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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Where did this picture come from? I didn't see any pictures of [redacted] in any of the articles discussing this case, and nothing resembling this pic popped up in a google image search of his name. Do we have confirmation that this is actually him? Even if it is him, should we be the only high profile source on the net publishing his picture?-- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 03:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
"Worse comes to worst, I'll just ask him via email". Are you acquainted with [redacted] and/or editing on his behalf?-- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 12:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The article currently includes the following statement.
The problem here is that the citation is to The Guardian#Comment is free, which is a "comment and political opinion site". WP:RS, though, states the following.
Thus, the reference in the article fails WP:RS. I believe that the statement in the article is true though—it just needs a better reference. For that reason, although I have deleted the reference, I left the statement in. EllieTea ( talk) 03:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
All of the English-language sources I can find use the spelling "[redacted]", and the new sections give undue weight. User:Cyve, please stop edit-warring and discuss this. — Granger ( talk · contribs) 13:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Concerning the "ß": What's with e.g. Hartmut Weiß, Marx Weiß, Robert Weiß, Christoph Preuß, Hugo Preuß, Josefine Preuß, Hans Georg Friedrich Groß, Michael Groß (swimmer), Ricco Groß ?-- Cyve ( talk) 14:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
We're not synthesizing anything by using the name listed in that footnote, we're not doing any Original Research, we're literally using one fact about the guy's name. His parents determined what his given name is, I think a lawsuit from their lawyer about their son is probably fair game.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 15:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The article has an overweight of statements from the point of view of artists/art critics and feminists ("Furthering the activist cause"). It's "Emma-focused" and limited to the "US-view". As only negative opinions there are [redacted], his lawyer and one New York Post article. It misses the view of neutral jurists/law scholars, representatives of the men's rights movement, as well as relations to the general discussion about false rape allegations at universities in the US and the foreign warnings to men to take up studies in the US and also the public European or German view to the case.-- 88.70.11.79 ( talk) 20:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion ist's highly doubtful to cite Emma Sulkowicz' professor, a suspected complice or accessory, as positive critic in the section "Praise".-- 88.70.11.79 ( talk) 21:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
[redacted] being a son of a feminist, are there any sources (or mentions in the complaint) proving that he provided the cause of feminism? Would be a funny turning point in this witch hunt.-- 89.204.138.22 ( talk) 23:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Local Berlin newspaper report uses the changed name "Adam K." to protect personality rights and calls performance "witch hunt": Berliner Kurier, 27 April 2015. Worth a mention? -- 88.70.11.79 ( talk) 08:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
[emphasis added] This one sent my BS meter into the elevens. Citation or careful explanation of existing article-body support is badly needed. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 23:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Just dropped in here but that last comment (from BoboMeowCat) is worth note. Being "introduced around" and 'recognized' are two completely different things and are functionally and linguistically distinct. Being 'introduced' to someone is not the same as having their positive notable recognition. On the matter of phrasing stick to naming the politicians and groups unless and until there are enough that collectivizing them makes sense. It is more informative for our readers to know who rather than an amorphous group like 'feminist politicians'. Using the term 'politicians' is not appropriate with only two people. Just my two cents. Jbh Talk 02:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) has received recognition and praise from art critics, politicians, and feminist organizations, although commentators have also criticized the work as unfair to [redacted]. The work has sparked activism across the United States and abroad., to my reading, puts a more positive spin on its reception than it actually got. It minimizes the negative attention mentioned in the text of the body. (Not to mention that the bare term 'critics' vs 'art critics' may be confusing to non-native English speakers when used in the same sentence.) Jbh Talk 03:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Below is a full copy of a relevant WP policy subsection. I have modified emphasis in the second sentence to point out critical language. Editors, please take note. In particular, I believe this policy is telling us we ought to take care not to include third-party commentary that directly implies that the accused student is guilty. For accusations of guilt and protestations of innocence, we should only reflect statements from the two students themselves, IMO. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 00:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgements that do not override each other, refrain from using pithy descriptors or absolutes and instead use more explanatory information.
