Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)

A good source

I think there are many points in this article worth mentioning in our article. Bus stop (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's a blog entry on Slate Magazine, which may conflict with policy. Anyway, this was the original article. Epic Genius (talk) ± 23:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Those looking for sources for all Sulcowicz-related news may want to check this timeline of events I made: http://newslines.org/emma-sulkowicz/?order=ASC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparkzilla (talk • contribs) 00:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Another good source

The New York Times Magazine: Have We Learned Anything From the Columbia Rape Case? (May 29, 2015). A detailed summary of the controversy. --82.113.98.168 (talk) 13:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a good source, but I'm not sure that a lot of material from that source belongs in this article. I think the contents of that source are somewhat tangential to this article. The contents of that article belong in an article on campus rape, Title IX, the criminal justice system, and the university's obligations in situations involving sexual assault. A summary properly belongs in this article on those sorts of topics with one or more links to other Wikipedia articles in which we can explore such concerns in greater depth, and with applicability to a variety of related incidents at other universities as well. I think this article calls for an emphasis on Sulkowicz' responses, including the choice of an art project as a response.

I think that in this article we should be particularly interested in concrete commentary about the artwork. This can come from others but we should be particularly interested in the artist's commentary about her own artwork. An easy misassumption that we can fall into is thinking that the reader knows all there is to know about "Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)". Anytime we shed light on how the artist regards the artwork, we are properly building this article. For instance, that she documented her daily "interactions with fellow students and strangers" in a "document, totaling 59,000 words (the length, more or less, of a novel) and typed up in Microsoft Word" sheds light on her approach to making an artwork. And that she has compassion towards a homeless man who is helping her with her artwork sheds light on her approach to her artwork. Aside from her stated aim of causing her alleged rapist off the campus she apparently did not harbor anger. She stated: "People think I was supposed to have this warlike relationship with it and it was supposed to be this object that I was angry with, but for me, that related to how people chose to read my piece rather than the way I lived with it. To me, the piece has very much represented [the fact that] a guy did a horrible thing to me and I tried to make something beautiful out of it."[1] Bus stop (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

From the source: (redacted)'s parents, meanwhile, wrote in an email to me that “graduation was devastating.” They were especially upset by an exhibition at a university gallery, preceding graduation, that included Sulkowicz’s prints of a naked man with an obscenity and of a couple having sex, inked over a copy of a Times article about (redacted). “We cannot imagine a more humiliating experience,” Andreas Probosch, (redacted)’s father, told me via email after going to the exhibition. Sulkowicz wrote in an email that the images are cartoons. “What are the functions of cartoons?” she asked. “Do they depict the people themselves (a feat which, if you’ve done enough reading on art theory, you will realize is impossible), or do they illustrate the stories that have circulated about a person?”--88.70.11.79 (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Do any sources depict the cartoons? Do any sources provide additional description or commentary on these "cartoons"? In the absence of any semblance of the imagery in question or additional commentary on them, it would be difficult to address the "exhibition at a university gallery". Bus stop (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, e.g. the New York Magazine: At graduation, Columbia University again broke its own rules and afforded Emma Sulkowicz a special exception. It was the second devastating experience in just a few days: last week, Columbia exhibited Emma Sulkowicz’s highly disturbing and extremely graphic drawings of our son publicly on campus.[2] --88.70.11.79 (talk) 08:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Are these drawings or photos? Bus stop (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Sulkowicz: "my new print series"; "May 11-15, Leroy Neiman Gallery, Columbia University, 310 Dodge Hall, 2960 Broadway"; "May 22 - June 14, Southampton Arts Center, 25 Jobs Lane, Southampton NY 11968".[3][4]--88.70.11.79 (talk) 11:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Are they drawings, photos, or prints? They are called "my new print series", or "extremely graphic drawings" or "disturbing photos". Bus stop (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

"Southampton Arts Center and The LeRoy Neiman Center partner on a new printmaking exhibition ... from May 22 to June 14, with a reception on May 30 from 5 to 7 p.m. Surface of Revolution considers the future direction of works by featuring a selection of fine art prints published by the LeRoy Neiman Center for Print Studies at Columbia University School of the Arts ... The artists being featured in Surface of Revolution are ... Emma Sulkowicz ..."[5] --88.70.11.79 (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Court hearing date

You should include that court hearing is due to take place on June 25, 2015. Judge is Gregory H. Woods. Columbia's attorney is Roberta A. Kaplan. Source: [6].--82.113.99.79 (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Tablet (magazine) portrait article about Kaplan: Gay Marriage’s Legal Crusader. Her lecturer profile. Her lawyer profile. --88.70.11.79 (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

If you include the court hearing date, make sure that it's not Sulkowicz vs. (redacted), but (redacted) vs. Columbia. 'Court hearing' could lead to misinterpretation. As far as I know, there is no charges being pressed against (redacted) through the official legal system.

--Llaanngg (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Die Zeit article from June 1, 2015

Novotny, Rudi (June 1, 2015), What Happened on the Mattress? (English version), Die Zeit Nº 22/2015: "A visit in New York with Paul (redacted), who was judged despite being cleared of any guilt." --88.70.11.79 (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

thearkingroup.com, website of Sulkowicz's public relations consultants (founding partner Stanley Arkin is interviewed in the article, Jack Devine is the company's president).--82.113.106.169 (talk) 07:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

In this article of Die Zeit pretty much evidence is mentioned that showed how Paul (redacted) is probably not guilty, while Emma Sulkowicz is probably guilty of making false accusations. Since claiming she is a victim is the central message of her art performance, the high probability that she indeed is the offender and Columbia University probably acted as her complice, is obligatory to be mentioned in the lead section - if you talk about the art. If you talk about the criminal case and you want to wait for a final verdict until you do so, that'd be understandable. But then you shouldn't let the article stand like an article about some great art performance, too. Then it's about a criminally relevant accusation, which therefore must not be praised as an art performance or culturally significant and progressive art controversy, while in fact it's an open criminal case.--JakobvS (talk) 08:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi JakobvS—from where are you deriving that "claiming she is a victim is the central message of her art performance"? Bus stop (talk) 11:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC

That's the obvious purpose of carrying around the mattress, isn't it? Telling her story about what supposedly happened to her, showing where it happened, to construe the reality of what happened, to tell the world that she is the victim of a rapist, that she has to "carry that weight". Every source that is listed here says nothing else but this. So why do you ask?--JakobvS (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

You are saying it is obvious but I think that interpretation would require a source if it were placed in the article. We are supposedly talking about a work of art. Does the work of art have a "central message"? Is that "central message" that "she is a victim"? I think the work of art can have other messages or no messages at all. Bus stop (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh well, the message of the art can be anything, e.g. that what's happening on matresses can be a heavy burden, or, more likely, a statement towards the supposed rapist as well as towards the public, that she deals with what the supposed rapist did to her in her own way, and thereby regains the sovereignty to interprete what happened to her, becoming a sovereign person again, even after supposedly being abused and objectified. But that's all besides the point. As it is stated in the lead section of this article, on her facebook page and in every newspaper cited here, this whole art performance began as her reaction to supposedly being raped. This legally would make her the victim of a crime. It makes her part of a criminal case. Either as the victim of rape, or as the offender, committing defamation or false accusation of rape. If the latter should turn out to be true - and it looks like that these days - it is mandatory to know that to understand the motives of the artist, the significance of the work of art, and the logic of its social consequences. After June 25th it should be clearified, but even now the whole affair can't be dealt like any art controversy, but as an action that opened a criminal case. This is a criminal case, not just some public discourse about art and/or sexism.--JakobvS (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

JakobvS: Its not an open criminal case. Defamation isn't a crime, and no one is bringing charges against the man she accused. There's a pending civil suit against Columbia, but it doesn't actually hinge on the guilt or innocence of either Sulkowicz or the man she accused. Sulkowicz's work doesn't name the person she accused, or even detail the specifics of her case -- most of the sources mention both a personal angle, and a set of larger political and artistic issues such as raising awareness about rape and trying to "make something beautiful" out of something horrible. Nblund (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

By the example of adverse impacts of the mattress performance activism at Columbia University Die Zeit journalist Novotny describes nearly fascist excesses of contemporary feminism in the United States. It is very surprising to read such an article in the reputable liberal and left-leaning newspaper Die Zeit (one of it's two publishers is the former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt) and the article certainly has a strong influence to the German public opinion.--Cyve (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

"Created in September 2014 for her senior thesis, the piece involved Sulkowicz carrying a 50lb, extra-long, dark-blue mattress wherever she went on campus, until a student she alleges sexually assaulted her was expelled from or otherwise left the university."

This is a direct quote from the lead of our article. How can someone read this and not think that the purpose of the art performance is anything but telling the world she is the victim of this horrible crime. One may say that she is trying to raise awareness of rape in general, but she is doing it by using her own alleged victimization. Furthermore, per the quote I mentioned above, the accused is now an integral part of this performance art. One can not say that the art is not about him. Given that her case was rejected by authorities, and the accused has been found not responsible in all the hearings, I must agree that the lead should be more clear on, what is now beyond the presumption of innocence of the accused. The allegations are not just allegations, they are looked into and found without merit. Otherwise, our article serves as another avenue to defame the accused in public eye, nothing more. Darwinian Ape ^talk 17:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Darwinian Ape—you say "The allegations are not just allegations, they are looked into and found without merit." I believe that is incorrect. The allegations are disputed and will probably remain disputed in perpetuity. We do not know what transpired and we probably never will know what transpired. This is something that is probably unknowable. Bus stop (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

You are wrong. He was exonerated by an university inquiry and the Sex Crimes Unit of the district attorney's office.--88.70.11.79 (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello,Bus stop. Yes, we will never know for 100% but that is true for all allegations. We do, however, have an obligation to assume innocence when there is no evidence to support a claim, especially for a claim of this magnitude. I can not stress this enough, he is innocent until proven guilty. And as far as I know, accuser hasn't even met the very lowest standard of proof. The prosecutor flat out rejected to bring any charges against him, which means there is not enough evidence even to bring this to trial let alone convict him. You seem to forget that the burden of proof lies solely on the accuser. Accused doesn't have to prove his innocence, although for this case there are evidence that might contradict the narrative of the accuser. That is why it's one step beyond the presumption of innocence now.

Our article, by praising the work, gives the reader an impression that the accused has escaped justice, or at the very least there is some merit to the accusations against him. That is why the lead should be more clear on the innocence of the accused. Darwinian Ape ^talk 18:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The article doesnt praise the work, it merely notes that others have praised it, which is true. The article also at no point claims the accused it guilty, it doesn't even mention his name. Do you want us to lie and pretend no art critics have ever praised the performance ever? I don't see how else we can do what you're proposing. Bosstopher (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Nblund, defamation is, in fact, a crime in Colorado and at least a matter of civil litigation everywhere in the United States, as well as in most other Western countries. See United States defamation law.--JakobvS (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough -- its a crime in some states, but not in the one where this took place, and no one is suing Sulkowicz for defamation. Either way, this is still not an "open criminal case". Nblund (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Nblund, as far as I understand the article of Die ZEIT lawyer Andrew Miltenberg is representing (redacted) in this case vs Sulkowicz, and that's what the verdict that is supposed to be spoken on June 25th is all about.--JakobvS (talk) 06:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

(redacted) has filed a civil anti-discrimination case against Colombia University. Sulkowicz isn't named in that case, and the veracity of her claims isn't really the core issue. Nblund (talk) 12:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Cyve and Bus stop, your arguments (concerning Die Zeit, and the impossibility to ever really know the truth, respectively) are just the major concerns of the article in Die Zeit. It is about a society in which you can be found not guilty by every level of jurisdiction and still be turned a social outcast. Let's say, I was a charismatic person who would find strong symbols to express what I want to say. Now I would state that you guys - like many others - had committed hate crimes, sexual abuse and massively violent acts against children, muslims, jews, blacks, women and disabled persons. Now you would ask a court to clearify that my statements are devoid of any truth, and the court would clearify that there is no evidence for my claims. But since both me and my story are strong symbols for a good cause and for many people, they label not only you, but also your supporters as child abusers/apologists of child abuse, anti-semites, islamophobes, racists, mysogynists, eugenicists. That's the problem Die Zeit is just concerned with. Die Zeit asks if we want to live in such a society. Where not only real victims may have lost their confidence in the rule of law and seek the own ways to regain the sovereingty to interprete what happened to them - but also major scenes of activists, artists, discourse-elites have lost their belief in the rule of law - since how could it ever represent the real 100% of truth? - as well as in the presumption of innocence. Instead they belief in massive public campaigns, in proclaiming their "absolute truth" regardless of any legal arguments. This perspective is so relevant for the whole social process and the ongoing criminal case we all witness here, it should be mentioned in the article.--JakobvS (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

JakobvS, this isn't the place to discuss these issues. This talk page is only to discuss article content and sources, and our biographies of living persons policy applies to the talk page, as well as to the article. That means we can't say anything that implies one or the other party is not telling the truth. No one knows what happened except the two parties. The accused was found "not responsible" and no charges were brought. That's all we can say about the allegations themselves. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 21:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry if I was unclear; By quoting the people who praised the performance, we are giving the impression that the accused has escaped justice or the accusations are somehow correct, but that is not to say we shouldn't report what critics say. This is an article about a performance art piece, however distasteful it might be, I do not object to the reporting of positive criticism. What I was trying to suggest was that we should be more clear on the innocence of the accused and that the lede should reflect that in clear terms. That would, in part, fix the legal accusation part of the issue, because a rape accusation in the form of art is still a rape accusation. This piece is about a person who was accused of raping the artist, therefor the art and the accusation are intertwined. If we are to mention the art we have to be clear that the accusations are without merit, until such time when there is evidence supporting the accuser's claims. The current state of the article does violate our BLP policy Darwinian Ape ^talk 21:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Darwinian Ape, again, no one has said, and no one is in a position to say (except the accused), that the allegations are without merit. The university found him not responsible, and the district attorney declined to proceed because of lack of evidence. Everyone who thinks they know what happened, please stop because only the two parties do. Therefore, we report that there were allegations, and that the accused was found not responsible. Then we discuss the art and the responses, which includes the accused's response that it amounted to harassment. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 22:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I worded it wrong, let me try to clarify it again; The default position for the accused is innocence, therefor I am not claiming to know some information others don't. I am merely stating the fact, and until there is evidence to prove the claims of the accuser, it will remain a fact. Quoting only the accused's response will not do, at the very least the lede should mention the decision of the district attorney. And we may also move the first sentence of the second paragraph of lede to the reception section. Darwinian Ape ^talk 22:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear: nothing in the lede discusses guilt or innocence. It simply states a fact about someone else's allegation. This is how Wikipedia generally approaches controversial topics. The same language is used elsewhere to describe persons accused, but not convicted of crimes. (example: Bill_Cosby#Sexual_assault_allegations, Robert_Durst#alleged_crimes). Nblund (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't have to say he is innocent, or guilty. But it should reflect the legal consensus. In addition, since the art piece is also a rape accusation, any praise to the art piece may be seen as reaffirmation of the accusation. That is why we should be careful with those. Do you object to my suggestions that are: Mentioning the district attorney's decision in, and moving the unnecessary praise quote from the lead? Darwinian Ape ^talk 00:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I think its okay to add the "the DA declined to pursue charges" to the lead, but its important not to oversell what that response means: it is not an exoneration or declaration of innocence. There appears to be some uncertainty over the circumstances that led up to that deciscion: Sulkowicz has claimed it was because she chose not to press the issue further, but (redacted) claims it was because of a lack of evidence.

