Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

RfC for video section (Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol)

There is a clear consensus for the shorter version. Cunard (talk) 03:31, 7 August 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.

---

Should the section on the video provide a brief stand alone summary of this video as a related work of art, or should it mention the existence of this video as a related work of art, with fewer details? The video has a main article.

Please vote on one of the two versions presented below (or feel free to suggest something else in comments).: 00:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol

Main article: Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol

On June 4, 2015, Sulkowicz released Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol, an eight-minute video of herself having sex with an anonymous actor in a Columbia dorm room. Introductory text by Sulkowicz stresses that the sex was consensual throughout, though toward the end it portrays resistance, violence and force. When the video was first posted, each screen displayed the timestamp of August 27, 2012, the night of the alleged assault, but later the date was blurred. Sulkowicz wrote that it was not a reenactment of the alleged rape and later stated that it's a separate piece from her mattress performance.

Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol

Main article: Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol

Screenshot from Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol

On 3 June 2015 Sulkowicz released Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol ("This is not a rape"), a work examining the nature of sexual consent, named after René Magritte's "Ceci n'est pas une pipe". Described as participatory art, it consists of a website hosting an eight-minute video of Sulkowicz having sex with an anonymous actor in a Columbia dorm room, along with introductory text and an open comments section. The video was directed by artist Ted Lawson.

The introductory text, which exhorts the viewer to "[w]atch kindly," stresses that the sex was consensual throughout, though toward the end it appears not to be. By 9 June there were 2,700 comments, most of them hostile, ridiculing or violent. The text adds that the video is 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."

00:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Survey

• Longer version - The shorter version seems inadequate. It neglects to mention basic facts relevant to this work of art, like that this is participatory art or that it’s named after the famous artwork Ceci n'est pas une pipe, etc. It removes several interesting and informative visual arts related wikilinks, which seem important, considering this is an article on a work of art. It also seems beneficial to the readers to have an image. Additionally, it seems the section on the video should serve as a stand-alone brief summary, per WP:summary sytle, instead of the shorter version which only alerts readers to the existence of the video and provides few details, which do not provide a stand-alone summary of the work.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• Indifferent except I think the longer version wording should match the shorter. Replace "though toward the end it appears not to be" with the other version wording "though toward the end it portrays resistance, violence and force" so as not to second guess direct statements by the artist. --DHeyward (talk) 01:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• Shorter version - I essentially agree with BoboMeowCat in that the shorter version is missing what seem to be some essential facts, so I think it should be beefed up a bit to make a "medium length version". To me, that would be sufficient, since there is a stand-alone article on the piece. BMK (talk) 03:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• Longer version. This is a compromise between the long version that was in the article, and the very short version inserted by Mattnad. The very short one tells us nothing about the point of the piece. Sarah ^(talk) 03:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Note, I didn't insert it. Another editor did.Mattnad (talk)

• Shorter version. We should not be creating a bridge from this article to that article which includes questionable interpretations. It is not the length that matters but the hot air that fills up the additional space. I am not sure that in the longer version we should be saying that this is "a work examining the nature of sexual consent". Similarly, and although this would be the wrong Talk page for this comment, I don't think we should be saying in the infobox at Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol, that one of the "Subjects" is "Sexual consent". This opinion is expressed in good quality sources, and we duly note that interpretation in the body of the article, but we are misusing the Infobox when we state that with the brevity of fact. Bus stop (talk) 06:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• Shorter version - when I originally came to this dicussion I thought this was about a paragraph in the article about the artist (why on earth don't we have an article about her?!). A longer version in a biographical article would make sense, but not in an article about another work (if all the artist's other works were discussed more than briefly in articles about all her notable works it would get ridiculously repetitive). Someone needs to create an article about her (clearly a notable artist) so these potted summaries have somewhere to go. Sionk (talk) 07:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• Shorter version - There's a main article to give all the detail in the world. The reason this is here at all is because it's supposedly related to the mattress piece. So all we need to do is connect the dots and let the reader click the link. And as it happens, I've twice suggested just merging this with the other and rename this whole thing "Emma Sulkowicz" which would kill several birds with one stone.Mattnad (talk) 10:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Please see move history (see box at top of this talk page). Article was originally titled Emma Sulkowicz but there was consensus to move to current title. Current title was later upheld in a second move request.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 12:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Was that before or after her film was released? Since it was months before, then things have changed materially with the new article on the film with a desire by you and Slim Virgin for a lot of overlap between the two articles (Biography and details of the film).Mattnad (talk) 14:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• Shorter; in fact I'd shorten the shorter further. Sulkowicz is intentionally ambiguous - heck, downright contradictory - about how or whether the pieces are related. So we really shouldn't have too much in the article about one piece about the other. The link, yes, but not much more than that. Gee, information in the Mattress piece about the posts that the video received? The director of the video? Come on, that's completely irrelevant to the Mattress piece. --GRuban (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
• Shorter - Agree with GRuban, shorter is the better of the two choices, but it is probably too long too. Arkon (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
• Shorter version- especially since there is a separate article for the video, I think the shorter version is more than enough. Only if there was an article about the controversy itself, a longer version with pictures would be due. Darwinian Ape ^talk 04:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Snowball?Mattnad (talk) 22:00, 30 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.

Proposed trimming of film copy

A couple of editors have taken the position that we need the current exposition on the film so that readers understand how the art piece relates to the Mattress Performance. Accepting that position, I still think we can trim it and let the main article go into more detail.

Here's the current text which includes screen grab:

On June 4, 2015, Sulkowicz released an eight-minute video of herself having sex with an anonymous actor in a Columbia dorm room. Introductory text by Sulkowicz stresses that the sex was consensual throughout, though toward the end it portrays resistance, violence and force.[42] Entitled Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol ("This is not a rape"), after "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" from René Magritte's The Treachery of Images, the video was directed by artist Ted Lawson and alludes to rape.[42][43] Sulkowicz says she had the idea for the video in December 2014 and was put in contact with Lawson by performance artist Marina Abramović.[44]

The scene is shown from four angles on a split screen. Lawson said it was filmed this way, several months earlier, to create a sense of watching through security cameras. When the video was first posted, each screen displayed the timestamp of August 27, 2012, the night of the alleged assault,[45] but later the date was blurred.[44] Shortly after the video appeared, Sulkowicz's website was hit by a denial-of-service attack.[44]

Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol has been described as participatory art. Both the video and the reaction to it, particularly the website's comments section, are part of the work. The introductory text exhorts the viewer to "[w]atch kindly"; as of June 9, 2015, there were 2,700 comments, most of them hostile, ridiculing or violent.[46][47] Sulkowicz wrote of the video that it was not a reenactment of the alleged rape: "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."[42][48] She told the Guardian that she had created the video because she strongly believed in its importance, but that the experience of making it had been "traumatizing."[44]

Here's the proposed text, no screen grab:

On June 4, 2015, Sulkowicz released Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol, an eight-minute video of herself having sex with an anonymous actor in a Columbia dorm room. Introductory text by Sulkowicz stresses that the sex was consensual throughout, though toward the end it portrays resistance, violence and force.[42] When the video was first posted, each screen displayed the timestamp of August 27, 2012, the night of the alleged assault,[45] but later the date was blurred.[44] Sulkowicz wrote that it was not a reenactment of the alleged rape and later stated that it's a separate piece from her mattress performance.

I've eliminated the details on who directed it and other participants, the date of the inspiration, the detailed description of the video presentation, denial of service attacks, and her detailed quotes about the art. None of those are essential to demonstrate how the art is related. What does relate the two is the topic of rape, the dorm setting, and timestamp.

I'll also point out that the other art piece, explained in two sentences, is acceptable to the other editors to demonstrate linkage. So I'd ask why we would need the items I've trimmed off to do the same for the film. Being more expansive is not necessary given there's a main article, and it is undue from a weighting perspective.Mattnad (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The other piece received significantly less coverage, so the difference in length of text is explained by WP:DUE. My position is actually that the readers of this article seem better served by a wp:summary style format of the video, along with that 'see main article' link, which provides the readers with a brief stand-alone overview of the video. I agree the section could probably be trimmed a little bit (for example, I don't think it's particularly relevant that she had the idea for the video in December) but I disagree that it needs drastic trimming or that drastic trimming would benefit the readers here. I see no reason to remove the screen shot of the video.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The "significant coverage" is why we have a main article. If that didn't exist, I'd say this is fine as is. However, what we have here repeats most of the main article (not including the repeated Sulkowitz profile). This is more about editorial and how wikipedia articles are supposed to be parsimonious with subtopics when there's a main article. What may make sense is to merge the two since they overlap quite a bit now as is if you believe we need so much of the same material for both. In a month, both of these topics will be forgotten and left behind unless she does something else, which will lead again to the same problem of repeated info on several pages.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattnad (talk • contribs)

Support change Current level of detail is unnecessary due to the existence of a separate article.Bosstopher (talk) 23:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose change I think the readers are better served by a stand-alone brief overview of that piece in current summary style. While I agree that it could perhaps use some trimming, I do not think the readers are served by steering away from a overview type summary of that work. I also don't think the screen shot should be removed. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Support change but would remove more material. The suggested version says: "Sulkowicz wrote that it was not a reenactment of the alleged rape and later stated that it's a separate piece from her mattress performance." This should be omitted in this article. It is not of primary importance, in this article, to state what Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol is not about. Similarly this should be omitted: "When the video was first posted, each screen displayed the timestamp of August 27, 2012, the night of the alleged assault, but later the date was blurred." This is not even found in the full-length article. Few sources consider that alteration from an earlier version of the artwork to a later version of the artwork to be important. One source questions whether or not that alteration in the timestamp was for the purposes of the avoidance of a lawsuit. If by some reasoning it is felt to be important to mention this, such commentary should be found in the main article. But as I stated—this material is not even found in the full-length article. Bus stop (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT) Bus stop's vote should not be counted as he overrode talk on another matter to this page here.--A21sauce (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

A21sauce—I don't think we are primarily voting. "Wikipedia works by building consensus. When conflicts arise, they are resolved through discussion, debate and collaboration." Bus stop (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Multiple sources comment that the artist has stated this is not a reenactment. It's clearly a fact of some note given how often it pops up in the sources. It's also one of the pieces of information about the piece that directly relates it to the mattress performance.Bosstopher (talk) 23:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Only one poor quality article is concerned that the time-stamp was at an early point blurred out. This is not even mentioned in the main article. Yet we are devoting one or two sentences to that speculation in this article. The speculation by the way is only that this may have been done to avoid a lawsuit. So, we are wasting space to alert the reader that the artist may be lawsuit-averse. We are doing so in the non-major article. Again—this is not even mentioned in the full-length article. Bus stop (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not wed to keeping it here (although it should be in the main article). I kept it in there as a compromise to Bobomeowcat's suggestions earlier.Mattnad (talk) 01:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

