Talk:Bill Cosby sexual assault cases/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Entire Article Needs Review

This entire section of wiki needs to be reviewed. It is about a living person. There needs to be a review by some senior editors and the whole article placed under protection. The entire section is riddled with trash talk from gossip sites such as TMZ the National Enquirer etc. etc. There is a lack of encyclopedic language throughout. The entire article with all it's sections could be reduced to a few paragraphs by working with such RS sources as the New York Times with well established editorial policies for the actual, social and legal concerns. This is Wikipedia not some trashy gossip magazine or social media site. Sincerely A Contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.36.153 (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

This is simply not true. Everything in the article is cited with very reliable sources. The National Enquirer is never used as a reference (it is only mentioned when the publication itself is part of the allegation or news story). TMZ is not used as a sole reference in any situation. This is an article about an unprecedented amount of legal action, rescinded honorary degrees, and ramifications ranging from the molding of a local election to the complete overhaul of state law. Any specific changes can be made and reviewed. It is specious to suggest this article hasn't been reviewed, edited and vetted by many neutral and senior editors over the past several months. The "living person" argument is not compelling since everything is extremely well sourced. Mdude04 (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It is not 'extremely well sourced' there are numerous trash sensational headline articles such as the Daily Mail. The article is exclusively based on a Living Person so deserves a higher standard of protection. The very acknowledgement of TMZ in any manner alone deserves scrutiny. Better sources such as the NYT should be used by senior editors. Again only ecyclopedic language and standards should be used. Wiki is not a dumping ground for unverified gossip articles and reality shows. With Respect A Contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.36.153 (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

This kind of blanket dismissal of the entire article is not going to help. If Daily Mail and Daily Beast refs were removed entirely, I don't think it would change anything about the veracity of the article because there are dozens of other refs from CNN, NY Times, AP, Reuters, etc, that confirm the same information. There are many lawsuits in the court system against Cosby. Fact. 19 honorary degrees have been rescinded. Fact. More than 50 people have publicly accused Cosby of sexual misconduct. Fact. So far the specific edits you have made to the article have involved removing factual content about Cosby admitting to illegal behavior (using Cosby's own words in his cited deposition) and adding redundant uses of the word "alleged." That the facts are displeasing does not make them "trash headlines." Encyclopedias should cover everything with the same level of comprehensiveness, whether it's a happy subject or not. If there is any content you (or anyone else) think is not adequately sourced, you can edit that specific content. To say the entire article is a dumping ground for trash headlines is incorrect and not constructive to its improvement. Mdude04 (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Mail has had nothing but trash and sensational headlines and the threading of TMZ through out the article opens the entire article's credibility open to question. The request is for senior editors to review far better RS such as New York Times which has long established editorial policies and superior vetting of the FACTS in the case. Even that said much of the so called 'facts' are found in the entertainment sections and even the acknowledged gossip pages of some 'news' sources TMZ is such an example. Wiki is not a dumping ground for TMZ and Daily Mail sensationalism about a Living Person. 'Alleged' should be placed in front of each title section otherwise it leaves an impression of Wiki as a source of 'facts' rather than a series of so far unproven allegations in any court of law, let alone by encyclopedic standards of language and editorial review standards of RS such as the New York Times. Respectfully A Contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.36.153 (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Here are just few examples of the type of trash and sensational headlines and less than reliable sources such as TMZ, Huff-Post, etc. that are threaded throughout the article....

Stamey, Mark (March 2, 2000). "Actress' Bombshell: ‘Cos' Rubbed Me the Wrong Way". Nypost.com. Retrieved November 18, 2014.

Gould, Martin. "EXCLUSIVE: The one woman who Bill Cosby admits he cheated with says 'he drugged and raped me too - and got me PREGNANT'". Daily Mail. Retrieved 17 January 2015.

"Therese Serignese, Florida Nurse, Says Bill Cosby Drugged And Raped Her In 1976". The Huffington Post. November 20, 2014. Retrieved November 23, 2014.

"Bill Cosby He Slipped Me A Quaalude And I Woke Up with His Friend ... New Allegation". TMZ. November 22, 2014. Retrieved September 24, 2015.

The above is not what Wiki is all about. Again the request is for senior editors to review the entire article using a standard of the editorial policies of the New York Times. Wikipedia is an ecyclopedia not tabloid or even 'news' source the article should reflect the fact that this is about a Living Person so must have the highest level of vetting and protection. Sincerely A Contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.36.153 (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Here is another example of a trash and sensational headline that can be found all throughout this article...

Bill Cosby didn’t rape me but what he did has always given me the creeps, November 19, 2014, retrieved from 'Raw Story' November 17, 2015

How many of these trash and gossip sites have to posted here to get this article about a Living person up to encyclopedic standards from sources such as the New York Times. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for trash and gossip sources. Sincerely A Contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.36.153 (talk) 07:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

You may dislike the wording of some newspaper headlines, but that type of language does not appear in the article at all. The article is very clinical and neutral in its tone, and goes to great lengths to include Cosby's defense, that he has not been charged with a crime, and that any mention of sexual abuse is an allegation. But the fallout, the fact that 13 women have filed lawsuits against him, the rescinded honorary degrees, are all undeniably factual. Again, just because the facts and headlines are displeasing, that does not mean the article is "trashy." Also note that Wikipedia regards TMZ as "increasingly seen as credible" and is an Emmy-nominated news source. While tenuous, it should not be flatly rejected for the sole argument that "it's TMZ." Your arguments appear to have nothing to do with the content of the article or the facts contained therein, but rather because you object to the way someone else worded a newspaper headline. Wikipedia does not have a policy of preventing sources from being used because someone doesn't like the way the newspaper worded its headline. Mdude04 (talk) 08:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy of not using sources with sensational headlines period. TMZ is still at this time little more than a gossip site with trash sensational headlines. Yes, the trash sensational headlines of TMZ, The Daily Mail, Huff-Post, RAW STORY etc. etc. are right in the body of the article by a simple 'click' on the source number or reference to the foot notes. So the article is riddled with comments like "Bill Cosby didn’t rape me but what he did has always given me the creeps, November 19, 2014, retrieved from 'Raw Story' November 17, 2015" or "Bill Cosby He Slipped Me A Quaalude And I Woke Up with His Friend ... New Allegation". TMZ. November 22, 2014. Retrieved September 24, 2015." By having trash and sensational headlines in Wikipedia as sources it gives the appearance that Wiki endorses the suggestions or flat out sensational trash in the headlines within the body of the article. They are a literary cancer throughout the body of the article 0+1=0 so CNN + TMZ = Trash. The headlines are not just 'unpleasent' they are pure gossip masquerading as news by design when coming from TMZ, RAW STORY etc. Since when has Wikipedia based an article on what is known as 'click bait' headlines. As for the article being 'balanced' that is false, not only because of the trash sources throughout with screaming headlines there are numerous points where Cosby's attorney's offered some defense that had to be added to the article or simply still does not exist in the article. An example was the lack of Marty Singer offering evidence of Cosby not being present at the time of one alleged incident in Los Angeles, until recently. There are numerous examples of such imbalance throughout the article. Again the request is a simple one to have qualified senior editors review the article by such knowable standards of the New York Times and put the article under protection as it is about a LIVING PERSON per Wikipedia standards. Respectfully A Contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.36.153 (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

"Wikipedia has a policy of not using sources with sensational headlines period." Really? Where is this policy?

