Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)

Requested move 10 May 2015

Procedural discussion

@SlimVirgin and Favonian: "Archiving to await closing editor" and then removing the transclusion of {{requested move/dated}} has effectively removed this item from the RM backlog, so that potential closing admins will not see it listed in the usual place. What is the rationale for hatting this while discussion was still active? This is not standard operating procedure at Requested moves, where generally some requests remain in the backlog indefinitely. Are you making an attempt to find someone to close this? Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I defer to Sarah on this one. The entry was stuck in the limbo of "Malformed requests", where it did no earthly good. No tortoise in this race otherwise. Favonian (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Wbm1058, I archived it because it had been open for so long, but left the template so that it would stay in the backlog to be closed. I believe Flavonian said this was causing a technical problem. I can ask around for someone to close it. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Flavonian, as you're here and uninvolved, would you consider closing it? Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Typo: Favonian. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Now I know that "Russians are of flavonian origin". That aside, sorry, I don't have the guts to deal with this one. The standard way of giving it another trip around the block is to relist the discussion. Favonian (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear God! Please do not re-list this discussion! --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Re-list this discussion. It is obviously not yet resolved. Bus stop (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Favonian and Bus Stop, I agree with Sammy. There's no reason to list it – we just need someone to summarize the consensus. I will look around for someone. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 22:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

{{requested move/dated|Columbia University performance art controversy}}

Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) → Columbia University performance art controversy – as discussed on WP:BLPN [1] this title seems more neutral. BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Counter-suggestion: Move the title to Mattress performance piece (Columbia University). Bus stop (talk) 18:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Why would you want to remove "controversy"? The whole thing seems controversial in multiple respects. Also, the reliable sources refer to it as "performance art" so I personally prefer that to "piece" which could mean just about anything I think.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Controversy is par for the course with many forms of contemporary art and many instances of contemporary art. This is only in part a controversy over performance art. Many will find all performance art controversial. It is not all performance art we are referring to; it is this performance piece. Bus stop (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I see what your saying. I don't hate your suggestion and "controversy" does seem over used in wiki titles but I'm not sure I prefer this suggestion to the other one.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Most art is not controversial. This particular piece is notable because it was born of controversy (the university siding with the accused, in a climate where universities have been poor at protecting people from assault) and then became a controversy in itself when the accused was outed, publicly shamed, and threatened allegedly by a university sponsored statement/performance art piece. We don't call The Starry Night controversial, because it wasn't. It's notable in and of itself as a work of art. Where modern art is controversial, it's typically because of the statement it makes, or how its made. Not what it does. In this instance, the performance was designed to have an outcome, and it did.Mattnad (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Without the controversy, nobody would have heard of this "performance," and it certainly wouldn't merit a Wikipedia page in and of itself, or at least not until Sulkowicz becomes notable as an artist for output other than this. Nick Cooper (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

What is the "controversy"? The controversy regards "rape allegations". Why are you not arguing for a term such as "rape allegations" in the title? Bus stop (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The controversy is about furthering a false accusation and harassment campaign by means of contrived "performance" masquerading as a legitimate piece of academic work, and the collusion of university authorities in its inception and continuation. If Sulkowicz was studying any other subject, whatever she chose to haul around - placard, mattress, or whatever - would be properly identified as a "protest" and not a "performance." Nick Cooper (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

You don't know that we have false accusations. This article rests on the quicksand of rape verses false allegations of rape. Bus stop (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The balance of the evidence available leans far more to a false accusation than a true one. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• I support the proposed move to Columbia University performance art controversy. This title is neutral and enables a description of the controversy about the performance. By now the controversy seems more notably than the performance by itself.--Cyve (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Cyve—there is "controversy" in carrying a mattress everywhere you go on campus and calling that art, and we have "controversy" when some vocal people assert that rape has taken place and other vocal people assert that false accusations of rape have taken place. But the title need not include that there is controversy. Divided opinions on contemporary art are not all that unusual. This isn't the "fairly standard painting of the president of Westinghouse Corporation that almost all people agree is a pretty good likeness of the man." Rather this is the somewhat edgy ("at the forefront of a trend; experimental or avant-garde") work of art which constitutes an accusation of rape, involving an alleged perpetrator who vehemently denies the charge. The reader is likely to be fully aware of controversy as an element of this work of art—so much so that it would be almost redundant to put the term "controversy" in the title. On the other hand, the reader has substantial information in knowing that this article is about the Mattress performance piece (Columbia University). Bus stop (talk) 00:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. This case can't be compared to "normal" controversies about contemporary art. The controversy about Sulkowicz's performance seems to have attracted more notice than the performance. The artist isn't even named as defendant in the current lawsuit about the performance against the university. And the sources now cover the whole controversy, not only the performance, it's impact on the art world or certain activist activities. --Cyve (talk) 01:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Cyve—have you seen a source commenting on the artwork's "impact on the art world"? I haven't seen any such source. Bus stop (talk) 03:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree. A work that has an impact on the art world, that remains to be seen. It certainly has had an impact on the university and the dialog surrounding sexual assault, which is why the "controversy" is much more important than the "mattress".Mattnad (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• "For the latest of his fashion performance pieces, a genre he has most likely created"
• "In a New Performance Piece, Tilda Swinton Turns Fashion Into Art"
• "Marni Kotak will go off her meds for new performance piece"
• "Performance piece 'Sonic Blossom' blooms before visitors ears"
• "as evidenced by her 2014 performance piece, 'Plop Egg Painting.'". Bus stop (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
• The point to the otherwise irrelevant 5 quotes above is that "performance piece" is standard terminology. Bus stop (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, it might be nice to have "Mattress" in the title, considering this term does seem to be in all the reliable sources discussing this. Although I think adding "controversy" better includes both Title IX complaints, considering they have both filed such complaints at this point. Hopefully, we'll get more feedback and a specific consensus can be reached. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article is about an artwork and the artwork passes GNG, because it is highly regarded by experts in the relevant field. Retitling the article article as if it were about something else cannot possibly be neutral, regardless of how controversial it is. Many works of art are or have been controversial, and this is not something we normally do. This is an artwork about which there is a controversy, not a controversy about which there is an artwork, so the proposal is topsy-turvy. Formerip (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The article is not only about an artwork although the artwork is the element of single greatest importance. The artwork provides the organizing principle for this article. But the lawsuit brought by the male counterpart to the artist is important too. Furthermore we don't have to use the proper name of the artwork. The place that this took place—Columbia University—is an important element in the title. It helps the reader to identify this particular article. Redirects can exist to highly related titles such as the proper name. Bus stop (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether or not I agree that we don't have to use the proper name of the artwork. But what I don't get is why you think it would be a good idea not to. For an article about an artwork, the name of the artwork is the most natural choice for the title, surely. I can see the point that some people might be searching for the artwork and not know the title. They might put all kinds of things into their search, but Google is likely to point them to the right place. I'm not sure how likely anyone is to type "Mattress performance piece (Columbia University)" into the Wikipedia search box, but a redirect will do for them if it's really necessary. The idea that the actual title should be a redirect to an arbitrary set of word describing it seems a little odd to me. Formerip (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

User:FormerIP—the artwork is the most important element of this article but it is not the only element of this article, and there is controversy about the implicit assertion of the artwork. By taking an oblique approach to identifying the artwork in the title, we allow for the possibility that the implicit assertion of the artwork might be incorrect. Indeed "controversy" is being woven into the title in my suggested title, but the word "controversy" is absent. By not kowtowing to the exact title of the artwork I think we appease both sides in the divisive topic of this article. In my opinion the lawsuit is a relatively important part of this article. Bus stop (talk) 00:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support. This is as much about the male victim of her smear campaign as it is about performance art. The proposed title reflects that better. GregJackP Boomer! 00:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support per GregJackP. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, the current title is better, and the arguments re the proposed title are unconvincing at best. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 03:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

