Talk:Bill Cosby sexual assault cases/Archive 3

How about condensing the Fallout section even more?
If we must condense this article, the Fallout section would be a good place to do it. Someone did condense the section about the Honorary degrees but Fallout still has far too much information. Do we need that much about what every institution did?

i.e. Here is a single section ... IMHO, this could be condensed by 80%. Whoever condensed the Honorary Degrees section could probably do well on this section too. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Am I crazy or is this FAR too long?
 * Peter, I agree. It doesn't need that much detail. It can probably be condensed to one or two paragraphs. Btw, I made your copied section collapsable so it's easier to discuss. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I also agree, it's in need of a trim. The civil lawsuit sections have lots of WP:NOTNEWS updates in them and could be condensed as well. However, I think the Buress remarks and aftermath section is totally essential.LM2000 (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is far too much detail. Forget about condensing it, since it will all be moved, and we need ALL the details. Just create a lead summary. No institutions need be mentioned. Just mention the types of institutions, shows canceled, and honorary degrees. That's about it. One good sized paragraph, or three small ones, since there are only three topic areas: (1) Institutions sever ties; (2) Honorary degrees rescinded; (3) Broadcast networks cancel shows. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

BTW, we are already dealing with this subject in the previous section, so this section is a bit distracting. Please concentrate efforts there. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I wish the statements be re-instated in a spinoff article this is probably the MOST talked about SCANDAL in the past 50 Years and has a WORLDWIDE public Audience. Wwdamron (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

“The New Cosby Wars” Airs on “20/20 Saturday,” January 9 at 10 p.m. EST on ABC
New source:


 * “The New Cosby Wars” Airs on “20/20 Saturday,” January 9 at 10 p.m. EST on ABC

BullRangifer (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

CHLOE GOINS --- STATUTE of LIMITATIONS NOT Expired ... Yes it HAS expired
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2015/12/30/chloe-goins-wants-her-case-against-bill-cosby-to-spur-criminal-charges-too/

'''The statute is anywhere from 6 to 10 years, no one knows the exact criminal activity being investigated and this needs to be updated. A News story, just because 6 years is most sexual crimes in california does NOT mean COsby may NOT fall under the 10 year statute of other sex crimes'''

'Need sources explaining that most sex crimes expire in 6 years but Cosby could be charged under another sex crime that falls within the 10 years statute.''  This particular case has NOT been closed''' Wwdamron (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, I reverted the edit that deleted the section that said charges from the Goins case could not be made at this late date. The citation I had provided for that section, LA Times, says the Limitations is 6 years! http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-la-bill-cosby-allegations-venue-20151230-story.html In most other adult sex-crime cases -- including the type Goins is alleging -- the statute of limitations is generally six years. But legal experts said there are other reasons for the LAPD to investigate, especially if Cosby is charged with a crime. California law allows victims to testify as witnesses even if their own cases never result in charges. The evidence is admissible because of a 1996 change in California law that allowed witnesses to prove a pattern of behavior or propensity to commit a crime.i.e. She clould testify in other charges (Such as the one in PA re: Constand) but that does not mean that Cosby could be charged in the Goins case in CA .. because it is "Statute barred").


 * I read the citation you provided www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2015/12/30/chloe-goins-wants-her-case-against-bill-cosby-to-spur-criminal-charges-too but I could find no mention that the Statute of Limitations might be longer than 6 years in CA. It just says Goins would LIKE charges to be laid in her case but then just discusses the Constand charges in PA. (btw, the statute depends on the state; it is longer in PA and that is why they were able to lay a charge in Dec. 2015 re: an incident that occurred in Jan. 2004. It is 12 years in the state of PA)


 * If I am wrong, I would delete the section about the Limitation having expired in the Goins case. But I would need to read an article that says so in a reliable source. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * btw, where is the article that claims that the Limitations in California could be more than 6 years (re: Goins)? Peter K Burian (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * That's okay, but I think it needs to be edited that the case might still fall under the statute of limitations, since certain sex crimes can be up to 10 years. Why would Goins say this about her case after she has to know the statute of limitations has expired on the six year period (if that is the case)? . And why does the LAPD NOT say specifically that GOINS case CANNOT be prosecuted now ? I understand that they can investigate beyond prosecutable cases, but know one of proper authority has confirmed without doubt that Goins case cannot be tried Criminally. Wwdamron (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * '''Here is a Link showing exceptions that statute could be TEN years or even UNLIMITED if a weapon was used, these are things we don;t know is the Drugs he used could be considered a Weapon, was she tied up, did he use an object on her, only the Prosecution, the victim and Cosby knows these answers and how they could be interpreted : read carefully ___


 * http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/california-statute-of-limitations-on-sexual-abuse.html'''Wwdamron (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * AGGRAVATED RAPE, there is no statute of limitations, the public so far knows he stripped her naked and was licking her toes and possibly masturbating. Could his TEETH be a WEAPON ?


