Talk:Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Performance Art?
The first reference does not support that it is performance art. Construed broadly enough, most short films could be described this way. Is there a secondary source that calls it that? I'm aware Lawson does. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Sources
I've removed the two recent additions. I can't see where Die Welt calls it porn in its own voice, or really gives an evaluation, and the second doesn't evaluate it all, but talks about the other matter, which for obvious reasons I've mentioned only in passing in connection with Mattress.
The reception section isn't for any source that has mentioned the video's existence or published a throwaway remark about Sulkowicz. It's for considered opinion about the work from artists, art critics, journalists, etc., positive or negative, but preferably intelligent. If Die Welt does express the view that it's porn in any kind of considered way, please quote it here and I'll restore. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- "pornografische[r] Clip.", "Porno", [1]--Cyve (talk) 07:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- That source seems to just call it "porn" in passing and doesn't do so in any sort of considered way, which if you reread above, was the information Sarah was requesting. It don't see where that source gives any rationale for why they consider it porn and not art. A critique with a rationale for why it's porn and not art would be useful in reception, but unexplained assessments don't seem particularly useful.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Calling the film "porn" would be provocative given that it obviously wasn't made to arouse (see how WP defines porn at pornography). I can't see where that newspaper calls it that, except for the headline, which would have been written by a desk editor. The article says that people on Twitter called it porn, and we cover that kind of response in another section. The reception section is for commentators who have offered an interpretation of the work, not for news outlets who reported its existence.
- As for the other issue, it is mentioned in this article once in passing, and necessarily so, but it ought not to be mentioned again for BLP reasons. Sarah (SV) (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, if I read it correctly, it says that there is an internet debate about whether it is "real art" or "just porn," and then endorses the latter view. This isn't very substantive anyway, though. It's also entirely concerned with the scandal and doesn't really engage in trying to judge the video. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- If one wishes to evaluate it as a work of art one can't evaluate the video apart from the text. Bus stop (talk) 00:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, if I read it correctly, it says that there is an internet debate about whether it is "real art" or "just porn," and then endorses the latter view. This isn't very substantive anyway, though. It's also entirely concerned with the scandal and doesn't really engage in trying to judge the video. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
The Huffington Post journalist calls it pornography too: "Art video that can only be described as pornography."[2] --Cyve (talk) 07:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Edits
I've changed the reception heading to "analysis," because we again had someone add news pieces reporting the existence of the work (we don't need more of those; we know that it exists), or quoting from the comments, which is in another section. The Reason.com piece didn't say what our text said (that I could see), and the New York Daily News isn't a good source, but I moved it to the section discussing comments rather than argue about it. That it's not a re-enactment is already in the article. Also, please keep an eye on the writing (e.g. there's no need to capitalize words like article, and sentences need verbs). Sarah (talk) 23:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- [copied from SV talk] With edit you failed to mention the removal of material critical of the artwork. I'll assume good faith that the failure to note that deletion was accidental, but you're a pretty experienced editor. Can you explain why you removed the copy?Mattnad (talk) 03:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Matt, I did explain in my post above. One of the sources you added discussed the comments section of the website, which is part of the artwork and is in another section of the article. Your other source didn't say what you claimed it said (except perhaps in the headline), and it wasn't analysis. The final section is for sources that offer an interpretation of the work, not for sources that simply reported its existence.
