Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)/Archive 7

Graphic "Reenactment"
I understand that the accuser in this incident has recently posted a graphic, x-rated, re-enactment video of the alleged rape online and was interviewed about it by Artnet. Is this true? Cla68 (talk) 04:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It was never given an x-rating by any ratings board, no. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 04:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

According to that Artnet interview, she did this video about the same time she was invited to attend the State of the Union address. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand's response to this video should make a great addition to this article. I'll keep watching for Gillibrand's statement to the media. Cla68 (talk) 04:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless and until this is picked up and validated by mainstream RS, it should be treated as hoax and therefore BLP vio. If it's true, there is no rush to get it in, if it's false adding it now would be a serious error. If and when it's added, it should be added with mostly blue-chip references, NYT and the like (my opinion). The issue is at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard and you may discuss it there, but being a BLP concern it's not a matter for local consensus. This talk page has been semi-protected for 3 days to prevent the posting of links here by IPs (there were four or five attempts), and I hope it won't become necessary to semi the article page. The recently added content has been removed. Thanks for your cooperation and patience! &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  09:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Important to note that in the interview Sulkowicz refuses to explain what the video is about and leaves it to others to interpret. So at this point we can't assume it's definitely in reference to the alleged rape if we add it to the article. Merely that others have made that link Bosstopher (talk) 10:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well if it's not about the alleged rape, it doesn't belong in the article. Being high profile, she may be in the news for various things, like say other artworks or a marriage, but this is not a Sulkowicz bio. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If a lot of people interpret it to be about the alleged rape (which it seems is what's happening in the press right now) it probably will warrant a place in the article, even if the artist never discloses the intended meaning. Bosstopher (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose you're right, I concede that point. Still waiting for mainstream RS. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

After further discussion in the BLPN thread, I'm withdrawing my assertion that this inclusion is not a matter for local consensus. I remain strongly opposed to inclusion before we have mainstream RS support, but it's just one man's position. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Mandruss—do I understand correctly from this diff that "German IPs" can't post here, for three days? I don't think that is proper. That is just my opinion. I think it is heavy-handed and on principle I think it is incorrect. I don't know how this works and maybe that is not the case at all. Bus stop (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * When I change something in an earlier comment, it generally means I reconsidered and decided to modify the comment. In that case you can disregard the previous comment. I think that goes for most folks, probably even you. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm worried about the reality, not the comment. Are "German IPs" being prevented from posting here? That would seem extreme. Bus stop (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, they are not, and my post-modification comment does not say that. Is this a tough concept? In other words, read my comments on the page not in the diffs. All of the attempts to post links to this video had come from Munich, which is why I initially mentioned Germans. As for posting links to this video in general, that was how things appeared to me at the time, and the admin who applied the semi obviously agreed. Discussion at BLPN appears to have changed that, so the protection could be lifted as far as I'm concerned. But it will expire in two days anyway, I haven't seen a whole lot of recent IP activity on this page, and I'm not feeling much urgency in requesting an admin to remove it early. Someone else may wish to, obviously. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

New York Magazine: Emma Sulkowicz Made a Film Addressing Rape An IP posted that in the BLPN thread. It's an improvement, source wise, but I'm still strongly opposed to inclusion before sources like NYT pick it up. Even if it's legit, I think we should have at least two blue-chip references for something like this. We are an encyclopedia, not a news outlet, and this story is less than a day old. Just because the compulsion to act like a news outlet is very widespread at Wikipedia, that doesn't make it good editing practice. For breaking news, we have Wikinews. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * For breaking wind we have flatulence. Smile.png Bus stop (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I have requested that the protecting admin unprotect this page so the IPs can discuss this. If they don't respond within an hour or so, I'll request it at RFPP. IPs, please refrain until the protection is removed. This is a big mess, it's mostly my fault, and I sincerely apologize. Next time I'll just go to bed instead. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It is not such mess. I just wanted to express what I see as the other side of the story. No doubt there are fewer people from Munich participating in this Talk than people from the US and Britain. Bus stop (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Not the mess I was referring to. Now the talk page has been unprotected, so the IPs are welcome to discuss this content. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It's almost 6:00 pm in Munich. After a beer (they have better beer than NYC) an IP may want to discuss the video. Bus stop (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but just one beer. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yo, "bros," possible to make your comments more relevant to the issues at hand? Would help your case not to display so much bravura: It's off-putting, like some mini Elks Club gathering.--A21sauce (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi A21sauce—can you please tell me what the "issues at hand" are, in your assessment? Bus stop (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You have to ask? LET'S STICK TO THINGS HAVING TO DO WITH THE ARTICLE. This isn't your private blog and we should keep discussions open to everybody. Don't be a jerk just because you happen to be really comfortable on here. I refuse drawn into tussles with people who aren't my actual friends, so don't even try. thanks--A21sauce (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't do anything to offend you, or to offend anyone else. I referred to German beer and the current time in Munich. If I examine my own motivations for those admittedly irrelevant comments they were purely interpersonal between me and another editor. Mandruss responded with a quip of his own and then it was over. Bus stop (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It might facilitate understanding to know that A21sauce is a female. She doesn't wish to communicate calmly and clearly, so I'll offer the opinion that she was offended not only by the two beer comments but by the flatulence joke . I hope this can be dropped now. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Mandruss—in your edit here you are altering my post. I am going to restore my post to its last version as edited by me. I am aware of the factor of the gender divide concerning this disagreement because I have looked at the discussion here. Bus stop (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the unintentional revert. I experienced this tech glitch in that edit, one of multiple weird editing phenomena that some have encountered in the past few days. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

