Jump to content

Talk:Columbia University rape accusation controversy/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Deletion discussion

Deletion discussion here Nblund (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions

This entry is a spinout of an article that is already under discretionary sanctions. I've never dealt with this before, but it seems like the same sanctions would almost certainly apply here. Any objections to adding that tag? Nblund (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Go right ahead. Valoem talk contrib 00:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Primary Sourcing

Regardless of what happens with the deletion discussion: primary sources should be avoided for BLP materials, and legal filings, in particular, should not be used as sources. This article seems perilously close to a POV fork if it hasn't already crossed that line, and including references that have been already been discussed and rejected at the other entry definitely add to that problem. Nblund (talk) 23:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Does "support assertions about a living person" apply to what the plantiff claims? Another issue is that Sulkowicz confirmed the authenticity and time stamps but stated they were misinterpreted. She personally provided an annotated version here she does offer her explanation is it possible to use both? Valoem talk contrib 00:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I was asked by Valoem to comment. As I personally understand it, a plaintiff's claim is a claim -- they may say whatever they please. It doesn't mean we can necessarily repeat it. If it is reported in multiple good reliable sources, it can be said that "as X reported in Y, ...." The same thing goes for any statement in a case from either party: the only thing which has any authority is the final decision. WP is not a jury. for further discussion, I suggest the BLP noticeboard. DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
To answer your question Valoem: the claims made in the filing by the plaintiff are also primary sources, as are the transcripts and annotations from Sulkowicz. To the extent that these documents are quoted or discussed in other sources, we should, as much as possible, paraphrase, rather than directly quote participants in heated disputes, and carefully avoid quoting in a way that might be selective or misleading. Nblund (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
It's confirmed you are correct, we can only use secondary sources that quote or paraphrase the lawsuit. I found several sources, but that can be added later. Valoem talk contrib 16:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Cathy Young article

There seems to be undue emphasis on the article by Cathy Young - it is cited 13 times and makes up a significant part of the "Reception" section. Looking at the Young article and its author, it isn't clear why this is given such weight. The implication is that Young is the key expert on this topic, but I don't think that is the case. What do others think? LaMona (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

A second Cathy Young editorial ("Did 'Mattress Girl' Tell the Truth? Not Very Likely") is cited three more times. I think that's a definite problem.
In response to this, Cathy Young is not a neutral source, she's a person with a fairly well-known ideological position on this topic who is clearly taking a side here, and she is not a reliable source for claims of fact, especially when we're dealing with a delicate BLP topic. Nblund (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I also see this as a problem, we should definitely reduce that, though in few of the instances it was cited along with other sources still we shouldn't rely so heavily on one source. But it's not like Cathy young articles were blog posts, they do have reliability because there is an editorial process in Daily beast. I don't think they would allow her to report a factual information wrong and I don't see anywhere that says that's an op-ed. But calling it not neutral is not accurate, she may have her opinions on the subject but that doesn't preclude her from reporting the events in a neutral manner. Darwinian Ape talk 00:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Hey Darwinian Ape: Cathy Young has pretty consistently and unabashedly accused Sulkowicz of not telling the truth. Online magazines usually don't label things as being "op-eds", and frequently blur opinion and news content: none of Erin Gloria Ryan's Jezebel posts on this topic are labeled as op-eds either, but they're not neutral. This stuff is usually not considered reliable for statements of fact, and it's especially suspect here. Nblund (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah well that's an op-ed.(so is the jezebel post btw) The daily beast source on the other hand looks more like an interview/investigative journalism, not an opinion piece. So if your claim is that Daily Beast itself is not a RS, which I don't think is accurate, you should perhaps take it to WP:RSN. As I said, a journalist with an opinion is not an uncommon thing, the question is whether she wrote an editorial based on opinion or an article based on the facts. Unless of course if you think a journalist loses the ability to be neutral when they express an opinion about a topic. I've read the article before, and skimmed it now to refresh my memory and I couldn't see an opinion piece. Darwinian Ape talk 01:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I know they're editorial commentary, that was my point. Neither are actually called "editorials" on the page, even though they are clearly opinion columns. Cathy Young is a columnist who writes opinion pieces. Her background is not in journalism, and DailyBeast doesn't appear to employ her as a journalist. I'm fairly confident that much of the material probably is factual, but the facts are selective and the article is clearly sympathetic to one side here, so it shouldn't be relied on for contentious statements of fact about a living person.
You're welcome to take it to RSN or start an RFC, but what, specifically, do you want in the entry from Young's article that couldn't be cited from a more solidly reliable source? Nblund (talk) 01:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I was thinking about adding the Facebook messages between Nungesser and Sulkowicz which I don't think any other RS cover them in full, except for the jezebel source. I think that's an important part of Nungesser's defense. We could add the Sulkovicz's side from the jezebel source, and the messages from the Cathy Young article so that we have both sides of the story. Darwinian Ape talk 02:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
There are six pages of Facebook conversations, and covering them in full is almost certainly undue. Cathy Young and Nungesser see these messages as a big deal, but the fact that they recieve minimal coverage elsewhere suggests it's probably undue to make them a centerpiece of the discussion. I'm not sure why we can't simply paraphrase them. If we think it's really necessary: Emily Bazelon does give one of the quotes here, and I would be fine with that.Nblund (talk) 03:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment No revert to original version. In term of neutral sources (any source which is not men right activist or feminist) most have been negative. Text/Facebook messages should be included too since Sulkowicz has confirmed the time stamps and authenticity. She has sent an annotated version to Jezebel, which states her intentions behind the messages, which should also be included. NPOV allows both sides to state their views plainly. After the AfD, we can fix this article. I will replaces some of the Young sources. Valoem talk contrib 02:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't know that most neutral sources have been highly negative, I'm not really sure how that's possible.
Sulkowicz has confirmed the timestamps while simultaneously accusing Young --explicitly-- of taking the quotes out of context to serve her agenda. Wikipedia cautions against using quotations in a way that misrepresents the source material, and we need to be especially careful here, because we're dealing with a very sensitive BLP entry. I think it's plenty to say that they exchanged Facebook messages described as friendly or to paraphrase the material. If we are going to include them, we need to avoid simply deferring to Cathy Young's judgement regarding which quotes are informative, and look for quotes that are used in neutral sources. We should also avoid giving undue weight to this topic: Nungesser sees this as important evidence, but Sulkowicz doesn't, neither does her school, and neither do a number of commentators. It certainly isn't the centerpiece of most of the coverage of this issue.
NPOV doesn't exactly say both sides get to state their views. NPOV requires us to describe conflicts in a dispassionate and neutral tone. Just throwing up quotes isn't necessarily neutral. Nblund (talk) 02:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry "highly" is a bit strong, just negative, I haven't voted yet, but I'll ping Sarah and others, I think you'll find what I have say compelling. Valoem talk contrib 03:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
As long as opinions are attributed to the author making them, then they are allowed, but if the opinion being offered is being cited excessively, then obviously there is a WP:UNDUE issue. As far as the Daily Beast article is concerned, it has received significant coverage in other reliable sources. The New York Times Magazine, CNN, The Washington Post, The Washington Examiner, National Review, Columbia Spectator, National Post, New York Magazine, and she has confirmed the FB messages and responded to the DB article, Emma Sulkowicz responds to Daily Beast piece. So there shouldn't be any problem crafting content that satisfies WP:NPOV.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I tried to be more diplomatic about this in my initial edit summary, but it was added back in. Let me be more direct: I removed this content because its clearly copy-pasted with minimal changes from this article. Just changing a couple of words around doesn't fix the problem.

