Talk:Columbia University rape accusation controversy

Number and Gender

The article repeatedly (but not consistently) refers to single persons in the plural, which is confusing. If Wikipedia has made a collective decision to eliminate gender from its articles, this article should also eliminate gendered terms such as "son" and "daughter", "man" and "woman", etc. Otherwise, the article should conform to standard English rules of number and use singular pronouns for single persons. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a haven for every political quirk. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 18:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Per a recent article: "Sulkowicz, who has been working as an artist since graduation, identifies as non-binary, and uses the gender-neutral pronouns “they” and “them.”" https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/02/12/is-there-a-smarter-way-to-think-about-sexual-assault-on-campus

This should likely just be cited in the article to avoid confusion. 73.110.34.99 (talk) 04:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes but this makes the article almost unreadable. If tomorrow she says her pronoun is 'Lord Jesus Christ' are you going to refer to her as that from now on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.134.89.78 (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I have understood that Ms. Sulkowicz likes to be referred to as "them" as part of her way of life. That is of course ok. But obviously, Ms. Sulkowicz is an individual person and not a group of people. I think the choice of language in an encyclopedia should reflect the facts and not an unconventional interpretation of grammar in the light of an artistic way of life. The English version of Wikipedia is also read by many people for whom English is a foreign language (like me). To stay fair, the English version of Wikipedia should be comprehensible to everyone who masters the standard grammar and vocabulary of English. Otherwise, it will get exclusive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.28.92 (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Check Singular_they and MOS:GENDERID Nblund ^talk 13:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) can refer to themselves with any kind of pronoun but they can't tell others what pronoun they must use for them. You can't force english speakers to say Yerusalem, or spanish speakers to not to call New York Nueva York. So I am gonna change the article to the proper pronouns she/her.

Can someone at least re-work the sentences to make them readable? e.g. In the intro, "them in Sulkowicz's dorm room" can be changed to "Sulkowicz in their dorm room", which makes the sentence not sound completely wrong, and still leaves the gender issue unresolved. 190.149.63.130 (talk) 05:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)Michael

That makes it sounds like Sulkowicz shared a dorm room with their alleged assailant. Nblund ^talk 18:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I changed all "they" to "Sulkowicz" and corrected verb number to singular (e.g. "were" to "was"). This makes it accurate but still awkward without resolving the larger "they" argument.Smulthaup (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Eschewing pronouns all together is unhelpful. It's inconsistent with the way that other reliable sources have referred to Sulkowicz, and it makes it appear as though Wikipedia is bending over backward to avoid using their preferred pronoun. "They" has been used as an gender-neutral singular pronoun for at least six centuries now, so I remain pretty skeptical of any editor who claims to be unable to wrap their heads around it. Nblund ^talk 03:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

"They" is in common usage as a singular pronoun and reflects sources used in this article. Mass removals of the pronoun are disruptive. –dlthewave ☎ 03:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I have submitted this to RfC - biographies.Smulthaup (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the RfC template because this section isn't validly formatted as an RfC; the initial "question" isn't phrased neutrally as is required (it's not even phrased intelligibly, because it misunderstands the reason 'they' is used in the article). (I'm also not sure that turning someone else's post into an RfC is kosher...) We could perhaps discuss in this section whether or not to formulate a proper RfC, but bear in mind that a "local consensus" can't override the broader consensus behind the guideline on pronoun use. -sche (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

At a minimum, from the WP:GENDERID: "When a person's gender self-designation may come as a surprise to readers, explain it without overemphasis on first occurrence in an article." should apply. On that basis I will revert to include "(who refers to one's self by the non-gender binary pronoun 'them')". However, I think the number agreement of the verb should still be singular and not plural. I still endorse that an RfC is needed. Since you seem interested in the subject, I volunteer you to create the "properly formatted RfC". Smulthaup (talk) 07:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The article indeed (already) has such an explanation, in its first section. :)
My point is that I don't think one could write an RfC here that could overturn the guideline. And if you (or dost thou object also to singular 'you', which is a much more recent development than singular 'they'?) want a discussion about the guideline, those have already been had ad a fair degree of nauseam...
As for number agreement: over the centuries it's been in use, singular 'they' has taken plural verbs, like also singular 'you', so when a reader sees singular 'they', that's the number-agreement they expects. -sche (talk) 07:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah - the WP:BLP or maybe WP:MOS pages would probably be the appropriate places to bring up an RfC like that, but I doubt proposal above would gain any traction. As -sche points out, singular "they" tends to follow the same conjugation rules as singular "you" (and the royal "we"), so it's "you/they are" not "you/they is". Some sources on this: 1, 2. Nblund ^talk 15:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