I don't really buy the argument that praise for an art piece is a factual endorsement of its motivation or message -- lots of popular songs contain statements or accusations about real life people, and we don't have to believe that Rubin Carter was falsely imprisoned to like Hurricane. Nblund (talk) 02:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I intend to add the police response to the lead when protection is lifted, but the art response has to stay. It's a major part of what happened. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 00:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

That's absolutely the least, Sarah (SV). Like you said, we all won't ever know the full truth. And everyone of us is somehow biased, too, by his socialisation, biography or whatever. Knowing this, we must not judge neither about Sulkowicz nor (redacted). Maybe not even both of the involved will ever have the same interpretation/memories of what happened. But like Darwinian Ape said, that's why we have judicial verdicts we have to respect, and that is why we have to respect the presumption of innocence. If Wikipedia's policy was to ignore these fundamental agreements of the rule of law, Wikipedia would do politics and take sides in a controversial public discourse (and not the ones who accept the judicial verdicts as binding decisions about what is the truth - so much for the warning I received on my talk page). So at the latest if (redacted) would again be found not guilty by June 25th, this would have to be mentioned in the lead of our article, as a central contrast to the motives of the work of art. Further, if you look on pages like jezebel.com, on Sulkowicz's public facebook page, on the career of (redacted) after the art, if you have a look at this http://columbiaspectator.com/opinion/2015/02/09/why-i-believe-emma-sulkowicz#.VNpjcV6VDJg.facebook, or this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/12/columbia-sexual-assault-investigation_n_6458872.html, you can clearly see that this work of art does and provokes politics. This has to be mentioned here, since it's a central part of the social effect and story of this work of art. At least the most important sides of the public discourse have to be mentioned - the concern of Die Zeit is one of them. --JakobvS (talk) 05:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

JakobvS and Darwinian Ape, I totally agree. The current state of the article is biased in disfavor of the accused, the mention of his defence and of the criticism on her performance is insufficient: the reliable sources' coverage is more comprehensive. --Cyve (talk) 07:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nblund you said; "it is not an exoneration or declaration of innocence." I feel like I am repeating myself, but he doesn't need exoneration and he is innocent by default. People can believe, or claim anything they want without proof, there are 9/11 truthers who claim it was the government and Jews that attacked the twin towers. Without proof, however, we can not take any claim seriously. And that it would be a criminal, not a civil lawsuit, so the accuser can't decide not to "press the issue further" or even if she did, the prosecutor would bring charges against the accuser should there be enough evidence. And your comparison of hurricane with this case is false equivalency since the federal court decided to throw out the conviction. And this case didn't even go to trial.

I understand your point, my point is that the decision by the prosecutor has no bearing one way or another on that presumption. To present it an an exoneration or a statement on the merits would be misleading and can't be reliably sourced. Prosecutors do sometimes drop cases if the accuser decides to stop cooperating -- if they can't get a key witness (the victim) to testify, there probably isn't enough evidence to take the case to trial. Darwinian Ape ^talk 09:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Carter got a new trial after the song came out, and was convicted again -- his case wasn't dismissed until 10 years later, but my point doesn't really hinge on the facts of that case. My point is that there are lots of songs that contain claims about real life individuals, and we can still think they have artistic value regardless of whether we agree with those claims. Nblund (talk) 12:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Sarah, I am not arguing to delete the art response, but I feel like its place should be reception, not the lead. Darwinian Ape ^talk 09:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

As with all things on Wikipedia, we base our ledes and the rest of our articles on their coverage in reliable sources- I don't see why the release of this particular article would require such a dramatic change to the lede as is being suggested. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 09:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Peter. For one thing there are more than enough source to make such "dramatic" changes to the article. I outlined my reasoning as to why we should make those changes above, I feel repeating them would be redundant. Darwinian Ape ^talk 09:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to cite those sources. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 10:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

No need, what I proposed is already cited in the article references. If you believe they should not be included in the lead please state your reasoning. Darwinian Ape ^talk 11:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Or don't cite your sources I guess- that's fine too. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 11:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This is not an issue of reliable sources, there are no source that say something contrary to what I propose. It is a fact that the D.A. rejected to prosecute the accused. It is a fact that the accused is found not responsible by the university. It is pretty much the most reliable and sourceable piece of information there is about this subject. I don't understand your need for me to list them here, or are you not being sarcastic in your comment above? Darwinian Ape ^talk 12:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Die Zeit "is the most widely read German weekly newspaper."--89.204.130.227 (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This article seems to have a negative opinion of the piece. Can commentary from this be included in our article? The author of that article is Robert Fulford, a writer of some stature. We are discussing the implications of "praise". But it is really criticism both positive and negative that should be our focus. We are accepting of this as art because we have no choice, but I think many of us harbor doubts about its validity even as art. Robert Fulford is one writer who attempts to come to terms with its tenuousness as art. Bus stop (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

See the version of May 3: In his article If anything’s art, art’s nothing, National Post columnist Robert Fulford compared Sulkowicz's work to that of Megumi Igarashi and concluded, "if everything is art, then art can be used for anything. And in the process meaning and value dissolve and art becomes hopelessly debased." --Cyve (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the version Cyve linked is much better than the current one. One problem with it is that it's much more for an article for the whole controversy than it is for the art piece. It could have been very helpful to change the name appropriately and revert the article to that version. (@Bus stop it was time someone said the emperor has no clothes:) cheers.) Darwinian Ape ^talk 13:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Darwinian Ape—I'm actually not saying the counterpart to "the emperor has no clothes." Also, I don't favor changing the title of the article. Bus stop (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, cheers all the same. I am a bit bored of incompetence and presumptuousness being shoved down to our throats as "deep" and art. Sorry for being off-topic. Darwinian Ape ^talk 14:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Break (Die Zeit article from June 1, 2015)

A piece of art, however, doesn't only have artistic value, it may also have social consequences. Even if its artistic quality is debated. Rambo II helped the US to overcome their Vietnam trauma, for instance. Art may change public discourses, it may change the social opportunities of people. Our quite disciplined discussion here is part of these consequences, but there are more heated and more relevant discussions out there. Questions of guilt, proof, evidence, the presumption of innocence, the rule of law, empathy towards traumatized people, the impossibilty to call for a victim to behave like a 'perfect victim', and the "truth" or "deeper truth" of this whole incidence are debated, in the sense I was reffering to earlier. I find them socially relevant, symptomatical for how public discourses may socially overtop jurisdiction. Die Zeit, which is of course far from perfect but indeed is one of the top four quality newspapers in Germany, says the same and is a reliable source. So maybe these debates and their analysis can be mentioned in the article, too.--JakobvS (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi JakobvS—I find "Questions of guilt, proof, evidence, the presumption of innocence, the rule of law, empathy towards traumatized people, the impossibility to call for a victim to behave like a 'perfect victim', and the 'truth' or 'deeper truth'" to be peripheral concerns in this article. We should briefly address these questions but we should link elsewhere for more in-depth exploration of such topics. We shouldn't simply piggyback those concerns onto an article about a work of art however questionable that work of art may be in the assessment of some of us. It is intellectually sloppy to deny this supposed work of art of its place in the universe of works of art hosted in articles on Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: I'm upset to find you taking the position that "... we can't say anything that implies one or the other party is not telling the truth." There should be no confusion about this: only one party here is accused of committing a felony, and our main concern must be to protect his right to be presumed innocent. Since the topic is too notable to be removed from Wikipedia under BLPCRIME, this obligates us to include exculpatory evidence, even if it might be inferred that the accuser is lying. I also disagree with your assertion that "... no one has said, and no one is in a position to say (except the accused), that the allegations are without merit." The investigation of him concluded that "the accusations are unfounded." To say that we cannot write anything that might imply his innocence, because there is not and cannot be any incontrovertible scientific proof that he is innocent, is a disturbing contortion of BLP policy. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Sammy1339, we are not obligated in any way to throw doubt on accusations against alleged rapists- we're only required to reflect the mainstream viewpoint of reliable sources. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 04:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Peter that strategy won't work here, you forgot to establish a narrative! Now you'll have to deal with facts, and real reporting. New and exciting times ahead, good luck! 104.156.240.156 (talk) 08:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

If by "throwing doubt" you mean pushing a POV that the accused is innocent, then no. But we must not censor the available exculpatory evidence on the grounds that it might imply that the accusation is false. This would not be done in a murder case. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see us censoring any 'evidence'- if it's discussed by reliable sources, you're free to include it. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 04:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Sammy, the article is about the art and its context. We can't detail the sexual allegations because there has been no criminal case, and there's no evidence, exculpatory or otherwise. All we have are claims, counter-claims, and partial accounts of text messages, including one that has been presented in a seriously misleading way. The article makes clear throughout that there was no evidence against the accused, that he strongly denies this, that the university found him "not responsible," and that he has suffered because of it. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 04:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: The "art" is a sexual allegation. The notion that we can't discuss the sexual allegations apparently derives from a reading of BLP policy which says that we should avoid mention of unproved claims of criminal conduct, but these claims are already in the article. Accordingly we have an obligation to detail the defense. As for there being "no evidence," I disagree. For convenience I'll paraphrase the accused's civil lawsuit against Columbia; the below assertions are made on pages 12-14. We cannot cite the lawsuit for this, but I would ask which of the following, if supported by reliable sources, would you feel should be included in the article?

A. Lack of witnesses, despite that she said she was screaming in a densely inhabited, badly soundproofed space.

B&C. There was no medical report, and no one noticed any physical injuries despite her extensive participation in parties and social events in the days following the alleged attack. (Surely being strangled near to death causes visible bruising on the neck?)

D. Sulkowicz gave at least three conflicting stories concerning who she told about the alleged incident.

E. Online communications.

F. Sulkowicz had alleged she was raped multiple times previously, by different individuals. (Actually I think this one doesn't belong, but it is included for the sake of completeness.)

You also said you have some doubts as to one of the messages; I do not know which one. The messages I have read seem to support the accused's claim that Sulkowicz was extremely infatuated with him, then became spiteful when he gradually distanced himself from her. There is on the other hand a Jezebel article which gives her interpretation of the messages. While it's possible that the two remained friendly for a time even though he attacked her, this doesn't seem to be consistent with her subsequent claims that even looking at him or thinking about him was unbearably painful; more importantly, the possibility of such a narrative being true does not mean that the messages are not evidence in the accused's favor. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Bus stop makes sense to me, what you're saying. So let's at least put in a reference or something that this topic (public discourse socially dominating jurisprudence) is discussed in the context of the artpiece and the incidents related to it.--JakobvS (talk) 08:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi JakobvS—by "public discourse socially dominating jurisprudence" I assume you're saying that many feel there is a false accusation of rape at the heart of the performance piece. I don't know how this can be said in our article and I am not sure an elaborate statement of that sort belongs in our article. There should be other articles for the exploration of that perception and related topics. Some of those articles already exist and some may need to be created. A university imperfectly fields a problem which involves a web of related jurisdictions and laws. This article isn't going to address such topics. It shouldn't. But a brief sentence here can acknowledge a problem that impinges on the proper topic of this article and an internal link can show the reader where important and related information can be found. Our concern should be showing the reader where to go within the Wikipedia universe to further explore all related topics. This should be a limited article on a work of art. But it serves as the jumping-off point for further research on related topics. We should be concerned with providing the reader with the ability to research areas that we as editors at this article may not be equipped to address. Here is an opinion article which I think lays out some of the complexities that impinge upon what we are calling a performance piece. It is a work of art. But the reader may want to educate themselves about for instance the distinctions between a criminal trial and a college judiciary hearing. Bus stop (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I think he's saying that many sources argue that the accused has been presumed guilty despite being exonerated, which can be discussed without asserting that the allegation is false. It's also quite central to the topic. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Sammy1339—what leads you to believe that guilt or innocence of rape is "central" to this article? Bus stop (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

No, I meant the reaction is central. The "art" is supposed to be about the handling of rape cases, especially by colleges, using a specific example. The extensive commentary it has inspired on on that same subject, using that same example, is thus centrally relevant. We also have an obligation to protect the presumption of innocence, but that is a separate issue. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Sammy1339—from where are you deriving that the art is "supposed to be about the handling of rape cases, especially by colleges, using a specific example"? Bus stop (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bus stop: Are you aware that in the past one month you have made 261 edits on this topic in discussion pages? I am not able to respond to everything you have written, and particularly when you ask for citations for obvious or well-known information, as you have done repeatedly, I don't perceive that providing them will be worth my time. I'm not accusing you of activism, but I think that by now we all know where you stand on every aspect of this issue. In the future you could articulate your opinions more concisely and without making frequent demands of other editors. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, feel free not to tell me why you feel the artwork is "about the handling of rape cases, especially by colleges" but I hope you won't mind if I continue to participate at this Talk page. My only intention is to try to bring about a good article on a contemporary work of art. By the way, it arose in the milieu of art. This was a visual arts student's senior project. Bus stop (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it's clear that the scope of coverage goes far beyond examining the protest as an artwork. Most of the sources are about the allegations and controversy surrounding them. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sammy1339—just because something is sourced does not mean that it has to be in an article. Bus stop (talk) 07:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

