Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

"The accused" (Paul Nungesser)

The FAQ states that Paul Nungesser's name cannot be included due to notability and BLP issues, however he is clearly named and discussed at Columbia University rape controversy. How should this inconsistency be addressed?–dlthewave ☎ 01:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

See also Talk:Columbia University rape controversy#Named_Accused, where the same issue was pointed out. Looking at the edit history of the FAQ, the text in question was written in 2015 and hasn't been updated (in 2016 a single sentence saying not to name him on the talk page either was removed), so it seems like the situation "on the ground" may have changed (in e.g. the deletion discussion) and people simply neglected to update the FAQ. -sche (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I must have scrolled right past that. I went ahead and removed it from the FAQ. –dlthewave ☎ 02:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Incidentally, I don't find it "inconsistent" per se for one article's FAQ to say he shouldn't be named unless his defense is included, while a different article includes both his name and his defense. But the proscription does seem to have lacked a basis in consensus, given the differing opinions expressed in various discussions subsequent to its insertion, and even the 'edit consensus' that he has de facto been named in the article by the title and quoted text of one of the refs for at least a year now. -sche (talk) 02:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
The article does include Nungesser's response, –dlthewave ☎ 12:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
-sche—you do not find it "inconsistent ... for one article's FAQ to say he shouldn't be named unless his defense is included, while a different article includes both his name and his defense". This is consistent with your thus-far refusal to recognize the three already-existing articles as a "set". Articles on artists and articles on their artworks constitute a "set". You are arguing for a new article in this "set" of articles to be devoted to the biographical details of the artist and you are presenting that argument in the absence of any consideration of the "set" of articles that already exist. The result of the success of your impetus to create yet another article in this "set" will be a worsening in the situation involving the "sprawl" of information pertaining to one artist across as many articles as possible. This RfC should be about the "set" of articles. Instead it is myopically about the notability of the artist. We are not here to increase the visibility of this artist or to promote the causes they represent. To accomplish that aim we need to consider the entire "set" of articles for this currently active artist. Bus stop (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Just to lay out the history here: Columbia University rape controversy was initially just a copy-pasted version of this article from around May 2015. I don't know the exact version, but you can see the similarities in this older version. The RfC that determined we should not name the accused unless their full defense is included also took place in May 2015. In other words: there's no reason to think that Columbia University rape controversy actually satisfied the requirements of the RfC. Everyone appears to have either stopped caring or changed their minds. Nblund talk 13:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I remember a discussion in which people said that because the defense was laid out in the "rape controversy" article, the accused could also be named in that article, but still couldn't be named in this article. I don't remember where that discussion took place, though. Anyway, consensus can change, of course. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
I boldly added Nungesser's name to the article before I read the 2015 BLP Noticeboard discussion which established consensus to exclude the name unless his defense is included. There doesn't appear to be any meaningful discussion since 2015 (editors questioning the consensus were quickly shut down), so it may be appropriate to open an RfC now that the lawsuits are settled. –dlthewave ☎ 16:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, RFC would be the right way to go here. Arkon (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment. This discussion is showing that these articles are part of a set. The underlying assumption that there may be a contradiction between one article revealing the man's name and another article not revealing the man's name reinforces the idea that these articles constitute a set. If these articles are a set then why are we not discussing how best to improve this set of articles? The RfC above myopically addresses only whether the artist is notable. That question can be addressed within a discussion of this set of articles. But that discussion is eschewed in favor of pushing through an expansion in the number of articles in this set. This seems like an attempt to increase the visibility of the artist and to promote the artist's causes. Bus stop (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Bus Stop, the accusation that people are trying to promote Sulkowicz by creating a main bio is a completely baseless assumption of bad faith. You should drop it. If you think Columbia University rape controversy should be merged or deleted, you should nominate it. Nblund talk 16:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm sorry, Bus stop, but many of your comments in this discussion, especially ones functionally calling for but declining to start PMs and AfDs for articles other than the ones under discussion, but also your latest one to me above, don't make sense / don't appear to grasp what is being discussed. :/ -sche (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Nblund—is it "baseless? Then how do you explain the rejection of one of your suggestions: "Do you support merging Columbia University rape controversy in to the Mattress Performance article?" Mx. Granger responded to that suggestion by saying: "I don't think we should combine these into one RFC". And of course -sche agreed, saying "I agree. The question of whether Sulkowicz meets general notability guidelines (for more than one event) is straightforward and self-contained, separate from the question of whether or not other articles should be merged with each other. I will not lump or logroll such separate questions together." Bottom line: We are not considering what is best for this set of articles. We are pushing through a biography to build up the already considerable presence of this artist on Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Bus stop, that is not an accurate representation of what I said. When the idea of merging the "rape controversy" article into the Mattress Performance article was brought up, I clearly indicated support. I argued that we shouldn't combine the two issues into one RFC because the more issues we ask editors to decide in the same discussion, the less likely we would be to get consensus for anything. I encourage you to make a merge proposal for the "rape controversy" article. If you do, I will support it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Mx. Granger—if I misrepresented you I apologize and retract what I said in regard to you. Bus stop (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
-sche—you say that I "don't appear to grasp what is being discussed" No, I do. I really do. I grasp what is being discussed and I oppose the unfettered proliferation of articles on this one artist. Bus stop (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Nblund—you even wrote "Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol seems like it had a lot less widespread coverage than this piece, if any work warrants a standalone piece, wouldn't it be Mattress Performance?" You are in that quote arguing that "Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol" should not be a standalone article. And there is considerable support for eliminating the standalone status for "Columbia University rape controversy". Yet inexplicably we are about to create yet one more article in this already bloated set of articles. Bus stop (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Mx Granger and -sche gave their explanations in their comments: linking the two issues together would make it more difficult to find consensus. That's a perfectly valid concern and I don't see any reason to manufacture some nefarious ulterior motive to explain why editors might not adopt every suggestion that I offer. This is a minor procedural debate, and I don't have any interest in continuing to rehash it. WP:AGF and move on to something productive. Nblund talk 18:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Speaking of "something productive" the RfC titled "Should there be an article on Emma Sulkowicz?" is counterproductive because we should be able to "walk and chew gum at the same time". Properly understood, we are discussing a set of articles. Bus stop (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Unless he has been charged, or has commented on the allegations, or he is a notable person for wikipedia, I don't think policy allows a mention of his name. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
He has commented on the allegations in newspaper interviews. –dlthewave ☎ 19:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Nungesser's name has again been replacede with "the accused student". However, the article dedicates a section to his response and lawsuit. Does this not meet the requirement that we cover his side of the case? –dlthewave ☎ 21:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
    One way to find out is your suggested RFC above. Arkon (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
We can discuss whether or not the article is consistent with the outcome of the previous RfC without starting a new RfC. @Arkon: could you share your opinion since you're the one who reverted? –dlthewave ☎ 21:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
My view is the historical consensus, consistent with previous discussions (many, that's why it was in the FAQ) involving a broad range of people (including some in this discussion). Thus the revert. If you'd like to determine current consensus, start an RFC like you previously suggested. Arkon (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Should there be an article on Emma Sulkowicz?

