Talk:Bill Cosby

Let's be very careful with the sexual assault information WP:ALIVE

I am noticing that a lot of content is being added rather quickly as soon as an article in some website can be used as a reference. Let's remember that as horrible as the allegations are, this is still the Biography of a Living Person and should be treated with the utmost care, verifiability and neutrality. Let's also remember that Wikipedia is NOT a Newspaper and we do not need to include every detail of an unfolding story. Not only are we not here to break news, but we have an expectation to be reliable. If any new information is available about the sexual assault allegations, let's all see it and talk about it before it gets put into the article and potentially removed as more information comes out. If it is very obvious that something is true and has a lot of sources and no one is disagreeing, then we put stuff in the article. Otherwise, if there is a dispute, then we SHOULD NOT put that contested information in. This is a living person! We should all try to make this article clear and everlasting, but let's wait until the smoke clears a bit before writing things down on an encyclopedia. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 04:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Very much agreed. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hamsterlopithecus, that single addition should not have happened here. It belongs in the subarticle. Otherwise, ALIVE does not apply to such properly sourced content when placed in the right article in the proper manner. It's fixed now, so this is a moot issue. There are many very experienced editors working on this, long before you arrived here. We're on top of it, we know the context of the issue, we know the sources, we know the historical development of both articles, we know the policies, and we have the experience to deal with these issues. This was just a goof up, not a real trend, so you don't need to worry that this type of thing will run amok. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree but at the same time will respect your decision to leave in it's as is mode that Hamsterlopithecus changed it to. I may revisit this in the future, BUT only in the talk section and allow an administrator to make the change if they deem appropiate at a later date. I almost think we're at the point where this is no longer becoming an alleged set of incidents , rather than a Factual series of events.

ps. My main reason for arguing my point is that this goes beyond accused; And that Drugging & Serial Rape was an actual occupation of Bill Cosby. And the Word Activist could very easily be changed to Serial Rape or Serial Adulterer, since Cosby was using Activism as a cover for his 'alleged' Sex Crimes & Adultery. I will elaborate later at a future date, why I know this to be true and when further factual evidence surfaces as their is factual evidence (that cannot be disproved) in several forms already, (I will elaborate at a future date in the talk section only, thanks) Wwdamron (talk) 12:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

BullRangifer, I have replied on the section above to your general comments. Also, although it probably won't affect any experienced editor of wikipedia, discouraging other editors to get involved with an article is probably not the way to go. It would be a shame if someone who really wants to make this article better would read your comments and turn away. It's ok that you (and Wwdamron) feel very attached to this article (and especially this topic), but please take a moment to think of what is best for the entire encyclopedia first. We want everyone to engage in these discussions, that's how the best article's arise. However, please continue to bring your passion on this topic forward and we can all discuss it her in the talk page and agree on what would truly improve the article.

Wwdamron, thank you for understanding. I agree with you that these are horrible things that have happened it's looking like he will be at least criminally charged. But lets wait until all of that happens to write it down on what we hope will be a timeless document. But please keep bringing all that new info here so we can discuss. We should be prepared to put in a carefully worded and agreed upon paragraph once he is charged or convicted (or any other major event like that occurs). Thanks! Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

