Misplaced Pages

Talk:Bill Cosby: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:45, 25 November 2014 edit88.111.115.241 (talk) →"Several women"← Previous edit Revision as of 16:45, 25 November 2014 edit undo88.111.115.241 (talk) Undid revision 635397777 by 88.111.115.241 (talk)Next edit →
Line 222: Line 222:


''Several'' is by definition an indefinite number, but usage and etymology require that that indefinite number always be small: several can never be many. Etymologically ''several'' means ''to separate'', and since the sixteenth century the term has meant ''various'', ''diverse'', ''different''. In the best usage, a couple is two, few are two or three, several are three or four, and many are more than several. ''Many'' depends on context, but if ten or more women have accused you of sexual assault, then you have definitely been accused of sexual assault by ''many'' women, and no reasonable person could argue otherwise. ] (]) 02:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC) ''Several'' is by definition an indefinite number, but usage and etymology require that that indefinite number always be small: several can never be many. Etymologically ''several'' means ''to separate'', and since the sixteenth century the term has meant ''various'', ''diverse'', ''different''. In the best usage, a couple is two, few are two or three, several are three or four, and many are more than several. ''Many'' depends on context, but if ten or more women have accused you of sexual assault, then you have definitely been accused of sexual assault by ''many'' women, and no reasonable person could argue otherwise. ] (]) 02:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

What de do?

Revision as of 16:45, 25 November 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bill Cosby article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 15 days 
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography: Actors and Filmmakers
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPennsylvania Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconCollege football Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconComedy High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPhiladelphia High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Philadelphia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhiladelphiaWikipedia:WikiProject PhiladelphiaTemplate:WikiProject PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUnited States: University of Massachusetts Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts - University of Massachusetts (assessed as Mid-importance).
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconAfrican diaspora Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Vital article

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bill Cosby article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 15 days 
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:
Bill Cosby received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5


This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Awards

{{{editprotected}}} Honarary Degree - The Ohio State University - June 8th, 2001 --Jbnovotny 05:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)jbnovotny

I always heard that Bill Cosby did not accept awards, yet there are several instances here that mention him being honored with awards and also "accepting" awards. Is this hypocrisy in later life or does Cosby only accept certain kinds of award (i.e. he won't accept an Emmy but he will accept an humanitarian award)? In any event, should there be a paragraph on Cosby's history with accepting and not accepting awards?--Dr who1975 01:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Bill Cosby was made Honorary Chief Hospital Corpsman by the SECNAV Mabus Feb 17, 2011

It should also be added that Bill received the Eliot-Pearson Award for Excellence in CHildrens Media in 2011 from Tufts University. Source can be found at: 98.216.189.103 (talk) 06:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Not to pressure anyone, but still no word (or edit) regarding his award from Eliot-Pearson. Citation is http://sites.tufts.edu/events/2011/02/25/dr-bill-cosby-and-dr-alvin-poussaint-eliot-pearson-awards-ceremony/ Any word? 204.84.244.12 (talk) 03:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. http://sites.tufts.edu/events/tag/bill-cosby/

Trip to Cuba

According to Tavis Smiley on the Friday, 22 Jun 2007 broadcast of the Tonight Show with Jay Leno, Bill Cosby and his wife accompanied Tavis, Danny Glover (and I'm not sure who else) on a trip to Cuba where Tavis interviewed Fidel Castro. Tavis referred to them as "the Cosbys", so I assume it was also his wife. Is this worthy of being added to the page? I think it could add some insight to his personal politics if he's willing to take a trip to Cuba to see Castro, let alone the fact that he accompanied Danny Glover, who is pretty much lambasted for his own politics.

Meme

how is Bill Cosby an internet meme? ~~ There is this picture of Cosby with a movable mouth that keeps showing up in flash cartoons on the internet.

Have you ever been to YTMND? He's like the biggest fad there!

Yeah, I'm not sure that Cosby's fad status at YTMND is worth mentioning in this article though. I'll leave it up to the guys working on this page, but I'd axe that section. Cosby Bebop is hilarious, though. - Kris

Reiterate earlier requests for accurate, full coverage of accusations for which sourcing exists

The current coverage of the sexual assault accusations leveled against Cosby, for which adequate sourcing exists, is poor. Here is a partial list of sources, found in a few minutes of searching. (The sources are not offered as final sources for the article, as they are not all of first quality. They are given, simply, to indicate that sources are readily available.)