RESOLVED
The result of the discussion was create new article.

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.

Result of this discussion is to create new article — discussion has gone on for nearly a month and it appears the arguments in favor of her notability are stronger than the arguments that she is known for just one event.--The lorax (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Should there be an article on Emma Sulkowicz? -sche (talk) 08:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Yes: beyond Mattress Performance, and beyond Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol, both of which got enough coverage to have their own articles, Sulkowicz's works continue to get coverage, as can be seen from the sections on them currently shoehorned into the Mattress article. Examples: 1~2 about Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol; 3~4 about an interactive/robotic 'self-portrait'; 5~6 about an asterisk protest; 7~8 about a gallery installation of Sulkowicz's art. This shows Sulkowicz is notable for more than one or even two events.
    A biography would also be a place to put the biographical information currently duplicated in each of the articles on Sulkowicz's works and the article on the complaints relating to Sulkowicz being raped; and it would be a sensible place to mention the other works and actions which are currently wedged into the Mattress article. (Whether to merge any of those articles with each other is a separate question.) (PS I posted the RfC here because there is where Talk:Emma Sulkowicz redirects.) -sche (talk) 09:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • No: We don't create articles just to increase the visibility of artists, or at least we shouldn't. Bus stop (talk) 12:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes. The reason for creating the article has nothing to do with increasing the visibility of anyone. The reason we should create an article is that the artist is notable, based on the sources that -sche has linked above and many more that are easy to find online. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
You are failing to address the set of articles here.
Are you arguing that we should increase the set to also include:
It doesn't make any sense. Consolidate some of the above articles and it makes sense to have an article with the title Emma Sulkowicz. All of the biographical information is already contained in Mattress Performance. Most of the biographical information is also contained in the other two articles. How many times do we need to repeat the biographical information for this artist? In the absence of a consolidation of the already existing set of articles there is no justification for creating yet another article on this one artist. The reader's time matters. Presenting the same material multiple times benefits no one. Therefore the first step is to consolidate the above articles. That importantly entails merging Columbia University rape controversy and Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight). This RfC is simply asking if we should create an Emma Sulkowicz article. In my opinion just doing that would exacerbate a situation that is already very problematic. Bus stop (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes Sulkowicz clearly meets the WP:GNG already and it seems likely they will continue to produce notable work. Not having a main bio article is likely to make sprawl and redundancies worse, because editors won't have an obvious place to put new information. Nblund talk 18:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Procedural note: I notified all of the Wikiprojects listed at the top of this page, using this wording. -sche (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes Emma Sulkowicz has been extensively covered in independent, reliable sources. It make sense to have a single main article for the biographical information that is currently summarized in the articles where she is mentioned. Vexations (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol, Carry That Weight, the rape controversy and Sulcowicz themself each meet the notability requirements. Creating an article for Sulcowicz would neatly consolidate the biography and less notable works of art in a single article instead of the current awkward combination of BLP and art coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 01:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • No Her notability is really only about this one piece. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes the "Other works by Sulkowicz" section has no place in this article. wumbolo ^^^ 07:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Please explain, Wumbolo, why would "the 'Other works by Sulkowicz' section [have] no place in this article"? Bus stop (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Because this article is about Mattress Performance! wumbolo ^^^ 13:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Do you think you are addressing the question posed in this RfC? I don't think you are addressing the question posed in this RfC. Bus stop (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes; the section should be moved to an article about her. I would support removing the section even if this RfC fails. wumbolo ^^^ 17:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but probably a stub entry on her.--Aboudaqn (talk) 12:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes Emma Sulkowicz is obviously notable, and at least two works are notable on their own. This article is written oddly for the title of the work, and if it were merely renamed for Sulkowicz, it would be written oddly as a biographical article. This awkwardness could be easily removed by making the articles stand alone, and seem much more natural to the reader.Jacona (talk) 12:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
"at least two works are notable on their own" I think "Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol" is an addendum to "Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)" and that the two articles could beneficially be merged eliminating the need to tell the story of the alleged rape in two articles. Bus stop (talk) 00:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • weak No - her art works (and the court case) have coverage and already have articles, but outside of her work there does not seem WP:SIGCOV significant coverage enough for a separate BLP article. Just not the celebrity level coverage of what she is doing day-by-day and personal history in the press to provide much material to add. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