It's only a matter of time. I don't think charges or a conviction of anything (or any other major event like that) will be necessary. This whole year-long media attention is already a permanent part of the Bill Cosby legacy. Whether or not the irrefutably true relative clause "who is accused of serial rape" is in the first line or not is at this point simply a matter of hair-splitting. His reputation is forever damaged and officiously editing a lead-in sentence will have zero effect on changing that. Bill Cosby was, is and ever will be a man accused of serial rape by dozens of women whom he had known and groomed and who had trusted him. I question the real motives of the edit and history will show (is already showing) me to be right. Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burkeophile (talk • contribs) 04:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Cosby has not been charged or convicted of any crimes. This is the biography page of a living individual. Any wording must include the wording 'alleged' concerning any 'accusations' or even alleged 'admissions' from his deposition as the context of the publication is not yet fully known.Without the qualifier 'alleged' wikipedia becomes nothing more than a dumping ground for scandal mongering. Sincerely A Contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.121.210 (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we're obviously aware of that. Read the above. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Why lead with "Cosby has been the subject of publicized sexual assault allegations since about 2000." from the get go? That should be deleted or placed in the section below pertaining to the subject. La Fuzion (K lo K) 13:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Lafuzion, you are correct. It shouldn't be there. It has been discussed thoroughly in the talk page. I wish they hadn't archived that section since it's still very relevant. If you could please help revert those kinds of unilateral edits, it would be great! The information is there on the lede section, so it's unnecessary for it to be in the first sentence. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 06:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Please do not remove a sentence and not place it elsewhere in the article. That was the link to the sexual assault article. Vandalism is not a valid reason to keep it from the lead sentence. Please cite a policy statement to support that rationale. Moreover, Cosby sexual assault scandal has been in the newspapers everyday for nearly a year and been in the papers for years and thus I support keeping it in the lead. --JumpLike23 (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hamsterlopithecus, I agree with JumpLike23. That should remain in the lead sentence. Below I document your slow edit warring. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 16:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, now that the only mentions of Cosby are in connection with these allegations, his legacy is that of an accused serial rapist, and by his own admission, he led an immoral, adulterous, life, using exactly the method mentioned by his accusers.

The lead sentence here is a summary of the whole lead. It mentions what made him notable, and now this is what keeps him notable. Therefore it should be mentioned in the lead sentence. If he is ever convicted, the "alleged" will be removed. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 16:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

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)

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 our 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)

Edited section - compilation made 08:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

For convenience, here are links to the archived discussions:

• RfC about inclusion in the lead closed as "include the allegations in the lede".

• Discussion about mention in first sentence tended toward inclusion, but not conclusive.

Here's the history of mention in the first sentence:

Lots of confusion because of no consensus discussion

1. first addition by User:Wikister98. (no refs)
2. deleted by User:Jumplike23.
3. restored by User:Wikister98. (no refs)
4. deleted by User:NeilN
5. restored by User:Wwdamron. (no refs)
6. deleted by myself.

After much discussion on the talk page

1. restored by myself per talk page result. (fully referenced)
2. changed by User:Jumplike23.
3. changes reverted, by User:Wwdamron.
4. deleted (vandalized) by User:Austinyoder
5. restored by User:NeilN
6. deleted by User:Hamsterlopithecus.
7. restored by User:Wwdamron.
8. deleted again by User:Hamsterlopithecus.
9. restored by moving by User:Jumplike23, and later fixed by them.
10. deleted (vandalized) by User:Romelo75. (deceptive edit summary)
11. restored by User:NeilN.
12. deleted yet again by User:Hamsterlopithecus.

After the discussion, we only have deletions by Hamsterlopithecus (three deletions, with some support by vandals). Whether this is slow edit warring by Hamsterlopithecus is worth considering. Although there wasn't an overwhelming consensus, it appeared we had a stable version which was protected by several editors, and Hamsterlopithecus was edit warring with those editors. Hamsterlopithecus doesn't seem to understand the summary status of that first sentence, as previously explained to them:

"You fail to realize that this particular lead, and lots of articles do this, uses an introductory lead sentence which summarizes the entire lead (which of course summarizes the whole article). The sexual assault allegations take up the last paragraph in the lead, so the short mention at the end of the lead sentence is justified. It's a parallelism and good writing....

"The subject is still of huge weight, so it deserves some mention in the lead (a whole paragraph in this case), and short mention in the lead sentence."

After the discussion, several other editors saw no problem and kept protecting the content, thus indicating a consensus for inclusion in the first sentence.

