Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

New piece

Sulkowicz changed her thesis. It's a new piece.[1] --82.113.106.81 (talk) 09:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone have the result of the thesis? Did she get a degree? I am more familiar with the thesis requirements for things like a doctorate in physics, which require a lot of work and a thesis defense. How does all of that work when your thesis is performance art? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how it's relevant to the inherent public shaming involved in this art piece. BLP should be used for both sides of this case. Not one. Her art piece was more about public shaming as much as artistic value. Sketches0993 (talk) 03:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Facebook messages?

Out of curiosity, why's there no mention of the Facebook messages between Solkowicz and her alleged attacker? They seem pretty pertinent to giving context to the mentioned lawsuit against the school. --199.213.255.149 (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The articles which refer to them contain the name of the accused, so are currently excluded here because of BLP concerns. Actually I'm not sure why. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The reason seems to have to do with what would need to be in there to balance it. I think it would be nice to have a balanced article which includes all the allegations against the accused student, along with the outcomes/circumstances of those cases, his interpretations of the various cases brought against him and his evidence such as fb messages etc, followed by Sulkowicz's response that those messages taking out of context and commentators saying there is no "perfect victim" and other commenters saying those messages harm her credibility etc etc, but those with strong POV were messing things up and disruptively editing and it was becoming a BLP nightmare. It seems anything remotely neutral seems to upset those who have made up their minds about this case one way or the other (and things have gotten really bad in this respect since lawsuit). If you are going to include such details as those messages, they need to be neutrally presented and balanced with other details to present the entire picture presented in RS, and this hasn't been happening since the lawsuit. Now page is locked down at an earlier version with very little detail.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

That's a weak reason IMHO. An accusation of Rape is very serious, and it would take a mountain of facebook posts to balance it. That said, balance is doable. We have FB posts, as quoted by reliable sources, and counterpoint, as quoted by reliable sources. As the article now stands, what we'd be allowed to say is "He was accused of rape, which he denies". Somehow, the rape accusation carries a lot more weight with that limited rebuttal. An argument that editors will behave badly is not a good reason to censor wikipedia (which is the case right now).Mattnad (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Are they actually pertinent to the lawsuit? The plaintiff in the case is alleging discrimination and harassment, and I don't really see how FB messages are evidence of anything. Nblund (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the FB convos or texts are relevant in the article. With all due respect I don't think we are here to decide the meaning of rape, therefore we must go along with the legal definition. /snark Innocent until Proven guilty in a court of law does not have "except for rape" after it. Sketches0993 (talk) 03:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 May 2015

If we want this article to be about the art piece, or center around it truly, why not include a picture of this "performance art", instead of a press conference?

1. REDIRECT [[2]] Something like that.

Sketches0993 (talk) 04:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

A picture of the performance would obviously be better, but copyright is the problem. You could ask at WT:NY - someone there might be willing and own a smartphone. A request was already made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Columbia University but no-one responded. Formerip (talk) 10:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 May 2015

This article used to have the search term "Emma Sulkowicz" redirect here. Why not bring that back? Emma is the only reason this legal fiasco/art piece exists, after all. Sketches0993 (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any "fiasco" here. I see a work of art that may have run afoul of the law. Please note: "'As a university, you’re trying to promote two utterly inconsistent values ... one is academic freedom and the vigorous exchange of ideas. The other is creating a safe space where students feel comfortable expressing those ideas.'" Bus stop (talk) 07:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

You don't see a fiasco? A series of failed or not-really-pursued criminal accusations; a series of highly publicized misconduct complaints from multiple parties at one of the nation's most prestigious undergraduate institutions; a series of lawsuits by the disgruntled participants? I'd call it a fiasco, for sure. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 14:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Naturally we don't care what you'd call it. Please see WP:NOTFORUM; posts in this section are deteriorating... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I assume, of course, that you don't care about Bus Stop's opinion, either? No need to get bent out of shape, was just responding relevantly to a relevant editor comment. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 16:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

"Fiasco" is dismissive. We should be looking for good analysis of what transpired. I didn't merely say it was not a fiasco. I linked to a source that offered an explanation for what has transpired: "Ron Kuby, a New York City-based civil-rights attorney who doesn’t represent anyone involved, said Columbia faces difficult options. 'As a university, you’re trying to promote two utterly inconsistent values,' he said. 'One is academic freedom and the vigorous exchange of ideas. The other is creating a safe space where students feel comfortable expressing those ideas.'" Bus stop (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

•  A redirect already exists.

Power compares Sulkowicz's victim to Taliban

Samantha Power (May 17): "From a women carrying a mattress on her campus to Afghanistan's Women's National Cycling Team, reaching true equality requires showing change is possible."[3], Amb. Power’s Bizarre Analogy: Columbia Mattress Girl and Afghan women, Legal Insurrection--88.70.11.79 (talk) 23:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 May 2015

Material excerpted from this should find its way into our article:

The image of a young woman hauling around a mattress for weeks on end is a powerful one, but as the symbol replicates, it risks being diluted. In an opinion piece published last week in student newspaper the Columbia Spectator, Sulkowicz made a bid to preserve her artistic vision as it spread beyond her grasp. “I understand that many of you are considering carrying a pillow on this day of action,” she wrote. “I hope that very few of you end up carrying pillows. Pillows are ‘light,’ ‘fluffy,’ and may detract from our message. … If we flood the Internet with images and the inevitable ‘selfies’ that look like they came from a slumber party, we will fail to communicate what I think we all believe: Sexual assault is neither a ‘light’ nor ‘fluffy’ matter, and we cannot treat it as if it were.”

We are concerned with how the artist thinks about this artwork. The thinking process is important and she provides insight in the above. Bus stop (talk) 07:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

At the end of the "Overview" section I would write: Sulkowicz, writing in the Columbia Spectator in May 2015, cautioned those who have been joining her in on-campus activist rallies to not replace mattresses with pillows. This was in response to some supporters bringing along both mattresses and pillows to rallies that aim to support of the eradication of what has sometimes been referred to as "rape culture".[4] (The term "rape culture" is used in the source.) Bus stop (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Mattress Graduation

Emma Sulkowicz, CC '15, walks across Columbia College Class Day stage with Mattress ([5], [6], [7], [8])--88.70.11.79 (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

That will clearly have to go in the article. (Apparently there's no word though on whether she used it to nap through a boring commencement address...) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Our article should note that "Columbia sent an email to students on Monday asking graduates to avoid bringing “large objects” to the ceremonial area, but Ms. Sulkowicz appeared at the ceremony carrying her mattress with the help of friends Tuesday morning." Bus stop (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Up until seconds before she walked onstage, Columbia officials had asked her to leave the mattress behind, and President Lee C. Bollinger turned away as she crossed in front of him.. The universitywide commencement is Wednesday, but Ms. Sulkowicz said on Tuesday afternoon that she was done with her project. ... “If some sort of museum wants to buy it, then I’m open to that,” she said (nytimes.com)--88.70.11.79 (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Unlock page for editing this article is currently an attack piece with inaccuracies

This is not the place to voice your personal opinions on what you think did or didn't happen. If you want to discuss the article content, comment in the threads already going.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Article is completely undue with feminist bias please revert to this version. As it stands there is no physical evidence raped occurred. Only circumstantial evidence exist in the form of texts and Facebook messages and that evidence favors Paul Nungesser as interpreted by the only neutral investigation performed by Columbia. No formal charges were ever pressed further evidence suggests Nungesser wants his views to be heard. The view of the investigation �is the most neutral in this case and is highly suggestive that Nungesser may be the victim here. All sources suggesting rape have come from Sulkowicz herself. In the future the blue mattress may very well symbolize women who cry rape unless Sulkowicz can gather some evidence. Getting "blue mattressed" may very well become a meme. The tone must be changed immediately. There is no evidence she is a victim of rape and is disgraceful to women who actually survived such a horrific event. 98.110.16.169 (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Street art at Columbia University

This street art at Columbia University is a critical response to Sulkowicz's performance.[9][10][11] It should be mentioned in the reception section.--82.113.99.28 (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 May 2015

In light of recent news reports, please change the last sentence of the second paragraph in the "Overview" section from "She has said she plans to continue until the accused student is expelled from or otherwise leaves Columbia, and that she will take the mattress to her graduation ceremony if necessary." to "She said she planned to continue until the accused student was expelled from or otherwise left Columbia, and that she would take the mattress to her graduation ceremony if necessary." and add the following sentence to the end of the paragraph: "On May 19, 2015, she carried the mattress at her graduation.[12][13]"

Thank you. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that seems like a sensible proposal. Formerip (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Please add this too (for better understanding of coherences):

"The man she accused of raping her, and who was cleared by a campus hearing and the police, was forced to watch, having walked across the stage just a few minutes earlier." and "On Monday, Columbia circulated an email banning students from bringing large objects to graduation."[14] --88.70.11.79 (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

It is unimportant that he was "forced to watch". That is sensationalism. Only this one source is emphasizing that point. Bus stop (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the bit about him being forced to watch is unnecessary and sensationalist. The email about large objects does seem relevant, though, and it has been discussed in several sources. I would support mentioning it, though I suggest that it be discussed in a separate edit request to avoid confusing the discussion. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I support the original edit above suggested by Granger.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

It is also worth mentioning that the University President did not shake her hand. Dingomate (talk) 05:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dingomate—the significance of that is ambiguous therefore I don't think we should mention it. Bus stop (talk) 06:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

How Columbia University President Reacted When Student Brought Rape Protest Mattress to Gratulation --88.70.11.79 (talk) 06:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Roy, Jessica (May 20, 2015), Columbia President Refuses to Shake Emma Sulkowicz’s Hand at Graduation Ceremony, New York Magazine--88.70.11.79 (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. 88.70.11.79 is pretty much a sock puppet on the subject anyway.--A21sauce (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Done I've enacted the original request. Discussion of the IP's extra request should be carried out in a separate edit request. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 May 2015

Because of the decision on WP:BLPN#Should we name the student accused of rape in the article Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)? (= "There is qualified support for inclusion IFF his full defence is also discussed."), please restore this (after reception section):

Nungesser's lawsuit

External document

PAUL NUNGESSER V. COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, LEE C. BOLLINGER, and JON KESSLER (Complaint), Nessenoff & Miltenberg LLP, New York City

On April 23, 2015, Nungesser filed a sexual discrimination lawsuit against Columbia, its board of trustees, its president Lee Bollinger, and Sulkowicz's supervising art professor Jon Kessler. The lawsuit alleges failure to protect him against harassment in the wake of the incident. Specified grievances include: that a school-owned website had presented as fact that he sexually assaulted Sulkowicz; that the school allowed Sulkowicz to carry a mattress into classes, the library, and on campus-provided transportation as part of her senior thesis; and that Kessler approved the Mattress Project for course credit allegedly in violation of Title IX, a federal law mandating that federally funded educational institutions not discriminate based on gender.