BTW, you need to indent your comments. This is just one wall of text with the left edge all at the same level, making it hard to distinguish one comment from the next. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Bull You seem to be endorsing Wiki use sensational headlines and all the trash and gossip that goes along with it, you know headlines that look like this one.."Bill Cosby didn’t rape me but what he did has always given me the creeps, November 19, 2014, retrieved from 'RAW STORY' November 17, 2015" that can be found as a source and viewed in the body of the article. Thank you for the 'indent' scolding. That 'wall of text' you seem so worried about is easy to read and it expresses concern that wikipedia is being used as a dumping ground for sensational gossip sites like TMZ, RAW STORY. and borderline porno from the likes of the Daily Mail trash headlines. Why not focus on the simple request for senior editors to review the article with more stringent editorial boards such as the New York Times.The entire article could be reduced to a few paragraphs with proper encyclopedic language and balance. Or perhaps you want your editorship associated with this type of trash..."Bill Cosby He Slipped Me A Quaalude And I Woke Up with His Friend ... New Allegation". TMZ. November 22, 2014. Retrieved September 24, 2015." which is known as 'click bait' headlines. Respectfully A Contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.36.153 (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't "endorse" anything. I made no comment about that. I asked a question, and you have not answered it.

Where is that policy? Without that, your arguments carry no weight at all. BTW, remember to sign your comments with four tildes, EVERY single time. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It might interest you to notice some of my latest edits. While fixing a number of redlinked references, I also removed some words like EXCLUSIVE, NEW, etc., from some titles. Those words aren't necessary, and they are indeed designed to catch attention. Otherwise we are not allowed to change titles. I also fixed several ALL CAPS items, which can inadvertently violate NPOV by drawing attention to themselves. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Bull the answer to your question is that numerous editors have stated the policy of not using sensational trash headlines. But wiki is not a debating society it proclaims to use the best sources possible. It is undeniable that trash sensational headlines are embedded into the body of the article in numerous places fully viewable by clicking on the source number or checking the foot notes. Here again is an example...."Bill Cosby didn’t rape me but what he did has always given me the creeps, November 19, 2014, retrieved from 'RAW STORY' November 17, 2015"removing the CAPS from such trash headlines is like pouring french perfume down an open sewer by any journalistic or encyclopedic standard. The whole article is riddled with such trash headlines ...again if you have it as TMZ or tmz it is still trash... to use a computer term 'Trash in Trash Out'.... in this case 'TMZ in Trash Out', period. THE REQUEST HERE IS TO HAVE SENIOR EDITORS TO PLEASE REVIEW THE ARTICLE ABOUT A LIVING PERSON BY THE STANDARDS OF AN RS SUCH AS THE NEW YORK TIMES AND PLACE IT UNDER PROTECTION....now there is something worth putting in CAPS.66.235.36.153 (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC) A Contributor

To Whom It May Concern Here are two more trash sensational headlines embedded in the article..... "Bill Cosby Was ‘Sexually Aggressive’ & ‘Wouldn't Take ‘No’ For An Answer’ In ‘70s Exchange, New Accuser Claims". Radar Online. November 18, 2014. Retrieved September 24, 2015.

Marcotte, Amanda (19 November 2014). "Don Lemon Asks Cosby Rape Accuser Why She Didn’t Just Gnaw Her Way Out of Danger". Slate. Retrieved 24 November 2014.

Those are typical of the trash headlines and even sources embedded in the article. Please review this article or delete it.66.235.36.153 (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)A Contributor

All these are reliable sources for a bio on an entertainer, I don't see what this brouhaha is all about.- Cwobeel (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Not only that, but every one of these news articles is backed up and confirmed by many other sources including The New York Times (which, by the way, is not the ONLY reliable source in the world). Every single headline mentioned in this Talk discussion contains FACTUAL information (The Don Lemon CNN interview exists; Slate didn't just make it up). If you disagree, feel free to complain about the merits of the cited material. You are not arguing about that because the material is based in fact; Wikipedia does not ignore facts just because someone dislikes the news headline. If we were citing National Enquirer or Perez Hilton, etc, on stories that had no other means of verification, that would be a valid complaint. Such stories are explicitly not included. Nothing in this article is presented without extremely highly documented news stories to back up the FACTS that surround these very relevant and very noteworthy events in the worlds of American pop culture, entertainment, the legal system, and higher education. Mdude04 (talk) 05:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

We don't care what you heard "numerous editors have stated." I'm asking for the policy. AFAIK, it doesn't exist. Keep in mind that those headlines are not in the article text. They are references. We do not censor headlines or content. Wikipedia is uncensored.

You have now had this explained to you by several experienced editors. You are simply wrong. You will not like that, so if you can't accept it, then Wikipedia is not the place for you. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Further comments like those above are disruptive and may get you blocked for tendentious misuse of this talk page. Nobody is going to delete this article or remove any reliable sources just because you don't like them or their wording. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello The issue discussed by the editors was bias found in the headlines that then tainted the context of the entire article was and that it essentially was poisoning the well of the readership before any of the news items content could be read...Wiki covers these issues (see below) but one assumes you would know that. When there is such bias found anywhere any 'facts' has to be backed up by more credible sources such as the NEW YORK TIMES as cited and requested multiple times by this contributor. Entire segments of this article are based on sources such as TMZ with no second source such as the NEW YORK TIMES to validate it's claims of "fact". The article is riddled with biased headlines from GOSSIP sites like TMZ, RAW STORY, INQUISITOR, RADAR ONLINE many of them staffed by former or active members of STAR or THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER, here are again are some of the biased headlines the article is dependent on and embedded into the body of the article... "Bill Cosby Was ‘Sexually Aggressive’ & ‘Wouldn't Take ‘No’ For An Answer’ In ‘70s Exchange, New Accuser Claims". Radar Online. November 18, 2014. Retrieved September 24, 2015...."Don Lemon Asks Cosby Rape Accuser Why She Didn’t Just Gnaw Her Way Out of Danger". Slate.,,,,"EXCLUSIVE: The one woman who Bill Cosby admits he cheated with says 'he drugged and raped me too - and got me PREGNANT'". Daily Mail. Retrieved 17 January 2015...."Bill Cosby He Slipped Me A Quaalude And I Woke Up with His Friend ... New Allegation". TMZ. November 22, 2014. Retrieved September 24, 2015. The article is about a LIVING PERSON who has had his portrait plastered at the head of the article, the LIVING PERSON section of Wiki states that the best sourcing must be used when involving statements of a LIVING PERSON or it must be immediately removed. Threatening a fellow editor with being banned and stating that no one cares about pointing out flaws in the article is not only premature it does not conform to wiki standards of a civil dialog. All that has been requested here is that qualified unbiased senior editors review the content of the article where trash sensational headlines from KNOWN GOSSIP sites be put under the scrutiny of an RS such as the standards NEW YORK TIMES. Further because of the article is about statements involving a LIVING PERSON that is being stated as 'FACT' by wiki editors that it be placed under protection. Below are the wiki policies relevant to the CONCERNS expressed multiple time above.

Questionable sources

Shortcuts: • WP:QUESTIONABLE • WP:QUESTIONED 

Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim. Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited. Beware of sources which sound reliable but don't have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires. The Journal of 100% Reliable Factual Information might have a reputation for "predatory" behavior, which includes questionable business practices and/or peer-review processes that raise concerns about the reliability of their journal articles.[10][11] Reliability in specific contexts Biographies of living persons Main page: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Reliable sources Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons. Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately; do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space.

Attributing and specifying biased statements Policy shortcuts: • WP:SUBSTANTIATE • WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV See also: Wikipedia:Citing sources § In-text attribution Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited. Another approach is to specify or substantiate the statement, by giving those details that actually are factual. For example: "John Doe had the highest batting average in the major leagues from 2003 through 2006." People may still argue over whether he was the best baseball player. But they will not argue over this. Avoid the temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words, for example, "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player." But "Who?" and "How many?" are natural objections. An exception is a situation where a phrase such as "Most people think" can be supported by a reliable source, such as in the reporting of a survey of opinions within the group. Good research Policy shortcut: • WP:BESTSOURCES Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources. If you need help finding high-quality sources, ask other editors on the talk page of the article you are working on, or ask at the reference desk.