    I think you may be misunderstanding WP:GNG, which certainly doesn't require "celebrity level coverage" of the subject's day to day activities! Significant coverage in independent reliable sources is enough to establish notability, and Sulkowicz's non-Mattress Performance-related artwork and activities have continued to get coverage. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:11, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
How many articles does Wikipedia have to have on one artist? Or one anyone? Chuck Close is a well-known artist. But do we have 4 articles on him? Leo Castelli was an important gallerist. But we only have one article which combines both the art gallery bearing his name and the biography of the man. With a little bit of effort the sprawling coverage of Sulkowicz could be consolidated into one or two or at most three articles. The suggestion here is the creation of a fourth article in this topic area. Bus stop (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
The question here is whether Sulkowitz merits a bio. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a counterargument. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't subscribe to the philosophy of compartmentalized thinking. As I see it, we have a topic area here. That topic area consists of the artworks of the artist, the biographical details of an artist, and what amounts to a counterargument against a claim of rape. That article, Columbia University rape controversy, may be a WP:CONTENTFORK. To my non-compartmentalized way of thinking the whole topic area can be addressed. It is not as if biographical details are missing from our collection of articles in this topic area. Therefore I have to ask you why you think a fourth article is called for? The biographical information is presently repeated in three articles. What I think is called for in this topic area is the editing down of biographical details repeated across three articles. And what I think is uncalled for is the creation of yet another (fourth) repository for biographical details. Bus stop (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes (Summoned by bot) In which case one or more articles about her work might become a section of the bio. Significant coverage of multiple works after Columbia e.g.  
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/emma-sulkowicz-ship-is-sinking-976988
https://jezebel.com/emma-sulkowicz-still-has-our-attention-1824290026
https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/ywxmqk/emma-sulkowicz-the-floating-world
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/21/style/campus-sex-women-exposure.html HouseOfChange (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes per WP:GNG. Subject has multiple art pieces, and rather than create more articles for her continued performance and sculpture work, I think it would be more prudent to make a dedicated article and subsume some of these articles into it. --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
There is no will to subsume some articles into others. See here. Bus stop (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • No - No - Her only real notability is only about this one story, she, herself is not a wiki notable person, not a notable artist. This wikipedia is not here to promote people.Govindaharihari (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • (Summoned by bot) Is there more background to this? Why is an RfC needed for a proposed article creation? Is this a preemptive AfD discussion? In any case, Sulkowicz seems to be independently notable, so I would say yes. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Is there more background to this? Yes, there is more background to this. All suggestions about merging any previously existing articles were rejected. The initiative here is only to expand the number of articles in this subject area from three to four. Please see the lower portions of this discussion. Bus stop (talk) 12:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Bus stop, multiple people have expressed some level of support for merging the "rape controversy" article. If you want it to be merged, start a merge discussion! Continuing to complain here in a discussion about a different issue won't accomplish anything. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
@Hrodvarsson: The edit history of the Emma Sulkowicz page may partly answer your question. I'm not sure the RFC was really necessary, but to give some context: this article was originally a biographical article about the artist. At that time they probably weren't independently notable (coverage in reliable sources focused almost exclusively on Mattress Performance and the associated controversy), so the biographical article was turned into an article about the artwork. Since then, Sulkowicz has continued to be covered in reliable sources, having produced several other works that have attracted attention, but creating a biographical article is still not totally uncontroversial (though so far there seems to be consensus in favor of it). —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Mx. Granger—it is only a "different issue" if you consider these articles unrelated: Mattress Performance, Columbia University rape controversy, and Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol. I don't consider them unrelated. A student accused a fellow student of rape and used an artwork to point a finger of blame at that student. Eventually both of those students graduated from the university they attended. The accused student attempted to vindicate himself by legal means and to some extent succeeded. The art student went on to make additional works of art after graduation. Do these facts hang together or are they unrelated? I would contend that they all belong to a general subject area. I think ONE article could be written on this entire matter. Chuck Close suffered a debilitating medical setback mid-career. Do we have two separate articles on Chuck Close? Leo Castelli was the owner of of the exceptionally important Leo Castelli Gallery. Do we have two separate articles? The initiative here is only to expand the number of articles. There isn't a shred of biographical information on Sulkowicz missing right now—in fact it is repeated in three articles. How does that arrangement benefit the reader? It should be easy to consolidate this subject area into three articles. But the initiative is simply to expand the number of articles to four articles. Bus stop (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2018 (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.