reliable sourcing for video
The video has now been covered by Time magazine. and Huffington Post along with many others, so the sourcing for video seems reliable, but there's still the question of whether or not we want to include it. Any thoughts on this?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC) This along with
 * This from the Time article seems interesting: "The video project is called Ceci N’est Pas Un Viol, which translates to “this is not a rape”– an allusion to surrealist Rene Magritte’s famous painting The Treachery of Images, more commonly known as Ceci N’est Pas Un Pipe, or “this is not a pipe.” Check out that wikipage for meaning behind that artwork if not familiar with it.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We can't not include it, and I was thinking of adding something about it in my next edits, though we don't have many RS yet. (I'm keen to know what Roberta Smith says.) Do you mind if I put back "with enthusiasm," rather than "positively"? It really was a hugely enthusiastic response, and I think it's important to point that out, and more interesting. Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sarah (SV) The video has now apparently been taken down (no explanation as to why), so that might halt comments from art critics. I have no strong preference regarding "positively" vs "with enthusiasm", positively just seemed a bit more encyclopedic to me.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks re: with enthusiasm. Regarding the video, someone said there was a technical issue – too many people trying to view it – but who knows. Sarah (SV) (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Mandruss, sorry, I added something before I saw your post. I've written just a basic outline (permalink) until we have more sourcing. Sarah (SV) (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * And now I see you've removed it. I was responding to this post. (As an aside, I'm noticing that edit conflicts aren't working anymore, which is why I saved my post without realizing you'd removed yours. I've been noticing this elsewhere recently too.) Sarah (SV) (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem, here's my draft in case it's of any use. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. They're quite similar. There's nothing more we can say until the sources do unfortunately. Sarah (SV) (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, the video is not currently working due to a "cyber attack" according to Sulkowicz. I think that if we mention this video, the accused student's name should stay out of article. I don't like the idea of forever linking his name, in the top search engine, to a rape reenactment video that appears to be about him. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree about leaving his name out. Sarah (SV) (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Me 2. Did someone suggest putting it in, or is that a preemptive objection to it? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Manduss, there was a previous BLPN consensus that his name could be included, but this occurred while the article was protected, and as of yet, no one has tried to re-add the name. If they do, I think it might be reasonable to bring this back to BLPN--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Bobo, I didn't see that. I thought consensus was to leave it out. Sarah (SV) (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No consensus to include it as of February. Sarah (SV) (talk) 00:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The more recent discussion had qualified consensus to include it .--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'd forgotten about that. Sarah (SV) (talk) 01:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Break (Graphic "Reenactment")
So, Sulkowicz claims in the Artnet interview that this isn't a companion to the Mattress Performance, and according to Jezebel, the website for the piece explicitly denied that it was a recreation of the events of August 2012. Its clearly got similar thematic elements, but this isn't an entry on the artwork of Emma Sulkowicz, its an entry on a specific piece that received significant mainstream coverage. Something may happen that makes this new video a matter of historical or cultural import, but right now its still breaking news. Why not let the issue ripen a little bit? Nblund (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You're suggesting removal of that section for now, I presume. Could you respond to this argument? I think it's essentially the basis for the existing consensus to include it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * First: I actually don't see that interpretation (that it is about the alleged rape) coming from either of the mainstream sources cited in the content. Both the Time Magazine and Artnet articles linked quote Sulkowicz as explicitly denying that the video is intended to be a re-enactment. I see some mainstream sources covering this topic, but none of them support the contention that it "appears to be a reenactment".
 * Second, I think its been established through several discussions that this entry is about the art piece, and not about the rape accusation. Even if it were a recreation of the events of that night, it still wouldn't warrant inclusion under that interpretation. This could change, but currently, all I see are some murmurs in the press, and I don't really see it as sufficiently noteworthy to warrant inclusion. Nblund (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting and cogent arguments, and I look forward to responses, at least from, since s/he crafted the argument and s/he's smarter than I am. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I would omit the last two sentences: "She wrote of the video that it was not a reenactment of the rape allegation: "Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol is not about one night in August, 2012. It's about your decisions, starting now. It's only a reenactment if you disregard my words. It's about you, not him."[43][46]" These are two works of art and they are not related to one another. So why are we telling the reader that they are not related to one another? Too much information. Lop off the last two sentences. It is superfluous detail. Bus stop (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * She can't say that the video is a reenactment, because she knows that (redacted) would immediately sue her for defamation if she did. Anyway, I agree with SV that mention of it needs to be in the article. Cla68 (talk) 11:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Apologies for not responding to the ping, was swamped by deadlines for a while. I havent been keeping up with the news articles coming out surrounding this, but Nblund makes a good point. IMO it depends on whether or not coverage of Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol compares it to the Matress performance a lot I guess. Bosstopher (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We cannot say that any two works are related unless we say according to who? Bus stop (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Related work/Other work
We have a section heading above two other works of art by the same artist. One of those works is called "Newspaper Bodies (Look, Mom, I'm on the Front Page!)" and the other is called "Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol". That section heading for these two works of art can be "Related work" or "Other work". If it is felt that one (or both) of these works are "related" to "Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)" we can explain that in the commentary accompanying the artwork. We can for instance give an example of a parallel drawn between that work of art and "Mattress Performance". We may even choose to name the commentator who points out the relationship between the two artworks. A section heading does not tell us much. It is merely an indicator of what is to follow. It should be kept general. Are both of the works under our debated section heading identical in respect to their relatedness to the main topic of this article? We know that the artist has said that one of the works is not a reenactment of the alleged rape. Sources can't completely override something that the artist said on the subject of the relatedness of two of her works of art. This is merely a section heading that we are discussing. Drawing connections between artworks is not out of the question. But please use full prose language, and do so in proximity to the specific work of art you are talking about. Bus stop (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not a biography of the artist, so surely only work that has been said to be related should be included. If she paints a bunch of azaleas, it's surely irrelevant to this article, but these pieces are clearly ones which have been commented upon as related to the original work, and as referring - albeit indirectly - to the event that engendered it. Paul B (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Paul B—please explain to me why a section heading has to say what you wish to say? A section heading is the scaffolding on which an article is built. Anything that our article wishes to say can be said in proximity to those specific artworks. There is ample room next to "Newspaper Bodies (Look, Mom, I'm on the Front Page!)". Wax eloquent about the relatedness between the two works of art in that section. There is ample room next to "Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol". Wax eloquent about the relatedness between the two works of art in that section. Bus stop (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "please explain to me why a section heading has to say what you wish to say?" What an odd thing to say. It's no more about my personal wish than your personal wish. It's about what makes sense for any particular article. I've already explained. If this were a biography of the artist, all her notable works would be relevant, but it isn't. It's about a particular piece that has had social impact. What is all this about "ample room"? The debate here is about the title. I didn't choose "related" works, other editors did. I gave a reason why it is better than "other" works, because all other works, if unrelated, would only be relevant in a catalogue or a biography. How is this argument difficult to understand? Why do you want me to "wax eloquent"? Commentators have seen these as related. The title of the section is best called that to discourage editors from listing any other unrelated works that she might make, or perhaps has already made. As you say, "a section heading is the scaffolding on which an article is built", that's why it should be phrased appropriately. Paul B (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Leaving aside Ce'st N'est Pas En Viol for the mean time, Newspaper bodies' is pretty clearly related. It's printed onto a New York Times article about the accused and the Matress Perfomance.Bosstopher (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I started to watch Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol, but had to switch off as I had naively expected it to be just 'acting', and am on my work computer. To say this is not a re-enactment of events in November 2012. is like saying 'do not press this button' (though there are, I assume, sensible legal reasons for such a disclaimer). However, the main point is that sources that discuss it, do so in the context of the alleged events of "November 2012" . Paul B (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Paul B—this article need not be a biography of this artist in order to justify mentioning a couple of other works by her. Bus stop (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You seem to miss the point. I'm not against mentioning them. The title of this section is "Related work/Other work", refecting a mini-edit war over the section title, which is what I thought we were discussing. What I am opposed to, is having the career of the artist as the subject of the article, which is why I think Related works is a better title. This is the third time I've made this argument, which you have not directly responded to. In the unforgettable words of DHeywood, "It's not anything different than what I've said before". Paul B (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, we are discussing a possible section heading. The "career of the artist" is not the "subject of the article". This is the case no matter the wording used for the section heading. Bus stop (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, the section title "other work" could include any other work (or even her charity work). We only want related works for this article. Paul B (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Bosstopher—neither artwork is unambiguously related to the artwork in the title of the article. The more nondescript section heading suffices to introduce two other artworks by the same artist. Bus stop (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * How is Newspaper Bodies not unambiguously related? I don't get why you've stated it to be so without addressing the points I've made. It's literally made out of a newspaper article covering reactions to Mattress Performance, and as SV mentioned was part of her senior thesis show which revolved around Mattress Performance. Bosstopher (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Bosstopher—a section heading in an article is like a shelf upon which items are placed. The section heading serves as an organizing principle for the article. We don't make assertions by means of section headings. Questionable assertions or assertions that can include qualifying language are more preferably placed in proper areas of the article and using full sentences. Bus stop (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * There is simply no justification for the more specific section heading, and there is reason not use the more specific section heading in that it may be wrong. The artist has not said that either work is related to Mattress Performance or to the alleged rape. And the artist seems to have distanced one artwork—Ceci N'est Pas En Viol—from the alleged rape. Our concern should be more with not misleading the reader than with finding the most specific label for a section heading that we can possibly find. There is ample space in proximity to the area in which each artwork is specifically discussed to bring in connections that you find in sources. Bus stop (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Related means related, not 'about the same event'. All discussion of the Viol video identifies it as related. Paul B (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * By that reasoning we could even say all three works are "related" because they are all by the same artist. I think we know what "related" means in this context. We risk possibly misleading the reader by using an undiscerning label for a section heading. Bus stop (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Bus stop, this is a minor thing to argue over, but the three works are clearly related. The second was the display at her senior-thesis show (and her senior thesis was Mattress Performance), and the video is obviously related to the allegations and political arguments. Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You seem to be disregarding what Emma Sulkowicz says: "The following text contains allusions to rape. Everything that takes place in the following video is consensual but may resemble rape. It is not a reenactment but may seem like one." Bus stop (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * But that doesn't mean the work isn't related. Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Her statement provides us with reason to exercise restraint in our choice of language in a section heading at this point in our article. It is more than sufficient for organizational purposes to use the less specific wording in this section heading. We do not wish to convey to the reader that the other two works are in all ways related to the title work. By the way, this would be the case in other types of instances, involving other artworks by other artists. The broad assertion is the problem, when the less heavy-handed assertion is available. Let us turn the discussion around for a moment—is there anything wrong with the section heading "Other work"? Is there something deficient in that wording? Bus stop (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it's clear the other two pieces are related works, and that is how the reliable sources are treating them. They belong in the article for that reason and the heading "Related Work" is appropriate. Minor4th  19:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone has argued that mention of two other artworks does not "belong in the article". Bus stop (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * But you appear to be the sole defender of Other works as a subtitle. Paul B (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Paul B—do you find anything problematic in the section heading "Other work"? Let us discuss it. Bus stop (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Umm, yes. Read the comments in this section. This is like Groundhog Day. Paul B (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of the ground beef scandal. Bus stop (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Paul. That was my point - they are related and that's why they should be in the article. As such they should be under the heading "Related Works." Minor4th  19:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We are talking about a section heading. Why are you not expanding the commentary next to each of these individual artworks to explain to the reader the relationship found to exist between that artwork and the main artwork of this article? Is it only the section heading that you are concerned with? Bus stop (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Feel free to include those edits yourself. I have not done it because I have just had a minute here and there to comment, but I agree that the information would be useful in the article. <b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 19:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * But you have time to revert. Bus stop (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Ceci N’est Pas Un Viol as "participatory art"
The Forward describes Ceci N’est Pas Un Viol as "participatory art", saying the art isn't really about the video, but rather about how people react to it: http://forward.com/sisterhood/309709/this-is-not-about-my-rape-it-is-about-you/ I'm not sure if this source is sufficient to include text regarding this in the article, or if we should wait and see if other sources discuss this. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's an RS and the second source to discuss it in those terms. It would make a good addition. Sarah (SV) (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I added brief mention of this: --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's good. I also added something from the Guardian. Sarah (SV) (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The sources (ColumbiaSpectator) do discuss it, though not in enough detail. They quote the indictment of the audience which is the most powerful statement the film makes. “If you watch this video without my consent, then I hope you reflect on your reasons for objectifying me and participating in my rape, for, in that case, you were the one who couldn't resist the urge to make Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol about what you wanted to make it about: rape,” the statement said. . It's a cultural statement about rape on many levels and appears to be her intent for making it. I added it, but SV reverted without saying why it was confusing. Rather, I think it's intended to be confusing and/or challenging about what rape is and how its viewed. It's not as straightforward as a reenactment of her rape, rather she is also reenacting the response and the statement is quite brilliant. Did anyone summarize the film as a story about her or is it always about "the rape?" Missing the person in such a performance seems to be something she is trying to highlight and being an object is a hallmark of rape culture. --DHeyward (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi DHeyward, most of what you added is already in the section, either word for word or in some other form, and the way it was inserted disrupted the flow. The edit also referred to things not explained in the section (e.g. her permission, her statement). I think we should wait for more secondary sources before expanding that section. Sarah (SV) (talk) 00:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed edit to background
I want to change the first paragraph of the background section to the following. It makes no contentious claims, but makes certain statements more explicit, and adds relevant context (the dear colleague letter, relevant to both of the later civil suits, since it radically changed the university's Title IX obligations.) I have removed a source that was contentious last time, but kept Die Zeit, which is only cited for a non-contentious quote.

Emma Sulkowicz alleges that she was anally raped by another student on the first day of her second year on August 27, 2012, during what began as a consensual sexual encounter in her dorm room. The accused strongly denies the allegation, insisting that the encounter was entirely consensual, and asserts there was no possibility of a misunderstanding, saying he was falsely accused. Sulkowicz filed a complaint with the university in April 2013, and in October that year a university inquiry found the accused "not responsible," concluding that "The accusations are unfounded." The investigation used a "preponderance of the evidence" standard, lower than both the "proof beyond reasonable doubt" standard used in United States criminal courts and the "clear and convincing evidence" standard formerly used by many colleges prior to the April 2011 Dear Colleague Letter.

--Sammy1339 (talk) 01:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. You're adding detail from one side but not the other. If you're going to talk about the process, we will have to add the women's view of it, and you're objecting to even mentioning two of them. Also, the writing isn't tight, and for what the university said (the unfounded part) your source is the accused. Finally, I'll be changing some of the chronology of that paragraph when I restore the other complaints. Sarah (SV) (talk) 02:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have struck the part you specifically objected to. Yes, however, I am adding detail explaining what the accused said, which balances the accusation that this entire article is largely about, and information explaining the context of the hearings. Well, wait a minute, I'm not sure what you're saying about the process - the standard of evidence used in it is objective fact, not opinion. Balancing would mean including both the accused's and the accuser's view of the process, and this has neither. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment "Unfounded" is from the university letter according to the source. The source says that is the only clear sentence in the form letter that exonerates him.  This language is consistant with no "reasonable suspicion" which is a legal term of art that means they had no evidence of a crime/violation, let alone enough to decide responsibility.  "Not responsible" appears to acknowledge there was a crime/violation but he wasn't responsible.  I could not find that language in the second source and it's significant.   --DHeyward (talk) 05:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - "No possibility of misunderstanding" seems odd wording to me, as if people frequently "rape accidentally" as some sort of misunderstanding-type-occurrence. I prefer just the text where he says it was "entirely consensual". Also, this was apparently decided by a panal at Columbia and not the legal system (and this panal was alleged in Title IX complaint to have been incompetent by multiple students, not just the four allegedly assaulted by this student), so even though the preponderance of evidence standard is a lower legal standard of proof, there is apparently a lawsuit alleging the panel at Columbia doesn't adjudicate well.  This is not to suggest there was evidence in this case to find him responsible under that standard, but given all the lawsuits regarding Columbia mishandling sexual assault complaints, I don't know if we should get into it.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with not mentioning it or as little as possible. Even a NPOV account will not seem that way for such a polarizing case.  Depending on who is asked, the NPOV, sourced version leaves no room for a rape to have occurred or the NPOV, sourced leaves no possibility that an assault didn't occur.  It won't ever be satisfactory.  Covering sides just inflames it. --DHeyward (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. I agree with the proposed edit as it makes a good effort at presenting both sides of the story. Cla68 (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. I agree with the direction of the proposed edit, although I think we can leave out the standard of proof used in the panel proceeding. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 00:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Jezebel
There are two sources from Jezebel that I've considered adding in footnotes to augment other sources, but I saw earlier that someone had objected to anything from Jezebel. Our article calls it a blog, but it isn't; or at least it's not a personal blog.

