Talk:Bill Cosby sexual assault cases/Archive 1

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

I have sought to bring all the relevant refs along. We can now concentrate all efforts on this topic here, and not in the main Bill Cosby article.

There are a few jobs:


 * 1) The lede has content which is based on referenced content in the body, but it might be a good idea to add refs to parts of the lede which don't have them.
 * 2) When that is done, the section in the main article should be updated by copying this lede to that section. Make sure the refs are full refs.
 * 3) We may need some See also links, more External links, and more Category links.

So, let's improve this article! -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Lead improvement
The lead needs a substantial rewrite and addition to include the salient points covered in the article. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Good! I agree it could be improved, especially the last half. Go ahead and lead the way by proposing some improvements. As an aid, I recommend my own essay on the subject of creating a good lead. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Categories
Do any of these categories apply:
 * Category:2014 scandals
 * Category:2015 scandals
 * Category:21st-century scandals
 * Category:Scandals in the United States

Are these next four inappropriate due to the fact that Cosby has not been found guilty:
 * Category:Sex crimes in the United States
 * Category:Sexual assaults in the United States
 * Category:Rapes in the United States
 * Category:Sexual abuse cover-ups

Louieoddie (talk) 01:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it is a little premature to add any of this until cosby loses a court case. Civil or criminal. Wwdamron (talk) 12:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Influence on culture
Could we have a section for this? South Park (season 19) has already referred to it in all episodes so far. Stunning and Brave introduces a "Hot Cosby" slang which appears again in Where My Country Gone? where they also introduce a "Slow Cosby" slang. Not sure if references were made in the first 18 or any other shows. 64.228.91.102 (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It could be associated with the "Sexual drugging jokes" content in a new "In culture" section (or something like that). Do you have some good secondary RS mentioning this? -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Addition of "serial rapist"
Per the discussion at Talk:Bill Cosby, I have updated this content in all the relevant places, using existing refs and several new ones. Check out my contribution history. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Image
We need an image:


 * Category:Bill Cosby facing front

BullRangifer (talk) 04:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Accuser table?
Any thoughts of having some kind of "accuser table" that demonstrates the variety of allegations against Cosby? There are so many claims of different numbers of accusers, and no reliable count I can find that actually says how many have specifically accused rape vs. sexual assaults vs. attempted assault, etc. Could also demonstrate how many of the accusers are celebrities in their own right (which is a unique characteristic of the Cosby accusations) by linking those accusers who have their own Wikipedia pages. Something like:

Mdude04 01:31, September 30, 2015‎ (UTC)


 * This is an interesting and possibly useful development. Keep developing this here and maybe it can be included. You do really good work. Keep it up! -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It would have to have alleged, since most of these cases will never be prosecutable or civilly tried because of the statute of limitations. I personally am for it, (may need separate section)I would like to know all of Cosby's accusers and who they are they related or married to someone famous who is already has a page on Wikipedia. What they have accused Cosby of and when it happened and what they are doing about it, including their most famous "QUOTES" about the alleged incidents, as well as if the women claimed or succeeded that Cosby tried to denigrate them and more of there short stories, like if they told anyone at or near the time it happened and who to, etc.. ? Also you could include where the events happened and the statute of limitations then vs what they are now, like in the already included Lili Bernard New Jersey case and Nevada's recent statute change vs it's old statute and every alleged victim in that state change, etc... Cosby, according to many, may very well be the greatest serial rapist in modern times to which he will never face criminal charges. Wwdamron (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Some have claimed Molested (Chloe Goins) or Digitally penetrated such as the Andrea Constand Case (which would be neither sexual or attempted sexual assault)? Wwdamron (talk) 15:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Wwdamron (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Below will be the working table until it is ready to be reviewed for inclusion in the page. Not sure it's possible to do a thorough "statute of limitations" analysis since it would be impossible to definitively determine the actual potential charges for each case, but will include relevant comments in the "Detail" section for accusers that have unique or important statute of limitation implications. Thanks!

Feel free to include discussion about formatting and details here. I am creating a new section for the working version of the table while it is being developed.