An example of some improvement in the article was the change in one of the headers from screaming COVER UP to ALLEGED Pay Offs (reflective of a suggestion made multiple times above). I hope action is taken on the biased items that whole sections of this article is based on by offering secondary sources such as the NEW YORK TIMES or they are promptly removed per wiki LIVING PERSON policy.66.235.36.153 (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC) A Contributor

This is getting pretty tiring. You are a newbie lecturing very experienced editors who understand policies and guidelines better than you do. If you wish to have any success here, please abide by these suggestions:

1. Please stop mentioning the New York Times and BLP ("living persons"). The NYT has no special status above many other sources, and we understand BLP better than you do.
2. Stop using ALL CAPS. We can read, so don't shout. Your constant repetition of the same demands is a form of IDHT behavior. Stop it.
3. The wordings of titles are in the references, not in the body of the text. Stop objecting to that fact as if they were in the body. They are not.
4. Avoid walls of text, otherwise TLDR ends up happening and you get nowhere.
5. Make extremely detailed and short edit requests, not general objections and complaints. We have read them, and they don't help at all.
6. Quote the exact wordings and the exact sources you see as problematic. Also propose a replacement. That is something we can actually deal with.
7. Make one request at a time, not a long list. Do it in a separate section, and deal with one issue at a time before starting a new section. Start with what you see as the most egregious problem. Don't move on until that one is resolved.
8. Wikipedia explicitly allows use of biased sources and biased content (the bias comes from the sources, not from editors).
9. There is no rule forbidding the use of a source because its headline is sensational. Stop complaining about that.
10. You still have not provided a link to any policy forbidding the use of a source because it happens to have a sensational headline.

If you follow these suggestions, you might get somewhere. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello It also helps if editors stop playing being editor superior and not take a tone like a schoolmarm. This writer has made numerous edits at wiki. There are no 'complaints' just actual concerns about bias in the headlines that can be viewed by a simple click of the source number or foot notes and are thus embedded in the body of the article. Stop ignoring that the NYT is given as an example of quality RS and not a sole source. The CAPS are not 'shouting' they were used for effect in context of the statements made, for instance TMZ and RAW STORY two known gossip sites are always in CAPS otherwise it would be tmz. The request is for the entire article to be reviewed by more objective editors. Some of the concerns expressed have already improved the article so please no more lectures on how to be more effective. But thank you for the actual suggestions some are useful...just like the suggestions and edits this writer has made. A relevant section of wiki quoted above is where the headline suggests 'fact' or an opinion of someone that puts bias into the article numerous examples have been cited about such biased headlines that sections of the article is based on with only the biased headline as a single cited source..66.235.36.153 (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC) Respectfully A Contributor

rawstory.com is used once, and the source is not visible until you click it and go to the website. tmz.com is also used once, and TMZ is visible once in the refs. So what? Is there some particular wording that is not attributed that seems inaccurate? Please tell us exactly which words. Maybe it can be tweaked. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The entire article got review, but you need to work on your approach--being more concise and respectful of other editors. The folks you are dealing with have been very gracious. I am proud of their work on this article.

To your points, Mr. Cosby is accused of sexually assaulting over 50 women. With that type of accusation comes sensational headlines. Your appeal to the standards of NYT is unfounded. There are many reliable sources. The test is usually whether other sources are making the same claim--that is a sort of review we do. Here, the accusation of serial rape is sensational but is covered in dozens of sources and thus will be included. --JumpLike23 (talk) 09:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The real points are simple and undeniable at this date. An article about a Living Person is riddled with single sourced biased articles from known gossip sites such a TMZ, RAW STORY, INQUISITOR, RADAR ONLINE some staffed with reporters from THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER..... here is just one example.."Bill Cosby Was ‘Sexually Aggressive’ & ‘Wouldn't Take ‘No’ For An Answer’ In ‘70s Exchange, New Accuser Claims". RADAR ONLINE. As for how polite the exchange has been taking a condescending tone and saying no one cares what a fellow editor has say, threatening to ban them and they just know better is not a cordial exchange.A wiki article about a Living Person deserves the higher editorial standards of such sources as the New York Times. And just in case it was missed above…

Reliability in specific contexts Biographies of living persons Main page: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Reliable sources Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons. Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately; do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space. 66.235.36.153 (talk) 14:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Respectfully A Contributor

Again, the article is not riddled with single sourced biased articles. If you don't like it: FIX IT. find some better sources, but don't remove content without allowing other editors to do the same. NO, again we are not the NYT. What is the contentious material? Serial rapist is well-sourced, for example, and thus meeting the standard cited above. --JumpLike23 (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Jump First, a review of recent edits on your part have removed some of the concerned material, very good multiple edits. You are correct that wiki is not NYT it is also not TMZ, RADAR ONLINE, INQUISITOR etc. etc. all of which wiki itself in various articles considers them to be gossip sites that print gossip and rumors. By those very designations they are weak sources and are unfit to cite in an article about a Living Person without a secondary source such as the NYT or if you like the Chicago Tribune and if the stronger source contains the relevant information that is what should be cited. Cosby is taken to task in the NYT and other credible sources examining the unfolding of events but the facts are better sourced period, without the click bait biased headlines. Yes there continues to be improvement in the article but the request is to place it under protection because of the ongoing use of gossip sites, some as sole sources. This editor has continued to make edits to improve the article but as stated the entire article needed an overhaul to cite only the sources with high editorial standards per Living Persons and that is beyond the scope of a single editor, thus the still standing request for senior editors to review and protection for the article. Respectfully66.235.36.153 (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC) A Contributor

Go ahead and find new sources. I am not motivated to do that. You are correct that we do not like using sources like the Daily Mail, TMZ, among other tabloids. --JumpLike23 (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging the tabloid nature of TMZ Radar Online etc,there are far superior sources. Here is why the article also needs review and protection there are blogs masquerading as 'social media sites' in the External Links section....here is one that has a racist 'thug' image of Cosby claiming to 'support the victims of Bill Cosby' that is an opinion on a Living Person who has not been charged or convicted of any crimes. "Social media site dedicated to alleged victims of Bill Cosby" It is again a Face Book page with a racist image of Cosby expressing the sole opinion advocating his guilt. It is not balanced or neutral about a Living Person.66.235.36.153 (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Respectfully A Contributor

OMG! "It is not balanced or neutral about a Living Person." There are some good reasons to object to using that source (it has been removed because of WP:ELNO), but you chose the exact reason we should never use as an excuse for removing a source. You have repeatedly revealed that you do not understand BLP, NPOV, or the way Wikipedia uses the word "neutral", so here's a summary:

The word "neutral" in the NPOV policy is frequently misunderstood by new editors, visitors, and outside critics. To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, "It does not mean what they think it means." They think it means that articles must not contain any form of bias, hence their efforts to remove content and sources they perceive as "not neutral". They do not understand "neutral" in the Wikipedia sense of the word, and think NPOV means content should have "No Point Of View", when nothing could be further from the truth.

The very expression "neutral point of view" is misleading, because NPOV is an editorial attitude and mindset, not a true "point of view".

The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias and editorial POV, but does not forbid content bias and content POV, which is the type of bias found in reliable sources, many of which are far from neutral. All significant points of view must be documented, and all types of reliable sources, including biased ones, should be used: "While Wikipedia is required to present a neutral point of view, sources on the other hand are not expected to be neutral." Therefore, content bias must remain evident and unaffected by editors. They must include content bias, must preserve it, and must remain neutral in how they do it.

Without the use of non-neutral sources and documentation of the non-neutral biases in the real world, most of our articles would fail to document "the sum of human knowledge," and would be rather "blah" reading, devoid of much meaningful and interesting content.