Why is it that one cannot find these matters summarized, with sources, at Misplaced Pages? Why is it that the matter of this recurring news thread has been raised as a content issue, and requested of the committed editors, then allowed to slip back to the margins, several times now? I challenge the regular, committed editors of this article to review the sources in the context of WP BLP and summarize the content in an appropriate section here. One sentence simply does not suffice. To ask for "Change from / Change to" types of edits from outsiders is a manner of deflection, when it comes to situation where a significant thread of news and sourcing is underrepresented by the status quo.

71.239.87.100 (talk) 13:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

These are unsubstantiated accusations and coverage of a recent comedy routine. "Yeah, but you rape women, Bill Cosby, so turn the crazy down a couple notches." is not exactly high quality commentary. --NeilN 15:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I believe that the accusations themselves have received enough coverage to warrant a further mention on his Misplaced Pages article. Hell, I would even opine it deserves its own subsection. Considering the coverage from reputable sources it has received, one sentence is not enough. The Washington Post released an article about it yesterday. Knowing how Misplaced Pages works, this article cannot state that Bill Cosby is a rapist, since he has not been convicted, but I don't see why it can't give a history of the allegations themselves, while not implying the truthfulness of the accusations one way or the other. Reporting on the accusations, at this point, can no longer be considered defamation. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Why is a single line from the comedy routine being cherry picked here from all of those sources? Barbara Bowman's allegations are extensive, detailed and credible. Not to mention that she is one of 13 that have made accusations, but as far as we know, the only one not to take money to be silenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worxpace (talk • contribs) 10:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@Worxpace: Suggest you work up some wording to add to the article and present it here. --NeilN 15:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I propose the 'Lawsuits' section is divided and a new section 'Sexual Assault Allegations' is created, as no charges or suits have been brought over the latest allegations. Proposed wording follows:

Sexual Assault Accusations

Several women have leveled accusations of sexual assault and rape at Cosby over the years. In January 2004, Andrea Constand, a Former Temple University employee, brought charges against Cosby for drugging and fondling her. In February 2005, the charges were dropped for lack of evidence. Constand filed a civil claim against Cosby in March of that year. Thirteen women came forward with similar allegations and agreed to testify as witnesses when the case went to court. Cosby settled out of court for an undisclosed amount in November 2006.

Following the case, a second woman, Tamara Green, came forward with allegations that Cosby had drugged and assaulted her in the 1970s.

In October 2014, further allegations surfaced. Inspired by a Hannibal Buress comedy routine, where Buress called Cosby a serial rapist, Bowland gave an exclusive interview to the Daily Mail, where she claims Cosby sexually assaulted, drugged and raped her over a two year period beginning in 1985 when Bowland was 17 years old.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/24/us/bill-cosby-fast-facts/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/10/31/after-jian-ghomeshi-is-the-world-finally-starting-to-turn-against-bill-cosby/ http://www.today.com/id/6945190/ns/today/t/second-cosby-accuser-why-she-came-forward/#.VFZ6Fiu1Zbw

Worxpace (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

If this is to be treated like an attempt at consensus, then fully support. As I stated earlier, a section like this needs to exist. While I agree that cherry-picking public comments is not the correct way of navigating this issue, I will say that Buress's comments have importance in the accusations against Cosby, due to the fact that his commentary has enlightened a wider audience about the accusations and that the comments themselves have received significant coverage. Meanwhile, the 13 original accusations need their due spotlight here as well.
Also, keep in mind that the last name of one of the accusers is Bowman, not Bowland. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
The content looks good but we very, very rarely source any contentious BLP claims to the Daily Mail. Got another source covering the claims? --NeilN 09:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I think that text is a good starting point, but the first change I'd make would be to make it clear from the start that none of these accusations have been proven. That's only fair. (And it's probably necessary for BLP compliance.) This means saying so in the first senentece and choosing a section title that doesn't suggest the issue without mentioning that none have been proven. I'm not sure how to write the section title. One way to do it would be to expand the title. The only thing I can think of is "Unproven accusations of sexual assalt", but that's a bit clunky. Or another way to do it would be to choose a vague title that mentions neither sexual assalt nor "unproven". Something like "Lawsuits" - but that particular title isn't very accurate since not all these accusations have turned into lawsuits. Just thinking out loud. Gronky (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Gronky's statement above, an 'accusation' is by definition unproven. 'Allegations' may be a more accurate description as it implies less gravity. What is holding the inclusion of this edit back? I strongly believe the information currently reflected on the page is inadequate given the prominence and seriousness of this matter. 78.101.173.84 (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I think this deserves a bit more coverage - but I echo: Be careful. I'd be OK with a heading ==Rape allegations==. "Allegation" and "accusation" don't imply unproven, nor do they imply proven, so per Gronky we should make it plain and clear in the first sentence that nothing has been proven; and because nothing has been proven we must not go overboard. Sources must be impeccable - the Daily Mail, other tabloids, obscure "news websites", blogs, etc. are all out of the question. If the New York Times, the Guardian, the Washington Post, CNN or media of similar stature haven't said it, then neither should we.