Mdude04 —Preceding undated comment added 17:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

For better readability, I think I'll get rid of the different "allegation" headers and just collapse it into one column, using a finite list of allegation descriptors (below). Due to the highly exacerbating nature of the drug allegations, I'll keep that as a separate column:

Alleged Child Sexual Abuse (any allegations of assault on someone under 18)

Alleged Rape (including oral, vaginal, and any instance where the allegedly drugged accuser used the word 'rape' to describe what she believe happened)

Alleged Sexual Assault (including forced manual stimulation, molesting, physical attempted rape)

Alleged Attempted Assault (where the alleged victim claims she "escaped" but allege Cosby had the intent to assault)

Other Allegation (e.g., Joyce Emmons who claims Cosby drugged her and then handed her off to another man to have sex with her)

(Potentially, i.e., Constand and Gains)

Convicted Rape

Convicted Sexual Assault

---

So far, 40 accusers accounted for including all of the ones in the New York Magazine feature.

---

Pretty much everyone should be accounted for now, save the brand new accusers from 9/30. I think there may also be one or two who have slipped away from the other aggregated lists out there; will look around just a bit more to be sure because I want this to be the complete resource of information for this truly historic unfolding saga and I don't think there otherwise exists a legitimately exhaustive list of accusers anywhere online. Feel free to share feedback in the meantime. Thanks! Mdude04

---

Alright -- I think this table is now fully complete. Any thoughts on how to incorporate it into the article?

Mdude04 —Preceding undated comment added 08:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am super impressed by your good work here. Thanks so much! As to placement, how about right above the See also section?
 * Also about the references. It's very good that the short form "name" refs are used in the table, as it would make it cluttered and hard to edit if all the long form references were actually placed there. This does mean that the article ends up with normal references spread throughout the article, but also includes List defined references placed in the references section, but it should still work fine. The current reference format is a bit weird, and should be fixed before inclusion (the "span" codes are unnecessary and not used in articles). -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Since the headings state "alleged", we don't need to repeat that on each entry. This will simplify things a lot and make it easier to read. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorting of names by last name should be possible. That means using a "Last, First" format. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The reason I had those  tags is because of the "display:hidden" styles. Otherwise, all of those references would be displayed even though there is no content next to them (if that makes sense). If you remove one of the span tags, you'll see what I mean.

"Alleged" has been removed from all of the assault descriptors, and I also reformatted the names as Last Name, First Name.

I am going to go ahead and insert this into the main article. Feel free to continue discussions on general formatting, etc, here. Thank you for your help and encouragement! -- Mdude04 —Preceding undated comment added 23:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks good. I know it would be a lot of work, but the approximate age of the girl (and Cosby) at the time would be interesting. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

For some reason this table was added as "Complete list of accusers". like most lists on Wikipedia, we cannot know if this is complete. I have changed the name of the section to simply "List of accusers". Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * An Idea* "Other" can mean "Sexual Battery" in most of these cases, since the legal definition of Sexual Battery is the intentional touching of another person in a sexual manner, such as grabbing breasts or groping. Wwdamron (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Alleged Offenses Committed
I thought about creating a section that would show every conceivable offense that cosby has alleged to have made in carreer Sexual Assault, Drugging, Drug Facilitated sexual assault, Sexual Battery, Rape, Kidnapping, Soliciting Prostitution, etc...Wwdamron (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Accuser Table (work in progress)

 * - Witness in 2005 Constand civil case

This looks really good, i'll try to help add a few when I can. Wwdamron (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

What is "Attempted Assault" ? I mean it is very ambiguous and could mean Cosby Attempted to slap someone or spit on someone or kicked or even verbally assaulted and most of these we're some form of a lesser degree of assault called " Battery".
 * Battery is defined as the inappropriate touching of a person on purpose. Sexual Battery is defined as touching in a sexual manner, such as groping, grabbing breasts or ass or even kissing without the other persons consent.
 * .Grabbing Breasts for example is Not Attempted Assault, it is a form of assault called battery and usually called "Sexual Battery". Does anyone agree these should be changed to more reflect the crime Cosby was accused of ?
 * It should also be pointed out that "Attempted Assault" might lead one to believe Attempted Sexual Assault, But this cannot be proven what Cosby wanted to do. For example, Cosby did not want to have sexual intercourse, he merely wanted to grab breasts or grope or kiss and leave it at that, etc.. Wwdamron (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Comedians reponses?
Since Cosby was a comedy legend before the allegations became well known, I think a section about the reactions from fellow comedians could be interesting and significant.

It could mention the comedians that have commented on it in interviews (Chris Rock, Jerry Seinfeld, Kevin Hart, Jay Leno, etc), Damon Wayans' controversial defense of him, as well Whoopi Goldberg initially defending him (before changing her mind), and Judd Apatows very vocal criticism of him.