I'm not sure what the difference would be between Jezebel and The Daily Beast or Reason, which we do use as sources for the accused's point of view (the Cathy Young articles). The Jezebel articles give Sulkowicz's and Josie's points of view, in response to Cathy Young and others, so I would like to add them in one of those footnotes. I wouldn't add material from them. Sarah (SV) (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to using these as primary sources. If the facebook messages are ever included (as I earlier suggested they should be), the former will be necessary for Sulkowicz's response. The latter source will be necessary for "Josie"'s account, in the unfortunate event that is included. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The first is a secondary source, though it includes primary-source material from Sulkowicz. The second, from Josie, was written by her and is a primary source. Sarah (SV) (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it heads us off into the weeds. We have the performance art.  We have an anonymous counter-response to the art from one who is depicted and a summary of the controversy.  If we do the counter-counter response, we start to head down the road towards WP:COATRACK.  I would be inclined to let the Young articles, as sources for the accused, stand as they are without any more rebuttal.  We aren't here to prove anything, just cover the topic.  The point of the article is the work of art and it's impact and if we stray too far from that, it becomes an article about an alleged crime with all the various points of view and BLP issues that come with covering a crime that isn't going to be resolved with a trial.  Future litigation can be a separate article if it becomes significant enough.  --DHeyward (talk) 00:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The material in Young is incomplete because she did not have access to all the sources. The Jezebel author (the first link above) was given greater access, so it would be good to have it in the same bundled ref as Young. I don't intend to add the material to the article (I agree about not going into those details), but I think we have to offer both sides to the reader in the footnote. One or both were in the article before; one was removed because at that point it was a sole source for Adam, which is no longer the case. Sarah (SV) (talk) 01:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if anything in the Gawker network is considered a reliable source, but if there's consensus somewhere that it is I have no problem with using it. It definitely can be used for Sulkowicz's version of the facebook exchanges, which is why I said I'm okay with it as a primary source, such as in the manner you're suggesting. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The second one is a particularly incendiary primary source that 1. doesn't appear to have a significant impact on the artwork and 2. is launching all manner of accusations that are totally unverifiable (I am specifically not taking a position on truthfulness as unverified doesn't mean untrue, only that there's no way we could possibly know), so I don't think we need that here. The second one I could potentially see as having some use provided that we have Young's articles which pertain to it, as those appear to be the only other ones which have anything significant on "Adam"; that would only be necessary if the article is going into detail (i.e. a paragraph or two), otherwise there's no need for it since Young's articles hit on all the salient points needed for only a sentence or two. I don't think Gawker is a reliable source for anything, but if this allegation is discussed in significant detail there's no way to avoid linking to it because that's the article that brought it to more mainstream media attention. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 01:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, everyone. I'll add the first for now, but not the second. Sarah (SV) (talk) 03:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Can you separate the first Jezebel article from Young 3 February, and just put them side-by-side as two references? I don't see why they need to be one on top of the other, and I had to cite just Young in my last edit. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * After reading up on it and looking into the archives at the reliable sources noticeboard, it seems like the Gawker network is not regarded as reliable. This gives some indication of their editorial policies. And a look at the main page, which I never thought to visit before, pretty much reveals it's a tabloid. Accordingly I don't think it's appropriate to cite it for statements of fact, and since the Young 3 February needs to be cited that way, I want to unbundle it from the Jezebel piece. Currently the first Jezebel piece is only used as a secondary source, so I'm just removing it. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The first piece spends a lot of space on discrediting Cathy Young which I don't consider to be a valid form of argument (i.e. ad hominem). Discrediting Cathy Young should not be a part of the article.  Either she's a reliable source or not.  We have no methods to judge any particular practice.  --DHeyward (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Jezebel is definitely a political-advocacy blog, similar to Drudge Report and others like that. If we use it as a primary source, then I think we should also use Nungesser's court filing to present his side of the story in the article, for example his argument that the rape claim is fraudelent and that Sulkowitz' behavior surronding the entire incident has been disingenuous. Cla68 (talk) 22:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The points Jezebel makes regarding rebuttal arguments to the Young article offer perspective (though not necessarily the points made about Young herself). It's perspective that was only portrayed as "No Comment" before Jezebel.  It's clear the artist did not want to talk to Young and it's misleading to only have the "she corroborated the facebook posts" narrative when she clearly has more to say.  We don't make those claims in the article so a reference for the reader is fine.  The lawsuits are beyond the scope of the artwork.  Even if the accused prevails, the artist wasn't named as a party.  The artwork may be notable in a legal sense if a decision mentions it but not just in the tort claim of filing.  --DHeyward (talk) 07:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Date formats
I've changed the formats of dates in the article body to the US standard MDY, per MOS:DATETIES. Since Sulkowicz is American, and since the performance piece was set on the campus of an American college, there seems to be a strong presumption in favor of using the American date standard.

Another editor has noted that dates in citations are in DMY format. Per MOS:DATEUNIFY, dates in citations should follow the same format; dates in the article body should follow the same format; but the two formats don't need to be identical. However, should there be consensus in favor of unifying body-text and citation date formats, MOS:DATETIES suggests that MDY be used throughout.

A look at the article history suggests that the use of DMY in the body text is a relatively recent development: as of May 3, 2015, MDY was in use in the body text. I suspect that the format was inadvertently changed by an editor who's accustomed to DMY, just as I've inadvertently typed "realized" while editing articles on Trollope novels. Ammodramus (talk) 03:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem is that you've left the dates inconsistent, because all the ref dates are day/month/year, so it would be better to revert, then gain consensus here for a wholesale change. (Realized is fine by the way; it's British-English too.)


 * I don't mind a lot which format we have, though I marginally prefer day/month/year (10 June 2015), just because it's easier to write and looks neater without a comma. Sarah (SV) (talk) 04:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Sarah (SV)'s comments led me to look more closely at MOS:DATEUNIFY, and I see that I didn't read it closely enough earlier; in particular, I missed "...provided the day and month elements are in the same order as in dates in the article body..." In light of that, I'll go through the citations and change the date formats.


 * Per MOS:DATETIES, we should be using MDY in the article body, so the choices for the citations seem to be MDY ("July 4, 1776") or YYYY-MM-DD ("1776-07-04"). In the earliest versions of the article, DMY was used in citations, so the first-major-contributor standard is no guide.  I weakly prefer YYYY-MM-DD, which makes dates stand out from article- and book titles, especially if an article title happens to incorporate a date; but MDY "looks more like" the original DMY, so I'll use that. — Ammodramus (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

, I would prefer to see this changed back:


 * 1) It has been day-month-year (11 June 2015) since creation, and that seems to be what most people here are using.
 * 2) The article has a national tie to the US (US artist, US location), but there's a European tie too (accused student is German).
 * 3) The MoS isn't policy, but even following the MoS, it doesn't say a certain format must be used, but "should generally.": "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the date format most commonly used in that nation." Consensus can decide otherwise.
 * 4) Day-month-year avoids unnecessary commas, e.g. "On June 4, 2015, Sulkowicz released ..." instead of "On 4 June 2015 Sulkowicz released ..."
 * 5) The article will become internally inconsistent over time, because most people write day-month-year.

For all these reasons, I'd like to restore the old format, unless others object. Sarah (SV) (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

These arguments do not strike me as terribly strong.


 * 1) The article was created on October 30, 2014; the creator then expanded it with a series of edits continuing into November 1, 2014. Only on Nov. 1 did another editor become involved.  In the very early version to which you've linked, there were no dates in the body text.  However, before any other editor became involved, the creator inserted the date "October 29" in the body text, while keeping DMY for dates in citations.  (See creator's last version before another editor became involved; date in final paragraph.)  The creator's use of DMY in citations but MDY in the body text suggests awareness of MOS:DATETIES and readiness to abide by it.  The year was subsequently added: "October 29, 2014", but it apparently remained in this format through ca. 200 edits, until February 12, 2015, when it was changed to "29 October 2014" by SlimVirgin.  It came in a series of edits by that user, and the specific edit that changed it involved some major rewriting, so the format change wasn't mentioned in the edit summary and wasn't apparent in the diff; see pre-change version and post-change version.  It thus appears that the DMY format was only introduced to body-text dates when the article was 3 1/2 months old; prior to that time, the single date that appeared in the body text was in MDY format.
 * 2) Winston Churchill delivered the 1946 "Sinews of Peace" speech, credited with popularizing the term "iron curtain", in Fulton, Missouri. Would it be reasonable to use this connection to justify MDY dates in the Churchill article, or DMY dates in the Fulton article?  Had Sulkowicz's alleged assailant been Indian, how seriously would we take a proposal to use Vedic numbers ("...seeking $15 lakh in damages...")?
 * 3) The use of "should generally" at MOS:DATETIES is followed by "In some topic areas the customary format differs from the usual national one: for example, articles on the modern U.S. military use day-before-month, in accordance with U.S. military usage." This, I think, is the reason why the "should" is qualified.  As far as I know, no comparable exception exists covering the intersection of academics and art and US politics.
 * 4) "Unnecessary commas"? Commas are not a bad thing unless they're grammatically contraindicated.  I tend to prefer them in some optional cases: "In June 2015, Clinton delivered a speech..." reads better to me than "In June 2015 Gillibrand introduced a bill..."  However, I recognize that this is personal taste, and won't change one to the other except in the course of a general rewrite.  Editors who prefer the Gertrude Stein stylebook should be similarly accommodating.
 * 5) When I work on Anthony Trollope or on articles about Trollope novels, I bear in mind that the subject is British and that I should use British date formats and British spellings. If I happen to see that another editor has inserted American formats or spellings, I correct them.  If I forget and someone else corrects me, I slap my forehead and resolve to do better next time.  When I did a major rewrite of U. Sagayam, I bore in mind that the subject was Indian, and used Vedic numbers; had I needed to refer to a specific date, I'd have used DMY.  I don't see why editors of this article can't remember that the subject has strong US ties and use MDY, especially if there're other dates in that format in the article to remind them; or, if someone forgets, another editor can correct them.