- There may be more analysis when Sulkowicz's next work comes out, because she announced that it would appear soon, so it's a matter of waiting to see whether that happens. Sarah (talk) 03:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not understanding why an established newspaper like the NY Daily News is not a "good source". I know it's relative pedestrian, but your not saying the masses should have no opinion on art, are you? Also, what about this one from the the Federalist?Mattnad (talk) 13:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Let's avoid The Federalist, but let's also avoid the women's blogs Bustle and The Frisky, which are currently cited in that section. None of these are respectable sources. We also have a Newsweek source that literally provides only two words of commentary, "harrowing document," and by SlimVirgin's reasoning above, and the change to "Analysis," this should go. I'm certainly not fond of the Daily News, but I wonder about including HuffPo and excluding conservative media. As for the Reason article, Mattnad was citing the title, which is a bad practice. On the other hand we can source statements of this type to German newspapers. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
-
- I don't think it is our obligation to republish right-wing vitriol. But we could say a few words about how it's been received in different circles. Alakzi (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Can you clarify which source you're characterizing as "right-wing vitriol"? --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- The Federalist. Alakzi (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with not using anything from The Federalist (here or anywhere else, ever), but actually there's nothing vitriolic in that editorial. I can't see that it's justifiable to exclude that but keep the gushy reviews from The Frisky and Bustle. We should include German sources - in Germany, this is not a right/left issue, because consensus is basically against Sulkowicz. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- I've read it again and I agree that "vitriol" was over the top. Alakzi (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see a reason to exclude the Federalist outright, and more than we'd exclude reviews that are highly favorable. The Huffpo is really a collection of individual writers that has little editorial oversight but it's quoted often.Mattnad (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- I've read it again and I agree that "vitriol" was over the top. Alakzi (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with not using anything from The Federalist (here or anywhere else, ever), but actually there's nothing vitriolic in that editorial. I can't see that it's justifiable to exclude that but keep the gushy reviews from The Frisky and Bustle. We should include German sources - in Germany, this is not a right/left issue, because consensus is basically against Sulkowicz. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- The Federalist. Alakzi (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Can you clarify which source you're characterizing as "right-wing vitriol"? --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think it is our obligation to republish right-wing vitriol. But we could say a few words about how it's been received in different circles. Alakzi (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not understanding why an established newspaper like the NY Daily News is not a "good source". I know it's relative pedestrian, but your not saying the masses should have no opinion on art, are you? Also, what about this one from the the Federalist?Mattnad (talk) 13:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- There may be more analysis when Sulkowicz's next work comes out, because she announced that it would appear soon, so it's a matter of waiting to see whether that happens. Sarah (talk) 03:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Use of The Forward and Bustle as sources
I just noticed opinion pieces from The Forward and Bustle are used repeatedly. Bustle is really not a good source, especially as we objected to The Federalist. The article should not use it at all. It certainly should not cite opinion pieces for objective facts. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- The Forward seems to be an undeniably reliable source. The Bustle, seems appropriate for analysis.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Sourcing
I don't know why I didn't notice it before, but the quality of sources in this article is pretty dismal. We have:
- Rubin's op-ed in The Forward, cited 6 times, including twice for subjective claims in Wikipedia's voice.
- An article from the school newspaper, cited 7 times.
- Seltzer's op-ed in Flavorwire, cited 3 times, including for her subjective opinion about which sites had balanced commentaries, which is paraphrased in Wikipedia's voice.
- A youtube video of Sulkowicz in an interview, referenced for the fact that she got her degree. (This seems like a strange way to source this fact, which is widely reported in reliable print media.)
- Another school newspaper article, which is cited alongside Newsweek needlessly for the bland statement that the NYPD didn't pursue charges.
- An op-ed by Weiss from Bustle, a tabloid, cited 4 times, 3 of them in Wikipedia's voice.
- An opinion from The Frisky, also not a RS, though it's at least in the "Analysis" section.
- Something from Slate called "DoubleX Gabfest: The Triple X Edition." At least it's also in "Analysis."
And that's most of the citations. I don't know how to fix this situation - it would seem to involve re-writing the article. I'm giving it a reliable sources tag for now. --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- I noted a systematic effort to minimize negative criticism of the work, including the virtual elimination of an article from the New York Daily News - which I believe was referred to as "not a good source" by one editor. Meanwhile, marginal websites that are positive and reinforce a pro-Sulkowitz narrative get reused across this article. The editor went so far as to restructure the this article to permit the whitewash.Mattnad (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Here's the before sentence cited with the Daily News, "One article described it as a "sex video" and included a quoted commenters saying the "perverse project was in poor taste and not the right way to continue spreading her message" and that "other critics said the art project was nothing more than sick pornography."
- After the edits, it became a footnote in this sentence, "There were remarks about Sulkowicz's physical appearance, ethnicity and mental health, that the scene did not depict rape, that Sulkowicz should get back in the kitchen, and that women should not be allowed to vote."
