography. My person opinion is that allegations make for bad biographies in general, and where unproven allegations make up 20% of the entire biography, then the weight of such a section should be closely examined. The section has over thirty references - including sources like Wordpress blogs, Entertainment Tonight, a Huffington Post entertainment column, a Vanity Fair first person article, and so on. I would suggest that naming fifteen alleged victims (and stating that there are at least 34 total) runs afoul of only presenting due weight to allegations. I would suggest two paragraphs about the issue would be well sufficient, but that 725 words is substantially undue. AFAICT, no arrests or charges have been filed. And sans charges, the Wikipedia section appears to try Cosby by numbers, rather than recognizing that biographies based on fact are far superior to biographies based on rumour. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If it gets too long, it can be put in a separate article, as has been with others in the past. This has gotten ample continual coverage to justify it.  Some reliable sources provide ample details to expand it farther.    D r e a m Focus  16:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It should not get too long after we hedge it per balance. And I support all attempts to seriously reduce it. When you live for 70 somethings years and are in the public if we listed every accusation then Stop calling this an Encyclopedia and call it Sex, lies, drugs and more gossip. All of a sudden all these people coming out. Must be mating season. --Inayity (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * If anything the section is "underweight" given the amount of coverage of these allegations, but it's also wrong to overwhelm a bio with one aspect of the subject's media coverage. It seems time to act on this 3 to 1 earlier consensus to form a break away article for only the sexual assault allegations  --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I've given more thought to this since my previous comments regarding a new article. Right now, I say not yet.  There could be issues with libel, and we don't want to go there.  If anything comes of the allegations (charges filed + trial or settlements) then yes.  But for now, keep watch on the section, trim for bloat and undue weight.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  17:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Allegations of "undue weight" in themselves constitute a stealth-POV attempt to downplay. This is inappropriate. Unwarranted tag removed. Facts stated are well-referenced and entirely proper in context and volume. No hairs need be split here.Rep07 (talk) 07:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for anyone else, but no downplaying is being attempted by me, . I'm just as disgusted by the allegations as anyone else.  But they are still just allegations and nothing has been taken to the next level (if there ever will be one).  Your bad-faith assumption that anyone saying "undue weight" (which is policy) is guilty of POV is, by its very definition, POV.  Making this article or (the proposed) allegations article into a POV mission to skewer Cosby (which is what I sense some would like to do) is exactly what we need to keep from happening.  We are dealing with a BLP here, and the strict guidelines for BLPs exist for a reason.  Further, this is an encyclopedia, not a social justice website. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  15:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, the section consists of bluntly stated, well-referenced facts of obvious note and relevance. The section is less than 10% of the article.  If you are concerned about weight and balance, feel free to add neutrally stated, well-referenced, published facts providing any alternate "balancing" perspective. The bold header tag statement of "undue weight", in itself, constitutes an unsupported, pre-emptive, and inappropriate deprecation of the material following--suggesting, implicitly, "mountain out of a molehill". (Who says so?) Therefore, it must be removed. And I agree with Bobomeowcat's comment above; if anything, it's currently a bit underweight considering the enormity of the scandal. Fine if the section became a separate article, but in the meantime, there's absolutely nothing to deprecate here--so far, it's good work.Rep07 (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The tag is an indication of a difference of opinion, and should remain until the discussion about weight is resolved. See WP:Tagging.  Collect (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:Tagging is not a policy, nor even a guideline--just an "essay", per the header there: "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines." Also, the essay itself ("Detag" section) opines that anyone who doesn't see the problem can remove a tag.Rep07 (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The section for troubles is just over 800 words. The article is 4500 words, including the lead, 4200 not including the lead.  800 is more than 10% of 4200 last I looked. Collect (talk) 03:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, taking a raw-data approach, copying the entire raw text of the article (from Edit window) into Word gives 8700 by Word's count, while raw text of the section comes to 1277 (inc. inline refs), just under 15%. By comparison, O.J. Simpson "Legal History" section comes to nearly 35% of that article using the same technique.  No "undue weight" tag seen there... we surely don't need one here.Rep07 (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why you keep beating this dead horse when we are following policy and the tag stays until the issue is resolved. If you want to raise that issue on OJ it is cool, because citing another user written page as evidence for the one we are discussing is not good. It has already been decided and you edit warring and removing it will have no affect, in short put your focus on the discussion NOT the Tag.--Inayity (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * New article - summoned here by bot. The sum total of the allegations is substantial enough that this needs to be in a separate article. It needs to be branch off from his biography and simply be documented separately. I would expect the page to be semi-protected as a caution and given good scrutiny to make sure it is fair and simply a record of what has happened so far and been published by reliable outlets. It can be done well and in line with other controversial cases eg Scientology allegations and related lawsuits, and to make it balanced with simple documentation as well as anyone can do (not sure what lawsuits are active against him or if he's countersuing); with NO editorials or commentary from journalists or celebs ("Bill Cosby let us down!!") or irrelevant information (eg what does Rudy Huxtable have to say?). This would not be libelous in the least. A libelous article would resemble: List of women and smurfs raped by Bill Cosby the raping rapist - Wikipedia's article of the day! Obviously this is not going to go away, the situation is ongoing and it may have  regular updates so it would be better IMO to branch it off, but keep it well pruned :-)  Wikimandia (talk) 01:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The bigger point here (aside from libel) is that there are only allegations at this time. If something comes from the allegations, that merits a separate article.  On their own, the allegations mean nothing: they are just allegations.  We don't write articles about things that may or may not have happened.  Nothing's been proven, no charges have been filed.  At this time, his accusers are alleging something happened -- it's all hearsay.  Frankly, I think the section is to big as it is with too much detail about claims that have not been substantiated. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  02:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * First, It's not hearsay because this is not a courtroom and it's not up to Wiki editors to consider testimony or make any determination of guilt :-) That the claims cannot be substantiated should not be the issue for Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not conducting a criminal or civil investigation or doing investigative journalism. And we do write articles about things that may or may not have happened - have you ever checked out the category, "Possibly living people" for starters? Or Bruce Jenner, who may or may not have been solely responsible for a fatal car crash this month? We make no determination but simply record data as it is published/announced by acceptable sources. The accusations against Cosby are "only" allegations, but they are also very public, not anonymous allegations, and some of them from prominent people such as Beverly Johnson and Carla Ferrigno. These are not random whackos off the street but apparently professional women who can validate that they knew and/or worked with Cosby at some point. It doesn't seem to be the consensus at all that NONE of it should even be mentioned. So if it were three women then it could be covered in a paragraph or two.


