Jump to content

Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

School hearing

Why is it that the school held a hearing, rather than the matter being pursued through the legal system? If there is an explanation it should be included in the article. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 12:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Because this is the joke that society has become. She is overtly trying to make a career out of this, and appears to be succeeding. To actually answer your question, the school can expel someone for misconduct, but they have to investigate whether any misconduct took place. Why they don't defer to police when the alleged misconduct is a felony is a damn good question for which there is no good answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.85.142 (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
WP:TALK#OBJECTIVE The non-emotional and relevant part of your response is: the school can expel someone for misconduct, but they have to investigate whether any misconduct took place marp (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
And also because the accuser did not press any criminal charges; there was nothing for the police to investigate. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality of mattress piece reception

Why is this in dispute? Both sides are represented.--38.105.132.130 (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The article was incredibly one-sided and POV pushy when I placed the tag (see here) and then I just never removed it. I've gone ahead and removed it now, though. However, I have left a POV section tag in place over the "reception" section, as I'm not sure it's encyclopedic to have a section full of effusive praise from art critics over a young woman's extremely serious criminal accusation. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
That's your POV because you doubt this woman's accusations. The piece is not encyclopedic in your mind; it's a really famous piece in the NYC art world. Pay attention to what's going on in the world.--38.105.132.130 (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

That is my POV because I am an intelligent person who has an adult perspective on the world. This woman is using an "art project" as an excuse for, and means for, making (but not really making!) an incredibly serious criminal accusation against another person. Normally there is a process for this and the accuser's accusations are not simply accepted at face value and the accused thrown in jail; the accusations are instead subjected to scrutiny. That was apparently the part that ALL THREE ACCUSERS against this young man were not interested in: outside scrutiny of their accusations, being forced to answer questions, etc.

I'm also familiar with various WP policies protect the reputations of living article subjects and protect WP from lawsuits. One of these policies tells us not to act in ways that might result in the ongoing victimization of a person: "This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions." The subject of Sulkowicz's accusation has complained that the piece amounts to harassment and a smear campaign. We're furthering that by giving undue weight to material by art critics — who, at best, are making completely irrelevant commentary, and at worst, are using their status as art commentators to voice support for the woman's unfiled criminal accusation. This same policy also tells us: "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." Not having a section of effusive praise by art critics — when the woman's notability derives entirely from being a rape accuser, not an artist, and her "art piece" essentially amounts to repeatedly saying "I was raped" to everyone around her — helps us fulfill that neutrality mission.

Another policy explicitly says: "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." We're already right up to the edge of WP policy in terms of having this article and talking about these accusations in the first place. It's made worse by the innuendo inherent in discussing the other two not-really-rape-accusations here in the same article, essentially inviting the reader to infer that where there's smoke, there's fire. Let's not exacerbate it further by leaning vaguely in favor of the accuser. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Your comments are shot through with POV: Wiki readers can tell that the praise in the reaction piece are by art critics (you did after all), we don't name the accuser anywhere and yet you go on ranting because of a naive world view. Here is the Columbia Spectator explaining their rationale on why they revealed the name of the accused. They have, by the way, not been subject to any libel damages since:

this was the first time that her alleged assailant had been named publicly. In the interest of transparency, we want to explain our thinking. We made the decision to publish his name for a combination of reasons. First, and most importantly, because Sulkowicz filed a police report this week, the information in that report—including the name of the suspect—is publicly available. Furthermore, Sulkowicz and other students have said that she and two other women filed separate complaints against [censored under Wikipedia] through the University. Although these students have said that he was found “not responsible” in each case, the fact remains that three women have now accused [censored under Wikipedia] of sexual assault through the University’s adjudication process. Finally, [censored under Wikipedia]’s name was one of four listed on flyers and bathroom stalls this week, putting him at the center of the campus controversy surrounding sexual assault. When we considered these three factors together, we decided it would be irresponsible for Spectator to keep his name hidden.... The choice to include his name in this article was a difficult one. We understand that this decision carries significant consequences—reputational and otherwise—for [censored under Wikipedia], and we do not treat this matter lightly. However, we believe it is necessary to include his name. We have chosen to leave comments closed on this post, as we want our message here to be clear to all readers.

--38.105.132.130 (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Having already paraphrased that article for WP prose, I am well aware it. It's also quite clear what their motivation was. The Columbia Spectator wanted to "name and shame" the student despite the fact he had already been found not guilty. Heck, it even looks like she filed the police report just to make the student's name public, since she never did anything else with it. Nor does the fact that the school paper hasn't been sued for libel have much significance to the question of whether it's encyclopedic to have a section of effusive, one-sided praise from art critics in an article about an accusation of forcible rape/sodomy.
Also, going forward, please find a way to continue this discussion without making silly personal comments about me. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
No personal comments about you as I don't know you. Let's talk about your biased use of the term criminal? The case was never brought to court and an accusation can't be criminal. Please take that wording out in your comments.--38.105.132.130 (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Speculation

I've moved this here because I can't see where the Daily Beast says it. Apologies if I've missed it.

There is speculation that Sulkowicz's behavior will result in societal doubt of true victims' allegations and, ultimately, discourage these women from coming forward.

Sarah (SV) (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Libel / BLP

Hello all editors, please do not put libelous claims on Wikipedia. The allegations that Emma Sulkowicz was raped by a certain student are verifiably false.[1] Thank you. See also: WP:BLP, WP:Libel 09I500 (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/03/columbia-student-i-didn-t-rape-her.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
The article makes clear that the allegations are just that, and that the accused maintains the sex was consensual. The addition of "falsely" was a BLP violation, because it placed the accused's position in Wikipedia's voice. Sarah (SV) (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Not saying that the allegations are false would put the falsely accused student in a wrong light and is absolutely prohibited by WP policy. 09I500 (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia can't say that the allegation is true or false. We can only repeat that the allegation was made, and that the accused maintains that it is false. Sarah (SV) (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Not true, if the accused has provided evidence that casts doubt on the allegation, then it should be included. Why not at least say something about the communications between the accused and the accuser after the alleged rape? TheNinthDragon (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I believe that information is relatively new, so it hasn't been added yet, but it will be. Sarah (SV) (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. I think it is too early to declare the allegations false, but I don't believe that wikipedia has any policy against doing so when there is reliable factual evidence showing that to be the case. In any case there needs to be a full accounting of the evidence available at this time. TheNinthDragon (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
WP articles can declare that an allegation is false when all or the overwhelming majority of the best reliable sources do. But for now they are simply reporting the allegations, and that seems likely to continue. Sarah (SV) (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

"Kristen" Gillibrand

Should be Kirsten.

Pleistoscenester (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Corrections requests due to administators' lock

Hi, I'm not sure why the administrators' lock was put on this because there are uncontroversial changes that everyone would agree on that could still be made to this and there was no edit warring. Like: 1) Change the description of the piece as a replica of her mattress per this. 2) Please also change the coding on Note #19. There is something wrong with its date.--A21sauce (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Fixed the date problem (maybe all the talk of mattresses messed someone up, the error whacking out the template was because the date said 3 Mat). The vulture article only says it's a replica of the one on which she has maintained she was raped, I'm not sure if that means it's a replica of her current mattress; I could be missing something, please tell me if I'm being dense. If anyone raises objections to the addition of this detail at this time, either revert it yourself or let me know and I'll self-revert (in either case, the parameter fix should be left alone). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
As long as I'm here, per WP:TIES the dates in all the references should probably be converted to American format. I'm not going to do it now, because minor MoS changes like this have a way of being bizarrely controversial, but something to change when the protection ends or gets lifted. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
It's a replica of the mattress she was supposedly raped on, not the actual one. People keep referring to it erroneously as the one she was raped on: I'm guessing she threw that one out. So, yes, she's careful to make it symbolic rather than just gross.--A21sauce (talk) 20:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Article in American Thinker

An article in American Thinker, dated February 7, summarizes the evidence and then concludes as follows.

Reading between the lines, [redacted] essentially rejected two women after having sex with them. Neither men nor women like being rejected, and it’s understandable that women who are rejected after sex feel used. But, if false charges were filed out of spite, then that is inexcusable.

