Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Sulkowicz's police accusation

Anywhere in the body, or elsewhere, do we cover that Sulkowicz claimed to have rescinded her police report and stopped the investigation voluntarily? I think that's an important fact, that she claimed to have stopped the investigation because she didn't want to deal with it, whereas we have other WP:RSes saying the investigation was dropped for lack of evidence. I think those two facts should be paired in the article, it's NPOV. We shouldn't editorialize, let me be clear, we shouldn't say Sulkowicz "lied" or anything like that, as an IP Anon had asserted elsewhere. But we should include the fact that Sulkowicz says SHE stopped the investigation, whereas the police say THEY stopped it.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Had she mentioned any evidence (a mail, a form) to prove that the police lied? Otherwise it's insignificant and shouldn't be mentionend. Prima facie evidence speaks for state authority. --134.155.36.48 (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that part's important. Oh also, I think you're misconstruing what I want to include. I don't want to say that EMMA thinks the police lied. I don't think she thinks that. Either

A)She said this to news orgs to cover the police investigation being shut down, and they actually closed it due to lack of evidence or

B)She did rescind her involvement, and as a result they stopped the proceedings.

I think it's more likely A than B, given what the police department has said. But it's not our job to determine which happened, A or B, or to discuss the two possibilities. it's our job to include in the article what exists in WP:RSes. I want to include two statements to this effect:

The police department has stated they concluded the investigation due to lack of evidence.[ref] Conversely, Sulkowicz has stated in interviews that she personally opted to not pursue criminal charges because "it would take nine months to a year to actually go to court, which would be after I graduated and probably wanting to erase all of my memories of Columbia from my brain anyway." [ref]

What's important is that in a number of WP:RSes, she said this. She has told a number of news organizations, verifiably, that she will no longer be pursuing criminal charges for personal reasons.

If, by your stated standard, we should only include evidence based-statements, then we've gotta delete pretty much 75% of this article.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Do you refer to this? (The Text Of The Mattress Girl Lawsuit Will Shock You)

The lawsuit also accuses Sulkowicz of persistently dishonest behavior after she began accusing [redacted] of sexual assault. For example, the lawsuit says that local police decided not to charge [redacted] due to a lack of evidence, but that Sulkowicz claimed she had simply decided not to pursue charges:

"Three weeks after [redacted]’s criminal attorney was informed that rape charges would not be brought against him, Emma falsely announced that she personally decided not to pursue criminal charges against [redacted]: “I decided I didn’t want to pursue it any further because they told it me it would take nine months to a year to actually go to court, which would be after I graduated and probably wanting to erase all of my memories of Columbia from my brain anyway, so I decided not to pursue it.” Emma conveniently omitted the fact that the Sex Crimes Unit refused to bring any charges against [redacted] following its investigation, due to a lack of any reasonable suspicion."

--Cyve (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I guess that's related, but what spurred me on is that an anon attempted to add that info in an improper place in this article before, and then I remarked that it's probably already here. Then I realized it wasn't. See: 1 2 3.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Next to that info about her statement, it should be added that [redacted] brought to court that the Sex Crimes Unit of the District Attorney's office refused to bring any charges against him due to a lack of any reasonable suspicion and that they informed him three weeks before Sulkowicz did her statement. --Cyve (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware of no RS that say Sulkowicz rescinded her police report. My understand is she stated publicly she declined to pursue it any further after filing the initial report and that [redacted] has said that the police stated they declined to pursue it due to lack of evidence. It seems [redacted]'s lawsuit is now calling Sulkowicz a liar for saying she declined to pursue, if the police already declined to pursue.....at most this seems an omission or misleading, but not an outright lie, because it is my understanding that criminal investigations often are only pursued after ongoing efforts and insistence from the alleged victim. If we have reliable sources (not just the lawsuit) saying Sulkowicz was dishonest here, perhaps we could include it, but suggesting she rescinded on her police report or outright lied seems way off base going by the reliable sources I've read to date, unless I've missed something very significant on this topic.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

You missed the fact that [redacted] says that Assistant District Attorney Kat Holderness and Assistant District Attorney Martha Bashford, which interviewed him for three hours, and whom he named as witnesses, refused to bring any charges against him due to a lack of any reasonable suspicion. --Cyve (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

So, User:BoboMeowCat, she publicly said she decided to stop pursuing it. The police publicly said they stopped for lack of evidence. That should be enough.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Has the NYPD independently commented regarding this case, or do we only have what [redacted] and Sulkowicz report happened with respect to the NYPD's involvement? Such a distinction would seem pretty important.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Cops typically refuse to talk about an investigation while it is open, and are often reluctant to do so after it's closed, for lots of reasons (including PR, risk of lawsuits from a mistaken comment, and more generally a lack of any obligation to comment to the press). Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 00:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Here's what time magazine has to say on this topic,"When neither the school nor law enforcement found [redacted guilty, Sulkowicz started her own campaign."] It's consistent with other sources that refer to his lawsuit and makes no mention of her dropping the case. 70.209.98.219 (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Two points, based on my personal understanding of policy:

(1) By dint of NPOV, we cannot fail to include statements that Sulkowicz has made in her own defense. This would be mostly true even if we were talking about a Facebook post (though in that case we'd have to be careful with claims about third parties).