- So we have a major newspaper's article eliminated except to provide support a statement on the mean things people said and did to Sulkowicz. NPOV? Not so much here.Mattnad (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Analysis of art seems unavoidably opinion based. We obviously can't use opinion for factual information, such as who directed it etc, but is there such a thing as "factual" analysis of art? Also the "school newspaper" sourced is the Columbia Spectator, which has understandable interest in this piece, as it was done by a recent graduate and filmed on campus, so it seems a decent source for detailed factual information. I'm not sure I'd describe these sources as "dismal".--BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- My concern is not so much that analysis is being used, as that it is being grossly overused. The article repeatedly cites op-eds for bland facts, and more problematically, repeatedly echos statements of opinion in Wikipedia's voice. For example, the statement "By 9 June 2015, there were 2,700 comments on the site, most of them hostile, sexist and ridiculing" cites two opinion pieces. That's a subjective assessment and I'm inclined to believe it is accurate, but it is still an opinion. This kind of problem can be solved simply by providing proper attribution. The broader problem, that the article rests mostly on poor quality sources including the student paper (which may have it's own Wikipedia page but is still a student paper, not staffed by professionals), The Bustle, Flavorwire, The Frisky, and everything else listed above, requires more work.
- Since another editor has indicated he has similar concerns (though I am not commenting on the NPOV issue he raised, in part because I am not sure if there are better sources which support the same assertions), I think the tag should stay up. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- I suppose we could attribute who described the comments as hostile, ridiculing etc, but looking over comments from that time period, it seems accurate. Looking over the references, this article seems well sourced and I do not believe it should be tagged as relying on unreliable sources. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- The article is currently sourced to: International Business Times, The Jewish Daily Forward, Artnet News, Columbia Spectator, Time (magazine), The Guardian, The Frisky, New York Daily News, The New York Times, Newsweek, Flavorwire, Bustle (magazine), Mic (media company), New York Magazine, The Huffington Post, Slate (magazine). Tagging this as an article relying on unreliable sources seems inaccurate. If you have concerns about a source or two, then tag that source inline, but putting a tag on top of this page seems unnecessary and inaccurate. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- As made clear above, I have concerns about eight sources, which together make up the majority of the citations in the article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- All the sources currently in article are provided above with wikilinks. I do not see 8 that could be argued to be unreliable, perhaps two, but if they are sourced and attributed as opinion, they may be acceptable. The assertion that citing opinion is problematic doesn't seem to make sense to me, because analysis of art is necessarily opinion based.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- We previously rejected the Daily News and The Federalist because they were not good sources. How, in your view, are Bustle, The Frisky, Flavorwire, a Slate podcast, and The Columbia Spectator better than these? And let's not ignore the fact we have multiple opinion pieces cited numerous times, mostly without attribution. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- The New York Daily News is currently in the article. I did not remove The Federalist (website) article titled "Oops, I Guess I Just Raped Emma Sulkowicz", but looking over that source [3], it seems rather POV, and like something that could only be very carefully used if explicitly attributed. If you see something in article that lacks attribution, that you think needs attribution, add it. Placing a tag at top of article, doesn't seem an appropriate response to such a problem.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- No, the Federalist source is no more "POV" than the opinion pieces the article is currently based on. (Moreover "POV" is generally a term that applies only to Wikipedia content - we expect opinion pieces to be "POV.") As Mattnad pointed out, and I'm sure you're aware, the Daily News source is hidden in a long list of references and is not actually cited for anything it says, at all.
- Template:Unreliable_source? says "For whole articles or article sections that rely on suspect sources, considering using just ((refimprove)) or ((refimprove|section)), respectively, rather than individually tagging a large number of statements." I'll do it anyway if you insist, but I would prefer if you'd help sort out how to improve the article instead of just stubbornly maintaining that there's nothing wrong with the eight sources listed in bullets in my original comment. Some of the issues actually shouldn't be too hard to sort out - I'm sure there are better sources for many of the non-controversial statements. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- I have suggested multiple ways to improve the article, such as attributing statements to author/source cited and using inline tags for specific sources which may be unreliable. Again, I do not see eight sources out of the sources currently in article that could be argued to be "suspect sources" or unreliable. These are the current sources: International Business Times, The Jewish Daily Forward, Artnet News, Columbia Spectator, Time (magazine), The Guardian, The Frisky, New York Daily News, The New York Times, Newsweek, Flavorwire, Bustle (magazine), Mic (media company), New York Magazine, The Huffington Post, Slate (magazine). The article seems generally reliably sourced. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Once again, the ones I bulleted above. At the very beginning. The ones that make up the majority of the citations in the article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sammy, you are being vague. I have twice specifically listed the sources used in this article (with wikilinks). You have provided eight bullets, but it's not at all clear what you are talking about really. Tagging them inline might help, but please, carefully consider if they really are unreliable in context they are used, and attributing to author/source, instead of tagging where appropriate. Pinging Sarah, because I think she added some of these references, and with recent edits, it seems some citations may have been moved around, which might be part of the problem. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Since you brought up the NY Daily News, suffice it to say it's being used in a way that's not at all what that article says. If you want to rebalance the current POV of the article, you'll bring back the sentence that more accurately presented the article. I'm not interested with warring on this, but when I see blatant whitewashing, I call it out.Mattnad (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Confused. Mattnad, when have I "warred with you" on this? I don't recall ever touching NY Daily News article reference or content. I see that it was previously used to mention that some described the video as pornography and that this point is currently made in article by a Huffington Post ref. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- You haven't on this particular article, but have on the other. I've noted strong resistance to change based on what should have been a logical edit to the Mattress Performance article (one that is being generally supported by the larger community so far in your RFC).
