Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

RfC: How should Camille Paglia be described/identified in the article?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus in the discussion. But options 1 had the most support 3, 7, and 8 having less. The rest had little support but 2 and 6 had the least. AlbinoFerret 04:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Brief background of the issue and dispute:

There has been much discussion about how to describe/identify Camille Paglia when mentioning her comments about Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) (the subject of the article). Discussions can be found at WP:BLPN#Mattress Performance (Carry_That_Weight) and above on this page at Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)#Camille Paglia.

The sentence in question is (in its current form), Social critic Camille Paglia described Mattress Performance as "a parody of the worst aspects of that kind of grievance-oriented feminism," adding that a feminist work "should empower women, not cripple them." I have underlined the descriptor in question.

The current version uses "social critic" to describe Paglia. Past versions used other labels, including "feminist". There is disagreement in using the label "feminist" to describe her. However a number of sources and other academics say otherwise (see past discussions and Camille Paglia for details). She uses the label to describe herself, specifically "dissident feminist" or "outside the feminist mainstream".

How should Camille Paglia be described/identified in the article?

Based on past discussion, following suggestions have been given:

1. Social critic
2. Feminist
3. Dissident feminist (with text that Paglia uses this to refer to self)
4. Professor
5. Professor at University of the Arts (Philadelphia)
6. Author
7. No label
8. Cultural critic (late addition; see #Discussion below for WSJ source).

I am initiating this RfC because clear consensus has not been reached in either forum despite days of discussion. I hope this RfC will bring fresh perspectives and generate consensus. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe its a typo, but I haven't seen any outside sources saying that she's not a "dissident feminist" or that her views represent the feminist mainstream. It seems like she herself, as well as her supporters, acknowledge and even embrace her reputation as a gadfly and an outsider. Has someone actually cited academics who characterize her views as "mainstream"? Nblund (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Nblund: Thank you. Sentence order error. Have fixed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that no one (that I'm aware of) has suggested adding "dissident feminist" without text that clarifies that Paglia refers to her self this way. "Self-proclaimed dissident feminist" is the terminology used by source cited. "Self-described dissident feminist" was previously in the article, lifted from Paglia's BLP. Text most recently in article was "social critic Camille Paglia, who refers to herself as a dissident feminist". EvergreenFir, perhaps you could tweak the choices to reflect this such as: "3. Dissident feminist (with text that Paglia uses this to refer to self)" --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC comments

• Support #1 or #8 but okay with #4 or #7 - I think social critic is best as it describes Paglia neutrally. Professor gives a label of authority and can be used as an appeal to authority, though she is indeed a professor and this is a title she's earned. If no label can be agreed upon, I think it would be best to omit a label and simply allow readers to view her Wikipedia article to determine it for themselves. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Strictly speaking it is identification that is called for, not description. I wouldn't mind "description" such as "social critic" or "cultural critic" but I oppose what I see as agenda-driven description as exemplified by the term "dissident feminist". I don't oppose the descriptive term "feminist" but I wouldn't advocate using it as long as there are terms such as "dissident feminist" swirling around in the blogosphere. We don't want to appear provocative. Of my choices I think the one I prefer most is Author. The heart of the issue is whether to dumb down the encyclopedia or to leave questions unanswered. The reader whose interest is piqued obviously has to do more research. The mistake that some editors are succumbing to is thinking that they can be all things to all readers, when the reality is that the reader has to look into this matter to understand the many views on many subjects addressed by Camille Paglia. Bus stop (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support 3 but prefer a more explicit description of Paglia's views. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support #4 or #5, or #7 as a last option. Professor is the most neutral of the choices. BTW, this is a really poorly formatted RfC, there should not be seven choices, you might as well have a fill-in-the-blank option too. GregJackP Boomer! 20:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support #3 I do think its important to re-iterate: "dissident feminist" is how she describes her own views, and its a phrase frequently used by her supporters. I'm open to alternative phrasing, as long as they communicate her unique position. The key policies here are WP:BIASED, and WP:NPOV, particularly the section WP:BALASPS. In short: Paglia is distinct from the other art critics we cite in that section, and it creates a false balance to pretend she isn't. She is widely acknowledged to be an unorthodox feminist ideologue whose art and literary criticism are driven by a very specific (and deeply controversial) agenda. As it stands, Paglia is the only explicitly feminist perspective quoted in this article. Simply calling her a "social critic" doesn't accurately capture the nature of her public persona. If we're going to cite her, its important to place her views in an appropriate context. Readers should not walk away with the impression that Paglia's view of what feminist work "should be" is representative of feminist views in general, nor should she be portrayed as someone whose views on art are primarily aesthetic. Nblund (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support #1 per my comments in above section. would not object to 4, 5 and 7 though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darwinian Ape (talk • contribs) 21:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Just came to tell I would be ok with the latest addition, #8.(though I think the "multiple choice" is getting out of hand:) ) Darwinian Ape ^talk 09:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support #3 This is how source used for content in article describes Paglia: renowned and self-proclaimed "dissident feminist" [1], but I'd also support any qualifier which addresses that Paglia is a vocal opponent of mainstream feminism, because the quotes are about feminism. This seems warranted per wp:biased which states: Editors should consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that..."..--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi BoboMeowCat—by that reasoning we can simply call her a feminist, Choice #2. Forgive me for butting in here, but what am I misunderstanding about this? Bus stop (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Bus Stop, describing Paglia as a feminist wouldn't address the concerns raised in wp:biased. The reliable sources describe Paglia as an opponent and vocal critic of mainstream feminism. Paglia's self-descriptor, "dissident feminist" addresses the bias (definition of dissident: adj: disagreeing or dissenting), although I'd support any qualifier that addresses Paglia is a notable critic of American feminism.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

BoboMeowCat—no, she is a feminist. A "dissident feminist" is a "feminist", is it not? Are all feminists of one mind? Furthermore, our article on Camille Paglia reads "Paglia, a militant feminist and open lesbian, was working at her first academic job at Bennington College." That she is combative with other feminists is not a defining characteristic for the purposes of the Mattress Performance article. She thinks for herself. It is as a feminist that Paglia issues the scathing criticism of Mattress Performance. I am perfectly willing to identify Paglia as an "author" in our article. That is choice number 6 in this RfC. She is a complex entity and that is to her credit. I am not advocating that we describe her as a "feminist". Our Camille Paglia article also reads "Some feminist critics have characterized Paglia as an 'anti-feminist feminist,' critical of central features of much contemporary feminism but holding out 'her own special variety of feminist affirmation.'" Why would we want to reduce her to a "dissident feminist" when all she is doing in this article is voicing criticism of a work of art? Bus stop (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose #2: It is clear from the above discussion and from Paglia's article that she is far outside mainstream feminism, so simply calling her a feminist without qualification is misleading. I have no preference among the other options. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
• comment: If her ideological views don't matter here, why not just say: "Cultural critic Camille Paglia gave the work a negative assessment, calling it it 'masochistic'" and leave out the stuff about her views of contemporary feminism? A big part of the problem here stems from the fact that the quote we're using is really more about Paglia's view of feminism than about the work itself. Several editors are saying her perspective on feminism isn't worth mentioning, but we're actually directly quoting her perspective on feminism. Nblund (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Nblund: "Negative assessment"? Is Paglia incapable of speaking for herself? Does she need Wikipedia editors paraphrasing her? And no one said that her "ideological views" don't matter. But we can't cram everything about Paglia into the Mattress Performance article. The reader must go elsewhere if their interest is piqued. You say "A big part of the problem here stems from the fact that the quote we're using is really more about Paglia's view of feminism than about the work itself." It doesn't matter. Paglia gets to say whatever she wants to say because we have established that she is a notable commentator. The reader is understandably interested in Paglia's view of the performance piece Mattress Performance and she is perfectly capable of articulating her own thoughts on this particular artistic entity, just as are the various art critics arrayed in the article. Negative criticism and positive criticism give a reader ideas about what other people think about the work of art. The opinions of notable people, to the greatest extent possible, should be unfettered by disclaimers. These are virtually random reactions compiled here. There is no discipline governing what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. Nobody is questioning what Roberta Smith is saying by describing it as "strict and lean, yet inclusive and open ended, symbolically laden yet drastically physical," or writing that "comparisons to the Stations of the Cross and Hester Prynne's scarlet letter were apparent". What is Jerry Saltz referring to when he refers to it as "clear, to the point, insistent, adamant ... pure radical vulnerability"? All of the reactions found in the reception section are merely off-the-cuff remarks. Bus stop (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Bus stop I don't really think there's a rule against paraphrase, (WP:IMPARTIAL actually suggest we should be cautious about directly quoting participants in a heated dispute) but I would also be open to: "Critic Camille Paglia called the work 'a protracted exercise in masochism''. Nblund (talk) 00:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nblund—there is nothing wrong with negative criticism. I think there should actually be more added and some of it could come from Paglia. You are suggesting that we paraphrase Paglia who says the artwork is "a parody of the worst aspects of that kind of grievance-oriented feminism" yet you are not suggesting that we paraphrase an art critic calling it "one of the most important artworks of the year". And by the way we are not documenting a "heated dispute". We are not documenting any dispute at all. This happens to be an article about an individual work of art. The notable people weighing in with an opinion on the artwork (Roberta Smith, Jerry Saltz, Marina Abramović, artnet, and Paglia) are not even in dialogue with one another so how can it be a dispute? The "Reception" section is a collection of comments by notable people. Such comments are simply of intrinsic interest to a reader. Often artwork is polarizing and provocative. We are not hosting a "dispute". We are including interesting commentary from well-known people. Bus stop (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we'd paraphrase here. All the reliable sources I've seen on her comments quoted her similarly to how the article is now. Unlike the other reviewers/comments, Paglia is far more notable and was picked up by several sources. What's the value in reinterpreting her words which are not that many compared to the article length?Mattnad (talk) 12:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