A change of the NPOV policy to accommodate such specious reasoning would mean the radical neutering of millions of articles, violation of NPOV, and denial that such points of view exist in the real world. Yes, it's an uncomfortable and sad fact that nonsense exists, but it is our job to document all of it that is notable enough to be mentioned in reliable sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Please be careful. Some of your editing seems to be whitewashing efforts. Don't do that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

OMG wiki is a global wide base of editors and not made up of a bunch of retentive Bureaucratic persons. At one point the conversation is about making a balanced article and in the next breath there is a brow beating stupid comment about 'whitewashing' All the while acknowledged gossip sites are said to be ok to quote as a single source about a living person, completely ignoring wiki higher source standards. Stop making accusations about fellow editors with comments like 'newbie' etc. There are some useful suggestions made, thank you for them. One assumed the OMG just might mean Oh my goodness! as some editors just might be atheists and that is fine....by the way stop using CAPS ...omg...;-)Respectfully66.235.36.153 (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC) A Contributor

PS OMG By the way the entire request has been for more senior editors to review the article because of biased gossip sites that wiki itself labels as such and to use more objective sources with higher editorial standards. .Please can the rhetoric about fellow editors objectivity, there are no mind readers in this group and such comments are pure projection on the part of those who make them. Such comments are in violation of the good faith dialog. Respectfully66.235.36.153 (talk) 03:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC) A Contributor

Hello Bull Just reread your post. You have completely blown seeing the very simple point that acknowledged (by wiki itself) gossip sites with biased headlines and no real editorial review of fact over rumor are the core concern as sources for the article. Sites such as TZM, RADAR ONLINE and over at the 'Autumn Jackson' article you have THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER and GAWKER sited. To be perfectly clear here are again some of the sources with the headlines that express the content and context of the material in them that wiki editors are suppose to build non-"blah" articles on...

"Bill Cosby Was ‘Sexually Aggressive’ & ‘Wouldn't Take ‘No’ For An Answer’ In ‘70s Exchange, New Accuser Claims". RADAR ONLINE."Don Lemon Asks Cosby Rape Accuser Why She Didn’t Just Gnaw Her Way Out of Danger". Slate.,,,,"EXCLUSIVE: The one woman who Bill Cosby admits he cheated with says 'he drugged and raped me too - and got me PREGNANT'". Daily Mail. Retrieved 17 January 2015...."Bill Cosby He Slipped Me A Quaalude And I Woke Up with His Friend ... New Allegation". TMZ. November 22, 2014. Retrieved September 24, 2015

Contrast the trash above with wiki Living person policy....Reliability in specific contexts Biographies of living persons Main page: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Reliable sources Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons. Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately; do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space.

The request of this contributing editor is for better sourced material from sources with editorial review boards (NYT, Chicago Tribune etc.) and it be done by senior editors. So please drop the attacks on the objectivity of fellow editors who are acting in good faith. 66.235.36.153 (talk) 15:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)Respectfully A Contributor

The Autumn Jackson article is thataway.....

You still have not provided a link to any policy forbidding the use of a source because it happens to have a sensational headline. The headline is NOT part of the article.

I fixed your failure to add proper indentation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Bull Thank you for your effort to fix the indentation now perhaps you can go to work and fix your own failure to help with better sources than the use of RADAR ONLINE, TZM etc. and now you appear to endorse GAWKER AND THE NATIONAL ENQUIERER over 'thataway' as the Autumn Jackson article has linkage. Sorry but the headline is indeed part of the source and the headlines cited are both sensational, endorses an opinion, and a clear show of bias in the source and when that source is THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER, GAWKER RADAR ONLINE, TMZ etc. etc. it can and should be removed immediately per Living Persons. A person can bury almost any issue under a flurry of bureaucratic dithering but that will not change the fact the article is about a living person and demands the quality editorial policies of the NYT or Chicago Tribune as examples. PS Congrats on some of your own recent edits. Respectfully A Contributor66.235.36.153 (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I got rid of the National Enquirer, since other sources covered the same subject. I also got rid of several ALL CAPS and words like EXCLUSIVE in the headlines. No need for that. Otherwise, our policies and guidelines allow sensational titles and biased sources. You may wish to start your own blog or website if you wish to right these great wrongs. We can't do it for you, and our polices don't allow it. Continuing to badger us about this is just IDHT behavior. Rather than repeating those same issues, find other specific problems. We might be able to help with them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Bull The request for a better article based on sources with editorial review boards such as NYT and Chicago Tribune standards by senior editors in the case of a living person where acknowledged gossip sites are being used is not 'badgering' anyone. Using gossip sites like TMZ RADAR ONLINE GAWKER etc. as sources is not consistent with Living Persons policy. Pointing that out is not IDHT behavior, threatening to ban a fellow editor and assigning motivations such as trying to 'right great wrongs 'and they should go away and write a blog is in violation of a good faith dialog. Stop assigning motivations to fellow editors you are not a mind reader, no matter how many times you OMG. The very fact positive edits have been made that improve the article and removed THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER, GAWKER etc, shows the value of the dialog. Congrats to you and other editors on your recent contributions to the article. 66.235.36.153 (talk) 03:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)Respectfully A Contributor

Hello Jump This staetment that was in the article.."Emmons was among the first to specifically accuse Cosby of using Quaaludes, several months before his 2005 court deposition was made public in 2015.".. was not supported at the time by the CNN and AP sources cited at the time it was removed by this editor it was OR. So please do not make bogus accusations about 'whitewashing' that is a violation of good faith dialog which is at the heart of wiki edit policy. You stated that one should try to fix such possible things as OR with better sources, CNN and AP are such better sources. You then drag in 'People' as source to correct an obvious OR and then shout 'whitewashing'. This is a formal request to remove such unfounded comments about a fellow good faith editor, it smacks of cronyism to smear perceived 'newbie' editors with such labels so as to call into question the objectivity of their edits. This is a PS ...the statement about Emmons is still OR as the 'People' source sited makes no mention of the 'deposition' in the reporting. 66.235.36.153 (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)Respectfully A Contributor

No, you are wrong. It was not OR; It was "not supported by a source." There is a distinction there. I am noting in the edit history what some have perceived you are doing. You removed content and did not replace it. I myself have assumed good faith with you. I noted that other senior editors have called you out with previous edits. No, again...please stop with the sources claim. You change the source if you would like there are many out there. You failed to respond to my point that you made no attempt to ascertain whether the statement was OR. I found out quickly that it was not OR. The mention of the deposition is merely helping with flow. You are being tedious and tiring me out. --JumpLike23 (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC

Hello Jump The statement was removed because it was not properly sourced by CNN or AP and your 'People' is not a proper source for linking the Emmons allegation to the deposition. There is no 'flow' just the unsourced OR that the allegation was linked to the deposition, they are two different issues with no connection to each other and no reportage from the cited CNN. AP or even your cited 'easy' source of 'People'. That is OR. Do not be coy about spreading unfounded 'whitwashing' 'claims' about a fellow good faith editor. Such claims undermine the good faith policy and you should know better than to participate in such trash talk about fellow editors. This again is a formal request for you and Bull to remove that unfounded statement. 66.235.36.153 (talk) 02:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)Respectfully A Contributor

Have you contributed to wikipedia outside of Cosby-related articles? Check out Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. "New editors have the right to be treated with respect and civility; but they should also be aware that, while courtesy and a warm greeting will usually be extended, they may be subject to more scrutiny in the early stages of their editing as other editors attempt to assess how well they adhere to Wikipedia standards." --JumpLike23 (talk) 03:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Jump Scrutiny is fine and even welcome but telling flat out lies about a fellow good faith editor such as Bull has done about 'whitewashing' and then your willingness to participate in repeating that lie is just plain trash talk. It seems to be being used here to undermine a fellow editors capacity to edit on an equal footing. Stop playing dumb about a clear series of simple good faith edits, basic good faith and please remove the trash talk about 'whitwashing' the result is a smear on a fellow editor. Yes one has edited at wiki numerous times, but you should know that as it was mentioned earlier in the dialog. You failed to deal with the OR issue tying two separate issues together with no supporting RS. Higher quality RS are again needed when the article is about a Living Person. The section about Acquisition and Dispensing illegal drugs is a prime example of what is wrong it starts out with RADAR ONLINE cited as the RS which wiki designates as a gossip site and then through linkage unsupported by RS content snowballs to linking Emmons allegations to the Cosby deposition. Again there is a request for more objective and more motivated editors to review the article with higher RS editorial standards than the likes of RADAR ONLINE etc.66.235.36.153 (talk) 07:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC) Respectfully A Contributor

Be very careful what you say. You fling the word "lie" around very carelessly. (An opinion can be mistaken, but it can not be a lie. "Lie" is libelous and a serious personal attack. I would never sue you for it, but don't do it again, unless you can prove it, and that's not possible when referring to an opinion.) Your wording is sliding towards making a mere opinion and cautionary message sound much worse than it was.

