Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)

Unwanted Sexual Touching

I'm concerned about the sentence "In one, an initial finding of "responsible" for unwanted sexual touching was overturned on appeal." First of all, I don't see what purpose this serves except to be suggestive of guilt - it's an overturned ruling, how is it significant here? This is the case that I previously referred to as "unwanted kissing" (and I was criticized by SlimVirgin for doing so, though I don't think "unwanted kissing" sounds at all pleasant.) This is what the complainant alleged (from [1]):

Tom, drunk, followed her; she hadn’t asked him to join her, but his offer to help retrieve the PBR seemed friendly enough. He came into the room behind her, shut the door, and flicked off the lights. She asked him what he was doing. He moved toward her aggressively, grabbed her arms, saying, ‘Come on,’ and tried to kiss her. She pushed him off and rushed from the room as quickly as she could.

There is no groping allegation. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict):There is nothing in the two cited sources that refers to "unwanted sexual touching" or Groping. Ref 12 states that "The charge brought by Josie was the only one on which Nungesser was initially found “responsible,” with a sentence of disciplinary probation. But that finding was later overturned..." with no mention of the exact charge and Ref 15 does not mention the "unwanted sexual touching" or even very many details about Josie's case, just that there was a hearing and that an ADP officer testified at that hearing. It seems to me that the ultimate source would be finding out what the original documents actually state (both from the original hearing and the appeal hearing) so the reader has a clear understanding of what was actually said or done at the time. Shearonink (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

She makes a groping allegation in her own voice in Jezebel (which I understand we are not using but it's also reported as groping in many secondary sorces). She says: "The incident happened my junior year at Columbia, when [redacted] followed me upstairs at a party, came into a room with me uninvited, closed the door behind us, and grabbed me. I politely said, “Hey, no, come on, let’s go back downstairs.” He didn’t listen. He held me close to him as I said no, and continued to pull me against him." "In filing my complaint, I followed all of Columbia’s rules... I went through the trial, which was horrible and draining; I watched him, through a live TV feed, act baffled and perplexed about groping me. Columbia found him responsible. I felt vindicated: the system had worked." That's from Jezebel which we aren't using, but just adding it to add some context as to perhaps why the secondary sources consistenly use the word groping to describe it such as this from Slate: "When one student accused [redacted] of groping her at a party, the university initially decided against him, but he successfully appealed the ruling." [2]; This from the Daily Mail "One student claimed he'd groped her" [3];this from Boston Globe: "groping her until she pushed him off" [4]. There's lots more. Regarding the significance of an overturned ruling, we could add that secondary sources are reporting it was overturned when the accuser didn't participate in the hearing at all the second time, apparently she had a job and didn't want to take time off work, but honestly, I'd prefer not to get into all that detail. I think it's better to just leave it as is.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I wrote as a more formal description of sexual assault than "groping." I included it for two reasons: 1) is that it was a complaint he was found responsible for, unlike the other two - and it was overturned and 2) unlike the other two, it was not a charge of rape. RAIN describes sexual assault as "unwanted sexual contact that stops short of rape or attempted rape. This includes sexual touching and fondling." We can use "grope" but to me it seems a bit light considering it generated a formal complaint. In one piece she describes being "groped" simply because of her job as waitress. The formal terms seemed suited for the formal complaint filed rather than the more familiar term of "grope." --DHeyward (talk) 05:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

None of the reliable sources describe it as "unwanted sexual contact that stops short of rape", they described it as "groping". Linking to that definition sub-section, instead of to the groping page seems to be OR and needlessly less specific than the reliable sources have been in describing the allegation.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I wanted it to be clear that it was an accusation of sexual assault, though not rape, but not something lesser than sexual assault. If consensus is that "groping" adequately conveys that, it's okay with me. I would like to at least link it to Groping#United States where it's clearly a form of sexual assault. --DHeyward (talk) 23:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The groping page indicates groping can be considered sexual assault. Additionally, I'm not sure if what she did technically constitutes an allegation of sexual assault in a legal sense, considering she didn't go to the police, she went to the university office of gender based misconduct. Anyway, it seems we should just stick with the sources and not try to interpret so much. We should leave the link to the main page because it defines the topic and people can read down to that subsection. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no issue with it if you are okay with the current language and links. --DHeyward (talk) 05:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I have removed this information because it is completely irrelevant what happened before the issue was finally concluded on appeal. Including that info is POV and is designed to suggest that there is truth to the accusations of which the accused was cleared. Minor4th 20:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree with this. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Deleting FACE mention