The suit argues that Sulkowicz is “actively earning course credit from Columbia for this outrageous display of harassment and defamation of Paul and she is using this to fulfill her graduation requirement of a senior thesis, even despite clear notice by Paul and his parents to President Bollinger and other Columbia persons of authority, that Paul’s legal rights are being violated.” It accuses Bollinger of having “displayed a contemptible moral cowardice in bowing down to the witch hunt against an innocent student instead of standing up for the truth and taking appropriate steps to protect Paul from gender based harassment.” Nungesser says he was ”targeted because he is a male, and attacked for his (consensual) sexual activity.”

He stated, "Day-to-day life is unbearably stressful, as Emma and her mattress parade around campus each and every day". As a result of publicity that resulted in media reports in 35 countries, he says he "has been subjected to severe, pervasive ... and threatening behavior by other Columbia students". He says he desires to stay in the US, where he has been dating a girlfriend for over a year and he is seeking consulting work in New York but job prospects have been "severely jeopardised" by the school’s support of Sulkowicz.

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

References

88.70.11.79 (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this and concur with AndyTheGrump's opinion that any attempt to include the accused's name in the article should be appealed to the Wikimedia Foundation who could override the abovementioned BLPN discussion. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is against you. I support the edit, provided that Nungesser's name is introduced earlier in the article. If you want to go to the WMF, go ahead. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Mr. Granger: Even that egregious decision is carefully worded to avoid supporting text like this. It says that

There is qualified support for inclusion IFF his full defence is also discussed. The The wisest course is to ensure full attribution, as in "the accused, identified by (source) as (name)". Best practice would be to wordsmith any content on the Talk page prior to inclusion, and to err on the side of caution always. Several people note, quite correctly, that this is pushing the limits of what is permissible per WP:BLP, and the presumption of innocence must be rigorously demonstrated.

A full defense would include the facebook messages and other exculpatory evidence. The recommendation of full attribution above has not been followed. There has been no "wordsmithing" on the talk page, nor is this passage "erring on the side of caution." And yes, I certainly might contact WMF if this is included. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: It looks like there needs to be more time for the wordsmithing mentioned here to happen. Please reopen this request when there is a rough consensus about what wording to use. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Accused family's statement

Here. Probably should be included in this article. Cla68 (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Probably should also say in the article, if supported by RS, that the accused's mum is also a very politically active feminist. Really interesting irony. Cla68 (talk) 23:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

see:
Karin Nungesser, The Gender Pay Gap - Why women earn less than men, Deutscher FrauenRat 02/2007
Karin Nungesser, Can men be victims?, Der Freitag (Oct 26, 2001)
--88.70.11.79 (talk) 00:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Request edit to background section, 21 May 2015

The whole first paragraph of the "Background" section consists of biographical information left over from when this was a BLP on Emma Sulkowicz. The whole paragraph should be removed, as it adds nothing relevant to the article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe that paragraph is too long, but I think some of the information it contains should be kept—her birth year and the fact that she's the daughter of Kerry Sulkowicz, for instance. And the fact that she's a visual arts major is directly relevant to the subject of the article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The article already states that she earned a visual arts degree. As for her birthdate and father's identity, it could be put somewhere else but I think that would just reveal how irrelevant it is. In the lede, for example: "Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) (2014–2015) was a work of endurance performance art by Emma Sulkowicz, daughter of Kerry Sulkowicz born in 1992, carried out during the final year of her visual arts degree at Columbia University." This information seems totally extraneous. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

This request should be put on hold pending the move discussion above. If it is moved to the controversy topic, the biographical background is relevant. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@Gaijin42: Can you explain how? --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

In a controversy, a biography of the main participants (especially the portion that is relevant to the controversy) is a normal inclusion. The information about the father etc would be irrelevant in either case, but not information about Sulkowicz herself, her activities as a student, and artist etc. Some information about the accused should be included for the same reason. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

•  It's clear this one will need discussion, won't be implemented in summary fashion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 May 2015

Please link to the official court case

kcjohnson.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/nungesser-complaint.pdf, and I quote:

In the court case, it discusses Emma's history of false accusations.

“Columbia was also informed that Emma had a history of alleging of sexual assault. During the investigation, Paul had provided further messages from Emma to Columbia, in which she alleged abuse and sexual assault by other students at Columbia University, including her former boyfriend.”

66.31.18.35 (talk) 06:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

•  See WP:BLPPRIMARY. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 May 2015

Hello Sir I Wanna Edit Someone Because The News was Happened Over Columbia University. National Names 2000 (talk) 06:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• Propose an edit here; if others agree perhaps it will happen. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The girls who helped Sulkowicz

It should be included that Sulkowicz was helped by "<redacted1>.. president of the Columbia Democrats from 2013-2014", and "<redacted2>, the co-creator of the Carrying the Weight Together persecution campaign" (Johnson, Charles: Here are the girls who helped Emma Sulkowicz torture her victim, GotNews). --89.204.137.239 (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

These two people don't seem remotely notable, this website doesn't appear to be a reliable source, and it appears that the article is giving out their personal information (twitter handle, workplace info) for the purpose of encouraging people to harass them. Nblund (talk) 13:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, Wikipedia is not in the business of including any and all facts related to a subject, just those that are relevant and backed up by reliable sources. It would be insane and a little witch-hunty for us to include these names.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The source is resorting to name-calling. I can't expect objectivity from a source that calls her a "con artist". Bus stop (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

"<redacted1>, CC ‘15, and <redacted2>, CC ’15... On one side there was the Coalition Against Sexual Violence (CASV) led by <redacted1>; on the other, No Red Tape (NRT) led by <redacted2>" ( [15], [16], [17], [18])--89.204.155.64 (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 May 2015

At the end of the second paragraph of the Overview section please replace:

She has said she plans to continue until the accused student is expelled from or otherwise leaves Columbia, and that she will take the mattress to her graduation ceremony if necessary.<ref name=Smith22September2014/><ref name=Grigoriadis21September2014/>

with:

She continued carrying the mattress for the remainder of the school year, ultimately bringing it to her graduation ceremony on May 19, 2015.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Taylor|first1=Kate|title=Mattress Protest at Columbia University Continues Into Graduation Event|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/20/nyregion/mattress-protest-at-columbia-university-continues-into-graduation-event.html|work=The New York Times|date=May 19, 2015}}</ref>

The article could also use tense changes to reflect that the project has finished. gobonobo ^{+ c} 15:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

After that, please add: "At the next day, posters of Emma Sulkowicz with her mattress on Columbia campus called her a 'Pretty Little Liar' with the caption 'Columbia #Rapehoax'."[19][20]--82.113.98.114 (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Support. This should be an entirely uncontroversial edit.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Suggest that any edits avoid using Jezebel as a source and instead use similar articles by New York Magazine or Gothamist. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 18:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) While I support the inclusion of the new information about the graduation ceremony, I prefer my phrasing in the edit request above—this proposed edit leaves out the information that Sulkowicz originally planned to carry the mattress "until the accused student is expelled from or otherwise leaves Columbia". —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: I've enacted the request in #Protected edit request on 19 May 2015 instead. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The Washington Post has written about the posters: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/05/22/rapehoax-posters-plastered-around-columbia-university-in-backlash-against-alleged-rape-victim/ 71.182.250.21 (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 May 2015

Graduation Day Response

On May 20th, 2015 a person (or persons) put up posters in the area of Manhattan surrounding Columbia University. These posters, a picture of Emma and the Mattress, contained the text "Pretty Little Liar", her name, part of the school name, and the hashtag "#rapehoax" on them. The posters were of various sizes, and placed in various locations, apparently to make them harder to remove. A Twitter user (@fakerape) was created along with these posters to take credit. The stated goal by the account was to highlight the fact that Emma's purported attacker had not been found guilty, that the mattress project itself was a form of public character assassination against someone who has the presumption of innocence, and harassment that was supported by Columbia University and feminists. They put up the posters because (as they stated) “We want to educate people about fake rape claims & how damaging they are,” adding that “due process matters.”

The response by the media was (in general) to attack the posters. Several articles called the posters disgusting and despicable. Noted in the Salon article is that Emma is automatically assumed to have been raped, "Some uptown New Yorkers woke up on Tuesday to find poster-sized flyers attacking recent Columbia grad Emma Sulkowicz, who spent the majority of her senior year lugging a blue mattress everywhere she went to protest what she alleges to be the school’s protection of her rapist." This appears to show what the person behind @fakerape wanted highlighted about the media, that "her rapist" is automatically guilty even without a conviction. As shown in the Refinery29 article, there is no appeal in the court of media or public opinion, he will always be considered a rapist that got away with it, even if he is completely innocent.

Inglix the Mad - Killing all hope. (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I think mentioning the placement of posters is arguably noteworthy, but the critique of the media response and the inference regarding the intent of the protest both seem like editorializing that isn't really supported by any reliable source. If this is mentioned, it seems to warrant a sentence or two at the most: the first two sentences of the above paragraph might be a starting point. Nblund (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion: At commencement day (May 20th, 2015) posters were put up in the area of Morningside Heights surrounding Columbia University. These posters, a picture of Emma and the Mattress, contained the text "Pretty Little Liar", her name and "Columbia #rapehoax".--89.204.130.47 (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose edit as written. Given the current length of the article, this amount of content describing some anonymous people putting up posters is WP:UNDUE. The poster creators are peripheral to the topic of this article. If we're going to include the events on the day of commencement, why aren't we discussing the school's request that "large objects" not be brought to commencement, or the repeated attempts by the University to get Sulkowitz not to carry the mattress? What about the friends that helped her carry the mattress and the fact that Bollinger didn't shake her hand? gobonobo ^{+ c} 02:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
• Two paragraphs for some posters? Oppose as UNDUE. Gamaliel (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. It would merit a sentence at most. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 02:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The Washington Post has written about the posters: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/05/22/rapehoax-posters-plastered-around-columbia-university-in-backlash-against-alleged-rape-victim/ 71.182.250.21 (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The Los Angeles Times calls them street art ([21]).--82.113.98.236 (talk) 02:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

• Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Accused's mother: Feminist who reminds of murdered German Jews

