Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Edit request

Since [redacted] is saying that no rape actually took place, and has evidence that he says backs this up, I think we should have a See Also section with a link to False accusation of rape in it. Cla68 (talk) 23:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. The only way an encyclopedia should call an accused rape, rape, is after a guilty verdict in a trial. This case has absolutely no chance of that. It never even made it to a court docket NPOV Ninja (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

No, that would be a terrible nudge-nudge-wink-wink breach of NPOV. Formerip (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Requested edits to protected pages are supposed to be for non-controversial, fairly minor edits or edits that have a clear consensus behind them. Clearly this fails on both counts. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Linking to other articles in WP in a See Also section without commentary is about as neutral a way to bring up associated topics that I can think of, Beeblebrox. That's another thing that makes me shake my head about WP, is that so many of the administrators making content decisions have never been very involved in actually writing articles themselves. Cla68 (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Our aim should be to provide a 360 degree view of potential leads for the reader to pursue further research. The link to False accusation of rape would be just one such lead for further research. We should not exclude it. We would include an internal link to Campus rape, would we not? I think our aim should be to provide many related internal links for further reading. Bus stop (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

It would be inappropriate to include this link as a "see also". That would be suggesting in WP's voice that it is factual this is a false accusation. If goal is to include that link, it could be included in text such as "[redacted] and his attorney have descibed Sulkowicz's allegation as a False accusation of rape." Campus rape should also not be a see also, and it wasn't in recent version, it was linked in the sentence regarding Senator Kirsten Gillibrand regarding her rationale for inviting Sulkowicz to SOTU, with Gillibrand saying it was to bring attention to the issue of campus rape.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Our articles are educational. The "See also" links merely need to be relevant. And the presence of many such links provides the reader options for research that are found across the spectrum of relevancy. We could include Sexual harassment in education. It is relevant. We are not making a statement by providing a collection of links to articles that are related. Bus stop (talk) 04:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I suppose that is true for less controversial articles, but I think we should try to be extra careful with this article do not do anything that appears to be stating in WP's voice that a rape occurred or that a false allegation of rape occurred. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Request would be a violation of WP:BLPSEEALSO. To quote, Similarly, "See also" links should not be used to imply any contentious categorization or claim about a living person. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Cla,my decision is based on the very clear rules for how to respond to edit requests. However, in the interest of fairness,and because it's not exactly a secret that you and I really don't care for each other, you are welcome to re-submit this request with the proper {{editprotected}} template and see if another admin sees it differently than I do. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Sahrah you were here. You edited the talk page. Isn't that lying? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.252.116 (talk) 07:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Blanked

The article has been blanked by an editor as a BLP violation although I'm not sure that is a valid judgment as this article has already been the subject of much debate and discussion to arrive at the state it was at. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree. At WP:ANI, User:AndyTheGrump has written, "An article concerning allegations of rape masquerading as an article on 'performance art' is simply untenable". I disagree with the statement that the article is "masquerading" as an article about performance art, as many sources have characterized Sulkowicz's activity as performance art. If AndyTheGrump believes that the article focuses too much on the rape allegations (which perhaps it does), they should discuss that here or edit the article accordingly rather than just blanking the page. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't seem valid. The article has been to BLPN in the past. I brought it there [1]. This article has received a great deal of scrutiny by multiple editors and unilateral page blanking by User:AndyTheGrump seems disruptive. We kept [redacted]'s name out of the article until he became notable in his own right by suing Columbia university. He says Columbia's support of Sulkowicz's performance art is sexual harassment prohibited under Title IX. This is a widely covered encyclopedic case, significant with respect to wider topic of campus rape and application of Title IX. It needs to be carefully watched for BLP, but blanking doesn't seem reasonable.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The whole situation regarding this article in the past day or two (concerning the edit war with NPOV Ninja) and now the blanking is getting a bit out of hand. Perhaps the article should be restored with the exception of naming [redacted] and then discuss this further, perhaps get admins involved or even the WMF if that is what the user who blanked it wants. - RatRat- Talk    20:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The article grossly violates WPO:BLP policy, along with WP:NPOV, in that it constitutes a WP:COATRACK clearly written in a manner giving undue support to one side of a complex case regarding allegations of criminality. It also contains at least one clear libel (and no, I'm not going to say where - I have no intention of assisting in the further abuse of Wikipedia for partisan purposes, and contributors who add libellous material to the encyclopaedia need to be held accountable). AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

You want the office involved, go for it, but simply blanking the article and being vaguely threatening is not an appropriate course of action. If there is libelous material in the article, please contact me or use WP:RFO to get it dealt with. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

No. I will not be a party to further abuse of the encyclopaedia. I am not going to assist in whitewashing an article that doesn't belong here in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

THANK YOU FOR STOPPING THE LYNCH MOB, AndyTheGrump !!!--89.204.154.182 (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

As an interim measure, I have reverted back to a much shorter version from 2 March (edit-conflicting with Beeblebrox' revert), and protected that version to avoid further edit-warring while this BLP concern is being clarified. Fellow admins feel free to remove the protection and/or revert to some other target version once you are confident the BLP concern has been addressed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Good call. Hopefully everyone can calm down and discuss this now. Maybe another visit to WP:BLPN is in order as the situation has changed since the last one. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I genuinely wouldn't be surprised if there is libelous content in the article as it is on a sensitive and controversial subject. Nothing can be done about the libelous content if AndyTheGrump won't point out where it is or just remove it himself. Getting rid of an entire article because you don't like its subject is too a violation of NPOV. The article has reliable sources and notability, and if something is wrong with it just edit it so that it is better - that is the point of wikipedia i believe - RatRat- Talk    20:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The article is still a coatrack - and accordingly, still violates WP:NPOV as well as WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Fut.Perf., the problem with going back to such an old version is that it doesn't contain any of the information regarding [redacted]'s lawsuit against Columbia University. If User:AndyTheGrump will not specify his concerns so they can be addressed, I think a more recent version of article should be restored which contains the relevant encyclopedic information regarding the Title IX lawsuit.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree with BoboMeowCat but also add that perhaps a template highlighting the controversy surrounding the page should be added so users can visit the talkpage and discuss this further - RatRat- Talk    21:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

For the record, and for the last time, I am going to have no part in enabling any further misuse of Wikipedia - if the libellous material is restored, I will contact the individual concerned, and advise them of the appropriate legal measures to take. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Andy, this is exactly why we have the oversight team. If there is libel they can remove it so thou roughly that not even admins can see it. Please use WP:RFO. Also, you are straying dangerously close to WP:NLT. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, here you can mail to his lawyer: amiltenberg@nmllplaw.com --Cyve (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

You do realize that the assumption that the lawyer doesn't want publicity for their side in this lawsuit may be deeply flawed, right? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

If I want advice regarding legal issues, I'll ask for it from someone who has a fucking clue what they are talking about (which appears to exclude anyone who had edited this 'article', as well as Beeblebrox) . Anyway, I'm done here - any further actions of mine regarding this disgusting NPOV-violating coatrack will take place off-Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

There are clearly some issues with the page, but the bulk of the stuff that was removed doesn't seem remotely controversial -- why are well sourced materials detailing the performance or the subsequent lawsuit being excised? These aren't even contested. Nblund (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the article should probably be restored to this recent version last edited by Liz [2], who I believe is new to the page following ANI report, so she doesn't seem invested in any of the ongoing content disputes. Those ongoing disputes can be addressed on talk page during protection, and concerns regarding that version (that are specified) can be addressed and removed by admin if needed. It seems going back to the March 2 version isn't the answer because it omits too much notable information. It omits everything regarding the Title IX lawsuit.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