The article on the group, Families Advocating for Campus Equality, is being questioned for notability. As it's a group of three random mothers, the central one being based in North Dakota, who happened to be recorded by the press speaking on the matter, should it really be used to counter Senator Kristin Gillibrand's promotion of Mattress Performance?--A21sauce (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It's easier to see the objection if you can provide a diff. Where is notability questioned? Where is it used in the article? etc, etc. I don't disagree with you but there is no context in which to evaluate your statement. --DHeyward (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Saw the reference in the article. It would be better to also add the "artnet" coverage[5] in addition to the Washington Times. Even though artnet references WT, they thought it notable enough to cover it. There is also the New Yorker piece[6] but I wouldn't add them separately. One sentence of criticism is fine that encompasses both the accused and the FACE group's criticism of Gillibrand. I am concerned that FACE only received coverage in WT, Daily Caller, and other outlets that are advocacy journalism which is why the artnet coverage is significant. They are notable at least for changing North Dakota law regarding campus sexual assault but not sure they are notable enough to be quoted in this article. Certainly it's limited only to criticism of Gillibrand's SOTU invitation who is a public figure. Their views on the accusation are not notable. --DHeyward (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, you fixed that obviously. Why did you ask? I'm thinking we can still add something like "the Spartanburg, South Carolina-based" before their mention because the article assumes the context of New York throughout. --A21sauce (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that is too much OR. They appear national as a 501(c)(3) with founders that met in Philadelphia and are from a variety of states. The media that covers them is national. Their mailing address is not necessarily their location or influence. Sorry if the above was confusing. I found the reference you spoke of after reading your question. I then followed it to the page. I put notable references on that articles talk page. --DHeyward (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

FACE is an organization started by the mother of Caleb Warner, who was falsely accused of rape by UND and even after he had been cleared and his accuser had fled the state after a warrant had been issued for her arrest, the university still refused to recognize his innocence. It is a fairly well-known case, and thus I would argue their views on the subject are quite germanine. Cheerio HoundofBaskersville (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I think their criticism of Gillibrand (and even Columbia) is germane but they have no knowledge of this case, per se, so there is nothing I think they can add about the artist, art, act or accused. But yes, they are notable enough to mention their criticism of laws, procedures and politicians in proportion to the prominence of those things in the article. Gillibrand was criticized by this group and the accused and can be written in one sentence that corresponds to the sentence describing her actions. --DHeyward (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I had never heard of Caleb Waner before and just Googled it. Very interesting story. There are sufficient sources on it that it probably could have its own WP article. Some similarities to this incident. Cla68 (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I thought the same thing but I assume the reason it doesn't is because of WP:BLPCRIME, which could apply to both individuals involved. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

For someone who accuses another of being disruptive, you aware that there's a Men's Issues Wikiproject? Sammy 1339, your discussion above belongs there. In addition to what Dheyward propsed, let's add national and Spartanburg-based and cut the quote by FACE in half. The group's name reads to randomly. I have copyediting experience, would love to hear from others who do too.--A21sauce (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. I was saying that such an article should not be created, especially to protect the non-notable woman who was wanted for making a false accusation. People do care about BLPCRIME in cases other than this one. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

19 months

I removed text stressing that Sulkowicz waited 19 months to report to police. The source cited didn't stress this. It just gave dates and allowed us to do the math. Seems we should do the same. More importantly, the source cited actually provided us with Sulkowicz's stated rationale for her wait, so if we are going to stress the wait, per NPOV, we'd need to add text regarding her explanation, which was provided in the source cited as follows: "When it first happened, I didn’t want to talk to anyone. I didn’t even tell my parents. ... I didn’t even want to talk to my best friend,” she said....Sulkowicz decided to file a complaint against Nungesser through the University when she met two other women he allegedly assaulted. “I realized that if I didn’t report him he’d continue to attack women on this campus. I had to do it for those other women,” Sulkowicz said.....“People kept making comments like, ‘Girls are so dumb, they should just go to the police. Obviously the school isn’t going to deal with it.’ I wanted to see for myself if I should have gone to the police,” Sulkowicz said. “I figured maybe they have a point. Maybe his name should be in the public record,” Sulkowicz added, referring to her alleged attacker. [7] Seemed better to just remove text stressing the wait, than to add text to article explaining her rationale for it as provided in source cited.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it implies what you're saying it does. I changed Minor4th's text "seven" to "nineteen" - apparently there was some confusion about the date, as he thought the police report was filed in 2013. Readers might have the same confusion so it helps for context. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