As same as the article mentions Sulkowicz's father it should mention that Nungesser's mother is a notable feminist journalist and an activist for laying stolpersteine in remembrance of murdered German Jews. See:
• Karin Nungesser, What does your husband say to this?, Der Freitag (Oct 1, 2009)
• Karin Nungesser, Productive law-chaos, Der Freitag (Dec 4, 2008)
• Karin Nungesser, The Gender Pay Gap - Why women earn less than men, Deutscher FrauenRat 02/2007
• Karin Nungesser, Wage Level: Women, Der Freitag (Mar 30, 2007)
• Karin Nungesser, Softening of the combat zone - Women in Israel, Der Freitag (Feb 4, 2005)
• Karin Nungesser, As a mother she also has six arms!, EMMA 02/2004
• Karin Nungesser, The M-Question, Der Freitag (Jan 11, 2002)
• Karin Nungesser, Can men be victims?, Der Freitag (Oct 26, 2001)
• Sabine Schiner, The history of Gella Sprung: Remembrance - 21 stolpersteine are layed on Monday (26th), Echo (Aug 24, 2013)
--88.70.11.79 (talk) 04:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The article doesnt even mention Nungesser himself by name or anything about his personal life, due to WP:BLP concerns. In this scenario there's no reason to mention his mother.Bosstopher (talk) 10:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you articulate simply and clearly what the "WP:BLP concerns" are that are preventing us from mentioning him by name? I am not sure that there are genuine WP:BLP concerns when the name of the male participant in the supposed rape is widely known through numerous good quality journalistic sources. I am not saying that coverage of the mother should upset the balance of our article in favor of those of us who wish to portray the accusation of rape as almost baseless, but as a point of interest for the reader I think inclusion of some degree of material fleshing out a substantial participant, namely the accused rapist, is in order. Bus stop (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

This background information makes his very first statement more convincing (Columbia student accused of raping classmate who has been carrying her mattress around in protest ever since breaks his silence to insist he is a 'feminist', Daily Mail 12/22/2014).--82.113.98.204 (talk) 08:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

That Daily Mail article is from December 2014. It also contains the assertion "My rapist calls himself a feminist." I'm not sure what point 82.113.98.204 is trying to make. Bus stop (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, platitudes about who is and isn't a feminist aren't really relevant here. I've also been arguing for including Nungesser's name from the start, and completely agree that there's no BLP issue with doing so. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

For Nungesser’s mother, Karin, the situation is laden with additional irony as a self-described committed feminist. Paul Nungesser’s comment to The New York Times, “My mother raised me as a feminist,” caused predictable controversy; but his mother, at least, agrees. She points out that she and her husband took an equal role in parenting and that gender issues, which were part of her journalistic work, were often discussed in their home when her son was growing up: “I think we did not just tell him that men and women are created equal, but we lived it.”[22] --88.70.11.79 (talk) 08:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey 88.70.11.79, you're welcome to start an article on Karin Nungesser if you'd like, but any further mention of her doesn't belong in this article. thanks--A21sauce (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2015

The art world responded to the work positively. Art critic Jerry Saltz called Mattress Performance "pure radical vulnerability" and one of the best "art shows" of 2014. Journalist Emily Bazelon described the work and events surrounding it as "an increasingly bitter fight over truth and narrative", a triumph for the campus anti-rape movement and a nightmare for the accused. Caught between defending Sulkowicz's freedom of expression and the accused's right to due process, the university was criticized by both parties and their parents for its handling of the issue. The mattress, housed since May 2015 in Sulkowicz's parents' home, became an icon of a wider civil rights debate about the effect of campus sexual assault on women's equal access to education, and how universities balance the competing rights of the accusers and accused. This moment was known in many artist circles as the day art died.

174.24.254.137 (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done - If I have analyzed your request correctly, you are requesting the addition of one sentence to the end of paragraph 3. You have provided no source, and "the day art died sulkowicz" doesn't produce one that I can see. In the future, please specify only the change and the placement, as "Add to the end of paragraph 3: [new sentence]." ―Mandruss ☎ 23:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2015

External document

Complaint against Columbia University, Trustees of Columbia University, Lee C. Bollinger and Jon Kessler, Nesenoff & Miltenberg LLP, New York City (published by The Wall Street Journal)

Please add ahead of the second section of subparagraph 3.1: The box on the right side that contains the complaint against Columbia University et al. It increases the comprehensibility of the presented information like the current box with Sulkowicz's rules of engagement.--89.204.130.9 (talk) 10:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done - The inclusion of this document even as a reference or external link (far less prominent than this box would be) is currently under discussion in #Lawsuit. Feel free to participate in that discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Cite Nungesser complaint?

Initial issue resolved, further discussion below under "Lawsuit"Bosstopher (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Re: this. I don't have a position on the content dispute, but it's clear that the addition of the citation is a disputed edit, which means we discuss it here, not in edit summaries. The facts that the edit warring is at a slow pace, involves three editors, and hasn't gone on very long don't change the fact that it's an edit war. So here you go, and best wishes on a consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC) I'm not sure it's a matter of content- the thing it's cited to is fine, but we probably shouldn't be including these documents as a primary source for something if we can cite it to secondary sources. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 12:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC) As I understand it, content is anything a reader sees, or can see, in the article. That includes citations. Therefore this is a content dispute. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC) Thanks for the correction, Mandruss- my bad! PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 12:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC) A reference to the complaint, which is about the mattress art work, must be included. If the complaint itself is too detailed, the article in Jezebel is not. That can be included without violating any Wikipedia policies.Atlantacity (talk) 12:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC) The Jezebel article includes the full text of the complaint. If including the complaint itself is an issue to include, I would guess that including this article would also present an issue. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 13:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC) This presents a dilemma which is beyond me. Technically the Gawker network (including Jezebel) is considered a reliable source. But in situations like this where they show how incredibly classy they are, it just seems wrong to use them from a BLP standpoint. A similar comparison would be articles containing leaked nude photographs of celebrities that were published without their consent by the classy establishment that is Gawker. Technically Gawker is a reliable source, but it would be completely unnacceptable for us to link to these articles. The question here is, whether or not this is on the same level as leaked nude photos. Perhaps we should bring this to WP:BLPN or WP:RSN for greater discussion? Bosstopher (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC) What a terrible comparison with linking to leaked nude photos. The entire lemmet is about the accused allegedly raping Mattress Woman. Is it really too much to only include in a footnote a link to a story that links to the complaint? Poor accused. Atlantacity (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC) The "Poor accused" doesn't even have his name mentioned in the article, and much of the lede is dedicated to detailing his point of view, and his being found not responsible. I'd hardly say leaving out this link screws him over. Please note that the document in question goes into a lot of detail on Sulkowicz's personal life and sex life . While this is obviously not on a nudes/sex tape level, there is private and intimate information here that probably should not have been publicised. While I'm fairly certain there's nothing written in stone in "the rules" which stops us from including a link to this (and probably similarly with Gawker's nude leak articles), there is also no rule saying we have to include it. As editors we have the limited autonomy to make a decision to leave this out, and instead use a source that notes there's a lawsuit without posting the entirety of its text. Readers still get the main jist of the complaint and lawsuit without being given every single private detail.Bosstopher (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC) Even the New York Times-story by Bazelon links to the Jezebel story with the complaint. The entire complaint is about the mattress performance. Perhaps we need a separate lemma for the complaint against Columbia University. Atlantacity (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC) Is there a rule against including citations that link to other material? The reason the complaint itself isn't cited is because its a primary source -- but the goal of the sourcing policy is to ensure accuracy and verifiability, it is not to censor or conceal access to other primary sources. If the problem is the inclusion of a Jezebel cite, this article from the Washington Post contains the same claim. [EDIT: On closer reading, I sort of see the point about the Jezebel link: its primarily dedicated to simply quoting the lawsuit, I think the WaPo link would be a better source -- it does contain a link to the lawsuit, but it doesn't reprint it or embed the text]Nblund (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC) The Daily Beast ran a story highlighting the accused's viewpoint. I truly believe that an article that includes the word rape 11 times also should reference the accused rapist's side of the story. Atlantacity (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC) Jezebel is also cited for a detailed discussion of other allegations against the accused for which he has been found not responsible on appeal. Atlantacity (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC) Gawker and it's children are pretty awful sources, not sure why they get the label RS to begin with. However, I don't see a problem with the link that was being added. Arkon (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC) This article already looks very neutral to me. We don't use Wiki voice where we shouldn't. Over all, I think editors have done a very good job here. Again and again, we repeat phrases like "found not responsible" and "untrue and unfounded" and "lack of reasonable suspicion". Where is the pro-Sulkowicz bias in this article? Yes, there are eleven occurrences of the word "rape". The article is centered around an alleged rape, we can't talk about any article's subject without naming it, and twice as many occurrences wouldn't necessarily constitute bias. Atlantacity, if you want to propose specific text for a couple of new sentences, with secondary sources to support them, I think that would be a more viable approach. Any such additions would be subject to the usual scrutiny, and we shouldn't just repeat something that is already said elsewhere in different words, but I think they would stand a better chance than this document. Are we citing the text of Sulkowicz's police complaint? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC) The article includes a link to Sulkowiitz's real-time filing of the police complaint, so yes, it is linking to her police complaint. The article isn't unnecessary hurtful towards the accused, but it is far from neutral as you suggest. Since Sulkowitz's filing of a police compliant is included and information about previous alleged sexual behaviour by the accused is included as well, I suggest we do reference the complaint by linking to Jezebel, just as the New York Times did. Atlantacity (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC) @Atlantacity: Have a look at citation [5], used four times in the article. It's possible none of us in this thread have a clue. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC) Thanks. I suggest we also cite it where the article actually discusses the complaint. If Sulkowicz wants the proceedings to be behind closed doors, she can file a motion. Once the court decides that the complaint as is is out of order, we can take it down. Atlantacity (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC) Citation [5] already occurs one sentence after where you wanted to put your cite. We generally don't repeat the same cite for consecutive sentences when there is no intervening cite. I think we can put this to bed. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC) While I've definitely been a clueless fool, I still think the court documents shouldnt be linked to and have removed them. We gain nothing from linking to them, and they lean on the wrong side of WP:BLPPRIMARY in the amount of private details they divulge. Bosstopher (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request (1), 31 May 2015

Using the source Bus stop found above, I suggest the following edits to the Overview section – some tense changes, minor copy edits, and some new material. (We can also use that source to discuss the museum aspect, but for now this is just about the mattress carrying and the diary.) Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 00:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Purchased from Tall Paul's Tall Mall, the 50lb, dark-blue, extra-long twin mattress is of the kind Columbia places in its dorms, similar to the one on which Sulkowicz alleges she was attacked. She spent the summer of 2014 creating the rules of engagement. Written on the walls of her studio in the university's Watson Hall, these stated that she had to carry the mattress when on university property; that it had to remain on campus when Sulkowicz was not there; and that she was not allowed to ask for help in carrying it, but if help was offered she was allowed to accept. In early September that year she began carrying it on campus. A homeless man was one of the first to help. She told New York Magazine: "He was the first person who helped without some sort of preconstructed belief for why they were going to help. He was like, 'Oh, look, a struggling girl – let me help her and be a nice human being.' That was probably the most honest interaction I had."