Wiki Specified grievances include: that a school-owned website had presented as fact that he sexually assaulted Sulkowicz;[39] that the school allowed Sulkowicz to carry a mattress into classes, the library, and on campus-provided transportation as part of her senior thesis; and that Kessler approved the Mattress Project for course credit allegedly in violation of Title IX, a federal law mandating that federally funded educational institutions not discriminate based on gender.[5] ...

He stated, "Day-to-day life is unbearably stressful, as Emma and her mattress parade around campus each and every day".[39] As a result of publicity that resulted in media reports in 35 countries, he says he "has been subjected to severe, pervasive ... and threatening behavior by other Columbia students".[41] He says he desires to stay in the US, where he has been dating a girlfriend for over a year and he is seeking consulting work in New York but job prospects have been "severely jeopardised" by the school’s support of Sulkowicz.[42]

Source In his lawsuit, Mr Nungesser said a Columbia-owned website had presented as fact that he sexually assaulted Ms Sulkowicz. It said that the school allowed Sulkowicz to carry a mattress into classes, the library and campus-provided transportation as part of her senior thesis, that Prof Kessler approved the “Mattress Project” for her course credit and that Sulkowicz’s pledge to carry her mattress to graduation may prevent Mr Nungesser and his parents, who’d like to fly from Germany, from participating in graduation ceremonies.“Day-to-day life is unbearably stressful, as Emma and her mattress parade around campus each and every day,” the suit said.As a result of publicity that resulted in media reports in 35 countries, the lawsuit said, Mr Nungesser “has been subjected to severe, pervasive ... and threatening behaviour by other Columbia students, believing that Paul is a ‘serial rapist,’ whenever Paul has appeared at university activities.”

Don't restore this as is.Nblund (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I was not aware of that source, good catch, anyways I reworded it. Valoem talk contrib 21:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

RS noticeboard post

Since it's come up again, I went ahead and posted at the RS noticeboard about whether or not an NYPOST opinion column is a reliable source for a claim of fact or quotation from a living person. I also asked for feedback on the citations to Jezebel.com and the Daily Beast. Nblund (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it should be fairly clear that (especially while discussing living persons) we cannot state in a factual tone that which we cite to opinion pieces. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. The RS noticeboard post isn't getting much response, so we might need to just move this to the BLP board if we don't see anything develop there in the next day or so. In the mean time: the materials should not be added back on to the page until a consensus is reached. Nblund (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I restored a part that was deleted "Journalist and writer Naomi Schaefer Riley wrote in the New York Post that two days after the alleged rape, Nungesser had invited Sulkowicz via Facebook messaging to come to a party saying, "Small shindig in our room tonight-bring cool freshman." And she responded, "lol yusss, Also I feel like we need to have some real time where we can talk about life and thingz, because we still haven’t really had a paul-emma chill sesh since summmmerrrr". A couple weeks later Sulkowicz messaged saying "I want to see yoyououoyou". Riley noted that there are six pages' worth of back-and-forth Facebook messages between the two which were released by Nungesser and subsequently published by Cathy Young. Sulkowicz has confirmed the authenticity of the messages, but has said that snippets have been published out of context." While NY post article is an opinion piece, we attribute it to the author and messages are independently verifiable through Cathy Young source. Also in the Jezebel article Sulkowicz confirms the authenticity. I think the sources are adequate to include the content I just restored.Darwinian Ape talk 19:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

This seems pretty clear cut: an opinion piece is not a reliable source for a claim of fact about a living person. If this is really the best sourcing you can find for this statement, it probably isn't notable enough to warrant mention anyway. Regardless, this needs to stop until we reach a consensus or someone finds a better cite. Just adding the material back in over and over again is not going to get us anywhere.
It's really odd to me that the Jezebel article is being used as "verification" for Riley's interpretation. Here's what she says:

Sulkowicz tells Jezebel there are more than a few things wrong with these transcripts. First, included are conversations that happened between them months before the alleged assault. Second, time stamps are removed, and the conversations featured omissions that Sulkowicz felt painted a misleading picture. She informed Young of her concerns.

How is this source being interpreted as a confirmation of Riley and Young's presentation of these quotes? For that matter, why is an opinion piece being quoted in the "background" portion of the text at all, when we already quote this same opinion piece at length in the reception section? Is Naomi Schaeffer Riley really one of the most notable voices here? Nblund (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Not just jezebel, Cathy young article also reports that she acknowledged the authenticity of the messages. There is no objection to the substances of the messages in jezebel piece, just an accusation of being out of context. As for why it's in the background portion, it adds context to Nungesser's claim that he was not allowed to introduce what he considers crucial evidence. Otherwise we just have their words for it, a classic he said she said situation. But quoting the messages themselves allows reader to draw their own conclusions.Darwinian Ape talk 21:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
The Washington Post posted a link to the screenshots of the Facebook messages, and multiple sources have covered the DB article as well: Facebook messages that he and Sulkowicz sent to each other before and after the alleged rape. The messages sound friendly: “I feel like we need to have some real time where we can talk about life and thingz/because we still haven’t really had a paul-emma chill sesh since summmmerrrr,” Sulkowicz wrote a few days after the night in question. and New York Magazine - In a message sent two days after the incident, Sulkowicz accepts Nungesser's invitation to a party, adding: "Also I feel like we need to have some real time where we can talk about life and thingz" and "because we still haven’t really had a paul-emma chill sesh since summmmerrrr." and this opinion piece from the Columbia Spectator - In fact, the most concrete account of the relationship between the two is the Facebook conversation that has only recently come to light. I see no reason to exlude this content based on the amount of sources covering it, (exactly how much should be included is another story).-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
DA: I think she's absolutely objecting to the substance of the messages, and context is key: the RS guidelines caution that editors should be careful to avoid quoting out of context, and specifically mention that this is a risk when dealing with quotes from partisan sources. The edit you reverted also included context about the Facebook messages, it just used a neutral, reliable source rather than an op-ed.
Isaidnoway: the NYTIMES source you cite was the one that was previously cited. You're right that reliable sources cover this content, which is why it seems particularly egregious that some editors are insisting on using the NYPOST here rather than something sensible. Nblund (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, I'll assume good faith here in that this article is still in it's early stages and is being heavily edited right now, and discussions are taking place, but with the amount of sources posted here on the TP, we have enough sourcing to support the content (I have more sources if needed). I suggest we also use attribution where necessary as well.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
We are already reporting her side with this line:"Sulkowicz has confirmed the authenticity of the messages, but has said that snippets have been published out of context. Sulkowicz says she sent the messages because she was upset and wanted to talk to Nungesser about the incident." And the statements from Riley piece is attributed to the author. My problem with the reverted text was that it described the events in a he said she said manner. I think we should avoid that when we have the opportunity to present actual quotations. I've added NYMag source and tweaked a bit. Darwinian Ape talk 00:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Aren't her views still being presented in a "she said" manner? Take a look at that paragraph:

"She complained that a university investigator took inaccurate notes of interviews with her, and that she had to offer unnecessarily graphic details during the hearing.[17] A graduate student who accompanied Nungesser to the hearing contested this last point, “The panel were asking sensible questions; they were equally asked of Paul, and had been asked of Paul through the entire process."[13] Nungesser complained that he had not been allowed to introduce Facebook messages as evidence.[13] Two days after the alleged rape, Sulkowicz accepted an invitation from Nungesser via Facebook messaging to come to a party, responding; "lol yusss, Also I feel like we need to have some real time where we can talk about life and thingz, because we still haven’t really had a paul-emma chill sesh since summmmerrrr."[24] "

Sulkowicz complains about the hearing, and we cite a pro-Nungesser source. Nungesser makes a claim, and we give specific example of supporting evidence, and then cite another pro-Nungesser source.