If it's re-added, we will need to add in text regarding her explanation for the wait per NPOV. The explanation is stressed in the source cited. The number of months waited is not. It's not even mentioned. Only dates are given. We should probably do the same. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you're being a little paranoid about the supposed implications of these minor issues of wording. I also noticed you changed "bring charges" to "pursue criminal charges" and "due to a lack of reasonable suspicion" to "citing lack of reasonable suspicion" in a way that just makes those sentences clunkier without changing their meaning in any way. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you might be misunderstanding my intentions. I'm just trying to accurately represent sources and maintain NPOV. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

No, I understand that, but I think you're reading a lot into certain small things, like when you removed a "the" from a sentence in Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol saying it changed the meaning, when it was only there to fix a marginal grammatical issue. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol

According to Sulkowitz, this is s separate work. See this interview where a question is posed as follows, "It's brave, and I understand why you don't want people to view it as any kind of follow-up to Mattress Performance, but the thing that connects the two works even more than subject matter is your level of openness and willingness to put yourself there."

Given there's a main article on the work, this section should be trimmed extensively. It's only related in that the it's the same artist, at least according to the artist.Mattnad (talk) 11:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

You are correct. Thank you for pointing that out. She says "But they are completely different pieces." This is the reason that the section header should read "Other work", not "Related work". Bus stop (talk) 12:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Exacpt that being a separate work does not alter the fact that it is only here because it is related, as has been repeatedly pointed out, and as the statement just quoted above clearly asserts. Paul B (talk) 12:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

In art parlance, "related" means something different. Some of Picasso's paintings across different periods are related in theme (such as his portraits of women), but that doesn't mean they're "related" in an artist's work. This piece is not part of a series, or the same form, or even subject matter. Her first performance was a specific protest work, the second film is a far more abstract commentary on consent. That she appears in both is not "related" in an artistic sense anymore than any other performance art which features the same subject. If you feel "Other" is somehow wrong, make the case.Mattnad (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The reliable sources discuss them as related. The video originally aired with timestamp of the day of the alleged assault and it acts out what Sulkowicz described in her police report as occurring during her alleged assault.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Please don't presume to lecture me on "art parlance". I have already made the case in great detail in the sections above (now archived in archive 7), as have other editors. There is no reason why we want a section on "other works" by the artist in an article about a specific work. The only reason why the material is there at all is because these works are related, and are clearly discussed as such in the sources. Paul B (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the original argument that the section on the video needs to be "trimmed extensively" because there is a main article, I disagree, because the section already seems to be in summary style. Perhaps some minor trimming could occur, but even that doesn't really seem necessary.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Paul Barlow, Hi BoboMeowCat—in this source Sulkowicz says "But they are completely different pieces" and in this source Sulkowicz says "Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol is not about one night in August, 2012." No source is supporting that the two works of art are "related". Can you please articulate your objection to "Other work" as the section heading? Bus stop (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

It's been articluated repeatedly, Bus Stop. Your method of "arguing" is to ignore points you don't want to engage with and to repeat your own assertions over and over. I repeat: "There is no reason why we want a section on "other works" by the artist in an article about a specific work. The only reason why the material is there at all is because these works are related". Both you and Mattnad seen to think that because a work is "separate" it can't be "related", but that's a clear non sequitur. Even the quotation Mattnad gives as evidence clearly identifies relatedness. Of course BoboMeowCat is being rather more blunt about the fact that Sulkowitz blatantly presented it as a reenactment of the alleged rape and then backtracked on that. But even if we choose to pretend that never happened, the works are discussed as related. And if they are not, there is no reason for it to be mentioned in this article at all. Paul B (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Paul B—is there some reason that you are not asserting in the section on Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol that it is related to Mattress Performance? Neither you nor any other editor has adduced a source supporting that the two works are related. You can't make that assertion because you have no source which would support that assertion. Yet you are arguing to imply that the two works are "related". The means by which you are trying to imply that the two works are related is by the use of a section heading reading "Related work". If you are so sure that they are related, why aren't you trying to assert that in our paragraph? You can't do that because you have no source to support it. I've brought two sources that could support a statement in that paragraph that the two works are not related. Bus stop (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