- Confused. Mattnad, when have I "warred with you" on this? I don't recall ever touching NY Daily News article reference or content. I see that it was previously used to mention that some described the video as pornography and that this point is currently made in article by a Huffington Post ref. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Since you brought up the NY Daily News, suffice it to say it's being used in a way that's not at all what that article says. If you want to rebalance the current POV of the article, you'll bring back the sentence that more accurately presented the article. I'm not interested with warring on this, but when I see blatant whitewashing, I call it out.Mattnad (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sammy, you are being vague. I have twice specifically listed the sources used in this article (with wikilinks). You have provided eight bullets, but it's not at all clear what you are talking about really. Tagging them inline might help, but please, carefully consider if they really are unreliable in context they are used, and attributing to author/source, instead of tagging where appropriate. Pinging Sarah, because I think she added some of these references, and with recent edits, it seems some citations may have been moved around, which might be part of the problem. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Once again, the ones I bulleted above. At the very beginning. The ones that make up the majority of the citations in the article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- I have suggested multiple ways to improve the article, such as attributing statements to author/source cited and using inline tags for specific sources which may be unreliable. Again, I do not see eight sources out of the sources currently in article that could be argued to be "suspect sources" or unreliable. These are the current sources: International Business Times, The Jewish Daily Forward, Artnet News, Columbia Spectator, Time (magazine), The Guardian, The Frisky, New York Daily News, The New York Times, Newsweek, Flavorwire, Bustle (magazine), Mic (media company), New York Magazine, The Huffington Post, Slate (magazine). The article seems generally reliably sourced. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- The New York Daily News is currently in the article. I did not remove The Federalist (website) article titled "Oops, I Guess I Just Raped Emma Sulkowicz", but looking over that source [3], it seems rather POV, and like something that could only be very carefully used if explicitly attributed. If you see something in article that lacks attribution, that you think needs attribution, add it. Placing a tag at top of article, doesn't seem an appropriate response to such a problem.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- We previously rejected the Daily News and The Federalist because they were not good sources. How, in your view, are Bustle, The Frisky, Flavorwire, a Slate podcast, and The Columbia Spectator better than these? And let's not ignore the fact we have multiple opinion pieces cited numerous times, mostly without attribution. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- All the sources currently in article are provided above with wikilinks. I do not see 8 that could be argued to be unreliable, perhaps two, but if they are sourced and attributed as opinion, they may be acceptable. The assertion that citing opinion is problematic doesn't seem to make sense to me, because analysis of art is necessarily opinion based.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- As made clear above, I have concerns about eight sources, which together make up the majority of the citations in the article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- The article is currently sourced to: International Business Times, The Jewish Daily Forward, Artnet News, Columbia Spectator, Time (magazine), The Guardian, The Frisky, New York Daily News, The New York Times, Newsweek, Flavorwire, Bustle (magazine), Mic (media company), New York Magazine, The Huffington Post, Slate (magazine). Tagging this as an article relying on unreliable sources seems inaccurate. If you have concerns about a source or two, then tag that source inline, but putting a tag on top of this page seems unnecessary and inaccurate. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- I suppose we could attribute who described the comments as hostile, ridiculing etc, but looking over comments from that time period, it seems accurate. Looking over the references, this article seems well sourced and I do not believe it should be tagged as relying on unreliable sources. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- So, as an illustration of good faith, are you willing to put this sentence back in, citing NY Daily News (provided you believe it accurately quotes the less favorable comments): "One article described it as a "sex video" and included a quoted commenters saying the "perverse project was in poor taste and not the right way to continue spreading her message" and that "other critics said the art project was nothing more than sick pornography."
