Jump to content

Talk:Bill Cosby/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Bill Cosby

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 03:22, 4 August 2016 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Talk:Bill Cosby) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Discussion: Should the lead sentence mention the sexual assault accusations?

Help us reach a consensus on this by sharing what you think. There is currently a brief description of the sexual assault accusations in the last paragraph of the lede, an extensive discussion in a section titled Sexual Assault Allegations, and finally a very thorough description of all the available information in a separate article Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations. The disagreement is whether the first sentence of the Bill Cosby article should or should not mention the sexual assault accusations (or even describe Cosby as an "alleged serial rapist"). I will post my views in a separate post and I hope all editors of this article and others passing by will help us reach a consensus. Thanks. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 02:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

(I am restoring my original comment where it belongs. The following comment was improperly deleted by Hamsterlopithecus. I had deliberately placed it here, using the following edit summary: "This should be closed now after adding "Accused of sexually assaulting numerous women" in very first line." This was just one of many improper things which Hamsterlopithecus did on this page and elsewhere to hijack the discussion and mislead editors whom he forum shopped to come here. Wwdamron (talk) 17:01, November 10, 2015 (UTC))
User:BullRangifer #4 in my opinion, I will let you User:BullRangifer decide since you have the most clout (I did temporarily revert it back to #3, but quickly undid it).
As for User:Hamsterlopithecus, I am almost starting to believe you are a Cosby sympathizer and letting your emotions dictate or that you feel sorry for Cosby. This is not an opinion, these are facts and cannot be dictated my emotions.
FACT - Cosby has been accused by many people of Serial Rape, Sexual Assault and other Sex crimes, with new things surfacing on just about a daily basis, with many witness's to back these women's stories up.
FACT - This is probably the biggest scandal in modern USA history and will be talked about for centuries to come.
CONCLUSION - It would be Vandalism (in my and the majority of peoples opinions) to revert it back if it is changed to one of User:BullRangifer conclusions.
User:BullRangifer please go ahead and change it, number 4 in my opinion, also in my opinion citations are probably not necessary under any of your scenarios except a possible embedded link to Cosby's Sexual assault allegation page in addition to the tex in the very First sentence, but any of the other would be okay for now as well.
Wwdamron (talk) 03:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Just FYI, the lead sentence that is subject to changing currently reads: William Henry Bill Cosby, Jr. (born July 12, 1937) is an American stand-up comedian, actor, author, and activist. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I am strongly against describing Cosby as an alleged rapist in the first sentence or mentioning the accusations there. The accusations are well mentioned in the last paragraph of the lede, where they should be chronologically. I understand that this is a very emotional subject and the accusations are pretty horrible, but we have to keep our objective tone and not suffer from WP:Recentism. We have to maintain a historical perspective. For this reason, I say we wait on labeling Cosby a rapist as if it described him like the word comedian does. Also, this is the biography of a living person and we should be VERY careful with what we say about people. Other sensationalist news organizations can say what they want but Wikipedia tries to be a standard for reliability. We should wait until the smoke clears, until the legal system determines what to call Cosby. Until then, we should continue stating the facts in those other sections that describe the situation, but, if anything, lets err on the side of caution on this. Finally, I want to bring the example of the Michael Jackson article. Notice that there is a thorough description of the sexual assault incidents but there is no mention of him a child molester along with singer and dancer. Now that the scandal has passed, and we are looking at it from a historical perspective, it would seem harsh to include those accusations in the lead sentence of that article. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
First off, you again do not address the version that you actually reverted. You instead discuss the rapist version that I do not support. I also don't really support a new section on this because the old section is the exact same subject. Also, citing the actual recentism test, "In ten years will this addition still appear relevant? If I am devoting more time to it than other topics in the article, will it appear more relevant than what is already here?" I believe the answer is clearly yes. His sexual assault charges have impacted his career as I have stated above, losing all airtime of cosby show, honorary degrees, cases that are not going away, etc. --JumpLike23 (talk) 03:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Hamsterlopithecus, JumpLike23 is right. You are just repeating yourself; fighting against a straw man of your own creation (we aren't discussing the word "rapist"); and your creation of this section is disruptive. Just remove the heading and we can continue, otherwise this whole section should be hatted as disruption. It's your choice. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 03:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hamsterlopithecus, don't you EVER do this again. Never change other editors' edits in a way that changes the meaning, EVER. I have restored the heading. Your attempt to hijack this discussion is not appreciated. You should just join it. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 03:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

User:BullRangifer, I had already explained to you that we were both editing the same section at the same time when that happened. You know it wasn't in bad faith, don't act so outraged. Now please, don't derail this discussion. If you have an actual reason for being so passionately in favor of labeling Cosby a rapist in the first sentence, please explain it here so other editors can understand all sides of this argument and can make up their minds. And also, once you've stated your opinion, please let other editors join in. We are not fighting here, just trying to find what's best for Wikipedia. The more people involved, the better. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 03:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I made that edit 12 minutes before yours, and intervening edits as well. You still chose to remove that subheading. That was not an accident or edit conflict. I have already explained myself above, several times. Everyone but you understands, so I'm not going to repeat myself for your sake. Go back and read it again. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 03:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