Since both MOS:DATETIES and the MOS:NUM standard of "used by the first major contributor" support MDY in the body text, I see no reason to change it. Editors who can't bring themselves to use a particular country's spellings, date formats, and numbering systems should probably recuse themselves from editing articles with a strong tie to that country. — Ammodramus (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

BRD edits to Background section
I am editing the Background section to read:


 * Emma Sulkowicz (born 1992)[9] is the daughter of Sandra Leong and Kerry Sulkowicz, psychiatrists from Manhattan. She attended Dalton School on the Upper East Side, and in 2011 began her visual arts degree at Columbia University.[10]


 * 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.[10] The accused strongly denies the allegation, insisting that the encounter was entirely consensual.[11] In April 2013, seven months after the alleged rape, Sulkowicz filed a complaint with the university. In October, following Columbia's inquiry and investigation into the allegations, a university panel found the accused "not responsible" for the alleged sexual assault.[10]


 * Shortly after Sulkowicz filed her complaint, three other students with whom she was acquainted[12][13] filed complaints with the university against the same student.[14] The accused denied all of the allegations and said the complaints were the result of collusion. The university ultimately found him "not responsible" for any of the allegations made against the accused student. (need citations for last 2 sentences)


 * In April 2013, 23 students filed a federal complaint against Columbia University and Barnard College, alleging violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, a law upholding gender equality in federally funded institutions.[19][n 1] In the suit, the students complained, among other allegations, that alleged perpetrators are allowed to remain on campus, that the university discourages students from reporting sexual assault, and that sanctions are too lenient.[19]  The Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights opened an investigation in January 2015.[21]


 * In May 2013, Sulkowicz filed a complaint about the alleged rape with the NYPD.[22] The district attorney's office interviewed the accused in August and, according to his lawyer, said that no charges would be brought because of a "lack of reasonable suspicion."[5]

This includes all the relevant information but leaves out the specifics of salacious allegations of acts for which the accused was found to be not responsible.<b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 01:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with some of this, but I can't see the point of stripping it down to the point where the context disappears. Campus sexual assault is and was a major issue, and this is what Mattress Performance was about. A sentence I added to that effect was removed for some reason. So removing the senator, the press conference, the interviews, the timing, Obama, strips away the entire context of, and much of the motivation for, the art and the federal Title IX complaint. Sarah (SV) (talk) 03:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I oppose this revert, and still oppose any mention of the three other allegations which are extraneous. I also don't see why you reverted my language about the university's rulings, and restored the New York Magazine source in preference to Kaminer. I'd also like to go back to my language of "publicized," rather than "written" and "distributed," which lack the relevant connotation (i.e. that these materials were meant to spread awareness of accusations). --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Sammy, you keep saying they're extraneous, but that's just your opinion. Everyone else sees them as connected. Two complainants filed around the same time, and only because they had spoken to each other. The third and fourth filed only after hearing about the first two. The accused sees them as connected. The media has written about them as connected. The very first story about this was about three complaints, not one. Mattress came about in protest at campus rape in general, not because of one complaint. You are minimizing to the point of distortion. Sarah (SV) (talk) 04:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I didn't explain my position well. I never said they were not connected, or that they were not relevant, but that the degree of their importance to the topic is not sufficient for their inclusion against the recommendation of WP:BLPCRIME. I read WP:BLPCRIME as saying that unproven criminal accusations against marginally notable individuals should not be included in Wikipedia unless there is a compelling reason. Your argument makes sense, but I don't perceive that your reasons are compelling enough.
 * The way the story was broken is immaterial and the first Title IX complaint involves lots of other people, so I don't see why it's important to mention these three. It seems to me that the only way the omission of these accusations distorts the story is that it diminishes the degree to which the accused appears to be guilty. If I understand you correctly you specifically don't want to do that, because you feel it's POV, but removing the appearance of guilt is the whole point of what BLPCRIME is about.
 * You also made another argument which I have to ask you to clarify. You seemed to imply that you thought omitting these accusations would violate our duty of care to the three accusers, citing a BLP concern. Does this mean that not mentioning someone in Wikipedia can be a BLP violation against that person? --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I think I have to take this off my watchlist. I agree about minimizing the sexual details, not naming the accused, making clear that he was found not responsible, etc – I was arguing for all those things before you arrived at the page – but you want to remove all context: the politics, the other complaints, the senator, the interviews, the whole point of the performance art. It grew out of and furthered a movement. It's not about one person.

Also, as I've said elsewhere, you called the three women "friendly," implying collusion ("Shortly after Sulkowicz filed her complaint, two other women with whom she was friendly filed additional complaints ...),, when one of the sources you used, Josie's article, said that she still (as of May 2015) doesn't even know one of their surnames or what the woman looks like:

"There is a narrative spreading that pins me as “Friend of Mattress Girl,” filing a sexual assault complaint as part of a weird collusion among girlfriends. This narrative is entirely false. At the time, Emma and I were friendly; however, we were never friends. We had never hung out one-on-one and I’d never had her number in my phone. I also never knew the identity of ... [the accused's] ex-girlfriend, who also filed a complaint against him, until two separate reporters let her name slip while interviewing me—assuming, maybe, that I knew her. But I didn’t. I still don’t even know what she looks like or what her last name is."

I have a request in for another free image, so if that arrives I'll add it, but I think that's all I can do for now. Sarah (SV) (talk) 05:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * SV you are misrepresenting what Sammy1339 said. You wrote "you called the three women "friendly," implying collusion ('Shortly after Sulkowicz filed her complaint, two other women with whom she was friendly'...)." Your source clearly says: "At the time, Emma and I were friendly" (strangely, immediately after an assertion that a "narrative spreading that pins me as 'Friend of Mattress Girl'" is false). She then goes on to say that she did not know the third girl. But Sammy1339's text never says that she did, or that all three were friendly with each other. It just says that Sulkowicz was friendly with both: "two other women with whom she was friendly". Paul B (talk) 08:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The relationship the three women had with each other is not relevant as it can't be explained properly. It doesn't change the finding of the University and it's too complex.  Josie, for example, lived in the ADP complex.  She was apparently approached by another women that heard her speak of her experience with the accused.  Everyone knew everybody.  She looked up the schools' def of sexual misconduct and she believes it fit the actions of the accused.  Writing it in a way that implies her friendship with Sulcowicz mattered in any way is a giant leap.  More importantly, it doesn't change the finding of the University.  It should be left out because it does nothing negative to the accused and it calls into question the integrity of other living people.  Her complaint was the least severe.  Collusion was an accusation by the accused.  It's not a finding by a trial or hearing.  Leave it out as it doesn't add anything.  --DHeyward (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't know whether in fact "it mattered in any way" or not, because we were not there. You seem to think you were, as you give a gloss of events presented as 'the truth'. We do know that it matters to people commenting on the case, because it goes to the central issues - the evidence of wrongdoing and the question of who was being intimidated. That's exactly why the sources discuss the matter. Paul B (talk) 13:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter. If they were BFFs or strangers. It doesn't change the art, it doesn't change the outcome.  We weren't there so we shouldn't write they were friends or imply anything nefarious happened.  Why would you write that they were friends or friendly when its sole purpose is to impugn another person's integrity even though it is not relevant?  The University didn't do this or make that finding and the only person saying it is the accused.  It's one-sided and pointless to pursue it.  --DHeyward (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * To protect the presumption of innocence it's not sufficient to merely state that there was no conviction. Many readers will see that there were four allegations and assume it implies that the accused is guilty. To prevent this, it is absolutely essential not to give readers the misimpression that the allegations were independent. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We've already stated what has been found by the university and police. We have no sources that say the allegations weren't independant or credible or anything beyond what the University has said.  Did the University say they weren't independent and it had any bearing on their decision?  I missed that source.  --DHeyward (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The accusers themselves said they were not independent. In every version of the story, the two other women talked with Sulkowicz about it prior to any complaints being filed. Adam also was friends with Natalie and discussed the topic with her; he probably also knew the other two but we don't have a source saying that. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * In what source do they say they are not independant? "Josie" specifically states that she was independent in her Jezebel article.  None that I know of have ever gone beyond "knowing" each other and that simply isn't enough to conclude it wasn't independent.  The thing is that it doesn't matter anyway as their is no finding that they were and it is irrelevant to point it out.  The accused can't be found "more not responsible" and we have a duty not to create an impression that isn't true or supportable by sources.  I believe all your sources for non-independence arise from the accused which is not enough.  It doesn't hurt the accused to leave it out and it hurts his accusers tremendously by questioning their integrity.  The university didn't do that or expel them or take any action against his accusers so presuming there is wrongdoing there is not supported by any action.  It's the same criteria used to not defame the accused.  Wikipedia does not have to be on a side.  --DHeyward (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This, which gives only the accusers' side, has the relevant information. They were not independent allegations, and failing to mention that does tremendous harm to the accused. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * That source says no such thing. As I said earlier, "Josie" did not know or consult with any other complainants and account is not related.  There was no finding they were related.  She learned of other complaints from a third party and her complaint was the least severe.  Implying they were not independent is unsourced and synthesized.  --DHeyward (talk) 04:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Due weight
Why does this minor controversy, which will probably be forgotten in 6 months, need multiple WP articles devoted to it? All that needs to be known about this subject could be covered in a single paragraph of the Columbia University article. DancesWithGrues (talk) 05:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * 1. Because it's "art". 2. Because's the issues it raises are part of a wider, hugely debated, conflict about sexual politics. Paul B (talk) 08:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * More details please - what other articles? As a topic, campus sexual assaults as a social, political, gender and equity in law issue is a large topic with many facets and articles. It's been a topic since at least the 1980's with No Means No campaign and probably earlier. Universities have been providing rape awareness regarding date rape and "acquaintance rape" since at least the 1980's and probably earlier. It's not surprising that it intersects University aged young adults as they have the least life experience in these areas. The military faces a similar issue with people that are recruits around the same age. Articles in the topic area are judged by their notability and not necessarily the event or the geographical location. A single event, like the Kennedy assassination, can spawn multiple and notable, biographies, films, investigations, theories and opinions. Articles are spun out when they are notable enough to support them and if not, we have a deletion and/or merging process WP:AfD.  We have four sexual assault complaints and 23 title IX lawsuits that appear related in some way to recent events at Columbia. How many articles are there? Due weight will only apply within this article and there is no way, outside AfD, to reduce other articles.  This article is about a notable piece of art covered by many outside, reliable sources and clearly has support for its own article.  I doubt it would be "merged" into the "Columbia article, but you are welcome to propose it through AfD process.  It will be a "Snow Keep" though. The New York Times has written more about it than Wikipedia. --DHeyward (talk) 08:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC).