Here it is again: "Please be careful. Some of your editing seems to be whitewashing efforts. Don't do that." That was a cautionary message, and instead of getting upset, you should have said "thanks for the heads up". Your editing tends very strongly towards seeking to diminish the strength of the accusations and to deletion of negative material and sources, sometimes using deceptive edit summaries. That is a serious violation of NPOV.

We don't allow revisionism, censorship, whitewashing, or political correctness here. We don't write hagiographies. That applies to everyone, and is not directed at you, but is repeated here as a friendly warning that you need to avoid anything which tends in that direction. We all have our biases, and when others point out that they may be affecting our editing, we should be thankful. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

OK. It is the opinion of this editor that labeling fellow editors with enough 'opinions' is not something to be 'grateful for' and it is the further opinion that when that unjustified label is repeated the end result undermines the core of the good faith policy. It is also an opinion such labels can be used to damage an editor's capacity to add useful material as it can be interpreted as a form of censorship. You start out your accusation with OMG and then with some odd tortured logic somehow claim to divine the intentions of a fellow good faith editor when any examination of the rather conservative edits made and a call for more senior editors to review the article are not 'whitewashing' or trying to 'right great wrongs'. The intention here is to help create the best article possible within wiki standards of a Living Person. No one said your 'opinion' was a deliberate lie just that it lacked any merit what so ever in light of anything to support it. Respectfully A Contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.36.153 (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Concerning the use of sensationalist material from tabloids and gossip sites and the issue of sensationalist headlines if such claimed RS involving a Living Person. From wiki Living Person policy: We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[3] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material.

Wikipedia definition of a headline: Headline From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The headline is the text indicating the nature of the article below it.

If the headline is sensationalist so is the story that follows. Wiki is an encyclopedia and designates it is not to be sensationalist,or be tabloid like.66.235.36.153 (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC) Respectfully A Contributor

While the source of the WP:BLP policy's wording is pretty obvious, where are you getting your wordings about "headlines"? Please get used to providing sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I assumed you were quoting some policy or guideline, but you're quoting from Headline. What about the rest ("If the headline is sensationalist....")? What policy or guideline does that come from? -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The policy comes straight from Wiki BLP (read,see below) as has been stated all along. The article must be written "conservatively" Wikipedia is not a tabloid and not sensationalist and explicitly the burden of proof is on the editor who wants to use sensationalist items or tabloids as an RS. No portion of an RS can be from a tabloid or a sensationalist article if challenged it should and can be removed with out going to talk. The article is riddled with what wiki itself has designated as gossip sites and tabloids, the tabloids have been acknowledged by another editor who was unmotivated to remove them. The BLP demands higher editorial standards than TMZ, GAWKER, The National Enquirer, RADAR ONLINE the tabloid Daily Mail etc. etc. and any other source with sensational headlines as headlines are by wiki designation announcing the very nature of the content of the source. Those same gossip sites and tabloids are now being used in other articles that touch on the same subject as this article. Requesting more objective senior editors to review the article and source better RS is the sole object of this talk section .Here is the section of BLP:

Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[3] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material.

66.235.36.153 (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)Respectfully A Contributor

I wish you would actually read and respond to comments, instead of repeating yourself and writing walls of text. I don't know how many times you have copied from the BLP policy, but stop doing it. ONCE is enough! Also, your failure to format your comments makes it hard to interpret them. You don't punctuate or indent properly. For example, when you are quoting from policy (or anything else), it is plagiarism to not put it in quotation marks. Start doing it. I've been trying to work with you, but you're not making it easy.

I asked you a question, and you still haven't answered it. Tell us where these words come from: "If the headline is sensationalist so is the story that follows."

Just answer the question, without writing a whole lot of other stuff. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The IP never answered my question about whether he has edited outside of the Cosby scandal. Moreover, IP was engaged in an edit war stemming from another editor agreeing with other editors in this discussion that IP's view of reliable sources is not compatible with wiki standards. IP further posted on the Andrea Constand talk page. --JumpLike23 (talk) 04:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Jump is a bit bananas here as the question was addressed by pointing out that this so called IP editor has given an affirmative about numerous edits earlier in the talk. Perhaps Jump was just not 'motivated' to look it up. There was no 'edit war' that is just one more accusation to pile on a fellow editor in violation of the good faith policy. What occurred was an exchange about Wikipedia BLP policy saying that it is not a tabloid and not sensationalist and that any material as such is subject to immediate removal without going to talk and that the burden is on the editor who wants to restore it, articles that are BLP are to be well sourced and written conservatively per BLP (see section cited earlier above). This IP editor was told by other editors they knew BLP better and did not care what was said and eventually should go away and write a blog and not write at wiki.The exchange was over the fact that TMZ, GAWKER, THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER, RAW STORY Daily Mail (pocket book journalism tabloid)were used as single sources rather than sources with higher editorial standards such as the New York Times, Chicago Tribune etc. There is a request for the article which is about a Living Person to be reviewed by senior editors and written with better sources. The opinion is that JumpLike23 and BullRangifier are not those editors even though they have done some fine work, by their own statements they are not 'motivated'. 66.235.36.153 (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Respectfully A Contributor

Hello Bull It is always a clever willful ignorance is always a clever device. The answer is that placing wiki policy for you to obviously to ignore is not 'plagiarism'. The quote you want to know about is a summation about how headlines are part of any article they head; it was this editors summation. Respectfully A Contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.36.153 (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Quoting without quotation marks is plagiarism and confusing. Start using proper punctuation so we know what parts are your words and which parts are other's words. I recognized the BLP parts, but since you don't use quote marks, I couldn't be sure whether the rest was from some policy or your own words. Now you have clarified that they are your own words, so they have no weight here.

You still have not provided a policy which forbids use of a source because it has a sensational headline or because it contains "opinion based content" (your edit summary). Opinion based content is specifically allowed ("Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone,..." — Wikipedia:NPOV#Bias in sources), and the rest is just your rather unique and new interpretation of our policies. You keep on repeating it and getting rejected. Einstein's words come to mind: "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." It's very tiring and disruptive. Stop it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

There, there, there Bull calm down. What is really, really insane is arguing that TMZ, GAWKER, RAW STORY, THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER, Daily Mail and the lot, which you seem to prefer, are better sources rather than the simple suggestion that the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune, which this editor advocates. That plus more objective editors than you or this editor do a review of the article. Maybe now you can see the writing on the wall...of text if necessary.66.235.36.153 (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC) Respectfully A Contributor

"arguing that", "seem to prefer", "are better sources"....??? That's a BS straw man, "really, really insane", claim. Your condescending comments really aren't helping you. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure Bull labeling fellow good faith editors and supporting gossip sites over editorial sound RS doesn't help much either. A review of the article with RS with sound editorial policies by BLP standards is all that was requested and is still requested. 66.235.36.153 (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Respectfully A Contributor

I found one error today - in the first Chloe Goins section. The editor used a citation from a crappy tabloid, the Daily Mirror that claimed the statute of limitations had not expired in this case. The more credible news agencies now confirm that it is years too late for charges to be laid. e.g. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-la-bill-cosby-allegations-venue-20151230-story.html So it does pay to have additional (or new) editors review the content occasionally. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Constand case

 Done

Main article: Andrea Constand

Does anybody think that we should do a separate article for that case? It seems like there is a lot to that case and it is different than the serial rape accusations?