 * Straight from the California statute : Any Felonious sex crime can also be prosecuted within one year of WHENEVER a victim tells the police (even past the 10 year mark).Wwdamron (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * What??? So if a lady reports an alleged abuse 30 years later, they can charge the abuser at that late date, if they do so within a year??? Sorry, I do not believe that at all. And the article says nothing like that at all. http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/california-statute-of-limitations-on-sexual-abuse.html MAYBE if the victim was 15 years old at the time of the assault but Goins was not a minor. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * If the DA could prove AGGRAVATED assault he would have charged Cosby by now in the Goins case. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * How do you know this ? It took the DA more than 7 months to decide to prosecute Andrea Constand after release of the deposition which they said was the crucial piece, they may have even waited longer if the statute was not set to excpire in Constands case, where do you get this information from, has the DA said it is NOT Aggravated sexual assault in Goins Case ? And on the same Token did the DA announce what charges he was looking at in Constands case before December 30, 2015 ? Did you know it was going to be Aggravated Assault before December 30 in Constands case and how did you know ? Wwdamron (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay I may have misread the part about the 1 year statute from 10 years. But if the DA has not said he is NOT going to charge Cosby for the Goins case only ? Then what is the reason besides saying her testimony could be used in other cases, that does not say he will NOT prosecute Cosby in Goins case abut will still investigate it for other cases, No LEGAL authority has said specifically Goins case is beyond prosecution, does it ?Wwdamron (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, last week, the DA announced that no charges would be laid because they were barred by the statute of limitations; I updated the Chloe section accordingly. Peter K Burian (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Added cleanup tag: Article is far too long, contains way too many sources, and its synthesis may be original research
The article is far too long (~180KB). Is everything in the article notable enough to be in an encyclopedia forever (i.e. WP:NTEMP)? Trimming it down may make it more appealing for a casual reader wanting to get familiar with the story. Also, the citation section may be too big as well (i.e. WP:CITEOVERKILL). Are all these sources necessary? Are they all reliable? Many editors in this talk page have questioned the reliability of some of the sources (i.e. tabloids, etc). Maybe we can briefly mention certain things in the article and refer readers to the source material for a more in depth story. And if that's the case, can we cut down on the number of citations by citing other secondary sources that have made a similar compilation as the one currently in this article? If such a source doesn't exist, then it is possible that this compilation, synthesis, and analysis of the story may qualify as Original Research and then the whole thing needs to be rethought. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I think we have gotten rid of the questionable references already. Peter K Burian (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I did condense the Buress section. Why don't we delete the Spanish Fly and the section about Cosby's jokes? Peter K Burian (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The Fallout section is too long; I'll bet it could be condensed to a few hundred words. Do we really need so much specifics? Peter K Burian (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Please keep WP:PRESERVE in mind. Condensation is better than outright deletion. Such deletion is a slap in the face to the good faith efforts of other editors. Too many refs? Original research? Those are local issues, not whole article issues. We need to be more specific about such things, rather than tagging the whole article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, got it BullRangifer. So Fallout, Spanish Fly and Jokes section really need to be dramatically condensed. Peter K Burian (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The most logical thing to do is create a WP:SPINOFF with the entire Fallout section. It has lots of nitty gritty detail that is important, but fills too much in the article. If you need help, I have experience doing this. (I'm the one who created this SPINOFF article.) -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The "Civil lawsuits against Cosby" section would also make a good SPINOFF. We're basically dealing with a large metaarticle, and this is where multiple spinoffs come in handy. Take a look at Chemistry. It's such a large subject that most of the sections are summaries of subarticles. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The "Spanish Fly" section could be shortened since it is a summary of a section in another article. The hatnote link can be incorporated as a wikilink. The "Drinking joke" section is only two sentences, so shortening is out of the question. Once the Spanish Fly section is shortened, the two subheadings can be dropped. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that if we are to keep all the detail it would be preferable to split this article into a few other articles. The section on "Civil lawsuits against Cosby" is definitely long enough to merit its own article (based solely on length), also the "Table of known accusers" could be its own article just based on length. However, if we are considering making spinoff articles from spinoff articles, it is possible that we may have an excess of detail and maybe we should rely more on the cited sources for some of this intricate detail. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree and would like to start the spinoff process by creating the "leads" (summaries) which would be left behind per "summary style". Such long sections often benefit from such an introductory paragraph anyway. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Civil lawsuits against Cosby
The Civil lawsuits.... section seems to already have a pretty good lead. What do y'all think? Is it a good enough summary? -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * One option would be to incorporate some of the content in that section in the chart that lists all of the victims. Then we could delete much of the long text about the law suits... But that would be a massive task; the chart includes some such info (I added a bit to some of the names, like Green, but would require a lot more work to add to other sections.) And in truth, I'm not sure we should do so .. it is just one option... Peter K Burian (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The whole idea of PRESERVE is to build the encyclopedia, whereas deleting and condensing does the opposite. If the content is decent, but creates undue weight and makes the article too large, the spinning off keeps ALL the material. That way no editor's work has been in vain. After the material has been moved, that article can still be improved, which sometimes can mean some tweaking, condensing, and even deletion of poorly sourced or bad content. Let's wait with doing that until after the content we have here is moved.
 * The question now is whether the lead summary is adequate? Imagine the main content is gone. Is that lead summary a good enough placeholder which describes what was moved? If you feel it is lacking in some manner, then improve it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I will add that it mentions Allred representing 29 and her daughter representing 1, What about Cammaratta representing 7 victims and what he is known for his case representing billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein ? Then the other Attorney's who they represent and maybe some of their backgrounds that involve similar sex cases ? My point is, why does Lisa Bloom even worth mentioning if you are not going to include Cammaratta (who is probably more famous than Bloom) and the other lawyers? I think they should ALL be included and who each is representing.Wwdamron (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Wwdamron, I don't see any reason for not mentioning the attorneys involved. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Civil lawsuits against Bill Cosby seems to be a straightforward title for the spinoff. What think ye? -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Fallout
The Fallout section also seems to have a good lead summary. Is it good enough? -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Well BullRangifer, you are an experienced editor and have worked on this article far longer than I have. AND I have agreed with virtually any change you have made to this article. We have been warned (by a hamster, no less) that it is too long. ANY condensing you do to sections such as Fallout and especially Institutions Sever Tieswhat institutions have done about Cosby would be fully supported by me. Would others object and revert your changes? I doubt that the vast majority would although you have had a few battles in the past about changes. AND I support your plan to start a spinoff article as a valid method of further condensing this article. Cheers! Peter K Burian (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, when this material, in its entirety, has been moved, the article will be much shorter. Do you feel the lead summary is good enough? Feel free to improve it if it's missing something. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