It could also mention comedians that have used comedy to make fun of Cosby for his alleged actions (Larry Wilmore, Jim Norton, Lisa Lampenelli, etc) and also mention comedic TV shows and films that have joked about the allegations (South Park, Inside Amy Schumer, Ted 2, etc.)

This could also be a subsection of a possible 'Influence On Culture' section. If need be, I could gather some sources and references for this possible section/ subsection. Asaprockysource 15:05, October 1, 2015‎ (UTC)


 * I like the idea of some kind of "Impact" section (like in the Jerry Sandusky sex abuse page). In addition to the varied responses from other comedians/celebrities, I think it's worthy to further analyze the impact of the honorary degree revocations (and how that ties into the growing discussion of colleges/universities making forceful stances against sexual violence, etc), and probably something on the shift of power in the media, demonstrating the tactics Cosby used to have to control the media and how radically those same strategies failed over the past year, etc, etc, etc. My two cents.. Mdude04 (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This sounds good. Go for it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's a possible outline for a potential section/ subsection involving Comedians' Reactions. (I apologize if it's poorly structured, I'm relatively new to editing wikipedia and i'm still figuring it all out, I still need to tag the comedians and tv shows mentioned, and some spots could afford to be worded better)

Prior to the allegations becoming common knowledge, Cosby was largely considered one of the greatest comedians of all-time, and a major influence to many modern comedians. In 2009, Cosby was given the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor. . His concert film 'Bill Cosby: Himself' is widely regarded as "the greatest stand-up concert movie ever". In 2011, his album 'To Russell, My Brother, Whom I Slept With' was number 1 on Spin Magazines list of The 40 Greatest Comedy Albums of All Time, calling it "stand-up comedy's masterpiece".

In a 2014 interview, when asked about the allegations, Chris Rock said "I hope it’s not true. That’s all you can say. I really do. I grew up on Cosby. I love Cosby, and I just hope it’s not true. It’s a weird year for comedy. We lost Robin, we lost Joan, and we kind of lost Cosby."

Kevin Hart commented on the scandal saying "It doesn't stop me from being an admirer of his work. His work and his personal life are two separate things."

Jerry Seinfeld called the situation "sad and incomprehensible"

Jay Leno commented on the allegations, saying "“I don’t know why it’s so hard to believe women. You to go Saudi Arabia and you need two women to testify against a man. Here you need 25.”

Judd Apatow was extremely vocal with his criticism of Cosby, publicly calling him out on multiple occasions, and calling the situation "the worst thing that's ever happened in show business", and defended his constant comments on it, saying “I can understand why someone would say Why does Judd care about this? I don’t know, I have two daughters. I’m a comedian. I see him a little bit as our comedy dad. It’s like finding out your comedy dad is a really evil guy".

Patton Oswalt criticized Cosby, saying ""People say, ‘Oh you’re just attacking Cosby,’ and I’m like no -- I could not want anything less to be true than this Cosby shit -- but holy fuck, it’s so goddamn overwhelming. I don’t want it to be fucking true but it’s ridiculous!"

Cedric The Entertainer called it "an unfortunate scenario", saying "[Cosby] is one of those legendary comedians. We all grew up on him, and we know and respect him, not just as a comedian, but for the things that he's done outside of comedy, with the colleges and giving back [to the community], and spending his money where his mouth is. But if the allegations have any truth to them, you want the truth to come out. You want justification for all the people."

In an interview with Access Hollywood, Roseanne Barr said the allegations didn't surprise her, saying "We've all heard it for a long time, and it surprises nobody." But also encouraged Cosby to come clean, saying "Maybe it's not the end of it, I have hopes for this great comic. I do. I have hopes that he would just make it clean, and make it, you know, make it right, and I do think he could do that....There's so many ways... He's got a billion bucks."

Damon Wayans defended Cosby in a highly controversial interview, saying "It’s a money hustle". He continued, saying, "Forty years — listen, how big is his penis that it gives you amnesia for 40 years? If you listen to them talk, they go, ‘Well, the first time…’ The first time? Bitch, how many times did it happen? Just listen to what they’re saying and some of them really is unrape-able. I look at them and go, ‘You don’t want that. Get outta here."

Sinbad, who worked with Cosby on 'A Different World' defended his legacy, saying "I’ll never turn my back on him. Never. I won’t. I know what it is, it’s wrong. But I won’t. Because I saw so much ‘right’… It’s like, does his legacy mean nothing? Does everything he did positive, the TV shows, A Different World, does that all mean nothing now? It’s like O.J. And that’s the part that makes me cry inside.”