This is not an argument against including citations to the dozens of articles that discuss the social implications of the controversy surrounding Sulkowicz, but WP:UNDUE is an argument against excluding all that and discussing this only as a brilliant work of endurance performance art. --Sammy1339 (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It is not only "a brilliant work of endurance performance art". What we should be looking for is good quality commentary on it, whether that commentary be good, bad, or in-between. Bus stop (talk) 13:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Or that the fact that it was an art project is not significant at all? --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I feel that as an upstanding Cro-Magnon I should say that in my opinion art and culture may benefit our species. I realize this is activist on my part but I think evidence is available that us Neanderthals have to be mindful of every cultural advancement we can accomplish in the furtherance of our species. Bus stop (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bus stop: Would you please stop changing your comments without an underline or strikethrough, especially after others have responded to them? --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Sammy1339—I was clearly responding to another editor's post. I addressed my post to User:JakobvS. You responded to my post within minutes after I posted it to User:JakobvS. Bus stop (talk) 20:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

PeterTheFourth,Sarah (SV) First, the article is protected, so we can't work on it. Second, we've got reliable sources that report how (redacted) was found not guilty by all instances. Third, the verdicts of these instances are binding, even for us. Later court decision might come to different verdicts, or some day investigative journalists or lawyyers might proof how a miscarriage of justice was done. A broad solidarity movement with the supposed victim, however, can't be the source and reason for what is to be read on Wikipedia on this incident, relativizing the official verdicts. That's what we're debating about since hours now, and you haven't come to any new arguments but "who will ever know the eternal truth?" Instead you're focusing on if there's something illegal about us to articulate our concerns about this article, which is possible since you as adminsitrators have the means and power to do so. Do you have reason, too?--JakobvS (talk) 08:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there was an actual trial by which (redacted) was found not guilty. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 08:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh this is interesting. So if there's sufficient evidence to bring a suspect to trial and they're acquitted, they're apparently more innocent than a suspect for whom there was not sufficient evidence to bring a case to trial. Amazing. 104.156.240.156 (talk) 08:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

This anonymous user-IP just made the point: they are all instances of one juridicial system, the instances that say a trial isn't even worth to be hold, as well as a trial itself.--JakobvS (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@ Bus stop "But a brief sentence here can acknowledge a problem" sounds like a solution to me. --JakobvS (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi JakobvS—What would that sentence be and what would that source be? Please don't cite an entire source but rather cite a few sentences in a source that supports the sentence that you would put in the article. Or just make the edit to the article. Also bear in mind: "Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article." Bus stop (talk) 00:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Bus stop, we could refer to this passage on page 4/6 of the ZEIT-article Others are profiting from this. "'A victims’ industry made up of female activists, lawyers and therapists,' he [Andrew Miltenberg] said. 'The government has surrendered to interest groups who attack anyone who calls for fair proceedings.' Such as a Yale professor, who warned against the removal of the presumption of innocence, or the magazine writer Emily Yoffe, who castigated the new rules as just an overreaction. Furious activists said both of them were defending rapists. Paul’s complaint also mentions these interest groups. In December, 2014, Columbia student activists from No Red Tape and Carry That Weight, Becca Breslaw and Zoe Ridolfi-Starr, read a letter at President Bollinger’s office containing the following passage: '(Emma’s) serial rapist still remains on campus today.'". We could refer to the portrait of (redacted)'s lawyer lawyer Andrew Miltenberg vs Red Tape activist Becca Breslaw on that same page 4/6, you might also quote Becca Breslaw saying. "The legal system supports violence. We want a society without violence. We want to re-educate the criminals." And our short sentence in our Wikipedia article might be: "After several instances didn't find enough evidence to put the supposed rapist to trial, and activist organisations like Red Tape still felt legitimized by the 'carry that weight'-performance to continue with their accusations, lawyers, professors and newspapers like the German 'Die Zeit' began to see the affair as an example of how public activism might dramatically relativize the social bindingness of jurisprudence." Well, what can you do, I'm German, and we aren't meant to write short sentences. But something to that effect. Can we shorten it, do we have an idea where to put it?--JakobvS (talk) 09:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Honestly I'm not knowledgeable about the law. I had to look up the word jurisprudence. I don't know what some of these things mean: "...a Yale professor, who warned against the removal of the presumption of innocence..."? All I can say is that I love your phrase "public activism might dramatically relativize the social bindingness of jurisprudence". Hey—that might be it! Why don't we say "Public activism might dramatically relativize the social bindingness of jurisprudence." But where to insert it in the article? Bus stop (talk) 12:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Query about IPs/accounts

Several IPs or new accounts have arrived, some focusing mostly or entirely on this page, some or all from Germany, including Cyve, Darwinian Ape, JakobvS. Also:

• 88.70.11.79 (talk)
• 89.204.139.149 (talk), 89.204.139.141 (talk) (and others in the same range)
• 82.113.106.169 (talk), 82.113.106.122 (talk) (ditto)

Can you say whether the IPs are the same people as the accounts, or are you six separate people? Alternatively, if you don't want to identify an IP as yours, it would be helpful if you would stay logged in from now on. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Just noting that I've edited the list to remove one IP from the same range, which is why Llaanngg mentions below three being from the same ISP. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Three of the IPs are from the same ISP, so there is a chance here that they are the same person. However, we can not ignore the fact that the case is also famous in Germany. I hope this do not evolve into the next Marko Weiss case (see [7], if you don't know the case).--Llaanngg (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

82.113.98.80 (talk) and 89.204.153.127 (talk) made the same edits to talk on 4 and 5 June, [8][9] so perhaps we can assume they're the same person. Both Telefonica, Germany. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not from Germany and those IP's aren't mine. I haven't been writing as an IP for a while now. So, there are at least two different people involved. Cheers! Darwinian Ape ^talk 19:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, DA. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know who the other Germans are, but an administrator should be able to check that I've been writing for Wikipedia for years under my name. For the German wikipedia as well as for the English one, which is much better than the former, probably due to the fact that many people from many countries are contributing to it. Apart from that, the debated case is indeed a topic in Germany, that's why you can read an article in a German newspaper about it. As for from where I exactly come from, I am from Hamburg-St. Pauli, Germany. I hope this information may help you in your investigation, Sarah.--JakobvS (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks, Jakob, though it's not an investigation. I was just wondering how many people we're speaking to. Thanks again. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 22:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Graphic "Reenactment"

I understand that the accuser in this incident has recently posted a graphic, x-rated, re-enactment video of the alleged rape online and was interviewed about it by Artnet. Is this true? Cla68 (talk) 04:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It was never given an x-rating by any ratings board, no. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 04:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

According to that Artnet interview, she did this video about the same time she was invited to attend the State of the Union address. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand's response to this video should make a great addition to this article. I'll keep watching for Gillibrand's statement to the media. Cla68 (talk) 04:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Unless and until this is picked up and validated by mainstream RS, it should be treated as hoax and therefore BLP vio. If it's true, there is no rush to get it in, if it's false adding it now would be a serious error. If and when it's added, it should be added with mostly blue-chip references, NYT and the like (my opinion). The issue is at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#BLP_vios.3F_at_Mattress_Performance_talk_page and you may discuss it there, but being a BLP concern it's not a matter for local consensus. This talk page has been semi-protected for 3 days to prevent the posting of links here by IPs (there were four or five attempts), and I hope it won't become necessary to semi the article page. The recently added content has been removed. Thanks for your cooperation and patience! ―Mandruss ☎ 09:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Important to note that in the interview Sulkowicz refuses to explain what the video is about and leaves it to others to interpret. So at this point we can't assume it's definitely in reference to the alleged rape if we add it to the article. Merely that others have made that link Bosstopher (talk) 10:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Well if it's not about the alleged rape, it doesn't belong in the article. Being high profile, she may be in the news for various things, like say other artworks or a marriage, but this is not a Sulkowicz bio. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

If a lot of people interpret it to be about the alleged rape (which it seems is what's happening in the press right now) it probably will warrant a place in the article, even if the artist never discloses the intended meaning. Bosstopher (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I suppose you're right, I concede that point. Still waiting for mainstream RS. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

After further discussion in the BLPN thread, I'm withdrawing my assertion that this inclusion is not a matter for local consensus. I remain strongly opposed to inclusion before we have mainstream RS support, but it's just one man's position. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Off topic excursion

Mandruss—do I understand correctly from this diff that "German IPs" can't post here, for three days? I don't think that is proper. That is just my opinion. I think it is heavy-handed and on principle I think it is incorrect. I don't know how this works and maybe that is not the case at all. Bus stop (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC) When I change something in an earlier comment, it generally means I reconsidered and decided to modify the comment. In that case you can disregard the previous comment. I think that goes for most folks, probably even you. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC) I'm worried about the reality, not the comment. Are "German IPs" being prevented from posting here? That would seem extreme. Bus stop (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC) No, they are not, and my post-modification comment does not say that. Is this a tough concept? In other words, read my comments on the page not in the diffs. All of the attempts to post links to this video had come from Munich, which is why I initially mentioned Germans. As for posting links to this video in general, that was how things appeared to me at the time, and the admin who applied the semi obviously agreed. Discussion at BLPN appears to have changed that, so the protection could be lifted as far as I'm concerned. But it will expire in two days anyway, I haven't seen a whole lot of recent IP activity on this page, and I'm not feeling much urgency in requesting an admin to remove it early. Someone else may wish to, obviously. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

New York Magazine: Emma Sulkowicz Made a Film Addressing Rape
An IP posted that in the BLPN thread. It's an improvement, source wise, but I'm still strongly opposed to inclusion before sources like NYT pick it up. Even if it's legit, I think we should have at least two blue-chip references for something like this. We are an encyclopedia, not a news outlet, and this story is less than a day old. Just because the compulsion to act like a news outlet is very widespread at Wikipedia, that doesn't make it good editing practice. For breaking news, we have Wikinews. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

For breaking wind we have flatulence. Bus stop (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I have requested that the protecting admin unprotect this page so the IPs can discuss this. If they don't respond within an hour or so, I'll request it at RFPP. IPs, please refrain until the protection is removed. This is a big mess, it's mostly my fault, and I sincerely apologize. Next time I'll just go to bed instead. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It is not such mess. I just wanted to express what I see as the other side of the story. No doubt there are fewer people from Munich participating in this Talk than people from the US and Britain. Bus stop (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Not the mess I was referring to. Now the talk page has been unprotected, so the IPs are welcome to discuss this content. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It's almost 6:00 pm in Munich. After a beer (they have better beer than NYC) an IP may want to discuss the video. Bus stop (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but just one beer. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yo, "bros," possible to make your comments more relevant to the issues at hand? Would help your case not to display so much bravura: It's off-putting, like some mini Elks Club gathering.--A21sauce (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi A21sauce—can you please tell me what the "issues at hand" are, in your assessment? Bus stop (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

You have to ask? LET'S STICK TO THINGS HAVING TO DO WITH THE ARTICLE. This isn't your private blog and we should keep discussions open to everybody. Don't be a jerk just because you happen to be really comfortable on here. I refuse drawn into tussles with people who aren't my actual friends, so don't even try. thanks--A21sauce (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't do anything to offend you, or to offend anyone else. I referred to German beer and the current time in Munich. If I examine my own motivations for those admittedly irrelevant comments they were purely interpersonal between me and another editor. Mandruss responded with a quip of his own and then it was over. Bus stop (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bus stop: It might facilitate understanding to know that A21sauce is a female. She doesn't wish to communicate calmly and clearly, so I'll offer the opinion that she was offended not only by the two beer comments but by the flatulence joke. I hope this can be dropped now. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mandruss—in your edit here you are altering my post. I am going to restore my post to its last version as edited by me. I am aware of the factor of the gender divide concerning this disagreement because I have looked at the discussion here. Bus stop (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the unintentional revert. I experienced this tech glitch in that edit, one of multiple weird editing phenomena that some have encountered in the past few days. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

reliable sourcing for video

The video has now been covered by Time magazine. [10] and Huffington Post [11] along with many others, so the sourcing for video seems reliable, but there's still the question of whether or not we want to include it. Any thoughts on this?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC) This along with

This from the Time article seems interesting: "The video project is called Ceci N’est Pas Un Viol, which translates to “this is not a rape”– an allusion to surrealist Rene Magritte’s famous painting The Treachery of Images, more commonly known as Ceci N’est Pas Un Pipe, or “this is not a pipe.” Check out that wikipage for meaning behind that artwork if not familiar with it.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

We can't not include it, and I was thinking of adding something about it in my next edits, though we don't have many RS yet. (I'm keen to know what Roberta Smith says.) Do you mind if I put back "with enthusiasm," rather than "positively"? It really was a hugely enthusiastic response, and I think it's important to point that out, and more interesting. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 21:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Sarah (SV) The video has now apparently been taken down (no explanation as to why), so that might halt comments from art critics. I have no strong preference regarding "positively" vs "with enthusiasm" , positively just seemed a bit more encyclopedic to me.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks re: with enthusiasm. Regarding the video, someone said there was a technical issue – too many people trying to view it – but who knows. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 22:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mandruss, sorry, I added something before I saw your post. I've written just a basic outline (permalink) until we have more sourcing. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 23:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

And now I see you've removed it. I was responding to this post. (As an aside, I'm noticing that edit conflicts aren't working anymore, which is why I saved my post without realizing you'd removed yours. I've been noticing this elsewhere recently too.) Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 00:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem, here's my draft in case it's of any use. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. They're quite similar. There's nothing more we can say until the sources do unfortunately. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 00:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, the video is not currently working due to a "cyber attack" according to Sulkowicz [12]. I think that if we mention this video, the accused student's name should stay out of article. I don't like the idea of forever linking his name, in the top search engine, to a rape reenactment video that appears to be about him. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree about leaving his name out. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 00:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Me 2. Did someone suggest putting it in, or is that a preemptive objection to it? ―Mandruss ☎ 00:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Manduss, there was a previous BLPN consensus that his name could be included, but this occurred while the article was protected, and as of yet, no one has tried to re-add the name. If they do, I think it might be reasonable to bring this back to BLPN--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Bobo, I didn't see that. I thought consensus was to leave it out. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 00:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

No consensus to include it as of February. [13] Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 00:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The more recent discussion had qualified consensus to include it [14].--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd forgotten about that. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 01:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Break (Graphic "Reenactment")

So, Sulkowicz claims in the Artnet interview that this isn't a companion to the Mattress Performance, and according to Jezebel, the website for the piece explicitly denied that it was a recreation of the events of August 2012. Its clearly got similar thematic elements, but this isn't an entry on the artwork of Emma Sulkowicz, its an entry on a specific piece that received significant mainstream coverage. Something may happen that makes this new video a matter of historical or cultural import, but right now its still breaking news. Why not let the issue ripen a little bit? Nblund (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nblund: You're suggesting removal of that section for now, I presume. Could you respond to this argument? I think it's essentially the basis for the existing consensus to include it. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@Mandruss:First: I actually don't see that interpretation (that it is about the alleged rape) coming from either of the mainstream sources cited in the content. Both the Time Magazine and Artnet articles linked quote Sulkowicz as explicitly denying that the video is intended to be a re-enactment. I see some mainstream sources covering this topic, but none of them support the contention that it "appears to be a reenactment".