There's no way it should be restored to a version that names the alleged rapist. The best way to move forward would be to post suggested text regarding the lawsuit and/or whatever else to the article talkpage with an edit request. Formerip (talk) 23:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Formerip, I started a previous BLPN discussion regarding this, [3] which kept his name out of the article until he filed that lawsuit. It seemed the decision to omit name was no longer enforceable after he became notable in his own right by filing suit against Columbia University. Users were saying the arguments to omit name no longer applied. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

No, that's wrong. WP:BLPNAME and WP:CRIME are the relevant policies. The person's name adds nothing to anyone's understanding of the artwork in this case. Formerip (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't you make the same argument about using Sulkowicz's name? You could probably write this entire article without the use of any proper nouns, but it would be unwieldy. [redacted]'s name has been widely disseminated, and he's clearly not making any effort to conceal his identity at this point. If the article is going to bring up the recently filed title IX lawsuit, it seems like it should probably go ahead and mention the name of the person filing it. Nblund (talk) 00:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Formerip, I've started another BLPN discussion regarding the name here: [4]--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

BoboMeowCat, I haven't made many edits to the article or the talk page but I've been following the debate since February. It's not that I'm not invested, it's just that I thought that there were editors here who I believe had the best interests of WP in mind and I only spoke up on ANI when it seemed like things were spiraling out of control. After so much debate that has occurred it is ridiculous that one editor could cause such a unilateral change in the crafting of this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at my talk page. I may have been snarky but I know BS when I see it. Admins used their powers against me in an abusive manner. Does an Admin actually expect me to think that he/she really thought he/she was being intellectually honest? To do so would be an insult to my intelligence. Especially since my point was proven - nobody wanted this page to be showed to anyone except for a clique of certain Admins. Why else would they not answer? They knew; they kept repeating the same thing over again. They even had the nerve to tell me that I should have been friendlier. It's disgusting how these people actually think they're right. They've gotten caught in the act and they're upset. NPOV Ninja (talk) 23:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I've given NPOV Ninja a break due to their over-the-top behavior today. I have also been looking over the sources in the pre-blanked state of the article and they seem to be of pretty high quality. Newsweek had his name right in the headline of their story and used it many times, and the lawyer people are talking about contacting apparently spoke directly to the Newsweek reporter and is quoted several times. Now, I am a member of the oversight team and committed to removing anything libelous from Wikiepdia, but I can't do it if nobody can point out where it is. I would again ask that anyone who is honest in their desire to have libel removed from the article and its history either email me directly or use WP:RFO. If it's there, we want it to be gone, but we are not an investigative body, you need to bring the evidence to us. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I've been monitoring this page off and on, and while I've had my misgivings about the state of the article it's hardly so bad as to warrant blanking. The parts on the lawsuit were fine, and I've been convinced from the outset that there's no way to avoid using his name. The only major issue I saw was including the petulant Jezebel rants on this case, and those can be removed from the pre-blanked version without any difficulty or noticeable change in content. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The details in the background section caused trouble. Furthermore they aren't very notable in context of the whole case.--Cyve (talk) 07:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Feminist activists try to take over discussion

Discuss the article, not the editors.
The following discussion has been closed by Kaldari. Please do not modify it.
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Feminism#Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight). --82.113.98.179 (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC) This isn't trying to take over discussion. This is taking the discussion to other feminists. They were invited to comment on this page BY an admin. For their points to be valid they need to go visit the "last good article". I gagged a little calling it "good" but that's what it had to be called. I'd like everyone to know about the user policies regarding IP addresses. Just because people use them, does not mean there's an automatic sockpuppet. I'd like to remind you Wikipedia:IPs are human too before you assume bad faith and call me a sockpuppet which I am not. Many people have been watching Wikipedia without editing after the last feminist controversy. LOTS of people who don't edit wikipedia are aware of it. I.E. a certain community. This does not change the fact that feminists have been caught lying through their teeth in enforcing this article. To ask anyone to assume good faith at this point is almost an insult to his or her intelligence. See for yourself. Sloppy work. 96.225.126.239 (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC) On top of it, maybe the new user wouldn't have been so accusatory if the first comment he received was from an admin, on this page, was an NPOV violation. Seriously? Go up and see for yourself. No help no direction just a warning about NPOV on a talk page. I'm going to assume that she didn't take the time to look at the claims seriously. That just shows that there's an agenda behind the editing here and not a search for truth. It's so obvious. To shut someone up because they don't know the rules is pointless. I'll stop my commentary after this. I mean really. Just because someone can post doesn't mean they should, and I'm not talking about the banned new user. 96.225.126.239 (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Actually no. The article says his mother is a journalist for a German women's organization and a feminist blogger. Maybe she raised a little feminist and the complaint refers to something that proves it.--89.204.138.22 (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC) Really? That's the best response? It shows the state of mind of these people 96.225.126.239 (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Made an account to prove I'm not a sockpuppet. See why I'm taking a break in the logs. I refuse to say that the people who did this were not feminists because they were motivated by a force that refuses to answer to logic, and the page was in concert with their ideology... SoSadddd (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested edit

In the second paragraph of the Reception section, please replace:

• [[Suzanne Lacy]] and Leslie Liebowitz's ''Three Weeks in May'' (1977)

with:

• [[Suzanne Lacy]] and [[Leslie Labowitz-Starus]]'s ''[[Three Weeks in May]]'' (1977)

This corrects a misspelled name and links two articles. gobonobo ^{+ c} 12:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Leslie Labowitz-Starus Links to the mentioned article properly. How can you claim that this is a good article when you don't know the proper name of it. It isn't a good article. I can say this with absolute confidence because of Wikipedia:Good articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.126.239 (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually neither of these articles are. Where did SineBot go? 96.225.126.239 (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Fixed link to Leslie Labowitz-Starus. Who mentioned good articles? How is that relevant? gobonobo ^{+ c} 05:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion for way forward

We can't write an article on the rape allegations because it's a BLP minefield. We don't and can't know what happened, and the accused is innocent as far as WP is concerned. For every allegation, someone will add a counter-allegation, and given the nature and number of them the article will spiral out of control.