What about (slightly reworking Worxpace's draft above):

Several women have accused Cosby of sexual assault, but no accusation has been tested in court. In January 2004, Andrea Constand, a former Temple University employee, accused him of drugging and fondling her, but in February 2005 authorities announced they would not charge Cosby over the allegations. Constand filed a civil claim against Cosby in March of that year, and thirteen women came forward with similar allegations, agreeing to testify as witnesses when the case went to court. Cosby settled out of court for an undisclosed amount in November 2006.

In February 2005, on hearing that the prosecutor was unlikely to pursue charges in relation to Constand's accusation, California lawyer, Tamara Green, came forward with allegations that Cosby had drugged and assaulted her in the 1970s.

In an October 2014 interview, emboldened by a Hannibal Buress comedy routine, where Buress called Cosby a serial rapist, artist Barbara Bowman repeated her long-standing accusations that Cosby drugged her, sexually assaulted her and raped her over a two year period beginning in 1985 when she was 17 years old.

Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Happy with the above. Regarding the sources, the third could be replaced with this New York Times article: That said, the Daily Mail is relevant given they are the source that first published Bowman's story.Worxpace (talk) 06:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

OK. I've replaced the Today.com source in the above draft with your NYT suggestion. Regarding the Daily Mail, it makes a difference to editors' sense of the thing's noteworthiness if it's being covered in a journal of record. I've asked for more eyes at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard - a lot of editors with a good grasp of our biographies policy and an understanding of usual practice here watch that board.
I've reworked the draft a bit since your above comment, after re-reading the sources. Are you still OK with it? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
The New York Times article makes it clear that the allegations are now having a significant impact on Cosby's career. I support inclusion of the currently proposed language. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I've changed "inspired" to "emboldened" as it better reflects the source. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I unlinked Barbara Bowman because that is a different, much older person. I also changed the wording to make it clear that Bowman has been making these accusations for years. It is just that they are being taken seriously now. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Yes, I just noticed the bad wikilink. I've called her "artist Barbara Bowman" to distinguish her from any others. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I support you adding the content now, Anthonyhcole, unless you see a good reason to wait. As a newcomer to the article, doing so myself is a slightly bolder move than I am ready to make. Cullen Let's discuss it 08:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Done. Bill Cosby#Sexual assault allegations. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I was drawn here by the BLP noticeboard. The current text looks good, but I do wonder if there is any real benefit to calling out "Andrea Constand" by name, rather than just saying "a former Temple University employee", which is equally descriptive. Andrea is not famous as far as I know and not a public figure. It doesn't really impart more information to readers to know her name and serves a tremendous opportunity for embarrassment unecessarily. CorporateM (Talk) 03:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
We refer to Constand in the next paragraph (about the Green allegations). If you can find a form of words that isn't too clumsy but drops Constand's name, I'd be very happy with that, CorporateM. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I am exceedingly glad that the allegations now have their own section. I was considering making the section if it wasn't there yet, but I'd like to thank the people who helped do that. This aspect about Bill Cosby needs to be reported, and regardless as to whether or not the accusations are true (I believe they are true), the fact that he has now at least 14 accusers (USAToday) will permanently be a part of his character.
Also, if I may add some personal opinion on this talk page, the new accusation brings me to the point where I myself am not merely lamenting, but angry that Cosby has done this for so long. Many statutes of limitations have expired, but I dearly hope he can get prosecuted soon. The allegations could possibly even be mentioned in the intro at this point. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Autumn Jackson

An edit I would like to make, but can't because the page is semi-protected: Jackson was released from prison in 1999 after a court overturned her conviction. http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,616077,00.html I feel like this should be noted here, or Jackson should get her own article. --50.46.153.232 (talk) 08:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

That was 19 February 1999. On 16 November 1999, the New York Times reported:

In a highly unusual move, the Federal appeals panel that overturned the conviction of a woman accused of trying to extort $40 million from Bill Cosby reversed itself yesterday and reinstated the guilty verdict against her.