Multiple comedians have also criticized Cosby in their acts. Jim Norton opened his 2015 stand-up special 'Contextually Inadequate' with a routine mocking Cosby. . Lisa Lampenelli referenced the scandal in her 2015 stand-up special 'Back To The Drawing Board'. . . Jeff Ross addressed the accusations in his special 'Jeff Ross Roasts Criminals: Live From Brazos County Jail. Judd Apatow made fun of Cosby during a stand-up set on 'The Tonight Show With Jimmy Fallon. Tina Fey and Amy Poehler made fun of Cosby in their opening monologue while hosting the 2015 Golden Globes, saying "Sleeping Beauty just thought she was getting coffee with Bill Cosby. Bill Maher criticized Cosby on multiple occasions, saying "this guy has put more people to sleep than warm milk."

Multiple performers made references to the scandal on The Comedy Central Roast Of Justin Bieber, including Pete Davidson, Kevin Hart, Hannibal Buress, Jeff Ross and Snoop Dogg.

An entire episode of 'The Nightly Show' with Larry Wilmore was dedicated to talking about the allegations, with Wilmore opening the show saying "that motherfucker did it." , and 'Inside Amy Schumer' had a popular sketch addressing the scandal. . The 19th season premiere episode of 'South Park' introduced a recurring joke of referring to rape as a "hot Cosby"

I think this could be categorized as in Celebrity or Public Official or Well known People responses, since many people, like Judd Apatow, Arnold Schwartznegger even Donald Trump have had bad things to say about Cosby. And you Could have 2 subsections. And then you have Physcilla Rashad and others who believe Cosby is innocent. And Three people have not really said, like Malcolm Jamal Warner who has been somewhat neutral.
 * One be People who are Against Cosby.
 * Two be People who are Pro Cosby and
 * Three undecided.

Wwdamron (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Table for Cosby's Rescinded Degrees

 * I am working on a table to list COsby's Honorary Degrees and all the Details associated with them. As of October 15, 2015 there are at least 10 degrees Rescinded and more are expected to Follow. ** Please do NOT put this TABLE in the article until we have all of them up to Date !!! Thank youWwdamron (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Wwdamron (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Everyone i welcome to expand on this list a I have limited time to work on it. Wwdamron (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Ebony cover story
Here are a few sources which might be useful:


 * Cliff-Hanger: Can 'The Cosby Show' Survive? Should It? Ebony


 * Ebony editor: We've got to have the conversation


 * Ebony 'Cosby Show' cover causes a stir


 * Ebony Releases Controversial Cosby Show Cover, Malcolm-Jamal Warner & Raven-Symone Reunite and Discuss It

-- &#123;&#123;u&#124; BullRangifer &#125;&#125; { Talk } 03:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Bob Saget
Bob Saget Says Mentor Bill Cosby Has Been 'Tarnished' By 'Despicable' Acts "It's just sad for all of the people involved." -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Kathie Lee Gifford
Gifford, on the Today show, has alleged inappropriate behavior from the married Cosby in the 1970s:

BullRangifer (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Kathie Lee Gifford on Bill Cosby: "He did try to kiss me"
 * Kathie Lee Gifford claims Bill Cosby tried to kiss her; woman alleges 2008 assault
 * Kathie Lee Gifford: Bill Cosby tried to kiss me

Is RAW STORY A Suitable Single Source RS
Hello Folks is RAW STORY with this sensationalist headline...."Bill Cosby didn’t rape me but what he did has always given me the creeps" a suitable single source for a BLP article over say more reliable sources such as the New York Times ? 66.235.36.153 (talk) 00:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)Sincerely A Contributor
 * It always depends on what it's used for. The content is the focus. The headline means absolutely nothing to us. Even The New York Times is not considered a RS for some types of content. If the content is good, then it's okay. Do you have any reason, based on other RS, to believe the content is false? Dana Kennedy is a notable and trusted journalist/correspondent. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello Bull you have finally admitted that Wikipedia is not to be sensationalist and now maybe you can explain just what magical editorial process allows any Wikipedia editor to sift through a single sensationalist source and determine what is factual from all the titillation that a writer and no editor saw fit to review at a site like RAW STORY or GAWKER. NYT has a proper editorial board. 66.235.36.153 (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)Respectfully A Contributor


