Jump to content

Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)

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

http://europe.newsweek.com/other-side-sexual-assault-crisis-403285 The above link has an email registration wall, but is easy enough to read. If you wish to bypass the wall, an advocacy blog called cotwa.info has mirrored the article here: http://www.cotwa.info/p/when-you-are-most-notorious-alleged.html It is interesting because it is one of the few articles within what are classed as "reliable" sources that does not treat Sulkowicz' allegations as fact. Interesting quote about the impact the "artist" has had on his life: "These days, he lives with his parents and freelances as a cinematographer. He plans to apply to film school, but he feels that he’s lost all of his New York connections and that he can’t return to the U.S. He says prospective employers Google his name and question him about what happened at Columbia." Another notable intervention from the "artist": "Sulkowicz declined to speak with Newsweek but said by email, “(the accused)’s complaint is filled with lies.... I want to warn you to be conscientious about what you publish as ‘fact’ for I may work with a lawyer to rectify any inaccuracies and misrepresentations.”" I think the whole article should be read in depth with a view to improving the wikipedia article and perhaps re-phrasing it so that it is made far clearer than at present that the "artist" is making allegations, and her status as "victim" is very, very far from established fact. Perhaps the lurid details of her narrative that we currently include should be omitted, out of respect for the suffering of the accused, which is actually established fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.225.245 (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I heard about similar comments addressed towards newsweek in a Dec 12 article "Mattress Girl Threatens To Sue Newsweek" by David Garrett. Does anyone know if NewsWeek has made a rebuttal? The only reference to NW on the page currently that I can see is the Spring article. 184.146.6.191 (talk) 07:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From the article of 10th December 2015: "Sulkowicz declined to speak with Newsweek but said by email, “(the accused)’s complaint is filled with lies.... I want to warn you to be conscientious about what you publish as ‘fact’ for I may work with a lawyer to rectify any inaccuracies and misrepresentations.”". Newsweek is a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.17.128.166 (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is an excellent article and definitely should be used as a source in this article and with the accuser's legal threat in response noted. Cla68 (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This entry is primarily about Sulkowicz's performance art piece. It is not about the guilt or innocence or honesty of any party. It clearly presents Sulkowicz's allegations as allegations, it avoids mentioning the accused student by name, and it only offers minimal coverage of the incident that inspired the art piece. It seems like this source is primarily about (the accused), his lawsuit against Columbia, and the problems colleges face in adjudicating sexual assaults. However interesting those topics might be, they aren't really germane to this entry. Nblund (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "art piece" is an act of bullying masquerading as a cultural work. This point is made brutally clear in the reliably sourced article. Calling is an "art piece" is blatant POV-pushing contrary to Wikipedia policy. The lede needs to be changed, in the first sentence to reflect the view that the "art piece" has not universally been described in the sources as a work of art, but rather part of a campaign to vilify an exonerated, vulnerable human being.
Failing that, the article must be deleted in its entirety, per wikipedia BLP policy. If Wikipedia readers wish to know more of this, they can consult gawker media. It has no place in a neutral encyclopedia. Furthermore, consensus at the moment leans toward inclusion of the legal threat and the "artist's" continued personalized campaign against the accused, with threats against those who would not join in on her media campaign against a living person, a campaign which you are, perhaps unwittingly, aiding.
The article should not be deleted, but Nblund's argument that this is primarily about the art piece is not accurate. It covers the background and events beyond the piece extensively, and coat-racks other works of hers. The article cannot favor Suklowicz presentation of the facts alone (although that has been done extensively in the past). Efforts to suppress relevant material would be highly biased and violate NPOV. This time, the source is Newsweek, which is about as reliable as you get) and we already see the rules shifting to keep any presentation of unfavorable details to Sulkowicz narrative out.Mattnad (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this kind of tendentious editing tolerated on Wikipedia? Aren't there rules against suppressing reliably-sourced material that makes a party in a dispute look bad?
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mattress_Performance_(Carry_That_Weight)&oldid=695148813"