Cathy Young sort of admits that these messages aren't particularly persuasive: "To be sure, many rape victims’ advocates would argue that women traumatized by sexual violence, especially by someone they trusted and cared about, may deal with trauma in ways that don’t make sense to an observer". Mic.com and Jezebel both make this same point (those citations are clearly being misused there), the NYMag article you cited also makes the same point. Somehow we mention the messages three separate times without making a note of that fact. Nblund (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe the only objective evidence we have are the facebook messages which both parties acknowledged as authentic. I think we are representing her take on this evidence which will necessarily be her opinion, ergo reported in a "she said manner" which is also true for opinions of Nungesser or any other party(e.g the student who contested to Sulkowicz's claims.) The point is to avoid this when we can. In case of facebook messages we can avoid it by quoting the messages, so we should. We can include the opinion that rape victims who are traumatized by sexual assault may exhibit this behavior if it's a point commonly made, as long as we attribute it accurately. Darwinian Ape talk 02:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
These messages are hand-picked by Nungesser for the purposes of protesting his innocence, so they aren't objective, and whether or not they constitute "evidence" is actually a matter of opinion. That's clearly Nungesser's view of them, but that is a view that Cathy Young even acknowledges is widely disputed. Why are we making Nungesser's case for him?
Further, article structure can be an NPOV issue even when we're dealing with objective facts. It's objectively true that Nungesser was a college athlete who is described as "physically formidable" in sources, but I think everyone would recognize an NPOV problem if I repeatedly pointed that fact out every time the article mentioned that he was accused of an assault. People would (correctly) see that as a bit of innuendo that was intended to imply that those accusations were more credible than they actually were. Nblund (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I understand your argument about the objective facts being used to reflect a POV, but that's not what we are doing here. Nugesser has a claim that there are "friendly" facebook messages between the two after the alleged incident, Sulkowicz claims that those messages has a different context, i.e she was upset and wanted to talk to him. These are both claims that are the interpretations of the same facebook messages we quote in the article. We report Nungesser's claim and Sulkowicz's claim, and we show the actual messages that the claims are about. No innuendo, no opinion other than the two people. Just Neutral and balanced reporting of the claims and facts. Darwinian Ape talk 22:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I think we have at least some common ground. So here's what I think makes sense, I'm open to suggestions.

  • 1. There's no reason to quote Naomi Schaeffer Riley's characterization in that section, especially since she's already quoted again in the "reception" section. We have a better source for a quote (the Bazelon article) and Naomi Schaeffer Riley's characterizations of the timing and the length of the text messages actually seem factually incorrect. If we are going to quote editorial commentary, it should be balanced, and we should remove problematic terms like "noted".
  • 2. The messages are mentioned in three separate places, and the same message is actually quoted again in the "reception" section. It would probably be better to mention them in one place and then provide context.
  • 3. Either Cathy Young's note -- that these are not inconsistent with "normal behavior" for a sexual assault victim, or something similar from another source should be cited somewhere in the entry.Nblund (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and made these changes. I think the comments from Zavadski could be moved to a reception section if we also moved commentary from the grad student, but I wanted to at least one pro-Sulkowicz comment for balance. I think it would also be reasonable to discuss dedicating a paragraph in that section to a balanced discussion of the responses to the Facebook messages. Nblund (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Rename?

I'm not sure this should be titled Columbia University rape controversy, perhaps Mattress Performance rape controversy is better because Columbia University has done nothing wrong from what I am reading. Any opinions? @Darwinian Ape:, @DGG:, @Isaidnoway:. Valoem talk contrib 13:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how using the name of the institution where this took place (and the institution was inherently involved) implies that the university did anything wrong. There might be a better name, but this isn't about the Mattress performance, which is the topic of a different article. This is about the event that led to a legal case which is a broader topic than the performance. The performance was in response to the events leading up to the case, which took place at the university and included actions by the university. Again, not implying blame, but location and involvement. LaMona (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll second LaMona's point. A name change could be in order, but the lawsuit (which was one of the topics this entry was supposed to cover) is against Columbia University. Nblund (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that the events had taken place at the Columbia university, Nungesser sued the university. So it's a main actor and also the venue. The current title returns 648 results in google, while "Mattress Performance rape controversy" returns zero, so the current name is more in line with WP:COMMONNAME. But the current title is a bit vague, for it can be any number of rape controversies in Columbia University past or future. There was also another title suggestion( Performance art rape allegations at Columbia University) at the AFD discussion, suggested by @Bus stop: and endorsed by @E.M.Gregory:, pinging them for additional input. Though this title doesn't return any results either. I also feel like "controversy" is a best way to describe this kerfuffle, so it should be in the title. "Mattress Performance rape controversy at Columbia University" perhaps? Darwinian Ape talk 17:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The controversy happened at Columbia, and ind therefore this is an appropriate name.; that's how it will be thought of and looked for. The extent to which the university is culpable is in fact one of the questions here: the way universities in general deal with such mattes, and the ways in which particular universities deal with particular instances, is a subject of great interest and discussion in the US. I continue to think the work of performance art a separate topic. If one title were needed for both, I'd go with the university. DGG ( talk ) 23:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) and Columbia University rape controversy should be merged under the title Performance art rape allegations at Columbia University. There are conflicting interests at play in this unfolding series of events. We should simply write one article under one neutral title that explains thoroughly what transpired. The separation into two articles makes for two non-neutral articles. We should think about the underlying questions. Should art be used by one student to shame a fellow student on a college campus? Should schools place limits on freedom of expression on college campuses? Bus stop (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

My issue with the current title is the word "rape" being in the title without any qualifiers being attached to it, like alleged or allegation. The title now implies there was a controversy about a person who was convicted of a crime. We should be mindful of WP:BLP in this matter, and since an editor invoked WP:COMMONNAME up above, the sources reporting on this story all clearly agree on "alleged rape" and/or "rape allegations", our article title should reflect that as well.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't even know what the difference is between this article and the other one. If you can't articulate what this article is about in distinction from what the other article is about, how can you pick a title for either article? If we are to assume that there should be two articles, then the first order of business is to describe how the two articles differ from one another. Then you can perhaps choose an appropriate title for each article. Bus stop (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I share Isaidnoway's concern that the current title makes it sound like Wikipedia is saying that a rape did take place. A title like Columbia University rape allegation controversy or Performance art rape allegations at Columbia University would address this problem, though those are both kind of wordy, and I find the second one a bit confusing. Maybe Columbia University rape allegations? Though that has the vagueness problem that Darwinian Ape pointed out. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Columbia University rape allegations? Isn't there a work of art involved? Bus stop (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Cathy Young again