EllieTea (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The line "neither men nor women" may be more fitting here than the author intended, because apparently now a male student, identified as Adam, has come forward alleging he was also sexually assaulted by the accused and indicating he is one of the 23 students to file Title IX complaints against the university in relation to the alleged sexual assault. [1] --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Just as a general reminder (not specifically directed at those directly above) to everyone on this talkpage; read the articles on Jerry Sandusky and Bernie Fine. Both involved multiple accusers alleging horrific sex crimes, and had very different outcomes for each. We at Wikipedia are not in the business of finding out The Truth, and that extends to this talkpage. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Yep, this is seriously not a page about what you think happened. This is already attached to the piece as a reference. Read all the references.--A21sauce (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Curious about wiki policy: Are Emma's annotations, produced in Jezebel, considered good wiki sources?

In this article,

http://jezebel.com/how-to-make-an-accused-rapist-look-good-1682583526

Emma has annotated her facebook messages. I am curious, to what extent if any, those annotations can be cited in a wiki article. In particular, one annotation, screenshot here: http://i.imgur.com/KK176d4.png indicates that within 24-36 hours of the assault, Emma has discussed the assault in at least general terms with a friend, who has explained that what occurred was rape.

Can that annotation from Emma be cited? If so, how? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.116.168 (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Facebook for some reason eschews Facebook as a source, even though national magazines rely on it for source material and fact-checking. I don't think half of these people on Talk page have ever *heard* of Jezebel. If they have they'll likely to cry POV even though we rely on the Washington Times and more mainstream magazines like Time.--A21sauce (talk) 03:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Alleged male victim

It might also be worth noting that in the wake of the accused coming forward with his version of events and messages, another alleged victim has now stepped forward to give public interview, this one being a guy who alleges he was sexually assaulted by the accused, who indicates he is one of the 23 students filing Title IX complaints.[2] --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Totally legit. Here's New York mag reporting on it. ::Hello, administrators?--A21sauce (talk) 04:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 February 2015

Her ethnicity as stated here: Japanese-Chinese-Jewish. Standard to reveal a person's ethnicity on in a Wikipedia biography, no? A21sauce (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Taken care of, along with the other things above. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Daily beast

This is not a forum to discuss who is right or wrong. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/03/columbia-student-i-didn-t-rape-her.html


Something worth to look over and ponder. Nothing definitive can be said but these facts are worth looking at.

At this point, the accused has more information and has a more credible case at this point.

Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itmad2015 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Not understanding what you're getting it. This isn't a place to spew your opinion on the case.--A21sauce (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC) What do you mean with "spew your opinion"? Itmad2015 only wanted to share a link 155.210.217.228 (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Other accusers

Should we include the pseudonyms of the other people who have made accusations as well? I can't think of a reason not to given that they're, well, pseudonyms, but I didn't think it'd be a good idea to edit through protection before being completely sure about whether others agree. For what it's worth, it would make the prose in that section a lot more readable and easier to work with; at least to me, the writing there looks like an attempt to give an English professor multiple heart attacks. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I think using the pseudonyms used by RS seems fine.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
@The Blade of the Northern Lights: Blade, FYI, I'm working on a rewrite at User:SlimVirgin/mattress (the lead assumes that we gain consensus for the move to the mattress title). Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually it's worth adding that I expanded the detail from an earlier draft I wrote, because Bobo suggested the details were important, but I still feel uncomfortable describing untested allegations in this much detail. I feel that the article should focus on the work and summarize the allegations much more succinctly. Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Part of the length issue has to do with the awful circumlocutions in the article to avoid names; if we added those, I'm pretty sure that'd eliminate 10% of the verbiage without anything else. It might be possible to condense a couple sentences (i.e. one sentence to explain both the other accusations tha the university has already handled) without removing any pertinent information, that wouldn't be too difficult. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I think because the various allegations have been described so much by the media in connection to the performance art project, according to wp:due they should be described in reasonable detail.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
The length also has to do with widespread media coverage of a shocking problem that people didn't know was a problem. Just today is this article in Inside Higher Ed, "Students and Violence: The Wrong Requirement?" Barnard College, a women's college, in addition to Columbia, and ninety-three other US institutions of higher learning are under investigation. Let's not sweep it under the rug, least of all on Wikipedia.--A21sauce (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 February 2015

Please wikilink Kerry Sulkowicz in the "Family and early education" section now that his article has been restored. Everymorning talk 20:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 6 February 2015

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There appears to be a consensus to move (or, now that article has been created, merge) this article to Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight). There is no clear consensus on the punctuation, but that's of lesser importance than the discussion over whether the article should be about the performance or the performer. The consensus on the exact title (Alleged rape of Emma Sulkowicz vs Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) or some variation thereof) is slightly murky, but the support seems to marginally favour the former; this becomes clearer when one considers that the "alleged rape" title has considerably more opposition. I recommend redirects be created (if they haven't already) from all plausible alternative names and punctuation variants. I'll leave it to the editors here to work out the details of any merging. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Emma Sulkowicz → Alleged rape of Emma Sulkowicz – This person is really only notable for one event - the rape she alleges against [redacted], of which he was cleared by campus authorities. Kelly hi! 00:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. The issue is personal. This calls into question the authenticity of the so-called "performance" as art. The notion that she speaks for all woman stretches credulity and diminishes the weightiness of any artistic content that one may argue for. The expenditure of energy involved in carrying around a mattress does not directly translate into artistic merit, in my opinion. Therefore the subject of this article is the guilt or innocence of the supposed perpetrator of rape. I am not arguing for his innocence. But Emma Sulkowicz is not notable as an artist. Sources do not support that. This is an oddball extralegal approach to addressing perceived wrongdoing. I think the actual subject of this article is the Alleged rape of Emma Sulkowicz. Bus stop (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
We are not required to accept that Ms. Sulkowicz has attained notability as an artist. Ms. Sulkowicz states that "she will continue the piece until the man she accuses of attacking her is no longer on campus, whether he leaves or is expelled or graduates, as she also will next spring. (If need be, she plans to attend commencement carrying the mattress.)" A Wikipedia editor can exercise critical judgement. In my evaluation the purported Performance art is merely done under the guise of art. I personally fail to recognize the notability (for Wikipedia purposes) of Ms. Sulkowicz as an artist. Your mileage of course may vary.[3] Bus stop (talk) 12:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
If the reliable sources support it, you are required to accept it. You can exercise critical judgement, but not substitute your own judgement for that of experts in the field. Gamaliel (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if a degree of notability is established for Sulkowicz as an artist or for the performance piece as art—what we have to be cognizant of is the important thread of rape running through this article. Whether we call it rape in the abstract or allegations of rape—the article is primarily about rape. It is only secondarily about art. Therefore I support the suggested title change from "Emma Sulkowicz" to "Alleged rape of Emma Sulkowicz". Bus stop (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
If it doesn't matter, why did you raise the issue? Gamaliel (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Are we going to backtrack and reexamine everything you said and everything I said? I will concede that to an extent sources establish some notability for the person as an artist and the "performance" as a valid work of art. You correctly pointed to those sources and I failed to acknowledge them before you pointed them out. But despite the fact that there may be a degree of notability established by sources for the artwork aspect of the article that we are trying to write, would you not agree that this article is primarily about rape and only secondarily about art? Bus stop (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The impetus of her notability is her public incrimination of rape but she's gotten enough mileage out of it to have extended her notability into the range of warranting a biography. For now. GraniteSand (talk) 02:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support moving the article away from the present title, oppose moving to the title suggested above, and instead support moving to Mattress Performance: Carry That Weight. This person is only notable for her performance ("art" or not), and the title should not imply a full biography. Moreover, titling this article the rape allegation is rather problematic, and entirely avoidable. Incidentally, I would also support deletion of the article, since its subject seems to be only marginally notable; the preceding argument is made in the context of a move discussion oly. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose For ignoring the mattress piece, not understanding feminism in contemporary art, and finally having blinders to the affect of the alleged rape on American culture as a whole.--A21sauce (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think my failure to understand feminism in contemporary art is frustrating my grasp of this art piece. I think the obstacle to my understanding the referred-to activity as contemporary art is its personal nature. Doesn't art address issues of concern to a wider swath of people than just one or two? I am not saying that other women have not been raped. But this is specifically focussed on retaliation against one individual. Is that what Feminist art is about? Is that what art in general is about? In my opinion there is a distinction between the personal and the public. This is being done publicly but it is basically private. It is directed at one other person. Its aim is narrowly defined. The student-artist wants one person to leave the campus. As she states "she will continue the piece until the man she accuses of attacking her is no longer on campus". Bus stop (talk) 10:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, you need to look at more feminist art and art in general. And Micheangelo's David wasn't for all of society. Nor the Bayeux Tapestry. Lots of people are talking about the mattress, you are addressing the piece by commenting on an article about the woman who created the piece, so it's not private. You are simply talking about what should remain private and that is a different ball of wax. That's opinion which is not what Wikipedia's for. Get used to it.--A21sauce (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The article you initiated called Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) should be in Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts as well as other WikiProjects. I do not object to the creation of that article. I am trying to understand your objection to changing the title of this article from Emma Sulkowicz to Alleged rape of Emma Sulkowicz. Bus stop (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reference in lead

