Talk:Bill Cosby

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

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

(I am restoring my original comment where it belongs. The following comment was improperly deleted by Hamsterlopithecus. I had deliberately placed it here, using the following edit summary: "This should be closed now after adding "Accused of sexually assaulting numerous women" in very first line." This was just one of many improper things which Hamsterlopithecus did on this page and elsewhere to hijack the discussion and mislead editors whom he forum shopped to come here. Wwdamron (talk) 17:01, November 10, 2015 (UTC))

User:BullRangifer #4 in my opinion, I will let you User:BullRangifer decide since you have the most clout (I did temporarily revert it back to #3, but quickly undid it).

As for User:Hamsterlopithecus, I am almost starting to believe you are a Cosby sympathizer and letting your emotions dictate or that you feel sorry for Cosby. This is not an opinion, these are facts and cannot be dictated my emotions.

FACT - Cosby has been accused by many people of Serial Rape, Sexual Assault and other Sex crimes, with new things surfacing on just about a daily basis, with many witness's to back these women's stories up.

FACT - This is probably the biggest scandal in modern USA history and will be talked about for centuries to come.

CONCLUSION - It would be Vandalism (in my and the majority of peoples opinions) to revert it back if it is changed to one of User:BullRangifer conclusions.

User:BullRangifer please go ahead and change it, number 4 in my opinion, also in my opinion citations are probably not necessary under any of your scenarios except a possible embedded link to Cosby's Sexual assault allegation page in addition to the tex in the very First sentence, but any of the other would be okay for now as well.

Wwdamron (talk) 03:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Just FYI, the lead sentence that is subject to changing currently reads: William Henry Bill Cosby, Jr. (born July 12, 1937) is an American stand-up comedian, actor, author, and activist. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I am strongly against describing Cosby as an alleged rapist in the first sentence or mentioning the accusations there. The accusations are well mentioned in the last paragraph of the lede, where they should be chronologically. I understand that this is a very emotional subject and the accusations are pretty horrible, but we have to keep our objective tone and not suffer from WP:Recentism. We have to maintain a historical perspective. For this reason, I say we wait on labeling Cosby a rapist as if it described him like the word comedian does. Also, this is the biography of a living person and we should be VERY careful with what we say about people. Other sensationalist news organizations can say what they want but Wikipedia tries to be a standard for reliability. We should wait until the smoke clears, until the legal system determines what to call Cosby. Until then, we should continue stating the facts in those other sections that describe the situation, but, if anything, lets err on the side of caution on this. Finally, I want to bring the example of the Michael Jackson article. Notice that there is a thorough description of the sexual assault incidents but there is no mention of him a child molester along with singer and dancer. Now that the scandal has passed, and we are looking at it from a historical perspective, it would seem harsh to include those accusations in the lead sentence of that article. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

First off, you again do not address the version that you actually reverted. You instead discuss the rapist version that I do not support. I also don't really support a new section on this because the old section is the exact same subject. Also, citing the actual recentism test, "In ten years will this addition still appear relevant? If I am devoting more time to it than other topics in the article, will it appear more relevant than what is already here?" I believe the answer is clearly yes. His sexual assault charges have impacted his career as I have stated above, losing all airtime of cosby show, honorary degrees, cases that are not going away, etc. --JumpLike23 (talk) 03:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hamsterlopithecus, JumpLike23 is right. You are just repeating yourself; fighting against a straw man of your own creation (we aren't discussing the word "rapist"); and your creation of this section is disruptive. Just remove the heading and we can continue, otherwise this whole section should be hatted as disruption. It's your choice. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 03:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

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

User:BullRangifer, I had already explained to you that we were both editing the same section at the same time when that happened. You know it wasn't in bad faith, don't act so outraged. Now please, don't derail this discussion. If you have an actual reason for being so passionately in favor of labeling Cosby a rapist in the first sentence, please explain it here so other editors can understand all sides of this argument and can make up their minds. And also, once you've stated your opinion, please let other editors join in. We are not fighting here, just trying to find what's best for Wikipedia. The more people involved, the better. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 03:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I made that edit 12 minutes before yours, and intervening edits as well. You still chose to remove that subheading. That was not an accident or edit conflict. I have already explained myself above, several times. Everyone but you understands, so I'm not going to repeat myself for your sake. Go back and read it again. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 03:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