I don't know why this statement is included: "Cathy Young stated that his case was fabricated.[24]" This is about the male student who claims to have been assaulted. There is no reason to believe that Cathy Young has any inside knowledge of something that happened between two individuals, most likely with no one else observing. It makes no sense that her statement, which simply must be no more than an opinion, would be included here. This is not factual. I am removing it. LaMona (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I don't why this statement is included either: Cathy Young, who has a history of reporting critically on sexual assault activism. If an editor wants to assign attribution to Young for a statement she has made, that's fine, but her "history of reporting" is not relevant to this article. Are we going to apply this same standard to the rest of the author's in sources here, and examine their "history of reporting", so we can also make a pointy edit about their "history".-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Why wouldn't her history be relevant here? She's pretty widely seen as a critic of mainstream feminism and of sexual assault activism in the same vein as Christina Hoff Sommers and Katie Roiphe, and she's pretty clearly a supporter of Nungesser. WaPo describes her as having written a number of stories critical of sexual assault activism. That seems pretty relevant here, and there's a solid source for the description. Nblund (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Maybe what we should be doing is explaining why this person's writing gets more than passing attention on this topic. When there are controversies, some people come to represent certain points of view -- often these folks are "pundits", which strongly implies that they are providing opinions. A person who represents a point of view may be used in an article to illustrate that POV. Young might be the best "pundit" to represent the view of the "rape skeptics." If so, her work should be introduced as such in the article. As it is, it sounds like she is being presented as an expert on the topic, someone whose view holds weight. In fact, she is represents one set of opinions in a discussion in which the facts are not actually known outside of the two main subjects. The Jezebel articles might be the best representatives of the "rape believers" view. If introduced as representative opinions, then I think we retain NPOV.
As an analogy, we don't quote Rush Limbaugh on the facts of global warming, but as a pundit on the "unbeliever" side. Quoting his statements on global warming without making that clear would be a clear confusion of science and opinion. One of the problems of rape cases is that you cannot obtain sufficient facts so punditry overruns the discussion. We mustn't let that happen here. LaMona (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject., and it goes on to state: When dealing with a potentially biased source...Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source. I would agree that in-text attribution to Young for her opinions is appropriate, but trying to discredit her opinions or her reporting on this story by deliberately pointing to her "history of reporting", looks like a pointy edit, designed to caution the reader that this author's opinions or reporting on the subject shouldn't be trusted or taken seriously because of her "history of reporting". Additionally, by including the phrase "sexual assault activism", implies that a "sexual assault" occurred here, and that is biased against Nungesser. Let's try to remember that Nungesser was not convicted of any crime whatsoever and is a living individual, so WP:BLP certainly applies to him in this article and on this talk page. Furthermore, the primary topic of this article is not about "sexual assault activism", this article is about an unfounded allegation of rape and the controversy surrounding that unfounded allegation. There's a reason we wikilink to existing articles on WP, like Cathy Young, so reader's can click on that blue link and discover additional information about the subject wikilinked.
And as to the point about why this person's writing gets more than passing attention on this topic, is because "this person's writing" on the subject matter was significantly covered in other reliabe sources: The New York Times, CNN, The Washington Post, The Washington Examiner, National Review, Columbia Spectator, National Post, New York Magazine.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Isaidnoway: the WaPo source you cite says that "Young has written a number of stories critical of campus anti-rape activism, including a profile of another accused rapist from Brown.". I don't think that discredits her at all. You're right that Wikipedia:BIASED suggests that it's sometimes okay to use biased sources, but it gives specific examples of how that in-text attribution should look: it's not really sufficient to just say the person's name. We need to give readers an in-text cue of the person's bias or ideology. This seems like a good way to do that.
Calling Sulkowicz a sexual assault activist doesn't imply that she was herself sexually assaulted, would anyone dispute that she's an activist? Nblund (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
The paragraph where that description of her "history of reporting" is located, is in relation to the "Facebook messages", and it's at the end of this sentence: Nungesser later described these messages as "amiable" and released transcripts of these messages... There's not even one mention of "sexual assault activism" at all in that entire section, in that sentence, nor in the section about Sulkowicz's performance art piece - and for that matter, the only place in this entire article where I see the word "activism", is in the Commentary on lawsuit sub-section, and Young is not even used as a source there. So again, why is her "history of reporting critically on sexual assault activism" relevant to a section about Facebook messages, and specifically, a sentence in relation to Facebook messages. If the description of her "history of reporting" was being used because Young is quoted in this article criticizing "sexual assault activism", then that would be fine, but it's not being used that way.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
The relevance seems hard to miss: Sulkowicz is a noted anti-rape activist, and Young has a history of criticizing anti-rape activism. The Washington Post article points this out while reporting on Young's Daily Beast article -- so reliable sources seem to also see the relationship here. It seemed like you acknowledged earlier that she wasn't really a neutral source and that in-text attribution was appropriate, do you have an alternate idea for how to communicate that fact to readers? Nblund (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Why are we editoralizing in Wikipedia's voice about this particular writer, when Sarah Kaplan is the writer who offered that opinion about Young and other journalists? The WaPo article goes on to say after the quote from Kaplan about Young: In the wake of Rolling Stone’s inaccuracy-riddled feature on an alleged gang rape at the University of Virginia, she’s not the only journalist doing so. Slate reporter Emily Yoffe was a finalist for a National Magazine Award for her piece on “The College Rape Overcorrection.” Why isn't the rest of this passage included? Why was this particular sentence cherry-picked, leaving out the context of the whole passage? There are other writers who are included as refs who have a POV biased in Sulkowicz's favor, why isn't that being pointed out? The Columbia Spectator is being used multiple times as refs in this article and a former opinion editor for the newspaper admitted biased reporting -"by not being thorough and impartial", why aren't we including a note to their refs being used about their biased history of reporting that was favorable to Sulkowic? It's not fair to single out Young, cherry-pick an opinion offered by Kaplan, and then present it in this article in Wikipedia's voice. I think it's best to just leave out any comments or opinions concerning the bias' or ideologies of specific writers, and instead focus on the content that they wrote, and present it in a NPOV and use attribution, when it's clear that it's their opinion.
And yes, I do have an alternate idea for how to communicate that fact to readers, we wikilink her name, and if readers are interested in finding out more about Young and her history of reporting, then they can click on that blue link to Cathy Young.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow: what additional context is provided by mentioning Emily Yoffe? I'm not opposed to that, I guess, but it seems like like a non sequitur given that Emily Yoffe isn't cited anywhere in this entry. Just so I'm clear: is it your view that Cathy Young hasn't written a number of articles critical of sexual assault activism, or are you just saying we shouldn't mention it here? Nblund (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
WP:BIASED advises using "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..."." If reliable sources have identified that Young has a bias, especially if the bias is that she is critical of the kind of person and/or event the article is quoting her comments on, it is appropriate to identify that à la the examples given, "Conservative Republican", "Marxist", etc. -sche (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
My point is moot now, since I checked the sourcing (should have done that to beging with), and the DB article makes it clear (twice) that - "Nungesser provided The Daily Beast with Facebook messages with Sulkowicz from August, September, and October 2012." and here as well - After a summer of affectionate and often intimate Facebook chats (screenshots of which Nungesser...provided to The Daily Beast)." I referenced it in the article to make it clear they were provided to the Daily Beast, and the Daily Beast is the one who published them. I moved the passage about Young's "history of reporting" to the Reception section, where it is actually relevant.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what difference that makes: Cathy Young wrote the article for the Daily Beast. Cathy Young's article is being used as a source for statements of fact in multiple places in the entry, and her history is relevant. If we avoid using Cathy Young for statements of fact, and instead just mention her views in the "reception" section, I think this makes sense, but moving the in-text attribution to the bottom of the article seems like it obscures an important piece of context from readers. Nblund (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I tweaked the language to "showed", because the Facebook messages were provided to the Daily Beast, as evidenced by the refereneces, and they were published by The Daily Beast, as evidenced by the references. I think it's fair to say that Cathy Young was shown and reported on the facebook messages provided to the Daily Beast, but implying they were directly released to her is in contradiction to the sources. I've been trying to keep the POV creep out of the article, so it doesn't turn into a POV mess like the mattress article, but it seems like that will be impossible, considering editor's are more concerned about pointing out the journalist's who wrote articles about this controversy that they don't agree with, rather than reporting on the content that was published. But nonetheless, as someone accurately pointed out to me, her history of reporting can also be interpreted to show her expertise in reporting on unfounded allegations of this nature.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
"... her expertise in reporting on unfounded allegations of this nature." The mere statement "unfounded allegations" reveals a definite POV, and is not factual. We can all have our opinions about what happened, but none of us can conclude what did or did not happen between two people in private. If you come to the article wishing to push this POV, then we will definitely have a struggle keeping this as neutral as possible. Please stick to the reported - and contradictory and incomplete - facts without drawing conclusions of your own. LaMona (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
The facts that I have seen reported (and what the Mattress performance article clearly states in the lead), indicate that Nungesser was found not responsible by the university for the allegations, and he was never found guilty by a jury or judge on the allegations, so "unfounded allegations" is correct and factual. So I didn't come to this article "wishing to push this POV", because this POV is already included (per the university and law-enforcement). If it's your intention to introduce a POV that is contrary to what reliable sources have reported on what the university found or what law-enforcement has said concerning the allegations, then you need to stop editing this article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
It is not our role to draw conclusions about whether the accusations are unfounded or not, but rather to simply report what reliable sources say. —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree. There are many sources on this topic that have potential POV if we were so inclined to post them. We include quotes from Jezebel (an offshoot of Gawker) in this article without qualifying them in any way even though Jezebel writers have a strong POV and it's not exactly known for editorial quality or fairness.Mattnad (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
We quote a Jezebel writer once, in the "reception" section. We cite Cathy Young 13 times, all but one of those in the main article body. I actually agree that Young is roughly analogous to Jezebel in terms of reliability and neutrality, which makes me wonder why there's such a massive discrepancy in how heavily we rely on Young here. Nblund (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I used Jezebel as an example: there are many many other opinions from other sources in the article. The Huffington Post? Amanda Marcott blogging? By the way, the NY Times also reported on the Facebook messages - a completely different author and article than what's in this one: "The messages sound friendly: “I feel like we need to have some real time where we can talk about life and thingz/because we still haven’t really had a paul-emma chill sesh since summmmerrrr,”" You make this seem like it's all Cathy Young. But very professional sources have picked up and VERIFIED what Young has written. You really think the NY Times editors would not have checked on these things?Mattnad (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I actually made the exact same point you're making: it's unnecessary to rely so heavily on Cathy Young given that other reliable sources have covered most of this stuff, and we should work on replacing some of those citations. Seem fair?
Regarding opinion: no one has argued that we need to eliminate all opinion, but Young should be handled similarly to Marcotte: she's cited once in a reception section alongside other opinion pieces. Looking at the sections explicitly dedicated to opinion, there's a clear bias in terms of space and number of citations for opinion pieces favoring Nungesser: the Commentary on the Lawsuit section has three sources, all supportive of Nungesser, and all three originating from a Reason online article. That doesn't seem like it's even an ambiguous neutrality issue, but you reverted it, why don't we re-examine that? Nblund (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Information not in source