"Carry that weight" is unnecessary information for the title of our article. It would be helpful to include "Columbia University" in the title. This performance piece is site specific. The location of the performance piece is confined to the campus of Columbia University. Using terminology commonly in use in reference to the topic of this article we can arrive at the descriptive title Mattress performance piece (Columbia University). (Note "rules of engagement": "going to the subway requires walking a few extra blocks since she can’t cut across campus without the mattress".) Bus stop (talk) 07:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Also see "rules of engagement" here: "The mattress will only be carried on campus." This article is about a performance piece, importantly involving a mattress, uniquely taking place on the campus of Columbia University, and our title should be reflective of these important factors. Bus stop (talk) 09:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

"Carry that Weight" is a central term by which many people will recognise this topic. I continue to oppose the proposed change. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

It is an important phrase ("Carry That Weight") but other terms edge that out in importance as far as the title is concerned. It certainly should be noted in the first sentence of the article. Bus stop (talk) 09:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. First off, losing "mattress" in the title makes the topic less identifiable. Also, I think adopting a descriptive title here takes attention away from the performance art (without which there would be no notability). Further, there are WP:NDESC concerns with the new title, as deeming this a "performance art controversy" rather than "sexual assault policy controversy" places emphasis on the controversy alleged by the accused, not on the controversy addressed through the performance art. The new title would also fundamentally change the scope of the article, inviting BLP problems as we talk less about the performance art and more about the allegations and lawsuits. gobonobo ^{+ c} 15:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't think it makes sense to hide the article behind a generic title rather than the title the work is known by. The BLP issue has little or nothing to do with the title. Even if the title were changed to something like 'artwork controversy' there would still be potential BLP issues. Kaldari (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
• User:Gobonobo and User:Kaldari, that's the feminist POV. It's not neutral. I support the title Columbia University performance art controversy. It's neutral and fits well.--82.113.106.122 (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support the original proposal above. However this article started out, it has become a much broader topic. The mattress is part of it, but secondary to a) her broader message, b) its context, and c) the controversial elements that led up to it, and then stemmed from it.Mattnad (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: some editors want the current title because that's how some people may search for that. Wikipedia is indexed by search engines, and we can have the title of the piece in the body of the text, as well as use redirects. It will not be difficult for people to find it however they search for it provided the needed words are included. If we step back and consider what this article should be (once editing is permitted again), the current title will not accurately reflect the topic.Mattnad (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: "Performance art controversy" could seemingly refer to anything. We use the proper title for other highly controversial artwork, for instance the entries onPiss Christ and The Holy Virgin Mary are titled after the proper name of the artwork, even though both entries discuss the controversies that ensued following their unveiling. Nblund (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Piss Christ did not involve another living person. Sketches0993 (talk) 03:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we have alternate titling policies based on whether an artwork "involve[s] another living person". Bus stop (talk) 06:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not sure what the proper name is, of this artwork. "Sulkowicz' senior thesis, titled "Mattress Performance" or "Carry That Weight," is a literal expression of that emotional weight." Are these two alternative names? This source seems to show preference for the "Carry that Weight" term of reference. Bus stop (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, it's the name of the performance art piece/protest, at least the name that it's acquired as its common name. So the present name of the page seems fine. Randy Kryn 1:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Randy Kryn—is it "performance art" or a "protest"? (You say "it's the name of the performance art piece/protest".) Do "protest[s]" have names? If it is a protest then how is it her senior thesis? A reliable source says "The mattress project is Sulkowicz’s senior thesis as a visual arts major". Do other sources refer to it as a "protest"? Bus stop (talk) 06:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It's both, at least in literal terms. She's performing her art piece until a specific individual leaves the campus, so she's performing as well as citing an end date (although uncertain) of the performance. And as a thesis the piece has a name, which seems to be included in Wikipedia's title, even more of a reason to keep the title, which is already an italicized title. I haven't looked for a source calling it a protest, although some performance art pieces do have an overlay of protest (remember when people were arrested for dancing in the Jefferson Memorial in the U.S., an interesting performance art piece). Randy Kryn 9:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Bus stop, see here: "Columbia University student Emma Sulkhowitz made the cover of Time Magazine because she carries a mattress with her everywhere as a protest against university authorities who have not expelled a student she claims raped her."[2]--82.113.99.132 (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph (Australia) cannot even spell her name right. According to Wikipedia "It is often viewed as Australia's least-trusted major newspaper." Bus stop (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

"Media investigations and a lawsuit against the university... present overwhelming evidence that he did not commit rape. And yet his accuser, Emma Sulkowicz — who garnered fame by hauling her mattress around the Manhattan campus to protest against her alleged rapist — has been feted by women’s organizations and celebrated by New York senator Kirsten Gillibrand for her “courage.” Much the same could be said about “Jackie,” the pseudonymous subject of Rolling Stone’s debunked story “A Rape on Campus”"[3]--82.113.99.251 (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't support the suggested move to Columbia University performance art controversy. I don't think Columbia University should be the first term. Also performance art does not belong in the title. Les Demoiselles d'Avignon does not contain the word cubism in the title. Finally, why is controversy important in the title? That is merely a characterization of the piece. Bus stop (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support for the reasons listed above, but I also would support Mattress Performance controversy.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

"[F]or the reasons listed above"? Almost any suggested title has some merits. But we should be making fine distinctions to arrive at the best title. I'm not saying that there are not "reasons listed above" but would it take too much effort to articulate why you support the suggested move request? Bus stop (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Why include the term "controversy" in the title? This is virtually a wasted term. Why don't we mention the word "controversy" in the title of Les Demoiselles d'Avignon? Or perhaps we should include "controversy" in the title of Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe. Bus stop (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support. The controversy is more notable than the "performance" itself. Nick Cooper (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment So the argument is that either the art piece is the focus of the page, or the accusation itself is the focus of the page. Two very different points of view. The page as it stands now is about the artwork, an award winning artwork, what one art critic includes on his top ten list. The page is italicized, which shows that the page is about the art, and it is entitled with the proper name of the artwork. The male student in question gets enough exposure in the article, and the data is in there that no charges have been brought, that he's legally innocent. But whatever happened between them which caused her to create this artwork (again, an award winning artwork), her inspiration for the piece, thus should not be the name or main focus of the page, but explained within it. Making the incident more prominent than the artwork makes the page about a disagreement about an event, an event in which no legal charges were brought or acted upon. That in itself likely doesn't pass (or even come near) the threshold of being prominent enough for a Wikipedia page. What's left, and what makes it a Wikipedia page, is the award winning artwork. Randy Kryn 23:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the scope of the article should remain the same no matter the title. I think we are arguing over the title in order to affect the scope. But in this instance I think scope and title should be considered disconnected. All we should be doing is trying to find the best title. Content of this article should not even be taken into consideration when choosing the best title. I think articles generally should follow titles, but this is an exception. Bus stop (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support as the controversy about the "performance art" is more notable than the "art" itself.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support. The sources are not mainly art critics but journalists discussing rape accusations, and often describing the piece as a "protest" or "part art, part protest." The alleged rape is more notable than the alleged art. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Then why aren't you arguing for a title containing "alleged rape"? Bus stop (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@Bus stop: I would be fine with that but it's not part of this proposal. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