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

The specific issue of whether to include mention in the intro sentence(s) was not discussed there, right? User:Hamsterlopithecus, please respond. I understand it is hard to justify, but you reverted my edit, and I feel were are thus entitled to such. Otherwise, I will assume you just say Recentism and BLP generally, fair enough? but that just simply is not compelling or based in policy. --JumpLike23 (talk) 04:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Cwobeel, I agree with User:jumplike23 that that discussion seems to have been about adding the paragraph on the lede that is currently in the article and not about adding a mention in the first sentence of the article. Jumplike23, could you please write down the wording that you would propose for the first sentence so we can have an idea of what you're thinking? And now, replying to your question: my argument is, indeed, as simple as stated in my previous comment. I think it is notable enough to be covered extensively in the article and all necessary sub-articles, but just not as the definition of who that person is. Like Michael Jackson, Paula Deen, Anna Nicole Smith, or Tiger Woods, I am not sure if this will be as important as it seems now that it is ongoing, hence WP:Recentism. Btw, please allow for a bit of time between replies. I am checking this discussion often, but I may take a few hours to reply. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 04:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Our discussions above were specifically about adding mention in the first sentence, so mentioning previous discussions about mentioning the subject in the lead at all are out of place here. We are well beyond that. I even provided a whole list of diffs regarding the edit warring over it. The actual content is also listed above, with a fourth version which accounts for the fact that not all the women claim they were raped, but still that they were assaulted. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 06:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

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

I agree. This discussion is disruptive and just rehashes previous discussions. We are way beyond that. We have a consensus which Hamster will not accept. Well, that means they will just have to step aside and not be disruptive. I gave them to option of removing the heading or getting this section hatted. They have not acted, so I'll just hat it. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 06:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

User:BullRangifer, closing this discussion by yourself to push your own view is completely out of line! If you don't want to participate in general discussion and reaching a consensus then don't participate. But DON'T try to shut down the discussion of other editors. If you don't like reaching consensus, then Wikipedia is not for you. The only people who are pushing for changing the first sentence are yourself and User:Wwdamron who also happen to be the only people interested in shutting down any discussion about this. There are many people who specifically spoke out against this in a now archived thread. So there is currently NO consensus. Hijacking this page to push your own views is not how we do things. You guys have stated your opinions, now we must wait for others to pitch in. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 08:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hamsterlopithecus, no, your total reordering of whole sections, changing original headings, and then creating an improper RfC when we already had a consensus, is wrong. The RfC is not legitimate as it interferes with an ongoing discussion of the same subject and is not neutrally worded. You are once again ignoring existing discussions and hijacking the whole discussion. The hatting needs to be restored. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 19:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Should not be mentioned in first sentence.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

examples of sexual assault in second sentence in a BLP

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

Is this gentleman notable for anything other than the sexual assault accusations?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I would think Cosby is more Notable now in the world for his Sexual Assault allegations than anyone else in U.S. history. Wwdamron (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

If you were born yesterday and don't pay attention to the world, sure. DreamGuy (talk) 01:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

the most notable alleged sexual perpetrator? I think he may be, not including murderers who also sexually assault. The notability of the sexual assault allegations deserve to be in the lede. It is time for a new discussion/vote --JumpLike23 (talk) 06:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

JumpLike23, do you mean mention in the second sentence, per the title of this section? I still think that's a good idea. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, second sentence work better. I am just not sure the support will be there from a majority of editors.--JumpLike23 (talk) 07:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Rescinded honorary degrees

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

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

Got it, thanks for clarifying. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

'Shawn Upshaw paternity lawsuit' Title Change

Hello Fellow Editors

There needs to be a title change as there is no 'paternity lawsuit' the title of the section should be something like 'Shawn Upshaw Extortion Trial and Conviction' 66.235.36.153 (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)Respectfully A Contributor

Cosby has now been charged with a felony

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

I am not sure that this is necessary. The first sentence is useful to define what the person is or does for a living, or makes him or her notable enough to merit an article. If the majority (a real majority, not just the first people to reply to this) really feel like it should be included, then let's do it. But can we at least agree on the best way to break this highly sensitive news? This has been a topic of strong disagreement on the talk page for a while now, so we shouldn't take this lightly. As of this comment, the unsigned user above has changed the lead sentence to:

• Bill Cosby is an American stand-up comedian, actor, and author, who has been accused by multiple women of sexual assault.[1]

I suggest that we remove the mention until we decide how to best word this (as per WP:BLP). If it is to be mentioned in the first sentence, I suggest that we use something like "... has been charged with a felony sex crime from 2004" as this is more precise. I would also suggest we do it in a second sentence following the original "... is an American stand-up comedian, actor, and author". My 2 cents. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The sex stuff is in the lead - the question is whether it is a defining occupation for Cosby. I suggest that we are still in the "not yet proven" area, and that WP:BLP applies. Collect (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

BLPCRIME just says that we shouldn't imply that he is guilty of a crime when he hasn't been convicted, I don't think it says anything about whether or where we mention notable accusations. Even if someone were proven to have been wrongfully accused, we might still mention notable criminal accusations against that person. The allegations against Anthony Charles Graves, who is notable because he was exonerated while on death row, are mentioned in the lead section of his entry. Nblund (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with that for NOW. There is no rush, is there?--Malerooster (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