What I suggested here isn't a paraphrase, its a direct quote. Nblund (talk) 14:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nblund—"negative assessment" is paraphrasing. It is found in neither this article nor this article. Bus stop (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I proposed an alternate revision. It uses a direct quote, not a paraphrase.Nblund (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support 1 & 7: #1 is close to what Salon and several other sources use in reference to this topic. #7 is completely neutral, and given Paglia already has an article, readers can learn more about her. "dissident feminist" carries a lot of baggage with it which is not appropriate for Wikipedia's voice.Mattnad (talk) 12:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I would be more concerned about it if it were not a self-descriptor. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi BoboMeowCat—she would probably identify herself as an author and a professor too. Why would you favor "dissident feminist" over "author" and/or "professor"? Bus stop (talk) 14:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose 2 and 3. She is an author, professor and/or social critic, if a descriptor is called for. Her political status and relationship to any form of feminism is too hotly contested to be a neutral descriptor. If I had to pick just one I'd support #1, "Social Critic". But really, any of the above that leaves feminism out of it. - CorbieV^☊☼ 21:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
• #7 Cla68 (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Not to belabor my earlier point, but it still doesn't seem like there's a good reason to use this particular quote. CorbieV writes that her relationship to feminism is too hotly contested to be neutrally described, but we're transcribing that contested view of feminism in the article. If I understand the other editors correctly, the goal of including her comment is to give an indication that a prominent social critic disliked the work -- that purpose seems like it would be easily served by a paraphrase or by a quote that doesn't directly address Paglia's views on whats wrong with feminism. Ex: "Social critic Camille Paglia called it 'a protracted masochistic exercise' and stated 'To go around exhibiting and foregrounding your wounds is a classic neurotic symptom."'Nblund (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nblund—from where do you derive that "the goal of including her comment is to give an indication that a prominent social critic disliked the work"? I have not heard anybody say that. Bus stop (talk) 03:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Another quote that could work, along with one or both of the above is: "lugging around your bad memories". This also avoids the topic of feminism, so would not warrant in text attribution regarding Paglia's views on feminism per WP:BIASED.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi BoboMeowCat—what is Paglia's bias against feminism? Paglia can be a feminist and still take issue with certain aspects of an artwork that in many ways is exemplary of feminist art. Bus stop (talk) 01:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it might be better to start a different section on the topic of what quotes we should include to avoid making the RFC topic discussion harder to follow.Mattnad (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

This RfC already seems very hard to follow. If we could instead substitute quotes which avoid the controversy regarding how to describe Paglia, that seems another potential way to solve this. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no need to describe Paglia at all. All we need to do is identify her. That is clearly accomplished by referring to her as "author" Camille Paglia or "professor" Camille Paglia. Or we could not even identify her—option number 7, no label. We can simply refer to Camille Paglia. The reader knows to click on the internal link if they are interested in knowing more about her. This is how other commentators are introduced in the same section of the article that we are talking about, called the reception section, where we find internal links for Roberta Smith, Jerry Saltz, Marina Abramović, artnet, and their associated responses to the artwork that is the subject of this article. Bus stop (talk) 02:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• 7 or 8. Both don't have an agenda behind them. 64.134.67.159 (talk) 09:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
• 1 or 7 or 8. Which don't have any agenda behind them. Everybody is making this discussion about Paglia, whatever she is, she earned the right to voice a criticism of the art work. What she has to say about the art work is the reason for her presence here, not whatever 'baggage' she might carry with her. Let the reader be the judge of whether her comments are 'feminist' or 'dissident' or whatever on this ocassion, or let them go to 'her' page to find out more about her. Pincrete (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose 2 or 3, but would be OK with "self-described dissident feminist" or "self-proclaimed dissident feminist". Kaldari (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support 1 2 3 4 5 8. She's earned all of these titles. Shes an author of books with social criticism, shes also a Professor, most would describe her as a feminist. Her comments should stay. Geodon93 (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC discussion

Given the extent of past discussion, I humbly request that involved users limit their discussion in this RfC to new information or ideas if possible. There has been a bit of bludgeoning occurring and, in my opinion, much of the same thing is being reiterated. This RfC would be most fruitful if new voices are not drown out. (Edit: to be clear, I'm not asking involved edits to refrain from !voting, just avoid further bludgeoning). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree about the bludgeoning, and I'm keeping my comments to a minimum, but I do think a short summary of the key points might help outside voices to understand the dispute. No one is going to want to wade through that wall of text to figure out whats already been said. Nblund (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Or we can let other editors come to their own conclusions without shaping by the involved parties?Mattnad (talk) 12:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Or we can engage in civil dialogue. By politely debating this issue we can shed light on the correct path forward. This source is describing her as a "cultural critic". Why isn't "cultural critic" one of our choices in this RfC? Wouldn't The Wall Street Journal be an exceptionally good source? Bus stop (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@Bus stop: you are more than welcome to add that to the list if you wish. WSJ is indeed a good source and that seems like a reasonable option. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually I'll add it now. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

BoboMeowCat and I both seem to be in agreement that this issue could be resolved by using a different quote that didn't mention feminism. It seems like we could put an end to this pretty quickly if no one has any meaningful objections. Two proposals are:

• "Critic Camille Paglia called the work 'lugging around your bad memories''

Or:

• "Social critic Camille Paglia called it 'a protracted masochistic exercise' and stated 'To go around exhibiting and foregrounding your wounds is a classic neurotic symptom."'

I'm not huge on the part about "classic neurotic symptom" part, because it seems a more-than-a-little like it demeans the artist, but i'm willing to accept it if it resolves this. If we use either quote, I think its fine to call her a critic or professor or whatever else (except feminist) and close this RfC out. Nblund (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I share your concern about the "neurotic symptom" quote; moreover, Paglia is not a psychologist (as far as I know), and I don't think we should be quoting her on whether Mattress Performance is a symptom of neurosis. On the other hand, I think the "lugging around your bad memories" quote is a good option—it sums up Paglia's opinion in a pithy way. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nblund—you say "BoboMeowCat and I both seem to be in agreement that this issue could be resolved by using a different quote that didn't mention feminism." And you say "If we use either quote, I think its fine to call her a critic or professor or whatever else (except feminist) and close this RfC out." You seem to think that Camille Paglia can't mention "feminism" in an article about feminist art without us adding a disclaimer such as describing her as a "dissident feminist". I'm not convinced of the logic of that. I find information in for instance a WSJ article that supports that Paglia is an even more inclusive feminist than what you are calling the "mainstream" of feminism. Here we have an article titled "Camille Paglia: A Feminist Defense of Masculine Virtues". In it we find: "By denying the role of nature in women's lives, she argues, leading feminists created a 'denatured, antiseptic' movement that 'protected their bourgeois lifestyle' and falsely promised that women could 'have it all.' And by impugning women who chose to forgo careers to stay at home with children, feminists turned off many who might have happily joined their ranks." I don't think the WSJ is saying this out of any type of cynicism. This WSJ article is recognizing and acknowledging that what you might be calling the "mainstream" of feminism is a far narrower vision of feminism than the one embraced by Paglia. Another example: "The movement can win converts, she says, but it needs to become a big tent, one 'open to stay-at-home moms' and 'not just the career woman.'" The WSJ is suggesting to us that Camille Paglia may be more inclusive of other types of women than your so-called "mainstream" movement which may simply be more elitist and exclusive. There is no justification for describing Paglia as a "dissident feminist" in this article. I think the sentence presently in the article should remain pretty much as it is: Social critic Camille Paglia described Mattress Performance as "a parody of the worst aspects of that kind of grievance-oriented feminism," adding that a feminist work "should empower women, not cripple them." That sentence is no more problematic than say another sentence presently found in our article: New York Times art critic Roberta Smith described it as "strict and lean, yet inclusive and open ended, symbolically laden yet drastically physical," writing that comparisons to the Stations of the Cross and Hester Prynne's scarlet letter were apparent. These are mere quips from notable people. They call for no disclaimers. The policy underpinning for the argument is simply a misapplication of WP:BIASED. That policy has its applicability where there are disputes that are of considerable importance to an article. But these are mere "throw-away" comments about an artwork. They are not part of a dialogue with anyone else. We tend to lose sight of the fact that this article is simply about a work of contemporary visual art. The WSJ article has no qualms about repeatedly affirming the status of Paglia as a feminist. For instance: "She is not the first to make this argument, as Ms. Paglia readily notes. Fellow feminist Christina Hoff Sommers has written about…" And: "When Ms. Paglia, now 66, burst onto the national stage in 1990 with the publishing of "Sexual Personae," she immediately established herself as a feminist who was the scourge of the movement's establishment, a heretic to its orthodoxy." It would be absurd to think that all feminists would be of one mind. As seen in this WSJ article Paglia applies descriptive monikers to herself: "notorious Amazon feminist", "abrasive, strident and obnoxious". (In another article she refers to "street-smart feminism".) I think there is just a personality trait that results in Paglia applying catchy descriptive labels to herself. I think you are making a fetish of one such label by concluding that "dissident feminist" sums up a complex person affirmed by sources as a feminist. The WSJ has occasion to refer to her this way: "Ms. Paglia, who has been a professor of humanities and media studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia since 1984..." This would be one more apt way our article could refer to her. Bus stop (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Bus Stop: To re-iterate: I would be fine with describing Paglia using anything but option 2 if we used a different quote. While I see you disagree with the underlying concern that led to the creation of this RfC, it doesn't really look like you're offering a compelling reason that we should favor this particular quote over any of the other options proposed. Unless you or some other editor has a meaningful objection to simply using a different quote, it seems pointless to prolong this dispute. EvergreenFir, Sammy1339, thoughts? Nblund (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You say "I would be fine with describing Paglia using anything but option 2 if we used a different quote." Option 2 is "Feminist". In this edit the term "feminist" was removed. I've brought a WSJ source above. There can be no doubt from reading that WSJ article that Paglia is a feminist. The article's title is "Camille Paglia: A Feminist Defense of Masculine Virtues". The second paragraph in that WSJ article reads: "When Ms. Paglia, now 66, burst onto the national stage in 1990 with the publishing of "Sexual Personae," she immediately established herself as a feminist who was the scourge of the movement's establishment, a heretic to its orthodoxy." I don't think you or anyone else realizes how absurd it is to argue that a feminist cannot weigh in on a work of feminist art with a scathing critique of that art. The WSJ article says: "Ms. Paglia relishes her outsider persona, having previously described herself as an egomaniac and 'abrasive, strident and obnoxious'." Having a combative personality would not disqualify her from weighing in with an opinion on this artwork. I think all of the editors involved in this discussion have agreed not to refer to Paglia as a feminist in our Mattress Performance article. I am not sure that concession makes sense because Paglia certainly is a feminist. The WSJ article never intimates that Paglia might not be a feminist. From the WSJ article: "These iconoclastic women of the 1930s, like Earhart and Katharine Hepburn, remain her ideal feminist role models: independent, brave, enterprising, capable of competing with men without bashing them. But since at least the late 1960s, she says, fellow feminists in the academy stopped sharing her vision of 'equal opportunity feminism' that demands a level playing field without demanding special quotas or protections for women." Incidentally, Paglia is no intellectual lightweight. From the WSJ article: "Her dissertation adviser at Yale was Harold Bloom, and she is as likely to discuss Freud, Oscar Wilde or early Native American art as to talk about Miley Cyrus." It seems that she speaks of herself in a self-deprecating way. From the WSJ article: "'My career has been in art schools cause I don't get along with normal academics.'" I don't think we would introduce her as someone who doesn't get along with normal academics so why would we introduce her as a "dissident feminist"? You are now objecting to the quote from Paglia in the article at present. It reads: "Social critic Camille Paglia described Mattress Performance as 'a parody of the worst aspects of that kind of grievance-oriented feminism,' adding that a feminist work 'should empower women, not cripple them.'" What is your objection to that quote? More can be written but I don't see any reason to whittle back that quote. I tried to add Paglia on Columbia University and this performance piece but my edit was reversed. You've suggested other sorts of wording but I don't find those quotes targeting the areas of this article most warranting further examination. I don't think we want to examine the artist's psychology as much as we want to critique the work as an example of visual art. Paglia is critiquing a type of feminist art in the quote presently in the article. I feel the quote is appropriate to this type of article which focusses on an individual work of art which sources identify as an example of feminist art. Bus stop (talk) 03:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dec 10 2015 Reliable source Newsweek coverage and Sulkowicz's reported legal threats against the source