In terms of having a Wikipedia page, the event is not notable. The male was not charged, either by legal authorities or by the University. Rape or no rape, misunderstanding or not, it's a tragic situation for all involved, but it is not enough of a notable event in Wikipedia prominence terms to merit a page. The prominent item is the artwork, an award winning artwork, for which the page has been named, and is the woman's way of making her point outside of a formal charge and because one was not forthcoming. It should also be made clearer in the lead that no charges have been brought. The controversy alluded to is already well covered in the page about the art piece. Randy Kryn 19:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: I think much of what's going on here is really just an argument between those who think he's probably guilty, and those who think she is. After reading the Daily Beast article I think the preponderance of evidence suggests that the accusation was an outright fabrication on her part. If so, that's a tragedy for him, and for the 98% of women who aren't lying about their assault, but not so much for Emma Sulkowicz who, in that case, has made a name for herself without ever having been a victim of anything. But regardless of who's guilty, what's notable is the accusation and subsequent protests, not the alleged rape or art piece. So I misspoke in that respect. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi. The accusation isn't notable, or at least notable in Wikipedia-universe terms which has a barrier to what is page-worthy notable (although any garage band who can scrape up a few dollars and put out an album for their friends and family, or someone who has batted once in a major league baseball game, automatically become notable, sigh). So the protest is the notable part, and the protest is the art piece which has taken on a life of its own and won awards and honors. Hence the name of the page. Again, it should be made clearer in the lead that no charges were brought. And there is no way that evidence can prove that she was making the incident up, nobody was there but the two people, who have differing public accounts of what occurred. So again, what is different in this sad situation, and what makes it notable, is that she created a performance art piece and has been awarded for it. Nothing else is Wikipedia-page-worthy-notable, at least that's how it seems to me. Randy Kryn 20:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support Whilst the mattress performance art is notable, it is the motivation and previous issues and allegations that made the art notable. Without the previous claims this story would never have hit international headlines. The different parts of the story go together, which is why a title just about the art is not suitable. We will never know who is right or wrong here, it could even be that they are both right, and/or both wrong. They could have misinterpreted each others behaviour.
  • wrt Piss Christ the controversy is about the art piece itself. There is no previous controversy before the art was produced.
  • The accusations are notable. E has made them notable with her art piece, and the accusations have been printed world wide.
  • Using the term alleged rape, that has BLP issues, it implies E is lying about the accusations.
  • Equally using Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) implies E is the victim.
  • Whilst this may not be the best title, and I am not suggesting another, it is better than the current title.

Martin451 21:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Martin451—you say "Equally using Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) implies E is the victim." Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) is the title of the artwork and it is "one of the most important artworks of the year", at least according to one source. Other sources endorse it too. Bus stop (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@Bus stop: And yet even that source, which refers to it as art throughout, acknowledges that calling it art may be controversial: "Given the stakes, the question of whether Mattress Performance "is art" is probably a distraction." --Sammy1339 (talk) 11:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Sammy—the source is not "acknowledg[ing] that calling it art may be controversial"[4]. Bus stop (talk) 10:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sammy1339—I find it an unclear thought, expressed there in Artnet. It reads "Given the stakes, the question of whether Mattress Performance 'is art' is probably a distraction." I am not sure what is meant by that. My best guess is that he, the art critic Ben Davis, who I a never heard of, is juxtaposing the artist's trauma of rape with what he is positing is the the lesser question of whether the performance is art or not. I think he is saying that expressing the trauma of one's own rape, presumably what Sulkowicz is doing, is a far greater act than the relatively inconsequential question of whether or not one's self-expression constitutes art. He goes on to speak about other performance artists, I think all female. I think in all or most cases the performances of these women as well as performance artists in general "pushes the envelope", that is, most performance art constitutes something that a large segment of society would say is not art. But the avant garde never flourished on the majority, or at least so I've been told. Bus stop (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

A "lynching"[5] "witch-hunt"[6] "without proof"[7] is avant-garde? Ridiculous and disgusting. Reminds of dark ages. --82.113.98.88 (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I think "lynching" is being used figuratively. Bus stop (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Bus stop: I think the author is alluding to the fact that there is controversy over whether the protest ought to be called art, which is why it is not NPOV for Wikipedia to assert that it is art. I also strongly disagree with your presumption that Sulkowicz is expressing the trauma of her rape. Quite to the contrary, I think the Daily Beast article shows that the weight of evidence strongly suggests she fabricated the incident. I conjecture that an assumption that she's telling the truth lies behind most people's position that the protest should be defended as an artwork, and that makes this very POV. (Equally, it would be POV for the article to assert that her allegations were false.) --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Sammy—the author is not "alluding to the fact that there is controversy over whether the protest ought to be called art"[8]. Bus stop (talk) 10:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Many good quality sources support that it is art. Bus stop (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

And many others don't support that. That's how NPOV disputes go. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen any good quality sources that go against the designation of the performance as art, keeping in mind that op-eds do not count. And I think your missing the point slightly. Even if you believe there is strong evidence she made the whole thing up (that's your belief to which you are entitled), it's far from clear that would be prevent it from being called "art". It might be deeply immoral art, but the only way to determine whether or not is is art at all would still be to look at what reliable sources say. Formerip (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Here are some sources which describe the protest and conspicuously avoid the term "art":[9], [10], [11], [12]. Of course only opinion pieces (like this one) can directly assert that the piece might not be art, but it's apparent to me that many journalists saw it as something not to be taken for granted, and called it protest instead. Others, like this one and , called it "part art, part protest," indicating some doubt as to its status. This source, following a quote by Sulkowicz wherein she refers to it as art, says that it is "part protest, part project", indicating an unwillingness to accept her point of view on the protest's art-status as objective. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have misread, it says "part protest, part performance art", and it doesn't seem to follow any quote in any way that might indicate anything. Formerip (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, it looks like I linked the wrong article. I meant this one. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what we are talking about. Weren't we talking about the title? How does any of this have to do with the title? By the way, the article says "The senior student received a course credit in visual arts for the act of carrying the mattress, which is part protest, part project." Isn't that supportive of it being art? She "received a course credit in visual arts for the act of carrying the mattress". Bus stop (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, there are two points of view here. One is that Sulkowicz's actions constitute a protest, and the other is that they constitute a work of performance art. The events have been covered both ways. I say that Wikipedia should remain neutral on the matter, which is a controversial matter of opinion, and represent the opposing views. Making the title about the art, when much of the coverage only describes it as a protest and does not discuss it as an art piece, gives undue weight to one perspective. Moreover, while it is possible to have "immoral art," as User:FormerIP has pointed out, I have also suggested that most of the people supporting the "art" designation are sympathetic to Sulkowicz. That's not a problem in and of itself, but presenting this article as being about an artistic performance emphasizes the things one might find significant if one believed her, whereas if one did not believe her, one might find other aspects of these events more significant. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I think both Roberta Smith and Jerry Saltz, both art critics, consider the entity to be an example of performance art. Yes, they are probably "sympathetic to Sulkowicz". Bus stop (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it matters whether it is a "protest" or not except insofar as protests seem less likely to have titles. An artwork might be called "Untitled" but I don't think one would state that a protest was "untitled" because it is not expected to have a title in the first place. Bus stop (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

That's not two contradictory viewpoints you're describing. It's perfectly possible for something to be both art and a protest. Formerip (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@FormerIP: Obviously, and I linked articles that took that view. However, it's not universally agreed that it's both. Sulkowicz says it's art, and the accused says it's not art. There are opinions on both sides, and in the middle. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Has he actually given an opinion about whether it's art? Very possibly, he might think it isn't. But he also isn't an expert on the matter, and those who are say it is. For Wikipedia, that's what counts. Formerip (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I doubt that "the accused" has actually weighed in on whether the entity is art or not. Bus stop (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