This argument is approaching WP:LAME territory. But yes, of course they are related. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

My reasons for trimming (and summary style is still too verbose) is it's better editorially. There is a tendency to overdo it in repeating information from one article to the next. A single sentence for each work would be more than enough, with a wikilink to the main article. If we want to turn this article into "The works of Emma Sukowitz" (or something like that), then we could merge all under one heading. This article is supposed to be about the Mattress Performance, not her other or related works.Mattnad (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Precisely - the only reason for mentioning it is that it is related. This is not an article on "The works of Emma Sukowitz". Paul B (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Mattand, I disagree with your proposal. I don't think the video can be adequately summarized in a single sentence. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure it can, "Other works by Sulkowitz include a film and related website called Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol." How hard was that?Mattnad (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that is an inadequate summary of the video. It provides the reader with no information on how the video is related.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not related according to the artist (but who cares about her intent). If you insist on assuming a relation, then we could state, "Other works by Sulkowitz include a film and related website called Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol designed to promote a conversation about sexual assault and matters of consent." As an aside, I do find it interesting that her intent doesn't matter here, but her intent has been used to excise the words "sex tape", "porn" and "pornography" from the article about the film despite what some reliable sources say about it.Mattnad (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Sulkowicz said it was a separate work, she didn't say it was an unrelated work. The reliable sources describe them as related as they explore similar subject matter, and as Paul Barlow already pointed out, there is prior consensus on this.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

But you've avoided commenting on the proposed sentence. Is it not clear how the film relates to the Mattress Performance?Mattnad (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

It's less clear. Your proposed sentence doesn't mention the video alludes to rape in a Columbia University dorm room or that the video originally was time-stamped with the date of the alleged assault. Also, as I said above, I don't think this video can be adequately summarized in a single sentence.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's another go at it given your emerging criteria. It requires only two short sentences under "Related works" as follows "On 3 June 2015 Sulkowitz released Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol to promote a conversation about sexual assault and consent. The fictional video depicts her being raped in her dorm room with a time-stamp of the original alleged assault." Now, does it cover every nuance of the video? No, but it explains what it is, and how it's related. The wiki-linked main article does the rest. It better conforms to Wikipedia guidelines to avoid repeating information that's readily available in more a detailed article on the topic.Mattnad (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no "emerging criteria", my first comment was the text is already in summary format and disagreement with your proposal that it be "trimmed extensively" [8].--BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

You're still not responding to the latest proposal. I tried to include what you asked for. What's missing now, if anything?Mattnad (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

We've already had this discussion and arrived at a consensus that the works are related despite the artist's statement to the contrary. Minor4th 18:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm more interested now in consolidating the section, particularly on the film which has its own article. In the dialog with Bobomeowcat, she offered critiques of earlier rounds which I've accommodated as follows:

"On 3 June 2015 Sulkowitz released Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol to promote a conversation about sexual assault and consent. The fictional video depicts her being raped in her dorm room with a time-stamp of the original alleged assault."

That, combined with the first work is short enough summary that invites the reader to click on the link for the detailed article. It explains the piece and the linkage to the mattress performance. In the context of the article, it seems sufficient to me.Mattnad (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

This thread really seems to be taking I didn't hear that to a whole new level. Originally, with ignoring prior consensus that it's a related work, and now with the repeated ignoring of my consistent position that I do not think we should forgo WP:SUMMARY in place of a single sentence.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Your comment takes "I didn't bother reading it", followed by trotting out IDHT, to a new level. You expressed your concerns and I adapted the proposal based on your constantly changing criteria. FYI, it's two sentences now. Your objection seems to be an objection for objections sake, oh, and failing to read a simple proposal, at this point.Mattnad (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the section is eight sentences now, not two [9] --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I've proposed two sentences instead of the unnecessary eight to cover the topic. You would have understood that if you had read what I wrote immediately before your comment above. BTW, WP:Summary refers to articles, not to reference to other articles.Mattnad (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Mattnad, please do not delete longstanding article content absent consensus as you did here [10]. Please read WP:SUMMARY. It discusses summarizing sections in articles which have a link to a main article, which is what I was referring to. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