The issues that gained publicity were the artwork and the dispute about the university's obligations, whether to the accused or accuser. That's one of the reasons the accused's lawyer decided to sue the university, not the accuser. So I suggest we give a very brief summary of the allegations, but otherwise focus on the impact of the artwork (but we should tone down the praise, and concentrate on the dispute about art versus bullying), the implications of the lawsuit (but not the details), and the issue of the university's conflicting obligations. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 08:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I haven't edited this article, but have on the related Campus Rape. The conservative way you propose is safest for this article. This "performance" and related fallout are notable because they illustrates how extra legal activism has been used to punish alleged rapists, even those found not responsible. The allegation that the university did not seem to follow it's own anti-harassment policies is also important in the context of rights of the accused to fair and equal treatment. I think we should expand on that, without going into detail on the allegations about Sulkowitz, but we can be expansive on what the university didn't do per it's own policies without concern about BLP.73.194.148.15 (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Already here we have an anonymous IP calling to "be expansive on what the university didn't do per it's own policies without concern about BLP." No wonder why this is on lockdown.--A21sauce (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

While that seems very reasonable, I unfortunately think the only way to enforce that would be to write such an article and lock it down long term. Otherwise it seems editors are going to constantly try to add details of what was alleged and by whom and details that make one party appear more or less credible, such as the fact that there were multiple accusers or the fact that Sulkowicz facebook messaged with him after the alleged assault and didn't report for months, considering these details were stressed in the reliable sources. Ideally, I think it would be nice for the readers to have the details presented briefly and neutrally, but the problem with that, is that anything presenting the details even remotely neutrally seems to inflame people who have strong opinions on the specifics of this case and you end up with all sorts of disruptive editing.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, guys, come on. I think this is a horrifying example of how alarmism can ruin things. It is in no way a BLP violation to discuss the accuser and the nature of the accusations. The entire situation is now public record, thanks to the lawsuit. We owe readers of wikipedia the best thought out and written explanation of the nature of the accusations as published in WP:RSes. We were pretty damn close before all of this bullshit cropped up. I think this is a half-hearted attempt to get the article pseudo-deleted from a few editors who disagreed with the depiction of the situation, but didn't want to put the work in to fix it manually. YES, there were WP:Hounds all over it, immediately reverting changes, and I was one of them, though arguably from a different POV. I think the ultimate way to fix this is to have a few RfCs, maybe an ArbCom, but not to delete the article, not to remove all the excellent work a few editors had done bringing it to NPOV. I think what happened here was a pretty horrifying example of how WP bureaucracy can go wrong.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Bobo, I agree about the enforcement issue. We could ask whether an admin is willing to add PC2 protection (require review for revisions from everyone except reviewers). Strictly speaking we're only supposed to use PC1, but I know PC2 has been used per IAR, and this would be a good candidate for it.

Shibbolethink, I don't know how familiar you are with the allegations, but they are detailed and difficult to write neutrally. The more we add, the more someone else will want to add for balance. The better course is to summarize very briefly, because the specific allegations are not why this case is notable. It's notable because the university allowed the mattress performance, and because it found itself caught between conficting rights. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Why exactly would this be a good candidate for PC2? I personally don't have Pending change review, and I don't think it's exactly fair, when I and several other users without the privilege have shown ourselves capable of adhering to WP:policy in this article. The specific allegations, in my opinion, were perfectly fine the way they were before the article was protected and reverted. I personally had read them in depth, editied for NPOV, and the editors who were around at the time were in consensus on what should and should not be included. The full transcripts of their facebook messages, for instance, are not necessary, and are not covered by WP:RS. Wikipedia has a policy for what should be included, and we had included pretty much all of it.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree that that version was acceptable. Too much unnecessary detail, unfair to describe the accused, parents, etc. These are non-notable people who haven't chosen the publicity willingly. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 20:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

So you don't think anything about the accused should be included at all?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I would have to re-read the sources and write it before I could be sure, but I would probably only say he is a German student who had hoped to pursue a career in the US, but who now feels he can't. That is in part why he's suing, so that would belong with the description of the lawsuit. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 20:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Many articles have been written on WP about people who didn't choose publicity willingly. Notably Stephen Glass, Zoe Quinn, Jonah Lehrer, and many others. It's about coverage in WP:RS, I know that's kind of dogmatic, but how is that wrong? If we do it with WP:RS, and get consensus among those sources, how can it violate BLP? Like he literally came out in several WP:RSes and told his story.We'd be doing NPOV a crime to not include what he considers his side of it. Also he may have initially wished to remain anonymous, but that's clearly changed as the story has progressed. I'm sure if you asked Sulkowicz about it before the hearing, she never would have wanted publicity about the incident. Things change, people start wanting publicity. He and his parents now clearly are dragged into the spotlight, initially reticent, but now full-throttle.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

There has been SO much debate and conflict around this article for months now. It would be tragic if we couldn't use what had already been written and accepted as the consensus point of view. Can we go back to the version, before it was gutted and just remove sentences that people have issues with? It's ridiculous to start all over again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Liz, it's hard to say that that version had consensus. I took this page off my watchlist weeks ago because I could see it was heading toward BLP issues, and I couldn't see how to fix it while including all those details. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 21:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

An example of what went wrong: I was warring with people about whether or not to include ALL the details of the accused's scholarship (a John Jay, full tuition plus summer work or something and anonymous IPs were fighting me on the last detail because I thought it was beside the point and made his section longer than Emma's!). I do agree though with Shibbolethink about naming the accuser. By suing the school and her advisor, it's in the public even more: The guy is out and proud. I think a calming period is in order, then PC2 because the latest wave of editors seem like they are coming to the article afresh, without having read everything, and using the the opportunity given by the accused's lawsuit to push their own political agenda which is that Emma is a nut and a liar. Not productive as I imagine these same arguments came up when her article was first started.--A21sauce (talk) 05:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think I could ever support PC2. Maybe just registered users, because this page has been the subject of /a little/ overt vandalism, but it seems wrong to me to shut out a ton of editors who spent hours on this article just because the 2 of you think it should be completely different. Many other users liked the version before it was gutted, see above. You'd be able to manufacture a false consensus, and that doesn't sit right with me.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised by where the article is, vs. what was in there before it was rolled back. It's hardly representative of the scope of the material. My reading of BLP is a bit more liberal than what's being advocated here by some. And frankly, any goodle search on the topic will bring up a lot of material that for some reason cannot be here? When information is very publicly available (i.e., major news sources), how does it violate BLP? Mr. redacted (a little joke here on BLP overkill) personally came forward to the press, and then filed a legal complaint. Hardly hiding in shadows anymore. Granted there are people who will push a certain POV, but that's where editors come in to play to curtail excesses and provide balance. I'm with Shibbolthink on this.Mattnad (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I think Sarah (SV)'s suggestion of PC2 protection might be good idea for a while because ever since the accused student filed the lawsuit, the page has been inundated with vandalism and BLP violations. The page seems at risk for becoming an attack page on Sulkowicz in violation of BLP. There are lots of new editors and IP's editing disruptively: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

You're citing GF edits as disruptive. Those are misguided! Why not deal with each editor individually, talk to them about the rules of wikipedia, instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Shibbolethink, the edits linked above are BLP violations and vandalism. Disruptive applies to the recent antics of NPOV Ninja [13]. Those edits seem beyond "misguided". Not sure how much good "talking" to editors who post weird anti-semitic stuff to articles and talk pages will do....and the ones who keep on adding the butt text, completely unreferenced and while failing to even bother balancing it with Sulkowicz's explanation of “Freshman year that was an expression, to be like ‘Oh my god i’m so annoyed,'” [14] I really think we can do without, if we hope to end up with something even remotely resembling a NPOV and BLP compliant article. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC).

What about the first couple edits you cited? The inclusion of other text messages? Other quotes? I agree they shouldn't be included, but I think the way to deal with it is to have ArbCom and AN/I deal with it, not to just PC2 everything away and make it so only a few amongst the many editors around here can have any real input. It's very easy to hide behind BLP and other policies with PC2. If that ends up the fate of this article, you can bet I'm gonna make sure the PC2 rules are adhered to to the letter of the law:

Pending changes protection should not be used on articles with a very high edit rate, even if they meet the aforementioned criteria. Instead semi-protection should be considered...Like semi-protection, PC protection should never be used in genuine content disputes, where there is a risk of placing a particular group of editors at a disadvantage... The purpose of reviewing is to catch and filter out obvious vandalism and obviously inappropriate edits on articles under pending changes protection...Reviewers do not take responsibility for the correctness of edits they accept. A reviewer only ensures that the changes introduced to the article are broadly acceptable for viewing by a casual reader.