"(70) Emma made clear that the Mattress Project... was not about art...", "(81) Emma’s campaign of gender based harassment and defamation..."--88.70.11.79 (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

88.70.11.79—you point to item 70 and item 81 in the legal document, but "the accused" doesn't weigh in at those points nor anywhere else that I'm aware of with an opinion as to whether the entity is art or not. Bus stop (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Bus stop, her professor isn't neutral. It's an artist. Both share one POV. The other is the accused's POV, which is shared by more and more commentaries, especially in Berlin and Germany.--82.113.106.168 (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

"Neutral" isn't a simple concept. Her professor and all others involved in conferring degrees in visual arts at educational institutions are experts in their field. Bus stop (talk) 02:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@Bus stop. This piece of art is targeting another person, with serious allegations. This is about more than the art, it is about the whole story, without the background the art is nothing, and would not have made news. The current title is her words for the piece, and by definition POV for her. The court case is also making headlines, we could rename this piece (redacted) vs. Columbia University. The suggested title is WP:NPOV and better accommodates WP:BLP. Wikipedia should not use her words for the title on a case like this. Martin451 23:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

User: Martin451—a title chosen for this article indicates a perspective. I'm tempted to say there are no wrong titles for this article. A title such as the one you mention, (redacted) vs. Columbia University, is a good example of a title that clearly has its merits. It says that we view this article from a legal perspective. But do we? Are all the quotes from art critics of any legal applicability? I don't think so. You say "[t]he suggested title is WP:NPOV and better accommodates WP:BLP." I don't understand this. We choose a title to express a perspective, in this case, anyway. I think we are very concerned with art, in this article. Performance art itself is questionable. Why does a student receive a degree for demonstrating the endurance to transport a mattress? Isn't this something that should be bestowed by the trucking industry? If, as I am suggesting, this article is primarily about art, then why shouldn't the title of the article be the title of the artwork? This is widely Wikipedia's practice. Yes, there is a lawsuit involved. But how does the artwork's title undermine or detract from the lawsuit? It doesn't. The title of the artwork doesn't happen to detract from the allegations of the lawsuit at all. The title was presumably given to the artwork at a time approximating its inception. A title of an artwork can be considered an extension of the work of art if given to the artwork by the artist, especially if given at the time the artwork was created. Therefore this should be considered a standard article on a work of art as concerns its title. In the final analysis I think we already have the right title on this article. Bus stop (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

User: Martin451—you say "The current title is her words for the piece, and by definition POV for her." No, it is not. It is her name for the artwork. You say "The suggested title is WP:NPOV and better accommodates WP:BLP." No, it is not. There is nothing "non-neutral" about the present title, nor does it even slightly violate WP:BLP. Bus stop (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The article is about more than the performance piece. The story has two sides to it, two points of view. The art is the latest in a list of complaints about redacted, and redacted has gone public and put his side, and is taking legal action. Using her title for the article, would be like having an article named after just one of two teams at a sporting event, it creates a very lopsided article. Martin451 18:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

You say "The article is about more than the performance piece." Of course it is about more than the performance piece. That is in the nature of most performance pieces. A performance piece, unlike a painting for instance, goes out into the space of the non-art world and interacts with the non-art world. A lawsuit is one of many possible consequences of the work of art as formulated by and initiated by the artist. The lawsuit itself is subordinate in importance to the artwork. It is merely responding to it. Sources are captivated by the artwork. They lavish considerable attention on the artwork. They merely dutifully report that there is a lawsuit. Our article is not about a lawsuit with an associated artwork. Rather it is about an artwork with an associated lawsuit. Bus stop (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is normal for an article about a work of art to use the title of the artwork as the title of the article. This is true even if the article focuses as much on controversy caused by the artwork as on the artwork itself. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

  Exactly. Something which hasn't been mentioned in this discussion is that once an artist puts their visual art into public viewing, as with this piece, the art stands alone aside from what motivated it. The viewer or listener can then interpret it anyway they want. The artist gives up control the moment the piece is presented. In this case the title can be interpreted many ways. "Carry that weight" could mean she's carrying the weight of the rape and the scorn of the people who are claiming it did not happen, or carrying the weight of making a false accusation against a former friend, or carrying the weight for the students who have to sleep on uncomfortable cheap dorm room mattresses (someone give Columbia a student mattress endowment, stat), or carrying the weight of the world for all people who just want to lay down and rest during the day - there are literally dozens of other reasons why someone might carry a blue mattress around a college campus. The art stands alone, outside of motivation. It has a name (which is the title of this page), and, as a stand-alone art work, that name is all the interpretation that the artist gives it. Randy Kryn 12:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm OK either with the present title, which is the title of the piece, or Mattress performance piece (Columbia University). But I reiterate that I am opposed to the suggested move to "Columbia University performance art controversy". I think it has been said that Wikipedia is "not a tabloid" and that we avoid "sensationalism". If that is the case then why would we be focussing (in the title) on some kind of a "controversy"? Bus stop (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

This "performance art" has lead to multiple court filings. It's art, an ongoing demonstration/statement (for a few more days), and part of a much bigger story about how colleges handle sexual assault. The current title is inadequate.Mattnad (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

So what if the work of performance art "has lead to multiple court filings"? If it is a part of "a much bigger story about how colleges handle sexual assault" then those articles can be linked to, from this article. You say that the "current title is inadequate" but I fail to see that. We should be writing one article at a time. This happens to be the article about the attempted performance piece that might have run afoul of the law. As the Wall Street Journal writes: "Ron Kuby, a New York City-based civil-rights attorney who doesn’t represent anyone involved, said Columbia faces difficult options. 'As a university, you’re trying to promote two utterly inconsistent values,' he said. 'One is academic freedom and the vigorous exchange of ideas. The other is creating a safe space where students feel comfortable expressing those ideas.'" Bus stop (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support. If the alleged perpetrator is to be named and his defenses included, the proposed article name more accurately reflects the articles scope. Minor4th 14:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Why can't he be named in the article with its present title, and why can't his defenses be included in the article with its present title? Bus stop (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Because "Carry that Weight" was the name given by her early supporters before the lawsuit Sketches0993 (talk) 03:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

From where are you deriving that it is "the name given by her early supporters"? Bus stop (talk) 06:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) is the name of her work of art. Regardless of what transpired with the passage of time, it remains the name of her work of art. Bus stop (talk) 03:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support Why is her art piece notable at all? It is the fact that she named her alleged rapist in public; when the lawsuit was filed it became fair to name him in this article. That said, the art piece was as much as a form of public shaming against this man. The article title should be changed for BLP purposes, out of fairness for both individuals in this unfolding event. Sketches0993 (talk) 03:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see the WP:BLP violation in the present title. How is Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) a WP:BLP violation? Bus stop (talk) 03:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment "Carry That Weight" was a term to this art piece given to her early supporters. It should not be mentioned in the title or first sentence. Earlier sources are the best sources here, as Emma's story has shifted a bit since the lawsuit was filed.