We need a title for the spinoff. How about Fallout from allegations against Bill Cosby? -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * that sounds Okay, but I would like the statements from the Colleges re-added (I think the public would like to know, since this Scandal is one of the MOST talked about things in the CENTURY and perhaps will BE). to be re-instated if it is included in this spinoff. Wwdamron (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course. We can use a previous version. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Table of known accusers
The Table of known accusers is the one that needs a short summary. It doesn't need to mention any names, but should include the approximate number of alleged victims and the types of allegations and time spans. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... yeah, let's delete the chart. The text of the article that discusses lawsuits is quite up to date about the most important suits such as Green et al. v. Cosby. OK, after thinking aobut it, please leave the text and delete the chart of all victims ... just list their names (and a bit of info) in one paragraph. That will dramatically condense this article and get the warnings to stop. Peter K Burian (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The chart will be moved, so only a paragraph will remain. That paragraph is what's missing. How can we summarize the contents of the chart?
 * Here are the headings, so we need to say something about each one:


 * Alleged victim: approximate number
 * Alleged offense: types of offenses
 * Alleged drug involvement: types of drugs, their effects, and not all cases involved drugs
 * Year(s): time span
 * Location: no need to name any of them
 * First reported: no need to mention this either


 * Does this sound like a reasonable method? Feel free to create a paragraph. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Here's an attempt


 * Cosby has been accused by 59 women of either rape, drug facilitated sexual assault, sexual battery, and/or sexual misconduct. There were also two instances of alleged child sexual abuse, both involving girls 15 years of age. The earliest alleged incidents took place in the mid-1960s, with the rest scattered all the way until the latest in 2008. Of the 59 purported victims, 44 involved drug use and 15 did not.