This was discussed extensively already and the consensus was to include a sentence at the end of the lead. Please refer to the talk page archives. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The specific issue of whether to include mention in the intro sentence(s) was not discussed there, right? User:Hamsterlopithecus, please respond. I understand it is hard to justify, but you reverted my edit, and I feel were are thus entitled to such. Otherwise, I will assume you just say Recentism and BLP generally, fair enough? but that just simply is not compelling or based in policy. --JumpLike23 (talk) 04:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Cwobeel, I agree with User:jumplike23 that that discussion seems to have been about adding the paragraph on the lede that is currently in the article and not about adding a mention in the first sentence of the article. Jumplike23, could you please write down the wording that you would propose for the first sentence so we can have an idea of what you're thinking? And now, replying to your question: my argument is, indeed, as simple as stated in my previous comment. I think it is notable enough to be covered extensively in the article and all necessary sub-articles, but just not as the definition of who that person is. Like Michael Jackson, Paula Deen, Anna Nicole Smith, or Tiger Woods, I am not sure if this will be as important as it seems now that it is ongoing, hence WP:Recentism. Btw, please allow for a bit of time between replies. I am checking this discussion often, but I may take a few hours to reply. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 04:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Our discussions above were specifically about adding mention in the first sentence, so mentioning previous discussions about mentioning the subject in the lead at all are out of place here. We are well beyond that. I even provided a whole list of diffs regarding the edit warring over it. The actual content is also listed above, with a fourth version which accounts for the fact that not all the women claim they were raped, but still that they were assaulted. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 06:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Michael Jackson + Paula Deen +Anna Smith + Tiger woods all together does not even equal 10% of Cosby , Cosby and his rapes alleged or otherwise is something that will be discussed for centuries to come. That have led to changes in laws about sexual assault. He has 57 accussers and more to come, 13 recinded degrees which is for certain a world record many times more than his closest competitor. This is probably the biggest scandal in US history. And it cannot be compared to any other sex scandal, given who Cosby was, is and is accussed of. You can add woody allen and roman Polanski as well in addition to the other 3 people you mentioned and your still not even getting close to the scandel. This discussion needs to be closed, you are just going to have to deal with it. Wwdamron (talk) 05:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. This discussion is disruptive and just rehashes previous discussions. We are way beyond that. We have a consensus which Hamster will not accept. Well, that means they will just have to step aside and not be disruptive. I gave them to option of removing the heading or getting this section hatted. They have not acted, so I'll just hat it. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 06:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
User:BullRangifer, closing this discussion by yourself to push your own view is completely out of line! If you don't want to participate in general discussion and reaching a consensus then don't participate. But DON'T try to shut down the discussion of other editors. If you don't like reaching consensus, then Wikipedia is not for you. The only people who are pushing for changing the first sentence are yourself and User:Wwdamron who also happen to be the only people interested in shutting down any discussion about this. There are many people who specifically spoke out against this in a now archived thread. So there is currently NO consensus. Hijacking this page to push your own views is not how we do things. You guys have stated your opinions, now we must wait for others to pitch in. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 08:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Hamsterlopithecus, no, your total reordering of whole sections, changing original headings, and then creating an improper RfC when we already had a consensus, is wrong. The RfC is not legitimate as it interferes with an ongoing discussion of the same subject and is not neutrally worded. You are once again ignoring existing discussions and hijacking the whole discussion. The hatting needs to be restored. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 19:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The RfC was not formed properly and is yet another attempt by Hamster to disruptively hijack an existing discussion. Use it that discussion, which is above this improper section. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 19:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC) (Slight tweak added to clarify what "it" meant. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 16:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC))

57 Accusers, 9 Lawsuits, 2 Open Criminal Investigations, 1 Possible Confession from Cosby's own daughter he abused the Nanny, 13 World Record Ascended Honoaray Degrees, Countless of otherplaces distancing themselves from Cosby. Most Cosby's friends in show business agreee he is a Serial Rapist, including some who have changed their minds. "Cosby is an Alleged Serial Rapist " is a very kind opening line wouldn't you say ?Wwdamron (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

***** UPDATE November 13, 2015 . Since 3 days ago, Cosby has added 4 more women suing him and 2 more rescinded Honorary Degrees. And Camille Cosby has not made a public appearance since November 12, 2015. Cosby has reportedly been in Hiding in his Home in Massachusetts since he did the march in Selma.

57 Accusers, 9 Lawsuits(1 Insurance Company & 13 Women), 2 Open Criminal Investigations, 1 Possible Confession from Cosby's own daughter he abused the Nanny, 15 World Record Ascended Honoaray Degrees.

I am going to add Sexual Assault to the Lead Sentence soon, if someone else does not do it. Wwdamron (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The lead sentence? OK, that's unnecessary. As long as it's in the lead somewhere we should be good. Making it lead sentence is totally recentism at work.DreamGuy (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

DreamGuy, The Lead sentence tells Cosby's other past occupations - "comedian, actor, and author" what's wrong with "comedian, actor, author and accused serial rapist"? Why would you put "comedian, actor, and author" in the Lead sentence ?