Sulkowicz said when she began that she planned to continue until the accused was expelled from or otherwise left Columbia, and that she would take the mattress to her graduation ceremony if necessary. In the end she did carry it to her graduation on 19 May 2015. After graduation she said she had known the university would not expel the student, and that she had expected to carry the mattress for nine months, the length of a pregnancy, which she identified as an important part of the work. Another part of the piece is a 59,000-word diary she kept throughout, recording her experiences and the misunderstandings of commentators.

Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 00:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I support most of this proposal, but I have one objection—the source only says that the homeless man was "among the first to help her", not that he was the first. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Support, I think the homeless man thing probably could just be left out. Nblund (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The importance of mention of the homeless man is that it shows the work and expenditure of energy on the part of Sulkowicz in carrying out her self-assigned task. Many people will help for ideological reasons. But the homeless man likely knew by firsthand experience what it was like to need help. Sulkowicz recognizes and acknowledges this. She seems appreciative of the honesty of the interaction. It might not be a bad idea to include some of the quote from Sulkowicz. Bus stop (talk) 03:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Granger, I've fixed it. I was about to remove it per Nblund, then saw Bus stop's post, so I'll leave it for now. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 03:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support this addition, if the homeless man was truly the first that Sulkowicz acknowledged as helping her. I agree with Bus stop that a quote could be added. Epic Genius (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• I've added the quote, per Bus stop and Epic Genius. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request (2), 31 May 2015

We now have a free photograph of Mattress Performance for the infobox.

Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)
Emma Sulkowicz (center right) with Mattress Performance at her graduation, 19 May 2015
Artist	Emma Sulkowicz
Year	2014–2015
Type	Performance art, endurance art
Location	Columbia University, Morningside Heights, Manhattan, New York City

Also, would someone consider replacing the protection template with {{pp-semi-protected|small=yes}}?

Many thanks, Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick question. Can the image be a bit smaller? Epic Genius (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thank you for getting this picture, Sarah. I strongly support including it. I suggest leaving out the "image_size" parameter from the infobox template, which I think will make the image smaller as Epicgenius suggested. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Since this has become a point of disagreement, let me add: I don't care much about the size—the important thing is that the image be added to the article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It's very small if we remove the size (see below). Lead images are usually at least 300px. Because this is an article about the art, I increased it to 350px. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Granger, Genius. I think the image should be 250 or 300px max.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the larger size here is beneficial. In the larger image, the mattress is better seen and it is clearer that what they are carrying is a mattress.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree—the larger size is preferable. The light blue cap and gown is a notable feature. It figures prominently in the photo, and it benefits from the larger size image. Bus stop (talk) 12:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Done I made the image 300px as a compromise. I've also reduced the size of the protection template as requested above. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Accusation 4: "Not responsible"

Nungesser was found "not responsible" in this latest case — altogether, the fourth time he has been cleared of a sexual assault charge at Columbia.[23][24] You should mention this.--82.113.99.4 (talk) 11:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It's @negratude--89.204.138.175 (talk) 07:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The fourth accuser submitted this press release: [25]. --88.70.11.79 (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A few extracts: "For my Visual Arts Senior Thesis I will use a meditative dance practice that harnesses kinetic energy within my body as an embodied metaphor for the evasion of structural and interpersonal violence, and as an incipient expression of black, trans/feminine and queer identity and resistance."; "I am using dance as an individual form of protest that leverages my identity, body and experiences against those who wish to exploit and violate them: racist, colonizing institutions like Columbia, the Prison Industrial Complex in which its been invested, and serial rapists like Paul Nungesser."; "I am protesting the university’s refusal to protect black students, queer students, trans students, women and femmes from white supremacist capitalist patriarchy and sexual violence. I am going to dance, in videos and on stages, until I receive my diploma next May. I am carrying the torch: Emma carried her mattress across the stage at Commencement, and I will dance across the stage at mine."; "For now, I will dance. I will protest. I will fight. And I WILL win."--89.204.137.36 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 10 May 2015

Procedural discussion

@SlimVirgin and Favonian: "Archiving to await closing editor" and then removing the transclusion of {{requested move/dated}} has effectively removed this item from the RM backlog, so that potential closing admins will not see it listed in the usual place. What is the rationale for hatting this while discussion was still active? This is not standard operating procedure at Requested moves, where generally some requests remain in the backlog indefinitely. Are you making an attempt to find someone to close this? Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I defer to Sarah on this one. The entry was stuck in the limbo of "Malformed requests", where it did no earthly good. No tortoise in this race otherwise. Favonian (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Wbm1058, I archived it because it had been open for so long, but left the template so that it would stay in the backlog to be closed. I believe Flavonian said this was causing a technical problem. I can ask around for someone to close it. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Flavonian, as you're here and uninvolved, would you consider closing it? Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Typo: Favonian. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Now I know that "Russians are of flavonian origin". That aside, sorry, I don't have the guts to deal with this one. The standard way of giving it another trip around the block is to relist the discussion. Favonian (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear God! Please do not re-list this discussion! --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Re-list this discussion. It is obviously not yet resolved. Bus stop (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Favonian and Bus Stop, I agree with Sammy. There's no reason to list it – we just need someone to summarize the consensus. I will look around for someone. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 22:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Response

• The proposal was to move Mattress Performance: Carry That Weight to Columbia University performance art controversy. Thirty-six commented:

Support	18	BoboMeowCat, Cyve, GregJackP, Guy Macon, 82.113.106.122, Mattnad Shibbolethink, Nick Cooper, RightCowLeftCoast, Sammy1339, Martin451, Minor4th Sketches0993, Factchecker atyourservice, Cla68, Gaijin42, Kai445, Darwinian Ape
Oppose	17	Formerip, Nomoskedasticity, gobonobo, Kaldari, Nblund, Randy Kryn, Bus stop, Granger, Calliopejen1, SlimVirgin, FourViolas, Beyond My Ken, Kevin Gorman, Epic Genius, Trystan, MrX, Mandruss
Other	1	Tokyogirl79 (suggests another title)

Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 22:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Default is to maintain the result of the previous consensus.

There are multiple elements embedded in this request; perhaps separate debates limited to each would aid in determining an overall consensus:

• Whether the name given to this by Sulkowicz (i.e. the current title) is the common name given to this by sources. It's possible that sources haven't settled on a common name. Do we default to the artist's name in that case? There was a suggestion to call it a "performance piece" in the title. But if as in Rest Energy (performance piece), we favor titling performance pieces by the artist's given name, (performance piece) is not necessary for disambiguation (Rest energy is a physics concept).
• Whether to include the word "controversy" in the title. I don't feel that the current lead supports this. It labels it as "a work of endurance performance art". If we call it a controversy, we need a lead that summarizes the controversy. The words "controversy" or "controversial" don't even appear in the article.
• Whether to involve Columbia University in the title. The location of the performance is not necessary for disambiguation. If the lead said this was about "a lawsuit", rather than "a work of endurance performance art", it would make more sense to name the involved parties in the title.
• Whether this is really a work of endurance performance art, or a protest. Perhaps it's a new sub-genre of performance art, endurance protest performance art? (non-admin closure) Wbm1058 (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

---

{{requested move/dated|Columbia University performance art controversy}}

Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) → Columbia University performance art controversy – as discussed on WP:BLPN [26] this title seems more neutral. BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Counter-suggestion: Move the title to Mattress performance piece (Columbia University). Bus stop (talk) 18:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Why would you want to remove "controversy"? The whole thing seems controversial in multiple respects. Also, the reliable sources refer to it as "performance art" so I personally prefer that to "piece" which could mean just about anything I think.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Controversy is par for the course with many forms of contemporary art and many instances of contemporary art. This is only in part a controversy over performance art. Many will find all performance art controversial. It is not all performance art we are referring to; it is this performance piece. Bus stop (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I see what your saying. I don't hate your suggestion and "controversy" does seem over used in wiki titles but I'm not sure I prefer this suggestion to the other one.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Most art is not controversial. This particular piece is notable because it was born of controversy (the university siding with the accused, in a climate where universities have been poor at protecting people from assault) and then became a controversy in itself when the accused was outed, publicly shamed, and threatened allegedly by a university sponsored statement/performance art piece. We don't call The Starry Night controversial, because it wasn't. It's notable in and of itself as a work of art. Where modern art is controversial, it's typically because of the statement it makes, or how its made. Not what it does. In this instance, the performance was designed to have an outcome, and it did.Mattnad (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Without the controversy, nobody would have heard of this "performance," and it certainly wouldn't merit a Wikipedia page in and of itself, or at least not until Sulkowicz becomes notable as an artist for output other than this. Nick Cooper (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

What is the "controversy"? The controversy regards "rape allegations". Why are you not arguing for a term such as "rape allegations" in the title? Bus stop (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The controversy is about furthering a false accusation and harassment campaign by means of contrived "performance" masquerading as a legitimate piece of academic work, and the collusion of university authorities in its inception and continuation. If Sulkowicz was studying any other subject, whatever she chose to haul around - placard, mattress, or whatever - would be properly identified as a "protest" and not a "performance." Nick Cooper (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