In the article that is listed as source 17 (https://www.thecut.com/2019/10/did-emma-sulkowicz-mattress-performance-get-redpilled.html), Sulkowicz instructed the author to use the pronouns she/her. This article is from 8/28/19. The article is quoted below:

"Since 2016, Sulkowicz has identified as gender fluid, and she sometimes uses they/them pronouns. When I ask what to use for this article, she texts me, “Lol I’m not clear about it either,” before settling on she/her."

Unless there is more current information available, this should put the question of which pronouns to use for Sulkowicz to bed. Not only do she and her clarify the article by clearing the confusion on plurality, the very person who we are referring to chose them. If anyone has more current and conflicting information, then please share it. If none can be found or none exists, then Wikipedia should use she/her when referring to Sulkowicz. Phafner (talk) 03:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

What's this nonsense about " (Their pronouns. They go by they/them instead of she/her) "

I don't know if it was incompetence or vandalism, but the quote "wanting to erase all of my memories of Columbia"[1] got changed to "all of [them]" and then [all of their]. Doug Weller talk 14:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Nblund: do you want to tell me why you changed a quotation? None of the discussion above makes sense to me, which is why I've started a new one here. The sources support my edits so far as I can see. You can't go around changing quotations, for a start. The rest is in line with the sources also. Doug Weller talk 14:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

On the other stuff: Sulkowicz uses "they/them" pronouns not "she/her". I agree that changing "my" to "them" seems pointless Actually the version with brackets reads better. Square brackets are one acceptable way of indicating that a quotation has been changed are are one of the suggested ways of addressing quotations in the MOS:GENDERID guidelines. Nblund ^talk 14:21, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Nblund: How does MOS:GENDERID relate? That's about people whose gender might be questioned. Why do you think that's the case here? As far as the brackets go, she said "which would be after I graduated and probably wanting to erase all of my memories of Columbia from my brain anyway, so I decided not to pursue it." I can see the problem that exists the way it's now written, but as I asked, where is the justification for saying she uses "they/them"? I could have missed something but I don't see it. And I never talk about myself as him. I don't expect her to use "she/her" in talking about herself. Doug Weller talk 14:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

It's cited in the entry, to this article. The relevant quote: "'Sulkowicz, who has been working as an artist since graduation, identifies as non-binary, and uses the gender-neutral pronouns “they” and “them.”". I think "my" is fine there, but I still think it reads better with the brackets. Nblund ^talk 14:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Your personal bigotry and stubborn insistence on disrespecting someone doesn't really apply. We use the pronouns people go by when referring to them in Wikipedia articles, per the first sentence of MOS:GENDERID. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: are you referring to me? By the way, I did miss that quote, but did check to see that the article uses "her" and "she": " Sulkowicz said that the conversation with Natalie prompted her to file a formal complaint to the university. She filed her complaint on April 18, 2013"..." Doug Weller talk 15:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Everyone can see you using the wrong pronouns again and again, after being informed. Not subtle. PeterTheFourth (talk) 15:02, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Um, that's serious nonsense. I came here to find out why I was being told that S. uses they/them, particularly after I saw that a quotation had been changed. I'm a strong believer in MOS:GENDERID and you can search for my posts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies and see if they show any prejudice. Go ahead and complain about me there if you still think I'm prejudiced. I see we have Category:People with non-binary gender identities but I don't have the time to see if any of the BLPs there have subjects that specifically state they use they and them. It's a problem as can be seen by the fact we do use she and her in the sentence I quoted, and using they and them is clumsy but maybe you are right, it's inevitable. I'm tempted to ask there how to respect their wishes while writing an article that isn't likely to be changed and doesn't have clunky sentences. Doug Weller talk 15:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I came here because I found this edit and if you look at the editor's talk page you'll see I added a BLP DS template after I saw it. Doug Weller talk