There's a WP:Weight and redundancy issue that I have addressed. A week or two is not "longstanding" by any stretch for what is a current event. I engaged you, responded to your comments and evolved the proposed text in direct response. I'm not sure why you think we need so much when there's a readily accessible link to the full article on the topic. You'll note that I left the other referenced work longer and as it was because it had no main article. So it needed explanation not available elsewhere in Wikipedia. I do find it paradoxical that you're fine with only two sentences for the first piece as summary, but need a few paragraphs and a photograph for the second. Why is that?Mattnad (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Now it's three sentences. The timestamp you mentioned that may tie the work to the alleged assault has since been blurred out.Mattnad (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Mattnad, the summary style format, along with the main article link is in fact the stable form of the article. You opened this talk page discussion to change the stable form of the article. You proposed "extensively trimming" that section, but as of now, no one has supported that proposal to extensively trim and I have repeatedly objected. But you have just gone ahead and unilaterally deleted a bunch of article content twice now,[11] [12] absent consensus. Pleas stop. You keep trying to push discussion on various extensively trimmed versions, and while there have been comments on why some of those versions are inadequate, I'm hesitant to continue getting into too much discussion with you like this, because you appear to be using that to repeatedly edit against consensus. I think what needs to occur first is consensus to do away with the summary style format with main article link in place of an extensively trimmed brief summary. If there is consensus that this should occur, then we can work out a neutral wording for a brief summary, but there is clearly no consensus to make these drastic changes at this point. Please stop edit warring against consensus. I disagree with the extensive trimming. I have been very clear on that. Wait and see if anyone chimes in agreeing with you before continuing to drastically change the stable form of the article. To clarify, I disagree because this video has received a lot of coverage in relation to mattress performance, and I think it seems better to provide the readers with a summary style description of the video, along with that see main article link header. I don't think the video can be adequately described in such a brief trimmed format. Mattnad, please get consensus to move away from summary style format with main article link in favor of your proposal before continuing to edit this section because honestly, it is becoming disruptive.

Bus stop, it is very clear there is no consensus to change "related work" to "other work". This is not a matter of you not yet having consensus, but rather a strong consensus against this. Please read this talk page section and the previous one which is linked above. Please do not change this again unless the consensus on this changes. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

You are the only editor who has objected to a trimming, so your claim of consensus is self-serving and incorrect. But explain to me now - why is it OK from your POV to have two sentences for the earlier work to explain another piece that has no main article, but we required three paragraphs and a photograph for another that has it's own main article. It's inconsistent, and not credible given how little was needed to summarize the other work.

There's a whole article that covers the film in detail (which you are free to add to if you think there's missing information). Your inflexible repeating that it was fine as is demonstrates NO effort to compromise. By contrast, I offered several proposed edits based on your feedback above.Mattnad (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The section needs to be left as the longer version. With this shortened summary, it is not at all clear how the work is related. Minor4th 16:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

So how is it clear that "Newspaper Bodies (Look, Mom, I'm on the Front Page!)" is related? So short, yet so clearly related according to some editors. On the second work, why do we need the video screenshot, and the paragraph of the denial of service attack to explain how they are related? Explain those to me as a starting point.Mattnad (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