The woman, Autumn Jackson, who had claimed to be Mr. Cosby's out-of-wedlock daughter, and two others were convicted in 1997 of conspiring in a threat to sell her story to a supermarket tabloid unless the actor paid her the money. But a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the judge in the trial had improperly instructed the jury and overturned the convictions. Ms. Jackson was released from prison after serving 14 months of her 26-month sentence.

But yesterday, that same panel reversed itself and reinstated all three convictions, citing a Supreme Court decision on jury instructions that came down just one day after its ruling last June. As a result, Ms. Jackson will probably have to return to prison, said her lawyer, who delivered the news to her by phone late yesterday afternoon.

So, we need to look deeper into this before making any changes. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the section "Sexual assault allegations," can you please add a sentence saying that Bill Cosby denies the accusations against him?

Sources:

107.1.187.200 (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Done. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2014 -- Change "Tamara Green" to "Tamara Lucier Green" and delete commas

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

(About the section "Sexual assault allegations")
Please change
"In February 2005, on hearing that the prosecutor was unlikely to pursue charges in relation to Constand's accusation, California lawyer, Tamara Green, came forward with allegations that Cosby had drugged and assaulted her in the 1970s."
to
"In February 2005, on hearing that the prosecutor was unlikely to pursue charges in relation to Constand's accusation, California lawyer Tamara Lucier Green came forward with allegations that Cosby had drugged and assaulted her in the 1970s."


107.1.187.200 (talk) 11:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

And done. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The Sexual Assault Claims made Against Cosby Are Likely Just Sensationalism

None of these women provided more than just their words and good acting. A good hunch would suggest they could've just been trying to profit off their allegations. False, sensationalistic stories have historically been used to lure audiences in what is known as a media feeding frenzy. It should be known that Washington Times commentator Christopher Harper alleged on November 19, 2014 that the claims made against Cosby were "classic click bait — sensational material to lure readers and viewers." I will not deny that I had earlier made a typo when I sourced it by claiming it was November 20.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not against including this sort of opinion, the one Harper has, if it is noteworthy and balanced. I think we'd need to gather a variety of sources to make sure we weren't cherrypicking and giving undue weight. The reason I removed the edit was explained in the edit summary: "why do we care about this one commentator? is the source particularly reliable, respected, and weighty? is the commentator particularly noteworthy?" Perhaps a well-written "Reactions" section to the allegations themselves would be desired. It is interesting, given that many of these women had made previous allegations in a suit, that this "media storm" has occurred now. I suppose this has been and will be analyzed and considered by a variety of sources. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys, the fact that someone might not believe a claim against Bill Cosby is largely irrelevant. At least one woman has claimed "He raped me" so this is a public accusation that is being taken seriously by the media and getting good coverage and should be added to the page. These are accusations, and as long as they are written about as such, there's no reason they shouldn't appear here. --Battleofalma (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC) Biosthmors

I think we all agree about that. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

"Several women"

I've already had an edit reverted in the 'sexual assault allegations' section of Cosby's page and I don't want to edit it more, but I've been bothered by how the section starts with "several women have accused Cosby of drugging them and/or sexual assault". I think it's fourteen women that have accused Cosby of sexual assault? And at least seven of the women's accusations have included drugging I think? It seems like a weird way to start the section, which speaks later of accusations from 13 women etc. When you think of "several" women accusing Cosby of sexual assault your brain does not think of a number as high as fourteen. It thinks, like, four. Shiningroad (talk) 12:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe "Numerous"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.45.46.54 (talk) 01:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