http://europe.newsweek.com/other-side-sexual-assault-crisis-403285 The above link has an email registration wall, but is easy enough to read. If you wish to bypass the wall, an advocacy blog called cotwa.info has mirrored the article here: http://www.cotwa.info/p/when-you-are-most-notorious-alleged.html It is interesting because it is one of the few articles within what are classed as "reliable" sources that does not treat Sulkowicz' allegations as fact. Interesting quote about the impact the "artist" has had on his life: "These days, he lives with his parents and freelances as a cinematographer. He plans to apply to film school, but he feels that he’s lost all of his New York connections and that he can’t return to the U.S. He says prospective employers Google his name and question him about what happened at Columbia." Another notable intervention from the "artist": "Sulkowicz declined to speak with Newsweek but said by email, “(the accused)’s complaint is filled with lies.... I want to warn you to be conscientious about what you publish as ‘fact’ for I may work with a lawyer to rectify any inaccuracies and misrepresentations.”" I think the whole article should be read in depth with a view to improving the wikipedia article and perhaps re-phrasing it so that it is made far clearer than at present that the "artist" is making allegations, and her status as "victim" is very, very far from established fact. Perhaps the lurid details of her narrative that we currently include should be omitted, out of respect for the suffering of the accused, which is actually established fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.225.245 (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I heard about similar comments addressed towards newsweek in a Dec 12 article "Mattress Girl Threatens To Sue Newsweek" by David Garrett. Does anyone know if NewsWeek has made a rebuttal? The only reference to NW on the page currently that I can see is the Spring article. 184.146.6.191 (talk) 07:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

From the article of 10th December 2015: "Sulkowicz declined to speak with Newsweek but said by email, “(the accused)’s complaint is filled with lies.... I want to warn you to be conscientious about what you publish as ‘fact’ for I may work with a lawyer to rectify any inaccuracies and misrepresentations.”". Newsweek is a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.17.128.166 (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

That is an excellent article and definitely should be used as a source in this article and with the accuser's legal threat in response noted. Cla68 (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

This entry is primarily about Sulkowicz's performance art piece. It is not about the guilt or innocence or honesty of any party. It clearly presents Sulkowicz's allegations as allegations, it avoids mentioning the accused student by name, and it only offers minimal coverage of the incident that inspired the art piece. It seems like this source is primarily about (the accused), his lawsuit against Columbia, and the problems colleges face in adjudicating sexual assaults. However interesting those topics might be, they aren't really germane to this entry. Nblund (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The "art piece" is an act of bullying masquerading as a cultural work. This point is made brutally clear in the reliably sourced article. Calling is an "art piece" is blatant POV-pushing contrary to Wikipedia policy. The lede needs to be changed, in the first sentence to reflect the view that the "art piece" has not universally been described in the sources as a work of art, but rather part of a campaign to vilify an exonerated, vulnerable human being.

Failing that, the article must be deleted in its entirety, per wikipedia BLP policy. If Wikipedia readers wish to know more of this, they can consult gawker media. It has no place in a neutral encyclopedia. Furthermore, consensus at the moment leans toward inclusion of the legal threat and the "artist's" continued personalized campaign against the accused, with threats against those who would not join in on her media campaign against a living person, a campaign which you are, perhaps unwittingly, aiding.

The article should not be deleted, but Nblund's argument that this is primarily about the art piece is not accurate. It covers the background and events beyond the piece extensively, and coat-racks other works of hers. The article cannot favor Suklowicz presentation of the facts alone (although that has been done extensively in the past). Efforts to suppress relevant material would be highly biased and violate NPOV. This time, the source is Newsweek, which is about as reliable as you get) and we already see the rules shifting to keep any presentation of unfavorable details to Sulkowicz narrative out.Mattnad (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Why is this kind of tendentious editing tolerated on Wikipedia? Aren't there rules against suppressing reliably-sourced material that makes a party in a dispute look bad?

Well, nobody has yet tried to add any of the new reporting, so you can give it a try. I'd recommend creating or using an account. It's better that way.Mattnad (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not really my argument: if you look at the archives of this talk page, or the "Frequently Asked Questions" at the top of this page, you'll see that this is something that has been discussed and established ad nauseum. Consensus can change! But the way to do it is to start that discussion and invite outside comment. Its pretty clear under the current circumstances that this article isn't relevant: it's mostly about the accused student, and most of what is covered in that article has been discussed (and removed) previously. The fact that its "one of the only main stream sources that does not treat Sulkowicz's allegations as fact" seems like a pretty good reason to leave it out: Wikipedia covers viewpoints in accord with their prominence, not in accordance with some abstract view of their correctness. I think its probably a bad idea to just use the "try it and see what happens" approach with a page that is under discretionary sanctions that has previously been enormously contentious. Its probably better to do some consensus building on the talk page. Nblund (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow, you're really committed to suppressing Ms. Sulkowicz' legal threats without even providing any kind of attempt to delineate some semblance of a logical basis for said suppression, aren't you? It's self-evidently one of the top five most notable aspects of this horrible saga of bullying, and you persist in saying that it lacks relevance! Bear in mind the ludicrous description of this vile act of bullying as "pure radical vulnerability" is still included in the article, despite it being obvious undue weight from an utterly unobjective source. Freedom of the press is a founding principle of American life, and here we have rock-solid sourcing showing Sulkowicz making (legally empty) threats and repeating her direct attack on her victim. Please provide a good faith rationale for the suppression of the threats. If you can't come up with one, why persist? "It's not relevant" is not a good faith rationale; it's a non-supported assertion. So kindly get to work on a clear, detailed logical basis for suppression. Failing that, the immense notability of the threats and the rock-solid sourcing means it nigh-automatically gets included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.17.128.166 (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

There was an argument against putting in facts from lawsuit (primary, not reliable source), and arguments that her facebook postings could not referred to (at all) because the published source was written by Cathy Young who editors through was biased, and the postings were misleading. Of course the NY Times also covered those postings. But this is different. Where in the FAQ does it preclude content from a mainstream, reliable source like Newsweek that present his views on this? We already have plenty of her perspective, including her rape allegations, the allegations of other people, and Sulkowicz invitation to the state of the union (what does that have to do with the piece that the accused's perspective does not?). The article even has this choice quote from her ""To me, the piece has very much represented [the fact that] a guy did a horrible thing to me and I tried to make something beautiful out of it." So that can stand, but his response is not permitted? It seems to me that the real argument is that there are editors who do not want material that contradicts Sulkowicz, no matter what the source. Is that how wikipedia should work?Mattnad (talk) 12:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

IP user: I think the main issue here is with due weight and article scope, not with the quality of the source. Wikipedia isn't the news, nor is it a random collection of facts, and concerns about relevance are absolutely legitimate. This is especially true when were talking about an article that discusses details of a living person. Mattnad: It seems like you're arguing about something I didn't say. The accused student's response is already presented in the article, so there's clearly not a blanket prohibition on mentioning them. However, the original IP user suggested that the entry should be rewritten on the basis of this article, apparently in a way that implies Sulkowicz was being dishonest, and that seems problematic. Is there a specific point you think is noteworthy or new here? Nblund (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Nblund, what I took away from your comments was you wanted to keep the accused response in the Newsweek article out, and set a requirement of consensus before any changes were made in that regard. You also cited the FAQ as justification for that, even though the FAQ does not address the content of the Newsweek article. I don't think the Anon IP was arguing a complete rewrite, as you put it. Your argument that this is an article about the art-piece is unsupported by the article as it now stands. I can only surmise that you are grasping at straws here. Mattnad (talk) 03:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The Newsweek article is significant in showing that the mainstream media is now starting to question the narrative of this "art piece". To make this article neutral, it needs to read more as a "he said, she said" incident rather than some kind of performance art project. Cla68 (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a vitally important point you have made: calling this an art piece is a massive breach of neutrality. It is an act of bullying taking the guise of art. We all know this, but up until now most sources have focused on the "art piece" narrative. Now, a major source is examining the story as what it is: a calculated campaign of bullying directed at the accused. The so-called artist even went out of her way to name the accused in her legal threats. The fact that wikipedia has given the bully a platform at all is extremely questionable, given that her animosity to the accused is blatantly on display in her recent threat to Newsweek. Nblund declined to give a rationale for exclusion of the material.