 * There is no "finally admitted" anything. Respond to what I've actually written. We document sensational and titillating things all the time. Our wording (not the source's wording) is what's toned down. We still quote sources, and such quoting might be pretty strong at times. There is no problem here. You just don't like it. There is no reason to suspect any inaccuracy in the source used here. If the wording should be improved, please suggest how, and be specific. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Bull now that there has been further admission to the writing about or including titillation that is two strikes that BLP says you must go to better sources on, with better editorial standards, than RAW STORY, GAWKER and the NATIONAL ENQUIRER TMZ etc. etc. which Wikipedia itself designates as gossip sites. Now if you want to go for strike three there is always the defending the tabloid sources such as Daily Mail, which makes it very easy for the titillation crowd as it highlights all the titillation not only in the headlines but a whole list of bullet items right upfront.
 * You still seem to think that the sensationalist headline, which Wikipeadia states announces the content of the article, is somehow not part of the article itself. Once the sensationalist nature of an item is established with all the titillation strewn throughout please, again, pray tell just what magical editorial powers a wiki editor has to sort out the 'facts' from the sensationalist titillation. It seems at best without such a source as the NYT you will end up with a bunch of 'factoids' and recycled titillation. 66.235.36.153 (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)Respectfully A Contributor
 * You don't have a consensus behind your ideas. Period. Bye. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, just clear cut BLP Wikipedia policy that some 'unmotivated' editors wish to willfully ignore. 66.235.36.153 (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)Respectfully A Contributor

Reactions Recalling encounters with Cosby
This is an odd section of the article as it consists mostly of single sourced gossip blog based opinions ( other than the Obama segment which seems straight forward). It needs greater diversity of voiced reactions or needs to be pulled per BLP. Sincerely A Contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.36.153 (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Same IP issues
HI editors, assuming good faith and to put it kindly, I am troubled by the IP's deletion of content for this article, recent edit warring, and his changing of formatting.--JumpLike23 (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's getting pretty serious. Keep an eye on ALL their edits. They are clueless and just causing more problems. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello Folks This is one of IP editors that Jump and Bull are agonizing about. They have been moaning about edits that violate BLP and restoring those edits without going to talk. They are happy to do edits that have no reportage matching the material in the article and when their mistake is pointed out they rush out for an 'easy' google search for a source that still does not have the proper reportage.


 * When sensationalist material does not match a section of the article like in the Constand Case by including the Brown tabloid accusations they 'fix it' by changing the title. Yet when a relevant edit is added in the Reactions section by Camille Cosby sourced by CNN it is deleted. They claim to be 'unmotivated' to review the article in light of clear violations of BLP. The suggestion is that the entire article needs a review by more objective editors than Jump or Bull with far higher editorial sources than the tabloid Daily Mail, TMZ, RAW STORY, GAWKER etc, etc. With all due respect Jump and Bull have acted in good faith and have done some very good editing but that said there seems to be a lack of motivation to make a better article in this case. 66.235.36.153 (talk) 19:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)Respectfully A Contributor
 * Your incompetence is staggering. Lots of false and misleading claims. There are no "clear violations of BLP," and I don't recall any of us "claim to be 'unmotivated' ..." That's YOUR claim. Don't make it OUR claim. That's very deceptive. It appears you are creating a false narrative about other editors. You also have a rather unique misunderstanding of BLP and refuse to accept the opinions of more experienced editors.
 * The part you added about Camille Cosby has not been deleted. Per WP:Preserve, even though you misplaced it and worded it poorly, another editor improved it and placed it in a better location, even with its own heading. You waste our time. Find some uncontroversial subjects to edit and gain more experience before you deal with BLP stuff. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Bull good for you, you are right the Camille comment was moved to Cosby Response, even though it was a Reaction to the allegations and added more voices to a section that seems to want to be based on poorly single sourced blog cited materials in violation of BLP, you know all those great sensationalist headlines like how 'creeped out' folks are, real encyclopedia material and language there. You need to read what your fellow editors said about being unmotivated... you seem plenty motivated to 'fix' something by changing a title of a section to fit a sensationalist tabloid source but unmotivated to find better editorial sources per BLP. 66.235.36.153 (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)Respectfully A Contributor

Tom Scocca article
One thing I don't see in this article is that actually something very notably preceded Buress's routine: an extremely forceful polemic by Tom Scocca in early 2014, arguing that people were refusing to accept the accusations against Cosby because they didn't want to. Should this be added? Blythwood (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It can be added if fully attributed. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Constand Case and Related Materials
Hello Folks