I had deliberately not linked in the lead to any article with the accused's name. I've now done it, because 09I500 is effectively arguing that the accused's position is not prominent enough. The link is to an article where he gave an interview defending himself. However, the downside is that the name is there with one click. Any thoughts? Sarah (SV) (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

  • In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with this because the accused has talked to the New York Times about the crime of which he has been accused. [4] That seems like it is enough to establish him as a well-known person and therefore not covered by WP:BLPCRIME, which states that it "applies to low-profile individuals and not to well-known individuals". Everymorning talk 23:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I still see him as relatively low-profile, Everymorning, though I take your point. I suppose I'm just wondering whether linking to that article in the lead is the equivalent of adding his name (which I would oppose). Sarah (SV) (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • You've raised an interesting question. I don't think there should be any absolute ban on linking to pages that contain material that would not be allowed under our BLP policy. There has to be editorial judgement and people's views will differ (though in this case mine is the same as yours). FWIW, I personally happen to think the topic (Sulkowicz) is unsuitable for an encyclopedia article. However I can see that the individuals' (plural) situation is one that is or could become an aspect of an encyclopedic topic. Thincat (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Move to Mattress Performance: Carry That Weight

I would not be opposed to changing the article title to Mattress Performance: Carry That Weight.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Bobo. It means we could shift the focus of the article to the political aspects, and keep the personal details to a minimum. Readers can click on the sources if they want the detailed allegations. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I too would be fine with such a move, as the performance piece is what she is known for. Everymorning talk 17:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
That might be rather neat (and it wasn't what I was thinking of). I arrived here because the article on her father was deleted at AFD as lacking notability and this is being reviewed at DRV. A logical but curious result of WP:GNG wikipoints. Thincat (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
As everyone agrees I think we can be bold and just do it. If anyone wants to go ahead, please do. (If there are later objections, we can hold a requested-move discussion.)
I've put a draft of a rewrite at User:SlimVirgin/draft if anyone wants to use some or all of it. It's a very rough draft, more or less what is already in the article, just tightened a little and rearranged. We don't say much about the work, so that would have to be expanded. Sulkowicz gives an interview here that would be a good source. Sarah (SV) (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant to add that I won't have time to focus on a rewrite for a few days, which is why I'm not going ahead and moving it myself. I should have more time at the weekend or next week. Sarah (SV) (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Sarah (SV), I do see your point about keeping the details to a minimum, but this seems challenging because the details seem to balance each other. For example, the draft presently says the encounter started out consensual and she had consensual sex with him on two previous occasions. If we include that, it then seems necessary to specify what she alleges happened during that third encounter (that he allegedly hit her, pinned her down and anally raped her while she struggled and said no) to provide the readers insight on how an encounter which started out consensual (with an established sex partner) is now being alleged to be rape. If we include that, I can see the argument for also including mention of the friendly seeming text messages (which she confirms she sent him) which he argues are inconsistent with a violent attack. Eliminating details seems challenging. I think your new lead is very good. If we want the move done quickly, perhaps we should just move it with the new lead and the rest of the body intact and continue to discuss how and if we should eliminate details. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@BoboMeowCat: I've edited the draft some more. It's still a bit rough (in particular I haven't sorted out which refs are needed, as there are sometimes multiple refs after sentences), but I tried to improve the section about the allegations. See User:SlimVirgin/draft#Allegations, university investigation. I've also expanded the mattress section, though we need more details and a free photograph of it. Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Sarah (SV), I've been giving the issue some thought and I have concerns regarding eliminating details. I agree that we need to be careful to keep the details of the allegations as neutral as possible and to avoid sensationalizing them, but it seems the level of detail in the current article is in accordance with WP:DUE, and that these details, though graphic, are of encyclopedic importance. To explain what I mean, I think they add significantly to the understanding of the issue of campus rape, which appears to often be a he-said-she-said phenomena regarding an encounter that began consensual. The details are also important with respect to the issue of campus rape with respect to the progression of society's view of what constitutes rape. In the not too distant past, rape was primarily thought of as an attack by a stranger lurking in the bushes and the concept of acquaintance rape was new and controversial. Even then, acquaintance rape was primarily thought of as a case of a guy forcing himself on a women as soon as he managed to lure her into a private location. Society's view of what constitutes rape is expanding significantly and the type of assault alleged by Sulkowicz, with the prior consensual sex and the initial consent followed by activity she did not consent to (allegedly) is only recently widely accepted as rape, and this type of assault appears to be rather typical of campus rape. I think we would be doing the readers an injustice to omit details with rationale that "readers can click on the sources if they want the detailed allegations" because I think the details are important to better understanding of the topic of campus rape, of which this has become one of the most famous (alleged) examples, and also the complication of adequately addressing allegations such as these via university tribunals. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
@BoboMeowCat: You make good points about explaining how it evolved. Do you think my draft is a non-starter in that regard, or could it be used as a base for further detail? I'm just wondering whether to keep working on it, or whether you prefer the current version of the article. I don't mind either way, by the way, so feel free to say. Sarah (SV) (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Sarah (SV), Hmn, well obviously the opening paragraph of the lead is going to need to be changed with such a move and I think what you've created for the opening paragraph under the new title works well. The expanded info about the rationale behind the project also seems on topic and good under the new title, although, I do think we should probably be cautious to not make any large deletions or major changes in a single edit, to an article which is as contentious as this article has become. I think we should probably move most of the article intact and then work from there instead of making substantial changes to a draft which we then move. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
@BoboMeowCat: Okay, that's fair enough. So if we get the go-ahead to move, we can copy the draft lead into the new article, expand the section about the mattress, but for now leave the section about the allegations. One problem is that that will make the allegations section longer than the mattress section, and I think that needs to be reversed if the mattress is the title. But we can work that out as we go along. Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure how anyone would conclude that this article should be titled Mattress Performance: Carry That Weight. That is the title of Sulkowicz' senior thesis, which is a work of art in the form of a performance piece. That work of art is of secondary importance in this article. This article is about one woman's allegations of campus rape. She used a performance piece by that name in order to publicize alleged rape. Per WP:NPOV we should be titling this article Alleged rape of Emma Sulkowicz. I don't think we are specifically concerned with who is right and who is wrong, who committed a rape, and who falsely accused someone of rape. Our job is to write the article in accordance with reliable sources. That includes titling it appropriately. Bus stop (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Break