You don't know that we have false accusations. This article rests on the quicksand of rape verses false allegations of rape. Bus stop (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The balance of the evidence available leans far more to a false accusation than a true one. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• I support the proposed move to Columbia University performance art controversy. This title is neutral and enables a description of the controversy about the performance. By now the controversy seems more notably than the performance by itself.--Cyve (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Cyve—there is "controversy" in carrying a mattress everywhere you go on campus and calling that art, and we have "controversy" when some vocal people assert that rape has taken place and other vocal people assert that false accusations of rape have taken place. But the title need not include that there is controversy. Divided opinions on contemporary art are not all that unusual. This isn't the "fairly standard painting of the president of Westinghouse Corporation that almost all people agree is a pretty good likeness of the man." Rather this is the somewhat edgy ("at the forefront of a trend; experimental or avant-garde") work of art which constitutes an accusation of rape, involving an alleged perpetrator who vehemently denies the charge. The reader is likely to be fully aware of controversy as an element of this work of art—so much so that it would be almost redundant to put the term "controversy" in the title. On the other hand, the reader has substantial information in knowing that this article is about the Mattress performance piece (Columbia University). Bus stop (talk) 00:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. This case can't be compared to "normal" controversies about contemporary art. The controversy about Sulkowicz's performance seems to have attracted more notice than the performance. The artist isn't even named as defendant in the current lawsuit about the performance against the university. And the sources now cover the whole controversy, not only the performance, it's impact on the art world or certain activist activities. --Cyve (talk) 01:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Cyve—have you seen a source commenting on the artwork's "impact on the art world"? I haven't seen any such source. Bus stop (talk) 03:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree. A work that has an impact on the art world, that remains to be seen. It certainly has had an impact on the university and the dialog surrounding sexual assault, which is why the "controversy" is much more important than the "mattress".Mattnad (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• "For the latest of his fashion performance pieces, a genre he has most likely created"
• "In a New Performance Piece, Tilda Swinton Turns Fashion Into Art"
• "Marni Kotak will go off her meds for new performance piece"
• "Performance piece 'Sonic Blossom' blooms before visitors ears"
• "as evidenced by her 2014 performance piece, 'Plop Egg Painting.'". Bus stop (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
• The point to the otherwise irrelevant 5 quotes above is that "performance piece" is standard terminology. Bus stop (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, it might be nice to have "Mattress" in the title, considering this term does seem to be in all the reliable sources discussing this. Although I think adding "controversy" better includes both Title IX complaints, considering they have both filed such complaints at this point. Hopefully, we'll get more feedback and a specific consensus can be reached. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article is about an artwork and the artwork passes GNG, because it is highly regarded by experts in the relevant field. Retitling the article article as if it were about something else cannot possibly be neutral, regardless of how controversial it is. Many works of art are or have been controversial, and this is not something we normally do. This is an artwork about which there is a controversy, not a controversy about which there is an artwork, so the proposal is topsy-turvy. Formerip (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The article is not only about an artwork although the artwork is the element of single greatest importance. The artwork provides the organizing principle for this article. But the lawsuit brought by the male counterpart to the artist is important too. Furthermore we don't have to use the proper name of the artwork. The place that this took place—Columbia University—is an important element in the title. It helps the reader to identify this particular article. Redirects can exist to highly related titles such as the proper name. Bus stop (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether or not I agree that we don't have to use the proper name of the artwork. But what I don't get is why you think it would be a good idea not to. For an article about an artwork, the name of the artwork is the most natural choice for the title, surely. I can see the point that some people might be searching for the artwork and not know the title. They might put all kinds of things into their search, but Google is likely to point them to the right place. I'm not sure how likely anyone is to type "Mattress performance piece (Columbia University)" into the Wikipedia search box, but a redirect will do for them if it's really necessary. The idea that the actual title should be a redirect to an arbitrary set of word describing it seems a little odd to me. Formerip (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

User:FormerIP—the artwork is the most important element of this article but it is not the only element of this article, and there is controversy about the implicit assertion of the artwork. By taking an oblique approach to identifying the artwork in the title, we allow for the possibility that the implicit assertion of the artwork might be incorrect. Indeed "controversy" is being woven into the title in my suggested title, but the word "controversy" is absent. By not kowtowing to the exact title of the artwork I think we appease both sides in the divisive topic of this article. In my opinion the lawsuit is a relatively important part of this article. Bus stop (talk) 00:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support. This is as much about the male victim of her smear campaign as it is about performance art. The proposed title reflects that better. GregJackP Boomer! 00:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support per GregJackP. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, the current title is better, and the arguments re the proposed title are unconvincing at best. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 03:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

"Carry that weight" is unnecessary information for the title of our article. It would be helpful to include "Columbia University" in the title. This performance piece is site specific. The location of the performance piece is confined to the campus of Columbia University. Using terminology commonly in use in reference to the topic of this article we can arrive at the descriptive title Mattress performance piece (Columbia University). (Note "rules of engagement": "going to the subway requires walking a few extra blocks since she can’t cut across campus without the mattress".) Bus stop (talk) 07:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Also see "rules of engagement" here: "The mattress will only be carried on campus." This article is about a performance piece, importantly involving a mattress, uniquely taking place on the campus of Columbia University, and our title should be reflective of these important factors. Bus stop (talk) 09:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

"Carry that Weight" is a central term by which many people will recognise this topic. I continue to oppose the proposed change. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

It is an important phrase ("Carry That Weight") but other terms edge that out in importance as far as the title is concerned. It certainly should be noted in the first sentence of the article. Bus stop (talk) 09:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. First off, losing "mattress" in the title makes the topic less identifiable. Also, I think adopting a descriptive title here takes attention away from the performance art (without which there would be no notability). Further, there are WP:NDESC concerns with the new title, as deeming this a "performance art controversy" rather than "sexual assault policy controversy" places emphasis on the controversy alleged by the accused, not on the controversy addressed through the performance art. The new title would also fundamentally change the scope of the article, inviting BLP problems as we talk less about the performance art and more about the allegations and lawsuits. gobonobo ^{+ c} 15:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't think it makes sense to hide the article behind a generic title rather than the title the work is known by. The BLP issue has little or nothing to do with the title. Even if the title were changed to something like 'artwork controversy' there would still be potential BLP issues. Kaldari (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
• User:Gobonobo and User:Kaldari, that's the feminist POV. It's not neutral. I support the title Columbia University performance art controversy. It's neutral and fits well.--82.113.106.122 (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support the original proposal above. However this article started out, it has become a much broader topic. The mattress is part of it, but secondary to a) her broader message, b) its context, and c) the controversial elements that led up to it, and then stemmed from it.Mattnad (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: some editors want the current title because that's how some people may search for that. Wikipedia is indexed by search engines, and we can have the title of the piece in the body of the text, as well as use redirects. It will not be difficult for people to find it however they search for it provided the needed words are included. If we step back and consider what this article should be (once editing is permitted again), the current title will not accurately reflect the topic.Mattnad (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: "Performance art controversy" could seemingly refer to anything. We use the proper title for other highly controversial artwork, for instance the entries onPiss Christ and The Holy Virgin Mary are titled after the proper name of the artwork, even though both entries discuss the controversies that ensued following their unveiling. Nblund (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Piss Christ did not involve another living person. Sketches0993 (talk) 03:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we have alternate titling policies based on whether an artwork "involve[s] another living person". Bus stop (talk) 06:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not sure what the proper name is, of this artwork. "Sulkowicz' senior thesis, titled "Mattress Performance" or "Carry That Weight," is a literal expression of that emotional weight." Are these two alternative names? This source seems to show preference for the "Carry that Weight" term of reference. Bus stop (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, it's the name of the performance art piece/protest, at least the name that it's acquired as its common name. So the present name of the page seems fine. Randy Kryn 1:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Randy Kryn—is it "performance art" or a "protest"? (You say "it's the name of the performance art piece/protest".) Do "protest[s]" have names? If it is a protest then how is it her senior thesis? A reliable source says "The mattress project is Sulkowicz’s senior thesis as a visual arts major". Do other sources refer to it as a "protest"? Bus stop (talk) 06:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It's both, at least in literal terms. She's performing her art piece until a specific individual leaves the campus, so she's performing as well as citing an end date (although uncertain) of the performance. And as a thesis the piece has a name, which seems to be included in Wikipedia's title, even more of a reason to keep the title, which is already an italicized title. I haven't looked for a source calling it a protest, although some performance art pieces do have an overlay of protest (remember when people were arrested for dancing in the Jefferson Memorial in the U.S., an interesting performance art piece). Randy Kryn 9:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Bus stop, see here: "Columbia University student Emma Sulkhowitz made the cover of Time Magazine because she carries a mattress with her everywhere as a protest against university authorities who have not expelled a student she claims raped her."[27]--82.113.99.132 (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph (Australia) cannot even spell her name right. According to Wikipedia "It is often viewed as Australia's least-trusted major newspaper." Bus stop (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

"Media investigations and a lawsuit against the university... present overwhelming evidence that he did not commit rape. And yet his accuser, Emma Sulkowicz — who garnered fame by hauling her mattress around the Manhattan campus to protest against her alleged rapist — has been feted by women’s organizations and celebrated by New York senator Kirsten Gillibrand for her “courage.” Much the same could be said about “Jackie,” the pseudonymous subject of Rolling Stone’s debunked story “A Rape on Campus”"[28]--82.113.99.251 (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't support the suggested move to Columbia University performance art controversy. I don't think Columbia University should be the first term. Also performance art does not belong in the title. Les Demoiselles d'Avignon does not contain the word cubism in the title. Finally, why is controversy important in the title? That is merely a characterization of the piece. Bus stop (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support for the reasons listed above, but I also would support Mattress Performance controversy.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

"[F]or the reasons listed above"? Almost any suggested title has some merits. But we should be making fine distinctions to arrive at the best title. I'm not saying that there are not "reasons listed above" but would it take too much effort to articulate why you support the suggested move request? Bus stop (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Why include the term "controversy" in the title? This is virtually a wasted term. Why don't we mention the word "controversy" in the title of Les Demoiselles d'Avignon? Or perhaps we should include "controversy" in the title of Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe. Bus stop (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support. The controversy is more notable than the "performance" itself. Nick Cooper (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment So the argument is that either the art piece is the focus of the page, or the accusation itself is the focus of the page. Two very different points of view. The page as it stands now is about the artwork, an award winning artwork, what one art critic includes on his top ten list. The page is italicized, which shows that the page is about the art, and it is entitled with the proper name of the artwork. The male student in question gets enough exposure in the article, and the data is in there that no charges have been brought, that he's legally innocent. But whatever happened between them which caused her to create this artwork (again, an award winning artwork), her inspiration for the piece, thus should not be the name or main focus of the page, but explained within it. Making the incident more prominent than the artwork makes the page about a disagreement about an event, an event in which no legal charges were brought or acted upon. That in itself likely doesn't pass (or even come near) the threshold of being prominent enough for a Wikipedia page. What's left, and what makes it a Wikipedia page, is the award winning artwork. Randy Kryn 23:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the scope of the article should remain the same no matter the title. I think we are arguing over the title in order to affect the scope. But in this instance I think scope and title should be considered disconnected. All we should be doing is trying to find the best title. Content of this article should not even be taken into consideration when choosing the best title. I think articles generally should follow titles, but this is an exception. Bus stop (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support as the controversy about the "performance art" is more notable than the "art" itself.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support. The sources are not mainly art critics but journalists discussing rape accusations, and often describing the piece as a "protest" or "part art, part protest." The alleged rape is more notable than the alleged art. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Then why aren't you arguing for a title containing "alleged rape"? Bus stop (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@Bus stop: I would be fine with that but it's not part of this proposal. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