(2) This is the case even if we think her statement is directly contradicted by a pristine, flawless RS. We're neither qualified nor authorized by WP policy to attempt to reconcile conflicting sources ourselves, given the subject matter.

If I am right about the policy here, then Shibbolethink's suggested approach is preferable. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 00:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

At this point, the conversation has gone on long enough that it's not clear what Shibbolethink's suggested approach is, but if there are no independent comments from NYPD regarding the case, and instead we only have [redacted]'s account of what the police said vs Sulkowicz's account of what the police said, then the article text should definitely reflect that by using text such as "according to [redacted] NYPD said" vs "according to Sulkowicz NYPD said" and not mislead the readers that one version has been confirmed by the police as accurate, if that is not the case. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Why is it still not clear? I stated it in the beginning. I think we should have two statements, one about what the police have publicly said, and one about what Emma has said to news organizations. Side by side, NPOV wording.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

OH. You're saying, if we can't find evidence of independent claims by the NYPD not to pursue charges, directly from them and not from secondary sources, we should just have he said/she said? I mean we do have WP:RSes that say "nypd declined to file charges." or something. But yeah, I'm fine with a he said/she said wording.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm actually just trying to clarify if the secondary sources are using [redacted] or if they are using NYPD as their source of information regarding what the police said. Who are they interviewing? If we read closely, and avoid using op-eds for factual content, this should become clear.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Here are the sources I'm going off of:

"But the attendant media frenzy has seemingly legitimized an event, which, after an investigation and hearing, the University determined did not occur—and which the NYPD has thus far declined to pursue."

"the police later declined to pursue charges, citing a lack of reasonable suspicion"

"She later went to the NYPD, nearly two years after the alleged assault occurred, but no criminal charges were brought against [redacted]."

Those are the only ones I could find :/--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Why do we accepts Sulkowicz's statement (primary source) that she declined to participate, but don't accept what's covered in the lawsuit and then repeated by reliable sources. So when Sulcowicz says something without corrobation by the police/da, that's fine. But we cannot do the same from the other POV. Also, there's a whole lot of BLP concerns about keeping out material from the lawsuit, even when covered by the media, but we have no issue with Sulcowicz claim he's a rapist, even though the police and the university did not find enough evidence to support her allegations. Seems like a big fat double standard here.2600:1011:B154:1E8:18A2:8389:9D8C:897E (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

No, anything [redacted] says in his own defense ought to be included too. Is there a failure in that regard that you could point out? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 00:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

well, Bobomeowcat seems intent on removing as much as possible, even when sources she insisted be included offer a counterpoint. Recent example here. I kept that statement pretty neutral, but if you read the source, it's a lot more specific. bobomeowcat fought to include the parts of that commentary she liked, and then summarily deleted the parts that speak to his lawsuits. Also, there seems to be some collusion going on to keep his allegations out of this article. see this comment here: [[1]]2600:1011:B154:1E8:6C13:2DC8:319A:E3AC (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Why are you presuming that BoboMeowCat is a woman?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 05:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Stop fishing for sexism and answer his question. It doesn't matter why he assumed it NPOV Ninja (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Professor in Reference One

He's the professor that let her do this project. He's also a co defendant in the lawsuit that NOBODY seems to be talking about. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/nyregion/accused-of-rape-a-student-sues-columbia-over-bias.html You think he isn't a primary source? He has a conflict of interest. That's a fact. Not slander. Find someone else who calls it performance art that isn't her professor or a blog. Your lynchpin of this article, Reference 1, is totally invalid. Any reason for calling this a performance art piece is now null and void. All of you are so intellectually dishonest it's sad. If her case is true it should match up with ALL THE FACTS and not be slanted to her. Is it not obvious the Gender gap task force is a de facto fifth column against Wikipedia? The intentions were good but the outcome is a bunch of people who have no business editing encyclopedias, not because they're women but because half of them they don't have a clue about what an encyclopedia is, and the other half don't seem to really care. Same goes for Journalism. NPOV Ninja (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