Second, I think its been established through several discussions that this entry is about the art piece, and not about the rape accusation. Even if it were a recreation of the events of that night, it still wouldn't warrant inclusion under that interpretation. This could change, but currently, all I see are some murmurs in the press, and I don't really see it as sufficiently noteworthy to warrant inclusion. Nblund (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Interesting and cogent arguments, and I look forward to responses, at least from Bosstopher, since s/he crafted the argument and s/he's smarter than I am. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I would omit the last two sentences: "She wrote of the video that it was not a reenactment of the rape allegation: "Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol is not about one night in August, 2012. It's about your decisions, starting now. It's only a reenactment if you disregard my words. It's about you, not him."[43][46]" These are two works of art and they are not related to one another. So why are we telling the reader that they are not related to one another? Too much information. Lop off the last two sentences. It is superfluous detail. Bus stop (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

She can't say that the video is a reenactment, because she knows that (redacted) would immediately sue her for defamation if she did. Anyway, I agree with SV that mention of it needs to be in the article. Cla68 (talk) 11:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for not responding to the ping, was swamped by deadlines for a while. I havent been keeping up with the news articles coming out surrounding this, but Nblund makes a good point. IMO it depends on whether or not coverage of Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol compares it to the Matress performance a lot I guess. Bosstopher (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

We cannot say that any two works are related unless we say according to who? Bus stop (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Article scope

(Nblund) its been established through several discussions that this entry is about the art piece, and not about the rape accusation. I'm late to this party, so I wasn't aware of those discussions. If that's in fact the consensus here, the article is out of line with consensus and some of it needs to go. We could easily refer to "an alleged rape" a few times as necessary and omit any details, and much of the discussion on this page would become WP:FORUM. If you're correct, we don't need any details about the rape controversy for NPOV, since the article is not about that. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

We don't include the detailed allegations, and I would oppose removing anything, as we're already right down to the basics. The more it swings in one direction, the greater will be the swing in the other. We need stability. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 16:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about it either way, and there's nothing in Wikipedia principles that says we shouldn't have articles that are partly about high-profile rape controversies, but we should call it what it is and not make the claim that it's only about the art. This is the first time I've seen stability mentioned as an overriding concern in any article, but that's perhaps beside the point. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The lawsuit has everything to do with the art, and art in general. The case is about freedom of expression, campus rape, rights of the accused to due process, universities' (conflicting) duty of care toward accusers and accused, in general not only in this case. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no "art" without the allegations. The art is her vehicle to present the allegations to the public. Without the allegations her three "projects", the Mattress Performance, the prints Newspaper Bodies and the porn Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol couldn't be called art.--89.15.236.213 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok. It's quite possible I'm full of shit, it's been known to happen. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

This is an article primarily about a work of art. That work of art sprung up in the setting of a college campus. There were not only allegations of rape but allegations of bullying. The work of art involved the pitting of one person's rights against another person's rights. There is freedom of expression and freedom from harassment. The lawsuit is of secondary importance but it is far from unimportant. Bus stop (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I think this conversation is an indicator of how limiting the article name is. I feel like the rape accusation is the broader topic and the art piece is just an element of it. After all, all the notability of the art piece comes from the accusation, forgive me for speculating, but I don't think a senior thesis of a student would likely merit an article in Wikipedia. And I think there are(and perhaps will be) more art works that stem from this accusation,(two of them currently mentioned in the article) and it will be difficult to add to the article since it's an article about a specific performance art piece. If we were to create another article for them, it's bound to be WP:CFORK since both will focus on the accusation. There might also be other news about the accusation itself(court rulings and such) that is hard to include to an art piece article. We can only stretch it so far. So I think a title that was suggested above in the talk page would be a better candidate, I already supported it before it has been hatted, and I would add this comment there too, if it weren't so. Darwinian Ape ^talk 22:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Darwinian Ape—you say "I feel like the rape accusation is the broader topic and the art piece is just an element of it." If, as you say, the "rape accusation is the broader topic and the art piece is just an element of it" then what other "element[s]" would there be to the "rape accusation"? Are there other elements? Or is the "art piece" the only element? Bus stop (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, there is the university hearing and a verdict, there is a complaint to the police, there are other accusations from other students, there is a lawsuit against the university, there are other implications of the accusation like how universities handle these cases, there are due process concerns, issues with the title IX, there are other art works about the same accusation etc, etc. All covered within the scope of this story in various reliable sources. Of course the Mattress piece is a huge part of the story, but there is more to it than just this art piece. And while I am aware that we are mentioning some, or most of these points, I believe it would be better to put them under something more broad like Columbia University performance art controversy. It would give us more space to better articulate this series of events imho. Darwinian Ape ^talk 23:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

We should be concerned with putting the quintessential subject as the title of the article. It is the brainchild of a student who had to fulfill the requirements of a senior thesis to create "Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)", the work that this article is quintessentially about. Everything else is subordinate in importance. Notice I did not say unimportant. But the title should present the organizing principle of the article. Bus stop (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

But what made this senior thesis worth mentioning in an encyclopedia is the rape accusation and the controversy surrounding this accusation. The art piece is a part, a central part, but a part of the controversy. In other words, it's the controversy not the art that was noteworthy. The controversy is centering around this art piece but there are more to it than the art piece. Take the other art works that stemmed from the same accusation for example, they have no place in this article in its current name. We claim they are related works, but to the artist they are separate works that has nothing to do with the mattress performance. They are, however, related to the accusation and the controversy that the accusation created. Darwinian Ape ^talk 23:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

You say "Take the other art works that stemmed from the same accusation for example, they have no place in this article in its current name." Of course they do. Not quintessentially, but they do. I think it is reasonable to include mention of other artworks. This is a young artist. The time frame in relation to the artwork in the title of the article is small. You say "We claim they are related works, but to the artist they are separate works that have nothing to do with the mattress performance." This is correct. Our article presently presents the other two artworks as "Related works". This is an error. Sources are not saying any of the artworks are related to one another. The section heading there should read "Other work" or "Other artwork". Bus stop (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It can be called Columbia University Mattress Performance art controversy which would contain partially the name of the performance art. Would that be acceptable? Darwinian Ape ^talk 00:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

That is a strung of applicable terms designed to satisfy everybody but which fails to articulate the quintessential topic of the article. No one can deny that "controversy" applies and that the topic concerns "Columbia University". But the idea to carry a mattress is entirely creditable to one person. The article is on the idea to carry a mattress. Bus stop (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You said: "But the idea to carry a mattress is entirely creditable to one person." Well, for the mattress performance part of the controversy you are correct, but as I said it is not the only part. The lawsuit against the University for instance, has very little to do with the artist. Besides, this is not a biography of the artist, so the argument that the artist's other works should be included is a weak one.(although I could see your point) I believe it is the rape accusation that binds all these together, so if there is a quintessential topic of the article, it's that. But I don't think you will agree, so lets at least agree to disagree for a while and see what other editors will add to this if they might. Darwinian Ape ^talk 01:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The lawsuit is merely an appendage, topic-wise, to the artwork. Bus stop (talk) 01:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The artwork and fluffy supportive commentary about it are only a small aspect of the topic. This article would be classic POV forking—except in this case, there is only the POV fork because the main-topic article simply does not exist. (Query: why is that?)

Shall we go ahead and create an article about the rape accusation and surrounding controversy and turn this article into a sub-section or sub-article, as it clearly ought to be? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 14:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

No, we shall not. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Lawsuit

Hi Bosstopher, you removed the pleading in this edit. [15] Did you also intend to remove PacerMonitor? It would be quite useful to retain that (including for the university lawyer's name), though it does contain the accused's name in the title, which may be why you removed it. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 16:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I removed it because I was under the impression it was a primary source (or a collection of primary sources). It seems all the content is paywalled at exorbitant costs though, so I could be mistaken. Wasn't considering the fact that the acused's name was in the title at the time. Apologies if i've failed to understand what pacermonitor is. Bosstopher (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

This is the link. It gives some information about how the case is progressing, so I thought it would be quite useful to include. I'll put it back when I next make an edit, if that's okay with you. I wasn't sure whether to change the title, because although the accused's name is in the sources, this is the only one that has it in a title and therefore visible in our article. Perhaps we could add a generic title instead. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 16:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY has a pretty explicit prohibition against using court documents. For a totally non-controversial claim like the lawyer's name, it might not be a problem, but it would be better to find a different source. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

This is just a document discussing how the case is progressing. It doesn't "support assertions about a living person" in the sense intended in the policy. But I'll leave it out if there are objections. Would be nice to include both lawyers' names though. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 16:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It also says "Do not use public records that include personal details..." (emphasis in original). Maybe I misunderstand - are all the statements and motions in that list not accessible through that website, or are they just paywalled? --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. I can only see motions, dates of hearings, etc. To see more you have to pay. But a lot of our sources are linking to BLP violations. We can't exclude sources in this case because of the links they contain, because if we do we'll have few left. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 20:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems unlikely to cause a serious problem. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I think linking to the pleading would be okay, too, because nothing contentious in the article is based on it, and there are other sources in the article that repeat some of the contentious parts. But it's better to err on the side of caution, so I won't restore that. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 21:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm also in favour of linking to (redacted)'s complaint/pleading, or to a news article that links to the compliant/pleading such as Jezebel or the WSJ. After all, the article also links to the audio of Sulkowicz's filing of a criminal complaint against (redacted), which definitely is a primary source as well. What an awful getting-out-of-control case this is, by the way. Atlantacity (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC).

We don't link to the audio or to the formal complaint itself because no one has published it. We have only secondary sources about it. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 16:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know a lot about this question. I've seen civil complaints cited directly in other articles, but this may be a different BLP situation. I'll try to find some time and motivation to dig into that deeper. It's worth pointing out, for the sake of other readers, that there are arguments for and against this document in #Cite (redacted) complaint?. To avoid confusion for anyone who cares to read it, I'll try to explain its context. Atlantacity wanted to add a cite for the (redacted) complaint, directly or indirectly through a Jezebel (?) article, unaware at the time that the article already cited the document, directly, four times. Some others in the discussion opposed the citation, also unaware that it was already in the article. Those four references were later removed here, which is where we stand now. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Linking to the lawsuit is fine in that we don't repeat its contentious allegations, so it's a primary source that we link to simply to augment the secondary coverage. See WP:BLPPRIMARY. It's not fine in that it contains BLP violations, and one of the text messages is taken out of context in a way that places a question mark over the rest of the document. So to be safe it's probably better to leave it out for now. That may change as the case progresses. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 21:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirgin Which text message exactly is taken out of context and in what way? Atlantacity (talk) 03:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Sulkowicz claims, plausibly, that a message in which she says "fuck me in the butt" prior to the alleged incident was meant figuratively, as in "I'll be damned." --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Her follow-up doesn't make it sound very figuratively, asking whether he doesn't miss her lop-sided butt. And his answer "rather not, I miss your face though" is quite sweet and also suggests that he didn't have prior experience in that area. Atlantacity (talk) 04:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that we link to the pleading/complaint. The way the "fuck me in the butt' text is cited makes clear that Sulkowicz only wrote it jokingly/teasingly and certainly not as a sexual demand. (redacted)'s use of 'jk' shows that he knew she was just kidding. Moreover, they were thousands of miles apart at that moment. But (redacted)'s response also tells you something about him. Atlantacity (talk) 04:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The banter on this talk page is going to mean that women won't want to post here. Someone asked yesterday that it stop and I'm asking now too. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 06:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I am a woman. Atlantacity (talk) 06:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for removing this. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 15:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

"I love you Paul. Where are you? !?!?!? !" United States District Court Southern District of New York/15 CV 03126. Atlantacity (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

"I love you Paul. Where are you? !?!?!? !" United States District Court Southern District of New York/15 CV 03126. Atlantacity (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

"I love you Paul. Where are you? !?!?!? !" United States District Court Southern District of New York/15 CV 03126. Atlantacity (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, you've said it three times, now would you please explain its significance? Apparently it's something REALLY important. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to. It's a text that Sulkowicz sent to (redacted) two weeks after he allegedly raped her so violently. If people are able to read the complaint, then they can at least get an idea of the other side of this story. That's why I'm so much in favour of simply linking to the complaint in the most neutral way possible. Atlantacity (talk) 14:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Where to begin. First off, we avoid citing to primary sources; second, citing that message to the legal complaint is not appropriate because those are claims being made by (redacted). If we wanted to cite them for this WP article we'd need an actual secondary source that meets the guidelines in general. Furthermore, because of the sensitive role that these messages play in the case, even with good sourcing for the existence and authenticity of the messages, we can't simply stick them in the article in absence of some appropriately contextualizing commentary — and even more furthermore, since the subject matter itself is so sensitive and pertains to living persons, we need to have exceptionally good sourcing. In my personal opinion, that means NYT, WSJ, or WaPo or something of a similarly high caliber that explicitly discusses these messages and explains their significance. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 14:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't expect a reply from Atlantacity for awhile. [16] ―Mandruss ☎ 14:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Inderdeed, I will no longer participate in this discussion. Apparently only a certain type of women is welcome to comment, namely those convinced of the accused's guilt. Moreover, at first I felt for the accused. Now I only feel for Sulkowicz, who is self-destructing before our very eyes. Atlantacity (talk) 05:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Atlantacity: Nearly all of your comments have bordered (to put it nicely) on BLP violations and FORUM. Stop. And frankly you should edit your comment to It's a text that Sulkowicz allegedly sent since they are also allegations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvergreenFir (talk • contribs) 06:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

No, she confirmed that she wrote this.[17] --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2015

Please add to the end of paragraph 4.1:

The accused student's parents criticized the work to be "extremely graphic" and "higly disturbing".

