Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:05, 30 June 2015

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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 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. Biography: Actors and Filmmakers This 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 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. Pennsylvania Mid‑importance This 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 Mid This 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. College football Low‑importance This 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 Low This 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. Comedy High‑importance This 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 High This 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. Philadelphia High‑importance This 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 High This 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. United States: University of Massachusetts Mid‑importance This 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. 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. African diaspora Top‑importance This 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 Top This 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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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 has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: "Unknown". Toronto Sun. January 22, 2005. "Watch John Oliver Defend the IRS, the 'Anus of Our Country'". John Oliver in his show Last Week Tonight. April 12, 2015.

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.

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.

Article lead section

Hi. I've edited the article to include the following paragraph in the lead section:

Since 2000, Cosby has been repeatedly accused of sexually assaulting women, in some cases after purportedly drugging them. Some of the allegations date back to the 1960s. Cosby has never been formally criminally charged.

Given the fallout from these allegations as noted in the article—such as being forced to resign from Temple University's Board of Trustees and having his honorary title and status revoked by the U.S. Navy—I believe there's sufficient notability and a significant enough impact on Cosby's life to warrant mentioning the drugging and sexual allegations in the lead section. I tried to temper the language used a bit (e.g., removing a hard statistic about the number of accusers), but I understand that this change may warrant additional discussion and refinement. The flow of the paragraph still needs improvement; using "some" twice so close together isn't great and the individual sentences still feel a bit disjointed, in my opinion. Any help in improving the language would be appreciated. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Change the first "some" to "several", and/or the second to "A number". Dwpaul 04:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Nice, thanks for the quick article edit and reply. :-) I actually missed that you had already edited when I copy-pasted the quote above, not realizing that the quote now includes both your edit and mine. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Georgeivs vid, I suggest you propose your changes to the lead here first and get consensus. --NeilN 02:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Please gain consensus that anything should be there, if it's not neutral it should stay out. Most of what has happened has all been in the last six months and remains unproven accusations that Misplaced Pages devotes a huge amount of space to describing in detail even though there is missing any charges or convictions. ANY mention in the introduction/lead is by default tabloid journalism at its worst. Wait until there is actually some substance to any of these cases. Georgeivs vid (talk) 03:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

It belongs in the lead, since it is a substantial portion of the body. The version reinstated by NeilN is far more neutral than the version proposed by Georgeivs vid, which seems to be twisting itself into a pretzel to be "kind" to its subject when it should in fact simply be factual. Dwpaul 03:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The present three sentences are neutral and summarize an important part of the body. --NeilN 03:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Just to be sure we're all discussing the same thing, this is the current language that I think is most appropriate:

Since 2000, Cosby has been repeatedly accused of sexually assaulting women, in several cases after purportedly drugging them. The allegations span from the 1960s to the 2010s. Cosby has never been formally criminally charged.

I think this is succinct, factual, direct, and appropriate for the lead section. It sounds like NeilN and Dwpaul support this language. Georgeivs vid: while I understand that there have been no formal charges or convictions, I believe these allegations have had a significant impact on Cosby's life to warrant a short paragraph in the lead section. Perhaps you can propose improvements to this text on the talk page? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not neutral and presented as Misplaced Pages believes the accusations.

In contrast to his decades of work and being held as a role model for the African American community, he has been accused of sexually assaulting women in incidents from as far back as the 1960s. The publicity has been mainly since late 2014 and has negatively impacted his career. He has never been charged and denies the accusations have any validity.

I think it's more neutral and is careful to note this is an anomaly of his long and overwhelmingly positive public career. And nothing has been charged or proven or even in a court to be discussed. It's all muck. Georgeivs vid (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The only thing I can see worth changing is "Cosby has never been formally criminally charged and states the accusations have no validity." --NeilN 03:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Your version reads as if it was written by Cosby's publicist. Cosby's "decades of work" etc. do not belong in that sentence; they will be talked about in due course in the article, but mentioning them here sounds like you are suggesting that Cosby's character should not be sullied by accusations (this is not neutral). The recency of the accusations has little to do with whether they are actually true, so your pointing out here that they emerged publicly in 2014 seems to be an attempt to discredit them (which is not neutral). At this point, whether or not he denies the accusations is moot because he has never been charged, but according to the body he has in fact not denied them. "Reality is a situation and I can't speak" is not a denial. Nor is "Mr. Cosby does not intend to dignify these allegations with any comment." Dwpaul 03:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Good point. It was his lawyer who dismissed the allegations. --NeilN 03:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you (if what you are saying is) that we should treat our subjects with respect. However, we should have even more respect for the facts, and in this case, the facts are presented with neither positive nor negative "spin" in the edit that MZMcBride reproduced above, whereas there is a great deal of "spin" in your version. Neutrality doesn't mean that you need to point out that someone accused of sexual assault is "otherwise a great guy"; it means you present the facts without bias. Your version fails that test. Dwpaul 04:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Cosby did deny all the accusations/allegations through his lawyer. It should be noted how out-of-character this all is. There is an absence of all the publicly documented support he has gotten. Al we deliver is accusations and innuendo. Tim and again Coby did this, Cosby did that as if we are reporting facts. These are accusations not facts. That an accusation has been made only supports that an accusation exists, not that it's real. Maybe we should all remember the difference between a newspaper trying to sell scandal and an encyclopedia delivering what has been shown to be true. Or does that not count anymore? Georgeivs vid (talk) 04:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