 * This isn't a "controversy". It is a response. A woman alleges rape. She is an artist. She expresses herself in response to the alleged rape by making a work of art. Just like the alleged rape, the work of art rubs some people the wrong way. Is this a controversy? I would say a better word might be "conflict". But it is more than just conflict. It is the exploration of ideas. Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) very much flows into Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol. That work is in my opinion more complicated as art. It would be less likely to be called "protest". These are easily noteworthy occurrences, calling for carefully written articles. That is why, I think, you see extended agonizing over getting it right. Bus stop (talk) 09:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact is that there are innumerable significant works by genuinely distinguished artists that don't get anything like the WP coverage that Sulkowicz does. And yes, there are many detailed articles on events that were soon forgotten (remember the Sudanese teddy bear blasphemy case?). But that's just Wikipedia. What gets written is just what contributors choose to write about. And both this and Viol are undeniably notable in Wikipedia's sense. Paul B (talk) 11:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "[G]enuinely distinguished" is a questionable term as is the implication that Emma Sulkowicz is not a "genuinely distinguished artist". Bus stop (talk) 18:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * She is palpably not a genuinely distiunguished artist. She has had no notable shows, won no notable awards, had no notable art literature written about her. Her fame, such as it is, is derived from the subject matter and the controversy about the events. Paul B (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Deleting FACE mention
The article on the group, Families Advocating for Campus Equality, is being questioned for notability. As it's a group of three random mothers, the central one being based in North Dakota, who happened to be recorded by the press speaking on the matter, should it really be used to counter Senator Kristin Gillibrand's promotion of Mattress Performance?--A21sauce (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's easier to see the objection if you can provide a diff. Where is notability questioned? Where is it used in the article? etc, etc.  I don't disagree with you but there is no context in which to evaluate your statement.   --DHeyward (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Saw the reference in the article. It would be better to also add the "artnet" coverage in addition to the Washington Times.  Even though artnet references WT, they thought it notable enough to cover it.  There is also the New Yorker piece but I wouldn't add them separately.  One sentence of criticism is fine that encompasses both the accused and the FACE group's criticism of Gillibrand.  I am concerned that FACE only received coverage in WT, Daily Caller, and other outlets that are advocacy journalism which is why the artnet coverage is significant.  They are notable at least for changing North Dakota law regarding campus sexual assault but not sure they are notable enough to be quoted in this article.  Certainly it's limited only to criticism of Gillibrand's SOTU invitation who is a public figure. Their views on the accusation are not notable.  --DHeyward (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, you fixed that obviously. Why did you ask? I'm thinking we can still add something like "the Spartanburg, South Carolina-based" before their mention because the article assumes the context of New York throughout. --A21sauce (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that is too much OR. They appear national as a 501(c)(3) with founders that met in Philadelphia and are from a variety of states.  The media that covers them is national.  Their mailing address is not necessarily their location or influence.  Sorry if the above was confusing.  I found the reference you spoke of after reading your question.  I then followed it to the page.  I put notable references on that articles talk page.  --DHeyward (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

FACE is an organization started by the mother of Caleb Warner, who was falsely accused of rape by UND and even after he had been cleared and his accuser had fled the state after a warrant had been issued for her arrest, the university still refused to recognize his innocence. It is a fairly well-known case, and thus I would argue their views on the subject are quite germanine. Cheerio HoundofBaskersville (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think their criticism of Gillibrand (and even Columbia) is germane but they have no knowledge of this case, per se, so there is nothing I think they can add about the artist, art, act or accused. But yes, they are notable enough to mention their criticism of laws, procedures and politicians in proportion to the prominence of those things in the article.  Gillibrand was criticized by this group and the accused and can be written in one sentence that corresponds to the sentence describing her actions.  --DHeyward (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I had never heard of Caleb Waner before and just Googled it. Very interesting story.  There are sufficient sources on it that it probably could have its own WP article.  Some similarities to this incident. Cla68 (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought the same thing but I assume the reason it doesn't is because of WP:BLPCRIME, which could apply to both individuals involved. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * For someone who accuses another of being disruptive, you aware that there's a Men's Issues Wikiproject? Sammy 1339, your discussion above belongs there. In addition to what Dheyward propsed, let's add national and Spartanburg-based and cut the quote by FACE in half. The group's name reads to randomly. I have copyediting experience, would love to hear from others who do too.--A21sauce (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood me. I was saying that such an article should not be created, especially to protect the non-notable woman who was wanted for making a false accusation. People do care about BLPCRIME in cases other than this one. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Unwanted Sexual Touching
I'm concerned about the sentence "In one, an initial finding of "responsible" for unwanted sexual touching was overturned on appeal." First of all, I don't see what purpose this serves except to be suggestive of guilt - it's an overturned ruling, how is it significant here? This is the case that I previously referred to as "unwanted kissing" (and I was criticized by SlimVirgin for doing so, though I don't think "unwanted kissing" sounds at all pleasant.) This is what the complainant alleged (from ): "Tom, drunk, followed her; she hadn’t asked him to join her, but his offer to help retrieve the PBR seemed friendly enough. He came into the room behind her, shut the door, and flicked off the lights. She asked him what he was doing. He moved toward her aggressively, grabbed her arms, saying, ‘Come on,’ and tried to kiss her. She pushed him off and rushed from the room as quickly as she could." There is no groping allegation. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * There is nothing in the two cited sources that refers to "unwanted sexual touching" or Groping. Ref 12 states that "The charge brought by Josie was the only one on which Nungesser was initially found “responsible,” with a sentence of disciplinary probation. But that finding was later overturned..." with no mention of the exact charge and Ref 15 does not mention the "unwanted sexual touching" or even very many details about Josie's case, just that there was a hearing and that an ADP officer testified at that hearing.  It seems to me that the ultimate source would be finding out what the original documents actually state (both from the original hearing and the appeal hearing) so the reader has a clear understanding of what was actually said or done at the time. Shearonink (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * She makes a groping allegation in her own voice in Jezebel (which I understand we are not using but it's also reported as groping in many secondary sorces). She says: "The incident happened my junior year at Columbia, when [redacted] followed me upstairs at a party, came into a room with me uninvited, closed the door behind us, and grabbed me. I politely said, “Hey, no, come on, let’s go back downstairs.” He didn’t listen. He held me close to him as I said no, and continued to pull me against him." "In filing my complaint, I followed all of Columbia’s rules... I went through the trial, which was horrible and draining; I watched him, through a live TV feed, act baffled and perplexed about groping me. Columbia found him responsible. I felt vindicated: the system had worked." That's from Jezebel which we aren't using, but just adding it to add some context as to perhaps why the secondary sources consistenly use the word groping to describe it such as this from Slate: "When one student accused [redacted] of groping her at a party, the university initially decided against him, but he successfully appealed the ruling." ; This from the Daily Mail "One student claimed he'd groped her" ;this from Boston Globe: "groping her until she pushed him off" . There's lots more.  Regarding the significance of an overturned ruling, we could add that secondary sources are reporting it was overturned when the accuser didn't participate in the hearing at all the second time, apparently she had a job and didn't want to take time off work, but honestly, I'd prefer not to get into all that detail. I think it's better to just leave it as is.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I wrote as a more formal description of sexual assault than "groping." I included it for two reasons: 1) is that it was a complaint he was found responsible for, unlike the other two - and it was overturned and 2) unlike the other two, it was not a charge of rape. RAIN describes sexual assault as  "unwanted sexual contact that stops short of rape or attempted rape. This includes sexual touching and fondling."  We can use "grope" but to me it seems a bit light considering it generated a formal complaint.  In one piece she describes being "groped" simply because of her job as waitress.  The formal terms seemed suited for the formal complaint filed rather than the more familiar term of "grope."  --DHeyward (talk) 05:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * None of the reliable sources describe it as "unwanted sexual contact that stops short of rape", they described it as "groping". Linking to that definition sub-section, instead of to the groping page seems to be OR and needlessly less specific than the reliable sources have been in describing the allegation.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I wanted it to be clear that it was an accusation of sexual assault, though not rape, but not something lesser than sexual assault. If consensus is that "groping" adequately conveys that, it's okay with me.  I would like to at least link it to Groping where it's clearly a form of sexual assault.   --DHeyward (talk) 23:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The groping page indicates groping can be considered sexual assault. Additionally, I'm not sure if what she did technically constitutes an allegation of sexual assault in a legal sense, considering she didn't go to the police, she went to the university office of gender based misconduct. Anyway, it seems we should just stick with the sources and not try to interpret so much. We should leave the link to the main page because it defines the topic and people can read down to that subsection. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with it if you are okay with the current language and links. --DHeyward (talk) 05:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I have removed this information because it is completely irrelevant what happened before the issue was finally concluded on appeal. Including that info is POV and is designed to suggest that there is truth to the accusations of which the accused was cleared. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 20:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with this. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

19 months
I removed text stressing that Sulkowicz waited 19 months to report to police. The source cited didn't stress this. It just gave dates and allowed us to do the math. Seems we should do the same. More importantly, the source cited actually provided us with Sulkowicz's stated rationale for her wait, so if we are going to stress the wait, per NPOV, we'd need to add text regarding her explanation, which was provided in the source cited as follows: "When it first happened, I didn’t want to talk to anyone. I didn’t even tell my parents. ... I didn’t even want to talk to my best friend,” she said....Sulkowicz decided to file a complaint against Nungesser through the University when she met two other women he allegedly assaulted. “I realized that if I didn’t report him he’d continue to attack women on this campus. I had to do it for those other women,” Sulkowicz said.....“People kept making comments like, ‘Girls are so dumb, they should just go to the police. Obviously the school isn’t going to deal with it.’ I wanted to see for myself if I should have gone to the police,” Sulkowicz said. “I figured maybe they have a point. Maybe his name should be in the public record,” Sulkowicz added, referring to her alleged attacker. Seemed better to just remove text stressing the wait, than to add text to article explaining her rationale for it as provided in source cited.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it implies what you're saying it does. I changed Minor4th's text "seven" to "nineteen" - apparently there was some confusion about the date, as he thought the police report was filed in 2013. Readers might have the same confusion so it helps for context. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If it's re-added, we will need to add in text regarding her explanation for the wait per NPOV. The explanation is stressed in the source cited. The number of months waited is not. It's not even mentioned. Only dates are given. We should probably do the same. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you're being a little paranoid about the supposed implications of these minor issues of wording. I also noticed you changed "bring charges" to "pursue criminal charges" and "due to a lack of reasonable suspicion" to "citing lack of reasonable suspicion" in a way that just makes those sentences clunkier without changing their meaning in any way. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you might be misunderstanding my intentions. I'm just trying to accurately represent sources and maintain NPOV. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I understand that, but I think you're reading a lot into certain small things, like when you removed a "the" from a sentence in Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol saying it changed the meaning, when it was only there to fix a marginal grammatical issue. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Alleged false rape accusation
There ought to be a section about false rape accusations against Paul Nungesser. This article has no mention of Cathy Young's Daily Beast article showing Nungesser's side of the story.

Nungesser has since sued Columbia University and included in court documents show multiple instances where Emma Sulkowicz and Nungesser continue their relationship in an intimate and cordial manner.