82.113.121.234 (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is advisable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: Mind saying why? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

82.113.121.234, can you first clarify whether you're also editing as 89.204.153.127 (and others in the same range) and Cyve? Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I can make an account, if you prefer.. I'm not Cyve. Why is it not advisable? They are the work's object's parents and it's a legit critic.--82.113.121.234 (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

It would definitely be less confusing if you made an account. Bus stop (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

82.113.xxx, I'm taking that to mean that you're also 89.204.xxx. Please say if that's not correct. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 21:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be afraid to answer my request, Sarah. Why don't you stick to the subject?--EvilGermanIP (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I wonder why you think I would be afraid to answer it. In fact, I nearly added that material myself, then decided that their response about the university was enough. We can't quote them in every section. If the accused says something about it, we can quote him. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 21:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The subject is "Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)". You are suggesting inclusion of a reaction by the parents of the accused to a different work of art. I don't mean to be dogmatic. But I think that is an accurate characterization of the suggestion to include the parent's reaction to the drawings/photos/prints. We actually have very little information about these artistic entities. We have not seen them and sources are providing very little commentary on them. Bus stop (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

According to the text currently in the article, this particular artwork was "an exhibit consisting of drawings of a naked man, a couple having sex, and newspaper articles about the accused." I tend to agree that we don't want to over quote the parents, but if this artwork contained visible headlines with their family name, their reaction to it may be on topic. (Add-if we do decide to include the parent's reaction, I'd change the suggested text from "criticized" to "described". They aren't art critics, and since the suggested text includes their direct quotes, it's clear their reaction is not positive. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi BoboMeowCat—another source has to talk about this before we assert this or lend weight to anything like this. You say "if this artwork contained visible headlines with their family name, their reaction to it may be on topic" but we don't have a source saying that the "artwork contained visible headlines with their family name". Bus stop (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Bus stop, I'm a bit confused. How would they know the artwork contained articles about the accused, if the articles were not visible? Do the sources say that the articles were illegible, but Sulkowicz stated they were about the accused? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

BoboMeowCat—you ask "How would they know the artwork contained articles about the accused, if the articles were not visible?" Answer: Perhaps the articles are partially visible, but partially concealed by the imagery painted or otherwise applied to the newspaper articles. But sources are saying nothing about this. Why should we go out on a limb making assertions that are not directly supported by sources? If we are wrong we potentially mislead the reader. Bus stop (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm wary of adding too much from the accused's parents, first because having his parents speak out a lot suggests that he's not an adult, and second because we don't quote Sulkowicz's parents, and too much of one will necessitate the other. Also, we don't know that his parents even saw it. Their statement isn't clear on that point. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 23:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

His father did see it. [18] I wonder whether that should have been moved to its own section, given that it was her final thesis show. I had added it to the part where we quote the parents about Mattress, but it was moved out at some point. Is it a separate work? Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 23:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

It is a separate work. Looks fine where it is listed as a related work. Minor4th 20:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Revert

@A21sauce: Can you explain your revert? Edit summary just calls it "BS" and ends in an unfinished sentence. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Bringing in extraneous stuff about the accused's case when we've already gone over it a bunch of times.--A21sauce (talk) 04:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@BoboMeowCat: I only cited the sources for completely non-controversial information, but I see the concern you have with using some of them. I will restore this (tomorrow, since User:A21sauce has accused me of "edit warring" even though I did not violate 3RR and s/he simply didn't respond to the talk page), but with different sources. Just for clarity, which of the following do you consider unacceptable?

Ariel Kaminer (22 December 2014). "Accusers and the Accused, Crossing Paths at Columbia University". The New York Times. (This article doesn't take a position, and I cited it only for the accused's own quotes.)

Cathy Young (3 February 2015). "Columbia Student: I Didn't Rape Her", The Daily Beast. (This is not an op-ed, and doesn't take a position.)

Die Zeit article (This seems to reflect the mainstream view of German press.)

McArdle (Probably this is no good and it's redundant anyway, doesn't need to be cited at all. My bad on this one.)

I'm assuming the source for the Dear Colleague Letter is okay. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Kaminer, Young, and Die Zeit have all been cited over and over in previous versions. You're regurgitating old arguments. Please don't. Go back into the history of this article, read up on the history of the talk page before you cite old stuff, thanks--A21sauce (talk) 04:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@A21sauce: I will replace Kaminer and Die Zeit with different references. What is the objection to Young? I looked in the archives and didn't find any substantive objection to that article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@A21sauce: @BoboMeowCat: I'm a bit confused. Kaminer is already cited by this article, and there has been no objection to Young that I'm aware of. I cited everything for totally uncontroversial facts. Is the fact that Die Zeit was cited the only problem here? I only cited that for repeating the wording of the Columbia investigation verbatim, and for nothing else. What do you find POV about all this? --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Sammy1339 This shouldn't be restored, because it doesn't have consensus. It seems POV to me to include "false allegation of rape", as POV as adding that he seems guilty because there were multiple allegations against him, which is also in reliable sources. FYI, Cathy Young is known to have rather strong POV opinions on the topic of campus rape.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@BoboMeowCat: I didn't write "false accusation of rape." I just quoted the ruling. If he's going to have a Wikipedia article mention an unsubstantiated accusation against him, it ought to say in the most unambiguous words possible that he was cleared. That's not POV and it's not the same as asserting that he's innocent. --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with the removal of the biographical info about Sulkowicz. It's very brief and should be restored. The other complaints need to be there because they're connected; I'll edit that paragraph to make the connection clearer. Sammy, the sources that you're adding are already in the article, so far as I can tell. You seem to be adding the same source with different names, in one case anyway. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 05:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The biographical information on Sulkowicz is a small issue - I removed it for no other reason than because it seemed quite tangential to the subject of the article. Regarding naming of the references, that was very sloppy of me, sorry about that. --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Break (Revert)

Some recent editing suggests that people are writing the article without having read it or the sources. I'm not talking only about today, but generally. The sequence of events is quite complex and they hang together. Removing one bit will make another bit not make sense, but adding it all will lead to serious BLP violations. That's why it was written the way it was. I will try now to make clear how the allegations hang together, but they're going to take the article in a direction that is best avoided, so ideally the article should be reverted to its previous state. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 05:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with restoring the other allegations, particularly when it was implied that they were rape allegations. We wouldn't include the previous rape allegations made by Sulkowicz against others, and BLPCRIME should be applied here - if we don't have to mention an unsubstantiated accusation against a living person, we shouldn't. --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

We don't know anything about previous allegations S supposedly made. That comes entirely from that lawsuit, which can't be trusted given how it used that text message.

The allegations can be clarified. But I feel as though I'm walking on a minefield. Every allegation that's added attracts another one; every one removed reduces clarity. Both parties will look bad if we add them all, the accused especially. So my thinking is to be as judicious as possible with the sexual material, but not to the point of leaving out substantive issues. S. complained only after speaking to the girlfriend. The accused says it was collusion. Removing the other complaints removes the collusion aspect, removes the motive (that they jointly came to believe he was someone who should be complained about), removes the explanation for the delay.

I can try to write it differently, but it's senseless to spend ages on a few sentences only to have someone change or remove them, especially when we have several SPAs active. The truth is that this article can't be crowdsourced. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 06:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, Sulkowicz says that was what led her to complain, and the accused says something else and so on.... this is all tabloid stuff! It's bad enough we have to mention one dubious claim of criminal conduct by a non-notable person. There is not a compelling case for including other allegations. Do we really need to flesh out the question of whether the reason for the delay was that Sulkowicz had to meet this other girl, or that over time she grew resentful of being rejected and made up the incident? What's the reason to give everybody's factually-unsupported version of the events? It's not informing readers, more like helping them get emotionally invested in one or the other narrative. --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll restore the first couple of sentences of the bio, minus the fencing, etc, and I'll leave the other allegations out for now. But that omission means the article is inaccurate. It also means I can't add certain details, e.g. that the NY Post broke the story, citing interviews with the three women. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 15:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the other allegations are on topic but it's tricky. Obviously we shouldn't include anything POV like "serial rapist", but it still seems tricky to include only a brief mention of these other allegations, yet still provide the factual information that only Sulkowicz's allegation clearly involved an allegation of rape.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Only one complainant outed herself to the media and made Mattress Performance, but the backdrop consisted of three complaints, not one. A former girlfriend alleged non-consensual sex, which the complaint apparently summarized as "intimate partner violence." He was found not responsible. A second woman said he had grabbed her at a party and that she had to push him off. [19] He was found responsible for that one; it was overturned on appeal after the woman dropped out of the process. A year later a man complained that, I believe two years earlier, he had been touched inappropriately; the accused was found not responsible.

It would be easy enough to explain they were not all rape allegations. I just want to make sure there's consensus to restore them so that we're not going back and forth. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@BoboMeowCat: This is not just an NPOV issue, its a WP:BLPCRIME issue. @SlimVirgin: To my sensibilities it seems obvious that providing the gritty details of exactly how the story was broken is less important than not airing unsubstantiated allegations against an otherwise non-notable person. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The additional allegations should be left out, as they are peripheral and marginal re: the subject of the article; their inclusion created a weight/undue issue without adding real value to the article. I'm not so sure that the BLP issues are so serious since the accused is not actually named or identified in the article. Minor4th 19:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the BLP issues are extremely serious. His name can easily be found (it even appears in our own references) and I'd like to remind everyone that he has been the subject of numerous statements that can be read as death threats. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I could have been clearer. I meant only that in this particular, limited instance, there are better reasons besides BLP that suggest that the additional accusations should be left out. Generally, I agree that BLP considerations in this article should be taken very seriously. Minor4th 20:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The BLP issues on both sides are serious. But leaving out the other complaints distorts what happened, because each one occurred only because the others did. It was the women discussing what had happened to them that made them realize these were assaults (as they saw them), and shouldn't be accepted as something women are supposed to tolerate. That is the whole point of Mattress Performance and the video.

The paragraph should be restored with a clearer (but very brief) explanation of chronology and cause-and-effect. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 20:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the BLP issues on both sides are serious.

As for the "cause-and-effect," it troubles me that you keep stating the accusers' version of events as fact.

Whatever the implications of Mattress Performance may be, Wikipedia policy does not support the idea that people who make criminal accusations have a right to be believed, or that articles should be tailored to include information that explains or supports their allegations at the expense of individual privacy. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Sammy on this - to include the accuser's version (three alleged victims got together and compared notes and decided to make complaints and carry a mattress) is undue and raises BLP alarms (unsubstantiated criminal allegations). To avoid this, you then have to balance it with the accused's response and version of "cause and effect." Let's take a look at the reliable sources and see how they treat both sides of this. Minor4th 20:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

In that case you should remove every complaint and have Mattress Performance stand isolated and unexplained. A woman started carrying a mattress one day for no reason.

The explanation is that there were three complaints, and the university acted only on one of them. That one was then overturned on appeal when the woman withdrew from a process that was allegedly insensitive and arduous. As a result, a federal Title IX complaint was made, which the Department of Education is investigating.

You are saying we should leave out the key part of that, namely that there were multiple allegations. They're widely discussed in secondary sources, they're essential to understanding the federal complaint, they were part of the cause of Mattress Peformance, and they were the reason the press picked up the story. One allegation alone would probably not have had that effect. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 20:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

If it is widely and reliable sourced that the accuser's motivation behind Mattress Performance was as you state, then include it. I think you have to be very careful though to write it in a NPOV manner and avoid BLP issues - which may mean including the accused's response. Minor4th 21:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@Minor4th: Sulkowicz asserts that this was her motivation, while in the accused's version, both claims are fabricated. Although SlimVirgin has repeatedly spoken as if the former version were fact, there is no evidence for it. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

As you correctly note, even including the Sulkowicz accusation is a major BLP issue, and it is only included because the article would make no sense without it, and unfortunately has far too much notability to be deleted. However, that's not an excuse for just forgetting about BLP policy.

The accusers' Title IX complaint involves more than 20 plaintiffs, and the fact that a couple of them other than Sulkowicz alleged wrongdoing specifically by the accused is not important. It's also irrelevant to speculate about whether the press would have reported on this without the other accusations. The other accusations are not necessary for context and do not need to be included.

It may be a small point here, but I'm again troubled by your use of POV language: "the university acted on only one of them." For the record, the university investigated all four complaints, and all four investigations found the accused not responsible, including one on appeal. BLPCRIME tells us to try to avoid including accusations that have not been proven in a criminal court. It's grossly inappropriate to include the results of college hearings that use a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, knowing these are likely to be interpreted by readers as deciding guilt or innocence of a crime, and it is perhaps even more inappropriate to include mention of allegations that failed to meet even this standard. There has to be a very compelling reason to include such information. There is arguably such a reason when it comes to the Sulkowicz allegation, but not the others. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Sammy, are you familiar with how this story emerged and developed? The three women gave an interview. Because you have removed that there were three women, I'm not able to add that. It is as though we are creating a new version of events, and I'm concerned that this is happening, not because of anyone's bad faith, but because people are writing the article without being familar with the case. It's frustrating to watch.