Should we conclude this article with a statement from Columbia University president Lee Bollinger or conclude it with the statement from liberal commentator Amanda Marcotte? I've been attempting to conclude with Lee Bollinger's statement, because it seems more encyclopedic that way, and it also keeps debated info on Title IX together (see lawsuite section from this version [7]) but have been reverted by an IP editor. -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 21:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
This article isn't about their relationship or the case. If we want to do this, we should create a second article about the accusations and the case. This article is about the art piece, which I know is hard for the conservatives among us, exists separately from both Emma and [redacted].-- A21sauce ( talk) 20:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, so if more people aren't going to chime in to talk about whether or not the Commentary subsection should stay, then I'll just cede the point for now and not worry about it re: COATRACK. But I do have a problem with the way it currently exists. Right now it's more of a criticism subsection than a commentary subsection. We need to balance the different viewpoints re: the lawsuit better. Is this really the proportion of critics vs proponents that have chimed in? I don't think so. Via WP:NPOV re: balance, we need to include all sides proportionally.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 18:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Shibbolethink, you've been editing the content regarding KC Johnson in a manner that suggests you have not read the source, or have not read the source in its entirety. First, you changed the wording of that text in a significant manner and moved the text and added a citation needed tag. The addition of that tag suggests you changed the wording, without first reading the citation that was previously attached prior to your movement of that text (??) [10] Now you have deleted a summary (if you read the source, you'll see it's a summary) for a lengthy block quote which doesn't seem to concisely convey all of the relevant info that was in the brief summary. Text used to read:
KC Johnson, history professor at Brooklyn College, was quoted in
Reason magazine discussing the confidentiality/privacy instructions [redacted] received following the university hearings presuming Sulkowicz received such instructions as well otherwise the university would be in violation of Title IX. Johnson commented: "Sulkowicz obviously has ignored that requirement, and responded to the not-culpable finding by going on a media spree...No evidence exists that Columbia disciplined Sulkowicz for the breach of confidentiality. Instead, Columbia removed the promise of confidentiality in 2014, after Sulkowicz had begun her publicity effort."
Now text reads:
KC Johnson, history professor at Brooklyn College, was quoted in
Reason magazine discussing the confidentiality/privacy instructions that Title IX requires schools give both parties in disputes. Johnson, himself quoting the University's emails to [redacted], had this to say:
"The university instructed [redacted] that it would “make all reasonable efforts to maintain the confidentiality/privacy of the involved parties,” and that he “should use the utmost discretion and not discuss the evidence with others." Sulkowicz, presumably, received the same guidance (otherwise Columbia violated Title IX by setting one procedure for the accused and another for the accuser). Columbia’s policy held that “breaches of confidentiality/privacy or the complainant, respondent, witnesses, or the investigators, may result in additional disciplinary action.” Sulkowicz obviously has ignored that requirement, and responded to the not-culpable finding by going on a media spree...No evidence exists that Columbia disciplined Sulkowicz for the breach of confidentiality. Instead, Columbia removed the promise of confidentiality in 2014, after Sulkowicz had begun her publicity effort."
This is not an improvement. I'm trying to assume good faith, but your initial edits showed you changed text without reading the citation attached because you added a citation needed tag to it. Now this just seems very messy, giving undue weight to a lengthy quote that is merely a quote of a quote that was originally on KC Johnson's own blog/website that Reason has quoted. -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 19:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
KC Johnson, history professor at Brooklyn College, was quoted in Reason magazine discussing the confidentiality/privacy instructions [redacted] received following the university hearings presuming Sulkowicz received such instructions as well otherwise the university would be in violation of Title IX.is burning my eyes. It is so unreadable, I had to go over it three times before I completely understood what it was trying to communicate. My entire purpose in editing that paragraph is for copyediting purposes, it has nothing to do with POV or vendetta or otherwise. And yes, since you're wondering, once the source was placed, I read it.
KC Johnson, history professor at Brooklyn College, was quoted in Reason magazine discussing the confidentiality/privacy instructions [redacted] received following the university hearings presuming Sulkowicz received such instructions as well otherwise the university would be in violation of Title IX.That sentence has 7 or 8 clauses, depending on who you ask. No sentence should ever be that long, unless you're editing a William Faulkner anthology. I'm gonna make some attempts at paraphrasing it further.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 19:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
KC Johnson, history professor at Brooklyn College was quoted in Reason magazine discussing the confidentiality/privacy instructions [redacted] received following the university hearings. Johnson persumed Sulkowicz received such instructions as well, otherwise the university would be in violation of Title IX and commented: "Sulkowicz obviously has ignored that requirement, and responded to the not-culpable finding by going on a media spree...No evidence exists that Columbia disciplined Sulkowicz for the breach of confidentiality. Instead, Columbia removed the promise of confidentiality in 2014, after Sulkowicz had begun her publicity effort."