There is also issue with the fact that "Adam", a friend of Emma Sulkowicz, also accused Nungesser of unwanted sexual touching, but was dismissed due to discrepancies in Adam's story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sb423 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The article from Cathy Young is referenced in the article. "Adam" is not included because the only source for it is Jezebel, which is not considered reliable (apparently other sources quoted Jezebel and discussed him, but his his only interview was with Jezebel).--BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * (E/C)
 * It will be unlikely that the current crop of editors patrolling this will permit it. There have been various arguments made including:
 * BLP concerns for the accused (notwithstanding he has personally come forward with his story to the press),
 * Concerns that some sources are not somehow not a reliable source on these matters
 * This is an article about the art, and we should not include too many extraneous items like the controversy, because....
 * We'll have an edit war and an admin who also has been editing related pages will lock it down, and perhaps roll it back to a version where there's no mention at all about the accused's lawsuit (which has happened).
 * The net net is that all we know is that the accused has made a lawsuit, and that's it. So Cathy Young is referenced, but pertinent details are not permitted for various reasons listed above.Mattnad (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So here's an example of a reliable source that goes into detail on Adam. But Bobomeowcat has well articulated the logic that because it uses a source that's not approved, it is also disqualified. It's bit fantastic since that neat argument is not mentioned in WP:RS, but it's convenient for the purposes of keeping it out.  Of course, when a newspaper quotes someone (who cannot be a reliable source on their own, per RS), we have no issues with that.  If we took Bobomeowcat's argument to it's extreme, most reliable sources would be disqualified in whole or part.Mattnad (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) This exchange is actually a good example of what can go wrong, from a BLP standpoint, if we use op-ed's, which do not fact check, like the one from The Washington Examiner, for factual information. "Adam", according to his statements and Sulkowicz's statement never met and were not friends. Adam was reportedly friends with another of the alleged victims, the one who alleged intimate partner violence. Additionally, to be BLP compliant, Adam should not be mentioned in the article at all because the only source of information from Adam is sourced to Jezebel, and an unsubstantiated allegation that the accused student also sexual assaulted a male student seems to requires better sourcing than Jezebel.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * But that he was cleared, plus the possibility of consiracy per the Young article cannot be included? How funny.  See how BLP gets used to keep other inconvenient reliable sources out.Mattnad (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I think 'Adam', in general should not be included in this article since he is an anonymous accuser. However, the court documents and Facebook/text exchanges are all factual evidence. While this article is about a performance art piece, its very existence is directly attributed to whether or not these allegations against Paul Nungesser are true. After all, Emma Sulkowicz said that she would stop carrying her dorm bed mattress when Nungesser is either expelled or leaves Columbia University. If Sulkowicz had created the Mattress Performance movement without an initial accusation of rape and was doing the performance to spread awareness about campus rape, then it would be reasonable not to include a story about a false rape allegation. Without including Nungesser's side of the story with official court documents and official communication between the accuser and accused, you are subjugating his story to trial-by-media with Wikipedia included.Sb423 (talk) 07:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The editors have been through that. The facebook posting will not be permitted due various arguments.  They will come from all directions, will sometime contradict each other, but that's OK when it comes to this article for some.Mattnad (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Might it help, Mattnad and BoboMeowCat, to link to previous talk sections on these same points? We should if Sb423 keeps on.--A21sauce (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So archive 3 has elements of the discussion here. See the 'Commentary Subsection in Lawsuit' section.  I personally wasn't active on this article at the time, but was reading the discussion.  Bobomeowcat, now that I've read it again, was more open to some inclusion of the lawsuit elements but there were concerns about items like the facebook postings, primary sourcing from the lawsuit etc.Mattnad (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol
According to Sulkowitz, this is s separate work. See this interview where a question is posed as follows, "It's brave, and I understand why you don't want people to view it as any kind of follow-up to Mattress Performance, but the thing that connects the two works even more than subject matter is your level of openness and willingness to put yourself there."

Given there's a main article on the work, this section should be trimmed extensively. It's only related in that the it's the same artist, at least according to the artist.Mattnad (talk) 11:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You are correct. Thank you for pointing that out. She says "But they are completely different pieces." This is the reason that the section header should read "Other work", not "Related work". Bus stop (talk) 12:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Exacpt that being a separate work does not alter the fact that it is only here because it is related, as has been repeatedly pointed out, and as the statement just quoted above clearly asserts. Paul B (talk) 12:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In art parlance, "related" means something different. Some of Picasso's paintings across different periods are related in theme (such as his portraits of women), but that doesn't mean they're "related" in an artist's work.  This piece is not part of a series, or the same form, or even subject matter.  Her first performance was a specific protest work, the second film is a far more abstract commentary on consent.  That she appears in both is not "related" in an artistic sense anymore than any other performance art which features the same subject.  If you feel "Other" is somehow wrong, make the case.Mattnad (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The reliable sources discuss them as related. The video originally aired with timestamp of the day of the alleged assault and it acts out what Sulkowicz described in her police report as occurring during her alleged assault.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Please don't presume to lecture me on "art parlance". I have already made the case in great detail in the sections above (now archived in archive 7), as have other editors. There is no reason why we want a section on "other works" by the artist in an article about a specific work. The only reason why the material is there at all is because these works are related, and are clearly discussed as such in the sources. Paul B (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the original argument that the section on the video needs to be "trimmed extensively" because there is a main article, I disagree, because the section already seems to be in summary style. Perhaps some minor trimming could occur, but even that doesn't really seem necessary.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Paul Barlow, Hi BoboMeowCat—in this source Sulkowicz says "But they are completely different pieces" and in this source Sulkowicz says "Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol is not about one night in August, 2012." No source is supporting that the two works of art are "related". Can you please articulate your objection to "Other work" as the section heading? Bus stop (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's been articluated repeatedly, Bus Stop. Your method of "arguing" is to ignore points you don't want to engage with and to repeat your own assertions over and over. I repeat: "There is no reason why we want a section on "other works" by the artist in an article about a specific work. The only reason why the material is there at all is because these works are related". Both you and Mattnad seen to think that because a work is "separate" it can't be "related", but that's a clear non sequitur. Even the quotation Mattnad gives as evidence clearly identifies relatedness. Of course BoboMeowCat is being rather more blunt about the fact that Sulkowitz blatantly presented it as a reenactment of the alleged rape and then backtracked on that. But even if we choose to pretend that never happened, the works are discussed as related. And if they are not, there is no reason for it to be mentioned in this article at all. Paul B (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Paul B—is there some reason that you are not asserting in the section on Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol that it is related to Mattress Performance? Neither you nor any other editor has adduced a source supporting that the two works are related. You can't make that assertion because you have no source which would support that assertion. Yet you are arguing to imply that the two works are "related". The means by which you are trying to imply that the two works are related is by the use of a section heading reading "Related work". If you are so sure that they are related, why aren't you trying to assert that in our paragraph? You can't do that because you have no source to support it. I've brought two sources that could support a statement in that paragraph that the two works are not related. Bus stop (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This argument is approaching WP:LAME territory. But yes, of course they are related. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * My reasons for trimming (and summary style is still too verbose) is it's better editorially. There is a tendency to overdo it in repeating information from one article to the next.  A single sentence for each work would be more than enough, with a wikilink to the main article.  If we want to turn this article into "The works of Emma Sukowitz" (or something like that), then we could merge all under one heading.  This article is supposed to be about the Mattress Performance, not her other or related works.Mattnad (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Precisely - the only reason for mentioning it is that it is related. This is not an article on "The works of Emma Sukowitz". Paul B (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Mattand, I disagree with your proposal. I don't think the video can be adequately summarized in a single sentence. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure it can, "Other works by Sulkowitz include a film and related website called Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol." How hard was that?Mattnad (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is that is an inadequate summary of the video. It provides the reader with no information on how the video is related.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not related according to the artist (but who cares about her intent). If you insist on assuming a relation, then we could state, "Other works by Sulkowitz include a film and related website called Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol designed to promote a conversation about sexual assault and matters of consent."  As an aside, I do find it interesting that her intent doesn't matter here, but her intent has been used to excise the words "sex tape", "porn" and "pornography" from the article about the film despite what some reliable sources say about it.Mattnad (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sulkowicz said it was a separate work, she didn't say it was an unrelated work. The reliable sources describe them as related as they explore similar subject matter, and as Paul Barlow already pointed out, there is prior consensus on this.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * But you've avoided commenting on the proposed sentence. Is it not clear how the film relates to the Mattress Performance?Mattnad (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's less clear. Your proposed sentence doesn't mention the video alludes to rape in a Columbia University dorm room or that the video originally was time-stamped with the date of the alleged assault. Also, as I said above, I don't think this video can be adequately summarized in a single sentence.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's another go at it given your emerging criteria. It requires only two short sentences under "Related works" as follows "On 3 June 2015 Sulkowitz released Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol to promote a conversation about sexual assault and consent. The fictional video depicts her being raped in her dorm room with a time-stamp of the original alleged assault."  Now, does it cover every nuance of the video?  No, but it explains what it is, and how it's related.  The wiki-linked main article does the rest.  It better conforms to Wikipedia guidelines to avoid repeating information that's readily available in more a detailed article on the topic.Mattnad (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no "emerging criteria", my first comment was the text is already in summary format and disagreement with your proposal that it be "trimmed extensively" .--BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You're still not responding to the latest proposal. I tried to include what you asked for. What's missing now, if anything?Mattnad (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