As for the third complaint, he was found responsible and given a minor sanction. He appealed, and the university started calling the woman at work to get her to continue with the case. She was upset about it all starting up again, so she withdrew. That left no one to repeat her side of the story. He won his appeal. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 21:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm more aware of the facts of this case than I care to be, and yes, I know what happened with the hearing that was appealed. Again you are using language which presumes one version of events. She says she withdrew because she was upset. Maybe she withdrew because there was no case. More to the point, why are we debating the result of a college disciplinary hearing about unwanted kissing? Do you really not find anything wrong with including this sort of thing in Wikipedia?

The manner in which the story first broke is pretty irrelevant to the content, and omitting mention of the other allegations does not create a new version of events, but including a pile of unsubstantiated allegations which may or may not be the result of collusion just might. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It's clear that we won't reach a compromise position about this, but that there were multiple allegations has been in the article from the start, so I think you should seek consensus to remove it. I'll probably restore it when I next edit if can make clear that not all were rape allegations without being too wordy. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 21:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I started a discussion at the BLP noticeboard about this issue. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

MOS:SEASON

We currently refer to summer twice and winter once. MOS:SEASON advises against that, being as we should be sensitive to the needs of readers who live below the equator (it's not their fault). But I don't know what we would do with phrases like "She spent the summer of 2014 creating the rules of engagement", or "during the previous winter break". I don't think "during the previous winter break (summer in the Southern Hemisphere)" is a good answer. Anybody have any ideas or comments? Anybody care about MOS:SEASON? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It's called "winter break". I will add approximate dates to both. Speaking of MoS, I restored the en dashes, partly because they look cleaner, partly because em dashes are usually written without spaces. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

LOL. I disagree that they look cleaner, and the spaces can be removed if that's the more common practice. Frankly a lot of the stuff you change back seems very arbitrary. Can you point to MOS support for that change? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

What does LOL refer to? It's not just the MoS, it's publishing in general. See WP:MDASH: "There are two options. Use either unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes consistently in an article." Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 20:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sorry for the underlinking, here you go: LOL. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I know what it means. I was wondering what it referred to. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 20:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Rather than trying to explain, I'll strike it. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you just take it out? It's annoying this innuendo. More about you than your argument.--A21sauce (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

A21sauce—you say "More about you than your argument". But isn't it true that any time an editor addresses a point, they are also revealing something about themselves? We have no choice but to tell about ourselves when we use the Talk page because the language that we use and the points that we argue for, tend to indicate how we feel about questions that remain unanswered. Bus stop (talk) 11:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm at a loss to understand what the supposed "innuendo" was, but I'm equally at a loss to understand what the point of this section is at all. Paul B (talk) 12:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Reception, Lawsuit

In the "Reception" section, after referencing the lawsuit, the article says, Attorney Nicholas O'Donnell wrote in Art Law Report that the pleading raised eyebrows regarding the alleged sexual details included about Sulkowicz, when the lawsuit is about the university, not about the sexual allegations. But there is nothing in the article that describes the "alleged sexual details about Sulkowicz" from the accused's complaint, so this sentence has no context and seems out of place. I also don't think the source is a reliable source - it is a law firm's blog. I'm removing the sentence and the source, but I'm open to further discussion. Minor4th 20:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

He's commenting on the language of the lawsuit, which goes into unnecessary detail. Reveals a bit about where the accused is coming from. Why is a partner in a law firm specializing in civil cases more credible than a Daily Beast writer who says that men are harassed more online than women?--A21sauce (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Gov. Cuomo and Lady Gaga essay

I wanted to add the following to the article in the section on responses. We have a quote from an activist group all the way out in the midwest and we already quote the guy from Creative Time who says that Mattress Piece amplified the conversation on campus rape:

In June 2015, Lady Gaga and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo cowrote an essay in Billboard urging the passage of a state bill to make it easier for victims of rape on campuses of private colleges in the state to come out publicly with their accusations. They wrote, "In New York, fewer than five percent of rapes that occur on college campuses are reported to law enforcement and just 16 percent of survivors receive support from a victim services agency."< ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6590572/lady-gaga-andrew-cuomo-enough-is-enough-legislation%7Ctitle=Lady Gaga, Gov. Cuomo Pen Essay Urging Passage of 'Enough Is Enough' Bill: Exclusive|date=June 8, 2015|publisher=Billboard.com< /ref>

Could we have a woman editor respond please this time? Oh no, all 9,989 men watching this page like hawks are offended.--A21sauce (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to respond even though I'm not a woman. (Though I do like to cross-dress on occasion, I recognise this doesn't make me a woman ;) Including that passage on the basis of the reference you've provided is a clear violation of WP:OR. It doesn't mention this article topic at all, not even obliquely. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The link to the Billboard article is not working for me and the text reverted made no mention of Sulkowicz. Did they say in the essay authors were inspired to write about this topic in reaction to Mattress Performance?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is the correct link: http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6590572/lady-gaga-andrew-cuomo-enough-is-enough-legislation —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Source request

Bus stop, you added: "Sulkowicz explains the work to be an endurance performance art piece that utilizes the elements of protest." You copied a source from elsewhere in the article: "For Watson Hall, Sulkowitzc, 2 September 2014, from c. 2:00 mins." Can you give a source for that statement? Also, do we need it given that we already say it's endurance art? Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 22:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this section. The source is the same; that is why I've copied it. The wording supporting my assertion occurs at about the 2:20 mark. Yes, I am aware that we already say it is endurance art. But a few points. These are Sulkowicz' words. More importantly Sulkowicz addresses an important question that often comes up both on this Talk page and in various good quality sources. Is this more "protest" or more "art"? She importantly says: "To me it's an endurance-performance art piece. I do think that nowadays art pieces can include whatever the artist desires and in this performance art piece it utilizes the elements of protest." In my opinion we want to know how the artist conceptualizes the piece. In my opinion this is an important matter, if we are writing an article on an individual work of contemporary art. Note the comment of the editor closing the RfC above. Wbm1058 wrote: "Whether this is really a work of endurance performance art, or a protest. Perhaps it's a new sub-genre of performance art, endurance protest performance art?" Bus stop (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, good point. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 23:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I've added the lengthier quote which I think is all beneficial (to the article) information. Bus stop (talk) 10:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Meaning of Reasonable Suspicion/mentioning accused in talk page

The article quoted the accused' attorney saying there would be no charges due to "lack of reasonable suspicion." It was redirected in the article to "probable cause." They are different standards so I presume the lawyer meant what he said plainly and I removed our redirect to probable cause and let it stand as a link to reasonable suspicion. "Reasonable suspicion" is the legal term used to describe the suspicion that a crime occurred. That is the first step in investigating crimes. The second step is to determine whether there is "probable cause" to arrest someone for that crime. The difference is significant and the lawyer is saying with that language that there was lack of evidence of a crime rather than lack of evidence for arrest and conviction.

Secondly, I am also concerned that the accused is mentioned prominently on the talk page by name. He is accused of a crime and doesn't appear to be notable for any other reason. Why is his name being used in talk page and not redacted? Am I missing the reason or should we be redacting it according to our BLP policy regarding persons accused of a crime? --DHeyward (talk) 10:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I imagine the reason (redacted) is so freely named is his prominence relative to this art piece in mainstream media and widespread availability of his name- we even cite articles which name him plainly, such as this New York Times article. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 11:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPTALK the big BLP restriction on talk pages is false or dubious information about living persons, and stuff like WP:BLPNAME doesnt seem to fall under this umbrella. That (redact) is called (redact) is an undisputed fact and therefore has no reason to be removed from non-article space. Bosstopher (talk) 11:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME, WP:BLPNAME, WP:BLP1E, WP:NPF and WP:BLPTALK isn't about just "false or dubious information" but rather focus on whether the name impacts decisions regarding content. Using his name gratuitously, as above (now redacted), is definitely a BLP violation so don't restore it. His name isn't used in the article so the only reason to include it in talk is for clarity. Do we need it in talk? Policy leans strongly against it in all namespaces as he is being accused of a crime and is not a public figure - his name is irrelevant to the article. Linking to reliable sources is fine per WP:BLPTALK unless it can be shown the link itself is defamatory or gratuitous. "Because it's true" is not an argument based in BLP policy which requires more for NPF persons accused of a crime. --DHeyward (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Surely, it depends on what is meant by "accused of a crime". There are no criminal proceedings, nor are there any prospect of any short of dramatic new evidence emerging. George Bush is "accused" of war crimes by some people, but there are no ongoing proceedings against him. We don't redact his name when reference is made to political opponents who make such claims. Frankly, I find the radacting rather more insulting to him than the use of his name. It implies he has something to hide, which he has said he does not, or that his name, which is present in the article in references, is something shameful. I would support not mentioning it if he had chosen to stay out of the limelight, but he hasn't. Paul B (talk) 12:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Surely, you don't think that being accused of rape is not an accusation of a crime. Second, he is not a public figure as Bush is. We are not a newspaper and the question is whether his name affects any content in WP or is relevant. I think its rather obvious that a person accused of a crime would rather not be named as being accused of a crime. Such an accusation, whether true or not, can only harm his reputation (even vindication or acquittal, best case, will only restore his reputation to the pre-accusation so it can only harm him). Redaction is for privacy. He is not a notable figure and we generally do not support naming people accused of a crime, regardless of the state of prosecution. His name adds no value so unless someone comes up with a reason to name him, BLP seems to require he not be named. He is essentially a "John Doe" for any content or discussion as his name is not material to the topic. --DHeyward (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I repeat, "Surely, it depends on what is meant by 'accused of a crime'. There are no criminal proceedings, nor are there any prospect of any short of dramatic new evidence emerging." People make accusations in various different contexts - to friends, to the police, and in this case via a work of art (after other proceedings). This is all public now, primarily because both sides have entered into the public arena through forms of publicity and different forms of proceeding. You say, "I think its rather obvious that a person accused of a crime would rather not be named as being accused of a crime." It's not rather obvious at all. Circumstances differ. In this case he'd rather not have been pushed into the limelight. He's said so himself. But now he's in it, he's chosen to 'go public'. That changes the situation. He becomes a public figure - not exactly George Bush - but, there are of course degrees of public presence. Those who support using his name say that far from protecting him, referring to him as 'the accused' or as <redacted> has the opposite effect. His name humanises him, as the complainants humanises her. She is an individual. He is an accused. This may be one of the reasons he has chosen to abandon (relative) anonymity. I'm sure it's a choice he would rather not have made at all, but it one that has now been made. Paul B (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Keeping the focus on the performance art is fine. There is no way in hell you can say "John Doe raped me" and not consider that to be an accusation of a crime unless you are saying "rape is not a crime" (which I hope you are not) or are quibbling that "some rape is not a crime" (which I hope you are not). This piece is about the artwork, not the person being accused of a crime. To name him means we would be adding pages and sections regarding credibility of each party and everything that is tangential to this work of art. The reality is that the art's impact is what is notable and whether the accusation is true or not is immaterial at this point. But BLP is not immaterial and the choices are to name him in the article (and the very specific talk section to wordsmith it, where we would use his name) or not name him at all. If we do name him, all of the exculpatory evidence will need to be added (i.e. comments on facebook, collusion evidence, etc) which I am sure will lead to adding the incrominating evidence. It is much more preferable to leave the art as it is, the names out of the article and talk page and keep the tangential stuff like lawsuits at the margins. --DHeyward (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Now this "debate" is getting silly. Please don't start making absurd suggestions like 'unless you are saying "rape is not a crime"', with the words "rape is not a crime" in inverted commas, as if they are a quotation. That's the most disingenuous way to make points. The artwork is not an abstract protest about rapes on campuses. It has become implicated in claims about a) the way art is related to wider social issues; b) the legal, personal and social ramifications of the art performance itself. I don't think these can be separated. That is to say, I don't think it would serve any purpose to have two separate articles: one on the he-said-she-said issues about events and one on the artwork. The artwork was always about making a statement in a wider context, and so was always implicated in the social debate about rape, sexual freedom, accused/accusers' rights etc. It's hugely unlikely that it would even have become notable at all if she were lugging a mattress around to protest about, say, global warming. The fact that art is being interpreted as an act of intimidation, is, ironically, perhaps related to earlier feminist arguments about the nude and 'objectification'. Paul B (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

a) the way art is related to wider social issues; b) the legal, personal and social ramifications of the art performance itself. are both very topical and useful points. The name of the accused doesn't need to be mentioned to make either of them. In fact the art was praised and related to those thing before his name was known to the press. --DHeyward (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Paul Barlow: He certainly has chosen to stay out of the limelight. He did not speak to press for many months while the campaign against him was going on. His name was published by the school paper after he filed a lawsuit against Columbia. After many, many news articles were written in a way that presumed his guilt ("Emma Sulkowicz was raped, etc.) and after receiving threats such as "I'd cut his throat myself," he did an interview with Cathy Young, where he gave his side of the story. He has not given speeches or public interviews with other journalists, like Sulkowicz has. He never gave any indication he wants something other than anonymity. Comparing him to W is a bit off the point - the latter is a prominent public figure. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I am perfectly aware of the sequence of events, and have read the stories. Paul B (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe his name made the press a few months after the artwork started when the artist filed a police report and the school paper published his name from that public record report. No charges were filed by prosecutors. He didn't file a lawsuit until near the end of the year. Until then, his name was not published in the press and he didn't do interviews until after that happened. --DHeyward (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The above isn't completely accurate- his name was actually published by a student newspaper (Columbia Spectator) after Emma Sulkowicz filed a police report regarding the alleged assault which made his name part of public record. His lawsuit came actually much later.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@BoboMeowCat: Ah yes, that's right. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward: would you be fine in using his name on the talk page in non-gratuitous ways? While I can see how WP:BLPCRIME, WP:BLPNAME, WP:BLP1E, WP:NPF are not just about false information, these issues dont seem to fall under the domain of WP:BLPTALK as his name is not "contentious [... and] unsourced or poorly sourced." From my reading of the policy page it seems like BLPNAME doesnt apply on talk pages, but apologies if I've misread. In this case would the best path be to clarify the wording on the relevant policy page? Bosstopher (talk) 13:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

