Jump to content

Talk:Emma Sulkowicz/Archive 1

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

Controversy

It got added to the lead (it is out now) that "some" have accused ES of making a false accusation of rape. WP:ASTONISHME, what would be astonishing would be if nobody tried to turn a contested rape claim into a (statistically-rare) example of a false claim. Statistically-rare events do sometimes occur, of course. But this article is a Wikipedia BLP and should not become a WP:COATRACK for the general controversy. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree - I've removed this from the lead paragraph. In addition to the relevance issues, I think there are some major BLP issues with, in essence, intimating that Sulkowicz themselves is guilty of a crime by way of vague references to "some" commentators. Nblund talk 14:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree. It is sufficient to say that an allegation was made, and that the university found the accused student "not responsible"; adding "plus some people didn't believe it" is (biased without also adding text on people who did support the allegation, including the other students who said that student has also assaulted them, and even with that text would be) extraneous, especially in the lead. -sche (talk) 14:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
The reasoning here is flawed. Reliable sources weigh in with the opinion that a rape did not take place. Why, in the interests of neutral point of view, should we not include the opinion that Nungesser might not have raped Sulkowicz? WP:BLP considerations apply to Nungesser too. We have a free-standing article called Columbia University rape controversy in part because reliable sources hold the opinion that a rape did not take place. Yet that view does not warrant a place in the lede of this article? Let us bear in mind that Nungesser is mentioned by name in this article. Bus stop (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Mona Charen is absolutely, 100%, not a reliable source. It's an opinion piece, and the question is whether the opinion is notable and whether mentioning it conforms to due weight. I don't think it passes either requirement.
We are applying those considerations to Nungesser: we don't mention editorials supporting Sulkowicz and criticizing Nungesser, or additional evidence for their account. We also discuss the fact that Nungesser was found not responsible and that he sued the university, we then give additional details on his lawsuit in a lower section, and then we give even more detail in another article. I'm not entirely averse to having a sentence mentioning the criticism (maybe a sentence in the the rape allegation section), but just adding "Some people think this person is a liar and a criminal" to the lead of a BLP, without even bothering to specify who made the accusation, is not going to fly anywhere. Nblund talk 15:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
@Nblund:, do you also agree that a major of articles regarding this allegation from Jezebel are also opinion pieces? Mona Charen is a notable commentator her views regarding this is relevant, we allowed Jezebel pieces from less famous author state their views, the same standard would apply both ways that is the core of NPOV. Valoem talk contrib 16:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
The person is an extremely controversial figure. She is known more for her controversial allegation than for her artwork. She has been highly criticize in media for her role in this. The article is WP:UNDUE portraying her as an artist when she is mainly known for this allegation. Valoem talk contrib 15:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
This talk page is about the BLP of "artist and anti-rape activist" ES. It should briefly redirect readers to the article about the rape controversy, rather than trying to duplicate that complex discussion. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
@Valoem: are we citing Jezebel in the lead if this article or in the lead of any other article related to this topic? Nblund talk 00:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
@Nblund: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, therefore NPOV is paramount, why does this article not even mention the likely fact she lied Reason.com, jezebel, Chicago Sun Times, The Mining Journal, here are sources among mainstream culture she is more notable for the false accusation and for being an "anti-rape activist". It hope you are not using Wikipedia as a political platform. Valoem talk contrib 01:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
@PeterTheFourth: removing cited sources is violation of NPOV redacting such comments can lead to ANI. Valoem talk contrib 01:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm not certain how WP:BLP applies to article talk pages, but the above comment of 01:00, 1 October 2018 looks like a BLP violation to me. If anyone else agrees, I encourage you to redact the comment. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm not entirely certain about this either, but it absolutely would be a BLP violation to say anything close to that in the main article. Valoem: if this is actually what you're proposing, it's a non-starter, and if you can't differentiate fact from opinion, you might need to steer clear of sensitive BLPs altogether. Nblund talk 15:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: the only BLP violation is against Paul Nugesser who was found not guilty of all charges. The university cleared him of all charges. She attempted to press charges with the NYPD but that was dropped due to lack of suspesion. Nugesser highlighted the Facebook messages in his lawsuit Lawsuit line 27.