***** UPDATE November 14, 2015 . Since 1 days ago, Cosby has added 1 more rescinded Honorary Degrees.

57 Accusers, 9 Lawsuits(1 Insurance Company & 13 Women), 2 Open Criminal Investigations, 1 Possible Confession from Cosby's own daughter he abused the Nanny, 16 World Record Ascended Honoaray Degrees. Camille Cosby has not made a public appearance since November 12, 2015 & Bill Cosby has reportedly been in Hiding in his Home in Massachusetts since he did the march in Selma. Wwdamron (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

So?DreamGuy (talk) 01:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I strongly support adding a note about the accusations in the first sentence. The sexual assault allegations are at the moment one of the most notable things about Cosby, and there's every probability that they will be his most enduring and memorable legacy. People should know about them up top. I can't tell if there's a consensus here or not...but I'm going to add it. I guess people will revert if they want to.NoahB (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL. If it comes to that yes, but as of now, he has yet to be charged or convicted of any crimes. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I support including mention of the accusations. There have been numerous WP:RS about these accusations, and he is notable for them. It may even be what he is most notable for. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

He has been charged and a warrant issued for his arrest. It is time to include this in the lede. --Jersey92 (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree that the allegations should be mentioned in the opening line of the article. I was going to change it myself, but I decided to instead see if it was discussed. At this point, there are actual charges against him pending, and dozens of women have come forward to accuse him. Beyond that, his own statements lend credence to the accusations.

Frankly, I think it's a travesty for him to be remembered first and foremost as an entertainer when there are so many who have accused him of extreme misconduct. Mike O (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

examples of sexual assault in second sentence in a BLP

Here is one: John R. Dallager (born March 4, 1947)[1] is a retired United States Air Force Major General. He served as the fifteenth Superintendent of the United States Air Force Academy from 2000-2003. He resigned the position in the wake of the sexual assault scandal at the Academy and was demoted from the rank of lieutenant general to major general upon his retirement. --JumpLike23 (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Is this gentleman notable for anything other than the sexual assault accusations?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I would think Cosby is more Notable now in the world for his Sexual Assault allegations than anyone else in U.S. history. Wwdamron (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
If you were born yesterday and don't pay attention to the world, sure. DreamGuy (talk) 01:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
the most notable alleged sexual perpetrator? I think he may be, not including murderers who also sexually assault. The notability of the sexual assault allegations deserve to be in the lede. It is time for a new discussion/vote --JumpLike23 (talk) 06:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
JumpLike23, do you mean mention in the second sentence, per the title of this section? I still think that's a good idea. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, second sentence work better. I am just not sure the support will be there from a majority of editors.--JumpLike23 (talk) 07:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth: the child sex abuse allegations against Jimmy Savile are mentioned in the third sentence of the lead of his article. Admittedly, he's not a living person, but he was also never charged with a crime. The second sentence, or at least the first paragraph, seems like a reasonable place to put the allegations against Cosby. Nblund (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Rescinded honorary degrees

Honorary degrees that have been rescinded, need to be indicated. I don't see any mentions at WP:MOS to the contrary. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

We use normal font for such - use of boldface is reserved to specific places per WP:MOS. I unbolded material which ought not to have been bolded in the first place. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Got it, thanks for clarifying. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of this one from Springfield College. See here: http://www.masslive.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2015/10/springfield_college_bill_cosby.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.235.193.219 (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

On December 7th, 2015, Swarthmore College rescinded the honorary degree that it awarded to Cosby in 1995. Link here: http://www.swarthmore.edu/news-events/swarthmore-rescinds-bill-cosbys-honorary-degree Can this be updated? 19:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.194.6 (talk)

Outside of the rescinded degrees, some existing honorary degrees are missing. For example, Cosby was awarded the Honorary Doctor of Humanities title by the George Washington University when he spoke at their 1997 commencement and the article should be updated to reflect this (Sources: http://encyclopedia.gwu.edu/index.php?title=Honorary_Degrees_-_Recipients_of_Honorary_Degrees_At_The_George_Washington_University and https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1997/05/19/cosby-warns-graduates-it-gets-harder-by-degrees/b5638517-3ffb-4017-ba01-088df2324670/). I created a wikipedia account to make this change but because the article is so hotly contested, I am blocked from doing so because I am a new member. Perhaps more research needs to be done on the large number of honorary degrees he has received to ensure they are all listed here. Cjs130 (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Cosby has now been charged with a felony