It's an article about the accused and the alleged sexual assault. And for realz, we've already had this whole discussion. Check the archives. The consensus was strong. Minor4th 16:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Point being, it's about a sexual assault and that's enough to explain the linkage without having to go on at similar length as the three long paragraphs and a screenshot for the film. And you still haven't explained why we must have the paragraph with the denial of service or the photo for the film to explain how they are related.Mattnad (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Mattnad: you say, on my Talk page, "there's at least one reliable source that explicitly links them."[13] Please bring that source to my attention. Bus stop (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure [14]Mattnad (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Mattnad: that source does not link them. That source most definitely would not provide us with support for an assertion that these 2 artworks are related to the artwork which is the title of this article. That source does nothing more than provide pure speculation. It poses a question: "Is Mattress Girl Editing Her Sex Tape To Dodge A Lawsuit?" Furthermore, we are talking about an artwork. You've got to get a grip. If upon further consideration an artist decides to alter an artwork, do we insist that the earlier version is the one we are writing about? Is not the later version the more focussed expression of the artist? Let us stop being ridiculous. We have an article on this artwork alone. It is called Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol. In that entire article we do not even mention the fact that the video in its first few hours contained a time-stamp which is blurred out in the subsequent version. Are we interested in what the artist is trying to say or are we trying to find fault or inconsistencies? No other source is preternaturally focussed on the blurring out of the time-stamp during the stage of the initial release of the video. The reasons this source provides for that alteration are pure speculation. And Sulkowicz herself explicitly explains that the two artworks are not related. She is asked if Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol is a "followup" to Mattress Performance. Her response is that "[t]hey're two separate performance art pieces", and "they are completely different pieces." Please read the source here. No source is saying that Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol is related to Mattress Performance. The artist also explicitly states in the introductory text of Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol that: "Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol is not about one night in August, 2012." Please look at that text in the artwork which can be found here. Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol is an "Other" artwork. It is not a "Related" artwork. Furthermore we should not be making assertions by means of section headings. The section heading "Other work" suffices to introduce the 2 artworks. If our article wishes to assert that one or both of these artworks are "related" to Mattress Performance, we should use a properly formed sentence with a citation to support the assertion. I have yet to hear anyone explain why "Other work", as a section heading, is problematic. All that a section heading does is organize material. Its purpose is not to make assertions, especially dubious ones. Bus stop (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I think on this item, I've come around to the consensus view, in part because I've read a source, opinion as it is, that links them. And then there's the secondary argument that they are thematically related which I think is driving other editors towards the same conclusion. I agree that "Other work" would be more conservative and reflect the artist's explicit statements, but from what I've seen among editors who patrol this page, that's not their goal and they will revert you till the cows come home.Mattnad (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is more conservative. We should be using organizing elements (section headings) with restraint. These two works are undeniably "other" works by Sulkowicz. I would like to know why a section heading has to additionally imply that they are "related" works. There are reasons why they are not "related" works. Why are we not erring on the side of exercising restraint in choosing section headings? Bus stop (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Your guess is as good as mine.Mattnad (talk)

This is getting absurd. Read the previous LONG discussion we had about this. They are clearly related. Carrying the mattress was designed to scare her alleged attacker off campus, News Bodies was a news article about her alleged attacker - with words scribbled on it, and the video depicted a sexual assault and was date and time stamped at the exact time she claimed she was sexually assaulted by her alleged attacker. They are all about her alleged rapist! Minor4th 21:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Mattnad—you mention that "there's the secondary argument that they are thematically related". Yes, rape is related to rape. I am aware of that. But Minor4th says "[t]he section needs to be left as the longer version. With this shortened summary, it is not at all clear how the work is related."[15] So let us contemplate this—does the common string of "rape" tie the 3 artworks together? Or is it "not at all clear how the work is related"? In our full length article titled Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol we do not even mention the material about blurring of the time-stamp. In my opinion we should stop telling the reader what to think. The reader is perfectly capable of equating rape with rape, for instance, and forming their own opinions about the meaning of these enigmatic artworks. We don't need to beat the reader over the head with hints, especially when we have reason to believe that the 3 artworks may be unrelated in an important way. This discussion has been going on for a long time but certain things have changed since this discussion began. We now have clear articulation from Sulkowicz that Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol is not necessarily closely tied to Mattress Performance. I would suggest that we should not be running roughshod over her articulations. We also now have a separate freestanding article on Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol. Anything about its relatedness to Mattress Performance can be covered in that article, and yet it is not. Bus stop (talk) 01:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