 * However, the sheer number of these women who have come forward spanning so many decades, with past and ongoing lawsuits, is significant here in the creation of the separate article. This isn't some stupid Twitter feud going on either. There have been developments such as his Netflix show and other tour appearances being canceled. Cosby and his lawyer have categorically denied the claims, and his wife and others like Phylicia Rashad have also been on the record in publicly expressing their full support for him. Their public response also needs to be included in the "canon of knowledge" that is Wikipedia. Even though there likely won't be any indictments, it looks like it is still going ahead in civil court and the grounds on which they will sue will be extremely notable as well (class-action lawsuit?). I'm not up to date on everything, but didn't Cosby already countersue or plan to counter-sue someone? There has been a lot of activity, development and fallout that's not just someone accusing someone else of doing something years ago. At this point it's become so significant that it really should be moved into its own article away from Cosby's biography. And then it just needs to be watched carefully that it sticks to developments only and not other stuff like editorial commentary from a social and cultural perspective and all that. Sorry so long. :-) Wikimandia (talk) 04:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "simply record data as it is published/announced by acceptable sources" No.  Just because it's reliably sourced does not make it inclusive-worthy in an encyclopedia. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  04:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What I wrote there only applies to things that meet the notability guidelines, obviously (eg not the weekly police blotter from Cornstalk, Iowa). The career of someone at the level of Bill Cosby being derailed by multiple, public, sexual assault allegations from notable people spanning five decades certainly does. Wikimandia (talk) 13:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realize that what you wrote applies to things that are "notable", . As I said, not everything that is out there needs to go in Wikipedia.  Or any encyclopedia.  Notability and verifiability is the threshold of inclusion, however, not everything notable and verifiable needs to be included.  As far as Cosby's career being derailed, that remains to be seen.  As I've already said.  We don't know what is going to happen with the accusations.  Just because there are a good number of them doesn't mean something's going to come of them.  That's why it would be, at this time, an article about accusations alone.  This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip rag, not a tabloid.  We aren't here to scoop anyone.  We aren't a newspaper and don't report news.  We provide information on things that are encyclopedic.  And when it comes to BLPs (and any articles that might stem from those BLPs), we have to be careful we don't cross a line.  I think, at this point where nothing has come of the allegations, we would be crossing the wrong line with a separate article.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  14:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Also noting that if no charges accrue, then we would be violating Wikipedia policies by giving allegations and rumours undue weight at all -  harming folks is contrary to the letter and spirit of WP:BLP, anent which I have an essay at User:Collect/BLP.  Collect (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There can't be charges because of the statute of limitations. Therefore, there can only be allegations, lawsuits and other fallout. He has already settled one lawsuit. As has been noted, it's more than just a few allegations (which are not the same as rumours), the damage to his career is significant, the legal aspects are ongoing, his long-time associations with Temple University, the Navy and other groups have been ended; these meet the notability guidelines. If it's not violating BLP by having it in his biography, then what does it matter by making it a separate article? It's just going to take up more and more percentage of space on his article as developments happen, especially considering the unlikelihood at this point that his career section is going to expand considerably. Wikimandia (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I was summoned here by Legobot. I do not believe that the article now gives undue weight to the allegations. Though there has been greatly increased media attention in recent months, these allegations go back well over a decade, and the alleged incidents span many decades. There was an out-of-court settlement of one lawsuit, and several other suits are pending. In recent days, long standing scheduled Cosby performances have been cancelled in Santa Rosa and Cupertino, California. The Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus, has disassociated the Navy from Cosby. These are more than just a handful of allegations, and the damage to his career is substantial. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  00:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Summary only please - I'll offer my usual suggestion to just follow the cites and use a situation summary common across multiple good RS.  The general situation seems should fit in about 50 words, the day-by-day is annoying excess that is already a maintenance and quality issue (count and cites) and runs into WP policy concerns.  Yes, may be WP:UNDUE from  giving each accusation a place bigger than to cessation or defense.  Yes, may be an issue of following a media storm could get into a tabloid bias for sensationalism.  Yes, gets into WP:BLPCRIME policy on crime of talking documented events like trial not vague accusation, or falling into WP:BLPGOSSIP.  So, have some issues with the extended recitation, doesn't seem the overall is much changed whether count is 27 or 28 or on which day #8 showed up or that one is BS and article on viralism ... and basically see no need to go there.  So I suggest just cut to the summary.   Markbassett (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Undue - It is undue because it has likely detailed almost every allegation, despite many of them being unfounded and contrary to the investigations. Noteswork (talk) 07:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Except it hasn't. Several articles list every accusation, timelines, etc. eg A Timeline of the Abuse Charges Against Bill Cosby —Мандичка YO 😜 08:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Undue - too detailed on allegations. "As of late January 2015, at least 34 women have accused Cosby of drugging or sexually assaulting them" and then a couple of paragraphs on their names, any relevant dates and then succinct info on media and Cosby's/his team's response is sufficient for this BLP. Readers who seek more info will click on the references. All those details are only appropriate for a separate article. --Lapadite (talk) 08:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Undue - I agree with the editors above that the biography is too detailed on the individual accounts of the assault allegations. It's definitely worth the section explaining it, though an additional article may be warranted. Macrowriter (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Not undue in content I think the section should exist, but it should be paired down to a couple of (say two) paragraphs. I don't think it is actually undue with its allegations, just more drawn out than it needs to be. We do not need day-by-day accounts of each allegation. This looks bad, is hard to read and makes the article feel bloated. All the information provided can be summerized in a few paragraphs without losing any of the information. For what its worth I do think a short sentence or even part sentence regarding this should appear at the end of the lead. AIR corn (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Undue and a whole article about unproven sexual assault allegations is way out of line. Or is this now a wing of the Enquirer? Georgeivs vid (talk) 08:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep here but reduce the text in this article such that only court cases and payments by Cosby are mentioned. Allegations that are not backed by court cases are not substantial enough, so remove those. Binksternet (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep here but significantly reduce - WP:RECENTISM at its worst, driven by tabloid level chasing of potential sexual scandal-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hella Undue however I agree with TRPOD above. I don't condone such actions, of course, but damn this man has done a lot in his career and there have been hundreds or RS on him. No way the last year of his life dominates his profile fairly. Jeremy112233 ( Lettuce-jibber-jabber? ) 02:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Remove tag The section describes more events than merely "unproven sexual assault allegations" - it points out at least three consequences of the allegations: Cosby settling out of court in 2006, Cosby resigning from Temple University's board of trustees, and the Navy revoking his honorary title. It is also worth noting that the section details accusations made as far back as 2000, pertaining to potential assaults as far back as 1964. Recentism? Hardly. I don't see any reason to reduce the scope of this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmmgood (talk • contribs) 04:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, . Gotta wonder where you came from.  Only one edit and it's on this talk page?   Suspicious, I am.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  04:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

NOT undue. His rape allegations are as influential on the culture as his work in ISpy. If the section were to be reduced, the section should at least inlude a running tally of accusers (currently about 43), note the similarity of the allegations to one another, and themany years over which this pattern has occurred. Anything less would distort the controversy. Some of the comments here carry the scent of fandom. Most people over 30 have been his fans, including myself, but his current notability has more to do with rape than comedy, sad to say. There's no reason for Wikipedia to ignore this unprecedented flood of accusations reported in reliable sources. David.thompson.esq (talk) 05:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC).
 * i'll add that if people wonder why there are not more female editors in Wikipedia, the rush to trim this part of the article is emblematic both of why they are needed and why it is so difficult to make them feel welcome David.thompson.esq (talk) 05:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Your characterization is off by at least two points: Hardly a rush to trim; the discussion has been going on for 6 weeks. The decision to trim is down is about policy and guidelines, not discrimination against women.  Shame on you for even using that card, . -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  05:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * it's not a card, nor an accusation, tho you seem to take it as such. Assume good faith.  Your second comment in this thread was to accuse another editor of bad faith with no basis whatsoever other than disagreement with you.  Simmer down please. David.thompson.esq (talk) 05:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Action
Hi. I read this talk page and Bill Cosby a few weeks ago. I sat down and tried to take in what had been said here about undue weight and tried to balance that against the coverage in the current article. I read through the "Sexual assault allegations and fallout" section several times and I'm honestly not sure what specifically other editors think should be cut or trimmed down.