It seems most of the debate over whether or not to include the sexual assault allegations in the lead sentence was that Cosby had never been charged with a crime. Now that he has, it seems appropriate to add it. Feel free to use this section to discuss any other ways in which the article should be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdude04 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure that this is necessary. The first sentence is useful to define what the person is or does for a living, or makes him or her notable enough to merit an article. If the majority (a real majority, not just the first people to reply to this) really feel like it should be included, then let's do it. But can we at least agree on the best way to break this highly sensitive news? This has been a topic of strong disagreement on the talk page for a while now, so we shouldn't take this lightly. As of this comment, the unsigned user above has changed the lead sentence to:
  • Bill Cosby is an American stand-up comedian, actor, and author, who has been accused by multiple women of sexual assault.[1]
I suggest that we remove the mention until we decide how to best word this (as per WP:BLP). If it is to be mentioned in the first sentence, I suggest that we use something like "... has been charged with a felony sex crime from 2004" as this is more precise. I would also suggest we do it in a second sentence following the original "... is an American stand-up comedian, actor, and author". My 2 cents. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
The sex stuff is in the lead - the question is whether it is a defining occupation for Cosby. I suggest that we are still in the "not yet proven" area, and that WP:BLP applies. Collect (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
BLPCRIME just says that we shouldn't imply that he is guilty of a crime when he hasn't been convicted, I don't think it says anything about whether or where we mention notable accusations. Even if someone were proven to have been wrongfully accused, we might still mention notable criminal accusations against that person. The allegations against Anthony Charles Graves, who is notable because he was exonerated while on death row, are mentioned in the lead section of his entry. Nblund (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I would agree with that for NOW. There is no rush, is there?--Malerooster (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
"[[[Jim Morrison]]] was an American Rock singer, exhibitionist and drug abuser."·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Consensus MET by majority of Americans if not the world. That Cosby's career is over and he has been accussed of SERIAL RAPE. One can reasonably assume all hell is going to break loose with more lawsuits and women coming forward. Wwdamron (talk) 00:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Wwdamron, you seem to be on some sort of crusade about this issue, especially on the Talk Page. Your personal opinion is just WP:SOAP and is not a discussion of Reliable Sources for the improvement of the article, which is the only purpose of the Talk Pages - they are not a forum. Please read the guidelines at the top of this TP and then adjust your future comments to comply. BLP is in full effect here. Maybe you need to take a break for a while and come back later when you can be more encyclopedic. 68.19.4.178 (talk) 09:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I think one thing we can ask ourselves here is, "why are people currently reading this article?" We can obtain a fair and unbiased answer to this question by looking at the focus of current media mentions. A careful review shows that the answer to these questions is "who is Bill Cosby and what is he being accused of (charged with)?" I think the lead should answer to this question or it will look very much out of step with very significant developments in his life. Rklawton (talk) 10:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Use of forthcoming mugshot

I personally think we should add it to the section about the allegations of sexual abuse that have come forth aganist Mr. Cosby. It should however not be used for his main photo on the page. Coasterghost (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

It absolutely can not be the "main photo" and I rather think use of it at all requires a positive consensus - in general use of mugshots anywhere is a "no-no." Collect (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Where is that policy? I see mug shots on all kinds of biographical Wikipedia entries (Jim Morrison, Sid Vicious, Justin Bieber, Larry Craig to name a few) Mdude04 (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Start at WP:MUG. General Ization Talk 22:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
"Should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light." Doesn't seem like this has relevance here... Mdude04 (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the "disparaging" part still has relevance. The purpose of mugshots is not to disparage their subject. If that is the primary reason for using it here (I think we all know what Cosby looks like, or can find better photos on the Web) and if no other encyclopedic purpose can be established, then it should not be used.General Ization Talk 22:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think its primary use is to disparage. In this context I think it's to highlight that this material has elevated beyond simple allegations. If you disagree, explain the widespread use among other BLP's like the ones I listed above Mdude04 (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
You may want to rethink that. A booking photograph does no more to "highlight that this material has elevated beyond simple allegations" than the text that mentions the charges, and links to the indictment (which, if not available here, are provided on our cited sources). And I have no interest in explaining why "other crap exists", which is to say that use of such photos elsewhere is not a good argument for using them here. General Ization Talk 22:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
There's a reason I didn't just point to one other example. This is a prevailing theme on Wikipedia. In all the cited pages, as in this, the mug shot is being used in the clinical NPOV context that accompanies it. Use of the mug shot is no more disparaging than having a section devoted to the sexual assault allegations. Your statement that "mug shots are a no-no" is simply not WP policy. Mdude04 (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Mdude04 (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I would agree that using it as the primary photo would be using it primarily to disparage, but putting it in the relevant section is fully relevant and not going against WP policy Mdude04 (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mdude04: Please do not add the booking photo again until consensus is established here. General Ization Talk 23:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

It's an absurd discussion. The cited WP policy here applies only to cases where a picture is being used "out of context" (to quote the policy directly). It's a mug shot of Bill Cosby related to a sexual assault allegation, within Bill Cosby's sexual assault allegations section. My head is exploding that there is an argument to suggest this is out of context and thus applicable to WP:MUG. Hopefully other people will chime in because I don't see any policy justification not to have the mug shot (which now appears in every reliable source news story about this subject matter). "Being sensitive" does not equal shutting off our brains and ignoring very relevant material. Mdude04 (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
If it now appears in every news story, all the more reason it is not urgently needed here. See WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NODEADLINE. Wikipedia's general policy is that anything that does not directly contribute to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject should not be added to or can be removed from an article. I maintain the booking photo contributes nothing other than "this is what the subject looked like moments after being booked", which is trivia. Wikipedia operates under consensus, and so far the consensus (based purely on the number of editors participating in the discussion, plus the one who reverted your addition of the photo) is against you. It can wait. General Ization Talk 00:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I have mentioned this discussion at WP:BLPN#Bill Cosby, which should result in some additional and well-informed discussion of the question. General Ization Talk 01:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. With the way today's events fundamentally altered this entire discussion (and the future encyclopedic legacy of Cosby), I was acting in an admitted sense of haste that is not necessary for Wikipedia. I look forward to an informed discussion on the best way to proceed. Mdude04 (talk) 02:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


Alas - the "mug shot" is simply a bad photo of a black man with a grizzled beard and what appears to be possibly a bad cataract in his right eye. Is this of actual encyclopedic value? I rather fear not. Collect (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. The mugshot clearly has high encyclopedic value at Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations and should be restored for use there, as well as within the relevant section on Bill Cosby. The man has been charged wih sexual assault and his appearance at the time of arraignment is relevant. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Also disagree. The mug shot is historic and belongs in the articles. Jusdafax 17:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
So far it is 2 people who say no vs 4 people who say yes. So consensus at this point is to include it in the appropriate in-context section Mdude04 (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Mdude04, consensus is not a vote. I have no opinion one way or the other about the mugshot, but you need to stop trying to control this discussion. This discussion has been going on a grand total of two days. Consensus discussions with controversial issues such as this often take much longer. There is no consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