It's important to mention the artist's intent otherwise readers of this article may just assume they are related in ways they are not.Mattnad (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Support Change - as the one who suggested it.Mattnad (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Support This seems more than reasonable. There's a separate article for a reason. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 01:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like 4 editors in favor and one against. After Bobomeowcat complained about me in several places for an earlier, similar attempt, I stated I would not edit this for a while. Who wants to make the changes since we have a strong consensus.Mattnad (talk) 02:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Comment I think the question could be more clearly stated. It seems everyone (including me) agrees what was originally there could use trimming, but the question is how much trimming and of what nature. I think an important question is should the text remain a brief stand-alone summary of a work of art? Or should it be brief text that mentions a work of art with some context? I recently trimmed about a third of the text out of that section, but tried to leave it as a stand-alone summary. Because I think a stand along summary allows readers who don't want to bother going to the main article to get a basic gist of this work of art. Perhaps it could use more trimming, but I think a stand-alone summary is useful to the readers. I think it might help to have a trimmed stand alone summary version to compare to a brief non-stand alone version, prior to voting.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The proposal was very clear and was not posed as a queston. Now that consensus is explicit, you're trying to make it seem there was an unclear question. The proposed text was presented, and most editors agreed with it, with Bus stop generally agreeing but suggesting even more cuts. You've in the past argued consensus should be followed. How about you insert the text I wrote, and then if Bus stop wants to trim some more he can. Unless you are not really in favor of consensus....Mattnad (talk)

This has been active less than a day, and even I agreed that original text could use trimming. I trimmed some of it and as of yet no one objected. A formal RfC seems reasonable, but I think we should take a brief pause to make sure we have some general agreement on what stand-alone summary version to use verses what non-stand alone description to use for an RFC, in order to give voters clear information on what they are voting for or voting against. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I support Mattnad's proposed version, and I'll implement it when I have some time and figure out which refs [42] etc. refer to. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 02:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

PeterTheFourth, please wait for a formal RCF, where we can vote on a trimmed stand-alone summary vs a non stand alone summary. If you support Mattnad's version (and there is general agreement on that as the non-stand alone version) we can start it tomorrow voting between a trimmed stand alone version instead of people voting against version everyone (including me) agreed was too long.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to wait for you to start an RFC to implement this relatively minor change. WP:FILIBUSTERS PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 03:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe WP:FILIBUSTERS applies to a discussion open less than a day. It's not a minor change, it's moving away from a stand alone summary to a non-stand alone mention. Also, the text currently there was never voted on, because this was pushed through so quickly, most voters didn't even see it. Please let's do a RFC and do it right.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Mattnad and PeterTheFourth, I suggest the following wording for an RFC: Should the section on the video provide a brief stand alone summary of this work of art, or should it mention the existence of this video as a related work of art, with fewer details? The video has a main article." Then link both version to vote between (and link the new trimmed version not the version we all agree is too long vs Mattnad's version - if that's agreed upon). --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

So much for waiting for an RFC, as I see PeterTheForth has moved forward and removed text. Since only Mattnad and Peter have been active since then, I'll post the trimmed version here, since I don't think anyone else has even had a chance to see it:

On June 4, 2015, Sulkowicz released an eight-minute video of herself having sex with an anonymous actor in a Columbia dorm room. Entitled Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol ("This is not a rape"), after "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" from René Magritte's The Treachery of Images, the video alludes to rape, although Sulkowicz stresses the sex was consensual throughout.[43] The scene is shown from four angles on a split screen. When the video was first posted, each screen displayed the timestamp of August 27, 2012, the night of the alleged assault. Later the date was blurred. The video was filmed in 2015,[44][45] and was directed by artist Ted Lawson,[43][46] who was put in contact with Sulkowicz via performance artist Marina Abramović, a supporter of Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight).[45][47]

Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol has been described as participatory art. Both the video and the reaction to it, particularly the website's comments section, are part of the work. The introductory text exhorts the viewer to "[w]atch kindly"; as of June 9, 2015, there were 2,700 comments, most of them hostile, ridiculing or violent.[48][49] Shortly after the video appeared, the website hosting it was hit by a denial-of-service attack.[45] Sulkowicz wrote of the video that it was not a reenactment of the alleged rape: "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][50]

Any suggestions prior to launching formal RFC, regarding trimming this further (while still maintaining it as a stand-alone summary) would be appreciated.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the rewrite is acceptable as seen after edits such as this and this. Bus stop (talk) 06:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Bobomeowcat, you of course can launch a formal RFC, but I like the current version, similar to Bus Stop's variations which is very close to my proposal at the start of this section. Nomoskedasticity also left it shorter and sweeter. I'm indifferent to "Other works" vs. "Related works" however I now suspect you prefer "related works" as a justification to shoehorn in more material. There are currently three editors who have seen your version on this page and have not agreed with it, and a fourth who made edits leaving our preferred version intact as is. And there's a fifth editor who preferred the current version vs. the previous that's similar to your proposal. There are now 5 editors comfortable with the current edit. You are the only one objecting. If you still insist on an RFC, I'd like it to include the current version as a choice. Mattnad (talk) 09:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Mattnad, I'm not sure how you are arriving at your count. Three editors not five have been active in this section since I proposed that trimmed version of text, which was significantly different than the original version considered above. However, yes, I do see that there is still bickering over "related" vs "other", which I don't understand, because the consensus on "related" seems so strong and longstanding. Please provide wikilink to the exact version(s) you would like included for consideration in RFC. I will probably attempt to trim the version I suggested above a little more prior to starting formal RFC. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Add-Mattnad, to clarify, is the wikilink you provided above the only version you want considered? Or is there another version you'd also like included in RFC? From what you wrote above this is not clear.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Five editors have been active from the start of the thread including you. Four liked my proposed edit before you started making counter proposals. We had a sixth, Nomoskedasticity, who reverted Bus Stop's edit to the header, but left the simpler version intact. So six minus you equals 5. Since I'd like to do this right and fairly, I'm open to presenting two options for trimming. Your proposal and the current article text. Although I will say that we have a pretty strong consensus now without an RFC. You are the only editor lately who has expressed a desire for an expansive summary.Mattnad (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose proposed text. I have no problem with this being trimmed, but the proposed text is too short, the writing could be improved, it doesn't explain the point of the video, and there's no need to remove the image. The aim, per WP:SUMMARY, is not to decimate, but to summarize. Sarah ^(talk) 21:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Sarah, below is an updated trimmed version I was considering for the RfC. Could you weigh in on it if you think this summary could be improved:

On June 4, 2015, Sulkowicz released an eight-minute video of herself having sex with an anonymous actor in a Columbia dorm room. Introductory text by Sulkowicz stresses that the sex was consensual throughout, though toward the end it portrays resistance, violence and force. Entitled Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol ("This is not a rape"), after Ceci n'est pas une pipe, the scene is shown on a split screen. When the video was first posted, each screen displayed the timestamp of August 27, 2012, the night of the alleged assault., but later the date was blurred. The video was filmed in 2015 and directed by Ted Lawson.

Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol has been described as participatory art. Both the video and the reaction to it, particularly the website's comments section, are part of the work. The introductory text exhorts the viewer to "[w]atch kindly"; as of June 9, 2015, there were 2,700 comments, most of them hostile, ridiculing or violent. Sulkowicz wrote of the video that it was not a reenactment of the alleged rape: “Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol...[is] about your decisions, starting now...it’s about you not him"

--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Why is the image important? A click takes one to a full-length article, of course containing an image. (If an image of Newspaper Bodies were available, its inclusion would make sense.) I actually don't even think "explain(ing) the point of the video" is a good idea, at least not in this article. A reader who is interested in reading about another work of art by the same artist will click on the link to another article focussing on another work of art. Bus stop (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

BoboMeowCat, I'd support that. Another suggestion (but I'm fine with either):

Screenshot from Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol

On 3 June 2015 Sulkowicz released Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol – "This is not a rape," after René Magritte's "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" – a work examining the nature of sexual consent. Described as participatory art, it consists of a website hosting an eight-minute video of Sulkowicz having sex with an anonymous actor in a Columbia dorm room, along with introductory text and an open comments section. The video was directed by artist Ted Lawson.

The introductory text, which exhorts the viewer to "[w]atch kindly," stresses that the sex was consensual throughout, though toward the end it appears not to be. By 9 June there were 2,700 comments, most of them hostile, ridiculing or violent. The text adds that the video is 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."

Sarah ^(talk) 23:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Sarah, I like that. It seems to read better than what I proposed. Do you think there is any non-awkward way to include the link to Ceci n'est pas une pipe? I think the name is significant artistically and has been stressed in the sources. I'd like to include it if possible, but agree that a stand-alone summary is possible without it. What do you think about including mention and link of the work it's named after? Do you think it would help or make it too long?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I've added it. It's just a few extra words, so it should be okay. Sarah ^(talk) 00:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Sarah, what are your thoughts on tweaking the opening sentence as follows:

"On 3 June 2015 Sulkowicz released a work examining the nature of sexual consent entitled Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol ("This is not a rape"), after René Magritte's "Ceci n'est pas une pipe".

I'm suggesting tweaking because when I read the previous wording, I initially read it as Ceci n'est pas une pipe being the work on sexual consent, but copy editing has never been my strong suite - I'm also not sure if I punctuated it correctly.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Or: On 3 June 2015 Sulkowicz released Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol ("This is not a rape"), a work examining the nature of sexual consent, named after René Magritte's "Ceci n'est pas une pipe." Sarah ^(talk) 01:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

All still too far long. Not necessary.Mattnad (talk) 01:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Overruled, Mattnad. You've trimmed it enough so you can live with these.--A21sauce (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

"Overruled"? What does that even mean? Are you the new Supreme Court justice of Wikipedia who decides which editors have a voice here? I guess I missed that memo. I was providing perspective as an editor. I just didn't want Bobomeowcat and Sarah to say "Hey look, not editors disagree with this as a replacement." I and others prefer a shorter version (in spite of your "rulings").

So if Bobomeowcat wants to have an RFC, and ask editors which version (the current and their developed version), I'm fine with that. I would disagree with just putting it in given 4 editors have explicitly endorsed the current version.