Two days later on August 29, 2012, Paul Facebook messaged Emma to invite herto 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."

the messages continue in 28 and 29.

This lawsuit was settled, then I highlighted six additional sources which believe there was a lie. It is absolutely notable is a founding moment of their career is the likelihood of a false accusation. This is again backed by mainstream sources. Opinion and responses are included in Wikipedia articles when covered by mainstream sources. @Nblund: I am a neutral editor and I know exact what should be included. Adding information regarding controversy in her career is not a BLP violation especially when it has been so widely covered. The question are you using an encyclopedia which strives for neutrality as a political platform? Valoem talk contrib 17:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I have to third what Granger and Nblund have said, your comments have shown a great deal of bias and your proposal is a non-starter under the policies on NPOV and handling BLPs. -sche (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I have requested Admin oversight on defamatory and slanted claims by Valoem which would not be permitted in any BLP and IMO should not be showcased on this talk page either. I am not sure how that process works, so I am also pinging Oshwah to please take a look and give an opinion. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
@Valoem: I'm watching this page, you don't need to keep pinging me. You've really provided 2 sources. One of the sources you cited was a sympathetic article from Jezebel, and this was a neutral article that doesn't appear to take a side on the truth of the allegations. These two sources (1, 2) are actually just the same Mona Charen editorial published in different newspapers.
You're right that Wikipedia covers notable opinions, but your edit exclusively cited one side of the dispute (see WP:BALANCE), used weasel words, failed to attribute the biased statement to a speaker, and probably assigned undue weight to a topic that is better covered elsewhere. As I stated above, I'm not entirely averse to mentioning any editorial criticism in this article, but multiple editors have cited problems with this edit and you seem to have responded by doubling down. Boasting that you "know exactly what should be included" indicates to me that you just aren't listening. Nblund talk 21:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
@HouseOfChange: I am stating facts regarding this person back by multiple sources. The Jezebel piece was an article written from Sulkowicz POV and is therefore her own words. You are removing her own defense because you think it hurts her cause, HouseOfChange this article ignores the controversy in her career. My view are not slanted, but mainstream views on this person. I would recommend actually reading the sources I've provided. Poltical commentators such as Cathy Young have directly a stated that this woman is promoting false accusations against men. The second part has nothing to do with the article, but in a major social media commentary (which will not be included in the article) believe Sulkowicz behavior is directly response for the current backlash against feminism. HouseOfChange accusing me of making "defamatory and slanted claims" is in fact the defamatory and slanted claim. I would recommend apologizing, Wikipedia is not a political tool this may WP:BOOMERANG back at you. Now hopeful you know what is going on here. Valoem talk contrib 10:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Valoem, I trust that all of us (including you) have the same goal here: to make the article better and ensure it complies with Wikipedia policies. I hope you won't take this the wrong way, but your recent comments have been coming off (at least to me) as hostile, arrogant, and divorced from reality. I'm sure you aren't trying to come across that way, so I want to urge you to take a step back, read the sources carefully, listen to what other editors are saying, and try to recognize where others are coming from. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I would second that view. I'll add that, although I'm glad that you backed off slightly from your totally unacceptable initial threat, evoking WP:BOOMERANG here at all is still risible. Multiple editors have raised legitimate BLP concerns and requesting outside input is exactly what editors should do in this situation. Cathy Young isn't a reliable source for claims of fact, but she absolutely doesn't "directly state" that this is a false allegation. She says she thinks it is extremely unlikely. Even by the standards of a non-reliable conservative editorial, you're vastly overstating things - that's a massive red flag. Nblund talk 17:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I have not back off, only after analyzing HouseOfChange's edit history I realized this person does not know what is going on here. Nblund (talk · contribs) and Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) and PetertheFourth all have a history of editing feminist articles with a pro-femenism stance. This article has been edited as such, a controversial figure known more a false accusation is being portrayed as an activist? I think ANI might be a better place, this article is a blatant violation of NPOV we can either delete this or rewrite it neutrally. Valoem talk contrib 21:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

"Sulkowicz stated that Sulkowicz declined to pursue"