That allegations have been made and widely reported is true. Also, "Cosby did deny all the accusations/allegations through his lawyer." - reference please? --NeilN 04:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

From the article, here: "In addition, she said, Cosby, who has never been charged over any of the allegations and denies any wrongdoing..." The issue, either way, isn't whether the accusations exist (we know they do); the question is a matter of avoiding giving them WP:UNDUE weight. Even widely-reported accusations do not necessarily rise to the level of forming a major part of the biography of a well-known individual; my feeling, like I mentioned below, is that since we just closed an RFC saying that the accusations were given too much weight here, it seems counterproductive to add them to the lead (at least until we have some criminal proceedings to go by.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Please summarize your source more carefully. That's the opposing lawyer, putting words in Cosby's mouth. --NeilN 09:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Whether the allegations were made or reported isn't really the issue; the issue is whether putting it in the lead is giving it WP:UNDUE weight relative to Cosby's overarching history. I'd say that given that there was just a RFC on whether the issue was given undue weight (which determined that it was), and given that we only just managed to pare the section down to the point where the tag could be removed, that adding it to the lead was clearly a mistake. It's worth mentioning, yes, but not in the lead (at least until there are further developments, like a conviction). Obviously due weight is sometimes subjective (it has to be taken in the context of the subject's entire history and its relation to what makes them famous, especially for BLPs), but in this case we have a very recent RFC telling us to avoid giving too much weight to this; given that it's only a subsection in the personal life section at the moment, I think using it as the closer to the lead is giving it more weight than is currently due to it. --Aquillion (talk) 06:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The RFC closure determined the section was too long because it included too many trivial details. It said nothing about the significance of the section. --NeilN 09:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The very nature of the discussion was saying "this material is not notable enough to justify this volume". The focus is all wrong, it should be discussing, almost solely on how his career/life are impacted rather than delivering accusation after innuendo of "her coffee was spiked" etc. which is only delivering on person's statement, that is unprovable as a rule. For forty cases there should be some evidence, some eye-witness. Instead we are acting as PR reps for Gloria Allred, who is paid to sway public opinion against Cosby. The section now includes more of Cosby's own statements but it remains clogged with innuendo and accusations trying desperately to pin the sign of rapist to his head. Georgeivs vid (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:LEDE notable controversies belong in the lede, regardless if there are legal charges or not. And my all measures, the allegations of sexual abuse and rape have been widely covered in a multitude of reliable sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Not having the allegations of on the lede makes it non-compliant with our policy of NPOV, which tell us that we have to report significant viewpoints. Tagged as such. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It all remains as allegations, innuendo, and late-night comedy material. Most of the alleged incidents can never go to trial as the cases are too old. What is left is the court of public opinion and the lawyers representing the various women hoping they can get still mete out punishment for what amounts to largely unprovable incidents. Please be more cautious when trying to hang a *Warning: Rapist* sign on someone until there is actually any evidence to merit that brand. Personally i think we have to wait if and when a case is opened and has any kind of judgement against Cosby. Given the hundreds of hopeful actresses that have been paraded to him for his assistance and blessing I rather doubt he is eager to pay them all hush money to have the cases settle. Currently what we have in the article is still a mess as we continue to allege case after case when many of them will never go to court or judgement. Georgeivs vid (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should the allegations of sexual assault be mentioned in the lede?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Biographies Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the allegations of sexual assault be mentioned in the lede?

Comments

• Support short mention of the allegations of sexual assault in the lede, per the preponderance of reliable sources reporting on the allegations, and the notability of the subject. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose It all remains allegations and innuendo. Most of the alleged incidents can never go to trial as the cases are way too old. What is left is the court of public opinion and the lawyers representing the various women hoping they can get still mete out punishment (money) for what amounts to largely unprovable incidents. Please be more cautious when trying to hang a *Warning: Rapist* sign on someone until there is actually any evidence to merit that brand. We have zero evidence, no convictions, zero cases even. Once he is convicted in an actual trial of wrongdoing then a small mention in proportion to his decades of reshaping television might be appropriate. Misplaced Pages should not be a tabloids, or support the tabloids' rather profitable work of slinging muck on famous people and fomenting scandals. Georgeivs vid (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
• Yes. The dozens of sexual assault allegations have had a substantial and notable impact on the subject's life. A short mention in the article lead is warranted, in my opinion.