There are A LOT more references other than the professors including news sources (RELIABLE sources) etc. The request for speedy deletion is also a little premature considering this issue has only been brought up by you today. - RatRat- Talk    18:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Other people have posted things. It isn't premature because it's been exposed as a hoax, intellectually dishonest. Go read the damn log NPOV Ninja (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I've red the "damn log", if its true that it is a hoax this does not stop it from being "performance art" and the fact that it has been so widely reported on still makes it notable and encyclopedic. If you really have reliable sources stating this is a hoax then add a section to the article declaring this. It has reliable sources, it has notability, therefore it is encyclopedic and suitable for wikipedia. - RatRat- Talk    18:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll also add that the article clear states that the performance artist "alleged" what had happened to her. It's not stating her claims as facts. - RatRat- Talk    18:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The subject isn't the hoax. The way this page is managed is a hoax. Your "consensus' is a hoax. Other people have posted on a side different than your own many times and you try to scare them into shutting up. Not me. NPOV Ninja (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I've only engaged in discussion with you on this talk page, you can check the log and IP's. I'm not trying to scare anyone into my POV as I have not even expressed my POV on the subject of this article besides the fact that i think the proposal for speedy deletion is premature and far fetched. - RatRat- Talk    18:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... The issue that the person proposing the speedy deletion is suggesting is not valid. There are plenty of reliable sources referring to this as 'performance art' not just the professor. The article may have issues with NPOV but this can be improved, and this article is regularly edited by many users. Speedy deletion request is premature and far fetched. -- - RatRat- Talk    18:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the entirety of the talk page speaks for itself. These people refuse to answer questions that they don't like. Far fetched? Everyone who tries to get this page edited eventually gives up because you people won't give up. It's time for someone else to have a say NPOV Ninja (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell this discussion has not been going on longer than a day or two, and it certainly isn't extensive enough to warrant a speedy deletion on an article that is well referenced with reliable sources. This what I mean about the proposal being "far fetched" and "premature". There has been no conclusion to the discussions being had, the proposal for speedy deletion is only supported on the back of your claims and POV. - RatRat- Talk    18:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Fine, I'll put up a regular. Just another Factchecker supported my claims, as well as a random IP address, after I tried to get an admin to look at this page and judge for his or herself. He even defended my actions against an accusation of being a trojan horse. He's an individual just as I am. Once again read the entirety of the page. Either you didn't read it or another person's agreement with me is invalid for a reason I don't understand. NPOV Ninja (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe your acting in good faith. Like I've said I read the log regarding the issue and I still thought your proposal for speedy deletion was far fetched and premature but I wasn't trying to insult you. From what I can see on the article you've tried to propose regular deletion and you've been instructed totake it to AfD so that it can be properly discussed and revised. I too am an individual and I contested your speedy deletion based on my viewpoint of the matter, but I was only protesting the speedy deletion it wasn't a personal attack of any kind. Like I said I have read it and I'm haven't noticed anything about admins backing up your claims,only removing your proposed deletions which like i've said I agree with (not an attack against you). I also haven't expressed any POV on the subject matter just the speedy deletion so I'm not sure what you don't understand regarding your last sentence or what it is referring to. - RatRat- Talk    19:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Also if you're wondering why some people are not backing your proposals you may want to have a quick read of WP:BLP, this article contains sensitive information about real people and Wikipedia isn't really the place to be adding to controversies only reporting on them with facts and reports from reliable sources. I don't think anyone in this talk page is being unreasonable, but what you've been proposing needs to be properly discussed without brash decisions being made with the backing of one user (such as nominating an article with an extensive list of reliable sources for speedy deletion - or even just deletion for that matter - without a proper discussion on the talk page). - RatRat- Talk    19:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to raise the same point again: People refuse to answer to legitimate articles. Second, controversy. I know that what I did is against the rules, and it won't happen again, but it still happened. This article was relevant until his lawsuit got fired. Speedy deletion was a total mistake as I misinterpreted the hoax. I'll say it again - way too many unanswered questions on this. Why? Also - normal deletions - say "uncontroversial". Putting in a NPOV box in here was like pulling teeth; when I went to the admin page by accident. I'm not going to let up until I get direct answers; something that's strangly missing. Until the IP addresses came out. That is controversy. It doesn't need to be controversial -and- consensous based. One or the other. The fact that so many direct questions go unanswered or even merely unacknowledged is controversial. It's been proven that having a dissussion on here is made possible by opening up the audience. It's a normal deletion. Not speedy. Cut it out and let it run it's course. Why are you so scared of that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NPOV Ninja (talk • contribs) 19:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

You want direct answers, try asking questions that actually make sense. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Young's reporting history

Listen, if we're gonna editorialize about Cathy Young's history of reporting critically in cases of sexual assault, we better damn well back it up with a very good WP:RS. So where is it? If we can't come up with one, I'm gonna remove that clause, because it would definitely violate BLP.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I've re-added the source, which says, "Young has written a number of stories critical of campus anti-rape activism, including a profile of another accused rapist from Brown." —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Shibbolethink, it was there all along, until you moved it. [2]....it's the Kaplan source from the Washington Post.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 06:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

That article is inherently an editorial, and I don't think we should source from it things that could very well be construed as biased, such as the clause about Young's reporting history.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

having all this detail about Young seems like editorializing. But there are other writers who are included as refs who have a pov as well. That's normal. Why is is it important to call out Young in particular?63.235.133.172 (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

NPOV. - "Furthering the Activist Cause" - Huh?

I'm removing this. I'm also putting a warning for NPOV on the top. Activist Cause? What Activist Cause? When has "furthering the cause" ever been considered encyclopedic, or a subcategory? This is one problem with this article. The title of it is another. Calling it an art piece is implicitly stating that her claims were believed. The fact that she calls it an art piece is the first citation for it. If she wrote this article (I'm not saying that) and defended herself saying it was an art piece, would we settle for that? It's also making any critique of her in herself impossible. This page redirects to her. Instead of changing the redirection, because this art piece is about her, why not change the name?