Hippo43 Hi! Re this edit- do we have a reason to believe that Sulkowicz would be lying about this? Why do we have to attribute it as Sulkowicz saying that they had done something, rather than just stating that they have done something? PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes her Facebook messages have been used as evidence she lied. Valoem talk contrib 22:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I also don't understand why you've replaced 'them' at the end of the sentence with 'Sulkowicz'; there's no confusion as to who 'they' is. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree. Of the sources cited for the statement, TheCut says "She has dropped the criminal charges against her alleged rapist, and does not plan to pursue civil charges." and NYmag says "Sulkowicz told Daily Intelligencer previously that she decided not to pursue the criminal case any further." so what about changing it to "Sulkowicz declined to pursue a criminal case any further" ([1])? Or quote TheCut, and say "Sulkowicz dropped criminal charges"? -sche (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
We have to attribute it because the sources generally support that "S said she declined to pursue it", not "S declined to pursue it". By the same logic, we couldn't say "NYPD officers mistreated S" (because S said so). And we couldn't say "N didn't rape S" (because he said so).
A "reason to believe that Sulkowicz would be lying about this" might be that, generally, sources say the charges were not pursued because there was no reasonable suspicion, i.e. police had no evidence that a rape took place, and Sulkowicz would prefer to give the impression that it was her decision not to pursue the case. --hippo43 (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
And I replaced "them" because there is confusion. In a sentence with "Sulkowicz" and "NYPD officers", many readers will more readily associate "them" with "NYPD officers" than with "Sulkowicz". I agree it's ugly, but if we are going to use they/them pronouns for Sulkowicz, it needs to be clear. --hippo43 (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
To a competent reader of English there would be no difficulties - the NYPD officers are the ones doing the action, and thus not the recipients. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Right, in "NYPD officers [...] had mistreated them", "them" must be referring to Sulkowicz, not the officers, or else it would be "themselves". -sche (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
@Peter, Not at all. It is clear, from all the edits and discussions about related articles, that there is confusion even among editors who are competent readers of English and familiar with the gender politics involved. Wikipedia is written for the widest possible general audience of English speakers. This extends well beyond a narrow demographic of educated Americans who care about policing gendered language.
@-sche, "them" in this instance is obviously confusing, as most readers will not realise it refers to a singular subject. As well as the NYPD officers, it could also relate to the "district attorney's office" in the previous sentence. --hippo43 (talk) 23:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
IMO, we should follow what the sources say on this, rather than inserting such weasely/convoluted language, so something along the lines of what TheCut says, e.g. "Sulkowicz dropped criminal charges". -sche (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Of course I agree, we should go with the sources. But what you suggest is a very selective reading of the sources, and would itself be weasely. The Cut piece is an interview, and the blurb at the start is obviously reporting what Sulkowicz said later in the article. Other sources generally report that this is what Sulkowicz has said, just as they report that Sulkowicz said the NYPD treated her badly - and similarly, we don't include "the NYPD treated her badly" just because she said so.
I agree it currently sounds convoluted, but that is only because we are using they/them. If we wrote "Sulkowicz said she decided to drop the charges, and that NYPD officers mistreated her" it wouldn't sound convoluted at all. If we wrote "Sulkowicz said they dropped the charges" it would be confusing because most people would assume "they" relates to the NYPD and DA in the previous sentences. --hippo43 (talk) 00:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
It 'currently sounds convoluted' because you are changing the text to be less legible. This is WP:POINT making behaviour. Please stop this, and please display some respect by using their correct pronouns.PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm changing the text to make it more comprehensible. Please show some respect by assuming good faith, and by not telling me what words to use. You can use whatever you consider correct, but usual English grammar, and most reliable sources, consider 'woman', 'she' and 'her' correct for Sulkowicz. I have no problem using 'they/them' in the article where the meaning is reasonably clear, but in many cases it is ambiguous. --hippo43 (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I added another ref, a New York Times article, which also says in its own voice that "Sulkowicz did not press criminal charges". -sche (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Blatant NPOV violation

This article is a blatant NPOV violation against Paul Nungesser in its current form. When I read article I get the impression that Sulkowicz is a victim and that her "alleged rapist" got away with a crime. This article suggests she is an uncontroversial activist. The reality is evidence provided shows Nungesser is the likely victim and controversy is the accusation yet this article refuse any mention even after reliable sources have been provided. Mona Charen and Cathy Young both notable commentator have stated Sulkowicz likely made a false accusation, we don't need to provide the FB messages here, but must mention as to why she is controversial. It is the defining moment in this person's career. The only other option is to delete is article as a blatant NPOV violation. Valoem talk contrib 07:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Please use the correct pronouns, Valoem. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
These mistakes obviously occur lets look at the article on Brett Kavanaugh. In the lead it says