This is a developing story that is not only unprotected or watched, it's been held ransom. There is obvious interest in changing the name but it has been shot down numerous times on the fact that it has been decided that the name stayed.I ask an admin to approve a change to "2008 Emma Sulkowicz rape allegations". This is based off prescient on Wikipedia Tawana Brawley rape allegations. This cannot in any way violate BLP because she is the one herself that accused him, very publicly. Since the authorities have no interest in this case, the case will never progress past "allegations" based off of an [a priori] definition of allegations. The scope of the article has progressed past the performance, the piece is a part of the story of the allegations, not the other way around. Instead of complaining about conservatives (someone said that to someone else above, I am not even a conservative, I find that to show obvious NPOV in the claim that the naming of this article is not politically motivated) not wanting to make separate stubs from a decent enough article why not simply change the name? I'm going to call a spade a spade: People have been hawking over this article for a long time making no constructive attempts at an NPOV. They are being destructive and impending much needed updates of this article: the only article on this Wiki that regards this incident being named after her performance piece shows NPOV considering all participants in this ongoing incident are LIVING PEOPLE. It's obvious for the love of truth. I'll name names if asked but I don't think I need to. 2601:84:C801:6529:30DD:8C06:907E:A9EA ( talk) 12:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
It's hard to have consensus when the same people weigh in over and over again drowning opposing voices out. I want an admin that doesn't self identify as a feminist OR meninist to check this article and read my points. It's hard to have consensus whenever people who make good points get ignored when these people seem to have no rebuttal. You say you're against it. Why? Your opinion isn't really valid without a reason. Writing off my points as trolling doesn't count as a rebuttal. 2601:84:C801:6529:30DD:8C06:907E:A9EA ( talk) 13:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Another point: Categories: Biography articles of living people is on the talk page. Obviously someone missed that. I wasn't the first person to claim this article was never about the art piece. 2601:84:C801:6529:30DD:8C06:907E:A9EA ( talk) 14:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
This is a story about a rape accusation. The mattress performance was her way of calling attention to it, but this is much much more than that alone. For those who want to keep it the way it is, why? Does this title now best describe the topic? Remember, This is an encyclopedia. 63.235.133.172 ( talk) 15:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, an actual Wiki exists for these people. They should go there: http://sjwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page I'm being serious. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If it isn't good enough Encyclopedia Britannica it isn't good enough for here. I can't imagine the editors of that publication having this discussion. 2601:84:C801:6529:30DD:8C06:907E:A9EA ( talk) 15:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I didn't know about only admin feedback. My apologies. I'll take the box off I think we've exposed that this consensus is fraudulent. Someone explained why they want to keep the article the way it is. They logged off for it. I can't prove that it but I figured someone would do that later. The fact that someone had to log off to use their IP address to get them to admit that is repulsive and proves bad intent. If you don't know that encyclopedia articles are written without regard for feelings (only verifiable facts) you really have no place editing one. This page has enough evidence on it to suggest the claims are true. It's a shame that it had to come to this to expose an NPOV fraud. 2601:84:C801:6529:30DD:8C06:907E:A9EA ( talk) 15:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I'll expose myself now. I'm 2601:84:C801:6529:30DD:8C06:907E:A9EA|2601:84:C801:6529:30DD:8C06:907E:A9EA. I did this to prove that logic is logic and encyclopedias are encyclopedias no matter the age of an account (if theres an account at all ;); it doesn't matter who you are (in case you're wondering, a white, cis, but gay male). Yes, that's exactly what this was today. Exposed Bias. Administrators that have seen this and not done anything might want to reconsider being an administrator. I created this damn account because the fact that this has been going on for so long is an insult to the idea of an encyclopedia. A real spring cleaning is needed NPOV Ninja ( talk) 15:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Also: I wonder if 2600:1011:B154:1E8:F505:59CC:4DE8:356D is willing to expose him or herself as well? Something is seriously broken if so many people consider what we saw today to be a concensus. When people refuse to answer points and cherry pick what they're defending, it becomes a deserved controversy.