I'd like to see an RfC about mention in the first sentence. Hamsterlopithecus, would you like to create one in a new section? Before starting it, please suggest your wording here so we can discuss it. It needs to be something which will not derail the discussion, and be so neutral that all parties will feel comfortable !voting on it. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 16:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

what in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons supports keeping it out of lead. I actually did not like the previous version that used the word rape. I would just say: "Cosby has been the subject of publicized sexual assault allegations since about 2000." --JumpLike23 (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

That's perfectly good wording: "... and the subject of publicized sexual assault allegations since about 2000." -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 20:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The topic of the sexual assault is already being discussed in the last paragraph of the lede because it is, chronologically, where it goes concerning notable things in Cosby's life. There are two reasons for not including the sexual assault charges in the lead sentence and they have been repeated over and over and over in this talk page but you seem to ignore them User:BullRangifer. The two reasons are that: 1) the criminal allegations do not define Cosby's career almost by definition because they are an ongoing event. If that were the case then Michael Jackson's lead sentence should call him a "American singer, songwriter, record producer, dancer, actor, and alleged serial child molester". And 2) This is a living person's biography WP:ALIVE. Regardless of your personal bias and passion for this and other rape-related subjects, as of now, there are no formal charges on Cosby. If, for example, Cosby is acquitted of all charges and the final verdict is that he is innocent (as unlikely, or upsetting as that may be) we would have to remove the "serial rapist" descriptor on the lead sentence. If that is the case, we would have damaged a living person's reputation by jumping the gun with Wikipedia's position on the subject. We don't know right now. So let's keep our eyes open but let's not make moves that we will then have to revert. Unless of course, the whole goal of desperately wanting to add the words "rapist" to the lead sentence is simply to try to damage his reputation for activist purposes. If that is the case, then by all means go for it, but just not on Wikipedia. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 21:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, serial rapist is unreasonable. Please respond to my points about what in wikipedia policies supports it not being in the sentence--other than broadly citing to WP:ALIVE. This issue has evolved, with more victims coming forward, more criminal investigations, civil suits, much of his accomplishments on this page being repudiated, for example, the cancellation of shows, dropping of honorary degrees, people like Goldberg no longer supporting, more accusation and the prior discussion thus is not controlling. Thanks again for your speedy response. --JumpLike23 (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, juries do not declare innocence. The accused is presumed innocent in the U.S. Juries simply declare "guilty" or "not guilty". Next: "Politicized"? Really? Controversial, sure, but has this matter been politicized? The Terri Schiavo case was politicized in that two opposing camps based on philosophy or religious belief emerged. I've probably missed something, but I don't think this is the case with Cosby. That is, I don't think feminists, Republicans, liberals, libertarians, Democrats, Christians, etc. have taken sides on the matter. That is to say, some folks believe Cosby is a rapist and other folks don't but it doesn't break down along any particular political line. Rklawton (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. It should be mentioned in the lead. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 15:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I completely 100% agree with user JumpLike23, that this is evloved and even if Cosby is never brought to a Criminal trial, this will be in his life forever. Allred stated a few days ago more victims will be coming forward. Ofcourse more lawsuits are expected. To compare this with someone like Michael Jackson is perposterous. Jackson had 2 accusers with no witness's. COsby has more than 50 with other people backing up what they said on many of the occasions at or shortly after the rapes or other sexual misconducts happened, except no one would believe them or know what to do at the time because of Cosby's power and influence., Cosby is involved in at least 7 lawsuits, Cosby has been investigated criminally since 2000. And the LA Police have said they would investigate any allegations regardless of statute, meaning Cosby has probably been investigated more than possibly any one else ever in crimes of sexual assault. If the Statute of Limitations did not exist, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out what would happen to Cosby. And I am not just talking about criminal prosecutions, He would be pennilesss, there would be more than 50 lawsuits. ALsmot no one (well known) is supporting Cosby. And the few that are , are not speaking.