@BoboMeowCat: see what you think of it now: User:SlimVirgin/mattress. Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Sarah (SV), I think that draft does a good job of expanding information about the performance art while tightening the rest and keeping most of the relevant information. I think maybe the fact that the accused has not been charged with any crime, maybe should be added to the lead. Also, maybe add the manner in which Sulkowicz alleges the university mishandled her complaint (regarding alleged "ignorant" questions) only because this has been stressed so much in the media it seems wp:due and also this would provide readers with some rationale why Sulkowicz thinks they mishandled her complaint, beyond simply disagreeing with the verdict. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
If we describe the ways in which she said they mishandled it, we'll have to include the accused's response to that, and the response of the person who accompanied him. Sarah (SV) (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
There are two subjects and three titles. One subject is the work of art and the other subject is the alleged rape. The three titles are Emma Sulkowicz, Alleged rape of Emma Sulkowicz, and Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight). How many articles should there be? If one—what title? If two—what titles? Bus stop (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Bus stop, there is only enough material for one article. There's not enough biographical material for a BLP, and the art is what made made this issue so notable. Hillary Clinton wouldn't have commented otherwise; ditto with students and newspapers outside the US. Therefore it seems to me that the article should focus on the impact of the work, and should be called Mattress Performance: Carry That Weight or Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) (whichever is accurate). The sources mostly use the former. Sulkowicz used the latter in her rules of engagement, so I don't know why the sources have changed it, unless she has changed it too. Sarah (SV) (talk) 04:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Sarah (SV). We should title the article to reflect the content. I agree that there should only be one article. Most of the article is going to address those factors indicative of guilt or innocence of rape. We are only undecided as to what depth of detail we should provide in this article about what subsequently transpired relative to an alleged rape incident of August 2012. A lot of detail has been generated by many parties concerning what various entities said and did. There are responses to responses to responses by the many entities weighing in with information on that which transpired in the months subsequent to the sexual event about which there is much controversy. This is in relation to the guilt or innocence of the man accused of the rape. The artwork does not generate nearly this much attention. We would have to contrive to reduce the amount of material relating to the rape in order to support a title consistent with the title of the artwork. This is not an article relating firstly to a work of art. Rather it is an article much more preoccupied by those entities weighing in with information pertinent to an improper sexual encounter. Bus stop (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Bus stop, I disagree that this is not firstly about Mattress Performance because the only reason these allegations are receiving media attn at all is due to the performance art. These allegations are years old and only received any media attn after Sulkowicz began Mattress Performance: Carry That Weight, which so many in the media took notice of. Of course, the performance art piece only exists as a response to alleged sexual assaults, so it does seem impossible to remove the significance of the allegations from the significance of Mattress Performance, but the reason the media is reporting on this is she began carrying that mattress around with her as her visual arts thesis. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@BoboMeowCat: I've continued adding detail to the draft allegations section. See User:SlimVirgin/mattress#Background. I think this explains more than the current version, though it makes it top-heavy mattress-wise. I'm also trying to obtain a free photograph of Sulkowicz carrying the mattress. Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, both drafts seem to include a lot of what is in current article, but I do honestly think it's probably best to just merge entire sections of text intact and not reworded where ever possible, due to this article being so contentious. Obviously, that won't work for the lead, and the expanding of the art sections makes sense with title change, but for sections where we can leave it intact I think we should probably do so and then attempt other changes via BRD.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
@BoboMeowCat: I've added the new lead, new artist's section (almost the same as before), and expanded the mattress section. I've held off changing the allegations section because of your post, but I think we ought to swap them. The current version is inaccurate in places, the chronology isn't quite right, and at times it doesn't use the most appropriate sources. Sarah (SV) (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
@BoboMeowCat: Repeating the last ping as it had a typo, and apparently they don't work when corrected. Sarah (SV) (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Sarah (SV), I have no general objections to minor or even bold edits to the allegations section (or any section). My concern was just basically not doing a bunch of edits in one step during the merge, in case people took issue, given how contentious this article has been. I see no major issues with what you wrote in your draft. If you make such changes, I might tweak it later, but unfortunately, I don't have a lot of editing time right now to help with the editing tweaks to go with the new title. I like the expanded info on the performance piece aspects.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
@BoboMeowCat: Okay, thanks, I'll add it and it can be edited from there. It would be awkward trying to work from the current version. Sarah (SV) (talk) 02:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Why not let the artist speak for herself? I would consider including this entire quote, found in the Washington Post: "In interviews, Sulkowicz has presented the project primarily as performance art: “Art pieces can include whatever the artist desires, and in this performance art piece it utilizes elements of protest, because I think that it is relevant to my life right now,” she told the Columbia Daily Spectator. “To me, it’s an endurance performance art piece.” Bus stop (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
That same source also contains this paragraph: “What’s happening here is unique,” says Nato Thompson, chief curator at New York-based public arts organization Creative Time and frequent writer on the topic of political art. “I can’t think of another instance where a work of art has triggered a movement in this way.” It seems like maybe this should be worked into the article too. It is spoken by someone said to be a curator, and it makes a bold and concrete assertion: “I can’t think of another instance where a work of art has triggered a movement in this way.” Bus stop (talk) 01:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
@Bus stop: The second was a good quote; thanks for finding it. I added it here. We already say it's endurance performance art (a direct quote from Sulkowicz), and we already have a long quote from her in that section, so I wouldn't be keen to add another. Sarah (SV) (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Sarah (SV). Yes, we "already say it's endurance performance art" but what source presently in your version supports that it is endurance art? Bus stop (talk) 02:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Sulkowicz is the source for that. New York Magazine and Elle magazine have also referred to it that way, probably guided by her. It's not a contentious point. Sarah (SV) (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Sarah (SV). I don't know how you can say "It's not a contentious point." It is original research. No source is provided for the assertion that Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) is an example of Endurance art. Furthermore "Endurance art" is hardly a recognized art form. It is virtually a made-up term. Fanciful uses of word combinations don't necessarily constitute art forms. Also, I have nominated Endurance art for deletion. Bus stop (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

"The accused"

I think since his name is out there in the Daily Beast, it's probably okay to refer to him with his name, no?--The lorax (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I would think that since he (and his parents) are giving public interviews, it would be all right. Kelly hi! 19:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done--A21sauce (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted this per BLP. I would appreciate it if the discussion could wait until tomorrow, because I would like to take part in it but don't have time today. This needs some careful thought before we do it, because names on WP become more widespread. Sarah (SV) (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I had to revert that a second time, but perhaps because A21sauce didn't realize it had been removed. Some sections of BLP to consider: WP:BLPCRIME, last sentence of WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, and WP:BLPNAME.
He has given, I believe, two interviews, but we should bear in mind that he did this because others posted his name online without his consent, so his stepping forward was not entirely voluntary. I think we should be guided by our own policies and not solely by the fact that he has given these interviews. Sarah (SV) (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I vote against publishing his name at this time. He has not been found guilty of anything. I believe he only started giving interviews after The Columbia Spectator published his name making it publicly available and linked to the high profile project by Sulkowicz. If he goes beyond giving interviews designed to clear his name and starts becoming some sort of "falsely accused advocate" or tries to file a lawsuit against her or something, then publishing his name on Wikipedia would seem more reasonable. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Giving his name and his family/beliefs humanizes him as opposed to simply "the accused" - probably the reason he came forward in the first place. Can you give a policy-based reason to exclude his name given his attempts to exonerate himself? Kelly hi! 23:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I vote for: New York Times December of last year, The Washington Times, do you want the whole list? The point is that it didn't get handled properly and can't because it's under campus jurisdiction.--A21sauce (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
We're not a professional news organization with lawyers checking how stories are written. We know that in future people will add poorly edited material to this article, and perhaps even libel (deliberately or inadvertently). So for reasons of fairness and ethics, and to stop the article from turning into a BLP nightmare, it makes sense to omit the name and limit the damage, especially as adding it gives us no further information. Sarah (SV) (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not seeing your policy reason for excluding. I'm going with WP:RS. Kelly hi! 00:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Kelly, when editors make objections on BLP grounds, the usual practice is not to revert until a clear consensus has emerged, which in this case might take several days or longer. Sarah (SV) (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
That comes off as procedural stonewalling. He's made his name public, in this context. The article is not asserting he's done anything. You reference to BLPCRIME but that is constructed to counsel caution in inferring criminal culpability in a bio without proper sourcing. This article's claim to WP:N does exactly that. It's why it exists. NPF is designed to encourage editors to focus narrowly on the notable aspects of otherwise non-public figures. Check. ON BLPNAME, instead of dwelling on the last sentence, I'd encourage you focus on the entire first paragraph, esp When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed... it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. He's a real life person and his real life relationship with his accuser provides enormous context. There's no actual objection to policy to be found here. There's no objection to the veracity of the claim that he has been accused by her of committing rape. The only contention is whether or not he did. With his voluntary and public campaign to challenge the later there is no reason not to include his name. He's central to the notability underwriting the entire article. GraniteSand (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

NY Daily News 9 news AustraliaWashington Post. It's public information. NE Ent 02:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC) 

Since BLP concerns have been raised,  I brought the issue to BLP noticeboard for additional input. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
At this point I think the name should be included. Of late he's made it clear who he is, and though I understand the desire to protect the innocent (IRL I've been on the receiving end of a false accusation, although such things are to be expected in my line of work; even though the matter at hand wasn't criminal by any stretch, I sure as hell wouldn't have wanted my name out there knowing I was completely innocent) he's now voluntarily released his name and detailed account of things. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 08:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I think per BLPCRIME and BLP1E the name shouldn't be republished here in order to err on the side of caution. However I don't think it's clear cut. I do think that if the name is included the section complaints by other students should probably be attributed line by line to the source it came from. SPACKlick (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

For future reference Beeblebrox closed the BLPN discussion today as no consensus to add the name. Sarah (SV) (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Sulkowicz messages

The article currently refers to "apparently friendly Facebook messages Sulkowicz sent". Some of the messages were a lot more than friendly. In particular, on her birthday, October 3rd, [redacted] sent her a birthday greeting. She replied, “I love you Paul. Where are you?!?!?!?!” (quoted in the article from The Daily Beast). This is directly relevant and should surely be quoted in Wikipedia, which currently borders on misleading. EllieTea (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

She provided further context in this Jezebel article from last week.