"[[[Jim Morrison]]] was an American Rock singer, exhibitionist and drug abuser."·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Use of forthcoming mugshot

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

It absolutely can not be the "main photo" and I rather think use of it at all requires a positive consensus - in general use of mugshots anywhere is a "no-no." Collect (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Where is that policy? I see mug shots on all kinds of biographical Wikipedia entries (Jim Morrison, Sid Vicious, Justin Bieber, Larry Craig to name a few) Mdude04 (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Start at WP:MUG. General Ization ^Talk 22:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

"Should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light." Doesn't seem like this has relevance here... Mdude04 (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the "disparaging" part still has relevance. The purpose of mugshots is not to disparage their subject. If that is the primary reason for using it here (I think we all know what Cosby looks like, or can find better photos on the Web) and if no other encyclopedic purpose can be established, then it should not be used.General Ization ^Talk 22:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think its primary use is to disparage. In this context I think it's to highlight that this material has elevated beyond simple allegations. If you disagree, explain the widespread use among other BLP's like the ones I listed above Mdude04 (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

You may want to rethink that. A booking photograph does no more to "highlight that this material has elevated beyond simple allegations" than the text that mentions the charges, and links to the indictment (which, if not available here, are provided on our cited sources). And I have no interest in explaining why "other crap exists", which is to say that use of such photos elsewhere is not a good argument for using them here. General Ization ^Talk 22:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

There's a reason I didn't just point to one other example. This is a prevailing theme on Wikipedia. In all the cited pages, as in this, the mug shot is being used in the clinical NPOV context that accompanies it. Use of the mug shot is no more disparaging than having a section devoted to the sexual assault allegations. Your statement that "mug shots are a no-no" is simply not WP policy. Mdude04 (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Mdude04 (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I would agree that using it as the primary photo would be using it primarily to disparage, but putting it in the relevant section is fully relevant and not going against WP policy Mdude04 (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

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

It's an absurd discussion. The cited WP policy here applies only to cases where a picture is being used "out of context" (to quote the policy directly). It's a mug shot of Bill Cosby related to a sexual assault allegation, within Bill Cosby's sexual assault allegations section. My head is exploding that there is an argument to suggest this is out of context and thus applicable to WP:MUG. Hopefully other people will chime in because I don't see any policy justification not to have the mug shot (which now appears in every reliable source news story about this subject matter). "Being sensitive" does not equal shutting off our brains and ignoring very relevant material. Mdude04 (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

If it now appears in every news story, all the more reason it is not urgently needed here. See WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NODEADLINE. Wikipedia's general policy is that anything that does not directly contribute to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject should not be added to or can be removed from an article. I maintain the booking photo contributes nothing other than "this is what the subject looked like moments after being booked", which is trivia. Wikipedia operates under consensus, and so far the consensus (based purely on the number of editors participating in the discussion, plus the one who reverted your addition of the photo) is against you. It can wait. General Ization ^Talk 00:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I have mentioned this discussion at WP:BLPN#Bill Cosby, which should result in some additional and well-informed discussion of the question. General Ization ^Talk 01:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. With the way today's events fundamentally altered this entire discussion (and the future encyclopedic legacy of Cosby), I was acting in an admitted sense of haste that is not necessary for Wikipedia. I look forward to an informed discussion on the best way to proceed. Mdude04 (talk) 02:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

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

I disagree. The mugshot clearly has high encyclopedic value at Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations and should be restored for use there, as well as within the relevant section on Bill Cosby. The man has been charged wih sexual assault and his appearance at the time of arraignment is relevant. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Also disagree. The mug shot is historic and belongs in the articles. Jusdafax 17:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

So far it is 2 people who say no vs 4 people who say yes. So consensus at this point is to include it in the appropriate in-context section Mdude04 (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Mdude04, consensus is not a vote. I have no opinion one way or the other about the mugshot, but you need to stop trying to control this discussion. This discussion has been going on a grand total of two days. Consensus discussions with controversial issues such as this often take much longer. There is no consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

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

The mugshot is relevant if the fact that he got arrested is among the most notable things in his life, for example Leona Helmsley. This is absolutely not the case at this moment. But maybe as time goes by this scandal may be the most important thing in his life. I strongly doubt that, but who knows. The point is, if it's important, it should still be important as time passes. So waiting shouldn't be a problem. Otherwise, this is just WP:Recentism. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