Looking at the title I suspected that this article would not have an NPOV and I'm afraid I was right. NPOV Ninja (talk) 00:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

NPOV Ninja, you need to obtain talk page consensus prior to removing longstanding article content which is referenced by many reliable sources. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay. In that case, I'll wait for responses on merging it to "Praise". I also want to start a formal discussion of the name change.

This article has become about more than the "performance art" in a strict sense. If it were Category 4, "The performance art piece" would take up the entire page. There must be a better way than making articles about all of them individually. My NPOV concerns have not been addressed so I am putting the box back on. This article is about a rape allegation that was inspired by an art piece. Not only the art piece. I propose a change to "Emma Sulkowicz rape allegations". I use the word allegations because the man has not been convicted in a court of law; to call him anything but an alleged rapist is not fitting of an encyclopedia. It also has precedent on Wikipedia, i.e. [3] I propose an article name change (and slight formatting adjusting, as I mentioned before) due to Category 4, "the performance art piece". Thanks for cleaning up my accident - the edit - I'll wait for consensus. I see your profile says you also value NPOV, how do you feel about the proposed changes? Thanks. NPOV Ninja (talk) 00:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

For someone new you seem to know a lot about WP, move discussions etc. Anyway, article was only recently tagged for NPOV and consensus was it was pretty neutral for such a heated topic. Your suggested name change seems not appropriate. The lawsuit isn't even about Emma's rape allegation specifically, it's about an alleged Title IX violation regarding the school's support of Mattress Performance Carry That Weight.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you should assume some good faith instead of having an accusatory tone. I will say I find it strange that you have been watching this like a hawk. What's your agenda? You seem to be hell-bent on keeping anyone from making actual NPOV points that don't fit a third wave feminist's narrative.

https://www.google.com/search?q=sexual+assult&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=sexual+assault+lawsuit+columbia&tbm=nws Wikipedia seems to be the one of the few places on the internet that refuses to talk about all sides of the case in some context. Usually that's not the case. NPOV Ninja (talk)

My only "agenda" is trying to keep this article from turning into a BLP violation nightmare and try to keep up with the vandalism from various IP's/brand new accounts etc. In the past, the BLP concerns were mostly with respect to [redacted]. I started the BLPN discussion to keep his name out of the article, which stood until he filed a lawsuit. Lately, the BLP violations have been mostly targeting Sulkowicz.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't mean to poke, @BoboMeowCat:, but its technically improper to call most of what was happening in the article "vandalism." They were good faith edits that may have violated WP:Policy, but they weren't vandalism. Even the inclusion of the text messages wasn't vandalism, it was just improper citing from primary sources.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

You say BLP as your concerns, but you edited out McArdles commentary on Emma's statements. So you like McArdle commenting when it's critical of him, but won't allow even a single sentence capturing what the same article says about her. Seems more like POV pushing than BLP concerns.63.235.133.172 (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. BLP is not NPOV. What you find BLP is not NPOV. Personally I find Sulkowicz's actions to be BLP. However,thats my point of view, not a neutral one. What activists...? Do you feel that's appropriate for an NPOV article? NPOV Ninja (talk) 02:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

NPOV Ninja, the biography of living persons policy applies to all pages on Wikipedia, including talk pages, so please don't post anything else about holes in stories. If you've changed the article in a way someone finds contentious, please discuss your proposal here on talk, and post the source the edit relies on. Then other editors can decide whether they support the addition. Ditto if you want to remove something that you feel is poorly sourced or written. Many thanks, Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 02:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

My apologies I'll make a redaction. Thank you NPOV Ninja (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks, Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 02:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay. To make my point clear:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Title+IV+lawsuit&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#tbm=nws&q=columbia+university+rape+victim - Most mainstream media people refer to her as "mattress girl" or her name. - Carry That Weight is part of the title. Carry that weight wasnt what she called her "performance" http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/24/columbia-university-sued-by-male-student-in-carry-that-weight-rape-case/ . She called it the "Mattress Performance" later. -As much as I'd like to call title this page "Mattress Girl" I wouldn't because it's not an NPOV. -I cannot see any reason aside from using wikipedia as a soapbox to change this to "Emma Sulkowicz rape allegations" - Her name belongs in the title since while even it's status of "art" is subjective to a degree, I cannot see a good reason nobody would deny this "art" would have been made if not for a rape allegation. The rape allegation came before the piece, the lawsuit now occurring as well. There's more reasons but I'll let these sit here for a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NPOV Ninja (talk • contribs) 03:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Gregory Woods appointed by Barack Obama