How's that? Feel free to improve it. BTW, please double check my counting. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Since no one has objected to the accuracy (or otherwise) of the above summation, I'm going to install it in the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

We need a title for the spinoff. How about List of Bill Cosby's accusers? -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Why not List of Cosby's accusers for brevity? Unless there is some other notable instance of Cosby being accused of something by people which I'm not aware of. Obviously "Bill's accusers" would be too vague since that could refer to Clinton. Although "accusers" could be too vague, like what if someone accused Cosby of stealing a pudding joke? Should it be "assault accusers"? 184.145.18.50 (talk) 12:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Before creating so many more spinoff articles, do we really need the detail?
We should ask ourselves: Do we really need spinoff articles from a spinoff article? Or should we just get rid of the excessive detail in some of these sections, write some brief summaries, and just rely on the cited sources for all the small details? I think we may need to call in some outside editors to provide their opinion on this. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Close this RfC as a misuse of the dispute resolution process. This is a subject for discussion on this talk page among editors here. If, after serious discussion, we reach an impasse, then the process allows an RfC, not before. There is no rule forbidding spinoffs from spinoffs. Some spinoffs end up being larger than their parent article. So what? Our main goal is to document the sum total of human knowledge. We have myriad RS which document the subjects which have grown too large, and spinning off detailed content which creates undue weight and makes the article too large is the standard process. Why the objection? WP:SPINOFF and WP:PRESERVE exist so that we fulfill our main goal and so that editors will not have their hard and good faith work trashed. That destroys morale and causes burnout and loss of good editors. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * BullRangifer, I ask respectfully, let's let other editors that are not close to this article to weigh in. They will come in with an unbiased perspective, will read the article for the first time, and tell us if the information is too much or if it's just right. Let's just let the opinions come in and then we can decide what to do. It may be that the answer is to create the spinoff articles. But it also may not be. Let's bring in some external editors who, unlike you and I, are not too close to the subject. We don't have the perspective of a reader who is looking at the article for the first time. It's important to know what they think. I'll let the discussion open to see what we get. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with, and have observed that Wikipedia's compendium of the many and varied economic and cultural-institutional rejections of Cosby have served the broader media in describing the timeline of cultural reaction over the past year and a half. For that reason they need to be included here, or in a spinoff, but not mimimized or effectively erased from the record as some would seem to prefer. There is a happy medium. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. We seemed to be in agreement that spinning off this content was a good idea, and then this RfC tries to shortcircuit that process. RfCs are part of the dispute resolution process, and misuse of this process is disruptive, since, as we know from experience, uninvolved editors usually fail to do due diligence and their !votes can then be swayed to violate a consensus of the local editors, and the editors of each articles are the ones who determine how an article is written. Only when there is clear policy violation should others be brought in, and RfCs should only be used when local editors reach an impasse. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:10, January 5, 2016 (UTC)
 * BullRangifer, please sign your comments by using . Also, please review WP:RFC, this is not a dispute as much as it is to get an important outsider's point of view. If you would not like to participate in the discussion, please feel free to do so, but do not try to prematurely shut down the discussion because you think it will go one way or another. There are less than 5 active editors here and like you stated in the previous comment, editors may be too protective/emotional of their "hard and good faith work" to be objective when it comes to cutting it down. Finally, please note that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, so let's not use ultra-literal interpretation of policies to prevent progress on this article. This section is to discuss whether we should have the spinoff articles or not. Let's focus on that topic. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We were having that discussion and an RfC is not necessary. In a case like this it usually creates more heat than light and destroys the collaborative efforts of the involved editors. Keep in mind that local consensus on an article is what determines its content. Misusing RfCs to shortcircuit that process is like prematurely calling in outside help when negotiations have just started. That's simply insulting to the current participants. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The instructions for RfCs is clear. From WP:RFC:
 * "Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it always helps to first discuss the matter with the other parties on the related talk page."