NPOV Ninja (
talk) 15:40, 3 May 2015 (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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Where did this picture come from? I didn't see any pictures of [redacted] in any of the articles discussing this case, and nothing resembling this pic popped up in a google image search of his name. Do we have confirmation that this is actually him? Even if it is him, should we be the only high profile source on the net publishing his picture?-- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 03:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
"Worse comes to worst, I'll just ask him via email". Are you acquainted with [redacted] and/or editing on his behalf?-- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 12:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The article currently includes the following statement.
The problem here is that the citation is to The Guardian#Comment is free, which is a "comment and political opinion site". WP:RS, though, states the following.
Thus, the reference in the article fails WP:RS. I believe that the statement in the article is true though—it just needs a better reference. For that reason, although I have deleted the reference, I left the statement in. EllieTea ( talk) 03:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
All of the English-language sources I can find use the spelling "[redacted]", and the new sections give undue weight. User:Cyve, please stop edit-warring and discuss this. — Granger ( talk · contribs) 13:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Concerning the "ß": What's with e.g. Hartmut Weiß, Marx Weiß, Robert Weiß, Christoph Preuß, Hugo Preuß, Josefine Preuß, Hans Georg Friedrich Groß, Michael Groß (swimmer), Ricco Groß ?-- Cyve ( talk) 14:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
We're not synthesizing anything by using the name listed in that footnote, we're not doing any Original Research, we're literally using one fact about the guy's name. His parents determined what his given name is, I think a lawsuit from their lawyer about their son is probably fair game.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 15:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The article has an overweight of statements from the point of view of artists/art critics and feminists ("Furthering the activist cause"). It's "Emma-focused" and limited to the "US-view". As only negative opinions there are [redacted], his lawyer and one New York Post article. It misses the view of neutral jurists/law scholars, representatives of the men's rights movement, as well as relations to the general discussion about false rape allegations at universities in the US and the foreign warnings to men to take up studies in the US and also the public European or German view to the case.-- 88.70.11.79 ( talk) 20:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion ist's highly doubtful to cite Emma Sulkowicz' professor, a suspected complice or accessory, as positive critic in the section "Praise".-- 88.70.11.79 ( talk) 21:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
[redacted] being a son of a feminist, are there any sources (or mentions in the complaint) proving that he provided the cause of feminism? Would be a funny turning point in this witch hunt.-- 89.204.138.22 ( talk) 23:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Local Berlin newspaper report uses the changed name "Adam K." to protect personality rights and calls performance "witch hunt": Berliner Kurier, 27 April 2015. Worth a mention? -- 88.70.11.79 ( talk) 08:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
[emphasis added] This one sent my BS meter into the elevens. Citation or careful explanation of existing article-body support is badly needed. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 23:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Just dropped in here but that last comment (from BoboMeowCat) is worth note. Being "introduced around" and 'recognized' are two completely different things and are functionally and linguistically distinct. Being 'introduced' to someone is not the same as having their positive notable recognition. On the matter of phrasing stick to naming the politicians and groups unless and until there are enough that collectivizing them makes sense. It is more informative for our readers to know who rather than an amorphous group like 'feminist politicians'. Using the term 'politicians' is not appropriate with only two people. Just my two cents. Jbh Talk 02:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) has received recognition and praise from art critics, politicians, and feminist organizations, although commentators have also criticized the work as unfair to [redacted]. The work has sparked activism across the United States and abroad., to my reading, puts a more positive spin on its reception than it actually got. It minimizes the negative attention mentioned in the text of the body. (Not to mention that the bare term 'critics' vs 'art critics' may be confusing to non-native English speakers when used in the same sentence.) Jbh Talk 03:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Below is a full copy of a relevant WP policy subsection. I have modified emphasis in the second sentence to point out critical language. Editors, please take note. In particular, I believe this policy is telling us we ought to take care not to include third-party commentary that directly implies that the accused student is guilty. For accusations of guilt and protestations of innocence, we should only reflect statements from the two students themselves, IMO. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 00:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgements that do not override each other, refrain from using pithy descriptors or absolutes and instead use more explanatory information.
