Talk:Andrea Constand v. Bill Cosby

Poorly Sourced Material

This line of copy was removed due to standards set by BLP guidelines not to use poorly sourced sensationalist materials from tabloids. The Burden is on the editor who wishes to restore it to the article to show otherwise......Here is part of the line of copy for reference "Additionally, in 2005, Shawn Upshaw Brown, a woman whom Cosby admitted to having an extra-marital affair with in the 70's, publicly accused Cosby of drugging and raping her the last time the two...." It's sourced at the Daily Mail with sensationalist headline and other tabloid material.The article also suffers from the insert of the material as there is no context for it in relation to the Constand case. It should be promptly removed per BLP. 66.235.36.153 (talk) 01:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Respectfully A Contributor

You should know by now that experienced editors are not buying your poor understanding and interpretation of our sourcing policies, but I'll give you this....you finally came up with a legitimate one: "no context for it in relation to the Constand case." That appears to be true, so it should go (but only for that reason). Since you have been edit warring (and you can get blocked for that, no matter how "right" you might be), I suggest you leave it and let others deal with it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 08:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Super48paul, I'm having second thoughts about that content. See my comment above. I think the IP may have a point about it not being on-topic. Do you see any connection with Constand, or should it go? If it's related to the Constand case, that needs to be more apparent. It's not clear from the present wording. -- BullRangifer (talk) 08:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess you are right, no connection; do you erase or do you let me do the job?Super48paul (talk) 10:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello This good faith editor is more than happy to do the erasing and end all the dithering. Since there never was an 'edit war' just a proper removal of a non-connected poorly sourced element in the article in violation of BLP policy. As for fellow good faith editors 'no buying' ( one assumes you mean 'not buying', Bull) well that is up to more editors to decide rather than one editor to speak for all. If folks want TMZ, GAWKER and the NATIONAL ENQUIRER and other gossip sites as their sources in violation of BLP...well that is up to them.66.235.36.153 (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC) Respectfully A Contributor

I have deleted the currently disputed content. The typo is also fixed. The second removal by the IP was the beginning of an edit war, per BRD. The second restoration to the status quo was justified because discussion should proceed and reach a consensus before changing the status quo. The BLP exception to edit warring is only for unequivocal BLP violations. The IP's unique interpretation of sourcing and BLP is definitely contested. No policy forbidding the use of sources which have sensational titles or biased content has yet been provided. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Folks You will find the accusation of an 'edit war' has no merit at all, it was this editor who brought the disputed quote in the article to talk. BLP states that Wikipedia is not a 'tabloid' is not 'sensationalist' and does not exist to bring 'titllating' materials to the fore. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.66.235.36.153 (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC) Respectfully A Contributor

I alread explained this to you above, so here it is with different words. You need to follow WP:BRD. When your BOLD edit was REVERTED, you should not have reverted that edit. Per BRD, you should have started a DISCUSSION. Your second edit was the start of an edit war, which fortunately fizzled out. It's all in the past now, so no point in rehashing it.

What you write applies to Wikipedia articles, not their sources. Sources can be sensational. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Bull Still trying to place labels on fellow editors and make them stick??? The reason stated in the edit history was that the edit was in gross violation of BLP which states that any such material can and should be removed immediately and then the burden of proof is on the editor who wants to restore the material to the article. Sorry but when Super restored the material without first going to talk that was an edit war on that editor's part. Removing the material was per BLP, Super had not met the burden of proof or even gone to talk, this editor went to talk immediately so please keep your edit history straight. Yes it is in the past, now leave it there. 66.235.36.153 (talk) 15:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)Respectfully A Contributor

"place labels"? That's a weird comment.

Read BRD. Your edit (removing material) was the BOLD edit. Super's edit was the REVERT. BRD is only one cycle of three letters, not BRBRD. DISCUSSION is the next step, and just starting a discussion does not allow one to continue editing that content. You're supposed to stick with the discussion and seek consensus, not keep edit warring. You do not have a consensus, so continuing this war of yours is disruptive. Your interpretation of BLP and sourcing is disputed. There is no blatant or obvious violation of BLP. That's your unique interpretation. I've been here since about 2003, and you're the first one I've seen push this angle for such a case, and I've seen plenty of obvious BLP violations. This isn't one of them.

No policy forbidding the use of sources which have sensational titles has yet been provided. Either provide it or drop the stick. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Bull you can say BOLD all day long that doe not change the fact that the edit history shows that the material was removed as a violation of two Wikipedia principles. Violation of BLP and no connection of the materials to the article. Super should have not reverted the material without meeting the burden of proof by better sources than the tabloid the material were drawn from. It is a simple fact that this editor brought it here to talk, not Super as he should have done. So stop the lecturing about edit warring.

Super and you eventually got it right and erased the material, kudos to both of you. Now stop trying to tar and feather a fellow editor with the 'edit war' clap trap. You can bring in the entire alphabet soup of letters you like to cite and it will not alter the facts of the edit history. As you said leave it in the past. 66.235.36.153 (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)Respectfully A Contributor.