1. REDIRECT [[13]]

Sketches0993 (talk) 03:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Sketches0993—I have seen no source suggesting that the title of the artwork "was a term to this art piece given to her early supporters". Do you have a source suggesting this? Bus stop (talk) 06:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• User:Sketches0993—please don't post in the middle of another editor's post, as you do here. You respond to two different editors in that post, and I am referring to the second of your two responses to those two different editors. It interrupts their post. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 04:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry tried to fix my formatting. Sketches0993 (talk) 04:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: How about moving this to Columbia University student mattress performance art controversy? This would be more in keeping with similar articles like Yale student abortion art controversy and it would also have mention of the mattress in the title, which would help clarify which specific controversy it is referring to. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Tokyogirl7—what was the title of Aliza Shvarts' 2008 Yale University artwork? Bus stop (talk) 09:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

From looking at the article, it seems that her proposal didn't actually go ahead, hence the difference in titling between that article and this. Formerip (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• I can't remember if she'd ever titled it, but I know that initially the article was about Schvarts and was retitled because the article and coverage was ultimately about the controversy it sparked. While this performance art does have a title, a large portion of this seems to be about the controversy as a whole- that she apparently made up the allegations, that several staff members were OK with her doing this performance art, and the guy's part in trying to clear his name afterwards and sue the university for their part in things. It's just that at this point I can see the desire to change the article title because it's gone beyond the initial performance art. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Tokyogirl7—what leads you to think "it's gone beyond the initial performance art"? Bus stop (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• It's gone beyond the initial performance art in that there is now a lawsuit against the college and it's being discussed as part of the ongoing discussion on false rape allegations. Part of the controversy is that this was her senior thesis, meaning that her teacher signed off on this without looking into how badly this could come across. If this was just a piece of performance art that she was doing completely separate from the school then that'd be different and I'd support the article being named after the title of the work, akin to similar controversial pieces like Piss Christ. However part of the controversy about this is how the school reacted to everything, how it was a student senior art piece, and how this initially went forward with the support of at least one faculty member, which I think should be reflected in the article's title. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Tokyogirl7—the "initial performance art" would have to have a limitation in order for the lawsuit against the school to be "beyond the initial performance art". Is there something for you that suggests the limits of the performance piece? One place to look might be her "rules for her performance piece, a protest against the university’s handling of her charges of sexual assault on campus". Do any of her rules suggest a lawsuit against the university would be "beyond the initial performance art"? The present title is fine for this article. It is the title of her performance piece. That the university allowed to go forward a performance piece that they perhaps should have anticipated would have legal consequences which involve the university is immaterial to the accomplishments of the artist. You don't have to agree with the accomplishments. An encyclopedia can't decide to rob an artwork of its title because it finds the artwork ugly or lacking aesthetic merit. Unless you are arguing as an editor suggested above that we change the article title to (redacted) vs. Columbia University, the title should remain as it is. Bus stop (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with her. It's just that this is more than just a piece of performance art and it's had a pretty wide discussion over what the artist did, whether or not her adviser is culpable for anything- which leads into whether or not the university as a whole is culpable for this, the media's reaction to everything, the ongoing discussions over rape allegations (both true and false), followed by whether or not the rape even happened. I'm not trying to "rob" the artist of anything and I'm more than a little put off that you'd suggest that I'm trying to downplay the performance art. This may not have been your intent, but your phrasing strongly comes off like you're suggesting that I'm doing this to further a WP:POINT. I have no personal feelings or opinions about the artwork, the validity of the allegations (I'm labeling them false because at this point in time the common perception is that they were false), or about any of the reception (positive or negative) that the artwork or Sulkowicz have received. It's just that at this point this is more than just a little controversy over a piece of art. I don't think that this should be changed to "(redacted) vs. Columbia University" because that would put undue weight on the lawsuit. All I'm suggesting is that the title reflect on the fact that part of the controversy seems to be about the fact that this was a senior art piece that was approved by the university as opposed to just a piece of performance art that she did on her own. Now if this had been something she'd done on her own (akin to Piss Christ) then it'd make more sense to have it just under that title. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
• Ideally the name of the artwork would be mentioned in the lead sentence and bolded akin to how article titles are bolded. In other words, it'd be something like "The Columbia University performance art controversy refers to the performance art Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) by Emma Sulkowicz and the resulting controversy..." or something along those lines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• I apologize. I didn't mean "you" when I said "You don't have to agree with the accomplishments. An encyclopedia can't decide to rob an artwork of its title". I hope you'll accept my apology. But you say "the common perception is that they were false", in reference to rape allegations. We most definitely do not know that the rape allegations were false. "Common perception" has been wrong before. I don't think this should be changed to "(redacted) vs. Columbia University" but this is either an article about an artwork connected to a lawsuit or a lawsuit connected to an artwork. At this point the article contains a greater focus on the artwork than the lawsuit. Bus stop (talk) 04:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support: with the caveat that the words "rape allegation and" be added. There's really nothing controversial about performance art in general, or the fact that this girl in particular chose to conduct a work of performance art. Quite obviously, the rape allegation is the controversial part. Without the ongoing rape allegation there wouldn't even be any reaction quotes from RS's; probably there would be no notability and no material at all from which to write an article. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 14:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support move to new title. The suggested title is more neutral. Cla68 (talk) 04:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Any reason or it just seems like a good idea? Bus stop (talk) 05:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Choosing a more neutral title does seem like a good idea, doesn't it? I think a bad idea is to peruse RfCs and leave comments attempting to cast aspersions or doubts on other people's opinions which are different from yours. But, I know I should give you a break because this is a standard Wikpedian way of treating other people and since WP's administration never does anything about it you probably think it's ok or even approved. Cla68 (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Deliberate misinterpretation of another editor's question? Great way to treat other people... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Cla68—yes, I understand that you want to change the title of this article to something other than the name of the art piece, but I hardly think you have provided a reason. How would a different title be more "neutral"? No matter what the consequences of the performance piece, its title remains the same. She did not rename it as a consequence of a lawsuit being brought against the university and some of its staff. She executed a work of art which might have had different consequences or no consequences at all. Wikipedia has a fairly standard operating procedure, with some exceptions, of naming articles on works of art after the name of the work of art. To deviate from the standard calls for an argument to support that deviation. You have simply given as a reason "more neutral". Is that the entirety of your argument? Obviously it is her work of art and she titled it. Bus stop (talk) 00:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Your response seems pretty disingenuous given that you know it's a rape accusation and not "just" a "work of art". Let's turn your phrasing around; why should WP throw all its neutrality out the window and take a completely uncritical approach to a criminal accusation, simply because it's being made in the form of an "art work"? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 13:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Though not the more standard painting or sculpture this is certainly considered a variety of visual art by most sources commenting on it. Many good quality sources support that Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) is a type of art called performance art. The student received credit for a senior theses for this piece. Our own biases are not what matters as much as the assertions supported by good quality sources. Negative opinions in good quality sources warrant inclusion in our article. Consider that voiced by Robert Fulford here . The name of the artwork is established in sources. We read for instance "Sulkowicz has garnered widespread attention since September 2014 for her senior thesis project, Mattress Performance: Carry That Weight." Why would we not title this article with the title of the performance piece? Bus stop (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The piece's status as a rape accusation has been rather extensively remarked upon, too, and is the sole source of notability for the piece; why should we not title the article honestly and indicate that fact? Or to take it a step further and adopt the kind of stance you're adopting, why should we not refer to it as a rape accusation instead of as an art piece? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 18:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Quite simply, because it is an art piece. It bears the hallmarks of an art piece. "Sulkowicz, a visual-arts major, says she was raped by a classmate in her dorm bed sophomore year." The accusation takes the form of a work of art. The student-artist made preliminary versions of this expression prior to settling on the expression as we know it. An earlier version was contemplated and then abandoned in favor of the present form. "The performance piece began to take shape in Ms. Sulkowicz’s mind during a residency at Yale Summer School of Art and Music in Norfolk, Conn., this past summer. First she made a short video that showed her dismantling a bed, with the police station tape as audio. But soon she focused on the mattress alone and using it on campus, with the simplest, most public action being to carry it." We shouldn't be concocting titles for this article. Our standard procedure concerning articles on individual works of art is to use the title of the piece. Bus stop (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a criminal accusation, and we have all sorts of rules that apply to such a situation, and those rules are vastly more important than adhering to some "Wikipedia naming protocol for works of art" that happens to result in a misleading title. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 16:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