- Also, since you don't have issues with highly subjective, and positive POV articles, I'd hope you relent on your opposition to the Federalist which is polite, but not positive.Mattnad (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Mattnad, I'm pretty sure I never removed it on the other article either, perhaps you are confusing me with someone else you have been in dispute with. Also, please reread above, I never removed The Federalist (website) source or outright opposed it's usage, but I provided a link to the article above, and I think it's clear that if used, we'd need to do so carefully, and attribute it to source. Looking over the NY Daily News source [4], the "perverse project" and "sick pornography" statements are in reference to the abundant criticism found in the comments section of Sulkowicz's website, so this is not from reliably sourced commentators, but rather statements from the website's comments section. Currently, that Daily News source is being used to reference article text saying the comments on the website were negative, which seems appropriate. The analysis section, seems to be for reliably sourced analysis, not comments made on her website, which is probably why that source was moved (by someone other than me). However, I also see that the current version of the analysis section contains text describing the video as pornography, which is sourced to the Huffington Post, so I don't really see why we are arguing about this.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not going for that. On the one hand I agree with most of what Mattnad said, and it's absolutely true that including the opinion pieces on which the article is presently based, but refusing to include critical sources which are just as good, is a clear NPOV violation. But the article needs to be moving towards using better sources, not worse ones. The Frisky, Bustle, Flavorwire, and the Gabfest podcast are not respectable, and The Federalist is not much better. The opinion piece from The Forward should be used in the Analysis section for statements of opinion, but should not be cited the way it is, six times mostly without attribution. NPOV is about balance among reliable sources, not balance among the peanut gallery. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but I do think The NY daily news is just about one of the most reliable sources proposed so far (Newsweek as well).Mattnad (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not going for that. On the one hand I agree with most of what Mattnad said, and it's absolutely true that including the opinion pieces on which the article is presently based, but refusing to include critical sources which are just as good, is a clear NPOV violation. But the article needs to be moving towards using better sources, not worse ones. The Frisky, Bustle, Flavorwire, and the Gabfest podcast are not respectable, and The Federalist is not much better. The opinion piece from The Forward should be used in the Analysis section for statements of opinion, but should not be cited the way it is, six times mostly without attribution. NPOV is about balance among reliable sources, not balance among the peanut gallery. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Question: Since we are talking about the sourcing there are 5 citations for these two sentences : "They included sexual, sexist and racist insults and threats. There were remarks about Sulkowicz's physical appearance, ethnicity and mental health, that the scene did not depict rape, that Sulkowicz should get back in the kitchen, and that women should not be allowed to vote."
Are these two sentences a synthesis of those 5 sources or all of them states the same thing? Could we be specific as to which sentence supported by which source?
Also, I agree that the sourcing is really bad in this article, because this art performance is really not that notable. It wouldn't be notable at all if not for the rape controversy. I would propose creation of a new article about the Rape allegations, or something like Columbia University art performance controversy and move this and most of the load from its sister article to that article. Then maybe we could have a quality article, because frankly both this piece and the others created by this artist covered by reliable sources for the rape controversy aspect, not the art aspect. Darwinian Ape talk 00:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- Have you reviewed the sourcing for the current article? Since more sources have been added since I last listed them, here they are again: Time (magazine), The Guardian, International Business Times, New York Magazine, The Huffington Post, The Jewish Daily Forward, Artnet News, Columbia Spectator, The Frisky, New York Daily News, The New York Times, Newsweek, Flavorwire, Bustle (magazine), Mic (media company), Slate (magazine), Elle (magazine). I understand there are strong feelings about the rape allegation and this performance art, but this is a well sourced article. It more than meets WP:GNG. Also, please review talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight). A move request to "Alleged rape of Emma Sulkowicz" and also a move request to "Columbia University performance art controversy" were both previously proposed and not accepted. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- Bobomeowcat is being a little coy in her arguments about past move discussions. The original move discussion about Emma Sulkowicz as the title was several months before this article was created . There seems to be a theme here - focus on the art, not the artist, who would unify the two articles both logically and editorially. So now we have two articles with overlapping material, with a couple of editors (a tiny minority) pushing for an artificial structure that makes no sense from an editorial perspective. Paradoxically, Bobomeowcat has several times argued the two pieces are linked to justify an expansive passage in other article. But I gather from these comments not so linked that they should be merged.Mattnad (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- Mattnad, please refrain from making so many personal comments about me or directed at me . Also, I'd invite you to actually review both move discussions, because your comments here suggests you have not yet done so. Although, it is true both move requests predate the performance art video. Additionally, in accordance with your suggestions and an RfC I started regarding your suggestions, there is strong emerging consensus to have little overlap.