Several of the edits you cite would be, in my opinion, considered content disputes. Others obviously not, but recognize that PC2 won't make WP:RSed information go away. It won't and shouldn't be able to make specific info about the allegations or [redacted]s time at columbia disappear. That's for consensus at the BLPN to decide.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I second the above motion. Especially considering sahrah did edit the talk mage over the weekend.

Sar Hrah you were wat chicken in this talk article Look at your only edit on it over this weekend — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.252.116 (talk) 07:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

What I meant to say was that Sarah made an edit over this weekend. If she felt this way why did she wait so long to do this? So long meaning until the page was protected. Also the circumstances of the case were totally different when the article first came out. I'd like to say a conspiracy theory sounds crazy but assuming good faith is getting harder and harder. People who feel so strongly about this now need to move off the page. If the article was notable when it first came on here the topic is notable now. If we're going to talk about lies on here I might as well say one that's a whopper 166.137.252.81 (talk) 08:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia had a did you know for this woman. We need to make it right. Just because she feels that way does not mean she is right. We meed to judge her case on her own merits. She's trying to scare people into shutting up by calling them rape deniers. Rape is a horrible crime. She's taking advantage of that fact. Her own quotes are only digging her in now that another side of the story is known. Applying critical thinking skills to her case does not make me a rape denier. It would if she was tried In a court of law and not public opinion. She never could and it's no secret why. This article should be on here considering all the politicans that supported her. I never knew that before. I wonder if they're kicking themselves now? Hillary Clinton is running for president after all.166.137.252.23 (talk) 08:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Links to that with good sources for the politicans will be found in prior versions of this article. If it was In the obviously biased article it needs to be in the one to be. Another note: repressive tolerance is a good say of describing what happened to this article even if the person who made the comparisons was a jerk, if this is the reason why all proposed edits not favorable to her were protected in the name of that could not stand logic. Wikipedia is not Rolling Stone, which has become a punchline in some jokes for similar reasons

166.137.252.81 (talk) 08:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

small factual edit request

I think the first line of the overview section is a little factually confused. Sulkowicz began to work with a mattress for a video made at the Yale Norfolk Artist Residency in the summer of 2014. Sulkowicz then continued to work with the mattress when she returned to Columbia in the fall. At this point she began Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) by caring the mattress with her around the Columbia campus. The project then became her senior thesis at Columbia, not at Yale. Summer academic residencies dont usually have a senior thesis. Bipandboppop (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Naming

Just to comment, a lot of the Wikipedia policy arguments for not naming this guy in the article went out the window the minute he filed a lawsuit. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 23:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree, I think we should probably go ahead and name him now.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

/me places finger on nose, just so, as if to say, "Not it!". Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 23:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

It's weird to place him at the top as this article's not about the lawsuit or the alleged rape.--A21sauce (talk) 01:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course it is. Most of the material is about those two things. The piece itself could not be more about the alleged rape and the victim's desire to continue making the allegation without having to abide by the protections & rules of an actual criminal accusation. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 11:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree, the subject has stated her 'art' is intended to drive him out of the school. In a sick sort of way he is part of the art project. Jbh^Talk 12:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

That's not why it works as an art piece. Could we get some folks in here who have edited pieces on contemporary art please?--A21sauce (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The accused is not part of the performance, though the performance is directly targeted at affecting him (and is arguably a response to his actions). A section could be added titled "Outcome" that covers the events that played out as a direct result to the performance "Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)". This could included the accuser's lawsuit against the school and professor, Columbia, and the NYPD's response, and Senator Gillibrand's invitation to the State of the Union address.Bipandboppop (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The accused

Please change from "accused" to "suspected". The term accused is ambiguous. He was never charged (the district attorney's office declined to pursue the case) nor did he face a criminal trial (only a fruitless university inquiry).--82.113.106.150 (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Please change from "accused" to "The Accused", with sarcastic quote marks, to distinguish between this performance and The Accused (1988 film) starring Jodi Foster. -- 70.36.233.104 (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Former suspect. Would be appropriate. He isn't suspected any longer.--Cyve (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• The word "accused" has been used by multiple reliable sources in reference to this story, but I can't find any reliable sources that use the word "suspected". All else being equal, this would seem to make "accused" a better word to use in the article. Is there any reason to prefer the word "suspected"? —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Presumption of innocence? WP:RSBREAKING and WP:RSOPINION don't obey this at any time. --Cyve (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

How is calling him "accused" inconsistent with a presumption of innocence? Terms like "accused" and "alleged" are generally what media outlets use to discuss people who are accused, but not convicted, of a crime. If anything it seems like "suspected" has as much or more of a criminal connotation. Nblund (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

You've convinced me. Got it wrong.--Cyve (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Continue to discuss and if a consensus is reached then reactivate the request. -- GB fan 19:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Complaint

Full text: [15].--Cyve (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

since we now have the complaint, we can finally get the other side of the story. Currently this article presents Solkowticz perspective. Now we can have his perspective too, as described in the press. I was surprised to read her love notes in there, and the theory that she was a scorned woman. If we can still suggest he's a rapist based on her say so, fairness is that we add his view of things. After all, the school,found him not responsible as well.64.134.224.134 (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course it does, it's about her work. It's not about the alleged rape. --A21sauce (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

We can't add text directly from lawsuits to Wikipedia (they're primary sources and in support of one POV). We should only add text from this lawsuit if it is quoted in other reliable sources and what is asserted in the suit is described as "alleged".--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

we can add quotes as mentioned in reliable sources. Also this article is very much one sided from sulkowicz perspective. It's already mostly from one pov (hers). The accusation section mentions the Facebook postings, but then mostly mentions her concerns about young. It does not mention any of what young wrote and quoted. It should be more balanced. If an article quotes from, and links to the lawsuit, we should be able to pull from it as well.64.134.224.134 (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

It contains these snippets that Cathy Young published and quotes Emma as writing this to [redacted]: "I feel like we need to have some real time where we can talk about life and thingz" after the alleged rape, and this text "[redacted] had invited Sulkowicz to come to a party, and she responded affirmatively, and that she subsequently messaged him saying "I want to see yoyououoyou". Some of this is in the "Outcome of Sulkowicz's hearing" section.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

exactly. Almost nothing from [redacted]s perspective. If we are naming him now because he filed a lawsuit, then we must also provide more balance. At this point, this article even has more space dedicated to the reaction quotes from sulkowicz than details of actual lawsuit. ----

I have being censored for having reported the words by Emma as contained in the complaint, with the motivation that lawsuits cannot be reported. But at the same time the whole article reports the false accusations against [redacted]. Columbia U. has been sued for having practiced the same double standard. AnnSec (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh please, not censoring. Wikipedia can't quote blogs.--A21sauce (talk) 01:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

'The lawsuit even argues it was Sulkowicz herself who first broached the possibility of anal sex with [redacted], even though claims of forced anal sex are central to her claim of rape.