President Donald Trump nominated Kavanaugh on July 9, 2018, to replace retiring Associate Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. During the confirmation process, Christine Blasey Ford accused Kavanaugh of having sexually assaulted her in the early 1980s. Over the next few days, two other women accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct. Kavanaugh "categorically and unequivocally" denied that the event Ford described occurred and strongly denied all allegations.

Also lets look at James Deen

In late 2015, multiple women came forward with allegations of sexual misconduct including rape.

Neither have been legally charged. Based on these article's precedence the information regarding the rape controversy certain belongs in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valoem (talk • contribs)
  • This articles creation was the realisation of publishing that bias. 21:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this warrants a new thread - you seem to be saying the same stuff above. We're not going to treat Cathy Young or Mona Charen as reliable sources, and we're not going to ignore one side of the debate or overemphasize an issue that is discussed elsewhere. This doesn't mean that we can't mention any controversy at all, but, so far, you've not really proposed anything that incorporates the feedback you're getting from other editors here and we're not going to get anywhere until you do. Nblund talk 21:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Credibility of Accuser given too much weight

The State's Attorney never filed charges, Nungesser won his suit against the University, wy is her "version" of events presented with so much credibly here? FoLandra (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, Nungesser's suit was dismissed twice and then settled out of court, and the settlement was not a referendum on Sulkowicz's accusations. Nevertheless: the article mentions the lack of a criminal case, and the settlement, so I'm not quite sure what more you think should be presented here. We certainly aren't going to offer an opinion on the truth of the accusations. Nblund talk 15:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Many reliable sources believe she fabricated the rape claim because she was upset that Nungesser didn't want a serious relationship. If its a reliable source, then it can (not necessarily must) be included. FoLandra (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
And where might we find these sources? –dlthewave ☎ 15:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • But two days after this alleged attack, he invited her to come to a party, and she responded affirmatively, adding that the two should have a “paul-emma chill sesh.” A couple weeks later on Facebook, Sulkowicz wrote to Nungesser, “I want to see yoyououoyou.” There are six pages’ worth of back-and-forth Facebook messages between the two, which Sulkowicz has confirmed are real and not redacted in any way. Whatever else you can say about social media these days, it has made it awfully hard for women to change their minds about the nature of a sexual encounter from months earlier. [2]

How many more do you want? FoLandra (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The NY Post source doesn't say that "she fabricated the rape claim because she was upset that Nungesser didn't want a serious relationship", and we would need something better than an opinion piece if we're going to say that the claim was fabricated. We cover the allegations and responses in detail at Columbia University rape controversy and this article does state that Columbia cleared Nungesser of responsibility. –dlthewave ☎ 16:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Emma Sulkowicz

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Emma Sulkowicz's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "VanSyckle20January2015":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

'Mattress Girl' in lede

This nickname some newspapers coined for them seems undue. Should it be in the lede? PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

It indeed seems to no longer be used by many sources, so I think moving it into the body would be fine. -sche (talk) 00:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

False claim in lead

In the lead it says that Sulkowicz "first received media attention for the performance artwork Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)". I could not find evidence of this claim in the source provided (New York Times). Moreover, I found several news articles about Sulkowicz's rape allegations from April (CBS New York) and May 2014 (New York Times; TIME), several months before the start of Mattress Performance (September 2014). These sources do not mention the (upcoming) Mattress Performance.