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- Bobomeowcat is being a little coy in her arguments about past move discussions. The original move discussion about Emma Sulkowicz as the title was several months before this article was created . There seems to be a theme here - focus on the art, not the artist, who would unify the two articles both logically and editorially. So now we have two articles with overlapping material, with a couple of editors (a tiny minority) pushing for an artificial structure that makes no sense from an editorial perspective. Paradoxically, Bobomeowcat has several times argued the two pieces are linked to justify an expansive passage in other article. But I gather from these comments not so linked that they should be merged.Mattnad (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- Problem is not the RS's we have, it's how many times we are citing bad sources and op-eds. Hannah Rubin op ed 5 times, Columbia spectator 7 times Bustle 4 times, and so on, so these sourcing is not really good. As for the move suggestion, I was there at least once when that proposal made, it was editorially right thing to do( and I said it was) and it still is. More so now that we have this article, and I previously warned there could be a content fork, there is not so much of a WP:CFORK right now, but this article seems like a new front for the same topic. Please do not think I doubt anyone's good faith, it is not an invalid argument to stick to the art aspect of the event. But I agree with Mattnad, this makes no editorial sense. All the quality RSs gives the weight to the Rape allegations and the controversy surrounding the art pieces not the art pieces themselves. Darwinian Ape talk 02:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- The sources do often mention the rape allegation, but in the context of Sulkowicz's statement that the video is not a reenactment of the rape allegation. Additionally, your count neglects to mention that the Columbia Spectator, as well as the other sources are usually referenced along with multiple other sources. I recently tweaked the refs, because it seems some may have been moved away from statements during recent editing, and currently, the only thing exclusively referenced to the Columbia Spectator is a quote from the director of the video, Ted Lawson, who did an interview with the Spectator, stating that Sulkowicz insisted on everything being real. I suppose we could remove that, but readers might be interested in that statement which suggests the sex was not simulated. Also, I suppose we could remove the Columbia Spectator from among the list of refs for the statements where it's not the only source, but that doesn't seem necessary to me. Hannah Rubin's piece in The Jewish Daily Forward seems to be an undeniably reliable source. Hannah Rubin appears to be a regular writer with The Forward, reporting on art, so op-ed seems inaccurate, and while that article does offer opinion, it goes beyond that offering a lot of factual information.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- You said "in the context of Sulkowicz's statement that the video is not a reenactment of the rape allegation" That is correct, and we should report that as the Artist's view of her work. However the reliable sources too, see what we all see; it is awful a lot like her description of the alleged rape. But that is beside my point, the focus of the reliable sources is the rape allegation and the controversy surrounding these art pieces. So it would be logical for us to report those sources in an article about the controversy. Let's not kid ourselves, without the rape allegations factor of the story, this art piece would not have an article of its own, at best it would be mentioned in the artist's own bio like Milo Moiré's plopEgg performance, and I am being generous here, we don't even have a bio of the artist because she is not notable herself. Darwinian Ape talk 22:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- The sources do often mention the rape allegation, but in the context of Sulkowicz's statement that the video is not a reenactment of the rape allegation. Additionally, your count neglects to mention that the Columbia Spectator, as well as the other sources are usually referenced along with multiple other sources. I recently tweaked the refs, because it seems some may have been moved away from statements during recent editing, and currently, the only thing exclusively referenced to the Columbia Spectator is a quote from the director of the video, Ted Lawson, who did an interview with the Spectator, stating that Sulkowicz insisted on everything being real. I suppose we could remove that, but readers might be interested in that statement which suggests the sex was not simulated. Also, I suppose we could remove the Columbia Spectator from among the list of refs for the statements where it's not the only source, but that doesn't seem necessary to me. Hannah Rubin's piece in The Jewish Daily Forward seems to be an undeniably reliable source. Hannah Rubin appears to be a regular writer with The Forward, reporting on art, so op-ed seems inaccurate, and while that article does offer opinion, it goes beyond that offering a lot of factual information.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Just a question
What does this mean: A_____'s S_____t