  "Since 2000, Cosby has been repeatedly accused of sexually assaulting women, in several cases after purportedly drugging them. The allegations span from the 1960s to the 2010s. Cosby has never been formally criminally charged." ← I would prefer wording that's similar to this. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• include, but with better wording per Kevin Clash or Roman Polanski. This has had a significant impact on his career, and will likely remain part of his reputation permanently. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
• Leave out, the lede doesn't include most of the accomplishments he's done including some quite distinguished awards. I don't see how you can devote any room for the accusations while omitting most of his life's milestones. And he has was never convicted, no trial even. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheShadowKnowsNot (talk • contribs) 06:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC) This template must be substituted.
• Yes include The information has been published for long enough that it is not news and is an essential part of this person's biography. I am not commenting on the weight, but I support that the fact be included in the lead. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose While pertinent and necessary to include in the article, placement in the lede is extremely WP:UNDUE. LavaBaron (talk) 06:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose It should be left out of the lead. I see no policy or guidance that it should or should not be in the lead. Even WP:UNDUE application in this case is a matter of opinion. I feel putting it in the lead is a scarlet letter type of punishment and he is presumed innocent at this point. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
• Include in lead paragraph - holy cow, how bad does someone's crime have to be and how much press does it have to get to make it into a lead paragraph? Red Slash 07:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Bad enough that he is found guilty in a court room . . . which he hasn't. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Wait, what?? He has to be convicted before we can reflect reliably sourced allegations? Goodness sakes, if someone blew up New York City and Cosby was arrested for smuggling a nuclear weapon to the terrorists, you wouldn't be willing to put that in the lead until he was convicted? At some point, allegations in and of themselves (so long as they're reported in reliable sources) are notable enough. Red Slash 19:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Good point, but you are presuming guilt. I am sure you think him guilty, but if he is innocent, would he still deserve this accusation in the lead? I am not saying I think he is innocent, I am assuming he is innocent, which is what we should do. We are not ignoring the accusations, they are in the body. I suppose there are cases where the evidence could be enough to support a mention in the lead, but this is not one of them. There is not one shred of physical evidence and no cases have be brought to court yet and frankly it looks to me like they never will. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

We're not a jury in a courtroom. We shouldn't assume innocence just because he hasn't been convicted. We can make a judgement based on the facts. Given over 40 women have accused him of rape through drugging I don't see why you would presume him to be innocent. 194.82.100.215 (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Because it is Misplaced Pages policy. See WP:CRIME. It says "A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law." Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support -- I was directed here by a bot and so am uninvolved. Excluding mention of this, which is widely covered in reliable sources, would actually be a violation of WP:UNDUE. The lead should summarise the article, which has significant coverage of this. Also worth remembering that we don't require a criminal conviction to include negative coverage of someone in an article -- that's an absurd threshold for an encyclopaedia -- we just require wide coverage in multiple reliable sources. -- Shudde 04:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment -- To whomever closes (who I assume will be an admin), it'd like to point out that at least one of the commenters on here is a WP:SPA. -- Shudde 04:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
• Include Whether he is guilty or innocent is besides the point. Per WP:LEAD: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." I believe the coverage in reliable sources establishes this as a prominent controversy. --NeilN 00:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• Include - allegations now have a notability that will never dissipate. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 13:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

It already is dissipating. This blew up late last year and because there are no crimes to be prosecuted it's all being replaced by other celebrity gossip.2602:306:CE95:57B0:F8C0:2046:E36E:2D23 (talk) 04:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

This is not an issue for the legal realm. Regardless if the accusations are true or not, and regardless if any legal proceedings find him guilty or not, the controversy is notable enough to warrant a short mention in the lede. Also note that many reliable sources have reported on the controversy, and these sources are mainstream and reliable as they get. Claims that the sources are tabloids, are baseless. Just do quick Google search. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

If the argument should be can we mention this in the article that has already been done. What remains disputed is that this is too much of a pile of accusations without factual basis or evidence of any kind. Zero evidence, zero convictions. Misplaced Pages is not the judge and jury here. We have to look at what the most reliable sources have said and none of them state he did do anything, because no one knows for sure. Get a conviction that sticks and likely the intro should be updated. Until then it omits many more important aspects of his life. And he remains a living person that you're trying so hard to publicly accuse of sexual assault. Georgeivs vid (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

In Misplaced Pages we follow the sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