Go to the Constand Case article Talk Page. You will find a consensus has been reached that the Brown material has no connection with the subject of the Constand Case. Also it was removed per BLP if you wish to restore it the burden of proof is on you as an editor. 66.235.36.153 (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)Sincerely A Contributor
 * This is not the Constand article. The change of heading had fixed any issues. Don't just delete content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Bull Sorry but nothing was 'fixed' you seem obsessed with the tabloid material about Brown and the 'freaky sex' claims it includes and you will do anything to keep this tabloid based material in the body of the article in violation of BLP. The section is about the Constand case to which the Brown material is unrelated, period. Changing the title has not altered the fact that the entire material in the section flows from and is exclusive to the Constand case. 66.235.36.153 (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)Respectfully A Contributor
 * the personal attacks on Bull are completely out of line. We have not done such to you. Please proceed with caution--you have been warned. It is not just Bull. I do not agree with your recent changes. Moreover, you are now engaged in an edit war. --JumpLike23 (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not also, IP calling mine and Bull's edits vandalism. --JumpLike23 (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Jump Do not bother warning about something that is not occurring, like a non-existent 'edit war'. You have accused this IP editor of 'vandalism' and were perfectly happy to quickly spread an accusation by Bull onto the edit history in a form of tag team activity to label a fellow good faith editor. A number of edits were in violation of BLP, this editor took those edits to TP when you failed to do so. The edit involved the Constand case and now here is Bull inserting the same non-relevant material in a section that is clearly exclusively about Constand. Where this editor comes from that is called playing dog in the manger.
 * Stop changing the titles of sections to fit material in the article you could not get in before. Even with the title change the material is still disconnected from the flow of the subject. The Brown claims were made to THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER in 2005 by the way. The great thing about Wikipedia is anyone can read the archive and see the edit history. 66.235.36.153 (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)Respectfully A Contributor
 * More incompetence. The title was changed to describe the actual contents, contents which were already there, since the contents were not exclusively about the Constand case. There was a chronological flow involving several women. We do not just delete such content, as you have done several times now. We WP:Preserve it by fixing or improving it. My improvement of the title did just that.
 * Brown's claims in 2005 were not made to the Enquirer (that happened ten years before 2005). Placing THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER in all caps is a blatant WP:POINT violation, considering how you don't want such sources to be used or visible. Stop it. Your work here is nothing but disruptive incompetence. We constantly have to watch your edits and fix them. You're constantly screwing things up. You don't understand BLP or our way of doing things. When it comes to BLP, if you find negative claims which are unsourced, then yell BLP and we'll all take a look and either find a source or remove it. If it's sourced, we don't remove negative material. If the wording is questionable, we can discuss it. Rewording is another way of improving content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Bull Yelling words like 'incompetence' when you are ..well... being incompetent ... is kind of funny.. Check the reportage of your favorite sensationalist tabloid Daily Mail cited and you will see that Brown made her 2005 claim  to the NATIONAL ENQUIRER " a supermarket tabloid". You seem to defend that tabloid source to the death. The CAPS used are how sources like GAWKER, TMZ. THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER, etc, etc, identify their brand in print.Yes, this editor gets it, since the title and the subject material of the section is exclusively about the Constand Case and you can not get your favorite sensationalist material about Brown with comments about 'freaky sex' at the source to fit such subject matter you simply changed the title. That is violation of BLP, why not just go out and get a better source, you know an 'easy' goolge source, just like Jump did, that had no matching reportage. 66.235.36.153 (talk) 16:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)Respectfully A Contributor
 * Thanks for fixing my oversight. I forgot to update 2005 to 2015, the date of the cited article. I have no special love for the sources used, and if you can find better ones, I'd be happy. Since the content is not disputed, we'll just keep it.
 * The heading simply refers to the contents of the section, and those are the names of the women mentioned in that section. These are the earlier public claims made before "Buress remarks and aftermath" opened the whole can of worms and lots more claims surfaced. It's in chronological order, more or less. Now that the line begins with 2015, it makes it look a lot later than the other claims, so I'll rearrange the paragraph so the 2005 date gets back at the beginning, which is when the original claims were made, even though our source is the 2015 source. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