But you are not suggesting a title indicative of this article being about a "criminal accusation". Also, a suggested move to a title indicative of this article being about a "criminal accusation" would not properly be introduced in the middle of another move request. I too have made that error in this thread. A new Talk page section with a suggested move request to a different title should be created. This section of this Talk page obviously concerns a move request to the suggested title of Columbia University performance art controversy. I am concerned that we will end up with a title based upon arguments in support of a different title. Bus stop (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Nblund and Gobonobo. It is standard to refer to an artwork (regardless of how controversial) by its name. Her rape accusation wasn't notable until her artwork attracted attention, so I don't think the main topic of the article is the accusation itself (or the controversy related thereto). I also don't think that "Carry That Weight" endorses her accusations; it is simply the title of her artwork. If the title of her piece were "Rape of Emma Sulkowicz by XYZ" maybe Wikipedia's repetition of the name would be problematic. But here I don't see the benefit of moving the article from the title of her artwork to a title that is vague and unrecognizable to readers. The BLP problems exist regardless of the title and should be handled delicately. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• support the art itself is only marginally notable. It is a mere facet of the allegation, and subsequent aftermath which is truly notable. It should maintain a significant presense in the resulting article, but already this current article spends way more time talking about the incident and controversy than the "art" Gaijin42 (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support With more information about the case coming out, the title has undue weight [redacted] I would also support "Mattress Performance controversy" or some other title that adds "controversy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kai445 (talk • contribs)

This isn't an article about whether a rape took place or not. The factuality of that is unknowable. This article is about either of two topics. If you know of a third topic please tell us. This article is either about a work of art or a lawsuit. The present title indicates that this is an article about a work of art. A title such as "(redacted) vs. Columbia University" would indicate that this is an article about a lawsuit. That is just an example. If you know of a better title to indicate that this is an article about a lawsuit, please suggest it. Note that this section of this Talk page concerns a requested MOVE from "Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)" to "Columbia University performance art controversy". If you wish to suggest a different MOVE, please start a new Talk page section. This Talk page section is becoming unfocussed. I have contributed to that lack of focus but I would like to now bring us back on track. Bus stop (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. When the proposed title was first suggested, I thought I could support it, but I think now that it would take the article in the wrong direction. It would also single this artwork out for different treatment compared to our usual handling of controversial art, such as Myra (painting) and The Holy Virgin Mary, both of which required security guards.

  Mattress Performance is the only notable issue here. The work reflects and cements a period in which women moved the boundaries. A museum is likely to buy the mattress and rules of engagement, which will give the work a space in which to endure. There will be probably be exhibitions and scholarly articles.

  The work's notability is underlined by the lawsuit claiming that the university ought not to have allowed it. This will open up all the interesting questions about freedom of expression and conflicting rights and duties. But everything hangs on the performance piece, not the allegations, as the lawsuit itself makes clear. The allegations themselves are not notable. Each party has a different view of what happened, and there isn't much more we can say about the details than that. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

This argument that the "work" is notable but that the rape accusation is not notable, is frankly impossible to square with reality. The rape accusation is the only thing here that is notable; the rape accusation is what got attention and coverage; the rape accusation is the only thing that makes this thing an "art piece" instead of just a woman carrying arround a mattress for no reason; it's the only reason art critics even paid attention to it or mentioned it in the first place.

Indeed, her mission statement for the piece is that she would carry it until her [alleged] rapist is no longer at Columbia. It is quite literally, a rape accusation delivered in "art form". DO you deny this? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 15:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it isn't quite literally a rape allegation, because it doesn't name anyone. And, although it is impossible to completely separate the artwork from the artist's claim that she was raped, it is also false that a rape accusation is all that makes the piece notable. Most of the early coverage does not name the alleged rapist or any controversy over his guilt or innocence, that has only happened relatively recently, and the article would still sail past GNG comfortably without even considering that more recent coverage. Formerip (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

You are functioning as an art critic. Aren't you explaining how the piece functions as a work of art? You say "the rape accusation is the only thing that makes this thing an 'art piece' instead of just a woman carrying around a mattress for no reason". We don't title a drip painting by Jackson Pollock in accordance with how gravity effects paint and yet one can argue that gravity is important to such a work of art. If we take a view which is dispassionate towards the seriousness of rape as well as the seriousness of false rape allegation we are left with what some are calling a work of art and which a lawsuit alleges constitutes "bullying" and other unsavory descriptors. Bus stop (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Bus stop and parallel to SV. The majority of RS consider Sulkowicz's actions a performance art piece, and that lets us off the hook of hammering out an ugly minimally-objectionable title; the present title is, apropriately, a quote of the artist's voice. Any detectable bias is correct to include, since Sulkowicz's presentation of the situation is what got everyone's attention. (Again, per analogy with the transgressive artworks mentioned).

  In any case the encyclopedic (historical, sociological) significance of the work is its position as a locus of the present culture war in America around campus rape, and the discussions and high-level responses it's provoked. These discussions and responses are a result of her public actions and high-visibility performance, and independent of the controversy about the unknowable details of whatever spcific events inspired the artwork. FourViolas (talk) 07:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The majority of RS's also consider it a controversial rape accusation, with many noting the apparent lack of credibility of the accusation itself, and I don't see any basis for pretending that's not the case simply so we can claim, contrary to reality, this article "is only about an art piece". Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 16:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Our article is not only about an art piece. It is also about a lawsuit. The lawsuit finds wrongdoing in the art piece, especially in what the lawsuit argues is the condoning of it by the educational institution. What you are calling the "apparent lack of credibility of the accusation" seems to me to be irrelevant to the titling of our article. We are not writing an article on the differing opinions on whether a rape took place. There are two basic subjects being addressed in this article. There is the supposed work of art and there is the lawsuit challenging the university. Bus stop (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say it was "only about an art piece," because it isn't. However, the performance is, in fact, the reason she "got attention and coverage" while many other college students who alleged they were raped and unfairly treated by their universities got much less.

The reason this article exists is that, at a zeitgeist-appropriate moment, a college student made a remarkably public allegation of rape and subsequent university mishandling, and this allegation attracted a lot of attention and a variety of responses. As it happens, there's a precise term which describes that remarkably public, widely-discussed allegation: it's called "Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)". The fact that the validity of the allegation is currently a focus of attention is further evidence that it is an appropriate title under which to collect information about it and its responses. FourViolas (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sammy1339—you've left an edit summary "Reverted to revision 664006211 by FormerIP (talk): Please don't revert your comments after hours have passed and others have commented." In point of fact no one has responded to that post of mine therefore I don't see why I should not be permitted to revert myself. I've removed my post again. Is there some reason that you feel that my post should remain? Please note that no one has responded to that post of mine. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@Bus stop: Per WP:REDACT you should strikethrough your comments, not remove them. Even if people are talking on other parts of the page, they could have read your comment and been influenced by it. Repeatedly changing your comments can also cause problems with edit conflicts - someone may be responding to an old version of one of your comments that you changed. This happened to me when I was writing in response to you a little while ago. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave my original post in place, but with a strike through it. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose any move - The actual name of the performance is the proper place for it to be. We don't list Guernica (Picasso) under "Spanish Civil War atrocity painting". BMK (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per BMK. Even when artwork is about a controversy, it's typical to use the name of the piece of art, and not the controversy. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is the proper, and one can say "official", name. Per WP:COMMONNAME, readers will more likely search for "Mattress Performance..." than "Columbia performance art controversy", which is beating around the bush. The neutrality concerns are tangential here, since I really don't see anything not neutral about "carrying that weight" or a "mattress performance". These words convey no particular bias until the context is placed. Even then, this article is not about the controversy; it is about the artwork itself. If it were mainly about the controversy, I would probably support, but it's not about the controversy, which is relegated to a few sections of the article. Epic Genius (talk) ± 02:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. An article about a piece of art could be titled with something other than the name of the artwork if there were a strong WP:COMMONNAME argument, but the proposed title is less recognizable than the piece's proper title. I don't buy that the subject of the article is the controversy, rather than the performance piece; it makes much more sense to discuss a piece of art and the ensuing controversy than it does to talk about a controversy made notable by the artwork that triggered it. A title attempting to characterize what the controversy is about (the work itself? the sexual assault complaint? the school's handling of sexual-assault complaints?) is inherently less neutral and highly problematic.--Trystan (talk) 04:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - In part because I surmise that readers would be more likely to search for the article by typing Mattress [something] rather than Columbia [something]. Also, the name of the artwork would seem to be the most natural title and follows our convention for similar articles.- MrX 23:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and following search results (true counts only, not calculated estimates). I wouldn't call this RFM a waste of time, and I don't propose to dictate how others spend their unpaid time at Wikipedia, but I hope we won't spend a lot more time on it. It's only the title of a relatively unimportant article, less world-changingly important than many seem to think these things are, far less important than actual content, certainly not worth extensive debate about how much weight to give to which reliable sources, to what extent COMMONNAME should apply in the first place, and so on, and so on. As always in move discussions, redirects make arguments related to ease of search meaningless.