Should this be included in the lawsuit section?206.248.138.62 (talk) 06:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

It appears that the lawsuit section has been deleted in its entirety. I think that at the very least the April 2015 lawsuit against Columbia and Sulkowicz’s Art Professor Kessler should be mentioned. Why is this relevant to the art performance itself? It is relevant because the federal complaint alleges at Paragraph 68 that this was not an art performance but a personal vendetta "under the guise of performance art." The complaint further alleges that the Mattress Project was not about art but about stalking (Paragraph 70) and that Columbia approved the project and has publicly endorsed it and effectively sponsored it (Paragraph 71, 98, 141). Ultimately, the plaintiff alleges the Mattress Project constituted gender-based harassment against him in violation of Title IX (Paragraph 77). Whether or not the allegations prove to be true or false, the fact is that this art performance project has given rise to a lawsuit. That should, at a minimum, qualify a lawsuit mention under the RECEPTION heading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.140.243.242 (talk) 00:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

No evidence

”there were no witnesses to the alleged assault, and there’s no physical evidence."[16] --82.113.98.7 (talk) 12:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

One thing that we see is that the accused name is used. Actual name is not hidden behind pseudonyms. Bus stop (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Even though I removed the name of the accused under BLP policy, I would not support removing links to pages that name him without an RfC to see what the consensus is on that. On Wikipedia, there is no reason to name him and no harm in not naming him. In the case of the links, we would lose a lot of the citations supporting various statements in the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest and undue Point of View

Please delete the quotes of Jerry, who praised Sulkowicz, and his wife Roberta, who interviewed Sulkowicz. Both for the New York newspaper Times, which often quotes Sulkowicz's father Kerry, whose employees advise Sulkowicz.--82.113.98.242 (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

 Not done I think you are over-reaching trying to say there is a conflct of interest. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit request (6 May 2015)

To bring this up to date, two edits would be helpful.

1. In the lead, to restore (roughly) what was there, please add this to the end of the second paragraph:

In April 2015 he filed a sexual-discrimination lawsuit against Columbia, its trustees, president Lee Bollinger and Sulkowicz's supervising art professor, Jon Kessler, alleging that, in allowing the art project to go ahead, they exposed him to gender-based harassment.

2. To the Reception section, please add to the end of the first paragraph (after "He also noted that, as the work serves as Sulkowicz's senior thesis, it is being supervised by a Columbia faculty member"):

In April 2015 he filed a lawsuit against the university, its board of trustees, its president, Lee Bollinger, and Sulkowicz's senior-thesis supervisor, Jon Kessler, alleging that they exposed him to gender-based harassment and a hostile educational environment in allowing the art project to go ahead. He maintains that in so doing they damaged his college experience, emotional well-being, reputation and career prospects.

Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 22:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

So much information/content was removed from the article when it was set back to March 2 version, that there probably isn't enough content for this edit to be properly understood in context. Along with adding this, we'd need the information that the Columbia Spectator (student newspaper) controversially published the accused student's name, after Sulkowicz filed a police report and his name became available in the public record. Otherwise, the readers might get the mistaken impression that Columbia University approved Sulkowicz's performance art with the accused students name/identity attached to it.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Would look silly without naming Paul. He's in the news, wants to be the standard-bearer for accused rapist men, let's deal with it.--A21sauce (talk) 01:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

So let's add both, why not? And since the lawsuit will live on after the performance which in turn will be over by the end of the month as it's graduation month, let's think ahead to how we will treat the lawsuit going forward. Seeing as Nungesser won't ever get his own article in this crowd, what about an Emma Sulkowicz article or "Title IX at Columbia" or some such? The lawsuit shouldn't take over the future of an article about an art piece.A21sauce (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

There was the suggestion on BLPN to rename this article Columbia University performance-art controversy. Considering that the performance art was controversial enough to lead to a lawsuit, it seems it could all stay in one article. I think if we could maintain one article it would probably be less confusing for the readers.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

No, all of those art critics were responding to a real piece. How about Emma Sulkowicz and PN of Columbia University Then all the editors who don't care about art can just keep picking at that. The work isn't the thing that's evolving.--A21sauce (talk) 02:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

How about Mattress performance piece (Columbia University)? Bus stop (talk) 10:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Mattress Performance (Columbia University)?--82.113.99.63 (talk) 10:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

It is a "performance piece", but my suggested title does not refer to Sulkowicz' performance piece by its proper name, therefore italicization is uncalled for. And it is not "performance" per se that we would be referring to in my suggested title. Rather my suggested title refers specifically to the type of art called a performance piece. Therefore the word "performance" should not begin with an upper case letter because, once again, this is not the artwork's proper name. Bus stop (talk) 10:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

 Administrator note Not sure if there is agreement here yet. Please continue the discussion and reactivate is necessary. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The proposed additions look fine. There's enough discussion about changing the article title and naming the alleged offender in the sections above and it's not really relevant here, so please could everyone stick to the point. In particular, if anyone has a source for the claim that he "wants to be the standard-bearer for accused rapist men", please post it in the BLPN discussion because it might finally constitute something relevant. Formerip (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Relevant to what? This article is on a topic that has a certain sprawling quality to it. But that is not necessarily problematic in my opinion. Bus stop (talk) 12:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Relevant to the question of whether we should name him in the article. Formerip (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

What would lead us to think that he "wants to be the standard-bearer for accused rapist men"? Bus stop (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

If he has said so, I guess, as is suggested by A21sauce above. Or, I'd settle for video of him stitching the words "for accused rapist men" into an actual standard and then carrying it down the street. Formerip (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

A21sauce—could I ask you to please not post in the middle of someone else's post, as you do here? Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 12:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• It would be helpful if people would only discuss the edit request in this section.

BoboMeowCat, you wrote: "... we'd need the information that the Columbia Spectator (student newspaper) controversially published the accused student's name, after Sulkowicz filed a police report and his name became available in the public record. Otherwise, the readers might get the mistaken impression that Columbia University approved Sulkowicz's performance art with the accused students name/identity attached to it."

They did approve it with his name attached. Sulkowicz filed the police report in May 2014, which is when the accused was named in the student newspaper. She went to Yale summer school, came up with her idea, and began it in September. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 15:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clearing that up Sarah (SV). I withdraw that objection. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• I support the proposed edit. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• I support this proposed edit. Bipandboppop (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• I oppose. Doesn't bring the article up to date because it doesn't correct current WP:UNDUE. Further information about the suit should be added like here: section 5. --Cyve (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

One step at a time ;). I agree the lawsuit should be included, but the material proposed does not on it's own seem to be a bad idea.Mattnad (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support - seems reasonable as a starting point.Mattnad (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• I support the proposed edit.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• It looks to me like there's consensus here, so I've reactivated the template so that an administrator can take another look. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

   Done Passages added per request. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• I support the already completed edit. Bus stop (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Naming of Article

Does anyone have a good source aside from this person mentioned, to still say that the article should be called an "art piece", and not "Emma Sulkowicz rape allegations" ? I honestly think it should be proposed as a move, along with a major overhaul of the article for purposes of clarity and NPOV. OhWhyNot (talk) 02:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

You refer to "this person mentioned". Who is that? Bus stop (talk) 03:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, edited for clarity. How Ironic. But the point still stands... OhWhyNot (talk) 04:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Fine, I'll just say that it's the art critic mentioned. Jerry Saltz OhWhyNot (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there a particular quote from Jerry Saltz that you are referring to? Bus stop (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