How is it relevant here that judge Gregory Woods was appointed by Barack Obama? Does the source which says Woods was assigned this case mention Obama as relevant with respect to this case? The source appears to be behind a paywall so I can't check.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Wait what? The source for his appointment is a press release from whitehouse.gov! Shouldn't be paywalled :( I think who's hearing the case is definitely relevant to the lawsuit, and it seems like a good idea to give a little 5 word bio of that guy as a judge. I know what you're thinking though, that it might be politically motivated to include that info? I don't think it's inherently political to say who a judge was appointed by, it's just interesting, it's encyclopedic. I didn't add the info, I just sourced it, but I do think it should stay. Be careful to AGF, it seems like you're making mountains out of molehills imo.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh also, you might mean the first source in that sentence? You're right, when I clicked on it, I got paywalled, but strangely when I googled it I could read the full text! Don't know why that happens.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The source saying that judge was appointed by Obama doesn't mention [redacted]'s lawsuit at all. On WP, we can't add content, even if it is interesting, unless the reliable sources explicitly make the connection...so I'm trying to find out if the source that says Woods was assigned this case makes any mention of Obama.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Uhhh, If what you just said were true, then we wouldn't be able to have a lot of facts in this article. A WP:RS just needs to verify the detail it's attached by, it doesn't need to make the case for its notability as info if we can otherwise determine notability. The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Balancing_aspects, and while I do think it's close to the line, I think who the judge was appointed by is interesting and noteworthy information. Here's my usual test for this, which you may of course disagree with: As a person reads through the section, and they read the preceding line that the judge was handed the case, would they wonder who he was appointed by? I did. Did you?

Also, regardless, this isn't clear enough in WP:policy for you to just boldly do it, imo, we should get consensus here first, like with removal of the commentary section.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I haven't done anything...haven't edited that text at all...but Shibbolethink, I'm pretty sure we can only add reliably sourced info to this article, if the reliable source in some way mentions this case. I'm pretty sure we're not suppose to just look up interesting related facts, and add them. I think we're supposed to wait for reliable sources to draw those connections, not draw them ourselves.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

So then are you going to remove all the facts about [redacted]'s parents in his biographical section, and likewise with Sulkowicz's? Sometimes facts exist that are well sourced in WP:RSes, but those sources don't happen to mention the art or the lawsuit or whatever. It doesn't inherently mean those facts aren't pertinent.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Also yes, I wasn't accusing you of editing against consensus in this case, just expressing the way I think this should go.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The first source cited in that sentence is an article about the lawsuit, which ends with "[redacted] v. Columbia, 15-cv-03216,has been assigned to Judge Gregory Woods." The source doesn't say anything else about Gregory Woods. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

There is sometimes a fine line between simple background information and what might be called suggestive editorializing, but I think mention of a judicial appointment in an article about a specific judge's case work falls under the former category. There really isn't a lot of substance to it, it's just reporting of a fact, and it is a type of fact that is rather commonly reported in conjunction with controversial legal cases. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 12:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Instead of the current text, I think we should just stick to the facts presented in the reliable source which mentions [redacted]'s lawsuit. Something like:

[redacted] v. Columbia, 15-cv-03216, has been assigned to Judge Gregory Woods. instead of the current text of:

The case was assigned to Judge Gregory Woods, an appointee of President Barack Obama recommended by Senator Charles Schumer.

Mentioning that Woods is an Obama appointee seems like editorializing, with the suggestion that this judge's appointment history will impact his decision making in this lawsuit, but no reliable sources have suggested this, or even mentioned the judge's appointment history at all with respect to this lawsuit.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that's /you/ inserting your interpretation of the facts as written in the article. Not every fact not referenced in an article that mentions the case is editorializing. Another individual might find it cool that this new/unprecedented and contentious case has been handed to a judge appointed in the last five years, instead of one appointed in the last 50. Don't deprive readers of facts simply because you think they /could/ be interpreted as editorializing. Do it because you think they /must/ be interpreted that way.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The epitome of editorializing is when a sentence nudges (or forces) a conclusion about the facts. Now, I don't know about you, but I voted for Barack Obama, and will probably vote for Hilary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, depending on how the primaries go (independents never win, it's so sad), but when I read this sentence, I think "oh, that's interesting. I wonder if they handed him this case because he's a new judge to the circuit." I don't think "oh my god, obviously this liberal judge is gonna strike down the lawsuit." and I don't think "oh my god, obviously this Obama appointee will side with the man. Obama is such a false liberal." and I don't think "oh my god, obviously this judge will side with [redacted], Schumer has a shitty record with regards to women's issues (he did, before the bush administration)." I am not forced to any of those points simply by reading the sentence, which states facts without editorializing.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the problem here falls under WP: No Trojan Horses: its an extraneous detail about the partisan affiliation of a judge that, however well sourced, gives the impression that he might be impartial. Just because its factual doesn't mean its unbiased. Why is it informative or relevant here? Nblund (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The last sentence of that essay suggests you ought to make an clear, affirmative argument that this material is a Trojan, not expect the other guy to demonstrate that it isn't one. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 00:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The last sentence of that essay references the removal of information, it doesn't say you can't ask a question about the relevance of a particular fact without being first proving that it is irrelevant. That said: I did make an argument for why this material might be problematic, but I'm asking for more detail in case I've overlooked something. Nblund (talk) 01:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, then to reply to your comment, it's not a trojan horse because it's a relatively dry factual tidbit, relevant to the case, more or less impossible to spin, that is routinely reported in controversial cases, and there's no indication of sinister motivation by the editor suggesting the edit. Do you have any further objections? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 13:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anyone has a sinister motive, but its not clear to me how this is relevant or informative. Saying "its relevant" doesn't actually answer the question -- it just an assertion. Nblund (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It's relevant because it's a very controversial case and Woods is a new appointee from the current president. New appointees appointed to oversee interesting or controversial cases is an interesting tidbit. The onus is on you to prove why no one could construe it as relevant, Centrify and I just provided several reasons why we think it could be relevant.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Commentary Subsection in Lawsuit