Since this relates to the discussion below (and I'm not a regular editor) I leave it up to others to change this. I suggest to mention both that Sulkowicz first received media attention for their rape allegations and complaints against the university's handling, and that they also received media attention for their performance artwork starting several months later. 87.214.67.83 (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe "first received widespread media attention" would be more precise - but Sulkowicz didn't receive significant coverage until the Mattress Performance. Critics ("Emma Sulkowicz—famous for carrying her mattress on campus as a symbol of her burden"), sympathizers ("Sulkowicz rose to fame in 2014 when she began carrying her mattress around Columbia University as a protest and art performance against how the university handled her sexual assault.") and neutral reports ("This conspicuous protest captured headlines and made the “mattress girl” a national talking point in the conversation about campus sexual assault.") all seem to concur that the Mattress Performance is what turned Sulkowicz in to a notable figure. Nblund talk 18:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree that Sulkowicz is most famous for Mattress Performance, but I'm not convinced that the media coverage before that cannot be considered "widespread". Moreover, the particulars of the sexual assault case and the university's handling seems to be vital to the cultural significance of the person of Sulkowicz as well (for example, because of the debate it sparked about the rights of victims/accusers and accused in university sexual assault cases). Hence, I think it is appropriate to mention that Sulkowicz is known both for the performance as well as the allegations. (We could probably quibble endlessly about the last point; most important is that the current wording is changed to remove the possibility of a false interpretation.) 87.214.67.83 (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I think that is "first achieved widespread coverage" is reasonable summation of the citations that describe her as becoming famous because of the Mattress Performance. The lead par does mention the sexual assault allegations, but they aren't the central focus of this article, and I don't know of any source that says she's famous for a sexual assault allegation. Nblund talk 00:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Article (re)created per RfC

A biographical article has been (re)created based on consensus at Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)#RfC:_Should_there_be_an_article_on_Emma_Sulkowicz?. This talk page previously redirected to that one. I place the link here so that the discussion is findable by people perusing this talk page (now that it is no longer a redirect). -sche (talk) 23:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

That discussion is now here: Talk:Mattress_Performance_(Carry_That_Weight)/Archive_10#RfC:_Should_there_be_an_article_on_Emma_Sulkowicz? WanderingWanda (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Removal of pronouns

Hippo43 (talk · contribs), in e.g. [3] and [4], you removed pronouns from the article en masse (in addition to editing against [small but so far only extant] consensus and the RS description with regard to Sulkowicz's dropping of criminal charges, discussed in an earlier section of this page). I suggest you try to seek consensus for your changes here rather than continue to revert me and other editors who have pointed out problems with your edits. -sche (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Btw, in diff, I think you probably intended to restore your preferred version over my edit, rather than undo User:Grandpallama's valid fix of a pronoun that referred to Dana Bolger, which is all you actually undid... -sche (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