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

Wikipedia designates Daily Mail as a tabloid. I look forward to any comments 66.235.36.153 (talk) 19:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)Respectfully A Contributor
 * The Daily Mail is a "middle-market newspaper". We are not using that sensational wording, so your bringing it up here is disruptive baiting. Instead of continually complaining, try using this talk page for its intended purpose. Suggest improved wording. Suggest more and better sources which we can use. Be constructive and pro active. Nobody likes a whiner.
 * How about using this Los Angeles Times article? It provides many details about Cosby's affair with Shawn Upshaw Brown. -- BullRangifer (talk) 08:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Bull If nobody likes a whiner then stop whining so much about somebody picking on your favorite tabloid journalism and it's 'freaky sex' headlines...if you have an article from the Los Angeles Times lined up...stop whining and use that better editorial RS or is that tabloid 'freaky sex' bit just to important to you to improve the article with a better RS as this editor has suggested all along. Kudos to you for finding a better RS than a known tabloid.66.235.36.153 (talk) 08:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Respectfully A Contributor

You are NOT a repected contributor at best a possible repected vandalizer. Wheter it comes from what you call tablooid magazines or not, if it is factual, it doesn't matter where the source came from. Maybe you should spend more of your time looking for other sources to back up what you call tabloid (untrue, sensational headlines and stories) with other sources. If you cant find a source you consider that is unviased put it in the talk section and let someone more experienced look at it. Also you should make a screen name instead of using your IP address, which makes it more difficult to pinpoint your edits in the article as their is no (diff) button. More than 50% of your edits are baseless.

So log in with a screen name, if you dont like something or a source, etc.. let other users put in their input. I thibk i speak for the manority, but you are losing a lot of repect, you can earn it back if you just did some basic steps. I doubt or I hope you dont want to be the odd man or woman out. I would imagine if this keeps going on, your edits/deletions will be eventually ignored based upon your past performsnces. It gets tiresome to come in here and the whole story has huge sections deleted on a daily basis.Wwdamron (talk) 12:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Wwdamron The 'Respectfully' means with 'all due respect' to fellow good faith editors like you, meaning this editor has enough respect for fellow editors that they can spot 'tabloid journalism' when they see it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a portal to articles about sensationalist claims of 'freaky sex' about a Living Person that was made in the NATIONAL ENQUIRER then just recycled by another tabloid. The question still stands...is the article 'tabloid journalism'. If that question has made another editor cough up a better source then kudos to that editor, that is what real editors do to earn 'respect'. Along with asking questions about whether a 'source is 'tabloid journalism' which Wikipedia says can not be used as a source per BLP. No wiki editor has some magical power to sift through a tabloid journalism single source and find 'facts'. Respectfully 66.235.36.153 (talk) 15:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)A Contributor

Jezebel Blog Website Tabloid Journalism
Hello Fellow Editors The blog based website Jezebel is being used to support items in Wikipedia wiki designates it as a blog site: "Jezebel is a feminist blog, under the tagline "Celebrity, Sex, Fashion for Women. Without Airbrushing." It is one of several blogs owned by Gawker Media."

Should this be used as source it seems to be clear tabloid style journalism. GAWKER proudly displays the banner "Today's gossip is tomorrows news." I look forward to any comments. Respectfully 66.235.36.153 (talk) 17:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)A Contributor

AND more editors....
Hmm... I added the info about the new criminal charges today and someone instantly deleted most of it. OK, I admit it was too long for the lede. (I then modified the edited version a bit and provided better citations.) I added more info to the Accuser section (Constand); I hope it will not get dramatically condensed again. Peter K Burian 17:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter_K_Burian

Concerning 'Cosby's acquisition, illegal distribution, and mention of drugs' section
Hello Fellow Editors

The article section with the title: 'Cosby's acquisition, illegal distribution, and mention of drugs' has a 'flow' of two separate issues into each other creating a synth and appearance of OR as though they are related. They are not, the first is a series of allegations under an opening statement of a 'theme' of drugs used in the allegations. It also contains Cosby's attorney's denial of the allegations. The second and separate issue is a series of quotes from Cosby's deposition. There is no connection between these two separate issues, one is a series of allegations the other is a series of quotes from a legal document. These two separate issues should each have their own title to distinguish between them. Respectfully66.235.36.153 (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC) A Contributor