A number of editors have commented on this talk page, but looking at the article's page history, since this section was tagged as having undue weight in February 2015, there haven't been any real attempts to pare down this section. I get the feeling that other editors are encountering some of the same issues that I was experiencing, namely difficulty in identifying in what specifically could or should be removed.

Without clear actionable items (or even better, bold edits to the page), I'm inclined to remove the undue tag from this section. I'll start a separate discussion below about the article's lead. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I've gone ahead and removed the undue weight section tag. This section is not excessive, from what I can see -- nor unbalanced in its summarization of the accusations and legal challenges for Mr. Cosby. Unless someone can point to specific problems, or better yet, fix them, this tag serves no purpose that I can see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The entire section is poorly presented and in part that is because it is way overdone. Given there is nothing but accusations what should be reported is on the mainstream attention and their overview, not case-by-case accusations pummeling Cosby. Wikipedia is convicting someone never charged with a crime. Georgeivs vid (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm still making may way through the recent edits. This edit caught my attention as I'm not sure about including the phrase "denies all accusations" if some of the cases have been settled. My reading of the news coverage is that Mr. Cosby refuses to address the recent issues or past cases, which is different than denying all the accusations, perhaps. Is there a good citation we have to support the current language (that Mr. Cosby denies all accusations)? Otherwise, it may be best to drop this part of the sentence. Unrelated to that phrase, but part of the same edit, I'm not sure I understand what was wrong with the phrase "from the 1960s to the 2010s." The new "dating back from" language feels a little awkward to me. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think because this is so recent people are wisely waiting to see what if anything goes on with any court cases. I've tried to separate it into recent developments vs. past events which I think helps understand the events. Georgeivs vid (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Overall, I like your edits. They took a disjointed series of short paragraphs and made them flow nicely in much more proper prose. Thanks for the cleanup! I reviewed these edits. I'm not sure why the New York Post comments were dropped. The sentence "His comments to the Post were that his wife is standing by him and his belief that African-American media in the United States should remain impartial and neutral." seemed relevant enough to include. Regarding this edit specifically, I'm inclined to undo it, to be honest. I don't think it was intentional, but this edit gives me weird feelings as it seems to really downplay Cosby's role in an almost strange way. For example, "he drugged her coffee and she awoke" is changed to "she was drugged and awoke" while "that Cosby had drugged and assaulted her" was changed to "that she had been drugged and assaulted". This is alongside other changes in the same edit such as de-personalizing the lawsuit that Cosby settled ("Cosby settled" is changed to "The claim was settled"). I'm not saying that the use of personal pronouns such as "him" is a bad thing; those parts of the edit can probably stay. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I still think, given there is no conviction, no charges, no lawsuit, no admission, etc. that Wikipedia should be very cautious about hyping sexual assault charges. Each of these cases, when presented raises questions that are left unanswered and leave Cosby in the position of being repeatedly called a rapist, etc. If he did it then let's say so but back it up with a reliable source. If we are going to side with a public opinion in the absence of evidence then let's be clear on that. The entire section is devoted to claiming what a rapist Cosby is, I thought it was better to lessen the number of times we are siding with accusers' accounts while not doing a very great job neutrally sharing his side. I still think the section is unduly large but I also accept it's in the headlines even if the news is just a rehash of past accusations.


 * The "His comments to the Post were that his wife is standing by him and his belief that African-American media in the United States should remain impartial and neutral" seemed rather irrelevant like the neighbor who cites the serial killer as a quiet loner. I admit I didn't read all the sources, nor that one in particular, just some of the latest news stories. To me neither idea seemed good enough to include in an already too large accounting. I was addressing some of the points that bothered me the most. Georgeivs vid (talk) 03:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Article lead section
Hi. I've edited the article to include the following paragraph in the lead section:

"Since 2000, Cosby has been repeatedly accused of sexually assaulting women, in some cases after purportedly drugging them. Some of the allegations date back to the 1960s. Cosby has never been formally criminally charged."

Given the fallout from these allegations as noted in the article&mdash;such as being forced to resign from Temple University's Board of Trustees and having his honorary title and status revoked by the U.S. Navy&mdash;I believe there's sufficient notability and a significant enough impact on Cosby's life to warrant mentioning the drugging and sexual allegations in the lead section. I tried to temper the language used a bit (e.g., removing a hard statistic about the number of accusers), but I understand that this change may warrant additional discussion and refinement. The flow of the paragraph still needs improvement; using "some" twice so close together isn't great and the individual sentences still feel a bit disjointed, in my opinion. Any help in improving the language would be appreciated. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Change the first "some" to "several", and/or the second to "A number". <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:100;"> Dwpaul  Talk   04:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice, thanks for the quick article edit and reply. :-) I actually missed that you had already edited when I copy-pasted the quote above, not realizing that the quote now includes both your edit and mine. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

, I suggest you propose your changes to the lead here first and get consensus. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 02:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Please gain consensus that anything should be there, if it's not neutral it should stay out. Most of what has happened has all been in the last six months and remains unproven accusations that Wikipedia devotes a huge amount of space to describing in detail even though there is missing any charges or convictions. ANY mention in the introduction/lead is by default tabloid journalism at its worst. Wait until there is actually some substance to any of these cases. Georgeivs vid (talk) 03:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It belongs in the lead, since it is a substantial portion of the body. The version reinstated by  is far more neutral than the version proposed by, which seems to be twisting itself into a pretzel to be "kind" to its subject when it should in fact simply be factual. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:100;"> Dwpaul   Talk   03:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The present three sentences are neutral and summarize an important part of the body. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Just to be sure we're all discussing the same thing, this is the current language that I think is most appropriate:

Since 2000, Cosby has been repeatedly accused of sexually assaulting women, in several cases after purportedly drugging them. The allegations span from the 1960s to the 2010s. Cosby has never been formally criminally charged.

I think this is succinct, factual, direct, and appropriate for the lead section. It sounds like NeilN and Dwpaul support this language. Georgeivs vid: while I understand that there have been no formal charges or convictions, I believe these allegations have had a significant impact on Cosby's life to warrant a short paragraph in the lead section. Perhaps you can propose improvements to this text on the talk page? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not neutral and presented as Wikipedia believes the accusations.

''In contrast to his decades of work and being held as a role model for the African American community, he has been accused of sexually assaulting women in incidents from as far back as the 1960s. The publicity has been mainly since late 2014 and has negatively impacted his career. He has never been charged and denies the accusations have any validity.''