No, why must I have one? The article says it. He also loves to talk about irony in art. Look at the Wikipedia page for him. No wonder why he would defend this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OhWhyNot (talk • contribs) 05:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken the title of our article is simply the title of the artwork, and I believe Emma Sulkowicz gave her artwork that title ("Sulkowicz then received permission from a faculty adviser to conduct a performance art project—dubbed the “Mattress Project (Carry That Weight)”—which involved her carrying her mattress to class"). Bus stop (talk) 05:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Naming this article after her is implicitly accepting her claims while disregarding her publicly accused "rapist". Doing so violates BLP. She was the person who brought this on herself, so she should be the person who has the article named after her. Doing so otherwise would violate BLP, in my eyes. OhWhyNot (talk) 06:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Believe it or not it doesn't matter whether or not we are "implicitly accepting her claims" because we are not here for WP:ADVOCACY. Bus stop (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

In all honesty this has nothing to do with Feminism, or being a woman, this has to do with subversion. OhWhyNot (talk) 06:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

This being why this article has been here for so long in this state - maybe - but the reason why Emma went to the police and did this? Most likely. OhWhyNot (talk) 06:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Mattress performance controversy at Columbia University would be neutral.--82.113.106.49 (talk) 06:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Absurd. OhWhyNot (talk) 07:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

What about Tawana Brawley rape allegations? OhWhyNot (talk) 07:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Emma Sulkowicz rape allegation performance? --82.113.98.121 (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• I've deactivated the edit request template, because there is not yet consensus for a move to any other title. If you think the article should be moved, I suggest that you open a Wikipedia:Move request discussion. Please also read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Related issue: Should we rename the article "Emma Sulkowicz and .5Bredacted.5D Rape Allegations" if you haven't already, as it contains quite a bit of discussion about whether to move this page. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Emma quotes

Perhaps useful quotes, but this discussion is already irredeemably poisoned. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"If we use proof in rape cases, we fall into the patterns of rape deniers."[17] "If we keep trying to 'prove that it exists' we will never get anywhere."[18] Emma Sulkowicz, Metcalf Auditorium, Brown University, April 16, 2015 ([19][20]) --88.70.11.79 (talk) 06:29, What a lack of intellectual rior if I ever saw one. 166.137.252.34 (talk) 10:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC) "Feminism is cool, and super important." Emma Sulkowicz, Senior Wisdom ([21]) --88.70.11.79 (talk) 12:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Talk pages are intended to be used for discussing the article, not for general discussions (See: Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#FORUM). Unless there's a point to this section that I'm overlooking, I move that we close it. Nblund (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Deleted criticism (requested edit 6 May 2015)

Why did you delete criticism? Why may only praise be mentioned? Why not criticism? It's not neutral. Read your own rule Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight! --88.70.11.79 (talk) 11:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Please discuss with other editors on this page — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Anon refers to this:
The accused student said in a December 2014 interview with The New York Times that the mattress performance is not an act of artistic expression, but instead one orchestrated to bully him and force him to leave Columbia. He said that on the National Day of Action, protesters followed him around, carrying mattresses to one of his classes and taking his picture. He also said that he was not permitted to use written communications between himself and the alleged victim as evidence, and expressed disbelief that anyone could believe he was guilty even after his accusers failed to meet what he deemed the low burden of proof in the university hearing process. He also stated that since Sulkowicz's protest serves as her senior thesis, it is being supervised and implicitly endorsed by a Columbia faculty member. His lawyer added that Senator Gillibrand failed to adequately investigate his accuser's account before appearing with her and that she "[took] a fictional event and [built] an entire platform around it". Asked by German Süddeutsche Zeitung Magazin about her feelings on the treatment of her son at Columbia, his mother said, "This is a feeling of lawlessness." His father said that he sometimes fears his son will leave the school as a "cynic" and a "suspicious man". The New York Post's Naomi Schaefer Riley criticized Sulkowicz's work as "shaming without proof" and accused her and her supporters of "saving themselves from having to answer any questions and destroying men's lives with lies and innuendo." In his article If anything’s art, art’s nothing, National Post columnist Robert Fulford compared Sulkowicz's work to that of Megumi Igarashi and concluded, "if everything is art, then art can be used for anything. And in the process meaning and value dissolve and art becomes hopelessly debased." Glenn Reynolds, law professor at the University of Tennessee, wrote on his political blog Instapundit: "It would have been nice if Senator Kirsten Gillibrand hadn't joined the lynch mob, embracing Sulkowicz and calling [the accused student] a 'rapist' even after he was cleared by two different proceedings (one of which required only a preponderance of the evidence to convict)".

--Cyve (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Be my guest and start a Paul Nungesser article.--A21sauce (talk) 01:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

User:A21sauce—why would we need to "start a Paul Nungesser article"? Are you of the opinion that related information can't be covered under the title of this article? Bus stop (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Not contrary to WP:1E. So far neither WP:PERP, WP:FILMMAKER, WP:NACTOR nor WP:PORNBIO applicable. His own opinion ("Ich weiß auch nicht, warum sie sich ausgerechnet mich ausgesucht hat. Vielleicht weil ich ein leichter Gegner [≈ easy/weak target/opponent] bin? Sie weiß, dass ich als ausländischer Student [≈ foreign student] sofort das Land hätte verlassen müssen", [22]) is not enough for WP:VICTIM. Maybe we wait.--Cyve (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

To correct WP:UNDUE a bit we should add the quote (green text) to the reception section after the fourth paragraph. The opposition should be heard too. As of May 4 there was consensus about this text. Until now no one contradicted. --Cyve (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll need to see consensus for this addition. Any thoughts from other editors? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection to including the above. To me it seems relevant and well-sourced. I am willing to listen to well-reasoned objections. In fact I welcome them. We are learning from the article in its present state that a New York Times art critic "described the piece as 'strict and lean, yet inclusive and open ended, symbolically laden yet drastically physical ... that comparisons to the Stations of the Cross and Hester Prynne's scarlet letter are apparent." That constitutes effusive praise, in my opinion. Comparisons to the Stations of the Cross and Hester Prynne's scarlet letter are apparent? Really? Wow. I must have overlooked those obvious allusions. I failed to grasp those obvious interpretations. Our article is presently saying: "Art critic Jerry Saltz called it 'clear, to the point, insistent, adamant ... pure radical vulnerability', and included it in his list of the best 19 art shows of 2014." That, in my opinion, is effusive praise. And: "Artnet cited it as 'almost certainly ... one of the most important artworks of the year'". Why would we leave out other responses to the work? There are negative responses to the work too. I'd be interested to hear the reasons that the negative responses should be omitted. Bus stop (talk) 11:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be fine to have material in the article, although it should not be overly long. We should be selective in terms of dividing really important quotes from less important ones, and then economical in terms of how much we really need to quote.

However, the green text above doesn't appear balanced. It focuses entirely on him as a victim, whereas we don't have any quotes in the article laying it on thick about her as a victim. Praise of her artwork in the article does not constitute balancing material, because the material here (apart from the very last bit) is not about her merits as an artist. Balance needs to be achieved throughout the article with respect to all the thematic points it covers.