It is found here: [5]. Bus stop (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Bus stop, I have no idea. I haven't seen any RS discuss it. Sarah (SV) (talk) 01:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- My guess is "Artist's Statement", but I have no idea why she'd write it like that.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- There's an interesting article about artists' statements here. Sarah (SV) (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- It wouldn't be an artist's statement because it is only about one work of art. Bus stop (talk) 11:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- It seems like another of her navel-gazing commentaries on her own objectification. The implication is that in interpreting the work, you superimpose your own reality on her and deprive her of her voice, like a rapist does, not in forcing himself on her, but in imagining consent where none might have been offered. In other words, her will and intentions are for you to overwrite. I haven't seen the video, though, but I doubt it matters. --Sammy1339 (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- It sounds like we are going around in circles. You are providing commentary on an artwork, part of which you have not seen, and you feel that this artwork is "another of her navel-gazing commentaries". Bus stop (talk) 09:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- You asked what "A_____'s S_____t" means. That's what I think it means. I didn't bring it up. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- But you are not addressing what that cryptic lettering means. Bus stop (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- It obviously says "Artist's Statement" so I assumed you wanted to know why it is written with fill-in-the-blanks. The obvious explanation is that it's saying "you may write over my intentions." This is consistent with Sulkowicz's previous narcissistic musings such as "Well meaning people on the street will touch me reverently... they do not believe they are violating me with their hands"; "When people engage in believing in me, they objectify me." --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- You say "I haven't seen the video, though, but I doubt it matters." Could I ask you why you haven't seen the video? Bus stop (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- I only meant it probably doesn't matter for the interpretation of that line. But the reason I haven't seen it is that I find it distasteful, I basically know from the description what it is going to be, and I don't think it will be worth my eight minutes. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- You say "I haven't seen the video, though, but I doubt it matters." Could I ask you why you haven't seen the video? Bus stop (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- It obviously says "Artist's Statement" so I assumed you wanted to know why it is written with fill-in-the-blanks. The obvious explanation is that it's saying "you may write over my intentions." This is consistent with Sulkowicz's previous narcissistic musings such as "Well meaning people on the street will touch me reverently... they do not believe they are violating me with their hands"; "When people engage in believing in me, they objectify me." --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- But you are not addressing what that cryptic lettering means. Bus stop (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- You asked what "A_____'s S_____t" means. That's what I think it means. I didn't bring it up. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- It sounds like we are going around in circles. You are providing commentary on an artwork, part of which you have not seen, and you feel that this artwork is "another of her navel-gazing commentaries". Bus stop (talk) 09:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- It seems like another of her navel-gazing commentaries on her own objectification. The implication is that in interpreting the work, you superimpose your own reality on her and deprive her of her voice, like a rapist does, not in forcing himself on her, but in imagining consent where none might have been offered. In other words, her will and intentions are for you to overwrite. I haven't seen the video, though, but I doubt it matters. --Sammy1339 (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- It wouldn't be an artist's statement because it is only about one work of art. Bus stop (talk) 11:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- There's an interesting article about artists' statements here. Sarah (SV) (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- My guess is "Artist's Statement", but I have no idea why she'd write it like that.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Looking at the HTML source code supports this:
- <div id="statement">
- Although I suspect there will be a 'Part 2' reveal that may change our understanding of things ...
- --195.137.93.171 (talk) 04:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Pronouns?
What is the reason for using "they" as a personal pronoun to refer to Sulkowicz? Such as in
Sulkowicz said they strongly believed in the video's importance, but that making it had been a "traumatizing" experience.
I know that they is supposed to be a gender-neutral pronoun, but since its main use is the 3rd person plural, it is extremely irritating that it would refer to a single person. I don't know which gender Sulkowicz identifies with, but IMHO she is clearly biologically female so she could just be referred to using "she". Since English is not my native language and I don't live in an English-speaking country, I'm not sure how "it" would be perceived as a gender-neutral pronoun for a single person. --188.104.168.4 (talk) 07:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- See the discussion at Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight). —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- This is also worth reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genderqueer#Pronouns_and_titles - English doesn't have a legally recognised non-binary set of pronouns the way, for example, Sweden has. "They" is most commonly preferred by people in English-speaking countries identifying as non-binary. If the subject of the article chooses to identify as non-binary, their decision is to be respected, and Wikipedia has firm policies about this matter, see MOS:IDENTITY Totorotroll (talk) 08:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Pronouns, revisited
Please see Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)#Revisiting_pronouns. -sche (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)