We need to clean up the impact section by merging the fallout and university/impact section.

We need to cut down on intricate detail in some of those civil cases. They are not worthy of that much detail.

Good work on the article. I remember when this article had no headings in the original cosby page. It is really well-researched. --JumpLike23 (talk) 09:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I vote for creating a new article for the Constand case. It has definitely taken on a great deal of significance over the past year, and there are so many aspects to it that deserve comprehensive inclusion, but those interested in the overall scope of the Cosby sexual assault allegations (the purpose of this article) probably only need a truncated version of those details. If Autumn Jackson deserves her own article, the Constand case and everything directly related to it is definitely noteworthy enough.

I also agree that a lot of the civil lawsuit material can probably be trimmed while retaining all pertinent details. For example, we don't really need one paragraph about a judge ordering a deposition and then another paragraph about that deposition being put on hold. Once the latter happens, we can just edit the first paragraph to say that a court-ordered deposition is on hold pending an appeal from Cosby. Mdude04 (talk) 09:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that a separate article is a good idea. Per WP:SPINOFF we can leave a summary here, and the nitty gritty details can go there. Go for it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Before folks get to giddy over a new article the matter of using tabloids and gossip sites such as Daily Mail, GAWKER, TMZ, THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER etc. etc. as RS (sometimes as sole RS) in the cases of Living Persons should be addressed. 66.235.36.153 (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)Respectfully A Contributor

I agree. Using tabloids as citations is not really acceptable. Example: in the first Chloe Goins section, an editor had used a citation from a crappy tabloid, the Daily Mirror that claimed the statute of limitations had not expired in this case. The more credible news agencies now confirm that it is years too late for charges to be laid. (And even back when that comment was written, the editor could not find a more reliable news agency that claimed the statute did not apply.) Here are the true facts on this issue: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-la-bill-cosby-allegations-venue-20151230-story.html So it does pay to have additional (or new) editors review the content occasionally. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

No section about Andrea Constand?

I know there is a separate article about Andrea Constand (and I just updated that one) but why is there no section in this main article about her? There should be at least a brief mention of her case: primarily the civil suit vs. Cosby. Peter K Burian (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

P.S. She is listed in the Alleged Victims section so perhaps that is adequate; I added the link to her name so anyone reading that can easily find the main article about Andrea Constand. Peter K Burian (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

How many charges vs Cosby?

I noticed that User:Wwdamron changed the content to three charges; I see that some news agencies are using the plural word charges, but we need a citation if we say there are three, and not one as other news agencies have suggested. Peter K Burian (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, I found an article about the three charges from a highly-respected source and added the citation. Peter K Burian (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

SirLagsalott reverted SEVEN edits???

This is incredible!!! 17:17, 31 December 2015‎ SirLagsalott (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (182,186 bytes) (-57)‎ . . (Reverted 7 edits by Peter K Burian (talk) to last revision by Vesuvius Dogg. (TW))

In other words, SirLagsalott deleted seven of my updates for no apparent reason? If he does so again, I will file for Dispute Resolution. Peter K Burian (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Why these edits?

66.235.36.153, why did you make these edits? For example: In what way did they improve the content? In what way did they fix a problem, and what was the problem? You mention "vandalism" twice, so who is the suspect in each instance? Please name them so they can explain themselves. Maybe they should be more careful.

I have included your edit summaries for convenience, but am asking because the edit summaries aren't good enough explanations. There must be more to it. Help us understand this. I'll list and sign them individually so you can place your explanations immediately below each one. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

1. removed TIME opinion piece and cited USA Today examining Cosby defense of Rashad and other Cosby Show participants may use source for other comments in Cosby defenses section

What was wrong with the TIME article? -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Bull The TIME article was an opinion piece while the USA Today article relates directly to the issue of persons who were commenting on Cosby and who knew him. But that is obvious to anyone who would actually have read the reportage in the differing articles. Perhaps you expect a fellow editor to place an entire article in the edit comment box. 66.235.36.153 (talk) 07:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC) A Contributor

I read the sources and the edit history of these edits. You seem to put down the TIME "opinion piece" (opinion pieces are very allowable sources), even though you are the one who provided the TIME source in the first place. Your TIME source was good, and I followed good practice by improving the format, fixing the bare URL, and including the context. Per WP:PRESERVE, you should have left it and just added your other source to back up further content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

2. restored original USA Today RS

What "original" were you "restoring"? -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Read the edit history it is obvious the progression of the USA Today article was changed to a link that lead to an article that was about Lili Bernard's charges and not the USA Today item that is the basis of the Rashad, and other defense of Cosby quotes. That seemed like vandalism if you want to play at Sherlock Holmes, please do so...it may have been an honest mistake the term was 'suspect' not guilty etc. 66.235.36.153 (talk) 07:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC) A Contributor

I did read the edit history. You are the one who provided that source, and later you edited it. Your edit summary (above) says you "restored original USA Today RS."

In fact, you didn't "restore" any source. You left the original URL in place but stripped it of all the improvements and proper formatting and left a bare URL, still the same one you originally provided. Before throwing around vague accusations of "vandalism", make sure you aren't referring to your own edits. There was no edit to that content which could have been considered "vandalism", and no one changed the URL from the one you had provided in the first place.

Your change (vandalism?) had to be fixed by User:Jumplike23. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

3. restored link that take viewer to proper article at USA Today RS other link takes you to Lili Bernard item suspect vandalizing

What was wrong with the existing link? What makes the new article "proper", compared to the previous one? Also, what type of vandalism are you referring to? -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

You actually undid the fix made by Jumplike23 and made a "miscopy", which you corrected below. Still no vandalism to be fixed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

4. fixed link to proper USA Today RS Wayans' account other link was miscopy suspect previous links went to Bernard accusations suspect vandalism

Who made the "miscopy" and what type of vandalism are you referring to? -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The fixed link 'miscopy' was a correction to one's own edit. The 'vandalism' is the link that lead to the Lili Bernard article in both cases. 66.235.36.153 (talk) 07:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC) A Contributor

Yes, you did make a "miscopy" and fixed your own ("one's own") edit (the "other link"). There was no "vandalism". You provided the original link (the one mentioned right above in Number 2), made a miscopy, and now you changed your "miscopy". Well, your original link was perfectly good and I had improved it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The edits improve the article by adding a section to 'Reactions' that bring more and diverse voices that broadens the perspective of the article. Happy New Year. Respectfully66.235.36.153 (talk) 07:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC) A Contributor

The one, and only, thing you did that improved the article was to create that section and provide some good sources, and we worked with it and improved it. You didn't need to tamper with it. It was okay.

Right now the TIME source is missing, the other two sources are bare URLs, once again, and there is a space between the closing punctuation and those two references, contrary to MoS. You really screwed things up. Thanks. I'm going to try to fix things. Please leave it alone this time. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Bull The edit history will show that the article was improved by the addition of more voices and more perspective with the additions this editor has provided, including the Defenses section. You own adolescent need to hurl accusations at fellow editors is on full display in your comments above. Sincerely66.235.36.153 (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC) A Contributor

I commended you where I could, but the evidence above, using diffs from the edit history, showed you screwed up a good thing. See below as well. I have fixed what you screwed up. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Bull The TIME article was an opinion piece while the USA Today article relates directly to the issue of persons who were commenting on Cosby and who knew him. But that is obvious to anyone who would actually have read the reportage in the differing articles. Perhaps you expect a fellow editor to place an entire article in the edit comment box.

Read the edit history it is obvious the progression of the USA Today article was changed to a link that lead to an article that was about Lili Bernard's charges and not the USA Today item that is the basis of the Rashad, and other defense of Cosby quotes. That seemed like vandalism if you want to play at Sherlock Holmes, please do so...it may have been an honest mistake the term was 'suspect' not guilty etc. The fixed link 'miscopy' was a correction to one's own edit. The 'vandalism' is the link that lead to the Lili Bernard article in both cases.