On a side-note, the criticism of the Senator should be balanced by comments made in her defence, assuming there are any. Formerip (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Formerip , the problem of balancing that above text, which presents the accused as victim, is that then balancing it with text regarding Sulkowicz as victim, as you suggested should occur for NPOV, is that it becomes a BLP challenge. The bulk of the reliable sources regarding Sulkowicz as victim focus on her graphic anal rape and physical assault allegations and also on the fact that sexual assault allegations against this student were also made by three other students. There has been the desire to not include the graphic text regarding what Sulkowicz specifically alleges, as well as to not include the other allegations, so that makes balancing practically impossible. Ideally, I think such text should be included. All of it. Neutrally worded and balanced, but in practice, it was a nightmare because those with strong POV were getting kind of crazy, so here we are, frozen at a version with very little detail, with attempts to provide balance necessitating adding details that are really challenging to add in BLP. Also, it seems anything even remotely neutral and balanced outrages those with strong POV and the result is disruptive editing. I'm not sure what's the answer at this point.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have any magic answers that will make it easy, but text that doesn't conform to NPOV can't go in the article. I'd also prefer to have something that does conform so that it can go in. Although I'm far from expert on the whole of the material available, I'd be cautious about agreeing that "all of it" should go in. I think we should be judicious and avoid bloated laundry-lists of quotations. Formerip (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Formerip—you say "we don't have any quotes in the article laying it on thick about her as a victim." I don't think we should be balancing quotes against quotes. I think we should be balancing implications against implications. Our article reads: "Sulkowicz received the National Organization for Women's Susan B. Anthony Award and the Feminist Majority Foundation's Ms. Wonder Award for the piece." What is the implication of that? In my opinion the implication is one supportive of her role as a victim of rape who responded effectively in the form of a performance work of art. Were there other responses to her performance piece? Sure. Some well-sourced responses see the work of art more as a means of perpetrating injustice. Some of these sources may also consider the art of poor quality. Concerning this particular work of art, one's interpretation may be colored by preexisting leanings that may take into account both rape and the phenomena of false accusation of rape. Such opinions may also be founded on factors particular to this case, rather than on preexisting prejudices. I think that many of us are unfree from such prejudices. I think the work of art tends to be divisive of people viewing it or reading about it. My personal opinion is that that is a good quality pertaining to the work of art, but I don't think that I constitute a reliable source. I think that this article if well-written will likely present contradictory responses from many sources. Bus stop (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree that the article, if well-written, will incorporate contrasting responses to the work, as well as contrasting views on the controversy surrounding it. But I still think you're being too simplistic in thinking that we need to be just balancing "positive stuff" and "negative stuff". If we want to put a bunch of quotes in the article from people and commentators sympathetic to him and casting her as the wrongdoer, then NPOV demands that we also include in the article a bunch of quotes from people and commentators sympathetic to her casting him as the wrongdoer. I can't see how it could possibly be otherwise (although we could take a view that that is not the right approach to the article in the first place).

Not that commentators are not people, obviously. Formerip (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the art is the central piece of this article. He and her are of secondary importance. I think we should be looking for good quality sources providing perspectives that are insightful. The art is the thing that is spurring these responses. Bus stop (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree. But if the article is to get into his perspective vs her perspective, it absolutely has to be even-handed about it. Formerip (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

You can't whittle it down until the collaborative-editing process has built it up. It would be premature to screen commentary for overall balance at this time. I don't know what WP:UNDUE WEIGHT would be at this time. You say above "the green text above doesn't appear balanced. It focuses entirely on him as a victim". These are perfectly valid responses, as are responses supportive of the artwork as art and of the female as the victim. You also say above that: "We should be selective in terms of dividing really important quotes from less important ones, and then economical in terms of how much we really need to quote." I think we should be less rather than more "selective" at this point. Bus stop (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Do you mean to say that NPOV can be suspended and we are allowed to add totally one-sided content on the basis that it's too early to work out what the precise balance is that should be achieved? That wouldn't be right at all. NPOV cannot be suspended. Formerip (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

As was the case months ago, it's rather silly that the article devotes major space to detailing various activist histrionics and posturing, as well as fluffy supportive commentary from non-notable art people — which of course studiously avoids the question of whether the accusation has any truth or merit — while carefully omitting actual notable published commentary that calls the accuser's credibility into question. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 14:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Please give me an example of "fluffy supportive commentary from non-notable art people". Bus stop (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

E.g. the bulk of material under the "Reception" section. These are non-notable people whose opinions about the world really don't count for diddly, but are being elevated by the manufactured Wiki-pretense that they're merely approving of an art piece, when the real substance of what they're doing is endorsing a criminal allegation. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 16:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

These are notable art critics, not "non-notable people". Robert Fulford is also a notable art critic. He did not have a high opinion of "Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)". His opinion is absent from the article at this time. I don't know why. Bus stop (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

An art critic's opinion about things other than art is non-notable, yet these art critics are essentially giving legal conclusions by praising the work. If the accusation is false, it's not even art, it's just a smear campaign of dubious legality. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 13:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Sez someone who is surely not an art critic. Since when does art have to be about something "true"? (And note, I'm not conceding the implication that the accusation was false.) I think you might struggle to make sense of, say, a painting involving a character from Greek mythology. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you might have trouble understanding a wide range of logical arguments if you struggle to understand the claim that issuing glowing unconditional praise for an artistically rendered criminal accusation is a tacit endorsement of that criminal accusation. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 18:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

CUMB performance

CUMB seemed to make a lot of people uncomfortable when it focused on No Red Tape’s projections on Low Library and criticized both NRT and the media for “reducing” their movement to a “single case.” ...they did point out how “click-baity” a lot of the news coverage has been, and how the administration still doesn’t seem to be doing anything.[23] Ms. Matlow noted that No Red Tape itself had mocked artwork as an inadequate option for fulfilling the sexual respect requirement. “Unless it involves a mattress,” she added, a reference to Emma Sulkowicz, a Columbia senior who, as part of her visual arts thesis, has carried a mattress with her everywhere she has gone on campus to protest the university’s handling of her claim that a fellow student raped her in her dorm room. The line drew a few boos, and then some cheers. One art critic was not so amused! Ms. Sulkowicz, who figured in several other jokes about her status as a poster child for sexual assault on campus, did not attend Orgo Night. But she said in an interview that she was hurt and disappointed in the band. “I guess they don’t really know anything about how a survivor would feel, to get totally made fun of in front of the entire school,” she said.[24] Columbia, May 7.[25] --82.113.106.146 (talk) 12:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The New York Times: This Year, Columbia Event Finds Joke Fodder in Sexual Assault Debate.--89.204.138.53 (talk) 18:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The article isn't about how people mocked her. It is about her allegations and her "art piece". Talking about survivors of rape should have it's own article, and, to be frank, not piggyback on her... performance, to keep it civil. Sketches0993 (talk) 03:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Bizarre

It seems rather bizarre that a bullying campaign is being labeled "performance art". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia, we have to follow the sources no matter what our personal opinions are. She got art credit from Columbia and Yale, and the co-chief art critic for the New York Times accepts it as performance art, so Wikipedia must do so as well. Perhaps when I acheive my ultimate goal of becoming the official Wikimedia Dalek Supreme I will be able to come up with a better system. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

AQFK -- have you got any sources to describe it as a 'bullying campaign'? If not: I suggest this section be summarily archived; after all, there are a multitude of sources supporting description as performance art. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

New-York-POV is "art". Berlin-POV is "witch-hunt" ("Hexenjagd", Lehrke, Gerhard (April 27, 2015), Vergewaltigungs-Affäre: Berliner Student verklagt seine New Yorker Uni, Berliner Kurier) --88.70.11.79 (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Art columnist Robert Fulford said, it isn't art. [26]. New York Post called it "shaming without proof". [27] Law professor Glenn Reynolds called Sulkowicz and her supporters a "lynch mob".[28].--88.70.11.79 (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