That's a little ridiculous, Hamsterlopithecus. That's not the standard for judging an EV-worthy picture. By your logic, reviewing a script in 1990 with the director of an anti-drug public service announcement was a career milestone for Cosby, as evidenced by our including a picture from that meeting. So should that picture be struck from the article, because it is not a "pivotal moment in his life"? And yet it's incontestably the case that Cosby's accusations by 50+ women, his categorical denials of predatory behavior and his lawyerly insistence that he had never been charged with a crime, culminating in his arrest on felony assault charges, without question constitutes a watershed turn of events in his life and career whether or not he's ultimately found guilty. Either way, his mugshot has high encyclopedic value. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm just saying that doing things because we feel strongly emotional about them today may not be in the long-term interest a wikipedia article. If the mugshot is important, it will continue to be important tomorrow. IMHO, let's wait until the smoke clears and then decide what were the important bits of this whole mess. We're not here to break news. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Bingo, Hamsterlopithecus. Chase (talk | contributions) 01:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I think use of the mugshot is appropriate at Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations, but is not needed here. I think the situation is roughly comparable to the use of the mug shot in our Featured Article Canadian drug charges and trial of Jimi Hendrix, though the mug shot is not used in Jimi Hendrix. Obviously, that is not a BLP and he was acquitted, but there are parallels. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

His notability needs to be updated

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

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

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

The mistaken notion that his previous notability is "gone" reflects a serious misunderstanding of what notability actually is on this encyclopedia. Beware of recentism. Notability is not temporary. If it wasn't for his very long and highly successful show business career, the current allegations would be getting way less than 1% of the attention than they are. This is a biography that ought to cover his entire life and career. It should neither whitewash nor overly highlight the current allegations. Prudent editorial judgment is a rare commodity during a media frenzy. Let's cultivate it and nurture it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

No one is proposing that we remove anything, only that we update things. His previous notability is a fact, but it's now ignored, even while, as you rightly observe, providing a basis for the shocked reactions to his hypocrisy; the public identity of the beloved Dr. Huxtable is not the same as the secret double life of the real Bill Cosby. He is a self-confessed serial adulterer, and is also accused of serial sexual assault and rape. His previous notability is never going to be what it was. It's permanently tarnished. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Our job is not to express shock, to expose hypocrisy, to point out "double lives" or to evaluate reputations as "tarnished". Our job is to write the article, scrupulously, from the neutral point of view. Feel free to blog elsewhere if you feel compelled to denounce Cosby, which is entirely understandable. But Wikipedia is not the place for that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Our job is to document what RS say, not to express our own opinions or to censor what RS say. It is unwikipedian to do either. The overwhelming weight of all RS is now on the side of documenting the allegations. There is zero weight on his past career and past notability, except to show the contrast. Of course it might be possible to find a RS currently mentioning Cosby without mentioning the allegations, but that would be an exception that proves the rule. I suggest you do some searches, rather than criticize me. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

A strong case can be made that Bull's argument is correct. This blunt editorial in the Washington Post is no mere blog, but a highly respected news outlet. The editorial points out that Cosby has admitted his criminal behavior in court depositions he fought to keep secret. If not the first sentence, the lede's first paragraph calls for mention of Cosby's actions and current status. Jusdafax 08:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLP is not negotiable here - and if his notability gets affected by a conviction, then we can abide by WP:DEADLINE but unless and until that time, the BLP policy is predicated on not implying that allegations of crimes are proof of crimes. And editorials are ... editorials. Collect (talk) 14:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

You need to step back one step. No one is proposing that we imply that "allegations of crimes are proof of crimes." Not at all. We should simply state that he is also known for the allegations. If and when he is convicted, that would be updated, but not until then. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The lead section of a biography should summarize the person's life and career, usually in chronological order. The allegations are described with due weight and properly in the final paragraph of the lead, since the vast majority of the public attention to them has developed in 2014 and 2015. There is a lengthy, detailed section in the article. We also have a very long spinoff article Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations with 247 references for anyone who wants all the details now available in reliable sources. In the context of his entire career which spans more than half a century, we need to avoid making changes motivated by moral outrage over what certainly appears to be reprehensible behavior. We are encylopedists, not editorialists. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I think BullRangifier is discussing changes to the lead sentence, not the lead section. I don't know that it's policy, per se, but lead sentences typically define a topic or give an abbreviated preview of the subsequent paragraphs. Look at the OJ Simpson entry: the first sentence begins with football and ends with his designation as a convicted felon, and the first sentence reflects the structure of the rest of the lead. Nblund (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

O.J. Simpson is a convicted felon who is in prison, Nblund. At this time, Bill Cosby has been convicted of nothing. Very big difference. Please also note that Simpson is in prison for reasons having nothing with his notoriety regarding the famous double murder. Appropriately, that case isn't even mentioned until much later in the lead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

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