	Google Search	Google News
Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)	219	62
Columbia University performance art controversy	15	0

―Mandruss ☎ 12:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support Per the discussion below Darwinian Ape ^talk 14:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Accusation 4: "Not responsible"

Nungesser was found "not responsible" in this latest case — altogether, the fourth time he has been cleared of a sexual assault charge at Columbia.[14][15] You should mention this.--82.113.99.4 (talk) 11:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It's @negratude--89.204.138.175 (talk) 07:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The fourth accuser submitted this press release: [16]. --88.70.11.79 (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A few extracts: "For my Visual Arts Senior Thesis I will use a meditative dance practice that harnesses kinetic energy within my body as an embodied metaphor for the evasion of structural and interpersonal violence, and as an incipient expression of black, trans/feminine and queer identity and resistance."; "I am using dance as an individual form of protest that leverages my identity, body and experiences against those who wish to exploit and violate them: racist, colonizing institutions like Columbia, the Prison Industrial Complex in which its been invested, and serial rapists like Paul Nungesser."; "I am protesting the university’s refusal to protect black students, queer students, trans students, women and femmes from white supremacist capitalist patriarchy and sexual violence. I am going to dance, in videos and on stages, until I receive my diploma next May. I am carrying the torch: Emma carried her mattress across the stage at Commencement, and I will dance across the stage at mine."; "For now, I will dance. I will protest. I will fight. And I WILL win."--89.204.137.36 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

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)

Protected edit request (1), 31 May 2015

Using the source Bus stop found above, I suggest the following edits to the Overview section – some tense changes, minor copy edits, and some new material. (We can also use that source to discuss the museum aspect, but for now this is just about the mattress carrying and the diary.) Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 00:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Purchased from Tall Paul's Tall Mall, the 50lb, dark-blue, extra-long twin mattress is of the kind Columbia places in its dorms, similar to the one on which Sulkowicz alleges she was attacked. She spent the summer of 2014 creating the rules of engagement. Written on the walls of her studio in the university's Watson Hall, these stated that she had to carry the mattress when on university property; that it had to remain on campus when Sulkowicz was not there; and that she was not allowed to ask for help in carrying it, but if help was offered she was allowed to accept. In early September that year she began carrying it on campus. A homeless man was one of the first to help. She told New York Magazine: "He was the first person who helped without some sort of preconstructed belief for why they were going to help. He was like, 'Oh, look, a struggling girl – let me help her and be a nice human being.' That was probably the most honest interaction I had."

Sulkowicz said when she began that she planned to continue until the accused was expelled from or otherwise left Columbia, and that she would take the mattress to her graduation ceremony if necessary. In the end she did carry it to her graduation on 19 May 2015. After graduation she said she had known the university would not expel the student, and that she had expected to carry the mattress for nine months, the length of a pregnancy, which she identified as an important part of the work. Another part of the piece is a 59,000-word diary she kept throughout, recording her experiences and the misunderstandings of commentators.

Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 00:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I support most of this proposal, but I have one objection—the source only says that the homeless man was "among the first to help her", not that he was the first. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Support, I think the homeless man thing probably could just be left out. Nblund (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The importance of mention of the homeless man is that it shows the work and expenditure of energy on the part of Sulkowicz in carrying out her self-assigned task. Many people will help for ideological reasons. But the homeless man likely knew by firsthand experience what it was like to need help. Sulkowicz recognizes and acknowledges this. She seems appreciative of the honesty of the interaction. It might not be a bad idea to include some of the quote from Sulkowicz. Bus stop (talk) 03:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Granger, I've fixed it. I was about to remove it per Nblund, then saw Bus stop's post, so I'll leave it for now. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 03:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support this addition, if the homeless man was truly the first that Sulkowicz acknowledged as helping her. I agree with Bus stop that a quote could be added. Epic Genius (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• I've added the quote, per Bus stop and Epic Genius. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request (2), 31 May 2015

We now have a free photograph of Mattress Performance for the infobox.

Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)
Emma Sulkowicz (center right) with Mattress Performance at her graduation, 19 May 2015
Artist	Emma Sulkowicz
Year	2014–2015
Type	Performance art, endurance art
Location	Columbia University, Morningside Heights, Manhattan, New York City

Also, would someone consider replacing the protection template with {{pp-semi-protected|small=yes}}?

Many thanks, Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick question. Can the image be a bit smaller? Epic Genius (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thank you for getting this picture, Sarah. I strongly support including it. I suggest leaving out the "image_size" parameter from the infobox template, which I think will make the image smaller as Epicgenius suggested. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Since this has become a point of disagreement, let me add: I don't care much about the size—the important thing is that the image be added to the article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It's very small if we remove the size (see below). Lead images are usually at least 300px. Because this is an article about the art, I increased it to 350px. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Granger, Genius. I think the image should be 250 or 300px max.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the larger size here is beneficial. In the larger image, the mattress is better seen and it is clearer that what they are carrying is a mattress.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree—the larger size is preferable. The light blue cap and gown is a notable feature. It figures prominently in the photo, and it benefits from the larger size image. Bus stop (talk) 12:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Done I made the image 300px as a compromise. I've also reduced the size of the protection template as requested above. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:12, 3 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."[17] Bus stop (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

From the source: Nungesser'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 Nungesser. “We cannot imagine a more humiliating experience,” Andreas Probosch, Nungesser’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.[18] --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".[19][20]--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 ..."[21] --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: [22].--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. Nungesser, but Nungesser vs. Columbia. 'Court hearing' could lead to misinterpretation. As far as I know, there is no charges being pressed against Nungesser 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 Nungeßer, 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 Nungesser 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 Nungeßer 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)

Nungesser 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 Nungesser 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 Nungesser. 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 Nungesser 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 Nungesser 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.

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

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 Nungesser 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 Nungesser 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)

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 [23], 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, [24][25] 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)

Cite Nungesser complaint?