All of them op-eds. Have a look at WP:NEWSORG -- at best, we would present these as attributed opinions. No bearing on what we name the article, nor how we describe it in Wikipedia's voice. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I have to say as someone not editorially involved in this, the article title is terrible. Of the sources I have looked at, I have yet to see one that uses the same wording as our page title here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

If you copy the title into your favourite search engine, you'll see that it is used by lots and lots of reliable sources. Formerip (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Reliable and openly biased are not mutually exclusive. Sketches0993 (talk) 03:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Also: Referencing it by what she calls it, and endorsing her actions, are two different things. This article needs a serious overhaul for BLP purposes. The accused rapist has filed a lawsuit about his harassment, he should be named in the article as well. If not for NPOV, than BLP, why have a picture of her smiling and not lugging around the mattress? Just another point Sketches0993 (talk) 03:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

It almost seems as if there is a tacit agreement that this article can push a preferred POV so long as it takes care to not name the accused student. I can't say either of these approaches makes sense to me. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 14:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 May 2015

I would like for the "not responsible" to be replaced with "exonerated" (no quotations). Wikipedia has been promoting this girl's propaganda for much too long now. This girl's need for attention is a huge blow to real rape victims. Please, please, please stop insinuating that the guy actually did rape her. If that is the case (which I suspect it is not), wikipedia is only discouraging true rape victims from coming forward. Stop painting this girl in such a wonderfully pathetic light and allow users, such as myself, to edit her page so that the public knows the truth.

Sincerely, A true rape victim who lives in New York CIty D.morganbarry (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The reliable sources report he was found "not responsible" by Columbia University, they do not say "exonerated:. Even sources that seem to have POV against Sulkowicz use "not responsible"[29] because this is apparently the terminology Columbia used when deciding Sulkowicz's sexual assault complaint. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we should remove the quotations, though.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the quote marks. If this is controversial, it can be reverted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Not that this is a major issue, but "not responsible" actually is a quote, right? Nblund (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

We aren't here to decide what rape really is. We should go along with "innocent until proven guilty". I'm beating a dead horse but it's BLP and NPOV friendly. The only person responsible for this article's existence is Emma, and I say that without any judgement. Sketches0993 (talk) 03:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Until this rape accusation ever results in a criminal trial against this man and a successful conviction, I think "not proven" is a better term. Sketches0993 (talk) 03:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Sketches0993—I don't know what this edit is about. The edit summary reads: "bus stop removed this and It came back for some reason, total accident, my apologies". I don't understand that. Bus stop (talk) 04:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

It said that you removed "or something like that". I didn't realize that you removed it while I was already editing; as I believe I saw in the log. I figured it may be an inappropriate thing to do on this talk page. My apologies for the misunderstanding. I still think "not proven" or similar language would be proper for BLP reasons. I meant no ill will, it was a sincere apology. Sketches0993 (talk) 04:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not aware of removing anything that you posted. Can you please provide a diff? Bus stop (talk) 04:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

In that case, I screwed up my bullet points on the comparisons. I meant no ill will and I am sorry for any offense I caused you. Made a mistake - also fixed the points you made and I thank you. Regardless, "not proven" or similar language would fit BLP more. That's all. My sincere apologies to you. I meant no slander, or ill will. Sketches0993 (talk) 04:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that if "not responsible" is a quote from sources, that is the language we should use. I actually don't know if that language has significance but it seems best to quote the exact terminology used. Bus stop (talk) 04:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

To say we should always use the exact terminology used in every source would be quite incoherent for an encyclopedia article. To use her own words, only, would be to call him a rapist; for example. There is editorial judgment involved when it comes to BLP matters, regardless of a gender gap on Wikipedia. Sketches0993 (talk) 04:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The "not responsible" was the verdict issued by the disciplinary board at Colombia. Presumably, they use that language because they don't make determinations about guilt or innocence. Its a term with a technical, context-specific meaning, so it should be quoted directly and placed in quotation marks in order to make that clear.Nblund (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

for that last claim. To me it just looks like they are pointing out that they are not a court of law and that their "convictions" lack legal force (or underpinnings of reliability). Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 14:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see how that's distinct from what I just said. Whatever the precise reason, its an intentionally chosen term that has a context-specific meaning -- the best way to deal with it is to quote it directly in a way that makes it clear that its being used in a technical sense rather than a colloquial one. Nblund (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I suppose you're right, I just meant we should avoid implying anything about any technical meaning of the term unless we actually have sourcing for what that meaning is. That said the quotes by themselves don't do any harm, so, point taken. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 14:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Totally agreed Nblund (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I have restored the quote marks (if that is indeed the conclusion of the discussion above, because I got a little lost.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement of Nungesser's parents (May 20, 2015)

It should be mentioned that his parents released this statement:

"Our son's graduation should have been a joyous moment for our whole family. We are extremely proud of Paul for graduating, even more so because of the harassment campaign he was subjected to. For over two years, he had to fight false accusations and a public witch-hunt, even though Columbia and the NYPD exonerated him. At graduation, Columbia University again broke its own rules and afforded Emma Sulkowicz a special exception. It was the second devastating experience in just a few days: Last week, Columbia exhibited Emma Sulkowicz's highly disturbing and extremely graphic drawings of our son publicly on campus. We have come to realize that at Columbia, not all are equal before its policy. What is the point of internal investigations if their outcome is not accepted? Instead those with better connections and more influence promoted a false narrative. While they failed at their goal of bullying our son into leaving this university, they have turned his life into a nightmare. Responsible for this nightmare is not just the woman, who received an academic degree for the attempt to shame Paul away from campus, but even more at fault is the University that conferred this degree. A university that bows to a public witch-hunt no longer deserves to be called a place of enlightenment, of intellectual and academic freedom. By failing to intervene in this injustice, Columbia ceases to be a place where critical thinking, courage and democratic practice are taught, learned and lived. Two years ago we would have never believed that one of the world's most prestigious universities would not only allow such harassment but explicitly support it on its campus. This has been a deeply humiliating experience. We are very proud of our son for graduating from college, but our memory of it will always be tainted by Columbia's wrongdoing."[30][31][32][33]--82.113.106.162 (talk) 23:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Request edit to lead, 21 May 2015

Suggested edits to add details and change the tense in the first paragraph of the lead, now that the work has ended. The second paragraph is unchanged except for some copy editing.

Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) (2014–2015) was a work of endurance performance art by Emma Sulkowicz carried out during the final year of her visual arts degree at Columbia University. Created in September 2014 for her senior thesis, the piece involved Sulkowicz carrying a 50lb, extra-long, dark-blue mattress wherever she went on campus, until a student she alleges sexually assaulted her was expelled from or otherwise left the university. Both students graduated in May 2015, which brought the work to an end. Sulkowicz carried the mattress to her graduation ceremony.

Art critic Jerry Saltz included Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) in his list of the best art shows of 2014, calling it "pure radical vulnerability." The accused student, who was found "not responsible" by a university inquiry, called Sulkowicz's allegations "untrue and unfounded" and Mattress Performance an act of bullying. In April 2015 he filed a sexual-discrimination lawsuit against the university and its trustees, as well as its president, Lee Bollinger, and Sulkowicz's supervising art professor, Jon Kessler. The lawsuit alleges that, in allowing the art project to go ahead, they exposed the accused to gender-based harassment.

Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 00:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• I support this edit. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 01:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)