I believe that it is worth considering quoting from the messages, and noting that Sulkowicz has provided some context for them, which still does not definitively prove either story. I think the most striking thing in the daily beast article is that Emma Sulkowicz claims that the Office of Gender Based Misconduct asked her if she talked it out or tried talking it out. Columbia’s Title IX coordinator, Melissa Rooker, did not comment directly on Sulkowicz’s case but pointed The Daily Beast to the school’s Gender-Based Misconduct Policy for Students, which states that the office never recommends informal resolution for sexual-assault complaints. This discrepancy is worth noting.

69.207.204.42 (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, if Columbia, like any other institution that doesn't act like a scare-dy cat in situations that it is not used to or wants to go away, doesn't act like a scare-dy cat. It's got the feds breathing down its neck on these issues so unlikely. Again, you might want to question why you rely so heavily on one article whose writer Sulkowicz has already described as blackmailing her into a response by using [redacted]'s confessional against her.--A21sauce (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
You know what, from now on, I really refuse to answer queries from anonymous IPs cuz clearly 1) these writers have nothing at stake and 2) they don't bother to read all of the references because 1) probably. --A21sauce (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Some of the Facebook messages should clearly be quoted. Those messages are factual evidence. The quote "I love you Paul" is explicitly cited by secondary sources. Further context—as well as support for the point made by 69.207.204.42—is now given by Young's "The Mattress Story Under More Fire".
EllieTea (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

EllieTea, I'm going to remove this from the article because it's an example of cherry-picking. To understand the messages, they have to be read in context (in the Daily Beast and in the Jezebel articles). Highlighting one or two risks giving a misleading impression. Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
The quote is by far the most-cited part of the Facebook messages, in online discussions. Ergo, your claim about "cherry-picking" is false. Do you have any other justification?
If you believe that there is some important missing context, then give that context, rather than removing the most-cited part of the messages.
Additionally, I followed proper procedure: I first raised the issue on the Talk page, and waited to see if someone had a valid objection. No one did.
EllieTea (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
If some sources are highlighting only that one quote, they are cherry-picking too. Sulkowicz says they always said "I love you" to each other (meant as affection and friendship), and that she had a particular reason for continuing to do that. All the messages have to be read together, which is why the Daily Beast and Jezebel published them together. Sarah (SV) (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
The quote is being widely cited, including in The Daily Beast article and the follow-up article by the same author; so it should be mentioned in the Wikipedia article. Where does Sulkowicz say “they always said "I love you" to each other (meant as affection and friendship)”? If Sulkowicz did say that, then that is some important missing context.
EllieTea (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Certain quotes are being highlighted by journalists. Wikipedia has neutral point of view and the BLP policy, so we don't do that. To reproduce any of the messages we would have to reproduce all of them. Read in conjunction they paint a very different picture from the single quotes, and it's a picture that sheds no light on what happened because it can be interpreted in different ways. Sarah (SV) (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Your argument is wrong. But before I explain further, I again ask you to substantiate your claim: “Sulkowicz says they always said "I love you" to each other (meant as affection and friendship)”. Does your claim have any basis at all?
EllieTea (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
It's in the Zeilinger article. [5] Sarah (SV) (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

What about her Facebook message that said, "fuck me in the but" [sic], shouldn't that be included? It was central to her rape accusation. Link

Carry That Weight

Rules of engagement, Watson Hall
Sulkowicz with mattress on campus
October 2014

@StAnselm: I can understand you not liking the external image in the infobox, but I can't see the harm in the lower section. Is it not better than nothing until we find free images (assuming we can)? Sarah (SV) (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Now, I thought we normally avoided external links directly to images (because of copyright concerns), but I' still trying to find a relevant guideline or policy about this. StAnselm (talk) 04:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
@StAnselm: It's only a copyright violation if we link to a site that's violating someone's copyright. Linking to a site that owns or has paid for an image is fine. Sarah (SV) (talk) 05:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. Wikipedia:External links says "if you cannot include the material in the Wikipedia article because it is copyrighted, then you may link to the copyright owner's page." I guess I always thought that meant the page containing the image (e.g. an article) rather than the image itself. (Otherwise there is no information about the photographer, the copyright, etc.) In any case, it would go in the external links section, not in infoboxes. StAnselm (talk) 05:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Anselm, I can understand why you might dislike a link in the infobox, but I can't see any reason to dislike it elsewhere, so I would like (at least) to restore the one in the art section. Do you object to that? Sarah (SV) (talk) 05:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
As there has been no reply, I'm going to restore the box, because it seems better than nothing until (I hope) we find some free images. Sarah (SV) (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, OK. I thought someone else might have weighed in with an opinion. StAnselm (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

BLP violation in related article

User:BoboMeowCat is attempting to insert insults sourced to a blog, in clear violation of WP:BLP, as the second line of Cathy Young. I would appreciate if other users took a look. 24.224.148.216 (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

24.224.148.216, bringing this here seems a bit strange and might not comply with wp:canvass. Please discuss issue on the article page talk:Cathy Young. However, since you consider Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) a "related article", it might be interesting to note that Jezebel is currently used to reference this article, and so seems similarly appropriate in Cathy Young article. Adding info that might be deemed "negative" is not a BLP violation if it is reliably sourced and attributed. Please see [[6]] --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 February 2015

New section entitled "Continued media attention" at end to subsume "Presence at State of the Union" (which by the way, as a new sub-sub-head should be "Presence at State of the Union, 2015")

Something like "In early 2015, the Daily Beast published an article attempting to discredit Sulkowicz's allegations and Jezebel responded with an article that counterattacked."[1] This would touch upon some of the discussions brought in above.

2. I also think Columbia's response to the rape crisis, which encompasses Sulkowicz's but also includes other complaints, should be more clear in this article, as there is no article yet titled Rape crisis on US college campuses. A good source of this is the letter the President Bollinger wrote to the New Republic on this school's response to Rape crisis on US college campuses.--A21sauce (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Students and Violence: The Wrong Requirement?". Inside Higher Ed. Feb 11, 2015.

A21sauce (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus to make this change at the moment, and protected edit requests should only be made after there is a consensus. Please leave a day or two for discussion and then open the request back up if a consensus develops. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Because you allowed less than four hours. Leave it be and see how people respond. It's also uncontroversial (See bolded word in the description in the box). thanks--A21sauce (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. The full protection on the redirect Emma Sulkowicz was lifted at 21:53, 12 February 2015. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Performance art/Endurance art

"Endurance art" is not a very recognized term. "Performance art" is a perfectly recognized term. Robert Atkins' book, "ArtSpeak: A Guide to Contemporary Ideas, Movements, and Buzzwords, 1945 to the Present" does not have an entry for the term "Endurance art". Ditto for Amy Dempsey's book, "Art in the Modern Era: A Guide to Styles, Schools, & Movements". I don't think "endurance" is mentioned at all in either of these books. It is not so much the expenditure of "endurance" that defines an artwork. Emma Sulkowicz does not carry a 51 pound anvil; she carries a 50 pound mattress. Our article Endurance art is problematic. Bus stop (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Bus stop, please gain consensus before changing this again. The edits are going against the sources and make the writing odd. It's clear that you have personal views about the existence (or otherwise) of endurance art, but they can't be imposed on the article. Sulkowicz regards it as an example of "endurance performance art," following discussions to that effect with one of her teachers, Jon Kessler. Sarah (SV) (talk) 01:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Split article

I think it would be a good idea to divide this material into two articles: one on the artwork, called Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight), and the other on the rape, called Alleged rape of Emma Sulkowicz. Hat-notes at the top of each article could link to the other. Bus stop (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