The edits improve the article by adding a section to 'Reactions' that bring more and diverse voices that broadens the perspective of the article. Happy New Year. Respectfully66.235.36.153 (talk) 07:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC) A Contributor

This is a time dated restoration to a response to Bull who vandalized it by it's removal so he could further make an adolescent commentary on a fellow good faith editor's attempts to improve the article. Respectfully 66.235.36.153 (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)A Contributor

I moved your comment so it wasn't in the middle of mine and made it a box for clarity. I hope you don't mind. The content in the box is identical to what you originally posted as a reply to my request. So far so good. Where it went wrong was that you did not follow my instructions. I did not vandalize your comment or remove it. I took your original comment, without alteration, and placed its parts under the relevant sections. If I made a mistake there, I do apologize. If you had followed my instructions above, I wouldn't have needed to do that. I tried to be faithful to what your wording seemed to imply by placing your responses immediately after what they seemed to be replying to. I acted in good faith, and if an error occurred, then just civilly help me get it right. Did I split it correctly?

My analysis is not "adolescent," but scholarly. We do that here, and your response is a bad faith personal attack. The diffs used show what actually happened, and how your confusion and "miscopy" didn't improve the article. I do commend you for the one thing you did right, and that was to create the section and provide some good sources, which we used and I improved. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Bull This editor did not need to 'follow your instructions', your schoolmarm like scolds are not 'scholarly' they just keep piling up trash talk about fellow good faith editors. You seem peeved that fellow IP editors can and have made improvements in the article and when you make a slight correction to a link claim some huge accomplishment. That is just bizarre. To remove someones entire comment and then edit it to suit your purpose to generate more trash talk about a fellow good faith editor is beyond the pale, but your apology is accepted, for the moment. Sincerely66.235.36.153 (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC) A Contributor

A "good faith editor" would try to be collaborative, not obstructive. All the other editors here are collaborative. You are the one exception.

What part of the following don't you understand?: "I'll list and sign them individually so you can place your explanations immediately below each one." You keep calling yourself a "good faith editor", but I have trouble seeing it. I'm pretty sure you can do better. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Bull There is nothing 'obstructive' in a fellow good faith editor seeing that tabloid journalism sources are removed from the article sources about 'freaky sex' 'mind blowing sex' THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER, RADAR ONLINE, GAWKER etc. etc. which you have gone out of your way to defend and restore to the article (with the exception of a NATIONAL ENQUIRER item).

There is nothing 'obstructive' in adding an entire new section to the article that brings in more perspective and more diverse voices. It is obstructive for an editor to have an anal retentive 'analysis' of edit notes and whine about improving an issue with a link as you have done here. Then claim 'scholarship' after erasing an editor's response, then re-edtit that response so you can talk trash about that editor.

You have continued to whine and seem to have a pattern of accusing a good faith editor with every wiki misdeed you can from this editor's first additions to the article. So please climb off your moral high horse and get on with helping create a better article. Sincerely 66.235.36.153 (talk) 18:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)A Contributor

You're changing the subject of this thread. Your obstruction is in your not following the instructions and making this flow smoothly. None of this section would be relevant if you had not made accusations of "vandalism". That made me dig to find out what the heck was going on. It turned out that your own ineptitude and "miscopy" were the problem. Everyone else had improved the content, and your messed it up, even casting aspersion on the TIMES source you provided. (That was really odd behavior!) When you were done, the content was totally messed up and once again left bare URLs, contrary to MoS. I had to fix all of that. You simply wasted my our time. If you had been more careful and AGF in your fellow editors (instead of making accusations of "vandalism"), we wouldn't be here. Even now, your persistent carelessness is evident in that I had to fix your varying levels of indentation for your single comment. You keep doing it. Keep your indents at the same level, and normally one more indent than the previous comment. -- BullRangifer (talk) 08:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Bull Your anal retentive 'analysis' of a single link that was corrected by this editor is what is a gigantic waste of fellow editors time. This editor acknowledged the the error in the edit history. The 'vandalism' was merely 'suspected' if you discovered the error goody for you. But your stupid dragging out the issue is what is wasting other editors time.

As pointed out it was this editor that added the Defenses section that added more voices and diverse perspective to the article including the USA Today RS that is the basis of the section. Yet you continue to whine about how you improved a single link and waste valuable print time that could be going into the improvement of the article.

Please invest your very good editing skills in the our mutual efforts to improve the article rather than removing and reediting fellow good faith editors responses so you can talk trash about them. Get on with your life in the new year. Happy New year to you and yours. Sincerely 66.235.36.153 (talk) 10:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)A Contributor

Condensing honorary degree section

I've copyedit this section, but I think everyone would agree it is still bloated and repetitive. I'd prefer to see it condensed into a table, perhaps, which includes the name of institution, year that honorary degree was originally awarded, date the award was rescinded, and perhaps a short relevant statement from each of the institutions. I'd also like to see the paragraph of outstanding (non-rescinded) degrees retained, because I do think it's relevant that many institutions still apparently endorse Mr. Cosby and his status as an honorary graduate, notwithstanding recent revelations. Alternatively, we could create another spin-off article. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, a major condensing but makes sense, in my opinion. I doubt anyone is interested enough for a spin-off article about that topic! 174.95.157.129 (talk) 15:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Criminal charge section should be easier to find

There is going to be a lot of material in this section, and we shouldn't bury this most important aspect of the article inside of an already crowded section. Doesn't it make sense to strip this out and make it its own section (right before the Fallout section perhaps)? Mdude04 (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah Mdude04, it is kind of buried! Even now. I'll bet that 90% of readers now are interested primarily in that section and they really have to hunt for it. IMHO, it should be the first section after the lede. This article does not need to be chronological at all. 174.95.157.129 (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

What was the exact date of the January 2004 (Constand) alleged assault?

I cannot find a citation that provides the actual date in January 2004. Surely, during the Constand vs. Cosby law suit the date would have been specified. And Wikipedia should include a specific date. Can anyone help, with a reliable citation? Peter K Burian (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Best I can find is mid-January 2004. http://www.independent.ie/woman/celeb-news/family-guy-cosby-faces-ruin-over-sex-claims-26211128.html Peter K Burian (talk) 16:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Constand charges section

In this article, I think it is a little long right now. There will be many developments and will need to be condensed. FYI: Much of the Constand case was moved to Andrea Constand. That title will probably be changed. --JumpLike23 (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Moving the Criminal Charges section?

I know that this article was partially in a chronological order, but that meant that the criminal charges section was buried far down. I am absolutely convinced that 90% of folks who google Cosby (since December 30) want to read a good summary about the charges, so this topic should definitely NOT be buried far down. (In truth Wikipedia articles should not generally be in chronological order.) If several editors who have done a great deal or work on this article disagree with the change that I made, then I suppose it will be reverted. But please, think twice about the potential readers before doing so. (Why do they come to this article these days?) Peter K Burian (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I see that another editor User:Jumplike23 moved the charges section way down again, burying it. I won't revert that change even though I do not agree with it. Peter K Burian (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

See WP:RECENTISM. It makes no sense to put the charges first as this scandal has unfolded over the course of decades. Readers will find it with appropriate headings and subheadings. I imagine this will become it's own article. Thanks for your work on the article. Keep it up. You may come across an IP pretty soon. He surely has an opinion on this! Bull knows all about this IP. : ) --JumpLike23 (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Now, the discussion of the charges has been blended into a section that also includes various other investigations. Again, I don't agree but I won't revert it. Thanks for the warning JumpLike23. Peter K Burian (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Cosby's' Childhood' Spanish Fly Joke Narrative