I now ask: what positive role is Nblund playing in the editing of this article? He's been politely asked to provide a rationale, and he is doing nothing but stonewalling. Nblund refuses to engage with a polite, germane request to back up his preferred editorial stance with some kind of a rationale. He asserts concerns of relevance without explaining how he can possibly come to the conclusion that the new article lacks relevance. If Nblund continues this stonewalling and refusal to explain his mystifying stance, I for one would be at a loss to see what good is coming from his continued involvement with the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.17.128.166 (talk) 00:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that currently there are three editors in favor of adding some of the content from the Newsweek article (to be determined) and one who is arguing that none of it is permissible. While there is no 100% consensus here, it's pretty close.Mattnad (talk) 03:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

There are lots of suggestions being made here. Maybe someone could narrow down which of these we're discussing:

• Include Sulkowicz' legal threat about the Newsweek article in the entry
• delete the article entirely.
• refrain from calling it an "art piece".
• change it to read more like a "he said she said" argument.
• omit the "lurid details of [Sulkowicz] narrative"
• "change the lede to reflect the view that the "art piece" has not universally been described in the sources as a work of art, but rather part of a campaign to vilify an exonerated, vulnerable human being."
• re-phrasing it so that it is made far clearer than at present that the "artist" is making allegations, and her status as "victim" is very, very far from established fact.

The last two seem somewhat reasonable, but it seems like the article already notes that some people viewed the piece as bullying or harassing, and it repeatedly characterizes Sulkowicz' allegations as allegations. Some of those suggestions don't appear to be particularly linked to the article per se: I don't think there's any new evidence to support the notion that this is not an art piece, or that justifies implying that Sulkowicz isn't telling the truth. It seems problematic from a Due Weight perspective that we're discussing 7 possible alterations (including wholesale deletion) on the basis of a single article that, according to IP user, represents a minority viewpoint among reliable sources. Nblund (talk) 06:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Three times Nblund has been asked to make a specific detailed argument for suppression of the legal threat made by sulkowicz. Three times he has responded with nothing but vague handwaving.

I move that it is now clear that we must set Nblund's assertions aside on the basis of Wikipedia policy that "competence is required". If you cannot produce any kind of a detailed argument (even a fallacious one would be better than no detailed argument at all!), you are a hindrance to the editorial process. I don't doubt for a moment Nblund's good faith, but if you can't back up an extraordinary editorial stance with anything better than "something something due weight" and the thing you're opposing is a bombshell like a legal threat, sourced immaculately, it's best for that editor to think hard about taking a break from the article.

Let's waste no more time: somebody add Sulkowicz' threat now, with no further ado. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.111.160.191 (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I reverted your contributions because they used POV language. I also think that Sulkowicz legal threats should be in the body rather than the lede (if at all). See if you can keep the presentation of the Newsweek material a bit more encyclopedic.Mattnad (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

What is particularly POV about saying that Ms. Sulkowicz's famous act of mattress-carrying is variously described as a bullying campaign or a work of endurance performance art? In what way is that not utterly neutral and fair? And also reliably sourced. Remember, describing it as art in any way at all is very much a non-neutral POV.

Is Wikipedia really obliged to take sides and adopt the perspective of whichever side has the most competent media campaign? Can't we at least be even-handed when the courts are reviewing the matter? In the spirit of BLP, if not the letter?

Well... "bullying" is a qualifier that comes not from the Newsweek reporter, but a quote from the man she has accused. It's a little more than what should be in the lede which already covers the criticism of the of her campaign against him in more neutral terms. So if we are going to use that at all, it needs to be attributed to him, and probably later on in the article in the section that addresses that material. Her possibly threatening legal action is probably not that relevant to this article. If she went forward and started a legal action, then it becomes more relevant. At this point, all she's said is that she might get her lawyers involved. Well... so what. Legal letters fly all the time without being notable.Mattnad (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

What is Wikipedia policy if the courts rule against Columbia and state that Sulkowicz' antics are an act of gender-based bullying?

Right now, Sulkowicz' sympathizers have a hegemonic position in the media and academic organizations which Wikipedia classes as "reliable". If the fourth estate was our actual final arbiter of justice, this case would be over and done with, their verdict is in. But there's one slight wrinkle: the courts are yet to rule on the nub of the matter. It appears that the case is not going to be swiftly dismissed, and I doubt many will be surprised if Sulkowicz' victim walks away with a grovelling apology from the University and an eight-figure settlement.

What is Wikipedia's policy when the court system rules against the received wisdom of the "reliable" sources? What if the courts side with the victim, but the "reliable" sources hold fast to their current position? Said position being: Sulkowicz is a hero and her victim is a rapist.

Do we delete the pro-Sulkowicz stuff from the article and rewrite it to reflect the court ruling? Or do we stick to the narrative currently presented by 99% of the media, and bury the (hypothetical but certainly possible) court ruling against Sulkowicz' "art performance" in a subordinate clause near the bottom of the article?

It would be childish and immature and immensely non-encyclopedic to handwave away the matter with a glib "we'll cross that bridge when we come to it". Eventually there will be a disconnect between the "reliable" sources and a court ruling, and we need to have clarity before that happens, on how best to proceed. I urge editors to have the backbone to resist such horrible, unworthy demands. It's simply not good enough to fail to plan for such an eventuality. We can't end up like headless chickens on the day the courts finally conflict with the sources: we need to have a lucid, well-reasoned policy in place.

Nowhere is it ever said that Sulkowicz is right about everything she's ever said ever. It's merely noted that a sizable chunk of the media think highly of her art piece. Also note that a substantial proportion of the article is already dedicated to the accused's lawsuit, and his point of view on these issues. If his lawsuit were successful, the article could simply be updated to mention it was successful. The world would not end, and it's not like Wikipedia would suddenly collapse on itself or anything. Brustopher (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Editor Brustopher is to be commended for his honesty. Even if the courts rule that this article is, in effect, an accessory to the illegal bullying of an innocent young person, he wants to keep the it on Wikipedia, loud and proud and brutal as ever, with a mere "update" instead of the total exoneration that others would counsel. Brustopher's commitment to maintaining a solid pro-Sulkowicz line, even if a court ruling might persuade others to adopt neutrality or deletion, is evidence of very profound determination, of a sort few could match. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.111.160.191 (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Lol I said if the art piece was ruled to be an act of bullying, it would be noted. I nowhere agreed with your proposition that this article is an accessory to an act of bullying. Brustopher (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The claim that "bullying" can simultaneously be "art" is obviously original research

It's common sense that the two concepts are distinct, because nobody has never heard the words being used interchangeably.

The issue being considered by the New York legal system is whether the "performance" is an act motivated by the desire to harm its victim, masquerading under a pretext of art, or a genuine expression of an artist's vision, free of intent to harm.

Can we at least verify that somebody somewhere, writing for a reliable source, has equated "bullying" with "art"? If not, then we must restore the reference to bullying, which for NPOV's sake belongs in the opening sentence of the lede, in order to slightly lower the harm that this article is causing to the living person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.111.160.191 (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I covered this earlier, but the term "bullying" comes from the accused and is best covered in the response section.Mattnad (talk) 14:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Even calling him the accused is a partial, anti-NPOV term, which comes from Sulkowicz. You claim that calling it bullying comes from the victim, which it does, but that doesn't stop the unfounded rape claim being included. It's not easy to see how that's not hypocritical and biased.

Every source agrees that nobody knows what happened between Sulkowicz and her victim but the two people involved. Various secondary sources, all of whom admit they have no direct knowledge of the events of that alleged encounter, have called him a rapist. The media sources which have accused him have declared that they believe accusers uncritically in rape cases. This obviously disqualifies them from reliability in any case involving a contested rape accusation.

Why not call him "the exonerated"? He has been cleared of suspicion twice, by the University and the police. The only people to have reviewed the matter objectively have exonerated him. It is utterly contemptuous of BLP policy not to note this in the opening sentence of the lede.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.228.124 (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC) 

Ok. I'll use "the man" in the future so long as context is clear. Your comments have diverged from addressing article content. Lets focus on that.Mattnad (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

In the U.S. context, "exonerated" usually means that a person was convicted and later found innocent -- which isn't what happened here. I think WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is applicable here: this isn't the place to rectify what you feel is unjust treatment of this person by the press. Nblund (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

How about the "cleared man" (as in "cleared of all accusations"). That is accurate based on university and police investigations. Mattnad (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

"Cleared" is kind of a synonym for "exonerated", and, according to Sulkowicz, police declined to pursue the case because she chose not to cooperate with the investigation, not because he was "cleared". "The accused" seems like a perfectly neutral description, and even sympathetic articles refer to him as "the accused student" in multiple places. Nblund (talk) 00:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

At what point are we allowed to question Nblund's good faith in his work on this article? Have you done a google search on "accused noun definition"? I have. It says "a person or persons charged in a court of law with a crime, offense, etc. (often preceded by the)." It is extremely objectionable that this keeps going on, and I don't think any honest person can claim that Nblund is making a tolerable effort to edit properly. Really, we should all know that Sulkowicz' victim has never been placed before a court. And the only charge he ever had to answer, he beat easily. Despite the tribunal itself being a kangaroo court which routinely convicts the innocent. We need to set all of Nblund's interventions aside now. They have no place in an encyplopedia. Merry Solstice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.104.187 (talk) 19:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

That's a valid point, but the article actually only uses the phrase "the accused" twice: once in a quote, and once in a subsection heading. Otherwise, it just uses the phrase "the student Sulkowicz accused", which seems like a good way of referencing the accused person without giving the impression that he was charged in court. I went ahead and changed the section heading name to "the accused student", just to make it a little less ambiguous. Nblund (talk) 23:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

There are many synonyms for "cleared" in your link. What synonym would you use to describe the university finding him not responsible and the police declining to pursue the matter after an investigation? He was accused, but he was also investigated by third parties who cleared him. Since you don't like cleared, what word would be accurate to capture this fact. Consistenly referring to him as the "accused" is not a reflection of the results of several investigations. Mattnad (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The entry currently says he was found "not responsible" by a university inquiry, are you asking for a one word synonym for that process that can be used to describe the student? Because I don't think that exists. "The classmate Sulkowicz accused" -- is what is used in the entry. This is factually accurate (he was accused by Sulkowicz) clear (we know exactly who it references), and avoids the issue of using legal language to describe someone who has neither been charged with a crime (which would be implied in a term like "exonerated"). This seems like a problem in search of a solution. Nblund (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The problem here the opening sentence of the lede, to one that sets the tone for the piece that follows. Remember, this is an article that it all about a brutal act of psychological torture inflicted on an innocent man (though boy is probably a better word). As such it is deeply immoral that the article doesn't reflect at the outset, in the first sentence, that his innocence has been supported by both police and university. Please stop talking about the weaselly sentences that occur much later in the article. The problem is the biased nature of the opening sentence, which condemns the victim by not even alluding to the fact of his innocence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.187.212 (talk) 13:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The article is centered on the "Mattress Performance" so it follows that the opening sentence explains what it is. Yes, it's from her POV, but that's needed for explaining why she did it. The lede then does an adequate job providing the official findings and has counterpoints that her efforts could be bullying etc. There have been previous efforts to eliminate any critique of her work/tactics, but I do think the article is now balanced.Mattnad (talk) 13:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Mattnad, you are the only one trying to maintain NPOV here. It is very clear that the anonymous' opinion is extremely biased. He went from taking the bullying charge as fact to describing it as "a brutal act of psychological torture inflicted on an innocent man". Where is he/she getting this material is unclear, cause we don't have sources actually speaking of torture here. He/she also does not care about any court verdict, since in his/her mind that man is already innocent. This should be a red flag that he/she does not have the best intentions about the article. Dimadick (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Need to specify the other claims were not rape accusations.