There was a recent RM discussion that decided against the title you suggest. The consensus was to have one article under the current title. Sarah (SV) (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
My suggestion here is for two articles. The emphasis in previous RM discussions was which title to choose for a single article. The two topics are disconnected. These two topics by-and-large require unrelated considerations. On the one hand we are scrutinizing factors that relate to guilt, innocence, evolving responses of a woman to a man and vice-versa, and to systems in place relating to such problems when they arise. On the other hand we are evaluating contemporary art forms and this performance piece in particular. We are inevitably gawking at a circus-like spectacle involving political giants and high profile art commentators. This one article is presently juxtaposing potential gritty reality with the headiness of possibly imagined art content. The article is completely bifurcated at this point. There is virtually no spillover from the top half of the article to the bottom half. Bus stop (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Bus stop, you made that point on the RfC and did not have consensus for it. Another editor wanted the article split into Mattress Performance & Emma Sulkawicz, and there was no consensus for that split either. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Is there any reason for keeping these articles together? Do you feel that anything is gained by discussing an artwork and a rape under the same title? Please tell me what the benefit is to keeping these two topics on the same page. Bus stop (talk) 05:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
The artwork is about the allegation of rape? Govindaharihari (talk) 07:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Is one discussed in terms of the other? If not, then what is the purpose of hosting these two topics under the same heading? Obviously there was contention in an RfC over which title to choose. This is because neither title covers both topics. The present situation is unfortunate. The accuser is praised for bringing to wider attention the problem of campus rape. But did a campus rape transpire in this instance? That is in question. All considerations of the merits of an art piece taint all discussion of the validity of charges of rape against the person that we are referring to as "the accused". The issue of rape on college campus is a very real, valid, and important issue. And the artwork helped to call attention to it. But we do not know if "the accused" actually raped anyone. The artwork is praised unanimously by all who weigh in on it. There are no commentators saying for instance that the artwork is poor quality art or not art at all. The unanimous praise of the artwork has collateral damage in the form of prejudicing the reader against "the accused". This is an editorial problem that can be alleviated by splitting the article between the work of art and the alleged rape. Doing so would help us to achieve WP:NPOV concerning a crucial question relating to a living person. Therefore, by my reasoning, there should be a counterbalancing reason for keeping the two topics under the same title. What is that reason? What benefit is gained by keeping the artwork and the alleged rape under the same title? Bus stop (talk) 11:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
There was a contention but your position wasn't supported. The media has consistently covered the topic of the mattress performance and the alleged sexual assault together not separately. I do not think this topic deserves two articles, and the move consensus was against two articles. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
There is gushing praise for an artwork that is unrelated to the guilt or innocence of the accused. This is unavoidable on a college campus but it is avoidable on Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Bus stop, this article is not based on college campus conversations, but on reliable sources. I get that it irks you that art critics gushed and praised an art project that could possibly be based on a false accusation, but they did. The guilt or innocence of the accused is not for WP to decide. At this point, it looks like guilt or innocence will remain undetermined. It appears there is neither enough evidence to charge the accused with rape nor enough evidence to charge the accuser with making a false police report. Also, the current version does include criticism from Families Advocating for Campus Equality, which is a stub I created to expand on content mentioned in this article. It's been tagged as needing more sources. If you are interested in the topic of falsely accused, which seems to be your gripe here, perhaps improve that article, because honestly your editing here and on endurance art is bordering on disruptive. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
BoboMeowCat, the accused no doubt has some praiseworthy accomplishments in his life. But only the accuser's accomplishment is being highlighted because her senior thesis consists of publicizing a rape that she contends was perpetrated by the individual that we refer to as "the accused". In our "Reception" section of our article we have for instance the gushing praise of Roberta Smith describing this performance piece as "strict and lean, yet inclusive and open ended, symbolically laden yet drastically physical". This is praise. And it is heaped on Sulkowicz by many others as well. Such praise has the tendency of reflecting well on the creator of that performance piece, does it not? This is an unfair situation. The difference between the Columbia University campus and Wikipedia is that "the accused" cannot distance himself from her. As she explains, she will carry the mattress around the campus until the accused leaves the university. But we do not have to recreate that unfair relationship between artwork and accused rapist on Wikipedia. We can editorially sever the work of art from the alleged rape. In so doing we enhance our attainment of neutrality vis-a-vis the alleged rape. He was exonerated by the system that the educational institution has in place. And she declined to pursue the matter through the New York City police. Yet in two venues he, the accused, is doggedly pursued for the crime of rape. No doubt her performance piece has made inroads into his peace of mind as he pursues an education at Columbia University. We are a second venue. We are jamming him ("the accused") into proximity with her lauded performance piece. That unfortunate juxtaposition can be alleviated. At present we have two articles in one. By separating them into two freestanding articles we allow the reader to examine the details applicable to each on a separate page with easy linkage to the other. The present one-page article is unfair to the accused. We know little about him relative to what we know about the accuser. In our article we read praise for both artist and artwork by the likes of artist Marina Abramović and Hillary Clinton. "Artnet" gushes that this performance piece is "almost certainly ... one of the most important artworks of the year". What can be said that is favorable about the accused? We don't know anything about him. Unlike on a college campus, we have a way of remedying this. Wikipedia does not need to juxtapose the praise for the artwork with accusations of rape concerning "the accused". Separating subject matter into two separate but linked articles serves the interest of attaining a neutral point of view because in so doing we remove the distraction of unrelated praise. Bus stop (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
The praiseworthy accomplishments of the accused are not in the article because he currently does not meet general notability guidelines, and whatever praiseworthy qualities he may have are not covered in reliable sources. The notable thing about this guy is that four different classmates have accused him of sexual assault, and one is famous for carrying around a mattress to protest the alleged assault. Like it or not, Sulkowicz is much more notable than he is. Perhaps he will go on to make himself the face of the "wrongly accused", or do some notable advocacy work related to this, or sue her or something like that which would make him notable in his own right. But at this point all we really have is him saying he's innocent and this is bullying (which is included in the article). --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

BoboMeowCat, what benefit derives from keeping this article together? The benefits that derive from separating this into two articles is an enhanced fulfillment of our aims embodied in WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. There is no benefit to combining two articles into one, as is the case now. If you feel there is a benefit to doing so, I am asking you to articulate that benefit. There is a downside to combining these two subjects in one article. WP:NPOV does not always exist as an absolute. Sometimes WP:NPOV exists on a sliding scale, so-to-speak. We can strive for more neutrality or we can be satisfied with less neutrality. This article is not totally improper, but it is flawed. WP:NPOV is an important policy. There are pros and cons to various article arrangements on Wikipedia. I am asking you to supply the supportive argument for keeping this article intact, because I don't know of any such supportive argument. Our article titles are supposed to indicate the subject of the article. Inexplicably the inquiry into an alleged rape incident is being written about under an article title which is the name of a performance art entity. The alleged perpetrator of that rape is a living person. He is being given short shrift in this article because it explores to an equal extent a work of art. We do not have a policy on WP:Living Works of Art. But we do have a policy on WP:Biographies of Living People, which is construed to include even non-biographies. Wherever living people are written about on Wikipedia we are expected to employ special sensitivity. The Columbia University campus is not Wikipedia. These are two different settings. The performance piece has impacted the accused male student on the campus of Columbia University in part because of the proximity of the performance piece to the accused male student. But there is no necessity for this on Wikipedia. The alleged rape can be written about in a separate article from the performance piece. By separating them into two articles we can have appropriate titles for each. WP:NPOV and WP:BLP are more properly addressed in the arrangement in which we have separate articles. These are benefits of splitting this article into two articles. What we should be discussing are the pros and cons of each arrangement. A consequence of the arrangement in which the article has been split is that two different titles are employed. I am asking you, what benefit results from keeping this article intact in the form that we see it in now? At present it is a divided article. The top half is about an alleged sexual assault. The bottom half is about a work of art. Two resulting articles can of course cross-reference one another and fill in any information from the other article to help the reader understand the article that they are presently reading. But this can be done judiciously, so as not to prejudice the reader against the accused, as is the case now on the Columbia University campus. The accused has reported that he has lost friends and/or been shunned by people as a consequence of the performance piece. These two topics can and should be discussed in separate articles. Negatively influencing the reader can be minimized by dividing this article in two. Emphasis would obviously be placed on the topic indicated by the title of any two resulting articles. These are benefits of dividing this article. What benefits are a consequence of keeping the article together? I don't know of any such benefits. Bus stop (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The benefits of not splitting this in two seems to be adhering to GNG. Neither topic seems notable enough on it's own. Mattress Performance and the alleged assaults are consistently reported together. Additionally "alleged rape of Emma Sulkowciz" wouldn't even be an accurate title. For accuracy, it would need to be something like "alleged sexual assault of Emma Sulkowicz and 3 others" which seems like a pretty bad title. Notably, this whole discussion seems to be ignoring that there was already community consensus regarding one article with the present title. It seems like you are beating a dead horse. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
BoboMeowCat—the article title Alleged rape of Emma Sulkowicz is acceptable even if not perfect. Other titles can be considered. We need not replicate the problem taking place on Columbia's campus. Columbia has a responsibility to protect all its students. It is unacceptable that one student's senior thesis is to cut short another student's education. "She’s the Columbia University senior who has committed herself to toting around a mattress until the school expels the fellow student she says raped her, or he leaves on his own." Columbia University should have stopped this immediately. Sulkowicz should have been told right away that her proposed senior thesis was unacceptable on the campus of Columbia University. That particular work of art is irreconcilable with Columbia's goals of providing an education for all its students. We are doing something that in some ways is parallel. We are discussing "the accused" and the alleged rape in the same Wikipedia article in which we are effusively lauding the artwork of the accuser. Sulkowicz is not a known artist aside from the one performance piece that is the title of this article. There is no other work of art reliably sourced to Sulkowicz. This one work of art is being effusively praised in this article. It is one of the "best art shows of 2014". It is "almost certainly ... one of the most important artworks of the year". Our article is unrestrained in its praise of this performance piece. It is abundantly clear to me that "the accused", whose name is widely known outside of Wikipedia, is being portrayed in a bad light in our article. The artwork of course has absolutely no bearing on the guilt or innocence of the young man. He is not more likely to be guilty because art critics proclaim this performance piece to be the best artwork of the year. It is also abundantly clear to me that these art critics are not confining their opinions to the merits of the work of art. They are weighing in with an opinion on the guilt or innocence of "the accused". We are complicit, to a slight degree, in implying that "the accused" is guilty because we are discussing this work of art, and this alleged rape, in the same article. Separate the topics into two articles and you alleviate to some degree this particular problem. We are not supposed to be expressing opinions above and beyond that supported by sources. And yet we are subtly conveying a presupposition of guilt. The performance artwork and the sexual incident are inextricably linked and the artwork is being unreservedly praised. Bus stop (talk) 03:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
This is an old, unresolved issue. There are clear problems with using fluffy art criticism in an effort to lend weight to unsubstantiated criminal accusations. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Consensus needed