Gender neutral language

Editors here might be interested in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style on the issue of gender neutral language, arising out of an editor quickly changing "mankind" to "humankind" in about 150 articles. @PeterTheFourth:, I've made it clear where I stand on this (not where you seem to think I stand). Doug Weller talk 16:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

In the article that is listed as source 17 (https://www.thecut.com/2019/10/did-emma-sulkowicz-mattress-performance-get-redpilled.html), Sulkowicz instructed the author to use the pronouns she/her. This article is from 8/28/19. The article is quoted below:

"Since 2016, Sulkowicz has identified as gender fluid, and she sometimes uses they/them pronouns. When I ask what to use for this article, she texts me, “Lol I’m not clear about it either,” before settling on she/her."

Unless there is more current information available, this should put the question of which pronouns to use for Sulkowicz to bed. Not only do she and her clarify the article by clearing the confusion on plurality, the very person who we are referring to chose them. If anyone has more current and conflicting information, then please share it. If none can be found or none exists, then Wikipedia should use she/her when referring to Sulkowicz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phafner (talk • contribs) 03:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Use of non-binary »they/them« pronouns

I know this has been discussed above, but not solved yet, so I changed the use of pronouns back to standard English practices. Just because Sulkowicz identifies as non-binary and uses »they/them« pronouns, does not mean that an encyclopaedic article about her should do the same. Wikipedia doesn’t exist to pursue an individual preference writing style, but to deliver facts as clearly comprehensible as possible. This aim is certainly not achieved, when »they/them/their« are used to replace »her«. Doing so, as was the state here on 22nd September 2018, distorts and obscures the facts in important ways, for example:

• »…alleging he had raped them in Sulkowicz's dorm room…« – implies more than one person was raped.

• »…what began as a consensual sexual encounter in their room turned non-consensual…« – implies that they shared a dorm room, which is false.

• »…Nungesser choked them, slapped their face, held their wrists, and anally raped them…« is an almost comically inept way to describe a serious allegation, which should be written in as clear a language as possible.

• It becomes even more weird, when the next paragraph uses »they« throughout to convey the plural meaning again. But in the paragraph after that, we are back to maximum confusion, with »them« used to convey singular and plural in the same sentence!: »…Sulkowicz expressed concern that the messages would be used to present them as unreliable, and stated they had sent them because they were upset and wanted to talk to him.…« – Surely this is ridiculous. Wikipedia is read worldwide by millions of people for whom English is the second or third language. How are they supposed to comprehend what is being said here?

• But it gets even worse: »…By the time of Sulkowicz's last message, which they sent in March 2013, they said they had visited the university's Office of Gender-Based Misconduct and that they had asked whether they had tried talking to the accused.…« – Try figuring out when »they« means Sulkowicz, and when »they« means the Office of Gender-Based Misconduct. You have to read the sentence at least three times, and still the last two »they«s could be interpreted either way, as »she« + »they«, or as »they« + »she«. The reader has no way of knowing without looking at the source.

I have great respect for the important issues of gender preference acceptance, but making language incomprehensible is not the way to do it. Something like »[her]«, or alternatively [their], might be acceptable if it becomes a Wikipedia-wide standard. But until it does, we should stick to standard English practices. --Sprachraum (talk) 07:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Sprachraum: - I was confused myself when I read this, but I agreed we should follow our guideline at MOS:IDENTITY which says: "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example 'man/woman', 'waiter/waitress', 'chairman/chairwoman') 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. [...] Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions (in some cases adjusting the portion used may reduce apparent contradictions, and ' [sic]' may be used where necessary)." Doug Weller talk 08:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: - Dear Doug, thanks for quoting that, but I think you will agree that the guideline at MOS:IDENTITY does not specifically address the problems caused by (for example) using »they« as a substitute for »her« – and names no remedy if this leads to factual confusion and renders the text almost illegible in parts, as I have pointed out above. So the Manual of Style needs to find specific solutions for dealing with this problem. Simply reverting to the state the article had before, is not a solution. Adding the FAQ from the other article (which is full of the same problems) to the talk page, helps only for someone who finds it on the talk page. It does not address the reading issues in the text itself. So there needs to be a general discussion and solution for this problem. I don't know where that should take place (i'm from the German Wikipedia), so that is up to others.