Regarding this: I think it's the third time I've removed it, and I've noted repeatedly in edit summaries that it isn't actually in the cited source. If there is another source that does contain this bit of information, we should cite it, but it does need a citation. Nblund (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

"According to Sulkowicz, he suddenly and brutally assaulted her, then picked up his clothes and left without a word, leaving her stunned and shattered on the bed."[1] Bus stop (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks BusStop, this information was being cited to two other articles when it was restored previously. I restored the information with a corrected source. Nblund (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome, Nblund. Bus stop (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Shortening reception sections

I went ahead and combined the "Commentary on the lawsuit" and "Reception" sections. They appear to both be composed of editorial content critical or supportive of one side or the other, so it seemed sensible to put them together. I trimmed a couple of excessively long quotes: all of the quotes were 2+ sentences long, and the one from Samantha Harris was 6 or 7 lines long.

Regarding balance: the "commentary on lawsuit" contained 3 quotes that appeared to be positive about the lawsuit, and one quote that appeared negative, and there seemed to be a major length discrepancy. The "Reception" section contained 5 sources making negative statements about Sulkowicz, and 2 making positive statements. The current revision is still off-balance (4 vs 2, with McCardle's being both negative and positive), but hopefully is a little more balanced in terms of the space afforded to each side. This could still use some work. Nblund (talk) 02:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Not sure why this was reverted, Valoem, but it seems like there's a basic copy-editing problem here, in addition to a balance one. The Commentary on the Lawsuit Section is three paragraphs composed almost entirely of extended quotations, and this is excessive. Nblund (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I support Nblund's edits to that section. There is no need to quote (or even paraphrase) opinions of others; it should be sufficient to state the facts. Among those facts can be that some commentators had opinion X and others had opinion Y, but their arguments are not NPOV. I don't see why a WP article needs to bring in the actual opinions - it can report on them but it shouldn't absorb them into the article. LaMona (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree. We can state what a commentator believes (if that commentator is particularly important), but there's no need to rehearse their whole argument. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
On that note: it seems like some of the quotes from the suit are a bit much. The comments characterizing Sulkowicz as a spurned lover (which are paraphrased in the lead, for some reason) and the part accusing Bollinger of "contemptible moral cowardice" are just personal insults that have no actual bearing on the case itself. I'm not sure they actually help explain the suit.
Valoem , since you reverted, maybe you can weigh in somewhere here? I think there's a pretty strong case for trimming this stuff back, but i'm open to some suggestions regarding what should stay and what should go. Nblund (talk) 02:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I didn't get a response, so I went ahead and trimmed the section back, added one additional editorial, and added a little bit of detail about the Mic.com piece. Again, I don't think this is perfect, and I'm open to input, but I hope it's an improvement over the previous version. Nblund (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Valoem once again. I'm certainly open to compromising on these edits, but you haven't bothered to participate in the discussion on the talk page, even though I pinged you previously, and your edit summary doesn't offer any meaningful insight in to why you think these block quotes are necessary. Nblund (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Mattnad: If you read the discussion above, you'll notice that your edit summary doesn't really address the issue. No one raised a sourcing issue, but they are
  • Obviously unbalanced: all three comments actually come from a single article on Reason online, and all three are from people supportive of Nungesser. None of them are appear to be legal experts, they're just pundits.
  • Long: the comments from Soave, Johnson, and Harris are mostly composed of extended block quotes.
  • Redundant: Harris' point is paraphrased in the commentary section below
I'm pretty dubious that these are actually the most important sources here. It really just seems like an editor in a hurry picked three negative comments and stuffed them in a section. If we do think it's essential to discuss Soave and Johnson's views, why not paraphrase them and then balance their comments with comments from commentators who are supportive of Sulkowicz? Nblund (talk) 21:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I've restored the commentary. It's topical to the article and from reliable sources. KC Johnson is a notable expert in the law on these matters, and FIRE do nothing but work on rights and laws around them.Mattnad (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Harris is paraphrased in the reception section. KC Johnson seems fine, but why can't he be paraphrased and put in the existing reception section? Nblund (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