If a mugshot is trivial because it only shows how Cosby looked at a certain time and place, then every single other one of his portraits in this article are equally trivial because that's all they show, too. Except that I would argue that Cosby's booking not only marks but illustrates a pivotal moment in his life - and it should therefore be included in the appropriate section. Rklawton (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The mugshot is relevant if the fact that he got arrested is among the most notable things in his life, for example Leona Helmsley. This is absolutely not the case at this moment. But maybe as time goes by this scandal may be the most important thing in his life. I strongly doubt that, but who knows. The point is, if it's important, it should still be important as time passes. So waiting shouldn't be a problem. Otherwise, this is just WP:Recentism. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
That's a little ridiculous, Hamsterlopithecus. That's not the standard for judging an EV-worthy picture. By your logic, reviewing a script in 1990 with the director of an anti-drug public service announcement was a career milestone for Cosby, as evidenced by our including a picture from that meeting. So should that picture be struck from the article, because it is not a "pivotal moment in his life"? And yet it's incontestably the case that Cosby's accusations by 50+ women, his categorical denials of predatory behavior and his lawyerly insistence that he had never been charged with a crime, culminating in his arrest on felony assault charges, without question constitutes a watershed turn of events in his life and career whether or not he's ultimately found guilty. Either way, his mugshot has high encyclopedic value. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm just saying that doing things because we feel strongly emotional about them today may not be in the long-term interest a wikipedia article. If the mugshot is important, it will continue to be important tomorrow. IMHO, let's wait until the smoke clears and then decide what were the important bits of this whole mess. We're not here to break news. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Bingo, Hamsterlopithecus. Chase (talk | contributions) 01:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I think use of the mugshot is appropriate at Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations, but is not needed here. I think the situation is roughly comparable to the use of the mug shot in our Featured Article Canadian drug charges and trial of Jimi Hendrix, though the mug shot is not used in Jimi Hendrix. Obviously, that is not a BLP and he was acquitted, but there are parallels. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree that including the mug shot is more appropriate at Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Not to be confused with William Cosby.

Is this really necessary at the top of the article? Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. I've gone ahead and removed the hatnotes from both articles (William Cosby and Bill Cosby). To me, it seems unlikely that William Cosby and Bill Cosby would be confused. Are our readers really having difficulty distinguishing the two when searching? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Pinging Vesuvius Dogg given this recent edit. I removed both hatnotes as I preferred symmetric treatment, but perhaps a one-way hatnote would be best here. I guess it's more likely that someone would search for "William Cosby" and want "Bill Cosby" rather than the reverse? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
That is exactly what I was thinking, which is why I added it to William Cosby. It's pretty much one-way traffic, I'll bet. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I undid my edit to William Cosby. I'm still a bit wary of the demonstrable need for a disambiguation/redirection to our readers in the form of a hatnote on either article. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Sundayclose: Given this edit of yours, do you want to weigh in here? I think suggesting that William Cosby was ever referred to as "Bill Cosby" is currently unfounded. Are there any sources to support this? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I see your point and will revert myself, although my point of view is that it does no harm. But I do think that it's quite possible for someone searching for Bill Cosby will search for William Cosby, so that hatnote should stay. Sundayclose (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Revert

I have reverted two editors. One wants to add "humanitarian" to the descriptors in the lede, which should be discussed here first, and the other is by a single purpose account, WP:SPA whose axe to grind is obvious. Jusdafax 15:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Both edits need RS, so it's proper to revert them. Otherwise, I would be careful about impugning the motives of another editor, especially one who does so much good work. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
If you refer to the SPA, that editor has only edited on Cosby and related articles for the past half year. That is obsessive, in my view. Jusdafax 18:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize if my edits to the 'Stand-Up Career' section were controversial or inappropriate in any way , that was not my intention. I'm just a HUGE fan of Cosby's work as a comic ((or former fan, to be more accurate), his alleged actions disgust me and this whole scandal fascinates me. My edits to the stand-up section were purely because I'm extremely enthusiastic about comedy and comedy history, and I wanted to stress things that I thought were significant/ noteworthy enough to add to that section. I'm not trying to clean up Cosby's image on your page, nor am I defending him as a human being and his repulsive alleged actions, I'm not an apologist and I don't have an axe to grind, ,just someone who enthusiastic about stand-up. I apologize again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asaprockysource (talk • contribs) 06:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

His notability needs to be updated

What this is about is "notability", both real world and here. There is no question that an "American stand-up comedian, actor, and author" is accurate and what made him notable. It's also undeniable that it is no longer up-to-date, as a 50-year accumulation of buried accusations has now become very well-known and is crashing down on him and his previous notability like a giant tsunami wave. In fact, it has obliterated his previous notability.

I keep track of many subjects by using Google Alerts, and they keep me notified of whatever reliable (and unreliable!) sources say about many subjects. Bill Cosby has no current notability separated from the sexual assault allegations. His previous notability is gone and he is never mentioned in any other context than the allegations. His "first impression" was favorable, but his "last impression" is a huge elephant in the room which all RS mention, so we must do it as well. The allegations have become his identity.