If you think something is unclear, you might try rewording it in a way that still uses Sulkowicz's preferred pronouns. Using "her" is inaccurate and doesn't comply with MOS:GENDERID. The manual of style policy was the result of a widespread community consensus. Maybe post on the Manual of Style talk page if you really think it is a windmill worth tilting at. Nblund ^talk 13:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello@Nblund:, that you have simply reverted my changes has done nothing to solve the problems I've pointed out. It is not that »I think« something is unclear; it is demonstrably unclear and unfactual language. Just pointing to MOS:GENDERID is laziness on your part, because the style guide contains nothing at all about how to deal with the problems of using »they/them« pronouns for both self-defined non-binary people, and for normal plural, as this text does in your now reverted state. So how can there be a community consensus on this? As I have pointed out, [brackets] may be a solution, if there is a Wikipedia-wide consensus on that, but that should also be part of the style guide then, surely. I'm disappointed in your lazy revert, but I have no time to fight this through, if you can't see for yourself how untenable the text is in its current state. --Sprachraum (talk) 14:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID doesn't lay out specific guidelines on "they/them", but it does make it abundantly clear that we should avoid misgendering people. If you read that guideline, and your solution was "just call Sulkowicz 'her'", then I'm afraid you might have a general reading comprehension issue that extends beyond issues with pronoun usage. There might be ways to improve clarity, but using them/them best reflects reliable sources, Sulkowicz's preferences and Wikipedia policies. Nblund ^talk 14:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

This is a bit of a quandary here, because the use of "them" as this sentence "alleging he had raped them..." is in fact a BLP violation as it implies the accuser raped more than one person. This wording should be changed or improved. Which policy takes precedence here - MOS or BLP? I'm really not sure how else to word it without continually using Sulkowitz's name. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

"Them" in this case clearly refers to Sulkowicz in the singular. This is a standard use of the pronoun, and the lead names no other person whom "them" would refer to. If there were any ambiguity, we would clarify the wording while still using the correct gender, just like any other pronoun. –dlthewave ☎ 20:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Them no more carries that implication than the sentence "she raped him" in an article about a woman raping one man would imply that she raped some other man: pronouns are deictic, and the context of this article makes the referrent clear. (Singular they is of long standing in English, indeed it is older than the now-similarly-widespread singular you.) -sche (talk) 01:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Singular they is of long standing in English, indeed it is older than the now-similarly-widespread singular you. Huh? Grandpallama (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: singular they is attested since the 1300s, within a hundred years of when English first borrowed plural they from Old Norse (to replace the native Old English third-person plural hie). You only became common as a generic singular in the 1600s, replacing thou. (And the use of you as a singular was controversial at the time!) -sche (talk) 01:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

(I fear we are in danger of straying off the topic of this article, however...)

Thanks! That's fascinating (and worth a small tangential trip). I'd never heard this before, and I'm a recovering medievalist, so I'd like to read up on it a bit more. Grandpallama (talk) 09:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Came here to point out it's totally unreadable. So add me to the list of people Nblund thinks is dumb.146.115.150.192 (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

That's a looong list, friendo Nblund ^talk 16:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

As someone who loves Wikipedia, this is embarrassing. Stop with the copy-and-pasted Oceania's history of the English language. Citing studies which you have clearly not even bothered to read doesn't help your argument. I obviously agree it's unreadable, and more importantly, it's not in keeping with encyclopedic standards. 2601:18F:4101:4830:C05A:15B6:D2BA:E0ED (talk) 06:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

It's ironic that people who want to reduce the number of words in the language—"I don't like these pronouns, they're ungood, people should only be allowed to use a limited number of pronouns!"—invoke 1984. 😂 -sche (talk) 07:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry -sche, but you are totally missing the point. It is not about »I don't like«. The point is that this article deals with a serious crime accusation, which needs to have its known facts described in the most precise and readable language. The current language instead serves to obfuscate, and in some cases falsify, the sources – because some Wikipedia users here have decided that it is more important to go along with the self-descriptive non-standard language of one of the protagonists, than to use the sort of precise language a court case would use to lay out the facts of the accusation. As the contributor above states correctly, this undermines encyclopedic standards. A gender-political preference has trumped the effective communication of facts – which I find especially disappointing because I am a supporter of gender-sensitive language. The absurd and ideological way it is employed here however, serves to make the case for all opponents of gender-sensitive language. It pains me that they can point to this article and say »look how ridiculous that is« – and they would even be right. So this is self-defeating, and I would even prefer all obfuscating pronouns to be replaced by the name of the person, again and again. That would make the text cumbersome, but at least the facts would be communicated correctly. --Sprachraum (talk) 09:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Sprachraum: The personal difficulty you encounter with nonbinary pronouns does not mean we need to change the article so you may better understand it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: my personal English skills are fine. You are taking a »head-in-the-sand« approach to the objective problems (layed out in detail at the top) that this use of nonbinary pronouns leads to. You are placing ideology above comprehension – which serves to discredit the ideology, instead of promoting it. --Sprachraum (talk) 09:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Using the correct pronouns is not an 'ideology' so much as it is the absence of profound disrespect. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