BLPTALK is not a protection from BLP violations, just links and just for the purposes of adding content.. If GamerGate BLPTALK rules are applied, even links can be in violation. Naming a person that is not a notable figure in the context of a crime is a BLP violation and is a BLP violation in every namespace. --DHeyward (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• This BLPN discussion reached the conclusion that we can use the accused student's name in the article, with certain limitations. It recommends that we "wordsmith any content on the Talk page prior to inclusion"—this would be quite difficult if we could not use his name on the talk page. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

And that discussion about content has not happened and the use of his name (even in this section) is not being used to wordsmith anything for the article. Gratuitous use is a BLP violation. It doesn't appear in the article and it's not clear his name is relevant to the performance art and its impact. Just as it would be tangential to mount his defense in this article, it's not appropriate to name him without context and without a reason why his name is notable part of the performance. We cannot name him without opening floodgates of tangential information that would be needed to properly present his account and it's not clear how any of that is relevant to the ostensible topic which is an exhibition of performance art that has drawn praise and awareness of campus sexual assault. His name was not known until the police report was filed and didn't make the news until after the performance art started and became popular so it is not exactly necessary to name him. Early NY Times articles didn't even ask him for comment because they didn't know who he was. The article would seriously degrade away from the topic if we add all pieces that would be necessary to name him. --DHeyward (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

What you saying now is that the article should only be about the artwork, which is a wholly distinct point. The topic has certainly spiralled beyond the original "performance" as the details of the case have come to be relevant to its significance, in particular the accused's claim that the performance itself (and related social/political networking activities) constituted a form of harrassment. This, of course, has ramifications beyond art, but it is also relevant to debates about the nature and impact of art practice and art institutions. Or, to put it simply, art is not just for arts sake. Paul B (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward: I oppose any mention of the name, but I think we need to be realistic, and realize that his name is easily searchable and even appears in our references. With that in mind I don't see that merely not including his name excuses us from properly presenting his account, as you put it. I think the more important issue is what facts of the case are mentioned. There is currently a discussion at BLPN about whether accusations tangentially related to Sulkowicz's performance should be included. I also think that even mentioning the accusation by Sulkowicz obligates us to include the online communications between them which seem to be exculpatory. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Paul Barlow It's not anything different than what I've said before so there is no "saying now." If that lawsuit is notable from the thousands of others, then it should have it's own article. A brief mention in this article is fine as long as there is no identification of the accused person. We cannot cover the rape accusation and defense properly in this article. We don't need to name him though and we avoid the need to make this about the rape allegation and we avoid naming two other accusers and we avoid pages of defense. Back to the topic in this section, if the discussion isn't about wordsmithing his name into the article, it shouldn't be on the talk page for gratuitous reasons. That's clear. --DHeyward (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, you can repeat yourself as often as you like. I think you are wrong. This article is about the intersection of art and social activism. An art student carrying around a mattress would not even be a story unless it were linked to the wider social and ideological issues that make it one. These include the claims about so-called 'rape culture' and so-called 'rape panic'. That's essentially what makes it notable, and the fact that the meaning of the work was always bound up with intimidation (both parties claiming to be the inimidated one) is inseparable from its significance. That's essentially why it is important. Paul B (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

So I went from "what you are saying now" to "repeating myself?" Anyway, it's demonstrably false that the notability of the work is tied to the name of the accused. It was a popular and acclaimed piece of art prior to the accused being named. It is significant regardless of whether he is named or not. In any case, unless the discussion on the talk page is about spcifically adding his name and what language should be used, his name should not be mentioned as outlined in our BLP policies, the noticeboard discussions and prior discussions on talk. It's not necessary and gratuitous. --DHeyward (talk) 15:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You are the one who said you were repeating yourself ("It's not anything different than what I've said before"). It's perfectly possible both to repeat yourself and change the argument (though all I said was that you were making "a wholly distinct point" in the 14:29, 9 June 2015 post)! My point was that your original argument concerned guidelines about someone who has been accused of a crime. Your later argument in the the 14:29 post is that the article should only be about the art, which should be presented as much as possible as a generic protest about campus rape. My argument is that it may have originally been perceived as such, but that the nature of the art personalised the protest ab initio, and so its implications for individuals became increasingly part of the story, which then raises questions about both the social role of art and what might broadly be called 'campus culture', with differing views about that topic being articulated. We can't usefully separate these out. Paul B (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

BLPN and naming of the accused

One BLPN discussion had qualified consensus to include his name if his "full defense" is addressed in article, but unfortunately his "full defense" includes multiple BLP violations: such as texts released out of context allegedly from Sulkowicz regarding prior alleged sexual assault and prior alleged sexually transmitted disease, etc. His defense also includes this inflammatory text sent the year prior to the alleged assault which reads "fuck me in the butt", which the accused presents as an invitation to the disputed activity, and which Sulkowicz said was an expression Freshman year to mean "I'm so annoyed." This BLPN discussion concluded we should err on side of caution and not name him.

Additionally, since that BLP with that very qualified consensus, new text has been added to the article regarding a performance art video which appears to be a rape reenactment of the alleged rape which he has been accused of. Talk page consensus was we would keep his name out of the article now, to avoid hits on his name being linked to a rape reenactment video, for an alleged rape he was never charged of or convicted of.[20] --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Related work/Other work

We have a section heading above two other works of art by the same artist. One of those works is called "Newspaper Bodies (Look, Mom, I'm on the Front Page!)" and the other is called "Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol". That section heading for these two works of art can be "Related work" or "Other work". If it is felt that one (or both) of these works are "related" to "Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)" we can explain that in the commentary accompanying the artwork. We can for instance give an example of a parallel drawn between that work of art and "Mattress Performance". We may even choose to name the commentator who points out the relationship between the two artworks. A section heading does not tell us much. It is merely an indicator of what is to follow. It should be kept general. Are both of the works under our debated section heading identical in respect to their relatedness to the main topic of this article? We know that the artist has said that one of the works is not a reenactment of the alleged rape. Sources can't completely override something that the artist said on the subject of the relatedness of two of her works of art. This is merely a section heading that we are discussing. Drawing connections between artworks is not out of the question. But please use full prose language, and do so in proximity to the specific work of art you are talking about. Bus stop (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

This is not a biography of the artist, so surely only work that has been said to be related should be included. If she paints a bunch of azaleas, it's surely irrelevant to this article, but these pieces are clearly ones which have been commented upon as related to the original work, and as referring - albeit indirectly - to the event that engendered it. Paul B (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Paul B—please explain to me why a section heading has to say what you wish to say? A section heading is the scaffolding on which an article is built. Anything that our article wishes to say can be said in proximity to those specific artworks. There is ample room next to "Newspaper Bodies (Look, Mom, I'm on the Front Page!)". Wax eloquent about the relatedness between the two works of art in that section. There is ample room next to "Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol". Wax eloquent about the relatedness between the two works of art in that section. Bus stop (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

"please explain to me why a section heading has to say what you wish to say?" What an odd thing to say. It's no more about my personal wish than your personal wish. It's about what makes sense for any particular article. I've already explained. If this were a biography of the artist, all her notable works would be relevant, but it isn't. It's about a particular piece that has had social impact. What is all this about "ample room"? The debate here is about the title. I didn't choose "related" works, other editors did. I gave a reason why it is better than "other" works, because all other works, if unrelated, would only be relevant in a catalogue or a biography. How is this argument difficult to understand? Why do you want me to "wax eloquent"? Commentators have seen these as related. The title of the section is best called that to discourage editors from listing any other unrelated works that she might make, or perhaps has already made. As you say, "a section heading is the scaffolding on which an article is built", that's why it should be phrased appropriately. Paul B (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Leaving aside Ce'st N'est Pas En Viol for the mean time, Newspaper bodies' is pretty clearly related. It's printed onto a New York Times article about the accused and the Matress Perfomance.Bosstopher (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I started to watch Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol, but had to switch off as I had naively expected it to be just 'acting', and am on my work computer. To say this is not a re-enactment of events in November 2012. is like saying 'do not press this button' (though there are, I assume, sensible legal reasons for such a disclaimer). However, the main point is that sources that discuss it, do so in the context of the alleged events of "November 2012" [21]. Paul B (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Paul B—this article need not be a biography of this artist in order to justify mentioning a couple of other works by her. Bus stop (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You seem to miss the point. I'm not against mentioning them. The title of this section is "Related work/Other work", refecting a mini-edit war over the section title, which is what I thought we were discussing. What I am opposed to, is having the career of the artist as the subject of the article, which is why I think Related works is a better title. This is the third time I've made this argument, which you have not directly responded to. In the unforgettable words of DHeywood, "It's not anything different than what I've said before". Paul B (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we are discussing a possible section heading. The "career of the artist" is not the "subject of the article". This is the case no matter the wording used for the section heading. Bus stop (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, the section title "other work" could include any other work (or even her charity work). We only want related works for this article. Paul B (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bosstopher—neither artwork is unambiguously related to the artwork in the title of the article. The more nondescript section heading suffices to introduce two other artworks by the same artist. Bus stop (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

How is Newspaper Bodies not unambiguously related? I don't get why you've stated it to be so without addressing the points I've made. It's literally made out of a newspaper article covering reactions to Mattress Performance, and as SV mentioned was part of her senior thesis show which revolved around Mattress Performance. Bosstopher (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Bosstopher—a section heading in an article is like a shelf upon which items are placed. The section heading serves as an organizing principle for the article. We don't make assertions by means of section headings. Questionable assertions or assertions that can include qualifying language are more preferably placed in proper areas of the article and using full sentences. Bus stop (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

There is simply no justification for the more specific section heading, and there is reason not use the more specific section heading in that it may be wrong. The artist has not said that either work is related to Mattress Performance or to the alleged rape. And the artist seems to have distanced one artwork—Ceci N'est Pas En Viol—from the alleged rape. Our concern should be more with not misleading the reader than with finding the most specific label for a section heading that we can possibly find. There is ample space in proximity to the area in which each artwork is specifically discussed to bring in connections that you find in sources. Bus stop (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Related means related, not 'about the same event'. All discussion of the Viol video identifies it as related. Paul B (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

By that reasoning we could even say all three works are "related" because they are all by the same artist. I think we know what "related" means in this context. We risk possibly misleading the reader by using an undiscerning label for a section heading. Bus stop (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Bus stop, this is a minor thing to argue over, but the three works are clearly related. The second was the display at her senior-thesis show (and her senior thesis was Mattress Performance), and the video is obviously related to the allegations and political arguments. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be disregarding what Emma Sulkowicz says: "The following text contains allusions to rape. Everything that takes place in the following video is consensual but may resemble rape. It is not a reenactment but may seem like one."[22] Bus stop (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

But that doesn't mean the work isn't related. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Her statement provides us with reason to exercise restraint in our choice of language in a section heading at this point in our article. It is more than sufficient for organizational purposes to use the less specific wording in this section heading. We do not wish to convey to the reader that the other two works are in all ways related to the title work. By the way, this would be the case in other types of instances, involving other artworks by other artists. The broad assertion is the problem, when the less heavy-handed assertion is available. Let us turn the discussion around for a moment—is there anything wrong with the section heading "Other work"? Is there something deficient in that wording? Bus stop (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it's clear the other two pieces are related works, and that is how the reliable sources are treating them. They belong in the article for that reason and the heading "Related Work" is appropriate. Minor4th 19:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has argued that mention of two other artworks does not "belong in the article". Bus stop (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

But you appear to be the sole defender of Other works as a subtitle. Paul B (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Paul B—do you find anything problematic in the section heading "Other work"? Let us discuss it. Bus stop (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Umm, yes. Read the comments in this section. This is like Groundhog Day. Paul B (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the ground beef scandal. Bus stop (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Paul. That was my point - they are related and that's why they should be in the article. As such they should be under the heading "Related Works." Minor4th 19:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

We are talking about a section heading. Why are you not expanding the commentary next to each of these individual artworks to explain to the reader the relationship found to exist between that artwork and the main artwork of this article? Is it only the section heading that you are concerned with? Bus stop (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to include those edits yourself. I have not done it because I have just had a minute here and there to comment, but I agree that the information would be useful in the article. Minor4th 19:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

But you have time to revert. Bus stop (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Ceci N’est Pas Un Viol as "participatory art"

The Forward describes Ceci N’est Pas Un Viol as "participatory art", saying the art isn't really about the video, but rather about how people react to it: http://forward.com/sisterhood/309709/this-is-not-about-my-rape-it-is-about-you/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Main I'm not sure if this source is sufficient to include text regarding this in the article, or if we should wait and see if other sources discuss this. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It's an RS and the second source to discuss it in those terms. It would make a good addition. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 20:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I added brief mention of this: [23] --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that's good. I also added something from the Guardian. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 23:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The sources (ColumbiaSpectator) do discuss it, though not in enough detail. They quote the indictment of the audience which is the most powerful statement the film makes. “If you watch this video without my consent, then I hope you reflect on your reasons for objectifying me and participating in my rape, for, in that case, you were the one who couldn't resist the urge to make Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol about what you wanted to make it about: rape,” the statement said. [24]. It's a cultural statement about rape on many levels and appears to be her intent for making it. I added it, but SV reverted without saying why it was confusing. Rather, I think it's intended to be confusing and/or challenging about what rape is and how its viewed. It's not as straightforward as a reenactment of her rape, rather she is also reenacting the response and the statement is quite brilliant. Did anyone summarize the film as a story about her or is it always about "the rape?" Missing the person in such a performance seems to be something she is trying to highlight and being an object is a hallmark of rape culture. --DHeyward (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi DHeyward, most of what you added is already in the section, either word for word or in some other form, and the way it was inserted disrupted the flow. The edit also referred to things not explained in the section (e.g. her permission, her statement). I think we should wait for more secondary sources before expanding that section. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 00:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Jezebel

There are two sources [25][26] from Jezebel that I've considered adding in footnotes to augment other sources, but I saw earlier that someone had objected to anything from Jezebel. Our article calls it a blog, but it isn't; or at least it's not a personal blog.