I do have a better idea however. Merge the two articles and rename it "Emma Sulkowicz". There can be redirects to the section for each of various art pieces and they are thematically similar so her background works for both. The article on the film repeats a lot of this article, and some editors want to repeat a lot of that article here. Why not just merge them?Mattnad (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

No. Just because there's alot of activity on the Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol doesn't merit Emma her own article. She just graduated; both works are from the same year. Ceci didn't merit as much legal and press attention as Mattress Performance. Alot of the activity has to do with your desire, Mattnad to trim this. Sometimes you just need to let things go and move on.--A21sauce (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

If both (or either of) her works is notable, she deserves an article on Wikipedia, as the creator of these two notable works (WP:CREATIVE). It would save a lot of repetition for a start ...each article already has a biography of her anyway! Sionk (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

We can save this for an eventual merge discussion, but unlike most artwork, the artist, her story, and the art are highly intertwined. Her person-hood and personal experience are integral to both. So for me, I think one article suffices for all three, particularly since all of her notable work (all two pieces) are tightly linked by her and as school assignments. The context is important as well, since this is all related to the college sexual assault debate.Mattnad (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Last suggestion overlong. This is the article about the Mattress Performance. There is no need to describe anything about another video except the parts that relate to the Mattress Performance. We have an article for the video, if someone cares about it, they can go there to find out who its director was, or what comments about it were, but all these had zero influence on the Mattress Performance. --GRuban (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

A bot archived a recent RFC on this before it was officially concluded because there was no activity. Most editors, except for the two who developed the longer version, agreed that the shorter version was preferable, with some arguing it should be even shorter.Mattnad (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The articles are way too detailed and long related to Emma Sulkowicz

Please consider distilling these articles down. They are disproportionate to the actual event's impact on society. These article suffer greatly from bias (lacking any critical view points) and have clearly been extended by parties related closely to Emma Sulkowicz if not Emma Sulkowicz herself. I am not saying this article should be flagged for deletion; just summarized more effectively.

Long time Wikipedia editor 24.239.124.101 (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if those close to Sulkcowicz are editing, but I have noted a tendency to eliminate information critical of her and her art has been removed by a handful of editors over time. We even have an unusual BLP related restriction that prevents us from publishing reliable sources that suggest she may not have been truthful or cite her FB postings. It's quite extraordinary, but since this article doesn't attract that many editors, that's the status quo for now.Mattnad (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

BLP concerns regarding opinions presented as statements from lawyers

I've restored exact quotes and also restored the recently deleted references per BLP. In response to objections raised in edit summary, one of the three references is a published letter to the judge from both lawyers regarding various arguments put forth. It was published by The Wall Street Journal. I can find nothing in WP:BLP regarding the unsuitability of this and it clearly does not violate NPOV as it contains the arguments of both lawyers, and not just one, which would be POV.

The previous wording was a BLP violation because it suggested university lawyers agreed with the plaintaff's lawyers that the rape allegation was false, which per the sources, is not what occurred, they agreed Sulkowicz had become "a prominent figure in the context of sexual assault on college campuses". We cannot use commentator opinion of lawyers quotes in such a manner and also be BLP compliant. We are dealing with serious allegations that a false rape accusation was made by an individual (Sulkowicz) who is not even being sued in lawsuit.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Add- However, I do think the following quote could be safely deleted with no loss of content to address any WP:QUOTFARM concerns: "branding [plaintiff] as a rapist", because the quote that follows this quote contains phrase "depicting [the plaintiff] as a rapist" so it does seem redundant. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Your revisions included the accused's name, and cited the lawsuit. Clear consensus is against doing either of these things, and both are BLP violations. The stable version's accounting based on New York Magazine is more accurate than the cherry-picked quote from the school newspaper, which has consistently displayed partisan tendencies on this issue. It was also unnecessary to take undisputed facts out of Wikipedia's voice. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Sammy1339, since this article is covered by DS, please consider self-reverting. You have twice reinserted a BLP violation into the article where you attempt to state in WP's voice that Columbia's lawyers agreed with his lawyers that Sulkowicz made "false allegations". According to the sources (excepting an opinion summary) this is inaccurate. His lawyers actually agreed "that Ms. Sulkowicz did in fact become a prominent figure in the context of sexual assault on college campuses". If you are concerned one of the refs includes the accused student's name, redact that from the reference, but please try to avoid blanket reversions that repeatedly restore BLP violation to article text. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Erring on the side of caution, I've removed the disputed statement outright. There was nothing wrong with this statement, as it only said the lawyers did not dispute the plaintiff's accounting, which they did not. I find the journalist's analysis of the letter more accurate than the school newspaper's, and I am against including such bad sourcing in this article. Please do not add further citations to the lawsuit or to the Columbia Spectator. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

While I personally don't see any BLP issues with including the accused name, there was a lot of discussion about BLP concerns. Sammy1339 could legitimately be acting on that, and the 1RR rule doesn't apply.Mattnad (talk) 10:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Mattnad: You may have missed that part, but there was a BLPN discussion which concluded that the name could only be revealed if the accused's defense was included. This is referenced in the FAQ above. There is also longstanding consensus on this page not to directly cite the lawsuit, which would conflict with the letter, at least, of WP:BLPPRIMARY. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I recall that discussion. It was a poison pill with some fairly novel arguments. We can't include detailed coverage of the allegations against Columbia unless we add counterpoints from Sulkowitz (from Jezebel no less).Mattnad (talk) 14:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The University lawyers didn't address those claims because they're claiming that they're irrelevant to the suit -- it doesn't appear that they are agreeing with them. On another note, this:

...lawyers argued Columbia permitted Sulkowicz to run a "gender based anti-male discriminatory harassment campaign" against him that painted him as a rapist despite the fact that university proceedings cleared him of any wrongdoing and the university did nothing to stop Sulkowicz from constructing a "public persona surrounding her false allegations, which has led to the posting of videos and other proposed performances depicting [the plaintiff] as a rapist."[31]

is a direct quote from the NYMagazine piece. At a minimum, the entire sentence needs to be enclosed in double quotes. Better still, why not paraphrase it? Its sort of redundant with the preceding sentence anyway. Nblund (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Sammy1339 , while your partial self-revert [1] of text which inaccurately suggested Columbia’s lawyer agreed with the plaintiff’s lawyer regarding “false allegations” is appreciated per WP:BLP, I see no reason to not simply quote the lawyer to specify what they did say and agree with. To clarify, Sammy, do you have an objection to the addition of the following statement: The defendants “do not contest that Ms. Sulkowicz did in fact become a prominent figure in the context of sexual assault on college campuses,” but they “deny that they are responsible or liable for her conduct”. We do not need to source the legal document published by The Wall Street Journal, as this is linked by both the Columbia Spectator [2] and New York Magazine [3]. While I agree that controversial claims should not be attributed to the Columbia Spectator, this is clearly not a controversial claim, it is a direct quotation from the university’s lawyer, which is verifiable and accurate: see paragraph 2 page 3 of document referred to by the source you’ve accepted as reliable. I could inquire if that direct quote can be safely included in this article at WP:RSN, or WP:BLPN, but it seems almost silly, so Sammy, I wanted to clarify first if you are literally objecting to this direct quote reported by the Columbia Spectator: “do not contest that Ms. Sulkowicz did in fact become a prominent figure in the context of sexual assault on college campuses” as “unreliably sourced” or a “BLP violation”, in case I have misunderstood you above.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The NY Magazine article accurately summarized the fact that Columbia's lawyers did not contest the plaintiff's accounting at all. It wasn't just a reference to that one line. Our article never said that the lawyers agreed with plaintiff's assertions, only that they did not contest them. Since this is more or less clear in the current version, I don't see a need to make it more explicit at the risk of other readers having the same liberal interpretation of such a statement as you indicated. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

And yes, to be explicit, I object to using a cherry-picked quote published by an unreliable source to muddle the broader point. Including that quote may misleadingly suggest that the lawyers disputed other aspects of the plaintiff's accounting. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

If Bobomeowcat's representation above is accurate per reliable sources, it's relevant and fairly neutral, although we can include the rest of the lawyer's points as presented by NBLUND. I'm not quite understanding the disagreement here.Mattnad (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

BoboMeowCat's quote does not appear in any RS. It appears in Jezebel and the Columbia Spectator. (It does not appear in New York Magazine, contrary to the comment above.) The New York Magazine article says that the lawyers did not dispute the plaintiff's accounting, and that is accurate. I agree with removing that statement from the article, because as BoboMeowCat points out, it can be misread as saying that the Columbia lawyers agreed that Sulkowicz was lying, which is inaccurate. Including the quote is misleading, though, as I've said above, because it suggests that the assertions in the previous sentence were contested. This is more of a simple accuracy and clarity issue than a BLP issue. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Sammy1339 That quote was not sourced to Jezebel. I hope you have not been reverting without first checking sourcing. As is clear from both the edit history and the above discussion, the sources are this short article from NYMag and this longer article from Columbia Spectator. Both of these sources refer to and quote from this letter to Judge Woods, which was published online by Wall Street Journal. Your assertion that Columbia Spectator is not a reliable source for a direct quote from a lawyer (which has been verified as accurate) seems strange and also concerning as it impedes balancing section. The Columbia Spectator is presently referenced in article and has been as long as I can remember. In fact, the Columbia Spectator was in the version which an admin rolled back to and locked in place for months back in May [4] due to BLP concerns, and no one objected to its use as source. Columbia Spectator has been repeatedly shown to be very detailed and thorough with respect to factual information regarding the art work and the resulting lawsuit, probably because both Sulkowicz and the plaintiff attended Columbia, as well as Roberta Kaplan, the lawyer representing Columbia. I find your objection to the following addition baffling: The defendants “do not contest that Ms. Sulkowicz did in fact become a prominent figure in the context of sexual assault on college campuses,” but they “deny that they are responsible or liable for her conduct”. I'm not arguing removing NYMag as a source, but it's a rather brief and seemingly unbalanced source as it predominantly quotes one side. I see no policy based argument behind your insistence on it being the only source here. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of not quoting the attorneys for either party -- it seems like sort of an end-run around the "not citing the lawsuit" thing, and its particularly problematic given that they attorneys for the plaintiff are making arguments that aren't being addressed by Columbia. Perhaps something more like "Attorneys for the accused student disputed Sulkowicz accusations and claimed that the project was gender-based harassment" seems like it would capture the gist of those statements without transcribing portions of the lawsuit in to the entry. Nblund (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

That would basically amount to not covering the lawsuit at all, and the point of BLPPRIMARY is specifically that secondary RS-coverage of lawsuits are what we should use. The wording you propose doesn't accurately describe the plaintiff's assertions, specifically because it doesn't explain why they would claim the campaign against the accused student was "gender-based harassment", or what that means in context. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand: why would paraphrasing rather than quoting amount to not covering the lawsuit?