I think at this point it should be clear, that commentary section violates NPOV. It's just two quotes form people who don't believe [redacted], and are just calling his lawsuit bogus. Instead, we should have maybe two sentences in the lawsuit subheading that are like, "Commentators have questioned [redacted]'s motives..." blah blah, but it's gotta be very delicate to adhere to BLP. I think I had consensus on this, from Mr. Granger and centrify. I'm gonna be WP:BOLD and remove that section, let's discuss it here.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Unless I missed something, User:Mr. Granger objected to the heading title of "criticism" not commentary regarding TitleIX.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, my objection was to the heading, not the content. That being said, I can see an argument for removing the external commentary on the lawsuit—this article is primarily about the artwork, after all, so we don't really need to quote external commentators at length regarding the lawsuit. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm a bit new to this, but when I've seen BLP mentioned, it's when there's a question of accuracy from the sources. Do we think that Bloomberg and Marcott and others are not being reflected accurately? Does the lawsuit not mention items as they were presented? If BLP were an issue, why are we including accusations of rape that were never proved? We even name the guy here because of that lawsuit. I think it's because they appeared news and commentary. If we can include his name in here, how is this OK to include accusations he's a serial rapists (or whatever) but not anything on his counter accusations?70.209.98.219 (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Balance.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

70.209.98.219, it's art not an accusation, she doesn't need to have evidence. His accusation that she is a liar is no art, he mustn't have evidence. This would destroy the art piece. You have to understand this! /irony off.--134.155.36.48 (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The section isn't a BLP violation and it presents various viewpoints in accordance with NPOV. Commentary regarding using Title IX in this manner (to protect men from harassment following allegation of rape) is relevant and on topic. Removing it deletes multiple reliable sources and does a disservice to the reader.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

User:BoboMeowCat, why are you acting against consensus?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Did you read above? You cited Mr Granger as your consensus but he has stated he did not agree with you there. He added his viewpoint regarding potentially removing it after I restored it. Considering that the disputed section contains so much info from multiple reliable sources (added by multiple editors), I think we should wait for more feedback prior to deleting so much content. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Did you? AGF. Here are the pertinent quotes from other uses regarding whether or not this section belongs in the article:

"this article is primarily about the artwork, after all, so we don't really need to quote external commentators at length regarding the lawsuit."-User:Mr. Granger

"It's not notable enough to be in the article at all. She's a non-notable hack with an axe to grind, and her comments about Title IX are frankly BS unless a rape has actually occurred. The prose ought to be removed."-Centrify

"I think typically we should only include POV quotings like this if they don't already exist in the article, and if they represent a notable viewpoint present throughout a variety of WP:RSes, but synthesize it in a readable and concise way. I think this Talking Points Memo bit fails on all of these accounts. This is a minority viewpoint, the vast vast majority of WP:RSes don't depict [redacted] like this."-Me

If you're still unsure, and want to leave it in, I'll start a RFC.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

An RfC may be an option at a later point, but seems we should probably wait for more feedback on talk page first. The present commentary section contains much more than just the comments of one feminist that a fellow editor earlier called "a hack", so citing that as consensus to delete so much doesn't seem to make sense.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I won't explicitly repeat my prior characterization of this author, but she should not be used as a source for this article and I don't believe WP:CONSENSUS is sufficient to overcome the content-policy problems that have already been stated. Should not be in the article, period. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 23:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The section currently contains much more than the opinion of just one feminist, Amanda Marcotte who I understand you feel strongly about, but she is commenting in a reliable source. This is the current section:

Commenting on the sexual discrimination lawsuit, feminist Amanda Marcotte, wrote in Talking Points Memo, "This lawsuit is taking the arguments of anti-rape activists and directly inverting them, painting alleged abusers as victims and alleged victims as abusers." She wrote that Title IX was intended to address issues such as sexual harassment and rape, "but [redacted]’s lawsuit inverts that claim, arguing that the real harassment is speaking out about rape and harassment."[57] The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education responded, "This is not 'nuisance lawsuit.' The current interpretation of Title IX arguably invites the type of claims that [redacted] is making. According to FIRE, the case is notable because it "illustrates just what a broken system looks like. (...) Time and again, universities demonstrate—in ways that harm both victims and the accused—that they are simply not equipped to address such complicated and serious cases. Doubling down on this broken system is not the answer, and until something changes, we are likely to see more cases like this one."[58]

Megan McArdle commented on the Title IX complaint in Bloomberg View saying, "I don't find ([redacted]'s) litany of complaints particularly compelling". She questioned Columbia's decision to give Sulkowicz course credit but said that [redacted] should not have the power to silence Sulkowicz. She concluded "perhaps winning the suit is not the point. I wonder if many of the men in question aren't simply rebelling against the system, determined to get their side of the story on the record somewhere - for much the same reason that Sulkowicz said she filed a complaint against [redacted]. He can't silence her, and he shouldn't have that power. But he can force the media to pay a little attention to his side of the story, something that didn't happen during the many long months of Sulkowicz's campaign to name and shame him.".