You don't have a consensus behind your ideas. Period. Bye. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

OK guys, this is the end of the verbal war, we knows each other's position by now. Happy Xmas! Super48paul (talk) 08:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy Kwanzaa and good editing in the New Year to you Super and Bull too.66.235.36.153 (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC) Sincerely A Contributor

Major update re: charge vs Cosby - done

Should this article not have a section suggesting that the Main Article is Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations? In any event, I have updated the section about the charge vs. Cosby in the Constand case. I am surprised that BullRangifer had not already done so; he is very active in the main article edits. No problem. Done now. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion. By the way, this article would benefit greatly from details gleaned from the police report and other facts in this Washington Post article. I also think it's relevant that Constand is (apparently) openly gay and stated that Cosby, who testified that the sexual encounter was consensual, did not realize Constand was gay until police told him. This detail was relayed through her lawyer's filing last summer. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

It's just my opinion, but there is no value to adding a graphic discussion of what actually happened, including the "digital manipulation" reported by many news agencies. IMHO, anyway. She is a lesbian ... yes I had heard that too, and it would make it hard to believe that she had consented! However, before I add that, I would want to see some solid citations: from highly-respected news media, ideally reporting that Constand had said that. I have not found any suitable references yet. Peter K Burian (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and I'm not interested in repeating the sordid details, but rather, in drawing some attention to the delay in reporting and the role of Ms. Constand's mother in confronting Mr. Cosby (over the phone), hearing the assault confirmed, etc. It's worth including here because all of this will be told at trial, with attempts made to impeach the credibility both of the alleged victim and her various corroborative witnesses including her own family. As the article stands, it's a bit heavy on what took place legally in the past year regarding Cosby's deposition and the cross-allegations related to its release. I'm in no rush, just wanted you to have a heads-up in case you were unfamiliar with this particular chapter. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, I found a solid citation about Constand being gay; added that info. with the citation. Peter K Burian (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note (User talk:Vesuvius Dogg) I am heavily involved in the main article about the charges vs. Cosby and I just happened to quickly read this one about Constand. When I noticed that there was almost nothing about the criminal charge here, I added that. But I am NOT familiar with the entire story divulged in the civil suit, so I am not the one who should be adding such information. If it would be useful, why not go ahead and add it yourself, with solid citations. Cheers! Peter K Burian (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Vesuvius Dogg, there is a lot of interesting info in the Washingto Post article. I added a short sentence about the citation, but others might want to add more to the rticle about the contents of it. This is what I added in my edit: The original complaint contained a great deal of additional information now available to the press. Chokshi, Niraj (December 30, 2015). "'Taste the wine': What prosecutors say Bill Cosby did, in graphic". Washington Post. Washington, DC. Retrieved December 31, 2015. Peter K Burian (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

What was the date of the alleged assault?

I did find it eventually and added it to the text. Peter K Burian (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

REVERT TO THE TITLE ANDREA CONSTAND

Is this the Andrea Constand article with a new title??

If so the title makes no sense. It is a bio about her and events in her life re: Bill Cosby. NOT just about her lawsuit at all.

REVERT TO THE TITLE ANDREA CONSTAND. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Peter, we are obviously on the same page regarding the encyclopedic value of what's on this page and the commitment to improving and expanding it as the criminal case progresses. Prosecutors have made it clear that revelations in Cosby's civil deposition were relevant to the criminal filing and to the obtaining of new evidence. The problem with WP:BLP is that it insists, at least in the minds of many Wikipedia editors, that a person cannot have a Wikipedia entry if they are known for only one event, unless that event is highly significant (this is not clearly defined) and the person played a significant role in that event. They argue, perhaps with some merit, that Constand's basketball career in itself would not merit independent notability.

Constand herself would (I'm sure) agree that her individual case against Cosby has assumed a larger life and has eclipsed what little we independently know of her. It is also true that as far an outraged public is concerned, the criminal offense against Constand is already serving as a kind of legal-punitive surrogate for dozens of women allegedly victimized over the years by Cosby, but whose cases individually fail the statute of limitations test. All of which is to say, this is bigger than Constand herself.

Put a little differently, would it really be fair to her if 90-95% of the article "Andrea Constand" is dedicated to the criminal intricacies of a case which clearly involves many other people, but is focused on Cosby's sexually predatory and perverse behavior? That would be WP:UNDUE. Bill Cosby is not "the story of her life". She is her own person. Cosby's offense should not rob her of that.

The article, including its title, may again evolve. Our common goal, I hope, will be to document the ongoing case as it develops. This name change seems to satisfy some already-critical parties. But please continue to weigh in and contribute. I'm open as always to persuasion. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC).

Dogg. Can you do me a favor? Revert the edit in the Cosby article that suggest Constand sued Cosby re confidentiality. That is the oppoisite of what happened in 2015. I am not home and cannot do so with my smartphone. Thanks.

Peter Burian. My phone cannot make the tilde symbols.

REVERT the title to Andrea Constand

Agreed. A very small part of her relevance is the lawsuit. Revert to the original title. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Also agreed. She is independently notable as an athlete. Also note the categories. If this article was only about a lawsuit, they would not make sense. That makes the article look like a coatrack. I suggest splitting it. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Title of article

The article is presently titled Andrea Constand v. William H. Cosby, Jr.. Isn't the "official" name of the legal case Constand v. Cosby, or something along those lines? I am not 100% sure. But looking at other Wikipedia articles about lawsuits, that seems to be the norm. (See [[Category:United States lawsuits]].) Does anyone know for sure? And should the article title be changed? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 09:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)