I'm also not sure where in the document they explain why its gender-based harassment. What, specifically, is the justification you're talking about? Its worth noting that Columbia's attorneys are making a motion to dismiss partly on the basis that the plaintiff "has made no non-conclusory allegation that the alleged conduct constituted discrimination on the basis of or was motivated in any way by the fact that he is a man. (p. 4)." Nblund (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Certainly paraphrasing is possible, but the language you suggest is not sufficient. The quotes explain why Sulkowicz's actions are argued to be harassment. Elsewhere, it is argued that such a campaign would never conceivably have been allowed against a female student. I don't claim that the current text is ideal, but the following are my primary concerns:

1. We can't cite the lawsuit directly, and this is what the best RS we have says. There's not a compelling reason to remove the accused's assertions as reported there; after all, we are not censoring Sulkowicz's assertions, or even her apparent re-enactment of them.

2. The article has severe NPOV issues. (I've refrained from bringing this up before but it's clearly true.) There are no less than seven opinions offered which praise Sulkowicz, and in so doing implicitly endorse her version of events, while anything in the accused's favor (and indeed there are reliable sources which offer alternate views, e.g. several pieces by Cathy Young) has been conspicuously excluded; so has pertinent information in the form of documentary evidence seeming to favor the accused (Mattnad correctly called this exclusion "extraordinary") and even relevant and neutral information about the standards used in the hearings (preponderance-of-the-evidence), and commentary about the social implications of the case which talks about its effect on how we view such cases and the broader campus sexual assault issue (e.g. the Die Zeit article). Presently, these arguments by the accused's lawyer are the only place in the article where the accused's side is given any voice at all.

3. This article saw a tremendous amount of activity and high emotions with almost nothing being accomplished. I very much don't believe it will be productive to open up the wound again by drifting too far from the stable version, even if I personally think this version was severely biased. That may not be a policy-based reason, but frankly it's my primary concern here. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm open to alternative suggestions, and I haven't proposed eliminating all assertions by the accused -- I just suggested a compromise where we paraphrased the statements using slightly more neutral language, rather than use direct quotes which originate from an explicitly prohibited source. I'm re-reading the quotes, and I'm still not really seeing an explanation for why it was "gender-based harassment" in either of those quotes from the lawsuit. Do you have a specific alternative suggestion? Nblund (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Without understanding exactly what your objection is, I don't. The use of quotes reported by reliable sources is permissible under BLP policy - there is no reason to avoid them just because they originated in a lawsuit. If I were trying to make this article comply with NPOV, I would open RfCs about some of the issues mentioned in #2 above. However, since I and multitudinous others have already tried and failed to effect significant changes to this article, my goal is simply to not have the issue explode again. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Your goal is to avoid conflict, but you can't provide any constructive alternative to the contested section? To restate my objections: 1. The non-quoted portion is plagiarized. 2. The quoted portion comes from a source that has been expressly prohibited. To my mind, we could solve both of these problems with a paraphrase. You said you don't oppose a paraphrase in principle -- so why not throw out a constructive suggestion? Nblund (talk) 01:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Nblund, you didn't really address Samm1339's point, that BLP issues were around directly quoting the lawsuit due to WP:Primary. However, if a reliable source provides a quote, that is not an issue. As for NPOV, that policy refers to an article overall, not every sentence. When it comes to lawsuits, you have opposing views on the topic, so it's normal to provide the views of a party, even if that party does have point of view that's not neutral. Sulkovitz claim she was raped, unsupported by several investigations, is certainly POV, but we include it.Mattnad (talk) 01:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see where you're getting that interpretation regarding primary sources and BLP -- its still a contentious claim that originates with a biased source with no editorial oversight or peer review process, even if someone else quotes it. Its not a matter of counting the links in the chain -- if the New York Times reprints the lawsuit in its entirety, it doesn't suddenly stop being a primary source.

Once again, I haven't said that arguments should be excluded, I suggested they should be paraphrased using slightly more neutral language -- ideally using language that avoids plagiarizing another source. I think its kind of redundant, because those arguments are already paraphrased in the immediately preceding sentence, but it might solve some of these issues. Nblund (talk) 02:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm more along the lines of where Sammy1339 is coming from that some quotes can be fine, and those don't have to be neutral if we provide the source. If it's known that it's the lawyers speaking, that puts it in context. I think you've grossly misunderstood how WP:Primary works, as well as BLP, but to each their own.Mattnad (talk) 02:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@Nblund: Your recent revision changed the allegation that Sulkowicz "created a public persona" leading to this and that, to that she accused him of rape. That's something completely different; also not relevant to these allegations as the latter is not alleged to be an example of gender-based misconduct. Also, the "depictions" do not necessarily refer to the video (read the source), and nobody disputes that Sulkowicz produced drawings of the accused's genitals and displayed them in the space the university designated for her project, so there is no need for "they allege" here. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you help me understand why that portion of the quote is important? I changed it to "publicly accused him of rape despite his being cleared", which seems to capture the essence of the charge using more direct language. The lawyers aren't claiming that Columbia engaged in gender-based misconduct because Sulkowicz "created a public persona", are they? What does "created a public persona around false allegations" even mean?

Is there a reliable source that actually says that she was drawing his genitals? The NYTimes article cited in the section below just says they depicted "a naked couple". Nblund (talk) 04:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather just keep the quote as it's the simplest solution and there's nothing wrong with it. There are several relevant points in the quote, and the fact that she accused him is not one of them. The lawyers are saying she conducted a campaign against him, drawing an enormous amount of attention to the allegation, possibly also that she influenced others to harass him, possibly also that she profited by doing so in terms of her notoriety. It would be very hard to paraphrase this without making a lot of assumptions.

The source I cited says that. Emily Bazlon also says "They were especially upset by an exhibition at a university gallery, preceding graduation, that included Sulkowicz’s prints of a naked man with an obscenity and of a couple having sex, inked over a copy of a Times article about [redacted]."[5] --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I see "she conducted a campaign" in that quote, I don't see anything about the amount of public attention she drew, whether she encouraged others to harass him, or about whether she profited from the effort. It seems like you're saying we need to include the quotes because they allude to additional accusations contained in the lawsuit. That seems like a problematic justification.

The Bazelon article is what I'm referencing: it doesn't say that the drawings depicted his genitals. It just says "a naked couple". The Washington Examiner is a somewhat questionable source, and it seems like its the only one that makes that claim. You said "no one disputes it", but I can't find it from anyone else. Nblund (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

But the Washington Examiner is reliable source.Mattnad (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Reliable for what, and how do you figure? Are there other sources that make this claim? Its conspicuously absent from Bazelon's NY Times article, and I can't seem to find it elsewhere. Sulkowicz' rhetorical question appears to suggest that the artwork does not depict John Doe: "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?” Nblund (talk) 04:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I haven't bothered to check how many reliable sources say anything about it. But there is a source that does. It's common practice in Wikipedia to permit relevant information if sourced. It's relevant, and sourced. What more do we need?Mattnad (talk) 11:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

"A source" isn't what the BLP policy requires. We need high quality sources and verifiable facts. That said: the discussion isn't about whether the information should be included, its about whether its correct to identify the information at a "claim" made by attorneys rather than state it as a fact. Sammy1339 has stated that this is a fact which is uncontested by all parties, but the Washington Examiner is the only source I can find making the claim. Nblund (talk) 14:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

It is my understanding that The Washington Examiner has a reputation as being a questionable, POV source. Sammy1339's addition of controversial, questionably accurate text from Examiner seems odd following removal of non-controversial, easily verifiable quote from Columbia Spectator. I support the recent paraphrasing by Nblund [6], as it seems more neutral and accurate than what is currently there, but see it was quickly reverted: [7]. I'd also support a brief section on this content that focuses more on direct verifiable quotes and less on POV opinion type commentator interpretation, such as:

...His lawyers argued Columbia permitted Sulkowicz to run a "gender based anti-male discriminatory harassment campaign" against him and that after university proceedings found him not responsible, the university did nothing to stop Sulkowicz from constructing a "public persona surrounding her false allegations, which has led to the posting of videos and other proposed performances depicting [the plaintiff] as a rapist." The defendants “do not contest that Ms. Sulkowicz did in fact become a prominent figure in the context of sexual assault on college campuses,” but they “deny that they are responsible or liable for her conduct”.

--BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The Washington Examiner is at least as good a source as The Cut from New York Magazine, and definitely better than the Columbia Spectator, though you are correct that it has a political orientation. As for the Columbia Spectator, you are right that it has been used in other parts of this article, possibly inappropriately. I'd be curious what RSN has to say about this, but my guess is that as a student paper it probably wouldn't pass the bar. About including the quote by Columbia's lawyers, wherein they partially agree with the plaintiff, I'm really confused about why we are still having this conversation as I thought I compromised even further than your position by outright removing any reference to them not contesting the plaintiff's allegations. About cutting down the section: why? Nblund legitimately asked what the reason was why the plaintiff alleged sexual harassment, and I did my best to explain. Your proposed text lacks any explanation of this. And about the claim that the depictions were of the accused's genitals being controversial, give me a break. Nobody has said otherwise, and at least one RS has explicitly said so, and maybe I shouldn't, but I can't help but pose a hypothetical: If a depiction of a woman's genitals were publicly displayed, printed on a newspaper article about a specific woman, with her name on it, by a person who had spent nine months conducting a protest/performance/whatever calling for her to be expelled/prosecuted/whatever and accusing her of sexual misconduct, would anyone in their right minds and with any sense of decency be questioning whose vulva it was? --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

While Bobomeowcat has stated the Washington Examiner is "questionable", I personally am not familiar with that view. As for student papers, while amateur, they have been held up as newspapers in law cases relating to first amendment rights. They are typically overseen by a faculty adviser as well. So if we cannot come to agreement, RS/N is a good second opinion.Mattnad (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, basically everything is covered by the first amendment in U.S. courts, including all manner of tabloids. For reasons above I don't see that this ought to be an issue, as I can't understand why BoboMeowCat feels that the quote in question is desirable to have. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know that the Washington Examiner is inherently unreliable for all purposes, but Sulkowicz appears to deny that the drawings depict John Doe, and the New York Times article seems to intentionally avoid making that claim. Adding "they claimed" to the front of the statement seems like a very minor fix that alleviates this problem and errs on the side of caution.

Sammy1339 I see where you're coming from, but I don't think there's a pressing need to delve in to the specifics of the plaintiff's allegations, any more than we need to delve in to the details of Sulkowicz' claims. This isn't an article about the lawsuit. Nblund (talk)

Where does Sulkowicz say this? --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

That seems to be what she's suggesting in this quote: "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?”. Admittedly, she's being cryptic, but this seems to be similar to the video project, which she denied was a re-enactment of the events. Nblund (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) On the contrary, that quote unambiguously indicates the depictions are of the accused, and raises a similar abstract question as Ceci N'est Pas Une Pipe. It's accurate to describe the latter as a picture of a pipe. And to your other point, we do delve into similar details on Sulkowicz's side: "Sulkowicz alleges that she was anally raped in her dorm room by another student, on the first day of her second year in August 2012, during what began as a consensual sexual encounter. ... On April 24, 2014, 23 students filed a federal complaint against Columbia and Barnard College, alleging violations of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, a law upholding gender equality in federally funded institutions. Among other issues, the complaint alleged that the institutions discourage students from reporting sexual assault, that alleged perpetrators are not removed from campus, and that sanctions are too lenient." Besides that, there's almost the whole remainder of the article which is about her protest/performance, and repeatedly quotes her and her supporters without rebuttal. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Sammy1339, reliability on an article covered by WP:BLP is not just about the source used, it's about what the source is used for and how controversial the claim is. Also, whether or not the accuracy of the proposed text is questionable in light of what is reported by other reliable sources is relevant. You have objected to using the Columbia Spectator for non-controversial verifiable accurate direct quotation from Roberta Kaplan, while supporting using The Washington Examiner to state in wikipedia's voice the questionably accurate text about plaintiff's genitals being displayed in drawings at Southampton Arts Center and previously on Columbia campus, but the accuracy of whether or not those drawing depict a visual representation of his genitalia has been questioned by other sourcing. As requested, I have brought this to WP:RS/N. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Bobomeowcat. I think we have a lot of opinions here, but uninvolved third parties will be helpful.Mattnad (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Sammy1339 I don't think it unambiguously says anything, but it seems to indicate, rhetorically, that the picture does not depict "the people themselves" but depicts "the stories that circulated about them".

By "details of the case" I mean we don't include specific details about the rape (she says she was hit and held down, for instance), we don't detail what, specifically, the "lenient sanctions" are, we don't detail the specific means through which they allegedly discourage student reporting -- we don't detail any of the supporting or exculpatory evidence for any of these claims, we just state that they were made. Nblund (talk) 17:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Several things. "Anally raped", with location and date, is plenty explicit, and stating that Sulkowicz displayd depictions of the accused's genitals (or of stories about his genitals) is no more explicit than that. The article also is primarily about details of her protest, and we have a whole article about what appears to be a re-enactment of the alleged assault. The current text doesn't detail the accused's case in the manner you suggest - it just says what the complaint was, in a way that is not so vague as the previous version, which led you to wonder aloud what it even meant. Also, there is no supporting evidence, and I've said since the beginning that the exclusion of exculpatory evidence is seriously problematic - a view which I believe is supported by the result of the BLPN discussion about naming the accused. Specifically, I have argued that using the exclusion of his name as a reason for excluding this is flimsy, as his name can easily be looked up or even found prominently displayed in many of the sources we cite. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Its explicit, but its not presented as supporting evidence -- its just a claim. We've attempted to include a level of detail necessary to explain the context of the work, we have no attempted to bolster or undermine Sulkowicz' case. You were arguing that these materials needed to be included because they supported the arguments made by the plaintiffs, but I don't think that is the criteria.

I continue to wonder what it actually means: none of the details included actually seem to indicate a "gender-based campaign" -- they just point to things the plaintiff disliked. The problem is that the attorneys in this case aren't actually bound by editorial standards, peer review, or even neutrality. Adding more unsubstantiated details from their claim kind of makes the problem worse, not better. Nblund (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

This section presents allegations by the accused's lawyers, with specific examples of how they allege Sulkowicz violated the gender-based misconduct policy. It does not make any unsubstantiated claim, and does not introduce any new information on the accused's side of the story. Furthermore policy does not prohibit presenting both sides of the story with supporting evidence - in fact it encourages that - and I can hardly believe that you are saying there is nothing in this article on Sulkowicz's side. Since the article is full of statements supporting, praising, or by her, I suppose you mean that the article presents no hard evidence on her side. This merely reflects the fact that no such evidence exists. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Nblund, Sulkowicz's allegations that we liberally include here likewise are not bound by "editorial standards" but because they were included in reliable sources, they can be here. It seems like a logical contradiction.Mattnad (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, they aren't bound by editorial standards, and so we: 1. Provide only the minimal detail necessary to explain the context of the story -- avoiding the inclusion of extraneous or salacious quotes, and 2. Clearly indicate that these are claims or allegations. I'm suggesting we do the same for the plaintiffs: we minimize details and clearly identify claims. Its not a double standard.

Sammy1339 The closest analogue is the statement on the title IX suit -- we mention the allegations against the university, but we don't detail specific instances of leniency -- its extraneous. I'm not saying that the claims about the depiction of genitals can't be included (assuming we identify that they are claims), but simply saying "this is part of the plaintiff's allegation" is not the criteria for inclusion. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and its been well-established that this entry is not about the lawsuit or the rape allegations. Nblund (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this edit from Mr. Granger: this seems reasonable given the "words to watch guidelines", but perhaps "allege" is more consistent with the language used elsewhere in the entry, and with the language used by newspapers when discussing legal disputes. Thoughts? Nblund (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't object—using the word "allege" in its technical sense is fine by me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Camille Paglia

Deleted Paglia's reaction. <refactor BLP> (She blames the government being sideswiped by 9/11 on Bill Clinton not resigning after the Lewinsky scandal [8] ), and her comments come months after everyone else's. --A21sauce (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

While that's an unconventional theory it has no relevance here, and neither does the timing of her comments. I don't think there was a good reason for this revert. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Paglia is hardly an unknown and her opinions on Clinton are hardly extreme. A lot people thought he should have resigned for what could easily be considered a form of sexual harassment or misconduct (you know, a male superior having a sexual relationship with a very junior female subordinate in the workplace). She's an established academic on the topics of feminism. While Paglia may not go with your idea of the flow here, she's important enough to be interviewed by Salon. Salon is a major publication that is considered pretty liberal so you cannot even say they are biased towards a negative POV on the topic. Your personal opinion on Paglia has been noted, but we rely on reliable sources.Mattnad (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hardly. She teaches at an art school. Conservatives like to drag her out to get a "woman's voice" but that doesn't make her legit. As I said, its weeks after others have commented and it's making that section longer than it needs to be.--A21sauce (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

If a notable feminist scholar who teaches at an art school is not an appropriate person to comment on this topic, we can probably do away with all the other commentaries. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Paglia is known to be unconventional. Per WP:BIASED, Camile Paglia's POV should definitely be in-text attributed as the viewpoint of a "self-described dissident feminist". Also, it's wp:undue to give Paglia's brief comments it's own paragraph, quote her at length, and conclude the section with this content. I tweaked this and moved it up with the other art commentators. Senator Gillibrand and the reaction to Gillibrand's invitation of Sulkowicz to 2015 State of the Union Address seems much more significant and should end section with this content.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I think her comments are appropriate for the article. Cla68 (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

After familiarizing myself with Paglia I think I understand what all the hubbub was about, and I've cut her commentary down further. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Article says "art world generally responded with enthusiasm" but cites no source. There are a few examples but it doesn't mean art world generally responded with enthusiasm. For all we know those examples could have been cherrypicked. Looks like original research --Nomad (talk) 08:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Pinging Sarah because I believe she added the content. I haven't had time to look over all the sources, but judging from these snippets: Artnet cited it as "almost certainly ... one of the most important artworks of the year," and New York magazine, included it in his list of the best 19 art shows of 2014, it seems "with enthusiasm" appears to be fair paraphrasing. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• I can't see a problem with adding Paglia. As for "responded with enthusiasm," that's a topic sentence; it introduces the paragraph (or part thereof, in this case) and doesn't need its own source. It seems clear from the sources in the article, and others not added, that the response was enthusiastic. Sarah ^(talk) 18:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

BoboMeowCat, this is not an article about Camille Paglia. This edit is unacceptable. I understand the rationale that was given for that edit; I simply don't accept it. You gave WP:BIASED as a justification, but "self-described dissident feminist" is itself a notably non-neutral and biased expression; the "self-described" part in effect implies that Paglia isn't what she describes herself as being. Otherwise, she could simply be described as a dissident feminist. Your addition should be removed per WP:NPOV. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

There is praise and criticism to go around, but not just for the artist and the artwork, but for the school as well, hence I've made this edit. Bus stop (talk) 04:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's usually necessary to add a descriptor or qualification for a person who already has their own WP BLP. If someone wants to know more about Paglia and what she stands for, they can just click on the link and read the article about her. Cla68 (talk) 04:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:BIASED: editors should consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".. Please note that all of the examples given in WP:Biased already have a BLP, but they are sufficiently biased sources meaning that in-text attribution may be warranted. It seems clearly warranted with respect to Camile Paglia. It also seems important to note that a source referencing that text and discussing her views on Mattress Performance opens by addressing Paglia's bias and saying specifically: renowned and self-proclaimed “dissident feminist” Camille Paglia lambasted Columbia graduate Emma Sulkowicz’s mattress performance [9]--BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Your reply misses the point. The problem with "self-described dissident feminist" is that it is itself a biased description. It implies that Paglia isn't really what she says she is (what would you think it would imply if an article referred to someone as a "self-described law professor"?) FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator, I guess it's possible to interpret that way, but I didn't read it that way. Also, it is the specific phrasing the source referenced uses, and it also the specific phrasing used in Paglia's BLP. I read "self-described" in this case, not as a question of accuracy of that description, but rather a reflection of the fact that "dissident feminist" is not a widely used or known phrase, and it seems to actually be a descriptor that Paglia coined. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Whether you understand it that way personally is not the relevant issue. The issue is what it is likely to imply. That the source uses this specific wording does not mean that Wikipedia must do so also. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The first source describes her as a social critic. Wouldn't that be more appropriate?Mattnad (talk) 10:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

This source describes her as a "cultural critic". I think that would be appropriate. Bus stop (talk) 12:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

It is not appropriate for us to introduce Paglia as a "dissident feminist". Our sentence reads "Art commentator and self-described dissident feminist, Camille Paglia, criticized the work…" An "art commentator" she clearly is. But "dissident feminist" is a far less clear term. "Feminist" itself is an unclear term. If someone adamantly denied that they were a feminist—that would likely be noteworthy. But aside from core concerns, "feminism" refers to a far ranging variety of responses to a basically older, "patriarchal" social arrangement between men and women. The term "dissident feminist" is being used lightheartedly by Paglia when she describes herself that way. By invoking such terminology she is noting that she has a history of rejecting mainstream feminists. This is a theme Paglia returns to repeatedly. She will say for instance "The horrible truth is that the feminist establishment in the U.S., led by Gloria Steinem, did in fact apply a double standard to Bill Clinton’s behavior because he was a Democrat. The Democratic president and administration supported abortion rights, and therefore it didn’t matter what his personal behavior was."[10] There are many more such instances in the Salon/David Daley article. But that characterization is self-applied. This is a nuanced area. The label "dissident feminist" should not be used in our article as if it had some objective meaning that is ready for public consumption. Compare it to "art commentator". Is there any doubt as to what "art commentator" means? Bus stop (talk) 11:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I've been reverted here the the argument being, in the edit summary: "Excessive, and she's not a law expert." There was no mention of anything of a legal nature—not in my wording, or in the source. Nevertheless, I'm going to leave that out, though I think it bears mentioning. I've reworded Paglia commentary in this edit. Bus stop (talk) 01:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

You guys need to stop revert warring with each other. Unless it's a BLP violation, let it stand for a few days while you talk it out. Cla68 (talk) 02:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a BLP violation to simply use the adjective "feminist" to describe Paglia. She considers herself a "dissident feminist" which seems quite different.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi BoboMeowCat—you say that one term "seems quite different" from another term. What distinction do you see between the term "feminist" and the term "dissident feminist"? Can you tell me what each of those terms denote and the distinction between the two terms? Bus stop (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The fact that she is critical of mainstream feminism is key context for her statements that probably ought to be included as preface. The term "self described dissident feminist" occurs repeatedly in sources discussing her views (google news search), and it seems to capture her orientation and position among feminist fairly well. She explicitly embraces and explains the moniker in this interview.

If the problem is solely the vagary of the term, how about "an academic who has been critical of mainstream feminism"? Nblund (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Even skimming Paige's article shows she's considered anti-feminist by tons of scholars and sources. She may label herself as such, but we cannot use that label without qualification given that so many sources disagree with it. Quibbling over the descriptor for her is frankly putting too much weight on her opinion ... just link to her page and let readers determine who she is. We don't need to describe her for them, especially when such description is difficult and contentious. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Considering the content of the quotes from Paglia, which have been added to the article, some sort of in-text attribution seems needed per WP:BIASED; however, the detailed quotes from Paglia may be undue weight. If shortened and neutrally paraphrased, we may not need attribution per wp:biased. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi BoboMeowCat—how would we neutrally paraphrase strong criticism? Bus stop (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Evergreenfir, there is no need to call her feminist or anti feminist or dissident feminist or whatever else. Readers can easily go to her page and look her up if they are interested. Darwinian Ape ^talk 20:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

"Readers can look it up on their own" seems like a justification for not having an encyclopedia at all. Paglia is noted as a vocal critic of mainstream feminism and, more recently, of anti-rape activism. She is commenting on artwork that is closely tied to both mainstream feminism and to the anti-rape movement. Simply calling her a "cultural critic", or failing to offer any context at all for her views, gives the misleading impression that she is a neutral observer making an aesthetic judgement. Nblund (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nblund—you say "'Readers can look it up on their own' seems like a justification for not having an encyclopedia at all." No, it is a "justification" for having separate articles. Bus stop (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Nblund, the critics don't have to be neutral, and we are not using WP's voice for her views. There are other critics quoted in the article do we qualify them as feminists, no they are called art critics, performance artists etc. Frankly, I really don't know much about Paglia, but in any case using her name and occupation should be neutral enough, otherwise seems to me like a bit of POV pushing. In her page we describe her as " American academic and social critic." That should be enough. Darwinian Ape ^talk 01:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that her criticisms need to be neutral, I'm saying that these non-neutral statements need to be contextualized. I think its likely that many readers will be unfamiliar with Paglia, and may be not be aware that her views considered to be outside the feminist and critical mainstream. Name and profession aren't really enough. Karl Rove and James Carville are both "professional political consultants", but I think it would be misleading to quote a political assessment from either one without mentioning their party affiliations. Paglia is similar: she's a critic, but she's far better known as a polemicist than as an academic.

The other art critics aren't identified by their ideologies because they aren't ideologues. Jerry Saltz and Roberta Smith may be feminists, but they are really best known as art critics -- I don't know anything about their views on feminism because they don't publish them, AFAIK. Nblund (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nblund—why aren't "Name and profession … enough? Bus stop (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Who is the arbiter of which voice is mainstream or not? Paglia is far more notable, authoritative, and established than a freelance writer for Artnet. Salon, the primary source for the interview, did not see fit to characterize Paglia as an "dissident feminist". Wikipedia editors then want to interject their own views on this. It's really a case of not liking message so there's an effort to dismiss the messenger with a qualifier.Mattnad (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Mattnad: Paglia calls herself a dissident and even sympathizers acknowledge she's not a mainstream feminist. Its not a pejorative, its her well-established public persona: I am a dissident because my system of beliefs, worked out over the past five decades, has been repeatedly attacked, defamed, and rejected by feminist leaders and their acolytes across a wide spectrum, both in and out of academe (link). You can't say "feminist leaders have attacked me for decades" and then simultaneously claim to be a part of the feminist mainstream.

Bus stop As I explained: James Carville is a "professional political consultant", but it would be misleading to quote his views on politics without acknowledging his political affiliations. Camille Paglia is a critic, but she's best known to the public as a critic of mainstream feminism. She has a broader ideological and political agenda that probably has a lot to do with her critical judgement of this piece, and its pretty clear from the quote that she's making a point about her view of contemporary feminism. Nblund (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Whatever she has said in the past (and putting aide your interpretation since we all can have opinions), Salon was speaking to her as a "social critic" according to that article from which this all springs. Paglia is known for many things by many people, but it seems to me that adding phrasing is less about elucidation and more about POV.Mattnad (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, this is something that Camille Paglia uses to describe her own views. If your objection is that this is somehow biased or contested, you're just mistaken. Its something used by both sympathizers and critics to describe her views. I've included several links below attesting to this.

The Salon article calls her "a provocateur" defined as: "a person who provokes trouble, causes dissension, or the like; agitator". Provocateur is sort a pejorative description, "dissident feminist" really seems like a more generous way of describing her position. You're arguing that this is about a POV, but whose point-of-view is this supposed to be exactly? Nblund (talk) 22:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nblund—it would be a nonstandard description of the person to introduce her as a "dissident feminist". That is a particular spin for a particular purpose. You say "James Carville is a 'professional political consultant', but it would be misleading to quote his views on politics without acknowledging his political affiliations". We are not discussing "political affiliations". We are actually discussing an opinion on a work of art. You say "Camille Paglia is a critic, but she's best known to the public as a critic of mainstream feminism." We are not discussing "mainstream feminism". We are not even discussing "feminism". Under discussion is a reaction to a work of art. Our primary question is who is providing that reaction? What is the standard description of that person? We should not contrive nonstandard descriptions for any reason unless such a nonstandard description is supported by sources in direct relation to the artwork. As far as I know such sourcing is absent. You are arguing for the inclusion of nonstandard descriptions of Paglia that you feel will provide insight into Paglia's negative reaction to the artwork. By doing so, you are running the risk of introducing bias. Bus stop (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by "nonstandard description"? Where is that standard coming from? Let's be clear here: she uses the term to describe her own views (Examples: 1, 2, 3). Other outlets, both supportive and critical, use those terms to describe her as well (ex: 1, 2, 3). You're going to be very hard pressed to justify calling this a "biased" description.

Surely you recognize that my mention of Carville is an analogy: his job title is "professional political consultant", but he's a well-known Democrat whose political analysis is often shaped by his political affiliations. Similarly, Paglia's job title is "cultural critic", but she's a well-known polemicist whose views on feminism often shape her cultural criticism. In both cases, its necessary to contextualize the person's views.

Her quote is absolutely discussing feminism. Re-read: Camille Paglia described Mattress Performance as a parody of the worst aspects of that kind of grievance-oriented feminism," adding that a feminist work "should empower women, not cripple them.. She's giving a view on the artwork that is informed by her ideological perspective. Her's is widely considered a "fringe" view among feminists, if we're going to give article space to it, we need to offer a bare-minimum of context for that fact. Nblund (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the links you provided,(and looking her up further) I can see that I disagree with many of her opinions. But that is not a ground for marking her as "dissident feminist" in this article. You said "She's giving a view on the artwork that is informed by her ideological perspective." So? Every critic's views are informed by their ideological perspective, and she may be considered "fringe" among feminists, but she is still a very notable art critic and we quote her because she is an art critic. Are you saying all art critics have to abide by feminist standards or they will be considered fringe? You, by your own admission, trying to label her as someone with fringe views, and that is a POV. It's not like we are presenting her as the face of feminism. That's exactly why we should not give her unnecessary qualifiers like "feminist, anti feminist, dissident feminist" etc. It's a verifiable fact that she is an art professor and critic, her views on feminism, however, is not clear and should not be mentioned one way or the other, especially in an article about an art piece where she is quoted because she is an art critic and merely a footnote. Darwinian Ape ^talk 22:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the links, you should have noticed that she calls herself a dissident feminist or is described as a dissident feminist in every single one. Literally all six sources use those exact words. Is that really not a grounds for using the label?

She's really more of a cultural critic. Her academic work primarily deals with literature, and she's written some on film and popular culture. She is not known as someone who has an expertise in visual or performance arts. Salon doesn't appear to be interviewing her because she's an art critic: they ask about her views on Bill Cosby. She doesn't really even discuss the quality of the art itself, she just calls it an example of an ideology she dislikes.

I didn't call her views fringe, but, no, its not POV to call a particular viewpoint "fringe", its part of assigning due and undue weight. Wikipedia has a whole entry on WP:FRINGE.

I really don't see anything remotely unclear or contentious about calling her a "dissident feminist", this is just not a plausible argument. She repeatedly uses the term to describe her own views. Her's is the only perspective on feminism quoted in the article. Its problematic on its own, but its especially problematic if we can't include a basic -- wholly noncontroversial -- description of her views. Nblund (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think one should be an expert on art to make notable criticisms on art, but "Paglia has been a professor at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, since 1984." If that does not make her an expert on art, I don't know what does. You may have noticed, the art piece itself is a feminist art piece, in the category of Feminist art. So it's obvious that the critique of the art piece may touch the feminism issue. But she is commenting on the art piece there not feminism in general. ... a feminist work "should empower women, not cripple them. she is clearly criticizing a Feminist Art, not feminism itself.

You also said, "I didn't call her views fringe, but, no, its not POV to call a particular viewpoint 'fringe'" and no it's not, but you are going to have to prove that her views are fringe by providing sources that call her views fringe. But there is no source that call her, especially on art and as a social critic, fringe to my knowledge. In any case, this article is not a place to discuss whether her views on some points are fringe or not, people can find her views on her own article. Describing her as social critic is neutral and factual, adding "dissident feminist" label is unnecessary and serves no purpose and it rather reads like trying to discredit her critique: "she said those negative things, but look she is not actually feminist so her views are not important" Darwinian Ape ^talk 23:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that her views aren't notable, I haven't said she has fringe views. I said she's a firebrand and an ideologue who is notable to the general public because of her controversial take on contemporary feminism. I've provided six separate sources that support this view, all of them discuss her conflict with contemporary feminism, and all of them use the term "dissident feminist" to describe her views.

Here's how she's described in a (overall, very positive) interview in Reason.com:

She would go on to become one of America's most famous academics and cultural critics, an "anti-feminist feminist" and an incendiary atheist who once wrote that "God is man's greatest idea." From her perch at Philadelphia's University of the Arts, Paglia has befuddled orthodox partisans and ideologues for decades.

You can't be an "incendiary" who "befuddles orthodox partisans" and simultaneously claim to be mainstream. She's notable precisely because her views are outside the mainstream. This isn't pejorative, its what made her famous and its a big part of the reason a lot of people like her. Calling her a "dissident feminist" or "outside the feminist mainstream" does not discount her views -- its literally her description of her own views. You acknowledge that her quote is discussing her feminist views, and I think its pretty much indisputable that those views are outside the mainstream, so what, precisely, is the objection to describing her as a "dissident feminist"? Nblund (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

"so what, precisely, is the objection to describing her as a "dissident feminist"?" I wouldn't have any, if this was her own article. But in this context labeling her as "dissident feminist" reads like an attempt to demean her views on this piece. If we were to put a caveat on that it might've been OK, but that really would be WP:UNDUE So why not just use her name and profession with an internal link to her own article? It's as neutral as we can get. Darwinian Ape ^talk 01:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not its demeaning really depends on your personal view of the feminist mainstream. Its akin to describing John McCain as a "maverick Republican". Regardless of how you feel, Paglia clearly fully embraces the description, and her supporters don't seem to see it as demeaning at all. Its clearly relevant, and its accurate and well-sourced. There were valid questions about whether or not her quotes should be included at all, and this seems like an eminently reasonable compromise.

NPOV and RS policies both require that we provide adequate context when citing biased sources or minority views -- Paglia is both. This doesn't mean we have to eliminate her perspective, but it does mean we need to offer some minimal acknowledgement of the fact that she's a very controversial figure. From Wikipedia:Neutrality of Sources

"On controversial topics, Wikipedians often need to deal with sources that are reliable but non-neutral. The best solution to this is to acknowledge that a controversy exists and to represent different reliable points of view according to the weight that reliable sources provide. Intelligent readers will weigh the opposing sides and reach their own conclusions." (Emphasis mine) Nblund (talk) 01:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not that concerned about "dissident feminist" except that it seems gratuitous and selected to position her views a certain way. I still can't understand why wikipedia needs to take this position when Salon did not. If the other opinions which are presented as positive views receive no similar qualifiers, why do we need this here? Attaching something like this to the only negative review on the art does not reflect equal treatment. Now, since Paglia is the most notable person to comment on it does mean there's more from her background to pull from, but it does not follow that we should pick something that make it look like Wikipedia is taking sides here.Mattnad (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Salon called her a "provocateur", which is essentially synonymous with "dissident". It actually seems more pejorative, but we can use that description if you prefer. I have a tough time finding articles that simply describe her as a "critic". She's been known, her entire career, as a controversialist, and this is usually mentioned -- using one term or another -- in interviews with her.

Paglia recognized as a contrarian with a critical minority perspective on feminism. That perspective colors her extremely controversial views of literature and popular culture. She's directly discussing her controversial views on the nature of feminism in the quote in this article. he other views in that section are from respected contemporary art critics. All criticism is subjective, but neither of these critics are typically regarded as "firebrands" or "gadflies" or ideologues. Honestly, if you have an example of someone prominently calling Jerry Saltz a "crackpot extremist" for his critical work, I'll add it in -- no question, but, as it stands, Paglia appears uniquely controversial. Nblund (talk) 03:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

My point exactly, by saying she is a "dissident feminist" we are separating her from other critics, and that is what makes the label "demeaning." As I said, if this were her page, I would not object to the use of dissident feminist because we would have context, her views explained in full. But in here it's not appropriate. I would also object to calling John McCain a "maverick Republican", when quoting him in an unrelated article. If we are to claim bias on her part, then some may claim bias on other critics because they all biased one way or another. One can say they are only supportive of this art piece because it helps them their feminist agenda, but that would be a NPOV violation, as is your reasoning. Also I wonder, what is the valid reason for not including her views? I looked at the talk page and only reason I could find was A21sauce calling her something warranted redaction per blp, the gist of it was, presumably "I don't like her views" Darwinian Ape ^talk 03:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

How are they biased? Can you find a reliable source where someone raises some major ideological critique of either of the other art critics here? Nblund (talk) 03:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not saying they are biased, rather everyone is biased in one way or another if you think like that. It's not my logic either that declared Paglia biased because of her opinions on feminism, but if you follow that logic you can say others are biased too, because they are feminists, liberals, performance artists etc. Does Paglia have a grudge against the artist? No! Her criticisms are to her art and as you pointed out earlier her opinions are informed by her ideological perspective. But it's true for all the critics in the article. This is not an art piece with some aesthetic beauty to be judged, it is a statement on a social issue, so anyone who praise the art praise it because of the social aspect of it, its criticism, both negative and positive, has to come from an ideological place. But at the end, it is an art piece we are discussing, not feminism. And she is not biased against the artist, she just doesn't like her art. The name and profession is enough for us to put her opinions in the article, we don't have to go out of our way to explain who she is and what her ideology is, it's simply undue. Darwinian Ape ^talk 05:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Everyone has opinions, but not everyone is an ideologue. Can you find reliable sources that suggest some broad ideological bias in the criticism of either of the other art critics mentioned in the article? Nblund (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying you have reliable sources that suggest Paglia is critical of this art piece because she has ideological bias? It seems to me like we are running around circles, and this is a minor content dispute. I agree she may not be a garden variety feminist but we can't explain that by a single title without sounding like we have a bias against her, we certainly can't give much weight to her ideology in the article. The term dissident feminist is not a well defined label. We are not even using that term in her own article, I don't think it would be appropriate here. Darwinian Ape ^talk 16:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

There are other opinion sources that note Paglia's bias is playing a role here, but I don't really think that is even a point worthy of dispute: this is consistent with her well-known ideological orientation. I'm not asking you to provide an RS that demonstrates that their criticism of this particular piece is biased, I'm asking you to provide an RS that indicates an ideological bias in their body of critical work. Have other people called Jerry Saltz a contrarian or a provocateur? You seem to be suggesting that these other critics are analogous, but I don't see evidence of that.

Let me be sure I understand you: you acknowledge that her views are outside the mainstream, and you acknowledge that her not-mainstream views are on display here, but you don't think we should include an indication of that fact because it would introduce bias. Am I way off base? Nblund (talk) 16:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Her views are not in line with mainstream feminism, but feminism is not the only ideology is it? Feminism is not the default position for art critics is it? Think of the Noam Chomsky's criticisms on postmodernism, his views are "outside the mainstream postmodernism" can you call him biased if he criticize say a postmodern article? Darwinian Ape ^talk 19:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

But, as you've acknowledged, her comment is offering feminist perspective on feminist artwork. So, then this is pretty clear cut: when we're quoting a view that we agree is outside the mainstream, we need to give that view due weight -- which means (at a minimum) we acknowledge that its an outsider viewpoint and that it is considered controversial. Nblund (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps Nblund's views are not in line with Paglia's. Hence the persistence on this point.Mattnad (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you think this is a helpful contribution to the discussion? Assume good faith. Nblund (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

There's not issue of good faith here. It's observation. You are advocating treating the Paglia quote through a lens of "dissident" feminism. That's very different from how the other editor opinions and how Salon (the source of the interview) treated it. Other editors, including Sarah/SlimVirgin have argued against "labeling" her like that. You've been very insistent on that language and have stated you believe she's holds extreme views. Extreme from where? Whatever your answer, it will be a personal opinion that's different from several other editors who are advocating a more neutral presentation.Mattnad (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

You need to read more closely. I haven't stated that I believe she holds extreme views. I haven't stated my personal opinion of Paglia at all. What I said was that multiple outside sources describe her as a "contrarian" a "provocateur" or otherwise outside the feminist mainstream. She herself uses the term "dissident feminism" to describe her views, so that seems like a pretty good option.

You seem to be under the impression that describing her as an outsider is insulting, but I think that might be because you're not really familiar with her public persona. Paglia calls herself "the most obnoxious woman in world history!", she is not someone who views herself as a part of the mainstream, she is not someone anyone sees as the part of the mainstream. People like her because she is incendiary. I actually don't think any other editor is disputing the accuracy of the term "dissident" at this point. Primarily because it really isn't tenable. Nblund (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Nblund: First off, mainstream is not equal to mainstream feminism. Arguably the art piece in question can be said outside mainstream, or "radical". Again The Chomsky example, would you call him biased because he harshly criticized postmodernism? Every commentator in the article is offering their "feminist perspective." Because it's a feminist art. It's not neutral to assume a critic who is outside or critical of mainstream feminist ideology is biased against this art piece. The other problem is when you put a vague label like "dissident feminist" on someone without elaborating what that means(which we can't do in this article) it makes it look like we are trying to discredit her criticism. That is why we should neither call her feminist nor dissident feminist. Darwinian Ape ^talk 21:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I recognize that mainstream≠mainstream feminism, but, because her comments are about feminism and feminist art work, they should be weighted in accord with how she is viewed in those fields.

I would absolutely call Chomsky biased, and I would be very hesitant to quote him as saying something like: "renowned linguist Noam Chomsky says America is the greatest threat to the world". If we can't adequately contextualize her views here, they probably shouldn't be included, but if we insist on doing so, a brief (two-word) description seems like an eminently reasonable compromise. If the problem is just the vagary, I previously suggested an alternate: "an academic who has been critical of mainstream feminism".

As I've said previously, people like Paglia because she is a confrontational figure. There's nothing inherently discrediting about being considered "outside the mainstream". There are many respected public figures who are viewed as free thinkers and non-conformists. Nblund (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nblund—she isn't a "dissident feminist". That is a description. She is a "professor". And she is an "author". Is she a professor in the "Dissident feminism" department at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia? Your choice of wording is simply your cherry-picked terminology to cause the reader to discount what she has to say. The article contains gushing praise and the article should contain unmitigated negative criticism. We don't include disclaimers for those lavishing praise on the artwork so why should we issue disclaimers for those excoriating the artwork? Bus stop (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Well put, @Darwinian Ape, thanks--A21sauce (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I have started an RfC about this issue below. It appears that there's still significant disagreement among the editors here and on BLPN. I hope that new, uninvolved editors will be able to provide clarity and help develop consensus. Cheers. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

BLPN

A BLPN post was made related to this discussion. See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Mattress_Performance_.28Carry_That_Weight.29. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Art world enthusiasm

I am not sure where discussion disappeared, probably archived. But I have read responses in Talk history, and none of them were satisfying. The problem is, sources do not say that art world generally responded enthusiastically. This may be an original research based on some particular sources saying that some particular persons and portals responded positively. But it's a generalization made by someone who wrote the article and it may be biased. Maybe it was meant as a general intro into the paragraph, but it's just wrong to generalize it this way. I would say no intro is needed, just leave the proper sourced text on response from Artnet, etc., as is, and lose the generalization. Unless there's an actual reliable source that did the research on responses and it's conclusion was such. In that case you should just add appropriate ref. Please do not remove discussion and fact template without solving the issue --Nomad (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

So, time to clean up this mess? Wiki got trolled, hard.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/29/magazine/have-we-learned-anything-from-the-columbia-rape-case.html?_r=3

For the love of god stop jumping the shark. Encyclopedias dont do current news for good reasons. As Wikipedia is clearly incapable of handling news; wait until the dust settles then make your article. Anyway, looks really pathetic from above.173.212.96.27 (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

This episode has received a lot of press, along with the Rolling Stone false rape accusation fiasco. However, if this mattress "art" piece does meet the criteria of a false rape accusation and criminal harassment, which some allege it to be, then it is really unfair to <redacted> to have this article hanging out there over his head. Cla68 (talk) 05:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I object to Nomoskedacity's edit summary that my post above was a "BLP violation" when the person's name is used so predominantly in that NY Times article. Good grief. Cla68 (talk) 06:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I gather you haven't looked at the FAQs at the top of this talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cla68: We can't say it's a false rape accusation, only that it's unfounded, and some people here object to that as well. One of the few things there is general agreement on is the exclusion of the accused's name. --Sammy1339 (talk) 10:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

We just stick to the reported facts: Sulkowicz made the allegation, and he has denied it; the university found him "not responsible" and the police declined to pursue citing lack of reasonable suspicion. Obviously, in law enforcement, there is a difference between a false accusation and an accusation lacking evidence sufficient for criminal charges/conviction, but we cannot presume to know which one this is. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a false rape accusation, I said others have alleged it to be. Cla68 (talk) 10:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I've been following this case for a long time, and the only ones I've seen call it a "false accusation" are his lawyers and a few POV editorials. There are also POV editorials calling him a "serial rapist", but none of that belongs in this article and would be problematic per BLP even if attributed it as the opinion of the speaker. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's drop this.Mattnad (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cla68: Several users have argued that saying so is a BLP violation inasmuch as it could be taken to imply that Sulkowicz might be accused of the crime falsifying a police report, even though no such accusation was actually made. If you're just saying that this whole article shouldn't exist because it violates the privacy of an individual who was accused but never charged with or convicted of a crime, that makes sense, but consensus has been to keep this article because of the very high profile of the case. --Sammy1339 (talk) 10:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The alleged rapist has publicly identified himself in his court filings. Using "FAQs" as the reasoning to not allow his name to be mentioned on the article talk page is the kind of nonsense that WP is infamous for. If he was pleading for anonymity, then I could see keeping his name out of this as reasonable. But, he's not. His mother, a prominent feminist leader in Germany, is trumpeting this case as a him being railroaded. You guys need to think this a little straighter. I'll drop it once you guys get with reality. Cla68 (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I started editing this article after that decision was made, but it appears that some editors didn't want elements of the accused's defense being brought up, including Sulkowicz "friendly sounding" (according to the NY Times) Facebook posts. So a weird compromise leaves out his name, as well as publicly documented conversation between her and him that undermine her story. FYI "alleged-rapist" suggests a criminal proceeding - there is none since the police and prosecutor declined to pursue the matter.Mattnad (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I have always supported including these conversations, as well as some context about the nature of the hearings (including the standards of proof used) and the relevance of this case to the broader dispute about the Title IX obligations of universities. The latter is really the only interesting aspect of this case, and the former is essential to fairly representing the accused's side of the story. However, as the above dispute over Paglia's attribution shows, even the most trivial aspects of this article are likely to be warred over. Because of this, while I would support such changes, I will not waste a lot of energy trying to implement them. As for including the accused's name, I think it's clear he wants to maintain anonymity and I don't see that it adds much to the article to include it. On the other hand, we should not deceive ourselves into imagining we are protecting him, when his name appears prominently in the references. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I would also support a more detailed account of the accused's defense(including the Facebook posts) and I concur that us not mentioning his name is futile. Perhaps there is a consensus change? Darwinian Ape ^talk 09:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I used to support this too, but balanced per WP:NPOV, but then saw what happened in the past which resulted in a non-neutral mess, which spiraled out of control with endless BLP violations, disruptive socks, article being locked down long term etc. Unfortunately, people apparently feel so strongly about this that neutral text such as the following never stands: "After the alleged assault, Sulkowwicz and the accused exchanged seemingly friendly facebook messages. Commentators have described such messages as inconsistent with a violent sexual assault. Sulkowicz responded she sent the messages because she was upset and wanted to talk with him about the alleged incident, but then decided against doing so. Other commentators have said interpreting the messages as inconsistent with sexual assault supports what they describe as the "perfect victim myth". --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Well this was perhaps due to the recentness of the event, and we can work easier right now without much disturbance. I understand this article is a suitable battleground for the existing culture war and people are trying to impose their favorite narrative rather than trying to make this a neutral article. But I share Cla68's concerns that this article is "hanging out there over his(accused)head."

This is mainly due to an editorial decision we made to focus on the art. The art is a part, a central part, but a part of a bigger event and since the art is about the accusation, all the praise seems like an approval of the accusation which we normally can't do because the accusation is unfounded. That being said, I acknowledge it's unlikely that we will change this editorial decision. That is why it is important that we make it clear that the accusation has no merit while avoiding to accuse Sulkowicz of any criminal offense.

Bobomeowcat, I agree that the quote you gave seems neutral and balanced but as you said, it is a sensitive topic and we must be more careful. First of all we should not mention any opinion on the case. The quote says Commentators have described these messages as inconsistent with a violent sexual assault... Other commentators have said interpreting the messages as inconsistent with sexual assault support what they describe as the "perfect victim myth. These should be left out because they are speculations about a criminal event. We must only document the facts. It's not like the art piece where we can quote art critics giving their opinions. Only two opinions can be added, and those are the accuser's and Sulkowicz' any other party would be speculating.

Another thing is that we should note that the accused is innocent. This may sound like I am suggesting that Sulkowicz is lying, but it's not. True, one of them must be lying, and it may very well be the accused. But as it is stated in the FAQ section of this talk page BLPCRIME says: "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law." Furthermore there is no proof of the allegations and both the university hearings and the police investigation concluded that there is no evidence to support the allegation, former used a much lower standard of proof than what we use in courts. This makes it more important that we must be clear about the student's innocence. With these principles I believe we can manage to write a neutral section about the accusations and the investigation.

PS: Sorry for a long comment, but if we are going to work on a sensitive section like that, and I'm hoping we will, we should establish some guiding principles first. I think a section like that would be beneficial to the article and I'm confident we can work together in a collaborative manner to improve this article. Darwinian Ape ^talk 22:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

This is at the end of the day a he said she said case. We actually have no way of knowing if he is innocent or not innocent. Presumed innocent until proven guilty does not equal innocent. Your POV that the accusation "has no merit" presented above honestly probably shouldn't even be on the talk page per the faq above, and we shouldn't incorporate this POV into the article per NPOV and BLP. Only Sulkowicz and the accused student know what happened in that dorm room that night. We have reported the facts in the article. It's in the article that he was found "not responsible" under a preponderance of the evidence standard at Columbia University in Sulkowicz's case and initially "responsible" in a separate groping case but then "not responsible" on appeal (this fact has actually been deleted and is no longer in the article) We know there were no criminal charges brought with law enforcement citing "lack of reasonable suspicion" which is reported in the article. I think the fact that neutral summary of commentators suggested above was rejected in support of personal opinion that the accusations have no merit is already a huge red flag that this won't be presented neutrally and dispassionately. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

There is something you are missing and it's fundamental to the justice system, the default position for someone is innocence, that is not my POV. Yes I agree it is a he said she said situation, but she is the one making the accusations. So the burden of proof lies on her, if she doesn't have evidence to prove her claim, which she doesn't, then we have to assume he is innocent. I believe you should not work on an article about a criminal accusation if you can't accept that anyone is innocent by default until proven otherwise. You say "I think the fact that neutral summary of commentators are rejected in support of personal opinion that the accusations have no merit is already a huge red flag" That is not my personal opinion, that is how the justice system and burden of proof operates. If there is no evidence supporting a claim then it is discarded as "without merit." I already accepted that he might be guilty and we have no way of knowing it. But anyone might be guilty of the same crime and we have no way of knowing it either. This is a criminal accusation and we should be extra careful and err on the side of caution. The neutral position in this case is that the accused is innocent per WP:BLPCRIME. If you are having trouble understanding that, I'm afraid it's a WP:CIR issue. Darwinian Ape ^talk 00:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

"Presumed innocent until proven guilty does not equal innocent." for all intents and purposes it does equal innocent, otherwise we won't have anyone innocent. With your logic, anyone ever accused of something, however baseless, will remain tarnished as "presumed innocent" Darwinian Ape ^talk 00:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The neutral position is already presented in the article. Even the information which suggested prior misconduct by the accused student has been removed from the article (specifically the initial "responsible" finding against him which was overturned on appeal when a student who had graduated did not participate in the appeal). --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I did not say the article is in violation of the neutral position. If we are going to include a detailed account of the accusation, investigation and the hearings, which I explained why we should, we should abide by the principles I outlined in my posts. Darwinian Ape ^talk 01:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The accused has left New York

He now lives in Berlin again (his video art will be shown in the play Mud at the Ernst Busch Academy of Dramatic Arts festival Pankow Theatre Days, September 25, [11])--89.204.139.170 (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

OK. Not really material to the article, unless somehow that gets woven into important developments down the road.Mattnad (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)