As User:PeterTheFourth notes, we should keep this discussion centralized in one place, and BLPN seems like the most appropriate place for it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The way this article appeared yesterday, a casual reader would get the impression that the student was accused of rape by three separate women. This is obviously not an acceptable state of affairs, given that the other two accusations were of relatively minor misconduct. PeterTheFourth placed an edit-warring notice on my page over this, and looking at the history it seems that I have made four edits to this article today - I forgot about the earlier, unrelated issue of the last sentence of the lede. Nevertheless I am not self-reverting, because this is a significant BLP problem. I have to wonder what the reason is for wanting to exclude the fact that the other accusations were not rape accusations. Peter analogized the situation to saying that someone accused of speeding did not commit a hit-and-run. I think that's plainly a false analogy - this article is inviting readers to view the multiple complaints as evidence of a pattern of abuse, and in that context, it's important to clarify this point. Please recall that graffiti once accused this person of being a "serial rapist", presumably because of this very misunderstanding. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC) You haven't violated 3RR- I placed the notice to inform you that you were close to doing so. I don't believe it's a false analogy. There's a section on the WP:BLPN about this which you started, and I believe we should pick one place to discuss it and stick with it (preferably at the noticeboard as your justification for adding the weird 'but not rape' bit is that doing otherwise would be a violation of WP:BLP.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC) The Sulkowicz allegations included a rape accusation from the start of the article. Without the proposed qualifier regarding later accusations, a reader could misinterpret them to also mean more serious allegations. The sentence cannot be read in isolation, but the broader context of the the article, and the tone that's set before this particular passage. The detail proposed by Sammy1339 is accurate, and helps avoid misinterpretation. I would ask PeterTheFourth, what's the problem here with being clear if it errs on the side of clarity and avoids giving the impression that the man was accused of other equally serious conduct to what Sulkowicz claims?Mattnad (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC) I agree with Mattnad and Sammy1339. I also suggest not putting 3rr warnings on each others' talk pages when a BLP issue is in play, as it could make it look like you're trying to intimidate other editors into not correcting a BLP violation. Cla68 (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

"Alleged rapist" in section title

I recently changed the title of a section primarily covering the lawsuit filed by the alleged rapist against Columbia et al. to "Lawsuit by alleged rapist" (diff). User:D.Creish changed this to "Lawsuit by the accused" (diff), with edit summary "Restored neutral description". I reverted (diff), stating that "alleged rapist" was more specific, and that "alleged" made it clear that no guilt had been established. D.Creish reverted (diff), citing BLP concerns and stating "It's a good rule of thumb to get consensus before adding 'rapist' to a section title". I'm about to re-revert, which will bring both of us to the verge of WP:3RR, but hope that we can reach some kind of consensus rather than each of us waiting for the 24-hour alarm to go off so we can revert again.

First, "the accused" is insufficiently specific. Per the article, Sulkowicz has been accused of deceit and harrassment. Columbia has been accused both of de facto discrimination against women and of maintaining a hostile educational environment for the alleged rapist. The alleged rapist has been accused of sexual assault and other forms of misconduct against women. There's a plethora of accused parties out there. "Alleged rapist" makes it clear just whom we're talking about.

Second, "alleged rapist" is no violation of BLP. Per the article, Sulkowicz "alleges that she was slapped, choked, and anally raped" by the person under discussion. Thus "alleged rapist" is factual.

The use of "alleged" makes it clear that no guilt has been established. Looking up "alleged" in a number of online dictionaries, I find that all emphasize this, and some note that the use of the word can connote doubt about the validity of a charge:

• Merriam-Webster: "(2) Questionably true or of a specified kind; (3) Accused but not proven or convicted"
• Oxford: "(Of an incident or a person) said, without proof, to have taken place or to have a specified illegal or undesirable quality"
• Dictionary.com: "1. declared or stated to be as described; asserted; 2. doubtful; suspect; supposed"
• Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary & Thesaurus: "said or ​thought by some ​people to be the ​stated ​bad or ​illegal thing, ​although you have no ​proof".

There is a great difference between "rapist" and "alleged rapist". The former would unquestionably be a violation of BLP, unless and until a court found the individual in question guilty of rape. The latter is an accurate description, which in no way suggests that guilt has been established, and nothing in BLP precludes its use in the article text or in a section title. — Ammodramus (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Although the term has been thrown around alot in the media, I have to point you to what was written by DHeyward at BLPN: [2]. A closer examination of her complaint reveals its questionable that what she alleged met the legal definition of rape. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Coupla lawyers doing their own original research and offering their delightfully absurd opinions on talk pages -- just what we need... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

He wasn't charged and it's reasonable to err on the side of caution. Omitting questionable information isn't OR, it's what's required by WP:V. And in this case WP:BLPCRIME. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

What about "The alleged/accused assailant"? I don't know if there's any way to avoid at least some ambiguity. Nblund (talk) 03:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

"Alleged" works slightly better than "accused" for me; to my ear, it better conveys the disputed nature of the encounter between Sulkowicz and X. "Accused" seems to carry more of a connotation of "an assault took place, and somebody says X was the culprit". "Alleged assailant" seems like an acceptable compromise, if other editors are allergic to the phrase "alleged rapist".

I don't think "accused" actually has that connotation. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's turn to the same four dictionaries. Looking up "accused" gets us—

• Merriam-Webster: "one charged with an offense; especially: the defendant in a criminal case" [italics in original]
• Oxford: "A person or group of people who are charged with or on trial for a crime"
• Dictionary.com: "a person or persons charged in a court of law with a crime, offense, etc."
• Cambridge: "the ​person who is on ​trial in a ​law ​court"

The fact that all four of these mention legal proceedings suggests that "accused" does, indeed, have that connotation. "Alleged" on the other hand, carries no such freight; indeed, three of the four dictionary definitions that I quoted in my initial post include something along the lines of "not proven", and two of the four indicate that "questionable" or "doubtful" is suggested. This reflects the actual situation, in which an investigation was undertaken but no charges were filed. — Ammodramus (talk) 04:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

These are dictionary definitions of the noun form of accused - which is why we no longer refer to him as the accused. However, putting a violation of some sort into his name is not an improvement on the student she accused and related constructions. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not a question of whether the dictionary definition is applicable but whether "alleged rapist" is an appropriately neutral descriptor. According to RS Michael Jackson was an alleged pedophile but I didn't hear Jay Leno or anyone else introduce him as "alleged pedophile Michael Jackson." Surely you see the problem with that. His name is well publicized is there a reason we can't use it? (There were no matches when I searched the talk page.) D.Creish (talk) 05:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

There was a heated BLPN discussion about it. It's linked in the FAQ. --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

"Alleged" is typically used when there is an official investigation or process. There were investigations, including a police investigation, which all found evidence lacking. So "accused" is closer in meaning. Either way, he was not found responsible by the university or charged by the police. At most, we can say "the student Sulcowicz has claimed raped her" which is amply supported by sources and accurate. As for mentioning his name, that's been discussed. It was a compromise to keep her facebook postings and commentary related to it out (even from sources as mainstream as the NY Times).Mattnad (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Accused and alleged are basically interchangeable, I think, and even sympathetic articles, like this one by Cathy Young, use the terms "accused student" and "alleged assailant" multiple times.

"Claimed" is a potentially problematic term (WP:CLAIMED), but "The student accused by Sulkowicz" or "the student Sulkowicz accused of sexual misconduct" might be a workable (if unwieldy) option. This isn't a perfect source, but The NY Times manual of style suggests using a construction like "person accused of sexual assault " and "the alleged sexual assault" rather than "accused/alleged assailant". It might be worth revisiting the question about using the accused student's name if this is really an issue. Nblund (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Bad writing needs re-work?

• **She said the piece would end when a student she alleges raped her in her dorm room in 2012 was expelled from or otherwise left the university.**

I am not a good writer but is there a way to use better wording to make it sound more encyclopedic and less like social media? 72.196.97.136 (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Sulkowicz response to Newsweek

Overall, I'm really unsure why anyone should care about this, it strikes me as a bit of WP:COATRACK. Regardless: the source here is a post by a conservative opinion columnist writing for gossip site, and it seems to exaggerate her statement. She's quoted saying this:

“[REDACT] complaint is filled with lies…. I want to warn you to be conscientious about what you publish as ‘fact’ for I may work with a lawyer to rectify any inaccuracies and misrepresentations.”