We've already had this discussion and arrived at a consensus that the works are related despite the artist's statement to the contrary. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 18:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm more interested now in consolidating the section, particularly on the film which has its own article. In the dialog with Bobomeowcat, she offered critiques of earlier rounds which I've accommodated as follows:
 * "On 3 June 2015 Sulkowitz released Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol to promote a conversation about sexual assault and consent. The fictional video depicts her being raped in her dorm room with a time-stamp of the original alleged assault."
 * That, combined with the first work is short enough summary that invites the reader to click on the link for the detailed article. It explains the piece and the linkage to the mattress performance.  In the context of the article, it seems sufficient to me.Mattnad (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This thread really seems to be taking I didn't hear that to a whole new level. Originally, with ignoring prior consensus that it's a related work, and now with the repeated ignoring of my consistent position that I do not think we should forgo WP:SUMMARY in place of a single sentence.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Your comment takes "I didn't bother reading it", followed by trotting out IDHT, to a new level. You expressed your concerns and I adapted the proposal based on your constantly changing criteria. FYI, it's two sentences now.  Your objection seems to be an objection for objections sake, oh, and failing to read a simple proposal, at this point.Mattnad (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, the section is eight sentences now, not two --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've proposed two sentences instead of the unnecessary eight to cover the topic. You would have understood that if you had read what I wrote immediately before your comment above.  BTW, WP:Summary refers to articles, not to reference to other articles.Mattnad (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Mattnad, please do not delete longstanding article content absent consensus as you did here . Please read WP:SUMMARY. It discusses summarizing sections in articles which have a link to a main article, which is what I was referring to. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a WP:Weight and redundancy issue that I have addressed. A week or two is not "longstanding" by any stretch for what is a current event. I engaged you, responded to your comments and evolved the proposed text in direct response. I'm not sure why you think we need so much when there's a readily accessible link to the full article on the topic.  You'll note that I left the other referenced work longer and as it was because it had no main article.  So it needed explanation not available elsewhere in Wikipedia.  I do find it paradoxical that you're fine with only two sentences for the first piece as summary, but need a few paragraphs and a photograph for the second.  Why is that?Mattnad (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Now it's three sentences. The timestamp you mentioned that may tie the work to the alleged assault has since been blurred out.Mattnad (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Mattnad, the summary style format, along with the main article link is in fact the stable form of the article. You opened this talk page discussion to change the stable form of the article. You proposed "extensively trimming" that section, but as of now, no one has supported that proposal to extensively trim and I have repeatedly objected. But you have just gone ahead and unilaterally deleted a bunch of article content twice now,  absent consensus. Pleas stop.  You keep trying to push discussion on various extensively trimmed versions, and while there have been comments on why some of those versions are inadequate, I'm hesitant to continue getting into too much discussion with you like this, because you appear to be using that to repeatedly edit against consensus. I think what needs to occur first is consensus to do away with the summary style format with main article link in place of an extensively trimmed brief summary. If there is consensus that this should occur, then we can work out a neutral wording for a brief summary, but there is clearly no consensus to make these drastic changes at this point.  Please stop edit warring against consensus.  I disagree with the extensive trimming.  I have been very clear on that.  Wait and see if anyone chimes in agreeing with you before continuing to drastically change the stable form of the article.  To clarify, I disagree because this video has received a lot of coverage in relation to mattress performance, and I think it seems better to provide the readers with a summary style description of the video, along with that see main article link header. I don't think the video can be adequately described in such a brief trimmed format. Mattnad, please get consensus to move away from summary style format with main article link in favor of your proposal before continuing to edit this section because honestly, it is becoming disruptive.
 * Bus stop, it is very clear there is no consensus to change "related work" to "other work". This is not a matter of you not yet having consensus, but rather a strong consensus against this.  Please read this talk page section and the previous one which is linked above. Please do not change this again unless the consensus on this changes. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You are the only editor who has objected to a trimming, so your claim of consensus is self-serving and incorrect. But explain to me now - why is it OK from your POV to have two sentences for the earlier work to explain another piece that has no main article, but we required three paragraphs and a photograph for another that has it's own main article. It's inconsistent, and not credible given how little was needed to summarize the other work.
 * There's a whole article that covers the film in detail (which you are free to add to if you think there's missing information). Your inflexible repeating that it was fine as is demonstrates NO effort to compromise. By contrast, I offered several proposed edits based on your feedback above.Mattnad (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The section needs to be left as the longer version. With this shortened summary, it is not at all clear how the work is related. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 16:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So how is it clear that "Newspaper Bodies (Look, Mom, I'm on the Front Page!)" is related? So short, yet so clearly related according to some editors. On the second work, why do we need the video screenshot, and the paragraph of the denial of service attack to explain how they are related?  Explain those to me as a starting point.Mattnad (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's an article about the accused and the alleged sexual assault. And for realz, we've already had this whole discussion.  Check the archives.  The consensus was strong. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 16:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Point being, it's about a sexual assault and that's enough to explain the linkage without having to go on at similar length as the three long paragraphs and a screenshot for the film. And you still haven't explained why we must have the paragraph with the denial of service or the photo for the film to explain how they are related.Mattnad (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * you say, on my Talk page, "there's at least one reliable source that explicitly links them." Please bring that source to my attention. Bus stop (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure Mattnad (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * that source does not link them. That source most definitely would not provide us with support for an assertion that these 2 artworks are related to the artwork which is the title of this article. That source does nothing more than provide pure speculation. It poses a question: "Is Mattress Girl Editing Her Sex Tape To Dodge A Lawsuit?" Furthermore, we are talking about an artwork. You've got to get a grip. If upon further consideration an artist decides to alter an artwork, do we insist that the earlier version is the one we are writing about? Is not the later version the more focussed expression of the artist? Let us stop being ridiculous. We have an article on this artwork alone. It is called Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol. In that entire article we do not even mention the fact that the video in its first few hours contained a time-stamp which is blurred out in the subsequent version. Are we interested in what the artist is trying to say or are we trying to find fault or inconsistencies? No other source is preternaturally focussed on the blurring out of the time-stamp during the stage of the initial release of the video. The reasons this source provides for that alteration are pure speculation. And Sulkowicz herself explicitly explains that the two artworks are not related. She is asked if Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol is a "followup" to Mattress Performance. Her response is that "[t]hey're two separate performance art pieces", and "they are completely different pieces." Please read the source here. No source is saying that Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol is related to Mattress Performance. The artist also explicitly states in the introductory text of Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol that: "Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol is not about one night in August, 2012." Please look at that text in the artwork which can be found here. Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol is an "Other" artwork. It is not a "Related" artwork. Furthermore we should not be making assertions by means of section headings. The section heading "Other work" suffices to introduce the 2 artworks. If our article wishes to assert that one or both of these artworks are "related" to Mattress Performance, we should use a properly formed sentence with a citation to support the assertion. I have yet to hear anyone explain why "Other work", as a section heading, is problematic. All that a section heading does is organize material. Its purpose is not to make assertions, especially dubious ones. Bus stop (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think on this item, I've come around to the consensus view, in part because I've read a source, opinion as it is, that links them. And then there's the secondary argument that they are thematically related which I think is driving other editors towards the same conclusion.  I agree that "Other work" would be more conservative and reflect the artist's explicit statements, but from what I've seen among editors who patrol this page, that's not their goal and they will revert you till the cows come home.Mattnad (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is more conservative. We should be using organizing elements (section headings) with restraint. These two works are undeniably "other" works by Sulkowicz. I would like to know why a section heading has to additionally imply that they are "related" works. There are reasons why they are not "related" works. Why are we not erring on the side of exercising restraint in choosing section headings? Bus stop (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Your guess is as good as mine.Mattnad (talk)