Mention at the end of the first sentence is now warranted more than ever. We have discussed this before, and we need to revisit it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The mistaken notion that his previous notability is "gone" reflects a serious misunderstanding of what notability actually is on this encyclopedia. Beware of recentism. Notability is not temporary. If it wasn't for his very long and highly successful show business career, the current allegations would be getting way less than 1% of the attention than they are. This is a biography that ought to cover his entire life and career. It should neither whitewash nor overly highlight the current allegations. Prudent editorial judgment is a rare commodity during a media frenzy. Let's cultivate it and nurture it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
No one is proposing that we remove anything, only that we update things. His previous notability is a fact, but it's now ignored, even while, as you rightly observe, providing a basis for the shocked reactions to his hypocrisy; the public identity of the beloved Dr. Huxtable is not the same as the secret double life of the real Bill Cosby. He is a self-confessed serial adulterer, and is also accused of serial sexual assault and rape. His previous notability is never going to be what it was. It's permanently tarnished. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Our job is not to express shock, to expose hypocrisy, to point out "double lives" or to evaluate reputations as "tarnished". Our job is to write the article, scrupulously, from the neutral point of view. Feel free to blog elsewhere if you feel compelled to denounce Cosby, which is entirely understandable. But Wikipedia is not the place for that. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Our job is to document what RS say, not to express our own opinions or to censor what RS say. It is unwikipedian to do either. The overwhelming weight of all RS is now on the side of documenting the allegations. There is zero weight on his past career and past notability, except to show the contrast. Of course it might be possible to find a RS currently mentioning Cosby without mentioning the allegations, but that would be an exception that proves the rule. I suggest you do some searches, rather than criticize me. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
A strong case can be made that Bull's argument is correct. This blunt editorial in the Washington Post is no mere blog, but a highly respected news outlet. The editorial points out that Cosby has admitted his criminal behavior in court depositions he fought to keep secret. If not the first sentence, the lede's first paragraph calls for mention of Cosby's actions and current status. Jusdafax 08:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
WP:BLP is not negotiable here - and if his notability gets affected by a conviction, then we can abide by WP:DEADLINE but unless and until that time, the BLP policy is predicated on not implying that allegations of crimes are proof of crimes. And editorials are ... editorials. Collect (talk) 14:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
You need to step back one step. No one is proposing that we imply that "allegations of crimes are proof of crimes." Not at all. We should simply state that he is also known for the allegations. If and when he is convicted, that would be updated, but not until then. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
The lead section of a biography should summarize the person's life and career, usually in chronological order. The allegations are described with due weight and properly in the final paragraph of the lead, since the vast majority of the public attention to them has developed in 2014 and 2015. There is a lengthy, detailed section in the article. We also have a very long spinoff article Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations with 247 references for anyone who wants all the details now available in reliable sources. In the context of his entire career which spans more than half a century, we need to avoid making changes motivated by moral outrage over what certainly appears to be reprehensible behavior. We are encylopedists, not editorialists. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I think BullRangifier is discussing changes to the lead sentence, not the lead section. I don't know that it's policy, per se, but lead sentences typically define a topic or give an abbreviated preview of the subsequent paragraphs. Look at the OJ Simpson entry: the first sentence begins with football and ends with his designation as a convicted felon, and the first sentence reflects the structure of the rest of the lead. Nblund (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
O.J. Simpson is a convicted felon who is in prison, Nblund. At this time, Bill Cosby has been convicted of nothing. Very big difference. Please also note that Simpson is in prison for reasons having nothing with his notoriety regarding the famous double murder. Appropriately, that case isn't even mentioned until much later in the lead. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Convictions and acquittals don't really have anything to do with the notability of an allegation: Don King, Mark Wahlberg, and Huddie "Leadbelly" Ledbetter were all convicted or plead guilty to serious crimes, but those crimes aren't considered notable enough to warrant mention in the lead sections of their entries. By contrast, the lead sentences in the entries for Robert Durst and William Kennedy Smith mention crimes for which each was later acquitted. The accusations against Stephen Hatfill and Richard Jewell are both in the first sentence of their entries even though we now know that those allegations were false.
It's already been established that these accusations are notable enough to warrant significant lead space. My point is that, simply as an editorial/stylistic matter, the first couple of sentences should contextualize and summarize the subsequent material, and they don't do that right now. Nblund (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Just for context, BullRangifer has been advocating for a mention of Bill Cosby's sexual assault allegations in the first sentence for a few months now. The consensus has been to not include it. Before this thread devolves into unproductive personal attacks, may I ask you, BullRangifer, can you write down specifically what you are proposing to "update" (i.e. write down the version you would like to have on the article) and then step back for a bit and see how other users feel about it? I think this will help pinpoint the specific things people may have problems with and help us all agree on something we are all (or at least most are) happy with. Thanks. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Good idea. Incidentally, it's best not to mix personal attacks with good ideas such as you did. It puts people off. Rklawton (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think this is terribly urgent, but I do think the writing is a little jarring. What about this line for the second sentence: "Since 2014, multiple women have publicly accused Cosby of drugging and sexually assaulting them." Nblund (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Accusations of sexual assault begin long before 2014. The floodgates didn't open until 2014. I'm concerned that even though the language above is technically correct, it might be a little misleading. Rklawton (talk) 04:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Hamsterlopithecus here. If there's a specific proposal for an updated lead sentence, please put it here so that we can evaluate and discuss. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposals for an updated lead sentence