"May work with a lawyer" could mean anything from writing a sternly-worded letter to filing a libel suit. It doesn't necessarily entail legal action. Further, Sulkowicz warning Newsweek to avoid publishing falsehoods "as facts" is not the same as warning them "not to publish the accused student's account" of events at all. If it's included, I don't see any reason we should eschew a direct paraphrase or quote in favor of a questionable interpretation from a suspect source in Mediaite.com. Nblund (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Accused's lawsuit dismissed

How much coverage should this get in the WP article? The lawsuit against Columbia University was dismissed. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Minimal. Assuming the dismissal is finalized, it seems like that we could give it one sentence in the lead: "The case was dismissed in March 2016", and one sentence in the body mentioning the dismissal and (very briefly) stating the grounds for the dismissal. Nblund (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Split to three separate articles and NPOV violations

Because we leaved the accused name out does not mean people are unable to find his name. Initial response to this has been positive and supportive as it should be, however after the accused released evidence in his lawsuit there is an overwhelmingly negative response against Sulkowicz's accusation including feminists who have supported the accused narrative. There are three subjects here, first Emma Sulkowicz the person, the Columbia University rape allegation case and this article. I recommend a split and coverage of both sides. This should be uncontroversial per WP:NPOV. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Link to the lawsuit, and Emma confirming the time stamps and conversion to be authentic [3]. Her reasoning is that she was confused at time, all this needs to be included in the article. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding why you'd like the article split into three. Would you please outline it simply and clearly? PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be, but the article can be viewed as separate from the actual case. If we included all the details it might be WP:TOOLONG. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you believe it is too long in its current state? PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

If we are to included the full background and the accused POV, possibly. Splitting is not necessary and not as important as NPOV, but possibly helpful. My primary concern is the lack of the accused student's POV. How can we be neutral if we only portray one POV? We can add everything first and then make a determination. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Reception also needs to include initial response compared to current views. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I encourage you to be bold and add the content you feel is missing, then consider a split if it's too long. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

This article is subject to discretionary sanctions, I think BOLD should be avoided, consensus is always better. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Without a clearer outline of what you intend to add to the article, no consensus can be achieved as to what you add. Regardless, I think it's unlikely you'll be sanctioned for a bold edit as long as you take it to talk if some or all of it is reverted. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• Partial Support: Emma Sulkowicz article was renamed as Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) per WP:BLP1E I don't think that has changed since then. But I don't see any reason not to cover the lawsuit in a separate article, since it's out of scope in here. The background of the controversy can also be discussed in the proposed article in detail, which was a problem for this article since the focus is the art piece and not the controversy surrounding the art piece(which was a mistake imho) I suggested we should cover more about the events and also include the name of the accused(since it's kinda futile not to), but it was met with an interesting opposition when I cautioned that the accused was innocent per presumption of innocence and we should treat them that way. I don't know if it has been brought up later because I was in a break due to real life. Darwinian Ape ^talk 22:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Also to note current views in media have been negative [4]. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I'm really not seeing the POV issue here, the accused's lawsuit and his grievances are included as is commentary critical of Sulkowicz. What is it you want to be in there that isn't? We're not supposed to directly cite court documents especially not in a BLP. Brustopher (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

This version is may regard to case. The Facebook messages must be included that's the major one and Sulkowicz has confirmed it to be authentic so no controversy to include. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 23:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey Valoem. WRT the Facebook messages, I think they were excluded because were seen as irrelevant and outside the scope here. Not because they were disputed as inauthentic. WRT the media response: I think you would need a reliable source in order to include a suggestion that feminists or the press, writ large, viewed this issue negatively. Nblund (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Actually splitting works the information regarding messages is better left in an article regarding the allegations. I reflected it my message above. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 00:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

On that point: I think it's going to be extremely difficult to justify the creation of an article dedicated entirely to a contested sexual assault allegation. It's not really notable that one person accused another of sexual assault, and it sort of smacks of POV-forking. Nblund (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary the notability of this art piece comes from the sexual assault accusation, Colombia's handling the case and the controversy surrounding the accusation, the proposed article would be on par with articles like Duke lacrosse case or A Rape on Campus It can be argued that the focus of this article does not reflect the reliable sources that predominantly covers the controversy not the art. But if there is to be an article about the art pieces(which there are two) there can be a main article about the "Columbia University rape allegation case" which the notability of the two article derives from.Darwinian Ape ^talk 00:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• The article regarding the art piece is fine perhaps it is better to split the case and its consequences from both views. Also Emma Sulkowicz does pass WP:BLP requirements for a stand alone article perhaps the related works are better split to that. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 00:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think she has any notability outside this one event, so she is pretty much textbook WP:BLP1E There is no source that I'm aware of covering her outside this event, I will stand corrected if there are of course. Darwinian Ape ^talk 02:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• I removed NPOV sources I found are negative to the case not the art work if we are splitting then POV is sufficiently neutral. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 01:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I hear an argument that the balance is off here, which is a reasonable debate to have. I don't think that a lack of balance justifies a content fork on it's own, and, if anything, forking is probably a really bad way to address a balance issue. In my (admittedly limited experience) the typical practice is to make changes to an existing article and then "spin out" when and if a section becomes large enough to justify a separate piece. If there's enough notable material to justify a separate entry, then a spin out article should be easy and non-contentious. Nblund (talk) 02:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

This article's focus is the art piece which makes it undue for the entirety of the Columbia rape allegations kerfuffle to be documented. Proposed article(Columbia University rape allegation case) can be the main article in which the events are documented thoroughly and this article can remain as an article about an art piece with minimal coverage of the legal cases surrounding it. Just like Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol Darwinian Ape ^talk 03:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

It seems premature to create a spinoff article, considering that there is an ongoing discussion here and considering that this is essentially rehashing an idea that was previously rejected. I went ahead and posted a deletion discussion for the other article. Nblund (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 4 June 2016

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: moved by Mr. Granger. SSTflyer 02:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Mattress Performance → Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) – Moving back to the original title, but I dont want to move war over it. It's utterly ridiculous to claim that putting the title of the art piece, in the title of the article is somehow a violation of NPOV. Brustopher (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the reason Valoem gave for moving the page does not make sense. Following the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I have moved the page back to Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight). A discussion can now take place about whether the page should be moved or not.

In my opinion, the title of this article should be the title of the art piece. Not all sources seem to agree about what that title is. After a quick look through Google News, I see Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight), Mattress Performance: Carry That Weight, Mattress Performance, Carry That Weight, and Carry That Weight: Mattress Performance. Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight), which has been stable as the article title for some time, does seem to be one of the most common titles given in reliable sources. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, "Mattress Performance" seems a little vague, and just calling it "Carry that Weight" is going to confuse people. I don't see the NPOV issue either. Nblund (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2016 (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.

I would like to ping the editors involved to this discussion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Columbia University rape controversy @Isaidnoway: stated:

Comment I find it ironic that this article is being labeled as a WP:POVFORK (pushing a particular point of view) when the other article, Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight), clearly has a POV Title about her senior thesis project, which is about what she considers to be the poor handling of her rape allegations by university authorities. That's her POV and the article is titled with that point of view. And it has also accurately been pointed out in WP:POVFORK that - The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. Here, the "certain subject" is her senior thesis project, the alleged rape and the way that the University handled that allegation; the facts and major points of view surrounding her senior thesis project are adequately represented in that article. But, let's not forget that Nungesser was also accused by two other females and a male of sexual misconduct, and those "facts and major points of view" surrounding those allegations are not reflected in that article. Indeed, Nungesser's rebuttal to those allegations are not even mentioned. In addition, the facts and major points of view surrounding his Title IX lawsuit (Columbia discriminated against him “as a male.”), are not reflected in the Mattress Performance article either. And finally, I don't understand what the issue is with naming the "accused student", when he has publicly spoke out - The New York Times, Newsweek, The Daily Beast

bus stop (talk · contribs) stated:

The title—"Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)"—is problematic. This is not a standard article on a work of art. "Sulkowicz — a visual arts major — has turned her senior thesis into a performance art piece that blends campus activism and personal expression."[1] "She has said she will carry the mattress around campus until the male student who she alleges raped her leaves Columbia, either by university action or his own volition."[2] A title for our article should acknowledge the disputed nature of the subject of the article as well as the setting, which is the little self-contained world of art education. The present title implies validity which is inherently non-neutral given for instance the lawsuits brought by the target of the artwork. Furthermore I don't think the title of our article should be lending inordinate weight to what is merely an unestablished artist's student work

So, no I did not just move the page, there were arguments within that discussion regarding a POV being pushed based on the phrase "Carry That Weight" Brustopher and Granger, please be aware this was not done blindly. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 02:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the use of art by one student on a college campus to attack another student. We don't title the article with the name of that artwork unless we want to endorse the artwork. We aim for neutrality by choosing a title that is compliant with WP:NPOV. The title that I would choose would be Performance art rape allegations at Columbia University. Bus stop (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is absurd. It's like arguing that we should move Liberty Leading the People to Painting of woman with tits out alleging the July Revolution was a good thing, so as to avoid violating NPOV and having an anti-monarchist bias. Brustopher (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I do agree based on sources [5] that it is better to retain the phrase (Carry That Weight). Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

For those who think this is about the artwork alone, then how do you explain the coatracks of her other artwork and activities. It would seem to me that there's absolutely no justification for mentioning her other installations and videos except as a see also or inline mention.Mattnad (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Good point—maybe that material should be moved to Columbia University rape controversy. This article should probably just have brief descriptions of what those works are and how they are related to this one. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Now that the other article exists which goes beyond the scope of this article, I'm fine with this article title. However, I would like to see this article be more compliant with WP:NPOV, specifically where WP:WEIGHT is concerned, his POV is just as prominent as hers, and if you look at the juxtaposition of their point of views being given in this article, it clearly shows more weight being given to her.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

You say "Now that the other article exists which goes beyond the scope of this article, I'm fine with this article title." Please tell me: what is the scope of this article, and what is the scope of the other article? Bus stop (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Naming the other party in article

Hi. We don't name (the student accused of rape) in the article. Previous concerns have been over naming somebody who might not necessarily want to be named publicly. However, in an article we link to in the lede (Columbia University rape controversy) we name the student prominently. For what reasons should we not name the student in this article? Pinging Arkon as the person who reverted me. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Response here. Also, please review the archives for this question. BLP/N as well. Arkon (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Why do you believe 'his side of the story needs to be included if named', and how do you believe 'his side' is not included? PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

You're gonna need to read up on the archives to save us both some time. Arkon (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

You're right here, and presumably know the archives off the top of your head (hence your reason for citing them for reverting me.) Help me out, and explain. If you don't feel comfortable explaining why, why do you feel comfortable reverting? PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

You should read the archives provided and then come back? Sounds like a consensus was met previously before Fangrim (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Arkon, do you have a reason for reverting that you're able to articulate? I haven't found any compelling reason in the archived discussions. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Compelling to you or not, the reasons are there for you to read. You are certainly welcome to tilt at that windmill again and try to gain consesnsus for your change if you like. Arkon (talk) 04:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

If your stated reasons for reverting are 'I have reasons', yet you do not state those reasons, I'm led to believe you do not have reasons to revert. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, hi. What reason do you have for reverting? PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