 * I think it's more neutral and is careful to note this is an anomaly of his long and overwhelmingly positive public career. And nothing has been charged or proven or even in a court to be discussed. It's all muck. Georgeivs vid (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The only thing I can see worth changing is "Cosby has never been formally criminally charged and states the accusations have no validity." --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Your version reads as if it was written by Cosby's publicist. Cosby's "decades of work" etc. do not belong in that sentence; they will be talked about in due course in the article, but mentioning them here sounds like you are suggesting that Cosby's character should not be sullied by accusations (this is not neutral). The recency of the accusations has little to do with whether they are actually true, so your pointing out here that they emerged publicly in 2014 seems to be an attempt to discredit them (which is not neutral).  At this point, whether or not he denies the accusations is moot because he has never been charged, but according to the body he has in fact not denied them.  "Reality is a situation and I can't speak" is not a denial. Nor is "Mr. Cosby does not intend to dignify these allegations with any comment." <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:100;"> Dwpaul   Talk   03:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point. It was his lawyer who dismissed the allegations. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you (if what you are saying is) that we should treat our subjects with respect. However, we should have even more respect for the facts, and in this case, the facts are presented with neither positive nor negative "spin" in the edit that  reproduced above, whereas there is a great deal of "spin" in your version.  Neutrality doesn't mean that you need to point out that someone accused of sexual assault is "otherwise a great guy"; it means you present the facts without bias.  Your version fails that test. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:100;"> Dwpaul   Talk   04:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Cosby did deny all the accusations/allegations through his lawyer. It should be noted how out-of-character this all is. There is an absence of all the publicly documented support he has gotten. Al we deliver is accusations and innuendo. Tim and again Coby did this, Cosby did that as if we are reporting facts. These are accusations not facts. That an accusation has been made only supports that an accusation exists, not that it's real. Maybe we should all remember the difference between a newspaper trying to sell scandal and an encyclopedia delivering what has been shown to be true. Or does that not count anymore? Georgeivs vid (talk) 04:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That allegations have been made and widely reported is true. Also, "Cosby did deny all the accusations/allegations through his lawyer." - reference please? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 04:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * From the article, here: "In addition, she said, Cosby, who has never been charged over any of the allegations and denies any wrongdoing..." The issue, either way, isn't whether the accusations exist (we know they do); the question is a matter of avoiding giving them WP:UNDUE weight.  Even widely-reported accusations do not necessarily rise to the level of forming a major part of the biography of a well-known individual; my feeling, like I mentioned below, is that since we just closed an RFC saying that the accusations were given too much weight here, it seems counterproductive to add them to the lead (at least until we have some criminal proceedings to go by.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please summarize your source more carefully. That's the opposing lawyer, putting words in Cosby's mouth. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 09:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Whether the allegations were made or reported isn't really the issue; the issue is whether putting it in the lead is giving it WP:UNDUE weight relative to Cosby's overarching history. I'd say that given that there was just a RFC on whether the issue was given undue weight (which determined that it was), and given that we only just managed to pare the section down to the point where the tag could be removed, that adding it to the lead was clearly a mistake. It's worth mentioning, yes, but not in the lead (at least until there are further developments, like a conviction). Obviously due weight is sometimes subjective (it has to be taken in the context of the subject's entire history and its relation to what makes them famous, especially for BLPs), but in this case we have a very recent RFC telling us to avoid giving too much weight to this; given that it's only a subsection in the personal life section at the moment, I think using it as the closer to the lead is giving it more weight than is currently due to it. --Aquillion (talk) 06:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The RFC closure determined the section was too long because it included too many trivial details. It said nothing about the significance of the section. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 09:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The very nature of the discussion was saying "this material is not notable enough to justify this volume". The focus is all wrong, it should be discussing, almost solely on how his career/life are impacted rather than delivering accusation after innuendo of "her coffee was spiked" etc. which is only delivering on person's statement, that is unprovable as a rule. For forty cases there should be some evidence, some eye-witness. Instead we are acting as PR reps for Gloria Allred, who is paid to sway public opinion against Cosby. The section now includes more of Cosby's own statements but it remains clogged with innuendo and accusations trying desperately to pin the sign of rapist to his head. Georgeivs vid (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:LEDE notable controversies belong in the lede, regardless if there are legal charges or not. And my all measures, the allegations of sexual abuse and rape have been widely covered in a multitude of reliable sources. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Not having the allegations of on the lede makes it non-compliant with our policy of NPOV, which tell us that we have to report significant viewpoints. Tagged as such. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It all remains as allegations, innuendo, and late-night comedy material. Most of the alleged incidents can never go to trial as the cases are too old. What is left is the court of public opinion and the lawyers representing the various women hoping they can get still mete out punishment for what amounts to largely unprovable incidents. Please be more cautious when trying to hang a *Warning: Rapist* sign on someone until there is actually any evidence to merit that brand. Personally i think we have to wait if and when a case is opened and has any kind of judgement against Cosby. Given the hundreds of hopeful actresses that have been paraded to him for his assistance and blessing I rather doubt he is eager to pay them all hush money to have the cases settle. Currently what we have in the article is still a mess as we continue to allege case after case when many of them will never go to court or judgement. Georgeivs vid (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

add info about use of drugs
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/6d90b1f473f147ed9f0048f9e9ac2287/apnewsbreak-cosby-said-he-got-drugs-give-women-sex — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.145.101 (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Glaucoma
He appears to have glaucoma. This should probably be mentioned in the article, along with appropriate references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.120.97.88 (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Associate press reporting an admission from Cosby regarding Quaaludes
"PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Bill Cosby testified in 2005 that he got Quaaludes with the intent of giving them to young women he wanted to have sex with, and he admitted giving the sedative to at least one woman and "other people," according to documents obtained Monday by The Associated Press."

This is being picked up by multiple RS: ,, , Any thoughts regarding incorporating this into article? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * All other issues aside I say we wait at the very least a day for things to properly unfold before trying to add this to the article. Don't want to leap into something based on reports that seem to have been coming out in the past few hours Bosstopher (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If The Associated Press says they got court documents to say this, then no reason to doubt them. They wouldn't lie about this.  The information is coming straight from them.  I say add it in.   D r e a m Focus  22:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No harm in waiting a day or two. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree - not that i think the statement is false - but there simply might be more to surface. ChristopheT (talk) 12:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense at all. The information isn't going to change after a few days.  No sense delaying.   D r e a m Focus  14:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In any case, the deposition stuff doesn't belong in the lead right now. It should only be re-added if, in the future, it turned out to be a key part of the controversy. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. I see I have been reverted, I would accept that for now, but I believe this is significant enough for the lead. Time will tell. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The lead summarizes the content of the article. A brief mention of this current issue many are coming to the article to read about, is fine.   D r e a m Focus  17:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Cosby exposed himself, it is absolutely vital to the lead. User:Narciso003 User_talk:Narciso003 18:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it is probably time we create a separate break away article about the sexual assault allegations/controversy, where I would agree this information would be vital to the lead, because it is significant with respect to the controversy, but I disagree that this information is vital to the lead in his biography, at least at this point and time.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Lede summary
While the RFC is ongoing, nothing stops us from proposing wording for the eventual addition. Following on 's suggestion, here a proposed sentence:

-  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Repeatedly is perhaps a bit strong, particularly as celebrities are often targets of "me too" attention seekers (see recent accusations against Kevin Clash or Bryan Singer. ) the former which has a lede mention, and the latter which does not). "accused of multiple instances of" is just ass accurate, but a little less pointed. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point. Thanks for the suggestion. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * For readability, I would prefer -
 * Info about the mechanism of attack (drugs, threats, rope, whatever) and gender of the victims are details more appropriate for the article proper, rather than the lede. LavaBaron (talk) 06:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Whilst I agree not too much details is necessary, this second version sounds ambiguous as to whether the allegations are from the 1960s only. So I think "span from the 1960s to the 2010s" should be included. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Whilst I agree not too much details is necessary, this second version sounds ambiguous as to whether the allegations are from the 1960s only. So I think "span from the 1960s to the 2010s" should be included. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I am very disappointed we are exercising this thought experiment before an actual discussion has ended if anything should be included in the introduction. As this has been brought up I feel any mention becomes too much as you have to include several variables including of course that these remain allegations, he's never been charged, and denies all the claims. But here is my take on what to smear him with as long as we are going to hang a "RAPIST" sign around his neck without any actual evidence. Georgeivs vid (talk) 02:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * (updated per comments regarding BLP and NPOV policies)
 * I can live with that. Thanks. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As per Cwobeel, I'm also fine with that. BlueSalix (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "assault incidents" is too vague. It should say rape or sexual assault. Also, "multiple women" just means more than one. We should be specific and say "over 40". 194.82.100.215 (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the draft above from Georgeivs vid is fine. I would not make any changes to it, for the reasons explained in the RFC above.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've updated it per the comments in the RfC. I still feel absent any case, evidence, charges, etc. it remains UNDUE. But if we are to force a rapist taint on the fellow's biography introduction absent a jury trial of any kind then I think this is pretty close to what can make it in. Georgeivs vid (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That looks like an improvement to me, thanks. The word "misconduct" is a fairly common way to describe criminal activity that a person has not faced criminal charges for committing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I like Cwobeel's version but with a few tweaks like this:

- Louieoddie (talk) 10:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There are several violations of NPOV and BLP that have been mentioned already that make this version unusable. Georgeivs vid (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in that sentence that violates BLP or NPOV. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If there are such violations, then you need to argue for the removal of Bill_Cosby, as what is in the lede is a very short summary of that material. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts on this? --MZMcBride (talk) 13:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's is concise, factually accurate and appropriate for the lead. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "civil lawsuits have been settled or are ongoing" is inappropriate and misleading. It implies that the settled lawsuit confirms the accusation as well as that there are open lawsuits in process. As far as I've read there are only open cases. Georgeivs vid (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's neither inappropriate nor misleading. It's 100% factual.  This describes has happened in the past and what is ongoing.  Google Cosby lawsuits and you will see the current ongoing lawsuits. Capeo (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm only seeing references to past lawsuits. Any link to current ones? Georgeivs vid (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Two ongoing right now: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-bill-cosby-deposition-20150707-story.html Capeo (talk) 19:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The summary still doesn't quite do the job. It would be more helpful to state "Prosecution for most of alleged acts is barred by statutes of limitations, however two lawsuits, one for defamation of character, are pending." In this way we hint that the statue of limitations is a consideration for one while the other relates to defamation of character. The article needs to reflect the two current cases as well. Georgeivs vid (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I see no need for the extra detail. And the other relates to defamation of character because Cosby called her a liar (and worse) for saying he raped her.  That's why she's suing.  It still relates to the rape allegations. Capeo (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and amended "Prosecution for most of the acts alleged by his accusers is barred by statutes of limitations" to "Most of the acts alleged by his accusers fall outside of statutes of limitations for legal proceedings" as the former's use of the word "barred" implies that were it not for the statutes, charges would (instead of may) be brought and that the statutes alone are forbidding/standing in the way of such prosecution. There is no way we can know if charges would be brought/stand-up today were it not for the statutes.Selector99 (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * These edits look great to me. Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 02:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Great! Selector99 (talk) 10:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Prosecution for most of alleged acts fall outside statutes of limitations...". "Prosecution" is also problematic as it is presumptuous and may even be prejudiced in as much as use of the word presumes or pre-judges that prosecutions would take place were it not for the statutes. Allegations do not automatically lead to prosecutions. It's an assumption too far to use the word 'prosecution'.Selector99 (talk) 10:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Undue? The accusations content is 25% of the lead.
Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.

People are assumed innocent of a crime until proven guilty. Georgeivs vid (talk) 12:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Nowhere in the article does it say he's been proven guilty by a court of law so I don't know why you keep saying that. As for undue?  At this moment these allegations and his admission are by far the most notable things about Bill Cosby and the only thing about him that has received significant coverage for well over a year now.  Honestly, it's getting to the point that it could be spun into its own article. Capeo (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The 90 day page view stats show that today the number of people coming to view the article, after the latest news about this, increased massively!  You can look over how many views he had in years past, and see, this is what caused the traffic to spike, this why people coming here.  When looking at stats for different time periods, remember, look at the number on the side.  Sometimes the bar can be to the top, but its a much lower number.   D r e a m Focus  17:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Capeo, you are right that this subject deserves its own article. If we keep giving it the attention and documentation it deserves, it would violate WP:UNDUE to keep all that content here, thus justifying it be spun off into a legitimate fork article. Bill Cosby rape allegations is a possible title, and it can be change if he's ever proven guilty. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It would probably be Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations. (It's interesting that both of those titles are redirects already.) However, I continue to be unsure about whether having a separate article would be appropriate here. We have separate articles such as Kobe Bryant sexual assault case, of course, but that involved a criminal court case. Isn't it a bit paradoxical that creating a separate article is Wikipedia's way of reducing weight? I mean, it many ways it does exactly the opposite, surely. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations seems better because not all of the allegations are specifically rape allegations. I started a new section below so discussion regarding this doesn't get missed by followers of talk page.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Good points. We need an accurate title. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

"Sexual drugging references made by Bill Cosby in his comedy" section.
While these are probably worth covering, I don't think that the current format of this section is the right way to do it -- it reads like WP:SYNTH in that it's just listing the references and leaving the reader to make their own conclusion. The thing is, their inclusion doesn't need to be WP:SYNTH (because the sources do connect it to the current accusations against him) -- but I think that we need to cover it by paraphrasing the fact that he referenced it repeatedly and discussing the way secondary sources have covered this aspect, rather than just dropping a context-less laundry-list of every such joke he ever made. --Aquillion (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Its more encyclopedic to list everything, not just make some vague mention of it. I think it was easier to read spaced out as a list, but most people seem to prefer prose for some reason.   D r e a m Focus  00:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It definitely isn't more encyclopedic to list everything; remember, wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. But even if it is going to list everything, we have to frame it with secondary coverage to make it clear what the relevance is; it's not encyclopedic to just drop a list of information on the reader with no context.  The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide a broad overview of the topic as described by reliable sources, not to copy all available data indiscriminately (and definitely not to present an unvarnished list with no hint as to its relevance; doing so is original research.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There are references there already. This is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it is relevant information, as reliable sources are pointing out.   D r e a m Focus  04:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * But we need to cover the commentary of reliable sources to relate it to the subject; we can't just drop it in there as a list. If the section was worded "these people have mentioned these incidents and related it the accusations in this way..." it would be fine; but just presenting it as a laundry-list dropped into the middle of the article isn't encyclopedic. --Aquillion (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Writers of episode "Last Barbecue"
I question the current mention of Cosby as one of the writers for this episode. He, with a couple other producers, is ALWAYS included at IMDB in the writers section as "creators", but the specific writers are mentioned separately as "writers", not as "creators". Although IMDB is usually considered a poor source here, they get the "writers" part right. Otherwise it's crowdsourced and edited by users, somewhat like Wikipedia.