Okay, here are some versions. I have started each line with the existing wording so the context and final appearance will be apparent. It is the quoted parts which are the proposals:

  1. ... an American stand-up comedian, actor, and author. "Cosby has been the subject of publicized sexual assault allegations since about 2000." (Proposed by JumpLike23. I added the wikilink, since it should be used in the first mention in the article.)
  2. ... an American stand-up comedian, actor, and author "who is accused of sexually assaulting numerous women." (I'm not sure who first proposed this version, but I favor it because of its brevity.)
  3. ... an American stand-up comedian, actor, and author. "Since 2014, multiple women have publicly accused Cosby of drugging and sexually assaulting them." (Proposed by Nblund. I added the wikilink, since it should be used in the first mention in the article.)
  4. Quote: If it is to be mentioned in the first sentence, I suggest that we use something like "... has been charged with a felony sex crime from 2004" as this is more precise. I would also suggest we do it in a second sentence following the original "... is an American stand-up comedian, actor, and author".[2] (Proposed by Hamsterlopithecus.)

BullRangifer (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment: Cosby has not been convicted of anything at this point. I think it's fine to mention the accusations in the lede section. However given his other notable achievements that precede his current troubles, absent of a legal finding, it seems more like news and recent-ism than encyclopedic to put it in or adjacent to the lede sentence. Bill Clinton was the first president in modern times to be impeached, but that's not in the lede sentence. Cosby's career spans decades, and the lede should reflect that.Mattnad (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The history of allegations also spans decades, basically the same length as his career, but they have just been hidden by alleged (as well as proven) hush money payments, cover-ups, and failures by police to act on them. The first sentence mentions what he is notable for. This suggested addition would complete the list. It is seriously lacking. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The allegations are recent, although they refer to past events. So in terms of his notability, they are very recent and still in the process of being proven. I just think it's a bit premature to have this in the lede sentence, although it's fine in the lede.Mattnad (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I wanted to step back and let other editors discuss (and I would suggest you do the same, BullRangifer). But I am being quoted as having proposed item #4. I just want to say that I think we should NOT mention any of this in the first sentence or even the first paragraph of the lede. I think it just seems important because it is happening now, but it is far from being that notable in the grand scheme of things. I think it is fine where it is, i.e. the last paragraph of the lede. But if it is to be mentioned (anywhere in the article) it should be reported exactly the way it is reported in the source (hence item #4). Care must be taken to not reach conclusions that are not directly attributable to the source, otherwise we are approaching "original research" territory. I will now step back and let others discuss. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Above I have provided more of your statement for context in number 4. I wouldn't want anyone to misunderstand what you wrote.

    I provided the initial content in this "proposals..." subsection because you asked me to do so above. In fact, it needs a subsection heading, which I have now provided, using MZMcBride's wording. The order of comments above and below the heading is unchanged, the order of existing sections has not been rearranged, and no section has been squeezed in between other existing sections.

    Your idea was considered a good idea by Rklawton and MZMcBride, and we are now having a civil discussion of the options. There is no reason to shut down the discussion the three of you requested. Either there is a consensus for one of the options, or there isn't, or discussion may bring forth a totally better idea. I'm hoping ... -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