When I think of "several," I think of "seven or more," or at least "six or more." And using "numerous" indicates a high number. I suppose "13 or "14" can be argued as a high number in this case, but "several" is somehow less vague to me, and, in this case, is more accurate than "numerous." Flyer22 (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
The usual usage of 'several' means "more than two, but not many." For roughly two, normal usage is "a couple". Several means three or a few more. Incidentally, two more names of accusers became public today: model-actress Angela Leslie and former child actress Renita Chaney Hill. The latter was age 15-19 when it began, including Cosby pushing her to drink alcohol. Agreed with IH, just use the actual number. Or if it reaches 12 (it's close now -- 10?) then use "a dozen" which allows for minor variation. Benefac (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
"A few" commonly means "three or more" to people, including to me. I never use "several" to mean "three or more," and I don't think it's the standard for people to do so; I see "few" more than I see "several" in that case. Then again, some people use "several" to mean "some" (even if some means 20 people), and these terms (few, several, etc.) can be relative; for example, "a few million." Flyer22 (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Flyer22: dictionaries and Google searches are your friends. How you personally use words is irrelevant, as is the usage by unknown 'some people'. Look for definitions in the most reliable dictionaries, like the Oxford English Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, Collins, etc. FreeDictionary includes definitions from several different dictionaries. If your usage differs substantially from highly-regarded dictionaries, then it is your usage that is wrong for inclusion in an encyclopedia article, not the dictionaries'. Benefac (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Benefac, I don't need to be told that "dictionaries and Google searches are friends." I don't need your condescension. I am well aware of how dictionaries define the word several. I knew very well that when you stated above, "The usual usage of 'several' means 'more than two, but not many.'", you had consulted online dictionaries. But online or offline dictionaries are not all that one should consult when it comes to word usage. I stated above that "a few" commonly means "three or more" to people, including to me. That is true, and WP:Reliable sources can back me up on people using "a few" to mean "three or more." WP:Reliable sources, and random Google searches, can also back me up on what I stated above about how people use the word several. Other people's opinions on the word several in this discussion even show that. People obviously do not only use the word several to mean "three or more." They also use it in the way that Collect has, which started this debate, or in the way that TheScotch has made clear below. When it comes to Misplaced Pages content, I rarely make decisions on that content based purely on my personal opinion, and many at this site, including Collect, know that; you apparently do not, and felt the need to tell me how irrelevant you feel my personal opinion is in a discussion where people are expressing their personal opinions about these words. Flyer22 (talk) 03:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Benefac I think sixteen women have accused Cosby of attempted sexual assault/sexual assault/rape, it depends how you interpret news articles. One news site says sixteen women have accused Cosby of rape in its article title, which isn't true. Shiningroad (talk) 11:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Just use the actual number. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:35, November 22, 2014 (UTC)
Agree. The actual number is a bit vague, though, because we don't know how many of those who've made public accusations were among Costand's lawyers' 13 affidavits. It might be best for us to state the number of named accusers and modify it with "at least" or "more than" to include the unnamed in that 13. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
No. We have a number stated by a lawyer, but that is scarcely a claim that all of them made' or were willing to make' a specific accusation of assault - especially since no court case ensued. WP:BLP dictates that we tread softly here. Collect (talk) 14:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
We can't use the actual number because at the moment that number is still in flux. If I were writing this for a newspaper the phrase I would use is "A number of women". I agree that "several" makes it sound too few (indeed, the word several generally refers to three) but "A number of..." covers off a higher number. Once a number is finalized (if a number is finalized) it may be worth revisiting the question as to whether to use the word "Many", however in some interpretations "Many" may be seen as overstating, even with 14. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
If it were seven to ten women in this case, use of "several" would be fine (in my opinion, at least), since people use "several" to mean "three or more," and certainly don't stop at "three" for use of the word several. But, yeah, since we're a little past the dozen stage in this case, I give my support for not using "several" in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm convinced by Collect's argument and support the IP's suggested wording. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Several is by definition an indefinite number, but usage and etymology require that that indefinite number always be small: several can never be many. Etymologically several means to separate, and since the sixteenth century the term has meant various, diverse, different. In the best usage, a couple is two, few are two or three, several are three or four, and many are more than several. Many depends on context, but if ten or more women have accused you of sexual assault, then you have definitely been accused of sexual assault by many women, and no reasonable person could argue otherwise. TheScotch (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Categories: