Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Pic of [redacted] currently in article

Where did this picture come from? I didn't see any pictures of [redacted] in any of the articles discussing this case, and nothing resembling this pic popped up in a google image search of his name. Do we have confirmation that this is actually him? Even if it is him, should we be the only high profile source on the net publishing his picture?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The picture apparently comes from the video on [redacted], which confirms that it is actually him. However, the picture has been tagged for deletion (by me and by an IP editor) because it violates WP:NFCC #1, in that a free equivalent could potentially be created (WP:NFC#UUI). —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm pretty pro-fair use, but this was probably inevitable. I'll see if I can russle up a fair-use picture of him, or find someone who has a picture they'd be willing to license as CC. All these articles talk about the "numerous pictures" taken of him in the process of this controversy, but the internet has none to be found. Worse comes to worst, I'll just ask him via email.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 06:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink:, you wrote regarding obtaining a pic of [redacted]: "Worse comes to worst, I'll just ask him via email". Are you acquainted with [redacted] and/or editing on his behalf?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I literally meant I would cold-call him via email, and be like "I'm editing this wikipedia page about you, would you like me to put a flattering picture?" I have no COI, I just heard about the lawsuit and started editing.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, I mean, it seems like you edit in support of [redacted], but POV isn't COI, and you seem pretty collaborative regarding balancing etc. I suppose [redacted] is fair game now that he's made himself notable in his own right if you do locate a picture, and I know there is the view that a pic humanizes him, but I personally don't think you'd be doing him any favors to include his pic here. There's probably a reason he isn't sitting down to be photographed for these interviews. Article text says he's being harassed on campus, but I imagine once he steps off campus, he's just another anonymous face in NYC. Publish his pic on WP, and he might end up being called a rapist by random strangers on the subway. Sulkowicz has already made her appearance known via multiple public appearances, so that ship has sailed with her, but not [redacted].--BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I would caution you to avoid pigeonholing me as supportive of [redacted] in any way. My main objective is to name him as much as possible and clarify the situation with all WP:RS objective facts. If we do that properly, then people can draw their own conclusions from the material. If I were in favor of [redacted], why would I be pushing the naming of him instead of "the accused" or in favor of the picture, right? I think you might be confusing my paraphrasing source material badly that is favorable to [redacted] or biased in nature, because few of the truly unbiased sources go into his background! What I'll do is, I'll see if I can find his email or other contact info or even his lawyer's, and send them an email asking if they'd be okay with giving us a pic and releasing it to CC in writing. If they decline, then it doesn't really matter to me, I wouldn't want to aggressively depict someone who doesn't want to be depicted.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Citing opinion pieces

The article currently includes the following statement.

Sulkowicz's complaint was dismissed for lack of evidence, and her request for an appeal was denied.< ref name=valenti>{ {cite web | url=http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/-sp-campus-rape-prevention-yes-means-yes | title=Beyond 'no means no': the future of campus rape prevention is 'yes means yes' | work=The Guardian | date=2 September 2014 | accessdate=30 October 2014 | author=Valenti, Jessica | authorlink=Jessica Valenti} }\< /ref>

The problem here is that the citation is to The Guardian#Comment is free, which is a "comment and political opinion site". WP:RS, though, states the following.

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers.

Thus, the reference in the article fails WP:RS. I believe that the statement in the article is true though—it just needs a better reference. For that reason, although I have deleted the reference, I left the statement in.  EllieTea (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Repeated reverts regarding spelling

All of the English-language sources I can find use the spelling "[redacted]", and the new sections give undue weight. User:Cyve, please stop edit-warring and discuss this. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

His mother is [redacted] from Berlin. His attorney names him [redacted]. But under German name law such a name change is not possible. He is still a [redacted]. He didn't earn American citizenship yet.--Cyve (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The character “ß” is not in the English-language alphabet; so it must be transliterated.  EllieTea (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is powered by Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. We cannot simply change this guy's name based entirely on your knowledge of german spelling. Yes, it probably is spelled with an Eszett in Germany, but in all american documents, even in their self-published court documents, they use the double s. This is an english language wikipedia, we should default to what they call themselves in english language sources. Also, as for whether it's [redacted] or [redacted], all of these WP:RSes refer to him as [redacted]. In the interview with The Daily Beast, he refers to himself as [redacted]. It's [redacted]. We cannot default to primary sources, it's against policy.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

His given name is [redacted] and his Facebook name is [redacted] (see Wall Street Journal).--134.155.36.48 (talk) 13:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, anon, where does the court briefing say that? And even if it does, court briefings are primary sources. WP:RSes prefer secondary sources published by reliable publications.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

page 17, footnote 19.--134.155.36.48 (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

We should use name listed in reliable secondary sources. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It's his lawyer?! And he is a secondary source.. primary source is his birth certificate. He's from Germany not from France. Why should the parents "Karin" and "Andreas" name him [redacted]?? You should ask them, then you have a "realiable secondary source": karin@weibblick.com; andreas.probosch@lycos.de --134.155.36.48 (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Concerning the "ß": What's with e.g. Hartmut Weiß, Marx Weiß, Robert Weiß, Christoph Preuß, Hugo Preuß, Josefine Preuß, Hans Georg Friedrich Groß, Michael Groß (swimmer), Ricco Groß ?--Cyve (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, here's how it works. Wikipedia relies on Reliable Sources. That standard is defined here: WP:RS. If the most reliable sources use an Eszett, then the article will too. So look at all those articles, and I would bet GOOD money that you would find that the sources cited refer to those people with an Eszett. That isn't the case in this article. and @134.155.36.48: you should read that standard as well. The subjects covered and their lawyers are not reliable sources. In this instance, I think it's probably a good idea to keep the "[redacted]," it's not hurting anybody. Pragmatism. But the Eszett actively prevents people from searching for this guy. That's against WP's core values.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it's probably best at this point to leave both "Jonathan" and "Jean" off until we get confirmation from multiple reliable sources regarding either of those name. Seems most reliable sources just call him "[redacted]" so it seems that's what we should use in the article at this point.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, heres's how it works under German name law: Child's name = family name or mothers name. § 1617a BGB (1) Führen die Eltern keinen Ehenamen und steht die elterliche Sorge nur einem Elternteil zu, so erhält das Kind den Namen, den dieser Elternteil im Zeitpunkt der Geburt des Kindes führt. (2) Der Elternteil, dem die elterliche Sorge für ein unverheiratetes Kind allein zusteht, kann dem Kind durch Erklärung gegenüber dem Standesamt den Namen des anderen Elternteils erteilen. Die Erteilung des Namens bedarf der Einwilligung des anderen Elternteils und, wenn das Kind das fünfte Lebensjahr vollendet hat, auch der Einwilligung des Kindes. Die Erklärungen müssen öffentlich beglaubigt werden. Für die Einwilligung des Kindes gilt § 1617c Abs. 1 entsprechend..--Cyve (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry to tell you, Cyve, (Weil Ich spreche auch deutsch) but that's original research. Original research isn't allowed on wikipedia.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not research. It's logic+law: mother+father=child; child+law=child's name.--Cyve (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, if you look at User:BoboMeowCat's talk page, you can see that we're gonna be pragmatic and I think it's probably fair to include the Eszett in that parenthetical. But in the future, you should realize that, if at any point, you're making logical equations combining any sources to form a new concept or conclusion, it's original research..--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

See, I think you could make a pretty good case that for facts about names, primary sources are reliable. The lawsuit is a legal document, and there is legal compulsion related to it for the lawyers to list [redacted]'s birth name. So in this case, I think that primary source would count as a RS. See WP:RS:

Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

We're not synthesizing anything by using the name listed in that footnote, we're not doing any Original Research, we're literally using one fact about the guy's name. His parents determined what his given name is, I think a lawsuit from their lawyer about their son is probably fair game.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) German name law is not relevant here. What is relevant is how English-language reliable sources spell [redacted]'s name. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't we add the nicknames? "Matress Girl" (media) and "[redacted]" (facebook). Media and facebook are booth realiable secondary sorces. /irony off --134.155.36.48 (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

No, they're not. In this case, you might be right about [redacted], because of the primary source, but normally Bobowmeowcat would be right. The WP:RSes are just relying on faulty info. Don't be mean about it, WP is not about winning.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: I agree that the lawsuit is a reliable source for [redacted]'s full name. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

thumbs up I think anon got that part right, but the Eszett thing is definitely wrong. Not even their own lawsuit uses an Eszett.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

For pragmatism's sake, though, I think at least BoboMeowCat and I are gonna let the Eszett stand in that parenthetical. I don't think it's hurting anything, and it encourages people to learn about german naming culture. Why not, I guess. I bet you could even find WP:RSes in german that include the Eszett in [redacted]'s name. That would have been the much more policy-adherent route, but oh well. I'm too lazy to dig through german newspapers published about what this kid did in Swaziland :P --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I strongly oppose that course of action. The source lists [redacted]'s name as "[redacted]", and we should copy that spelling. I suggest the wording "[redacted] (born in 1991 in Berlin)". Listing his name as "[redacted]" is original research, as has been pointed out on BoboMeowCat's talk page. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

You don't have to research, you only have to think: father+mother=child; child's name = mother's name (de:Namensrecht (Deutschland).--Cyve (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I suggest reading WP:Original research – it doesn't always refer to research, strictly speaking. The source says "[redacted]", so we should say "[redacted]". As far as I know, not a single source has been found that says "[redacted]". (If such a source exists, of course, please point it out.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

But the mother's name is cited right. He can't have two different surnames. Where is the logic?--Cyve (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

You haven't responded to my argument—"[redacted]" is used by a reliable source; "[redacted]" is not. German-language citations of his mother's name are not relevant. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, see German newspaper reports about him: "Seit September 2014 trägt die Kunststudentin Emma Sulkowicz eine Matratze mit sich, sobald sie auf dem Campus der Columbia University in New York unterwegs ist. Sie sagt, auf so einer Matratze sei sie von ihrem deutschen Kommilitonen [redacted] vergewaltigt worden. Der Fall macht seitdem weltweit Schlagzeilen." (Süddeutsche Zeitung Magazin, Heft 5/2015, [1]) From one of the most reliable German newspapers.--Cyve (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for providing that source. I have rearranged the material in the sentence slightly, and am now satisfied with it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Balance, neutrality, point-of-view

The article has an overweight of statements from the point of view of artists/art critics and feminists ("Furthering the activist cause"). It's "Emma-focused" and limited to the "US-view". As only negative opinions there are [redacted], his lawyer and one New York Post article. It misses the view of neutral jurists/law scholars, representatives of the men's rights movement, as well as relations to the general discussion about false rape allegations at universities in the US and the foreign warnings to men to take up studies in the US and also the public European or German view to the case.--88.70.11.79 (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I actually think the section is pretty balanced. The article is about the artwork, not the lawsuit, so it makes sense to focus on the opinions of art critics rather than legal scholars and so forth. It is also not a problem that the article focuses on the United States—after all, its subject is in the United States. As for the charge of being "Emma-focused"—well, Emma Sulkowicz is the artist. It's very reasonable for the article to focus on her more than on anyone else. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe some would think, to call it "art" is point of view. Some would prefer "harassment" or "bullying". Different opinions should be mentioned.--88.70.11.79 (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

If you have any reliable sources covering this case from the POV jurists/law scholars, please add. I disagree with the tag, as the article currently contains criticism from multiple reliable source commentators, I really hope you are not suggesting referencing men's rights blogs. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Not blogs but maybe associations like the MRO (Men's Rights Organization) or the NCFM (National Coalition for Men).--88.70.11.79 (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

If their opinions on the case are covered in WP:RS that could work, but we can't just use their websites or whatever. The opinions of feminist organizations are also only covered in article if that opinion is covered in reliable source.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Citing of Professor Jon Kessler in section "Praise"

In my opinion ist's highly doubtful to cite Emma Sulkowicz' professor, a suspected complice or accessory, as positive critic in the section "Praise".--88.70.11.79 (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Kessler's involvement obviously shouldn't be in the praise section, probably in the section explaining how Sulkowicz came up with the idea in the first place and should definitely mention his opinion on it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The place where it belongs. He can't be teacher and critic at once. It's also a bit his own "work".--Cyve (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I think this professor's praise is on the topic, especially with respect to [redacted] alleging this prof aided in his harassment.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

But it's not a third-party-praise like the others. He gave the "recipe" and Emma was the "cook". No wonder, he likes the "meal".--Cyve (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's try not to engage in chatter about "accomplices" and "accessories" that might give the very mistaken impression that the male student is making a criminal accusation. There's also no particular reason not to include the prof's praise for the work — a textual attribution explaining that it was his student (working under his supervision) should be enough to eliminate any misapprehension by readers. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 23:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

[redacted] cited one of his statements praising Sulkowicz in the lawsuit and cited it as the reason he was including Kessler as a defendant, so it would seem relevant and worth a quick mention that he has a high opinion of it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

[redacted] a feminist?

[redacted] being a son of a feminist, are there any sources (or mentions in the complaint) proving that he provided the cause of feminism? Would be a funny turning point in this witch hunt.--89.204.138.22 (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Huh? Rephrase more, please. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 23:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

If he supported his mom's fight for feminism, he could be a feminist rapist. Would be something new.--89.204.138.22 (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Take this a little more seriously or you're going to get bitten. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 00:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It's a serious question. It would be a big plus for him against the allegations. I didn't read what his lawyer wrote about his past in Germany and Swaziland.--89.204.138.22 (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Could you please clarify the source or discussion you're referring to? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 01:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The article says his mother is a journalist for a German women's organization and a feminist blogger. Maybe she raised a little feminist and the complaint refers to something that proves it.--89.204.138.22 (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Your connections don't go anywhere.--A21sauce (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Adam K.

Local Berlin newspaper report uses the changed name "Adam K." to protect personality rights and calls performance "witch hunt": Berliner Kurier, 27 April 2015. Worth a mention? --88.70.11.79 (talk) 08:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

He and his parents were interviewed by national magazines and newspapers with real names since February ([2], [3]). Berliner Kurier is tabloid press, not representative.--Cyve (talk) 08:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

"widely praised by art critics and other analysts"

[emphasis added] This one sent my BS meter into the elevens. Citation or careful explanation of existing article-body support is badly needed. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 23:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Just go read the current praise section and see that many notable people and notable art critics praised it. Lot's of blue links in that section.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Could you assist me in identifying an "other analyst", whatever that means? I.e. someone who isn't an art critic. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 23:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Have read entire "Reception" section. BS meter still pegs 11. Assistance requested. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 23:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't add "other anaylists" but I suppose Hilary Clinton and Senator Gillibrand would qualify.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I was the one who wrote "other analysts", and I did have Clinton and Gillibrand in mind, as well as whoever awarded Sulkowicz the Susan B. Anthony and Ms. Wonder awards. Come to think of it, maybe "public figures" or some other phrasing would be better than "other analysts". —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but it ought to be clear we'd have to eliminate the words "widely" and "analysts". I'm taking this out of the lead while we discuss it, because it's not supported. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 00:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd be very happy to replace the word "analysts"—I was just looking for a synonym for "commentators" when I wrote it.

Perhaps "other analysts" could be replaced by "feminists"? Clinton, Gillibrand, the National Organization for Women, and the Feminist Majority Foundation all identify as feminist, and other feminists such as Jessica Valenti have spoken positively about Sulkowicz's artwork as well. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds good, would also eliminate my concern about "widely". Done, cheers, please post if you have any concerns with my modifications. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 00:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I replaced it with politicians, considering Hilary Clinton and Senator Gilibrand are politicians and are more notable as politicians than as feminists. I'm not even sure if they identify as feminists. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

First, I wrote COMMENDED, not CONDEMNED, so I don't think that removal was apt. Second, Hillary Clinton, and her close political protege and ally Gillibrand, certainly both identify themselves as feminists. Third, saying the work has been "praised by politicians" is an exaggeration (we're only talking about two politicians) and failing to include the "feminist" identifier wrongly implies that this view is widely held outside of feminist circles, which I don't think it is, and which in any event is not substantiated by sources at this point. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 00:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

You already removed "widely". She's been praised by politicians. Do the sources that talk about these politicians praising the project call them feminist politicians? Anyway Hilary Clinton is notable as a politician...period...and not as a feminist politician...that makes her sound fringe or something.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The adverb "widely" only starts to make sense if we lump the feminist politicians together with the feminist organizations, otherwise it's just two of one, and two of the other. But it would be unsupported and violate NPOV to just say "politicians have commended", because that is an exaggeration of what has actually happened. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 00:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Centrify's "feminist politicians" seems like a good compromise. It looks like they do identify as feminists [4] [5]. But either way sounds good to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Opps. I was trying to add my comment during edit conflict and messed up. Didn't mean to delete anyone's comments. Sorry. I prefer just politicians but if the sources that discuss their praise of mattress performance call them feminists than I suppose I can life with "feminist politicians" --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Granger, do you, or any others reading this have roll back? I also accidentally deleted a comment from an IP editor at same time I accidentally deleted yours and can't figure out how to restore it at this point. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I accidentally deleted this from IP 88.70.11.79 "Why not "two feminist politicians"? [6]--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Yep but that maintains the problem of lack of contextual sourcing for the "feminist" identifier and is also kind of awkward — why generalize in identifying a set with only two members? Just name them. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 01:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know that we actually have a source for that description, but it's the best/most accurate IMO. Or we could say "feminist organizations, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, and POTUS candidate Hillary Clinton". Just b/c it's the lead doesn't mean all of the language has to be generalizing, those two politicians are both very notable so we could simply name them.

"has been praised by art critics, feminist organizations, U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, and U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton." Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 00:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

How about this wording "has received recognition and praise by politicians and art critics". It's certainly been recognized by politicians. Gilibrand invited her to State of the Union.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Sigh, I think information is lost in that phrasing but it doesn't really matter :P Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 01:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

If we do use that phrasing, I'd like to include the organizations—maybe "has received recognition and praise from art critics, politicians, and feminist organizations"? —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 01:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

That works for me too.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm relenting, not agreeing :P "politicians" makes it sound like rather more than two, and implies broad sampling. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 01:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

She's been praised by two but recognized by others considering Gilibrand brought her to State of the Union and introduced her around.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Two politicians, unless you have other names to add. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 01:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just dropped in here but that last comment (from BoboMeowCat) is worth note. Being "introduced around" and 'recognized' are two completely different things and are functionally and linguistically distinct. Being 'introduced' to someone is not the same as having their positive notable recognition. On the matter of phrasing stick to naming the politicians and groups unless and until there are enough that collectivizing them makes sense. It is more informative for our readers to know who rather than an amorphous group like 'feminist politicians'. Using the term 'politicians' is not appropriate with only two people. Just my two cents. Jbh^Talk 02:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I think we should go back to "widely praised in feminist circles" or something like that. Using politicians, as Centrify said, connotes the idea that many politicians have commended her, which is not the case.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The art critics are not "feminist circles" and when you've gotten the attn of your senator and the presidential candidate, that seems beyond "feminist circles". Describing it as "feminist circles" seems minimizing. She attended the State of the Union address.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Then add "...and was invited to attend the State of the Union" to the text. Has she had notable recognition from non-feminist art critics or in a non-feminist context? As the lead as it stands Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) has received recognition and praise from art critics, politicians, and feminist organizations, although commentators have also criticized the work as unfair to [redacted]. The work has sparked activism across the United States and abroad., to my reading, puts a more positive spin on its reception than it actually got. It minimizes the negative attention mentioned in the text of the body. (Not to mention that the bare term 'critics' vs 'art critics' may be confusing to non-native English speakers when used in the same sentence.) Jbh^Talk 03:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Checking out the blue links currently in the article, none of the art critics/artists who praised her have any links to feminism. At least none that are mentioned on their wikipages.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Another option to resolve this might be to go back to the original wording of saying "praised by art critics and other analysts" but removing "widely" because that does seem POV.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

What is an 'analyst' in this context? 'Commenters' or 'pundits' might be appropriate but 'analyst' implies some expertise and 'art critics' already cover those who are expert in commenting on art. Who are the 'analysts' in this statement? Jbh^Talk 05:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Whatever it is, I think we can agree that a couple of allied politicians speaking about a cause they support can't be fairly described as "analysts" — a term which implies detached, impersonal evaluation based on some kind of objective criteria. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 11:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Reminder of BLP policy re: criminal accusations

Below is a full copy of a relevant WP policy subsection. I have modified emphasis in the second sentence to point out critical language. Editors, please take note. In particular, I believe this policy is telling us we ought to take care not to include third-party commentary that directly implies that the accused student is guilty. For accusations of guilt and protestations of innocence, we should only reflect statements from the two students themselves, IMO. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 00:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Persons accused of crime

See also: Wikipedia:Notability (events) § Criminal acts, and Wikipedia:Notability (people) § Crime victims and perpetrators

A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgements that do not override each other, refrain from using pithy descriptors or absolutes and instead use more explanatory information.

Order of info in the lawsuit section

Should we conclude this article with a statement from Columbia University president Lee Bollinger or conclude it with the statement from liberal commentator Amanda Marcotte? I've been attempting to conclude with Lee Bollinger's statement, because it seems more encyclopedic that way, and it also keeps debated info on Title IX together (see lawsuite section from this version [7]) but have been reverted by an IP editor. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Involved protagonists should be mentioned first. After that pro-/con-discussion of others like the mentioned feminist. You can't conclude with Bollinger forever because there will be more discussion.--88.70.11.79 (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems less readable and less encyclopedic written that way though. If it gets too lengthy at some later point we can start a new subsection.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Good. Subsection makes separation more visible.--88.70.11.79 (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

88.70.11.79, adding a "criticism" subsection to the lawsuit section as you did with this edit [8] doesn't seem necessary at this point, and it doesn't even seem appropriately titled considering Sulkowicz has also criticized the lawsuit above. At some later point, maybe we could add a "commentary" sub-section, but no subsections seem needed at this point. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

You are right. She ins't protagonist. Criticism is nearly a third now. Enough for it. See above sections.--88.70.11.79 (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Ugh you are really butchering that whole section. Now you have separated Sulkowicz's comments from the lawyers comments regarding why she is named in the suit, which flowed well together. It's really better for the reader to keep related info together, especially when there is no need for that subsection at all right now, and calling it "criticism" doesn't seem particularly encyclopedic when discussing reactions to a lawsuit. I really think the lawsuit section seemed more readable and encyclopedic in this version [9]. 88.70.11.79, your ongoing non-consensus edits, during this discussion regarding the section in question, seem completely contrary to the spirit of collaboration.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Also nice that the named commentator from Talking Points Memo — she of the very questionable notability — seems to almost explicitly assume that [redacted] was guilty of forcible rape. And her resume even includes past work on the subject, such as loudly proclaiming the truth of the Duke lacrosse rape allegations. So she seems to be an expert in blindly assuming that a rape accusation is true and lashing out at the accused with strident, radical invective. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 23:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

That commentator's POV aside, I think what she's saying regarding Title IX and this case is on-topic considering Nunsgesser has filed a Title IX sexual harassment lawsuit against Columbia, but I don't think what she has to say is notable enough to end the article with, which basically gives her the final word. Seems better to end with Bollinger's statement. I also really don't like a "criticism" subsection regarding a lawsuit. A "Commentary" subsection might makes sense at some point (not now) but litigation isn't a piece of art, so it shouldn't follow the same "praise"/"criticism" format as used for the art piece section.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not notable enough to be in the article at all. She's a non-notable hack with an axe to grind, and her comments about Title IX are frankly BS unless a rape has actually occurred. The prose ought to be removed. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 00:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The use of Title IX in this manner (protecting men from harassment regarding allegation of rape) is most certainly notable, it's probably one of the most significant things about this lawsuit with respect to the general issue of campus rape, and Marcotte seems to be first to comment on the use of Title IX in this manner and she's saying it in RS.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeahhhh, I agree nominally with Centrify. I think typically we should only include POV quotings like this if they don't already exist in the article, and if they represent a notable viewpoint present throughout a variety of WP:RSes, but synthesize it in a readable and concise way. I think this Talking Points Memo bit fails on all of these accounts. This is a minority viewpoint, the vast vast majority of WP:RSes don't depict [redacted] like this. I don't think her POV is notable enough, nor is it describing a range of other sources' POVs. I think it's a violation of WP:UNDUE to include it. Further, there are a variety of different sources to use about [redacted]'s Title IX violation, that don't have these problems. Here are a few: 1 2 3 4. But you have to be careful about how you include discussion of his use of Title IX. I would avoid using POV sources that talk about how he has no right to use it, for instance. I think you'll find that's not a notable viewpoint. At least that's my assessment of the media discussing it. The most noteworthy web outlet talking about that POV is jezebel, and I think they're regarded as universally the most radical viewpoint on the web about these things.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The first and fourth link you listed above are actually the same source, a source I already added to the article along with the Talking Point Memo source. They all barely mentions Title IX except to indicate this is a Title IX complaint with further discussion only in the comments. Also, limiting discussion of [redacted]'s use of Title IX in this manner, to exclude those who disagree with it is not something we can do and still be in accordance with NPOV. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with BoboMeowCat that the "Criticism" subheading is unnecessary and rather strange in a section about a lawsuit. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

[redacted] getting his own section at the top

This article isn't about their relationship or the case. If we want to do this, we should create a second article about the accusations and the case. This article is about the art piece, which I know is hard for the conservatives among us, exists separately from both Emma and [redacted].--A21sauce (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The art piece is about the alleged sexual assault and the art piece has sparked a lawsuit, so it seems appropriate to me. I think creating separate articles would be a mess and wouldn't be following the reliable sources because the art piece, the alleged assault, and now the lawsuit are talked about together not separately in the reliable sources.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The art piece does not exist outside the context of the assault and following drama. The artist has said she would carry the mattress as long as she had to attend university with the person who assaulted her. Without discussing the assault, the failed disciplinary forums, the lawsuit and [redacted] there is no context for the art piece. Without context she is just some girl carrying around a bed to no purpose. This type of art is no longer art if you remove the context of its creation. Jbh^Talk 21:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it does a disservice to readers if we remove that section. As I read this article, I said to myself, "who is the guy, anyway?" It's an incredibly pertinent summary, and definitely NPOV to include it.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

User:A21sauce please refrain from making childish, unnecessary personal attacks revealing your misapprehensions about conservatives, which are not relevant here at all, bro. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 23:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I think we should just put it at the bottom. Centrify, I think you should fly straight and have a user name that fits your moniker on your Talk page. You are flying high but not wisely.--A21sauce (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The reason it's currently at the top is that we refer to him throughout the entire article as "[redacted]" per WP:LASTNAME. If we're going to do that, we need to explain who he is at the top of the article. I would caution you not to use section arrangement as a means of enforcing what you believe to be NPOV.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Commentary Subsection via NPOV

Okay, so if more people aren't going to chime in to talk about whether or not the Commentary subsection should stay, then I'll just cede the point for now and not worry about it re: COATRACK. But I do have a problem with the way it currently exists. Right now it's more of a criticism subsection than a commentary subsection. We need to balance the different viewpoints re: the lawsuit better. Is this really the proportion of critics vs proponents that have chimed in? I don't think so. Via WP:NPOV re: balance, we need to include all sides proportionally.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

lengthy blockquote

Shibbolethink, you've been editing the content regarding KC Johnson in a manner that suggests you have not read the source, or have not read the source in its entirety. First, you changed the wording of that text in a significant manner and moved the text and added a citation needed tag. The addition of that tag suggests you changed the wording, without first reading the citation that was previously attached prior to your movement of that text (??) [10] Now you have deleted a summary (if you read the source, you'll see it's a summary) for a lengthy block quote which doesn't seem to concisely convey all of the relevant info that was in the brief summary. Text used to read:

KC Johnson, history professor at Brooklyn College, was quoted in Reason magazine discussing the confidentiality/privacy instructions [redacted] received following the university hearings presuming Sulkowicz received such instructions as well otherwise the university would be in violation of Title IX. Johnson commented: "Sulkowicz obviously has ignored that requirement, and responded to the not-culpable finding by going on a media spree...No evidence exists that Columbia disciplined Sulkowicz for the breach of confidentiality. Instead, Columbia removed the promise of confidentiality in 2014, after Sulkowicz had begun her publicity effort."

Now text reads:

KC Johnson, history professor at Brooklyn College, was quoted in Reason magazine discussing the confidentiality/privacy instructions that Title IX requires schools give both parties in disputes. Johnson, himself quoting the University's emails to [redacted], had this to say:

"The university instructed [redacted] that it would “make all reasonable efforts to maintain the confidentiality/privacy of the involved parties,” and that he “should use the utmost discretion and not discuss the evidence with others." Sulkowicz, presumably, received the same guidance (otherwise Columbia violated Title IX by setting one procedure for the accused and another for the accuser). Columbia’s policy held that “breaches of confidentiality/privacy or the complainant, respondent, witnesses, or the investigators, may result in additional disciplinary action.” Sulkowicz obviously has ignored that requirement, and responded to the not-culpable finding by going on a media spree...No evidence exists that Columbia disciplined Sulkowicz for the breach of confidentiality. Instead, Columbia removed the promise of confidentiality in 2014, after Sulkowicz had begun her publicity effort."

This is not an improvement. I'm trying to assume good faith, but your initial edits showed you changed text without reading the citation attached because you added a citation needed tag to it. Now this just seems very messy, giving undue weight to a lengthy quote that is merely a quote of a quote that was originally on KC Johnson's own blog/website that Reason has quoted. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

You need to read WP:WINNING. I had previously read KC Johnson's article on the subject, and was wondering which Reason.com article was being referenced in particular. So I added the CN. Then, after reading the source, I still was unsatisfied with the clunky and extensively long wording in that paragraph. So I attempted to fix it. Then you edited it back, in all its arduously long glory. This sentence: KC Johnson, history professor at Brooklyn College, was quoted in Reason magazine discussing the confidentiality/privacy instructions [redacted] received following the university hearings presuming Sulkowicz received such instructions as well otherwise the university would be in violation of Title IX. is burning my eyes. It is so unreadable, I had to go over it three times before I completely understood what it was trying to communicate. My entire purpose in editing that paragraph is for copyediting purposes, it has nothing to do with POV or vendetta or otherwise. And yes, since you're wondering, once the source was placed, I read it.

Basically, if we can find a better way of paraphrasing more of that quote, then let's do it. I'm in. I just don't want to have a sentence that ridiculous in this article. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Shibbolethink, honestly the only thing I'm trying to "win" is a readable article here, which I believe your edits are not achieving. My version is the short one above. Read the source. It seems to paraphrase it well. I'm trying to assume good faith but perhaps you should read the essay on winning that you link. I'm going to step away from this for a bit.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

When you say "the short one above" do you mean this sentence: KC Johnson, history professor at Brooklyn College, was quoted in Reason magazine discussing the confidentiality/privacy instructions [redacted] received following the university hearings presuming Sulkowicz received such instructions as well otherwise the university would be in violation of Title IX. That sentence has 7 or 8 clauses, depending on who you ask. No sentence should ever be that long, unless you're editing a William Faulkner anthology. I'm gonna make some attempts at paraphrasing it further.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it could be improved via punctuation:

KC Johnson, history professor at Brooklyn College was quoted in Reason magazine discussing the confidentiality/privacy instructions [redacted] received following the university hearings. Johnson persumed Sulkowicz received such instructions as well, otherwise the university would be in violation of Title IX and commented: "Sulkowicz obviously has ignored that requirement, and responded to the not-culpable finding by going on a media spree...No evidence exists that Columbia disciplined Sulkowicz for the breach of confidentiality. Instead, Columbia removed the promise of confidentiality in 2014, after Sulkowicz had begun her publicity effort."

When addressing this we should try to avoid a long block quote here or lengthy chunk of text devoted to KC Johnson who is actually only briefly quoted in the Reason source. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, he probably deserves about as much treatment as McArdle, etc.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

It should actually probably be shorter than the McArdle section, because that text is summarizing an entire article, while the KC Johnson text is only summarizing a small portion of an article. Now that I understand that your objection was due to run on sentence, and given that you didn't object to the text I suggested above, I'm going to try to summarize it in a more appropriately punctuated manner, avoiding multiple sentence clauses. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Move request

This is a developing story that is not only unprotected or watched, it's been held ransom. There is obvious interest in changing the name but it has been shot down numerous times on the fact that it has been decided that the name stayed.I ask an admin to approve a change to "2008 Emma Sulkowicz rape allegations". This is based off prescient on Wikipedia Tawana Brawley rape allegations. This cannot in any way violate BLP because she is the one herself that accused him, very publicly. Since the authorities have no interest in this case, the case will never progress past "allegations" based off of an [a priori] definition of allegations. The scope of the article has progressed past the performance, the piece is a part of the story of the allegations, not the other way around. Instead of complaining about conservatives (someone said that to someone else above, I am not even a conservative, I find that to show obvious NPOV in the claim that the naming of this article is not politically motivated) not wanting to make separate stubs from a decent enough article why not simply change the name? I'm going to call a spade a spade: People have been hawking over this article for a long time making no constructive attempts at an NPOV. They are being destructive and impending much needed updates of this article: the only article on this Wiki that regards this incident being named after her performance piece shows NPOV considering all participants in this ongoing incident are LIVING PEOPLE. It's obvious for the love of truth. I'll name names if asked but I don't think I need to. 2601:84:C801:6529:30DD:8C06:907E:A9EA (talk) 12:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Held random? Do you mean held ransom? No offence is intended. I'm just asking for clarification. If I'm wrong I stand corrected. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 12:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I really appreciate that. Thank you. My proofreading sucks :P 2601:84:C801:6529:30DD:8C06:907E:A9EA (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• I've removed the {{admin request}} template, which should only be used to request uncontroversial changes. The page move you've proposed is likely to be controversial (in fact, I oppose it), so you should get consensus for it first. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to have consensus when the same people weigh in over and over again drowning opposing voices out. I want an admin that doesn't self identify as a feminist OR meninist to check this article and read my points. It's hard to have consensus whenever people who make good points get ignored when these people seem to have no rebuttal. You say you're against it. Why? Your opinion isn't really valid without a reason. Writing off my points as trolling doesn't count as a rebuttal. 2601:84:C801:6529:30DD:8C06:907E:A9EA (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I oppose it because the primary focus of this article is the art piece, not the allegations. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The art piece as the title would violate LVP. Naming this after her art piece and not the allegations is an implicit endorsement of her actions. Thats not NPOV. Non-feminist/meninist Admin please. This talk page is beginning to look like a textbook example of repressive tolerance. If you want to be consistent you have to either remove everything in here about the lawsuit or change the title. You cant have your cake and eat it too. 2601:84:C801:6529:30DD:8C06:907E:A9EA (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Another point: Categories: Biography articles of living people is on the talk page. Obviously someone missed that. I wasn't the first person to claim this article was never about the art piece. 2601:84:C801:6529:30DD:8C06:907E:A9EA (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

There really isn't enough substance to have an article solely about the "artwork" — to say nothing of the overwhelming POVFORK potential. [Edit: if you want ONLY admin feedback, there are noticeboards for that.]Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 14:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

See what happens when outside opinions are solicited? 2601:84:C801:6529:30DD:8C06:907E:A9EA (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Emma is on the record that this is a protest about her treatment. She has appeared with politicians promoting her desired outcome, which is that her alleged attacker be removed from campus. The artistic expression is secondary to the broader story here. 2600:1011:B154:1E8:F505:59CC:4DE8:356D (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a story about a rape accusation. The mattress performance was her way of calling attention to it, but this is much much more than that alone. For those who want to keep it the way it is, why? Does this title now best describe the topic? Remember, This is an encyclopedia. 63.235.133.172 (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, an actual Wiki exists for these people. They should go there: http://sjwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page I'm being serious. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If it isn't good enough Encyclopedia Britannica it isn't good enough for here. I can't imagine the editors of that publication having this discussion. 2601:84:C801:6529:30DD:8C06:907E:A9EA (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't know about only admin feedback. My apologies. I'll take the box off I think we've exposed that this consensus is fraudulent. Someone explained why they want to keep the article the way it is. They logged off for it. I can't prove that it but I figured someone would do that later. The fact that someone had to log off to use their IP address to get them to admit that is repulsive and proves bad intent. If you don't know that encyclopedia articles are written without regard for feelings (only verifiable facts) you really have no place editing one. This page has enough evidence on it to suggest the claims are true. It's a shame that it had to come to this to expose an NPOV fraud. 2601:84:C801:6529:30DD:8C06:907E:A9EA (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll expose myself now. I'm 2601:84:C801:6529:30DD:8C06:907E:A9EA|2601:84:C801:6529:30DD:8C06:907E:A9EA. I did this to prove that logic is logic and encyclopedias are encyclopedias no matter the age of an account (if theres an account at all ;); it doesn't matter who you are (in case you're wondering, a white, cis, but gay male). Yes, that's exactly what this was today. Exposed Bias. Administrators that have seen this and not done anything might want to reconsider being an administrator. I created this damn account because the fact that this has been going on for so long is an insult to the idea of an encyclopedia. A real spring cleaning is needed NPOV Ninja (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Also: I wonder if 2600:1011:B154:1E8:F505:59CC:4DE8:356D is willing to expose him or herself as well? Something is seriously broken if so many people consider what we saw today to be a concensus. When people refuse to answer points and cherry pick what they're defending, it becomes a deserved controversy. NPOV Ninja (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)