SlimVirgin has stated that these edits require consensus. Anyone care to discuss? I do not believe these edits are in violation of BLP and are adequately sourced. To an extent they overlap with existing text which support them. Quis separabit? 06:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The New York Post is not an ideal source for living persons; there's no reason to single out that one journalist with a quote and two paras; it highlights one message, which violates UNDUE and BLP; the writing isn't ideal (avers?); and the second para isn't about this case or this section. Also, you should have gained consensus before changing the date formats, and you've now added access dates to some refs for no reason, and commas after some dates, but not others. Sarah (SV) (talk) 06:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about the date formats. @The Blade of the Northern Lights raised the issue above of format and no one indicated any problems with mm/dd/yyyy format. I thought as it is an exclusively United States-centered article with no references to any other country that it would be OK. Again, apologies. Quis separabit? 06:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
However, I am curious as to why the NYP is "not an ideal source for living persons". The NYP clearly tilts US Republican Party/Conservative but the New York Times equally clearly tilts US Democratic Party/Left. Yours, Quis separabit? 06:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the apology re: dates, Rms125a@hotmail.com. I've reverted rather than trying to make things consistent, but if there's consensus to change them to month/day/year I don't mind. Regarding the NY Post, we have to be cautious in how we write and source this. I think the current Background section is balanced. Sarah (SV) (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Rms125a@hotmail.com, where she bought the mattress is relevant (she had difficulty finding it, it had to be similar to the dorm ones, etc). Several sources and interviews mention it. No reason to keep removing it. Sarah (SV) (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sarah: OK. I had removed it previously as it sounded like a bit of promo text and you didn't mention it as an issue so I assumed you had only restored it automatically in the re-editing process. Yours, Quis separabit? 01:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, no worries. Sarah (SV) (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Rms125a@hotmail.com, SlimVirgin, wouldn't this source support the inclusion in our article of further instances of positive interactions between the accused and the accuser? Bus stop (talk) 12:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The article in question by Cathy Young (whose history of reporting on the topic of campus rape is controversial) is already used in current version of article. Rather heavily. Perhaps already undue weight. It's cited 12 times.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, her communications with the accused tend to be exculpatory of the accused. Shouldn't a sampling of those communications by electronic media find their way into our article? After the alleged rape, the alleged victim says on Facebook "we need to have some real time where we can talk about life and thingz"[7]. This seems (to me) to be incongruous with the charge she makes of rape. In another electronic communication she says "I want to see yoyououoyou"[8]. Shouldn't our article include such material? Wouldn't available sourcing be adequate to support inclusion of such quotes? Bus stop (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Didn't she explain those messages in this Jezebel article? It would seem to be POV to say her subsequent messages exculpates the alleged rapist. Sexual assault survivors react differently, and she explains that she didn't want to alarm him before confronting him.--The lorax (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it might be reasonable under wp:due to include a sample of the messages, but not all of them. I'd vote for "we need to have some real time where we can talk about life and thingz" because it is more coherent than "yoyououoyou" and it also fits in with current text regarding Sulkowicz saying the university asked if she had talked to him about the alleged incident.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I boldly added it because it seems to provide a balance between various talk page concerns (and I don't think it presents one POV over another) and it seems to make existing text clearer. [9]
I wasn't clear. I don't mean to suggest that we offer our own opinion on any exculpatory capacity of any recorded communication between the two parties. I was suggesting that the reader be apprised of the existence of communication between the two parties subsequent to the alleged rape. Our article already does this to a limited extent. I think that more is needed. I think these are important communications between the parties and consequently they belong in the article. The reader should be allowed the opportunity in our article to weigh such verbal expressions. I've added a second quote here. Bus stop (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Bobo, I'm not keen on the recent changes. The writing seems less clear, the chronology of events is off, and adding one message means that others will add more (which has already begun). Sarah (SV) (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I have added a second quote. I think the writing is entirely clear. It reads: "For several weeks after Sulkowicz's alleged sexual assualt, until October 2012, Sulkowicz and the accused exchanged occasional, apparently friendly, Facebook messages, including Sulkowicz writing, "I feel like we need to have some real time where we can talk about life and thingz". They saw each other on social occasions, but not alone." This informs the reader of an interim stage in their relationship before charges of rape were initiated. Bus stop (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's reasonable under due weight to say we cannot include any examples of the messages published, considering they got significant press, although I don't think we should add lots of messages and I think it's awkward and unencyclopedic to add the "yoyououoyou" message. Considering the ongoing debate about this, I probably shouldn't have boldly added until more people chimed in. Removing message I added and also the "yoyououoyou" message to get better feel on consensus of which (if any) messages to add. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
"awkward and unencyclopedic"? It is a quote. You put [sic] after it. Bus stop (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
It's an oddly spelled text message quote that will be unreadable to vision impaired and dyslexic readers using screen reader technology. At least the other message was mostly written in standard english except for the "thingz" but at least that close to the real word.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I find that a minor quibble when weighed against its expository value. Bus stop (talk) 02:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
What do you think "whatever I want to see yoyououoyou" adds on top of "we need to have some real time where we can talk about life and thingz". The "whatever..." quote seems out of context. It also seems cherry-picked to make Sulkowicz seem illiterate and flaky. I think when we add information it should be carefully balanced for NPOV. The quote I added was balanced by existing article text so seemed a natural choice to provide due weight to examples of text/facebook messages. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

My argument against including the messages is that they are meaningless. When I read them in their entirety, I see a young woman being bubbly. Women are bubbly when they're bubbly and when they're nervous, so the messages tell us nothing about Sulkowicz'a emotional state when she wrote them. She said she wrote them because she wanted a one-on-one meeting to discuss what had happened, and that she wrote in that tone so that the accused would not suspect why she wanted it.