This is getting absurd. Read the previous LONG discussion we had about this. They are clearly related. Carrying the mattress was designed to scare her alleged attacker off campus, News Bodies was a news article about her alleged attacker - with words scribbled on it, and the video depicted a sexual assault and was date and time stamped at the exact time she claimed she was sexually assaulted by her alleged attacker. They are all about her alleged rapist! <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 21:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Mattnad—you mention that "there's the secondary argument that they are thematically related". Yes, rape is related to rape. I am aware of that. But Minor4th says "[t]he section needs to be left as the longer version. With this shortened summary, it is not at all clear how the work is related." So let us contemplate this—does the common string of "rape" tie the 3 artworks together? Or is it "not at all clear how the work is related"? In our full length article titled Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol we do not even mention the material about blurring of the time-stamp. In my opinion we should stop telling the reader what to think. The reader is perfectly capable of equating rape with rape, for instance, and forming their own opinions about the meaning of these enigmatic artworks. We don't need to beat the reader over the head with hints, especially when we have reason to believe that the 3 artworks may be unrelated in an important way. This discussion has been going on for a long time but certain things have changed since this discussion began. We now have clear articulation from Sulkowicz that Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol is not necessarily closely tied to Mattress Performance. I would suggest that we should not be running roughshod over her articulations. We also now have a separate freestanding article on Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol. Anything about its relatedness to Mattress Performance can be covered in that article, and yet it is not. Bus stop (talk) 01:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the "clear articulation" we have from Sulkowicz (which we've had from the day the video was released). Sulkowicz says "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," . This statement from Sulkowicz is included in both articles. The sources are describing the work as participatory art.  Seems she's saying here that her point isn't to reenact her rape allegation (although she clearly acted out what she described in her police report and time and date stamped it the date of the alleged assault). Despite such obvious connections pointed out in reliable sources, Sulkowicz appears to be saying the point of this performance art is how others react to it.  The reaction is the art.  It's not about him it's about you. It's about your reaction to seeing this acted out rape scene depicted on the video.  None of this makes it somehow "unrelated", although it's clear they are separate pieces and this should be (and is) articulated in both articles.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You correctly point out that Sulkowicz says "Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol is not about one night in August, 2012.". Additionally in an Artnet interview Sulkowicz says "They're two separate performance art pieces" and "But they are completely different pieces." Do those assertions not imply unrelatedness? Why is our article listing Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol under a section heading reading "Related work"? We have available to us wording for that section heading such as "Other work". Do you find that section heading—"Other work"—unacceptable for any reason? If so, can you please articulate that reason? Bus stop (talk) 03:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's related in that it too is a work about rape. Related in subject matter or material which means how one relates one artist's work within in oeuvre. I think fine as is.--A21sauce (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A21sauce—do you think that the reader will fail to notice that all three works of art allude to rape? Sulkowicz tells us that Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol is not related to Mattress Performance. Cait Munro interviews Sulkowicz in Artnet, asking the question: "It's brave, and I understand why you don't want people to view it as any kind of follow-up to Mattress Performance, but the thing that connects the two works even more than subject matter is your level of openness and willingness to put yourself there." Sulkowicz responds: "I think that's what makes a good performance art piece, right? They're two separate performance art pieces, but I'm trying to make them both as good as I can. And I think that with performance art, that's part of what makes it good…making yourself vulnerable. But they are completely different pieces." She is saying that it is not a "follow-up" piece. She states that they are "separate" pieces. She says they are "completely different pieces". She makes a similar point in the introductory text to the newer work of art too, saying: "Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol is not about one night in August, 2012". (That is the date of the original alleged rape.) Her "oeuvre" only consists of 3 works. These are the other 2 works, hence my suggested section heading "Other work". I am recommending changing the section heading from "Related work" to "Other work". Bus stop (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * In the previous discussion on the generally same topic, found in archive here, there was no mention of the interview with Sulkowicz in Artnet News, found here, because I was not aware of it. Also, the Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol article had not yet been created at the time of the previous discussion. Bus stop (talk) 11:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Bus stop, I agree that they are separate pieces, but I do not agree that this makes them unrelated pieces. All related things are separate things. The same thing cannot be a related thing, it's the same thing, only different/separate things can be related. Technically, both "other works" and "related works" is true here.  These are other works by Emma Sulkowicz which are included in this article only because they are related to Mattress performance, but editorially, the subject header of "related works" just seems to make sense here because this isn't an article on the works of Emma Sulkowicz, only related works are on topic.  If Sulkowicz goes on to create diorama of the solar system or paints a picture of a landscape, under the section title of "other works" that would seem on topic, but it's not on topic, only related works are, so I think the section header should remain "related works".--BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * BoboMeowCat—assertions of this sort should be made in prose, not in organizational elements such as section headers, and of course only if supported by sources. The less heavy-handedness there is in section headers the better. I argued for the section header wording "Other work" even before becoming aware of this interview in Artnet. The additional artworks can be thought of as related or not. It does not matter how related or unrelated they are to the Mattress Performance work of art. You say "Technically, both 'other works' and 'related works' is true here." That is correct. That is the reason that "Other work" is preferable. The reader is the final arbiter of "relatedness" in this instance. By opting for the wording "Other work" we are alerting the reader to two more works by the same artist, one of which has a full-length article on Wikipedia—but that is all that we are doing. We are not making the unfortunate assertion that these other two works are "related", and especially we are not doing so by means of an organizational element such as a section header. I don't think the Artnet interview is the primary reason that we should opt for the "Other work" wording, but there is one more exchange in that interview that should be brought to our attention. The last question Sulkowicz is asked is: "Does it concern you that the subject matter of this video might feed into those stereotypes?" Sulkowicz responds: "I guess I hope people are smart enough to realize that they are different works, and should be treated separately." Our Wikipedia article should not be serving the purpose of dumbing people down. This is an article on Mattress Performance. The purpose of mentioning two other artworks is simply to alert the reader to their existence. But while alerting readers, we should engage in as little characterization, especially by means of section headers, as possible. Bus stop (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Bus stop But I think changing it to Other works is heavy-handed going the other way. We're not responsible for people disassociating the two works. I can't see how you can't say they are related: the sociological issue she is dealing with is the same, and they were made in the same period of time. She's too young to have any substantial "Other work" section besides. I think it's okay.--A21sauce (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A21sauce—perhaps I shouldn't have used the term "heavy-handed". I overstated my argument. The phrasing "related work" is not all that heavy-handed. But it is, by a matter of degree. If I overstated this distinction, I only did so for clarity. "Other work" is more "light-handed", for lack of a better term. My overall point is that we should be taking a "hands-off" approach as concerns mere organizational elements. The section heading is not the place to pursue your assertions. If such assertions are warranted, there is ample space within the relevant paragraph for a normal sentence conveying this thought. If you can't state it in a normal sentence with a citation provided, there is good reason to step back from implying it by means of a section heading. The advantage of "Other work" is its non-assertiveness. You might say its blandness. Its failure to characterize these other works in any way is what makes this wording preferable. You say "the sociological issue she is dealing with is the same". If that is the case, why don't we change the section heading to read something like "Other artworks dealing with rape"? The reason is because such material should be addressed in prose form using full sentences with citations provided. The section headings merely serve to organize the material in the article. When the section headings start to make anything like assertions we should see if we can back off and we should see if we can find language that eliminates or lessens such assertions. Bus stop (talk) 06:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A21sauce—we should want to avoid the polemical like the plague. We know that the artworks are about rape. But we should be distancing ourselves in our writing about these artworks from passing along value judgements in our commentary about rape. The "relatedness" is the common thread of rape running through the three artworks. But in order to be objectively writing about these three artworks we should be setting for ourselves the task of assuming an agnostic relationship to any propriety or impropriety associated with rape. Bus stop (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * BoboMeowCat—May I mention another point? You say "These are other works by Emma Sulkowicz which are included in this article only because they are related to Mattress performance". No, they are not. They are included in this article because no one has argued to keep them out. We compile an article based on editorial impulses. We trim down an article based on editorial impulses as well. Do you argue for eliminating mention of these two other artworks from this article? You cannot tell us why we have compiled a particular collection of material in an article unless there was a previous discussion on that point. Inclusion and exclusion of material is based on editorial judgement. There has never been a discussion about why we mention the other two artworks. Therefore you cannot tell us why we have included mention of those artworks in this article. We know that these other two artworks are by the same artist. That constitutes relatedness. Bus stop (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Bus stop, regarding whether the work should be in the article at all, that is probably a topic for another thread, considering how long this one has become, but I think they should be because RS have discussed them together.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt that the other two works should be mentioned in this article. There is unanimous agreement about that. Bus stop (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding changing “other work” to “related work”, Bus stop, I’ve read everything you have written and remain unconvinced that it should be changed. “Other works” seems like a heading that should not exist in this article at all, because it could encourage off-topic content. Perhaps it would be appropriate on an Emma Sulkowicz BLP, or an article on “the works of  Emma Sulkowicz”, but not here.  Work has to be related to be at all appropriate to mention here. Pinging others who have commented on this "other" vs "related" issue in the past...Paul B, Minor4th,Sarah, Sammy1339, A21sauce, Bosstopher...in order to give them a chance to say if they are swayed to change their mind by your recent arguments. I am not the only person you need to convince, as the consensus on this issue was fairly strong.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You say "'Other works' seems like a heading that should not exist in this article at all, because it could encourage off-topic content." Can you give me an example of such "off-topic content"? Is this the argument, again, that the artist may switch to painting azaleas? (PaulB wrote "If she paints a bunch of azaleas, it's surely irrelevant to this article".) Also, you are saying that the consensus was strong. That discussion, now in archive, took place before the creation of the free-standing article, and in the absence of awareness of the Artnet interview which I have been referencing. I was not aware of that interview at that time. It was published mere days before the now-archived discussion ended. Bus stop (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Bus stop, I already gave examples a few posts up when I said if she did art work on the solar system or painted a landscape those works wouldn't belong here (as you say, the azaleas example was Paul's). Also, several of those pinged objected after the main article was created and the Artnet source pre-dates the last debate on this. I'm actually going to step back now and give others a chance to chime-in in response to those pings above, to see if there is any sort of emerging change of consensus as a result of your recent arguments.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You say "those pinged objected after the main article was created and the Artnet source pre-dates the last debate on this". The last post in the now-archived thread was on June 9. The interview I have been referencing seems to have been published June 4. But I was not aware of it, so I could not draw upon it at all in the now-archived thread. The Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol article was created on June 11. The Artnet source which has figured prominently in my arguments, only came to my attention when this very thread was started, on June 22. Bus stop (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Where are these hypothetical solar system artworks coming from? When are they due to arrive? You are not even staying on topic. We have before us a topic for discussion that is well-defined. Please keep the solar system out of our discussion. We have policy or guideline about crystal-ball something. What is it called? WP:CRYSTAL or something? We will deal with the azaleas or the solar system when it enters our field of vision. Our question before us at this time is whether or not we should be putting "spin" on what is ostensibly simply a section heading. Bus stop (talk) 23:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * BoboMeowCat—I don't think you understand what we are talking about, judging by your statement that "regarding whether the work should be in the article at all, that is probably a topic for another thread, considering how long this one has become". Are you seriously of the opinion that we are discussing whether these other two artworks should be mentioned in the Mattress Performance article? We are discussing this section heading. (Alternatively this section heading.) It presently reads "Related work". I am suggesting that it read "Other work". If this thread has become lengthy it is in part because of your incessant introduction of irrelevant material into the discussion. Bus stop (talk) 23:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm responding because I was pinged. My opinion is that they are related and this issue does not merit further discussion. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If they are related you should consider saying that in article space. You should say how they are related. And you should provide a source. We do not read any of this in the article at present. We read the hint in a poorly chosen section heading that "relatedness" exists. What sort of relatedness? Section headings do not articulate ideas very well, so we do not know what sort of relatedness is present. Are we talking about the fact that they are all by the same artist? Are we referencing the common thread of "rape" running through all three pieces? Could the reader possibly fail to notice that? Are we helping the reader to notice the common thread of rape running through all three pieces by inserting the term "related" in the section heading? Organizing elements are just that—organizing elements. They do not need to be any more detailed than is necessary to organize the article. There do not happen to be any shortcomings to the section heading "Other work". I have asked numerous times what anyone finds problematic about "Other works". Another editor also posed that very same question, more than once. Mattnad wrote, for instance at 13:16, 22 June in this thread: "If you feel "Other" is somehow wrong, make the case." No one dares to tackle that challenge because "Other work" is eminently adequate. The "spin" being put on the section heading "Related work" is gratuitous. Bus stop (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

FAQ answers
In this edit you restored some language I just removed.
 * "Or imply" - this can easily be misread, and I do not see where it is founded in policy. As I stated in my edit summary, I'm concerned this could be misconstrued as preventing editors from including reliably-sourced facts.
 * That the lawsuit is primary because it is written by an involved party - this just isn't true. It's not written by an involved party and is primary anyway. I'm also concerned that language you added to the end of Q8 seems to imply that opinion pieces may be "secondary." This ought to be clarified. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The article can't state or imply in Wikipedia's voice that the accused or accusers are lying. It's easy enough to avoid that with careful writing. Re: primary, the pleading was written by the accused's defence, so clearly involved. Opinion pieces written by uninvolved authors are secondary sources, yes. Sarah (talk) 00:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding "or imply," this is the same as saying the article must be neutral in tone. That's why I switched to that language, as it can't be misunderstood as prohibiting certain statements of fact. Is there a reason to prefer the "or imply" wording?
 * Regarding the lawsuit, it was written by several people, including uninvolved ones, but not directly using lawsuits for any claims about living people is explicit in WP:BLPPRIMARY. (Your version seems to weaken this constraint.) Regarding opinion pieces being secondary, maybe I was confused because WP:NEWSBLOG, the relevant guideline, has a bluelink that directs "opinion piece" to WP:PRIMARY. We should at least mention that statements from op-eds should be attributed to the author, but I would be reluctant to use them at all in this article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The imply wording makes it clearer. No uninvolved people wrote the pleading, obviously. BLPPRIMARY isn't clearly worded about court documents. They are often used in articles, including about living people, and are often the best sources. But no article should rest a claim solely on a court document. This was written to avoid cherry-picking and OR (e.g. an editor checking court records to write about someone's divorce) and no need to go into it here. Suffice to say, the pleading is a primary source and it has been decided that primary sources shouldn't be used here to support anything contentious. Sarah (talk) 00:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you address the reason I have suggested for which the "imply" wording may make it less clear what is meant? Is there perhaps a way to make it clear with a wording that would not have this problem?
 * Regarding WP:BLPPRIMARY, maybe it has changed since you last looked at it. It seems very clear on court records. (And of course the lawsuits at this point consist of more than just pleadings.) --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Re: lawsuit. The pleading is the only lawsuit-related document I'm aware of that editors have decided to exclude. Re: imply. This is very common wording: state or imply; there's no clearer way to say it. Re: BLPPRIMARY, I wrote a lot of the BLP policy and this section is poorly worded. As I said, court documents are used a lot and are often the best sources (all primary sources are often the best sources). The issue is OR, cherry-picking, stalkerish editing. But this isn't the place to discuss it. Sarah (talk) 01:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case do you mind if I include a sentence specifically clarifying that this should not be construed to prevent the inclusion of well-sourced facts, dispassionately reported? Another problem I perceive with your wording is that "or imply" is applied to talk pages, while NPOV, WP:BLPSTYLE, and WP:BLPTALK do not apparently extend the stringent neutrality requirement to talk space. Of course editors need to be careful what they say on talk as well, but construed too restrictively this may prevent necessary discussions from occurring, especially discussions about neutrality. For example statements on talk that a majority of sources say such-and-such thing could be perceived as "implying" that thing, but such discussions have to happen for NPOV to be enforced. So can the "imply" language be restricted to statements in article space? --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I've removed reference to the talk page in that section, so "state nor imply" now refers only to the article. I'm wary about the "well-sourced facts" addition. Given that there's consensus not to include all the allegations, it risks appearing contradictory. Also, using apparently neutral facts to imply that someone is lying is not on. Sarah (talk) 04:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * If it helps, the facts I have in mind are
 * A) The standards used in the Columbia hearings. I thought this would be totally non-controversial when I wrote it in - it's pretty centrally relevant as the controversy is in large part about how these hearings should be handled - but you reverted it citing this type of concern.
 * B) The facebook messages, together with Sulkowicz's response - these have been mentioned in many RS's and are an important part of the controversy, and I think the argument for excluding them is flimsy.
 * I don't expect to get a consensus for these things right here but I would like it to be understood that these things cannot be excluded solely on the grounds that knowledge of them might lead the reader to some conclusion. "Imply" should be about dispassionate presentation, and perhaps avoiding synthesis and misuse of facts to suggest some idea, but not about selectively censoring reality. If that's what you mean by it, I'll drop my objection to using that word. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)