![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
The FAQ states that Paul Nungesser's name cannot be included due to notability and BLP issues, however he is clearly named and discussed at Columbia University rape controversy. How should this inconsistency be addressed?– dlthewave ☎ 01:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
"inconsistent ... for one article's FAQ to say he shouldn't be named unless his defense is included, while a different article includes both his name and his defense". This is consistent with your thus-far refusal to recognize the three already-existing articles as a "set". Articles on artists and articles on their artworks constitute a "set". You are arguing for a new article in this "set" of articles to be devoted to the biographical details of the artist and you are presenting that argument in the absence of any consideration of the "set" of articles that already exist. The result of the success of your impetus to create yet another article in this "set" will be a worsening in the situation involving the "sprawl" of information pertaining to one artist across as many articles as possible. This RfC should be about the "set" of articles. Instead it is myopically about the notability of the artist. We are not here to increase the visibility of this artist or to promote the causes they represent. To accomplish that aim we need to consider the entire "set" of articles for this currently active artist. Bus stop ( talk) 12:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Just to lay out the history here: Columbia University rape controversy was initially just a copy-pasted version of this article from around May 2015. I don't know the exact version, but you can see the similarities in this older version. The RfC that determined we should not name the accused unless their full defense is included also took place in May 2015. In other words: there's no reason to think that Columbia University rape controversy actually satisfied the requirements of the RfC. Everyone appears to have either stopped caring or changed their minds. Nblund talk 13:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Comment. This discussion is showing that these articles are part of a set. The underlying assumption that there may be a contradiction between one article revealing the man's name and another article not revealing the man's name reinforces the idea that these articles constitute a set. If these articles are a set then why are we not discussing how best to improve this set of articles? The RfC above myopically addresses only whether the artist is notable. That question can be addressed within a discussion of this set of articles. But that discussion is eschewed in favor of pushing through an expansion in the number of articles in this set. This seems like an attempt to increase the visibility of the artist and to promote the artist's causes. Bus stop ( talk) 15:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
"baseless? Then how do you explain the rejection of one of your suggestions:
"Do you support merging Columbia University rape controversy in to the Mattress Performance article?"Mx. Granger responded to that suggestion by saying:
"I don't think we should combine these into one RFC". And of course -sche agreed, saying
"I agree. The question of whether Sulkowicz meets general notability guidelines (for more than one event) is straightforward and self-contained, separate from the question of whether or not other articles should be merged with each other. I will not lump or logroll such separate questions together."Bottom line: We are not considering what is best for this set of articles. We are pushing through a biography to build up the already considerable presence of this artist on Wikipedia. Bus stop ( talk) 17:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
"don't appear to grasp what is being discussed"No, I do. I really do. I grasp what is being discussed and I oppose the unfettered proliferation of articles on this one artist. Bus stop ( talk) 17:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
"Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol seems like it had a lot less widespread coverage than this piece, if any work warrants a standalone piece, wouldn't it be Mattress Performance?"You are in that quote arguing that "Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol" should not be a standalone article. And there is considerable support for eliminating the standalone status for "Columbia University rape controversy". Yet inexplicably we are about to create yet one more article in this already bloated set of articles. Bus stop ( talk) 18:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
"something productive"the RfC titled "Should there be an article on Emma Sulkowicz?" is counterproductive because we should be able to "walk and chew gum at the same time". Properly understood, we are discussing a set of articles. Bus stop ( talk) 18:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Result of this discussion is to create new article — discussion has gone on for nearly a month and it appears the arguments in favor of her notability are stronger than the arguments that she is known for just one event.-- The lorax ( talk) 21:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Should there be an article on Emma Sulkowicz? -sche ( talk) 08:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
"the 'Other works by Sulkowicz' section [have] no place in this article"? Bus stop ( talk) 13:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
"at least two works are notable on their own"I think "Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol" is an addendum to "Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)" and that the two articles could beneficially be merged eliminating the need to tell the story of the alleged rape in two articles. Bus stop ( talk) 00:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Is there more background to this?Yes, there is more background to this. All suggestions about merging any previously existing articles were rejected. The initiative here is only to expand the number of articles in this subject area from three to four. Please see the lower portions of this discussion. Bus stop ( talk) 12:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
"different issue"if you consider these articles unrelated: Mattress Performance, Columbia University rape controversy, and Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol. I don't consider them unrelated. A student accused a fellow student of rape and used an artwork to point a finger of blame at that student. Eventually both of those students graduated from the university they attended. The accused student attempted to vindicate himself by legal means and to some extent succeeded. The art student went on to make additional works of art after graduation. Do these facts hang together or are they unrelated? I would contend that they all belong to a general subject area. I think ONE article could be written on this entire matter. Chuck Close suffered a debilitating medical setback mid-career. Do we have two separate articles on Chuck Close? Leo Castelli was the owner of of the exceptionally important Leo Castelli Gallery. Do we have two separate articles? The initiative here is only to expand the number of articles. There isn't a shred of biographical information on Sulkowicz missing right now—in fact it is repeated in three articles. How does that arrangement benefit the reader? It should be easy to consolidate this subject area into three articles. But the initiative is simply to expand the number of articles to four articles. Bus stop ( talk) 13:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Lorax17 days is not nearly a month. Govindaharihari ( talk) 20:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
An RfC at BLPN has closed with the following outcome:
"The
WP:Consensus is that: given the verfiable, documented, and wide dissemination, mention of the name best accords with
WP:NPOV and
WP:BLP, while editors will seek to remain properly circumspect, as warranted, in any given mention.""
I have added the name to the article and adjusted the FAQ accordingly. – dlthewave ☎ 03:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
As noted (with reliable sourcing) over on Talk:Emma Sulkowicz/Archive 1#Pronouns_revisited, Sulkowicz (as of 2019) accepts/uses both she/her and they/them pronouns. Over on that page, it was proposed (and after several days passed with nothing but support, implemented) that the article use she/her pronouns. (This is similar to how the articles on Rebecca Sugar and Leslie Feinberg, who were also OK with multiple options, use the she/her option.) Should this article also switch to using she? -sche ( talk) 00:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
The FAQ states that Paul Nungesser's name cannot be included due to notability and BLP issues, however he is clearly named and discussed at Columbia University rape controversy. How should this inconsistency be addressed?– dlthewave ☎ 01:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
"inconsistent ... for one article's FAQ to say he shouldn't be named unless his defense is included, while a different article includes both his name and his defense". This is consistent with your thus-far refusal to recognize the three already-existing articles as a "set". Articles on artists and articles on their artworks constitute a "set". You are arguing for a new article in this "set" of articles to be devoted to the biographical details of the artist and you are presenting that argument in the absence of any consideration of the "set" of articles that already exist. The result of the success of your impetus to create yet another article in this "set" will be a worsening in the situation involving the "sprawl" of information pertaining to one artist across as many articles as possible. This RfC should be about the "set" of articles. Instead it is myopically about the notability of the artist. We are not here to increase the visibility of this artist or to promote the causes they represent. To accomplish that aim we need to consider the entire "set" of articles for this currently active artist. Bus stop ( talk) 12:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Just to lay out the history here: Columbia University rape controversy was initially just a copy-pasted version of this article from around May 2015. I don't know the exact version, but you can see the similarities in this older version. The RfC that determined we should not name the accused unless their full defense is included also took place in May 2015. In other words: there's no reason to think that Columbia University rape controversy actually satisfied the requirements of the RfC. Everyone appears to have either stopped caring or changed their minds. Nblund talk 13:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Comment. This discussion is showing that these articles are part of a set. The underlying assumption that there may be a contradiction between one article revealing the man's name and another article not revealing the man's name reinforces the idea that these articles constitute a set. If these articles are a set then why are we not discussing how best to improve this set of articles? The RfC above myopically addresses only whether the artist is notable. That question can be addressed within a discussion of this set of articles. But that discussion is eschewed in favor of pushing through an expansion in the number of articles in this set. This seems like an attempt to increase the visibility of the artist and to promote the artist's causes. Bus stop ( talk) 15:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
"baseless? Then how do you explain the rejection of one of your suggestions:
"Do you support merging Columbia University rape controversy in to the Mattress Performance article?"Mx. Granger responded to that suggestion by saying:
"I don't think we should combine these into one RFC". And of course -sche agreed, saying
"I agree. The question of whether Sulkowicz meets general notability guidelines (for more than one event) is straightforward and self-contained, separate from the question of whether or not other articles should be merged with each other. I will not lump or logroll such separate questions together."Bottom line: We are not considering what is best for this set of articles. We are pushing through a biography to build up the already considerable presence of this artist on Wikipedia. Bus stop ( talk) 17:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
"don't appear to grasp what is being discussed"No, I do. I really do. I grasp what is being discussed and I oppose the unfettered proliferation of articles on this one artist. Bus stop ( talk) 17:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
"Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol seems like it had a lot less widespread coverage than this piece, if any work warrants a standalone piece, wouldn't it be Mattress Performance?"You are in that quote arguing that "Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol" should not be a standalone article. And there is considerable support for eliminating the standalone status for "Columbia University rape controversy". Yet inexplicably we are about to create yet one more article in this already bloated set of articles. Bus stop ( talk) 18:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
"something productive"the RfC titled "Should there be an article on Emma Sulkowicz?" is counterproductive because we should be able to "walk and chew gum at the same time". Properly understood, we are discussing a set of articles. Bus stop ( talk) 18:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Result of this discussion is to create new article — discussion has gone on for nearly a month and it appears the arguments in favor of her notability are stronger than the arguments that she is known for just one event.-- The lorax ( talk) 21:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Should there be an article on Emma Sulkowicz? -sche ( talk) 08:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
"the 'Other works by Sulkowicz' section [have] no place in this article"? Bus stop ( talk) 13:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
"at least two works are notable on their own"I think "Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol" is an addendum to "Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)" and that the two articles could beneficially be merged eliminating the need to tell the story of the alleged rape in two articles. Bus stop ( talk) 00:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Is there more background to this?Yes, there is more background to this. All suggestions about merging any previously existing articles were rejected. The initiative here is only to expand the number of articles in this subject area from three to four. Please see the lower portions of this discussion. Bus stop ( talk) 12:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
"different issue"if you consider these articles unrelated: Mattress Performance, Columbia University rape controversy, and Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol. I don't consider them unrelated. A student accused a fellow student of rape and used an artwork to point a finger of blame at that student. Eventually both of those students graduated from the university they attended. The accused student attempted to vindicate himself by legal means and to some extent succeeded. The art student went on to make additional works of art after graduation. Do these facts hang together or are they unrelated? I would contend that they all belong to a general subject area. I think ONE article could be written on this entire matter. Chuck Close suffered a debilitating medical setback mid-career. Do we have two separate articles on Chuck Close? Leo Castelli was the owner of of the exceptionally important Leo Castelli Gallery. Do we have two separate articles? The initiative here is only to expand the number of articles. There isn't a shred of biographical information on Sulkowicz missing right now—in fact it is repeated in three articles. How does that arrangement benefit the reader? It should be easy to consolidate this subject area into three articles. But the initiative is simply to expand the number of articles to four articles. Bus stop ( talk) 13:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Lorax17 days is not nearly a month. Govindaharihari ( talk) 20:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
An RfC at BLPN has closed with the following outcome:
"The
WP:Consensus is that: given the verfiable, documented, and wide dissemination, mention of the name best accords with
WP:NPOV and
WP:BLP, while editors will seek to remain properly circumspect, as warranted, in any given mention.""
I have added the name to the article and adjusted the FAQ accordingly. – dlthewave ☎ 03:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
As noted (with reliable sourcing) over on Talk:Emma Sulkowicz/Archive 1#Pronouns_revisited, Sulkowicz (as of 2019) accepts/uses both she/her and they/them pronouns. Over on that page, it was proposed (and after several days passed with nothing but support, implemented) that the article use she/her pronouns. (This is similar to how the articles on Rebecca Sugar and Leslie Feinberg, who were also OK with multiple options, use the she/her option.) Should this article also switch to using she? -sche ( talk) 00:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)