Should we conclude this article with a statement from Columbia University president Lee Bollinger or conclude it with the statement from liberal commentator Amanda Marcotte? I've been attempting to conclude with Lee Bollinger's statement, because it seems more encyclopedic that way, and it also keeps debated info on Title IX together (see lawsuite section from this version [7]) but have been reverted by an IP editor. -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 21:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
This article isn't about their relationship or the case. If we want to do this, we should create a second article about the accusations and the case. This article is about the art piece, which I know is hard for the conservatives among us, exists separately from both Emma and [redacted].-- A21sauce ( talk) 20:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, so if more people aren't going to chime in to talk about whether or not the Commentary subsection should stay, then I'll just cede the point for now and not worry about it re: COATRACK. But I do have a problem with the way it currently exists. Right now it's more of a criticism subsection than a commentary subsection. We need to balance the different viewpoints re: the lawsuit better. Is this really the proportion of critics vs proponents that have chimed in? I don't think so. Via WP:NPOV re: balance, we need to include all sides proportionally.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 18:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Shibbolethink, you've been editing the content regarding KC Johnson in a manner that suggests you have not read the source, or have not read the source in its entirety. First, you changed the wording of that text in a significant manner and moved the text and added a citation needed tag. The addition of that tag suggests you changed the wording, without first reading the citation that was previously attached prior to your movement of that text (??) [10] Now you have deleted a summary (if you read the source, you'll see it's a summary) for a lengthy block quote which doesn't seem to concisely convey all of the relevant info that was in the brief summary. Text used to read:
KC Johnson, history professor at Brooklyn College, was quoted in
Reason magazine discussing the confidentiality/privacy instructions [redacted] received following the university hearings presuming Sulkowicz received such instructions as well otherwise the university would be in violation of Title IX. Johnson commented: "Sulkowicz obviously has ignored that requirement, and responded to the not-culpable finding by going on a media spree...No evidence exists that Columbia disciplined Sulkowicz for the breach of confidentiality. Instead, Columbia removed the promise of confidentiality in 2014, after Sulkowicz had begun her publicity effort."
Now text reads:
KC Johnson, history professor at Brooklyn College, was quoted in
Reason magazine discussing the confidentiality/privacy instructions that Title IX requires schools give both parties in disputes. Johnson, himself quoting the University's emails to [redacted], had this to say:
"The university instructed [redacted] that it would “make all reasonable efforts to maintain the confidentiality/privacy of the involved parties,” and that he “should use the utmost discretion and not discuss the evidence with others." Sulkowicz, presumably, received the same guidance (otherwise Columbia violated Title IX by setting one procedure for the accused and another for the accuser). Columbia’s policy held that “breaches of confidentiality/privacy or the complainant, respondent, witnesses, or the investigators, may result in additional disciplinary action.” Sulkowicz obviously has ignored that requirement, and responded to the not-culpable finding by going on a media spree...No evidence exists that Columbia disciplined Sulkowicz for the breach of confidentiality. Instead, Columbia removed the promise of confidentiality in 2014, after Sulkowicz had begun her publicity effort."
This is not an improvement. I'm trying to assume good faith, but your initial edits showed you changed text without reading the citation attached because you added a citation needed tag to it. Now this just seems very messy, giving undue weight to a lengthy quote that is merely a quote of a quote that was originally on KC Johnson's own blog/website that Reason has quoted. -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 19:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
KC Johnson, history professor at Brooklyn College, was quoted in Reason magazine discussing the confidentiality/privacy instructions [redacted] received following the university hearings presuming Sulkowicz received such instructions as well otherwise the university would be in violation of Title IX.is burning my eyes. It is so unreadable, I had to go over it three times before I completely understood what it was trying to communicate. My entire purpose in editing that paragraph is for copyediting purposes, it has nothing to do with POV or vendetta or otherwise. And yes, since you're wondering, once the source was placed, I read it.
KC Johnson, history professor at Brooklyn College, was quoted in Reason magazine discussing the confidentiality/privacy instructions [redacted] received following the university hearings presuming Sulkowicz received such instructions as well otherwise the university would be in violation of Title IX.That sentence has 7 or 8 clauses, depending on who you ask. No sentence should ever be that long, unless you're editing a William Faulkner anthology. I'm gonna make some attempts at paraphrasing it further.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 19:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
KC Johnson, history professor at Brooklyn College was quoted in Reason magazine discussing the confidentiality/privacy instructions [redacted] received following the university hearings. Johnson persumed Sulkowicz received such instructions as well, otherwise the university would be in violation of Title IX and commented: "Sulkowicz obviously has ignored that requirement, and responded to the not-culpable finding by going on a media spree...No evidence exists that Columbia disciplined Sulkowicz for the breach of confidentiality. Instead, Columbia removed the promise of confidentiality in 2014, after Sulkowicz had begun her publicity effort."