Finally

Without giving any explanation , answer YES or NO only. Has Cosby been Accussed of Sexual Assault (YES or NO ONLY !) ? If your answer is YES, then CASE CLOSED (Cosby is accused of sexual assault and that is being nice), If NO then all these women are make believe and we should delete the Cosby sexual assault allegation page. Wwdamron (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Well said. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 15:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hamsterlopithecus, I have no special burden for this case. I'm just following our policies and guidelines. You are ignoring the nature of the lead sentence in this article. It is a summary of the lead. That's why the allegations should be mentioned at the end of the sentence, just as the allegations are mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead. It's a parallelism. It's good English writing practice. Beyond that, it is now part of his legacy, and will likely be the final chapter, overshadowing everything he has previously done. It's sad for everyone concerned. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 15:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Which version to use?

It appears we have a consensus for inclusion in the first sentence (or as a following sentence), so which version should we use? The first three are versions we have used (feel free to propose a better version, since we can always change our !votes):

1. ... actor, author, and activist who is accused of serial rape.
2. ... actor, author, and activist. Since about 2000, Cosby has been accused of sexually assaulting numerous women.
3. ... actor, author, and activist. Cosby has been the subject of publicized sexual assault allegations since about 2000.
4. ... actor, author, and activist who is accused of sexually assaulting numerous women.

Which one do you favor? -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 02:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• 4. I tend to favor the shorter options so they don't draw too much attention to themselves. I favor 4 because there are some who were assaulted, but not raped. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 02:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• 4 with an embeded link to Cosby's sexual assault page, i am not totally against 3' since Cosby has been accussed way before 2000, it was that nobody believed or ignored allegations prior to 2000 and really the allegations didnt become public until 2004(which received almost no media attention), 2000 was the first criminal case which was swept up quietly(Cosby's name was hidden in the original police report) and really the allegations didn't really become widespread(publicised) until late 2014 after many Hannibal burress shows So 4 is my first choiceWwdamron (talk) 04:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• 3 without the citations because they are not necessary. --JumpLike23 (talk) 02:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• I agree, but in case of any problems, we can have them there, but hidden. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 02:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• JumpLike23, I added a wikilink instead of the refs. Would you please take another look and see if you'd change your mind? If not, why? -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 06:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

User:BullRangifer, what consensus? The discussion is starting and you suddenly jump the gun again trying to get your way. Please allow people to discuss this issue calmly. I propose this: let's start another section in this talk page to discuss the lead sentence alone and wait until a good number of editors have stated their views. If there is, indeed, a consensus to mention the accusation of rape in the first sentence, then it shall naturally appear there and we will incorporate it into the article then. I will make the section now. I will also remove current mention on the lead sentence until a consensus has been reached in that section. I think this is a reasonable proposal, please help me carry it out. (Apologies for editing your new section, but I had already written this thing out) Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hamsterlopithecus, the consensus exists in all the comments above. You are the only dissenting voice in the recent discussion. The question now is which version to use. You can suggest improvements if you wish, or you can abstain. Whatever. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 03:41, 28 October 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 text in the very First sentence, bit any of the other would be okay for now as well.

Wwdamron (talk) 03:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The use of an embedded link is a good suggestion. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 03:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I like the two sentences and don't like 4. 3 is the most NPOV while still putting this in the lede sentence where it belongs --JumpLike23 (talk) 03:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

So are you !voting for 3? If so, go ahead and bullet it and bold it. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 03:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC) Oops! I see you already did it. I got confused. It's Wwdamron who needs to place their !vote above. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 03:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Please place all !votes in the section above, and keep the discussion here. Thanks. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 03:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

User:BullRangifer, you have edited this entire talk page to change the order in which things were said and the titles of the sections in which they were said. This section here is completely new and you have moved all these posts from the section above. Now some of the comments have been placed under a much different context than when they were originally written. This is creating a lot of confusion at best and is dishonest at worst. Stop editing other people's entries and sections. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 08:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)