(un-indent) My vote right now is to stick with the current version, which uses the final lead paragraph to discuss the allegations and criminal charge, but leaves the lead sentence alone. I don't like any of the proposed alternatives for the lead sentence (options 1–4) enough to support them. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we are voting or !voting yet, just discussing the lede. It feels to me like including the charges in the first sentence may be too much for some, and the fourth paragraph too deep down for others, including myself. Let's not forget that Cosby has admitted illegal and highly inappropriate behavior in a deposition. I thank Bull for his work here, and personally agree with his first sentence views. However, and without going into the exact wording, I think that at least a first paragraph mention of Cosby's sexual infamy is warranted. Using this measured approach, we can leave the first sentence as is, but bring in the additional material in a subsequent sentence in the first paragraph. This would perhaps be a good compromise. Jusdafax 08:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Jusdafax: Illegal behavior? Can you please clarify what you mean? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
This Chigago Tribune report took ten seconds to Google up. Jusdafax 15:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jusdafax. Yes, I'm familiar with the 2005 deposition and its release in 2015. You mentioned illegal behavior. What specific illegal behavior are you referring to when you say "Cosby has admitted illegal and highly inappropriate behavior in a deposition"? My understanding is that Dr. Cosby testified that he gave women sedatives, but if you're going to claim that Dr. Cosby has admitted to illegal behavior, that requires a clear and reliable source, in my opinion. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Cosby's lawyers claim getting his prescription drugs to give to women is not illegal. Few others agree. The information is right there. I'd call it obvious. If you claim otherwise, we disagree. I'm going to ask you to quit pinging me. Jusdafax 19:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
It would be a pretty big deal for Dr. Cosby to admit to illegal behavior, particularly in a legal deposition. That's why I asked for clarification about your claim. Your responses here don't support your claim that Cosby admitted to illegal behavior and the snarky "took ten seconds to Google up" is pretty shady and unnecessarily snarky, especially given that you're wrong. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Given that members of the U.S. Congress, now planning to revoke Cosby's Congressional Medal, have come to the same conclusion as I have I am going to as you MZMcBride to strike your comment regarding me, which I regard as a disrespectful, disruptive personal attack. Jusdafax 10:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jusdafax. You're very confused. Which part of the linked article supports your claim that Dr. Cosby "admitted illegal [...] behavior in a deposition"? Please provide specific quotations from the article.
I won't be striking any part of my comments here, but I will explain why your latest reply is wrong. You write "members of the U.S. Congress, now planning to revoke Cosby's Congressional Medal". This is not true. First, Dr. Cosby was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, not the Congressional Medal of Freedom. Second, Congress has almost no control over the Presidential Medal of Freedom, as the article you linked to notes. Quoting the article, "The legislation would call for President Barack Obama to revoke the medal, which Cosby received in 2002, affirm his legal capacity to do so, and bring criminal penalties against anyone displaying the medal after having it revoked." As you can see, the legislation would call for revocation, but would not actually revoke the award. My understanding is that Congress isn't empowered to revoke awards and honors bestowed by the President. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment Rklawton makes a valid point that the "since 2014" statement might not be entirely accurate -- so we can take my suggestion off the table if that helps narrow down the options. I think the guilt or innocence discussions are somewhat tangential to the question of notability. If Cosby were somehow completely exonerated of every accusation against him tomorrow, wouldn't those accusations remain notable? Nblund (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Nblund: Yes. And this lasting notability accounts for the fact that we devote a paragraph in the lead of the Bill Cosby article to the sexual assault allegations. We also discuss the allegations in a section of the article and we now have a pretty lengthy separate article at Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations. The question is not whether the sexual assault allegations and single criminal charge are notable, the question is whether this portion of Dr. Cosby's life is so noteworthy that it deserves mention in the first or second sentence of his biography. I can see the arguments for inclusion, but the arguments against still seem stronger to me, particularly given the options presented here. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I also think there are legitimate concerns on either side here. I'm just noting that, from my view, those questions about notability and recency don't need to hinge on questions of guilt or innocence. Nblund (talk) 06:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Nblund, I see your point about Rklawton's observation. What about tweaking it so it's better? Otherwise feel free to strike it out. Thanks everyone for expressing your opinions about this. This is good. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I also agree about the question of guilt or innocence. It's actually irrelevant. We are concerned with "verifiability, not truth". Even a totally false narrative can be so notable that it should be mentioned in the first sentence. It's all just a matter of how it's mentioned. We are trying to word our propositions very carefully. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
In cases like this we often see an overly strict and mistaken application of BLP. BLP does not forbid negative information, only "unsourced" negative information. NPOV requires the inclusion of such information, and NPOV pretty much trumps all other policies when there is any doubt. NPOV is about how we include opinions and biased material, and is against the inclusion of editorial bias, not against content bias. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Agree. Given the move to revoke Cosby's Congressional Medal of Freedom which I cite above, the notability trumps other factors. A first paragraph mention of Cosby's increasingly tarnished legacy is merited, in my view. It's a good compromise, I maintain, between mentioning it at the bottom of the lede, and at the very top in the first sentence. Jusdafax 11:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
As I just noted above, Dr. Cosby wasn't awarded the Congressional Medal of Freedom and Congress can't revoke his Presidential Medal of Freedom. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I demur. I recall folks who thought an online petition to deport Justin Bieber was important enough to mention in that BLP and I demurred there as well. If the medal were revoked, that would be a fact. That people think it should be revoked is of far lower encyclopedic value at best. And inclusion of negative material is not "required" - the fact is that material is included only based on editorial consensus per policy. I do not think we have such a consensus at this point. Collect (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Bill Cosby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Honorary degrees

Is it really necessary to list every single one of these? It almost seems like the point of mentioning these is to point out that some of them have been rescinded. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

It's standard practice, in harmony with the purpose of Wikipedia, to document such things. If the amount of content in the whole "Works" and "Awards and honors" sections creates undue weight and makes the article too long (I tend to agree), then the standard practice is to create WP:SPINOFFs with the content. Those sections have lots of nitty gritty detail that is important, but fills too much in the article. Many, if not most, celebrity articles do this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there is a movement afoot. It is useful to readers to have a quick, available list to see if an institution in their community, or with which they have an affiliation, has rescinded the Cosby doctorate, rather than just a number (23 institutions have revoked degrees, at least 40 have not). The section was cut down 80% or more already with the removal of disapproving statements by individual colleges. Of course this material appears to be over at Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations, which covers the fallout of that scandal. AFAIK it is not here on his bio. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
"Several of these honorary degrees have been rescinded due to allegations of sexual assault and/or immoral behavior[citation needed]:"
Citation needed? Come on. You don't need a citation for every SINGLE line of an article. There are references given each time a degree is mentioned as having been rescinded. 72.200.151.15 (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The honorary degree section looks like an unnecessarily long and cluttered list. If the point of mentioning so many honorary degrees is to point out the ones that have been rescinded, then maybe this section is more appropriate for the Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations article. Keep in mind that these are barely notable and the list is twice as long as that of other awards given to Cosby for his actual work. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2016

"William Henry "Bill" Cosby, Jr. (born July 12, 1937) is an American stand-up comedian, actor, author, and sexual offender." Luigaji (talk) 01:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a reliable source that he has been convicted of a sexual offense. And read WP:BLP. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Sundayclose (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bill_Cosby/Archive_4&oldid=732916635"