This line, "political journalist Ian Tuttle criticized Sulkowicz's response and wrote in National Review that 'what Sulkowicz wants is to make claims about another person that cannot be challenged, checked, questioned, or doubted'" is a direct response to this quote:


Removing the context makes it more difficult to comprehend, this shows a clearer picture. Also the bulk of his defense is based on Facebook messages sent, you seem intent on removing it. Valoem talk contrib 22:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Valoem: I'm responding to your comment here, since there's already an ongoing discussion involving other editors. To re-iterate: Wikipedia style guidelines discourage excessive quoting, and so I attempted to shorten some of those quotes while preserving the basic outline of the argument. Maybe I didn't do a great job, but I'm totally open to working with you on this. Regardless: there's too much quoting there, and it doesn't help the article and it doesn't add clarity. The objection to paraphrasing any of those quotes kind of smacks of ownership.
Regarding the Facebook messages: I'm fine with paraphrasing in a way that includes that detail if you think it's essential, but they're already mentioned here, and quoted here, so that accusation is a little silly. Nblund (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
This quote would be necessary, removing it removes the context of the statement in the later paragraph. Also a section regarding text messages and responses need to be mentioned. Valoem talk contrib 00:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I can see your point. I think the solution is to just use a different quote, because I don't really think this particular argument from Ian Tuttle is essential for readers' understanding of the issue, and because there is already and imbalance in the commentary. If we include Sulkowicz's quote and Tuttle's response, could we then revert back to paraphrase for the other commentary?
The Facebook messages are mentioned, are you saying you also want them mentioned in a paraphrase in the "Reception" section? Or are you saying that we should have a section dedicated to the Facebook messages? I'm fine with the former, but if it's the latter, that seems like a separate issue. Nblund (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Since I haven't gotten a response from either Valoem or Mattnad, I went ahead and rearranged things again. The "commentary on the lawsuit" section was composed entirely of opinion content, so it seems like it should be a subheading of "reception". I trimmed, paraphrased and rearranged some quotes. There's still a discrepancy in terms of the size and length dedicated to pro-Sulkowicz vs. pro-Nungesser commentary here. Nblund (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Title?

Why is this entry not entitled something like "Columbia University Rape Allegation Controversy"? Isn't that a more accurate title to this whole thing? The current title really has the appearance of victim-blaming. 76.79.205.162 (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Arkon: Can you please help me with two things: One - is it appropriate to use google results? If not no problem I am not pushing an agenda here. 2.) I do feel the title is a little misleading. What do you think? 76.79.205.162 (talk) 18:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mattnad:, @Isaidnoway:, @PeterTheFourth: Can someone please give me some feedback on the idea of changing the title to this article? 76.79.205.162 (talk) 19:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

If you want the article to be moved to a new title, please follow the process at WP:RM#CM. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Google Search Results

Can we incorporate these into the main article? If so, should I just suggest an addition and make the edit to the article? 76.79.205.162 (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

If they're discussed by a reliable secondary source, then we could discuss the possibility of including the information from that source in the article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Bloomberg source