This is a developing story that is not only unprotected or watched, it's been held ransom. There is obvious interest in changing the name but it has been shot down numerous times on the fact that it has been decided that the name stayed.I ask an admin to approve a change to "2008 Emma Sulkowicz rape allegations". This is based off prescient on Wikipedia Tawana Brawley rape allegations. This cannot in any way violate BLP because she is the one herself that accused him, very publicly. Since the authorities have no interest in this case, the case will never progress past "allegations" based off of an [a priori] definition of allegations. The scope of the article has progressed past the performance, the piece is a part of the story of the allegations, not the other way around. Instead of complaining about conservatives (someone said that to someone else above, I am not even a conservative, I find that to show obvious NPOV in the claim that the naming of this article is not politically motivated) not wanting to make separate stubs from a decent enough article why not simply change the name? I'm going to call a spade a spade: People have been hawking over this article for a long time making no constructive attempts at an NPOV. They are being destructive and impending much needed updates of this article: the only article on this Wiki that regards this incident being named after her performance piece shows NPOV considering all participants in this ongoing incident are LIVING PEOPLE. It's obvious for the love of truth. I'll name names if asked but I don't think I need to. 2601:84:C801:6529:30DD:8C06:907E:A9EA ( talk) 12:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
It's hard to have consensus when the same people weigh in over and over again drowning opposing voices out. I want an admin that doesn't self identify as a feminist OR meninist to check this article and read my points. It's hard to have consensus whenever people who make good points get ignored when these people seem to have no rebuttal. You say you're against it. Why? Your opinion isn't really valid without a reason. Writing off my points as trolling doesn't count as a rebuttal. 2601:84:C801:6529:30DD:8C06:907E:A9EA ( talk) 13:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Another point: Categories: Biography articles of living people is on the talk page. Obviously someone missed that. I wasn't the first person to claim this article was never about the art piece. 2601:84:C801:6529:30DD:8C06:907E:A9EA ( talk) 14:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
This is a story about a rape accusation. The mattress performance was her way of calling attention to it, but this is much much more than that alone. For those who want to keep it the way it is, why? Does this title now best describe the topic? Remember, This is an encyclopedia. 63.235.133.172 ( talk) 15:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, an actual Wiki exists for these people. They should go there: http://sjwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page I'm being serious. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If it isn't good enough Encyclopedia Britannica it isn't good enough for here. I can't imagine the editors of that publication having this discussion. 2601:84:C801:6529:30DD:8C06:907E:A9EA ( talk) 15:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I didn't know about only admin feedback. My apologies. I'll take the box off I think we've exposed that this consensus is fraudulent. Someone explained why they want to keep the article the way it is. They logged off for it. I can't prove that it but I figured someone would do that later. The fact that someone had to log off to use their IP address to get them to admit that is repulsive and proves bad intent. If you don't know that encyclopedia articles are written without regard for feelings (only verifiable facts) you really have no place editing one. This page has enough evidence on it to suggest the claims are true. It's a shame that it had to come to this to expose an NPOV fraud. 2601:84:C801:6529:30DD:8C06:907E:A9EA ( talk) 15:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I'll expose myself now. I'm 2601:84:C801:6529:30DD:8C06:907E:A9EA|2601:84:C801:6529:30DD:8C06:907E:A9EA. I did this to prove that logic is logic and encyclopedias are encyclopedias no matter the age of an account (if theres an account at all ;); it doesn't matter who you are (in case you're wondering, a white, cis, but gay male). Yes, that's exactly what this was today. Exposed Bias. Administrators that have seen this and not done anything might want to reconsider being an administrator. I created this damn account because the fact that this has been going on for so long is an insult to the idea of an encyclopedia. A real spring cleaning is needed NPOV Ninja ( talk) 15:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Also: I wonder if 2600:1011:B154:1E8:F505:59CC:4DE8:356D is willing to expose him or herself as well? Something is seriously broken if so many people consider what we saw today to be a concensus. When people refuse to answer points and cherry pick what they're defending, it becomes a deserved controversy.
NPOV Ninja (
talk) 15:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)