It would be profoundly disrespectful to refer to Sulkowicz as "she"? Bus stop (talk) 09:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Given that they're not female, yes, in the same way it would be disrespectful to refer to me as 'she' or Donald Trump as 'she'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

No source says "they're not female". I am only aware of sources such as this. It is saying Sulkowicz, who has been working as an artist since graduation, identifies as non-binary, and uses the gender-neutral pronouns "they" and "them." Bus stop (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Bus stop: Non-binary. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

First of all you don't have to ping me. But getting to the point, you have not presented a source supporting your assertion. I'm referring to your assertion "they're not female". Bus stop (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Read the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

It might be helpful if you quoted a relevant passage from that article. Bus stop (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources say that Sulkowicz uses "they"/"them" pronouns, and MOS:GENDERID says that we should defer to those preferences. What are you disputing here?Nblund ^talk 21:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

In the most recent published interview with Sulkowicz (), she chose to go with she/her pronouns. That should be we should be able to make this article actually readable using the proper single-person pronouns. At least until she changes her mind again, which highlights the stupidity of slavishly following personal identity when attempting to write clear, encyclopedic text. 76.211.117.219 (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I have posted this in a few other places, but the poster above is 100% correct. In the article that is listed as source 17 (https://www.thecut.com/2019/10/did-emma-sulkowicz-mattress-performance-get-redpilled.html), Sulkowicz instructed the author to use the pronouns she/her. This article is from 8/28/19. The article is quoted below:

"Since 2016, Sulkowicz has identified as gender fluid, and she sometimes uses they/them pronouns. When I ask what to use for this article, she texts me, “Lol I’m not clear about it either,” before settling on she/her."

Unless there is more current information available, this should put the question of which pronouns to use for Sulkowicz to bed. Not only do she and her clarify the article by clearing the confusion on plurality, the very person who we are referring to chose them. If anyone has more current and conflicting information, then please share it. If none can be found or none exists, then Wikipedia should use she/her when referring to Sulkowicz. Phafner (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Sulkowicz Chose Pronouns

In the article that is listed as source 17 (https://www.thecut.com/2019/10/did-emma-sulkowicz-mattress-performance-get-redpilled.html), Sulkowicz instructed the author to use the pronouns she/her. This article is from 8/28/19. The article is quoted below:

"Since 2016, Sulkowicz has identified as gender fluid, and she sometimes uses they/them pronouns. When I ask what to use for this article, she texts me, “Lol I’m not clear about it either,” before settling on she/her."

Unless there is more current information available, this should put the question of which pronouns to use for Sulkowicz to bed. Not only do she and her clarify the article by clearing the confusion on plurality, the very person who we are referring to chose them. If anyone has more current and conflicting information, then please share it. If none can be found or none exists, then Wikipedia should use she/her when referring to Sulkowicz.Phafner (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed in full. Just because one article said that a person "sometimes" used "they/them pronouns" isn't a license to rewrite their biography using those pronouns. That's just turning an encyclopedia article into some sort of culture-war battleground (while making it all but incomprehensible in a number of places). This is doubly true if she has most recently said to refer to her as "she", meaning that referring to her as "they/them" is actually going against what we know of her wishes. Elle Kpyros (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Suggested title change: Columbia University rape accusation controversy

I feel like this is a more neutral title than the current one, which implies there actually was a rape, as opposed to it being a he said/she said situation. Jtrainor (talk) 03:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree, per WP:BLPCRIME. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 07:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes this does make more sense. 47.19.130.149 (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)