Lorax17 days is not nearly a month. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Did you mean to ping The lorax? Anyway, WP:RFC says "An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent it won't be. There is no required duration, but 30 days is a common default for contentious discussions." —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Consensus to name Nungesser

An RfC at BLPN has closed with the following outcome:

"The WP:Consensus is that: given the verfiable, documented, and wide dissemination, mention of the name best accords with WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, while editors will seek to remain properly circumspect, as warranted, in any given mention.""

I have added the name to the article and adjusted the FAQ accordingly. –dlthewave ☎ 03:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I wonder if, rather than remove the question, we should change it to (or add as a new FAQ) "why does the article name the accused" and link to and quote/paraphrase that RfC outcome in the answer. -sche (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
That's a good idea. I agree that we should include a link to the RfC instead of vaguely mentioning prior discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Revisiting pronouns

As noted (with reliable sourcing) over on Talk:Emma Sulkowicz/Archive 1#Pronouns_revisited, Sulkowicz (as of 2019) accepts/uses both she/her and they/them pronouns. Over on that page, it was proposed (and after several days passed with nothing but support, implemented) that the article use she/her pronouns. (This is similar to how the articles on Rebecca Sugar and Leslie Feinberg, who were also OK with multiple options, use the she/her option.) Should this article also switch to using she? -sche (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't especially care, but if you do make the change, you'll probably want to update the FAQ up at the top of the talk page. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes. - Ryk72 talk 01:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, let's be consistent between articles. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Asolutely.Phafner (talk) 07:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mattress_Performance_(Carry_That_Weight)/Archive_10&oldid=1066410856"