As you can see, the sections in question contains a lot of information, referenced to multiple reliable sources, added by multiple editors.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Amount of informations and past efforts by editors is not relevant to WP:V, and your claim about "multiple reliable sources" is just plain false with respect to Title IX. Please see below; exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 00:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Granger, I can see your point regarding the article originally primarily focusing on the artwork, but considering the artwork has now spurred a sexual harassment lawsuit, it seems notable in that the lawsuit is arguing that Title IX should also be used to protect men against women who publicly continue to allege they were raped (even via artwork), if the university hearing has already cleared the man. I personally think commentators responding to this is on topic. The lawsuit is calling the artwork harassment prohibited under Title IX, and commentators are responding to that.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

That's a good point, and I'm not against including the commentary—I just don't think it's necessary, because the connection to the artwork is indirect. I'm neutral on whether to include it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I think we should include it. We really can't say what prompted the lawsuit, but I think it's more the accolades and attention the piece has gotten, as well as the university's support of the project, not the project itself. If Mattress Performance had been a terrible piece of art, by someone less than committed to it as Emma, it wouldn't have gotten this amount of attention for so long.--A21sauce (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Uhhhh....I'm AGF here, but I think it should be clear, the lawsuit is most likely the result of the way the university responded to the art piece. [redacted] has explicitly stated that he filed the lawsuit because of the way the university administration handled Emma's art piece. It's not our job to interpret the motives of the plaintiff, just to see what he's said about it, and report it here. I don't think you can honestly say that most of the attention the piece has gotten is a result of its artistic merit. I'm not interpreting that, I'm looking at the sum total of WP:RSes referenced here, most are not about the art. Most, if not the 99% majority of them, have been about the politics of the situation, not about the art piece. Also, I'm not sure how this argument would lead one to conclude that the commentary should remain. I don't think your logic follows.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Bobo, your characterization of the Title IX argument is less than apt. He is claiming the university's conduct constitutes gender-based harassment — that's directly prohibited under Title IX, which is prohibits harassment or discrimination of anyone based on their sex. Nor is he seeking protection from Sulkowicz; she can go on repeating her accusation as much as she wants. Rather, his lawsuit is directed at the university, which is the party that is bound by the strictures of Title IX.

Additionally, nobody has argued that Marcotte's commentary was off-topic, so please stop arguing against that position as it's an irrelevant straw man. Rather, she is not notable and is generally a polemic writer; her work shouldn't be used as a source. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 00:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Marcotte's comments in a reliable source were notable enough to prompt The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education to respond directly to Marcotte in another RS, disputing her views and defending Nunbesser's use of Title IX in this case, text which is currently included in the article. I get that you disagree with Marcotte (and apparently me) but the article is presenting various opposing viewpoints, including those who disagree with Marcotte.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

She's not really rendered a less inappropriate source simply because a non-profit rebutted her on its website. Further, exceptional claims require exceptional sources, which requires us to have "multiple high-quality sources" [first emphasis in original; second was added by me]. Please also note, for instance, Red Flag #1, which refers to "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources", which is what we're dealing with here.

In other words, better sourcing is clearly needed before prose like this can be included. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 00:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I tend to agree with you that Foundation for Individual Rights in Education website might not be the best source and probably would be considered WP:SELFPUB. I suppose the issue with that source would come down to whether that organization was considered an expert in the field, which would seem debatable. I missed that it was on their own website and not a secondary source.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

A recent edit to add Reason magazine source seems to address the concern regarding quoting FIRE's website, because Reason quotes Foundation for Individual Rights in Education's response to the Amanda Marcotte as part of larger discussion and commentary regarding Title IX and this lawsuit.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Reason is the POV source to end all POV sources. And you want to cite an editorial from that source to depict large proportions of viewpoints in the commentary sphere. That's just ridiculous.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• So just to summarize so far, we've got two votes on discarding it (from Centrify and myself), two votes on keeping it (from Bobomeowcat and A21sauce), and one neutral vote from Mr. Granger. Right?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