We had just begun discussion, and there was no need to call in outside help yet. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * RfC - Void for Vagueness - This is a poorly established RfC that should be closed as void for vagueness. Not clear what the questioner is asking. Per BullRangifer; may be bad faith use of DR process. NickCT (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy Close RfC as inappropriate use of the dispute resolution process. This first needs to have a discussion among involved editors prior to requesting outside input. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Should we have a series of spinoff articles or just cut some material
Ok let's try this again. I think we can all agree that this article is getting way too long with some sections having a lot more detail than is needed for this specific article. This makes it really hard for a casual reader to get the information they are looking for efficiently. So we have two options: (1) We create spinoff articles for each of the sections that are getting too big (BullRangifer has proposed some potential spinoff articles in a section above, see that section to discuss what to include in them if we are to make them) or (2) We don't create the spinoff articles, we just trim down this current article until it looks good, and we rely on the cited sources for the intricate detail. Let's just list out the Pros and Cons and then discuss to see what people are leaning towards. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Ummm...what the heck's going on here? We already have sections above for this subject. Please discuss there and build on that discussion, not repeat ourselves here. This only tends to derail the discussion, just like the RfC did. The reasons for and against are already there. The beginnings of the process to create spinoffs is there. Requests for improving the lead summaries which will be left behind are up there. I only need a little more input and the process can begin and this article freed of this excess baggage. Fortunately there is no deadline, so let's just work on it above. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Go to:  -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I would prefer the detail to be re-instated in a spinoff article. This is probably the largest public interest subject in the Century and I don;t agree with the lack of public interest argument, this could be an entire million word book and I think it would make a great read. And I am sure it will be someday and probably a best seller and a Movie. But a spinoff article would be okay.Wwdamron (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, all the detail should be there. That's the purpose of spin offs. The "too much" detail "here", gets moved "there" where it's appropriate. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * New pages sounds good. Been a while since I've checked this, where would the best place be to discuss celebrity reactions? In episode 2 of Not Safe (debuted 16 Feb 2016) it opens with Nikki Glaser discussing Kanye West tweeting "COSBY NOT SAFE" 9 Feb 2015 and how this isn't the "dick move" she wants to discuss as an opener to discussing olympic gymnastics maneuver. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Spinoff please. I don't want to lose any details since they are all interesting and important but I am overwhelmed by the amount packed into this page, it's hard to find what you're looking for. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Table Of "Accusers" Should Be Reduced Or Eliminated
Hello

The 'Table of Accusers' is a rather useless item in the article. It smells of tabloid journalism rather than a factual encyclopedia approach wiki demands. Here is a suggestion, eliminate the table altogether and let only the allegations proceeding through the courts to represent the nature of the allegations. The second suggestion is that the New york Magazine article in summation could represent the media claimed 'number of allegations. Emphasis on the word allegations at this time as this is about a living person and nothing has been proven in a court of law to date. Wiki is not the 'court of public opinion' or a source of gossip it is an encyclopedia not the National Enquirer. The article needs to be reduced to it's essence this is a suggestion on how to start. Sincerely 66.235.36.153 (talk) A Contributor —Preceding undated comment added 13:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I think the table should be restored. It was a useful overview of the accusations, accusers, dates and places. And it was eliminated without any discussion. I tried to restore it, but was prevented.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

SPINOFF Article about Bill Cosby's criminal Trial
Should a spinoff article about Bill Cosby's trial be created ? Anyone agree ?
 * Wwdamron (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Disagree. The trial that finds him guilty should get its own article. Any other trial is a footnote in history and should be a footnote in this article. Wait at least until they start putting people on the stand. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree, a guilty verdict doesn't factor into notability, see Trial of Jian Ghomeshi and Trial of Michael Jackson. We have a separate article on the 2005 civil case, Andrea Constand v. William H. Cosby, Jr., and that was settled before trial.  I think that there's already enough in this article about the criminal charges to get transferred to a separate article.LM2000 (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Something about hiatus
Saw something in the news recently about one of the cases or investigations being put on hold, unclear what this is about, do we have something on the page about this recent thing? 184.145.18.50 (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

All of Cosby's civil cases have been put on hold, this was done since Cosby could excecise his 5th amendment rights. After the Criminal trial is over. Cosby would have to have an incredible reason as to why he could excercise his 5th amendment right. Therefor instead of having a deposition full of him pleading the fifth, The judge's in most instances have put all civil trials on hold. Wwdamron (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Criminal Trial description
While I know most people know that the criminal trial is about Andrea Contand's alleged sexual assaults. Shouldn't there be some reference to it and not just an assumption ?

2) If not a subsection called Stae of Pennsylvania v. William H Cosby, shouldn't this be mentioned as well to the people who may not know what state is prosecuting Cosby. This is afterall the name of the trial. I don't think you can assume everyone knows this ? Wwdamron (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Cosby Lawyers Allege Racial Bias
Hello Fellow Editors The alleging of racial bias seems an important part of the Cosby defense teams strategy and should be mentioned. It has been commented on as an attempt to sway the jury counter negative public opinion advanced by Gloria Allred so seems an important part of defense teams legal position. Would like suggestions on wording for the article. PS This is also being examined at Cosby bio talk page. Sincerely66.235.36.153 (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC) A Contributor

Hello Fellow Editors Here is a suggested edit to go into the article in the section of Cosby's trial....