It appears that this user (Hippo43) has been arguing that "usual English grammar, and most reliable sources, consider 'woman', 'she' and 'her' correct for Sulkowicz". This is wrong. English grammar recommends using the appropriately gendered pronouns when referring to a person. (I.e. you would not say 'she is correct' when referring to me, Peter, but 'he is correct'.) Additionally, reliable sources have covered Sulkowicz's status as non-binary and WP:GENDERID clearly states that we use the self identification given in the most recent sources. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Once again, I haven't argued for using 'she' in the article. However, using 'they' or 'them' is often misleading, so 'Sulkowicz' is often clearer in meaning, if uglier in the text. I am of course open to discussing specific cases individually, as some are worse than others. --hippo43 (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
If you don't believe we should use the incorrect pronouns in the article, why bring it up in the first place? PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Only because I was patronisingly told by another editor which words to use on this talk page. --hippo43 (talk) 00:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
-sche, with regard to consensus and reliable sources, there are two editors who have taken each view in recent edits. Not consensus either way. We also need to consider the history of the Columbia University rape controversy article, where this section of text originated. There was consensus established there to include this as reported speech, as this section was stable over a period of several months, a period which included various edits by you.
WP:IMPARTIAL requires that in the cases of heated disputes, we do not endorse or reject either side’s position. We should similarly not include statements by Nungesser as fact, but rely on reliable sources, like the Newsweek source, which cite court documents which show that the police/DA chose not to proceed.
Per WP:NEWSORG, the Cut interview source is not reliable for statements of fact. This article is not news reporting, it is perhaps a human interest story, or a feature. It is not written by an author specialising in hard news (see [5]) Most of her work for the Cut seems to be features, celebrity gossip etc.
The Cut/Van Syckle piece both quotes Sulkowicz directly and states Sulkowicz’s version as a fact, and Van Syckle’s New York Magazine piece (significantly, published later) only quotes Sulkowicz. In other words, in two sources by Van Syckle, this statement is made three times, once in Van Syckle’s voice, and twice quoting Sulkowicz. We therefore have to err on the side of attribution, for both verifiability and NPOV reasons. --hippo43 (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
There is 0 reason to believe Sulkowicz is lying about this. No sources cast doubt on this. We do not need to have this text. Please stop constantly reverting to it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with whether Sulkowicz is lying. What you believe about that is irrelevant. Both Van Syckle sources, which are the only sources cited which cover it, explicitly quote Sulkowicz directly. It's not for us to decide whether that casts doubt on it or not. You haven't addressed the points I made above re policy. --hippo43 (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Question: is the dispute about pronouns or is it about attribution? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
    Theoretically there are two issues, but in the recent edit history many edits have changed both at once: one is how to say Sulkowicz dropped charges / declined to pursue further legal action, and the other is whether to use pronouns or repeat the surname over and over. -sche (talk) 06:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
    I'm now also annoyed that there seems to be a further issue that Hippo43 is not paying attention to what they're editing or saying, and has restored their previously reverted version of the text, even though the discussion is ongoing and even though BRD tells us that the original text (in the absence of any problematic BLP issues) should stand. This feels now like edit warring rather than just disagreement. Grandpallama (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
    For clarity let me mention that edits related to the disputes outlined above are happening in two articles where the wording about Sulkowicz dropping charges, and the pronouns, are found: this one and Columbia University rape controversy. (It's good to keep discussion in one place, though. I will leave a pointer to this thread on the other talk page.) -sche (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
The New York Times says "Ms. Sulkowicz did not press criminal charges, a lengthy process that she said would be too draining...". The Daily Beast article by Cathy Young (which is a lengthy defense of Nungesser) also says "Sulkowicz ultimately elected not to pursue criminal charges". So what's the problem here? Nblund talk 17:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Sulcowicz deciding not to pursue criminal charges and the District Attorney deciding to end the investigation are not mutually exclusive. The DA can prosecute with or without the victim's cooperation (a murder case would be an example of this), but a sexual assault often won't have enough evidence unless the accuser is willing to testify. If Sulcowicz decided not to pursue it further, it makes sense that the DA would notify Nungesser that they were ending the investigation as well. –dlthewave ☎ 18:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Using "they" everywhere in this article is completely misleading and makes the article unreadable. Since when should we use improper english because the feelings of the person the article is written about might be hurt? Enclyclopedia articles should be objectively written in proper English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.47.181.144 (talk) 12:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
@128.47.181.144: Proper English is using the appropriate pronouns for a person's gender; in this case, Sulkowicz is non-binary, and the appropriate pronouns are they/them/their. Read a book! PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
@PeterTheFourth: Unfortunately, the pronoun "they" could also mean more than one person which makes this article near impossible to comprehend. I suggest using her name (even as ridiculous as repeating the name over and over is, it is at least able to be understood easily.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.47.181.144 (talk • contribs)
@128.47.181.144: Regrettably, there is not a Simple English Wikipedia-esque solution for people who have zero reading comprehension. In the meantime, I'll have to suggest that you A) learn to use the right pronouns, and B) stop complaining when the right pronouns are used. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
@PeterTheFourth: There are so many sentences in both articles that are ambiguous. Native English speakers can figure it out after reading it a couple times along with the surrounding sentences, but not everybody is a native English speaker. Some people think understanding the article is more important than the subject's pronoun desire. Clearly you think the subject's pronoun desire is more important. That doesn't mean you have to imply everybody is stupid for not understanding it. 146.115.150.192 (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@146.115.150.192: I don't think everybody is stupid, I just think you display an alarming lack of ability to grasp context - I'm truly sorry that the article is so difficult for you to read because it uses singular 'they', but we cannot change it to make it easier for you to read. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@PeterTheFourth: Yes you can. 146.115.150.192 (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The unreferenced claim in the article's lead, "who uses they/them pronouns," would appear to be an anachronism. From an external article dated Oct. 28, 2019:

    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.[1]

    I am neither courageous nor diligent enough to change all the pronouns in this article. Brec (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.thecut.com/2019/10/did-emma-sulkowicz-mattress-performance-get-redpilled.html