I'm of the opinion that the previous summary we had of the source was adequate, and we do not need to verbatim quote it in order to inform the reader of the relevant information from it. However, reasonable minds could disagree. Valoem, why do you believe this verbatim quoting is necessary? PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I readded this which was removed sometime ago by PeterTheFourth (talk · contribs). This article neutrally portray's both sides and mentions the likelihood that Sulkowicz's account is false, specifically due to the unusual nature of text messages sent after the alleged rape. Per NPOV this must be included, the current tone of [Megan McArdle's] account (paragraph) in the article appears to be favor Sulkowicz's story when in fact she was critical of Sulkowicz's story. Valoem talk contrib 12:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with PeterTheFourth that including the full quotes instead of a summary is not necessary for neutrality, though I'm open to being persuaded otherwise if you can make a convincing argument. (As a side note, it is not true that "nearly all sources have been critical" of Sulkowicz's account. I also do not agree that the current tone of the article appears to favor Sulkowicz's story.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC) Update: Valoem edited his comment after I responded; see diff to read what I was responding to. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how a well sourced detail harms neutrality. Is the content, when expanded disputed for accuracy to what's in the source? Don't see an issue with WP:RS, or WP:BLP. And then, when we consider how harmful the sexual assault allegations are, suppressing these details could be considered a BLP issue for the accused.Mattnad (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Not seeing an issue with the reverted edit. Arkon (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Mx. Granger (talk · contribs), Thanks for the input, I preferred your version, but no, I did not say the "article" favored Sulkowicz, I said "account" which is in reference to Megan McArdle's account of the situation in her article, sorry for the confusion. The Wikipedia article is fairly neutral. However that one paragraph quoting Megan McArdle is not. In the article her subtext states while it is possible Sulkowicz was raped, it is highly unlikely given the interactions afterwards, therefore she is criticizing Nuggusser's decision to sue the school instead of Sulkowicz. Her tone is skeptical of rape, but not ruling it out entirely which is what most non-feminist and non-MRA sources say. We call all agree that both feminist and MRA sources are unreliable and bias with feminists suggesting the rape absolutely occurred and MRAs saying she absolutely lied. After removing these sources, most sources believe the rape accusation is likely to be false, but not ruling it out entirely. The paragraph mentioned McArdle's criticism of Nuggesser's decision to focus the lawsuit on the school, but not the criticism of Sulkowicz's text messages which is why it needs to be included. Valoem talk contrib 19:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
@Arkon:, can you please clarify, you don't see my edit being an issue or the revert being an issue? Valoem talk contrib 19:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Wooops, sorry I wasn't clear, your edit seems fine with me. Arkon (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry I misunderstood your original comment (which I understand now that you've edited it to clarify). Without going into the weeds about MRAs and whatnot, I'll point out that the status quo version of the article does mention the criticism of Sulkowicz's messages—it says McArdle also said that Sulkowitz's account has "some problems" including her messages to Nungesser. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
"some problems" is vague. Why not explain the problems per the source?Mattnad (talk) 08:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
@Mattnad: Explaining the problems is different from quoting the source verbatim. Perhaps you'd care to propose a summary? PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Are you concerned about copyvio? The quote(s) in this context are pretty succinct. Rewriting them doesn't improve things necessarily.Mattnad (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to have to disagree that the quotes we were using were succinct. How does summarising an article not improve on grabbing some sentences and shoving them in with quotes around them? PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
That would mean the current summary wasn't good enough/as good as the proposed edit. For those who see no problem with the edit that is. Arkon (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
No problems, it was my fault for not making it clear. It does say McArdle also said that Sulkowitz's account has "some problems" including her messages to Nungesser, but its doesn't give due weight when compared to the criticism of Nugesser. Yes she did criticize his decision to sue the school, but due to the likely falsehood of Sulkowicz's accusation she believes the focus of the lawsuit should be Sulkowicz. 12:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
User:Valoem: Mcardle states that "the complaint tells us that one person is lying about what happened that night; it doesn't tell us which one." It doesn't sound to me like she is claiming that Sulcowicz's claims are "highly unlikely", she sounds noncommital. Regardless: the section heading is "responses to the lawsuit", so the commentary we choose to recount should focus on the lawsuit, not on people's beliefs about Sulkowicz. There is plenty of commentary that is critical of the suit that isn't cited in that section. Why not replace McCardle (or the lengthy quote from FIRE) with one of these? link, link Nblund talk 02:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Update On closer examination, it appears that much of the material we're discussing was previously removed and was restored in this edit, which didn't really acknowledge the change. Much of the section on "Nungesser's Lawsuit" was taken word for word from the very first version of the article. Some of this material was out of date, plagiarized, or just plain poorly written, and had been improved by subsequent edits without controversy. None of these reversions were justified or explained, or even acknowledged in the edit summary. It shouldn't be this hard to replace quotes with paraphrases or to remove obviously plagiarized or unsourced material. Nblund talk 01:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Nblund:, Don't ever accuse me of being counter-productive when an immediately response was not replied. There is no plagiarism here the cited material is in quotations and we are allowed to. The reason for including Mcardle's criticism of Sulkowicz is that she acknowledges Sulkowicz's story may be fictional. Having reviewed both Nblund and PeterTheFourth's editing history, I see an extreme profeminism bias which is also why Nblund attempted to warn me as an attempt to discredit my discussion. Again Nuggesser was found not guilty, Mcardle has been equally critical of Nuggesser's desicion to sue Columbia, as she is to Sulkowicz accusation with evidence favoring Nuggesser. The text messages have been used as evidence against Sulkowicz, yet completely excluded from the paragraph. I've also sent a reply to Nblund on the editors talk page. Valoem talk contrib 09:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I explained the plagiarism here, you agreed and self reverted, but, in this edit, you restored the material once again. I think you made a mistake, I'm not attempting to discredit you at all, but I am attempting to ask that you be more careful, and that you avoid throwing out good edits when you try to fix sections that you disagree with. Nblund talk 14:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Edit Regarding McCardle: that's not really the main thrust of her op-ed, but regardless, her criticism of Sulkowicz is not "commentary on the lawsuit". Sulkowicz wasn't named in the suit. I think it would make more sense to place that criticism in the "reception" section, but we've already got plenty of other op-eds that say similar things. Does McCardle need to be cited in both sections? Nblund talk 14:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Before you distort any further what happened. Here is the chronology of events. First you immediately nominated this article for deletion and then proceeded to remove more than just the direct copy-edit from AU News. I restored everything in an attempt to maintain neutrality. You then pinged me to the fact that part of what was restore was copy-edited. I was not aware, but after realizing it was copy pasted (again I did not write that section as I mentioned on your talk page) I immediately reverted and restored your version citing you made a good catch. Now, where after this happened, did I ever re-add that paragraph or any copy edited material? I appears you are attempting to claim I am readding the copy edit, when that is clearly not going on. McCardle constantly implores the reader to review what actually happened during this incident, saying what Sulkowicz said is not what a victim says to her alleged rapist. Her opinion here is obviously important and this should be an uncontroversial edit for a man who was found not guilty and release evidence favoring his story. Valoem talk contrib 18:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes Valoem, you did re-add the plagiarized material after you removed it.
I do genuinely think this is an accident, but it doesn't make it any less frustrating or unhelpful. Please be more careful, and please be more respectful of other editors.
Regarding McCardle: I think you are misreading that op-ed, but that doesn't really address my point. Sulkowicz wasn't named in the lawsuit, and her guilt or innocence isn't relevant to the case. This might make sense in the "reception" section, but I'm not sure why we would need to cite McCardle twice in this entry. We have other editorials that make roughly the same point, we can add more, but why is this specific quote from this specific author so essential? Nblund talk 19:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@Nblund: Can you please show me where the plagiarized material was? I went through a vast majority of the sources perhaps I missed one, I am not seeing any plagiarism. Are you talking about the material in quotations? Valoem talk contrib 20:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't know how much more specific I can be, I've already directed you to the edit and the relevant talk page section. Go to your edit, and then just ctrl+f to the section with "specified grievances include", and then to the paragraph beginning "As a result of publicity". You'll notice that it's the same content we discussed here. The actual quotations are in quotation marks, but much of the text between the quotes is also lifted verbatim from this AU news article.
I'm not sure why you're puzzled about this. It appears that you copied pasted a large portion of that material from an older version of the page with minimal changes to the content. Naturally, this meant restoring the plagiarism, along with other issues. Nblund talk 00:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I was assuming it was this source you were talking about, I did a ctrl+f search there is no match of plagiarism, is there another source? I'll ask for a third opinion, but I am not see any plagiarism. The source which is copied has been added in quotation marks, this is not plagiarism. Valoem talk contrib 01:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Seriously? The only parts in quotation marks are the parts that are in quotation marks in the original source. You previously agreed that this was plagiarism. Did you change your mind, or are you not seeing the text I'm referencing? Here's the side by side comparison of the two paragraphs I referenced:
Comparison table
Wikipedia AU News
Specified grievances include: that a school-owned website had presented as fact that he sexually assaulted Sulkowicz; that the school allowed Sulkowicz to carry a mattress into classes, the library, and on campus-provided transportation as part of her senior thesis; and that Kessler approved the Mattress Project for course credit allegedly in violation of Title IX, a federal law mandating that federally funded educational institutions not discriminate based on gender. In his lawsuit, Mr Nungesser said a Columbia-owned website had presented as fact that he sexually assaulted Ms Sulkowicz. It said that the school allowed Sulkowicz to carry a mattress into classes, the library and campus-provided transportation as part of her senior thesis, that Prof Kessler approved the “Mattress Project” for her course credit and that Sulkowicz’s pledge to carry her mattress to graduation may prevent Mr Nungesser and his parents, who’d like to fly from Germany, from participating in graduation ceremonies.
He stated, "Day-to-day life is unbearably stressful, as Emma and her mattress parade around campus each and every day".[45] As a result of publicity that resulted in media reports in 35 countries, he says he "has been subjected to severe, pervasive ... and threatening behavior by other Columbia students".[45] He says he desires to stay in the US, where he has been dating a girlfriend for over a year and he is seeking consulting work in New York but job prospects have been "severely jeopardised" by the school’s support of Sulkowicz.[48] “Day-to-day life is unbearably stressful, as Emma and her mattress parade around campus each and every day,” the suit said.As a result of publicity that resulted in media reports in 35 countries, the lawsuit said, Mr Nungesser “has been subjected to severe, pervasive ... and threatening behaviour by other Columbia students, believing that Paul is a ‘serial rapist,’ whenever Paul has appeared at university activities.”The complaint also said he wants to stay in the United States, where he has been dating a girlfriend for over a year, and is seeking consulting work in New York, though job prospects have been “severely jeopardised” by the school’s support of Ms Sulkowicz.

Response from Sulkowicz/Columbia University response

Instead of arguing over whether a header should say Responses from Sulkowicz and Columbia University or Columbia University response, break this down into two areas of the article under separate headers. Bus stop (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent pov edits in the lead.

There are multiple problems with the lead and since I did not want to be pulled into an edit war, I tagged the article. Can we have a discussion on how to improve the wording, especially in the lead.

In May 2014, Sulkowicz filed a report against Nungesser with the New York Police Department (NYPD), but declined to pursue an investigation after Sulkowicz discovered the case could extend past her graduation and be a source of secondary victimization, when she would probably want to "erase all of [her] memories of Columbia"

This part seems to suggest, in wiki voice, that she had some sort of power to halt a criminal investigation. It also contains OR since i could not find anything about being "a source of secondary victimization" in citations. Overall the lead should be a summary but it seems it's more like a statement from Ms. Sulkowicz.