No one has suggested we do otherwise. We also use our brains to know what sources are tabloids and what ones are reliable. And none of that is really at issue, although our reporting remains tabloid-like on this article. We should greatly trim back the repeated allegations and insist on only cases at trial that haven't been dismissed. And summarize the one settled out of court briefly. Instead we drone on about one allegation after the next as if any of them have merit. Sorry we don't all work for Gloria Allred here, this is suppose to be an encyclopedia. Georgeivs vid (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

We don't work for the hero either. Your insistence on "only cases at trial that haven't been dismissed" has no basis in Misplaced Pages policy. --NeilN 04:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I never suggested we did. And many believe Cosby to still be very influential in the fields of comedy and black empowerment. Perhaps we should just treat this as person A, etc. The facts remain these are all allegations mostly whipped up since October with one possible exception looks like all have been dismissed as way too old to prosecute. Meanwhile his intro glosses over nearly 80 years of trailblazing in industries that have been shown to be hostile to blacks. The intro is lacking yet we are working hard to use unproven, untested allegations to label him as a rapist. Perhaps Misplaced Pages can do better than that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeivs vid (talk • contribs) 05:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Georgeivs vid (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Lede summary

While the RFC is ongoing, nothing stops us from proposing wording for the eventual addition. Following on MZMcBride's suggestion, here a proposed sentence:

Since 2000, Cosby has been repeatedly accused of multiple instances of sexually assaulting women, in several cases after purportedly drugging them. The allegations span from the 1960s to the 2010s. Cosby has never been criminally charged, and he has denied the accusations.

- Cwobeel (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Repeatedly is perhaps a bit strong, particularly as celebrities are often targets of "me too" attention seekers (see recent accusations against Kevin Clash or Bryan Singer. ) the former which has a lede mention, and the latter which does not). "accused of multiple instances of" is just ass accurate, but a little less pointed. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks for the suggestion. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

For readability, I would prefer -

Since 2000, Cosby has been repeatedly accused of multiple instances of sexually assaulting women, in several cases after purportedly drugging them sexual assault dating to the 1960s. The allegations span from the 1960s to the 2010s. Cosby has never been criminally charged, and he has denied the accusations.

Info about the mechanism of attack (drugs, threats, rope, whatever) and gender of the victims are details more appropriate for the article proper, rather than the lede. LavaBaron (talk) 06:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Whilst I agree not too much details is necessary, this second version sounds ambiguous as to whether the allegations are from the 1960s only. So I think "span from the 1960s to the 2010s" should be included. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I am very disappointed we are exercising this thought experiment before an actual discussion has ended if anything should be included in the introduction. As this has been brought up I feel any mention becomes too much as you have to include several variables including of course that these remain allegations, he's never been charged, and denies all the claims. But here is my take on what to smear him with as long as we are going to hang a "RAPIST" sign around his neck without any actual evidence. Georgeivs vid (talk) 02:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Since 2000, and primarily since October 2014, Cosby has been accused by multiple women of assault incidents dating from the 1960s to the 2010s. He denies all the claims and has never been charged with any crime.

I can live with that. Thanks. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

As per Cwobeel, I'm also fine with that. BlueSalix (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

"assault incidents" is too vague. It should say rape or sexual assault. Also, "multiple women" just means more than one. We should be specific and say "over 40". 194.82.100.215 (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages neutrality

I came across Bill Cosby and Misplaced Pages: Legal intimidation or fear?. I'm from the UK and I'm new to this controversy. The article on Jeffrey Epstein mentions his criminal conviction in the lead and at least one 2007 version of the article gives prominence to the police investigation before Epstein was convicted. The article on Rolf Harris also mentions a criminal conviction in the lead and at least one 2014 article mentions this in the lead when Harris was charged but not yet convicted. How were Epstein and Harris treated in Misplaced Pages during police investigastions before they were charged? For the sake of neutrality Bill Cosby should be treated the same, neither better nor worse than other prominent people accused but not convicted of criminal offenses. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Those are two cases where they have had a case and were convicted of crime. In Cosby's cases he's only being accused publicly. Should the standard now be that anyone accused publicly should be presumed guilty? I doubt it. Georgeivs vid (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Actors and filmmakers work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class Pennsylvania articles
• Mid-importance Pennsylvania articles
• C-Class college football articles
• Low-importance college football articles
• WikiProject College football articles
• C-Class Comedy articles
• High-importance Comedy articles
• WikiProject Comedy articles
• C-Class Philadelphia articles
• High-importance Philadelphia articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Mid-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
• C-Class University of Massachusetts articles
• Mid-importance University of Massachusetts articles
• WikiProject University of Massachusetts articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class African diaspora articles
• Top-importance African diaspora articles
• WikiProject African diaspora articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment