Frequently asked questions These issues have been discussed on the talk page or noticeboards, in some cases several times. Please consult the FAQ before raising the same questions. Many thanks! Q1: What does it mean to say that discretionary sanctions apply to the page?
The
Arbitration Committee has approved
special sanctions for
pages about gender-related controversies and (separately) for
pages about living persons. Both sets of sanctions apply to this article and talk page. This means that administrators may topic-ban and block editors who cause problems, particularly editors who violate the
living-persons policy (BLP). Q2: Do I need to create an account to edit this article and talk page?
No. You may edit while logged out if the pages are not
semi-protected. But you should not edit logged out or use alternative accounts to
avoid scrutiny or give the impression that you are more than one person. While alternative accounts are allowed in some circumstances, they should be avoided on pages that have become contentious. Q3: Does Wikipedia have an opinion about these allegations?
No.
WP:BLPCRIME says: "A person accused of a crime is
presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law." Q4: If I believe the allegations are true or false, may I add that?
No.
BLP applies to all living people. The article must be neutral in tone, and should not state that the accused or accusers are lying, wrong or acting in bad faith. Wikipedia must assume a disinterested position.
AVOIDVICTIM may apply to all parties. Q5: May I offer my opinion on the talk page about what happened?
No.
BLP applies to all pages on Wikipedia, including talk pages. Furthermore, a talk page is
not a forum. Q6: Why does the article not link to the lawsuit?
The lawsuit is a
primary source, which means it was written by one of the involved parties.
BLPPRIMARY allows the careful use of primary sources, but they should not be used to support contentious claims about living persons. Anything contentious in the article should rely on independent
secondary sources (articles written by people not involved in the dispute). Q7: Why does the article refer to Sulkowicz with the pronouns that it does?
MOS:IDENTITY says: "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example 'man/woman', 'waiter/waitress', 'chairman/chairwoman') that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. [...] Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions (in some cases adjusting the portion used may reduce apparent contradictions, and ' [
sic]' may be used where necessary)." |
This article was nominated for deletion on 4 May 2016. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article related to an individual uses the pronouns she/her. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Deletion discussion here Nblund ( talk) 21:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Regardless of what happens with the deletion discussion: primary sources should be avoided for BLP materials, and legal filings, in particular, should not be used as sources. This article seems perilously close to a POV fork if it hasn't already crossed that line, and including references that have been already been discussed and rejected at the other entry definitely add to that problem. Nblund ( talk) 23:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
This entry is a spinout of an article that is already under discretionary sanctions. I've never dealt with this before, but it seems like the same sanctions would almost certainly apply here. Any objections to adding that tag? Nblund ( talk) 00:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
There seems to be undue emphasis on the article by Cathy Young - it is cited 13 times and makes up a significant part of the "Reception" section. Looking at the Young article and its author, it isn't clear why this is given such weight. The implication is that Young is the key expert on this topic, but I don't think that is the case. What do others think? LaMona ( talk) 19:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I went ahead and combined the "Commentary on the lawsuit" and "Reception" sections. They appear to both be composed of editorial content critical or supportive of one side or the other, so it seemed sensible to put them together. I trimmed a couple of excessively long quotes: all of the quotes were 2+ sentences long, and the one from Samantha Harris was 6 or 7 lines long.
Regarding balance: the "commentary on lawsuit" contained 3 quotes that appeared to be positive about the lawsuit, and one quote that appeared negative, and there seemed to be a major length discrepancy. The "Reception" section contained 5 sources making negative statements about Sulkowicz, and 2 making positive statements. The current revision is still off-balance (4 vs 2, with McCardle's being both negative and positive), but hopefully is a little more balanced in terms of the space afforded to each side. This could still use some work. Nblund ( talk) 02:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Pinging Valoem once again. I'm certainly open to compromising on these edits, but you haven't bothered to participate in the discussion on the talk page, even though I pinged you previously, and your edit summary doesn't offer any meaningful insight in to why you think these block quotes are necessary. Nblund ( talk) 21:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
This line, "political journalist Ian Tuttle criticized Sulkowicz's response and wrote in National Review that 'what Sulkowicz wants is to make claims about another person that cannot be challenged, checked, questioned, or doubted'" is a direct response to this quote:
“ | I have already been violated by both Paul and Columbia University once. It is extremely upsetting that Paul would violate me again — this time, with the help of a reporter, Cathy Young. I just wanted to fix the problem of sexual assault on campus — I never wanted this to be an excuse for people to dig through my private Facebook messages and frame them in a way as to cast doubt on my character. It’s unfair and disgusting that Paul and Cathy would treat personal life as a mine that they can dig through and harvest for publicity and Paul’s public image. | ” |
Removing the context makes it more difficult to comprehend, this shows a clearer picture. Also the bulk of his defense is based on Facebook messages sent, you seem intent on removing it. Valoem talk contrib 22:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Since I haven't gotten a response from either Valoem or Mattnad, I went ahead and rearranged things again. The "commentary on the lawsuit" section was composed entirely of opinion content, so it seems like it should be a subheading of "reception". I trimmed, paraphrased and rearranged some quotes. There's still a discrepancy in terms of the size and length dedicated to pro-Sulkowicz vs. pro-Nungesser commentary here. Nblund ( talk) 20:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Since it's come up again, I went ahead and posted at the RS noticeboard about whether or not an NYPOST opinion column is a reliable source for a claim of fact or quotation from a living person. I also asked for feedback on the citations to Jezebel.com and the Daily Beast. Nblund ( talk) 15:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I restored a part that was deleted "Journalist and writer Naomi Schaefer Riley wrote in the New York Post that two days after the alleged rape, Nungesser had invited Sulkowicz via Facebook messaging to come to a party saying, "Small shindig in our room tonight-bring cool freshman." And she responded, "lol yusss, Also I feel like we need to have some real time where we can talk about life and thingz, because we still haven’t really had a paul-emma chill sesh since summmmerrrr". A couple weeks later Sulkowicz messaged saying "I want to see yoyououoyou". Riley noted that there are six pages' worth of back-and-forth Facebook messages between the two which were released by Nungesser and subsequently published by Cathy Young. Sulkowicz has confirmed the authenticity of the messages, but has said that snippets have been published out of context."
While NY post article is an opinion piece, we attribute it to the author and messages are independently verifiable through Cathy Young source. Also in the Jezebel article Sulkowicz confirms the authenticity. I think the sources are adequate to include the content I just restored.
Darwinian Ape
talk 19:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Sulkowicz tells Jezebel there are more than a few things wrong with these transcripts. First, included are conversations that happened between them months before the alleged assault. Second, time stamps are removed, and the conversations featured omissions that Sulkowicz felt painted a misleading picture. She informed Young of her concerns.
"Sulkowicz has confirmed the authenticity of the messages, but has said that snippets have been published out of context. Sulkowicz says she sent the messages because she was upset and wanted to talk to Nungesser about the incident."And the statements from Riley piece is attributed to the author. My problem with the reverted text was that it described the events in a he said she said manner. I think we should avoid that when we have the opportunity to present actual quotations. I've added NYMag source and tweaked a bit. Darwinian Ape talk 00:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Aren't her views still being presented in a "she said" manner? Take a look at that paragraph:
"She complained that a university investigator took inaccurate notes of interviews with her, and that she had to offer unnecessarily graphic details during the hearing.[17] A graduate student who accompanied Nungesser to the hearing contested this last point, “The panel were asking sensible questions; they were equally asked of Paul, and had been asked of Paul through the entire process."[13] Nungesser complained that he had not been allowed to introduce Facebook messages as evidence.[13] Two days after the alleged rape, Sulkowicz accepted an invitation from Nungesser via Facebook messaging to come to a party, responding; "lol yusss, Also I feel like we need to have some real time where we can talk about life and thingz, because we still haven’t really had a paul-emma chill sesh since summmmerrrr."[24] "
Sulkowicz complains about the hearing, and we cite a pro-Nungesser source. Nungesser makes a claim, and we give specific example of supporting evidence, and then cite another pro-Nungesser source.
Cathy Young sort of admits that these messages aren't particularly persuasive: "To be sure, many rape victims’ advocates would argue that women traumatized by sexual violence, especially by someone they trusted and cared about, may deal with trauma in ways that don’t make sense to an observer". Mic.com and Jezebel both make this same point (those citations are clearly being misused there), the NYMag article you cited also makes the same point. Somehow we mention the messages three separate times without making a note of that fact. Nblund ( talk) 01:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I think we have at least some common ground. So here's what I think makes sense, I'm open to suggestions.
I went ahead and made these changes. I think the comments from Zavadski could be moved to a reception section if we also moved commentary from the grad student, but I wanted to at least one pro-Sulkowicz comment for balance. I think it would also be reasonable to discuss dedicating a paragraph in that section to a balanced discussion of the responses to the Facebook messages. Nblund ( talk) 18:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I tried to be more diplomatic about this in my initial edit summary, but it was added back in. Let me be more direct: I removed this content because its clearly copy-pasted with minimal changes from this article. Just changing a couple of words around doesn't fix the problem.
Wiki | Specified grievances include: that a school-owned website had presented as fact that he sexually assaulted Sulkowicz;[39] that the school allowed Sulkowicz to carry a mattress into classes, the library, and on campus-provided transportation as part of her senior thesis; and that Kessler approved the Mattress Project for course credit allegedly in violation of Title IX, a federal law mandating that federally funded educational institutions not discriminate based on gender.[5] ...
He stated, "Day-to-day life is unbearably stressful, as Emma and her mattress parade around campus each and every day".[39] As a result of publicity that resulted in media reports in 35 countries, he says he "has been subjected to severe, pervasive ... and threatening behavior by other Columbia students".[41] He says he desires to stay in the US, where he has been dating a girlfriend for over a year and he is seeking consulting work in New York but job prospects have been "severely jeopardised" by the school’s support of Sulkowicz.[42] |
Source | In his lawsuit, Mr Nungesser said a Columbia-owned website had presented as fact that he sexually assaulted Ms Sulkowicz. It said that the school allowed Sulkowicz to carry a mattress into classes, the library and campus-provided transportation as part of her senior thesis, that Prof Kessler approved the “Mattress Project” for her course credit and that Sulkowicz’s pledge to carry her mattress to graduation may prevent Mr Nungesser and his parents, who’d like to fly from Germany, from participating in graduation ceremonies.“Day-to-day life is unbearably stressful, as Emma and her mattress parade around campus each and every day,” the suit said.As a result of publicity that resulted in media reports in 35 countries, the lawsuit said, Mr Nungesser “has been subjected to severe, pervasive ... and threatening behaviour by other Columbia students, believing that Paul is a ‘serial rapist,’ whenever Paul has appeared at university activities.” |
Don't restore this as is. Nblund ( talk) 21:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't know why this statement is included: "Cathy Young stated that his case was fabricated.[24]" This is about the male student who claims to have been assaulted. There is no reason to believe that Cathy Young has any inside knowledge of something that happened between two individuals, most likely with no one else observing. It makes no sense that her statement, which simply must be no more than an opinion, would be included here. This is not factual. I am removing it. LaMona ( talk) 01:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure this should be titled Columbia University rape controversy, perhaps Mattress Performance rape controversy is better because Columbia University has done nothing wrong from what I am reading. Any opinions? @ Darwinian Ape:, @ DGG:, @ Isaidnoway:. Valoem talk contrib 13:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Apart from the fact that the events had taken place at the Columbia university, Nungesser sued the university. So it's a main actor and also the venue. The current title returns 648 results in google, while " Mattress Performance rape controversy" returns zero, so the current name is more in line with WP:COMMONNAME. But the current title is a bit vague, for it can be any number of rape controversies in Columbia University past or future. There was also another title suggestion( Performance art rape allegations at Columbia University) at the AFD discussion, suggested by @ Bus stop: and endorsed by @ E.M.Gregory:, pinging them for additional input. Though this title doesn't return any results either. I also feel like "controversy" is a best way to describe this kerfuffle, so it should be in the title. "Mattress Performance rape controversy at Columbia University" perhaps? Darwinian Ape talk 17:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
My issue with the current title is the word "rape" being in the title without any qualifiers being attached to it, like alleged or allegation. The title now implies there was a controversy about a person who was convicted of a crime. We should be mindful of WP:BLP in this matter, and since an editor invoked WP:COMMONNAME up above, the sources reporting on this story all clearly agree on "alleged rape" and/or "rape allegations", our article title should reflect that as well.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Regarding this: I think it's the third time I've removed it, and I've noted repeatedly in edit summaries that it isn't actually in the cited source. If there is another source that does contain this bit of information, we should cite it, but it does need a citation. Nblund ( talk) 20:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that the previous summary we had of the source was adequate, and we do not need to verbatim quote it in order to inform the reader of the relevant information from it. However, reasonable minds could disagree. Valoem, why do you believe this verbatim quoting is necessary? PeterTheFourth ( talk) 12:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Not seeing an issue with the reverted edit. Arkon ( talk) 17:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
McArdle also said that Sulkowitz's account has "some problems" including her messages to Nungesser. — Granger ( talk · contribs) 21:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
McArdle also said that Sulkowitz's account has "some problems" including her messages to Nungesser, but its doesn't give due weight when compared to the criticism of Nugesser. Yes she did criticize his decision to sue the school, but due to the likely falsehood of Sulkowicz's accusation she believes the focus of the lawsuit should be Sulkowicz. 12:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Update On closer examination, it appears that much of the material we're discussing was previously removed and was restored in this edit, which didn't really acknowledge the change. Much of the section on "Nungesser's Lawsuit" was taken word for word from the very first version of the article. Some of this material was out of date, plagiarized, or just plain poorly written, and had been improved by subsequent edits without controversy. None of these reversions were justified or explained, or even acknowledged in the edit summary. It shouldn't be this hard to replace quotes with paraphrases or to remove obviously plagiarized or unsourced material. Nblund talk 01:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia | AU News |
---|---|
Specified grievances include: that a school-owned website had presented as fact that he sexually assaulted Sulkowicz; that the school allowed Sulkowicz to carry a mattress into classes, the library, and on campus-provided transportation as part of her senior thesis; and that Kessler approved the Mattress Project for course credit allegedly in violation of Title IX, a federal law mandating that federally funded educational institutions not discriminate based on gender. | In his lawsuit, Mr Nungesser said a Columbia-owned website had presented as fact that he sexually assaulted Ms Sulkowicz. It said that the school allowed Sulkowicz to carry a mattress into classes, the library and campus-provided transportation as part of her senior thesis, that Prof Kessler approved the “Mattress Project” for her course credit and that Sulkowicz’s pledge to carry her mattress to graduation may prevent Mr Nungesser and his parents, who’d like to fly from Germany, from participating in graduation ceremonies. |
He stated, "Day-to-day life is unbearably stressful, as Emma and her mattress parade around campus each and every day".[45] As a result of publicity that resulted in media reports in 35 countries, he says he "has been subjected to severe, pervasive ... and threatening behavior by other Columbia students".[45] He says he desires to stay in the US, where he has been dating a girlfriend for over a year and he is seeking consulting work in New York but job prospects have been "severely jeopardised" by the school’s support of Sulkowicz.[48] | “Day-to-day life is unbearably stressful, as Emma and her mattress parade around campus each and every day,” the suit said.As a result of publicity that resulted in media reports in 35 countries, the lawsuit said, Mr Nungesser “has been subjected to severe, pervasive ... and threatening behaviour by other Columbia students, believing that Paul is a ‘serial rapist,’ whenever Paul has appeared at university activities.”The complaint also said he wants to stay in the United States, where he has been dating a girlfriend for over a year, and is seeking consulting work in New York, though job prospects have been “severely jeopardised” by the school’s support of Ms Sulkowicz. |
Can we incorporate these into the main article? If so, should I just suggest an addition and make the edit to the article? 76.79.205.162 ( talk) 18:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Why is this entry not entitled something like "Columbia University Rape Allegation Controversy"? Isn't that a more accurate title to this whole thing? The current title really has the appearance of victim-blaming. 76.79.205.162 ( talk) 18:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
@ Arkon: Can you please help me with two things: One - is it appropriate to use google results? If not no problem I am not pushing an agenda here. 2.) I do feel the title is a little misleading. What do you think? 76.79.205.162 ( talk) 18:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
@ Mattnad:, @ Isaidnoway:, @ PeterTheFourth: Can someone please give me some feedback on the idea of changing the title to this article? 76.79.205.162 ( talk) 19:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Instead of arguing over whether a header should say Responses from Sulkowicz and Columbia University or Columbia University response, break this down into two areas of the article under separate headers. Bus stop ( talk) 12:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
There are multiple problems with the lead and since I did not want to be pulled into an edit war, I tagged the article. Can we have a discussion on how to improve the wording, especially in the lead.
In May 2014, Sulkowicz filed a report against Nungesser with the New York Police Department (NYPD), but declined to pursue an investigation after Sulkowicz discovered the case could extend past her graduation and be a source of secondary victimization, when she would probably want to "erase all of [her] memories of Columbia"
This part seems to suggest, in wiki voice, that she had some sort of power to halt a criminal investigation. It also contains OR since i could not find anything about being "a source of secondary victimization" in citations. Overall the lead should be a summary but it seems it's more like a statement from Ms. Sulkowicz.
After Columbia failed to take action against Nungesser, Sulkowicz focused her senior thesis on a work of performance art entitled Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)
This part is also problematic, claiming "Columbia failed to take action" in wiki voice is a violation of NPOV. It seems the Editor Jayx80 is a bit unfamiliar with the WP:NPOV rules and keep insisting adding heavy pov language into the article. Darwinian Ape talk 15:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Columbia University rape controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
The article repeatedly (but not consistently) refers to single persons in the plural, which is confusing. If Wikipedia has made a collective decision to eliminate gender from its articles, this article should also eliminate gendered terms such as "son" and "daughter", "man" and "woman", etc. Otherwise, the article should conform to standard English rules of number and use singular pronouns for single persons. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a haven for every political quirk. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 18:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes but this makes the article almost unreadable. If tomorrow she says her pronoun is 'Lord Jesus Christ' are you going to refer to her as that from now on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.134.89.78 ( talk) 12:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I have understood that Ms. Sulkowicz likes to be referred to as "them" as part of her way of life. That is of course ok. But obviously, Ms. Sulkowicz is an individual person and not a group of people. I think the choice of language in an encyclopedia should reflect the facts and not an unconventional interpretation of grammar in the light of an artistic way of life. The English version of Wikipedia is also read by many people for whom English is a foreign language (like me). To stay fair, the English version of Wikipedia should be comprehensible to everyone who masters the standard grammar and vocabulary of English. Otherwise, it will get exclusive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.28.92 ( talk) 12:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
(
Personal attack removed) can refer to themselves with any kind of pronoun but they can't tell others what pronoun they must use for them. You can't force english speakers to say Yerusalem, or spanish speakers to not to call New York Nueva York. So I am gonna change the article to the proper pronouns she/her.
Can someone at least re-work the sentences to make them readable? e.g. In the intro, "them in Sulkowicz's dorm room" can be changed to "Sulkowicz in their dorm room", which makes the sentence not sound completely wrong, and still leaves the gender issue unresolved. 190.149.63.130 ( talk) 05:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)Michael
I changed all "they" to "Sulkowicz" and corrected verb number to singular (e.g. "were" to "was"). This makes it accurate but still awkward without resolving the larger "they" argument. Smulthaup ( talk) 02:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I have submitted this to RfC - biographies. Smulthaup ( talk) 04:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
At a minimum, from the WP:GENDERID: "When a person's gender self-designation may come as a surprise to readers, explain it without overemphasis on first occurrence in an article." should apply. On that basis I will revert to include "(who refers to one's self by the non-gender binary pronoun 'them')". However, I think the number agreement of the verb should still be singular and not plural. I still endorse that an RfC is needed. Since you seem interested in the subject, I volunteer you to create the "properly formatted RfC". Smulthaup ( talk) 07:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
In the article that is listed as source 17 (
https://www.thecut.com/2019/10/did-emma-sulkowicz-mattress-performance-get-redpilled.html), Sulkowicz instructed the author to use the pronouns she/her. This article is from 8/28/19. The article is quoted below:
"Since 2016, Sulkowicz has identified as gender fluid, and she sometimes uses they/them pronouns. When I ask what to use for this article, she texts me, “Lol I’m not clear about it either,” before settling on she/her."
Unless there is more current information available, this should put the question of which pronouns to use for Sulkowicz to bed. Not only do she and her clarify the article by clearing the confusion on plurality, the very person who we are referring to chose them. If anyone has more current and conflicting information, then please share it. If none can be found or none exists, then Wikipedia should use she/her when referring to Sulkowicz. Phafner ( talk) 03:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
According to another Talk page ( /info/en/?search=Talk:Mattress_Performance_(Carry_That_Weight) ) the accused should not be named since they made attempts to conceal their privacy over the course of the incident:
"Q4: Why does the article not name the accused?
A criminal allegation was made, but the accused was not convicted or charged. An additional consideration is that he is otherwise not notable. Although he has given interviews to newspapers that have named him, he has been photographed for these from behind, so he appears to want to preserve some anonymity. One discussion concluded that the accused could be named only if his full defense was detailed in the article. This condition has not been met, so the accused's name currently cannot be included."
Should all explicit references to him by name by removed? Tibbs runner ( talk) 14:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
even using the preferred pronouns the sentence would sound better than "Sulkowicz said that Sulkowicz declined to pursue an investigation, and stated that NYPD officers were dismissive and had mistreated them"
after "Sulkowicz said that they declined to pursue an investigation, and stated that NYPD officers were dismissive and had mistreated them" Nailo1234 ( talk) 15:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
ok, i won't change it Nailo1234 ( talk) 20:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
In the article that is listed as source 17 ( https://www.thecut.com/2019/10/did-emma-sulkowicz-mattress-performance-get-redpilled.html), Sulkowicz instructed the author to use the pronouns she/her. This article is from 8/28/19. The article is quoted below:
"Since 2016, Sulkowicz has identified as gender fluid, and she sometimes uses they/them pronouns. When I ask what to use for this article, she texts me, “Lol I’m not clear about it either,” before settling on she/her."
Unless there is more current information available, this should put the question of which pronouns to use for Sulkowicz to bed. Not only do she and her clarify the article by clearing the confusion on plurality, the very person who we are referring to chose them. If anyone has more current and conflicting information, then please share it. If none can be found or none exists, then Wikipedia should use she/her when referring to Sulkowicz.
I hit the "enter" key accidentally and submitted this edit before completing the edit summary. What I was going to say was: I'm not sure how we can justify removing opinions supporting Sulkowicz by stating that opinion content 'doesn't belong' and then at the same time add an opinion critical of Sulkowicz. In principal I'm not opposed to adding the statement from Halley in the opinion section, but the article already contains a disproportionate number of anti-Sulkowicz sources as it is and we should probably attempt a rough balance. Nblund talk 19:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi All. Regarding this revert: Do we want to disparage a living person based on one article (even attributed), in an article not about them, with the sentence also not (mostly) being about the subject of the article? Arkon ( talk) 21:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if it was incompetence or vandalism, but the quote "wanting to erase all of my memories of Columbia" [2] got changed to "all of [them]" and then [all of their]. Doug Weller talk 14:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Editors here might be interested in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style on the issue of gender neutral language, arising out of an editor quickly changing "mankind" to "humankind" in about 150 articles. @ PeterTheFourth:, I've made it clear where I stand on this (not where you seem to think I stand). Doug Weller talk 16:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
In the article that is listed as source 17 ( https://www.thecut.com/2019/10/did-emma-sulkowicz-mattress-performance-get-redpilled.html), Sulkowicz instructed the author to use the pronouns she/her. This article is from 8/28/19. The article is quoted below:
"Since 2016, Sulkowicz has identified as gender fluid, and she sometimes uses they/them pronouns. When I ask what to use for this article, she texts me, “Lol I’m not clear about it either,” before settling on she/her."
Unless there is more current information available, this should put the question of which pronouns to use for Sulkowicz to bed. Not only do she and her clarify the article by clearing the confusion on plurality, the very person who we are referring to chose them. If anyone has more current and conflicting information, then please share it. If none can be found or none exists, then Wikipedia should use she/her when referring to Sulkowicz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phafner ( talk • contribs) 03:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
As a recent edit might charitably be interpreted as having suggested (although it was worded badly), the video seems like it might be relevant enough to mention and link-to in the article's prose, and not just in the 'See also' section where it is now. A sentence could be added to the section "Sulkowicz's performance art piece" (possibly even changing the section title from "piece" to "pieces"), perhaps along the lines of "Sulkowicz later created another piece of performance art, Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol ("This is not a rape"), a website with an eight minute video of Sulkowicz having sex with an anonymous actor in a dorm room at Columbia University." (Using but condensing the wording of that article's lead.) What do you think? (Has this been discussed before? I don't see any prior discussion on this talk page.) -sche ( talk) 00:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
The FAQ at Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) states that Nungesser is not named in that article due to BLP and notability issues, however his name appears prominently in this article. I've started a discussion at Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)#"The accused" (Paul Nungesser) to address the inconsistency. – dlthewave ☎ 01:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
The article title is wrong - it was a rape accusation, not a rape
Paul Nungesser was found not responsible 158.123.57.161 ( talk) 18:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I know this has been discussed above, but not solved yet, so I changed the use of pronouns back to standard English practices. Just because Sulkowicz identifies as non-binary and uses »they/them« pronouns, does not mean that an encyclopaedic article about her should do the same. Wikipedia doesn’t exist to pursue an individual preference writing style, but to deliver facts as clearly comprehensible as possible. This aim is certainly not achieved, when »they/them/their« are used to replace »her«. Doing so, as was the state here on 22nd September 2018, distorts and obscures the facts in important ways, for example:
I have great respect for the important issues of gender preference acceptance, but making language incomprehensible is not the way to do it. Something like »[her]«, or alternatively [their], might be acceptable if it becomes a Wikipedia-wide standard. But until it does, we should stick to standard English practices. -- Sprachraum ( talk) 07:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
This is a bit of a quandary here, because the use of "them" as this sentence "alleging he had raped them..." is in fact a BLP violation as it implies the accuser raped more than one person. This wording should be changed or improved. Which policy takes precedence here - MOS or BLP? I'm really not sure how else to word it without continually using Sulkowitz's name. Mr Ernie ( talk) 18:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Singular they is of long standing in English, indeed it is older than the now-similarly-widespread singular you.Huh? Grandpallama ( talk) 15:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Came here to point out it's totally unreadable. So add me to the list of people Nblund thinks is dumb. 146.115.150.192 ( talk) 02:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
As someone who loves Wikipedia, this is embarrassing. Stop with the copy-and-pasted Oceania's history of the English language. Citing studies which you have clearly not even bothered to read doesn't help your argument. I obviously agree it's unreadable, and more importantly, it's not in keeping with encyclopedic standards. 2601:18F:4101:4830:C05A:15B6:D2BA:E0ED ( talk) 06:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
"they're not female". I am only aware of sources such as this. It is saying Sulkowicz, who has been working as an artist since graduation, identifies as non-binary, and uses the gender-neutral pronouns "they" and "them." Bus stop ( talk) 13:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
In the most recent published interview with Sulkowicz ( [1]), she chose to go with she/her pronouns. That should be we should be able to make this article actually readable using the proper single-person pronouns. At least until she changes her mind again, which highlights the stupidity of slavishly following personal identity when attempting to write clear, encyclopedic text. 76.211.117.219 ( talk) 19:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I have posted this in a few other places, but the poster above is 100% correct. In the article that is listed as source 17 ( https://www.thecut.com/2019/10/did-emma-sulkowicz-mattress-performance-get-redpilled.html), Sulkowicz instructed the author to use the pronouns she/her. This article is from 8/28/19. The article is quoted below:
"Since 2016, Sulkowicz has identified as gender fluid, and she sometimes uses they/them pronouns. When I ask what to use for this article, she texts me, “Lol I’m not clear about it either,” before settling on she/her."
Unless there is more current information available, this should put the question of which pronouns to use for Sulkowicz to bed. Not only do she and her clarify the article by clearing the confusion on plurality, the very person who we are referring to chose them. If anyone has more current and conflicting information, then please share it. If none can be found or none exists, then Wikipedia should use she/her when referring to Sulkowicz. Phafner ( talk) 03:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Any objections? Doug Weller talk 08:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
They are not quoted above, the messages in their entirety is his defense, removing the FB messages is a violation of NPOV. Valoem talk contrib 21:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
all of these sources suggest she lied
- this is not even remotely close to what I asked for. I asked for sources that explained why and how the Facebook messages were essential to the lawsuit, and some explanation for why these three quotes needed to be included verbatim. The Mining Journal/Chicago Sun Times source (it's the same article reprinted in a different outlet) doesn't mention the the lawsuit at all. Neither does the Jezebel source. Cathy Young's editorial does mention it, but it's simply a single sentence that says the messages "figured heavily" in to the suit without explanation. It should go without saying that a Cathy Young editorial is not a viable model for a BLP entry.
The assertion that the Wikipedia "does not show the cited evidence" is flatly false, as has been explained repeatedly: the article mentions the Facebook messages already in two separate places. Mona Charen is already cited. Cathy Young is cited (14 times). It may not present the evidence in precisely the way that you prefer it, but it does present it. You're treading in to WP:IDHT territory here. Nblund talk 15:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Two days later on August 29, 2012, Paul Facebook messaged Emma to invite her to a gathering in his room, stating, "small shindig in our room tonight bring cool freshmen." Emma messaged back four minutes later, "lol yussss also ifeel like we need to have some real time where we can talk about life and thingz." Paul immediately agreed, writing "word." Emma continued, because we still haven’t really had a paul-emma chill sesh since summmerrrrr." Paul responded "when are you guys coming through." Emma wrote, "I’ll probs come at 10:45. Is that cool?0." Paul wrote back "sweet - yeah - you at the fencing thing." Emma wrote back "Yeah I’m just gonna chill with them for a bit haha is ado a rager?" 3 Paul wrote back "naah - a little too many guys right now haha - so bring some peepz." Emma wrote back "Okay let them know I’ll be der w dafemales spon." At 11:06 p.m., she messaged Paul "Ack are people still there? Heading over now."
Paul remained at the ADP party but he and Emma did not see one another. The next day, he messaged her at 4:55 p.m., "part II tonight - you’re coming?" She messaged him Her reference to ADP, Alpha Delta Pi, was to the coed fraternity of which she and Paul were both members, Some ADP members live in the ADP house near campus. [8] back seconds later, "lol i came and left
lready!" Paul responded, "lolcats - when were you here - I dont believe you its not the truth - to the tune ofpretty women."
Two weeks later, on September 9, 2012, Emma messaged Paul, "I wanna see yoyououoyou" Thereafter, Paul sent Emma a happy birthday message as follows ’oh hai happy born day! you better be celebrating muchos, no? also: donde estas tu i mi viva - see i’m so desperate with out you, i even try to speak spanish, 4- anywho: merry happy days!" Emma responded, "I love you Paul. Where are you?!?!?!?!"
Jezebel also interviewed Sulkowicz where he confirmed that she sent the message without being threaten. Jezebel and NYPost. I have demonstrated significant sources mentioning the Facebook messages as evidence. Valoem talk contrib 18:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)"Facebook messages that he and Sulkowicz sent to each other before and after the alleged rape. The messages sound friendly: “I feel like we need to have some real time where we can talk about life and thingz/because we still haven’t really had a paul-emma chill sesh since summmmerrrr,” Sulkowicz wrote a few days after the night in question. After The Daily Beast published the exchanges, Sulkowicz explained them to the website Jezebel, recalling, “I’m being irrational, thinking that talking with him would help me. Sulkowicz says some of the Facebook messages were admitted as evidence. Her recollection is at odds with that of a graduate student who attended the hearings with Nungesser, as his designated “supporter,” and said the messages were not included. In court, the Facebook messages surrounding the night of the alleged rape would probably be admitted in a criminal case as relevant, according to Deborah Tuerkheimer, a Northwestern University law professor, and the alleged victim would also have the chance to explain them. (This is also what Columbia’s policy now appears to provide, though the rule was somewhat different at the time of the hearing."
I have demonstrated significant sources mentioning the Facebook messages as evidence.. Everyone agrees that the messages are important for the story, that's why they're cited in the entry. I'm asking for sources that explain how these quotes are central for the lawsuit against Colombia University. I understand that they are mentioned, but court filings often contain lots of information that isn't legally significant.
While an RfC might be preferable to continuing to flog this dead horse, I don't really think it's warranted here since there's a fairly clear consensus already. Valoem: if you choose to go this route, then you would need to ask the straightforward question of whether this version is preferable to the current version. If you post an RfC that asks "should we include the Facebook messages?", I might have an aneu rysm.
As for biased editing: you need to either bring that accusation to ANI and provide diffs or you need to drop it all together. Nblund talk 14:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
By the time of Sulkowicz's last message, which they sent in March 2013, they said they had visited the university's Office of Gender-Based Misconduct and that they had asked whether they had tried talking to the accused...") has been moved along with the messages into the same section, which means that even people who might want to quote the messages in their entirety might !vote against that diff as not being NPOV, and/or if an RfC decided in favor of that diff, there might then be edit-warring over whether or not adding contextualizing information to (rather than subtracting from) the messages was consistent with the RfC.
...are under discussion at Talk:Emma Sulkowicz/Archive 1#Removal_of_pronouns and Talk:Emma Sulkowicz#"Sulkowicz_stated_that_Sulkowicz_declined_to_pursue", since that article contains language about the same things and has been subject to similar back-and-forth editing. In the interest of clarity, let me leave this pointer here and centralize discussion there. -sche ( talk) 16:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
In the article that is listed as source 17 ( https://www.thecut.com/2019/10/did-emma-sulkowicz-mattress-performance-get-redpilled.html), Sulkowicz instructed the author to use the pronouns she/her. This article is from 8/28/19. The article is quoted below:
"Since 2016, Sulkowicz has identified as gender fluid, and she sometimes uses they/them pronouns. When I ask what to use for this article, she texts me, “Lol I’m not clear about it either,” before settling on she/her."
Unless there is more current information available, this should put the question of which pronouns to use for Sulkowicz to bed. Not only do she and her clarify the article by clearing the confusion on plurality, the very person who we are referring to chose them. If anyone has more current and conflicting information, then please share it. If none can be found or none exists, then Wikipedia should use she/her when referring to Sulkowicz. Phafner ( talk) 03:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
I feel like this is a more neutral title than the current one, which implies there actually was a rape, as opposed to it being a he said/she said situation. Jtrainor ( talk) 03:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Frequently asked questions These issues have been discussed on the talk page or noticeboards, in some cases several times. Please consult the FAQ before raising the same questions. Many thanks! Q1: What does it mean to say that discretionary sanctions apply to the page?
The
Arbitration Committee has approved
special sanctions for
pages about gender-related controversies and (separately) for
pages about living persons. Both sets of sanctions apply to this article and talk page. This means that administrators may topic-ban and block editors who cause problems, particularly editors who violate the
living-persons policy (BLP). Q2: Do I need to create an account to edit this article and talk page?
No. You may edit while logged out if the pages are not
semi-protected. But you should not edit logged out or use alternative accounts to
avoid scrutiny or give the impression that you are more than one person. While alternative accounts are allowed in some circumstances, they should be avoided on pages that have become contentious. Q3: Does Wikipedia have an opinion about these allegations?
No.
WP:BLPCRIME says: "A person accused of a crime is
presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law." Q4: If I believe the allegations are true or false, may I add that?
No.
BLP applies to all living people. The article must be neutral in tone, and should not state that the accused or accusers are lying, wrong or acting in bad faith. Wikipedia must assume a disinterested position.
AVOIDVICTIM may apply to all parties. Q5: May I offer my opinion on the talk page about what happened?
No.
BLP applies to all pages on Wikipedia, including talk pages. Furthermore, a talk page is
not a forum. Q6: Why does the article not link to the lawsuit?
The lawsuit is a
primary source, which means it was written by one of the involved parties.
BLPPRIMARY allows the careful use of primary sources, but they should not be used to support contentious claims about living persons. Anything contentious in the article should rely on independent
secondary sources (articles written by people not involved in the dispute). Q7: Why does the article refer to Sulkowicz with the pronouns that it does?
MOS:IDENTITY says: "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example 'man/woman', 'waiter/waitress', 'chairman/chairwoman') that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. [...] Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions (in some cases adjusting the portion used may reduce apparent contradictions, and ' [
sic]' may be used where necessary)." |
This article was nominated for deletion on 4 May 2016. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article related to an individual uses the pronouns she/her. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Deletion discussion here Nblund ( talk) 21:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Regardless of what happens with the deletion discussion: primary sources should be avoided for BLP materials, and legal filings, in particular, should not be used as sources. This article seems perilously close to a POV fork if it hasn't already crossed that line, and including references that have been already been discussed and rejected at the other entry definitely add to that problem. Nblund ( talk) 23:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
This entry is a spinout of an article that is already under discretionary sanctions. I've never dealt with this before, but it seems like the same sanctions would almost certainly apply here. Any objections to adding that tag? Nblund ( talk) 00:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
There seems to be undue emphasis on the article by Cathy Young - it is cited 13 times and makes up a significant part of the "Reception" section. Looking at the Young article and its author, it isn't clear why this is given such weight. The implication is that Young is the key expert on this topic, but I don't think that is the case. What do others think? LaMona ( talk) 19:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I went ahead and combined the "Commentary on the lawsuit" and "Reception" sections. They appear to both be composed of editorial content critical or supportive of one side or the other, so it seemed sensible to put them together. I trimmed a couple of excessively long quotes: all of the quotes were 2+ sentences long, and the one from Samantha Harris was 6 or 7 lines long.
Regarding balance: the "commentary on lawsuit" contained 3 quotes that appeared to be positive about the lawsuit, and one quote that appeared negative, and there seemed to be a major length discrepancy. The "Reception" section contained 5 sources making negative statements about Sulkowicz, and 2 making positive statements. The current revision is still off-balance (4 vs 2, with McCardle's being both negative and positive), but hopefully is a little more balanced in terms of the space afforded to each side. This could still use some work. Nblund ( talk) 02:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Pinging Valoem once again. I'm certainly open to compromising on these edits, but you haven't bothered to participate in the discussion on the talk page, even though I pinged you previously, and your edit summary doesn't offer any meaningful insight in to why you think these block quotes are necessary. Nblund ( talk) 21:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
This line, "political journalist Ian Tuttle criticized Sulkowicz's response and wrote in National Review that 'what Sulkowicz wants is to make claims about another person that cannot be challenged, checked, questioned, or doubted'" is a direct response to this quote:
“ | I have already been violated by both Paul and Columbia University once. It is extremely upsetting that Paul would violate me again — this time, with the help of a reporter, Cathy Young. I just wanted to fix the problem of sexual assault on campus — I never wanted this to be an excuse for people to dig through my private Facebook messages and frame them in a way as to cast doubt on my character. It’s unfair and disgusting that Paul and Cathy would treat personal life as a mine that they can dig through and harvest for publicity and Paul’s public image. | ” |
Removing the context makes it more difficult to comprehend, this shows a clearer picture. Also the bulk of his defense is based on Facebook messages sent, you seem intent on removing it. Valoem talk contrib 22:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Since I haven't gotten a response from either Valoem or Mattnad, I went ahead and rearranged things again. The "commentary on the lawsuit" section was composed entirely of opinion content, so it seems like it should be a subheading of "reception". I trimmed, paraphrased and rearranged some quotes. There's still a discrepancy in terms of the size and length dedicated to pro-Sulkowicz vs. pro-Nungesser commentary here. Nblund ( talk) 20:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Since it's come up again, I went ahead and posted at the RS noticeboard about whether or not an NYPOST opinion column is a reliable source for a claim of fact or quotation from a living person. I also asked for feedback on the citations to Jezebel.com and the Daily Beast. Nblund ( talk) 15:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I restored a part that was deleted "Journalist and writer Naomi Schaefer Riley wrote in the New York Post that two days after the alleged rape, Nungesser had invited Sulkowicz via Facebook messaging to come to a party saying, "Small shindig in our room tonight-bring cool freshman." And she responded, "lol yusss, Also I feel like we need to have some real time where we can talk about life and thingz, because we still haven’t really had a paul-emma chill sesh since summmmerrrr". A couple weeks later Sulkowicz messaged saying "I want to see yoyououoyou". Riley noted that there are six pages' worth of back-and-forth Facebook messages between the two which were released by Nungesser and subsequently published by Cathy Young. Sulkowicz has confirmed the authenticity of the messages, but has said that snippets have been published out of context."
While NY post article is an opinion piece, we attribute it to the author and messages are independently verifiable through Cathy Young source. Also in the Jezebel article Sulkowicz confirms the authenticity. I think the sources are adequate to include the content I just restored.
Darwinian Ape
talk 19:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Sulkowicz tells Jezebel there are more than a few things wrong with these transcripts. First, included are conversations that happened between them months before the alleged assault. Second, time stamps are removed, and the conversations featured omissions that Sulkowicz felt painted a misleading picture. She informed Young of her concerns.
"Sulkowicz has confirmed the authenticity of the messages, but has said that snippets have been published out of context. Sulkowicz says she sent the messages because she was upset and wanted to talk to Nungesser about the incident."And the statements from Riley piece is attributed to the author. My problem with the reverted text was that it described the events in a he said she said manner. I think we should avoid that when we have the opportunity to present actual quotations. I've added NYMag source and tweaked a bit. Darwinian Ape talk 00:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Aren't her views still being presented in a "she said" manner? Take a look at that paragraph:
"She complained that a university investigator took inaccurate notes of interviews with her, and that she had to offer unnecessarily graphic details during the hearing.[17] A graduate student who accompanied Nungesser to the hearing contested this last point, “The panel were asking sensible questions; they were equally asked of Paul, and had been asked of Paul through the entire process."[13] Nungesser complained that he had not been allowed to introduce Facebook messages as evidence.[13] Two days after the alleged rape, Sulkowicz accepted an invitation from Nungesser via Facebook messaging to come to a party, responding; "lol yusss, Also I feel like we need to have some real time where we can talk about life and thingz, because we still haven’t really had a paul-emma chill sesh since summmmerrrr."[24] "
Sulkowicz complains about the hearing, and we cite a pro-Nungesser source. Nungesser makes a claim, and we give specific example of supporting evidence, and then cite another pro-Nungesser source.
Cathy Young sort of admits that these messages aren't particularly persuasive: "To be sure, many rape victims’ advocates would argue that women traumatized by sexual violence, especially by someone they trusted and cared about, may deal with trauma in ways that don’t make sense to an observer". Mic.com and Jezebel both make this same point (those citations are clearly being misused there), the NYMag article you cited also makes the same point. Somehow we mention the messages three separate times without making a note of that fact. Nblund ( talk) 01:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I think we have at least some common ground. So here's what I think makes sense, I'm open to suggestions.
I went ahead and made these changes. I think the comments from Zavadski could be moved to a reception section if we also moved commentary from the grad student, but I wanted to at least one pro-Sulkowicz comment for balance. I think it would also be reasonable to discuss dedicating a paragraph in that section to a balanced discussion of the responses to the Facebook messages. Nblund ( talk) 18:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I tried to be more diplomatic about this in my initial edit summary, but it was added back in. Let me be more direct: I removed this content because its clearly copy-pasted with minimal changes from this article. Just changing a couple of words around doesn't fix the problem.
Wiki | Specified grievances include: that a school-owned website had presented as fact that he sexually assaulted Sulkowicz;[39] that the school allowed Sulkowicz to carry a mattress into classes, the library, and on campus-provided transportation as part of her senior thesis; and that Kessler approved the Mattress Project for course credit allegedly in violation of Title IX, a federal law mandating that federally funded educational institutions not discriminate based on gender.[5] ...
He stated, "Day-to-day life is unbearably stressful, as Emma and her mattress parade around campus each and every day".[39] As a result of publicity that resulted in media reports in 35 countries, he says he "has been subjected to severe, pervasive ... and threatening behavior by other Columbia students".[41] He says he desires to stay in the US, where he has been dating a girlfriend for over a year and he is seeking consulting work in New York but job prospects have been "severely jeopardised" by the school’s support of Sulkowicz.[42] |
Source | In his lawsuit, Mr Nungesser said a Columbia-owned website had presented as fact that he sexually assaulted Ms Sulkowicz. It said that the school allowed Sulkowicz to carry a mattress into classes, the library and campus-provided transportation as part of her senior thesis, that Prof Kessler approved the “Mattress Project” for her course credit and that Sulkowicz’s pledge to carry her mattress to graduation may prevent Mr Nungesser and his parents, who’d like to fly from Germany, from participating in graduation ceremonies.“Day-to-day life is unbearably stressful, as Emma and her mattress parade around campus each and every day,” the suit said.As a result of publicity that resulted in media reports in 35 countries, the lawsuit said, Mr Nungesser “has been subjected to severe, pervasive ... and threatening behaviour by other Columbia students, believing that Paul is a ‘serial rapist,’ whenever Paul has appeared at university activities.” |
Don't restore this as is. Nblund ( talk) 21:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't know why this statement is included: "Cathy Young stated that his case was fabricated.[24]" This is about the male student who claims to have been assaulted. There is no reason to believe that Cathy Young has any inside knowledge of something that happened between two individuals, most likely with no one else observing. It makes no sense that her statement, which simply must be no more than an opinion, would be included here. This is not factual. I am removing it. LaMona ( talk) 01:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure this should be titled Columbia University rape controversy, perhaps Mattress Performance rape controversy is better because Columbia University has done nothing wrong from what I am reading. Any opinions? @ Darwinian Ape:, @ DGG:, @ Isaidnoway:. Valoem talk contrib 13:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Apart from the fact that the events had taken place at the Columbia university, Nungesser sued the university. So it's a main actor and also the venue. The current title returns 648 results in google, while " Mattress Performance rape controversy" returns zero, so the current name is more in line with WP:COMMONNAME. But the current title is a bit vague, for it can be any number of rape controversies in Columbia University past or future. There was also another title suggestion( Performance art rape allegations at Columbia University) at the AFD discussion, suggested by @ Bus stop: and endorsed by @ E.M.Gregory:, pinging them for additional input. Though this title doesn't return any results either. I also feel like "controversy" is a best way to describe this kerfuffle, so it should be in the title. "Mattress Performance rape controversy at Columbia University" perhaps? Darwinian Ape talk 17:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
My issue with the current title is the word "rape" being in the title without any qualifiers being attached to it, like alleged or allegation. The title now implies there was a controversy about a person who was convicted of a crime. We should be mindful of WP:BLP in this matter, and since an editor invoked WP:COMMONNAME up above, the sources reporting on this story all clearly agree on "alleged rape" and/or "rape allegations", our article title should reflect that as well.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Regarding this: I think it's the third time I've removed it, and I've noted repeatedly in edit summaries that it isn't actually in the cited source. If there is another source that does contain this bit of information, we should cite it, but it does need a citation. Nblund ( talk) 20:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that the previous summary we had of the source was adequate, and we do not need to verbatim quote it in order to inform the reader of the relevant information from it. However, reasonable minds could disagree. Valoem, why do you believe this verbatim quoting is necessary? PeterTheFourth ( talk) 12:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Not seeing an issue with the reverted edit. Arkon ( talk) 17:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
McArdle also said that Sulkowitz's account has "some problems" including her messages to Nungesser. — Granger ( talk · contribs) 21:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
McArdle also said that Sulkowitz's account has "some problems" including her messages to Nungesser, but its doesn't give due weight when compared to the criticism of Nugesser. Yes she did criticize his decision to sue the school, but due to the likely falsehood of Sulkowicz's accusation she believes the focus of the lawsuit should be Sulkowicz. 12:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Update On closer examination, it appears that much of the material we're discussing was previously removed and was restored in this edit, which didn't really acknowledge the change. Much of the section on "Nungesser's Lawsuit" was taken word for word from the very first version of the article. Some of this material was out of date, plagiarized, or just plain poorly written, and had been improved by subsequent edits without controversy. None of these reversions were justified or explained, or even acknowledged in the edit summary. It shouldn't be this hard to replace quotes with paraphrases or to remove obviously plagiarized or unsourced material. Nblund talk 01:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia | AU News |
---|---|
Specified grievances include: that a school-owned website had presented as fact that he sexually assaulted Sulkowicz; that the school allowed Sulkowicz to carry a mattress into classes, the library, and on campus-provided transportation as part of her senior thesis; and that Kessler approved the Mattress Project for course credit allegedly in violation of Title IX, a federal law mandating that federally funded educational institutions not discriminate based on gender. | In his lawsuit, Mr Nungesser said a Columbia-owned website had presented as fact that he sexually assaulted Ms Sulkowicz. It said that the school allowed Sulkowicz to carry a mattress into classes, the library and campus-provided transportation as part of her senior thesis, that Prof Kessler approved the “Mattress Project” for her course credit and that Sulkowicz’s pledge to carry her mattress to graduation may prevent Mr Nungesser and his parents, who’d like to fly from Germany, from participating in graduation ceremonies. |
He stated, "Day-to-day life is unbearably stressful, as Emma and her mattress parade around campus each and every day".[45] As a result of publicity that resulted in media reports in 35 countries, he says he "has been subjected to severe, pervasive ... and threatening behavior by other Columbia students".[45] He says he desires to stay in the US, where he has been dating a girlfriend for over a year and he is seeking consulting work in New York but job prospects have been "severely jeopardised" by the school’s support of Sulkowicz.[48] | “Day-to-day life is unbearably stressful, as Emma and her mattress parade around campus each and every day,” the suit said.As a result of publicity that resulted in media reports in 35 countries, the lawsuit said, Mr Nungesser “has been subjected to severe, pervasive ... and threatening behaviour by other Columbia students, believing that Paul is a ‘serial rapist,’ whenever Paul has appeared at university activities.”The complaint also said he wants to stay in the United States, where he has been dating a girlfriend for over a year, and is seeking consulting work in New York, though job prospects have been “severely jeopardised” by the school’s support of Ms Sulkowicz. |
Can we incorporate these into the main article? If so, should I just suggest an addition and make the edit to the article? 76.79.205.162 ( talk) 18:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Why is this entry not entitled something like "Columbia University Rape Allegation Controversy"? Isn't that a more accurate title to this whole thing? The current title really has the appearance of victim-blaming. 76.79.205.162 ( talk) 18:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
@ Arkon: Can you please help me with two things: One - is it appropriate to use google results? If not no problem I am not pushing an agenda here. 2.) I do feel the title is a little misleading. What do you think? 76.79.205.162 ( talk) 18:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
@ Mattnad:, @ Isaidnoway:, @ PeterTheFourth: Can someone please give me some feedback on the idea of changing the title to this article? 76.79.205.162 ( talk) 19:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Instead of arguing over whether a header should say Responses from Sulkowicz and Columbia University or Columbia University response, break this down into two areas of the article under separate headers. Bus stop ( talk) 12:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
There are multiple problems with the lead and since I did not want to be pulled into an edit war, I tagged the article. Can we have a discussion on how to improve the wording, especially in the lead.
In May 2014, Sulkowicz filed a report against Nungesser with the New York Police Department (NYPD), but declined to pursue an investigation after Sulkowicz discovered the case could extend past her graduation and be a source of secondary victimization, when she would probably want to "erase all of [her] memories of Columbia"
This part seems to suggest, in wiki voice, that she had some sort of power to halt a criminal investigation. It also contains OR since i could not find anything about being "a source of secondary victimization" in citations. Overall the lead should be a summary but it seems it's more like a statement from Ms. Sulkowicz.
After Columbia failed to take action against Nungesser, Sulkowicz focused her senior thesis on a work of performance art entitled Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)
This part is also problematic, claiming "Columbia failed to take action" in wiki voice is a violation of NPOV. It seems the Editor Jayx80 is a bit unfamiliar with the WP:NPOV rules and keep insisting adding heavy pov language into the article. Darwinian Ape talk 15:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Columbia University rape controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
The article repeatedly (but not consistently) refers to single persons in the plural, which is confusing. If Wikipedia has made a collective decision to eliminate gender from its articles, this article should also eliminate gendered terms such as "son" and "daughter", "man" and "woman", etc. Otherwise, the article should conform to standard English rules of number and use singular pronouns for single persons. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a haven for every political quirk. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 18:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes but this makes the article almost unreadable. If tomorrow she says her pronoun is 'Lord Jesus Christ' are you going to refer to her as that from now on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.134.89.78 ( talk) 12:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I have understood that Ms. Sulkowicz likes to be referred to as "them" as part of her way of life. That is of course ok. But obviously, Ms. Sulkowicz is an individual person and not a group of people. I think the choice of language in an encyclopedia should reflect the facts and not an unconventional interpretation of grammar in the light of an artistic way of life. The English version of Wikipedia is also read by many people for whom English is a foreign language (like me). To stay fair, the English version of Wikipedia should be comprehensible to everyone who masters the standard grammar and vocabulary of English. Otherwise, it will get exclusive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.28.92 ( talk) 12:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
(
Personal attack removed) can refer to themselves with any kind of pronoun but they can't tell others what pronoun they must use for them. You can't force english speakers to say Yerusalem, or spanish speakers to not to call New York Nueva York. So I am gonna change the article to the proper pronouns she/her.
Can someone at least re-work the sentences to make them readable? e.g. In the intro, "them in Sulkowicz's dorm room" can be changed to "Sulkowicz in their dorm room", which makes the sentence not sound completely wrong, and still leaves the gender issue unresolved. 190.149.63.130 ( talk) 05:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)Michael
I changed all "they" to "Sulkowicz" and corrected verb number to singular (e.g. "were" to "was"). This makes it accurate but still awkward without resolving the larger "they" argument. Smulthaup ( talk) 02:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I have submitted this to RfC - biographies. Smulthaup ( talk) 04:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
At a minimum, from the WP:GENDERID: "When a person's gender self-designation may come as a surprise to readers, explain it without overemphasis on first occurrence in an article." should apply. On that basis I will revert to include "(who refers to one's self by the non-gender binary pronoun 'them')". However, I think the number agreement of the verb should still be singular and not plural. I still endorse that an RfC is needed. Since you seem interested in the subject, I volunteer you to create the "properly formatted RfC". Smulthaup ( talk) 07:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
In the article that is listed as source 17 (
https://www.thecut.com/2019/10/did-emma-sulkowicz-mattress-performance-get-redpilled.html), Sulkowicz instructed the author to use the pronouns she/her. This article is from 8/28/19. The article is quoted below:
"Since 2016, Sulkowicz has identified as gender fluid, and she sometimes uses they/them pronouns. When I ask what to use for this article, she texts me, “Lol I’m not clear about it either,” before settling on she/her."
Unless there is more current information available, this should put the question of which pronouns to use for Sulkowicz to bed. Not only do she and her clarify the article by clearing the confusion on plurality, the very person who we are referring to chose them. If anyone has more current and conflicting information, then please share it. If none can be found or none exists, then Wikipedia should use she/her when referring to Sulkowicz. Phafner ( talk) 03:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
According to another Talk page ( /info/en/?search=Talk:Mattress_Performance_(Carry_That_Weight) ) the accused should not be named since they made attempts to conceal their privacy over the course of the incident:
"Q4: Why does the article not name the accused?
A criminal allegation was made, but the accused was not convicted or charged. An additional consideration is that he is otherwise not notable. Although he has given interviews to newspapers that have named him, he has been photographed for these from behind, so he appears to want to preserve some anonymity. One discussion concluded that the accused could be named only if his full defense was detailed in the article. This condition has not been met, so the accused's name currently cannot be included."
Should all explicit references to him by name by removed? Tibbs runner ( talk) 14:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
even using the preferred pronouns the sentence would sound better than "Sulkowicz said that Sulkowicz declined to pursue an investigation, and stated that NYPD officers were dismissive and had mistreated them"
after "Sulkowicz said that they declined to pursue an investigation, and stated that NYPD officers were dismissive and had mistreated them" Nailo1234 ( talk) 15:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
ok, i won't change it Nailo1234 ( talk) 20:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
In the article that is listed as source 17 ( https://www.thecut.com/2019/10/did-emma-sulkowicz-mattress-performance-get-redpilled.html), Sulkowicz instructed the author to use the pronouns she/her. This article is from 8/28/19. The article is quoted below:
"Since 2016, Sulkowicz has identified as gender fluid, and she sometimes uses they/them pronouns. When I ask what to use for this article, she texts me, “Lol I’m not clear about it either,” before settling on she/her."
Unless there is more current information available, this should put the question of which pronouns to use for Sulkowicz to bed. Not only do she and her clarify the article by clearing the confusion on plurality, the very person who we are referring to chose them. If anyone has more current and conflicting information, then please share it. If none can be found or none exists, then Wikipedia should use she/her when referring to Sulkowicz.
I hit the "enter" key accidentally and submitted this edit before completing the edit summary. What I was going to say was: I'm not sure how we can justify removing opinions supporting Sulkowicz by stating that opinion content 'doesn't belong' and then at the same time add an opinion critical of Sulkowicz. In principal I'm not opposed to adding the statement from Halley in the opinion section, but the article already contains a disproportionate number of anti-Sulkowicz sources as it is and we should probably attempt a rough balance. Nblund talk 19:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi All. Regarding this revert: Do we want to disparage a living person based on one article (even attributed), in an article not about them, with the sentence also not (mostly) being about the subject of the article? Arkon ( talk) 21:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if it was incompetence or vandalism, but the quote "wanting to erase all of my memories of Columbia" [2] got changed to "all of [them]" and then [all of their]. Doug Weller talk 14:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Editors here might be interested in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style on the issue of gender neutral language, arising out of an editor quickly changing "mankind" to "humankind" in about 150 articles. @ PeterTheFourth:, I've made it clear where I stand on this (not where you seem to think I stand). Doug Weller talk 16:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
In the article that is listed as source 17 ( https://www.thecut.com/2019/10/did-emma-sulkowicz-mattress-performance-get-redpilled.html), Sulkowicz instructed the author to use the pronouns she/her. This article is from 8/28/19. The article is quoted below:
"Since 2016, Sulkowicz has identified as gender fluid, and she sometimes uses they/them pronouns. When I ask what to use for this article, she texts me, “Lol I’m not clear about it either,” before settling on she/her."
Unless there is more current information available, this should put the question of which pronouns to use for Sulkowicz to bed. Not only do she and her clarify the article by clearing the confusion on plurality, the very person who we are referring to chose them. If anyone has more current and conflicting information, then please share it. If none can be found or none exists, then Wikipedia should use she/her when referring to Sulkowicz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phafner ( talk • contribs) 03:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
As a recent edit might charitably be interpreted as having suggested (although it was worded badly), the video seems like it might be relevant enough to mention and link-to in the article's prose, and not just in the 'See also' section where it is now. A sentence could be added to the section "Sulkowicz's performance art piece" (possibly even changing the section title from "piece" to "pieces"), perhaps along the lines of "Sulkowicz later created another piece of performance art, Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol ("This is not a rape"), a website with an eight minute video of Sulkowicz having sex with an anonymous actor in a dorm room at Columbia University." (Using but condensing the wording of that article's lead.) What do you think? (Has this been discussed before? I don't see any prior discussion on this talk page.) -sche ( talk) 00:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
The FAQ at Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) states that Nungesser is not named in that article due to BLP and notability issues, however his name appears prominently in this article. I've started a discussion at Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)#"The accused" (Paul Nungesser) to address the inconsistency. – dlthewave ☎ 01:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
The article title is wrong - it was a rape accusation, not a rape
Paul Nungesser was found not responsible 158.123.57.161 ( talk) 18:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I know this has been discussed above, but not solved yet, so I changed the use of pronouns back to standard English practices. Just because Sulkowicz identifies as non-binary and uses »they/them« pronouns, does not mean that an encyclopaedic article about her should do the same. Wikipedia doesn’t exist to pursue an individual preference writing style, but to deliver facts as clearly comprehensible as possible. This aim is certainly not achieved, when »they/them/their« are used to replace »her«. Doing so, as was the state here on 22nd September 2018, distorts and obscures the facts in important ways, for example:
I have great respect for the important issues of gender preference acceptance, but making language incomprehensible is not the way to do it. Something like »[her]«, or alternatively [their], might be acceptable if it becomes a Wikipedia-wide standard. But until it does, we should stick to standard English practices. -- Sprachraum ( talk) 07:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
This is a bit of a quandary here, because the use of "them" as this sentence "alleging he had raped them..." is in fact a BLP violation as it implies the accuser raped more than one person. This wording should be changed or improved. Which policy takes precedence here - MOS or BLP? I'm really not sure how else to word it without continually using Sulkowitz's name. Mr Ernie ( talk) 18:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Singular they is of long standing in English, indeed it is older than the now-similarly-widespread singular you.Huh? Grandpallama ( talk) 15:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Came here to point out it's totally unreadable. So add me to the list of people Nblund thinks is dumb. 146.115.150.192 ( talk) 02:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
As someone who loves Wikipedia, this is embarrassing. Stop with the copy-and-pasted Oceania's history of the English language. Citing studies which you have clearly not even bothered to read doesn't help your argument. I obviously agree it's unreadable, and more importantly, it's not in keeping with encyclopedic standards. 2601:18F:4101:4830:C05A:15B6:D2BA:E0ED ( talk) 06:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
"they're not female". I am only aware of sources such as this. It is saying Sulkowicz, who has been working as an artist since graduation, identifies as non-binary, and uses the gender-neutral pronouns "they" and "them." Bus stop ( talk) 13:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
In the most recent published interview with Sulkowicz ( [1]), she chose to go with she/her pronouns. That should be we should be able to make this article actually readable using the proper single-person pronouns. At least until she changes her mind again, which highlights the stupidity of slavishly following personal identity when attempting to write clear, encyclopedic text. 76.211.117.219 ( talk) 19:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I have posted this in a few other places, but the poster above is 100% correct. In the article that is listed as source 17 ( https://www.thecut.com/2019/10/did-emma-sulkowicz-mattress-performance-get-redpilled.html), Sulkowicz instructed the author to use the pronouns she/her. This article is from 8/28/19. The article is quoted below:
"Since 2016, Sulkowicz has identified as gender fluid, and she sometimes uses they/them pronouns. When I ask what to use for this article, she texts me, “Lol I’m not clear about it either,” before settling on she/her."
Unless there is more current information available, this should put the question of which pronouns to use for Sulkowicz to bed. Not only do she and her clarify the article by clearing the confusion on plurality, the very person who we are referring to chose them. If anyone has more current and conflicting information, then please share it. If none can be found or none exists, then Wikipedia should use she/her when referring to Sulkowicz. Phafner ( talk) 03:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Any objections? Doug Weller talk 08:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
They are not quoted above, the messages in their entirety is his defense, removing the FB messages is a violation of NPOV. Valoem talk contrib 21:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
all of these sources suggest she lied
- this is not even remotely close to what I asked for. I asked for sources that explained why and how the Facebook messages were essential to the lawsuit, and some explanation for why these three quotes needed to be included verbatim. The Mining Journal/Chicago Sun Times source (it's the same article reprinted in a different outlet) doesn't mention the the lawsuit at all. Neither does the Jezebel source. Cathy Young's editorial does mention it, but it's simply a single sentence that says the messages "figured heavily" in to the suit without explanation. It should go without saying that a Cathy Young editorial is not a viable model for a BLP entry.
The assertion that the Wikipedia "does not show the cited evidence" is flatly false, as has been explained repeatedly: the article mentions the Facebook messages already in two separate places. Mona Charen is already cited. Cathy Young is cited (14 times). It may not present the evidence in precisely the way that you prefer it, but it does present it. You're treading in to WP:IDHT territory here. Nblund talk 15:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Two days later on August 29, 2012, Paul Facebook messaged Emma to invite her to a gathering in his room, stating, "small shindig in our room tonight bring cool freshmen." Emma messaged back four minutes later, "lol yussss also ifeel like we need to have some real time where we can talk about life and thingz." Paul immediately agreed, writing "word." Emma continued, because we still haven’t really had a paul-emma chill sesh since summmerrrrr." Paul responded "when are you guys coming through." Emma wrote, "I’ll probs come at 10:45. Is that cool?0." Paul wrote back "sweet - yeah - you at the fencing thing." Emma wrote back "Yeah I’m just gonna chill with them for a bit haha is ado a rager?" 3 Paul wrote back "naah - a little too many guys right now haha - so bring some peepz." Emma wrote back "Okay let them know I’ll be der w dafemales spon." At 11:06 p.m., she messaged Paul "Ack are people still there? Heading over now."
Paul remained at the ADP party but he and Emma did not see one another. The next day, he messaged her at 4:55 p.m., "part II tonight - you’re coming?" She messaged him Her reference to ADP, Alpha Delta Pi, was to the coed fraternity of which she and Paul were both members, Some ADP members live in the ADP house near campus. [8] back seconds later, "lol i came and left
lready!" Paul responded, "lolcats - when were you here - I dont believe you its not the truth - to the tune ofpretty women."
Two weeks later, on September 9, 2012, Emma messaged Paul, "I wanna see yoyououoyou" Thereafter, Paul sent Emma a happy birthday message as follows ’oh hai happy born day! you better be celebrating muchos, no? also: donde estas tu i mi viva - see i’m so desperate with out you, i even try to speak spanish, 4- anywho: merry happy days!" Emma responded, "I love you Paul. Where are you?!?!?!?!"
Jezebel also interviewed Sulkowicz where he confirmed that she sent the message without being threaten. Jezebel and NYPost. I have demonstrated significant sources mentioning the Facebook messages as evidence. Valoem talk contrib 18:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)"Facebook messages that he and Sulkowicz sent to each other before and after the alleged rape. The messages sound friendly: “I feel like we need to have some real time where we can talk about life and thingz/because we still haven’t really had a paul-emma chill sesh since summmmerrrr,” Sulkowicz wrote a few days after the night in question. After The Daily Beast published the exchanges, Sulkowicz explained them to the website Jezebel, recalling, “I’m being irrational, thinking that talking with him would help me. Sulkowicz says some of the Facebook messages were admitted as evidence. Her recollection is at odds with that of a graduate student who attended the hearings with Nungesser, as his designated “supporter,” and said the messages were not included. In court, the Facebook messages surrounding the night of the alleged rape would probably be admitted in a criminal case as relevant, according to Deborah Tuerkheimer, a Northwestern University law professor, and the alleged victim would also have the chance to explain them. (This is also what Columbia’s policy now appears to provide, though the rule was somewhat different at the time of the hearing."
I have demonstrated significant sources mentioning the Facebook messages as evidence.. Everyone agrees that the messages are important for the story, that's why they're cited in the entry. I'm asking for sources that explain how these quotes are central for the lawsuit against Colombia University. I understand that they are mentioned, but court filings often contain lots of information that isn't legally significant.
While an RfC might be preferable to continuing to flog this dead horse, I don't really think it's warranted here since there's a fairly clear consensus already. Valoem: if you choose to go this route, then you would need to ask the straightforward question of whether this version is preferable to the current version. If you post an RfC that asks "should we include the Facebook messages?", I might have an aneu rysm.
As for biased editing: you need to either bring that accusation to ANI and provide diffs or you need to drop it all together. Nblund talk 14:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
By the time of Sulkowicz's last message, which they sent in March 2013, they said they had visited the university's Office of Gender-Based Misconduct and that they had asked whether they had tried talking to the accused...") has been moved along with the messages into the same section, which means that even people who might want to quote the messages in their entirety might !vote against that diff as not being NPOV, and/or if an RfC decided in favor of that diff, there might then be edit-warring over whether or not adding contextualizing information to (rather than subtracting from) the messages was consistent with the RfC.
...are under discussion at Talk:Emma Sulkowicz/Archive 1#Removal_of_pronouns and Talk:Emma Sulkowicz#"Sulkowicz_stated_that_Sulkowicz_declined_to_pursue", since that article contains language about the same things and has been subject to similar back-and-forth editing. In the interest of clarity, let me leave this pointer here and centralize discussion there. -sche ( talk) 16:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
In the article that is listed as source 17 ( https://www.thecut.com/2019/10/did-emma-sulkowicz-mattress-performance-get-redpilled.html), Sulkowicz instructed the author to use the pronouns she/her. This article is from 8/28/19. The article is quoted below:
"Since 2016, Sulkowicz has identified as gender fluid, and she sometimes uses they/them pronouns. When I ask what to use for this article, she texts me, “Lol I’m not clear about it either,” before settling on she/her."
Unless there is more current information available, this should put the question of which pronouns to use for Sulkowicz to bed. Not only do she and her clarify the article by clearing the confusion on plurality, the very person who we are referring to chose them. If anyone has more current and conflicting information, then please share it. If none can be found or none exists, then Wikipedia should use she/her when referring to Sulkowicz. Phafner ( talk) 03:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
I feel like this is a more neutral title than the current one, which implies there actually was a rape, as opposed to it being a he said/she said situation. Jtrainor ( talk) 03:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)