After Columbia failed to take action against Nungesser, Sulkowicz focused her senior thesis on a work of performance art entitled Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)

This part is also problematic, claiming "Columbia failed to take action" in wiki voice is a violation of NPOV. It seems the Editor Jayx80 is a bit unfamiliar with the WP:NPOV rules and keep insisting adding heavy pov language into the article. Darwinian Ape talk 15:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the "secondary victimization" part and rephrased the "failed to take action" part. I am unsure what (if anything) to do about "declined to pursue an investigation" as it pretty closely follows this source. Since the source is an interview with Sulkowicz, maybe the sentence should be rephrased to something like this (possibly slightly confusing, I'm not sure):
In May 2014, Sulkowicz filed a report against Nungesser with the New York Police Department (NYPD), but she said she declined to pursue an investigation after she discovered the case could extend past her graduation, when she would probably want to "erase all of [her] memories of Columbia".
I've also changed "Asian American" to "American", as the sources don't focus on her race from what I can remember. If there are a significant number of sources that do, I'd be happy to change it back. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Columbia University rape controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Named Accused

According to another Talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mattress_Performance_(Carry_That_Weight) ) the accused should not be named since they made attempts to conceal their privacy over the course of the incident:

"Q4: Why does the article not name the accused?

A criminal allegation was made, but the accused was not convicted or charged. An additional consideration is that he is otherwise not notable. Although he has given interviews to newspapers that have named him, he has been photographed for these from behind, so he appears to want to preserve some anonymity. One discussion concluded that the accused could be named only if his full defense was detailed in the article. This condition has not been met, so the accused's name currently cannot be included."

Should all explicit references to him by name by removed? Tibbs runner (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

This came up in the deletion discussion, but I'm not sure that was ever really sorted out - this article is largely a copy of an old version of the Mattress Performance article that predates the controversy about naming the accused and which has a longer discussion of the facebook messages and whatnot - so that may be what is meant by the "full defense"? Nblund talk 22:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

can i change the wording

even using the preferred pronouns the sentence would sound better than "Sulkowicz said that Sulkowicz declined to pursue an investigation, and stated that NYPD officers were dismissive and had mistreated them"

after "Sulkowicz said that they declined to pursue an investigation, and stated that NYPD officers were dismissive and had mistreated them"Nailo1234 (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

No. If we use they/them, we need these ridiculous-sounding sentences to make things clear. I changed the wording from your after version to before version, because to a normal person "Sulkowicz said that they declined..." reads like "Sulkowicz said the NYPD declined...", so it is critical to the meaning of the sentence. --hippo43 (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

ok, i won't change itNailo1234 (talk) 20:39, 5 June 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.

Incomplete edit summary

I hit the "enter" key accidentally and submitted this edit before completing the edit summary. What I was going to say was: I'm not sure how we can justify removing opinions supporting Sulkowicz by stating that opinion content 'doesn't belong' and then at the same time add an opinion critical of Sulkowicz. In principal I'm not opposed to adding the statement from Halley in the opinion section, but the article already contains a disproportionate number of anti-Sulkowicz sources as it is and we should probably attempt a rough balance. Nblund talk 19:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Sentence regarding Cathy Young

Hi All. Regarding this revert: Do we want to disparage a living person based on one article (even attributed), in an article not about them, with the sentence also not (mostly) being about the subject of the article? Arkon (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to advise you to take this to BLP/N if you feel it's a BLP violation, as this is both reliably sourced and relevant to the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
BLP/N here. Arkon (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I've also asked for a self revert on PeterTheFourth's talk page, given the BLP concerns and the reason/edit summary given. Arkon (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
BLP issue is resolved if I had to make a judgement, however the above question remains (re: sourced to Jezebel vs. other sources presented elsewhere). Please provide feedback here regarding this edit. Arkon (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I think the edit you've linked, restoring the commentary from Erin Gloria Ryan, is a good one—it's important, relevant commentary, especially given the way the article relies excessively on Young's opinions. Ryan's characterization of her as "reliably rape-skeptical" should probably be restored too, for the same reason. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
It seems like we should use the sources from here to form a wording, I'm afraid Erin Gloria Ryan doesn't really seem like an authority on the topic, even getting a last word on the previous section. Aren't those sources better? Arkon (talk) 00:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
We could use the Washington Post source, which says "Young has written a number of stories critical of campus anti-rape activism". That conveys a similar meaning, while coming from a source that may be more reliable. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I like it. Arkon (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Not a fan of that edit though, should be in the first paragraph, should be sourced to WAPO if anything, and definitely shouldn't have that prominence to Young's opinion. Arkon (talk) 01:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Also, disputed text (the jezebel opinion is still there). Arkon (talk) 01:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, I think the remaining part of Ryan's argument is still important to include. I'm not sure I understand which paragraph you're saying the Washington Post quote should be in. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol

As a recent edit might charitably be interpreted as having suggested (although it was worded badly), the video seems like it might be relevant enough to mention and link-to in the article's prose, and not just in the 'See also' section where it is now. A sentence could be added to the section "Sulkowicz's performance art piece" (possibly even changing the section title from "piece" to "pieces"), perhaps along the lines of "Sulkowicz later created another piece of performance art, Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol ("This is not a rape"), a website with an eight minute video of Sulkowicz having sex with an anonymous actor in a dorm room at Columbia University." (Using but condensing the wording of that article's lead.) What do you think? (Has this been discussed before? I don't see any prior discussion on this talk page.) -sche (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

It hasn't been discussed before as far as I can recall. I agree that it's worth a mention, and the wording you've suggested sounds good to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 Done. -sche (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Naming the accused (Paul Nungesser)

The FAQ at Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) states that Nungesser is not named in that article due to BLP and notability issues, however his name appears prominently in this article. I've started a discussion at Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)#"The accused" (Paul Nungesser) to address the inconsistency. –dlthewave ☎ 01:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Article title

The article title is wrong - it was a rape accusation, not a rape

Paul Nungesser was found not responsible 158.123.57.161 (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't allowed to take a position on whether there was a rape or not. The idea of moving the article to another title has been discussed before, but the discussions fizzled with no result. Above, I suggested the title Columbia University rape allegations. If you want the article to be moved, you can follow the instructions at WP:RM#CM. Another possibility that has been proposed is merging this article into Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight). —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Seems sensible to adopt the FAQ at the top of Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)

Any objections? Doug Weller talk 08:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Nope Nblund talk 13:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Q4 (on naming the accused) would need to be removed from the version to be used here, since it seems to apply only to that article, whereas this one seems to have had a consensus to name him (since it does so). But the Qs about pronouns etc seem useful to copy over. (And maybe the BLPN RfC will reach a decision about naming him.) -sche (talk) 21:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I have copied over the relevant/applicable questions, dropping the one about naming the other student, and the one about why the other article has the title it does. -sche (talk) 01:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Removal of pronouns, language regarding dropping charges

...are under discussion at Talk:Emma Sulkowicz/Archive 1#Removal_of_pronouns and Talk:Emma Sulkowicz#"Sulkowicz_stated_that_Sulkowicz_declined_to_pursue", since that article contains language about the same things and has been subject to similar back-and-forth editing. In the interest of clarity, let me leave this pointer here and centralize discussion there. -sche (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Columbia_University_rape_accusation_controversy/Archive_1&oldid=1249211366"