 * A previous version mentioned that he was not credited. Although it was not accompanied by a reference, a previous Mediaite reference we used backed up that view. It mentions Bernie Kukoff and Janet Leahy as the writers.


 * That was changed to: "Cosby does have writing credits on the episode, along with a few others.

The problem is that both IMDB and Mediaite are considered poor sources. The best reference is the corporation's website. It's the official source. There we find Bernie Kukoff and Janet Leahy among the writers for that season, with no mention of Cosby or the other producers as writers.

I propose we should mention Bernie Kukoff and Janet Leahy, and only them, as the writers for the episode. Our episodes list also does so. We can use the corporation website and keep IMDB as a back up ref. Here it is:


 * Bernie Kukoff and Janet Leahy are credited as the writers of the episode.

This way we're staying consistent. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have boldly added it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ugh. Please don't cite the IMDb in a BLP. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's the usage that determines appropriateness. In this case it's not about anything of a sensitive nature. As you'll see from the above, it's only being used to specify which of the writers on the corporate website were the writers for this episode. If you can find a better one than IMDB, then by all means substitute it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I found a better link, so we don't need anymore refs for that. Fixed in article and above. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

germantown highschool
I believe that the date of birth and the date of attendance at Germantown High School may be incorrect. Check the 1949 Germantown high school yearbook, wherein I believe he is pictured….and he is not 12 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.163.39 (talk) 13:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have a URL so we can verify this? -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * His date of birth is pretty solid, so your question affects his attendance at Germantown, which was only for one year. We don't mention the year. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

1990 "barbecue sauce" content a BLP violation?
Let's get this right. This content is rather dubious. We have been:


 * 1) using words which were not in the sources;
 * 2) using crap sources (The Daily Mail and Mediaite are poor sources for BLP content);
 * 3) the sauce was eaten by all (except the two smallest children);
 * 4) there is no indication the sauce was used for any type of dispute resolution;
 * 5) most important of all, the episode has no indication that there was any type of drug in the barbecue sauce.

The crap sources make that synthesis without any evidence, and Mediaite even admits that Cosby was not the writer, while admitting that they are speculating that Cosby might have influenced that content. That type of speculation makes it very bad for BLP content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll endorse this: using crappy news aggregation sites like the Mail is a very easy way for editors planning on breaking WP:COATRACK to make it seem like there's loads of evidence for their claims. Having said that, this episode is surely worth mentioning, with a disclaimer that Cosby did not get a writing credit on the episode. Blythwood (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I added in what the source actually said. As far as the "dispute resolution" complaint, read: http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/trending/Cosby-Show-episode-features-Cliff-Huxtable-drugging-partygoers-with-mystical-barbecue-sauce.html   D r e a m Focus  22:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * When quoting such strong language, it should be attributed and in quotes and not in Wikipedia's voice. I have both seen the whole episode several times and also read the sources we have used. The Philly source is the best one we have. The others were crap. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Some comments: --TiberiasTiberias (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * words that were in the source Philly.com - "Cosby Show’ episode features Cliff Huxtable drugging partygoers with mystical barbecue sauce"
 * not a crap source - Philly.com
 * the sauce was eaten by all adults - he took it away from the children when they started to feel the effects
 * the sauce was used dispute resolution - Cosby said it was based on the sauce
 * drugs in the barbecue sauce - It was clearly implied, just like he told his wife to come upstairs and drink a cup by their bed, it was clearly implied that they were going to have sex.
 * Philly is a good source. It was the others, which I got rid of, which were problematic.
 * It's only because of our knowledge of later history and accusations that we read into the episode that the sauce might have drugs in it. There are thousands of years of history attached to special foods and dishes (without any special drugs) having some sort of aphrodisiac effects. That is explanation enough for what is in the episode. There is nothing in the episode which clearly implies there were any drugs involved. That's just our own SYNTH hindsight bias speaking, and that applies to the journalists as well.
 * If this weren't a BLP matter I wouldn't bother. We need to raise the quality of this content so it's unimpeachable. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Aphrodisiac - according to WP is a substance that, when consumed, increases sexual desire. However, in the Cosby episode the BBQ sauce also has a sedative effect, that is why the nickname of the episode is BBQuaaludes. So while many foods can have aphrodisiac effects, I am unaware of foods that also almost make you pass out (like in the episode) in addition to increasing sexual desire.
 * --TiberiasTiberias (talk) 08:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Sedatives and crime
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedative
 * Sedatives — most commonly alcohol[13] but also GHB, Flunitrazepam (Rohypnol), and to a lesser extent, temazepam (Restoril), and midazolam (Versed)[14] — have been reported for their use as date rape drugs (also called a Mickey) and being administered to unsuspecting patrons in bars or guests at parties to reduce the intended victims' defenses.


 * The BBQ sauce has this effect.
 * --TiberiasTiberias (talk) 08:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * TiberiasTiberias, here are three questions:
 * What is your source for the nickname "BBQuaaludes"?
 * Was this an original, official nickname, or a later, unofficial, one?
 * Where is your source for a "sedative" effect? I didn't notice anything in the episode to that effect. There was certainly an amorous effect which would enable romantic activities. Both parties were affected, and they certainly weren't falling asleep. Quite the opposite.
 * I fear we're trying to read too much into this and forcing an interpretation based on the accusations. We need to take the episode itself at face value, without any OR or SYNTH violations. This is a BLP matter and we must be very careful to get it right. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The source did not mention a sedative efect, so I changed the word "sedated" that was not mentioned in the source for cooperative which was the actual term used.
 * In its current version, I think now, the paragraph meets our neutral point of view and WP:OR policy.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * To answer your question - The terms "Barbequaaludes" and "BBQuaaludes" are all over the web to describe the BBQ Date-Rape drugging episode of the Cosby Show. I realize that these nicknames do not meet the qualifications to be on the regular article page of Bill Cosby.
 * --TiberiasTiberias (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This is an example of current hindsight interpretations of past events. When it comes to his fictional character and shows, it's improper SYNTH. The original events in the shows were not seen that way at the time. It was a family show that was quite innocent. Things have indeed changed. When it comes to his shows, we need to be careful not to let our informed hindsight about the real life Cosby influence our editing about his fictional characters.
 * When it comes to his private and public life at the time, and his statements about them, it may be another matter. The real life Cosby, not the fictional Huxtable, is the accused offender. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