Initial issue resolved, further discussion below under "Lawsuit"Bosstopher (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Re: this. I don't have a position on the content dispute, but it's clear that the addition of the citation is a disputed edit, which means we discuss it here, not in edit summaries. The facts that the edit warring is at a slow pace, involves three editors, and hasn't gone on very long don't change the fact that it's an edit war. So here you go, and best wishes on a consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC) I'm not sure it's a matter of content- the thing it's cited to is fine, but we probably shouldn't be including these documents as a primary source for something if we can cite it to secondary sources. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 12:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC) As I understand it, content is anything a reader sees, or can see, in the article. That includes citations. Therefore this is a content dispute. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC) Thanks for the correction, Mandruss- my bad! PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 12:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC) A reference to the complaint, which is about the mattress art work, must be included. If the complaint itself is too detailed, the article in Jezebel is not. That can be included without violating any Wikipedia policies.Atlantacity (talk) 12:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC) The Jezebel article includes the full text of the complaint. If including the complaint itself is an issue to include, I would guess that including this article would also present an issue. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 13:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC) This presents a dilemma which is beyond me. Technically the Gawker network (including Jezebel) is considered a reliable source. But in situations like this where they show how incredibly classy they are, it just seems wrong to use them from a BLP standpoint. A similar comparison would be articles containing leaked nude photographs of celebrities that were published without their consent by the classy establishment that is Gawker. Technically Gawker is a reliable source, but it would be completely unnacceptable for us to link to these articles. The question here is, whether or not this is on the same level as leaked nude photos. Perhaps we should bring this to WP:BLPN or WP:RSN for greater discussion? Bosstopher (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC) What a terrible comparison with linking to leaked nude photos. The entire lemmet is about the accused allegedly raping Mattress Woman. Is it really too much to only include in a footnote a link to a story that links to the complaint? Poor accused. Atlantacity (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC) The "Poor accused" doesn't even have his name mentioned in the article, and much of the lede is dedicated to detailing his point of view, and his being found not responsible. I'd hardly say leaving out this link screws him over. Please note that the document in question goes into a lot of detail on Sulkowicz's personal life and sex life . While this is obviously not on a nudes/sex tape level, there is private and intimate information here that probably should not have been publicised. While I'm fairly certain there's nothing written in stone in "the rules" which stops us from including a link to this (and probably similarly with Gawker's nude leak articles), there is also no rule saying we have to include it. As editors we have the limited autonomy to make a decision to leave this out, and instead use a source that notes there's a lawsuit without posting the entirety of its text. Readers still get the main jist of the complaint and lawsuit without being given every single private detail.Bosstopher (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC) Even the New York Times-story by Bazelon links to the Jezebel story with the complaint. The entire complaint is about the mattress performance. Perhaps we need a separate lemma for the complaint against Columbia University. Atlantacity (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC) Is there a rule against including citations that link to other material? The reason the complaint itself isn't cited is because its a primary source -- but the goal of the sourcing policy is to ensure accuracy and verifiability, it is not to censor or conceal access to other primary sources. If the problem is the inclusion of a Jezebel cite, this article from the Washington Post contains the same claim. [EDIT: On closer reading, I sort of see the point about the Jezebel link: its primarily dedicated to simply quoting the lawsuit, I think the WaPo link would be a better source -- it does contain a link to the lawsuit, but it doesn't reprint it or embed the text]Nblund (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC) The Daily Beast ran a story highlighting the accused's viewpoint. I truly believe that an article that includes the word rape 11 times also should reference the accused rapist's side of the story. Atlantacity (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC) Jezebel is also cited for a detailed discussion of other allegations against the accused for which he has been found not responsible on appeal. Atlantacity (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC) Gawker and it's children are pretty awful sources, not sure why they get the label RS to begin with. However, I don't see a problem with the link that was being added. Arkon (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC) This article already looks very neutral to me. We don't use Wiki voice where we shouldn't. Over all, I think editors have done a very good job here. Again and again, we repeat phrases like "found not responsible" and "untrue and unfounded" and "lack of reasonable suspicion". Where is the pro-Sulkowicz bias in this article? Yes, there are eleven occurrences of the word "rape". The article is centered around an alleged rape, we can't talk about any article's subject without naming it, and twice as many occurrences wouldn't necessarily constitute bias. Atlantacity, if you want to propose specific text for a couple of new sentences, with secondary sources to support them, I think that would be a more viable approach. Any such additions would be subject to the usual scrutiny, and we shouldn't just repeat something that is already said elsewhere in different words, but I think they would stand a better chance than this document. Are we citing the text of Sulkowicz's police complaint? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC) The article includes a link to Sulkowiitz's real-time filing of the police complaint, so yes, it is linking to her police complaint. The article isn't unnecessary hurtful towards the accused, but it is far from neutral as you suggest. Since Sulkowitz's filing of a police compliant is included and information about previous alleged sexual behaviour by the accused is included as well, I suggest we do reference the complaint by linking to Jezebel, just as the New York Times did. Atlantacity (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC) @Atlantacity: Have a look at citation [5], used four times in the article. It's possible none of us in this thread have a clue. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC) Thanks. I suggest we also cite it where the article actually discusses the complaint. If Sulkowicz wants the proceedings to be behind closed doors, she can file a motion. Once the court decides that the complaint as is is out of order, we can take it down. Atlantacity (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC) Citation [5] already occurs one sentence after where you wanted to put your cite. We generally don't repeat the same cite for consecutive sentences when there is no intervening cite. I think we can put this to bed. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC) While I've definitely been a clueless fool, I still think the court documents shouldnt be linked to and have removed them. We gain nothing from linking to them, and they lean on the wrong side of WP:BLPPRIMARY in the amount of private details they divulge. Bosstopher (talk) 10:46, 5 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, including the female population in general. I referred to German beer and the current the 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)

reliable sourcing for video

The video has now been covered by Time magazine. [26] and Huffington Post [27] 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 [28]. 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. [29] Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 00:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The more recent discussion had qualified consensus to include it [30].--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Break

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)

@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 the flatulence joke. I hope this can be dropped now. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:46, 6 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)

Lawsuit

Hi Bosstopher, you removed the pleading in this edit. [31] 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 Nungesser'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 Nungesser, 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 Nungesser 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 Nungesser 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2015

The art world responded to the work positively. Art critic Jerry Saltz called Mattress Performance "pure radical vulnerability" and one of the best "art shows" of 2014. Journalist Emily Bazelon described the work and events surrounding it as "an increasingly bitter fight over truth and narrative", a triumph for the campus anti-rape movement and a nightmare for the accused. Caught between defending Sulkowicz's freedom of expression and the accused's right to due process, the university was criticized by both parties and their parents for its handling of the issue. The mattress, housed since May 2015 in Sulkowicz's parents' home, became an icon of a wider civil rights debate about the effect of campus sexual assault on women's equal access to education, and how universities balance the competing rights of the accusers and accused. This moment was known in many artist circles as the day art died.

174.24.254.137 (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done - If I have analyzed your request correctly, you are requesting the addition of one sentence to the end of paragraph 3. You have provided no source, and "the day art died sulkowicz" doesn't produce one that I can see. In the future, please specify only the change and the placement, as "Add to the end of paragraph 3: [new sentence]." ―Mandruss ☎ 23:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2015

External document

Complaint against Columbia University, Trustees of Columbia University, Lee C. Bollinger and Jon Kessler, Nesenoff & Miltenberg LLP, New York City (published by The Wall Street Journal)

Please add ahead of the second section of subparagraph 3.1: The box on the right side that contains the complaint against Columbia University et al. It increases the comprehensibility of the presented information like the current box with Sulkowicz's rules of engagement.--89.204.130.9 (talk) 10:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done - The inclusion of this document even as a reference or external link (far less prominent than this box would be) is currently under discussion in #Lawsuit. Feel free to participate in that discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:49, 6 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)