Sex

I realize that Sulkowicz identifies as "non-binary" but, since actual sexual activity is inseparable from the story, shouldn't the subjects biological sex be mentioned? — Dutchman Schultz

No. I'm not aware of any reliable sources that address Sulkowicz's "biological" sex, and it wouldn't be germane to the story even if those sources existed. Nblund talk 18:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
More salient, Sulkowitz identifies as “she” commonly including this recent article in New York magazine. The article refers to Sulkowitz as ”she” throughout the article from Dec 2019. [non-constructive portion of this comment removed.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.177.138.177 (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Pronouns revisited

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.Phafner (talk) 03:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Based on the current information that Sulkowicz is OK with she/her, I see no problem with changing the pronouns to she/her (although it should be done consistently - I just undid an edit that only changed two of them - and a note about it should be retained). As I remarked last year, we do similarly for e.g. Rebecca Sugar and Leslie Feinberg who were also OK with multiple options. -sche (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
I also have no objection to switching to she/her in this article and the various other articles that mention Sulkowicz. WanderingWanda (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
For the record, I want to clarify that my own position is not really "default to gendered pronouns if the subject doesn't have a strong preference" but rather that we should look to the subject's preference and to sources, in that order. In the case of Rebecca Sugar, she hasn't stated a preference between "she" or "they", but sources overwhelmingly use "she", so "she" seems like the best choice. If a majority of sources used "they" I'd say to go with "they". In the case of Sulkowicz, I think the thing that nudges us to go with "she", even though a lot of sources go with "they", is that she explicitly requested "she" in the most recent piece about her. WanderingWanda (talk) 07:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
For the record, it doesn't matter what she calls herself even if she's using female pronouns. Once trans, forever trans as far as wikipedia's concerned. So Sulkowitz is always a "they" and anyone who tries to change it, no matter what's in reliable sources, is a transphobe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.81.156 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Maybe this was not a serious comment, but in any case the relevant guideline says pronouns should "reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification." —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
It was a serious comment. Certain articles attract politically active types who don't care about guidelines or English grammar. There's no way I'm going to waste my time editing this only to have meat puppets revert.174.89.81.156 (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't think we screen editors for being "politically active types" but abidance by language prominently found in sources should provide reasonable guidance on the question we are addressing. Bus stop (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Omissions

Presumably because of her gender and political status, there is no mention of critical media analyses of her accusations and subsequent behavior. There is also no mention of Sylvie McNamara's 2019 article about Sulkowicz's “political journey” which had her mingling with conservatives and libertarians. About the article Sulkowicz tweeted, "Huge props to Sylvie — a true gem and really, really f’in good at writing." Nicmart (talk) 01:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Reverted Edits To Emma Sulkowicz

Unexplained removal of sourced content: The removed sourced content is a statement made in 2014, their statement in 2016 regarding their police report is more recent and touches on the "main reason" of their filing in the first place, my edits made the article more concise.

Not only that, it was incredibly difficult to justify citing a specific part of the article that claims the ONE police officer was dismissive to their situation, but simultaneously, that same officer was cognizant of how painful the process of reporting the crime would be for them and made sure to stress that point?? There is no way to put BOTH of those things in the article as they clearly contradict one another.

POV editing: I have no clue how you've come to this conclusion, I would like elaboration if possible please.

edit warring to force one's point of view: "responsibility" has been removed a few times, I added "not responsible" in quotations as this is the diction that Columbia has used in every statement made regarding the situation, and it was found in the source, I figured showing that it is a quote would put an end to that edit war.

And as I said in my first point regarding my other edits, I noticed that the there were bits of the article that did not reflect the further statements made not only by Columbia, but by Sulkowicz. 2001:56A:7BE1:F200:A930:AE85:E5C6:7E09 (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this here. I will get back to you (and I hope others do, too). Mathglot (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
My recollection is that most sources use the official phrasing "not responsible" or something similar. We should follow suit. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
I checked through a number of contemporary news sources, and they all pretty much quote or report Columbia's wording of "not responsible", so I'm fine with you putting this back, and apologize for not having seen that earlier, when I made the original revert. Your wording was fine. Mathglot (talk) 07:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emma_Sulkowicz/Archive_1&oldid=1192086246"