This whole subsection of popular culture references could probably be removed. Besides the weak sourcing (a YouTube video that looks like a copyright infringement?), I don't really think this is appropriate to a BLP. In a split-off article on the controversy, yeah, maybe. The Cosby episode commentary belongs more in an article about that episode. This article should be about Cosby himself, not creepy episodes of his TV show. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Removal would not be proper, since it's a proper subsection to a necessary section. Yes, it could be developed even more in a proper fork article, but that's not the subject of this thread. I agree about the superfluous Youtube video and it's gone. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The Kirkus citation calls the Spanish Fly routine inoffensive, which would seem to go against how it's being used in this article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

This piece of blogging ephemera belongs in a serious biography? What happened to high-quality sources and not being a tabloid? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Philadelphia Media Network is not a tabloid. It owns The Philadelphia Inquirer, Philadelphia Daily News and the web portal Philly.com --TiberiasTiberias (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not supposed to be a tabloid, repeating blogosphere cruft. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I now tend to favor deletion of this content, and User:Karyn Devlin's edit summary is what convinced me: "that would be like pegging ed norton as a racist based on lines delivered in american history x"

Philly.com is the very best reference we have, and they are reporting other even poorer sources which admit they got the idea (of SYNTHesizing a comparison between the actions of the fictive Huxtable with the real Cosby) from a thread on Reddit. That's pretty poor yellow journalism. The parallel doesn't even work, since Cosby's accused method is one which totally knocks out the victim. It doesn't make them even slightly aware and amorous, as the barbecue sauce certainly did. It's closer to the Spanish fly fantasy, which is not a method which the real Cosby allegedly used. This content is simply too poor to use. It's about as bad as claiming a real connection between a burnt spot on a piece of toast and claiming it's an image of the real Jesus and has miraculous powers as a relic. Any source making such a claim would also be rejected here.

Philly.com might be good for some other types of content, but this particular story is trashy, with nothing reliable in any sense of the word. It's gossip at its worst. Cosby is not the same as Huxtable, and Huxtable's sauce doesn't have the remotest similarity to Cosby's supposed method. We have plenty of other incriminating content and better sources, so we should resist the temptation to get desperate and use this poor content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The plot of the episode could easily be based on an idea from Cosby. In a 1984 story People Magazine had this to say:
 * The star is involved in every aspect of the show's production. He attends meetings with writers, frequently contributing ideas that become plots. He is co-producer of the series and even coauthor of its title song. Does Cosby have creative control? "Yes," answers co-producer Tom Werner. "But it's a pleasure to use his comic talents, and he is not unbending when an idea of his doesn't work."
 * People Magazine, December 1984

However, including mention of the episode in this article seems a bit off topic.Louieoddie (talk) 03:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Grammar question
I'm wondering about the best wording here, and since I'm not a grammar Nazi, I may not be right. Here you can compare the two versions:


 * MSNBC and National Post journalists read Cosby's joke as Cosby referring to the drugging and sexual assault allegations against himself.


 * MSNBC and National Post journalists read Cosby's joke a reference to the drugging and sexual assault allegations against him.

Which makes more sense and is clearer? The second one seems to be missing at least one word. We need to make sure there is no ambiguity about who says what and means what. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the second version was better but it was missing a word.


 * MSNBC and National Post journalists read Cosby's joke as a reference to the drugging and sexual assault allegations against him.


 * I put it in bold to make it easier to see. Louieoddie (talk) 05:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That does make more sense. You're welcome to fix it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Oops, don't know how I overlooked the missing "as". Apologies. Karyn Devlin (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

New York magazine hacked
In case anyone's wondering why they can't access the New York magazine ref I just added, they've been hacked. The content is currently verifiable many other places, including the Internet Archive. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC) -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Article is back online, here is the reference markup