Cosby's legal team raised the issue of racial bias at the courthouse after a hearing in his criminal sex assault case in Philadelphia,at which time they petitioned the court for a change of venue for jury selection. Some legal experts state the defense may be trying to influence potential jurors.

Portions of Cosby's legal team statement took aim at lawyer Gloria Allred stating, Allred "calls herself a civil rights attorney, but her campaign against Mr. Cosby builds on racial bias and prejudice that can pollute the court of public opinion," Allred's response was that she considered the tactic "desperate".

Sincerely66.235.36.153 (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC) A Contributor

I tend to agree, I have been planning on putting it in there myself. But I haven't decided how to word it yet. I don't think it is just a trial strategy, but I think it as more of public campaign or possibly both. Nevertheless it is a risky move, playing the race card, This is not like the OJ Simpson case where you had a clear racist cop. Therefore it has to be mentioned a little differently than that case, since there has not been any real evidence of racism by people involved in the case. But I still agree it should be mentioned, but also should be mentioned is Allred's response, since this was directed towards her. Wwdamron (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Fellow Editors Agreed Gloria Allred's response should be part of any edit to the article. Concerns of racial influences about the case have been reflected in the media such as the Eddie Griffin comments (which contains some names Allred pressed allegations against) and the Cosby legacy as an important part of black history in America, some comments on the part of accusers have made it into RS sources such as Camille Cosby should be 'hung up' or the accuser wanted to support all those other 'white women'. However what wikipedia can only add to the article is what is reported in an RS in an objective manner and avoid any appearances of OR. Sincerely66.235.36.153 (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC) A Contributor

Hello Fellow Editors Above you will find an addition of Allred's response to the Cosby legal team in the comment that the 'tactic' was 'desperate'. This follows the suggestions to expand the edit to those requirements. It is alignment with the RS content cited. Sincerely 66.235.36.153 (talk) 03:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC) A Contributor.

I think I worded it in a way that most will be satisfied in Cosby's attorney's racial bias claim against the prosecution and Allred. Wwdamron (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Fellow Editors Have looked at the current edit...it can stand at the moment but it is too wordy and the real issue is the Cosby legal teams expression of racial discrimination influencing the criminal proceedings. The Allred comment should be modified as the criminal proceeding is a formal process and not a shouting match with Allred (for instance Allred is not the DA in the case). Wikipedia edits should give weight to the formal elements effecting the proceedings not the media shouting match. Sincerely 66.235.36.153 (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC) A Contributor

I saw your re-edit, it is a little contentious as to whether Shapiro should be removed as you did since she is both a witness in the civil case & the criminal case(unless a judge rules otherwise). Therefore the Huth case is directly related to the criminal case. However, I will let other people weigh their consensus on the manner if they think that Shapiro and the Huth case is part of the criminal case now. I don't think Allred's comment should be modified or deleted, since it was Cosby's own lawyer's who are accusing Allred of basically a civil rights issue an she has a legitimate right to defend herself on such an outrageous complaint without any rock hard evidence, this is not like the OJ Simpson case. Cosby's lawyers should have never brought this up. If anyone else disagree's who is a verified user, then we can further discuss this, otherwise, although I can't determine this, I think we have reached a consensus. we could go on and on about this, but 66.235.36.153, you are involved in a lot of contentuos issues. Wwdamron (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Fellow Editors Just a bit of protest here the editor above has stated that this good faith editor has been involved in 'contentious' issues...that is a falsehood...a few editors have been upset because they were wrong on some edits suggested by this editor. "Wrong' meaning they opposed the placement of the content and it was deemed worthy of the article by consensus with other editors. Let's build a good consensus here without treating fellow IP editors like second class wiki citizens. The perspective here is that the formal legal basis of the Cosby criminal proceeding is what should be given weight here. The Cosby legal team filed for a change of venue do to a suggested poisoned jury pool due to a racial atmosphere...that is a core formal issue in the case. Allred describing it as 'desperate' is comment enough...Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and must give due weight to the elements of the formal court proceedings it is not a megaphone for Allread or anyone else to 'correct' what they consider a personal slight. Again Allred in not part of the formal legal proceeding against Cosby, her connections to the actual court procedures are tenuous at best. Sincerely 66.235.36.153 (talk) 15:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC) A Contributor.