In terms of having a Wikipedia page, the event is not notable. The male was not charged, either by legal authorities or by the University. Rape or no rape, misunderstanding or not, it's a tragic situation for all involved, but it is not enough of a notable event in Wikipedia prominence terms to merit a page. The prominent item is the artwork, an award winning artwork, for which the page has been named, and is the woman's way of making her point outside of a formal charge and because one was not forthcoming. It should also be made clearer in the lead that no charges have been brought. The controversy alluded to is already well covered in the page about the art piece. Randy Kryn 19:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: I think much of what's going on here is really just an argument between those who think he's probably guilty, and those who think she is. After reading the Daily Beast article I think the preponderance of evidence suggests that the accusation was an outright fabrication on her part. If so, that's a tragedy for him, and for the 98% of women who aren't lying about their assault, but not so much for Emma Sulkowicz who, in that case, has made a name for herself without ever having been a victim of anything. But regardless of who's guilty, what's notable is the accusation and subsequent protests, not the alleged rape or art piece. So I misspoke in that respect. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi. The accusation isn't notable, or at least notable in Wikipedia-universe terms which has a barrier to what is page-worthy notable (although any garage band who can scrape up a few dollars and put out an album for their friends and family, or someone who has batted once in a major league baseball game, automatically become notable, sigh). So the protest is the notable part, and the protest is the art piece which has taken on a life of its own and won awards and honors. Hence the name of the page. Again, it should be made clearer in the lead that no charges were brought. And there is no way that evidence can prove that she was making the incident up, nobody was there but the two people, who have differing public accounts of what occurred. So again, what is different in this sad situation, and what makes it notable, is that she created a performance art piece and has been awarded for it. Nothing else is Wikipedia-page-worthy-notable, at least that's how it seems to me. Randy Kryn 20:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support Whilst the mattress performance art is notable, it is the motivation and previous issues and allegations that made the art notable. Without the previous claims this story would never have hit international headlines. The different parts of the story go together, which is why a title just about the art is not suitable. We will never know who is right or wrong here, it could even be that they are both right, and/or both wrong. They could have misinterpreted each others behaviour.
  • wrt Piss Christ the controversy is about the art piece itself. There is no previous controversy before the art was produced.
  • The accusations are notable. E has made them notable with her art piece, and the accusations have been printed world wide.
  • Using the term alleged rape, that has BLP issues, it implies E is lying about the accusations.
  • Equally using Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) implies E is the victim.
  • Whilst this may not be the best title, and I am not suggesting another, it is better than the current title.

Martin451 21:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Martin451—you say "Equally using Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) implies E is the victim." Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) is the title of the artwork and it is "one of the most important artworks of the year", at least according to one source. Other sources endorse it too. Bus stop (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@Bus stop: And yet even that source, which refers to it as art throughout, acknowledges that calling it art may be controversial: "Given the stakes, the question of whether Mattress Performance "is art" is probably a distraction." --Sammy1339 (talk) 11:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Sammy—the source is not "acknowledg[ing] that calling it art may be controversial"[29]. Bus stop (talk) 10:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sammy1339—I find it an unclear thought, expressed there in Artnet. It reads "Given the stakes, the question of whether Mattress Performance 'is art' is probably a distraction." I am not sure what is meant by that. My best guess is that he, the art critic Ben Davis, who I a never heard of, is juxtaposing the artist's trauma of rape with what he is positing is the the lesser question of whether the performance is art or not. I think he is saying that expressing the trauma of one's own rape, presumably what Sulkowicz is doing, is a far greater act than the relatively inconsequential question of whether or not one's self-expression constitutes art. He goes on to speak about other performance artists, I think all female. I think in all or most cases the performances of these women as well as performance artists in general "pushes the envelope", that is, most performance art constitutes something that a large segment of society would say is not art. But the avant garde never flourished on the majority, or at least so I've been told. Bus stop (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

A "lynching"[30] "witch-hunt"[31] "without proof"[32] is avant-garde? Ridiculous and disgusting. Reminds of dark ages. --82.113.98.88 (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I think "lynching" is being used figuratively. Bus stop (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Bus stop: I think the author is alluding to the fact that there is controversy over whether the protest ought to be called art, which is why it is not NPOV for Wikipedia to assert that it is art. I also strongly disagree with your presumption that Sulkowicz is expressing the trauma of her rape. Quite to the contrary, I think the Daily Beast article shows that the weight of evidence strongly suggests she fabricated the incident. I conjecture that an assumption that she's telling the truth lies behind most people's position that the protest should be defended as an artwork, and that makes this very POV. (Equally, it would be POV for the article to assert that her allegations were false.) --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Sammy—the author is not "alluding to the fact that there is controversy over whether the protest ought to be called art"[33]. Bus stop (talk) 10:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Many good quality sources support that it is art. Bus stop (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

And many others don't support that. That's how NPOV disputes go. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen any good quality sources that go against the designation of the performance as art, keeping in mind that op-eds do not count. And I think your missing the point slightly. Even if you believe there is strong evidence she made the whole thing up (that's your belief to which you are entitled), it's far from clear that would be prevent it from being called "art". It might be deeply immoral art, but the only way to determine whether or not is is art at all would still be to look at what reliable sources say. Formerip (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Here are some sources which describe the protest and conspicuously avoid the term "art":[34], [35], [36], [37]. Of course only opinion pieces (like this one) can directly assert that the piece might not be art, but it's apparent to me that many journalists saw it as something not to be taken for granted, and called it protest instead. Others, like this one and , called it "part art, part protest," indicating some doubt as to its status. This source, following a quote by Sulkowicz wherein she refers to it as art, says that it is "part protest, part project", indicating an unwillingness to accept her point of view on the protest's art-status as objective. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have misread, it says "part protest, part performance art", and it doesn't seem to follow any quote in any way that might indicate anything. Formerip (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, it looks like I linked the wrong article. I meant this one. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what we are talking about. Weren't we talking about the title? How does any of this have to do with the title? By the way, the article says "The senior student received a course credit in visual arts for the act of carrying the mattress, which is part protest, part project." Isn't that supportive of it being art? She "received a course credit in visual arts for the act of carrying the mattress". Bus stop (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, there are two points of view here. One is that Sulkowicz's actions constitute a protest, and the other is that they constitute a work of performance art. The events have been covered both ways. I say that Wikipedia should remain neutral on the matter, which is a controversial matter of opinion, and represent the opposing views. Making the title about the art, when much of the coverage only describes it as a protest and does not discuss it as an art piece, gives undue weight to one perspective. Moreover, while it is possible to have "immoral art," as User:FormerIP has pointed out, I have also suggested that most of the people supporting the "art" designation are sympathetic to Sulkowicz. That's not a problem in and of itself, but presenting this article as being about an artistic performance emphasizes the things one might find significant if one believed her, whereas if one did not believe her, one might find other aspects of these events more significant. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I think both Roberta Smith and Jerry Saltz, both art critics, consider the entity to be an example of performance art. Yes, they are probably "sympathetic to Sulkowicz". Bus stop (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it matters whether it is a "protest" or not except insofar as protests seem less likely to have titles. An artwork might be called "Untitled" but I don't think one would state that a protest was "untitled" because it is not expected to have a title in the first place. Bus stop (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

That's not two contradictory viewpoints you're describing. It's perfectly possible for something to be both art and a protest. Formerip (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@FormerIP: Obviously, and I linked articles that took that view. However, it's not universally agreed that it's both. Sulkowicz says it's art, and the accused says it's not art. There are opinions on both sides, and in the middle. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Has he actually given an opinion about whether it's art? Very possibly, he might think it isn't. But he also isn't an expert on the matter, and those who are say it is. For Wikipedia, that's what counts. Formerip (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I doubt that "the accused" has actually weighed in on whether the entity is art or not. Bus stop (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

"(70) Emma made clear that the Mattress Project... was not about art...", "(81) Emma’s campaign of gender based harassment and defamation..."--88.70.11.79 (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

88.70.11.79—you point to item 70 and item 81 in the legal document, but "the accused" doesn't weigh in at those points nor anywhere else that I'm aware of with an opinion as to whether the entity is art or not. Bus stop (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Bus stop, her professor isn't neutral. It's an artist. Both share one POV. The other is the accused's POV, which is shared by more and more commentaries, especially in Berlin and Germany.--82.113.106.168 (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

"Neutral" isn't a simple concept. Her professor and all others involved in conferring degrees in visual arts at educational institutions are experts in their field. Bus stop (talk) 02:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@Bus stop. This piece of art is targeting another person, with serious allegations. This is about more than the art, it is about the whole story, without the background the art is nothing, and would not have made news. The current title is her words for the piece, and by definition POV for her. The court case is also making headlines, we could rename this piece (redacted) vs. Columbia University. The suggested title is WP:NPOV and better accommodates WP:BLP. Wikipedia should not use her words for the title on a case like this. Martin451 23:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

User: Martin451—a title chosen for this article indicates a perspective. I'm tempted to say there are no wrong titles for this article. A title such as the one you mention, (redacted) vs. Columbia University, is a good example of a title that clearly has its merits. It says that we view this article from a legal perspective. But do we? Are all the quotes from art critics of any legal applicability? I don't think so. You say "[t]he suggested title is WP:NPOV and better accommodates WP:BLP." I don't understand this. We choose a title to express a perspective, in this case, anyway. I think we are very concerned with art, in this article. Performance art itself is questionable. Why does a student receive a degree for demonstrating the endurance to transport a mattress? Isn't this something that should be bestowed by the trucking industry? If, as I am suggesting, this article is primarily about art, then why shouldn't the title of the article be the title of the artwork? This is widely Wikipedia's practice. Yes, there is a lawsuit involved. But how does the artwork's title undermine or detract from the lawsuit? It doesn't. The title of the artwork doesn't happen to detract from the allegations of the lawsuit at all. The title was presumably given to the artwork at a time approximating its inception. A title of an artwork can be considered an extension of the work of art if given to the artwork by the artist, especially if given at the time the artwork was created. Therefore this should be considered a standard article on a work of art as concerns its title. In the final analysis I think we already have the right title on this article. Bus stop (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

User: Martin451—you say "The current title is her words for the piece, and by definition POV for her." No, it is not. It is her name for the artwork. You say "The suggested title is WP:NPOV and better accommodates WP:BLP." No, it is not. There is nothing "non-neutral" about the present title, nor does it even slightly violate WP:BLP. Bus stop (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The article is about more than the performance piece. The story has two sides to it, two points of view. The art is the latest in a list of complaints about redacted, and redacted has gone public and put his side, and is taking legal action. Using her title for the article, would be like having an article named after just one of two teams at a sporting event, it creates a very lopsided article. Martin451 18:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