Hello Fellow Editors

In a section of the article drawing from Cosby's book 'Childhood' a Spanish Fly joke is done in Cosby's comedic narrative style where he represents several voices of a group of naive young boys. This needs to be pointed out for context as he not speaking in his contemporary voice but as a character, a young boy ( in dialect), in the narrative. Here is a quote from one of the RS cited for context: 'to a pubescent hunt for fabled Spanish Fly, it's all contrived and easy enough reading for both those now caught in the undertow of childhood' Respectfully66.235.36.153 (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC) A Contributor

Have you read the book? Please read the chapter/passages in question before altering the vetted and accepted description in this section. The writing is in Cosby's own voice, as an adolescent. You have continued to change the description as though it is completely detached from Cosby. Perhaps there is a way to clarify that Cosby is not speaking in a contemporary voice, but please do not alter the description to the point where you are incorrectly characterizing it (especially if you have not even bothered to read the material in question) as a random "group of naive young boys" talking about Spanish fly, when it is in fact Cosby speaking in the first person. Mdude04 (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

A proposed option:

In his 1992 book Childhood, Cosby devotes an entire chapter to Spanish fly, recalling how enamored he was with the concept as a pubescent boy. An entranced young Cosby asks what Spanish fly looks like, how to give it to a girl ("In a sandwich of somethin'?"), and how much of it to use, to which one of Cosby's childhood friends replies, "Soon as her clothes come off, that's enough."

Mdude04 (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Mdude Yes the book can be found in several libraries and has been accessed by this editor, that is what editors do. You will notice that your 'compromise' is about a 'young Cosby' and another youth who's dialog was incorrectly attributed to an adult Cosby. The entire dialog is a comedic narrative among 'a group of naive young boys' as your own 'compromise' clearly shows.

Even where Cosby is in the narrative he is portraying a character in a humorous fiction speaking in a youthful dialect. Here again is what one of the RS cited has to say:'to a pubescent hunt for fabled Spanish Fly, it's all contrived and easy enough reading for both those now caught in the undertow of childhood' Note is says 'fabled Spanish fly'. This is not Cosby speaking in his contemporary voice, it is narrative character. To imply otherwise is not factual. The article must reflect these facts as the RS properly does. I will think about your compromise ( it is something of an improvement) or offer an alternative. Respectfully66.235.36.153 (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC) A Contributor

I do not understand why you continue to call it a work of fiction. You clearly have not read the book; I am assuming you've read very brief descriptions from other people and are now pretending to be an expert on the material. This book is Cosby talking about his own childhood in a first-person voice. He is not "portraying a character." It is about *his* childhood and this chapter is about *his* interest in Spanish fly. There is a small amount of dialogue with some of his childhood friends, which is told from Cosby's perspective. Your warped description of the entire book as a work of fiction about a group of naive boys is wildly and irresponsibly inaccurate. Mdude04 (talk) 03:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello MDude Do not be stupid. The discussion here is strictly about the small bit of dialog in the Wikipedia article 'not the whole book'. The dialog is between two fictionalized characters given voice by Cosby. Here again is what one of RS cited had to say: 'to a pubescent hunt for fabled Spanish Fly, it's all contrived and easy enough reading for both those now caught in the undertow of childhood' Note. again, is says 'fabled Spanish fly' Sincerely66.235.36.153 (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC) A Contributor

The discussion is about the Spanish fly chapter, which (as with the rest of the book) is written from Cosby's own perspective in a biographical tone, in the first person. There are no "fictionalized" characters; Cosby is talking as himself about his real-life childhood. How can this be stated so you understand? Either way, this is not worth arguing about. When referencing a book, it's probably a good rule of thumb to use the book as the most reliable source. Just an idea. The only stupidity was your description of it as some random work of fiction that had nothing to do with Cosby, which is about as inaccurate a description of the material as possible. The updated content is not an improvement "for the moment." It is fully accurate and there is no compelling reason to continue this discussion. Mdude04 (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello MDude As one said it is fine....for the moment. Respectfully A Contributor

Since all three of us seem to think your version is an improvement, I have added it. I hope that's good enough. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Bull Perhaps, for the moment as stated it is an improvement. Respectfully66.235.36.153 (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC) A Contributor

The Spanish fly issue was just condensed by 66.235.36.153; I agree with that revision. Peter K Burian (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Should we delete a section?: Buress remarks and aftermath (2014)

If this article is getting too long, I wonder if we should delete -- or reduce to a single paragraph - the Buress section. There is a lot of more important information for the reader. The Buress comments might have been a big deal when they happened, but are they important in an encyclopedic article? Peter K Burian (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Breaking confidentiality agreement - THIS is what happened in 2015

Wikipedia needs to be a place where the actual facts are presented. The fact is that Andrea Constand sued Cosby in 2015 because she wanted the confidentiality agreement in her 2005 case to be nullified (so that the facts would be out in the public, and she would be able to comment on this increasing scandal). This lawsuit was filed on July 8, 2015. Look at the dates. Cosby filed a motion later in July saying that it was Constand who violated the agreement. This motion was not a brand new lawsuit from Cosby against Constand. It was a motion in response to Constand's lawsuit where she claimed Cosby violated the agreement. Because Constand's 2015 lawsuit didn't get much attention, some websites and media reported it as Cosby suing Constand. These sources are wrong. Wikipedia needs to be the place that displays the correct facts. So please stop changing this. Mdude04 (talk) 07:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

place where the actual facts are presented I agree, And presenting facts does NOT include claiming that Constand sued Cosby for breaking the confidentiality agreement as Mdude04 did (when deleting the change I had made to indicate that it was actually Cosby who was seeking damages v. Constand for that reason). Peter K Burian (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

This was the Mdude04 version after deleting my revision: In July 2015, Constand sued over claims that Cosby violated the terms of their confidentiality agreement... Wrong! It is Cosby who was angry about the confidentiality issue. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Further research indicates that this is what happened in the case. We were both wrong (but it was definitely Cosby who was angry about the loss of confidentiality and Constand did NOT sue in 2015. I will revise the article with the correct info, below:

People (Time Inc.): Cosby's lawyer filed a motion asking for sanctions against [Constand's attorney] Troiani, claiming that Troiani violated the confidentiality agreement with her court filings. http://www.people.com/article/bill-cosby-accuser-andrea-constand-gay-court-filing Chicago Tribune: Cosby's lawyers asked a judge to hold an accuser's [Constand's] attorney responsible for the release of the comedian's deposition in a 2005 Pennsylvania case. hey fault Andrea Constand's lawyers for the weekend release of the transcript to news outlets ... They asked a judge to enforce undisclosed terms of the confidential agreement that settled the former Temple University employee's sexual-assault lawsuit. http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/ct-bill-cosby-lawyers-20150723-story.html Peter K Burian (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, I read the citation from the Legal Intelligencer and it was useful. It also confirmed that neither Cosby nor Constand had sued anyone in 2015. (Both Mdude04 and I were wrong on that aspect ... while arguing about who sued who.) Both sides filed Motions; neither started a law suit.

This is the current text, after my revision this morning. If this starts an Edit War, I will request Dispute Resolution.: During the summer of 2015, both Cosby's lawyers and Constand's lawyer filed motions accusing the other party of having broken the confidentiality agreement that was part of the 2006 settlement of the Constand law suit.[190] The primary issue alleged by Cosby was that a court reporter released the full transcript of Cosby's deposition, blaming Constand's attorney Dolores Troiani for this act[191] and seeking sanctions against her.[192] A federal judge had unsealed portions of the evidence from the 2005 Constand law suit but that did not include Cosby's statements made under oath.[193]

Thank you for fixing this. It's still a mis-characterization to suggest they filed the motions at the same time. It was Constand who struck first. But at least the page no longer has the crazy line about Cosby "turning the tables on Constand." Please be sure to double check and read through the existing citations that countless people have spent a lot of time and effort to compile, before potentially changing the content from something that is accurate to something that is incorrect (or in this case, from something that was worded wrongly to something that was even more materially incorrect). Mdude04 (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)