What I said in the edit summary, what the other editors have been telling you here. WP:CONSENSUS. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Right, but consensus changes. I can't see any compelling reasons in the archive for the 'current' (that is to say, priorly agreed upon) consensus to go forward- can you? PeterTheFourth (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't care what you think is "compelling". The fact that you disagree with the existing consensus doesn't matter. The rest of the Wikipedia editing community doesn't need to reargue a point because as lone editor disagrees with it, especially one who's never presented a reasoned analysis/argument. You're heading for an WP:EDITWARRING report if you persist, or some other form of editing restriction. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Surely, in your lofty position as representative of the rest of the Wikipedia editing community, you could at least retread one policy-based reason that (the student accused of rape)'s name should never be mentioned in this article, but freely mentioned in Columbia University rape controversy? PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be belaboring you rather ersatz opinion that WP:CONSENSUS is not policy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: No, I'm saying that how the hell is consensus going to change if I don't even understand what consensus somebody is citing when they revert me. No, saying 'check the archives' doesn't help me find whatever consensus you're referring to. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

This is the discussion that established the consensus, as far as I know: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive187#Should we name the student accused of rape in the article Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)?. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Slimvirgin regarding this. Arkon (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

In essence - (the accused Arkon (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)) is prominently named in Columbia University rape controversy, and I don't see the reason to edit talk page comments to remove parts of them as Arkon has been doing. At the time the FAQ was written, it may have been wise, but I no longer believe that is the case. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that it is not a lone editor that wishes this issue to be rehashed. The article is remarkably POV-laden (considering the former consensus specifically determined NOT to include the opposing student's side of the story) and also does not name the professor who academically supported the performance as a thesis sponsor. The omissions only serve to protect the performing student from criticism. All relevant information should be included as a matter of encyclopedic integrity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.46.78.145 (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Article Is Biased Against The Accused

Nowhere does the article show the telephone messages and emails that occurred for weeks after the alleged rape, which shows the couple was still very friendly. For example, 38 days after the alleged rape, she messaged "I love you, Paul. Where are you?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.154.6.252 (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Slanderer

Nungesser has proven innocent, Sulkowitz is a proven slanderer. Name her what she is, in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:8C:4C08:FE00:3D0C:7136:E659:25B0 (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Columbia Controversy

Hi! Shouldn't the article below be linked to this one?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_University_rape_controversy

--Kaworu1992 (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

It does, prominently, in the lead: "After Columbia declined to take action ... Sulkowicz focused her senior thesis on a work of performance art entitled Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)" And this one to that: "She said the piece would end when a student she alleges raped her in her dorm room in 2012..."--GRuban (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Significant Bias

The article registers the events as art. It is better evidenced that this was criminal activity by an individual excusing her actions as 'art' and that no art existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.173.221 (talk) 15:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Change in gender

While Sulkowitz most recently idendentifies as non-binary, during the events covered in the article, she identified as a woman per every source in the article that mentions her gender.

It’s fine to mention Sulkowitz is now a “they” but changing past events is contrary to how, in the past, “she” identified “herself”. The Wikipedia MOS doesn’t address this issue and the current article doesn’t reflect the sources or common sense.

It’s political rather than encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.199.62.30 (talk) 11:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The MOS does address this issue, at MOS:GENDERID, which says "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns ... that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise." (This guidance is primarily aimed at biographical articles, but this article discusses Sulkowicz in such detail that I think it's clear we should use the same approach here.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Srly: Please discuss this issue instead of edit-warring. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Support Granger's view. WP:GENDERID is frustratingly unclear as to whether current or historical gender id is to be used in other articles besides the primary biographical, but in this case, since Sulkowicz comes up so many times, it seems closer to the primary bioraphical article. --GRuban (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

What is the source to let us know the preferred identification? 20:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ResultingConstant (talk • contribs)

https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/pazdby/emma-sulkowicz-2017s-sexual-assault-reckoning-is-a-marker-for-change - I also put it in a comment at the top of the article. --GRuban (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger and PeterTheFourth: The issue is the redefinition of an existing word that leads to comprehension problems when the original meaning and the new meaning are employed in the same article. An issue is exacerbated by occurrences in the same sentence. Without a method to discern the difference, the reader has a difficult time with comprehension. For example, "Among examples of what they (group) described as "public harassment", they (group) cited Sulkowicz's public display of drawings which they (group) said depicted the genitals of the student they (Sulkowicz) accused as part of their (Sulkowicz) project..." I would ask that should you feel the need to alter my contribution, please establish a method to improve and replace instead of reverting my changes outright. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srly (talk • contribs)

I don't think the parenthetical "(Sulkowicz)"s are necessary throughout the article like this. Used judiciously they might be helpful to ensure comprehension of a few difficult sentences like the one you quoted (though probably a careful rephrasing would still be better), but having 52 of them throughout the article is distracting. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to remove all the parenthetical 'Sulkowicz's'. We already know how to handle cases where pronoun usage can be confusing - for example, when there are two males in a sentence and saying 'he' is unclear, we do use the person's last name directly. E.g. 'Alex Smith took Ben Doe went to the barber shop - he liked a close shave.' vs. 'Alex Smith took Ben Doe went to the barber shop - Doe liked a close shave.' In cases where it's unclear who 'they' is referring to, we can just say 'Sulkowicz', we don't need to insert their name after every use of their pronouns. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Whatever the guideline, it doesn't allow for the obvious problem with people changing their gender identity or using gender identities that don't readily conform to the English language. As far as I can tell, in the past Sulkowitz identified as female and refereed to herself as a woman. Unlike Jenner who has stated he always identified as a woman, that is not the case with Sulkowitz? What gives us grounds to deny / whitewash her past identity? Isn't that just as presumptuous as ignoring her current gender identity? I'm not going to make any changes, but as an editor, these changes are contentious and could violate BLP given we have no reliable source to suggest she was non-binary at the time of the events in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattnad (talk • contribs) 18:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Create an article on Emma Sulkowicz?

Given that two works of performance art by Sulkowicz have their own long articles (this one and Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol), and there is a long article on the Columbia University rape controversy, and this article details several other apparently notable and reliably-sourced actions/ pieces, and the Columbia article already has basic biographical information on Sulkowicz, wouldn't it make sense to have an article on Emma Sulkowicz at this point, rather than redirecting that page to here? Such an article would seem like a more sensible place to centralize the biographical information and record the various pieces that don't have their own articles. -sche (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the continued coverage and new projects suggest that Sulkowicz has become notable in their own right at this point - I'd be in favor of this. Nblund ^talk 21:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I read "Such an article would seem like a more sensible place to centralize the biographical information and record the various pieces that don't have their own articles." Are you conceding that there is no additional information that could be contained in a biography that is not already contained in other already existing articles? Is the only reason for the suggested new article to "centralize" biographical information? If so, I question the validity of that as a reason for creating a new article. Sure, electrons are cheap, but isn't it possible to set aside this same biographical information in a paragraph or two in a preexisting article? Bus stop (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, the relevant question isn't whether there's additional information beyond what's in these articles (though I think there is), it's whether Sulkowicz has become notable. I think they have—their more recent works have continued to get coverage in independent reliable sources. If I remember correctly, the last time this was discussed was before Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol came out, so at that time they were really only known for Mattress Performance. But now they've received attention for several other works, which I think would be better covered in a biographical article. It seems odd to cover works like the protest with asterisks as part of this article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I would favor moving "Mattress Performance" to "Emma Sulkowicz". Bus stop (talk) 03:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hmm... doesn't the existence of Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) as a lengthy well-referenced article show that the performance has enough content and notability to have an article (like Ceci)? So, if the page were moved, it seems likely that content specific to this piece (~75% of this article) would be spun out back to this title. It seems like unnecessary effort and obfuscation of the edit history of the article on the performance, compared to just leaving the article on the performance here and starting a bio there. -sche (talk) 08:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

We have two articles on one work of art. One is called "Mattress Performance". The other is called "Columbia University rape controversy". The reader's time is valuable. This topic suffers from sprawl. A reader unfamiliar with this topic and with only a cursory interest in it would be daunted by three heavily duplicative articles such as "Emma Sulkowicz", "Mattress Performance", and "Columbia University rape controversy". I would suggest giving the reader a break. That would entail making arrangements other than the suggested addition of more duplicative material. Bus stop (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

If we had two articles on the work of art, that would seem like a rationale for merging those articles with each other, and unrelated to the question of creating a biography. However, Columbia University rape controversy seems to deal mostly with the rape and the controversy surrounding the handling of it and the lawsuits related to it, with only three paragraphs (10% of the article) summarizing the mattress performance. (By all means, propose to merge the 'Mattress' and 'Controversy' articles if you think they overlap, though!) -sche (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is the problem, the mattress article should not exist, it should be a paragraph in the rape article, all this attempt to provide massive coverage here at wikipedia is promotional. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

If you think this Mattress article should be merged into the 'rape controversy' article, it sounds like you want to file a WP:PM for those articles; why not do that? (It seems orthogonal to the question of whether the ongoing coverage of Sulkowicz and Sulkowicz's other actions and pieces establishes notability.) -sche (talk) 20:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I would support merging the "rape controversy" article into this one. I've argued for doing so in the past. But I agree with -sche that that's a separate question from whether Sulkowicz meets the notability guideline. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• oppose a biography under the Emma Sulkowicz name her life story is not wp:notable - Govindaharihari (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Sulkowicz clearly passes the General notability threshold. She is known for much more than the Mattress Performance and the related controversy at Columbia University. She has become an accomplished artist with continuing news coverage.The lorax (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) -sche—all of the sub-topics are overlapping on all of the articles. The artwork, the criminal complaint, and the artist are covered in both "Mattress Performance", and "Columbia University rape controversy" and would probably be covered in the proposed "Emma Sulkowicz" article. To get some perspective on this, there should probably be one article on everything. How many articles are there on Chuck Close? Are there any articles on individual artworks by Chuck Close? How many articles are there on Richard Artschwager? How many articles on individual artworks by Richard Artschwager are there? There is only one, and look at the length of the article, which can be found here. It is just a brief article. Bus stop (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Chuck Close: Mattress Performance received a lot of mainstream national press coverage and generated controversy beyond the art world. I don't think this is true of anything Close has done, so a more apt comparison would probably be cases like Piss Christ/Andres Serrano, or Aliza Shvarts/Yale student abortion art controversy - where artwork became a part of the general political discourse. In those cases, it makes sense to have a separate article because there is a lengthy backstory alongside the artistic significance of the work. Nblund ^talk 21:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

addendumAssuming that all Sulkowicz related articles were to be merged in to one article, we would probably merge them under Emma Sulkowicz right? In that case, it still seems like creating the Emma Sulkowicz article is a step in the right direction. Nblund ^talk 22:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