This is the "clear articulation" we have from Sulkowicz (which we've had from the day the video was released). Sulkowicz says "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," [16]. This statement from Sulkowicz is included in both articles. The sources are describing the work as participatory art. Seems she's saying here that her point isn't to reenact her rape allegation (although she clearly acted out what she described in her police report and time and date stamped it the date of the alleged assault). Despite such obvious connections pointed out in reliable sources, Sulkowicz appears to be saying the point of this performance art is how others react to it. The reaction is the art. It's not about him it's about you. It's about your reaction to seeing this acted out rape scene depicted on the video. None of this makes it somehow "unrelated", although it's clear they are separate pieces and this should be (and is) articulated in both articles.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@BoboMeowCat: You correctly point out that Sulkowicz says "Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol is not about one night in August, 2012.". Additionally in an Artnet interview Sulkowicz says "They're two separate performance art pieces" and "But they are completely different pieces." Do those assertions not imply unrelatedness? Why is our article listing Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol under a section heading reading "Related work"? We have available to us wording for that section heading such as "Other work". Do you find that section heading—"Other work"—unacceptable for any reason? If so, can you please articulate that reason? Bus stop (talk) 03:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It's related in that it too is a work about rape. Related in subject matter or material which means how one relates one artist's work within in oeuvre. I think fine as is.--A21sauce (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Alleged false rape accusation

There ought to be a section about false rape accusations against Paul Nungesser. This article has no mention of Cathy Young's Daily Beast article showing Nungesser's side of the story [17].

Nungesser has since sued Columbia University and included in court documents show multiple instances where Emma Sulkowicz and Nungesser continue their relationship in an intimate and cordial manner [18].

There is also issue with the fact that "Adam", a friend of Emma Sulkowicz, also accused Nungesser of unwanted sexual touching, but was dismissed due to discrepancies in Adam's story [19]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sb423 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The article from Cathy Young is referenced in the article. "Adam" is not included because the only source for it is Jezebel, which is not considered reliable (apparently other sources quoted Jezebel and discussed him, but his his only interview was with Jezebel).--BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

(E/C)

It will be unlikely that the current crop of editors patrolling this will permit it. There have been various arguments made including:

• BLP concerns for the accused (notwithstanding he has personally come forward with his story to the press),
• Concerns that some sources are not somehow not a reliable source on these matters
• This is an article about the art, and we should not include too many extraneous items like the controversy, because....
• We'll have an edit war and an admin who also has been editing related pages will lock it down, and perhaps roll it back to a version where there's no mention at all about the accused's lawsuit (which has happened).

The net net is that all we know is that the accused has made a lawsuit, and that's it. So Cathy Young is referenced, but pertinent details are not permitted for various reasons listed above.Mattnad (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

So here's an example of a reliable source that goes into detail on Adam. But Bobomeowcat has well articulated the logic that because it uses a source that's not approved, it is also disqualified. It's bit fantastic since that neat argument is not mentioned in WP:RS, but it's convenient for the purposes of keeping it out. Of course, when a newspaper quotes someone (who cannot be a reliable source on their own, per RS), we have no issues with that. If we took Bobomeowcat's argument to it's extreme, most reliable sources would be disqualified in whole or part.Mattnad (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This exchange is actually a good example of what can go wrong, from a BLP standpoint, if we use op-ed's, which do not fact check, like the one from The Washington Examiner, for factual information. "Adam", according to his statements and Sulkowicz's statement never met and were not friends. Adam was reportedly friends with another of the alleged victims, the one who alleged intimate partner violence. Additionally, to be BLP compliant, Adam should not be mentioned in the article at all because the only source of information from Adam is sourced to Jezebel, and an unsubstantiated allegation that the accused student also sexual assaulted a male student seems to requires better sourcing than Jezebel.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

But that he was cleared, plus the possibility of consiracy per the Young article cannot be included? How funny. See how BLP gets used to keep other inconvenient reliable sources out.Mattnad (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I think 'Adam', in general should not be included in this article since he is an anonymous accuser. However, the court documents and Facebook/text exchanges are all factual evidence. While this article is about a performance art piece, its very existence is directly attributed to whether or not these allegations against Paul Nungesser are true. After all, Emma Sulkowicz said that she would stop carrying her dorm bed mattress when Nungesser is either expelled or leaves Columbia University. If Sulkowicz had created the Mattress Performance movement without an initial accusation of rape and was doing the performance to spread awareness about campus rape, then it would be reasonable not to include a story about a false rape allegation. Without including Nungesser's side of the story with official court documents and official communication between the accuser and accused, you are subjugating his story to trial-by-media with Wikipedia included.Sb423 (talk) 07:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The editors have been through that. The facebook posting will not be permitted due various arguments. They will come from all directions, will sometime contradict each other, but that's OK when it comes to this article for some.Mattnad (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)