Hello Fellow Editors Have restored an edit that has expanded RS and adds balance to Cosby legal proceedings...editor who removed did not go to talk and has attempted to label edit as 'contentious' to generate tensions. Sincerely 66.235.36.153 (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)A Contributor

Hello here is another RS The Chicago Tribune. Sincerely 66.235.36.153 (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)A Contributor http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/ct-bill-cosby-lawyers-racism-20160909-story.html

Bill Cosby Criminal Proceedings
Hello Fellow Editors It is important that the Wikipedia article show the actual elements in the Cosby case as the LEGAL proceedings unfold and not media driven sensationalism. This editor added clarification of the legal proceeding as in the motions put before the court, such as noting the change of venue request and a comment from the NYT clarifying the reasoning of the motion.. This should be given due weight in the article. The New York Times and a major Philadelphia newspaper were cited for this purpose as proper RS. This edit should not be removed...although one is open to improvement..but the excuse of 'economy' of words in this case makes the article suffer a lack of clarity and or what at times seems to be editorial deletions that smack of censorship or bias. here is the NYT article cited as an RS ... Sincerely66.235.36.153 (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC) A Contributor

No, do not agree. What is sensational about short to the point facts .Wwdamron (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Table of accusers' allegations -- help at Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations
Maybe you guys could go help out at Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations and make a table like they have at Bill_Cosby_sexual_assault_allegations ?

That one is a concise way to see all the information and the sources the information comes from all together.

Good luck, 69.50.70.9 (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Wrong Article, this is about Bill Cosby, not Donald Trump.Wwdamron (talk) 13:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

SHould a Subsection for Jury be added under Criminal Proceedings ?
I am thinking of adding a subsection for the Jury process which has been longer than unusual for the numerous requests by the defense on how to handle the Jury. Anyone think this is a good idea or bad or any thought's?

I also think the time has come that we should do a spinoff Article for the Sexual assault Trial of Bill Cosby. Wwdamron (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

POORLY SOURCED NO RS BUT A BLOG SHOULD BE REMOVED PLACED FOR VANDALISM. Eugene Gibbs-Squire vs Bill Cosby, Smithsonian Institution Regents, et a
Hello fellow editors This has been placed to for possibly vandalize an article about a living person with no RS and a blog as an RS it should removed ...now. Sincerely A Contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.36.153 (talk) 02:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

66.235.36.153 (talk Instead of deleting it, why don't you be more constructive and find a better source for it. Saying it is vandalism is absurd, Although in my opinion It amounts to an almost ridiculous lawsuit that will probably be thrown out, but neither my opinion nor yours nor anyone else's for that matter matters since it exists and it has neither been thrown out or come to trial yet.Wwdamron (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Here's part of the trial transcript - https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/10787863/GIBBSSQUIRES_v_COSBY_et_al   Wwdamron (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Fellow Editors The editor above is correct that his 'opinion' does not matter, but that seemed to be the sole basis for defending this bizarre edit that was posted with just a blog as an RS...this is of even deeper concern when some editors have expressed the 'opinion' that Cosby should be treated like 'Hitler'. As to the 'edit' of the admitted 'ridiculous case' ...there is no better RS...wikipedia is not about scrounging up juicy tidbits then looking for dubious 'RS' it is about using the very best RS..especially when dealing with Living Persons. Sincerely66.235.36.153 (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC) A Contributor

That makes no sense, DOES the LAWSUIT exist ?? YES or NO ? Wwdamron (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Fellow Editors A better question in response to the issue of an items 'existence'.. is there any reliable RS that meets Wikipedia standards to add such a 'ridiculous case' to the article...the answer at this time is a clear NO. Another question would be is why a fellow editor is working so hard to get such material worked into the body of a Wikipedia article without such an RS...you might rightly conclude it is to get in any 'juicy tidbits' that would, in a literary sense of the word, 'castrate' Wikipedia RS standards...as some editors in social media have called for Cosby to be 'castrated' in mob style opinion. Such efforts to violate the Wikipedia RS policy is known as vandalism. This is Wikipedia not the 'court of public opinion' where just anything goes. With deep concern. 66.235.36.153 (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC) A Contributor

Unless someone Objects, I am going to re-insert this real lawsuit back i the article. Former user 66.235.36.153 has been banned for abusive behavior. Unless there is an objection, I will reinsert this legal lawsuit that is pending in the Cosby article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwdamron (talk • contribs) 17:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Wmdamon: The objection still stands as the edit is still poorly sourced. You must have better sources for it to qualify for a Wikipedia article, you have been reprimanded before for poor sources and plagerism do not repeat that behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.205.10 (talk) 18 December 2016‎

I meant with better sources, not in it's as is form, I would hope that you and others could contribute and give a way to help find better sources instead of not offering a solution. Wwdamron (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

In society...
Lisa Bloom, attorney for purported sexual harassment victims at Fox News, had this to say about Fox News: "In my opinion, this network is the Bill Cosby of corporate America..."