We have no way of judging any of it, and pulling one message out means we have to explain why we chose that one. Other editors will choose another one, and on it will go. I think doing this (choosing one or two to highlight) would be OR and, depending on which message is picked, a BLP violation. We link to articles that contain all the messages; people can go there if they want to read them. Sarah (SV) (talk) 02:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

We should be passing along to the reader examples of these affectionate quotes precisely because they don't make sense in the context of the period of time of the immediate weeks and months after an alleged rape. Bus stop (talk) 03:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
But stop, I tend to agree that the messages are relevant. After Cathy Young published them they have been reported on by others and discussed, including in the context of Sulkowicz not being believed or not being a "perfect victim", but the "yoyououoyou" quote seems cherry-picked and out of context. The reader doesn't know what the "whatever" part is referring to. We have no idea of the inside context of that weird spelling of "you". Just seems like a glaring example of something put in there to make Sulkowicz look like an illiterate flake, and the additional factual information that quote adds on top of the other message regarding her request to see him to talk about "life and thingz" seems minimal, beyond just making Sulkowicz seem ditzy and strange. Sarah, I'm not sure I agree that it's OR to include one but not multiple examples or all examples of the text messages published. It seems wiki-editors chose which content to report in articles routinely. Content should be in context and not cherry picked to support the editors point of view. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
This is an article about more than one living person. The communications that have been captured by electronic media are very important. I am trying to be honest while at the same time being mindful of our standards concerning WP:NPOV. Yes, I find these communications to be possibly exculpatory of the accused. But I do not think there is any violation of policy in simply including for the reader such snippets of expression. I find affection for another person inconsistent with accusations of rape. The weird spellings are characteristic of "texting" and the shorthand it promotes for many. This is simply normal in this context. It would be weird if all such spellings were correct. There is no expectation of grammatical correctness. Creative spelling and carelessly strewn words are almost the norm in certain settings. The inconsistency of these sentiments resides not in their misspellings but in their relation to the context of an alleged rape. Bus stop (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
If we had the full context of the six pages of Facebook chats, then sure, that weird and rather incoherent snippet might seem normal because you'd have the context of that setting. However, cherry-picking the oddest and flakiest seeming out of context snippet to include is this wikipedia article is not NPOV. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Chronology

Bobo, I've restored the chronology, so that we deal with the incident with Sulkowicz, including the messages, and then the other complaints. All the messages bar one (according to Sulkowicz) preceded the discussion with Natalie. We don't know when the discussion with Natalie took place, but it seems to have been in or around March 2013. According to Sulkowicz, that discussion prompted Sulkowicz to speak to the university about making a complaint. She said she texted the accused once more, in March, to arrange a meeting, then decided against it. She filed her complaint in April. I think it's important to retain that chronology. Sarah (SV) (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing for "Adam's" allegations

I think it's important to have all criminal accusations be sourced to a reliable source. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
"Adam's" allegation (recently removed) was sourced to Jezebel [10]. The Jezebel story was re-reported by multiple other news outlets including New York Magazine [11], Huffington Post [12]. Does this seem like appropriate sourcing to include the allegation in this article? Thoughts?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Ridiculous, no. Not even room for discussion. A lefty blog for radical feminists, which in the first place has zero reputation for accuracy in fact reporting, publishes an anonymous rape accusation. This gets repeated online in the blog of a lefty political magazine, and on the quintessential lefty political blog. It's clear that a lot of people want the male student in this case to be guilty of rape, or to be thought of as guilty, but that isn't really relevant to a BLP about him, which isn't supposed to be built of unverifiable claims and innuendo. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

This article has once again become a hit piece

When I first edited this article it was a shameful, biased hit piece. The article in its old form even included such encyclopedic gems as "Her rapist is still a student at Columbia." After a few rounds of editing by me, the article was in a much better state, though admittedly not without lingering issues.

I can see that it's since drifted back in the direction of "shameful, biased hit piece". The article in its current form reeks of an attempt to make the male student sound guilty of charges which have been rejected by every entity that had the duty and authority to investigate them.

If it weren't bad enough that we're referring to the student as "the accused", as if he were a criminal suspect — which he is not — we've now got WP prose talking about additional, homosexual rape allegations by an anonymous accuser, sourced to an "exclusive interview" with a clearly unreliable source which itself has the very hit-piecey title, "How to Make an Accused Rapist Look Good".

I note that that particular prose was added by an administrator who saw no trouble with sourcing rape anonymous accusations to an unreliable source but then turns around and actually challenges the use of the New York Post and cites BLP to exclude fact reporting and commentary tending to cast doubt on the accusations. You make edits like this and you're an administrator? Really?

And these are just two glaring problems that jumped out after 15 seconds of reading.

Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

"The accused" is not the terminology we should be using. We should just use his real name. When discussions were held about this, I expressed the opinion that his name should be withheld, but I would like to reverse myself on that. Bus stop (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Even if this article were not currently in this shameful state it wouldn't be appropriate to use the student's real name. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I've argued before that we should only briefly summarize the allegations, and should otherwise focus on the art. The accused student was found not responsible by the university, and the district attorney's office has said there isn't going to be a criminal inquiry. That ends his involvement as far as Wikipedia is concerned. This isn't a Bill Cosby situation, where multiple, named women are accusing a high-profile figure. I agree with Centrify that the "Adam" sourcing is weak, but I think the rest of the allegations section is problematic too, per BLP. I'm going to make an edit shortly to reduce the section about Sulkowicz and omit the Natalie, Josie, Adam allegations. Sarah (SV) (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Sarah (SV), I've already omitted the Adam text(see above section Sourcing for "Adam's" allegations under Chronology). I do not agree with omitting Natalie and Josie. What is your rationale for this?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Bobo, I think the allegations section needs to be radically reduced, per BLP. The other two women, and Adam, aren't named. The Natalie allegation is very unclear, and the Josie incident is a minor one compared to the Sulkowicz complaint, not something that Josie would have complained about had it not been for the other complaints. I can't think of another article where we have published serious allegations against a non-notable named person (not named by us, but the name is known), with no police or court involvement, based to some extent on accusations from unnamed people. The point that others have made – that the section about the performance art is very positive (necessarily so because the sources are positive) – makes the allegations section even more problematic. Sarah (SV) (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I've reduced the allegations section with this edit. I realize that this approach isn't entirely satisfactory, but otherwise we're airing completely untested, detailed allegations against a non-notable person, and inevitably people will add more detail and the section will keep growing. Keeping that section short and generic seems to be the least-bad option. Sarah (SV) (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I've reverted your edit for a couple reasons. First, its primary effect was to remove most of the statements in defense of the accused student by himself or others. That's a big problem all by itself. Second, simply because you wish for the article to focus on the artistic side of Sulkowicz's rape accusation, that doesn't mean we can ignore BLP and simply repeat one side of a half-baked criminal accusation. This is an article about an unsubstantiated rape accusation, and calling it an art piece doesn't change that. The source of the subject's notability, and indeed the only reason the art piece has garnered any attention at all, is the rape accusation. There is no license to present it in a one-sided manner. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to take the page off my watchlist now, because I'm becoming increasingly uncomfortable about it. Sarah (SV) (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Why not split the article and then link the two resulting articles to one another by a WP:hatnote atop each? The problem is that coverage of one impinges on the other. This article (or, both articles) benefits from writing with restraint. The artwork doesn't need excessive praise. And the accusatory indications can be stated sketchily. If the reader needs more they can search off of Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
From my vantage point, the article spends way too much time detailing the background. For starters, the 4th paragraph of the Allegations section can be cut down to something like this; "Afterwards they exchanged friendly messages with each other and periodically met, but began to drift apart after some time. After reporter Cathy Young released their messages, Sulkowicz' stated she had sent them because she was upset and wanted to talk to him about the incident, but decided against doing so; her accuser (side note, can we please just use the guy's name?) maintained they had remained friends." Also, for those unfamiliar with Jezebel it's a part of Gawker, which would under most circumstances be considered on par with Breitbart (i.e. not particularly helpful for an encyclopedia article). There are a few instances (predominantly if explaining the reaction to Young's article) where it may be helpful to have a citation or two there, but it should really be kept to a minimum. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
If there are no objections, I'll take a hack at it later. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
The Blade of the Northern Lights, I'm not sure if the phrase "drifted apart after some time" really fits here. If that's a direct quote from the accused student's point of view it could work if we attribute it to him, but Sulkowicz is alleging rape, so it seems her characterization of their dwindling contact is different than "drifted apart".--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Well yeah, that was an rough draft, I'll definitely tweak the wording here and there for the article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mattress_Performance_(Carry_That_Weight)/Archive_1&oldid=1136998642"