New article for sexual assault allegations?
Should the allegations be WP:SPLIT into a separate article? The allegations have been covered so intensely in reliable sources since 2014. There seems no end in sight with the new info from Andrea Constand's past civil suit released and also Judy Huth's pending civil suit and Janice Dickenson's pending defamation lawsuit. Despite numerous efforts to cut down the section on the allegations, it's still the largest section in Cosby's bio, which seems in accordance with WP:BALASPS, but the allegations seem at risk for dominating the entire bio, so it seems perhaps best to split this into a separate article.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * While these events are certainly notable, I think a stand alone article would serve as nothing except a vehicle for digging into minutae, and likely BLP violations against both Cosby and his accusers. So far we have lots of sizzle, but not a lot of steak, and the small amount of steak we do have can be adequately covered in this article. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. For now, the section we have on the sexual allegations is more than sufficient. As the story evolves and if the civil suits go through, we may need to split. But not now. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think a break away article would be a challenge in terms of BLP violations, but I worry that giving the allegations due weight in this article could overwhelm the bio. Which is not to say that minutia should be included, but it seems that the current summary leaves out a lot of encyclopedic information, such as the role Cosby's PR team played in fueling the controversy (when they started a Cosby "meme me" promotion for Cosby) and Judge Eduardo Robreno's rationale for unsealing the records from the Constand lawsuit, etc. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * BoboMeowCat, I agree. We can always deal with any potential BLP violations; we do that all the time, so that's not a legitimate argument against creating a legitimate split. You mention "numerous efforts to cut down the section on the allegations." Indeed, that is itself a serious violation of numerous policies and proves the need for a fork article. This subject is much bigger than the current paragraph, and a split is necessary to avoid overwhelming this article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think a Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations article is warranted as there are so many angles to this which Wikipedia has never covered. Here in Canada, Bill Cosby's tour started a major controversy, last winter, when it wasn't canceled even after the accusations became so public. Many people showed up and cheered at his shows, while others went only to get up midway through, protest and be dragged out. Outside in the cold, people picketed against the performances.
 * The Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations controversy is a cultural event that defines where our society is at right now. Whether Bill Cosby is proven guilty or innocent or even if we never find out, the event has grown bigger than him and it deserves its own article.Louieoddie (talk) 10:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't, or we should not, write articles on cultural events, unless they are the primary topic of an article. In this case, we may be at a moment that is particularly intolerant of sexual abuse. Let me quickly add that I applaud the moment we are in, in regards to that sentiment. But it strikes me as entirely wrong to use this individual's predicament to elaborate on that cultural point in time. I take exception to your argument in that regard, as concerns creating a new article. Bus stop (talk) 11:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Bus stop, regarding "it strikes me as entirely wrong to use this individual's predicament to elaborate on cultural point in time". It seems this is not for us to decide because we are suppose to just follow the reliable sources. The reliable sources have discussed the Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations as significant with respect to the shift regarding the public response/reaction to sexual assault allegations made against powerful men, and how the media reacts to it, so it seems this should be mentioned on WP, but it's not. Also, the push by sexual abuse advocacy group to revoke Cosby's Presidential Medal of Freedom has been reported as part of wider cultural discussion, but this encyclopedic information is also absent. The current section seems inadequate with respect to summarizing the reliably sourced coverage of the controversy, but to adequately cover the reliably sourced coverage, it would overwhelm the bio, so it seems a separate article is needed at this point.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi BoboMeowCat—does Wikipedia have an article on the cultural moment we are in vis-a-vis rape? If not, could such an article be written? Bus stop (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Bus stop, I'm not sure. There is a "cultural moment" article with respect to Women's rights in 2014, which discusses sexual assault, and it gives brief mention to Bill Cosby, but there's no Sexual assault in 2014 article. Personally, I'm not familiar with the broad sourcing on this topic enough to rsay if such an article could be well written. If you're interested in pursuing it, you might considering running the idea by the various wiki-projects listed on talk:Sexual assault.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I am not interested in initiating an article on that subject, but there would be more justification for mentioning Bill Cosby, among others, in such an article, if it existed, than for elaborating on the cultural moment we live in, vis-a-vis rape, in the Bill Cosby article. Bus stop (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I've expanded Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations from the redirect using content from this page. Feel free to do whatever you think is appropriate. My hopes is that alot of the minutia here will be excised to there. And a coherent summary can be produced from that article that can serve as the overview here. Georgeivs vid (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirected back here. Please seek consensus for a split. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Creation of separate article Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations. Per above discussion. Although such an article would be a BLP challenge and would need attention from experienced editors to keep out minutia, the current section does not adequately cover the reliably sourced encyclopedic aspects of this controversy. However, it seems expanding the section would overwhelm the BLP.  The section on the sexual assault allegations is already the largest section in article. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi BoboMeowCat. I wonder what more needs to be said on Wikipedia about this? Is a separate article really warranted? Just because we can write a lot about a subject doesn't always mean we should, of course. In the context of the subject's life, discussing the allegations makes sense. In the context of a separate article, it feels a bit disproportionate in coverage, in relation to what a general-purpose encyclopedia such as Wikipedia should be. I understand not wanting to overwhelm this biography, but perhaps that's a reason to expand the other parts instead? --MZMcBride (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * MZMcBride, as discussed above, the current section does not explain how the controversy began. It gives brief mention to Hannibal Burress, but fails to mention the Cosby PR "meme me" campaign. If doesn't mention the anti-sexual assault protests outside Cosby's comedy shows in Canada.  It fails to discuss reliably sourced coverage of these allegations as part of a shift regarding the public response/reaction to sexual assault allegations made against powerful men, and how the media reacts to it, or the push of sexual abuse advocacy groups to revoke Cosby's Presidential Medal of Freedom, which has never happened before, etc.  Andrea Contrand's lawyers have now motioned to have the entire case unsealed and there are two pending lawsuits. There appears no end in sight and the section is already underweight with respect to the RS coverage, but it is the largest section in the bio.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. This is the only way to do the subject justice and to keep this article from getting out of balance. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support creating separate Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations article to make the Bill Cosby article more about Bill Cosby and properly cover the allegations and all things connected to them in the new article.Louieoddie (talk) 07:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Louieoddie—a "Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations article" would not be about Bill Cosby? What would it be about—the cultural moment we live in? A biography is not an excuse to foist tangentially related subjects on the reader. You have previously said "The Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations controversy is a cultural event that defines where our society is at right now. Whether Bill Cosby is proven guilty or innocent or even if we never find out, the event has grown bigger than him and it deserves its own article." And BoboMeowCat seems to agree with you, saying "The reliable sources have discussed the Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations as significant with respect to the shift regarding the public response/reaction to sexual assault allegations made against powerful men, and how the media reacts to it, so it seems this should be mentioned on WP, but it's not." Just because something is sourced is not a reason that it must be in an article. If you wish to explore such a topic you should attempt to initiate such an article. I think it would be wrongheaded to piggyback onto what is essentially a biography, an exploration of the current social norms regarding public perceptions of sexual assault and loosely related topics. Even a newly created article devoted to sexual assault allegations relating to Bill Cosby would be largely a biography of the man, but focussed on the facet that may have overwhelmed the present article. I am concerned with the flabby expansiveness that both of you are suggesting for any newly created article. The title should indicate the scope, but there is a disconnect between the title that you seem to be discussing and the content that you seem to be contemplating. Bus stop (talk) 08:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Per WP:SPLIT and WP:POVFORK. If at any point this article becomes too big, then we can split. But as it stands now, there is no need. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Cwobeel, there have been "numerous efforts to cut down the section on the allegations." Indeed, that is itself a serious violation of numerous policies and proves the need for a fork article. This subject is much bigger than the current paragraph, and a split is necessary to avoid overwhelming this article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * To those supporting: It is easy ... start editing that section and adding content to a point in which there is no option but to split. But asking for a split on the speculation that there is a lot to be written on the subject is not the way to go about it... -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, and this means that attempts to limit the size of that section must stop. When it gets too large, a proper fork should be made. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping there will be enough "support" votes to avoid this occurrence. It seems disruptive to the BLP to create a section on the allegations that overshadows all other aspects of the biography, even when the reliably sourced coverage supports it (see above). Additionally, we now have Senator Kirsten Gillibrand adding her voice to the call for revocation of Cosby's Presidential Medal of Freedom, in addition to all the other content discussed above which is not included. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Wikipedia should not pile on. There is a lengthy section in this article detailing Sexual assault allegations. The weight and the detail given to "sexual assault allegations" in this article seems appropriate to the social attention given to the subject's problem. It is a lengthy section because the allegations are very serious and they are hardly going by unnoticed. We should be noting in terse sentences that which is strictly relevant to these problems in this subject's biography. We do not need additional space to wax eloquent about for instance the social moment that our society is in or the changing levels of tolerance to sexual violations on the part of powerful men at this point in time. If the zeitgeist of our time needs to be explored as concerns related topics, I think an article on that topic could be developed. It could mention this instance as well as other instances. But at this time there is no need for an additional article to expand the space devoted to these problems as concerns this biography. Bus stop (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no indication that the fork would be on the general subject. It would only be about Cosby's problems, as described by the title. Your worries and opposition are a straw man fallacy/misunderstanding. We know how to make fork articles. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi BullRangifer—our Sexual assault allegations section can be expanded. I don't think there are space constraints. If you feel that there is material missing, why are you not adding it? Bus stop (talk) 02:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Because I have other things to do. I may stop by and add more if I see that the others, who have actually expressed interest in doing so, haven't done anything. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. These accusations are an integral part of Cosby's biography and I feel demoting them to a separate article risks splitting Cosby's life into two parallel biographies of the same man that should really be kept together. Most of the aspects being discussed as additional points to mention don't seem too important to me or can be linked to in references. The list of accusers is long but we don't need to list every single one - that's what references are for.Blythwood (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see consensus emerging for a split. It may be a good idea to start an RFC to attract additional eyeballs. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support because it is clearly notable per the hundreds of sources over a decade. Moreover, the current section has no subheadings and thus is inaccessible to the average reader.--JumpLike23 (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2015
Easy fix of a typo: David Letterman NOT Lettermand. Thank you.

38.140.22.62 (talk) 16:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)