 * I'm not sure I understand your argument about there being "separate issues." This subsection is about detailing the significance of drugs as it relates to this article. That is its purpose. I don't see anything in this section that doesn't belong. Cosby did acquire and did illegally distribute Quaaludes. He did joke about Spanish fly. We all know how much you like to talk about "reliable sources," but I didn't think we needed to argue that Cosby's own words are a reliable source for information about Cosby. The allegations at the beginning of the section are to detail the specific drug details that have been alleged. Those allegations are then emboldened by Cosby's own testimony. It is important to distinguish the behavior that Cosby has explicitly admitted. That is a very crucial and distinguishing part of the entire article. Mdude04 (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello MDude' Let us keep this very simple. The first item in the section are allegations, Cosby's voice is nowhere to be found as you claimed. The second item is the Cosby deposition that is a legal document most of which is Cosby responding to another person. Those are two separate issues altogether. There is no flow between the issues they happened in different times, places, and context. That needs two separate titles. Respectfully 66.235.36.153 (talk) 02:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)A Contributor


 * I don't consider it really necessary, for no reasonable person would misunderstand, but I've added another section heading to avoid more of this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Bull Good move, even if a bit begrudgingly Respectfully A 66.235.36.153 (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)Contributor

Chronological order??
The charge laid on Dec. 30 is a very important topic since it is the first and only criminal charge for sexual assault vs. Cosby. The question is, where in the article should this appear? I had put it in before the allegations but someone moved it further down. OK, but I'm still not sure it is in the most suitable spot within the timeline. OR should it be a timeline item at all? Peter K Burian 20:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter_K_Burian


 * Agreed that this is the most important part of the article. It should not be something that users need to search for in order to find information about. I think it needs to be its own full section. Mdude04 (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, but where exactly in the article should it be placed? Peter K Burian (talk)


 * I was finally able to fix my signature so it shows as a link. Thanks to BullRangifer Peter K Burian (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Good!
 * I think it should still be chronological, but since it's a new situation, it could be its own section. It's also mentioned in the lead, as it should be. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I see that BullRangifer just moved it to a different spot. Hmm ... still not sure that is where it belongs but who knows?? Peter K Burian (talk) 21:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Criminal Charge ... two of us were writing this edit at the same time
It seems that Wwdamron and I were both working on this topic. At this moment, my edit is the one that is live. If Wwdamron or another editor can improve my text, great. I try not to have a proprietary attitude toward content that I wrote, and any improvements are appreciated. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * And later, someone did not notice that I had already provided a quote from the defense and simply tagged on a paragraph about that. OK, I deleted my content about that and kept his, but condensed it significantly. I do concede that putting it at the end of the section does make the most sense. Peter K Burian (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

4 Attacks on Dec. 30 alone
Before I deleted the offending words, the text read like this: 18:17, 30 December 2015‎ 75.169.219.62 (talk)‎. .

American entertainer Bill Cosby has been the subject of publicized sexual assault allegations. With the earliest alleged incidents taking place in the mid-1960s, and typical of the behavior of black community role models, Cosby has been accused ... Peter K Burian 18:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Clear vandalism. It has happened every now and then with this article. Thank you for deleting. Mdude04 (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Glad you caught that and deleted the content. Respectfully66.235.36.153 (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC) A Contributor

I saw the same attack added again; just as I was going to Undo, someone else (Pepper) did so. Nice to have vigilant folks! Peter K Burian (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Wow two more attacks .. again someone caught them and undid! Peter K Burian (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

FALLOUT section
The last paragraph conflates Pennsylvania State University (central PA) and University of Pennsylvania (SE PA). A re-write is important, but beyond the scope of my abilities.KVWS (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * KVWS, do you have a RS for that? The ones I find show the content is correct, but if there is something else, please provide it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I see I looked at the wrong spot, but it's fixed now, so that's good. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

New picture now that Cosby has been charged
Obviously the felony charge is now the most important aspect of this article. I think an updated main picture is appropriate. Is there a fair use picture that can be used from Cosby's arraignment? He will presumably get a mugshot. Could that be used? Thoughts? Mdude04 (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be good. The younger picture at the top is appropriate because this shows the progression of events. Most of his alleged assaults occurred when he was much younger, and further down in the article we arrive at the later publicity, charges, and events, and there the current image of a much older man is correct. We still need a mugshot, or similar image. In fact, maybe the mugshot should be a third image below the other two. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone would argue that the most important picture related to this article is his mug shot and as such it should be the primary. I've placed it at the top. The 1969 picture was moved to the section that deals with the early allegations (and works well since it is now closer to the later 2011 picture that appears next to the later allegations). Mdude04 (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I see your point, and it looks good. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)