We also have an ever expanding section, with new editors adding content on a regular basis. I really don't see any solid policy based argument to remove so much content referenced by so many different reliable sources. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I've allowed this to remain in the article for days without consensus, and you haven't answered the sourcing concerns (recall WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:REDFLAG). Removing this until you demonstrate it belongs in the article. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 13:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Come on; the lone higher-quality source has been left in the article. Marcotte is an extremist and polemic writer; her views aren't notable & there's no reason to shoehorn her into the article. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 14:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:EXCEPTIONAL doesn't apply—we're not asserting in Wikipedia's voice that [redacted]'s lawsuit is inverting the purpose of Title IX, only quoting someone who asserts this. And Marcotte is a notable person writing in a notable publication. Her views are as relevant as the other commentary in that section. If the rest of the commentary section is kept in the article, the paragraph about Marcotte should be too. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies irrespective of whose voice the claim is made in. Moreover, when we find better sources on the REDFLAG topic, we use those instead of using them as an excuse to include the poor sourcing. Besides ignoring the fact that WP:EXCEPTIONAL calls for EXCEPTIONAL sources, not just passable ones, calling Marcotte "notable" is ridiculous, so should we go around looking for some Glenn Beck type sources too? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 14:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Amanda Marcotte is notable—her article has survived three deletion discussions. I'm not sure why you mentioned Glenn Beck, but if he has commented on the lawsuit, it wouldn't hurt to include his views in the commentary section too. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you even trying to make sense? We have WP articles about cartoon characters, quacks, idiots, murderers and NBA wives. Having a WP article that has not been deleted does not show anything at all. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 15:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Mr. Granger: and @BoboMeowCat: you have to show that Marcotte's commentary on this case is relevant enough for inclusion, via mention in several WP:RSes. A Reason editorial is /barely/ a WP:RS, and I think all things that depend on it in this article should be removed. Including all pro and con commentary on the case. It's a hot bed for POV writers, and they regularly cite quacks to show controversial viewpoints. It doesn't mean those viewpoints are shared by a large proportion of folks. Via WP:FRINGE and other policies, we should only include in articles the viewpoints which are prominent and occupy a large proportion of folks.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: "you have to show that Marcotte's commentary on this case is relevant enough for inclusion, via mention in several WP:RSes." – I'm happy to apply that standard, but only if the same standard is applied to all the other commentators in the section. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

absolutely, I think it should be!--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Question about [redacted]'s background

Anything in the press (American or German) that explains why he was sent so far away from his parents for high school?--A21sauce (talk) 03:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, he didn't. I believe the explanation is that his parents moved around quite a bit when he was younger. If I'm mistaken about that, it might be for the prestige of his high school.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

He didn't what? --A21sauce (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Get sent away for high school.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

If he/she's mistaken about that too, maybe his parents sent him far away to get the best education they could afford. NPOV Ninja (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

He went to high school in Swaziland. That's in Southern Africa. And he's from Germany, which doesn't have a huge discrepancy between quality private schools and average public schools like the US. Asking for possible German readers.--A21sauce (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Likewise, did any of the sources explain why Sulkowicz waited 8 months before she decided to accuse [redacted] of rape? Was she aware that by waiting that long after the alleged incident, she made it impossible to confirm or even lend support to her account by means of any physical evidence whatever? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 14:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, a few sources cited her quote as saying she didn't want to relive the incident, was traumatized, etc. There were quotes about it in the article near the top of the allegations section.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Answer from primary source (his Lawsuit):

118.While attending school in Germany (prior to attending high school in Swaziland in southern Africa), [redacted] was class president and head of the student council. He initiated a day-long program entitled Work 4 Peace that raised funds for teenage day-laborers in Africa. He was also involved in various choral and athletic clubs. In addition, he organized a CD production of his school choir to raise funds for a classmate suffering from Leukemia. 119. [redacted] attended high school on full scholarship at the esteemed Waterford Kamhlaba United World College ( UWC ) of Southern Africa (Swaziland). Well adept at integrating into a new and multi-cultural environment, he spent extensive time in Africa working on social community projects. These projects included teaching literacy to fourth graders at a local elementary school, managing a soup kitchen, and working at a facility caring for orphans and vulnerable children.

So it appears he was class president at his school in Germany, and then applied for a scholarship at the Swaziland school which was much more prestigious etc. and got accepted. I don't think it's fair for us to speculate about it, no WP:RS exists for any of this.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Reorganization and naming [redacted]

I agree with previous talk comments, I think we should systematically revise this article to reflect [redacted], his identity, etc. He's self-outed in public, and has filed a lawsuit. I'm gonna be working on this today and tomorrow probably.-Let me know here if you think I've acted rashly or improperly.-Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, we definitely will need to add content regarding [redacted]'s lawsuit, as the situation unfolds, but "systematically revising" the entire article doesn't seem necessary at this point. Also, some of the recent edits seem a bit out of balance. For example, the bio section for [redacted] [redacted] is about 4 times as long as the bio section for Emma Sulkowicz. I mean, it's nice that [redacted]'s dad is a schoolteacher who "works with troubled children who are victims of abuse" and is apparently a great guy, but what does that have to do with mattress performance or the lawsuit?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

It's NPOV to include both details of his parents and her parents. We should at least know what they do. That's a paraphrasing of the source, we could definitely trim it down to just "schoolteacher."--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 06:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, when I said systematic revision, I meant that we should name the guy in every instance that previously said accused, and also to revise the depiction of the back and forth they've engaged in to have parity. I think the way it looks now is pretty good. I wouldn't change much else. Is there anything else @BoboMeowCat: that you would refer to as an unbalanced edit?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 06:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with naming him in the article....calling him "the accused" was awkward anyway, and seems unnecessary now.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

It does not matter who agrees to name him. Wikipedia policy is clear on this:

"Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." -- Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

Note that there is no exception for subjects who have received a lot of media coverage. Just as with our WP:OUTING policy, someone else doing it first does not mean that we are allowed to do it. Those other media outlets are not an encyclopedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Guy Macon, you seem to commenting in old thread. I actually recently brought this concern to BLPN for policy discussion on this issue of whether or not to name him. Please see current BLPN discussion: [4]--BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)