I'm not sure what the difference would be between Jezebel and The Daily Beast or Reason, which we do use as sources for the accused's point of view (the Cathy Young articles). The Jezebel articles give Sulkowicz's and Josie's points of view, in response to Cathy Young and others, so I would like to add them in one of those footnotes. I wouldn't add material from them. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 23:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection to using these as primary sources. If the facebook messages are ever included (as I earlier suggested they should be), the former will be necessary for Sulkowicz's response. The latter source will be necessary for "Josie"'s account, in the unfortunate event that is included. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The first is a secondary source, though it includes primary-source material from Sulkowicz. The second, from Josie, was written by her and is a primary source. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 00:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it heads us off into the weeds. We have the performance art. We have an anonymous counter-response to the art from one who is depicted and a summary of the controversy. If we do the counter-counter response, we start to head down the road towards WP:COATRACK. I would be inclined to let the Young articles, as sources for the accused, stand as they are without any more rebuttal. We aren't here to prove anything, just cover the topic. The point of the article is the work of art and it's impact and if we stray too far from that, it becomes an article about an alleged crime with all the various points of view and BLP issues that come with covering a crime that isn't going to be resolved with a trial. Future litigation can be a separate article if it becomes significant enough. --DHeyward (talk) 00:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The material in Young is incomplete because she did not have access to all the sources. The Jezebel author (the first link above) was given greater access, so it would be good to have it in the same bundled ref as Young. I don't intend to add the material to the article (I agree about not going into those details), but I think we have to offer both sides to the reader in the footnote. One or both were in the article before; one was removed because at that point it was a sole source for Adam, which is no longer the case. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 01:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if anything in the Gawker network is considered a reliable source, but if there's consensus somewhere that it is I have no problem with using it. It definitely can be used for Sulkowicz's version of the facebook exchanges, which is why I said I'm okay with it as a primary source, such as in the manner you're suggesting. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The second one is a particularly incendiary primary source that 1. doesn't appear to have a significant impact on the artwork and 2. is launching all manner of accusations that are totally unverifiable (I am specifically not taking a position on truthfulness as unverified doesn't mean untrue, only that there's no way we could possibly know), so I don't think we need that here. The second one I could potentially see as having some use provided that we have Young's articles which pertain to it, as those appear to be the only other ones which have anything significant on "Adam"; that would only be necessary if the article is going into detail (i.e. a paragraph or two), otherwise there's no need for it since Young's articles hit on all the salient points needed for only a sentence or two. I don't think Gawker is a reliable source for anything, but if this allegation is discussed in significant detail there's no way to avoid linking to it because that's the article that brought it to more mainstream media attention. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. I'll add the first for now, but not the second. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 03:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Can you separate the first Jezebel article from Young 3 February, and just put them side-by-side as two references? I don't see why they need to be one on top of the other, and I had to cite just Young in my last edit. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

After reading up on it and looking into the archives at the reliable sources noticeboard, it seems like the Gawker network is not regarded as reliable. This gives some indication of their editorial policies. And a look at the main page, which I never thought to visit before, pretty much reveals it's a tabloid. Accordingly I don't think it's appropriate to cite it for statements of fact, and since the Young 3 February needs to be cited that way, I want to unbundle it from the Jezebel piece. Currently the first Jezebel piece is only used as a secondary source, so I'm just removing it. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The first piece spends a lot of space on discrediting Cathy Young which I don't consider to be a valid form of argument (i.e. ad hominem). Discrediting Cathy Young should not be a part of the article. Either she's a reliable source or not. We have no methods to judge any particular practice. --DHeyward (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Jezebel is definitely a political-advocacy blog, similar to Drudge Report and others like that. If we use it as a primary source, then I think we should also use Nungesser's court filing to present his side of the story in the article, for example his argument that the rape claim is fraudelent and that Sulkowitz' behavior surronding the entire incident has been disingenuous. Cla68 (talk) 22:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed edit to background

I want to change the first paragraph of the background section to the following. It makes no contentious claims, but makes certain statements more explicit, and adds relevant context (the dear colleague letter, relevant to both of the later civil suits, since it radically changed the university's Title IX obligations.) I have removed a source that was contentious last time, but kept Die Zeit, which is only cited for a non-contentious quote.

Emma Sulkowicz alleges that she was anally raped by another student on the first day of her second year on August 27, 2012, during what began as a consensual sexual encounter in her dorm room. The accused strongly denies the allegation, insisting that the encounter was entirely consensual, and asserts there was no possibility of a misunderstanding, saying he was falsely accused. Sulkowicz filed a complaint with the university in April 2013, and in October that year a university inquiry found the accused "not responsible," concluding that "The accusations are unfounded." The investigation used a "preponderance of the evidence" standard, lower than both the "proof beyond reasonable doubt" standard used in United States criminal courts and the "clear and convincing evidence" standard formerly used by many colleges prior to the April 2011 Dear Colleague Letter.

--Sammy1339 (talk) 01:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. You're adding detail from one side but not the other. If you're going to talk about the process, we will have to add the women's view of it, and you're objecting to even mentioning two of them. Also, the writing isn't tight, and for what the university said (the unfounded part) your source is the accused. Finally, I'll be changing some of the chronology of that paragraph when I restore the other complaints. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 02:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• I have struck the part you specifically objected to. Yes, however, I am adding detail explaining what the accused said, which balances the accusation that this entire article is largely about, and information explaining the context of the hearings. Well, wait a minute, I'm not sure what you're saying about the process - the standard of evidence used in it is objective fact, not opinion. Balancing would mean including both the accused's and the accuser's view of the process, and this has neither. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment "Unfounded" is from the university letter according to the source. The source says that is the only clear sentence in the form letter that exonerates him. This language is consistant with no "reasonable suspicion" which is a legal term of art that means they had no evidence of a crime/violation, let alone enough to decide responsibility. "Not responsible" appears to acknowledge there was a crime/violation but he wasn't responsible. I could not find that language in the second source and it's significant. --DHeyward (talk) 05:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - "No possibility of misunderstanding" seems odd wording to me, as if people frequently "rape accidentally" as some sort of misunderstanding-type-occurrence. I prefer just the text where he says it was "entirely consensual". Also, this was apparently decided by a panal at Columbia and not the legal system (and this panal was alleged in Title IX complaint to have been incompetent by multiple students, not just the four allegedly assaulted by this student), so even though the preponderance of evidence standard is a lower legal standard of proof, there is apparently a lawsuit alleging the panel at Columbia doesn't adjudicate well. This is not to suggest there was evidence in this case to find him responsible under that standard, but given all the lawsuits regarding Columbia mishandling sexual assault complaints, I don't know if we should get into it.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'd agree with not mentioning it or as little as possible. Even a NPOV account will not seem that way for such a polarizing case. Depending on who is asked, the NPOV, sourced version leaves no room for a rape to have occurred or the NPOV, sourced leaves no possibility that an assault didn't occur. It won't ever be satisfactory. Covering sides just inflames it. --DHeyward (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support. I agree with the proposed edit as it makes a good effort at presenting both sides of the story. Cla68 (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with the direction of the proposed edit, although I think we can leave out the standard of proof used in the panel proceeding. Minor4th 00:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Date formats

I've changed the formats of dates in the article body to the US standard MDY, per MOS:DATETIES. Since Sulkowicz is American, and since the performance piece was set on the campus of an American college, there seems to be a strong presumption in favor of using the American date standard.

Another editor has noted that dates in citations are in DMY format. Per MOS:DATEUNIFY, dates in citations should follow the same format; dates in the article body should follow the same format; but the two formats don't need to be identical. However, should there be consensus in favor of unifying body-text and citation date formats, MOS:DATETIES suggests that MDY be used throughout.

A look at the article history suggests that the use of DMY in the body text is a relatively recent development: as of May 3, 2015, MDY was in use in the body text. I suspect that the format was inadvertently changed by an editor who's accustomed to DMY, just as I've inadvertently typed "realized" while editing articles on Trollope novels. Ammodramus (talk) 03:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that you've left the dates inconsistent, because all the ref dates are day/month/year, so it would be better to revert, then gain consensus here for a wholesale change. (Realized is fine by the way; it's British-English too.)

I don't mind a lot which format we have, though I marginally prefer day/month/year (10 June 2015), just because it's easier to write and looks neater without a comma. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 04:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Sarah (SV)'s comments led me to look more closely at MOS:DATEUNIFY, and I see that I didn't read it closely enough earlier; in particular, I missed "...provided the day and month elements are in the same order as in dates in the article body..." In light of that, I'll go through the citations and change the date formats.

Per MOS:DATETIES, we should be using MDY in the article body, so the choices for the citations seem to be MDY ("July 4, 1776") or YYYY-MM-DD ("1776-07-04"). In the earliest versions of the article, DMY was used in citations, so the first-major-contributor standard is no guide. I weakly prefer YYYY-MM-DD, which makes dates stand out from article- and book titles, especially if an article title happens to incorporate a date; but MDY "looks more like" the original DMY, so I'll use that. — Ammodramus (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Ammodramus, I would prefer to see this changed back:

1. It has been day-month-year (11 June 2015) since creation, [27] and that seems to be what most people here are using.
2. The article has a national tie to the US (US artist, US location), but there's a European tie too (accused student is German).
3. The MoS isn't policy, but even following the MoS, it doesn't say a certain format must be used, but "should generally.": "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the date format most commonly used in that nation." Consensus can decide otherwise.
4. Day-month-year avoids unnecessary commas, e.g. "On June 4, 2015, Sulkowicz released ..." instead of "On 4 June 2015 Sulkowicz released ..."
5. The article will become internally inconsistent over time, because most people write day-month-year.

For all these reasons, I'd like to restore the old format, unless others object. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 01:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

BRD edits to Background section

I am editing the Background section to read:

Emma Sulkowicz (born 1992)[9] is the daughter of Sandra Leong and Kerry Sulkowicz, psychiatrists from Manhattan. She attended Dalton School on the Upper East Side, and in 2011 began her visual arts degree at Columbia University.[10]

Sulkowicz alleges that she was anally raped in her dorm room by another student, on the first day of her second year in August 2012, during what began as a consensual sexual encounter.[10] The accused strongly denies the allegation, insisting that the encounter was entirely consensual.[11] In April 2013, seven months after the alleged rape, Sulkowicz filed a complaint with the university. In October, following Columbia's inquiry and investigation into the allegations, a university panel found the accused "not responsible" for the alleged sexual assault.[10]

Shortly after Sulkowicz filed her complaint, three other students with whom she was acquainted[12][13] filed complaints with the university against the same student.[14] The accused denied all of the allegations and said the complaints were the result of collusion. The university ultimately found him "not responsible" for any of the allegations made against the accused student. (need citations for last 2 sentences)

In April 2013, 23 students filed a federal complaint against Columbia University and Barnard College, alleging violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, a law upholding gender equality in federally funded institutions.[19][n 1] In the suit, the students complained, among other allegations, that alleged perpetrators are allowed to remain on campus, that the university discourages students from reporting sexual assault, and that sanctions are too lenient.[19] The Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights opened an investigation in January 2015.[21]

In May 2013, Sulkowicz filed a complaint about the alleged rape with the NYPD.[22] The district attorney's office interviewed the accused in August and, according to his lawyer, said that no charges would be brought because of a "lack of reasonable suspicion."[5]

This includes all the relevant information but leaves out the specifics of salacious allegations of acts for which the accused was found to be not responsible.Minor4th 01:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with some of this, but I can't see the point of stripping it down to the point where the context disappears. Campus sexual assault is and was a major issue, and this is what Mattress Performance was about. A sentence I added to that effect was removed for some reason. So removing the senator, the press conference, the interviews, the timing, Obama, strips away the entire context of, and much of the motivation for, the art and the federal Title IX complaint. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 03:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I oppose this revert, and still oppose any mention of the three other allegations which are extraneous. I also don't see why you reverted my language about the university's rulings, and restored the New York Magazine source in preference to Kaminer. I'd also like to go back to my language of "publicized," rather than "written" and "distributed," which lack the relevant connotation (i.e. that these materials were meant to spread awareness of accusations). --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Sammy, you keep saying they're extraneous, but that's just your opinion. Everyone else sees them as connected. Two complainants filed around the same time, and only because they had spoken to each other. The third and fourth filed only after hearing about the first two. The accused sees them as connected. The media has written about them as connected. The very first story about this was about three complaints, not one. Mattress came about in protest at campus rape in general, not because of one complaint. You are minimizing to the point of distortion. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 04:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't explain my position well. I never said they were not connected, or that they were not relevant, but that the degree of their importance to the topic is not sufficient for their inclusion against the recommendation of WP:BLPCRIME. I read WP:BLPCRIME as saying that unproven criminal accusations against marginally notable individuals should not be included in Wikipedia unless there is a compelling reason. Your argument makes sense, but I don't perceive that your reasons are compelling enough.

The way the story was broken is immaterial and the first Title IX complaint involves lots of other people, so I don't see why it's important to mention these three. It seems to me that the only way the omission of these accusations distorts the story is that it diminishes the degree to which the accused appears to be guilty. If I understand you correctly you specifically don't want to do that, because you feel it's POV, but removing the appearance of guilt is the whole point of what BLPCRIME is about.

You also made another argument which I have to ask you to clarify. You seemed to imply that you thought omitting these accusations would violate our duty of care to the three accusers, citing a BLP concern. Does this mean that not mentioning someone in Wikipedia can be a BLP violation against that person? --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Due weight

Why does this minor controversy, which will probably be forgotten in 6 months, need multiple WP articles devoted to it? All that needs to be known about this subject could be covered in a single paragraph of the Columbia University article. DancesWithGrues (talk) 05:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)