There is only one article on one artwork by Aliza Shvarts. It is titled Yale student abortion art controversy. Therefore there are only two articles on that subject area. There is only one article on one artwork by Andres Serrano. It is titled Piss Christ. Therefore there are only two articles on that subject area. Following your examples, Nblund, there should be only two articles on the subject area we are discussing. Bus stop (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

That would be true if the artist had only created one notable artwork. If you feel that is the case, please nominate whichever artwork(s) you feel are not notable for deletion. -sche (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

"If you feel that is the case..." No, I don't feel that is the case. I oppose burdening the reader with material repetitively presented. We already have three articles on the artist and you are suggesting we have a fourth article on the artist. And this has nothing to do with whether or not the artist is notable. A reader's time is valuable. We should take inventory of the material we have on a given subject-area—in this case the artist and the associated artworks, and we should divide that material among articles that do not overlap. And we should alert the reader at the top of each of these articles of the other articles in the given subject-area. That way the reader can peruse the subject area with maximum efficiency. Bus stop (talk) 02:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Bus stop: I basically agree with you. I'm certainly sympathetic to the argument that Columbia University Rape Controversy is a pointless content fork (that's why I nominated it for deletion), but the continued existence of that article doesn't really have any bearing on the question of whether there should be a main article on Sulkowicz. If nothing else, we need a main article on the subject in order to have an article space that extraneous entries could be merged in to. Nblund ^talk 02:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there is a need for a bio article on Sulkowicz. Mattress Performance should serve double-duty as the repository for the bio information. And there should be a second article on Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol. This is a way that makes sense for the reader. The reader would normally be expected to start with "Mattress Performance". Both articles should clearly be marked at the top with a link to the other article. This isn't a matter of whether Sulkowicz warrants an article. It is a question of what is best for the reader. Bus stop (talk) 06:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Is it best for the reader to cover unrelated artworks such as The Floating World in an article about Mattress Performance? I think it would make much more sense to have a biographical article about Sulkowicz, which could explain all the works that they're known for, and then separate articles for any works that are so well-known as to be separately notable. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

"Is it best for the reader to cover unrelated artworks such as The Floating World in an article about Mattress Performance?" It does so right now. This article is titled "Mattress Performance" and it covers "The Floating World". This article also covers "Untitled Protest Performance", "Self-Portrait", "Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol", "Newspaper Bodies (Look, Mom, I'm on the Front Page!)" and "Mattress Performance". And this article also contains the bio of Emma Sulkowicz. Why not change the title of this article to "Emma Sulkowicz" and merge "Columbia University rape controversy" into this article (and also shorten the section in this article pertaining to "Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol")? Bus stop (talk) 11:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I think my rhetorical question may not have been clear. The point I was trying to make is that the current situation, in which unrelated artworks are covered in an article about Mattress Performance, is not best for the reader. From your last comment, it sounds like we're in agreement that a biographical article about Sulkowicz is a good idea, even though we may not fully agree about how best to structure the other articles relating to their artwork. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Mx. Granger—this is "a biographical article about Sulkowicz". The only thing missing from this as a "biographical article" is a title of "Emma Sulkowicz". This is a "biographical article" in all but title. Bus stop (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, that, and it's 70% about the Mattress Performance and has subheadings like "creation and performance" that would be really weird if they were in reference to a person rather than a work of art. Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol seems like it had a lot less widespread coverage than this piece, if any work warrants a standalone piece, wouldn't it be Mattress Performance? Nblund ^talk 15:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The biographical information doesn't need its own article. The biographical information should be subsumed into an article on the artworks. Bus stop (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just hazy on your position, but are you saying this entry could serve as biographical article in which the biographical information was secondary to other stuff? Because that seems counter-intuitive. Or are you arguing that Sulkowicz doesn't meet WP:GNG to warrant a standalone bio? This entry would need some pretty heavy editing to serve as a main bio. At a minimum, why wouldn't we have a separate article for Mattress Performance rather than a separate article for Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol? Nblund ^talk 16:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have three articles: "Mattress Performance", "Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol", and "Emma Sulkowicz". But there should be no overlap, meaning the "Emma Sulkowicz" article should not at all delve into the other two articles, and the other two articles should not at all delve into biographical information about the artist. Contained within the bio article should be descriptions of the artworks that don't have freestanding articles. And at the top of all three articles should be links to the other two articles. Bus stop (talk) 17:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

A setup with three articles like that sounds good to me. And I agree we should avoid unnecessary overlap (though of course the biographical article will need to summarize information about the major artworks, and the artwork articles will have to give enough basic biographical information to understand the context of the art). —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is basically what I'm suggesting. The biographical information which is currently duplicated across several articles will instead be in the biography along with the other projects the artist is notable for which don't have their own articles (and are therefore currently shoehorned into various articles where they're off-topic) but which help show the artist meets GNG. The works which do have articles will only mention each other to the limited extent other sets of similarly-related articles on Wikipedia do. -sche (talk) 05:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Although there seems to be roughly two-to-one support for having a biographical article, it'd be beneficial to solicit input from more users. Unless there's a reason why I shouldn't, I'll start an RFC in the next few days on this talk page (rather than Talk:Emma Sulkowicz, since it redirects here). Is the following a good neutral wording of the question or do you have suggestions for improvement?: "Should there be an article on [[Emma Sulkowicz]]?" I'll notify the Wikiprojects listed at the top of this page using wording like: At [link to location of RfC], there is an RfC on the question "[the text of the question]". (I considered suggesting, as an alternative, that we could just post notices directing those Wikiprojects to this thread, and I'm fine with that if most of you think it's a better idea, but I felt it might be beneficial to have the structure of an RfC.) -sche (talk) 05:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Speaking for myself only, I am only agreeable to a biographical article if the "Yale student abortion art controversy" "Columbia University rape controversy" is merged into the "Mattress Performance" article. And I have to reiterate that I oppose overlap. I am agreeable to three articles: "Mattress Performance", "Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol", and "Emma Sulkowicz"—with minimal overlap. Obviously artworks that do not have their own articles and are only mentioned in "Emma Sulkowicz" would receive normal verbal treatment with no special concerns devoted to keeping wording to a minimum. But if an artwork has an article of its own, namely "Mattress Performance" and "Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol", it does not need more than the briefest of mentions in the "Emma Sulkowicz" article. Similarly, biographical details should be severely minimized in the two articles devoted to individual artworks, namely "Mattress Performance" and "Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol".

-sche—you write "The works which do have articles will only mention each other to the limited extent other sets of similarly-related articles on Wikipedia do. I have to say I completely disagree with this. Other articles are problematic in this regard and we do not have to repeat those problems here. We are discussing a set of articles. They are closely related. One of those articles is primarily the biography of an artist, and the other two articles concern two artworks by that artist. The reader can easily click between the three articles in that set of articles. But the three articles have to be prominently linked. At the top of each of these articles should be a link to the other two articles with a brief explanation of how it relates to the article the reader is currently at. For instance:

• "Also see the 2014/2015 performance piece by by Emma Sulkowicz titled Mattress Performance."
  
• "Also see the 2015 performance piece by by Emma Sulkowicz titled Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol."
  
• "Also see the biography of Emma Sulkowicz."
  

We do not have to have overlap. And we shouldn't. The reader's time is valuable.

-sche—in my opinion your suggested wording for an RfC is inadequate. Bus stop (talk) 13:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

If I'm following the discussion correctly, it sounds three options:

1. Create bio article for Emma Sulkowicz
2. Create bio article for Emma Sulkowicz AND merge Columbia University rape controversy into Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)
3. Do not create bio article for Emma Sulkowicz

Bus stop, correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you would support 2 or 3 but oppose option 1. For my part, I would prefer 2 or 1 over option 3. I'm fine with that setup, but perhaps we should ask !voters to rank those preferences? Nblund ^talk 21:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Nblund—I didn't understand -sche's response to Mx. Granger that "Yes, this is basically what I'm suggesting". I don't understand that because Mx. Granger had previously written "I would support merging the "rape controversy" article into this one. I've argued for doing so in the past. But I agree with -sche that that's a separate question from whether Sulkowicz meets the notability guideline" yet -sche does not address the merging of "Yale student abortion art controversy" "Columbia University rape controversy" into "Mattress Performance". Or to put this another way I don't think the two questions posed by Mx. Granger are separate questions. The problem here is "sprawl", in one word. To me that means too many articles and too much material repeated across those articles. This is a "subject area". All of these articles cover one "subject area". The reader does not need any one of these articles to be entirely sufficient unto itself. The reader will click between articles if this possibility is prominently posted at the top of each article. The three articles are really one article conveniently broken down by theme and for ease of readability. Bus stop (talk) 22:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

When you say Yale student abortion art controversy do you mean Columbia University rape controversy? Because the former is a different piece by a different artist. I understand that you see the two questions as related too one another, but I was trying to reflect that fact with option number 2 above. Another possibility would be to simply present two questions in the same RfC:

1. 1. Do you support creating a main bio article for Emma Sulkowicz?
2. 2. Do you support merging Columbia University rape controversy in to the Mattress Performance article?

If neither of those proposals work, maybe you could propose some other wording for an RfC. Nblund ^talk 23:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry. I meant "Columbia University rape controversy". Bus stop (talk) 01:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we should combine these into one RFC. The notability of Emma Sulkowicz is an separate issue from the "rape controversy" article. If we ask people to decide about both in the same discussion, I think we're likely to have a lot of disagreement in a lot of different directions and it'll be hard to achieve consensus for anything. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The question of whether Sulkowicz meets general notability guidelines (for more than one event) is straightforward and self-contained, separate from the question of whether or not other articles should be merged with each other. I will not lump or logroll such separate questions together. -sche (talk) 08:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I intiated an RfC in the section directly below. Unless someone beats me to it, I'll notify the Wikiprojects as described above within a day or so, but am holding off just a little while in case any last-minute changes need to be made. :) I presume everyone who has been participating in this discussion has this page watchlisted and will see the RfC, so I haven't pinged them. -sche (talk) 09:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)