BullRangifer (talk) 06:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Kinda an in passing thing. Per MOS:CULTURALREFS such items are included to establish notoriety. I think that has already been established. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. Now others can add to that section. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I was actually saying it doesn't satisfy MOS:CULTURALREFS, sorry if I was not clear. The mention of Cosby was in passing and does not show any notoriety beyond what is already established in the article. However that is just my opinion. I guess is someone else objects it could be removed, but not by me. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Statement about accusers
I've made this edit removing this content. Some weeks ago I removed the same content but it crept back into the article, having been restored by an IP editor.

I want to explain the basis for the removal in greater detail:


 * The statement by Cosby lawyer Martin Singer is redundant to material already in the article. We already explain, in depth and in multiple parts of the article, in direct quotation and paraphrase, Cosby's denials and his team's stance about the case.
 * The cited New York source doesn't support the statements made in text.
 * The Daily Caller is not a RS.
 * The vague assertion "some accusers as reported in the media include false reporting to law enforcement and arrests for theft, assault, disorderly conduct, and prostitution" has multiple serious problems:
 * The BLP problem - I view this as most significant. The accusers here are named. Any statement about their backgrounds should be cited to a reliable source (not the Daily Caller) and should specifically identify which accuser is being discussed, not blithely casts aspersions on some undefined set of "some accusers" (which in effect cast aspersions on all the accusers).
 * The relevancy problem - arrests are not convictions and there is no evidence that these actions (especially things like "disorderly conduct") had any bearing on accusers' veracity whatsoever.

--Neutralitytalk 06:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Vetting has been called for balance by numerous persons throughout the history of the article. Daily Caller and NY Magazine are RS. Statements made in in RS vetting are drawn from public records there is no BLP issue. Here is the edit :

Cosby attorney Marty Singer stated “There is virtually no standard by which the media are holding Mr Cosby’s accusers.” “Anyone and everyone who wants to file a suit or get on television can be guaranteed fawning coverage. The very same media have demonstrated an unconscionable disinterest in the veracity of his accusers and their motives." Media accounts cite examples such as attorney Gloria Allred and Chelan Lasha. Lasha accused Cosby of sexual assault in a televised press conference with Gloria Allred on December 3, where Allred demanded Cosby pay $100 million in damages for Lasha and other alleged victims. Public records show that Lasha has a criminal history going back to at least 1988, including a guilty plea for filing a false report to police.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.164.31 (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2017‎ (UTC)

Defense lawyer quits
Bill Cosby's defense lawyer quits, won't be at second trial -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Request: Move Article to Bill Cosby sexual assault controversy
Just recently, Cosby was charged of three counts of sexual assault, as reported by The New York Times. Therefore, I believe that the article should be moved.  Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 17:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If it is moved, the last three words shouldn't be capitalized. Jim Michael (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed.  Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 05:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Do not move this page to Bill Cosby sexual assault controversy. There is no longer any controversy; he was found guilty. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for moving the page; your title "sexual assault case" is a lot better than my proposed one!  Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 12:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have moved Bill Cosby sexual assault case (moved from Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations at 04:12, 27 April 2018) to Bill Cosby sexual assault cases because there is more than one case. --Neo-Jay (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Language
... the last time the two were together sexually.
 * Re Shawn Brown section, "together sexually" is very odd phrasing. More usual would be "had sexual relations" or something similar. Sca (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Why? It is saying the exact same thing in a slightly different way. 74.37.202.51 (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Does he have a plane?
I have removed the sentence about him having had a Gulfstream IV aircraft from the Guilty verdict section because it clearly breaks No original research. This is because the source is from 2014, whereas the plane argument in the court is from last month. A cursory search online failed to find citations for the Gulfstream plane (or any other plane Cosby owns) in reference to the argument in court about whether he has one. The closest thing was Business Insider's "While it's unclear whether Cosby does, in fact, own a private plane, he has been photographed boarding and departing private aircraft over the past few years." If the article is to say that he has a plane, then it must be in connection to the sexual assault cases and the plane argument. Otherwise, it violates WP:SYNTH. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Source that discusses whether Cosby might own a plane in relation to the exchange in court: https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/money-and-power/a20086732/bill-cosby-net-worth/ --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Another accuser: May 2018
Should we add this? As of May 7, 2018, he has another accuser: https://www.wfaa.com/amp/article?section=news&subsection=local&headline=dfw-woman-breaks-silence-says-bill-cosby-raped-drugged-her&contentId=287-549780440 Dpm12 (talk) 04:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)