You say "The article is about more than the performance piece." Of course it is about more than the performance piece. That is in the nature of most performance pieces. A performance piece, unlike a painting for instance, goes out into the space of the non-art world and interacts with the non-art world. A lawsuit is one of many possible consequences of the work of art as formulated by and initiated by the artist. The lawsuit itself is subordinate in importance to the artwork. It is merely responding to it. Sources are captivated by the artwork. They lavish considerable attention on the artwork. They merely dutifully report that there is a lawsuit. Our article is not about a lawsuit with an associated artwork. Rather it is about an artwork with an associated lawsuit. Bus stop (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is normal for an article about a work of art to use the title of the artwork as the title of the article. This is true even if the article focuses as much on controversy caused by the artwork as on the artwork itself. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

  Exactly. Something which hasn't been mentioned in this discussion is that once an artist puts their visual art into public viewing, as with this piece, the art stands alone aside from what motivated it. The viewer or listener can then interpret it anyway they want. The artist gives up control the moment the piece is presented. In this case the title can be interpreted many ways. "Carry that weight" could mean she's carrying the weight of the rape and the scorn of the people who are claiming it did not happen, or carrying the weight of making a false accusation against a former friend, or carrying the weight for the students who have to sleep on uncomfortable cheap dorm room mattresses (someone give Columbia a student mattress endowment, stat), or carrying the weight of the world for all people who just want to lay down and rest during the day - there are literally dozens of other reasons why someone might carry a blue mattress around a college campus. The art stands alone, outside of motivation. It has a name (which is the title of this page), and, as a stand-alone art work, that name is all the interpretation that the artist gives it. Randy Kryn 12:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm OK either with the present title, which is the title of the piece, or Mattress performance piece (Columbia University). But I reiterate that I am opposed to the suggested move to "Columbia University performance art controversy". I think it has been said that Wikipedia is "not a tabloid" and that we avoid "sensationalism". If that is the case then why would we be focussing (in the title) on some kind of a "controversy"? Bus stop (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

This "performance art" has lead to multiple court filings. It's art, an ongoing demonstration/statement (for a few more days), and part of a much bigger story about how colleges handle sexual assault. The current title is inadequate.Mattnad (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

So what if the work of performance art "has lead to multiple court filings"? If it is a part of "a much bigger story about how colleges handle sexual assault" then those articles can be linked to, from this article. You say that the "current title is inadequate" but I fail to see that. We should be writing one article at a time. This happens to be the article about the attempted performance piece that might have run afoul of the law. As the Wall Street Journal writes: "Ron Kuby, a New York City-based civil-rights attorney who doesn’t represent anyone involved, said Columbia faces difficult options. 'As a university, you’re trying to promote two utterly inconsistent values,' he said. 'One is academic freedom and the vigorous exchange of ideas. The other is creating a safe space where students feel comfortable expressing those ideas.'" Bus stop (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support. If the alleged perpetrator is to be named and his defenses included, the proposed article name more accurately reflects the articles scope. Minor4th 14:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Why can't he be named in the article with its present title, and why can't his defenses be included in the article with its present title? Bus stop (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Because "Carry that Weight" was the name given by her early supporters before the lawsuit Sketches0993 (talk) 03:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

From where are you deriving that it is "the name given by her early supporters"? Bus stop (talk) 06:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) is the name of her work of art. Regardless of what transpired with the passage of time, it remains the name of her work of art. Bus stop (talk) 03:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support Why is her art piece notable at all? It is the fact that she named her alleged rapist in public; when the lawsuit was filed it became fair to name him in this article. That said, the art piece was as much as a form of public shaming against this man. The article title should be changed for BLP purposes, out of fairness for both individuals in this unfolding event. Sketches0993 (talk) 03:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see the WP:BLP violation in the present title. How is Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) a WP:BLP violation? Bus stop (talk) 03:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment "Carry That Weight" was a term to this art piece given to her early supporters. It should not be mentioned in the title or first sentence. Earlier sources are the best sources here, as Emma's story has shifted a bit since the lawsuit was filed.

1. REDIRECT [[38]]

Sketches0993 (talk) 03:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Sketches0993—I have seen no source suggesting that the title of the artwork "was a term to this art piece given to her early supporters". Do you have a source suggesting this? Bus stop (talk) 06:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• User:Sketches0993—please don't post in the middle of another editor's post, as you do here. You respond to two different editors in that post, and I am referring to the second of your two responses to those two different editors. It interrupts their post. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 04:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry tried to fix my formatting. Sketches0993 (talk) 04:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: How about moving this to Columbia University student mattress performance art controversy? This would be more in keeping with similar articles like Yale student abortion art controversy and it would also have mention of the mattress in the title, which would help clarify which specific controversy it is referring to. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Tokyogirl7—what was the title of Aliza Shvarts' 2008 Yale University artwork? Bus stop (talk) 09:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

From looking at the article, it seems that her proposal didn't actually go ahead, hence the difference in titling between that article and this. Formerip (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• I can't remember if she'd ever titled it, but I know that initially the article was about Schvarts and was retitled because the article and coverage was ultimately about the controversy it sparked. While this performance art does have a title, a large portion of this seems to be about the controversy as a whole- that she apparently made up the allegations, that several staff members were OK with her doing this performance art, and the guy's part in trying to clear his name afterwards and sue the university for their part in things. It's just that at this point I can see the desire to change the article title because it's gone beyond the initial performance art. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Tokyogirl7—what leads you to think "it's gone beyond the initial performance art"? Bus stop (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• It's gone beyond the initial performance art in that there is now a lawsuit against the college and it's being discussed as part of the ongoing discussion on false rape allegations. Part of the controversy is that this was her senior thesis, meaning that her teacher signed off on this without looking into how badly this could come across. If this was just a piece of performance art that she was doing completely separate from the school then that'd be different and I'd support the article being named after the title of the work, akin to similar controversial pieces like Piss Christ. However part of the controversy about this is how the school reacted to everything, how it was a student senior art piece, and how this initially went forward with the support of at least one faculty member, which I think should be reflected in the article's title. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Tokyogirl7—the "initial performance art" would have to have a limitation in order for the lawsuit against the school to be "beyond the initial performance art". Is there something for you that suggests the limits of the performance piece? One place to look might be her "rules for her performance piece, a protest against the university’s handling of her charges of sexual assault on campus". Do any of her rules suggest a lawsuit against the university would be "beyond the initial performance art"? The present title is fine for this article. It is the title of her performance piece. That the university allowed to go forward a performance piece that they perhaps should have anticipated would have legal consequences which involve the university is immaterial to the accomplishments of the artist. You don't have to agree with the accomplishments. An encyclopedia can't decide to rob an artwork of its title because it finds the artwork ugly or lacking aesthetic merit. Unless you are arguing as an editor suggested above that we change the article title to (redacted) vs. Columbia University, the title should remain as it is. Bus stop (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with her. It's just that this is more than just a piece of performance art and it's had a pretty wide discussion over what the artist did, whether or not her adviser is culpable for anything- which leads into whether or not the university as a whole is culpable for this, the media's reaction to everything, the ongoing discussions over rape allegations (both true and false), followed by whether or not the rape even happened. I'm not trying to "rob" the artist of anything and I'm more than a little put off that you'd suggest that I'm trying to downplay the performance art. This may not have been your intent, but your phrasing strongly comes off like you're suggesting that I'm doing this to further a WP:POINT. I have no personal feelings or opinions about the artwork, the validity of the allegations (I'm labeling them false because at this point in time the common perception is that they were false), or about any of the reception (positive or negative) that the artwork or Sulkowicz have received. It's just that at this point this is more than just a little controversy over a piece of art. I don't think that this should be changed to "(redacted) vs. Columbia University" because that would put undue weight on the lawsuit. All I'm suggesting is that the title reflect on the fact that part of the controversy seems to be about the fact that this was a senior art piece that was approved by the university as opposed to just a piece of performance art that she did on her own. Now if this had been something she'd done on her own (akin to Piss Christ) then it'd make more sense to have it just under that title. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
• Ideally the name of the artwork would be mentioned in the lead sentence and bolded akin to how article titles are bolded. In other words, it'd be something like "The Columbia University performance art controversy refers to the performance art Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) by Emma Sulkowicz and the resulting controversy..." or something along those lines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• I apologize. I didn't mean "you" when I said "You don't have to agree with the accomplishments. An encyclopedia can't decide to rob an artwork of its title". I hope you'll accept my apology. But you say "the common perception is that they were false", in reference to rape allegations. We most definitely do not know that the rape allegations were false. "Common perception" has been wrong before. I don't think this should be changed to "(redacted) vs. Columbia University" but this is either an article about an artwork connected to a lawsuit or a lawsuit connected to an artwork. At this point the article contains a greater focus on the artwork than the lawsuit. Bus stop (talk) 04:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support: with the caveat that the words "rape allegation and" be added. There's really nothing controversial about performance art in general, or the fact that this girl in particular chose to conduct a work of performance art. Quite obviously, the rape allegation is the controversial part. Without the ongoing rape allegation there wouldn't even be any reaction quotes from RS's; probably there would be no notability and no material at all from which to write an article. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 14:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support move to new title. The suggested title is more neutral. Cla68 (talk) 04:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Any reason or it just seems like a good idea? Bus stop (talk) 05:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Choosing a more neutral title does seem like a good idea, doesn't it? I think a bad idea is to peruse RfCs and leave comments attempting to cast aspersions or doubts on other people's opinions which are different from yours. But, I know I should give you a break because this is a standard Wikpedian way of treating other people and since WP's administration never does anything about it you probably think it's ok or even approved. Cla68 (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Deliberate misinterpretation of another editor's question? Great way to treat other people... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Cla68—yes, I understand that you want to change the title of this article to something other than the name of the art piece, but I hardly think you have provided a reason. How would a different title be more "neutral"? No matter what the consequences of the performance piece, its title remains the same. She did not rename it as a consequence of a lawsuit being brought against the university and some of its staff. She executed a work of art which might have had different consequences or no consequences at all. Wikipedia has a fairly standard operating procedure, with some exceptions, of naming articles on works of art after the name of the work of art. To deviate from the standard calls for an argument to support that deviation. You have simply given as a reason "more neutral". Is that the entirety of your argument? Obviously it is her work of art and she titled it. Bus stop (talk) 00:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Your response seems pretty disingenuous given that you know it's a rape accusation and not "just" a "work of art". Let's turn your phrasing around; why should WP throw all its neutrality out the window and take a completely uncritical approach to a criminal accusation, simply because it's being made in the form of an "art work"? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 13:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Though not the more standard painting or sculpture this is certainly considered a variety of visual art by most sources commenting on it. Many good quality sources support that Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) is a type of art called performance art. The student received credit for a senior theses for this piece. Our own biases are not what matters as much as the assertions supported by good quality sources. Negative opinions in good quality sources warrant inclusion in our article. Consider that voiced by Robert Fulford here . The name of the artwork is established in sources. We read for instance "Sulkowicz has garnered widespread attention since September 2014 for her senior thesis project, Mattress Performance: Carry That Weight." Why would we not title this article with the title of the performance piece? Bus stop (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The piece's status as a rape accusation has been rather extensively remarked upon, too, and is the sole source of notability for the piece; why should we not title the article honestly and indicate that fact? Or to take it a step further and adopt the kind of stance you're adopting, why should we not refer to it as a rape accusation instead of as an art piece? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 18:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Quite simply, because it is an art piece. It bears the hallmarks of an art piece. "Sulkowicz, a visual-arts major, says she was raped by a classmate in her dorm bed sophomore year." The accusation takes the form of a work of art. The student-artist made preliminary versions of this expression prior to settling on the expression as we know it. An earlier version was contemplated and then abandoned in favor of the present form. "The performance piece began to take shape in Ms. Sulkowicz’s mind during a residency at Yale Summer School of Art and Music in Norfolk, Conn., this past summer. First she made a short video that showed her dismantling a bed, with the police station tape as audio. But soon she focused on the mattress alone and using it on campus, with the simplest, most public action being to carry it." We shouldn't be concocting titles for this article. Our standard procedure concerning articles on individual works of art is to use the title of the piece. Bus stop (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a criminal accusation, and we have all sorts of rules that apply to such a situation, and those rules are vastly more important than adhering to some "Wikipedia naming protocol for works of art" that happens to result in a misleading title. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 16:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

