Talk:Columbia University rape accusation controversy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Facebook messages

They are not quoted above, the messages in their entirety is his defense, removing the FB messages is a violation of NPOV. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Valoem, I don't know how else to say this: but you need to read more carefully before editing. One message is quoted here, they're also mentioned again here. "The messages in their entirety" span around 4 pages, and I don't think it is Wikipedia's role to recite Nungesser's entire defense. I'm not seeing how quoting the facebook messages (without any additional commentary) is informative or useful. Can you explain why all three quotes are essential in this section? Nblund ^talk 21:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

It's absurd to quote the same message twice in the same article, and quoting the messages in their entirely would obviously be infeasible (and would be excessive reliance on primary sources anyway IMO). —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Quoting the entire primary source serves no purpose and lacks context. The existing summary of the Facebook messages under "Allegations" is sufficient; there is no need to duplicate. –dlthewave ☎ 01:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the duplicate text. I see that "lol yussss. 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" was included in the top, but "Wanna hang out a little bit before meeting tonight? Maybe you have your phone back, I'll text yaaa" and "I love you Paul. Where are you?!?!?!?!" was not. Quoting the messages in their entirely would not be infeasible as it is already done. These messages were used as evidence that the sex was consensual, keep in mind Nuggesser was found not guilty and he sued the school with the outcome coming in his favor. Compare the two versions, the text message, strongly influences the readers views on his guilt. We must present this article neutrally Nuggesser strongest arguments cannot be removed. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 08:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

We include content relevant to its coverage in reliable sources, not so we can defend or attack people. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Correct, not including the information which is verified by both parties is not attacking but NPOV. Nuguessar was found not guilty, mainstream media has focused on these texts as the main evidence of his innocence. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 10:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The facebook messages weren't part of his defense at the university inquiry, that was one of his complaints. You keep placing these quotes in the "lawsuit" section, but the citations don't link them to the lawsuit and it doesn't sound like you actually think they're relevant to the lawsuit. You also still haven't explained why we need 3 quotations, or why we would include these messages without any explanatory context. Nblund ^talk 12:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The Facebook messages were used as the fundamental argument against Columbia University which the university settled out of court. Media has also used as evidence that the accusation was likely falsified. Removed the messages is removing the strongest part of this controversy. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The messages are already mentioned twice and quoted once, and you need to stop pretending that this debate is about "removing the messages". Its a question of where and how much to discuss them. Why are all three quotes essential? Why is just one quote insufficient?

The cited source for that section predates the lawsuit. The lawsuit itself focused on claims of gender discrimination which didn't necessarily hinge on Nungesser's guilt or innocence. Much of the press coverage of the lawsuit doesn't mention the facebook messages at all (examples: WaPo, NYT, CNN). Can you provide sources that explain why and how the facebook messages where essential for this lawsuit? Nblund ^talk 00:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Here are the sources you are looking for Reason.com, jezebel, this is here POV, Chicago Sun Times, The Mining Journal all of these sources suggest she lied, the Wikipedia article does not show the cited evidence as a false accusation, we don't do that here. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 00:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

all of these sources suggest she lied - this is not even remotely close to what I asked for. I asked for sources that explained why and how the Facebook messages were essential to the lawsuit, and some explanation for why these three quotes needed to be included verbatim. The Mining Journal/Chicago Sun Times source (it's the same article reprinted in a different outlet) doesn't mention the the lawsuit at all. Neither does the Jezebel source. Cathy Young's editorial does mention it, but it's simply a single sentence that says the messages "figured heavily" in to the suit without explanation. It should go without saying that a Cathy Young editorial is not a viable model for a BLP entry.

The assertion that the Wikipedia "does not show the cited evidence" is flatly false, as has been explained repeatedly: the article mentions the Facebook messages already in two separate places. Mona Charen is already cited. Cathy Young is cited (14 times). It may not present the evidence in precisely the way that you prefer it, but it does present it. You're treading in to WP:IDHT territory here. Nblund ^talk 15:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

NBlund the WP:IDHT accusation makes no sense as I have provided the sources you require. I've mention this on the Emma Sulkowicz talk page here is the Nungesser lawsuit.

Line 27.

Two days later on August 29, 2012, Paul Facebook messaged Emma to invite her to a gathering in his room, stating, "small shindig in our room tonight bring cool freshmen." Emma messaged back four minutes later, "lol yussss also ifeel like we need to have some real time where we can talk about life and thingz." Paul immediately agreed, writing "word." Emma continued, because we still haven’t really had a paul-emma chill sesh since summmerrrrr." Paul responded "when are you guys coming through." Emma wrote, "I’ll probs come at 10:45. Is that cool?0." Paul wrote back "sweet - yeah - you at the fencing thing." Emma wrote back "Yeah I’m just gonna chill with them for a bit haha is ado a rager?" 3 Paul wrote back "naah - a little too many guys right now haha - so bring some peepz." Emma wrote back "Okay let them know I’ll be der w dafemales spon." At 11:06 p.m., she messaged Paul "Ack are people still there? Heading over now."

Line 28.

Paul remained at the ADP party but he and Emma did not see one another. The next day, he messaged her at 4:55 p.m., "part II tonight - you’re coming?" She messaged him Her reference to ADP, Alpha Delta Pi, was to the coed fraternity of which she and Paul were both members, Some ADP members live in the ADP house near campus. [8] back seconds later, "lol i came and left

lready!" Paul responded, "lolcats - when were you here - I dont believe you its not the truth - to the tune ofpretty women."

Line 29:

Two weeks later, on September 9, 2012, Emma messaged Paul, "I wanna see yoyououoyou" Thereafter, Paul sent Emma a happy birthday message as follows ’oh hai happy born day! you better be celebrating muchos, no? also: donde estas tu i mi viva - see i’m so desperate with out you, i even try to speak spanish, 4- anywho: merry happy days!" Emma responded, "I love you Paul. Where are you?!?!?!?!"

Here is responses to the text NYTimes

"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. After The Daily Beast published the exchanges, Sulkowicz explained them to the website Jezebel, recalling, “I’m being irrational, thinking that talking with him would help me. Sulkowicz says some of the Facebook messages were admitted as evidence. Her recollection is at odds with that of a graduate student who attended the hearings with Nungesser, as his designated “supporter,” and said the messages were not included. In court, the Facebook messages surrounding the night of the alleged rape would probably be admitted in a criminal case as relevant, according to Deborah Tuerkheimer, a Northwestern University law professor, and the alleged victim would also have the chance to explain them. (This is also what Columbia’s policy now appears to provide, though the rule was somewhat different at the time of the hearing."

Jezebel also interviewed Sulkowicz where he confirmed that she sent the message without being threaten. Jezebel and NYPost. I have demonstrated significant sources mentioning the Facebook messages as evidence. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I have demonstrated significant sources mentioning the Facebook messages as evidence.. Everyone agrees that the messages are important for the story, that's why they're cited in the entry. I'm asking for sources that explain how these quotes are central for the lawsuit against Colombia University. I understand that they are mentioned, but court filings often contain lots of information that isn't legally significant.

You've cited the lawsuit itself (which isn't secondary and so can't explain its own importance) and a New York Times article, which mentions the suit, but doesn't explain how it connects to the Facebook messages. Ironically, the Times article cites the same message in the same context that you removed in this edit - so I'm not sure why you think this helps your case. Unless you can offer some sort of coherent justification for this edit, then I think this conversation is over Nblund ^talk 21:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a not a political platform, it is an encyclopedia. In 2014, when these allegations first surfaced, public opinion was highly in favor of Sulkowicz because Nungesser denied to defend himself publicly. Columbia failed to find fault causing more uproar, Sulkowicz then attempted to go to the NYPD, Nungesser showed these messages as evidence this was false. In his lawsuit which I posted above Nungesser stated that Sulkowicz falsified the charges because of an "unrequited romantic relationship" and provided these message as evidence. After the messages were released public opinion turned completely against her, which sources I provided clearly shows. These is why any public video about this person received massive dislikes. These messages are a core to Nungesser's defense, and he was found not guilty as a result. Removing these messages blurred the controversy, are you suggesting this man got away with a crime? If this is the case then you need to provide sources. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Valoem, that's not accurate. Nungesser wasn't found "guilty" or "not guilty" (the rape case wasn't brought to trial). In the university hearing where he was found not responsible, he wasn't allowed to introduce the Facebook messages as evidence. Of course it's also not true that "public opinion turned completely against her". —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: I've provided every single source needed to show the importance of the FB messages no one has said anything is wrong with the sources. The Sulkowicz attempted to bring the case to formal trail, but was dropped by the NYPD as she could provide no evidence. The FB messages were introduced in the lawsuit against Columbia University which forced the university to settle out of court. The university issued a statement “Columbia recognizes that after the conclusion of the investigation, Paul’s remaining time at Columbia became very difficult for him and not what Columbia would want any of its students to experience. Columbia will continue to review and update its policies toward ensuring that every student — accuser and accused, including those like Paul who are found not responsible — is treated respectfully and as a full member of the Columbia community.” NYTimes. The only reason to not included Facebook message an attempt use this encyclopedia to portray Sulkowicz as a victim, this is clear bias editing with a political agenda of promoting feminism and we certainly don't do that here. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 07:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

That's more accurate than what you said before, although still not completely accurate (Sulkowicz didn't attempt to bring the case to trial). Anyway, no one is saying that the Facebook messages shouldn't be covered in the article at all. They're already covered appropriately—the extra addition was overkill. The goal here is not to portray anyone as a victim or not a victim, but rather to accurately and proportionately reflect what reliable sources say. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

She she did she went to the NYPD Spurned By Columbia, Student Says NYPD Mistreated Her While Reporting Rape, reliable sources have questioned the veracity of her account any reason not to include? And no the complete message is 5 lines long not overkill. It has been confirmed by both sides it shows Sulkowicz elected to maintain endearing and warm messages over an extended period of time to someone who she claimed raped her. Readers can draw their own conclusions about what that means. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 10:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

No, we generally don't leave it up to the reader to interpret primary sources. We prefer secondary sources that provide analysis and context. Some of our sources explain why they continued to send messages and why this is normal. The fact is that the significance and meaning of a primary source is often counterintuitive, and allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions may lead them in the wrong direction. –dlthewave ☎ 11:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Not Primary Source, Not Primary source and Nor primary source, you are running out of reasons to not cover this. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 12:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:LINKSINACHAIN: quotes themselves are still primary. Quotes can be useful, but we need to provide additional context to clarify their significance to the story. More importantly: the Facebook messages are covered elsewhere on the page, but they are covered in a way that explains why they were important and also explains why there was a disagreement about whether they were useful evidence. Nblund ^talk 13:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

How about the reason that this conversation has now gone on for over a week, the objections to your preferred version have been laid out by multiple editors citing a number of policies and positions, and not a single editor has been persuaded to endorse your interpretation? In other words, the reason is because the consensus is clearly not to include them to the degree you want, and you have not successfully swayed that consensus. Grandpallama (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: None of my points have been disputed, all these "editors" have a history editing feminist topics they are not being neutral here. The controversy is the lie here all source release after Nungesser's Facebook messages defend him not Sulkowicz. This article's current tone suggests the controversy maybe Nungesser getting away with rape, his strongest defense is messages, it unless neutral editors participate the consensus is invalid this is called mobbing. My arguments have not been refuted. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

None of which refutes my point that you have failed to gain any traction with your arguments or change consensus. If you feel compelled to continue, you should file a RfC. Grandpallama (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

While an RfC might be preferable to continuing to flog this dead horse, I don't really think it's warranted here since there's a fairly clear consensus already. Valoem: if you choose to go this route, then you would need to ask the straightforward question of whether this version is preferable to the current version. If you post an RfC that asks "should we include the Facebook messages?", I might have an aneu rysm.

As for biased editing: you need to either bring that accusation to ANI and provide diffs or you need to drop it all together. Nblund ^talk 14:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Let's brainstorm that (a possible RfC or straw poll question). Is it sufficient to ask "Should the Facebook messages be quoted in their entirety?", or is the question "Should the Facebook messages be quoted in their entirety in the section on Nungesser's lawsuit?" ? (I see they are currently mentioned and quoted in several places, which has both benefits and drawbacks.)
I think it might be better to avoid voting on specific diffs, because e.g. in the diff you link to, not all of the contextual information (like "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...") has been moved along with the messages into the same section, which means that even people who might want to quote the messages in their entirety might !vote against that diff as not being NPOV, and/or if an RfC decided in favor of that diff, there might then be edit-warring over whether or not adding contextualizing information to (rather than subtracting from) the messages was consistent with the RfC.
If we go the "Is [diff A] or diff B a better way to cover the Facebook messages?" route, we should try to mock up a diff where all the relevant contextual information is also moved into the =Facebook messages= section — either to offer it as diff A or, if anyone is wedded to diff, then at least to offer the contextualized version as a third option. -sche (talk) 22:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me we already have consensus, so I think an RFC is unnecessary and would just be a drain on the community's time. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@-sche: Neither version quotes the messages in their entirety, there are over four pages of Facebook messages. Including the relevant context in the lawsuit subsection doesn't make much sense, since the messages and the context aren't particularly relevant to the lawsuit. I've asked why these three quotes are essential and why they should be in the lawsuit subsection, I still haven't gotten a coherent answer. I agree that this version is transparently non-neutral, but I haven't seen any indication that that is an accident. Nblund ^talk 03:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)