But you are not suggesting a title indicative of this article being about a "criminal accusation". Also, a suggested move to a title indicative of this article being about a "criminal accusation" would not properly be introduced in the middle of another move request. I too have made that error in this thread. A new Talk page section with a suggested move request to a different title should be created. This section of this Talk page obviously concerns a move request to the suggested title of Columbia University performance art controversy. I am concerned that we will end up with a title based upon arguments in support of a different title. Bus stop (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Nblund and Gobonobo. It is standard to refer to an artwork (regardless of how controversial) by its name. Her rape accusation wasn't notable until her artwork attracted attention, so I don't think the main topic of the article is the accusation itself (or the controversy related thereto). I also don't think that "Carry That Weight" endorses her accusations; it is simply the title of her artwork. If the title of her piece were "Rape of Emma Sulkowicz by XYZ" maybe Wikipedia's repetition of the name would be problematic. But here I don't see the benefit of moving the article from the title of her artwork to a title that is vague and unrecognizable to readers. The BLP problems exist regardless of the title and should be handled delicately. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• support the art itself is only marginally notable. It is a mere facet of the allegation, and subsequent aftermath which is truly notable. It should maintain a significant presense in the resulting article, but already this current article spends way more time talking about the incident and controversy than the "art" Gaijin42 (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support With more information about the case coming out, the title has undue weight [redacted] I would also support "Mattress Performance controversy" or some other title that adds "controversy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kai445 (talk • contribs)

This isn't an article about whether a rape took place or not. The factuality of that is unknowable. This article is about either of two topics. If you know of a third topic please tell us. This article is either about a work of art or a lawsuit. The present title indicates that this is an article about a work of art. A title such as "(redacted) vs. Columbia University" would indicate that this is an article about a lawsuit. That is just an example. If you know of a better title to indicate that this is an article about a lawsuit, please suggest it. Note that this section of this Talk page concerns a requested MOVE from "Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)" to "Columbia University performance art controversy". If you wish to suggest a different MOVE, please start a new Talk page section. This Talk page section is becoming unfocussed. I have contributed to that lack of focus but I would like to now bring us back on track. Bus stop (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. When the proposed title was first suggested, I thought I could support it, but I think now that it would take the article in the wrong direction. It would also single this artwork out for different treatment compared to our usual handling of controversial art, such as Myra (painting) and The Holy Virgin Mary, both of which required security guards.

  Mattress Performance is the only notable issue here. The work reflects and cements a period in which women moved the boundaries. A museum is likely to buy the mattress and rules of engagement, which will give the work a space in which to endure. There will be probably be exhibitions and scholarly articles.

  The work's notability is underlined by the lawsuit claiming that the university ought not to have allowed it. This will open up all the interesting questions about freedom of expression and conflicting rights and duties. But everything hangs on the performance piece, not the allegations, as the lawsuit itself makes clear. The allegations themselves are not notable. Each party has a different view of what happened, and there isn't much more we can say about the details than that. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

This argument that the "work" is notable but that the rape accusation is not notable, is frankly impossible to square with reality. The rape accusation is the only thing here that is notable; the rape accusation is what got attention and coverage; the rape accusation is the only thing that makes this thing an "art piece" instead of just a woman carrying arround a mattress for no reason; it's the only reason art critics even paid attention to it or mentioned it in the first place.

Indeed, her mission statement for the piece is that she would carry it until her [alleged] rapist is no longer at Columbia. It is quite literally, a rape accusation delivered in "art form". DO you deny this? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 15:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it isn't quite literally a rape allegation, because it doesn't name anyone. And, although it is impossible to completely separate the artwork from the artist's claim that she was raped, it is also false that a rape accusation is all that makes the piece notable. Most of the early coverage does not name the alleged rapist or any controversy over his guilt or innocence, that has only happened relatively recently, and the article would still sail past GNG comfortably without even considering that more recent coverage. Formerip (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

You are functioning as an art critic. Aren't you explaining how the piece functions as a work of art? You say "the rape accusation is the only thing that makes this thing an 'art piece' instead of just a woman carrying around a mattress for no reason". We don't title a drip painting by Jackson Pollock in accordance with how gravity effects paint and yet one can argue that gravity is important to such a work of art. If we take a view which is dispassionate towards the seriousness of rape as well as the seriousness of false rape allegation we are left with what some are calling a work of art and which a lawsuit alleges constitutes "bullying" and other unsavory descriptors. Bus stop (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Bus stop and parallel to SV. The majority of RS consider Sulkowicz's actions a performance art piece, and that lets us off the hook of hammering out an ugly minimally-objectionable title; the present title is, apropriately, a quote of the artist's voice. Any detectable bias is correct to include, since Sulkowicz's presentation of the situation is what got everyone's attention. (Again, per analogy with the transgressive artworks mentioned).

  In any case the encyclopedic (historical, sociological) significance of the work is its position as a locus of the present culture war in America around campus rape, and the discussions and high-level responses it's provoked. These discussions and responses are a result of her public actions and high-visibility performance, and independent of the controversy about the unknowable details of whatever spcific events inspired the artwork. FourViolas (talk) 07:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The majority of RS's also consider it a controversial rape accusation, with many noting the apparent lack of credibility of the accusation itself, and I don't see any basis for pretending that's not the case simply so we can claim, contrary to reality, this article "is only about an art piece". Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 16:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Our article is not only about an art piece. It is also about a lawsuit. The lawsuit finds wrongdoing in the art piece, especially in what the lawsuit argues is the condoning of it by the educational institution. What you are calling the "apparent lack of credibility of the accusation" seems to me to be irrelevant to the titling of our article. We are not writing an article on the differing opinions on whether a rape took place. There are two basic subjects being addressed in this article. There is the supposed work of art and there is the lawsuit challenging the university. Bus stop (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say it was "only about an art piece," because it isn't. However, the performance is, in fact, the reason she "got attention and coverage" while many other college students who alleged they were raped and unfairly treated by their universities got much less.

The reason this article exists is that, at a zeitgeist-appropriate moment, a college student made a remarkably public allegation of rape and subsequent university mishandling, and this allegation attracted a lot of attention and a variety of responses. As it happens, there's a precise term which describes that remarkably public, widely-discussed allegation: it's called "Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)". The fact that the validity of the allegation is currently a focus of attention is further evidence that it is an appropriate title under which to collect information about it and its responses. FourViolas (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sammy1339—you've left an edit summary "Reverted to revision 664006211 by FormerIP (talk): Please don't revert your comments after hours have passed and others have commented." In point of fact no one has responded to that post of mine therefore I don't see why I should not be permitted to revert myself. I've removed my post again. Is there some reason that you feel that my post should remain? Please note that no one has responded to that post of mine. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@Bus stop: Per WP:REDACT you should strikethrough your comments, not remove them. Even if people are talking on other parts of the page, they could have read your comment and been influenced by it. Repeatedly changing your comments can also cause problems with edit conflicts - someone may be responding to an old version of one of your comments that you changed. This happened to me when I was writing in response to you a little while ago. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave my original post in place, but with a strike through it. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose any move - The actual name of the performance is the proper place for it to be. We don't list Guernica (Picasso) under "Spanish Civil War atrocity painting". BMK (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per BMK. Even when artwork is about a controversy, it's typical to use the name of the piece of art, and not the controversy. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is the proper, and one can say "official", name. Per WP:COMMONNAME, readers will more likely search for "Mattress Performance..." than "Columbia performance art controversy", which is beating around the bush. The neutrality concerns are tangential here, since I really don't see anything not neutral about "carrying that weight" or a "mattress performance". These words convey no particular bias until the context is placed. Even then, this article is not about the controversy; it is about the artwork itself. If it were mainly about the controversy, I would probably support, but it's not about the controversy, which is relegated to a few sections of the article. Epic Genius (talk) ± 02:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. An article about a piece of art could be titled with something other than the name of the artwork if there were a strong WP:COMMONNAME argument, but the proposed title is less recognizable than the piece's proper title. I don't buy that the subject of the article is the controversy, rather than the performance piece; it makes much more sense to discuss a piece of art and the ensuing controversy than it does to talk about a controversy made notable by the artwork that triggered it. A title attempting to characterize what the controversy is about (the work itself? the sexual assault complaint? the school's handling of sexual-assault complaints?) is inherently less neutral and highly problematic.--Trystan (talk) 04:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - In part because I surmise that readers would be more likely to search for the article by typing Mattress [something] rather than Columbia [something]. Also, the name of the artwork would seem to be the most natural title and follows our convention for similar articles.- MrX 23:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and following search results (true counts only, not calculated estimates). I wouldn't call this RFM a waste of time, and I don't propose to dictate how others spend their unpaid time at Wikipedia, but I hope we won't spend a lot more time on it. It's only the title of a relatively unimportant article, less world-changingly important than many seem to think these things are, far less important than actual content, certainly not worth extensive debate about how much weight to give to which reliable sources, to what extent COMMONNAME should apply in the first place, and so on, and so on. As always in move discussions, redirects make arguments related to ease of search meaningless.

	Google Search	Google News
Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)	219	62
Columbia University performance art controversy	15	0

―Mandruss ☎ 12:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support Per the discussion below Darwinian Ape ^talk 14:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.